phil-b259

The problem with all such ideas is the fact that the GWML between Ealing Broadway and West Ealing is only 4 tracks wide and in a cutting hemmed in bu suburban development. There simply are not the spare paths to send anything more down there in the way of traffic (which is partially why the Greenford trains are being cut back to a shuttle from West Ealing and a significant proportion of Crossrail trains from the core will have to terminate at Paddington until Old Oak Common HS2 station / the link to the WCML is built. If you want to run any more trains between West Ealing and Ealing Broadway then you will have to undertake lots of property demolition to widen the railway formation - which would never be tolerated these days. For your idea to work it would have needed the District Railway to have thought of it back around 1900 or so when building their own tracks parallel to the GWML was a feasible proposition Also (Please don't take this as an insult), but before getting the Crayons out (so to speak) and proposing things simply because they sound good, have a little look at the online satellite imagery of the area concerned - it will very quickly show whether any idea is remotely feasible and saves your blushes when someone points out the obvious flaws in your scheme.

Why? These coaches were used on rural branch line services and never carried such colours in real life - like most such vehicles they carried plain Carmine / Crimson if repainted by BR before scrapping. As such your hope is in the same category the same as asking for them in BR (S) green - namely asking Hornby to produce a totally fictitious livery.

No your not being dense - I am! Its the way Hornby have pictured them. If you flip the bottom coach © round then it is correct livery wise.

One problem with Hornbys livery rendition is the coaches. As I understand it the red swirly bits on the ends of the carriages change orientation at the buffet car - i.e. the standard class coaches have them going one way (to match the 91) and the first class coaches have them going the other way (to match the DVT). As such the inclusion of two standard class coaches with differing livery applications is plain wrong. It doesn't match the prototype and anyone adding further 1st class coaches to the rake will find they have a standard class coach they cannot use. The easy way to resolve this is to do what Lima did with some of their train packs - include a single first class coach and a single standard class coach, which would allow the VTEC livery to be accurately applied to all vehicles and make further expansion of the set a more attractive option.

Nope you are not missing something, the absolute minimum of changes are being made to the south end layout. You also need to factor in the fact that the deadline for it all being up and running is the 2018 timetable change and due to a lack of signalling design resources at a National level the exsisting Westpac (relay based) interlocking is being retained. As such there is a limit to what can be achieved within the timescales set for the project. NR are awere of the shortcomings of the south end layout and there are tentative plans for it to be remodelled to allow for parallel moves but this is presently unfunded and needs to be seen within the context of grade separation to the north of East Croydon (Windmill Bridges junction) which allows a significant increase in trains and makes doing something about Redill south end far more imperative.

I hope the powers that be have remembered that there are several S&T cases inside the 'wall' relating to the operational railway that we need access to. You would be surprised on jobs like this just how many projects overlook this aspect and hence cause problems when we need to gain access to 'their' site

While not condoning bad driving, I believe undertaking is, contrary to popular belief, not in itself a motoring offence - the key being the use of the official language used, i.e. "should not "undertake as opposed to "must not" undertake in the highway code. The term "must" indicates something specifically mentioned in law where as the term "should" indicates good practices but that there is no specific guidance on the matter in law. Of course if a motorist performing a "should not" action is involved in an incident then such behaviour could be used as evidence for a charge of dangerous driving.

Basically no. TPWS has a 'overide' button (that must be pressed when stationary for it to work) which disables the TPWS for 20 seconds so as to allow for drivers being cautioned past red signals in failure conditions but basically once a train has been 'tripped' by the TPWS the driver has no choice but to let it bring the train to a halt. Obviously there are isolation devices that can be used to turn TPWS off if there is a loco / unit has a fault with it but (1) they are not usually accessible from the driving position, (2) It is strictly forbidden for a train to remain in service if the TPWS (or AWS) is defective and (3) You cannot hide its operation / isolation from the data loggers which is why one ex Thameslink driver has served a prison sentence for disabling it without authorisation and is why the driver of Tangmere is being taken to court over the Wootton Basset incident.

How fast was the Turbo going and what was the overlap available past SN109 - because if TPWS had been installed in accordance with current standards (which haven't changed since the rollout of TPWS commenced) the Turbo would definitely have been stopped before it had a chance to get in the way of the HST. Note:- for non railway persons, TPWS standards dictate that if a passenger train is going at less than 75mph and the weather / rail head conditions are normal, that train will be bought to a halt within the standard 200yard overlap (and thus before it gets the chance to run through any points and end up foul of another line). The exception to this is if a less than standard overlap is provided, the railhead conditions / weather is particularly bad or the train is going faster than 75mph. In the last of these scenarios, if the consequences of a train not coming to a halt within the overlap are thought to be significant the installation of TPWS+ will cater for speeds grater than 75mph.

There was an official ORR consultation about the proposals and ASLEF were among several groups that made representations that they considered NRs proposals unacceptable. http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/19392/crossrail-exemption-application-consultation-aslef.pdf http://orr.gov.uk/consultations/closed-consultations/railway-safety-consultations/crossrail-exemption-application-consultation Individual drivers may of course feel differently but if so they are not reflecting their unions stated position.

I meant knee jerk as in following the Ladbroke Grove accident there was a rush to get TPWS in as quickly as possible. Given you say the system was in development back in 1994, and the fact the need for such a system was well known as far back as 1991 but it took the deaths of 31 people in 1999 to focus minds into actually getting TPWS rolled out as quickly as possible, the use of the term 'knee jerk reaction' to describe said roll out is not totally inaccurate.

BR ATP as fitted to the GWML is a expensive but far superior system to TPWS, but requires significant expense to provide in terms of train and track equipment. It is also, in technology terms, very outdated and due to its limited application quite a costly system to maintain. TPWS by contrast was a well intentioned, but fundamentally a knee jerk response to the Ladbroke Grove crash. While TPWS was quick to roll out across the country and has been very effective in preventing similar head on crashes at a modest cost, because it is not fitted to every signal it does not provide the comprehensive train protection ATP does. As such the BR ATP has to remain in service until it can be replaced with the new EU sponsored ETCS system which will maintain the same level of protection on the GWML You should also note that Heathrow Express and Heathrow Connect EMUs do not have AWS / TPWS fitted as a result - ATP provides more than adequate protection. However due to delays in developing the ETCS system there is some doubt it can be up and running on the GWML before Crossrail starts operations. As Crossrail trains will not have ATP fitted an interim solution has been proposed which involves fitting TPWS to every signal on the GWML. This has bee opposed by GWR, HEX and the unions as a retrograde step as even TPWS at every signal does not provide the same level of protection as ATP, but faced with the alternative of delaying the start of Crossrail services the ORR has accepted the proposals

But as you yourself have said in the same post they don't have too. Crossrail operated stations on the GWML and GEML have a legal requirement to continue to support the full range of national rail tickets both in terms of barriers and in terms of sales. As much as TfL might not like it*, that was the stipulation made when they started taking over National Rail operations (which they subsequently branded the London Overground) and its not something they can wiggle out of now with Crossrail, however much they push Oyster. Thus our potential commuter from Twyford can still buy and use his traditional paper season ticket on Crossrail or GWR + tube. However if Oyster is supported by both Crossrail and GWR then our commuter may decide to give up buying a paper season and use Oyster regardless of the train they get. If GWR conversely want nothing to do with Oyster then our commuter is best advised to stick to a paper season ticket to preserve their flexibility. Yes if a commuter purchases both a paper season and uses an Oyster card, on some days they will effectively end up paying twice - but this is no different to a Southern commuter from Redhill using his Oyster card despite having a paper season and also paying twice for a single journey. * Note how London Overground gets included in all TfL maps but other rail services (including Thameslink across central London) get ignored in a 'not part of our empire so we will ignore them' mode.

I still don't see what makes the GWML so special - I highlighted earlier on that Oyster is now accepted at Merstham, Redhill, Earlswood, Salfords & Gatwick Airport yet I would be willing to bet that Oyster use for locals going between these stations is absolutely minimal, particularly as there are quite a few Southern / Thameslink paper ticket deals that work out cheaper. Furthermore I expect a good proportion of travellers to London still make use of paper season tickets rather than bother with Oyster. Similarly I would expect that the majority of local journeys in the outer Thames Valley served by Crossrail will still be done with paper tickets or paper season tickets even after Oyster extended there as its what people are used to and its not as though you can use Oyster on the local buses in Slough or Maidenhead like you can within the GLA area. Oyster boundaries will in any case not be 'moved' - as is the case with Gatwick Airport and Hertford East services extra zones will be created which will keep fares at current levels (thus meeting the DfT requirements regarding Oyster acceptance outside the GLA area). Traffic from Reading is easily differentiated thanks to Crossrail arriving at its own dedicated station at Paddington (just as the Gatwick Express Oyster fare is triggered by the use of certain ticket gates at Victoria. At the end of the day Oyster is only going as far as Reading because TfL insist it is accepted on all the services they run. There is no obligation for FGW or anyone else to allow Oyster to be used on their services.

An excellent demonstration of why the GWML OHLE (NR installation) avoids the use of headspans - something the winging residents of Goring should take on board.

Yes but if the 360s were removed from the GWML there would be no need to keep the ATP gear - which could be removed and standard AWS / TPWS fitted. While the 360s used by HC may be a bespoke order, the basic train platform is not and as such its quite likely that the ATP stuff was simply inserted into the places that AWS / TPWS is fitted on the units ordered for elsewhere. Similarly as the HEX units are the same basic design as the 333s used in Yorkshire, were HEX ever to get rid of them removing ATP and installing AWS / TPWS shouldn't be that impossible to do.

The same way they do at Stratford when changing from GA services. Yes, it will no doubt cause protests from regular commuters, particularly when services are running late - but the GWML is hardly a unique example. With Oyster now being valid to Gatwick Airport, Hertford East and Grays its not as if the extension to Reading is going to introduce problems that haven't manifested themselves before. This website may be helpful when discussing Oyster on NR http://www.oyster-rail.org.uk/mixing-travelcard-and-payg/

That hasn't stopped Scotrail taking on 321 units and shortening them from 4 to 3 cars so they match the existing 320 fleet.

The onus is clearly on the passenger to "touch in" (see here https://tfl.gov.uk/fares-and-payments/oyster/using-oyster/touching-in-and-out) and as such I have no doubt TfL will provide Oyster readers on the platforms (as at Stratford) for this to happen if people are joining Crossrail services from elsewhere (i.e. at Reading, Twyford, Maidenhead & Slough). Passengers will pretty soon get the hang of it - unless they really want to pay the full daily cap. https://tfl.gov.uk/fares-and-payments/oyster/using-oyster/incomplete-journeys

Exactly, Oyster is totally separate from ticket barriers - the two can exist in isolation or be combined as necessary. If the barriers are left open at Reading the staff at Paddington will be able to check that fact and issue a penalty fare, while if you have an Oyster card and swiped out without having swiped in you get stung for the full daily cap amount - so its not as though its in the interests of Oyster users to not swipe in at Reading / Taplow if they are travelling to London.

It needs to be remembered that the 92s were the first use of AC traction motors in a British locomotive (as opposed to an EMU - the Networkers being the first unit to feature them) and as such display many of the problems common to the 1st of anything new. This is compounded by the complexity of their operations - having to squeeze in TVM430 in cab signalling, having key electrical gear duplicated and enhanced fire suppression systems for tunnel use, a very high current draw on 750V DC to cope with the heavy freights and 'Nightstar' sleepers for 3rd rail land plus all the BR 25KV stuff. Its also worth remembering just how technology has changed in 20 odd years. At the time the 92s were being designed the cutting edge of technology in computing terms was Windows 3.0 with the control gear needed to actually make use of AC drive technology being rather bulky and relatively crude. As such line voltage fluctuations could well cause such early electronics problems. 20 years on the rate of progress is such that the class 88s will be far more refined in terms of their electronics and are unlikely to suffer the same fate - though of course they have the advantage of not having all the extra stuff / restrictions that the Channel Tunnel poses.

Crossrail will have similarly dedicated subterranean platforms at Paddington and unlike Victoria, GWR trains will be unable to use them in times of disruption. As such its quite easy - if you touch in at Reading / Maidenhead / etc and touch out in the mainline station you get charged the higher GWR fare. If you touch out at the Crossrail station you get charged the lower Crossrail fare

I expect a similar situation will prevail as occurs with Oyster acceptance* at Merstham, Redhill, Elarlswood, Salfords, Horley and Gatwick Airport. In other words the Oyster fare will be pretty much the same as now, particularly at Reading - which avoids any of the issues I previously mentioned and ensures that GWR fares are not significantly undercut and the fares revenue that GWR gets is not adversely affected. Please remember that outside the GLA area TfL can only act with permission of the DfT - who will ensure that the profitability of the franchises they let suffers no ill effects whatsoever from Oyster acceptance. * example fares (Nov 2015) Gatwick Express single journey on Oyster pay as you go will be £19.80. The current single fare when purchased at London Gatwick or London Victoria is £19.90. Redhill to London Victoria or London Bridge single journey on Oyster pay as you go will be £10.30 peak and £5.80 off-peak. The current anytime day single is £10.50. East Croydon to Gatwick Airport single journey on Oyster pay as you go will be £5.20 peak and £3.00 off-peak. The current paper anytime single (excl. Thameslink only fares) is £5.20. See also http://content.tfl.gov.uk/national-rail-adult-fares.pdf

However when Crossrail is extended to Reading TfL have said Oyster / contactless will be extend to include all stations to Reading as they regard Oyster acceptance as an essential requirement of all services they provide. The only thing is that unlike the case with London Overground, where services extend beyond the GLA boundary or where stations are also served by TOCs franchised by the DfT, TfL are bared from reducing fares or restructure them so as to produce a 'cliff edge' effect at boundary stations like West Drayton.

I was on nights - you will have to excuse the words not coming out as my brain intended. Of course what I meant to say is ."... if a piling team encounter a problem* then ..." * Which could in theory be a cock up with two teams sent to work at one location, but due to the more complex planning working on a live railway requires it is difficult to relocate the 'spare team' as opposed to if the same occurred on a construction site setup (like HS2)