Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here]. Register and contribute [here] - it's free.
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail News GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4 Chat on off
August 20, 2018, 01:50:13 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[185] What the Dickens?
[56] Shortage of train crews on Great Western Railway since Septemb...
[53] London to Reading, London to Heathrow, service patterns under ...
[44] Great Western Railway: on-board catering, buffets, Travelling ...
[38] IETs into passenger service from 16 Oct 2017 and subsequent pe...
[36] How wide do you define "London"?
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 55 56 [57] 58 59 ... 176
  Print  
Author Topic: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion  (Read 684855 times)
eightf48544
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4071


View Profile Email
« Reply #840 on: February 27, 2013, 10:17:00 am »

East of Reading relies on Kensal Green feeder station and Crossrail electrifying Stockley to Maidenhead 

And that's the problem we don't want Crossrail on teh GWML what we want is an electric railway.

Surely it would be better for Network rail to electrify throughout from Stockley to Swansea and not build the turnback sidings at Maidenehad but run trains that gothrough the Crossrail tunnels at Paddington to Reading.

Also we don't want 378 style coaches for our local trains which Crossrail will probably go for.
Logged
paul7755
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4457


View Profile
« Reply #841 on: February 27, 2013, 11:29:59 am »

Network Rail are to all intents electrifying from Stockley. All the on-network work is being done by Network Rail.  When documentation refers to it being 'done by Crossrail' it really just means 'paid for from the TfL/DfT Crossrail budget' rather than the DfT HLOS budget.

Paul

Logged
eightf48544
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4071


View Profile Email
« Reply #842 on: February 27, 2013, 02:27:24 pm »

It's the allocation of the money that's the problem if the elctrifcation as far as Maidenhead comes out of Crossrail's budget they will think they own it and have priority. Which would be similar to HEX and the problem that causes.
Logged
Electric train
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2944


The future is 25,000 Volts a.c.


View Profile
« Reply #843 on: February 27, 2013, 06:20:44 pm »

Network Rail are to all intents electrifying from Stockley. All the on-network work is being done by Network Rail.  When documentation refers to it being 'done by Crossrail' it really just means 'paid for from the TfL/DfT Crossrail budget' rather than the DfT HLOS budget.

Paul
That is correct, there are some works being funded by GWML electrification between Stockley and Maidenhead.

It's the allocation of the money that's the problem if the elctrifcation as far as Maidenhead comes out of Crossrail's budget they will think they own it and have priority. Which would be similar to HEX and the problem that causes.
The relationship of Crossrail and occupancy is defined by DfT who are funding it.  It has been mentioned before Crossrail is delivered under an Act of Parliament which has defined the Western terminals one of which is Maidenhead, to overturn the Act would result in reopening a public enquiry and any consequential Judicial Reviews  not to mention the cost in doing all that pale into insignificance cost of building a few turn back sidings at Maidenhead.   My personal guess is that by 2022 the time table on the GW will be re-jigged for Crossrail to run to Reading also to take account of EWrail running into Reading replacing the Reading / Oxfords
Logged

Mark Carne 26 June 2015 - "The challenges of delivering myriad improvement projects while still running a railway seven days a week were simply overwhelming".
Four Track, Now!
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3660


I know nothing. Really.


View Profile Email
« Reply #844 on: February 27, 2013, 07:16:15 pm »

I agree, ET, the traffic will go where it is needed. If a train load of Canary Wharf bankers want to travel to and from Oxford daily, then a train will do the trip. Maidenhead is as good a place to start and stop as any, but once the infrastructure is in, the TOCs will want to use it to the full.
Logged

Now, please!
eightf48544
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4071


View Profile Email
« Reply #845 on: February 27, 2013, 09:11:13 pm »

I can't see Canary Wharf bankers wanting to travel from Oxford in a 378!
Logged
Network SouthEast
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 492



View Profile
« Reply #846 on: February 28, 2013, 01:56:18 am »

I think the odds of them travelling in a 378 are pretty slim, as the Crossrail rolling stock will be a similar spec to the Thameslink stock, which will have proper 2+2 seating for starters.
Logged
IndustryInsider
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6586


View Profile
« Reply #847 on: February 28, 2013, 11:48:41 am »

I think the odds of them travelling in a 378 are pretty slim, as the Crossrail rolling stock will be a similar spec to the Thameslink stock, which will have proper 2+2 seating for starters.

Will they have 2+2 seating though?  The specification states that each Crossrail train will have 450 seats (with room for a total of 1500 passengers).  That equates to just 45 seats per carriage in a 10-car train.  Compare that with the Class 378s 38 seats per carriage with its longitudinal seating and the 60-70 seats per carriage you'd expect to find in a typical 2+2 seated 20m carriage, and that suggests to me there will be quite a lot of longitudinal seating?

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/assets/download/4962

I personally think that they will go with a mixed layout of 2+2 and longitudinal, in a similar fashion to the S8 underground stock on the Metropolitan Line, to achieve that 45 seats per carriage ratio.
Logged

To view my cab run over the new Reading Viaduct as well as a relief line cab ride at Reading just after Platforms 12-15 opened and my 'before and after' video comparison of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/1
Jonty
Full Member
***
Posts: 42


View Profile
« Reply #848 on: February 28, 2013, 01:01:45 pm »

I may be being stooped, but how does 450 seats per train equate to 1,500 passengers.

Lots of folks standing...? Shocked
Logged
paul7755
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4457


View Profile
« Reply #849 on: February 28, 2013, 01:04:01 pm »

The passenger carrying design must surely reflect the intended type of service, high capacity regional metro.

Considering Crossrail 1 to have 'four legs', people expecting to use this presumed extension to Reading are just  going to have to deal with accommodation that's designed around the needs of Shenfield (GE slows), Abbey Wood (new route but only zone 4) and Heathrow (Connect style).

I've always assumed that they aren't at all likely to design the train internals to be suitable for a Reading extension - and there isn't likely to be a subset of different stock either.

Paul
Logged
paul7755
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4457


View Profile
« Reply #850 on: February 28, 2013, 01:13:24 pm »

I may be being stooped, but how does 450 seats per train equate to 1,500 passengers.

Lots of folks standing...? Shocked

Well of course they allow for standing.  Roll Eyes  Those 378s mentioned earlier had a published capacity of 500 back when they were only 3 car trains.  That was the way they were 'sold' as an improvement over the elderly Class 313 EMUs. So in that respect they are little different to underground trains. 

The idea that capacity is equal to seat numbers is something peculiar to long distance trains.

(Incidentally, there was quite a kerfuffle when SWT reduced the seating in their inner suburban 455s to allow for more standing in the aisles and around the doors, but they still ended up with 244 seats (and 28 'perch' seats) per 4 car unit.  Standing capacity though is defined on them as 4 per sq m.) 

Edited for more exact seat numbers

Paul 
« Last Edit: February 28, 2013, 01:44:19 pm by paul7755 » Logged
eightf48544
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4071


View Profile Email
« Reply #851 on: February 28, 2013, 01:24:34 pm »

Considering Crossrail 1 to have 'four legs', people expecting to use this presumed extension to Reading are just  going to have to deal with accommodation that's designed around the needs of Shenfield (GE slows), Abbey Wood (new route but only zone 4) and Heathrow (Connect style).

I've always assumed that they aren't at all likely to design the train internals to be suitable for a Reading extension - and there isn't likely to be a subset of different stock either.

Paul

Another reason why Crossrail doesn't work West of Paddington even if only to Maidenhead because it's 24m 19ch miles out.

Although Shenfield is 20m 16ch there have always been a fasts and semi running on the mainline which will presumably still run and interchange with Crossrail at Stratford.

Plus you've got to admit the Current Heathrow Connect 360/2s have got style so the Crossrail stock won't be an improvement.
Logged
Four Track, Now!
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3660


I know nothing. Really.


View Profile Email
« Reply #852 on: February 28, 2013, 05:15:12 pm »

Out here in the sticks, the first bit of preparation for electrification is under way. The footbridge over the railway at Stapleton Road station - between Bristol Temple Meads and Bristol Parkway - is having extra bits added to it. This should render it more difficult for an accidental connection between 25KV AC OHLE and Mk 1 pedestrian.
Logged

Now, please!
eightf48544
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4071


View Profile Email
« Reply #853 on: March 01, 2013, 11:01:18 am »

Getting old and not necessarily wiser I'd back the stupidity of Mk 1 pedestrian against the ingenuity of the OHLE engineer.
Logged
IndustryInsider
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6586


View Profile
« Reply #854 on: July 18, 2013, 09:30:49 pm »

Will these be the electric units that end up working the LTV routes from Paddington to Oxford and Newbury after a short stint on the Thameslink route.  And will that 'extended order' end up providing the trains that end up working the East-West Rail route after that has been electrified?

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/southern-selects-bombardier-to-supply-trains-for-thameslink-cascade.html
Logged

To view my cab run over the new Reading Viaduct as well as a relief line cab ride at Reading just after Platforms 12-15 opened and my 'before and after' video comparison of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/1
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 ... 55 56 [57] 58 59 ... 176
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants