EMU cascade what happens after crossrail & Thameslink

[jamie92208]

 

Anything has to be better than 142s and what was wrong with the 305/309s? They filled a gap

 

There were several problems, apart from reliability one of the fleets had a problem with exploding Ht cables between the Pantograph and transformer IIRC. The use also closed down our last Leeds based train buulder as we were supposed to get 323's from Hunslet but the Government wouldn't garuntee the financing due to impending privatisation. We then had to wait sevreral years for the 333's and Hunslet's Jack Lane factory now makes electrical switchgear.

 

However with the delays to Thameslink procurement we ware going to have many miles of shiny new wires up here with no trains to run under them unless a new build from somewhere goes ahead soon. There are only 2 realistic options, more 350's or more 377's. Having ridden on both I would be happy for either but woould prefer a Derby built product if possible if only for the weight that won't have to be hauled up and down our hills that we we have oop ere.

 

Jamie

[black and decker boy]

its not a case of anything is better than a 142, i use pacers daily and it could be a lot worse.

 

a 313/315 fitted with high back seats and every window is a blank panel will not be welcomed as an improvement on a unit where every seat has a view

 

i'm sure most of the pacer denigrators don't actually travel on them

 

I'm born and bred in Rochdale so spent enough time on the Calder valley and loop getting whiplash. In the 21st century, the 142s are not the way forward. Whilst 313/317 type units may have their faults, a smooth quiet ride has to be a step forward.

[scorpion]

i value a view of the outside world a lot more than a smooth run through Aldwarke Jct, travelling regularly with no view is just torture, a bit of bounce isn't a problem

 

even east coast mk3s will throw coffee all over you on a bad bit of track

[jonhall]

My vote for the class 319s is that they are cascaded straight to the scrap yard! By the time the new Thamslink units are available they will be pushing 25 years old, and have not been well maintained over the last few years...some of them resemble mobile scrap-heaps at present.

 

I think you are writing the 319's off far too soon, at 25 years old they should only be just beyond half-life, if they were given the sort of refurb that SWT has given to its 455 fleet I think they could be quite a step up on whats currently on offer in South Wales (although they wouldn't be an improvement to those who have been used to a Deisel Desiro in TP).

 

Jon

[scorpion]

The BR EMUs would refurbish really well, move the draught screens back from the doors to give standing and circulating space, align the seats with the windows and they would pass for efficient new trains that are an improvement on what has gone before

[phil-b259]

Heathrow Express will continue to run alongside Crossrail

 

Don't bank on it. Recent capacity analysis on the route into Paddington surgests that the greatest throughput of trains can only be achieved by replacing the non-stop Heathrow express witha a semi-fast crossrail service in the peak hours (i.e. doing what they currently do with the Gatwick Express by turning them into trains from the Sussex coast). Naturally BAA won't like this and as the express service is a non franchised opperation the DfT would have to effectivley buy them out for it to happen. Then again maybee we could see some deal being done with reguards runway expansion to sweaten the pill, or maybe it will come down to who holds most sway with Politicans - airport companies or commuting voters.

[The Stationmaster]

 

Don't bank on it. Recent capacity analysis on the route into Paddington surgests that the greatest throughput of trains can only be achieved by replacing the non-stop Heathrow express witha a semi-fast crossrail service in the peak hours (i.e. doing what they currently do with the Gatwick Express by turning them into trains from the Sussex coast). Naturally BAA won't like this and as the express service is a non franchised opperation the DfT would have to effectivley buy them out for it to happen. Then again maybee we could see some deal being done with reguards runway expansion to sweaten the pill, or maybe it will come down to who holds most sway with Politicans - airport companies or commuting voters.

Are the Crossrail units going to be 100/125mph capable then? They need to be 100mph capable, with the right acceleration rate, to match HST times nbetween Paddington and the Junction - beyond there they need to be 125 mph capable to keep up with HSTs/whatever comes or they come off at West Drayton East onto the Reliefs which doesn't really make over much difference unless there is a really heavy stopping service east of there. It really does seem as Crossrail is not being clearly thought out if things like this are now happening.

 

I wonder what has happened to the six-tracking proposal which was all the vogue for Paddington - Airport Jcn in the late '90s?

[phil-b259]

I think you are writing the 319's off far too soon, at 25 years old they should only be just beyond half-life, if they were given the sort of refurb that SWT has given to its 455 fleet I think they could be quite a step up on whats currently on offer in South Wales (although they wouldn't be an improvement to those who have been used to a Deisel Desiro in TP).

 

Jon

 

Mechanically and from a bodyshell perspective the 319s are still in pretty good condition for their age and pretty everything else thats tatty about them could be fixed at overhall. A total strip down and refurbishing including the fitting of air con has been mentioned in the past.

 

As for Southern not only will they get their sub leased electrostars back from FCC when the Thameslink stock is renewed, but several of their current 377 routes will be absorbed into the expanded Thameslink network (East Grinstead, Horsham Littlehampton / Eastbourne, and some outer london surburban routes) releasing further 377s & 455s for the remaining routes including the Gatwick Express opperation and allowing the 442s to be scrapped. The same is true to a lesser extent with Thameslink taking over some South Eastern (which frees up more networkers and electrostars) and more importantly the Great northen route where only trains to Kings Lyn and Moorgate will not be included in the Thameslink network (thus rendering the 317s, 321s and some of the 313s on the route surplus to requirements).

 

Now the 321s could move to join their sister units on the Great Eastern section displacing further 317s currently in use there

 

In theory the surplass 317s and 319s (which both share the Mk3 surburban bodyshell could also be given a similar refurbishment (although the age of the traction kit on the 317s could be an issue).

[phil-b259]

Are the Crossrail units going to be 100/125mph capable then? They need to be 100mph capable, with the right acceleration rate, to match HST times nbetween Paddington and the Junction - beyond there they need to be 125 mph capable to keep up with HSTs/whatever comes or they come off at West Drayton East onto the Reliefs which doesn't really make over much difference unless there is a really heavy stopping service east of there. It really does seem as Crossrail is not being clearly thought out if things like this are now happening.

 

I wonder what has happened to the six-tracking proposal which was all the vogue for Paddington - Airport Jcn in the late '90s?

 

No they are not however if I recall the RUS correctly, the idea was to get rid of all non 125mph traffic off the fast lines therby giving an extra 4 tph between Reading and Paddington. The issue was that you couldn't fit the 4tph Heathrow express services plus the projected crossrail services onto the relief lines without sacraficing something. Hence the idea of replacing the non- stop heathrow express with a limited / skip stop crossrail service which also helps in as much as it obviously provides much better access to central London.

 

As this was just a RUS suggestion, in terms of Crossrail there is no change from the published plan - just like they seam determined to ignore the Reading issue. I guess thats only to be expected in as much as Crossrail is a very tightly speced and costed project and they will not do anything that changes the published costs and plans one bit. Having said that of course by the time it is compleated several other things will have happened which were not even on the drawing board when the Crossrail project was 'signed off' (e.g. GWML electrification, Reading rebuild, etc) so I fully expect there will be changes. How great they are is anyones guess though.

 

But to go back to the RUS suggestion, from a railwaymans point of view it was a very logical and straightforward one to optimise capacity on the approches to Paddington - whether the politicans and airport lobby will let it happen is another thing.

[John M Upton]

As for Southern not only will they get their sub leased electrostars back from FCC when the Thameslink stock is renewed, but several of their current 377 routes will be absorbed into the expanded Thameslink network (East Grinstead, Horsham Littlehampton / Eastbourne, and some outer london surburban routes) releasing further 377s & 455s for the remaining routes including the Gatwick Express opperation and allowing the 442s to be scrapped.

 

Word is that the Littlehampton and Eastbourne parts of the extended Thameslink services have been quietly dropped and will be covered by the existing services with some enhancements under the Greater Thameslink franchise. There is virtually no capacity or stabling space for any extra services down here and what there will be will continue to be run with 377 stock anyway. Also the Thameslink core services are geared towards DOO which is a absolute no-no beyond Three Bridges via Horsham and along the coast. I can see a slight restructuring of the existing service pattern to Victoria from the coast to feed into the core Thameslink services at key points (a rebuilt and extended Gatwick Airport Station and East Croydon with its forthcoming much needed new footbridge facility) but the total incompatability of stock (Southern area 377 vs Thameslink Desiro if they ever turn up vs North London Greater Thameslink pic and mix of junk) means that Greater Thameslink will still have to be operationally three semi-seperate operations anyway.

 

The idea of larger more integrated franchises is a good idea, typically the Goverment have screwed up by applying it completely wrongly. Merging horizontally the South Eastern, South Central and South Western sections should have been what had been done, instead what we will have is a mishapen 'egg timer' network which is in reality three seperate bits that happen to cross paths a bit more co-operatively and intergratedly than they do now.

[phil-b259]

Word is that the Littlehampton and Eastbourne parts of the extended Thameslink services have been quietly dropped and will be covered by the existing services with some enhancements under the Greater Thameslink franchise. There is virtually no capacity or stabling space for any extra services down here and what there will be will continue to be run with 377 stock anyway. Also the Thameslink core services are geared towards DOO which is a absolute no-no beyond Three Bridges via Horsham and along the coast. I can see a slight restructuring of the existing service pattern to Victoria from the coast to feed into the core Thameslink services at key points (a rebuilt and extended Gatwick Airport Station and East Croydon with its forthcoming much needed new footbridge facility) but the total incompatability of stock (Southern area 377 vs Thameslink Desiro if they ever turn up vs North London Greater Thameslink pic and mix of junk) means that Greater Thameslink will still have to be operationally three semi-seperate operations anyway.

 

The idea of larger more integrated franchises is a good idea, typically the Goverment have screwed up by applying it completely wrongly. Merging horizontally the South Eastern, South Central and South Western sections should have been what had been done, instead what we will have is a mishapen 'egg timer' network which is in reality three seperate bits that happen to cross paths a bit more co-operatively and intergratedly than they do now.

 

I have seen various postings before suggesting that Eastbourne / Littlehampton has been droped but nothing deffinate. In some ways that makes sense as currently the services divide and join at Haywards Heath with all the delay risks that brings while for Thameslink to work trains must arive at their central London 'transit slot'' on time to ensure reliable opperation. It also doesn't alter the established London termi for the service which current users may apreciate.

 

On the other hand north London lacks the extensive surburban and home counties networks found in the south meaning you end up serving some rather far flung destinations in the north,(i.e. Cambridge & Peterborough) which could be said to be in journey time and milage to be similar to Eastbourne & Littlehampton. Also the configurations of trains serving longer distance destinations tend to be better (i.e 1st class facilaties and 2+2 seating) reflecting the longer journey time whereas services closer to London can get away with standard only and 2+3 seating. Combining the two however e.g. Dartford - Peterborough or East Grinstead - Cambridge means the train has to be a compromise and is unlikley to cater effectivley for both markets. Yes I suppose you only then need one type of train but it would be far benifical for travellers to split the services into long distance and metro routes with destinations and train interoirs to suit.

 

The other problem with the Midland mainline is although it gets up to 12tph, the lack of destinations and the wires finishing at Bedford leads to far too many services finishing close to each other. Also it means that north of Bedford the EMT has to take up the role of a stopping service between the likes of Bedford, Wellingborough & Kettering where as it really should be concontrating on providing Intercity services between London & the East Midlands but if (upon electrification of the MML) Thameslink were to be extended north to Kettering & Corby then this could be avoided. It also allows the terminating Thameslink services to be better 'spaced out' as it were as well as allowing for the creation of new stations between Bedford & Kettering without adding yet more stops in the EMT timetable. Finally it also balaances the GN and Midland branches in terms of the 'distance from London' stakes and could leed to better service planing

 

 

As to DOO, I have three words : read McNaulty's report

 

This report lays down the strategic direction the rail industry is expected to go in the future (it was comissioned under the previous Labour government remember) and it is quite clear that guards / conductors are to be removed as soon as possable. In McNaulty's view the ONLY justification for having a second (or more in the case of IC opperators) crew member is where they generate signifficant extra revenue i.e. trolley / RPI / catering roles.

 

Naturally the unions, especially the guards union (RMT), are implacably oposed to any DOO extension, but in the long run they are not the ones who will make the decisions. Providing the drivers union (ASLEF) can be bribed to acept it, Network Rail / TOCs put in the infrastructure necessary and the ORR are happy its safe, DOO will eventually happen. Besides if the conservatives get in with a clear majority there are plenty of party members that would love the chance to reduce union power further by making strikes on "essentail services" illegal. Finally remember that while Southern mainline may well still have conductors, Southern metro services and Gatwick Express (north of the airport) don't. Neither do FCC who will effectivley 'take over' the Southern franchsise two years into their term

[Edwin_m]

Another benefit of extending Thameslink to Corby would be to remove one of the five MML services per hour that have to fit into four platforms at St Pancras, potentially allowing another longer-distance service in the future.

 

I suspect many trains will still have conductors but they will have reduced or no safety responsibility, being only in a revenue or customer service role. This means they don't have to get to the door controls at every stop, and possibly that the train can still run without a conductor if one isn't available. GSM-R and trainside cameras mean that the technology to enable DOO is a lot cheaper/easier than it used to be.

[The Stationmaster]

 

I suspect many trains will still have conductors but they will have reduced or no safety responsibility, being only in a revenue or customer service role. This means they don't have to get to the door controls at every stop, and possibly that the train can still run without a conductor if one isn't available. GSM-R and trainside cameras mean that the technology to enable DOO is a lot cheaper/easier than it used to be.

 

I think this is undoubtedly the way it has to go. Conductors clearly have a revenue protection (and - in some cases - collection) role but as operational adjuncts to the Driver their role is increasingly little more than a hangover from the past as train and infrastructure modernisation progresses (or in not a few cases has already progressed).

[chrisf]

Another benefit of extending Thameslink to Corby would be to remove one of the five MML services per hour that have to fit into four platforms at St Pancras, potentially allowing another longer-distance service in the future.

 

Two points here. First, when the 319s were new at least some of them had Corby on the destination blinds so someone clearly envisaged the wires reaching Corby and working the service as an extension of London - Bedford. Second, the new service to Corby was provided by diverting the hourly MML stopping train to Derby, thus halving the service from Bedford to the north and removing that from Luton [as opposed to Luton Airport Parkway] altogether. I am all for Corby having a service but does no-one know about portion working?

 

Chris

[jonathan452]

..........................One suggestion that was also made was that when the 23 Class 377/5's come back (assuming that there is anything left of them as with FCC they are getting completely trashed by graffiti and vandal morons at the moment and FCC seem to be in no way inclined to do anything about it).................

I did indeed bring this up on the First Crapital Connect Website http://www.firstcrapitalconnect.co.uk/what-can-we-do-about-first-capital-connect.html#FirstCapitalConnectReviewsandComments a few weeks ago under the guise of 'off peak passenger'.

 

Eventually recieved a few replies, apparently FCC are now taking on more cleaning staff to remedy the situation although of course this may have only been for the Olympics..........................

[Claude_Dreyfus]

I suspect one of the main arguments against DOO along the South Coast and Arun valley routes is the large number of stations with short platforms, plus the fact a number of the stations are not manned from the early evening onwards...something that will be exacerbated should the suggested reduction in manned stations take effect.

[phil-b259]

I suspect one of the main arguments against DOO along the South Coast and Arun valley routes is the large number of stations with short platforms, plus the fact a number of the stations are not manned from the early evening onwards...something that will be exacerbated should the suggested reduction in manned stations take effect.

 

Stations with short platforms already have SDO fitted, and the trains already use GPS to tell it how many doors to open, all the conductor has to do is undertake the door closing procedure - something drivers on FCC already do with no problem. Besides as London Overground have proved staffed stations doesn't have to mean they have an open ticket office. Just hire some security guards (at a much lower rate than traditional 'railway' people), ensure the lighting and CCTV are up to scratch - job done. As for on train RPI staff, again these are much cheeper to employ than propper guards and as with parking wardens there is allways the option of 'comission' to encourage them in their duties

[The Stationmaster]

No they are not however if I recall the RUS correctly, the idea was to get rid of all non 125mph traffic off the fast lines therby giving an extra 4 tph between Reading and Paddington. The issue was that you couldn't fit the 4tph Heathrow express services plus the projected crossrail services onto the relief lines without sacraficing something. Hence the idea of replacing the non- stop heathrow express with a limited / skip stop crossrail service which also helps in as much as it obviously provides much better access to central London.

 

As this was just a RUS suggestion, in terms of Crossrail there is no change from the published plan - just like they seam determined to ignore the Reading issue. I guess thats only to be expected in as much as Crossrail is a very tightly speced and costed project and they will not do anything that changes the published costs and plans one bit. Having said that of course by the time it is compleated several other things will have happened which were not even on the drawing board when the Crossrail project was 'signed off' (e.g. GWML electrification, Reading rebuild, etc) so I fully expect there will be changes. How great they are is anyones guess though.

 

But to go back to the RUS suggestion, from a railwaymans point of view it was a very logical and straightforward one to optimise capacity on the approches to Paddington - whether the politicans and airport lobby will let it happen is another thing.

 

I don't get it then Phil - the running time difference between an HST and Heathrow Express from Paddington start to Airport Junction pass is negligible. I don't know about the current WTT but a few years ago in the Down evening peak there was at least one hour block where trains were running, reliably, at sub the officially designed signalling headway with no problems (as I found out when I looked at trying to insert some extra ones).

 

Now presumably when HSTs are partially replaced by IEP running on 25kv there will be a greater difference between the HEX and 'GW' times but there will still be HSTs or something else potentially running on diesel slotted into those paths unless they are put on the reliefs (which would slaughter their running times).

 

The constraint on number of trains per hour is not so much at that end but at the Reading end where platform reoccupation times (including deceleration) are effectively greater than the running headway and that is partially why - some time back - HST running times were slacked out on the Down and why many trains stand waiting platform at TR28 etc (the slacking out on the Up is basically for recovery and 'charter' time). So by putting HEX trains between HSTs (as things currently are) you get a better timetable as it makes it work at Reading. Some of the reading effect will go away with the new layout but not all of it because of the way the service pattern is constructed.

 

In reality it sounds to me as if Crossrail frequency (and possibly stopping patterns) might be over-specified in relation to available infrastructure (which is not new in respect of Crossrail as it happened first time round) and that it has been superimposed on other services without taking them into proper account. There is of course a simple answer - HEX came first and was there long before Crossrail and in dispute terms that is what should hold sway; HEX have an Access Contract and if they are not prepared to change it they can't necessarily be forced to (unless some one has carried out a hefty re-write of the Access Conditions and Access Contracts since the days when I was involved in such things).

 

Equally if Crossrail want to go to LHR they have only one real option - do it off the Reliefs because they won't be able to cross to the Mains (unless the work at Acton permits that?) and time their trains accordingly.

[Joseph_Pestell]

allowing the 442s to be scrapped.

 

It would be daft to scrap the 442s - even though I agree they are unsuitable for Southern. Ideal (with power car removed) as a push-pull unit.

[chrisf]

Just hire some security guards

 

You have just endeared yourself to every photographer!

 

Chris

[Joseph_Pestell]

in terms of Crossrail there is no change from the published plan - just like they seam determined to ignore the Reading issue.

 

 

I think that it could probably be established that extension to Reading (now that there will be wires anyway) actually reduces costs. One reason that there is little movement on it is that Reading Borough Council has been so lukewarm about it. The officer responsible for transport there actually thought that Crossrail was to be operated with Underground stock!

[The Stationmaster]

I think that it could probably be established that extension to Reading (now that there will be wires anyway) actually reduces costs. One reason that there is little movement on it is that Reading Borough Council has been so lukewarm about it. The officer responsible for transport there actually thought that Crossrail was to be operated with Underground stock!

Technically it could probably increase costs as it would add 23+ miles to every round trip or getting on for 20 minutes. this would affect the cycle time of the diagrams so to run the same frequency would quite likely require more sets = more cost. The next question is whether or not Reading would have the capacity to handle the trains - which is a bigger obstacle than might be thought as was found first time round with Crossrail although presumably what is currently shown as 'IEP sidings could just as easily become (part) Crossrail sidings?

 

I'm not surprised about reading Councillor's ideas - they already have some daft ideas about running double-decker 'buses along Cow Lane having seemingly not noticed that the new bridges on the Main & Relief Lines plus depot access are the same height as the old bridge. And it is perhaps easy to get confused about Crossrail trains as the mock-up of the last iteration c.20 years ago that went on public display hardly looked like the sort of train you'd want to spend 50+ minutes sitting in - as would be the case from Reading.

 

I'm sorry but if folk want to put trains on longer journey time outer-suburban workings, especially where they are in stiff competition with private car and coach alternatives, they have to pay far greater attention to passenger comfort and facilities, some hope!

[phil-b259]

I don't get it then Phil - the running time difference between an HST and Heathrow Express from Paddington start to Airport Junction pass is negligible. I don't know about the current WTT but a few years ago in the Down evening peak there was at least one hour block where trains were running, reliably, at sub the officially designed signalling headway with no problems (as I found out when I looked at trying to insert some extra ones).

 

Now presumably when HSTs are partially replaced by IEP running on 25kv there will be a greater difference between the HEX and 'GW' times but there will still be HSTs or something else potentially running on diesel slotted into those paths unless they are put on the reliefs (which would slaughter their running times).

 

The constraint on number of trains per hour is not so much at that end but at the Reading end where platform reoccupation times (including deceleration) are effectively greater than the running headway and that is partially why - some time back - HST running times were slacked out on the Down and why many trains stand waiting platform at TR28 etc (the slacking out on the Up is basically for recovery and 'charter' time). So by putting HEX trains between HSTs (as things currently are) you get a better timetable as it makes it work at Reading. Some of the reading effect will go away with the new layout but not all of it because of the way the service pattern is constructed.

 

In reality it sounds to me as if Crossrail frequency (and possibly stopping patterns) might be over-specified in relation to available infrastructure (which is not new in respect of Crossrail as it happened first time round) and that it has been superimposed on other services without taking them into proper account. There is of course a simple answer - HEX came first and was there long before Crossrail and in dispute terms that is what should hold sway; HEX have an Access Contract and if they are not prepared to change it they can't necessarily be forced to (unless some one has carried out a hefty re-write of the Access Conditions and Access Contracts since the days when I was involved in such things).

 

Equally if Crossrail want to go to LHR they have only one real option - do it off the Reliefs because they won't be able to cross to the Mains (unless the work at Acton permits that?) and time their trains accordingly.

 

From the London & South East RUS summary list of recommendations january 2012

 

New GWML peak service structure based

on: 20trains per hour main line via

Reading; 16trains per hour relief lines

(including 10trains per hour to Heathrow Airport)

 

This option is the only realistically viable means of fully responding to the peak capacity gap. It is therefore likely to be required within the RUS timescale, providing four extra fast trains per peak hour from Reading or beyond to London in the current Heathrow Express paths. The emerging service for Heathrow Airport, developed in response to feedback received during the consultation, is for 10 Crossrail trains per hour. The journey, based on a skip-stop pattern in the peaks, would be longer than on the existing Heathrow Express, but the trains would be significantly more frequent and would operate through central London, rather than just to London Paddington. This package of service changes has potential to provide major improvements to the GWML. Further development is required, especially in connection with avoiding any reduction to the rail modalshare, and passenger experience, to and from Heathrow Airport

 

In more detail:

 

Assessment of Option A5 – implement 20tph main line/16tph relief line service

 

Concept

 

This option is based around a new 4tph Reading/outer Thames Valley to London Paddington peak service, with Heathrow Airport served by a 10tph Crossrail service. An indicative peak 20tph main line service specification would be:

 

• ten trains from long distance destinations (9 IEP, 1 HST)

• six trains formed of high capacity EMU stock from outer destinations such as Oxford and

Newbury, all of which would be able to run non-stop from Reading (or potentially beyond)

• four new trains formed of high capacity EMU stock running from the Reading area. These

would call at Twyford (alternate trains), Maidenhead and Slough (alternate trains).

 

Based on implementation of Option A3 most of the outer suburban EMUs would be 12-car length, with a high seating capacity and capable of at least 100mph operations (110mph preferred). The four additional trains would cross from the relief lines to the main lines at Maidenhead or Slough, with the other 16 trains running on the main lines from Reading. To free up the capacity necessary to operate the above increased main line service level the existing Heathrow Express service would be replaced by a significantly increased Heathrow Airport to Crossrail service (10tph rather than 4tph as currently planned), all of which would run, at peak times, on the relief lines. At peak times the Heathrow Airport services would need to be skip-stop to maximise relief lines capacity overall, whilst in the off-peak four trains per hour could run non-stop on the main lines.

 

As well as providing increased peak capacity on the GWML a further aim of the option is to improve services between much of Central London and Heathrow Airport, by increasing frequencies to a total of 10tph and running all of these through the Central London Crossrail tunnels.

 

The resulting peak 16tph Crossrail service pattern has been assumed to be as follows, though other variations may exist:

 

• 8tph Heathrow Airport Terminal 5 (running limited stop on the relief lines)

• 2tph Heathrow Airport Terminal 4 (running skip-stop on the relief lines)

• 4tph Reading (running skip-stop on the relief lines), based on Option A1 being implemented

• 2tph Slough (running skip-stop on the relief lines).

 

The number of Crossrail services terminating in the Westbourne Park area from the east would be further reduced from the currently planned 14tph to 8tph at peak times.

 

The conclusion from the previous page is that the RUS has not pursued a major infrastructure upgrade to the London Paddington – Airport Junction section, given that service change options exist which solve the peak capacity gap in a significantly more efficient manner, whilst improving access by Crossrail between Central London and Heathrow Airport. However, it is possible that some smaller scale interventions of additional tracks may be appropriate at key locations, to enable relief line overtaking moves. Further consideration regarding whether there might be a case for such interventions is recommended, but not as a way of addressing the gap.

 

The proposed service change options have been consolidated in this RUS into a single option which has now been developed in detail as Option A5 below. The option shown is based around running as many trains as practicable on existing infrastructure, evening out the numbers of trains between the main and relief lines to achieve the maximum overall capacity. The service structure is based on 20 trains in the busiest peak hour for main line services (all of which would run to London Paddington) and 16 trains in the busiest peak hour for relief line services (all of which would run through Central London). This would represent nearly a 25 per cent increase in the overall numbers of trains on the route in the busiest hour compared to today and, in conjunction with the higher capacity trains in operation, is considered to provide broadly an appropriate level of capacity to match future demand growth.

 

Capacity gaps and options beyond previous strategy

 

Operational analysis Following the completion of remodelling works at Reading station and its approaches capacity will be available to allow additional fast services to London Paddington, as well as the extended relief line service outlined in Option A1. The train service changes proposed under this option would free up the necessary platform capacity at London Paddington (two long platforms) and capacity on the main lines between Paddington and Airport Junction for a 20tph peak main line service via Reading. The 16tph relief lines service would fill the relief lines to capacity (given the need for station calls), so minimising journey times to Heathrow Airport is best achieved through the use of a skip-stop service pattern with all relief line trains having similar journey times between London Paddington and Airport Junction, since this avoids fast trains catching up with those calling at all stations. In the off-peak the RUS anticipates that a 4tph Crossrail non-stop service to Heathrow Airport would run on the main lines. This would allow sufficient capacity on the relief lines for freight paths and would minimise the London – Heathrow Airport journey time. In addition to this 6tph to the airport would run on the relief lines for local passengers, at least 2tph of which could be semi-fast. However other permutations may be possible. The peak 20tph main line/16tph relief line service would be the maximum capacity achievable on the route. As a result the Bourne End and Henley-on-Thames branches would need to have the direct peak services to London replaced by good connections at Twyford/ Maidenhead into the fast EMUs to London Paddington and/or relief line services runningbeyond Paddington.

 

Infrastructure required

 

None identified as a specific absolute requirement (assuming the east facing bay at Slough is already provided by Option A1 at this stage). However the following further enhancements have been identified as highly desirable to improve performance robustness:

 

• increased main-to-relief turnout speeds at Dolphin and Maidenhead East Junctions (currently 40mph)

 

• a new crossover at Acton to allow main to relief crossing moves as a parallel move with freight access to Acton yard.

 

Passenger impact

 

The 20tph main line service structure would provide significant extra peak capacity on the GWML, reducing much of the standing which is otherwise anticipated from the outer Thames Valley. This would provide a major improvement for Thames Valley commuters, in turn freeing up capacity for long distance passengers to South Wales and the West Country on the IEP trains, especially at the busiest times such as the Friday evening peak.

However, many Heathrow Express passengers would potentially see disbenefits as a result of this option, especially those heading for the immediate area around Paddington station. Heathrow Airport Limited have expressed concern that such passengers would switch to private car and taxis in significant numbers. More detailed analysis of this is required. It is recognised that the quality of the passenger experience, together with the need for an easily comprehensible train service, is an important priority for aviation passengers. This has a significant effect on modal choice and would require further assessment before implementation of this option. As far as the West End, City of London and Canary Wharf areas are concerned, the frequency of services to and from Heathrow Airport would be significantly improved, with 10tph Crossrail route services to the airport throughout the day, all of which would run via the Central London tunnels, with most running to Heathrow Terminal 5 which will not otherwise be served by Crossrail. Freight impact No capacity for freight would be available in the busiest part of the passenger peak, but four freight paths per hour would be available in the off-peak. This is considered sufficient to accommodate the anticipated freight demand.

 

Financial andeconomic analysis

 

At present insufficient information is available to robustly quantify the benefits and any disbenefits, with such calculations being sensitive to the assumptions used regarding Heathrow business travellers.

The option also interacts significantly regarding ongoing planning in connection with the Old Oak Common area.

Further development is required.

 

Link to other options

 

This option potentially interacts with the strategy for HS2, since the proposed future infrastructure at Old Oak Common is designed around Heathrow Express trains (and other services) calling on the GWML main lines. If Heathrow Airport were served solely by Crossrail services then it may be possible for the design of Old Oak Common station to be simplified, though this requires further detailed consideration. Conclusion This option appears likely to be required for implementation in the mid 2020s to respond to crowding from the outer Thames Valley. It would broadly resolve the GWML capacity gap and improve journey opportunities to Heathrow in many aspects, but certain groups of airline travellers may be adversely affected. Further development is recommended.

 

documents:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/rus%20generation%202/london%20and%20south%20east/london%20and%20south%20east%20rus%20-%20summary%20list%20of%20recommendations%20january%202012.pdf

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/rus%20generation%202/london%20and%20south%20east/london%20and%20south%20east%20route%20utilisation%20strategy.pdf

[Kris]

36 trains per hour into Paddington is a huge number. Despite the reports suggesting that this can be managed with the current infrastructure (at Paddington) I do wonder just how big a knock-on will be caused by a small delay of an inbound / out bound train.

[John M Upton]

DOO and the extension or not thereof will always be a contentious subject. Drivers and passengers all like to see an official uniformed prescence on their trains (and I am not talking trolly dollies here) and it is reflected in how the role of the Guard/Conductor has changed over the last twenty years, moving more and more to an emphasis on customer service, being helpful and protecting revenue but still retaining the saftery critical role which means if it all goes pear shaped, there is somewhere other than the driver who can dig them out of the mire, essential if the driver is dead/injured/traumatised by whatever may have happened.

 

Gone are the days of the old BR guard whose main job was to wave his flag at each stop and then sit in the guards van drinking tea, reading the Racing Post and smoking sixty a day.

 

It is interesting to note that one area TOC's are judged on is the visibility and helpfulness of staff both at stations and on board the train, it also notable that next door South West Trains is 100% Conductor operated even on their South West London Metro routes and I believe FGW barring some inner London area operations are simliar whilst major rural predominant operations like Arriva Wales also will retain Guards for many decades to come. The 'it will all be DOO in five years' mantra has been bandied about for the last thirty years on and off and overall bar London Underground and introduced additional services such as the original NSE Thameslink operation, it is pretty much the same now as it was in the mid 1980's, indeed the number of Conductors/Guards being employed has actually increased in recent years with increases in services being run.

 

Also despite increases in online/advance ticket sales, installation of ticket barriers and the gradual spread of smart card ticketing, in my experience and to my surprise the amount of revenue being taken by myself and my fellow Conduictors on board trains (not including event buldge bubbles such as the Olympics of course) has actually been increasing this year, particularly in the evenings where ticket offices are usually closed.

 

The McNulty Report is the most recent in a long line of Government commissioned reports most of which have been cherry picked for a few ideas and the remainder thrown in the dusty filing cabinet in the DfT's basement along with all the rest of them. The Transport Minister's statement to the House of Commons on it notably contained a lot of 'we will leave it to the industry to decide' type statements on much of it which in some respects is a pity as in amongest the waffle, nonsensical cobblers and unworkable lunacy that McNulty produced there were actually a couple of really good ideas like restructuring of the fares system that is (in my opinion) a complete and utter mess but the Government Minister merely declared it would be put out to consultation which means a talking shop that in the end will do nothing except rename a few ticket types like they did last time.

 

This is now starting to go a little off topic from the original thread so apologies!!