First look at Crossrail rolling stock

With respect, its not a tube line. Everything from the size and length of the trains / stations down to the power supply and signalling is all derived from National Rail practices. While it is true that the core will indeed be busy - I fail to see much of a difference between Crossrail & Thameslink which also has to factor in high passenger volumes. As such I contend it would still have been possible to increase the provision of traditional seating in Crossrail trains to something resembling a 50:50 split between traverse and longitudinal seating without causing serious harm to the trains ability to cope with the loadings in the core.

Thus the decision to treat it like a 'tube' is a political one and solely stems from the fact hat TfL have been the lead agency tasked with getting the thing built. In its 1990s incarnation Crossrail would have been a true joint venture with British Rail who would have been careful to protect their users interests when travelling from outer suburban destinations on the GWML and Chiltern lines but TfL are, perhaps naturally, not concerned with such things. After all the users of stations like Slough, Maidenhead & Twyford live outside the GLA area and as such cannot bring any electoral pressure to bear on TfL if they don't like what they get. Yes I know theoretically the DfT are supposed to look after such users but in reality providing TfL do not affect their franchising plans for the GWML, the DfT are not particularly fussed about the specifics of Crossrail stock.

I've suffered the horrendous overcrowding on the Shenfield/Liverpool Street services in the past and fully endorse this effort to maximize standing space in order to clear the stations and get people to where they want to go more efficiently and on time. People will get used to it and the service will be better for it. 

In effect it is a tube line. It goes in a tube with multiple stations through London like other tube lines. The means of powering and gauge are largely unimportant in the definition and for large sections of the line (certainly the east side) it's really no different in scope and reach than the Central Line, just another long commuter railway that has part of it's length in a tube. As a result, those in the west, whether they're initially impressed or not, will just have to adapt to the majority requirement of the railway in question. That's the way it works, just like all the commuters from Amersham and Chesham had to adapt for the greater good of the Metropolitan Line they shared with those further into the city.

I never said it should be all transverse seats, but that something closer to a 50:50 mix was desirable. Although things are complicated by 3 rather than 2 sets of doors, whats wrong with having longitudinal on side and 2 aside classic style on the other for example? or alternating longitudinal - door - transverses - door - longitudinal etc.

It needs to be borne in mind that the number of seats per train will exceed what is currently available on most GWR services in the Thames Valley running at half hourly intervals or worse.

There is a need for crush loading over the Central section and this means a lot of standing space is needed which could not be accommodated with transverse seating down one side.

I believe the original layout would have been all longitudinal and they have compromised and found space for some.

There will also be wheelchair spaces.

Many longer distance travellers on both sides of London will have the chance to use alternative services with trains having the seat layout you desire.

I don't buy this at all. The A stock had 3+2 seating not 2+2, and no extra space around the doors at all. No one is suggesting this is the most suitable layout for Crossrail.

It's worth remembering that even very busy Tube-size lines such as the Northern and Piccadilly Lines had some transverse seating right up until as recently as 2000, and I don't remember it causing massive issues. Crossrail rolling stock would be much larger and as long as decent circulating space is provided round the doorways I don't see it causing an issue. I'd prefer to see a bay of transverse seats on both sides between each doorway, giving four bays in each car.

In my view the objective should be to encourage people to walk down inside the cars, which is good for dwell times, but *not* to encourage needless walking up and down the train simply to be in the right place for alighting, which is not good for dwell times, and something seen on both S stock and the horrible new Thameslink trains.

So in my view more transverse seats definitely needed and hopefully this will be re-thought in time.

I believe that the Crossrail core has the possibility to be upgraded to 30 tph if demand warrants it, so the argument about the frequency not being enough to justify calling it a tube line isn't really valid.

I can honestly see both sides of this argument, but it's all about meeting the demands of the majority. In that sense, you will never be able to please everybody.

But if that demand isn't dealt with effectively, it will impact the service as a whole in an adverse way.

The peak crowding on the routes going east of Lonson is much worse than going west, and has been for a long time.

Those passengers who have a seat on the Central in the am peak (yes, I know that's hard to believe) will probably stay on the Central rather than changing to Crossrail at Stratford, even if it does mean a longer journey.

It will be interesting to see how the passenger flow develops at Stratford. I expect there will be fewer changing onto the Central WB in the morning, but more EB in the evening.

snoggle - "I fear that anyone wishing to remain in the 1970s with seats for everyone (that ridiculous campaign slogan of the Evening Standard) is going to be sorely disappointed." At the risk of being controversial, I believe we have collectively voted to do just that (and I look forward to being slimmer with more hair, too...)

Don't worry, we've all done it at some point!

Doesn't employment in the CAZ at least partly derive from the availability of labour? And in the case of the hospitality industries, cheap (thus often immigrant) labour?

Will the nature of the plug doors rather than the standard tube style that seem to open and close much more quickly cause longer dwell times?