Great Western Coffee Shop

Finally Crossrail gets the go-ahead!

I think this is a great project, if not a bit expensive. For one thing it means quicker journey times into central London. Much needed increase in capacity in the form of longer trains on local services and the further electrification of the GWML to Maidenhead.

My one problem with this project is, why they could not extend it to Reading, Surely the main cost of the project is the tunnelling under London, so extending the line to Reading would produce benefits for a relatively low cost compared to the whole project. I hope that this project will spur the government to continue the electrification further west, and modernise the GWML.

Anyone knows what happens to the GWML line when they integrate it with crossrail. I have heard that Maidenhead will become a major interchange, so people coming in from further west will change from FGW to crossrail there. What happens to the FGW local services? How does it affect FGW long distance services?

...it gets the "go ahead" every electionm time for the labour government.

i'm still skeptical to if it's actually going to happen this time

Project staff and experts will be in the Nicholson Shopping Centre for two days to explain to the public how the new train line, connecting Maidenhead to Central London, will affect Maidenhead, and to answer questions (link below.)
http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/news/article-8144-find-out-about-crossrail-plans-in-public-exhibition/
 
It will also detail how the line will be constructed and how to get future updates on the project.

Maidenhead MP Theresa May will be one of the first people along to the exhibition which is due to open at 10am on Friday and run until 5.30pm on Saturday.

Cross Rail will now serve Heathrow Airport...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7707338.stm

Heathrow has always been part of Crossrail plans, albeit only the Connect service I believe.

Even extension to Reading doesn't solve the problem that Crossrail doesn't work West of Paddington.

To the East you have 24 tph through the centre diverging 12 to Shenfiled and 12 to Abbey Wood.

To the West you have 24 tph coming out of the tunnel with only 10 tph proceeding beyond Westbourne Park. Which currently is suggested to be Heathrow 4 tph,  West Drayton 2 tph and   Maidenhead 4 tph. Which means 14 TPH terminate at Westbourne Park.

Given that it is meant to be a Tube style service (turn and get train within say 5 minutes or less) if you want staions West of West Drayton you can turn up at say Bond Street and possibly have to wait 15 minutes for a train and let 5 trains trains go by. Also depending on the sequence  of the trains you may find that you cannot get on your first train because it's full of people for Ealing to West Drayton. As happens now on the semis to Reading.

The only thing an extension to Reading will bring is non disruption of the very heavy commuter flows from Twyford and Reading to stations East of Maidenhead to Ealing. It will eliminate the need for change and retain through services.

Also it will still give a direct westward conecting service to Reading from stations between Ealing and  Maidenhead without requiring a change.

Cross rail desparately needs a second Western terminus.

Presumably if you extended to Reading you would not just extend the 4 Maidenhead services to Reading but have 4 of the Paddington terminators running relatively fast to Reading (say EB, H&H, Slough, Maidenhead, Twyford, Reading)

They would then be just about fast enough to attract passengers travelling beyond Paddington to switch from the fast trains from further afield for the benefit of a through service to the West End, City or further east, and the guarantee of a seat for their whole journey as the services would start at Reading. This could have a major impact on the HSS's by reducing overcrowding between Reading and Paddington.   

DfT/BAA press release link.
http://nds.coi.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=383134&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False

Why not incorporate Greenford?

Have 2tph terminating there to get terminating trains off the mainline, and allow other trains to skip Acton.

Plus an extra 2 tph for Ealing.

By the way, the plans above sound horrendous! Too complicated. Same on the Tube. Why have dozens of terminating places when you can simplify it and run more trains to the final destination (where capacity allows)?

And we still haven't answered the question about how FGW's Thames Turbo commuter service (from Banbury, Oxford and Tywford etc.) will fit in on the already saturated fast lines east of Maidenhead?

The Greenford's are I think going to be a shuttle between West Ealing and Greenford, I have heard somewhere that TfL want to look at possibly running a passenger service Padd to West Ealing via the Wycombe lines with an inter change at Park Royal with the Central and Piccadilly lines but this is a long term aspiration.

So not only will it end the need for a shuttle, it will retain direct trains from the branch into the city, and help solve the turnback problem.

Further related links.
http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2008/11/very-crossrail.html

http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2008/11/penny-counting.html

A service to Greenford up the Acton line, eh? Seems like another case of short-sighted singling a few years ago..........

Yep.

But how about this for a sceanario.

Chiltern build Bicester link and run Oxford  service to Marylebone. They then put in a bid "Evergreen n" to redouble from South Ruislip Old Oak and divert Oxfords to Padd when Crossrail starts. They coud also run fast Birminghams to compete with WCML.

After all they are clever enough to run the ghost train and keep up their drivers route knowledge.

The problem with Crossrail is the different aims of its promoters/lobbyists over the years.

TfL and London business see it mostly as a relief Central Line, wheras it was conceived, I believe, by Sir Peter Parker in the 1980's as a main-line link, enabling Bristol - Norwich type journeys, hence its non-tube character. London, having the most clout, has won of course but the loose ends, particularly at the West have not been tied up, hence the absurd 14tph terminating at Paddington. (Be sure to get off smartly or you'll enjoy a long and happy lay-over, chatting to the cleaners, in the new carriage sidings!). It's route, via Bond St. and Tottenham Court Road is more local than long distance as it misses the vital TENS/Intercity/International interchanges at Euston and KX/St Pancras. It may be too late now to get the route right. What we are left with is nearer a Paris RER Line B, (Line A was ThamesLink) with fast surface stock crossing under the City. Even the platform/train lengths are doubtful as HX has at present 9x23m car trains but Crossrail is to have only 8x20m cars. Heathrow connect uses sets of 5x23m cars, the more economical  formation.

In the West, the consultants, Steer Gleave correctly made the point that Reading commuters want non-stop services to London, not stopping Crossrails. What they missed is that Reading is said to have more commuters INWARDS than OUTWARDS. Its footfall of 15M puts it up with the busiest PTE termini. Thus  stopping Crossrail services to Reading would be uniquely profitable in that they would become busier as they approached Reading. The Benfit Cost Ratio (BCR) rises rapidly as Crossrail extends West to and beyond Reading. Only the unmodernised station layout hinders this.

The immediate nonsense  of Crossrail's missing 14 services could be remedied by small extensions to Greenford (pointed out in another post) and even to Aylesbury. The H&C line  is a surface stock gauge route and could be added to Crossrail, easing Metropolitan/Circle Line pathing, perhaps allowing the District Line to terminate usefully at Baker St rather than in mid-air at Edgware Rd, although a bay might be needed.

What a ^15Bn mess!

OTC

I really like the idea of transferring the H&C line into CrossRail to let District Line terminate in the North Circle.

I, too, was confused why the route did not serve St Pancras International, but I suppose a route like that would be a duplicate of the Circle Line.

Have a look at "Superlink," a different idea for the branches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superlink_(railway_network)

I seem to remember reading in Modern Railways, that the Circle Line will, (long term wise), be cut, with the western chord serviced by District Line services terminating and reversing at Edgeware Rd. 

I've long thought (going back 25 years from when I lived in London between 1978 and 1985) that there's a case for electrifying Banbury and Oxford to London Paddington via Oxford and High Wycombe/Acton. In those dark days I could even see a case for closing Marylebone by extending the Met back to its historical stamping grounds of Aylesbury - those maybe banish those thoughts now given how good Chiltern are.

So given the new landscape, why not electrify Snow Hill to Paddington/Crossrail and Marylebone via Reading and Acton - oh and add in Westbury and the rest of the Berks and Hants commuter line.

Is this a bit too radical?

PS Remember my father saying that in the late 1940s, the quickest route from Birmingham to London was Snow Hill to Paddington via High Wycombe on the Birkenhead up express

Isn't the provisional Crossrail timetable already banking on the Greenford's terminating in a new bay at West Ealing during the peak? I agree that it's tempting to suggest using Greenford and H&C lines to allow more trains to head westwards, but it should not be forgotten that there would need to be massive investment to modify platforms to accommodate them - most H&C platforms can barely accomodate the 6-car trains that currently use them, and there would also be implications for Drayton Green and Greenford which just wouldn't have space for a 160m long service. ^15bn would soon turn into ^20bn!

I know the Hammersmith and City line is to become the Hammersmith and Circle line soon.

This is a possible alternative approach.

Snow Hill to Paddington is about 2 miles (I think) shorter than New Street to Euston.

The Greenford Branch will suffer with no direct trains to London, and people will use the Central Line (as it is probably quicker to get to Bond Street/ T Court Road direct using LU without a change at West Ealing.

"Isn't the provisional Crossrail timetable already banking on the Greenford's terminating in a new bay at West Ealing during the peak? I agree that it's tempting to suggest using Greenford and H&C lines to allow more trains to head westwards, but it should not be forgotten that there would need to be massive investment to modify platforms to accommodate them - most H&C platforms can barely accomodate the 6-car trains that currently use them, and there would also be implications for Drayton Green and Greenford which just wouldn't have space for a 160m long service. ^15bn would soon turn into ^20bn!"



1. 15Bn to provide a journey between Greenford and Bond St that requires a change of train is poor value. How much will the West Ealing bay and trackwork/signalling cost?

2. Extending platform lengths is not prohibitive in cost to a competent railway industry. I believe both the LMS and SR had concrete prefabrication plants and could erect a halt in a weekend. It is true that some sites (between bridges, on viaducts etc) can be difficult. OLE (wires) clearances would be the challenge.

3.   Crossrail costs will need review - 6MW for an 8-car train that would have needed 1.5MW in the 1970's, architects' benefits at stations to name but two. The process for works on both NR and LUL is unreasonably expensive - with simple jobs inflated many times and designs and contracts going over multiple companies' desks. It is a version of the LLoyds scam of a few years ago, where  a musical chairs of re-insurance took place, each time an un-earned commission being charged, leaving finally little left to cover the risk, which was borne by unsuspecting names. This is NOT the industry's fault, but entirely that of politicians and Civil Servants. Sorting this out would deliver a better Crossrail cheaper.

OTC

I agree with several of your points OTC. The cost of the West Ealing bay would not be too significant, especially given that it would free up two peak paths per hour that have to be operated with a two car turbo - the increase in capacity is needed badly.

I don't think OLE would present too many problems on the Greenford branch. There are only two overbridges and the only tunnel is of quite a modern design with a reasonable clearance. The trouble with that line, as I mentioned, is Drayton Green and Greenford.

At Drayton Green the platforms start as soon as the junction of the triangle leading to West Ealing and Hanwell converge, and end as soon as the tracks pass under a busy road bridge - that's just enough room for a two carriage train.

At Greenford, there is just room for a 3-car turbo, but the platform is nestled in-between the Central Line tracks and so can't be extended in a westerly direction. The other direction the track immediately goes down a steep gradient to pass beneath the Westbound Central Line.

With Greenford already served by a pretty frequent Central Line service, and the other stations on the route not busy enough to warrant anything other than a two-car service, even at peak hours, I just don't see a big enough market to warrant the expense of the modifications. In fact, I would say there would be much more potential in electrifying the line through from Old Oak Common to South Ruislip and beyond to High Wycombe to provide another route west of Paddington as has been mentioned on here before - though again, you'd need lots of money spent on platforms, the electrification costs, and a grade-seperated junction at Old Oak Common, so the ^20bn price-tag would be hit again in no time!

But the Greenford trains run on the slow lines (I assume) and the slow lines are being taken up by XR anyway. It would just be an extension to the Paddington terminators.

Not quite sure what you're getting at there, Btline - but as far as I am aware, should the West Ealing bay platform get built (hopefully well before Crossrail services start), then during peak hours there would be a 20-minute frequency stopping service between Greenford and West Ealing connecting there with trains from/to Paddington. The present off-peak 30-minute frequency of trains would operate between Paddington and Greenford as they currently do.

This would free up two peak-hour paths per hour between Paddington and West Ealing which could be operated by 5/6/7-car trains heading out to Slough or Reading, rather than the 2-car train which plies between Paddington and Greenford all day.

What a good idea!

The Greenford branch looks like one of those Beeching left-overs which the DfT couldn't close. Its logical termination in today's network would be where it meets Chiltern Trains' network, i.e. South Ruislip. That is only 16 tkm from W Ealing.
It would require main line platforms put back on the spacious GW High Wycombe main line at Greenford, Northolt and a turn-round facility at S Ruislip. The tiny Drayton Green halt is close to Hanwell, W Ealing and (the new stretchable?) Castle Bar stations so might close. This could then be worth 4 rather than 2 trains per hour, should give change from 50M and a hike in overall BCR.

OTC

What I am saying is that stopping the Greenford trains in a bay won't free up paths, as the slow lines will be used for Crossrail.

Why not extend some of the Paddington terminators to Greenford, therby making use of the space (and more trains to Slough etc.)?

FOI request for copies of the drawing which supported the Crossrail (Nomination) Order 2008 - http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2009/june/foicrossraildrawings/

The first real physical signs of work on the western end of the project have started this week with the lifting of the small number of sidings and run-round loop at Westbourne Park stone terminal. This is to allow construction of the western end tunnel portal to start.

Does that mean the ready mix depot has closed?  No more freight trains within sight of Paddington station.

If the plant was going to close why was the exit signal changed to fibre optic a few years ago?

Yes, no more freight trains running to within half a mile of Paddington station - though it was in use pretty much right up to the 'end'.

I guess the LED signals were installed before the final nod to Crossrail was given. It is only a standard 3-head LED signal head though, so could presumably be re-used elsewhere?

A bit of an old thread to resurrect, but as far as I know the first really big civil engineering contract affecting the GWML part of the Crossrail project has finally been let by Network Rail.  It concerns design work for the 'dive under' at Acton Yard so as to allow freight services departing the yard westwards to not have to conflict with moves on the Up Relief line.  Although it doesn't sound like a large contract, there will need to be quite major alterations to the track layout to fit it in.

More details here:  http://www.build.co.uk/construction_news.asp?newsid=113420 (http://www.build.co.uk/construction_news.asp?newsid=113420)

In answer to Tom Langley questions, July's Modern railways has details of other contracts let for Crossrail work in the Central Area.

As regards what happens to the current FGW releif line servies when the wires run out at Maidenhead nobody is very sure but as far as i can see it completely wrecks teh current pattern on the line.

It seems that Crossrail will monopolise the Relief lines from Maidenhead with an every train all stations. There is talk of possible diesel shuttle from Reading to Slough.

However it does seem the the very large flow of passengers to and from stations from West Drayton to Ealing Broadway from Twyford and westward will no longer have through trains and will have to change at Slough or Maidenhead.

IMO Crossrail does not work west of Eastbourne terrace.

The real question could be; how did Crossrail get as far as M'head.

IIRRC, the modern idea began with Sir Peter Parker of BR, who wanted a Bristol-Norwich mainline axis. Lovely idea. Then came the overcrowding on the Central Line of LUL, with serious London lobbyists wanting a relief line. Hence the Liverpool St-Paddington tunnel, with a kink towards T'ham Ct Rd to please developers and displease St Pancras International users. However the costs and benefits (the BCR ratio) were out of balance - only about 1.1 I think, so extensions of existing services at each end were examined. This improved (c1.5) if Heathrow were included and even more (c2.0) if M'head were reached. The logic of M'head was that it was as far as the existing electricity Feeder Station (at OOC) could supply. However the BCR continues to improve the further West (including Reading) you go until the graph goes vertical and the actual (not computed socio-economic) cost savings are greater than the capital repayments, hence the BCR becomes infinite (with GWML wiring). However Reading Station is itself a very difficult and costly unravelling task, so M'head as a limit makes good delivery side sense. The argument was also made that Reading commuters would use fast (diesel) services over stopping electric Crossrails. This overlooks Reading's regional importance - more commuters in than out.

There are loose ends, such as who gets the relief line paths etc but they will be  problems of success....

Hope this helps,

OTC

The classic 25kV feed for the OHLE would have needed a Grid at Iver, Crossrail / GWML electrification is / was / may be replacing this with an "auto transformer" system 50kV (complex to explain its a French system but the trains still run at 25kV) the in feed is at Kensel off of a 400kV subterranean grid line (the next GWML in feed would be Didcot).

The FGW franchise expires before Crossrail starts running trains also FGW may not be to corporative with all the possession Crossrail require if they is no reward for them, quite frankly the inner TV services are a mess the solution is for HMG to bite the bullet and extend Crossrail to Reading but they are unlikely to do this when they are ripping public expenditure to shreds.

There is going to be several Crossrail blockades Acton is one area, Stockley Park another

From Building Magazine (http://www.building.co.uk/sectors/infrastructure/cbi-warns-spending-review-must-not-target-crossrail/5005921.article):

"In a submission to the Treasury today, the business group said that as government limits spending it should prioritise areas that foster the economies ability to grow and and has outlined a number of proposals."

"Inparticualr"

"it says protect funding in areas that foster economic growth must be protected."

Building Magazine needs to send one of its journalists on a basic grammar, spelling/typing and syntax course!!
 

Perhaps it was written by a builder!  ;D

Seems like the order for crossrail's new trains are going ahead but will be a tried & tested design so that means electrostars's or those EMU'S which are built by seimens ( What are they called?)

Link herwe which includes some further news about crossrail:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11418800

Could the government order additional trains for Thameslink as part of the Crossrail order?

That's the wrong way round.

It is the Thameslink trains that have to be ordered now, Crossrail doesn't need trains until about 2016 for service in 2017.

Crossrail's ITT isn't out yet, and won't be for ages, so I think you are reading too much into the BBC article. It just means whenever they do order them, they won't require a dedicated design.

Paul

From the guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/27/crossrail-budget-cuts) (27/09/2010):

Yes, a swathe of similar stories over the last couple of days, and it's right that Crossrail should save where it can in order to survive.  It looks increasingly likely that the project will be completed in full - although everything seems to have gone a little quiet over the logical and necessary Reading extention?

Swish newly designed trains and overly ornate stations are all very good, but I'd rather live without them and have the project survive in full.  I'm sure most other people would feel the same.

We've never had swish new trains or ornate stations for Thameslink (or Thameslink 2000 - remember that?) Let's just hope that Crossrail doesn't take as long, or suffer the same political machinations, as Thameslink has.

  The decision to extend to Reading will not be made until the future of the GWML electrification is settled, a) will it happen at all b) will it be just the TV services or c) Bristol / S Wales; if its "a" then the extension of Crossrail to Reading could happen at a future date.

My understanding from people I know in the Crossrail team is it is all still a moving feast to what the end product will be exactly, the trains are likely to lower powered this will affect acceleration times but will be cheaper to build .......... it is after all a "Metro service"
Have you seen the plans for Blackfriers, London Bridge, Farindon etc !!!  Crossrail is already falling foul of political interference Crossrail could even end up with Thameslink cast off 319's they are tunnel rated

I'll concede the point on the stations (ornate or otherwise!) but as for the rolling stock.......

I doubt it, Crossrail will be using ATO.

Zoe ATO? Do you mean Automatic Train Operation? I've never seen that mentioned I've always assummed DOO and conventional signalling with TPWS providing the train stop in the tunnel as per East London Line.

DOO now with possibly SDO as apparently Crossrail are allegedly (Modern Railways article on dwell times)  forbidden to lengthen the platforms at Hanwell because of environmental objections.

There is a small piece in today's Maidenhead Advertiser page 3 saying Maidenhead will still be part of Crossrail. Philip Hammond has allegdely committed the government to delivering the fill project Crossrail will serve all staions and that Cross Rail Ltd  has endorsed this.

If this means that wires only get to Maidenhead and that CRL goes to the expensive of building the turnback sidings at Maidnehad that would be a complete waste of money. Crossrail barely works West of Eastboune Terrace and terminating it at Maidenhead compounds the problem. It must go to Reading to make any sense.

It goes on to add there might not be any new DESIGN of train. Now castoff 319s would be OK but do they mean more 378s? That would be appalling with their longitudinal seats and large standing areas they would be totally unsuitable for the longer journeys on Crossrail. They are barely adequate for the North, East, West London and Watford Lines. 

If that is what ATO stands for here, then Zoe is wrong.

New trains on a current design - prob aa follow-on from the Thameslink build?

Nothing stopping a 378 based design being applied with a normal seating layout is there?  Corridor connections, 2+3 seating, and air-con - If Bombadier get the order, it sounds a bit like a Class 377 type of design to me.

There is at least one place that mentions Crossrail ATO. The technical spec for Thameslink ATO...

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/thameslinkrollingstock/itt/trainspec.pdf (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/thameslinkrollingstock/itt/trainspec.pdf)


I always took that to mean that the Crossrail design already includes ATO?  As I've said before though, ploughing through the Crossrail site could take ages, but I'll see if I can find anything...


From Crossrail Environment Stament Volume 1 Chapter 2 - I can't make a link to it but I guess if you're that interested you can find it anyway.

Thameslink ATO is intended for just the core 24 tph section between Blackfriars and St Pancras, outside this area the trains will be driven normally (with a Driver Aid system to advise on best speeds to maintain regulation). This seems just as likely an operating plan for Crossrails core section as well - don't forget it is TfL driven, and they are quite familiar with the concept of ATO.

Now many commentators over the last year or so have suggested that 24 tph either won't happen due to cuts, or that ATO isn't necessary anyway, because conventuional four aspect signalling will allow the headways at the slow speeds through the core. This may be true, but NR have been quoted just as regularly denying any changes. 

The recent announcements about using off the shelf stock don't preclude ATO anyway, logically an Electrostar with ATO is still an Electrostar, in the same way a GW HST with ATP is still an HST.  Futhermore, since when did changing the seating layout count for anything?  A 2+2 seated 378 with 10 cars and ATP/ATO would meet the spec - I wouldn't call it a new design though.  Thameslink have already decided on 2+2 with large standback areas, I reckon if that comes off it'll be used on Crossrail too, and that will meet their commitment to not reinventing the wheel.

(As an aside, their latest announcements repeats the Whitechapel rediesign announced some months ago, and the bit picked up by all the media about reusing existing infrastructure in Docklands (ie the former NLL through the Connaught Tunnel) has always been the plan AIUI.)



Paul

http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/2008/06/crossrail-to-have-ato.html

In an email from Crossrail:

Crossrail delayed by over a year?

http://www.building.co.uk/news/crossrail-delayed-by-over-a-year/5007595.article

To now open in 2019 only when it is all complete.

"Kulveer Ranger, the Mayor of London^s transport adviser, said that Crossrail would not open to the public with just the central section completed."

Why not?  Surely it would be good to have the shortened route opened first to iron out problems?  It could potentially generate revenue and thereby reduce costs?

Boppy.

So the order for the trains can be delayed until the last moment?

Depends how you define Central Section doesn't it, and what order the tunnelling actually gets done in.  If the 'central section' only runs from Paddington to Whitechapel (for example), maybe they think they haven't got the capacity to deal with whole train loads of pax getting on or off there?

Paul

A bit of technical information describing just why there's a multitude of orange heavy plant equipment working behind Royal Oak tube station.

http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/construction-news/costain-and-skanska-crossrail-portal-project-underway (http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/construction-news/costain-and-skanska-crossrail-portal-project-underway)

Cheers for that link IndustryInsider.

The people working in the new Kingdom Street towers must have a nice view of the progress.

When I was working in London, my office was on the 11th floor of CentrePoint and overlooked the works at Tottenham Court Road.  It was fascinating watching the Astoria come down (very slowly) followed by continuous drilling, digging holes, filling in holes and general bashing about.  The prospect of working on a building site for the next 5+ years finally drove us out of the building.

A dozen or so new artists impressions of the new Crossrail stations have been released:

http://londonist.com/2010/11/crossrail_new_station_designs_revea.php (http://londonist.com/2010/11/crossrail_new_station_designs_revea.php)

You can certainly see where a lot of the money is going as even with some budgetary cuts, the stations still all look magnificent!  For those who can't get their bearings, the first picture at Paddington is taken from a vantage point where all you would currently see is the taxi rank.

Looks spectacular. Resembles the JLE in many extents.

Some additional ones on the gallery here:

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/press-releases/mayor-rail-minister-unveil-new-crossrail-station-designs-to-shape-future-london-1

Including a cut-away of the Paddington Crossrail station.

Boppy.

Crossrail have announced that Alstom, Bombardier, CAF, Hitachi and Siemens have been short-listed as builders for the new Class 345 Crossrail units.
 
http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/crossrail-issues-rolling-stock-shortlist.html (http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/crossrail-issues-rolling-stock-shortlist.html)

Network Rail have announced that Aecom have landed the contract to modify the stations west of Paddington on the GWML.  Work to start late next year.  The link below gives a summary of the works required at each station, which vary from hardly anything at Hanwell (due to it's protected status?), to quite major works at places like Hayes & Harlington including a new bay platform, all other platforms extended, the island platform widened, lifts, canopies and a new station building.  At Slough the west end bay platform for the Slough to Reading shuttle service is mentioned, which, along with alterations at Maidenhead, will hopefully be altered when (I say when because if they don't, then it's one of the most ridiculous decisions ever!) extention of Crossrail to Reading is announced.

http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2011/05/17/aecom-lands-design-job-for-13-crossrail-stations/ (http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2011/05/17/aecom-lands-design-job-for-13-crossrail-stations/)

I agree with you 100% it would be a criminal waste of money to build the bay platform at Slough and the turnback sidings at Maidenhead.

Hopefully GWML electrification will just tie into Crossrail's contribution from Hayes to Maidenhead and the wires will be available to Reading before Crossrail tunnelling is finished.

As far as Taplow is concerned it's not Crossrail we want, but the wires. However it is very hard to convince people that you don't need Crosssrail but the wores as far West as possible.

So why not a Bristol to Norwich IEP, or is that too radical!

We are having an enviromental study by Crossrail of rare plants and animals around the Manor at Slough. Are rats a protected species?   

I remember when Anglia ran their Crossrail service from Basingstoke to Norwich. Very few wanted to travel end to end and the inevitable delays as it went via Stratford made it unattractive for short journeys. It's a sad fact that while through services can be attractive they are at the mercy of potential bigger delays. If there's a large market for end to end or nearly end to end journeys this can redress the balance but if not splitting the service into shorter sections can be more beneficial.

I agree the Norwich Basingstoke service was a flop with delays on the North London lines and having to use 170's because less than a mile of the route was not electrified.

But that's the beauty of Crossrail it's a through tunnel. Any train can pop into the tunnel (OK given compatible signalling which may be tricky and very expensive) at Padd stop all stations and pop out near Stratford and run onto the GE.

It gives some interesting shorter through journey possibilities Swindon to Chelmsford, Reading to Colchester etc. I am sure they would be atrractive to some people.

It's an interesting discussion point, because AIUI the 24 tph Crossrail won't necessarily run all day, just like Thameslink, and will reduce frequency slightly in the offpeak.  As long as such a service could keep up with Crossrail spec acceleration and station dwell times, then a couple per hour off peak would surely be feasible? 

Although on second thoughts with Crossrail having platform edge doors perhaps that should be identical stock or maybe the solution is to dedicate the service to long distance and be non - stop between say Stratford and Ealing Broadway.  :-\

Paul

 

Weekends, when there's a lot less emphasis on people getting to and from 'the City', could also possibly open up some paths to some more radical thinking with longer distance trains.  I suspect though, initially at least, it'll be a standard clock-face timetable most of the day, a few extra trains in the peak, journey times from the extremities quite slow (but at least direct), with the major benefit being the massive, and badly needed, increase in capacity.

I like the pipe dreaming on this site  ;D

Tunnel dreaming surely?   ;D

Paul

Pardon my ignorance - at Paddington, where are the taxis going to be moved to?

somewhere over by span 4

On the taxi deck, the old Parcels deck. Sometime fairly soon too, I hear.

18 / hour off-peak, isn't it?

I enjoy these pipe dreams too, but isn't one of the problems that crossrail will be within TfL (Boris) control.  Will TFL really be interested in running intercity trains?

Livingstone might be....

Was 14 tph off peak last time I looked.  6 tph Shenfield to Paddington of which 2 tph continue to Maidenhead.  8 tph Abbey Wood to Paddington of which 4 tph continue to Heathrow.  The ORR refused the additional off peak paths requested.

The ORR refused the additional off peak paths requested.

What a mad mad world we live in!

Does anyone know if Crossrail is W10 loading gauge.

Container trains from Southampton to Felixstowe during the night.

Not that mad, the ORR concluded that there was no business case for the additional paths and there were valid capacity concerns from the Railfreight Group.

It is not being built for freight, is better to improve the NNL and routes south of the Thames for freight,  also I am not sure there is a need to run container traffic by rail between 2 sea ports, most of the Southampton and Felixstow traffic heads north into the midlands Scotland etc.  Also there will be no over night running as with all other underground railways thats when maintenance will be done

I wonder if Crossrail or FGW (or their successor) will run some sort of local overnight service between Paddington main line station and Reading as FGW do now, as this section is above ground.

I suspect the relief lines will be in the Crossrail franchise, allowing competing fares twixt London & Reading. Hence its likely yto be a requirement of the Crossrail franchise, not the GW franchise.

IMHO, of course.

Crossrail is only going to Maindenhead though, not Reading.

Recent post about Crossrail sum up the main problems with project.

Because it was planned to link the GWML and the GEML the problem arose that the GWML was only electrified as far as Hayes/Heathrow. They then costed extra the electrification Westward and ran out of money at Maidenhead. Hence the odd choice of Western terminus.

With the annoucement of GWML electrification the Western terminus can be anywhere from Oxford/Newbury/Bristol/Cardiff. Reading being the msot obvious.

Whilst Crossrail works East of the tunnel with 12tph taking over the existing local services from  Liverpool Street and 12tph terminating at the end of a new branch line at Abbey Wood, with the possibility of dual voltage trains going further East.

The GWML cannot accomodate 24 tph on the Relief lines West of the tunnel exit hence the need to turn back over 50% of the service at Westbourne Park with the need to build a non advertised station so that those left on a terminating train at Padd can get off and get back on to go back to Padd. Still it gives more track for the Branch Line Society to bash.

The complete dedication of the Relief Lines to Crossrail  is absurb and would be the complete misuse of a four track railway. It would be, I don't know a word strong enough, to try to run 125 HSTs/IEPs and 3000 t stone trains on the mainlines. Unless of course DaFT don't want freight trains.

My comment re Southampton Felixstow containers was based on somehthing I read that it can be quicker to offload the large trans ocean ships at Southampton forward the container to Felixstowe and reload on a smaller ship Rotterdamm. It saves the large ship having to call into Southamton and then flog up the Channel to Rotterdamm to have the rest of its containers unloaded. Thus it can be back at sea on its return journey several days sooner. Hence saving time, fuel and of course money.

I believe freight frim stone terminal is allowed gor under Crossrail?

The principle reason for Crossrail not going to Reading was the cost of remodeling Reading station also the immunisation of the signaling and telecoms past Ruscombe / Slough boundary the actual electrification costs are relatively small.

The Relief Lines will be principally used by Crossrail but not exclusively, its is not the same as say the District Line and the LTS between West Ham and Upminster where there is total separation.

There are quite a few years to run on both the Crossrail and GWML electrification projects, Crossrail being subject to an Act of Parliament therefore it is simpler as far as funding is concerned to keep to the limits set out in the Act, Crossrail funding is complex enough without adding the complication of extending it.   My personal opinion will be that Reading - London local services will be dealt with in the up and coming GW franchise tender where I believe all of the TV Lines may even be taken out of the main line franchise this could fit in with a reshape of the GE / WA lines where there has been some talk that some of the WA services could be handed over to TfL Overground.

Found this while browsing today - pictures 7 and 9 in the 'gallery section' at the end of the page give a good idea of the taxi setup.

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/stations/paddington/

Paul

Roger ford informed us in his latest newsletter now that Crossrail when it opens in 2018 could be cut back to Westbourne park. This is aparantly because of the signalling system or something. Any views on this?


http://groups.google.com/group/uk.railway/browse_thread/thread/a4b7e94b082b42fc#


 This information is in his latest newsleter which i havnt received a copy of yet, but this has been posted by a user on the uk railways group on google.

You can sign up to roger fords newsletter at:

http://www.alycidon.com/ALYCIDON%20RAIL/Archive.htm

I've read that too....I think you could post a link to the thread on Google groups, or even the whole post as its on a public ng

Thanks for the sign-up pointer!

Paddington's Crossrail station building contract has been awarded - the first station contract signed, though along with several other construction contracts, it has come in well under the guide price.

http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2011/07/26/contractors-knock-40-off-cost-of-crossrail-station-job/ (http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2011/07/26/contractors-knock-40-off-cost-of-crossrail-station-job/)

The more money saved the better I suppose - provided all these construction giants don't go bust as a result halfway through the job!

There is a bit of famine of work especially for big projects like this so the giants are willing to reduce their prices

For goodness sake, when is common sense going to prevail?

14tph terminating at Paddington? Nonsense.

Let's have something like:
4tph to Tring/Milton Keynes locals
4tph Heathrow Express
4tph Chiltern area locals (Gerrards X, Harrow)

Shame about Airtrack as some Heathrow trains could be extended to Woking, taking the pressure off one of the busiest lines and stations (Surbiton).

Let's stop pretending Reading isn't there and extend Maidenhead trains to Reading, and West Drayton ones to Slough. The station's being redone and it's going to be electrified anyway. A bit of common sense.. PLEASE. Whichever bright spark thought stopping trains at West Drayton instead of Slough was a good idea should be sacked before it's too late.

As far as the rest of FGW's services are concerned, ALL calls apart from Slough and the odd Maidenhead should be AXED. Yes, I mean you, the Oxford slows! With the HeX out of the way, and no 90mph trains clogging up the fast lines after electrification, let's get the trains moving again!

HEX remains post Crossrail

Dont the class 332's run at 100mph? i thought it was only the turbos that worked the services to great malvern which ran at 90mph?

I would extend  the West Drayton terminaters to Slough, maybe if the thames branches are wired they could be operated as part of crossrail.

Maybe the crossrail order should consist of a mixture of 3 & 5 carriage EMU's with the 5 carriage units running in pairs  on services to Heathrow Airport with the 3 carriage sets running in pairs on services to Maidenhead/Reading rute this allows them to split & attach at peak times so that through services can be provided to places such at Henley on thames, also i think extending the platforms would be easier at placess like Bourne end for 3 carriage trains would be cheaper than a 4 or 5 carriage train.


Then after that  the stopping services from Oxford running to Reading (possibility of interworking with the Reading- Rehill/Gatwick services perahps if the north downs infill is done?)

?

I agree with you entirely hhowever it's politics which bucket of our money is raided for which project.

Crossrail is basically a TFL Inner London Project to relieve the Cental Line it works East of London with alternate trains to Shenfiled and Abbey Wood. Although the GE people are objecting to arrivng in an Underground station at Liverpool street. Abbbey Wood provides a whole new link from North Kent straight to the City and West End.

It fails miserably West of Padd due to capacity problems on the GWML.

If you think about it West Drayton is the Greater London Boundary so TFL wouldn't want to run stoppers to Slough. And Maidenhed was chosen soley because that's where the money for teh wires ran out no railway logic at all as everyone knows even the Crossrail team Reading is the obvious Western Terminus on the GMWL

But 10 tph going West on the Relief lines out of Padd is too many wherever they terminate.

It would be a criminal waste of money if Crossrail were to build the turnback sidings at Maidenhead the money save not building them should be  transferred to teh gMWL budget but that's too hard for the "Bean Counters".

Eh? Agree that the money wasn't there to go to Reading, but Maidenhead already has a turnback siding that they can use, doersn't it? Nothing (except lengthening?) needed?

The plans look much more extensive than that:

From the Crossrail website: http://www.crossrail.co.uk/assets/library/document/0/original/0038-x-w25maidenstable.pdf (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/assets/library/document/0/original/0038-x-w25maidenstable.pdf)

"New stabling facilities will be constructed, comprising six
sidings and also staff accommodation buildings at the
western end of the site."

oh, ok, thanks!

Sounds a little over-the-top, even if Crossrail does remain to Maidenhead only.

The Maidenhead plans have always looked to be a little more than just a turnback.  Perhaps enough stabling space will be provided for trains to terminate there and be cleaned overnight, in order to start the service up the next morning?

Paul   

Up to 10 units according to that link.

That would quite likely reduce to 4 or 5 trains now that they have confirmed that their units will be 200m fixed formation - originally they were going to be running as 2 x 5 car trains and splitting offpeak - many people thought this would be difficult to make work with underground platform edge doors.

The latest proposal in the London & SE RUS (final version published yesterday) is for 10 Crossrail trains to Heathrow, 6 on the GWML reliefs and eventually 8 onto the WCML slows 'via a new link'.  They suggest this will allow good connections from the WCML to Heathrow via the interchange at Old Oak Common.

Note that this is not indicated as 'pending approval from BAA' or anything like that - it definitely seems to read as the next big change to Crossrail...

Paul

I hope the plans for Maidenhead don't prevent an extension to Reading.

My main problem of it stopping at Reading is what do to with the reliefs between there and Reading. Anything stopping at Tyford on he slows would have to be switched to the fasts, causing a bottleneck and causing HSTs to put on the brakes.


Good. When that's done, let's resurrect Airtrack and get them into South West London. I also hope Watford Junction is not served by Crossrail but by LU. The LO service should be AXED asap!

Goodness, that's quite a wishlist!  Weren't you the one telling us all, before you had your little hiatus, that if the Tories got in at the election, then the first thing they'd do is AXE Crossrail and the GWML electrification?  Now you're demanding they spend Christ knows how much on enhancing it!?  ::)

As Paul points out, the possibility of reaching the WCML with Crossrail has been twigged by those at Network Rail, and I would say (in the medium term) this is the best bet of any extension.  With the HS2 line using the only sensible route to link up with the Chiltern Line then that's a non-starter unless HS2 gets shelved and the route through Park Royal isn't protected for it.

Or maybe not :) Unless you can come up with a practical solution with the various level crossings on the line.

They do still seem to be suggesting running through T5 to terminate at Staines and Slough fortunately, without the full Airtrack service. 

If SWT could then divert their weekday Waterloo - Staines - Weybridge service to run to/from or even through Woking,  Staines could easily become a major Heathrow interchange without increasing current level crossing down times.  The latter problem appears to have only (financially) impossible solutions.

Paul

Here's the link to the London & South East RUS that Paul mentioned on the previous page of this thread:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browseDirectory.aspx?dir=\RUS%20Documents\Route%20Utilisation%20Strategies\RUS%20Generation%202\London%20and%20South%20East&pageid=0&root= (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browseDirectory.aspx?dir=\RUS%20Documents\Route%20Utilisation%20Strategies\RUS%20Generation%202\London%20and%20South%20East&pageid=0&root=)

It's a weighty document, but pages 104-111 detail the various options with regard to Paddington to Reading on the GWML.  One thing is clear though, Network Rail want Crossrail to go to Reading and for an announcement to be made soon!

I think an alternative has been suggested which would join the two windsor stations and replace them with a new single station.  Then run take the heathrow trains on a short bit of new track to join the exisiting line from Windsor to Slough for connections to cross-rail

Well it has definitely been suggested:  http://windsorlink.net/

...and I think it's been around for a couple of years, but I reckon that DfT and Network Rail will have completely ignored it because it doesn't provide what passengers actually want at an affordable cost.  It doesn't even rate a negative comment in the latest RUSs, ie GWML and London and SE.

Paul

I would suspect the vast majority of the money spent on Crossrail is on the tunnelling (or perhaps just Canary Wharf station :P ), so I would imagine sending services to the WCML slows would be relatively cheap. Just like extensions to Dartford (or preferably Ebbesfleet) and Reading.

Airtrack - I know there are the level crossings, but I'm not convinced enough time has been spent looking at it. Staines would be a good start. But a local service from Waterloo to Heathrow would take plenty of cars off the road.

One  problem with Airtrack, is that it is a very good idea but funding was  a issue and hopefully perhaps it could be found to  bring back the scheme in a few years.

The main problem is in Richmond with the stupid council & Nimby's complaining about the level crossing's

Shame really as i would have liked to see Airtrack, I wonder if they would go ahead and build a western link into Heathrow Airport, perhaps a hourly Oxford - Reading - Heathrow Airport service? it would be a good use for those class 360's which are owned by BAA if they do get replaced by the crossrail service.

Sorry, but that's grossly unfair. Traffic congestion around level crossings on the proposed Airtrack route is already very bad. Airtrack would've made that much worse, particularly in Egham where it was predicted that on two of the town's level crossings the barriers would be down for 34 minutes in each hour.

There are already numerous public transport options for getting to Heathrow with CrossRail to come. Airtrack appeared to be a sop to affluent residents living south-west of London whose public transport options to Heathrow are the coaches from Reading or Woking or travelling via London. I don't have much sympathy for them. They already have an extensive commuter network to give them access to the existing Heathrow links. 

Ok perhaps i am being a bit unfair, and yes i do have some agreement with you consiering how good a public transport system they have around that area already.

Similar figure was mentioned for the main level crossing in Wokingham (by the station)

The other 2 in  Wokingham wouldn't be down as often, but still a fair bit. Certainly not practical in the current state of the crossings. Which is why I mentioned if a solution was found it would be a good idea.

So I wouldn't say it's being Nimby's at all :)

Jst read part of the RUS which says that Network Rail want to run 10 crossrail trains per hour to Heathrow and 6 to Reading thus eliminating the need for some  or most of them to terminate at Paddington and to provide 4 extra fast trains between Paddington & Reading using the current Heathrow express paths.

A western link into Heathrow airport is also suggested (Perhaps if such a link is built and the heathrow express services are withdrawn after crossrail comes into affect perhaps it could make use of the class 332's)

Also a proposal to run 12 carriage trains to Newbury & Oxford.

I havent read the full  RUS yet but will be having a further browse through it tonight & tommorow. Makes for a interesting read.

A direct rail service between Reading and Heathrow would be very welcome indeed.

And i think a lot of people would use it. as for the question if there would be any paths for it.

I know that they propose running 6TPH between Paddington & Maidenhead/reading on the relief lines in addition to 10TPH to Heathrow Airport, so i suppose if the great western mainline i re-signalled then you could just about run a service although probably on a service every 30 minutes  or so on the  relief lines in between the crossrail services

 Maybe by extending some of the local  stopping services from Oxford which maybe 1 day might be extended to Milton Keynes etc.


I do agree with the idea of scrapping the Heathrow express services and using the paths to provide additional fast services between London Paddington & Reading.

I know there maybe a few people who would not be happy about the loss of heathrow express but wouldnt it be better to have very frequent services which run direct to central london & the city?

After crossrail, the hex is redundant. However they'll want to keep it as it would still make money as people will fall for the con. I hope they see sense and axe it during the peaks... You could then run 4 IEPs per hour just from discot and reading. Then axe most didcot and reading stops on other trains!

Just like gatwick. Thameslink is quicker anyway now, and serves more of the city. But tourists and businessmen see the signs and get the credit card out. Often then to get the tube to kings cross or monument!

If T5 ever became a through station it seems to me a possibility would be run a Alternate Abbey Wood. Shenfield all stations to Padd Ealing Broadway Hayes, T5 Slough Maidenhead Twyford Reading service 4 an hour or do do 2 on the ML lines Reading T5 Padd terminate.

This has just been posted on UK railforums and i cant find  it here so i have posted a link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/29/crossrail-train-manufacturing-contract

Thanks for the link, Anthony215.

Why is it that artists impressions of new stations - shown to illustrate this article - show just a handful of people which if it were to be the typical scene would make the whole thing a white elephant?   (If people answer me on this, I may split it into a separate thread). Compare and contrast to the current number of passengers around - http://www.wellho.net/pix/bhhomea.jpg and http://www.wellho.net/pix/bhhome0.jpg

The only problem with Bonmbardier getting the Crosrail contract is that we'll get a 378 deriative with longitutinal seats.

Maidoniands won't like that.

I remember seeing a Crossrail mock up in PAdd when the project was first mooted way back, and it was a lovely train. I seem to think  it was 2*2 seating in bays large windows etc.

To show that there will be NO queuing or waiting for trains hence plenty of seats etc, show full and packed platforms would indicate a poor service.


The manufacturer will irrelevant Crossrail will specify the seating density, standing space etc remember Crossrail is a "Metro service" while the the good people of Maidenhead may not be happy with longitudinal seating the Tap's will not be any happy as they will only have a few minuets less on board and not have the benefit of peak fasts

Or perhaps having fewer passengers is just done to make the station design more visible, or just make the scene look more assecticly pleasing?

I do hope it has 2+2 seating rather than the  london overground class 378 interior,  which i think would put a lot of people off using crossrail and they will instead cram onto other services.

Slightly off topic but when will we see network rail likely start installing the wires west of airport jct?

Several years away yet.  The first wires to appear will be in the new depot being built west of Reading station due for completion in exactly two years time.  They'll not actually be connected to the juice for a while though.

What a ridiculous statement to make.  The seating layout will be specified in the ITT, not chosen by Bombardier.

Paul

I believe that the banging in of masts in he ground and stringing of wires will look a bit random on the GWML.  It will not be done as start in the east and work west you could see masts appearing as soon as early 2013 (not much will happen next year in part due to the Olympics and the detailed design has yet to be done) you may even see parts west of Maidenhead as part of the GWML done before Crossrail east of Maidenhead is done.

It will presumably make a lot of sense to 'bang the masts in' during the Reading Station works, especially those on the routes through the new relief line platfoms while they are still in the green zone... 

Paul

The masts will go in as they do major works....it would be silly not to do Reading during this redevelopment, for example. But otherwise -


Sorry, but please explain? I think they'll want to do the wires & probably the masts in one go, with equipment made specifically for new wire projects. Doing a few yards will complicate the use of this machinery....

It will not be a few yards at a time, it will be many miles, there will likely be gaps which get filled in so as to take advantage of possessions and or  blockade; as you said Reading will be the first area to see electrification works from what I understand from the team doing the project most likely just foundations for the bolted base masts

No agree  but TFL will have alot to say about the ITT and they have been going for longitudinal seats in both the 378 and the new S stock etc.

A Reading MP has voiced his concerns that extending Crossrail to Reading might not be a good idea.  Some silly arguments used if you ask me, and some sloppy journalism suggesting that Crossrail is more about linking Maidenhead and the west with Acton, rather than central London and Canary Wharf/East London!  I suggest that if any of his constituents that visit this website agree, they write to tell him where he's got it wrong.

http://www.itv.com/meridian-west/mp-no-to-crossrail09573/ (http://www.itv.com/meridian-west/mp-no-to-crossrail09573/)

Rolls eyes. ::)

I've always thought of Crossrail at Reading as having a similar role to SWT at Reading. 

It's an option for other possible journeys, but not that relevant to people simply wanting to get to London as fast as possible.  As we know from the GW RUS, NR are suggesting both Crossrail to Reading  and additional peak only fast line services into Paddington.

Paul

But there'll be competition across fares - far cheaper on Crossrail. Splut tge commuters, especially if yoy can save ^1000 upwards with a Crossrail season. Cut overcrowding on GW HSTs/IEPs too

The fundamental problem with Crossrail where ever it terminates West of Eastbourne Terrace/Paddington it doesn't work. Crossrail is an S Bahn service or Paris RE service All stations end to end. 

You can't have 24 trains an hour coming out of the tunnel with only capacity for 10tph on the Relief Lines West of Padd. As they used to say in school 24 into 10 doesn't go!

However you timetable the service it means basically Reading will only get an all stations service to serve intermediate stations  most of the day instead of off Peak Semis to Hayes and Ealing, Twyford and Maidenhead will basically get only get all stations, certainly off peak, they may be lucky and get a couple of peak hour. What Slough gets I'm not sure does it still get the Off Peak Oxfords?

What we in the TV want is an electric railway to Swansea and Plymouth. If a few trains provide a through service down the Crossrail tunnels all well and good but not at the expense of disrupting the existing commuter flows in teh Thames Valley.       

Isn't that exactly why NR's London and SE RUS is now proposing a totally different solution, with destinations for all 24 tph found?  i.e. 10 tph Heathrow and beyond (eg Staines), 6 tph GWML and 8 tph WCML inner suburbans?

It wouldn't surprise me if a major review of rolling stock needs is underway, partly explaining the sudden delays to the procurement process, which the media have reported as a pro-Bombardier result - but that could just as easily be a sheer coincidence...
 
Paul 

The remainder will terminate in OOC & reverse won't they?


Twice an hour, yes.


Who's this 'we'?....I've not seen any demand for it currently, so why will it suddenly start up?


If it costs a *lot* less, I can see people using an all stations from Reading. Say a ^1500/year saving on an annual ticket....

Will there be competition on fares necessarily?  Has it been confirmed that Crossrail is to be a seperate franchise?  Surely there's the possibility that it might be combined with either the Greater Western or Greater Anglian franchises in whatever future form they take?

Isn't CrossRail going to be part of TfL?....

Having done a bit of digging, in a manner of speaking it is, yes.  There'll be a Crossrail Train Operating Concession (CTOC) in a similar vein to the London Overground concession.  Though the exact difference between a concession and a franchise is not a great deal on the face of it.  So there would be nothing stopping FGW from winning the Greater Western Franchise and then bidding sucessfully to run the CTOC, and if they did I wonder whether there would be a seperate fares structure as you say. 

There probably isn't a precedent as such, but by comparison, the fares seem to be all the same over routes which both London Overground and another franchisee runs, such as Clapham Junction to Kensington Olympia, or New Cross Gate to Norwood Junction.

One key difference with the London Overground concession is that LOROL simply run the trains for TfL with TfL setting the fares, train frequencies and branding, if this is the model to be followed then the winner of the concession would not be able to set their own fares even if they also operated the Greater Western franchise.  I can't see justification for TfL to set the fares as far as Maidenhead though as it's well outside their area so maybe FGW fares will apply outside of the zones regardless of who wins the concession in the same way that London Midland fares apply from London to Watford Junction.

Both valid points there.

I'm sure I read somewhere in an interview that there was intended to be fare separation, and if Reading was the terminus, whether Oyster would be permitted out that far? I guess we're all waiting for this info to emerge - Government needing to decide whether its MAI or RDG first.

Perhaps Reading will have to become "Zone R". ::)

Will there be announcements on FGW HSTs "please note, TfL tickets and Oyster cards are not valid on this train".

Or will touching in/out at Paddington Mainline gateline result in a higher fare deduction?

Or it could simply be outside the zones with FGW set fares applying.  TfL could use a "Zone R" internally but there would be no need for it to be displayed to the public in the same way that TfL internally use Zone W for Watford Junction which is outside the zones and has fares set by London Midland.

In answer to Chris B's points.

Yes 14 tph out of 24 will terminate at Eastbourne Terrace and emptied and doors shut. See thread on Oxford terminators. They are already making provision for overcarries with a platform at Westbounre Park!

"What we in the TV want is an electric railway to Swansea and Plymouth.

Who's this 'we'?....I've not seen any demand for it currently, so why will it suddenly start up"

What I should have said is "I" want the wires because an electric railway is a better railway. Cleaner faster plus diesels going to run out etc. Of course there's the problem with the Brunel insulters in Maidenhead who don't want wires on his bridge.

As to fares don't forget not only Reading but Twyford, Maidenhead, Taplow Burnham Slough Langley  and Iver are all outside Zone 6 and so far Oyster. So separate Crossrail fares is going to cause confusion to say the least ie Will Crossrail fares be available on the fast Oxfords to Slough change for Taplow?.

I believe the idea is that all Westbourne Park turnback sidings will be signalled to passenger standards with platforms, and the odd overcarry to the sidings will be accepted - with 24 tph arriving at Paddington LL from the core route, which are 10 cars long, there won't be time to go through the train checking for passengers within the designed dwell time - unless maybe you have 10 staff on the platform doing a coach each...


There is no fundamental difference to the current situation on FGW (and indeed on most TOCs) where Oyster PAYG fares are available only to some last station either in or outside the zones, with trains carrying on beyond?

What you may get beyond the zones is something like the WCML where there are currently either Any Permitted or LM only fares and seasons.

But in either case I can't see a new 'fares problem' developing here - the only decision to be made is where the final Oyster PAYG station is on the line.  The current examples of Watford Junction (LM) and Grays/Chafford Hundred/Purfleet/Ockenden (c2c) are outside the numbered zones and Oyster PAYG just charges the appropriate TOC fare for those destinations already - and they are now discussing extending Oyster PAYG up the FCC lines to places like Welwyn GC...

Paul

No, they wouldn't. You would stay on Crossrail all the way

Is that a reply to something I wrote?

Paul

No, sorry - its in answer to the qiestion in your quote which you also answered.

You are correct in referring to the LM example on the WCML

As pointed out, the train builder does not choose the seating layout.

BUT experience of other new trains suggests that the seating layout chosen will be a backward step.
Either longitudinal with mainly standing space, or at best high density bus style with minimal legroom.

S-Stock layout - long distance, Maidenhead to Abbey Wood....

The thameslink order looks to be getting delayed now:

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2011/09/13-now-dft-faces-legal-challenge.html

This is going to cause a knock on effect for Northern and FGW

Maybe they should have just given the contract to Hitachi to build at their new uk plant. Are we going to see a challnge to IEP now?

That article is most definitely NOT announcing a delay - and AFAICT the DfT is not yet 'facing a legal challenge'.  The article is discussing what might happen if a trade union does happen to succeed in its call for a judicial review. That is by no means a foregone conclusion.
 
I suggest you read the article again properly...

Paul

Yes i just posted the link after seing it posted on uk railforums and others.

Sorry about that.

Personallyy i think Bombardier should just accept it and move on as they said they were planning on laying workers off even if they had won the order. Hopefully Bombardier will get their house in order for  the crossrail bid.

They need to up their game. The LM 172s were ordered in November 2007 and won't be fully delivered 4 years later. They were also allegedly plagued with problems during testing. I also think FCC's trains were delivered late and had teething problems. Shame, because I actually prefer their designs to Desiros.

Yes to British jobs for British workers, but we still need reliable trains for both Thameslink and Crossrail on time!

The tunnel portals for the Royal Oak end of the Crossrail tunnel are pretty much complete.  Here is a picture I took this morning showing the work completed, with the slope down to the portal entrances which are just before Royal Oak LUL station which can be seen in the distance.

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6178/6189176695_c531b4a963_b.jpg)

I've been wondering about the various new Crossrail junctions, but instead of spending hours searching through Crossrail's drawings I thought I'd just ask here.

There is definitely a new flyover at Airport Jn, so that both the main and reliefs have grade separation there.

There is definitely a new diveunder at Acton Yard, so that the up relief doesn't conflict with freight movements to/from the relief lines.

But, surely there has to be a further junction where the up relief line into Paddington crosses the down line from the Crossrail tunnels - is this to be grade separated?   Also, on current plans there is still the Westbourne Park turnback facility - for 14 tph.  Will that be between the running lines, or will it be on one side?

Loads of scope for flat junction conflicts along there, have they actually covered all the options?

Paul
 

As Crossrail will be the (virtually) sole user of the Relief Lines Crossrail trains will run straight into the tunnels from the Reliefs at Westbourne Park so no conflict as all other services will run on the Mains Lines 1 to 4 at Padd

But whatever GW stopping service remains, and that's 6tph in the peaks according to Crossrail's current website,  it will still have to do a flat crossing to get past the Crossrail down lines somewhere west of Westbourne Park surely?

Paul

What stopping services?  If the West terminal remains at Maidenhead there will be Padd Slough Maidenhead stoppers only, if Crossrail terminates at Reading then the Maidenhead stop will go, the Greenfords will terminate in a new Bay at West Ealing all no Crossrail services will use Lines 1 to 4

I'm suggesting GW stopping services having to transfer from the reliefs to lines 1-4 to get into Paddington.

These:
 
Morning peak Crossrail services to Central London:
4 trains per hour from Heathrow Airport;
4 trains per hour from Maidenhead; and
2 trains per hour from West Drayton
 
Other operators services:
2 trains per hour from Reading calling at Twyford, Maidenhead, Slough, Hayes & Harlington and Ealing Broadway to Paddington;
2 trains per hour from Reading calling at Twyford, Maidenhead, Taplow, Burnham and terminating at Slough;
1 through train from Henley on Thames to Paddington; and
1 through train from Bourne End to Paddington

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/western-section/   (scroll down)

I have found a reasonable track diagram now - which presumably agrees with your earlier explanation?  But could be of academic interest eventually with all these proposals in the London and SE RUS for additional Heathrow services, and a WCML connection.  Also, it does show the Westbourne Park reversing sidings between the Crossrail lines as I expected.

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s18-xrail-appx2_single_line_GW.pdf

Paul

2 trains per hour from Reading calling at Twyford, Maidenhead, Taplow, Burnham and terminating at Slough;

Well that wrecks the Westbound service from Taplow it means to get anywhere West and North West one will have to change at both Maidenhead and Reading instead of just Reading.

Also the only services to London will be all stations!

Lets hope common sense prevails and Crossrail goes to Reading and they don't waste money on turnback sidings at Maidenhead. Hopefully the wires will up to Reading and we'll have had 319s in service long before the first Crossrail train pops it's head out of the tunnel.

I only struck that line through because it doesn't go into Paddington, not because it isn't running...

Paul

Sorry misunderstood, but it's still daft DaFT policy terminating Crossrail at Maidenhead

I think that the link Paul has provided really should be taken with a pinch of salt.  For example, I see it states West Drayton will only get two trains an hour off-peak which is half the current frequency, and that Hanwell is only planned to get 2 trains in the peak (as now) after the Crossrail service begins.  I'd expect both to receive better services than that.

I tend to agree - I'm sure the eventual service will be completely different, I'd assume more like the London and SE RUS describes it. 

Call me an optimist if needed, but I suspect one of the underlying reasons for the recently announced delay in the rolling stock tender process is that the number of units needs to allow for whatever different (and yet to be announced) service pattern they eventually decide on...

Paul

Optimist! :-)

I had been under the impression for some time that Crossrail would call at all stations, which I thought would increase journey times. But looking at that link from Crossrail, I see that just as now, some trains will not call at all stations.

I hope they increase the off peak frequencies for West Drayton and beyond.
4tph for Heathrow + 4tph Express to Heathrow does seem excessive. The existing Connect services to Heathrow empty out at Hayes leaving only a few people continuing.

It's been mentioned before, but I'd probably wager a small amount of money on Heathrow Express, at least in its current form, ceasing to exist after Crossrail.

West Drayton would I expect be served by the 2 tph Paddington to Reading FGW service in addition to the 2 tph Crossrail service.  It had been planned to run more than 2 tph off peak to Maidenhead but the additional paths were rejected by the ORR.  Even if existing frequencies are retained west of Paddington there will still likely be an increase in capacity due to longer trains.

A working group has been set up by the business membership organisation London First to look at the Crossrail 2 scheme, which has been proposed to run from the Chelsea to Hackney areas:

http://www.london-first.co.uk/news/detail.asp?record=227 (http://www.london-first.co.uk/news/detail.asp?record=227)

Two railway heavyweights are part of the group, the chairman is a chap called Andrew Adonis, who you may have heard of!  First's CEO Tim O'Toole involved as well.

You certainly get the impression from the London and SE RUS, which TfL have had a big input to as well, that no one seriously believes Crossrail 2 will be built as a simple tube line, as often previously described.

I think people in authority are definitely coming round to the idea of it taking over the SWML inner suburbans inbound from Raynes Park, and connecting them to somewhere in the North East, whether that is a branch of the Central Line, or part of the West Anglia mainline remains to be seen. If it is ever successfully argued that Crossrail 1 should run to Reading, then you might also expect somewhere like Woking to be a target. 

I also think if you are going to the trouble of a new tunnel under London it may as well be for proper sized 200/240 m trains, we've probably seen the last of 'tube trains' for new construction...

Paul

Interesting article about the Tunnel Boring Machines that are imminently arriving at Royal Oak:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/13/crossrail-unveils-machines-from-germany (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/13/crossrail-unveils-machines-from-germany)

On the ground at Royal Oak an overhead gantry crane and other facilities are reaching the end of construction to enable the TBM's to be re-assembled before launch next spring.

On your way into Padd as you go past the old goods shed at Westbourne Park (where the gantry crane has been erected) just to the East of this you can see the first of the TBM cutting heads being put together it is laying flat on the ground.

I hope they've chained it securely to a lamp post, what with these being boom times for 'metals recycling'...   ::)

Paul

Would have to be a mahuesive lamp post  :o

Article about the Crossrail TBMs here that may be of interest:

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2011/in-pictures-the-crossrail-tbms/

Paul

Interesting reading, Paul.  Thanks.

Looks like 2 pieces of the tunnelling machine have arrived alongside the approach to Paddington.

There is a large white tent next to them too.  I guess this is the staging area where all the separate parts will be put together.

That'll probably be anti-capitalist protesters evicted from the city...   ;D

Paul

Additional sidings should be appearing at Westbourne Park soon which will be used to take excavated soil to Wallesea up to five times a day from the summer onwards.  Routed from Westbourne Park via Park Royal, Drayton Green and Acton bank then down via Clapham.  Presumably these sidings will also take delivery by rail of the concrete tunnel lining segments from the construction site at Old Oak Common?

This press release is well worth a read for more information:
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/press-releases/work-underway-at-wallasea-isl-to-receive-excavated-material-from-crossrail-tunnels-next-year (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/press-releases/work-underway-at-wallasea-isl-to-receive-excavated-material-from-crossrail-tunnels-next-year)

It's a bit misleading the trains are going to a jetty at Norhtfleet whilst the spoil goes on presuambly by ship to Wallsea Island in Essex.

I wondered why the route was given via Clapham Jn for Essex.

There is map of the route I assumme that the blue alternative route involves a reversal at Acton Wells Jn.

The new taxi rank at Paddington will be opening in around two weeks.  Situated above platform 12, construction work has been taking place for over a year now.  Indeed, you can see the advanced state of the works above the H&C platforms at Paddington.  This will enable Eastbourne Terrace (the current taxi rank) to close so that the box for the new Crossrail station can be constructed over the next two years.

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/press-releases/construction-new-paddington-crossrail-station-steps-up-a-gear-from-next-month (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/press-releases/construction-new-paddington-crossrail-station-steps-up-a-gear-from-next-month)

You can now cast your vote on what names the two TBM's will be given:

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/press-releases/voting-now-underway-to-name-crossrails-giant-tunnel-boring-machines (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/press-releases/voting-now-underway-to-name-crossrails-giant-tunnel-boring-machines)

I quite like 'Mary' and 'Sophia' as a homage to the wives of Isambard and Marc Brunel, but then I also quite like 'Pat' and 'Peggy' after the two Eastenders characters!



Meanwhile, the tunnel segment plant at Old Oak Common is now in full operation:

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/press-releases/tunnel-segment-plant-begins-full-operations-creates-jobs-for-unemployed (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/press-releases/tunnel-segment-plant-begins-full-operations-creates-jobs-for-unemployed)

It's got to be Pat and Peggy! ;D

Why are all the names female?  Isn't that a bit sexist?   How about Tom and Dick, in memory of WWII escape tunnels ...

I can't find the original announcement from CrossRail, but I believe they said something about it being traditional/good luck or something.

Someone else might have a better answer :)

From the original Crossrail press release (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/press-releases/crossrail-launches-competition-to-name-giant-tunnelling-machines):

From the Crossrail competition terms and conditions (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/terms-conditions-crossrail-tunnel-boring-machine-naming-competition):

 ;)

In politically correct London though, by the time they get all ten TBMs in use, won't some of the names have to reflect the multicultural nature of modern society, ethnic minorities etc etc?   ...contd p94

Paul

The four shortlisted bidders for the Crossrail rolling stock and depot procurement were issued with tender documents at Crossrail today.

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/press-releases/crossrail-issues-rolling-stock-depot-tender (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/press-releases/crossrail-issues-rolling-stock-depot-tender)

http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/crossrail-rolling-stock-contract-invitations-to-negotiate-issued.html (http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/crossrail-rolling-stock-contract-invitations-to-negotiate-issued.html)

Contracts set to be awarded in Spring 2014, with the first trains entering service on the GEML section of Crossrail in 2017.

Quick reminder that the voting closes today for naming the tunnelling machines:

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/tunnelling/naming-competition-vote

Apparently the names of two characters from "Eastenders" are well in the lead, which leaves me feeling rather left out, never having heard of either of them before.

Thanks for the heads up Phil.  :D

Just voted for 'Mary' and 'Sophia'. Three times (different email addresses  :P)

Big fan of IKB. Not a big fan of EastEnders... Monarchy.... The Railway Children....

Well your three different persona's helped to swing the vote and they're one of the three pairs of winners, but they haven't been chosen for the Royal Oak machines as the names 'Ada' and 'Phyllis' are now proudly carried by them.

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/press-releases/giant-tunnel-boring-machines-ready-to-start-crossrail-dig (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/press-releases/giant-tunnel-boring-machines-ready-to-start-crossrail-dig)

Picture of Ada and Phyllis taken from a HST on the approach to Paddington:

(http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt68/bignosemac/102_0349.jpg)

What are these PR people like?

They are saying the boring machines were 'revealed' today.

So they must have been hidden before?   ::)

They were 'unveiled' in an earlier press release in December - I guess they have to use every buzzword in the spinmaster's dictionary...

Paul

Well, they need a bit of spin: those boring machines don't just pop up out of the ground, you know ...  :P ::) ;D

I have read on WNXX that there has been some problems trying to fit the TBM's  under the steel framework  which is errected over the portal at the royal oak end.

I did notice the first TBM had gone so far and it is taller than one of the frames ................. ooooooooooops  ;D ............ but they are continuing with the fit out

An article on the Crossrail project which is well worth a read:

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/in-depth/the-big-story/what-lies-beneath-excavating-crossrails-tunnels/1012220.article#comments (http://www.theengineer.co.uk/in-depth/the-big-story/what-lies-beneath-excavating-crossrails-tunnels/1012220.article#comments)

Meanwhile a nice shiny 10-car length platform extension is nearing completion on the Down Main platform at Hayes & Harlington.  Not sure why that was chosen first, but with the exception of a bridge demolition near Iver it's the first sign of visible works on the GWML route.

Though the revised Airport Junction is hot on its heels.  You can see initial work on the retaining wall if you look left just as you pass under the flyover as you head away from London.

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/Press-Releases/NETWORK-RAIL-STARTS-WORK-FOR-HEATHROW-CROSSRAIL-SERVICES-1a41/SearchCategoryID-8.aspx (http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/Press-Releases/NETWORK-RAIL-STARTS-WORK-FOR-HEATHROW-CROSSRAIL-SERVICES-1a41/SearchCategoryID-8.aspx)

Having read the description of how this junction is to be changed I'm still having trouble picturing the new viaducts and track layout.  Is there a diagram of how it will finally look anywhere?

Thanks,

Boppy.

This diagram, originally posted by Paul, shows the likely new layout.  It's certainly going to look quite different!

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s18-xrail-appx2_single_line_GW.pdf (http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s18-xrail-appx2_single_line_GW.pdf)

Phyllis has started her work:

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/press-releases/crossrails-first-tunnel-boring-machine-breaks-ground-at-royal-oak#.T6RRLcVG3YQ (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/press-releases/crossrails-first-tunnel-boring-machine-breaks-ground-at-royal-oak#.T6RRLcVG3YQ)

The spoil conveyor system and loading sidings are also nearing completion, so it won't be long before the first spoil train leaves from Westbourne Park.

I was struck by how pristine it all looks. Won't last, of course!

Thanks IndustryInsider for pointing me towards Paul's diagram post.

I can now imagine how it will look and yes it does indeed appear quite a bit of work will be done to enable that Up Airport line as well.

Thanks,

Boppy.

Also thanks for Paul's post. One little addition that I've always thought would increase operational flexibility would be to put a connection from the bay platform 5 at Hayes to the Hayes Goods loop there appears to be room over the canal bridge. It is only a short length and would need a short lenth of wire as well. It would mean a Down train  for the bay would cross at Southall West onto the goods loop and run to the bay and not run wrong line blocking the Up Relief as now. At the same time an Up train could leave the bay and depart Up Relief passing the incoming train which will already be on the goods loop.

Thus clearing the down relief at Southall West and only blocking the Up Releif for a crossing move rather than a wrong line run.

I reckon it would require  4 of these new signal units, two point motors and 2 new route indications on existing signals.

That would indeed be a more sensible layout, though that goods loop can often be occupied for several hours by stone trains going into, or waiting to leave, the Hayes Tarmac unloading siding.  It also acts as a run-round loop for other freight services.

It's an unfortunate accident of the English language that these very interesting machines are called "boring machines". After all these years, dirt is now being dug! I look forward to getting on the train at Stapleton Road, and asking for "Tottenham Court Road, please".

I doubt they'll be direct trains from Bristol.

Besides you'll just ask for London Terminals won't you? (or London Zone 1)

You can ask for a ticket to Tottenham Court Rd now, and if the seller has any idea at all he'll issue it to London Zone U1.  That is highly unlikely to change as a result of Crossrail, which will be a TfL service and likely to be under a similar pricing regime.

Paul

Saw for the first time this afternoon a "muck away" train in the new sidings at Westbourne Park

66720? in sidings at 12:40 today,

This working group has now delivered its interim report into Crossrail 2:

http://www.londonfirst.co.uk/documents/120515_Crossrail_2_-_Supporting_London%27s_growth_report.pdf (http://www.londonfirst.co.uk/documents/120515_Crossrail_2_-_Supporting_London%27s_growth_report.pdf)

Once again, a "report" that has taken months and probably costed the taxpayer millions has come up with nothing new.

Everything in that report was in the last one I read. Most of it could be derived from basic common sense.

And they don't even make a decision! They say it needs "consultation" when it is blindingly obvious that the SWML to West Anglia route is the best option and that the Tube line would be a wasted opportunity.

The first TBM has reached Paddington and the second has now set off from Royal Oak.  The excavation conveyor belt system can now be fully installed and the removal of excavated material can step up in pace.  Until now, excavated material has been moved by trucks from a conveyor half way up the Royal Oak Portal slope and moved to a holding area before being loaded onto rail wagons for removal.

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/press-releases/crossrails-first-tunnel-boring-machine-reaches-paddington#.UDSntKOQlt0 (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/press-releases/crossrails-first-tunnel-boring-machine-reaches-paddington#.UDSntKOQlt0)

Boring II  ::)

Allow me to be 'boring' again, Andy!  ;)

You can now view actual and proposed progress of the two Royal Oak TBM's at the following link:

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/near-you#.UFm5DFEw-mA (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/near-you#.UFm5DFEw-mA)


The spoil removal conveyors and sidings at Wesbourne Park are now in full swing.  Standing above the conveyors on the footbridge that leads off Westbourne Park Villas and watching the conveyors with their excavated material on, and imagining them running pretty much constantly for well over a year, makes you realise just how big a project Crossrail is!  Well worth a wander out there if you're in the general area.

Here's some snaps taken earlier this week, which show the conveyor systems carrying spoil and loading them on a rake of wagons in the newly completed sidings.  You can also see the network of temporary rail lines used to transport other materials to and from the tunnels:

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8437/8002909080_f3dd55c41d_z.jpg)

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8440/8002910284_84534b2158_z.jpg)

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8438/8002905387_42eeb98ceb_z.jpg)

Thanks II

It is truly a monster of a conveyor system

Also happening is the lengthening of the Down Main platforms at West Drayton (just started) and Langley (just about to start), so that they will be able to handle Crossrail trains.  This follows the work to lengthen the Down Main platform at Hayes & Harlington earlier this year and has the added instant benefit of meaning that 6-car Turbos will be able to stop at all the main line platforms between Paddington and Slough, which gives extra flexibility on Sunday's when the Relief lines are closed due to engineering work, or at other times during service disruption.

Regular passengers on the route may like to check out the progress on the reconfiguration of Acton Yard, in readiness for construction of the dive under on the Up Relief, as well as the progress with the extra infrastructure at Airport Junction where the retaining wall leading to the bridge that will take the new track over the Up Relief is taking shape.

Bit of an, erm, oops moment with the new conveyor system today!  Part of it has collapsed on top of a freight train that was loading up.  That's what's causing the delays/cancellations currently listed as safety checks between Paddington and Ealing Broadway as Lines 5 and 6 on the approaches to Paddington have been shut as the conveyor is listing badly towards them.  Hopefully nobody was injured, but there will be a while before proper spoil removal can resume I would imagine.

Here's a picture.  You can see what is the unloading chute actually resting on one of the wagons, and that about 30 metres of conveyor has been pulled on its side:

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8175/8029704317_e6e868abd5_c.jpg)

A mechanical failure like this on such a new system makes this a serious incident especially at the discharge head is manned when it is working, therefore it will have to be reported to the ORR's HMRI will want to investigate it (HMRI act the same as the HSE on railway related works), hopefully Crossrail will be allowed / able to stabilise the conveyor tonight otherwise the disruption will continue tomorrow.

Oh and think of the delay minuets attribution charge to Crossrail

A masterpiece of understatement there, II!  ;) ::) :o

Certainly a moment for a statement on the lines of "Wrong type of soil". As our industry insider says, hopefully no-one was injured, although a lot of pride will be at risk. Speculation is futile, but I expect that metallurgists, architects, and especially engineers will be furiously checking their figures about now. A few new tweaks will sort it out, then away we can go again. This may look an impressive bit of kit, but it's nothing that hasn't been done before on the surface of a coal mine.

Taking a re-look at the photo posted by II it looks like the conveyor was loading the train, there, looks like, there are wagons loaded behind the engine and there is spoil on the conveyor belt; I have notice that they ensure the belts are empty when shut down.  There always seems to be men on at the various cutes on the system de clogging them, London clay is very claggie

I am speculating here but wonder if they have got the counter balancing of the loading head right, there seems to be quite a mass overhanging the wagons with very little on the opposite side.  It would also appear to be fortuitous that there were wagons below if the conveyor had failed without them there may be we could have been looking at total collapse of structures in that part of the conveyor system.

Link to an online "Evening Standard" artical http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/waste-hopper-collapses-at-paddington-station-8189268.html (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/waste-hopper-collapses-at-paddington-station-8189268.html)

Would appear it failed under its own weight ......... opps  ::)

If you were to add counterweights to the opposite side of the mechanism you would increase the total mass of the moveable part of the plant and the load carried on the longitudenal girders supporting it. Looks as if the load on the girders (particularly on the 'loading' side) may have been a problem as it is by the looks of things.....

The spoil train appears to have stopped the whole lot crashing onto the ground fortunately.

I think that it fell during or shortly after very heavy rain.
The spoil would of course become heavier due to soaking up water, and pools of water may have built up on the conveyor behind each pile of spoil.
This should of course have been allowed for in the design, but given some defect in design, material, or construction, the extra weight of the rainwater probably explains why it fell then and not before.

Does anyone know for long tunneling may continue without the conveyor ?
There is on site storage for the spoil, but I dont know how long it would take to fill up.

Bids for detailed design and construction of the western Crossrail stations have been invited from all the big construction players:

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/press-releases/network-rail-invites-bids-for-design-construction-crossrail-western-stations#.UG18GlGuVWg (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/press-releases/network-rail-invites-bids-for-design-construction-crossrail-western-stations#.UG18GlGuVWg)

One of the two TBM's is on the move again, with the other set to restart next week:

http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2012/10/22/tunnelling-work-restarts-on-crossrail/ (http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2012/10/22/tunnelling-work-restarts-on-crossrail/)

Here's a diagram of the Acton dive under which shows the revised track layout in a detail I've not seen before.  New lines are marked in red, whilst the old layout is marked with green dashes and unchanged lines are marked in black.

A few people I've spoken to were assuming the freight line would dive under the passenger line, but this diagram clearly shows that Acton reception sidings and goods loops have been slewed north to allow the up relief line to dive under the down goods line and up goods line (which will also link to the reception lines and all sidings).

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8345/8273696755_df7bab3dda_z.jpg)

I expect apart from the lack of space in the yard to install a ramp to/from the alternative of a freight dive under, it is far better operationally to have the heavier freights staying on the level, and the passenger units able to take a run up at least from the previous station!

I hadn't appreciated that the layout would allow parallel moves in and out of the yard - it could easily have been a single lead junction based on much of what has been done over the last 20 years or more.

So it keeps up Crossrail clear of freight from main lines and from down relief, but down Crossrail crosses main line freight on the level - have I read that right?  And up Crossrail can continue to use the surface lines too unless there's a conflicting freight movement?

If I've interpreted this correctly it also means that the diveunder will only be used when there is a conflicting movement coming out of the yard (and maybe going in to the yard too depending on how far the spur extends west of the dive under).

On another Crossrail topic, both the TBMs (Elizabeth and Victoria) have now set off westwards from Limmo Peninsula, and Phyllis is now under Hyde Park, so well on her way to Farringdon.

Yes, I meant to say that in the text of my original post but forgot - starting a heavy freight from an incline would be a very bad idea!  Though in terms of the parallel moves it only permits a move into the yard (from the up relief) and from the down goods loop at the same time, not trains heading into the yard and out of the yard at the same time.  That might well be what you meant, but I thought I'd clarify.  Useful though.


Yes, I hadn't realised that until you said.  Well spotted!

My guess, the normal Crossrail path will be the UR only using the UP Dive-under when a train movement is need from Goods lines

Interesting comment. At a recent presentation to the (RCTS) Royal Corps of Trainspotters at Maiidenhead on the Reading rebuild the gradient on the freight line from Reading West under the mainline flyover to the Up Reliefs was highlighted as  being quite severe. It was suggested,  therefore. freights would require a clear run from Reading West into the station.

My mistake, yes - I was considering the yard and the goods lines collectively as 'the yard'.

Regarding trains not using the diveunder unless they need to when there's a potential conflict, won't it depend on whether or not that is an accurate layout, or a schematic?  It's possible that there'll be no speed advantage either way, depending on the detailed design of the points, IYSWIM...

Paul

The freight trains will likely be running on the the relief lines so sharing tracks with Crossrail services so there's no additional conflict because of the junction, Crossrail and freight would be sharing anyway.

The Christmas period is being used to install a junction at Acton, as part of the Crossrail project.


http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/About-Us/Media-centre/Important-information-about-Ealing-services-during-Christmas

Time-lapse video of GWML bridges being removed over the Christmas period as part of Crossrail work:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20909403 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20909403)

The new diveunder line at Acton will be known as the Acton Relief.  It will have a MU PSR of 75mph against 80mph on the existing Up Relief.

MU?  (not in list anyway).

Multiple Unit  eg DMU, EMU

Thanks, funny thing, I would have had no trouble with the three letter ones.  What one is used to seeing, I suppose. I never heard that one before.

Through Acton both D and E MU's operate

And perhaps very occasionally a DEMU ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF2ZqEX7LEM

I won't get into the argument whether an HST is a DEMU or locomotives operating push/pull  ::)  ;D

Then we have the Voyagers. Currently DEMUs but could become EDMUs if they are fitted with a pantograph car.

I'd say HSTs are not DEMU's as they don't work in multiple.

For his golden spanners Roger Ford classifies HSTs along with the 91s and mark 4 and Anglias Class 90s.

BBC report on Crossrail tunneling:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21196455

This fortnight's RAIL magazine (issue 714) has a 32 page supplement titled 'Upgrading London's Railways' which features a section on Crossrail as well as other projects in and around the capital.

A fascinating glimpse, only made available to me because I'm watching the news on iPlayer, so get London news rather than Bristol. I never knew the tunnel boring (really/) machines had toilets on board.

Minutiae apart, as a former miner (for a short time only), I find it especially interesting. It looks much easier to dig through than Cornish granite.

Lobstervision have published a timelapse video of the new Acton Junction being installed: http://www.lobsterpictures.tv/blog/2013/02/crossrail-acton-works/

Works to extend the Down Main platforms at Langley and West Drayton have now been completed and the Up Main platform at Langley has also been raised to an acceptable height along its full length.  That means that all platforms between London and Slough can accept at least 6-Car length Turbo trains on both the Main and Relief lines, and hopefully the days of a late evening train leaving Paddington with two cars in service, packed to the rafters, with more units hitching a ride to Reading Depot locked out of use at the back will be a thing of the past.

Been annouced that the state is to fund the new emu's for crossrail:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21634164

Of course this has certainly pleased the unions although labour  are calling the decision a humilation.
After the present problems with the Thameslink contract I think this is the correct decision.

Labour's spokesperson hasn't really got much of a clue, has she.  The original concept of PFI deals for various things, including rolling stock, was a Gordon Brown good idea IIRC?

Paul

PFI has been around in the UK since 1992. So I don't think it was a Gordon Brown idea.

Correct - PFI was introduced under Sir John Major's premiership, whilst Norman (now Lord) Lamont was chancellor. The move was attacked by the Labour opposition, who later used it.

TfL have placed an advert asking for expressions of interest in running the Crossrail concession, starting in 2015 when the winner will take over Greater Anglia services from Liverpool Street to Shenfield.  A long way until any affects will be seen on the GWML (currently 2018 when the Heathrow Connect service is transferred using the new Crossrail stock in and out of Paddington), but I for one will be very interested to see who throws their hat into the ring on this one.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/passenger/single-view/view/tfl-seeks-crossrail-operator.html (http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/passenger/single-view/view/tfl-seeks-crossrail-operator.html)

After being plagued by delays, Crossrail may be slightly delayed by plague. TheBBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21784141) reports that excavation of a shaft on the edge of Charterhouse Square has uncovered what appears to a burial pit for victims of the Black Death. The existence of the pit was known, but not the location. The archaeological team working alongside contractors will be rubbing their hands with glee. It isn't likely to cause significant delay to the Crossrail project, which is in effect the biggest archaeology project in the country.

Calls for Crossrail to be extended to Reading have been made by a Reading Councillor to the Transport Secretary.  However, Tory Reading East MP Rob Wilson, seems to believe that it would be of little benefit to London commuters from Reading.  He's right in that respect, but demonstrates a complete ignorance as to what extending it to Reading would achieve in terms of commuting into Reading from places like Twyford, Maidenhead, Burnham, Slough and West Drayton, and what a mess of a service is planned currently to get around it terminating at Maidenhead (i.e. Reading to Slough shuttles).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-22624555 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-22624555)

Another project that impacts on all this of course is the HLOS proposal for western access to Heathrow.  WRatH?

If that isn't made a 'through Heathrow' service linking to Crossrail anyway, maybe it lends itself to closing the gaps in the service east of Reading, perhaps calling at Twyford, Maidenhead, Slough then Heathrow?
(I think we can generally assume it won't be tunnelling under Windsor!)

In the BBC report the MP suggests people will travel all the way Reading to Paddington and 'transfer to the tube', but of course they'll also transfer to Crossrail there as well.

By the way I can never find any mention of this suggested Reading - Slough shuttle in any of the online stuff, such as the RUSs.  Anyone got a steer on where it gets mentioned?

Paul

It is mentioned, very briefly, in a paper submitted for the bill (though updated since):
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/assets/library/document/a/original/a3capacityonthegreatwesternmainline.pdf (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/assets/library/document/a/original/a3capacityonthegreatwesternmainline.pdf)
However, the source is not given there.

Also mentioned on the Crossrail website page on the 'Western Section' which was updated this month.

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/surface/western-section/#.UZ5UqZzEnkU (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/surface/western-section/#.UZ5UqZzEnkU)

Thanks to you both.

Plenty of time for everything to change in 5 years though - what with EWR, WRatH, full electrification etc .  I bet the end result will be different to what they originally said...

Paul

http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/News/Areas/Maidenhead/Crossrail-could-be-extended-to-Reading-29052013.htm (http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/News/Areas/Maidenhead/Crossrail-could-be-extended-to-Reading-29052013.htm)

More uninformed and frankly silly comments from various councillors, complete with various reader comments pointing them out!

Maidenhead to Reading safeguarding was consulted on in 2008, and confirmed in April 2009:  http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/safeguarding/maidenhead-to-reading#.UaiWO8u9KSM

There is similar safeguarding out to Gravesend in the SE, but it really doesnt make an extension more likely on its own, AFAICT it's mostly a planning 'heads up' to stop people claiming blight at a later date.

Anyone reading that article could be forgiven for thinking it is 'new' news...

Paul

ITN News have shown film of a breakthrough, although not, so far as I can tell, in Reading. The footage is introduced by Bo Jo himself.

http://www.itn.co.uk/UK/77331/crossrail-milestone-as-boring-machine-breaks-through?

Hmm.  One boring thing introducing another.  :D

And could nobody find him a hard hat to fit??  ::)

Why ??? when some day a stray brick might get lucky  ;D ............. only jesting ........ which is exactly he does it

Every circus needs a clown. Just wait until he's Prime Minister. The comment he made, on record, when asked by a lady journalist whether he was still lucky with the ladies would come back to haunt most people. he would have t-shirts and badges made, and probably have it as his election campaign slogan.

Boris reminds me of Zaphod Beeblebrox, from Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy - his r^le as President of the Galaxy involved no power whatsoever, but merely required him to distract attention so that no-one wondered who was really in charge. This is a r^le for which Boris would be perfectly suited.

 :o  ;D  ;D  ;D

The shortlist of pre-qualified bidders for the Crossrail concession has today been announced. FirstGroup didn't make the cut.

From the guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/25/crossrail-shortlist-keolis-national-express):

Arriva and NatEx qualified? God help us

Why not?

Arriva and MTR do a pretty decent job with London Overground!

I wonder if First even submitted an expression of interest for Crossrail? Just because they are hold a large number of franchises, doesn't necessarily mean they bid for everything under the sun. I've done a quick Google and can't find anything in black and white to say First actually did go for Crossrail, apart from speculation in the press.

A relatively contained network.

Both Arriva and National Express do quite well with Chiltern and c2c respectively. Arriva are also part operators of London Overground and they seem to be doing okay there.

A bit early to pre-judge them running this concession based on their operation of large rail franchises. Concessions are very different to rail franchises.


There are plenty of articles from the specialist press that say FirstGroup did complete a pre-qualification questionnaire. The Financial Times also said the same.

Who ever qualifies still doesn't solve the major problem of with Crossrail, which is that it doesn't work West of the tunnel mouth at Royal Oak. Especialy if it terminates at Maidenhead.

It completely disrupts the commuter flow on the GWML, which is possibly unique in that there are large flows from the West of Maidenhead to intermedaite stations to Ealing, such as Slough Hayes and Ealing in particular, not just Paddington. There is a also a smaller Westward counter flow from stations between  Ealing and Twyford to Reading even Oxford.
It also affects the Marlow and Henley branches which will lose all but 1 of their through trains.
Henley won't be pleased!

Something for study of the Social Consquenses on peoples' lifestyle on radical changes to their train services. there are several discussions on this topic on Coffee Shop.

The disruption to GWML commuting patterns is also compounded by the problem of 24 tph popping out of the tunnel with only 10 going forward. That means 14tph  have to be emptied out at Eastbourne Terrace run out to the sidings and turned round. That's going to have to be a pretty slick operation.

Network Rail's London & South East RUS suggests in the longer term a four train per hour EMU service on the main lines between Paddington and Reading calling at a mixture of Twyford/Maidenhead/Slough. There are going to be 2TPH stoppers from Reading to Slough and 2TPH calling at various stations to Paddington.

I feel it is difficult to be critical of the final timetable as nobody actually knows yet what it will be yet.

I agree NSE there are quite a few new things thrown in since the SERUS full GW electrification and its extensions to Gt Bedwyn, Basingstoke and North of Oxford.

I certainly feel that an hourly semi fast during the day to / from Maidenhead to Padd (calling at Slough) would prove popular.  Even better if it was a Reading Crossrail semi fast service , Maidenhead, Slough Padd then through the core

I did wonder, when work started at Maidenhead, whether this was to build the full infrastructure for terminating there. The L&SE RUS strongly recommended dropping that plan, saving its cost, in favour of out going to Reading. It pointed out that a decision to do this had to be made early enough for the Maidenhead work programme to be changed.

So was that key decision deadline missed? In other words, what is being built at Maidenhead (and Slough)?

My understanding of the RUS proposal was that replacing the residual stopping and semi-fast service out to reading depended on the change in terminus for Crossrail. Running Crossrail trains fast to Reading (always my favourite) was considered, but rejected due to the lack of a direct (grade separated) connection to the fast lines. If the terminus decision was not made by now, presumably the concession will be let on its original plan, and any alteration to take advantage of the extra capacity at Reading will be delayed too.

Included in that list of advantages is putting an end to Heathrow Express's use of four paths an hour on the fast tracks for trivial gains in time, and using these paths for the fast "outer suburban" trains instead.

The proposals in an RUS, however forceful, logical, or useful, need (under the current regime) to be adopted in a real plan, specification, or the like if anything is ever to happen. If any cost is involved that needs to be funded. As far as I can see the CP5 HLOS defers this set of decisions to the relevant franchise(s), meaning somewhere inside DfT.

I think they'll build it all as planned irrespective of future extensions.  The Paddington - Reading terminating service is currently only 2 tph, so even if that were doubled to 4 tph and given over to Crossrail, they'd still probably want a higher frequency east of Maidenhead.  So the additional trackwork and platform at Maidenhead would be useful anyway, even if only a subset of services were reversing there.  If nothing else the layout would allow trains with different stopping patterns to overtake at Maidenhead.

Paul

I agree even if Crossrail services run to Reading stabling at Maidenhead will be useful for perturbation as there will be little space at Reading for too many Crossrail train sets

The last I heard was that from Crossrail only 2tph off peak / 4tph peak are planned to go to Maidenhead.  An additional 2tph off peak got rejected by the ORR (which sounds pretty stupid to me).  So it is possible there will actually be a worse stopping service on the GWML post-Crossrail.

Although if the Greater Western Franchise (or whatever that might turn into) is guaranteed 2tph on the relief lines from Reading to Paddington, and two shuttles Reading to Slough, then with those Crossrail 2tph to/from Maidenhead that would equal 4tph off-peak as now.  To be honest, squeezing in another 2tph on the reliefs, along with additional Heathrow services and freight, was always going to stretch available paths to the limit.  That's not to say my preferred option isn't still 4tph on the Crossrail route extended to Reading!

An awful lot of timetable work still needs to be carefully thought through for eightf48544's "Crossrail doesn't work west of Paddington" statements over the years to not become reality!

Since the original track access application was decided on in 2008 a few things have changed.

IEP confirmed
Wires to South Wales/Thames Valley/Bristol
Great Western RUS
London & South East RUS

The track access application is not the final say - it is the minimum that was confirmed at the time.

Track access applications can (and are) made to the ORR regularly from the industry, you only have to look at the ORR site to see this.

I fully expect to see 4tph off-peak to Maidenhead on Crossrail by launch.

Let's recap the other off-peak Maidenhead services planned post Crossrail...

2tph Reading, Twyford, Maidenhead, Slough, Hayes & Harlington, Ealing Broadway and Paddington
2tph Reading, Twyford, Maidenhead, Taplow, Burnham and Slough



If the London & Southeast RUS is realised in addition to the above trains, and 4tph peak Maidenhead there will also be the following extra services:

2tph Reading, Maidenhead, Slough, Paddington
2tph Reading, Twyford, Maidenhead, Paddington


So that's potentially 6tph off-peak at Maidenhead MINIMUM and a potential 12tph at Maidenhead during the peak.

As I have said before, let's wait until the draft timetables appear before predicting doomsday.

12tph in the peak at Maidenhead sounds far too high bearing in mind  they will have to slot in with the West Drayton and Heathrow Crossrail trains from Hayes if they run Relief line. Although 2 drop off at Slough that's still 10 to merge with 6 making 16tph from Hayes.

Will there be paths for some on the main?

The L&SE RUS proposed these as semi-fast services, switching to the fast lines after Maidenhead or Slough. That depends on getting rid of those vexations Heathrow Express services, at last in the peak.

But the point about the two RUSs is that they have not "happened" at all. They are just ideas, and nothing will happen until a decision is made to happen it.

That's why I keep going on about this decision-making process. When the L&SE RUS at last got all the ducks (Crossrail, extended to Reading, electrification, and extra paths at Reading from 2015) prettily lined up, their proposals made a lot of sense to me. But they required some extra money, for different infrastructure at Maidenhead and/or Reading in particular, to make them happen. Not a lot, and the proposal was that the main new build at Maidenhead should be abandoned as this would save more money than the extra bits would cost. I assume that doing that way would make it compatible with the existing HLOS - using the allocated money better.


We are five years out from this happening, so no-one should be fixing service patterns now. A range of indicative service patterns need to be considered in deciding how to spend infrastructure money, so as to support as many options as can be afforded. But that is not visibly what has happened. While the terminal stabling at Maidenhead might still be nice to have, it can hardly be a priority if the money could support other better options already identified some time ago. Or was it really never possible to save enough money here to extend to Reading (the  ^31M in the quote above) - in which case who, where, has over-ruled the RUS as technically incompetent?

Is it really true that a plan originally chosen five years ago can't be altered five years before it needs to be finished? I can't see that that is a technical constraint of the construction programme, so presumably it has become ensnared in a Sargasso duck-pond by marauding bands of hatchling lawyers. Sad, isn't it, when you think that the Victorians could build a railway from scratch - first board meeting, via inter-company negotiations, act of parliament, land purchase, building the earthworks by hand, buying rolling stock, to opening - in ten years.

Queen Victoria came to the throne in 1837, just 4 years after GWR was formed, and a year before the first section was opened. The population of England then was about 14^ million. Population now is around 53 million, explaining why so much less land is available now for building railways ab initio. The railway was built along what Brunel perceived (almost certainly correctly) to be the easiest route from an engineering and legal viewpoint, linking as many conurbations along the way as he could. Those same conurbations grew rapidly with the arrival of trains, and new ones grew along the corridor. Any expansion now is hugely complicated by this, because building a new line out of any existing main line will have to cut a great swathe through a built-up area.

Another consideration is safety - now. Many died building the GWR, around 100 in the building of Box Tunnel alone (including a great-great uncle of Mrs FTN). The drive for safety began soon after, and successive laws have tried to make construction, maintenance and operation of railways safer, to the delight of lawyers.

Brunel could also rely on a huge pool of very cheap labour, long unavailable to the construction industry. With these and many other factors taken into account, it surprises me that any railway can be built at all these days.

That's another question: "how long would it take to build a major railway today?" I'm not sure what the answer would, or should, or (for HS2) will be. Ought the use of current technology to offset the factors you cite?

My frustration is rather that in a similar time we can only do so little. The changes I was talking about involve, little, if any, new land take.  I was trying to register that the excuse that "it only took ten years" was lame in the extreme. Especially as, in this case, it  is taking ten years to fails to do something.

To actually build a railway once you can get on site is quite quick .................. its all the political huffing and puffing that prevents letting the engineers do what we do takes the time.

If you look at the Crossrail core build, a complex engineering task under a major city the build time (even with the section 61 limitations) in comparison to the length of time it took to get all the politics out of the way is blink of an eye.

Evergreen 3 and Eastwest Rail will show that building a railway is quite quick.

UK "PLC" needs to develop something it has not had since the Roman ................... a National Transport strategy

I don't see the relevance of cheap labour - the Victorians needed a huge number of navvies to do what a few JCBs or a modern TBM can do, with a relatively small number of skilled operators.

Indeed, archaeologists suffer from this. Earthworks that were built with large amounts of labour, for reasons we struggle to guess, have survived for millennia. Farmers would like to have levelled them but it would have cost them too much in labour. Now they can, and do, take them out - what you might call the "curse of the Bamfords".

(A similar fate befell the massive pre-Columbian platforms of the Ohio Valley Culture, some of which were destroyed by the US government to build interstate highways right up to the 1970s - scandalously.)

From Yahoo! - Siemans out of bidding for Crossrail trains

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/siemens-withdraws-crossrail-competition-121425562.html

Could be good news for Derby....

Or an opportunity for Hitachi to expand on their existing commitment (IEP) in the UK.

It was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but there's a whole train of thought been started now. If, on the day someone said "I've a grand idea - let's build Crossrail!" someone had sent a dozen gentlemen of the Irish persuasion with picks and shovels to make a start whilst the finer details were worked out, I reckon it would have been finished in time for the Olympics. I have in days long gone by worked in a mine, and have some idea of what can be achieved by men working with rudimentary tools.

The second thought was on cost. The TBMs come in at about ^10 million apiece, and have a crew of 20. There are 8 of them, and 41km of tunnel to be done, so each will dig about 5 km. At around 100 m per week, you can say that the dig will take about a year. 10 megaquid would pay for a lot of navvies...

This is just for fun, because I know we will never go back to manual labour. Millimetre precision needs good machines, and these things are far from boring. The sight of one of them breaking through, bang on target, is awesome.


Hear hear! A National Infrastructure Agency, with broad terms of reference and allocated funding, makes so much sense. Especially when you look at all the costly horse trading that accompanies any project more complicated than changing the light bulb in a signal. It may seem a bit Stalinist to have long-term plans, but we should have someone already working on things like the next Crossrail sections and the replacement for the as yet unbuilt IEP trains. Without that, we face the usual British problem. We open something new with brass bands playing. Speeches are made, ribbons cut, politicians and royalty ride on spanky new trains (the Queen, God bless her, probably thinks the world smells of new paint). High fives are exchanged, but 25 years later it's knackered, and needs daily cajoling to keep it running. Only then do we start looking for the next generation, before announcing a successor then cancelling it at least twice before settling on a model on the basis of short-term capital cost.

I suspect that's because Siemens will now be in full production for the Thameslink trains now that the contract has finally been signed.

From the IET presentation last month Hitachi are very keen on the Crossrail train sets

My reading of the article translates it from the original German as:
"Fed up of waiting for someone to make their minds up, we committed to other more enthusiastic orders that probably won't get cancelled twice before being singed. Bugger Britain, we're looking East and to South America. You people just don't get it."

Perhaps someone burnt their fingers on the deal.  :P ;) ;D

You say tomato, I say tomato...

...lets call the whole thing off!!!!  ;D

I think you might be right. That gag just doesn't work when it's written, rather than sung, does it? Had it been "You say zucchini, I say courgette" or "You say sidewalk, I say pavement", or even "You say baseball is fascinating, I say no it isn't, it's just rounders in pyjamas with more ad breaks" then we could be getting somewhere.
[/threaddrift]


A true pleasure to bump into BNM again, and to share a couple of Wetherspoons' finest, even if he did have to opt for Plan B. In my younger days, I once experimented with lager. Nothing good came of it.

Back on thread now, and I am beginning to analyse my National Infrastructure Authority idea, and my conclusion is that it is the only way to de-politicise national public transport, as well as those other infrastructure must-haves like water, sewerage, gas, airports, and probably most vitally power. Not exhaustive. Crossrail is a good example of how the current method builds in delay and expense. Once a need for a project is identified, it should be done at the earliest possible opportunity, not reviewed and cancelled a few times.

A new update regarding progress on Tottenham Court Road station, from Crossrail and TfL (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/tfl-and-crossrail-unveil-images-of-tottenham-court-road-station-as-major-transport-hub-takes-shape). Has some interesting pictures, as well as lots of figures, and an upbeat assessment from BoJo. Too much to quote, but well worth a look.

And here's the plans for the rebuild of Ealing Broadway station, providing much overdue step-free access, extended platforms, a modern, bigger concourse and longer canopies.

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/surface/western-section/ealing-broadway-station (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/surface/western-section/ealing-broadway-station)

http://www.ealing.gov.uk/downloads/download/2014/crossrail_provisional_plans_for_ealing_broadway_station (http://www.ealing.gov.uk/downloads/download/2014/crossrail_provisional_plans_for_ealing_broadway_station)

Crossrail are busy exploring the platforms at Taplow. They seem to be digging small pits to ascertain structure and also marking up untility runs with different colured paint.

Are they in the process of putting up fencing to prevent access to the edge of the up main platform that's been out of use for years?

As I went past (on the soon to fail 17:18 ex Padd if we think 166 air-con is pants the 180 this eve was blasting out hot air) there were white fence post in some of the holes

As it turns out you are dead right II and ET went to the station last night and found a fence on the east end paltform 2 with enogh panels to do the West End a well. At least it appears it's going to have gates on it presumably for emergency use. Will train crews have keys?

Train allegedly stopped on platform 2 the other day and opened the doors to take on passengers!



That ruins Taplow as a place to photograph staem specials!

They've been putting similar barriers with gates up at other stations on the route, such as Southall, West Drayton and Acton Main Line for safety reasons as when a busy train arrives on the down relief platform it stops disembarking passengers from spreading out and getting perilously close to a 125mph HST rushing on the up main.  That's not so much of a problem at a place like Taplow, but the platform surface isn't in very good condition, so it makes sense to block it off given there's no service supposed to use it.

The images from the crossrail link made me suspect that there might just be a bit of artistic licence here. Where had that big white office block on the left of the station entrance gone? Was it being demolished for Crossrail? I see from the council website drawings however that it's staying where it is but the entrance to the station is being moved to the right of where it is now.

Looks as if the Crossrail works in the Maidenhead Area are really gathering pace.
An area of where the Maidenhead Depot will be located has now be dug up, and further excavating work on the existing track in the sidings plus stockpiling is being done for removal in the future.
It also says that it will try to make less noise and dust, but one night on previous weekends you can hear the trains sounding the horns at 02:30 am in the morning. Is that really needed? Oh well...


Due to this, Network Rail sent me a letter telling me the dates that Crossrail will cause disruption on.
The dates are;
+ Sunday 11 August (00:30) to Monday 12 August (05:30) and;
+ Sunday 18 August (00:30) to Monday 19 August (05:30)

Heres the letter if you wish to read further into it :)

Well it probably is if it stops infrastructure workers being run down by either mainline engines or on track 'yellow plant' during possessions.  If you check out a few of the past Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) reports you'll see that it is a good idea...

Paul

For goodness sake, health and safety gone mad, they need to have radio communication equipment instead of consistently sounding horns or someone standing with a bright flag to notify the train drivers there are in the area.

There are a lot of protective measures put in place to protect the workforce in possessions especially at night.  Radios are used between a machine operator and the machine controller (almost similar to a banksman in a construction site), worksites a when ever possible fenced from the operational railway (have you ever wondered want those blue rails are that are supported from the running rails) and workers not involved in the process a machine or train is doing are where ever possible are kept out of where machines or trains are operating, however there are times when a works train or machine moves and it needs to sound a warning.

Track work is a hostile environment at the best of time at night with 20 Tonne 360 machines operating it can be leathal

Ah fair enough, i do wonder what those machines looked like to be honest, it always interested me.
However whilst i agree the train or machines have to sound their horns, they don't need to do this every 20 seconds and send a loud echo across the Boyn Hill and Larchfield Areas of Maidenhead, although to be fair it only happened twice...

Do you seriously think train drivers sound their horn in the middle of the night for fun?

Whilst British railway safety is strong, injuries, fatalities and near misses with track workers are still unfortunately a regular occurrence.

When there are open running lines, (and don't forget that one pair has a 90mph speed limit, and the other pair has a 125mph limit), poor lighting, noisy equipment, trains sounding their horns is inevitable. Don't forget that two trains approaching from opposite directions probably will be sounding their horns in close proximity, there may also be several worksites in close proximity to each other.

The railway does try to be a good neighbour, but

Network Southeast, its no fun for people who are trying to sleep to hear a blazing loud horn, especially late at night. If you lived near a railway you would understand. If the problem continues people will start complaining and it may mean certain compensation if there nights sleep is affected. After all it's unacceptable to sound it that frequently, but if it was less noisy then it would be ok. Just hoping Mrs Wilson won't complain...

I realise it is no fun but if you are stood next to an item of mechanical plant that is also making a lot of noise then the horn needs to be louder I am afraid. The construction industry has one of the worst records for health and safety of any industry and the railway maintenance part of that has not had a good record. I have never had to do it but I know one man who had to go and see a colleague's family to tell them their husband/father would not be coming home. I did not know him before, but he was always most particular about health and safety after then.

There is a solution to you sounding horns in the middle of the night though.  That is to shut the railway during the day to do the work at a more sociable hour.  It would be safer to do it in daylight as well.

Some machines will sound a warning automatically when the driver initiates a move, a lot of work is done mechanically but there is a lot that needs a human touch in and around the machine or close by those staff need to be warned that a machine is about to move.

The staff will be briefed that its a residential area to keep the noise to a minimum, radios are now through headsets so no blearing loudspeakers, machine engine noise is muffled so all that is really left is the mechanical work and the safety warnings
 
Or we could close the railway during daylight hours and do the work

Sorry to hear that ellen, just makes life harder, when the trains blaze the horn frequently, but i can understand why it is needed. Hmm its a diffcult balancing act, and dont be silly Network Southeast, if the work needs doing at night, then it should crack on with it. However lets be sensible about this.
+ At least three staff members must have radio and flags to warn the other workers of the impeding danger thats coming towards them, if machines or other things must move around. The radio headset must be loud enough for the workers to hear of warning or danger signs. Therefore no sound horn should be used unless theres a major problem. Such as a technical problem with the communication systems. Just an idea. Just for some comfort tho, the railways have been quiet for the last 3 days so thats good news. If it stays like that then there should be no problems.

TBM 'Phyllis' has completed the first of the tunnels from Royal Oak to Farringdon with 'Ada' not far behind:

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/first-crossrail-tunnelling-machine-completes-her-journey (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/first-crossrail-tunnelling-machine-completes-her-journey)

Also, works at Acton and Airport Junction continue at a pace, with the latter's support columns for the new bridge taking the Airport line over the 'relief' lines now at an advanced state of construction.

Looks like they're going ahead with Crossrail then.

Some reasonably up to date photos of what's going on in Eastbourne Terrace here:

http://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2013/09/29/photos-of-the-crossrail-station-at-paddington/

Paul

Nah all this work is a trial run ............. for Crossrail 2 ;D

I think you are right Electric train, they've still got to work out how to get rid of 14tph at Eastbourne Terrace in under 2.5 minutes each.

Heard an odd unsubstantiated rumour last night that once Crossrail is running out of the tunnel that there would be as shuttle between Reading and Maidenhead requiring a change to Crossrail   for local passengers from Reading for stations to Ealing Broadway and everyone from Twyford (of which there are considrable number of both). Originally when there were no sign of wires to Reading there was going to be diesel shuttle from Reading to Slough which was bad enough.

Crossrail are going to have problems in 2019 because TV commuters will have had 2 years of an electric commuter service which even with 319s (let alone 377s)  will be faster, cleaner and quiter than the Turbos.

Commuters from West of Maidenhead for stations to Ealing are not going to like and having to change at Maidenhead and be hearded on to 378 type cattle wagons.

As Gerry Fienes was told we don't blow whistles at commuters from Newbury!

I went to an IET event in London last month the lecture was given by the Chairman of Crossrail, Terry Morgan, he was asked at then why Crossrail was not going to Reading or indeed Ebbsfleet his answer was to maintain Crossrail construction within its budget both in terms money and time there can be no "mission creep" he did say it is highly likely that Crossrail will go to Reading but that is a matter for DfT.   The cost of the sidings at Maidenhead is in grand scale of things insignificant.

There are 3 major schemes that will impact on TV services, the whole route electrification, Crossrail and Eastwest Rail the last 2 are significant for TV services at Reading Eastwest Rail show services to Reading it maks logical sence to extend Crossrail to Reading but then we are talking about DfT taking a logical decision.

Keeping Crossrail out of Reading as the Bill went through Parliament was the right decision to make at the time Reading rebuild was not on the agenda would have been prohibitively expensive for Crossrail

Good summary but we do seem to painted ourselves into a corner with Crossrail being an Act of Parliament whilst reading Rebuild and Electrification are Works Orders. Presumably DaFT don't want to have to go back to parliament and get the Crossrail Bill amended even if makes sense.

Yep that quite correct.   The reason for the Crossrail Bill was to enable compulsory purchase also it is building a new railway where as GW electrification and Reading rebuild a alterations under permitted development; the Bills and works orders only apply to the construction and not the final use

No no! There will be a half hourly shuttle from Reading to Slough calling at all stations once Crossrail is running, plus a half hourly service from Reading to Paddington calling at Tywford, Maidenhead, Slough, Hayes & Harlington and Ealing Broadway.

It's on the Crossrail site (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/surface/western-section/), and has been discussed on this very forum before.
They aren't though.

There are the services I've mentioned above, plus if you read the Network Rail L&SE RUS (which again, has been discussed on this forum), there are plans for fast services from Reading to Paddington, all calling at Maidenhead with alternating services stopping at Twyford or Slough.

From wharf.co.uk (http://www.wharf.co.uk/2013/11/video-crossrail-machine-breaks.html?):


... and that's a cracking video! CfN ;)

I agree CfN a ground breaking video  ;D

I agree. The earth moved for me also.  ;D

As a one-time tin miner, I am enormously impressed by all this project has to offer.

Lord Adonis has joined the list of people who think Crossrail should operate to/from Reading rather than Maidenhead:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-25007350 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-25007350)

This article I found posted on district dave maybe of interest :

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2013/dec/31/london-underground-writers-on-tube-future

Just in from the DfT:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/crossrail-rolling-stock-and-depot-contract-to-be-awarded-to-bombardier (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/crossrail-rolling-stock-and-depot-contract-to-be-awarded-to-bombardier)

Apologies if this is in the wrong place, I did a quick search for a Crossrail thread.

Hurrah, UK rolling stock manufacturing supported for a while longer. Long may it continue.

Interesting that Crossrail have registered class 345 for the new trains though, whereas Thameslink and IEP have apparently jumped to 700 and 800. On that basis Crossrail stock would have been given something like class 705.

Good news for Derby, though I would have been equally pleased had the contract gone to Hitachi at Newton Aycliffe.  Perhaps those that have bleated on for the past few years about everything being unfair and being given to 'foreign' firms can reflect on the order book for Bombadier, which has several other jobs on its books as well as this Crossrail order.

Let's hope the Class 345s work well out of the box.  Bombadier have a pretty poor record at providing new designs of trains which work properly and enter service on time!

Crossrail had already reserved Class 345 some time before the new 700 series was introduced (by amendment of the 'train identification' group standard in 2011).  There was no real requirement for Thameslink to be 700/701 as far as I can see, there are plenty of unused class numbers in the equally relevant 300-399 series.

Paul

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26063121):

Excellent news! ^15 million apiece seems a lot, but presumably that includes servicing and the Old Oak Common depot? Seems you get a lot of train, at up to 1500 pax per Aventra / class 345.

And they do make very good trams and planes.

No problem, wabbit: I've simply moved your topic from 'the wider picture' and merged it with this existing topic in 'across the west'.  :)

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-26479720):

Gleeds have been brought in by Bombardier to project manage the construction of the Crossrail Old Oak Common Depot - http://www.globalrailnews.com/2014/03/25/gleeds-appointed-to-manage-crossrail-depot-delivery/

Tweet last night from Paul Clifton, BBC South's Transport Correspondent....

 

This is already being covered in the other "Extending Crossrail to Reading" thread here: 

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=1109.0

Of course if this really does get announced, that secondary thread will be superfluous...

Paul

Worst kept secret in rail is officially announced... - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/crossrail-extended-to-reading

Please refer to the previous post to yours - it's already being discussed in detail in its own thread...

Paul

You're a mod now, are you? Don't be so rude.

Please accept my apologies.  I just found it odd that you'd post duplicate info as well.

Paul

The curved steel frame section that has been undergoing construction on the approach was jacked around the bend over Easter.

There is evidence of trial pits having been dug for OLE structures between Maidenhead and Taplow and evidence of markings for other locations east of Taplow.   Foundation piling cannot be far away

The new span over the Relief Lines at Stockley Bridge has now been slid fully into place.  Timelapse, with a very uplifting drum based background score, is included in the link below:

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/urban/single-view/view/crossrail-flyover-launched.html (http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/urban/single-view/view/crossrail-flyover-launched.html)

Here's a link to a report containing the preferred options to making the remaining seven Crossrail stations have step-free access.  Taplow, Langley, Iver and Hanwell are the stations affected on the GWML.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/accessibility-summary-report.pdf (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/accessibility-summary-report.pdf)

Balfour Beatty will start installing driven steel pile OLE foundations between Maidenhead and Burnham in August during the night.  so if you want to see a pair of class 20's they will be in action, the piles will be driven in by RRV so you will not see the HOPS in the Crossrail area

The benefit/cost ratios seem to be adverse yet it is still being done because it is the right thing to do.  Wonder whether this applies in other cases!

Makes you wonder why they bother calculating them if they're going to do it anyway...

All part of the process of applying for the money, is my guess. Treasury Rules will insist on it in every case. I am guessing that accessibility and equality cases can trump purely financial considerations to a point. If it weren't, the consultants would have massaged the stats a bit more.

One of the railway bridges (highfield lane) in Maidenhead was supposed to be closed (for up to 6 months) this weekend to replace the bridge because of crossrail (I believe). It's now been postponed.. Does anyone know why? It's hard to find any information online about the delay or even the fact it's going to be closed in the first place.

I only found out when my sons school told me it was closing (his school is nearby and therefore affected) although a sign has appeared more recently by the bridge to tell people.

I'm quite relieved to be honest as there is currently no sign that I can see of the promised pedestrian bridge that is supposed to be there during the closure.

I suspect that is the reason for the postponement. Why it happened, I couldn't say, but a lot of assets were thrown into repairing bad weather damage, which MAY have a part to play in this.

I believe the issue is that they haven't secured planning permission, or rather the Council havne't decided if this is Permitted Development or not....

http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/pam/planning_application_search.jsp?appnum=14%2F01505&orderby=createDate&ascending=true

Thanks NickB.. Strange they postponed it so last minute but maybe they were hoping to get planning permission this week. The sign has been manually changed to say the bridge will close on 28th June instead of 23rd.. Well I think that is what it says as it's not too obvious

Looking at some of the notes Cox Green Parish Council have raise a comment against the Royal Borough, the PC have been want the bridge widened for years, NR will only be raising the bridge to give clearance for the OLE and raising the height of the balustrade to 1.8 meters.

I not sure it is Crossrail that far West doing the work its more likely GWML electrification

I agree

Article in the Maidenhead Advertiser, states the bridge work is being done under permitted development rights, there were so powers that needed to be granted to NR which the Royal Borough gave.

The Parish Council wanted a 2 lane bridge, NR are only funded to replace like for like, Royal Borough view is making the bridge wider would attract HGV through a residential area which I actually agree it would do

Tizer article http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/News/Areas/Cox-Green/Replacement-bridge-in-Highfield-Lane-is-a-missed-opportunity-say-residents-18062014.htm (http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/News/Areas/Cox-Green/Replacement-bridge-in-Highfield-Lane-is-a-missed-opportunity-say-residents-18062014.htm)

Notice this afternoon on the way home some very large steel nails have been tapped into the ground between Taplow and Burnham on the Up Relief side.

By large steel nails I mean steel cylindrical piles approx. 750mm in diameter and some 5 meter long  ;D

The knitting has commenced  ;D

I noticed those too last week.

There is a three part BBC documentary series on the building of Crossrail starting next week, July 16th 2014, 9pm, BBC2.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04b7h1w

Should be quite interesting!

Over the last 7 years, BBC two seems to like these types of documentaries on transport!

They have had the redevelopment of St Pancras International, The Tube, British Airways and now this one!

Went to a Crossrail Exhibiton at Maidenehad on Tuesday 8th. Not much going on. Had quite long chat with Crossrail rep however it wasn't John Goldsmith who is teh Western guy but their Northeasr guy.

Still he put me right on Shenfield (see corespondance in rail)

Definitely no loos on trains! Even though it's 36 mies to Reading! Stations to be manned from start to finsh of service so loos and lifts where provided will be open. We'll see how long that lasts before efficiency savings have to be made!

Balfour Beaty still think Platform 6 at Maidemhead will be built. However other sources suggest it's scrapped due to difficulty of piling close to residential flats.

During afternoon very few members of the public.

I still don't get why they call them boring machines. They fascinate me.

Similar to London Overground, Crossrail is a TfL contract & they staff first to last.

Hang on, I have colleagues who commute daily from the Reading / Slough area to Canary Wharf.
1 hour? I suppose that's ok - what do people think?

An interesting insight in the work going on, particularly the challenge of threading the Crossrail tunnels through existing underground structures at Tottenham Court Rd. I would have preferred a bit more focus on the engineering and a little less of the 'characters', but that seems to be the norm these days with such documentaries.

Featured in this first episode was a look back to another major engineering feat carried out in the West End in the 1960s - the building of the Victoria Line. Footage from a 1969 documentary was shown. The full programme is also currently viewable on BBC iPlayer:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00sc29t/how-they-dug-the-victoria-line

Also repeated tonight at 11.20pm on BBC2

Thank you.. I somehow missed recording the actual program so will record that one instead :-)

From the Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/hong-kong-firm-is-awarded-the-14bn-contract-to-run-crossrail-9614472.html):


With such news items I normally post the BBC's report. However, they have constantly referred to this award as a franchise, when it is a concession.  ::) I've told Auntie of its error.

Wonder what the net increase in drivers is? And where they might come from?

I don't see many out of work currently?...

I think four years is plenty of time to recruit and train.

I guessthey know how many will TUPE across from services they are taking over, and know the total number they need...so could work out how many would need recruiting & training

It's an interesting question.  Currently, I'd say around 20% of all work at Paddington LTV and Oxford drivers depots covers trains that Crossrail will either directly, or indirectly take over.  That figure is probably 15% at Reading depot, who tend to do a little more branch line work.   There's also the Heathrow Connect drivers (who also do Heathrow Express) that will be affected slightly.  That's getting on for 100 drivers worth of work.

Possibly the most sensible thing to do is to transfer Paddington LTV depot over to Crossrail, and split Reading depot into two - a larger part for the Greater Western work, and a smaller part for the Crossrail work.  Oxford could then absorb other work such as increased Cotswold Line frequency and potentially the East West Rail services to Milton Keynes and Bedford.

But, what sway will the unions have in all of that...?   ;)

I can't see Heathrow express existing in its current form once crossrail starts. There is talk of going west but nothing is confirmed.

Considering current industrial relations at hex I can see.quite a few drivers going across

IIRC, the MTR was largely a London Underground creation, with Metro-Cammell rolling stock.

The KCR was also a British creation, being electrified in 1983 with Mk IIIb OLE to typhoon proof standard.

We can do it when we want to.

OTC

Used to be able too   :o   ;D

The only FGW staff TUPEing to Crossrail will be station staff between Ealing Broadway and Maidenhead.

The DfT have already confirmed no drivers from FGW will TUPE to Crossrail.

In fact that honour has fallen on Greater Anglia who have already set aside a pool of drivers to TUPE over for next year. It's worth noting that when London Overground started only Silverlink Metro drivers TUPE'd over, none from Southern (although of course that never stopped Southern drivers applying to work there through choice).

There'll be plenty of work for LTV drivers post Crossrail. Enchanced outer suburban services. Plus new services with IEP. And in any case, the new pay deal may finally resolve harmonisation,  so there may not even be an LTV pool of drivers any more. Someone will have tk drice those new Bristol services!  :)

... but you and those like you in NR and private industry still do a brilliant job, IMHO. All is not lost.

OTC

Acton Main Line?

Of course. How could I forget it!

Like NSE, I think we will see a net increase in driving jobs come 2019. Crossrail is adding capacity to a creaking underground system in effect, but it will allow some extra surface trains. Some extra capacity comes from more capacious trains, but, as NSE reminds us, there will be 4 tph to Bristol. With four tracking to Filton Bank, and MetroRail Phase One, we will see an extra six or seven sets operating in the Greater Bristol area, possibly cascaded 165 / 166s. I'm no expert on HR - how many drivers are needed to operate 6 sets 7 days per week between 06.00 and 23.59?

We may see drivers cascaded, as experienced commuter service drivers apply to upgrade to intercity services. They will have knowledge of working on a railway, so will take less time to convert than to train a rookie driver from scratch. I am sure, given how long it takes to train a driver to the point where he can drive a train full of passengers solo from Bedminster to Parson Street, and even given the imponderables of the new franchising negotiations, someone in FGW is crunching numbers and making plans as we speak.

TUPE, or not TUPE? That is the question.

Interesting stuff regarding the transfers - I didn't know that.  I won't be holding my breath over harmonisation though!

And nor will I! Imagine that - all staff across all TOCs paid the same relevant pay for the same job. Imagine the utter confusion that would cause. Might as well do away with TOCs, and make all the staff Civil Servants (although there is no longer such a thing as a national civil service pay scale).

FGW did recruit a large amount of trainiee drivers back last year in May/June 2013 including a lot for Bristol.

I did apply  and  passed the 1st stage assessment however my application is on hold due to the large amount of applicants. Which is saying something cosidering I heard that FGW were looking at recruiting over 100 trainiee's for the Bristol depot alone.

DB and Freightliner as well as Colas have been on major recruitment drives recently too and could be taking on more drivers.

I understand that as a very rough order of magnitude, you'll be looking at around six train crews per 7 day, 18 hour diagram.  The arithmetic gives you 4 train crews to cover 126 hours of operation per week, then you need holiday cover, sign in / sign out / travel to work /wait for train to take it over time, training update and admin time, and so on and so forth.

I did email the BBC to point out their error. The headline has been changed from 'franchise' to 'project' and the first paragraph now refers to the Crossrail 'service'. The main body of the story still uses the word 'franchise' five times though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28361782

Tsk, tsk.  ::)

Hence the urgent push for harmonisation. Transfer is it goes through, TUPE if if it doesn't, I guess

With enough changes in franchises and the accompanying TUPEing, we will end up with a single level. Some may call it nationalisation, others may say that entropy will always increase.

/philosophy.

According to teh Guardian MTR the Hong Kong operator has one the concession to run Crosrail

From the BBC Proposals to extend Crossrail to Hertfordshire to be announced (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28680186)

Surely this is a new line rather than extending crossrail?

Would it not be taking over the existing London Overground service (and infrastructure) to/from Watford with the addition of a short new build tunnel section to connect to the east/west Crossrail line somewhere between Bond St and Farringdon?

The West Coast main line and the GW main line come incredibly close in West London - see the open map data attachment on the base of this email ... and a link there ...

Going to Watford from Paddington was Option 1 in the 2002 consultation on route options. Obviously it was rejected, but has never gone away. It was raised again recently (and I thought discussed here, though I can't find it) coupled to a regeneration of Old Oak Common and areas to the North.

PS: This is option K1, recommended in the 2011 London and South-east RUS (see section 8: Potential New Lines):

This would be nothing to do with transferring Overground (DC lines) services, before people go off on tangential designs for weird services via Watford High St etc... 

The new route (about 2 km of new construction) would split in the Old Oak Common area and join with the present route used by the Southern WLL services to/from Milton Keynes before passing under the WCML and approaching Wembley Central to join the WCML slows just as Southern do now.

The London and SE RUS proposed an 8 tph service onto the WCML, personally today's proposal isn't much of a surprise, it was always on the cards, more so since the precedent was made by the decision to extend to Reading.

Paul

Along with the Reading extention, this would make much better use of the eastern end of the Crossrail route and (presumably) mean fewer Crossrail trains to/from Shenfield/Abbey Wood only running to/from Paddington.

The overall London and SE proposal for Crossrail includes 10 tph to Heathrow, subsuming Hex, 6 tph up the GW, and the 8 tph I mentioned to the WCML, so that soaks up the whole of the 24 tph.  In which case I'd expect the Westbourne Park turn back would become an off-peak only facility.

In which case why not move the turnback to somewhere nearer the CR depot - its layout will probably need to be re-planned anyway if as I expect the additionalWCML link will affect it...

Paul

Yes, I'm guessing a third set of lines continuing from where lines 1-6 end through the route taken by the current reception lines where the old Kensal Green wash plant was located.  Probably only fairly minor works required to turn them into passenger lines?  Interestingly, that area is currently being widened anyway, with a slope down to the old wash plant removed and the concrete retaining wall rebuilt a few metres further back.

I have always thought turning back 14 out of 24tph at Padd was not agood idea.

I'm not sure however if the Relief lines to Hayes can take 10 tph to Heathrow plus 6 to Reading. I thought 10tph  was the limit. Another 6 would eliminte all the daytime freight paths to Acton which presumably everyone would deplore as we all want to see an increase in Rail Freight.

This is a really sensible move, though I worry that it will be leapt upon by the Anti HS2 campaign as another example of cost creep to facilitate HS2 (Euston rebuild). The reality is that it stands on its own two feet. All predictions are that London's population will continue to grow and existing tube lines will struggle to cope in the next 10 to 20 years. This enhancement will provide relief particularly to the north eastern quadrant of the circle line, and other routes radiating from Euston. Relief that will be sorely needed once HS2 is up and running, but will be regardless.

Is this what you are looking for?
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/rus%20generation%202/london%20and%20south%20east/consultation%20responses/s/spencer,%20philip%201.pdf (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/rus%20generation%202/london%20and%20south%20east/consultation%20responses/s/spencer,%20philip%201.pdf)
Proposal to take over the Electric Lines to Watford Junction by tunnelling from OOC.

Loads of info there, but AFAICS it is just a third party input to the London and SE consultation, although it can be found on NR's website it isn't necessarily indicative of NR's current thinking, if at all.

Paul

My belief is this is to take trains out of Euston to make the rebuild for HS2 easier, also if the Watford Overground dc services were terminated at Willesden Jcn this would give even more spare capacity.

It does make sense actually to run the Tring / London locals through Crossrail, even better if an inter change station is built at OOC with HS2, NNL, Central Line and West London Line

Helping the Euston rebuild is a secondary benefit (albeit an important one) - but the gap the proposal in the RUS is dealing with is basically WCML capacity.   They mention inter alia that it works without HS2 somewhere as well.

8.3.8 The standalone scheme would improve
journey times to and from Central London for most
passengers currently using the affected WCML
services and reduce crowding on the public transport
network feeding the Euston area, particularly
the Underground.
8.3.9 Implementation of the scheme in
conjunction with HS2 would also generate these
benefits, at a higher level than the standalone
scheme. The business case analysis does not
include any temporary benefits associated with HS2
engineering works in the Euston station area.

In the analysis of option K1 they also mention this: "The resulting 8tph via Watford Junction to Crossrail would replace most slow line services to London Euston", suggesting that they aren't just proposing a couple of services to Tring...

Paul.

If they are going to run Crossrail to Tring (why not Milton Keynes?) it does bring up the whole question of toilets and sideways seating!

The Milton Keynes suggestion is a stone in the pond, thinking of connections to East West etc.

Here are reports of the unsurprise ministerial announcement from the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28680186) and DfT (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-study-into-potential-crossrail-extension).

The departmental weasels haven't done a very good job on the first sentence. What Crossrail offers in Herts is faster direct trains to most of central London, not faster trains that are also more direct. The case is similar to Reading, and I'm sure we will hear similar complaints about any loss of the current semi-fasts to Euston. The big difference is that out to Watford there is already a Crossrail-type service on the DC lines, and six tracks or more that far.

I've looked for some typical times and mileages:

Miles (ex PAD/EUS) slow Xrail semifast fast Slough 19 40 25 15 Watford 17 50 30-40* 20 15 Maidenhead 24 50 35 25 20 Reading 36 60 50 45 30 Tring 32 - 45* 35 - Milton Keynes 50 - 70* 60 30 * my estimates (see below for Watford) (Bakerloo is slightly quicker to PAD than LO to EUS from common section!) Categories fast/semifast/slow don't match exactly, due to different number of tracks etc. PAD semifastsMAI fasts are not a regular service like at EUS, more a few specific peak-hour trains. Looking for times on the Crossrail website, I find that LST-Shenfield is 41 minutes for 20 miles/14 stops, while PAD-MAI is 36 minutes for 24miles/13 stops). Why? Is that the effect of skip/stop? I'm not sure which to use for Watford. Of course someone may have better (i.e. based on real plans) figures. I think MK is really to far for this kind of Metro service.

Interesting view of the latest Crossrail extension proposals from London Reconnections:

Crossrail to Tring: A HS2 Hijack (http://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/coming-across-rail-turmoil/)

Interesting article, BBM, and well worth a read.  Thanks for posting the link.

As well as the advantages described, the improved Thames Valley - Watford (aka Gade Valley) connection should be very useful. Morning business trips via M4/M25/M1 are a pain.

In addition to Tring, St Alban's City might be a popular termination.

With all the work to be done around OOC, perhaps the 6 tracks out of Paddington could also be taken as far out as Ealing Broadway.

OTC
 

Whilst desirable, that wouldn't be possible without a huge amount of money being spent.  The railway goes into a small cutting just after Old Oak Common, then you have the Up and Down Poplar lines coming in, followed closely by Acton Main Line station, then Acton Yard, before the final hurdle of the Central Line gets in the way!

I assume that 6 tracks would at least be taken out to the junction with the WCML link.

Yes, that's where some room exists if you remove the current reception lines (just about).

The need for 6 tracks out of Paddigton as far West as practicable is because that is where there is the densest traffic and speeds are lowest. There is space but with numerous obstructions as far as Old Oak West Junction, now singled along the old High Wycombe line. To go further West would need another span for the Acton - Willesden line overbridge. Then, there is probably enough room between the fences for 6 tracks + the freight connecting lines but not with graded embankments. While this is all horribly expensive, I am amazed at the heroic Civil works already being constructed for Crossrail. Adding a Herts branch to Crossrail will probably come with a ^1Bn tag and I don't think that Thames Valley up Crossrails standing waiting at Ealing Broadway for a path between crossing Watfords will be acceptable.

We shall see.

OTC

There is no need for extra tracks. The full crossrail service will fit onto 2 tracks east of Paddington, why does it need extra tracks?

This will get done as cheaply as possible!

Think about it. The issue is not Crossrail, but services into and out of the Paddington train shed.

Of course Crossrail can run on two tracks - if only Crossrail use them as is the case in the central London tunnels. However there will be residual services from further west of Reading as well as, possibly, one or two remaining through trains from Henley and Bourne End which will use the Relief Lines and run into the Paddington train shed. Westwards from the East and West Junctions at Acton freights are added to the mix which can have knock-on effects on the timekeeping of the Crossrail trains so a certain flexibility is needed.

It is already planned that Crossrail takes over the two tracks on the northern side of the layout from Ladbroke Grove eastwards and these will be connected to the Crossrail tunnels at Royal Oak. Near Portobello Junction there will be a single lead making a flat junction with the Relief Lines forming a line which will feed the higher number platforms in the Paddington train shed. Essentially Paddington will be served by four tracks, the two Main Lines, one parallel track off the Up Main from Ladbroke Grove and the single line from the Reliefs.

The layout I have described will probably just about work as long as half the westbound Crossrail trains terminate at Royal Oak. If Crossrail is extended to Tring then there will be no spare capacity on the Relief Lines at all. Paddington train shed will be serviced only from the Main Lines - there will be no flexibility as the Reliefs will be full of Crossrail trains so if anything untoward happens on the two track section of the Mains, Paddington will stop.

To make the Tring extension work reliably there will need to be two grade separated junctions - one where the two Crossrail routes separate at or near Old Oak Common and the other to separate the Western Crossrail services from the Relief lines somewhere west of the Old Oak Junction mentioned above. I would think this junction would have to be somewhere near Acton Main Line and the Crossrail tracks would be tunnelled under Old Oak to the Junction for Tring. There will have to be six tracks inwards from the 'Acton' junction, two for Crossrail and four serving the Paddington train shed. If this is not done then any hope of using the capacity made available in the Paddington train shed by the diversion of the suburban services, and possibly HEx, into the Crossrail tunnels for use by trains from further out will die. The Mains can support 20 trains an hour, possibly 21, and that's it.

Essentially, if Crossrail simply takes over the Relief Lines as far as Old Oak the choke point on the Western will move from Reading, which has just been expensively extended, to the Paddington throat.

Actually to make it work the adoption of ATO (Automatic Train Operation) set the entry / exit past the OOC area on both routes even on 2 tracks for sole Crossrail use 24tph is achievable,

Won't we also have all singing and dancing ERTMS out Padd by 2019?

And I wonder what's possible with ATO and its future developments on a pair of tracks at high speed

Let's do some simple sums at 100 km per hour, and with train lengths of 250 metres.    Trains would pass in 9 seconds - so if there were 30 trains an hour, the line would be occupied for 270 seconds - that's a 7.5% utilisation.  It's not beyond the realms of possibly that automatic train operation could feedback from one train to another, so that slowing / gap closing could work in patterns of multiple trains not singly.   And let's say we got up to 20% utilisation - that's an awful lot more trains.

Unlikely?   Maybe, in the short and medium term future, but think back to when Paddington first opened - would anyone have every dreamed that it would be safe and feasible to send out trains at a 3 minute headway routinely?   It may come!


Added while I was writing ... yes as I understand it ERTMS may be a step in that direction

ATO is being used on Crossrail, in the tunnel sections; Thameslink is setting up ATO for 2018 for its core.  If Crossrail ATO were to be extended to take out to Canal Junction then the 24tph is feasible.

Although ETRMS will not be in place on the GWML for 2018 nor will the Crossrail extension to the WCML it which ever guise it takes

The presently planned service will fit on to the 2 tracks out of pPaddington.  If additional services to the WCML are added to this them possibly not.  That is why I enquired whether there was space to add tracks as far as the WCML junction!

If Crossrail is ever extended to the WCML I would suggest it could easily have it's own two tracks as far as the juction. After all they can then do away with the turnback sidings at Westbourne Park and remove  the "Tourist Platforms" as well as all trains will go through.

I realise that 24 tph and more is possible on the ATO-equipped Crossrail tracks. The point I was trying to make is that, if the layout is built as currently planned and Crossrail is extended to the WCML branching off at Old Oak, then effectively there will be only two tracks for longer distance trains on the Great Western main line from Southall West inwards - the last current Up Relief to Up Main crossing before the Reliefs become dedicated Crossrail tracks. With 24 tph from Old Oak inwards there will be no leeway to be able to use the Reliefs to work round a problem on the Mains without screwing up the Crossrail services and no room for other trains anyway especially if they have to leave the Crossrail tracks via a flat single lead junction to a single line near Portobello.

One may be able to run 24 or 30 trains per hour on the Mains in each direction to serve the train shed using modern cab-signalling, but that is theoretical for trains with identical acceleration and speed characteristics - not everything on the Mains will be SETs. At this density no trains will be able to make any stops on the mains between Reading and Paddington. That will delight the travellers from Twyford, Maidenhead and Slough... The trains will have originating points ranging from Penzance, Paignton, Carmarthern, Hereford, Bedwyn, Oxford, Weston-Super-Mare and so on and be subject to varying delays on their journeys. It is essential to allow some slack in the timetabling to be able to offer a reliable service.

To get such an intensive timetable to work trains will have to be presented at Reading - the last sensible place where the running order can be changed on a route with tracks paired by use and not direction - within seconds of right time to give them a fighting chance of getting through the two track section into Paddington without causing problems. If outer suburban trains from places like Oxford will still be using the Reliefs to serve stations such as Maidenhead and Slough, they will have to switch to and from the Mains at Southall - and more likely at Stockley Bridge Junction to avoid the Heathrow traffic - as they will no longer fit on the Reliefs from Old Oak inwards. Both are flat junctions...

A few years ago I lived in Munich and saw such a problem at first hand. The S-Bahn passes 30 trains per hour in the peaks (Crossrail, eat your heart out...!) through the tunnels under Munich. There are a series of grade-separated junctions to the west of the Hauptbahnhof as the various branches peel off the pair of S-Bahn tracks. At Laim the route for both the S1 and S2 branches leave the main stretch and then, immediately following, there is another grade separated junction where the S1, for the airport, leaves the S2 for Petershausen. The S1 then made a flat junction with the twin-track DB main line where it shares the tracks along the Isar valley with trains to Landshut, Regensburg and Plattling as far as Neufahrn where it leaves on a grade separated junction for the airport.

Although the traffic density on this main line was not high, there were sufficient trains, both passenger and freight, to upset the timekeeping of the S1 sufficiently often that the trains missed their slots, only some 30 seconds wide, at Laim for inbound trains, and so messed up the intervals and sequencing of trains through the central tunnel. To alleviate this issue yet another grade separated junction was built between Laim and Moosach where the S1 joined the DB's metals.

Having seen the difficulties that operating an intense Crossrail-like service on shared infrastructure can cause, I maintain that unless the Crossrail trains have their own dedicated tracks in those places where the density of Crossrail trains is so high that other traffic cannot be reliably handled, then the reliability not only of the Crossrail service but also that on the main lines will suffer. This means that at least as far out as Old Oak Crossrail trains need their own pair of tracks and both Mains and Reliefs on the Great Western Main Line must continue unbroken through to Paddington. Ideally dedicated Crossrail tracks would extend to Airport Junction for the airport traffic - west of there Crossrail trains run at a lower frequency and so could probably co-exist with the GW outer-suburban and the freight traffic on the Relief Lines.

Well of course, the sensible thing would be to have no other residual service on the relief lines.

Then Crossrail can take over the relief lines completely (bar a bit of freight).

The effect of that will be that Twyford, Maidenhead and Slough will be served only by all-stations trains to London and any passengers from west of Reading to those stations will have to change at Reading.

Or the toiletless Crossrail trains will have to be extended to Newbury/Bedwyn and/or Oxford.

I can see that going down well. ::)

I'm wondering how they would link the WCML and GWML anyway?  As Graham posted on the previous page, it's a short distance, but it is a very 'busy' stretch of land.  Does anyone know what the current thinking is regarding the route it would take?

I'm guessing the current Willesden Down/Up relief lines (which are on the southern side of the WCML in the area concerned, but burrow under the WCML to join the Down/Up Slow lines just before Wembley Central) will be used as crossing the WCML by any other means would be expensive, but would a link line run from the Kensal Green area (which would probably have been ideal had it not been for the massive Kensal Green cemetery using up much of the available land), or will a longer link line be built from somewhere near Old Oak Common to link to the Up/Down Cricklewood line before joining the Up/Down Willesden via an upgraded Up/Down Acton Branch?  Or will a completely new link be built that goes over/under all these various obstructions?

Or are there other possibilities, that won't cost the earth, that I'm missing?

One answer (to 4064ReadingAbbey's post too) is "the study will look at the possibilities". Plans for the area were already being reviewed to see how to integrate HS2, which I guess is why this study had to start now.

The original Crossrail option was to link to the DC lines via a longish tunnel. Option K1 in the London & SE RUS would presumably link to the Cricklewood line just before its connection to the WCML slow lines. Note, however, that the RUS studiously avoids actually saying which WCML lines it would use - unless "slow lines" below means "Slow Lines".

This is what the RUS says about infrastructure:

Thanks for that, Stuving.  It's another piece to slot into an ever increasingly complex jigsaw, isn't it!  Well worth pursuing though in my opinion, as it will be a useful boost to the Crossrail route whatever alignment is eventually chosen.

I'm 99.9% sure the RUS means the WCML Slow Lines, i.e. the AC electrified pair used by freight and London Midland.

The first significant problem is the lack of a through route from the DC lines to north of Watford Jn (other than via the down fast), so Tring and any other intermediate stations would be impossible to include in the scheme without massive remodelling at Watford Jn, and AFAICT from the WCML(S) online sectional appendix there is no junction that provides for a connection with the DC lines anywhere in the vicinity of Wembley Central, it appears to be a completely independent railway north of Willesden Jn.

The Junctions they refer to modifying 'in the Wembley Central area' must by default be 'Sudbury Junctions' where the route from the up and down Willesden Relief lines - via the underpass and used by passenger trains to/from the WLL - joins the 'Slows'.

Paul

No - some would be semi -fast. With a bunch of trains leaving for the WCML and another bunch going off to Heathrow, there would be paths available for skipping stops.

Journey times to Paddington would increase - no more non stopping trains. But once you factor in the Crossrail train taking you to directly to your destination with no Tube, that time is more than made up. Plus more comfortable.

I have always thought that Crossrail even from the very first early 90s version (the one to Reading and Aylesbury) didn^t work West of Paddington. Nothing that has happened since including the extension Maidenhead to Reading has changed my mind.

Fine to the East 12 tph to Shenfield and Abbey Wood  but where do 24tph go West of Padd given the limited capacity of GWML to Reading?

It has already been commented upon in this thread the disruption that Crossrail stopping trains cause to the semi fast services from Oxford and Reading which call at Twyford Maindenhead and Slough. Crossrail also disrupts the heavy flows of commuters from Both West and East of Reading to Hayes and Ealing Broadway.

A link to Aylesbury? This was  originally planned but I^m not sure how many tph that would absorb and it doesn^t seem to fit in why Aylesbury?

So where could the surplus Crossrail trains coming out of the tunnel at Padd go?

Some suggestions, why not a link to West Ruislip and West Ealing (via Greenford branch)  from OOC  via North Acton and Greenford (new interchange stations). That could absorb maybe 10tph,  4tph  to West Ealing 6 tph West Ruislip. Electrifying OOC to West Ealing with a link to GWML would also enable Crossrail trains to be turned thus evening out wheel wear from the curves on the Heathrow branch. Which is a problem with the current /Heathrow units.

However that still leaves 4 tph to terminate of Padd so a link to WCML OOC to Willesdan but does Crossrail share the New lines difficult as they 3/4th rail electrified. Use the flyunder Southern use to get to the slow lines? Could these lines absorb an extra 4 or more trains an hour? Where would they terminate? Tring seem a long way for Metro service.

From the start Crossrail has been an East and Central London project aimed mainly at relieving the Central Line from Stratford to the West End and  providing a higher capacity direct link from North Kent to Canary Wharf, the City and West End to relieve the DLR (Woolwich/Lewisham branches), East London Line and London Bridge/Canon Street/Charing Cross.

I am afraid we in the TV will just have to lump all stations trains with not many sideways seats and no loos.

London and SE RUS only ever has a maximum of 6 tph on the GWML reliefs beyond Stockley.  Then with 10 tph to Heathrow subsuming both Connect and eventually Hex and an extra 2 tph, that leaves 8 tph for the WCML.

Having read the RUS again (since my post yesterday) I still cannot see why anyone thinks it is in any way suggesting using the DC lines.  There is no feasible connection route.

Tring is a comparable distance to Reading, and might only get 4 tph itself, with another 4 tph terminating nearer London.

Paul

Hmm! It is very likely that east of West Drayton the Crossrail trains will have to have a standard stopping pattern - at least in the peaks - because of the number of trains. The Crossrail website states that there will be 6 trains per hour in the peak east of West Drayton and 10 from Hayes inwards - this density implies all the trains will be stoppers as they will have to be sequenced into the tunnel section correctly and at the right intervals. Time saving from skip-stopping between Hayes and Paddington will be marginal at best[1].

So between West Drayton and Reading there are really only four stations which are suitable for skip stopping - Iver, Langley, Burnham and Taplow. This could imply that the longer distance Crossrail trains (i.e., the ones starting from and terminating at Reading) might be candidates so as to reduce overall journey times from Twyford and Maidenhead; the Maidenhead terminators would then serve these four stations. A study of the individual traffic flows would be necessary to find out whether or not this pattern would be in the interests of the bulk of the passengers and, of course, of the railway! It would mean, at only 2 trains per hour, that these four stations see no benefit from Crossrail in terms of increased frequency.

That Crossrail automatically gets you to your destination faster is simply not true. Crossrail will only take you to your destination more quickly if it happens to lie near one of its stations - more especially those in the central tunnelled sections. For anywhere else in London - anywhere else, Westminster, South Kensington, Shepherd's Bush, Wimbledon, Hackney, Hammersmith, Clapham - a change will still be needed. There will be little or no time saving for such journeys.

As for comfort... There have been reports in the press by visitors to the mock-up of the Thameslink trains recently shown in London which serve a similar market. Several people reported on the hard seats and tight knee-room of the layout shown. Comfort is, as is well-known, in the bottom of the beholder - but it would seem that there are questions in this area that still need to be answered. "More comfortable" certainly cannot be assumed.

[1] This ignores the future of HEx - if these are added to the Crossrail flows then the chances of skip-stopping between Hayes and the tunnel portal drop even further.

In my experience a lot of the FGW services either stop at Taplow and Burnham and skip Langley and Iver or skip Taplow and Burnham and stop at Langley and Iver, it seems logical as the traffic between these stations has to be fairly minimal due to the short distances between. I cant see why a similar service pattern cant be maintained post Crossrail.

From a purely theoretic view, there are lots of places that trains popping out "at Paddington" could go with a "bit" of extra construction.  Some sensible and some rather silly.  Inner junction options include ...

* Hammersmith, via Hammersmith and City
* Watford and the up the West Coast
* Cricklewood and then up the Midland Main Line
* Richmond, via link to North London Line
* High Wycombe, via Greenford

Taking traffic out beyond Acton Main Line on the GW main line ...
* Greenford, from West Ealing
* Heathrow, from Hayes and Harlington
* Staines, from West Drayton
* Windsor and Eton Central, from Slough
* Bourne End, from Maidenhead
* Henley-on-Thames, from Twyford
* Reading
And I have left out Marlow and Brentford so as not to require reversals!

Someone mentioned Aylesbury too ... via Princes Risborough is included above; getting on the "Met" somewhere would be possible (multiple "bits" extra) and you could then look at Aylesbury, Chesham, Watford and Uxbridge.    Getting silly, yet Baker Street to Aldgate is a bottleneck and perhaps better suited to underground services than to outer suburban stuff.

Quite. The point is that the RUS refers to the previous proposal as if it is being resurrected. It does not mention that it is going to use different tracks, so does not address how the implications for existing services would be different. Originally, the Euston (now Overground) service was to be stopped, and he Bakerloo line would terminate at Willesden. What is intended now? Does the route need two metro services? Is the Euston service dropped, or reduced? It's all very well to say it has to be studied, but the RUS team already know a lot about this.

On journey times and toilets, the obvious point is that the longer Underground lines are all less than an hour from the Circle Line to their terminus, most much less. So 40-50 minutes for Crossrail ought not to be a problem, unless you find the Underground already causes too long a wait. There is the alternative of nipping off the train at a suitably equipped station, though the gap to the next one can be rather long late at night.

TfL have a map of toilet provision at stations you (meaning mainly the older members of the forum) can download. You could look at it for hours without detecting any logic in the pattern of where they are, and which are inside the barriers (though that's not really relevant if you have a travelcard).

The Aylesbury link was in some of the very early Cross rail plans in the late 80's early 90 I think. One of the consultants working on the plans used to travel from Taplow and I had several chats with him.

The link was across OOC Willesdan to Dudding Hill and then down onto the GC line. Linking to the Harrow line not the Wycombe branch.

They even had a mock up Crossrail train at Padd very much like a Heathrow Connect ie a proper outer suburban unit.

Taking Graham's proposed terminal points most are feasible some would be more easy to execute than others and soem would be prohibitatlively expensive.

* Hammersmith, via Hammersmith and City very difficult because although Crossrail comes up beside the H&C the H&C immedialely dips under the GWML so difficult to make a connection which would ahve to be a flat double junction. Although you could reinstate teh Ladbroke Grove curve to North London line and run to Clapham Junction or most of South London.
* Watford and the up the West Coast reasonable woulf require flat junction at OOC capacity on WCML might be an issue
* Cricklewood and then up the Midland Main Line interesting connection from OOC to Dudding Hill Line possible calacity issues on MML with enhanced Thameslink
* Richmond, via link to North London Line interesting but possible capacity problems from Gunnesbury To Richmond. Could go onto the  Hounslow Loop via Acton South Jn. This opens up destinations on vitually the whole of SWT, Southern and South Eastern but would require dual voltage trains. 
* High Wycombe, via Greenford Probably the easiest but I'd go to both High Wycombe and West Ealing from OOC with new interchange stations at North Acton and Greenford. That would help relieve conjestion on the Central Line to West Ruislip line. Might be possible to build a diveunder at OOC to avoid flat junction. Also don't forget HS2 has plans to build (Ventilation Shaft) on the track bed precluding reinstating a doulbe line.

Taking traffic out beyond Acton Main Line on the GW main line ...
* Greenford, from West Ealing Feasible but requires flat junction but see above going via Park Royal.
* Heathrow, from Hayes and Harlington suggest coninuing to Reading when West chord from T5 or use link to Staines from T5 line if ever built.
* Staines, from West Drayton very interesting could link with proposals for T5 Staines link but probaly easier via T5 if link built.
* Windsor and Eton Central, from Slough No branch on mainline side
* Bourne End, from Maidenhead yes but not Marlow as trains Crossrail trains too long to reverse at Bourne End would require platform lengthening or SDO and possible loop at Cookham. Reopen through to High Wycombe!
* Henley-on-Thames, from Twyford Yes, would require platform lengthening or SDO at Wargrave and Shiplake also require some redoubling or a loop. Maybe a second platform at Henley?
* Reading yes perhaps  Didcot Newbury?
And I have left out Marlow and Brentford so as not to require reversals! Brentford also wrong side of Mainlines.

However the problem is that most of the destinations are too far for a Metro stoping servcie and really require proper outer Suburban stock and at least semi fasts.

I am afraid I still cannot find anything to refute my asertion that Crossrail does not work West of Padd and that I am afraid we in the TV will just have to lump all stations trains with not many sideways seats and no loos.

Very remiss of you Sir not to provide a link :-)....pretty please?

https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/toilets-map.pdf

And here are some other specific maps ...

Cycles
https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/bicycles-on-public-transport.pdf

Step Free
https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/step-free-tube-guide-map.pdf

Avoiding Escaltors - for those with dogs too large to carry.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/avoiding-stairs-tube-guide.pdf
(see green circle with red surround for stations to avoid)
Note that TfL staff will stop escalators for guide dogs, and guide dogs can be trained / certified to use escalators.

The vast majority of people work in the West End, City or Canary Wharf. Crossrail services all these places, and many commuters will be able to walk to their destination in less than 15 minutes.

Yes, commuters to Victoria, Westminster, Waterloo and Holborn will still need the Tube - but they need to get the Tube already! In all but Victoria's case, the Tube journey will be much shorter than at present.

I'm sure a skip stop pattern can be achieved with the high acceleration electric trains and modern signalling. I'd expect all trains to stop at Ealing and Hayes - including any future Heathrow Express and Reading semi fasts.

I'd say that Crossrail does work West of Paddington, as long as no trains terminate at Paddington. The idea to divert WCML slow lines services from MK, Tring and Watford is sensible. In the East, an extension from Abbey Wood to the Ebblesfleet area should be added ASAP (i.e. before Crossrail is declared "full").

With my current commute to the TLP project HQ I wish Crossrail was in place now; Maidenhead to Farringdon change to Thanes link to Blackfriars via exit the South Bank exit 5 min walk.

The connectivity both Crossrail and TLP will give at the end of this decade is vast ............ Maidenhead Crossrail (just for example) to Bedford, Gatwick, Brighton, Cambridge, Peterborough, Sevenoaks all with just one change at Farringdon.

West Drayton to Staines branch currently only has track as far as Colnbrook I believe. Much of the section along Staines Moor (I think) without track is now overgrown and parts can be walked along. I did just that a few years back. The aborted Airtrack proposals suggested a link from Staines to T5 along the old route although I seem to remember that it would not have followed that route that faithfully.

Ealing Council^s Planning Committee have approved the improvement plans for the station which will get under way next year and last about 18 months.  Great news for this very busy station which outgrew itself years ago.

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/green-light-for-crossrail-improvements-at-ealing-broadway-station (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/green-light-for-crossrail-improvements-at-ealing-broadway-station)

The old line terminates at Colnbrook here, you can see the rest of it continue (somewhat overgrown) the other side of the road:

www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.479147,-0.509111,3a,75y,5.07h,77.55t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1suxaPt2mnViMmpBtc8-sSzw!2e0?hl=en

I believe it was used for quite a lot of the T5 construction traffic.

The old railway alignment across Staines Moor is partly lost under the M25, so Airtrack would have largely been new - with a flat junction on the Windsor branch and the old bridge reconstructed for a bridleway. Local response was not favourable, based on environmental and amenity arguments.

The London & SE RUS recommended this new line to Staines being done on its own as Option J1J3, for possible delivery in CP5 (really?). They give the following arguments (option J1 is Airtrack):

Which is odd, as the real benefit is to give better links into Heathrow from most of the SWT service area, so it's worth doing on its own. At the time of the Airtrack TWAO, I wondered why they didn't split it into one for the T5-Staines line on that basis, leaving all the arguments about the wider service pattern and the Staines Chord to a separate TAWO.

Nice as a concept to extend Crossrail to Staines the only draw back is the Crossrail stock is not be built dual voltage it is 25kV OLE only; the third rail option for the stock was kicked well into touch when it was decided to rebuild Connaught Tunnels.

The big draw back to Airtrack was the amount of time the level crossings at Houndslow etc would be closed to road traffic

Mention of WRAtH on another thread got me thinking, how many Crossrail trains could end up being built?

The initial order is for 65 x 9 car sets, ie 585 vehicles, with an option for a further 18 sets.

1. I believe an extra 2 will be required for the Reading extension.  Then it's not inconceivable that the HEx will be replaced by Crossrail, and linked to WRAtH. That would need another 8 units in service, as the journey time from PAD to Reading via Heathrow would be around 50 mins.  So western extensions could mean another 11 sets in total given 90% availability.

2. The interesting one is the north west extension to Watford and Tring. Assuming 3 tph to each might require another 10 units in service, so another 11 required.

3. There's also the possibility of increasing the central frequency from 24 to 30 tph. If these extra workings were short (ie central section only), then maybe another 5 units would be sufficient.

That would give 92 sets, which could also end up being lengthened to 11 cars, ie 1012 cars in total, a big increase on the original order.

The 18 already optioned may will be with the possibility of 1 and 3 in mind, although I suspect that 2 was too much of a long shot during contract negotiations to be considered.  But it seems very possible that Derby will end up with quite a long run of Crossrail stock beyond the initial contract award.

Another question to ask is whether the (current/proposed currently) deot space could cope with your suggestion:"(s)?

The new OOC depot will only have capacity for 10 car trains with no room for extension.

From the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11113780/Isambard-Kingdom-Brunels-Great-Western-Railway-foundations-uncovered-at-Paddington.html):

There is a short video on BBC News here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29317233 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29317233)

From the Railway Gazette (http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/knorr-bremse-to-supply-crossrail-platform-screen-doors.html):

Thats ^7000 per metre.   :D

Yes, but despite the Knorr handle, they are not a stock item.

Cough ... I rather think we've used that particular one-liner before: http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=8946.msg118729#msg118729   ::) :D ;D

Crikey - that was nearly two years ago! I forget things I did and said earlier this Christmas holiday. But my apologies, and thanks for keeping such detailed notes.

The platform canopy is being removed on platform 4 ready to be cut back for electrification also part of the roof is off of the train shed.  All just in time for the winter  ::)

Sorry, which station are you referring to?

I'm guessing it's not Temple Meads...

Reading or Maidenhead?

Other than Paddington there is only one station on Crossrail that has a train shed ............. Maidenhead

Also the canopy is coming off at Burnham as well

Are these going to be reinstated in as close a form to the original as is possible, or is another part of Great Western heritage being lost in the name of progress?

Canopy partly cut back on paltform 3 at Taplow.

Flower beds dug up!

A map of the proposed Crossrail WCML link has appeared as part of HS2 Ltd's community consultations, with thanks to an eagle-eyed poster on London Reconnections:

http://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/event_speakers/LWM-HS2-EN-MAP-010-000002-P06.pdf

Fully segregated from the Dudding Hill line with turnback sidings, this looks likely to be the route put forward in the forthcoming consultation.

Chris

Having just done the short shuttle to Colnbrook Sidings in a 150 I was curious as to the future Crossrail plans at West Drayton, particularly the tortuous dog-leg into the old Staines Branch loop platform. 

I came across this plan (http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab656259048fb93837ecc0ecbcf0c557.r23.cf3.rackcdn.com/assets/library/document/w/original/west_drayton_station.pdf) which shows how this will be achieved, utilising the strip of railway land formally used for canal side warehousing.  Quite a neat plan I think.

(Edited so I.I. can stop coughing!)

Yes, it is a pretty neat plan and one that was pretty much the only option at [cough] West Drayton  ;)

The land between the current formation and canal is ideal for smoothing out the curves to reinstate an extra platform for passenger use, and the platform 'extension' will, in reality, be almost a completely new platform.  The new footbridge will make providing lifts much easier than using the current subway, and presumably a much more inviting concourse/ticket hall will be provided.

It looks as if work has already started on getting the land ready for the new platform to be built, which will presumably have to happen before the old platform can be fully demolished.  I'm guessing that freight trains will cross onto the existing up relief line before the station (using the new crossover marked on the map), so that the new platform can be built without disrupting the station workings too much.

Having taken a fair chunk of the roof off at Maidenhead (hopefully to be replaced soon) we now can't see what is being displayed on the departures board between platforms 4 and 5 unless it's a very dull day.. Also the coffee kiosk either has to suffer rain coming in the front of it or sun (since the sun is low this time of year) melting anything that can melt on the food on offer..

Do we know if it will be replaced with something (permanent or not) soon?

Also this is the place where the information staff stand so they have had to relocate to somewhere less visible if it's raining..

Not sure how thought through this has all been?

As with other projects that need the station to remain fully operational whilst major surgery is done on the structure of it, there will no doubt be a little inconvenience to users of the station, especially when the weather isn't great.  Sometimes it doesn't matter how well thought through it is, without spending megabucks it is just necessary to just put up with it for a while.  The same situation occurred at Reading in the early days of the remodelling (particularly on the old Platform 9) and is currently also happening at Burnham whilst the platform canopy is modified there.

Hopefully the level of inconvenience won't be too major, but with a new platform, extended platforms, revised track layout, turnback sidings, modified canopies, and new ticket hall and lifts to construct it's going to resemble a building site for a couple of years I would have thought!

More details about the specific alterations at Maidenhead for Crossrail can be found here:
http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab656259048fb93837ecc0ecbcf0c557.r23.cf3.rackcdn.com/assets/library/document/0/original/0002_r_w25maidenheadstnr1.pdf (http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab656259048fb93837ecc0ecbcf0c557.r23.cf3.rackcdn.com/assets/library/document/0/original/0002_r_w25maidenheadstnr1.pdf)

One thing I've noticed at Maidenhead recently is that Shoppenhangars carpark is getting full more quickly in the morning.  I'd say by maybe 25 cars, prior to 7am.  Is Silco Drive still open?

I know the forecourt has lost a few spaces but this feels more substantial than that.  I first noticed it in May/June time, then it was fine for the school holidays, and now it is worse again.  No chance of parking after 7.30am.

The planning application for the changes to Maidenhead Station is 14/02115/XRL ; you can find this (with a little persistence) on rbwm.gov.uk.

I can't say I find RBWM's planning portal particularly user-friendly!

They certainly plan to put up new canopies, but my search for even a vague nod in the direction of 'heritage' proved fruitless - you may have more luck; sadly all looks pretty utilitarian to me.

All Crossrail stations are now to become step free:

http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2014/11/19/extra-14m-to-make-all-crossrail-stations-step-free/ (http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2014/11/19/extra-14m-to-make-all-crossrail-stations-step-free/)

Whilst this is undoubtedly good news, I'd rather some of the much larger and busier stations that currently have no disabled access that are not on the Crossrail route were sorted out first, rather than the likes of Iver.

But you can see their logic: public transport systems have to be easy to understand, and what's easier to understand than 'All stations on [insert name of line here] are step-free'?

Crossrail is also under TfL, not NR...

Plus TfL has all the money and are trying to make all public transport in London accessibble.

In a way the TV is lucky that Crossrail is now coming to Reading so that stations like Iver and Taplow which are  outside the GLA are being made accesible,

NR has a lot less money and a lot more stations.

I guess that's so long and bye bye to the 1884 overbridge

Are you suggesting that if trains were to terminate at Maidenhead under previous plans then there would be no disabled access at Iver and Taplow?

Not anywhere near as quickly, I agree.

Stations Improvement Fund/TOC/NR as opposed to TfL

This article about the expansion of the Stockley Flyover, part of which is being introduced over this Christmas, is well worth a read:

http://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2014/12/20/photos-from-crossrails-huge-stockly-flyover/ (http://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2014/12/20/photos-from-crossrails-huge-stockly-flyover/)

Thanks for posting that article.  I'm very much interested in how the whole project is being done in stages.

Plans for Hayes & Harlington's Crossrail station revealed:

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/crossrail-unveils-plans-for-new-station-building-at-hayes-harlington (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/crossrail-unveils-plans-for-new-station-building-at-hayes-harlington)

I know something I've been meaning to ask for ages - if Crossrail is extended to Reading, and if I need to change at Reading onto a Crossrail service to Maidenhead - would I need 2 season tickets, one from FGW for the leg to/from Reading, and one from Crossrail to/from Maidenhead ?

I know that probably sounds like a stupid question (and I know there are a lot of "if"'s but I am interested in the answer even if FGW will still run a stopper to Maidenhead), but I have only dealt with Seasons on FGW so not sure how it works when the services cross TOC's as it were.

I have in the past brought a ticket from Goring to Heathrow via Paddington (to use Heathrow Express), and that was a single ticket, so I assume it would be similar ?

Yep, an 'Any Permitted' fare would still do as it says on the can.

TfL *might* introduce further zones, and you *might* be able to buy Travelcards to include just these outer zones, but I doubt it as TfL won't control the buses in these zones.

Of course, TfL, in my opinion, will likely introduce their own zonal fares and depending on what the daily upper spend limit is, you might find it cheaper to have two tickets, if travelling in from beyond Reading. Just have to wait & see.

TfL now accept contactless credit and debit cards "tapped in" in the same way as Oyster cards, and with the same daily / weekly capping benefits. This may give a reasonable cheap and hassle free way to split the fare at Reading if travel into London isn't on a regular enough basis to merit a season ticket.

Plans for West Drayton's Crossrail station have been submitted.  Significant improvements to the current station which has outgrown itself and isn't fit-for-purpose even with the current levels of service and passengers:

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/crossrail-unveils-plans-for-major-improvements-to-west-drayton-station (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/crossrail-unveils-plans-for-major-improvements-to-west-drayton-station)

I received a letter today from FGW outlining the Easter works programme. It's extensive, and pretty disruptive. My conclusion is that I'll be working from home for a week.

Brief summary (my fault if I've misinterpreted)
The line from Hayes to Didcot will be disrupted/closed from Friday 3rd April to Sunday 12th April.
HSTs to Bristol and Wales will be 1 per hour and run on the chilterns line.
HSTs to Cornwall to run from Waterloo.
In the Thames valley trains run 2tph from Padd to Hayes.
Everything from Hayes to Didcot will be via bus service.

Awesome.

And the alternative to providing the much needed improvement in capacity?

The lines are open between the Tuesday after Easter and the following Saturday before closing again for one day on the Sunday, so not much of the normal working week should be too badly affected?

As well as the final major push at Reading, the panel box at Slough is being closed and transferred to Didcot TVSC (hopefully, as I know that one is running close to the wire!), and I'm sure there will be lots of other more minor works progressing as well.

Can't really think of one, but I am glad that I have the option to work from home. Others aren't so lucky and will have a pretty rubbish week.

Interesting. I've reread the letter in light of your comment about the line reopening and I still do not get that impression.

I haven't seen the letter, but that's what I understood was happening and a quick check on the NRE website seems to confirm.

That would be welcome news. If I can find a scanner tomorrow then I'll upload the letter for all to see.
It could be another case of fgw's communications letting down the rest of the organisation.

I think the key phrase to look at here is 'disrupted/closed'. The slash should be taken as 'or'.  Meaning closed at the first weekend, and on the second Sunday, and disrupted during the week. 

This has been shown in the online engineering access statement for ages, and has been shown in journey planners for some weeks now, and was previously seen on the  opentraintimes or realtimetrains websites.

Paul

What happens if the Harbury landslip isn't repaired by Easter?

It'll be difficult to divert London-Bristol/South Wales HSTs via Banbury as capacity there is constrained by terminating Chiltern and CrossCountry services. Will there still be room each hour to reverse 4xFGW HSTs?

I remember last time some of the HSTs were reversing at Aynho, maybe they would have to utilise this option more

The XC trains have almost an hour at Banbury, there seems to be scope for them to shunt via the down sidings to make room in the platforms.  There's also the option to reverse GW services at Aynho as said earlier.

More likely, it will alter what Chiltern are able to offer by way of a timetable for their own services. (Bustitution from Bicester, rather than Banbury perhaps? (using the turn-back at Bicester North)

The letter is awful. I read it pretty much as NickB did, so I still don't understand what is happening. It says something like busses between Didcot and Reading, then a couple of lines later says busses between Goring and Tilehurst, so nothing stopping at Pangbourne (which I assumed to mean nothing on the relief lines, so as no platforms on Pangbourne, nothing can stop) - so does that mean trains are running from Didcot to Reading, and if so are they stopping or running non-stop on the mains ? Its about as clear as mud to me.

I think I will be working from home as well.

NB. writing that from memory as I don't have the letter to hand, but that was my recollection of thoughts when I read it. Maybe I also read it wrong...

Here's a day's services at Tilehurst for Tuesday 7th April:

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/TLH/2015/04/07/0600-2000?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

Stopping trains between Oxford/Didcot and Paddington appear to be calling all day.

Paul

But not at Pangbourne, so it'll be a bus to Tilehurst's to connect into the train. 

I'm going from Goring to Maidenhead so I don't really care about Pangbourne or Tilehurst - my point was more it isn't at all clear (to me as someone that uses trains but doesn't understand the black magic that runs them, nor the terminology often used) as to what is happening. I suspect the same will be true for many commuters. As Nick said, my impression was its basically closed for a week - and if thats not the case, it should be made abundantly clear. There is a lot of information in that letter - maybe too much (less is more sometimes).

Either way I will work from home, I am not willing to risk not making it in - and whatever is running is bound to be delayed by engineering works  ;)

Yes, the letter sounds like it's not very clear.  Fortunately the website is a little clearer:  https://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/easter2015 (https://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/easter2015)

Up to you whether you work from home or not of course, but Goring to Maidenhead from Tuesday (7th April) to the Friday looks pretty simple with a direct train every 30 minutes or so.  All details are on www.nationalrail.co.uk (http://www.nationalrail.co.uk) or the other journey planners.

The trains will be running on the main lines between Didcot and Reading (hence not calling at Pangbourne) due to the remodelling of Reading West Junction and in the Scours Lane area (and I expect they'll use the opportunity to press on with some electrification work on the relief lines as well), but no reason to believe the amended service will be affected any more than the usual two-track timetable would disrupt it - i.e. if there's a failure there's no way of getting anything round it etc.

Hopefully I've mastered the upload process for the aforementioned letter.  See what you think of FGW's descriptive powers...

Although not a regular contributor to this forum I feel compelled to write and agree with those who have commented on this letter. The letter is, I am afraid, symptomatic of much that is wrong with FGW. It is not written in a passenger friendly way, in that you need to have some understanding of the region and railway to make some sense of it and it is not consistent in parts.
I wonder if anyone checked it, other than the writer, before it went out

Totally agree that it's a pretty poor letter.  A lot of the uncertainty would have been removed if the first sentence in the third paragraph wasn't there or was worded better, but a totally rewritten more passenger friendly explanation would have been better as jdw.wor says.

Fortunately, the website page is much clearer and is broken down by line of route.

Does anyone know if FGW plan to produce timetable alterations booklets as has been done during past major works at Reading?

I'm hoping so

mmmm this interesting, I am involved in carving up a bit of national network through heart of London over Easter looks like hire car or hotel ...........

Building a better Britain

Was thinking that the other day. The Chiltern line has enough to do being the main line for Birmingham with the Watford Closure as well as fitting in FGW Bristol/Swansea services. I think if the landslip isn't sorted by then the Watford work would have to be postponed a second time. Again I say shame they didn't do the Watford work all in one go last August.

The closure over Easter at Watford is still planned to go ahead however this is very much subject to the Harbury landslip being resolved.

The Cross Country's could be terminated at Oxford, or even Didcot,  things will be made to fit, the Easter blockade on the GWML is a key to unlocking so much else on the route

What are the walking 'facilities' like at Aynho Junction? FGW HST drivers will need to tramp from one end of their set to the other, as well as potentially pick up a pilot. Easy to do in Banbury station as has been the case previously. Not so easy to do at Aynho Junction.

Should Banbury still be constrained because of the Harbury landslip then I imagine there will be some rearrangement of pilot working for the FGW HST services. Pilots joining at Oxford for example and some less than ideal end swapping in the cess at Aynho.

I believe a walking route was provided at Aynho as part of the work that was done to allow HSTs to divert along the Chiltern line. It should not be a problem for drivers to swap ends.

Of course, in the not to distant future, if diverts onto the Chiltern Mainline are needed, there won't be a need to reverse at Banbury/Aynho.

That handy new curve at Bicester will be a boon.  ;D

The problem being that no drivers will "swap ends" at Banbury (or Aynho).  Oxford and Swansea Drivers will drive Oxford - Banbury, Padd Drivers will be conducted by DB Schenker over Chiltern.

But then the trains to be diverted will be largely electric and that will cause a slight problem - at least for a few years

Many thanks for that very useful information, welsharagorn.  :)

And they're both right!

Some early & late trains may carry Pad drivers from/to Oxford

Answer...No. Quote from FGW Reading Easter works leaflet: Customer trends indicate that digital sources of detailed train times information is preferred, so we no longer re-issue timetables for periods when our service is temporarily amended.

In other words they can't be bothered to produce revised timetables anymore.  :(

I can accept that FGW will no longer issue paper timetables, but why can they not produce .pdf timetables (ie digital documents which FGW claim that their customers prefer) to go on their website? 

The only information they have there now is an Easter Guide which, despite its 27 page length, prefers vague statements like ^two trains per hour^ (which is of limited use to anyone) to something helpful like train times.  They could probably produce a .pdf timetable for Easter in 27 pages which would be a lot more useful.

I've asked the question...

Success, I think.

I explained the reasons for wanting the TT in at least pdf format, and Andy McRae (Senior Publications Manager) responded -

Wow, thanks Chris, I'm impressed!

Wow me too Chris. Hope it comes to fruition.

As much as I like an old fashioned paper timteable, I dont think its realistic to expect TOCs in this digital age to produce paper timetables for short term alterations. However, technology exists to produce an electronic version of revised timetables to be posted online. After all they must exist for back office and front line staff?

I will make an exception to what I've said about not producing paper timetables when it comes to the 6 weeks of work between Bath and Chippenham and the effect that will have on the area's services. There is a case for printed timetables on this occasion and would expect FGW to produce them after all it would be Network Rail paying for them.

Looking at how the complex work taking place at Swindon late May will have a major effect on services, I hope FGW could make revised timetables available online for this work too:
https://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Swindon2015

I got the distinct impression from Andy McRae that he took the feedback on board for major projects going forward - so I'd hope to see them for both these.

Whether you get paper TTs for Bath/Chippenham, I doubt it....

As we've got a few forum members who know and like hearing about signalling alterations, here's a summary of what's happening at Easter between Reading and Paddington on the Crossrail route - Stage H of the project:

In layman's terms:
New and more flexible signalling at several locations between Maidenhead and Acton meaning (hopefully) more reliable signals and more signalling flexibility which will be useful when there are problems and are the start of the many projects providing the extra track, signals and routes that will be required to run the additional trains when Crossrail commences.

In more detail:
Acton area:
Acton Middle Junction is being removed (to allow the flyunder to be finished and brought into use by the end of the year) and the Down and Up Poplar lines will once again commence at Acton West with access to and from Acton Yard.

Ealing area:
A new turnback signal SN220 is being provided at Ealing Broadway on the Down Relief line

West Drayton to Iver:
New routings and new signals from the Down Relief to the Up Relief will mean trains can turnback at West Drayton's platform 4 when arriving from the London direction.  Iver goods loop is split into Iver Loop and West Drayton loop and becomes available for the use of passenger trains.  Eventually new crossovers mid way (hence the split) and bi-di working will apply, but for the time being it's still an up direction loop only.

Langley to Slough West:
Slough bay platform 6 is taken out of use.  Flashing yellow aspects are introduced on the Down and Up Main lines for both Dolphin and Slough West Junctions to speed movements up that currently rely on 'approach control' signalling.  Slough Down Relief platform has a new signal installed in the Up direction, and new routings at Slough West Junction will allow moves from both the Relief and Main lines to all platforms at Slough except the Windsor bay platform.  This means the only platform at Slough which is not fully bi-directional is Platform 3 (UM).  Speeds through the Relief line platforms increase to 75mph for trains classed as 'MU' which is up from 55/60mph.  There are alterations to Slough Goods Loop as well with the eastern end being turned into two headshunts.  Finally the East Loop Line on the Windsor branch will be turned into a siding, known as 'Windsor Siding'.

Maidenhead area:
Two sets of flashing yellow aspects will be provided for movements over Maidenhead East from Down Main to Down Relief or Up Relief to Up Main.  The Engineers Siding, together with the Dock Siding will be taken out of use.

Slough Panel Box:
Closes with control passing to the TVSC at Didcot with a new 'Slough Workstation' controlling signals from east of Ruscombe to east of Iver using Track Circuit Block with Axle Counters.

Hope some of you find that useful - feel free to ask for any more detail or clarification.

Thanks II.

Changes to Iver Goods Loop are interesting ^ is the reason to make provision for Crossrail trains to pass each other?  If so, that could be good news for Maidenhead and Twyford passengers who are looking for faster services into London.

Yes thanks for the update II.  I'm currently working on an area a lttle bit to the East of Acton Mainline but there isn't much to see yet as its currently a sea of mud and rubble ::) :P

Yes, as far as I know the tack in the loop will eventually be extended, re-laid, bi-di signalling installed, the crossovers mid-way commisioned, and platforms at West Drayton and Iver rebuilt.  The end result will be a fifth running line from east of Langley to east of West Drayton.

So Slough PSB gets abolished over Easter

The flashing aspects for diverging routing at Maidenhead will certainly ease things in the evening for the UM when the fasts first stop Maidenhead from Padd cross to the DR

When I went through on Thursday there was a lot going on on the old oak common flyover.  With IEP maintenance going to the old North Pole depot I thought this would be less used.  Does anyone know what is happening and why?

FGW will still have some stabling facilities at Old Oak Common squeezed between the new Crossrail depot and the existing Heathrow Express depot.  I assume these will be for overnight stabling only. Don't have the signalling plan to hand at the moment but from memory there will be about 5 or 6 sidings.  The flyover can also be used by Heathrow Express to access its depot to/from Paddington Platforms 5 and 6 via Line 1 or 2 to Ladbroke Grove and avoid conflict with the Relief Lines.

Yes, the second track over the Engine & Carriage Line (a.k.a. Old Oak Common Flyover) is being reinstated.  More details are available here:  http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab656259048fb93837ecc0ecbcf0c557.r23.cf3.rackcdn.com/assets/library/document/0/original/0025_r_w2canalway1.pdf (http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab656259048fb93837ecc0ecbcf0c557.r23.cf3.rackcdn.com/assets/library/document/0/original/0025_r_w2canalway1.pdf)

Are you sure that document is not out of date II as none of the signalling plans I have seen and are using show a second track over the flyover?  The Crossrail depot access lines (two) drop down from flyover level behind the flyover on the Up side to formation level outside the Sainsbury superstore site.

Could well be out of date SandTEngineer - just found by a search on the Crossrail website and there's no sign of work to reinstate the track actually on the flyover yet and the layout you describe is probably more fit for purpose.  Apologies if incorrect.

From what I saw on Thursday, it certainly looks like the second track is being reinstated.  The new double track OLE suggests that. 

This post on a different forum sums up what is happening I think, and it tallies with S&TEngineers description.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=109945 (http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=109945)

Sp, no additional track over the flyover, but two additional tracks leading up to it and then down the other side on the north side of the running lines.

Ah I see now - that makes sense. 

Here is a drawing that shows the new layout in the OOC Flyover area (as proposed in 2013).  Blue lines are Crossrail works and Pink lines are IEP works:

(http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m92/cbrailways/whcr1001_zpsa6zbi8j0.jpg)

Any news on this Chris?

The Prime Minister and that other fellow were looking around at where the money has gone.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CAS9Y-tUMAE7uxt.jpg:large)

Source is the Prime Minister's twitter feed (https://twitter.com/Number10gov/status/577794889422884865/photo/1)

Thanks Chris. Sounds promising.

Further to my earlier post above.  Here is the complete final layout between Old Oak Common and Paddington (as planned in 2013).

(http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m92/cbrailways/Crossrail%20OOC%20to%20Paddington%20Final%20Layout_zpstj4pqjn9.jpg)

Thanks SandTEngineer. The above seems to indicate that platform 13 will go in favour of a longer platform 12. Do you know anymore details? This is a development I wasn't aware of.

Yes Platform No.13 goes and is replaced by an extended Platform No.12 which is achieved by eliminating the existing points half way down Platform No.11.  I understand that once Crossrail services start that Platform No.14 will only be used as a last resort as there wont be many (if any) timetabled surburban services left at that time  ::)

Just beaten to it, but to confirm SandTEngineer's post, the thinking being that there will be a reduction in the number of 2-6 carriage length trains after electrification and Crossrail, so if you were to combine platforms 12 and 13 you would then have full length (10-car IEP) platforms 11 and 12 and a shorter platform 14 instead of short platforms 11*, 12, 13, and 14.  Makes sense to me.

* Platform 11 is split into two sections and can be used as one long platform, but is very rarely used as such because access to and from platform 12 is then blocked.

That goods lift at the end of Platform 12 will have to go.  Let's hope the powers-that-be also alter the canopy and valancing on the existing Platform 13 to suit the new extended edge of 12.  Do II's comments infer that Chiltern will loose their one path per day into Paddington (usually Platform 14).  I understand that their route past North Acton might be compromised by HS2 ventilation shafts but are there other plans to terminate this 'Parliamentary' (?) service in the near future?

Yes, the goods lift would be removed - pretty sure it's lain unused for many years.  Chiltern's service could continue and use platform 14 as I would imagine that off-peak capacity will still be available with the extra long-distance services cancelled out by the removal of most of the local services.

The platform changes at Paddington are a component of the 'IEP capacity scheme' and were flagged up in the CP5 enhancements milestones document, the March 2014 edition includes this, noting that P14 is also extended, I believe that is right out into the throat alongside the LU tracks.


March 14 was the first time it was confirmed in the text, during CP4 they only mentioned that fairly generalised IEP capacity proposals were being reviewed.

Paul

Thanks for that extra info, Paul.

Checking out Google maps and satellite images I struggle to see how they will fit in a 240 m long platform face in that area.  There is a bit of room in the underground section for a few 10s of metres of track (in the LU tunnel convergence) but in the station throat they need to find about 100m of single-sided platform between Bishops Road and Westbourne Bridge.  I will be interested in seeing the plans.

The Plat 12 lift was disconnected in the early 1980's, it was cheaper to build the connection from 12 to 13/14 for the Red Star Parcels and Royal Mail than refurbish it and the lift on Plat 8 which as a pain of a lift to work on because the platform to subway was OOU the wooden guides below the platform were warped so the lift car could never go down to a sensible level to work on the dog's (emergency break system!!!) and the lift well was always flooded.

Cut my teeth on lift maintenance on those old Wadsworth lifts

But, oddly, that description has been removed from the December 2014 update.

The milestone reference for it, however, is the same:

And no mention of GRIP 4 or later.

According to the most current Signalling Scheme Plan (November 2012) the Platform No.14 available length will be 178m (currently 148m).  I am aware that the Signalling Scheme Plan is being updated so this may change.

Out of interest the starting signals on Platform Nos. 1 to 5 are being moved further West by approximately 25m to extend the available standage and that Platform No.12 once extended will be the longest platform in the station at 334m.