Ron Ron Ron

All as I understood it Phil. However, wasn't the dispute between TfL and HAL finally settled back in late June, following the court ruling against HAL in May? I should have been clearer in my previous post (now duly edited), as I was really talking about TfL shortly taking over the stopping services in 6 months time, leading on to full Crossrail to Heathrow in 2 years time. Oyster cards can be used on both HEX and TfL rail, between Heathrow and London, from May next year. They've said that online advance purchase HEX fares will be available from £5.50 upwards. What happens to HEX post 2023 is anyones's guess at the moment...and yes, those paths are desperately needed for GWR services. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40059659 http://mediacentre.heathrow.com/pressrelease/details/81/Corporate-operational-24/8615 http://www.cityam.com/267806/heathrow-rail-services-boosted-elizabeth-line-deal .

Corrr !!! that's some smooth technique there mate. ..

That premium only applies to HEX and not Heathrow Connect (edit: ...well not between Paddington and Hayes), the latter of which is due to be taken over by TfL Rail in just over 6 months time (May 2018). HEX has agreement and rights to run services until 2023 (just over 5 years time). What happens after that date is anybody's guess at this point in time. Who provides services from the west, hasn't been decided yet. .

As far as I know, the plan they are putting out for the relief lines towards Paddington, is still for 4 tph from Reading and 6tph from Maidenhead. That includes the residual GWR services, which only run off-peak. With the Heathrow trains, that makes it 10 tph between Maidenhead and Langley junction (passenger services). The same as east of Airport Junction. As for realignment of the main line at Langley. That doesn't appear on the diagrams NR have put out. There will be no connection between the mains and the new airport spur, which I believe will pass over the current formation and connect between the down relief and the realigned up relief and the proposed (new) up goods. https://consultations.networkrail.co.uk/communications/westernraillinktoheathrow/supporting_documents/Intersection%20Bridge%20options.pdf The impact on Reading platform capacity was mentioned in the 2015 NR Western Route Study. In it, they discuss various ideas to mitigate the impact, such as the Heathrow trains running on to destinations such as Basingstoke and Oxford. Personally speaking, I'm surprised that the railway is still following antiquated operational practices, by turning trains in busy stations and thereby reducing much needed capacity. Crossrail trains turning back at Paddington (from the east) and Maidenhead, will use reversing sidings beyond the station platforms. Reading is an ideal candidate for similar procedures, in so far that terminating trains from Paddington "should" set down and then continue on to reverse west of the station. Where that can be accommodated I will not speculate, but large scale provision of sidings and depot roads have been constructed to the west of the station. If turn back arrangement haven't been factored in, or cannot be made available, I see this as a gross error in the planning of the new Reading layout. The extra Platforms for the new link already exist beneath T5, Jim. They were put in with the rest of the station, when T5 was built. There has been much speculation about running through trains, but a lot has to be decided before the service provision and routes served, is determined. A number of factors need to be considered, not least the fact that from immediately west of the entrance to T5, until just short of Airport Junction at Hayes, the railway is privately owned by HAL. i.e. not part of the NR route structure. Lots of talk on railway forums about what through services could be run, including if the link to Staines is also built. However, what people don't seem to recognise, is if Heathrow R3 gets the go ahead (which is looking increasingly unlikely), then the expected passenger loadings for Crossrail, HEX (if it's still running after 2023), the western rail link and any additional link to Staines, will mean that there will be little to no capacity for through passengers bypassing Heathrow. The rail links are there primarily to service the airport. .

Was that in First Mike? Without checking back, I think I read somewhere that only First gets 3 pin and USB. .

That land under construction, shown in that Bing photo, was not and would never have been available. It's the site of the former RAF West Drayton, that was home to the London air Traffic Control Centre and its disposal was conditional on several factors, Also, very importantly, there would have been no space to provide the necessary link to the relief lines between there and West Drayton station. Especially as the Grand Union Canal runs alongside the railway at that point. In addition. There would not be sufficient capacity in the Heathrow owned tunnel, nor platform capacity at the airport, to run the trains from the west on top of the number of trains that will be running from the London direction. Note that when full Crossrail (Elizebeth Line) services commence in December 2019, there will be 10 tph (inc. HEX), for the initial service level. Proposals for the Western link, are for an initial 4 tph to Reading. If trains originating from west/south of Reading are added this figure could increase. .

I'm aware of a number of issues that I didn't mention earlier. .

Which is exactly what is being worked on and currently delayed, with the WRLtH.

A number of reasons. The branch links to the east on the GWML, not the west. There's insufficient room to build a western connection from the branch to the GWML (M25, Iver North Water Treatment Works, deep flooded disused gravel pits all in the way). The branch is only single track. The bridges and route through the very centre of the M4/M25 junction are single track and cannot be widened. Large industrial complexes alongside the branch line get in the way, including existing rail terminals. Crossing the Bath Rd. in Poyle. The link requires twin tracks and a flying junction to the relief lines, to allow for a very minimum of 4 tph, each way. So a new line is inevitable. .

Indeed and this is a real possibility and subject of several "serious" proposals. The Western Rail Link to Heathrow, (now being simply referred to as Heathrow Rail Link and formerly known as WRAtH ) is already an active, ongoing NR programme, which is fairly advanced in its development. It has been delayed by 2 years due to the lack of funding in CP5 and the backlog of NR projects, in addition to the political decision to repeat the previous public consultation processes, not once, but now a second time, before the planning application is submitted in spring/summer next year. The original preliminary construction start date should have been April 2017 (6 months ago), but it was put back to spring 2019. The Western Rail Link design, opens up the possibility of further rail access to Heathrow T5 via a link to "southern rails", in the Staines area. New proposals for this have been floated around over the last 18 months or so, following the demise of the previous Airtrack proposals several years ago. The other proposals revolve around what sort of rail services will run over these new rail routes. All sorts of possibilities are being aired, but how practical some may be is a long way from being decided. There is nothing that a mega expensive and unnecessary Windsor link could provide, that can't be covered by the far more useful Western Rail Link and the proposed southern access. Getting back on topic (GWML Electrification), the Western Rail Link will have a temporary impact on the newly electrified relief lines, in the vicinity of Langley station. At the very least, the Up Relief will have to be diverted to the north of the current track formation, to allow for the construction of the junction with the new link. The relief side of Langley station will also need to be realigned and remodelled. Add to that the proposal for a new Heathrow Express depot, to be located adjacent to these new works; although whether that will be needed is yet to be seen. If all this gets the final go ahead, the new OHLE over the affected tracks will be have to be taken down and replaced. . .

Are you sure he wouldn't label the GWML OHLE as a (big ears voice on....) "monstrous carbuncle" ? .

I think the new timetable and electric trains to Didcot - starts 2nd January. .

There is no need for a separate module to restart the train. These modules are switched into circuit on the braking section and the Assymetric DCC they produce triggers the decoder to slow the loco/train down to a stop. When the module is switched back out of circuit, the normal DCC is restored and the decoder responds and starts the loco/train again. Switching the module on or off can be done via manual selection (on/off switch), a track activated switch, by turnout operation or by signals changing. .

I read that to say that you will have 2 boosters. The main system booster (located along with the command station, inside the Prodigy base station) and an additional booster; plus the RCD's to provide sub-districts. Is that correct? If so, you have a further question beyond the provision for fault finding, or keeping the layout running when shorts occur. That is to decide what parts of the layout each booster will power, as well as working out how the layout will be split into sub-districts. With 2 boosters, it will be important to think about where the power demand will be coming from. For example..... the case of a large loco depot with lots of locos "ticking over" on the juice, or a busy yard with a number of locos (both active and stationary) and shunting movements taking place; versus the mainlines with only 1 or 2 locos working on them at any time. In this example, there will probably be a larger demand on the available system power from the yard or depot, so depending on how large that demand is, you might want to provide that part of the layout with its own booster and have the rest of the layout runs off the other booster, but split into sub-districts (for the obvious reasons). Another example would be a very large layout, with long distances involved. In this example the 2 boosters (or more), might be better employed in a geographical layout, based on distance. The circuit breakers would still be able to divide the individual running lines up, within the respective power districts. If the point motors are to be operated via DCC, then you will need accessory decoders to control them. If you are already planning to sensibly divide the layout up in to power districts and sub-districts for short protection and fault finding; it would be logical to provide another power district, or power sub-district to operate all your ancillaries, such as accessory decoders and point motors. That would indeed involve its own accessory power bus. .

Martin, that topic covers the old 36-557, which has been replaced by this rebadged ESU Standard 21-pin. The OP was a bit out of date when he posted in July this year, as that old Soundtraxx 36-557 had been around for a year or two. Maybe both topics should have been posted in the DCC discussion section in the first place? .

Indeed; or why not 36-565 which appears to be un-allocated and the catalogue number right next to the 8-pin version of the very same ESU Standard decoder, the 36-566. ..

See Talltim's post (no. 18) on the previous page. "Git" derives from the older "Get", which is still used in many parts of the UK. .

No, but I remember the 12 days of Christmas. Do you have the lyrics? .

It was Groupe Eurotunnel's rail freight subsidiary, Europorte, that previously owned GBRf, from June 2010 until late last year. They sold GBRf to Swedish private equity group, EQT Partners, last October (Oct 2016). .

Do I detect a deeper meaning in that name? .

NOUN Britishdialect, informal - A person whom the speaker dislikes or despises. Example sentences ‘Stupid get! O my God, how you stick yourself I'll never know!’ ‘I can't stand that other smarmy get.’ Hmmmm???? Are our French friends trying to say something here? .

171120-getlink-UK.mp4