Elizabeth Line / Crossrail Updates.

[adb968008]

59 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

So exactly my point - what that does not address is the number of passengers from outside the central area who travel through to outside the central area on the other side of London.  

I agree that is likely to be much less, but thats not its design reason.

TL gives people from the South & the North routes thru London to get to work in London. 

 

There was a huge backlash at proposing terminating TL from Sutton at Blackfriars in 2010, similarly if there was no need to,get south, then the Northern section could have terminated at Moorgate.

 

if TL terminated at Blackfriars, London Bridge and St Pancras, its usefulness would greatly diminish... they rebuilt LBG & Farringdon, accommodating longer trains demonstrates its value... there is great need for it... but its impractical to have a southbound terminus at Blackfriars and a North Bound at St Pancras... hence it has to be a thru route.

 

the figures you ignored above, shows that approx 50% of North Londoners are working south of St Pancras, and 50% of South Londoners are working North of the Thames, cross capital routes are needed as people don't just commute to terminus stations.  Because there aren't enough cross london routes is demonstrated by the overcrowding, and the northbound TL services are quite definitely overcrowded before East Croydon, for sure.  

 

Admittedly the Wimbedon - Sutton line is a complete waste of time. If they built the planned 1939 platforms at Cheam, as a TL terminus, that whole route could be closed and turned to a tube line extension from Morden to a single platform at Sutton. This would only need the replacement of a single bridge (to add a 3rd line) and demolishing 1 storage building where the platform could go at Sutton.

 

Similarly let TL run to Chessington South plat 2 instead (another 1939 plan that failed), though isnt this planned for XR2 ?, which is also following the TL “octopus tentacle” model of serving communities rather than the inconvienient connection centric model of XR, though its got too many suburban stations and doesnt reach furtherer enough out imho.

Edited September 29, 2019 by adb968008

[Bernard Lamb]

18 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

 

 

the figures you ignored above, shows that approx 50% of North Londoners are working south of St Pancras, and 50% of South Londoners are working North of the Thames, cross capital routes are needed as people don't just commute to terminus stations.  

I find those figures very hard to believe.

I would have expected them to be much higher.

Bernard

[adb968008]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

I find those figures very hard to believe.

I would have expected them to be much higher.

Bernard

As a semi-frequent user I tend to agree.. But its hard to tell as a passenger given the huge volumes of passengers exiting / entering the train at each Zone 1 station on TL. however I do know that after Farringdon it tends to empty out heading North, regardless which inbound southern source in a morning.

 

Similarly southbound services have large volumes exiting at Farringdon & City, but additionally  to London Bridge (especially), for Canary wharf, but note London Bridge wasnt included in the chart... thats probably the missing link, XR will probably skew the figures considerably for North-South travellers as LBG will become the slower route to Canary Wharf... though I’m not sure farringdons dangerously narrow Southbound platform is ready for it, its already an ants nest for Liverpool St tube bound passengers, and ive not spotted a hidden Southbound TL to XR entrance yet.

 

Edited September 29, 2019 by adb968008

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, adb968008 said:

I agree that is likely to be much less, but thats not its design reason.

TL gives people from the South & the North routes thru London to get to work in London. 

 

There was a huge backlash at proposing terminating TL from Sutton at Blackfriars in 2010, similarly if there was no need to,get south, then the Northern section could have terminated at Moorgate.

 

if TL terminated at Blackfriars, London Bridge and St Pancras, its usefulness would greatly diminish... they rebuilt LBG & Farringdon, accommodating longer trains demonstrates its value... there is great need for it... but its impractical to have a southbound terminus at Blackfriars and a North Bound at St Pancras... hence it has to be a thru route.

 

the figures you ignored above, shows that approx 50% of North Londoners are working south of St Pancras, and 50% of South Londoners are working North of the Thames, cross capital routes are needed as people don't just commute to terminus stations.  Because there aren't enough cross london routes is demonstrated by the overcrowding, and the northbound TL services are quite definitely overcrowded before East Croydon, for sure.  

 

Admittedly the Wimbedon - Sutton line is a complete waste of time. If they built the planned 1939 platforms at Cheam, as a TL terminus, that whole route could be closed and turned to a tube line extension from Morden to a single platform at Sutton. This would only need the replacement of a single bridge (to add a 3rd line) and demolishing 1 storage building where the platform could go at Sutton.

 

Similarly let TL run to Chessington South plat 2 instead (another 1939 plan that failed), though isnt this planned for XR2 ?, which is also following the TL “octopus tentacle” model of serving communities rather than the inconvienient connection centric model of XR, though its got too many suburban stations and doesnt reach furtherer enough out imho.

The figures show they are working in London - not that they are travelling through London to get from one side of London to the other.  The fact that they can more readily reach the opposite side of London for work makes considerable sense on TL where there is a significant business area around London Bridge.  It works in the same way as Crossrail will for people from the Western side of London commuting in to areas such as docklands and even to the the City as it will make travel easier and quicker for the .  Although I suspect a high percentage of those will be joining Crossrail at Paddington because they are in the sort of jobs which give them the financial wherewithal to live out in the country and I suspect the Cotswolds are just as likely to provide attractive homes as the middle Thames Valley area between Taplow and Reading which is becoming increasingly built-up and overcrowded,  Kemble to Paddington in c.70 minutes isn't a massively  longer journey than that from most outer Thames Valley stations.

 

But nobody in their right mind is going to use Crossrail from Reading to get anywhere in London - the journey times just don't match commuters, or anybody else's needs.  The only real travel market from side-to-side across London that Crossrail is likely to open up - with potential for considerable growth - is to Heathrow Airport from the eastern side of London, currently an awkward journey.

[adb968008]

56 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

The figures show they are working in London - not that they are travelling through London to get from one side of London to the other.  The fact that they can more readily reach the opposite side of London for work makes considerable sense on TL where there is a significant business area around London Bridge.  It works in the same way as Crossrail will for people from the Western side of London commuting in to areas such as docklands and even to the the City as it will make travel easier and quicker for the .  Although I suspect a high percentage of those will be joining Crossrail at Paddington because they are in the sort of jobs which give them the financial wherewithal to live out in the country and I suspect the Cotswolds are just as likely to provide attractive homes as the middle Thames Valley area between Taplow and Reading which is becoming increasingly built-up and overcrowded,  Kemble to Paddington in c.70 minutes isn't a massively  longer journey than that from most outer Thames Valley stations.

 

But nobody in their right mind is going to use Crossrail from Reading to get anywhere in London - the journey times just don't match commuters, or anybody else's needs.  The only real travel market from side-to-side across London that Crossrail is likely to open up - with potential for considerable growth - is to Heathrow Airport from the eastern side of London, currently an awkward journey.

We seem to be on common ground now.

[phil-b259]

6 hours ago, adb968008 said:

I humbly submit to you to try even squeezing onto a Thameslink at West Hampstead to Elephant & Castle or London Bridge in a rush hour...

here is an example what 1st class looks like (which is why its downgraded on this line)

 

this route is densely packed to absolute extremes..

And at least 50% of those are originating from points outside of Zone1/3 ...

 

It is rammed, daily to excess... of a mix of both long distance and cross city connecting passengers... indeed it is nearly a 50% mix at each station...

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/689701/thameslink-programme-baseline-evaluation-report.pdf

 

When farringdon opens to cross rail, it will become the defacto least hassle connecting route by rail from the South East to LHR..  going TL to XR will trump SE to LBG to Jubilee to Bakerloo to Hex or SE to Vic to Barkerloo to Hex, especially for slower travellers.

 

So TL will become even more overloaded.

 

The miss was not having a connecting spur from TL to XR at Farringdon to allow thru services to the South East.

 

One passenger preference for commuting, is to find the “end”    of the line to live, as generally its the only place to get a seat. This is the beauty of TL... its an Octopus of tentacles.. it gives lots of different options on both sides of London for the commuter to directly commute.

 

Those espousing short distance XR / TL should think they are undermining the HS2 argument, which is supposedly about happy commuters willingingly wanting to commute 250+ miles each way everyday, plus 2 changes of mode, 1 at either end to reach their destination/source.

 

Similarly making TL a purely Norwood Junction to West Hampstead shuttle will see its popularity wane and complaints soar, especially when connections are missed due to late arriving long distance trains. Late trains are fact of life, not a unique TL constraint.

 

People prefer direct trains.. not connections, but TL connections, due to its nearly every minute service thru the tunnels, ticks the boxes, as even if you miss your train, it still gives options either side of the capital, in addition to its many end points, thats why XR will dissapoint.

 

 

Sheesh - did you actually pay attention to what I have said.

 

Lets get one thing crystal clear

 

Firstly NOBODY IS SUGGESTING CHANGING THE CURRENT THAMESLINK SERVICE SETUP! We all recognise that CURRENT users have based their whole lives on the current Thameslink service pattern - and as the proposal to ditch the Wimbledon loop, the passenger backlash would be too great.

 

What I and many others are saying is that were we drawing up Thameslink services from scratch these days - which assumes services from the south were STILL TERMINATING at London Bridge / Blackfriars / Holborn Viaduct and services from  the North were still terminating at St Pancras / Moorgate, then not having quite so many long tentacles would be desirable.

 

Secondly, If you have always had to change at London Bridge for say SE services to Cannon Street or the Northern line  (as many did pre Thameslink) then the fact that you still need to do so to make use of Thameslink is NOT going to be a massive hardship like you make out. Providing the Thameslink trains have enough room (which they would do if a TfL style interior was used rather than the current hybrid approach) then making the swap wouldn't be that awful.

 

As the Stationmaster has highlighted in his posts about Crossrail, nobody in their right mind would use Crossrail from Reading (or Swindon if Crossail adopted your 'long tentacle approach) when you have 125mph InterCity grade services available and can change at Paddington onto Crossrail there.

 

Its a fact that the 377 interiors with their portions and conventional carriage feel are a far more pleasant travelling environment for long journeys - its only when you get overcrowding when the 700 style open plan walk through train makes a distance.

 

On current Thameslink services, its not until you reach the likes of Gatwick or Luton do services from Brighton or Bedford start to be adversely affected by large numbers of standees - and it doesn't take a genius to realise that if Thameslink services started from said stations with empty trains then things would improve further in.

 

Thirdly although I am critical of Thameslink extending out to Brighton Peterborough and Littlehampton, I have also NEVER supported Thameslink being confined to the inner suburbs like Norwwod Junction and West Hampstead! The likes of Gatwick,Luton and Stevenage represent key traffic generators* as well as strategic interchanges with other services while also facilitating fast services inwards from the likes of Croydon or St Albans and seem entirely logical places to aim for. Taking over the shorter distance services allows more space at termi for longer distance services with grater levels of on board comfort.

 

* Indeed it could be argued that spacious crossrail trains are ideal for passengers lugging big suitcases round with them as opposed to regular train interoirs

 

The only flaw in this plan (even assuming London Bridge / St Pancras had retained enough terminal platforms) is the inability to fit any more trains through the likes of Windmill Bridge Junction north of Croydon. As with Crossrails use of the relief lines out to the west, taking over existing services saves spending money on enhancing capacity away from the central London core - al but at the cost of diluting / corrupting the standards of comfort and compromising train design in the process.

 

[Gwiwer]

While "nobody in their right mind" might use a Crossrail service between Reading and Paddington when a 125mph IET option is available I may be mis-informed but I understand that GWR is pressing to have a larger number of "u" stops in their down IET schedules and "s" stops on the up to ease overcrowding on the long-distance services.  I am aware that there has long been an undercurrent of discontent that passengers bound for the likes of Plymouth and Cardiff are required to stand on busy train because commuters to Reading have taken seats.  There is spare seating capacity on the current GWR semi-fast trains and there will surely be some on the 345-operated stoppers.  

 

Are we about to see a pricing-out scenario on the Thames Valley where a premium is required to use the IETs between London and Reading?  Or where TfL undercuts for use of the stoppers acknowledging the time penalty but offset by a cheaper TfL-only fare.  Seating comfort on the 345s is non-existent however and noticeably inferior to the hard ironing-board seats on the 387s.  At least those face front or back.  I detest travelling sideways and find it induces nausea though just as few people ever spend 90 minutes on the Central Line travelling from Epping to West Ruislip sideways so very few will ride through from Shenfield or Abbey Wood to Reading.  

 

While there are several places around the internet where one can find and post "Lizzie Line" signage currently obscured to a greater or lesser degree I was surprised last week to see a sign in full view at Tottenham Court Road (Northern Line southbound platform) directing hopeful customers to "Exit and Crossrail".  In standard white-on-black light-box style too, not the corporate mauve line colour assigned to the Shenfield - Reading stoppers.  

[adb968008]

So start TL at Gatwick...

 

What about the reduction in services for their further southwards destinations by curtailing TL ?

 

As Gwiver says, no one in their right mind would take a slow XR train from Reading, when a faster alternative exists, so why would they take a slow TL from Gatwick, so what replaces it ?

if

 its replaced by a new faster service from Brighton, connecting at Gatwick whilst TL takes the slow route ?

Meanwhile all those at Brighton who previously enjoyed a fast direct route to the City or Farringdon now got lumped with a change at an already over crowded LBG... Every change adds at least 15-20 minutes to a passengers commute.

 

Or

 

are you proposing a Brighton-Gatwick shuttle to allow passengers to connect to TL, which would seem pointless

 

or

 

combine current slow Gatwick services with extensions to Brighton.. everyone will hate you then as everyone has to change or ride a slow train.

 

or

 

just cut the service ?

 

 

for what benefit.. trees splinter, rain falls, trains get delayed.. nature doesnt care the colour of the train, but Twitter changes colour when connections are missed. No matter the destination, the train is only as good as the signal in front of it. I’m just not seeing any benefits in what your saying.

 

XR is nothing but a longer tube train, I’d rather TL remain a fast train myself, and i’m sure thats why its successful, just as it is in Antwerp, Amsterdam, Paris, Berlin, Warsaw, Prague, Brussels, Liverpool, Birmingham and now Manchester...

 

Terminuses in cities are a hang over legacy of victorian times, when cities were smaller and commuters didnt exist, thats why such great efforts to make through services are being expended across the continent. TL is a successful answer to that, it goes suburb to central, direct where possible, in the fastest time, because thats what its passengers want.

 

Interestingly, many terminating services to London Bridge today are slower still than 70 years ago, despite all the improvements... ive got the timetable in front of me now... like it or not, TL is a success, as your saving connecting time, thats millions of minutes for hundreds of thousands of people everyday, who given choice would prefer to be moving whilst standing, than waiting and taking longer.

 

Edited September 29, 2019 by adb968008

[Gwiwer]

The Brighton Line as a whole requires a rethink.  Thameslink requires a rethink.  The latter had huge ambitions when it first opened.  Doncaster was a projected destination as just one example.  The 319s had places including Milton Ernest on their blinds which had no station and indeed had not even been built.  Spalding was also on there iirc.  Thameslink is an unwieldy beast these days trying to offer too many direct journeys through too small a core.  In reality longer journeys through that core are very much in the minority of the traffic it carries but those that are made relieve the overcrowded London Underground network to a small extent.  Most of the traffic through the core seems to be from south of the Thames towards Farringdon, Kings Cross (sorry - St. Pancras International) and a few inner north London stops.  Most from the north seems destined for central London such as Blackfriars and London Bridge.

 

The Brighton Line desperately needs some changed stopping patterns.  The Gatwick Express continues to run with empty seats even on the Brighton extensions in peak hours.  The parallel Southern services are chronically overloaded and therefore delayed at station stops impacting on the entire network's reliability.  Non-stop airport services are not sacred.  To my mind if the 15-minute headway Gatwick Express alternately served East Croydon or Clapham Junction that would offer a balance and allow many more seats to and from those major destinations / interchanges including for those airport passengers with luggage.  Stand at Clapham from 07.00 to 08.00 in the morning and watch the procession of grossly overloaded Southern trains arriving.  Those which have called at Gatwick are bursting, spend 2 minute or more in the platform disgorging passengers often with several bags apiece and also carrying workaday commuters. The same train is trying to cope with two markets.  The GatEx rolls through with empty seats to everyone's frustration but those aboard.  

 

Thameslink in my opinion does not need to run to Brighton four times an hour.  Twice is sufficient.  One to Bedford and one to Cambridge with the others starting at Three Bridges (because there is no capacity to turn back at Gatwick and the depot is at Three Bridges allowing a unit swap if required).  The Horsham stoppers have replaced Southern trains more or less one for one and could usefully continue doing that.  Southern could, if needs be, cover stops south of Gatwick such as Balcombe which would otherwise be unserved.  It is apparent that despite the choice now on offer most people still wish to travel to / from Victoria, with significant use of London Bridge at peak times only, and very few really want to be at Blackfriars.  TL and Southern can be adjusted.  But the non-stop premium-fare GatEx has to go.  

 

You could probably advance similar arguments for the other long limbs of TL but I know the Brighton line well enough to comment.  I am less familiar with the likes of Rainham and Cambridge.  

 

Moving back to Crossrail it is effectively a straight east - west line with a single branch.  In that respect it differs entirely from TL which is a sprawling network.  Crossrail may or may not expand as time goes by though it is hard to see where it might go.  The Thames Valley branches are not electrified and cannot cope with 9-car trains.  Not even the temporary 7-car formations.  There is no way to connect it to the "Jazz" routes out of Liverpool Street now operated as Overground other than by a flat crossing of multiple main lines at Stratford then via the Lea Valley.  It cannot link Romford to Upminster as that route also in unable to accept long trains despite also being operated under the Overground banner.  The only options are a straight extension to Southend or to Chelmsford.

 

Rail use is in slow decline.  We shall have to wait and see how travel patterns alter once this new route finally opens.  Only then can we determine if there is capacity for expansion or modification of the service plan.  And the validity, or otherwise, of London ticket products may also influence usage.  London buses reach Brentwood and Slough, Dorking and Watford, all with the Mayor's standard £1.50 fare for any trip.  Shenfield has been brought into the Oyster / PAYG zones quite sensibly in my view.  A similar extension westwards would put Slough into something like Zone 10 (equivalent with Watford Junction which is still shown as "Special Fares Apply" though accepts Oyster / PAYG on the Overground line) but what happens beyond?  Slough - Burnham is a useful link for the industrial area.  Twyford - Reading is a busy commuter link including to and from Henley.  Stations Merstham to Gatwick Airport are beyond the zones but accept Oyster / PAYG applying point-to-point fares when touched off.   Where does one draw the line?

 

 

Edited September 29, 2019 by Gwiwer

[DY444]

On 29/09/2019 at 11:13, adb968008 said:

I agree that is likely to be much less, but thats not its design reason.

TL gives people from the South & the North routes thru London to get to work in London. 

 

There was a huge backlash at proposing terminating TL from Sutton at Blackfriars in 2010, similarly if there was no need to,get south, then the Northern section could have terminated at Moorgate.

 

if TL terminated at Blackfriars, London Bridge and St Pancras, its usefulness would greatly diminish... they rebuilt LBG & Farringdon, accommodating longer trains demonstrates its value... there is great need for it... but its impractical to have a southbound terminus at Blackfriars and a North Bound at St Pancras... hence it has to be a thru route.

 

the figures you ignored above, shows that approx 50% of North Londoners are working south of St Pancras, and 50% of South Londoners are working North of the Thames, cross capital routes are needed as people don't just commute to terminus stations.  Because there aren't enough cross london routes is demonstrated by the overcrowding, and the northbound TL services are quite definitely overcrowded before East Croydon, for sure.  

 

Admittedly the Wimbedon - Sutton line is a complete waste of time. If they built the planned 1939 platforms at Cheam, as a TL terminus, that whole route could be closed and turned to a tube line extension from Morden to a single platform at Sutton. This would only need the replacement of a single bridge (to add a 3rd line) and demolishing 1 storage building where the platform could go at Sutton.

 

Similarly let TL run to Chessington South plat 2 instead (another 1939 plan that failed), though isnt this planned for XR2 ?, which is also following the TL “octopus tentacle” model of serving communities rather than the inconvienient connection centric model of XR, though its got too many suburban stations and doesnt reach furtherer enough out imho.

 

The "huge backlash" to truncating the Sutton service at Blackfriars was partly as a result of local MPs deliberately only telling part of the story.  The proposal was to double the Wimbledon loop frequency to 4tph each way in return for terminating at Blackfriars.  The doubling of frequency would have made a huge difference but was ignored. The whole thing was a good example of grandstanding by two MPs in particular. 

 

Wimbledon-Sutton gets very busy in the peaks so is not a "waste of time".  It is also very unreliable especially off peak which means locals can't rely on it .

 

I agree that a Northern Line extension to Sutton would be the best solution with TL via Carshalton terminating at Cheam and TL via Tooting terminating at either Morden South or West Sutton.  TFL are simply not interested though.  I have suggested this to each of the three mayors London has had.  Ken Livingstone said it can't be done because there aren't enough trains, the loss of stabling space at Morden would be insurmountable and the trains would be full by the time they got to Morden (they didn't understand when I said this just proved that something better was needed south of Morden).  Boris and the present incumbent just said it was unaffordable.

 

Sending TL to Chessington would require up trains to cross the UF, DF and DS at Wimbledon.  That's never going to happen.

Edited October 1, 2019 by DY444

[KeithMacdonald]

Back in the day when the M25 was built, was there ever a plan to build a railway equivalent?

 

To coin a phrase (if needed), let's call it the R25. Or the Greater Circle Line.

 

One of the lessons learnt from the M25 was it doesn't just divert traffic from central London, it helps generate more traffic. Which might be a Good Thing for railways through central London?

[The Stationmaster]

On 29/09/2019 at 17:51, Gwiwer said:

While "nobody in their right mind" might use a Crossrail service between Reading and Paddington when a 125mph IET option is available I may be mis-informed but I understand that GWR is pressing to have a larger number of "u" stops in their down IET schedules and "s" stops on the up to ease overcrowding on the long-distance services.  I am aware that there has long been an undercurrent of discontent that passengers bound for the likes of Plymouth and Cardiff are required to stand on busy train because commuters to Reading have taken seats.  There is spare seating capacity on the current GWR semi-fast trains and there will surely be some on the 345-operated stoppers.  

 

Are we about to see a pricing-out scenario on the Thames Valley where a premium is required to use the IETs between London and Reading?  Or where TfL undercuts for use of the stoppers acknowledging the time penalty but offset by a cheaper TfL-only fare.  Seating comfort on the 345s is non-existent however and noticeably inferior to the hard ironing-board seats on the 387s.  At least those face front or back.  I detest travelling sideways and find it induces nausea though just as few people ever spend 90 minutes on the Central Line travelling from Epping to West Ruislip sideways so very few will ride through from Shenfield or Abbey Wood to Reading.  

 

While there are several places around the internet where one can find and post "Lizzie Line" signage currently obscured to a greater or lesser degree I was surprised last week to see a sign in full view at Tottenham Court Road (Northern Line southbound platform) directing hopeful customers to "Exit and Crossrail".  In standard white-on-black light-box style too, not the corporate mauve line colour assigned to the Shenfield - Reading stoppers.  

U and S stops generally don't work and they have revenue implications so GW - before they were even FGW - dropped them plus there is of course the simple problem of passengers who want/need to travel to/from Reading both for local destinations but also connections including the Airlink coach to LHR.  

 

But GWR are tackling the Reading commuter problem in a far more positive way from December because increased frequencies have given them the opportunity to do something which hasn't happened for a very long time - they are taking out the Reading stops on various long distance services in both the peaks and in some cases during the day.  Plus there is in effect an IET in-fill using various shorter distance workings such as Bedwyn (although only 5 cars will be 'fun' in the peak).

 

There might well be 'spare capacity' on some 345 worked trains, in fact it is inevitable once they get west of Slough if not sooner but the situation there is no differenet.  Is a passenger for Maidenhead going to be happy to stand when those for Southall and Hayes (and, dare I say it, West Drayton   ) have grabbed the seats.  Fortunately for now, and until the current contract expires, GWR have undertaken to provide 387 operated services east of Reading but again even there those travelling further out could on many trains be disadvantaged for seating by those only travelling shorter distances.  And will folk continue to avoid 345s when there is a 387 not far away in the timetable?

 

Talking earlier today to a member of the committee of our local Branch User Group there are some serious questions, which in her view also include passenger safety as well as the potential problems of lack of toilets, still existing in respect of 345s on longer distance working (involving in at least one case an overall  journey time in excess of an hour).  Should TfL ever dare to show their face again at one of the Group's meetings I have a suspicion they will get an even rougher reception than they got last time round.

[West Junction]

State of station works Iver 30/09.

[Gwiwer]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

 

Talking earlier today to a member of the committee of our local Branch User Group there are some serious questions, which in her view also include passenger safety as well as the potential problems of lack of toilets, still existing in respect of 345s on longer distance working (involving in at least one case an overall  journey time in excess of an hour).  Should TfL ever dare to show their face again at one of the Group's meetings I have a suspicion they will get an even rougher reception than they got last time round.

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.

[billbedford]

5 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

Honestly how hard would it have been to fit a small number of grouped seats on the 345s?  

 

 

 

The 345s now working into Liverpool Street already have mixed transverse and longitudinal seats.

[jim.snowdon]

50 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

The 345s now working into Liverpool Street already have mixed transverse and longitudinal seats.

And they were built that way. However, the number of transverse seats is quite small, compared to the greater number of longitudinal seats.

 

On the positive side, it could be worse - there are at least seats. I remember encountering stock on the Kowloon Canton Railway around 1990 where entire cars were devoid of seats - just standing space, and 12-cars sets  at peak times that were full.

 

Jim

[West Junction]

New footbridges at Langley & Taplow 30/09.

[Siberian Snooper]

Having used Ealing Broadway station over the weekend, there doesn't seem to be any change to the station on the railway side, although the hoardings seem to be coming down on the road frontage.

 

 

[Paul.Uni]

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

Rail use is in slow decline.  We shall have to wait and see how travel patterns alter once this new route finally opens.  Only then can we determine if there is capacity for expansion or modification of the service plan.  And the validity, or otherwise, of London ticket products may also influence usage.  London buses reach Brentwood and Slough, Dorking and Watford, all with the Mayor's standard £1.50 fare for any trip.  Shenfield has been brought into the Oyster / PAYG zones quite sensibly in my view.  A similar extension westwards would put Slough into something like Zone 10 (equivalent with Watford Junction which is still shown as "Special Fares Apply" though accepts Oyster / PAYG on the Overground line) but what happens beyond?  Slough - Burnham is a useful link for the industrial area.  Twyford - Reading is a busy commuter link including to and from Henley.  Stations Merstham to Gatwick Airport are beyond the zones but accept Oyster / PAYG applying point-to-point fares when touched off.   Where does one draw the line? 

Oyster won't be extended and will continue to end at West Drayton due to the limitations of the card.

 

Contactless PAYG will be available for the entirety of the TfL Rail services. Fares TBC but in line with the standard fares.

 

Freedom passes holders and accompanied under 11 year olds will be able to travel for free on TfL Rail services

 

Info from: http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/tfl-rail-to-operate-services-to-reading-from-15-december

Edited October 1, 2019 by Paul.Uni

[West Junction]

West Drayton 30/09. New footbridge and platform work.

[jim.snowdon]

In the case of West Drayton, half a footbridge - the section over the Up Goods Loop, connecting to the new station building that has yet to appear, is missing - and nothing of the lift towers yet apart from the foundation pits. But, the existing ticket office has been treated to a serious facelift.

 

Jim

[West Junction]

Some photos of Hayes 30/09.

7 car 345 in the bay.

Footbridge.

Work has started on the station buildings with part of PL 4 OOU country end.

[Karhedron]

On 30/09/2019 at 10:21, KeithMacdonald said:

Back in the day when the M25 was built, was there ever a plan to build a railway equivalent?

 

To coin a phrase (if needed), let's call it the R25. Or the Greater Circle Line.

 

One of the lessons learnt from the M25 was it doesn't just divert traffic from central London, it helps generate more traffic. Which might be a Good Thing for railways through central London?

 

Yes, there was at least one proposal to build such an orbital railway in the early 90s under the auspices of Network South East. I don't think it was much more than blue-sky thinking but it did get as far as an article in the railway magazines at the time and included a map. The plan seemed designed to use as many old branches and spurs just beyond the outskirts of London as possible, probably to keep costs down. The Watford - St Albans line for example would have been almost completely swallowed.

 

This in itself was one of the problems with the idea. I have travelled on the branch and there really isn't much in between St Albans and Watford to generate traffic. Would passengers from either location have been tempted to travel round to West Drayton (or wherever the interchange with the GWML would have been situated)? It was an interesting idea but as planned, it would have been just outside the greenbelt and thus would probably not have opened up nearly as many travel opportunities as TL or XR. Building it inside London (circling around zone 4 or 5 for example) would have been more interesting but probably completely out of the question on the grounds of cost.

[KeithMacdonald]

3 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

Yes, there was at least one proposal to build such an orbital railway in the early 90s under the auspices of Network South East.

 

Was this it?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbirail

 

[Karhedron]

1 minute ago, KeithMacdonald said:

Was this it?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbirail

 

No, it was a much older proposal and would also have been much further out from the city centre. Much of it would have been beyond the boundary of Zone 6.