Class 345 progress

[coppercapped]

The situation has arisen because the project has been expanded into something that it wasn't originally meant to be. Those travelling from Reading will have 387s with toilets. Crossrail is TFL! If the trains all turned at Maidenhead, the western arm of Crossrail would resemble many of the other metro routes in London except that it is double-ended. The average journey time on Crossrail will between 15 and 30 minutes. Even if all journeys not including the core were averaged, it would still be well under 30 minutes. The railway is a mass transport system that is intended to cater for the majority. This can't be compromised for a (relatively) small proportion who might want toilet facilities very frequently or the few who travel the length of the route end to end. The route should be considered as two metro routes, each with an overlapping core section, not a line to serve the major tourist route from the Thames Valley to the TOWIE* highlights of commuter belt Essex. How many people travel from West Ruislip to Epping, or Cockfosters to Uxbridge as a proportion of the total.
Think of the 455/466 services with SWT and Southern, the Windsor 707 trains, the 476 trains to SE London, the LO trains around the city and of course the longer LU journeys. . As metro services, the majority of their passengers will be regular travellers who will quickly adjust their travelling pattern to all the facilities, frequencies and durations of services on offer.

* for those who haven't heard of it, 'TOWIE' = The Only Way Is Essex. I couldn't start to describe it here, - just Google it.

If Crossrail has turned into something that it wasn't meant to be in terms of routes, then the trains should have been adapted accordingly.

Even with the western terminus at Maidenhead the route lengths each side of London are unbalanced and are more so with the extension to Reading. An equivalent distance west of central London as that from Liverpool Street to Shenfield places one at about Slough. If Crossrail was intended mainly to be a metro service then an ideal terminus would have been Windsor - reached by a dive-under (and underground platforms because of the geometry) at Slough. Windsor to Slough is GWR's busiest branch and connecting it directly to central London would have benefitted both commuters and the town's tourist business. It would have left longer distance travellers with trains better adapted to their needs.

 

[AM9]

If Crossrail has turned into something that it wasn't meant to be in terms of routes, then the trains should have been adapted accordingly.

Even with the western terminus at Maidenhead the route lengths each side of London are unbalanced and are more so with the extension to Reading. An equivalent distance west of central London as that from Liverpool Street to Shenfield places one at about Slough.

Well actually you can move the 'centre' to suit your argument, but if you take Farringdon as the centre of the core, (TCR is more like it but for the sake of discussion we'll assume Farringdon), the travelling time is 44 minutes from Maidenhead and Shenfield. If there are any accelerated Crossrail trains on the GWML, the balance will be in the western end's favour and I imagine that the GEML would be more prone to delays in the event of any problems. Distance is irrelevant if you are talking about bladders, it's a time issue.

If Crossrail was intended mainly to be a metro service then an ideal terminus would have been Windsor - reached by a dive-under (and underground platforms because of the geometry) at Slough. Windsor to Slough is GWR's busiest branch and connecting it directly to central London would have benefitted both commuters and the town's tourist business. It would have left longer distance travellers with trains better adapted to their needs.

That suggestion looks a bit expensive. At over £15bn already, the pipe dream had to be turned into hardware somehow. The Extension to Reading is fairly cheap given the GWML electrification programme. A slightly higher demand on the trains/drivers and some extra staffing at stations. As far as I know, none of the TfL provisioned rolling stock anywhere is anything but metro designs, so Crossrail, (and Crossrail 2) will be the same.

 

[coppercapped]

Well actually you can move the 'centre' to suit your argument, but if you take Farringdon as the centre of the core, (TCR is more like it but for the sake of discussion we'll assume Farringdon), the travelling time is 44 minutes from Maidenhead and Shenfield. If there are any accelerated Crossrail trains on the GWML, the balance will be in the western end's favour and I imagine that the GEML would be more prone to delays in the event of any problems. Distance is irrelevant if you are talking about bladders, it's a time issue.

Yes I should have been clearer. I wasn't thinking about bladders when I suggested the western terminus should have been Windsor! (Actually it was not originally my idea - I saw it suggested somewhere else a couple of years ago).

That suggestion looks a bit expensive. At over £15bn already, the pipe dream had to be turned into hardware somehow. The Extension to Reading is fairly cheap given the GWML electrification programme. A slightly higher demand on the trains/drivers and some extra staffing at stations. As far as I know, none of the TfL provisioned rolling stock anywhere is anything but metro designs, so Crossrail, (and Crossrail 2) will be the same.

I know that digging a tunnel underneath Slough wouldn't be cheap. But using Windsor as a terminus does have its attractions. The GW Relief Lines, or the loops used for overtaking and reversal at Maidenhead or Reading, wouldn't be blocked for several minutes in every hour so another train path or two might be feasible. Windsor is a major tourist attraction (both the Castle and Legoland) and having an easy and quick route to it from central London - avoiding a trip to Waterloo for a slowish train or a change at Slough - would certainly be good for business. There is also considerable regular traffic between Windsor and London and avoiding a change would speed up quite a lot of journeys,
The 2010 Western RUS quoted 2 million passengers a year between Slough and London and another 400k from Windsor to London. Both these figures have certainly increased in the meantime but I expect the ratio to have remained about the same. In addition there is local traffic originating from or terminating at Windsor to other local stations by means of a change at Slough - I can't put my hand on the numbers at the moment but I seem to recall it was another 150k or so. There are three (mostly 2 coach) trains an hour between Windsor and Slough at the moment. The 2010 RUS stated:

In the longer-term, additional capacity could be provided on the line by either increasing the service to a four-car train and/or increasing the linespeed of the route in order to increase the frequency of the train service. Based on the current prediction of growth, it is expected that this will be required from 2020 onwards. With the introduction of the Crossrail scheme, the bay platform at Slough will remain capable of accommodating at least a four-car train.

So, bending Crossrail down to the south at Slough doesn't seem quite so unreasonable as it may at first sight! The maximum journey time in a Class 345 from central London would be more bladder friendly. And it would mean that a Class 387 could be used somewhere else...

Obviously a financial analysis would have to be made before the diggers arrive on site!

 

[samuelmorris]

What proportion of the 400k Windsor to London passengers use the slower, but more direct service into Waterloo rather than changing at Slough for the service to Paddington though? I used both routes on my last site visit to Windsor, and although the HST+165 route was much faster than the 450, there was definitely a convenience factor to just sitting relaxed on the same train all the way to my destination in the morning.
One wonders whether the change at Slough might become more enticing when Crossrail options to provide direct services to, for example, Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road and Farringdon to avoid the use of the Jubilee, Northern and potentially multiple lines respectively.

 

[LeeLivery]

The difference is that the 377s, 450s (I assume) and Networkers are made to be interchangeable between other routes, and are sometimes pathed for longer distance routes, thus need the toilets in them

Thameslink is more of a longer distance Crossrail. The Brighton mainline is more than half the length the whole of Crossrail added together and the 700s are going to undertake journeys to far-flung Peterborough also, so need extra luxuries.

Whlist that is true, the average person doesn't know or care about that. They just know that the train to London Victoria from Sydenham has toilets and anything without is a downgrade. If more stations had public toilets then I wouldn't think it was a mistake.

Of course Thameslink is a longer distance, however, the core will be just a frequent and will further help ease overcrowding on the Northern Line like Crossrail will do for the Central. Crossrail is like RER A and Thameslink is like RER D.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If Crossrail has turned into something that it wasn't meant to be in terms of routes, then the trains should have been adapted accordingly.

Even with the western terminus at Maidenhead the route lengths each side of London are unbalanced and are more so with the extension to Reading. An equivalent distance west of central London as that from Liverpool Street to Shenfield places one at about Slough. If Crossrail was intended mainly to be a metro service then an ideal terminus would have been Windsor - reached by a dive-under (and underground platforms because of the geometry) at Slough. Windsor to Slough is GWR's busiest branch and connecting it directly to central London would have benefitted both commuters and the town's tourist business. It would have left longer distance travellers with trains better adapted to their needs.

I agree, even if its not Windsor, another Western branch is needed. Terminating trains at Paddington and West Drayton (not even Slough) seems odd to me. Unfortunately Greenford branch won't/can't be used either. If the New North/Chiltern was electrified High Wycombe services would of been good. As would an express service to Basingstoke via Reading and a Heathrow extension to Staines to reduce SWT overcrowding.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Reading is a good place to terminate at because it also gives people on the SWML west of Basingstoke another viable route to parts of London and to Heathrow Airport

 

[yorksrob]

The situation has arisen because the project has been expanded into something that it wasn't originally meant to be.

I'm not sure that's true at all. Crossrail has been talked about for decades, and I'm pretty sure that even in the early days it was seen as a way of enhancing the heavy rail network either side of London in the style of Thameslink, rather than being just a central line relief route. It seems as though TfL have narrowed the horizons of the project to something more London-centric rather than anything else.

 

[coppercapped]

What proportion of the 400k Windsor to London passengers use the slower, but more direct service into Waterloo rather than changing at Slough for the service to Paddington though? I used both routes on my last site visit to Windsor, and although the HST+165 route was much faster than the 450, there was definitely a convenience factor to just sitting relaxed on the same train all the way to my destination in the morning.
One wonders whether the change at Slough might become more enticing when Crossrail options to provide direct services to, for example, Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road and Farringdon to avoid the use of the Jubilee, Northern and potentially multiple lines respectively.

The 400k figure comes from the 2010 Western RUS and refers ONLY to passengers from Windsor and Eton Central to Paddington. Passengers from Riverside to Waterloo are not included.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Reading is a good place to terminate at because it also gives people on the SWML west of Basingstoke another viable route to parts of London and to Heathrow Airport

Eh?
For the umpteeth time...Crossrail brings NO additional trains to Reading - it simply replaces the 2 per hour terminators running the stopping service between Reading and Paddington with a (slightly faster) 2 per hour stopping service between Reading and the London tunnel...

Crossrail does not run to Heathrow from Reading - but the Railair coach does. (Unless you want to take a stopping train to London and change at Hayes and Harlington to the Heathrow Connect service).

Crossrail makes no change whatever to the service offered to SWML passengers using the line west of Basingstoke.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Crossrail does not run to Heathrow from Reading - but the Railair coach does. (Unless you want to take a stopping train to London and change at Hayes and Harlington to the Heathrow Connect service).

Crossrail makes no change whatever to the service offered to SWML passengers using the line west of Basingstoke.

Your part wrong there:

http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab65625...riginal/elizabeth_line_cld-jan_2016_final.pdf

Once all routes of XRail are opened, someone changing to XRail at Reading can change at Hayes and Harlington to the Heathrow branch of XRail. iirc XRail replaces the Heathrow Connect service

 

[swt_passenger]

Your part wrong there:

http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab65625...riginal/elizabeth_line_cld-jan_2016_final.pdf

Once all routes of XRail are opened, someone changing to XRail at Reading can change at Hayes and Harlington to the Heathrow branch of XRail. iirc XRail replaces the Heathrow Connect service

But they can do that already at 2 tph from Reading using the existing DMU services, also changing at Hayes and Harlington. You seem determined to dig yourself into a hole here.

 

[coppercapped]

Your part wrong there:

http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab65625...riginal/elizabeth_line_cld-jan_2016_final.pdf

Once all routes of XRail are opened, someone changing to XRail at Reading can change at Hayes and Harlington to the Heathrow branch of XRail. iirc XRail replaces the Heathrow Connect service

Why am I banging my head against a brick wall...? :cry:

Which bit of

it simply replaces the 2 per hour terminators running the stopping service between Reading and Paddington with a (slightly faster) 2 per hour stopping service between Reading and the London tunnel...

do you not understand?

You can do what you suggest NOW. The passenger takes one of the stopping services to London from Reading and changes at Hayes. THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE to the routing in future[1].

The ONLY difference is that when Crossrail is open the trains he/she can use will be EITHER a Class 387 (working the 2 trains per hour Oxford locals calling at Hayes) OR a Class 345 from Reading to Hayes (working the 2 trains per hour Crossrail service to the London tunnel) and then a Class 345 working the Crossrail service from Hayes to Heathrow

instead of

a Class 165 or 166 from Reading to Hayes (working the 2 trains per hour Oxford locals as well as the 2 trains per hour Paddington - Reading local terminators) and a Class 360 working Heathrow Connect from Hayes to Heathrow.


To try to make it even clearer - there are 4 suburban trains per hour NOW which connect Reading to Hayes. When Crossrail opens there will STILL be 4 suburban trains per hour which connect Reading to Hayes.

[1] At the risk of clouding the issue, there MAY be a change in the routing if and when the 'Western Rail Access to Heathrow' link is built.

 

[Class 170101]

Originally Posted by yorksrob
These trains will be used by people going home to places like Amersham after a night out, or a couple of beers after work. The idea that there won't be several of them who aren't desperate for the toilet at some stage during the journey is laughable.

The people who've specified these trains clearly have no clue as to how modern people live their lives.

I got the impression from this board and elsewhere that most people from Rickmansworth to Amersham use Chiltern services to reach London. Their trains have toilets.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

You can do what you suggest NOW. The passenger takes one of the stopping services to London from Reading and changes at Hayes. THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE to the routing in future[1].

I've not seen anything that confirms one way or the other if GWR tickets would be valid on XRail between Hayes and Harlington and vice-versa. Until GWR and XRail confirm if they'll accept each other's tickets on that section, no one can guarantee that there's no change in routing

 

[coppercapped]

I've not seen anything that confirms one way or the other if GWR tickets would be valid on XRail between Hayes and Harlington and vice-versa. Until GWR and XRail confirm if they'll accept each other's tickets on that section, no one can guarantee that there's no change in routing

What are you going on about? :roll:

 

[SpacePhoenix]

What are you going on about? :roll:

Different TOCs don't have to accept each other's tickets for trains on the same route

 

[trash80]

When the 345s are tested will they use the same route as the 387/2s currently and use the WCML?

 

[swt_passenger]

I've not seen anything that confirms one way or the other if GWR tickets would be valid on XRail between Hayes and Harlington and vice-versa. Until GWR and XRail confirm if they'll accept each other's tickets on that section, no one can guarantee that there's no change in routing

You are clutching at straws now. There is equally no evidence whatsoever that 'Any Permitted' tickets won't still be available.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Crossrail weren't extended to Reading and so there would be a 2tph Reading-Slough shuttle, wouldn't that mean a reduction in service? The extra 2tph between Maidenhead and Slough only wouldn't have done anyone much good, but there would only be the 2tph GWR stopping service connecting Reading and Twyford to Hayes & Harlington for Heathrow. The toilets on board the 387-run shuttle wouldn't be of much use either since the Reading-Slough shuttle wouldn't take them to London.

The only way to keep the number of toilet-equipped Paddington stopping services beyond Maidenhead the same would be to cut back on the number of Crossrail services. There's a tradeoff to be had as having more Crossrail services will benefit another set of people by a lot more. Fitting toilets to the 345s would have 1. been unnecessary for the vast majority of services and 2. added complexity and cost. The cost of adding all the things necessary for controlled emissions toilets would have been considerable and could benefit more people by providing free toilets at surface Crossrail stations instead.

 

[AM9]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Crossrail weren't extended to Reading and so there would be a 2tph Reading-Slough shuttle, wouldn't that mean a reduction in service? The extra 2tph between Maidenhead and Slough only wouldn't have done anyone much good, but there would only be the 2tph GWR stopping service connecting Reading and Twyford to Hayes & Harlington for Heathrow. The toilets on board the 387-run shuttle wouldn't be of much use either since the Reading-Slough shuttle wouldn't take them to London.

The only way to keep the number of toilet-equipped Paddington stopping services beyond Maidenhead the same would be to cut back on the number of Crossrail services. There's a tradeoff to be had as having more Crossrail services will benefit another set of people by a lot more. Fitting toilets to the 345s would have 1. been unnecessary for the vast majority of services and 2. added complexity and cost. The cost of adding all the things necessary for controlled emissions toilets would have been considerable and could benefit more people by providing free toilets at surface Crossrail stations instead.

Just like with the class 700s, there is a small number of posters just waiting for any problems with them to arise so that they can say they told us so.

 

[coppercapped]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Crossrail weren't extended to Reading and so there would be a 2tph Reading-Slough shuttle, wouldn't that mean a reduction in service? The extra 2tph between Maidenhead and Slough only wouldn't have done anyone much good, but there would only be the 2tph GWR stopping service connecting Reading and Twyford to Hayes & Harlington for Heathrow. The toilets on board the 387-run shuttle wouldn't be of much use either since the Reading-Slough shuttle wouldn't take them to London.

The only way to keep the number of toilet-equipped Paddington stopping services beyond Maidenhead the same would be to cut back on the number of Crossrail services. There's a tradeoff to be had as having more Crossrail services will benefit another set of people by a lot more. Fitting toilets to the 345s would have 1. been unnecessary for the vast majority of services and 2. added complexity and cost. The cost of adding all the things necessary for controlled emissions toilets would have been considerable and could benefit more people by providing free toilets at surface Crossrail stations instead.

I'm not sure that I can parse your first paragraph correctly, but I'll respond to the point I think you have made.

AT the moment there are 4 services on the Relief lines making limited stops between Reading and Paddington. These are made up of 2 trains per hour (tph) between Oxford and Paddington and 2tph between Reading and Paddington.

The stops are Twyford, Maidenhead, Taplow, Burnham, Slough, Langley, Iver, West Drayton, Hayes and Harlington, Southall and Ealing Broadway. The Oxfords do not stop at Taplow and Burnham and the Reading terminators do not stop at Langley and Iver.

The initial Crossrail proposals foresaw 4 Crossrail trains per hour from London which would terminate at Maidenhead and the withdrawal of the 2tph Paddington to Reading terminators. In order to maintain the frequency of service at Reading and Twyford to points east for local passengers there was a proposal to introduce a shuttle service between Reading and a new west-facing bay platform at Slough. The longer distance 2tph locals to Oxford would have continued to run.

At the time the shuttle would have been operated by Class 317 or 365 units as would have the Oxford locals.

So in the initial proposals, as well as what is now expected to happen, the service to the stations listed above would have been operated by a mixture of trains, some with toilets and some without - with the exception of Twyford (and Reading) which would have been served by toilet equipped trains only.

I agree with you that it is unlikely that the Class 345s will be fitted with toilets and that the Crossrail service will be cut back to Maidenhead. So we'll just have to accept the situation...

 

[Goldfish62]

I would suggest that those who can't control their bodily functions like urinating in public places (typically multi-storey staircases) have consumed more liquid than should have. Drink according to the situation that you need to be in not as you might wish it to be, - that is if you still have sufficient self-control.

Whilst I understand your argument it's somewhat idealistic. You might as well say that TfL shouldn't run 24 hour tube and bus services (which are extremely expensive to provide) as everyone should be tucked up in bed.

The most successful public transport systems, and in fact any business or service, try to adapt to what their customers want and their habits (all within reason of course).

Also remember that there may be no toilet faculties at either end of the journey so to say that people should be able to last, eg 45 min, is not taking this into account.

But then maybe you're unfeasibly lucky enough never to be caught short.

 

[HowardGWR]

I'm pondering what pax in the past did, when non-corridor stock ran for hours, such as Bristol to Salisbury, by no means the longest example (any advance? ). I suspect that pauses at major stations (e.g. Westbury in that case) were timed to allow for relief.

If I go on a 2 hour car journey, I don't expect to stop along the way. Everyone makes sure they are 'comfortable' before leaving.

 

[AM9]

Whilst I understand your argument it's somewhat idealistic. You might as well say that TfL shouldn't run 24 hour tube and bus services (which are extremely expensive to provide) as everyone should be tucked up in bed.

I don't have a problem with the tube running all night, in fact here in St Albans we've had an all night service to Gatwick and Brighton (about hourly) for many years, so getting home from central London has not been that difficult.

The most successful public transport systems, and in fact any business or service, try to adapt to what their customers want and their habits (all within reason of course).

The fact that the tube is only (initially) for Friday and Saturday implies that it is really intended for late night revellers, which on those nights will mean more drinkers than normal.

Also remember that there may be no toilet faculties at either end of the journey so to say that people should be able to last, eg 45 min, is not taking this into account.

I believe that LO stations normally have facilities so maybe the same will apply to Crossrail. There is no excuse for urinating in public places, nor 'private' places. Would you object to a passing pedestrian relieving themselves at your front door or in your garden? There aren't toilets on night buses so how should they manage now?

But then maybe you're unfeasibly lucky enough never to be caught short.

I have on many occasions had to wait until an appropriate opportunity for relief, but I have never just let loose in the street. If a person can't control themselves*, they shouldn't consume multiple pints of alcohol. As Howard GWR has said, travellers managed on six-a-side compartment stock with not even a corridor, for over a century. The human body hasn't fuctionally changed in that time, - the inconsiderate attitudes of a few have though.

* medical issues excepted - but those so afflicted are usually more responsible with their drinking habits.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I'm not sure that I can parse your first paragraph correctly, but I'll respond to the point I think you have made.

AT the moment there are 4 services on the Relief lines making limited stops between Reading and Paddington. These are made up of 2 trains per hour (tph) between Oxford and Paddington and 2tph between Reading and Paddington.

The stops are Twyford, Maidenhead, Taplow, Burnham, Slough, Langley, Iver, West Drayton, Hayes and Harlington, Southall and Ealing Broadway. The Oxfords do not stop at Taplow and Burnham and the Reading terminators do not stop at Langley and Iver.

The initial Crossrail proposals foresaw 4 Crossrail trains per hour from London which would terminate at Maidenhead and the withdrawal of the 2tph Paddington to Reading terminators. In order to maintain the frequency of service at Reading and Twyford to points east for local passengers there was a proposal to introduce a shuttle service between Reading and a new west-facing bay platform at Slough. The longer distance 2tph locals to Oxford would have continued to run.

At the time the shuttle would have been operated by Class 317 or 365 units as would have the Oxford locals.

So in the initial proposals, as well as what is now expected to happen, the service to the stations listed above would have been operated by a mixture of trains, some with toilets and some without - with the exception of Twyford (and Reading) which would have been served by toilet equipped trains only.

I agree with you that it is unlikely that the Class 345s will be fitted with toilets and that the Crossrail service will be cut back to Maidenhead. So we'll just have to accept the situation...

Yes, I wasn't particularly clear. My comments were partly in response to the argument you had with SpacePhoenix about whether the service is actually being improved or not by extending Crossrail to Reading. My point is that the previous plan to terminate 4tph at Maidenhead and have the Reading-Slough shuttle would in fact have resulted in it being more difficult to make a journey between Twyford and Heathrow. Only the 2tph Oxford stopper would provide a connection to Heathrow, compared to 4tph today. Extending Crossrail to Maidenhead has preserved the 4tph service to Hayes & Harlington and thus the connection to Heathrow. If Crossrail were cut back to go only as far as where toiletless trains are acceptable, then it would result in some journeys becoming more difficult. That extra difficulty would have to be weighed against the 'benefit' of not running long services without toilets.

 

[RobShipway]

I don't have a problem with the tube running all night, in fact here in St Albans we've had an all night service to Gatwick and Brighton (about hourly) for many years, so getting home from central London has not been that difficult.



The fact that the tube is only (initially) for Friday and Saturday implies that it is really intended for late night revellers, which on those nights will mean more drinkers than normal.



I believe that LO stations normally have facilities so maybe the same will apply to Crossrail. There is no excuse for urinating in public places, nor 'private' places. Would you object to a passing pedestrian relieving themselves at your front door or in your garden? There aren't toilets on night buses so how should they manage now?



I have on many occasions had to wait until an appropriate opportunity for relief, but I have never just let loose in the street. If a person can't control themselves*, they shouldn't consume multiple pints of alcohol. As Howard GWR has said, travellers managed on six-a-side compartment stock with not even a corridor, for over a century. The human body hasn't fuctionally changed in that time, - the inconsiderate attitudes of a few have though.

* medical issues excepted - but those so afflicted are usually more responsible with their drinking habits.

The problem comes that those that need to go to the toilet end up needing to travel on the last train, by which time toilets within stations have been closed. Even though, those that have been consuming alcohol may have made themselves comfortable before leaving the last pub that they have visited, larger drinks I have found tend to go through your system quicker such that you need to be going to the toilet sooner.

Now, I am the first to say that I rarely drink any alcohol unless it is Easter or Christmas, when I am at home or with relatives for a few days. The reason that I do not drink other than on a rare occasion, Easter or Christmas is as AM9 stated due to the fact that I suffer medical conditions where it is not appropriate to get drunk on a regular basis. But as I do when I do drink alcohol, I think that most people will limit themselves as to how much they can drink and still be able to travel safely home on the train or at least should be doing if they are not.

When the 345s are tested will they use the same route as the 387/2s currently and use the WCML?

This is just a guess for which I am sure I will be corrected, but as the class 345 are effectively a new type of train I would have thought that they would have to go through type approval on the Old Dalby test track first, so that they can gain access to Network Rails to be tested?

 

[D365]

The problem comes that those that need to go to the toilet end up needing to travel on the last train, by which time toilets within stations have been closed.

Is this relating to the Class 345 discussion? I'm not sure if you are for or against having toilet facilities onboard.

This is just a guess for which I am sure I will be corrected, but as the class 345 are effectively a new type of train I would have thought that they would have to go through type approval on the Old Dalby test track first, so that they can gain access to Network Rails to be tested?

345001 is headed down there I believe. May have been reported not long ago in this thread.

 

[Class377/5]

345001 is doing initial testing at Old Dalby then will move to Ilford for testing on the network. Believe this is because of the train length its not so easy to test like the 378s were (which were 3 car originally so much easier to store).

 

[coppercapped]

Yes, I wasn't particularly clear. My comments were partly in response to the argument you had with SpacePhoenix about whether the service is actually being improved or not by extending Crossrail to Reading. My point is that the previous plan to terminate 4tph at Maidenhead and have the Reading-Slough shuttle would in fact have resulted in it being more difficult to make a journey between Twyford and Heathrow. Only the 2tph Oxford stopper would provide a connection to Heathrow, compared to 4tph today. Extending Crossrail to Maidenhead has preserved the 4tph service to Hayes & Harlington and thus the connection to Heathrow. If Crossrail were cut back to go only as far as where toiletless trains are acceptable, then it would result in some journeys becoming more difficult. That extra difficulty would have to be weighed against the 'benefit' of not running long services without toilets.

Ah! Yes, I agree with you - the service pattern is a lot 'cleaner' without the Reading - Slough shuttle: it saves a lot of changing of platforms and trains and avoids conflicting moves into and out of the proposed bay at Slough.

The only pity is the removal of a facility which already exists in the current offering - it seems short sighted and adds a complication to the passengers' travel experiences. On the western end of Crossrail there is not even the argument that the trains will be so full that the floor space cannot be spared - these are 9 coach long trains replacing 3 to 5 coach trains and at a higher frequency.

Still, people will get used to it. My take is that it's the lack of a feature which, if it were present, would remove another argument for not using the trains.

 

[RobShipway]

Is this relating to the Class 345 discussion? I'm not sure if you are for or against having toilet facilities onboard.



345001 is headed down there I believe. May have been reported not long ago in this thread.

Since I have made my comments on the class 345's, can I ask where are your thoughts and comments please or do you just like putting down other people's comments?

 

[AM9]

Ah! Yes, I agree with you - the service pattern is a lot 'cleaner' without the Reading - Slough shuttle: it saves a lot of changing of platforms and trains and avoids conflicting moves into and out of the proposed bay at Slough.

The only pity is the removal of a facility which already exists in the current offering - it seems short sighted and adds a complication to the passengers' travel experiences. On the western end of Crossrail there is not even the argument that the trains will be so full that the floor space cannot be spared - these are 9 coach long trains replacing 3 to 5 coach trains and at a higher frequency.

I can't see how that makes any difference. If floorspace is used for toilets or anything else that isn't optimising passenger capacity, it will limit capacity throughout the line. Unless you are planning some revolutionary 'pop-up' toilets.
Even if there is a perception of lighter commuter loadings on the GWML, I would imagine that in the next 10-15 years, the sparks effect of both Crossrail and much improved outer-suburban services will ensure that they become fully loaded.