matthewmacleod
Member
- Joined
- 19 May 2011
- Messages
- 128
It's inner suburban layout stock running through Paris, not subway trains.
What's the practical difference – more transverse seating?
It's inner suburban layout stock running through Paris, not subway trains.
I think a lot of those "complaints" would have been avoided if Crossrail didn't go further than Slough. But if you were going further to Maidenhead then you're half-way to the major interchange and town of Reading so in that case it was completely sensible to reach there.Not quite to the same standard as the old class 306 but not bad.
Extending what is essentially metro service west of Maidenhead is probably going to turn out as a bit of an own goal though. Having said that I do recall a lot of noise being made demanding a service to Reading. As the old saying goes "be careful what you wish for......."
Indeed not for this average traveller, who has grown up using the Tube so sideways seats, no racks and going to the toilet before/after your journey is not an alien concept. At least they are "normal size" trains rather than tiny little Tube ones.I don't think the lack of racks, coat hooks and toilets is much of a bother for the average traveller.
The RER's train interior layout is biased towards suburban commuting. The Elizabeth interior is biased towards short(ish) distance subway journeys with maximum standing capacity, absolutely perfect for the Crossrail core.What's the practical difference – more transverse seating?
Crossrail is a TfL project with over half of it funded by London's council tax payers or London businesses*. So what has been provided is a railway that meets the needs of passengers between Harold Wood, Abbey Wood, Heathrow and West Drayton. Key to those passengers'needs is a high capacity service over those stretches of routes.The RER's train interior layout is biased towards suburban commuting. The Elizabeth interior is biased towards short(ish) distance subway journeys with maximum standing capacity, absolutely perfect for the Crossrail core.
Well, living in Shenfield I certainly view it as "another Central Line". And Shenfield will soon be on the London Underground i.e. Tube map.
The trains are entirely fit for purpose when compared to other tube stock. I don't think the lack of racks, coat hooks and toilets is much of a bother for the average traveller.
So the Thames Valley commuter can like it or lump it? I expect many TV commuters will crowd onto the remaining GWR services on the GW mains for the faster, more comfortable option into London as before (as they do on Chiltern's Aylesbury route). Some may quit rail travel altogether if the 345s aren't to their satisfaction, and that would be a very unfortunate outcome for the railway.Crossrail is a TfL project with over half of it funded by London's council tax payers or London businesses*. So what has been provided is a railway that meets the needs of passengers between Harold Wood, Abbey Wood, Heathrow and West Drayton. Key to those passengers'needs is a high capacity service over those stretches of routes.
I wouldn't expect those funders to pay for enhancements for the few travelling outside those limits. If it is so important, the Berkshire/Reading/Essex local authorities would be only too keen to contribute.
* - something that those who continually claim the whole country pays for London rail projects should remember.
Board papers show that a TfLRail Bombardier Class 345 Aventra completed a full journey under London to Westbourne Park on June 11. Says December target for Phase 3 will still happen.
The journey time on Crossrail from Liverpool St to Shenfield takes 41 minutes, whereas the time from Paddington to Maidenhead only takes 35 minutes. Even travelling to Reading from Paddington only takes nine minutes longer than Liverpool St to Shenfield at the eastern limit of Crossrail. So given that those outside the GLA area are being subsidised in part by London council tax payers and London businesses, to answer your question, yes, those living in Berkshire can benefit from the subsidy or lump it.So the Thames Valley commuter can like it or lump it? I expect many TV commuters will crowd onto the remaining GWR services on the GW mains for the faster, more comfortable option into London as before (as they do on Chiltern's Aylesbury route). Some may quit rail travel altogether if the 345s aren't to their satisfaction, and that would be a very unfortunate outcome for the railway.
The journey time on Crossrail from Liverpool St to Shenfield takes 41 minutes, whereas the time from Paddington to Maidenhead only takes 35 minutes. Even travelling to Reading from Paddington only takes nine minutes longer than Liverpool St to Shenfield at the eastern limit of Crossrail. So given that those outside the GLA area are being subsidised in part by London council tax payers and London businesses, to answer your question, yes, those living in Berkshire can benefit from the subsidy or lump it.
If as you suggest, there is a mass exodus from stations west of Maidenhead, then the service will be adjusted to meet that demand. I wouldn't be under any illusion that Crossrail as a whole will suffer as there is already an expectation that the trains will be loaded at or near full capacity for much of the day, soon after the line opens fully. So it's pointless dreaming of "a very unfortunate outcome for the railway".
So it's pointless dreaming of "a very unfortunate outcome for the railway".
But will people of shenfield really get a stopping train all the way in just so they don't have to change?
Time to move forwards and not go back to steam
I fail to see how that's a cheap insult, seems a perfectly fair remark, just a bit of hyperbole to get the point across.The GWR's (1838-1948) suburban carriages didn't have loos...
Hurling cheap insults at commuters isn't terribly respectful either, wherever they reside.
If the overall journey time is similar, maybe. Getting on a Crossrail train at Shenfield guarantees a seat. Getting on a GA train at peak, a seat is unlikely.
My end to end journey is currently Shenfield to Farringdon. In the peak that's 28 mins journey, 5 mins walk to Circle platform, 2 mins wait, 5 mins journey. Total c. 40 mins.
Shenfield to Farringdon on the Elizabeth Line will be approx 44 mins.
I'll certainly be giving it a try.
In many major overhaul of services there will be those who gain and those who lose. It's a decision that is taken for the majority. Crossrail is a very large increase in services that will benefit the region as a whole by increasing capacity over 10%. It's inevitable that with finite infrastructure, a few will think that they have been hard done by. Rest assured though that the relief line from the Westbourne Park portals to Maidenhead will be carrying more passengers in the peak than ever before at speeds way faster than any previous services.Your calculations don't take into account all those who now have to change trains in the Thames Valley (Henley & Marlow branches, and all those using GWR stoppers west of Reading). Some need to change twice in Dec '19 (commuters north of Didcot) just to get a service into London as a consequence of Elizabeth taking all the peak paths on the GW reliefs. Nearly all these commuters could take direct trains to Paddington before electrification.
Local passenger pressure groups can complain as much as they like, - the class 345 trains are purpose designed to provide the whole service. The fact that TfL agreed to run the trains past West Drayton despite it being partly at London's expense, was to make more efficient use of the reliefs and provide a better service for the majority of passengers. The £4K+ per year season ticket is a red herring in the context of this thread, that's £16+ per day (or about £0.26 per mile) Anytime travel, - all London commuters pay similar amounts (per mile) for their journeys.The local passenger groups in the Thames Valley are not happy with the specifications of the 345s. That's a fact. These groups represent many commuters to London who pay around £4k+/year in season tickets. Their discontentment may influence future decisions taken with regards to giving TfL control of further suburban lines that run beyond the GLA boundary.
I doubt that a few commuter protests will have much impact on major decisions as to which body provides rail services. There are much bigger issues involved.I agree that Elizabeth will be a success story for TfL within and around the Greater London area, once it's all up and running satisfactorily. TfL should rightly be commended taking the project on and seeing it through to completion - a DfT led Crossrail would probably have totally stalled in the aftermath of the 2008 recession.
The design of the class 345s has been approved for safe carriage and efficient of up to 1500 passengers per 9-car unit. Like the class 700s, the 345s are examples of modern high-capacity rolling stock. I think that as other commuter lines reach saturation on infrastructure that cannot reasonably be extended, designs like them will become more common.I should add that I'm personally not that bothered by the 345s as my rail journeys are usually short and I don't mind travelling sideways (ultra hard seats aside - but that's a new train safety standards issue, not a TfL one). However, I am more than happy to put their point of view across here.
Now lets consider a bit of history here!
The east has class 315s, built on the cheap by BR, with hard pad seats that don't align with any windows and without toilets. These replaced the class 306s, with comfy seats and a nice vintage interior but they rode like the runaway train at a theme park. Then there were the 307s, built without any springs, as much power as a milk float and stalled on Brentwood bank frequently, compartments and toilets for 1st class passengers. Before that it was very poor quality LNER compartment stock.
So lets agree that the class 345 is better than anything before in the east.
The west now at last has proper trains (class 387s), with all the mod cons, but they have only just replaced the Turbos, which were 2/3 cars only and the quality of the seats / toilet / broken aircon, useless wifi was irrelevant when the only concern was being able to board a train at some point. The class 117s before were slow, draughty and you had to sit in the centre car where 1st class had a toilet.
The class 387s will still call at Twyford & Maidenhead then fast giving a far superior service than has ever existed before. The class 345s have more seats than the longest 6-car turbos ever had. Everyone will have a quicker service except a small number of commutes between beyond Reading to inner stations.
So apart from those in Henley / Marlow who will never be happy and only want a personal Pullman train which breakfast served by a waiter to take them to work, the Class 345s are better for the majority.
I miss the comfy but very bouncy class 306s of my youth and the excellent HST peak services I recently enjoyed.
The class 345s travel no longer than the Met line or Central Line from outer London and smash the cross London journey times.
Time to move forwards and not go back to steam
The timings can be faster with EMUs on the GW relief line. The line speed is 90mph in large parts. The 165/166 Turbos did 90mph (with slower acceleration), the 387s can do 110. 345s can do 90. So faster acceleration from a standing start, certainly. The station dwell times can be improved upon too.In many major overhaul of services there will be those who gain and those who lose. It's a decision that is taken for the majority. Crossrail is a very large increase in services that will benefit the region as a whole by increasing capacity over 10%. It's inevitable that with finite infrastructure, a few will think that they have been hard done by. Rest assured though that the relief line from the Westbourne Park portals to Maidenhead will be carrying more passengers in the peak than ever before at speeds way faster than any previous services.
If 345s are designed to provide the 'whole service' - would you willingly travel on them as an interurban train Reading to Abbey Wood/Shenfield end to end? They are not interurban rolling stock. British Rail's CrossRail mock up was designed as interurban, Thameslink class 700 is interurban stock. 'Whole service' as a metro or subway train service, certainly.Local passenger pressure groups can complain as much as they like, - the class 345 trains are purpose designed to provide the whole service. The fact that TfL agreed to run the trains past West Drayton despite it being partly at London's expense, was to make more efficient use of the reliefs and provide a better service for the majority of passengers. The £4K+ per year season ticket is a red herring in the context of this thread, that's £16+ per day (or about £0.26 per mile) Anytime travel, - all London commuters pay similar amounts (per mile) for their journeys.
The DfT consulted recently on a proposed splitting of the GW franchise in the West - due to the responses from the public this will not now happen. I'd expect the feedback was almost wholly negative.I doubt that a few commuter protests will have much impact on major decisions as to which body provides rail services. There are much bigger issues involved.
That's why I'm glad I'm not commuting in and out of London. Standing and standing room only. Others will call them cattle trucks. I will politely describe them as them subway trains. I'd hope all new rolling stock on the UK railway is safe, reliable and efficient.The design of the class 345s has been approved for safe carriage and efficient of up to 1500 passengers per 9-car unit. Like the class 700s, the 345s are examples of modern high-capacity rolling stock. I think that as other commuter lines reach saturation on infrastructure that cannot reasonably be extended, designs like them will become more common.
Except Epping/Amersham to zone 1 doesn't cost £20.
If you give us tube style trains, you should give us the fares to match!
The 345s are a significant downgrade to the 165s, since they had loads of comfortable seats, loos, and luggage space.
I seriously doubt a 345 has more seats that a 6 car 165.
Not sure what you are trying to say there. The relief lines (let's call them the more conventional 'slows' because that's what they really are), are not aligned for 110 mph, and even if they were, there wouldn't be much point in the expense as they have to accommodate stoppers and the heavy freight. The freight is limited to 75mph anyway. The faster acceleration of EMUs (especially the class 345s) increases the capacity of the slows and in practical terms, reduces the end-to-end times of all trains using them.The timings can be faster with EMUs on the GW relief line. The line speed is 90mph in large parts. The 165/166 Turbos did 90mph (with slower acceleration), the 387s can do 110. 345s can do 90. So faster acceleration from a standing start, certainly. The station dwell times can be improved upon too.
Just like Thameslink, Crossrail is not intended to address what must be a tiny market for travelling the full length of the longest journeys. It is a double-eneded suburban line with an opportunity to travel across the centre of London without changing. Typical journeys will be from the east to Heathrow, maybe slough, and from the west, to Stratford and Canary Wharf. If I needed to make those journeys, it would be OK given that the inconvenience of changing trains twice would be far more irritating than firmer seats. If I was a regular traveller over that journey, then I would probably plan to sit in the transverse seats.If 345s are designed to provide the 'whole service' - would you willingly travel on them as an interurban train Reading to Abbey Wood/Shenfield end to end? They are not interurban rolling stock. British Rail's CrossRail mock up was designed as interurban, Thameslink class 700 is interurban stock. 'Whole service' as a metro or subway train service, certainly
Indifferent because I am looking at the bigger picture, i.e. railways are mass transport systems and just as Crossrail is a solution for the difficulties in the core, the east and the west, there are inevitable compromises. My local line (MML Thameslink) has just undergone a massive upgrade. What do I get from it? Well there's new (ultimately more reliable) trains, but they have smaller harder seats, there will be some additional disruption as the line will run at far higher density, - they are the negatives. Then the major positive is that the capacity of the line will be able to meet the demands of the next 10-30 years. Similar to Crossrail's delivery promise. Of course there are plenty of complaints along the Thameslink routes, but once the current problems have been conquered, the service willmeet the objectives. The constant whining about quite narrow issues plus the opportunistic claims by a few MPs won't really make much of a difference. That includes commuter mouthpieces and local newspapers. I've never seen rail travel as all about me.Local passenger groups are voluntary organisations, and champions of local public transport infrastructure. These people happily promote public transport usage in their free time. They are conduits for dialogue between transport managers and passengers. If your local passenger group had public misgivings about a major project, and you were an affected passenger how would you feel?
Nobody gets things right all the time and that include rail passengers. The world is not a perfect place. So looking at the current issues on GTR and Northern services, how much accountability does the DfT and the SoS for Transport have when the SoS pretends that he doesn't understands rail and deflects all criticism onto the TOCs and Network Rail (ironically entirely controlled by the DfT)?TfL doesn't get things right all the time - but TfL has no political accountability outside Greater London.
I think that the clamour of Reading commuters complaining that they might have to pay more to use inter-city trains for a commuter hop wasn't the reason for the shelving of the idea. Some sort of segregation will probably apply either by ticket restrictions or pick up/set down restrictions in due course.The DfT consulted recently on a proposed splitting of the GW franchise in the West - due to the responses from the public this will not now happen. I'd expect the feedback was almost wholly negative.
Protests: Remember 'Worst Late Western'? Oh they aren't called that any more as their old FGW brand became 'toxic' due to passenger protests and an public association with a dismal passenger service in the mid to late 2000's.
As I said above, where the traffic demands of a busy commuter route exceeds the line's capacity, even after every train is running at maximum length and with minimum headways, there are three options left:That's why I'm glad I'm not commuting in and out of London. Standing and standing room only. Others will call them cattle trucks. I will politely describe them as them subway trains. I'd hope all new rolling stock on the UK railway is safe, reliable and efficient.
Not sure what you are trying to say there. The relief lines (let's call them the more conventional 'slows' because that's what they really are), are not aligned for 110 mph, and even if they were, there wouldn't be much point in the expense as they have to accommodate stoppers and the heavy freight. The freight is limited to 75mph anyway. The faster acceleration of EMUs (especially the class 345s) increases the capacity of the slows and in practical terms, reduces the end-to-end times of all trains using them.
Just like Thameslink, Crossrail is not intended to address what must be a tiny market for travelling the full length of the longest journeys. It is a double-eneded suburban line with an opportunity to travel across the centre of London without changing. Typical journeys will be from the east to Heathrow, maybe slough, and from the west, to Stratford and Canary Wharf. If I needed to make those journeys, it would be OK given that the inconvenience of changing trains twice would be far more irritating than firmer seats. If I was a regular traveller over that journey, then I would probably plan to sit in the transverse seats.
Indifferent because I am looking at the bigger picture, i.e. railways are mass transport systems and just as Crossrail is a solution for the difficulties in the core, the east and the west, there are inevitable compromises. My local line (MML Thameslink) has just undergone a massive upgrade. What do I get from it? Well there's new (ultimately more reliable) trains, but they have smaller harder seats, there will be some additional disruption as the line will run at far higher density, - they are the negatives. Then the major positive is that the capacity of the line will be able to meet the demands of the next 10-30 years. Similar to Crossrail's delivery promise. Of course there are plenty of complaints along the Thameslink routes, but once the current problems have been conquered, the service willmeet the objectives. The constant whining about quite narrow issues plus the opportunistic claims by a few MPs won't really make much of a difference. That includes commuter mouthpieces and local newspapers. I've never seen rail travel as all about me.
Nobody gets things right all the time and that include rail passengers. The world is not a perfect place. So looking at the current issues on GTR and Northern services, how much accountability does the DfT and the SoS for Transport have when the SoS pretends that he doesn't understands rail and deflects all criticism onto the TOCs and Network Rail (ironically entirely controlled by the DfT)?
I think that the clamour of Reading commuters complaining that they might have to pay more to use inter-city trains for a commuter hop wasn't the reason for the shelving of the idea. Some sort of segregation will probably apply either by ticket restrictions or pick up/set down restrictions in due course.
As far as peurile made-up names for TOCs (around here there was 'Worst Capital Connect'), they are typical of soundbite/headline grabbing. Look back 10 years, most have got over the daft names and it their coining changed nothing except within the travelling chattering groups.
As I said above, where the traffic demands of a busy commuter route exceeds the line's capacity, even after every train is running at maximum length and with minimum headways, there are three options left:
1) build additional tracks - through suburban London, dream on!
2) demand management by pricing - politically very difficult
3) increase train maximum capacity - that's seems to be the way ahead, see class 700s, 707s, 710s, 717s, 720s and of course the 345s. It might be standing room only of the busiest trains, but at least all passengers will arrive safely instead of being left on the platform. This is the Crossrail, Thameslink, Crossrail 2, and probably much of the SE commuter lines' solution with high-density commuter trains.
345s aren't quite reliable just yet although they are improvingclass 165 3 car = 233 seats, 2 car 145 seats so a max of 466 seats - chance of turning up, once in a blue moon
class 345 = 450 seats on all services
Then, at least off-peak, use the two trains per hour GWR service using the Class 387s. This is the half-hourly Paddington - <selected stations> - Reading - stations to Didcot - (and eventually) Oxford outer suburban service.The interior of the 345s is too much of a compromise, for stations Slough - Reading to London it's completely unsuitable!
Have you tried one yet so see how it copes with the loadings west of Paddington?I'll take the Thameslink interior any day of the week over the 345s!
All we're asking is for more transverse seats and a place for luggage!
This is just silly.It isn't a metro, it's a commuter train and the interior should reflect that!
I really don't get the contempt for Thames Valley commuters on this forum.
Let's take some positives out of it. It's a phenomenal train for when you just need to bust out some sick dance moves through the Sonning Cutting...The interior of the 345s is too much of a compromise, for stations Slough - Reading to London it's completely unsuitable!
Your original point was that the 345s would be faster than anything previously. That's not feasible.Not sure what you are trying to say there. The relief lines (let's call them the more conventional 'slows' because that's what they really are), are not aligned for 110 mph, and even if they were, there wouldn't be much point in the expense as they have to accommodate stoppers and the heavy freight. The freight is limited to 75mph anyway. The faster acceleration of EMUs (especially the class 345s) increases the capacity of the slows and in practical terms, reduces the end-to-end times of all trains using them.
I hope you never require the assistance of a voluntary organisation - ever. You clearly are above all that.The constant whining about quite narrow issues plus the opportunistic claims by a few MPs won't really make much of a difference. That includes commuter mouthpieces and local newspapers. I've never seen rail travel as all about me.
If you can vote in the next UK General Election, your vote can help remove the party in charge, remove the SoS for Transport and change transport policy. As I don't reside within the Greater London area, I cannot vote for the Mayor or the GLA election. TfL is only really politically accountable to them, not those outside.Nobody gets things right all the time and that include rail passengers. The world is not a perfect place. So looking at the current issues on GTR and Northern services, how much accountability does the DfT and the SoS for Transport have when the SoS pretends that he doesn't understands rail and deflects all criticism onto the TOCs and Network Rail (ironically entirely controlled by the DfT)?
Well thanks for that patronising lecture on modern day rail transport around London. I'm sure everyone is much better informed by the facts that you've decanted before us. Thanks also for saying that relief lines are called slow lines elsewhere, aw-shucks - I'll bear that in mind when I'm posting on a forum section about trains that aren't even local to me.As I said above, where the traffic demands of a busy commuter route exceeds the line's capacity, even after every train is running at maximum length and with minimum headways, there are three options left:
1) build additional tracks - through suburban London, dream on!
2) demand management by pricing - politically very difficult
3) increase train maximum capacity - that's seems to be the way ahead, see class 700s, 707s, 710s, 717s, 720s and of course the 345s. It might be standing room only of the busiest trains, but at least all passengers will arrive safely instead of being left on the platform. This is the Crossrail, Thameslink, Crossrail 2, and probably much of the SE commuter lines' solution with high-density commuter trains.