TfL consultation - Crossrail Central operating section

The essence of the application is to allow TfL to prioritise access to the core for Crossrail services. It is not about preventing access *if* there is capacity available. The document says the construction of the route and design of the platforms prevents conventional freight but specialist vehicles with suitable dimensions and performance could run. Ditto for any TOC wanting to run through the tunnels - they'd need the same performance as the 345s and door spacings to allow trains to stop at the platforms and allow people on and off.

TfL are quite explicit that they are not banning access if capacity is available but there are clearly constraints in using the core.

One of the interesting things in the consultation document is the first glimpse of Crossrail's peak and off peak service patterns.

Off Peak

4 tph Shenfield to Paddington (all stations)
2 tph Shenfield to Reading (semi fast Paddington to West Drayton)
2 tph Shenfield to Maidenhead (semi fast Paddington to West Drayton)

4 tph Abbey Wood to Heathrow T4 (all stations)
4 tph Abbey Wood to Paddington (all stations)

Peak

the above off peak service pattern but supplemented by

4 tph Shenfield to Paddington (all stations)
4 tph Gidea Park to Liverpool Stn (high level) all stations, peak direction only.

2 tph Abbey Wood to West Drayton (semi fast Paddington to West Drayton)
2 tph Abbey Wood to Paddington (all stations)

There is also reference to occasional Peak only services that operate between:
- Shenfield to Heathrow
- Shenfield to West Drayton
- Abbey Wood to Reading
- Abbey Wood to Maidenhead

The diagram also makes reference to "quiet periods" before 0700 and after 2100 when the off peak pattern may not apply.

The above service pattern throws up some oddities like no direct access to / from Heathrow from Stratford eastwards. Also no services to / from Acton Main Line to Stratford eastwards. There are also discontinuities in West London with no trains between West Ealing and Hanwell which looks really daft. Again Hanwell can't be reached without a change from Stratford eastwards. West Ealing also doesn't have direct trains to Heathrow - you have to change at Hayes. I know there are constraints in West London but it all looks a bit peculiar to me and not what has been advertised to people.

I'm struggling to see the rationale for this application. A railway has been built which only fits one type of train, so there's no competition for paths, until the trains are replaced in forty odd years.

Seems like a bit of a waste of money to me!

As 100&30 says that's the law. As the main potential objection, from the ORR, has been cleared out of the way since before they put a spade in the ground then this should be a formality. It's obviously not impossible for someone to come along with a fleet of class 345s wishing to run through the tunnel but it is highly unlikely. All TfL are doing is ensuring the services they intend to run have priority thus ensuring, as far as possible, that Crossrail delivers the benefits and revenues that are expected. Can you imagine what would happen if the "Snoggle Urban Railway Company" [1] came along and grabbed the best paths and nicked the revenue thus landing the taxpayer with a problem?

If you find this application a tad "frustrating" then please don't look at the other licence and change applications that ORR handles. Every train and freight company appears to be compelled to object to any and every application and to put a marker down for "compensation". It's a wonder anything ever happens on the NR network.

[1] please note this is a fictional business. I haven't got a secret order for Class 345 trains.

I guess in my mind I have this as a private railway more like LU (or the various heritage lines) than standard National Rail. If SURC did launch, would they not be treated under the ORCATS rules and then TfL would still get a cut?

But its not just the core that the scheme was built on. LT has over many decades slowly eliminated fast services and stopping variations, arguably going too far in some situations. Wheres the consistency if it does not apply this principal to the suburban lines it takes over? Further, will it not be confusing for anyone looking at Londons' metro map if it shows all TfL lines regardless if they are metro-like or not? Will we see a return of the 'high frequency' map? It'd be a brave manager willing to advertise that London's shiny new railway isn't that user friendly in parts.

Only west of Paddington where there is not the track capacity to allow anything else. Too much freight to accommodate, Heathrow Express services into Heathrow [1] plus residual semi fast FGW services running to / beyond Reading. There isn't the space to do anything else at an affordable cost. There were always going to be skip stop services on the west end of the route - you only had to look on the Crossrail website and look at the tph for each station to see this. The bit I had not appreciated was the loss of an all stations service for all stops west of Paddington as far as Hayes & Harlington which Heathrow Connect currently provides. Today passengers using West Ealing and Acton Main Line don't have direct services to places like West Drayton - they have to change with some longish waits.

Skip stop peak services on the Shenfield line will go with all Crossrail services being all stations. Therefore it is a mixed story as to what services there will be and how "metro" they are.

[1] yes I know they run on the fasts.

Indeed they will - the sidings are marked "Westbourne Park Turnbacks" in the diagram.

Is there are reason for the skip stop pattern? why cannot some trains be all stations, and others Ealing Broadway, Hayes and West Drayton only?

Appendix 1, Plubstead Sidings? A new name for the area?

Apologies for the novice question, why do FGW need to continue a semi-fast service if Crossrail arrives? If I remember correctly, these train operating companies make most of their money on long distance travellers, so would it benefit them to just provide long distance (non-stopping services) and have Crossrail as the all stopping service? Is that even possible? 

Is it possible in the long term future to continue tunneling all the way to "airport junction" and provide an all stopping service too? 

They do. It would be possible to extend more Crossrails Paddington terminators to Reading, but only by taking up paths currently used by Oxford and Newbury services. Making the good folk of Pangbourne and Hungerford etc change at Reading for London is probably a non-starter.

It doesn't seem particularly smart not to plan for any through Shenfield-Heathrow trains. Surly this will just mean many more people having to change at the busy Crossrail stations in Central London?

Sorry to go slightly off topic, but looking at the track diagram it doesn't show a scissors crossover at CNW. I thought there was going to be a massive one there?

Interesting. Some of those stops not being served makes sense but others don't. Not serving Edmonton Green has implications for peak capacity north of Seven Sisters, in particular. I wonder if Abellio have the option to serve some stops if they wish or whether DfT are actively preventing such stops. Obviously there are trade offs between stops and line capacity but taking out the semi fast peak AGA trains via Seven Sisters will go down like a lead balloon.