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.
 tomorrow - ACoRP board nominations close
29/10/2018 - Avocet line AGM
30/10/2018 - Minehaed Rail Link Group
31/10/2018 - CCIF Applications close
06/11/2018 - Talk Oxford / 800 intro
10/11/2018 - RailFuture National Conference
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail News GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4 Chat on off
October 21, 2018, 09:34:59 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
[117] Weymouth Harbour railway line - merged topic, ongoing discussi...
[109] IETs into passenger service from 16 Oct 2017 and subsequent pe...
[96] Where was Lee?
[79] Tram Surfer Awarded 485000 Damages
[66] Where have I travelled by public transport - last six moths
[8] London to Reading, London to Heathrow, service patterns under ...
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 176
  Print  
Author Topic: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion  (Read 706505 times)
RailCornwall
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 442


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: July 25, 2009, 09:35:39 pm »

Regarding Crossrail, will there be an interchange where Thameslink and Crossrail meet?

Yes at Farringdon ... details from londonconnections.blogspot.com
Logged
Btline
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4782



View Profile
« Reply #61 on: July 25, 2009, 11:08:31 pm »

They should meet at St Pancras International - poor choice of route!

I would say that the LU is far better than the Paris Metro. The PM had no announcements or screen on the trains. It was also far dirtier and full of "beggars". (the annoying type) Signage was far worse at all stations, esp at Chatelet les Halles - the biggest interchange in the world.
Logged
RailCornwall
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 442


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: July 25, 2009, 11:21:38 pm »

St P would be virtually impossible how would you get a mainline railway at a reasonable level below ground to connect there? It's a rabbit warren underground as it is. It'd defeat the object of a Central line as well.
Logged
Btline
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4782



View Profile
« Reply #63 on: July 25, 2009, 11:23:42 pm »

St P would be virtually impossible how would you get a mainline railway at a reasonable level below ground to connect there? It's a rabbit warren underground as it is. It'd defeat the object of a Central line as well.

I suppose it is quite "busy" there. But it seems mad to bypass the biggest interchange in London just to keep a straight route.
Logged
devon_metro
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5174



View Profile
« Reply #64 on: July 25, 2009, 11:25:25 pm »

St P would be virtually impossible how would you get a mainline railway at a reasonable level below ground to connect there? It's a rabbit warren underground as it is. It'd defeat the object of a Central line as well.

I suppose it is quite "busy" there. But it seems mad to bypass the biggest interchange in London just to keep a straight route.

But its too far from the City - why anybody would want to go there, I don't know Wink Wink
Logged
RailCornwall
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 442


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: July 25, 2009, 11:32:22 pm »

One of the main aims of Crossrail is a commuter railway not a means of connecting between termini as well. It's convenient that two termini are on the route as it is. Remember also that KC/STP IS on the route of the proposed Crossrail 2 too.
Logged
Btline
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4782



View Profile
« Reply #66 on: July 25, 2009, 11:40:53 pm »

You raise a valid point D/M the Farringdon station is of course the stop for the City commuters.

Crossrail 2? With a Tory major and PM? Cheesy
Logged
Andy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 409



View Profile
« Reply #67 on: July 26, 2009, 12:19:04 am »

They should meet at St Pancras International - poor choice of route!

I would say that the LU is far better than the Paris Metro. The PM had no announcements or screen on the trains. It was also far dirtier and full of "beggars". (the annoying type) Signage was far worse at all stations, esp at Chatelet les Halles - the biggest interchange in the world.

You're right that there are plenty of beggars in the metro but in my opinion beggars are a reflection on a society rather than a metro system. There is a screen on every platform at Chatelet. The signage is as good as in London but inevitably when you are a foreigner, you need a little time to understand the system. The trains are faster, more reliable and the service more intensive than in London. They are also much cheaper. What is more, in Paris, there aren't those annoying pointless whiteboards everywhere which tell you that on such and such a line the service is "good"; "Good" is just about the most unscientific and uninformative word in the English language.
Logged
Chris from Nailsea
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 17451


I am not railway staff


View Profile Email
« Reply #68 on: July 26, 2009, 12:58:41 am »

... the Paris Metro ... was also far dirtier and full of "beggars". (the annoying type)

In my (admittedly limited) experience of train travel in Paris, the trains were clean, ran on time (and frequently) - and they were patrolled by some rather scary CRS types with crew-cuts, wearing riot overalls and guns, who caused annoying beggars, accordian players and (probably) any fare-dodgers to disappear instantly, as soon as they entered a carriage ...  Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: July 26, 2009, 02:53:21 am by chris from nailsea » Logged

William Huskisson MP was the first person to be killed by a train while crossing the tracks, in 1830.  Many more have died in the same way since then.  Don't take a chance: stop, look, listen.

"Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner."  Discuss.
Electric train
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2993


The future is 25,000 Volts a.c.


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: July 26, 2009, 08:57:37 am »

They should meet at St Pancras International - poor choice of route!

The route of the Crossrail tunnels was planned and safeguarded 20 plus years ago when St Pancras was not the station it is today.  Farringdon was seen as the interchange for cross London travel along with TCR.  To change the Crossrail tunnel routing through London would a nightmare due the amount of tunnels - tubes, swere, water, electricity, telecoms, building foundations and basements.

The more practical solution to trains to serve St Pancras would be a Heathrow via the Poplar's at Acton Main Line and then onto the NNL
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".
Btline
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4782



View Profile
« Reply #70 on: July 26, 2009, 04:02:47 pm »

PS: I thought the PM was far better than the RER! (in terms of speed, frequency)

As for me not understanding the signage because I'm British - it was the LACK of signs, their positioning (e.g. facing the wrong way fro the last sign so I missed it) and the way a signposted route just stopped.

I think the white boards in the LU are good. (no pun intended) They allow experienced users to quickly calculate their best route avoiding snarled up lines. No such thing in Paris, so instead I had to wait for ages on an RER at Chatelet les Halles wondering whether I should risk another route...
Logged
Andy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 409



View Profile
« Reply #71 on: July 26, 2009, 06:52:58 pm »

The Paris Metro is better than the RER in terms of frequency, you're quite right. As far as I understand it,  the RER is not seen as an alternative high-speed metro but a suburban network, so the frequency tends to vary in tune with the commuter flows in and out of the city centre. Frequency has been increased in recent years, though - and that has caused a few problems in terms of reliability.
 
Fair enough if you feel there is a lack of signage; it's your perception. I don't share it, that's all. Maybe you need more signage than me or maybe I'm more familiar with the station than you are and therefore insensitive to this problem.

I don't recall saying you didn't understand the signage because you're British. The station is very large, with few architectural points of reference and, as a result, it is easy to get lost or disorientated. People who are new to it, be they French from the provinces or foreigners, take time to find their bearings and are not familiar with the signage (which is overhead, but also on the walls around the edges of the station). In such circumstances, it is natural to want to check more often.


As it's possible to enter the station from several points, the "wrong" way for you was undoubtedly the "right" way for someone walking in another direction. 
Logged
onthecushions
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 602


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: July 27, 2009, 12:40:14 am »

It looks as though the suburban component has been justified by a good old fashioned "cascade" of the Thameslink 319's, of which there are 85 sets (340 cars - a saving of c0.4Bn Stlg). As these are dual voltage, they can commit trespass on the Southern lines, perhaps allowing a proper Reading - Gatwick service. Waterloo's Junipers were also built to have pantographs and transformers (look at the roof line) so might venture West eventually, so perhaps we can look forward to a single railway at Reading. Who remembers the sign on the mess room on platform 4, "Southern Region Motormen only" or the PA announcements, "This is a Southern Region train and not for public use!"?

The inclusion of Newbury and Oxford is marvellous for Reading; it will gain 3 high capacity commuter routes allowing a major shift from out of town car commuting.

The Liverpool to Manchester wiring is an odd one (and has annoyed the Yorkshiremen). It could be a political Lancastrian sop or a cute tipping of the balance towards future Trans-Pennine and Cross Country schemes. The dual voltage 319's (if there are enough) could even work on Merseyrail as single sets.

Good news,

OTC
« Last Edit: July 27, 2009, 01:41:04 pm by onthecushions » Logged
IndustryInsider
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6709


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: July 27, 2009, 11:49:53 am »

As for going to Bedwyn, it may maintain the status quo operationally but it will never get past the Treasury, as the numbers just won't stack up without it being part of a full Berks and Hants wiring scheme - unless the quarry operators around Westbury suddenly decide to fall out of love with big GM diesels and cough up for 25kv power instead. In this connection, I have to say I'm still slightly amazed Adonis got Cardiff-Swansea included, when it will have next to no benefit for ATW services.

If you have 319s and Turbos aplenty available, then it's surely cost-effective to run a 30-minute electric frequency to Newbury with a Turbo ready and waiting for a cross-platform connection for everywhere to Westbury (or even going on alternately to Frome/Warminster - I leave it to someone else better qualified to determine if you can create a workable timetable for something like this) - if you dug up a strip of the car park at Newbury and created a west-facing bay. Not ideal, as you would lose the through trains, but exchanging them for a 30-minute interval all day might be a fair swop - and electric acceleration would keep overall journey times to places west of Newbury much the same. You could even build a Parkway station for Devizes on the Andover road.

Well, we're talking about less than 14 miles to extend to Bedwyn. The route has only 11 overbridges (which, to put in context, is one less than on the short stretch from Maidenhead to Twyford), is virtually all plain double track with the exception of a loop at Hungerford, and has no significant structures to bridge save for a couple of river bridges. To retain the quite sensible operational status-quo, I am still a little surprised that if electrifying to Newbury could get past the Treasury, then the remaining section to Bedwyn couldn't.

Assuming that the grand plan also includes full B&H electrification as a logical next step (even if it is in 15-20 years time), then I would argue that Bedwyn is the logical terminus of this first stage rather than Newbury. West facing bays at Newbury with shuttles to Bedwyn and Westbury/Frome/Warminster are all very well, but even if they are in the pipeline, it's hard to see how that will be sold to those living in the area as anything other than a backwards step and missed opportunity.

ElectricTrain's comments on the decision being made due to the boundary with signalling and power supplies might well be the actual reason behind the decision.
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
grandsire
Full Member
***
Posts: 47


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: July 27, 2009, 03:08:28 pm »

I'm surprised that "on the cushions" thinks the Liverpool-Manchester scheme is odd - it seems to me to be a brilliant solution to the lack of diversionary routes for the WCML - offering alternatives for WCML Pendolinos to get to Manchester, Liverpool and Preston. Also of course allows the TPE Manchester-Glasgows to go electric. I do agree with "on the cushions" however that the scheme does give a possible jumping off point for an eventual electrification through to Leeds.
Logged
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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 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