New GWR Electrostars - so so ....

[whole diary]

[Rhydgaled]

But the class 345's are for Crossrail - GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) won't be operating them and they also won't get any further west than Reading, so they are probably perfectly fit for purpose as a high capacity outer-suburban commuter train rather than the 387's which are intended for longer distance services, hence the different interior arrangements.

No toilets, outer-suburban?  In my opinion, having no toilets (and/or metro-sliding doors, like the class 150 and class 376) instantly classifies a train as strictly inner-suburban. It is the 387s (plug doors, but wide ones away from the vehicle ends, and toilets) that are outer-suburban in my view (not been on one myself though, so the seating might not be up to the standards I would consider suitable for outer-suburban work).

[ChrisB]

The seating is inner suburban too, with lots of standing space. Have a google for pics on the web!

[chrisr_75]

But the class 345's are for Crossrail - GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) won't be operating them and they also won't get any further west than Reading, so they are probably perfectly fit for purpose as a high capacity outer-suburban commuter train rather than the 387's which are intended for longer distance services, hence the different interior arrangements.

No toilets, outer-suburban?  In my opinion, having no toilets (and/or metro-sliding doors, like the class 150 and class 376) instantly classifies a train as strictly inner-suburban. It is the 387s (plug doors, but wide ones away from the vehicle ends, and toilets) that are outer-suburban in my view (not been on one myself though, so the seating might not be up to the standards I would consider suitable for outer-suburban work).

I was making a comparison to the Metropolitan & District lines S-Stock which have no toilets (and never have had in my memory) and also have a lot of longitudinal seating - they work perfectly fine for journey times which are similar to central London to Reading on Crossrail (45-60 minutes, I suspect journeys longer than this on will be unusual). Crossrail should be viewed as something akin to the Metropolitan and District lines in terms of shifting as many people as possible in a quick & efficient manner - lots of doors and circulation space are required to achieve this. I fully appreciate some users have a greater need for certain facilities but in my view CrossRail is more of a 'metro' type service rather than a traditional heavy rail service, so it seems logical that facilities are similar to other routes such as the Metropolitan line.

The 387's will (maybe one day...!) be used for longer journeys to Oxford and Bedwyn, so I agree those need a few more creature comforts in terms of toilets and space to allow people to work or whatever on their journey.

[ChrisB]

I would agree that the precedent has been set on the Met tube line, with similar end-to-end journey times (Aldwych-Amersham/Chesham) - and I suspect they were designed prior to being extended all the way to Reading either.

[Rhydgaled]

CrossRail is more of a 'metro' type service rather than a traditional heavy rail service

I agree, Crossrail is (or rather will be) a metro-type service, certainly in the tunneled central section. The Crossrail rolling stock has been designed for that and is thus metro-type stock.

However, if I read your earlier post correctly, you were calling the Crossrail stock outer-suburban (not inner-suburban or metro, which is what they are).

But the class 345's [snip] are probably perfectly fit for purpose as a high capacity outer-suburban commuter train

[Adelante_CCT]

... on the Met tube line, with similar end-to-end journey times (Aldwych-Amersham/Chesham)

The people headed to Aldwych should be so lucky. Perhaps they could try Aldgate instead 

[chrisr_75]

CrossRail is more of a 'metro' type service rather than a traditional heavy rail service

I agree, Crossrail is (or rather will be) a metro-type service, certainly in the tunneled central section. The Crossrail rolling stock has been designed for that and is thus metro-type stock.

However, if I read your earlier post correctly, you were calling the Crossrail stock outer-suburban (not inner-suburban or metro, which is what they are).

But the class 345's [snip] are probably perfectly fit for purpose as a high capacity outer-suburban commuter train

My emphasis (although admittedly not clearly indicated in my post!) was on the high capacity bit - outer suburban is what they are in terms of the geographic area served, but high capacity appears to have been the primary design consideration for the rolling stock, one assumes driven primarily by the requirements for the central London section. Agree with ChrisB that they were probably specced up before the Reading extension which must add a further 10-15 mins to the journey time beyond Maidenhead?

I guess this is a new type of rail service for the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) - traditionally we've seen inner and outer suburban services all stop at a central(ish) terminus, from where bus and tube take the load, whereas CrossRail obviously goes straight through the middle. Perhaps the best comparison is really with the RER in Paris - an express metro?

[didcotdean]

TfL^» (Transport for London - about) now produce a 'Toilet Map' although many of the facilities mentioned there, particularly at main line stations are not under TfL management.