Crossrail/Elizabeth Line. From construction to operation - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[lordgoata]

So am I reading this right, and there will now no longer be any through local stopping services from Banbury/Oxford to Paddington ? ie. no more hoping on at Goring and off at Maidenhead without a change at Reading ?

[Adelante_CCT]

Yes, it would appear a change at Reading would be required during the peaks.

My guess would be a shuttle from Didcot to Reading every 15/20/30? minutes. Depending on the timetabling of the crossrail services this could involve a cross platform interchange 14/15 or some non-joined up thinking by having to crossover from 12/13 - 14/15.

Unless they manage to find some space on the mains to run half hourly Didcot to Reading all stations followed by fast to Paddington?

[didcotdean]

... and say for someone starting back at Radley therefore a current non-change journey to Maidenhead would therefore likely require two.

[ChrisB]

Strewth, I hope not! Yhat'd be 3 from Banbury to stations Maidenhead & east thereof!!!

[Adelante_CCT]

Unless they have figured a way of having the odd fast from Didcot or further afield to stop at Twyford or Maidenhead then yes, two changes for such a journey (be quicker to row down the Thames)

[Adelante_CCT]

Strewth, I hope not! Yhat'd be 3 from Banbury to stations Maidenhead & east thereof!!!

No, just the two changes at Oxford & Reading

[paul7575]

Unless they manage to find some space on the mains to run half hourly Didcot to Reading all stations followed by fast to Paddington?

The original TfL^» (Transport for London - about) paper said exactly that, that 5 trains over the peak period (maybe 2 per hour ish) would have to be replaced by services that run on the mains:

Great Western Franchise services to Maidenhead, Twyford, Reading and Thames Valley stations will continue to be provided during the Peak period by other trains which operate over the main lines between Paddington and Maidenhead.
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/16-elizabeth-line.pdf

Down direction described but I'd assume both peak flow directions would get the same treatment.  So an alternative view is that the service from minor stations Didcot to Reading could be improved for people heading all the way to Paddington.

Paul

[stuving]

Unless they manage to find some space on the mains to run half hourly Didcot to Reading all stations followed by fast to Paddington?

The original TfL^» (Transport for London - about) paper said exactly that, that 5 trains over the peak period (maybe 2 per hour ish) would have to be replaced by services that run on the mains:

Great Western Franchise services to Maidenhead, Twyford, Reading and Thames Valley stations will continue to be provided during the Peak period by other trains which operate over the main lines between Paddington and Maidenhead.
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/16-elizabeth-line.pdf

Down direction described but I'd assume both peak flow directions would get the same treatment.  So an alternative view is that the service from minor stations Didcot to Reading could be improved for people heading all the way to Paddington.

Paul

I don't think it reads that way. Surely the trains which continue to provide this service are the ones that already run: a combination of long-distance trains stopping on the main lines, variations of the Oxford fast trains that stop off-peak at Slough only, the Henley through trains, etc.

However, once the full IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) timetable is running, that uses more paths on the Main Lines than now, so the number of these semi-fast trains (as opposed to the limited stop ones on the Reliefs) can only go down.

Evening peak trains are a bigger problem, as they have to cross the Up Main rather than the Down Relief. The high line speed means each conflicting move across it takes three or four paths out of use, which is why NR^» (Network Rail - home page) really want to get rid of all those cross-over trains. But I suspect a few could always be sneaked in in the morning peak, before the long-distance Up service has built up to its full rate.

[paul7575]

Evening peak trains are a bigger problem, as they have to cross the Up Main rather than the Down Relief. The high line speed means each conflicting move across it takes three or four paths out of use, which is why NR^» (Network Rail - home page) really want to get rid of all those cross-over trains. But I suspect a few could always be sneaked in in the morning peak, before the long-distance Up service has built up to its full rate.

An evening peak "main to relief" move could of course be done entirely differently, i.e. west of Reading by using the Festival line underpass.  I've always assumed that provided for more flexibility than just its obvious use by XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)).

Paul

[Adelante_CCT]

Absolutely Paul, and something that I would hope will occur in the future.

Heading eastbound it could be possible to use Platforms 12-14 and run down relief to Kennet Bridge junction before crossing to the main, minimising the impact of crossing over further east. This manoeuvre could also be done simultaneously as a crossrail arrives Platforms 13-15.

[lordgoata]

Yes, it would appear a change at Reading would be required during the peaks.

My guess would be a shuttle from Didcot to Reading every 15/20/30? minutes. Depending on the timetabling of the crossrail services this could involve a cross platform interchange 14/15 or some non-joined up thinking by having to crossover from 12/13 - 14/15.

Unless they manage to find some space on the mains to run half hourly Didcot to Reading all stations followed by fast to Paddington?

Just sodding wonderful. Not enough time to do anything on either leg of the journey, and freeze to bloody death at Reading every day during winter. And I'm sure I'll have to pay more for the privilege. Maybe I need to take a leaf out of BNM's book and learn to drive after all these years.

[stuving]

I think we need to be careful about assuming what will happen once Crossrail starts. The timetable should be coming together now, but I imagine in this case it still exists in a number of alternative forms, all with big disadvantages.

And what, exactly, does that Crossrail statement (about their 4 tph to Reading replacing all four of the original residual GW^▸ (Great Western) trains) mean? In the sense of why is it their business? The Relief Lines as far as Slough are not at all full, and the Route Study talks about adding services due to East-West Rail and WRAtH^▸ (Western Rail Access to Heathrow) (though they are possibly the same ones).

What Crossrail does is to meet the SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment) requirement, so GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) don't need to any more. But we've never seen a post-2019 SLC, and can only guess what it might contain. Cross-Reading services might be part of it, who knows?

And then there's the effect of adding 4 tph of long trains needing to terminate at Reading. As the Route Study points out, there isn't enough room for them, the XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) terminators, west-of Reading stoppers, and through trains all at once. So if you can't join Crossrail to another service to the west, what else do you join up into through services?

In any case, for a few years there will be a succession of interim solutions. The service planned for post-everything (Crossrail, electrification, IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.), East-West, etc.) has to wait for wires to Oxford at the least. And there will be more everything too, with WRAtH, and perhaps a rebuilt Oxford station.

Here's a thought: maybe the stoppers coming in from Didcot/Oxford will have to run on via Twyford and Maidenhead just to find a platform for a reasonably long stop.  As the bay at Slough isn't being built any more, the first available option is drop the passengers at Slough and reclaim the old oil terminal siding to wait in. That would in effect be a WRAtH service turning short, where that will meet the main line, until it gets built.

[stuving]

...
What Crossrail does is to meet the SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment) requirement, so GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) don't need to any more. But we've never seen a post-2019 SLC, and can only guess what it might contain. Cross-Reading services might be part of it, who knows?

And then there's the effect of adding 4 tph of long trains needing to terminate at Reading. As the Route Study points out, there isn't enough room for them, the XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) terminators, west-of Reading stoppers, and through trains all at once. So if you can't join Crossrail to another service to the west, what else do you join up into through services?
...

That was me getting a bit ahead of where we really are. What's been announced is 4 tph Crossrail only in the peaks. So in that case there's still 2 tph "residuals" the rest of the day, though they don't replace any existing train exactly (stopping Twyford, Maidenhead, Slough, Hayes & Harlington, and Ealing Broadway).

Crossrail's published service pattern (March 2016) says it excludes "fast services on the Main Line through Reading". So any other peak-only services at Twyford and Maidenhead would have to stop on the Main Lines (most don't now). Or else not; that list is headed "minimum indicative services to central London per hour", so maybe these peak-only semi-fast ones are too irregular to count.

So the initial changes to fit round Crossrail may be "do-minimum" - especially if the fuller recasting of the service pattern comes with the new franchise.

[IndustryInsider]

Whatever happens, there are bound to be a few losers in amongst many winners.  No prizes for guessing which the media (and a few of the posters on here) will focus on.

[grahame]

Whatever happens, there are bound to be a few losers in amongst many winners.  No prizes for guessing which the media (and a few of the posters on here) will focus on.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the one in a hundred who's journeys are seriously degraded.   I love the "Japanese train for one school girl" story and it would be wonderful if such could be a general approach. However, there could have been another side to this story if a stop at Kami-Shirataki precluded a stop at Oka-no-ue-no-atarashī-tsūkin-machi.