|
Post by phil on Apr 1, 2014 17:09:33 GMT
Not sure why there won't be freight in peak hours. It operates now. During the planning stage there was a pretty big fuss created by the freight operating companies as the original act of parliament envisaged Crossrail effectively being given carte-blanche as regards the relief lines were concerned which meant they could have effectively frozen out all freight, at all times of the day if they wished. (Similar concerns also applied as regards freight from Tilbury crossing the GEML relief lines to access the NLL at Stratford, as the 'electric lines' on the GE section were also effectively to be given to Crossrail for their exclusive use) When the bill was finally put to parliament amendments had been made in this respect because while it pretty much guarantees Crossril sole access to the relief lines on the GWML in the peak (and the 'electric lines' on the GE section), it also ensured that a diveunder to access Acton yard was put in (this was missing from the original plans) plus made a commitment that freight paths would be maintained at current levels in the off peak periods - which is one of the reasons Crossrail has to have different timetables in the peak and off peak. So basically although you may well see freight operation in the peaks now, this won't be allowed to continue when Crossrail gets going, with any freight you do see today being shifted by a few hours into the off peak period
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 1, 2014 16:57:00 GMT
Its also worth noting none of the units used by Grater Anglia in the London area have toilets The only units operated by Greater Anglia without toilets are the class 315s. Classes 317, 321, 360 and 379 all have them. The 317s, 321s, 360s and 379s may well have toilets, but as far as I am aware none of the aforementioned units are scheduled to be used on London based services, by which I mean services terminating at Shenfield, Endfield and Chingford. Furthermore although the types of stock used on the branch are more varied, Hertford still regularly see the non toilet fitted 315s putting in regular appearances. Thus having no toilets on Crossrail stock is hardly a downgrade from what passengers currently get. The same applies to first class accommodation too of course.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 28, 2014 22:48:41 GMT
2 trains an hour from Reading which are no quicker than the current service - hardly a Metro service! Pointless tokenism! XF I think you are missing the point. At no stage has there been any intention to provide a "metro" (as TfL describe it) Crossrail service to Reading so I don't know why you think it would be otherwise. The 5 reasons for going to Reading are It eliminates / reduces the need for lots of sidings at Maidenhead to turn back all Crossrail trains there. It enables connections to be made (from say West Drayton to Oxford or Hayes to Swindon) without having to circulate via Paddington. Reading has a new depot capable of servicing Crossrail stock. It solves the problem of what to do about the service gap created between Maidenhead and Reading which would be awkward to resolve satisfactorily by other means. It makes the politicians look good. Given the above, coupled with the area it passes through it should be no surprise that Crossrail are not proposing to increase service provision by sticking with 2tph I believe it means that they only need 2 extra units to be added to the train order. Moreover in future years it looks like they will have to share the relief lines with up to 4tph from Heathrow, plus the significant freight flows to Acton yard plus a few residual semi-fast trains from Paddington all this means that there simply won't be the scope for much of an increase - though I am aware there has been talk of 4tph in the peaks (when freight won't be there to complicate things) - but whether there are enough units for this remains a open question. Besides Crossrail themselves are quite clear - they will NOT be out to poach current FGW customers - the intention is more to complement FGW's fast services with connections into said services at key stations. So if you were hoping for out and out competition, I'm sorry to disappoint you - that has never and will never be on the cards.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 28, 2014 22:26:48 GMT
I thought toilets on Crossrail was a given? Did there not used to be/is there not still a requirement for trains that are used on journeys of over one hour to have toilets? I'm not suggesting that Reading/Maidenhead to Abbey Wood/Shenfield will be a journey that lots of people do, but doubtless there will be a few hundred at least per year! There isn't and never has been any requirement to have toilets on trains regardless of the journey they might be undertaking. Indeed it took a remarkably long time before toilets became the norm on long distance trains and even then thanks to then prevailing preference for compartments, many trains only had facilities for first class ticket holders. it was only really after WW1 when the provision of gangway connections took off did most long distance trains get them. Suburban trains generally never had them and it was only with the arrival of DMUs that toilets started to feature on rural routes. While it is true that most BR outer suburban and main line EMUs got toilets there were plenty of suburban units that didn't These days however toilets are even more of a nusence for opperators than they used to be thanks to the requirement for at least one of the said toilets to be fully accessable by the disabled (not an unreasonable thing in itself but that does mean the loss of 1/3rd of a carriage) plus the fact that people (not least track workers) don't like being sprayed with sewage so retention tanks are needed. Then you have the fact that the tanks need to be emptyied regularly and the fresh water tanks topped up regularly both of which add time when it comes to preparing the units or performing fast turn around at termini That said I can understand why it might be desirable for Crossrail to have them given the decision to go out to Reading - however having a small sub fleet with toilets is undesirable when it comes to planning stock diagrams, etc. Its also worth noting none of the units used by Grater Anglia in the London area have toilets and neither do the 376 version of the Electrostar opperated by South Eastern on their Dartford line, nor do the 455s used by Southern out to Dorking or SWTs 455s that get to Guildford.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 27, 2014 20:21:32 GMT
Oyster would definitely need to be made valid on the FGW services too, at the same fare, or Crossrail will just become overloaded. On the plus side you could travel on an HST (if they're still around) or one of the new Intercity Expresses with an Oyster No it doesn't - remember back in British Rail days there were lots of places that offered two types of fare - a lower price one only valid on Network SouthEast / Regional Railways, and a more expensive one vaid on InterCity services. There is absolutely no reason why Crossrail cannot be the same. At places like Peterborough, Milton Keynes Watford Junction & Gatwick Airport such practices continue to this day. As for it being overcroweded that depends - Crossrail will be slower and stop at pretty much everywhere, while FGW (or whatever they are called in the next Franchise term) will get to Paddington quicker plus have first class (and toilets) for those who like such things. Of course changing at Paddington can cancel out the time advantage but even so I imagine there will still be plenty of people who prefer to go that way. Also if your end destination is not on Crossrail then getting to Paddington quicker might be an advantage anyway. People from Twyford of course will have no choice to get Crossrail - but its worth noting that although we now know Crossrail will go to Reading there are a number of other things we don't know including whether the Thames branches might retain some sort of peak service to Paddington (using new / refurbished EMUs say two 4 cars splitting at Maidenhead for Bourne end & Henley) and what sort of service will be adopted by the proposed western rail access to Heathrow airport (which in itself may well be financed through an extension to the "Heathrow supplement" and could be operated by the current "Heathrow Express" lot - possibly as compensation for Crossrail taking over the current HEX paths into London).
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 24, 2014 11:29:47 GMT
According to this it would seem that LU staff / contractors have done an amazing job it getting rid of the concrete, and presumably replacing the submerged relays. twitter.com/...2750080/photo/1twitter.com/...8766336/photo/1Of course as many railway engineer will atest, after any foolding event (even one involving concrete) you never manage to clean absolutely everything / spot ever single bit of damage and I wouldn't be surprised if over the coming weeks we get quite a few signalling issues appearing as a result. Londonstuff's edit: I've had a look to see if I could fix these but it's actually the link - maybe PB have truncated it. Sorry!
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 17, 2014 8:44:34 GMT
With regard to the Heathrow Express service, people should be aware that nobody has any power to do anything to the current setup until the HEX rights expire in 2028 (I think) - and it all goes back to the original deal done by BAA and British Rail which enabled the branch to the airport to be built in the first place. Basically BR would pay for the electrification and resignalling from Paddington to Airport junction and BAA would finance the building of the tunnels into the airport. Because tunnel building is not cheap, BAA were given the right to run a 4tph express service from Paddinton to Heathrow for the next 30 years (to cover the building costs of the tunnel via the hidden 'fare surchage' included in every ticket). Privitsation & franchising had no effect on this agreement (much like Network Rail inherited British Rail's legal requirement to provide a specified number of freight paths between the Channel tunnel and the WCML - regardless whether they are used or not) for at least 4 decades after the tunnel opened.
Therefore we are in a situation that however much NR, TfL First Group or anyone else wants to get rid of the HEX operation they have no ability to force this to happen. True they can always wave a very large amount of money under BAAs nose to try and get them to give up their rights early, but the bottom line is BAA cannot be compelled to do so until towards the end of the next decade.
There is also the issue that the tunnels into and the stations at Heathrow itself are 100% owned by BAA - not NR. Thus even if you did get BAA to relinquish is HEX concession early, there is no guarantee fares would come down because as infrastructure owner of what is in effect a private spur, the track access charges they can impose do not have to confirm to NR norms.
|
|