Elizabeth Line / Crossrail Updates.

[West Junction]

Maidenhead 30/09

 

Platform extension work.

DR London end.

All platforms country end (UM not shown, short extension to match length of DM).

[St. Simon]

Hi,

 

Just to confuse things a little, the Platform Extensions are actually to accommodate 12-Car Class 387s (or at least as much of one as they can) on top of the extensions that are for Crossrail!

 

Simon

[West Junction]

Finally, and to complete some views of the various works, completed and ongoing, between Maidenhead & Hayes, Slough.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Many thanks to West Junction for all those photos.

[Jonboy]

https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/03/fifth-crossrail-worker-dies-sleep-just-six-months-10841276/

 

 

[TomJ]

Without proper medical details that could be anything or nothing to do with Crossrail. One needs to know how many worked on the project and what the death rate was in a matched cohort of other construction workers. 

 

One person was directly killed during construction, and although one to many, this is actually an amazingly low figure for a project of this scale.  For comparison there have been well over 1000 building the World Cup venues in Qatar 

[The Stationmaster]

On 30/09/2019 at 21:39, Gwiwer said:

Southern make frequent use of 313s on journeys in excess of an hour (Brighton - Portsmouth diagrammed, Brighton - Southampton not diagrammed but happens) without toilets, without toilets at many of the intermediate stations and along the notorious "Costa geriatrica" well-populated by older folk and whose needs cannot always be reliably accommodated in such circumstances.  They have long since given up making apologies for the "lack of toilets" meaning this has become a grudgingly accepted norm.  The 313s have long worked Moorgate - Letchworth which is over an hour and without toilets; BR and its successors have never offered apologies for that and again most intermediate stations have no facilities either.

 

SWR, as the Hon. Stationmaster might be aware, also offer no toilet facilities on many runs well above an hour.  Waterloo - Guildford stoppers (for which faster trains are available with toilets if travelling only between those two points but not, by and large, intermediately), Waterloo Weybridge via Hounslow stoppers and now on what was once regarded as a main line from Waterloo to Reading where class 455 stock is rostered for numerous daily trips despite vociferous protests among the commuters of Bracknell, Wokingham and the like.  It also does no favours and gives a very poor impression when the Waterloo - Windsor trains, which carry very significant tourist traffic, are formed of 455 or 707 stock as they now usually are and again offer no toilets.  

 

The 345s are inner suburban stock.  They are unsuited to longer trips.  There has to be a degree of compromise when Reading is one end of a line and Shenfield the other.  Many different markets are served including "contra-flow" commuting towards Reading and out of London to Stratford.  I feel the TfL S8 stock has it right on the Metropolitan Line.  A mix of side-facing and grouped seats for a compromise in capacity against the desire for traditional front-or-back facing seats for longer journeys.  Those units also make trips of above an hour (Chesham - Aldgate being the longest) and yet again there are no toilets at some stations.  The underground has very seldom had toilet-fitted stock yet most lines have running times well above an hour end to end.  Unlike radial commuter routes from the major London termini however where most traffic is to and from the major terminus most Underground journeys are made to or from central London on cross-town lines.  The "Met" just quoted is an honourable exception to that.  

 

Honestly how hard would it have been to fit a small number of grouped seats on the 345s?  That other cross-London operation, Thameslink, has entirely face-to-back seating after all, and is even retro-fitting tables after considerable pressure from commuter groups.  

 

The 345s remain in my opinion among the worst - if not the worst - piece of interior train design of the current generation and are utterly unsuited to purpose.

Of course when essential difference on the GWML part of. Crossrail is the trains going backwards in terms of passenger facilities which is a rather different situation compared with some other routes.  Local services between Paddington and Reading have had y toilets available for passenger use for the past 50 years - albeit not for all passengers in the early days of the Pressed Steel units before they were given gangways.  The trains had luggage racks for many years prior to that and of course still have them for smaller items which might otherwise consume seating space.  The most recent trains even have power sockets and USB charging sockets at many seats (as do refurbished 16X of course) and of course the newest trains have universal fitting of some sort of table on which to place your laptop (their most common use it appears) or do your crossword etc.  and they have very good draught exclusion at the doors.  

 

We have not had longitudinal - sideways facing  - seats for over 60 years in this part of the world and will the 345s come with the same health warning as tv programmes about 'flickering images' as you face the lineside whizzing past at considerable speed - don't be daft, the designers didn't even think of the health implications.  As you say the 345s are inner suburban stock and they're going to come as one heck of a shock to the system of those passengers I've watched at Twyford over this past week last week as they joined an IET fir a trip to Paddington.  

 

TfL propaganda about Crossrail has been published in our local 'paper this week as a news story - to be greeted in the same article by the views of representatives of local rail users' groups, and they are not complimentary views.  It will be even worse once travellers are lumbered with the things come December with not only a less comfortable and habitable train but slower journey times in a number of instances,  I don't doubt that Mrs May - among other local MPs - will be getting the sort of postbag which will make her wish she was back trying to get the Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament.   Crossrail is not going to go down well and it will be even worse when those using the remaining GWR off peak services find they've got an extra distance to walk at Paddington.  Oh and of course there will be a fare increase in January - justified by what, a poorer quality of train service?

[billbedford]

Spoken like a true Englishman, for whom any change is a change for the worse.

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, billbedford said:

Spoken like a true Englishman, for whom any change is a change for the worse.

Maybe so - but in this case the appearance of. Crossrail trains west of Hayes in December actually will be a significant change for the worse.  Poorer quality, slower, less comfortable, trains with fewer onboard amenities - including lacking the rather basic feature of toilets in direct contravention of ATOC guidelines and extended journey times.  For example extending the duration of a 10 mile journey which currently takes 29 minutes to a duration of 43 minutes, i.e. not very far short of a 50% increase in journey time, hardly strikes me as 'progress' let alone coming as 'a welcome improvement'.

 

If it was change for the better I certainly wouldn't be shouting the odds against these abysmal trains and the halfwits who seem incapable of planning a joined-up  timetable to offer connections which are as good as, if not better than, what exists today.  But in fact they are largely achieving exactly the opposite - distinct reduction in the quality of somebody's journey in exchange for making it take longer.  if that isn't a change for the worse I seriously ask you what is?   Oh, and while it doesn't affect me, from early January many people will be paying an extra 2.8% for a poorer, often slower, journey experience.  

[phil-b259]

11 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Of course when essential difference on the GWML part of. Crossrail is the trains going backwards in terms of passenger facilities which is a rather different situation compared with some other routes.  Local services between Paddington and Reading have had y toilets available for passenger use for the past 50 years - albeit not for all passengers in the early days of the Pressed Steel units before they were given gangways. 

 

Not so!

 

The Mk1 slam door units working along the coastway DID have toilets - as DID the 377 electrostars that Connex ordered in the dying days of their franchise for the route.

 

It was the DfT who effectively ordered they be replaced with 313s so certain London suburban services could be strengthened (2x3 car units + 1x4 car unit = 10 car trains).

 

This was after promising the 456s would migrate to SWT to make up 10 car trains there - but the DfT being unwilling to spend money on new trains and preferring to recycle older units that had already been dumped by other operators.

 

Thus Coastway passengers HAVE already been through this downgrade so quit making out like Thames Valley users are the first bunch to be shafted by politicians....

Edited October 5, 2019 by phil-b259

[Zomboid]

The coastway downgrade wouldn't have been accompanied by an increase in the number of destinations served, it was just a like for like deterioration.

[royaloak]

Does anyone know which 345 was delivered by 37611 last Monday night 30 September on 5Q73 1518 Old Dalby to Old Oak Common.

 

Thanks in advance.

[adb968008]

A train without a toilet in 2019 is a bit victorian and cheap, especially when things go pop the 2019 trend is to kidnap the passengers and hold them against their will for several hours taking an excess fare as ransom, or until they escape by self egress. Even then the train companies try to blame the passengers for that delay due to their egress.

 

Lets see how crossrail handles their first “08.30 am train stuck in a tunnel incident”. Last week TL tried not to upset the MML by dragging a faulty until from Kentish town through the TL tunnel instead, causing a 9 hour network shutdown in both directions... though thats just another day at the office for TL as it has had an extinction level event every day 7 days before and the next two after at some point too, plus engineering work this weekend means were at 11 days straight of something shutting down at least part of their operation... next to Mexico, London’s Rail must be the highest offender of KnR operations.

 

 

Edited October 6, 2019 by adb968008

[DY444]

19 hours ago, billbedford said:

Spoken like a true Englishman, for whom any change is a change for the worse.

 

Perhaps instead of sweeping generalisations you could enlighten us as to how running units clearly designed to handle central London peak crush loadings out to Reading is a change for the better?  Many of those who live on the line don't think so and btw my friend, who is one of them, is Scottish.

[TomJ]

I agree it seems like a change for the worst - but Chesham to Aldgate is 1hr 15min and that route’s managed without toilets for a long time

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, TomJ said:

I agree it seems like a change for the worst - but Chesham to Aldgate is 1hr 15min and that route’s managed without toilets for a long time

Did they ever have toilets on the trains (apart from the Pullman cars)?

 

Now Phil for your information it is not just about toilets - it's about lots of other things including journey time which will in some cases take longer than they did in the 1960s and certainly in one case I have looked at so far not only longer than it did in the 1950s steam age but longer than it did in the 1920s.  And how many Coastway commuters are paying very little short of £4,000 per annum (£3.928 if we're being pedantic) for their season tickets?  Passengers have had several lots of 'extra' percentages of fare increase thrown at them in the Thames Valley over the past year or two because of improvements - and there have been improvements, extra seats, electrification, and trains with better onboard facilities but in January there will be a 2.8% increase for something which for many passengers will be worse than the current offer.

 

Last week I travelled daily on our 09.09 departure up the branch, basically rush hour 'shoulder' but still very busy with passengers for London - current journey time 59 minutes starting out on a Class 166 then a Class 387 to Paddington (although at the moment it is actually an IET in the 387 working).  Journey time from December - 66 minutes; the Journey time 50 years ago was slightly better than that!  It's no wonder the local rail user groups are far from happy because basically at the moment the arrival of Crossrail is delivering nothing except an overall deterioration for many passengers and for many of them it will; deliver nothing better when it finally is able to use its currently incomplete central tunnel section.

[caradoc]

17 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

The Mk1 slam door units working along the coastway DID have toilets - as DID the 377 electrostars that Connex ordered in the dying days of their franchise for the route.

 

It was the DfT who effectively ordered they be replaced with 313s so certain London suburban services could be strengthened (2x3 car units + 1x4 car unit = 10 car trains). 

 

I agree that replacing trains fitted with toilets by those without (even if they are newer) is a retrograde step, whether in well-heeled and leafy Berkshire or the geriatrics' heartland of the South Coast. And I am surprised that any trains, other than those intended purely for short-distance urban routes (which is what Class 345 should solely be for) are nowadays built without toilets.

 

I am fortunate that on my local railway, the Neilston branch, once the final few Class 314 sets are retired, all trains will have toilets, which was not (regularly) the case in the past, certainly since electrification in the 60s, and quite probably before then too. In fact, once the 314s are gone, AFAIK Scotrail's entire train fleet will be toilet fitted (which, particularly around Glasgow on Friday and Saturday nights, is just as well). 

 

 

[phil-b259]

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

Now Phil for your information it is not just about toilets - it's about lots of other things including journey time which will in some cases take longer than they did in the 1960s and certainly in one case I have looked at so far not only longer than it did in the 1950s steam age but longer than it did in the 1920s.  And how many Coastway commuters are paying very little short of £4,000 per annum (£3.928 if we're being pedantic) for their season tickets?  Passengers have had several lots of 'extra' percentages of fare increase thrown at them in the Thames Valley over the past year or two because of improvements - and there have been improvements, extra seats, electrification, and trains with better onboard facilities but in January there will be a 2.8% increase for something which for many passengers will be worse than the current offer.

 

 

I focused on toilets as that is an easy target - but Coastway travellers have also seen high fare rises in the past - indeed with HM Treasury's demand that passengers contribute ever more each year how could it be otherwise?

 

Like GWR users these these rises on the Coastway network were initially described as helping investment in new trains (including the Elctrostar trains which were subsequently transferred away) deep cleans of stations etc and other matters which suffered under Connex's tenure.

 

Fast forward several years and despite fares continuing to increase Coastway customers are still being palmed off with unreliable, dated toilet less trains!

 

Or, moving further afield - I don't recall Northern train passengers getting fare freezes because Governments let their franchises on a 'no growth' basis or refused to consider replacing the Pacer fleet till disability regs forced their hand.

 

Thus while I certainly agree with your observations, it is important not to pretend that Thames Valley users are being singled out for special treatment come December - just because its a wealthy bit of the country shouldn't mean they get special treatment when it comes to being outraged at the political deals which have been done over other areas that have been shafted by Governments in the past.

 

In reality the choice is quite stark - had Crossrail been a Network rail / DfT led project like Thameslink (and thus where the needs of Thames Valley users would have carried more weight) then its pretty certain that George Osborne  would have pulled the plug in 2008 in the name of Austerity. Vesting the majority interest in Crossrail with TfL ensured this did not happen - but equally it has left the project dominated by TfL's urban metro ethos that disadvantages Thames Valley users.

 

This was entirely foreseeable - and reflects badly on the DfT for not standing up for current GWR users. While it may not have been able to get toilets on board - it could have financed them at stations plus bung TfL some extra money to specifically kit the trains out with a more compromise seating layout like the S8 Metropolitan line trains have.*

 

Finally it should be remembered that in spite of the above, it was still within the power of the DfT to have curtailed Crossrail at Maidenhead - but as is usual with the DfT they say an opportunity to dump a service obligation (but no funding to provide it) on someone else. If Thames Valley residents are that aggrieved maybe they should consider who they vote for at the next General election!

 

 

* Although not related to Crossrail, its worth noting that originally the new Bombardier trains ordered by tfL for West Anglia services would have a different internal seating configuration to the units ordered for the GOBLIN / Watford DC routes. However the fact that money is now extremely tight following the DfTs callous decision to not provide a single penny towards day to day operations (a situation unique across the developed world I add) then its likely all units will come out with the same 'minimal seating' layout to cut costs and thus prompt similar complaints from West Anglia users.

 

Edited October 6, 2019 by phil-b259

[Gwiwer]

I know of no Metropolitan Railway stock other than the Pullmans which had toilets.  One reason being that the only available method for waste disposal until relatively recently was track-discharge.  You don't want that in tunnels.  Staff locked the Pullman toilets (presumably after checking them for occupancy first) at Finchley Road on City-bound workings and vice versa.  

 

We do now have retention-tank systems and as that is the required standard for all new trains it should have been possible to equip the 345s with similar toilets to the 700s. Both operate (or will operate) cross-London routes with tunnel sections and with end-to-end journey times well above an hour.  The forthcoming SWR class 701 units are (we are assured) to be fitted with toilets as SWR "is committed to having a toilet on every train" according to their earlier franchise-winning blurb.  They also committed to numerous timetable and other rolling stock changes most of which have been cast aside but hey ...... 

 

The political farce which saw suburban units shunted off to the Sussex coast in exchange for almost-new Electrostars would be the stuff of railway pantomimes.  If one observes the 10-car formations those 377/3 units are now used on creeping around the likes of Gipsy Hill or Belmont almost empty most of the day then it beggars belief that they were "needed" to strengthen the Southern suburban services.  Perhaps for a single trip in each peak.  But those were already 8-car so the increase has been modest.  The loss in Sussex is much more noticeable.  As traffic has grown (a UK-wide trend) so local trains have shrunk from 4-car to 3-car and are often woefully overloaded.  This results in late running caused by excess dwell time as users struggle to alight or board through the crowds.  They have around the same number of seats as a 377/3 but cannot be coupled in pairs during Coastway operation which the 377/3s could.  Therefore not only are they the oldest mainland stock still running but they are unfit for purpose on grounds of inadequate accommodation and no toilet provision.  

 

One difference between the London Underground Metropolitan Line and the Southern Coastway routes is that toilets are available at most stations on the former but only at a few major ones on the latter.  Thus one has no opportunity for last-minute relief should it be required and is faced with the choice of grin-and-bear-it or making other arrangements.  

 

The 345s compare poorly against the unloved 700s.  Seating, lack of toilets, absence of tables, lack of first class .....  

 

We are living in times when decisions are made by people who possibly never use a train for the "benefit" of those who have the "misfortune" to lack private transport of the chauffeured variety.  The Sussex coast was blessed with no-lavatory 2Nol units at electrification but they were quickly considered inadequate and replaced with the Bi-lavatory (i.e. two per two-car unit) 2Bil units fairly swiftly.  I would dearly love to insist that some of the current decision-makers commute by train on their creations be they 313s, 345, 700s or even the much-trumpeted 800-series trains.  I would like to think such a move would bring about swift changes in certain areas not least those affecting our nether regions in various ways.  

[billbedford]

10 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

Perhaps instead of sweeping generalisations you could enlighten us as to how running units clearly designed to handle central London peak crush loadings out to Reading is a change for the better?  Many of those who live on the line don't think so and btw my friend, who is one of them, is Scottish.

 

AIUI the Crossrail services will, when the core opens, from Shenfield to Paddington and Reading to Abbey Wood giving commuters, for the first time, the opportunity to travel from either end of the line to, just about, anywhere in Central London. Also, if the reports of overcrowding on the GW mainline trains at the peaks are anything to go by, the Reading service needs the extra capacity of the 345s, if not exactly now, then in the near future.

 

As for the trains themselves, personally, I would much prefer to travel on a 345, 378 or 710 with longitudinal seats than the 313, 315 or 317 they replaced.

[62613]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

I focused on toilets as that is an easy target - but Coastway travellers have also seen high fare rises in the past - indeed with HM Treasury's demand that passengers contribute ever more each year how could it be otherwise?

 

Like GWR users these these rises on the Coastway network were initially described as helping investment in new trains (including the Elctrostar trains which were subsequently transferred away) deep cleans of stations etc and other matters which suffered under Connex's tenure.

 

Fast forward several years and despite fares continuing to increase Coastway customers are still being palmed off with unreliable, dated toilet less trains!

 

Or, moving further afield - I don't recall Northern train passengers getting fare freezes because Governments let their franchises on a 'no growth' basis or refused to consider replacing the Pacer fleet till disability regs forced their hand.

 

Thus while I certainly agree with your observations, it is important not to pretend that Thames Valley users are being singled out for special treatment come December - just because its a wealthy bit of the country shouldn't mean they get special treatment when it comes to being outraged at the political deals which have been done over other areas that have been shafted by Governments in the past.

 

In reality the choice is quite stark - had Crossrail been a Network rail / DfT led project like Thameslink (and thus where the needs of Thames Valley users would have carried more weight) then its pretty certain that George Osborne  would have pulled the plug in 2008 in the name of Austerity. Vesting the majority interest in Crossrail with TfL ensured this did not happen - but equally it has left the project dominated by TfL's urban metro ethos that disadvantages Thames Valley users.

 

This was entirely foreseeable - and reflects badly on the DfT for not standing up for current GWR users. While it may not have been able to get toilets on board - it could have financed them at stations plus bung TfL some extra money to specifically kit the trains out with a more compromise seating layout like the S8 Metropolitan line trains have.*

 

Finally it should be remembered that in spite of the above, it was still within the power of the DfT to have curtailed Crossrail at Maidenhead - but as is usual with the DfT they say an opportunity to dump a service obligation (but no funding to provide it) on someone else. If Thames Valley residents are that aggrieved maybe they should consider who they vote for at the next General election!

 

 

* Although not related to Crossrail, its worth noting that originally the new Bombardier trains ordered by tfL for West Anglia services would have a different internal seating configuration to the units ordered for the GOBLIN / Watford DC routes. However the fact that money is now extremely tight following the DfTs callous decision to not provide a single penny towards day to day operations (a situation unique across the developed world I add) then its likely all units will come out with the same 'minimal seating' layout to cut costs and thus prompt similar complaints from West Anglia users.

 

 

However despite

 

Don't think Cokehead George could cancel anything in 2008: he was still in opposition. But I know what you mean.

 

[Siberian Snooper]

2 hours ago, billbedford said:

 

AIUI the Crossrail services will, when the core opens, from Shenfield to Paddington and Reading to Abbey Wood giving commuters, for the first time, the opportunity to travel from either end of the line to, just about, anywhere in Central London. Also, if the reports of overcrowding on the GW mainline trains at the peaks are anything to go by, the Reading service needs the extra capacity of the 345s, if not exactly now, then in the near future.

 

As for the trains themselves, personally, I would much prefer to travel on a 345, 378 or 710 with longitudinal seats than the 313, 315 or 317 they replaced.

 

 

Have you been through the Acton dive under in a 345 at speed,  I found it to be nauseating and I don't normally suffer from motion sickness.

 

 

[Gwiwer]

2 hours ago, billbedford said:

 

AIUI the Crossrail services will, when the core opens, from Shenfield to Paddington and Reading to Abbey Wood giving commuters, for the first time, the opportunity to travel from either end of the line to, just about, anywhere in Central London. Also, if the reports of overcrowding on the GW mainline trains at the peaks are anything to go by, the Reading service needs the extra capacity of the 345s, if not exactly now, then in the near future.

 

As for the trains themselves, personally, I would much prefer to travel on a 345, 378 or 710 with longitudinal seats than the 313, 315 or 317 they replaced.

 

Reading commuters to and from Paddington currently tend to use the GWR main-line services operated by the IETs.  Some trade-down to the semi-fast ones worked by 387s and which might be less crowded (though arriving from Didcot and, ultimately, Oxford they are often already well filled in the peak by Reading) but few would trade right down to the all-stations locals to be worked by 345s.  The journey time is too long and when they discover the standard of accommodation offered I doubt any business will be retained.  The purpose of the all-stations service is fundamentally to offer links to, from and between those lesser-used stations which have no or few other options.  While we argue over the lack of toilets and spartan seating the greater majority of users for which the 345s will (or already do) provide service will be aboard for less than a half-hour or perhaps up to 45 minutes making journeys such as Langley to Liverpool Street if working in the City.

 

I don't find much to complain about on the 317s.  The first ("BedPan") batch had the aluminium hopper ventilators which slightly restricted the glazed window apertures but the seating was and is far superior to the 313/314/315 types.  Most of those are now withdrawn.  Only Southern still operates 313s.  314s are finished.  315s are all but finished on the Shenfield stoppers but remain for now on the "Jazz" routes via Hackney Downs.  

 

I have made use of a couple of 710s and 717s and whilst I dislike the seats and configuration they are not as bad as a 345.  The only class which compares for overall discomfort is the 378 upon which it is rare enough to even get a seat much of the time.  Class 378 does operate routes which take over an hour end-to-end and without toilets but very few passengers (if any) would travel throughout from Stratford to Richmond or Clapham Junction all the way around the North London Line.  Other routes are available offsetting the higher cost of travel through Zone 1 against a much shorter journey time.

[Ron Ron Ron]

1 hour ago, Siberian Snooper said:

Have you been through the Acton dive under in a 345 at speed,  I found it to be nauseating and I don't normally suffer from motion sickness.

 

Stop looking out of the window then and stare at your phone or iPad for most of the journey like normal people do.

[Christopher125]

On 29/09/2019 at 20:45, Gwiwer said:

Rail use is in slow decline.  

 

What do you mean? Rail use continues to grow nationally.

 

On 05/10/2019 at 12:38, The Stationmaster said:

We have not had longitudinal - sideways facing  - seats for over 60 years in this part of the world and will the 345s come with the same health warning as tv programmes about 'flickering images' as you face the lineside whizzing past at considerable speed - don't be daft, the designers didn't even think of the health implications.  

 

What 'health implications' are they were meant to be thinking of? Looking sideways out of a train isn't just normal, it's the only option normally available!

 

If there are any people who can't handle seeing the outside going past they can always look at the floor/ceiling/other people/phones/books etc, staring through the window is not compulsory.

Edited October 6, 2019 by Christopher125