Elizabeth Line / Crossrail Updates.

[The Stationmaster]

It'll be interesting to see what the impact on the Windsor side services is once Crossrail reduces the quality on offer from Maidenhead etc. Will the good folk of Bracknell head for the 458/5s into Waterloo (the line is being upgraded to allow 10 car trains on the Reading route), or would they rather take the glorified tube? Guess it'll depend on their actual start and finish points, but for me the 458s are at least intended for use on that kind of journey.

 

According to GWR there are quite considerable numbers of season ticket holders from Twyford who live far closer to Bracknell/Wokingham while many who live in the vicinity of Earley commute via Reading (the latter being unlikely to be affected by Crossrail as you'll need to be a masochist to use it from Reading to London).

[Zomboid]

If Twyford to London by Crossrail is indeed an all shacks job, the Bracknell option will probably be both more comfortable and faster. Though without the advantage of being direct to many parts of central London.

No doubt pricing will be set to discourage going Twyford to London via Reading...

Edited August 16, 2016 by Zomboid

[The Stationmaster]

If Twyford to London by Crossrail is indeed an all shacks job, the Bracknell option will probably be both more comfortable and faster. Though without the advantage of being direct to many parts of central London.

No doubt pricing will be set to discourage going Twyford to London via Reading...

 

It already is as far as your latter point is concerned - i.e it costs more.  Things that were possible with mileage based fares are no longer permitted either such as tickets to Henley being valid to Reading or vice versa.

[Zomboid]

Slough ECR was very short lived, but did exist... There's a new feeder station being built nearer Paddington, which will probably replaced Old Oak, as the original HEX scheme didn't allow for the autotransformer scheme.

The new SGTs and feeder station are on the north side of the line, opposite North Pole, where the flyover is.

[Christopher125]

Which sort of ignores the fact that already in the peaks there are already 20tph running on the Mains and have been for some years.  If Class the 800s run at higher than 125 mph then the reduction in speed differential secured by the 387s will again open up - thus reducing capacity (or extending journey time between London and reading) and in any case any acceleration above or extension eastwards of the existing 125 mph linespeed will reduce capacity because the HEX units would no no longer match running times from Paddington to Airport Jcn (in fact that could well happen anyway depending on the acceleration rate of the Class 800 on 25kv?).

 

If you look through the Route Study you'll see that they've identified the potential for up to 24tph on the Mains - one option for semi-fast services is to take advantage of these paths, another would be dynamic loops on the Reliefs for semi-fast Crossrail services.

 

Remember that it's a strategy document looking decades into the future, any funding decisions would be subject to much more detailed analysis nearer the time when we should have more clarity on the impact of Crossrail, electrification, the future of HEx, how Western Access services are operated etc.

 

We (and I'm talking what local commuter groups) have already said they certainly don't want toilet-less, uncomfortable, Crossrail sets running Thames Valley services - ideally these inner-suburban trains should have been kept in an inner suburban area and not used on longer journeys.

 

Whether they want them or not it's already been decided.

 

And don't forget - as I've already said there are potentially 6 running lines available from Old Oak West inwards and there are already more than 6 from Old Oak Common East.

 

I'm well aware that room could be found at a cost, but so long as Crossrail operates such an intensive service out to Airport Junction an extra pair of tracks only as far as Old Oak Common would achieve very little. 

 

And don't forget that further out Crossrail is very much the new arrival and whether or not they have yet sussed it they are inevitably going to have to be the last on the graph in order to produce a workable train service on the Relief Lines and to allow proper use of line capacity when they will be easily outrun by freights.

 

From what I gather the opposite is true, with Crossrail the driving force behind a new timetable for the GWML from 2019.

 

Incidentally what appears to be the finalised service pattern for Crossrail can be found on page 8 of their current consultation to designate the core as 'specialised infrastructure'.

[The Stationmaster]

 

If you look through the Route Study you'll see that they've identified the potential for up to 24tph on the Mains - one option for semi-fast services is to take advantage of these paths, another would be dynamic loops on the Reliefs for semi-fast Crossrail services.

 

Remember that it's a strategy document looking decades into the future, any funding decisions would be subject to much more detailed analysis nearer the time when we should have more clarity on the impact of Crossrail, electrification, the future of HEx, how Western Access services are operated etc.

 

 

Whether they want them or not it's already been decided.

 

 

I'm well aware that room could be found at a cost, but so long as Crossrail operates such an intensive service out to Airport Junction an extra pair of tracks only as far as Old Oak Common would achieve very little. 

 

 

From what I gather the opposite is true, with Crossrail the driving force behind a new timetable for the GWML from 2019.

 

Incidentally what appears to be the finalised service pattern for Crossrail can be found on page 8 of their current consultation to designate the core as 'specialised infrastructure'.

 

Crossrail might well be the 'driving force' but that doesn't mean its trains go on the graph first. It will no doubt be subject to the normal Access Conditions (there will be something seriously adrift if it isn't as it is basically 'just another operator') and the network owner is responsible in any event for optimum use of its infrastructure.  The only logical way to build the graph to cater for all operators and make optimum use of capacity is to ignore all the nonsense of 'driving force' and do it properly - which means the GWR semi-fasts and the freights go on first (the freights being long term contracted trains/paths which in some cases have been there for decades and in any case are much faster than stopping passenger trains) then you fit the 'all stations'/more frequent stopping Crossrail trains into the remaining white space.

 

Mind you that is proper timetabling and capacity use timetabling and it might not suit today's brave new world folk who have still to learn that there's no need to reinvent the wheel and that it will still need to be round in order to make it work whatever 'bright' idea they come up with.  They proved that at London Bridge where they got it very wrong relying on computer situations instead of making use of experienced planning staff (assuming they still have any) - GWR have got a few I know but whether they will get their chance is another issue.  Don't forget - any idiot can write a timetable, it takes a fair bit of experience and knowledge to write one that offers best use of infrastructure and resources and will actually work reliably with trains running consistently to plan.

 

I obviously have a vested interest in that I don't want to see my journey time to London delayed by hanging about behind stopping trains - I'd like to see my journey time reduced and to be as comfortable as possible and judging by what some in the user groups have said they will avoid using Crossrail trains given half a chance.  I already know - much to local regular commuters' chagrin - that our best peak hour journey times to & from Paddington are likely to increase by 10-20% purely because of Crossrail (even if the Relief Lines timetable can be constructed properly) and that we face reductions in overall service standards; it takes some very clever spin to make commuters realise that is good for them when fares are rising.

 

And don't forget - Crossrail have already had to revise their journey time comparisons shown on their website because their first lot of information was wrong for some stations, that sort of thing doesn't encourage confidence (any more than the fact that I know they're still quoting nett times, not pathed times).

[Ron Ron Ron]

....And don't forget that further out Crossrail is very much the new arrival and whether or not they have yet sussed it they are inevitably going to have to be the last on the graph in order to produce a workable train service on the Relief Lines and to allow proper use of line capacity when they will be easily outrun by freights. .....

 

 

 .....From what I gather the opposite is true, with Crossrail the driving force behind a new timetable for the GWML from 2019......

 

 

Crossrail might well be the 'driving force' but that doesn't mean its trains go on the graph first. It will no doubt be subject to the normal Access Conditions (there will be something seriously adrift if it isn't as it is basically 'just another operator') and the network owner is responsible in any event for optimum use of its infrastructure....

... The only logical way to build the graph to cater for all operators and make optimum use of capacity is to ignore all the nonsense of 'driving force' and do it properly - which means the GWR semi-fasts and the freights go on first (the freights being long term contracted trains/paths which in some cases have been there for decades and in any case are much faster than stopping passenger trains) then you fit the 'all stations'/more frequent stopping Crossrail trains into the remaining white space.....

 

 

I may be completely wrong, but along with Christopher125, my understanding is that Crossrail's status of is much higher than just being another TOC operating on the NR structure.

The way I read it, it seems that the agreement for running on the NR infrastructure is not many steps away from ceding control of the Relief lines to TfL, even if NR retains ownership, operational control and maintains them.

Recent DfT documents state that Crossrail takes over all suburban and local services on the Relief lines between Reading and Paddington, leaving only the residual GWR services for primarily providing a link between east and west of Reading local stations.

 

From reading various comments and quotes from senior figures and others involved in the project, the Crossrail baseline service appears to be almost guaranteed and the few residual GWR and freight services have to be fitted in around it.

No doubt some balance is required to make it work though?

As a mere layman, that's would seem to make sense to me, as the operation in the central core is key to the whole Crossrail operation.

 

Comments I've read suggest that the timetable has been in development for a while and I get the impression that the 2 tph GWR residual services are the most fluid aspects of it, in part because it is not yet clear what they actually are, in respect of west of Reading.

Indeed, there is some speculation, that these residual services may not last that long in their initial format, with various issues such as OOC/HS2, Heathrow western access, future of HEX and through running from Basingstoke/Oxford etc, yet to be addressed and resolved.

 

I also remember that the freight operators had to lobby hard to retain meagre daytime off-peak access (one tph ?), when faced with the early potential threat of being banished during daylight hours.

 

No doubt all will become much clearer as we approach the completion of the electrification and Crossrail projects.

 

 

.

[The Stationmaster]

Very good points Ron but the simple fact is that the Main Lines simply do not have the capacity to carry what would be shoved off the Reliefs if they were exclusively used by Crossrail - in fact it would lead to an even greater worsening of service for passengers west of Maidenhead and potentially for some west of Reading who could potentially lose through trains to London.  Crossrail might well have its ideas - as may others - but the simple fact is that there are existing operators there, both passenger and freight, who have access contracts, and there are passenger organisations which have their strong view and pay in excess of £4,000 for annual season tickets.

 

In reality I suspect that TFL is so remote from such things it doesn't even occur to them and that could be reflected in what they, and others far away from the practical level actually understand - about either what the passengers, and others want or how to construct efficient timetables.  The proof of the pudding will of course be in the eating but without an hourly freight path there will be several hundred lorries per day running up & down the M4 or other roads although presumably TFL will like that as they can make more out of congestion charging.  Already one or two people (not me as it happens) outside the commuter groups have expressed their misgivings of various aspects of both Crossrail and GWML electrification impact and a small number have talked about going by road instead.   Outer Thames Valley commuters have long been a strident bunch and they will no doubt take exception to any reduction in through trains and being forced to change at Reading onto what are increasingly busy long distance GWR services  (Crossrail being utterly useless as an alternative from Reading due its extended journey times compared with HSTs and existing through commuter trains).

 

Crossrail is going too far to the west for the type of trains it will operate and apart from the damage its late night trains (without toilets) are likely to suffer they will be the least popular where a choice of a Class 387 exists - and GWR have promised that for some such a choice will exist - in fact it will have to exist west of Maidenhead in order to maintain anything like current frequencies otherwise the railway will start to lose the significant commuter traffic into Reading.

 

I simply look at it as a former railwayman, with considerable real train planning experience, who in various past jobs tried to do his best for both passengers and freight customers and it sickens me to see that network advantage seemingly being thrown away on a poorly thought out and heavily 'London centric' approach based on a narrow sector of the passenger travel market.  The last time round when Crossrail was under development - albeit with some very different ideas of course - I made absolutely sure I secured a commitment to that hourly freight path (because at that time I was responsible for freight planning on the WR) although I did concede that it could not happen during the peaks in the peak flow direction unless suitable paths were leftover as white space, nowadays of course such paths are written into contracts.  That in my view is how a mixed traffic railway has to operate - for the good of all users, not just for some flavour of the month - and in reality some poorly thought out and resourced flavour of the month - which seems to think (allegedly) that the world should revolve around it;  build a timetable that way and it will be even worse than the scenario I've already painted in the previous post.

[phil-b259]

In reality I suspect that TFL is so remote from such things it doesn't even occur to them and that could be reflected in what they, and others far away from the practical level actually understand - about either what the passengers, and others want or how to construct efficient timetables.

 

Oh contrare - I would say TfL have a very good understanding of what most of their passengers want, and how to construct timetables to meet that requirement. The problem is firstly TfL is heavily dominated bu 'Underground' thinking - where there is no freight, no semi-fasts to worry about, no need for toilets or first class on board and secondly,  TfL also are accountable politically to the residents of the GLA through the London Assembly - not the residents of Berkshire who have to rely on their MP to persuade the DfT to get involved if they don't like TfLs approch.

 

Had Crossrail stayed a true joint venture as originally planned by BR & LU in the early 90s then passengers from the GWML (and the Chiltern line at that stage) would have been protected by NSE from the worst of the 'tube' style thinking and the train specification would have been a better compromise between the needs of Londoners and those outside - possibly akin to the new Thameslink stock.

 

However with TfL given the lead role in getting Crossrail built (a good thing in one sense as if the Treasury had got its way the whole project could easily have suffered a Thameslink 2000 like delay following the 2008 financial crash) it was somewhat inevitable that passengers outside the GLA area would suffer.

 

 

Crossrail might well have its ideas - as may others - but the simple fact is that there are existing operators there, both passenger and freight, who have access contracts, and there are passenger organisations which have their strong view and pay in excess of £4,000 for annual season tickets.

 

In reality I suspect that TFL is so remote from such things it doesn't even occur to them and that could be reflected in what they, and others far away from the practical level actually understand - about either what the passengers, and others want or how to construct efficient timetables.  The proof of the pudding will of course be in the eating but without an hourly freight path there will be several hundred lorries per day running up & down the M4 or other roads although presumably TFL will like that as they can make more out of congestion charging.  Already one or two people (not me as it happens) outside the commuter groups have expressed their misgivings of various aspects of both Crossrail and GWML electrification impact and a small number have talked about going by road instead.   Outer Thames Valley commuters have long been a strident bunch and they will no doubt take exception to any reduction in through trains and being forced to change at Reading onto what are increasingly busy long distance GWR services  (Crossrail being utterly useless as an alternative from Reading due its extended journey times compared with HSTs and existing through commuter trains).

 

Crossrail is going too far to the west for the type of trains it will operate and apart from the damage its late night trains (without toilets) are likely to suffer they will be the least popular where a choice of a Class 387 exists - and GWR have promised that for some such a choice will exist - in fact it will have to exist west of Maidenhead in order to maintain anything like current frequencies otherwise the railway will start to lose the significant commuter traffic into Reading.

 

 

Incidentally I made some of these points (though not as elegantly as you) on the District Dave website (dominated by Londoners) and got a very hostile response - effectively the message from Londoners was 'our needs come first' with things like longitudinal seating being strongly defended and that the needs of Berkshire commuters are secondary to having a new 'tube line' (which is what I was repeatedly told Crossrail was) and everything that comes with it.

[The Stationmaster]

Oh contrare - I would say TfL have a very good understanding of what most of their passengers want, and how to construct timetables to meet that requirement. The problem is firstly TfL is heavily dominated bu 'Underground' thinking - where there is no freight, no semi-fasts to worry about, no need for toilets or first class on board and secondly,  TfL also are accountable politically to the residents of the GLA through the London Assembly - not the residents of Berkshire who have to rely on their MP to persuade the DfT to get involved if they don't like TfLs approch.

 

Had Crossrail stayed a true joint venture as originally planned by BR & LU in the early 90s then passengers from the GWML (and the Chiltern line at that stage) would have been protected by NSE from the worst of the 'tube' style thinking and the train specification would have been a better compromise between the needs of Londoners and those outside - possibly akin to the new Thameslink stock.

 

However with TfL given the lead role in getting Crossrail built (a good thing in one sense as if the Treasury had got its way the whole project could easily have suffered a Thameslink 2000 like delay following the 2008 financial crash) it was somewhat inevitable that passengers outside the GLA area would suffer.

 

 

 

Incidentally I made some of these points (though not as elegantly as you) on the District Dave website (dominated by Londoners) and got a very hostile response - effectively the message from Londoners was 'our needs come first' with things like longitudinal seating being strongly defended and that the needs of Berkshire commuters are secondary to having a new 'tube line' (which is what I was repeatedly told Crossrail was) and everything that comes with it.

 

I think you've got it exactly right Phil - especially in your final sentence.

 

I don't know if you ever saw the original interior Crossrail vehicle mock-up - it was based at Paddington for a few days and was considerably better than what is appearing now.  But, as you say, back then it was very much a joint project  (Which I very nearly became part of but the post I was in for was never interviewed as it was advertised just before the project folded and in the meanwhile I actually got something much better - which had come up on the same vacancy list.   But it might have been quite interesting to have been Crossrail's Timetable & Resource Planning Manager for a few years ).

Edited August 18, 2016 by The Stationmaster

[Zomboid]

TfL are indeed generally very good at meeting their customers' needs. The problem being that they haven't previously had customers from 40 odd miles out who are used to frequent relatively limited stop services running all day.

I think the state of the post A-stock metropolitan line is telling.

[ess1uk]

Not sure about those new units with a black front.

[phil-b259]

This may be of interest to current Thames Valley commuters

 

Seating Plan

[Oakydoke]

Each train has the official capacity of 1500 passengers, with less than a third being seated!!!!

 

Small comfort that there's 454 seats per train, which must be more than typical current arrangements?

Edited September 9, 2016 by Oakydoke

[Joseph_Pestell]

This may be of interest to current Thames Valley commuters

 

Seating Plan

And only 96 of those that you would want to sit in for a journey of any length. I had not realised just how few forward/backward seats there will be. These should not really be running anywhere west of Slough.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Joseph_Pestell

[woodenhead]

But if you take your skateboard or roller skates onto a non peak service you can have some fun.

 

In fact there are endless sporting/fitness possibilities with these units:

- Five a side

- Bowling

- Cricket

- Touch rugby

- Running

- Cycling

- Hiit classes

- Yoga

- Dance

[The Stationmaster]

Each train has the official capacity of 1500 passengers, with less than or third being seated!!!!

 

Small comfort that there's 454 seats per train, which must be more than typical current arrangements?

 

A 5 car Class 165 formation offers 432 Standard Class seats (but that number predates the aboiition of 1st Class so the number now will be greater) while a 3 car unit offers 262.  A 6 car formation would offer more seats that a nine car (makes me very)Cross rail train in considerably less total train length.  Moreover while 2 x 6 car can be accommodated in the split platforms at Reading, only one Crossrail unit can so platform capacity will be reduced when they turn round there  ( I wonder of any one has thought of that yet?).

 

Once Thames Valley commuters see it there'll be even more uproar than there was over the lack of toilets which breaches ATOC guidelines for the journey lengths involved (telling that the LUL rep who addressed our local commuter group hadn't even heard of the ATOC guidelines).  Personally I am going to feel hard done by if I have to travel on one of these things - and I won't be paying £4.000 a year for that dubious 'privilege (nor would I).

[HillsideDepot]

Back in 1990 while I was studying Transport & Physical Distribution at Newcastle Polytechnic I had a six month placement at Armchair Passenger Transport, a coach (and latterly LRT bus) operator based in Brentford.

 

Although Chris Green had started to make great progress with NSE this was before the Turbos had been introduced and class 117s still worked up and down the Thames valley alongside Mk1s on commuter services. Partly as a response to the cost of depot space in London and partly as a way to attract coach drivers a number of Armchair coaches were parked at a locations out in the Thames valley, working in and out of London in the peaks. These commuter runs proved very popular, to the extent that the potential demand was greater than the number of coaches Armchair wished to have out-stationed. And Armchair weren't the only people running such services.

 

I wonder if there are any coach operators who will see the new Crossrail trains as creating an "open goal" in business terms?

[Edwin_m]

Is the pattern of the GWR commuter service after Crossrail known yet? 

 

I'm not a user of the route and haven't been following this story in detail but it would seem most logical for Oxford and Newbury workings also to provide the principal London services for the outer stations, leaving Crossrail to take the shorter journeys from the inner stations to both London and Reading.  I believe Reading is an important commuter destination from both the west (making space on trains that continue towards Paddington) and the east (most of the reason for Crossrail to serve it). 

 

Ideally more and longer GWR outers would remove the need for commuters to use the long-distance services east of Reading, thus reducing the need for IEPs to have high-density configuration unsuited to longer journeys and for these trains to carry fresh air further west.  But that may be too much to ask...

[The Stationmaster]

Is the pattern of the GWR commuter service after Crossrail known yet? 

 

I'm not a user of the route and haven't been following this story in detail but it would seem most logical for Oxford and Newbury workings also to provide the principal London services for the outer stations, leaving Crossrail to take the shorter journeys from the inner stations to both London and Reading.  I believe Reading is an important commuter destination from both the west (making space on trains that continue towards Paddington) and the east (most of the reason for Crossrail to serve it). 

 

Ideally more and longer GWR outers would remove the need for commuters to use the long-distance services east of Reading, thus reducing the need for IEPs to have high-density configuration unsuited to longer journeys and for these trains to carry fresh air further west.  But that may be too much to ask...

 

What has been talked about is through Newbury/Oxford trains very much as now - although it is unclear which if any would stop at Slough and Ealing Broadway.  The current basic service east of Reading is 3 or 4 trains per hour which are basically a mixture of semi-fast and more frequent stoppers and at least one is a stopper through the Thames Valley west of Reading.  The removal of the Paddington - Slough stoppers some time ago (partly in connection with the Heatrow Connect service) means that the old semi-fasts which used only to stop at Ealing Broadway east of Slough now also stop at West Drayton, Hayes and Southall and are inadequate in seating for the demand at some times of the day - in fact as often used to be the case  before the extra stops were added they are full when leaving Slough.  There is considerable demand Slough and east thereof for travel towards London with considerable interchange traffic at Ealing Broadway onto/from the UndergrounD routes.

 

The basic problem with Crossrail - if they have really made up their mind (and they have definitely been on shifting ground judging by 'information' on their website) is that they have said, in public, that their trains will be stopping at all stations   With two Crossrail per hour west of Maidenhead and GWR have also stated they will have two trains per hour east of Reading on the Relief Lines.  This immediately starts to throw up inconsistencies in my mind because with 4 Crossrail per hour east of Maidenhead stopping - allegedly - at all stations it will start to neutralise faster paths on the Reliefs so I wonder what will happen to the journey times for the two GWR trains (plus the one path per off peak hour for freight in each direction).  There is no doubt in my mind that if the GWR trains run non-stop (except perhaps for Ealing Broadway and maybe Hayes [for LHR]) plus a non-stop freight they will run up the back, timetabling wise, of the Crossrail trains which might well have a good maximum speed and acceleration but east of Maidenhead the stations are barely an average of 2 miles apart so an all stations train will have a  very lumpy speed profile to say the least.

 

It is already the case that freights can easily run down on stopping Class 165s even where they are calling at fewer stations than Crossrail will (it claims) be stopping at with all trains and obviously the Class 387s will be right up the backside of a stopper without even trying.  East of Hayes adding even more trains will reduce much else on the Reliefs to a crawl and inevitably either lengthen booked running times with lots of circle time (extra time inserted for pathing purposes) or cause delays.  If the 'east of Reading' semi-fast 387s were to run on the Mains they would have the same impact on faster trains so effectively whichever way they go they are going to be squeezed and lots of journey times will be hit.  And that is before we even think about the fast peak hour trains for Twyford (and the Henley Branch) and Maidenhead (and Marlow branch) commuters which are forecast to vanish completely.

 

Crossrail, albeit with controlled frequency, makes sense to me east of Slough (and even better sense east of West Drayton) but Slough would need major work to create a suitable turn round facility probably involving re-purchasing past railway land which has been sold off.  Maidenhead is definitely an ideal location for turnround facilities as the lowest price although it imposes a fleet size cost compared with Slough.  Reading increases the fleet size cost and, like Maidenhead compared with Slough, worsens utilisation but beyond that it seems to offer absolutely nothing other than maintaining 4 stopping trains an hour between Maidenhead and Reading - using a very long train which will never get anywhere its loading capacity.  In my view taking Crossrail to Maidenhead was not a very good idea but at least it had a pragmatic value.  Taking it to Reading is really no more than a nonsense as it will eat platform capacity at what is already a busy station, nothwithstanding its recent expansion  (although in reality on the Relief Line side it only added what amounts to one extra platform and effectively that will be used by Crossrail and probably no one else although it depends on the shape of their timetable).

 

I am thus readily able to understand why various commuter groups have been and are continuing to express considerable misgivings about the impact of Crossrail on their existing train services and journey times.  And further, looking at the diagrams in the link provided by Phil I'm left wondering where on earth we (and those travelling to/from LHR) are meant to put our luggage plus of course, apart from the draughts, the door areas will in any case be blocked at times by cycles.  Overall in relation to the need they have to serve outside the central area the trains seem to have been very poorly thought out with not only the ATOC guidelines ignored but also the needs of many passengers seemingly completely overlooked in just the same way that what is being said about the timetable is ignoring the realities of a mixed traffic railway with long & heavy freight trains and trains from the Thames Valley which need to maintain good journey times in the inner area.

 

Incidentally after a good number of years involved with timetable & operations planning, and line capacity studies, in Britain, Europe, and further overseas, I am not blinded by the nonsense being spouted about 24 trains per hour (tph) capacity.  The GWML east of Airport Junction can already reliably handle 21 tph and anyone who knows what they're doing could make it fairly reliably handle 24 tph without any change to the signalling or infrastructure.  20 trains per hour thence to Reading is a doddle - that's what the early 1960s signalling was designed to deliver and it could probably manage 24 tph without any changes now that Slough has been resignalled.  But what people always seem to overlook is the most important question of all - 24, or however many, trains of what types and with what calling patterns because those are the things which really decide line capacity, not some airy-fairy number touted on a high level document - all that number decides is most of the signalling specification.  

[Edwin_m]

The below suggests a certain amount of skip-stopping on Crossrail. 

 

http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/crossrail-service-pattern.html

[The Stationmaster]

The below suggests a certain amount of skip-stopping on Crossrail. 

 

http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/crossrail-service-pattern.html

 

Thanks for that.  This is why I used 'allegedly' - as it happens this is the fourth  lot of information I have seen about Crossrail service patterns and the first from a non-Crossrail official source.  Oddly this one makes some more sense than the official information (at least it doesn't contradict itself for a start, unlike Crossrail's murmurings).

 

Skip stop will obviously be better than all stations but it does depend which stops are skipped and how they fall in the overall timetable pattern as far as line capacity is concerned.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Looking at both the train seating plan and service pattern, to me it looks like TfL are trying to superimpose an "Underground" train concept on an already well-loaded four-track mainline railway - especially west of Paddington.

[Grovenor]

It's all that terminating at PAD that spawned the idea of building a link to the WCML to give them somewhere to go.

Regards

[The Stationmaster]

It's all that terminating at PAD that spawned the idea of building a link to the WCML to give them somewhere to go.

Regards

 

Don't forget that taking the Joint Line out of the plan on the western side of London has made a considerable difference although i doubt if all trains would have carried on beyond Paddington in any case.  However there is logic in adding something else although at least the terminations help give some reliability to train numbers in the central section.