Marlow and Henley-on-Thames branches.

I don't think they're even getting electrified, so they're probably going to be cut off during the peaks (as well as during the day)...

 

They could still be electrified especially say if First group put that as part of their franchise bid.

The plan I believe is that after electrification there will no longer be any through trains during the peaks.

1 problem with the Marlow branch is that the platform at Bourne end would need to be extended to accomodate a 3 carriage emu.

 

It would be madness not to electrify all the Thames Valley Branches in my opinion. In the case of the Henley branch which I use quite often the frequency certainly warrants it - every 45 minutes off-peak during the week. It would be silly having to maintain a small diesel fleet just for the branches and surely costs would be lower to do it as part of the GWML project now rather then a stand alone conversion in the future.

It would be a shame if we lost the through services as they are well used - the 0744 Henley to Paddington frequently appears in the 10 most overcrowded trains list. If crossrail does only go to Maidenhead (which I hope it doesn't) then surely the Henley through trains have a chance of survival as they can use the crossover at Ruscombe.

I heard a rumour that a 180 could be used on a Henley through service when they are reintroduced - anybody know more?

 

What would be the point of using a 125mph unit on a stopping Thames Valley service... *looks at local HSTs* oh no wait :P

 

Completely agree; with electrification you either "do it right, first time" or you wait a generation for the "gaps" to be filled in.

Hmm, can anyone else picture a Civil Servant thinking "if we could just cut direct trains from Henley to London then we'd be able to withdraw this overcrowded train, which will improve our stats..."

 

It's no wonder the 0744 is so overcrowded really as it's only a 3 car Turbo. I'd like to think this will get strengthened from May when the 150's and 180's come into use but the current diagram would have to be altered as the unit that works the 0744 also forms the first two branch shuttles and I think the bay at Twyford can only take 4? I think if 4 cars trains run from the bay they need dispatching?

A 180 wouldn't be as barmy on one or two of the through services as you may think. It's 125mph all the way to Twyford and most of them only stop at Maidenhead. The service I've heard that could get 180'd is the 1906 Padd - Henley.

 

You could take that to the extreme of closing all railways, then no trains would ever be late ever again! (Not to give the DfT any ideas... :roll

I agree that branches should be electrified as well, since they are going to have to be done at some point. Surely economies of scale mean that it would be cheaper to electrify as much as possible in one programme, rather than do it in stages?

The service itself doesn't have to change to EMUs overnight; IIRC infrastructure is the highest cost in electrification. Once the wires are in place, however, operation becomes more flexible, and there is also the possibility of providing through services.

 

I suspect that all 3 branches will get electrified, driven more by the Operator wanting to keep a common stock rather than have some odd Turbos hanging around the Reading depot.

It will be 2016 before the main line to Reading will be wired, so there is plenty of time yet for minds to be changed. With a skilled workforce by then I suspect all 3 branches could be wired up in about 3-4 months.

 

I hope so.

One problem is that if the branches aren't earmarked for electrification pretty soon then there won't be any spare 319s to run on them, meaning a separate class of EMU at Reading which will complicate things (bearing in mind that there will still be some Turbos for the North Downs line).

Deciding to wire all the branches soon would maybe allow FGW (or its successor) to reserve more/all of the 319s, allowing a separate build for Lancashire's newly electrified lines (in a few years time).

(on the basis that Crossrail stock would be too long for these branches)

 

There was talk in a previous issue of rail magazine of FGW getting brand new emu's for the services around Reading & the thames valley so that Northern could get more class 319's with FGW keeping some for use around Bristol. I know the Marlow platform at Bourne end needs some work done on it so that it can accomodate a 3 carriage train.


As for crossrail I personally dont think its a good idea to have fixed 10 carriage sets wouldn't 5 carriages sets which can be split etc give more flexibility?

 

The core tunnel is deep-level, so it needs platform screen doors to cut down on draughts (like the JLE). So basically the trains need to be in some kind of fixed formation.

 

I do wonder whether there will be enough 319s to go around, and whether (if not) it'd be better to keep them in the south or in the north.

Both areas have people claiming that they should have something else, sometimes with the reason of 3 carriages being more appropriate (as you mention about Marlow), though this is seen by others as a way of trying to justify wanting brand new EMUs (rather than 1980s ones).

The Reading West - Basingstoke line ought to be mentioned alongside the Thames Valley branches, in that its a short stretch of line with a self contained DMU service (ignoring the Voyagers). The benefit of doing the Basingstoke line is that it also allows longer distance EMUs to run (e.g. Oxford - Southampton)

 

Agree with all above, do the branches at the same time as the main line. Also, perhaps consider moving directly over to Chiltern as soon as you finish with the Great Western.

 

That'd be good. Perhaps then the Gospel Oak to Barking, Hurst Green to Uckfield and... Ashford to Ore (see how I managed to sneak in mention of my local line there! ). Eventually diesel could be eradicated in the SE.

 

Greenford to Clapham Junction, I think you mean (via the link between Ealing Broadway and Kensington Olympia). Would never happen as you need to cross over all the lines of the GWML, which will be carrying in excess of 20tph each way post-Crossrail.

 

Would make more sense to shove the Tring Terminators and Watford DC Line into Crossrail from Willesden North...

 

That's assuming North Pole is re-instated. The Manchester-Brighton used to use the relief lines to Acton, then go behind Acton Main Line, loop round Willesden and link up with the WLL at Mitre Bridge junction and then over the GWML. I would assume that was the route that was being thought of.

 

I saw that coming down off the flyover once with a 47. So many times I wish I'd been able to do a bit of exploring rather than just shuttling to and from school. Missed all the interesting stuff.

Incidentally, will there be access to North Pole shed via the Old Oak flyover at some point?

 

...when doing a spot of network projection musing I discovered one of the original intentions of the Marlow branch was to connect to the Henley branch. With that in mind you could have a good route to Reading (though you'd also have to change the junction to face Reading instead).

I.E:

 

I agree, it's disgraceful they're only plumping for a partial 5th line along the GWML instead of a full 6 tracks to Airport Junction. With those you could have a decent tube-style local service on the lines (so can optimise them for ~60mph), have the relief lines operating exclusively semi-fast services (and accordingly optimise for 90-100mph), and then you have the fast lines, which you can optimise for 140mph+. That way, you could maybe even add 2-3 new stations along the route to increase usage. Crossrail interchanges at Hayes & Harlington, OOC, & Paddington.

 

How many terminating platforms are they building at Paddington anyway?

Wouldn't it be better to tie all these branches into the core Crossrail service as ways to disperse the trains as is the plan with Thameslink and the GN?

EDIT:
THe Greenford Branch could retain direct service to Paddington via the New North Main Line which could be electrified as a diversion route and to help reduce the cost of providing backup terminus space for Euston and Chiltern in line with the latters expansion (EWR) and possible electrification.
Meanwhile the other branch lines already seem to have generally long station platforms that could be used with the planned 200m trains, or would be easily extendable, especially as its perfectly possible for the trains to be fitted with SDO as the tender hasnt gone out yet.

It would appear that a captive shuttle would be needed between Bourne End and Marlow due to the reversal not being long enough for a 200m train, this I would suggest would be some sort of 25kV powered Parry People Mover, unless anyone can think of a cunning way to fit a chord into that length.

EDIT #2:

Why would a Crossrail Train have to be fixed formation? Surely the electronics we have these days would be capable of communicating the length of the train to the platform controller which could then only open the relevant number of doors at the front of the platform? This information could be displayed on the Platform Information display, or perhaps PID screens mounted above the edge doors that show which doors will open for each train.

 

I think the decision on fixed length trains was more about simplicity and capacity - 2 x 5 car units having wasted space in the cabs. Units are often not divided up at quiet times now- SWT for example keep 8 car formations off-peak. Plus 5 cars will be insufficient in the core even at quiet times.

 

No need. Not if it's going to be a "captive shuttle".

Install a couple of "archimedes screws" at a suitable point near the Thames somewhere along the Henley & Maidenhead loop.

Using technology based on that used in the 50s for the Ballater Battery unit build a couple of new Thames Battery Units using the frame of a current suitable EMU or DMU.

Should be some form of eco-grant out there to cover the cost.

 

The 180s are coming back, but they are going on the N. Cotswold line, to free up Turbos. Also, 150s will run Reading-Basingstoke, for the same reason. These changes are to take effect from May next year, so I am told.

 

They must think not, because their original plan (in the Bill documentation)definitely was for 5 car trains running in pairs, but they have subsequently changed that to 200m fixed formation when the EU prior information notice for the eventual rolling stock tender was issued...