Should Elizabeth line take over the Thames Valley branches and also Romford - Upminster branch?

[Jamiescott1]

The time difference isn't a huge amount.
It's literally 5 minutes and 2 stops.

You also lose extra paths for Bristol services which are definitely required.
The current services are often full and standing throughout, even on 9 cars

More like 20 minutes.
Current off peak gwr takes 39 minutes whereas the peaks that call at Slough only are 19 minutes.

 

[Horizon22]

345s will be minimum 9 car once the need to fit into P14 at Paddington goes.

Indeed, making the proposal even less likely!

 

[cle]

Even the current service seems an improvement on that in Turbo days (when there were four services per hour, but all slowish as all four made calls in some of the minor stations, at least - for example ISTR all services called at EITHER Taplow/Burnham OR Langley/Iver, rather than the perhaps more obvious pattern of 2tph calling at all 4 and 2tph skipping all 4). Now there are, IIRC, calls only at Slough, Hayes and Ealing on the way to London.

I travelled from Maidenhead to London both days on one weekend in 2015 and found the services very slow; same goes with a journey I made from Reading to Ealing in 2008. Both these example journeys are very much faster, presumably, even with the current service.

Yup, except that very soon - 2 mins after that stop, you'll be at Bond St. 5 more mins, at Farringdon. etc etc and then it makes a lot more sense - and ease.

I think fast to Paddington and shuffle down to Crossrail - vs a few mins more (potentially) but a single seat ride, and a good content binge/email session - the latter will start to win out.

 

[Horizon22]

More like 20 minutes.
Current off peak gwr takes 39 minutes whereas the peaks that call at Slough only are 19 minutes.

There’s some variety though, usually it takes 31-35 minutes off-peak. Even the Elizabeth Line, with extra stops is 42.

 

[JonathanH]

Indeed, making the proposal even less likely!

Why? Platform 14 can be used by 5-car 80x and 8-car 387s and in theory at least it is possible to get to the down main without conflict with the Elizabeth Line service.

However, in practice, I suspect that platforms 12 and 14 won't be used much once Elizabeth Line is running through the Core given it would constrain capacity on the main line.

 

[Horizon22]

Why? Platform 14 can be used by 5-car 80x and 8-car 387s and in theory at least it is possible to get to the down main without conflict with the Elizabeth Line service.

However, in practice, I suspect that platforms 12 and 14 won't be used much once Elizabeth Line is running through the Core given it would constrain capacity on the main line.

I meant the proposal of taking over the branch lines, as per the original question.

I would agree though that P14 will become rather redundant, perhaps being used for engineering blocks only - it’s not like it can be used with 345s once they’re all converted. It might be beneficial to redevelop the space on that platform in time as it’s awkward enough already, but now we’re really going off-topic!

 

[Benjwri]

Reading to Ealing in 2008

This is an example of one that very much won't be faster. With the new GWR plan, no GWR trains will stop at Ealing, so to travel there you would have to take the TFL rail service from Reading, stopping at every station under the sun, or a GWR IET to London and a TFL rail service to Ealing, both slower, or the same, as 2008, and much slower than currently.

 

[Acton1991]

This is an example of one that very much won't be faster. With the new GWR plan, no GWR trains will stop at Ealing, so to travel there you would have to take the TFL rail service from Reading, stopping at every station under the sun, or a GWR IET to London and a TFL rail service to Ealing, both slower, or the same, as 2008, and much slower than currently.

*Elizabeth line

 

[cle]

OOC will eventually make these double-backs somewhat easier and quicker (and marginally cheaper, if you even have to tap, vs Paddington)

 

[hkstudent]

Crossrail is like a Japanese commuter line - which threads through the city line a tube, but either end, is suburban and even regional in it's spread. 50 mile journeys with side seating and no toilets. Totally fine. This also has different stopping patterns - again, totally fine. RER is the same. It's closer to those than to London Overground, it's not a tube line.

Reading being semi-fast makes sense, and frankly Southend Victoria wouldn't be too far (if fasts still ran). Ending at a major destination or another hub is good practice - encourages counter-commuting, off peak demand etc - and overall utilization. Again, look at Japan and trains running to outer hubs like Utsonomiya, Odawara, Atami etc etc etc. If it was in Japan, we would for sure see Didcot and Oxford and Southend on there. But it's not as densely populated of course.

I agree, tube style commuting trains are very useful even to a one-hour journey.

I think Didcot Parkway semi-fast can be easily transferred to Elizabeth Line, to make Reading - Paddington service to a more even 4tph pattern.

 

[nw1]

I agree, tube style commuting trains are very useful even to a one-hour journey.

I think Didcot Parkway semi-fast can be easily transferred to Elizabeth Line, to make Reading - Paddington service to a more even 4tph pattern.

Do you really want inner-suburban stock all the way out to Didcot?
And what happens to the semi-fast services from Twyford and Maidenhead, which would presumably be dramatically slowed down.

 

[miklcct]

I agree, tube style commuting trains are very useful even to a one-hour journey.

I think Didcot Parkway semi-fast can be easily transferred to Elizabeth Line, to make Reading - Paddington service to a more even 4tph pattern.

I don't think TfL should go as far as Didcot Parkway as it's too far away for the service to be London-focused. My suggestion where TfL should go is always to the first major intercity station outside the Greater London boundary (e.g. Reading, Watford Junction), which enables transfers from an intercity service to a local stopping service direct to outer London without passing through a London Terminal.

I think GWR's proposal is good here by segregating London-focused service from those commuting from the outer regions.

 

[306024]

Deleted

 

[Acton1991]

I agree, tube style commuting trains are very useful even to a one-hour journey.

I think Didcot Parkway semi-fast can be easily transferred to Elizabeth Line, to make Reading - Paddington service to a more even 4tph pattern.

Why would TfL have any interest operating out to Didcot? Reading is a stretch!

 

[306024]

I think Didcot Parkway semi-fast can be easily transferred to Elizabeth Line, to make Reading - Paddington service to a more even 4tph pattern.

Easily? What rolling stock would you use?

 

[hkstudent]

Easily? What rolling stock would you use?

Use Class 345 and run the original semi fast pattern would be fine. The S bahn in Germany can stretch that far.

 

[306024]

Use Class 345 and run the original semi fast pattern would be fine. The S bahn in Germany can stretch that far.

So how many additional class 345s will you need to build, easily?

 

[Falcon1200]

Use Class 345 and run the original semi fast pattern would be fine. The S bahn in Germany can stretch that far.

The only line Class 345 is suitable for is the Elizabeth Line's central section, ie in tunnels where there is nothing to see out of the window anyway ! (and probably no need for toilets either...) Everywhere else they are horrible to travel in, even Reading is way too far, never mind Didcot. TfL has inflicted glorified tube trains on the main line railway, replacing Class 387-operated services with 345s would be a huge step backwards.

 

[Horizon22]

The only line Class 345 is suitable for is the Elizabeth Line's central section, ie in tunnels where there is nothing to see out of the window anyway ! (and probably no need for toilets either...) Everywhere else they are horrible to travel in, even Reading is way too far, never mind Didcot. TfL has inflicted glorified tube trains on the main line railway, replacing Class 387-operated services with 345s would be a huge step backwards.

Only they didn’t really replace 387s that much; they ultimately replaced Turbos.

 

[hkstudent]

The only line Class 345 is suitable for is the Elizabeth Line's central section, ie in tunnels where there is nothing to see out of the window anyway ! (and probably no need for toilets either...) Everywhere else they are horrible to travel in, even Reading is way too far, never mind Didcot. TfL has inflicted glorified tube trains on the main line railway, replacing Class 387-operated services with 345s would be a huge step backwards.

If you extend EZL service to Didcot, that will make the GW Mainline slow line to be exclusively used by EZL, hence making scheduling on that line be better and also reduce the service delay possibly bought by GWR.

 

[JonathanH]

If you extend EZL service to Didcot, that will make the GW Mainline slow line to be exclusively used by EZL, hence making scheduling on that line be better and also reduce the service delay possibly bought by GWR.

There is already a proposal for GWR to only use the relief line west of Slough. Once you get to Reading there are CrossCountry trains on it as well and obviously crossing moves at Moreton Cutting / Didcot East.

 

[swt_passenger]

There is already a proposal for GWR to only use the relief line west of Slough. Once you get to Reading there are CrossCountry trains on it as well and obviously crossing moves at Moreton Cutting / Didcot East.

And loads of freight to/from Southampton…

 

[Acton1991]

It does make you wonder why they removed the second bay platform at Slough (I think it was Platform 6?) - could have been a good place for some Elizabeth line services to terminate.

 

[43096]

It does make you wonder why they removed the second bay platform at Slough (I think it was Platform 6?) - could have been a good place for some Elizabeth line services to terminate.

There would have been a bit of an issue with platform length!

 

[Falcon1200]

Only they didn’t really replace 387s that much; they ultimately replaced Turbos.

I was referring to the proposal to replace GWR's Reading/Didcot stoppers with Elizabeth Line services - No thanks !

If you extend EZL service to Didcot, that will make the GW Mainline slow line to be exclusively used by EZL, hence making scheduling on that line be better and also reduce the service delay possibly bought by GWR.

As above, there are other operators than TfL which use the Relief (not Slow) Lines, and anyway, why should the late-comer be able to push everyone else out of their way; If they want exclusive use of a pair of tracks, they can build their own !

 

[Horizon22]

I was referring to the proposal to replace GWR's Reading/Didcot stoppers with Elizabeth Line services - No thanks !



As above, there are other operators than TfL which use the Relief (not Slow) Lines, and anyway, why should the late-comer be able to push everyone else out of their way; If they want exclusive use of a pair of tracks, they can build their own !

If they retain the same stopping pattern as the current GWR services between Reading - Paddington I personally wouldn't be that concerned, although they are a slight decrease in comfort.

The only other operator is various freight, which probably poses more of a performance risk than GWR's 2tph.

 

[cle]

Most people don't notice the comfort side that much. I think sending 1-2tph or some in the peaks to Didcot wouldn't be a terrible thing for Thames Valley connectivity and one seat rides. Curious on platform lengths though!

Hayes has a bay - I agree Slough would be a better inner terminus to ramp up frequency - as the Heathrows cover a lot of that - West Drayton was also going to turn 2tph - so maybe in time once the new timetable is stabilized, these will become options for furtive extensions of terminators.

However, OOC/Paddington will have need for some empty starting trains in future!

 

[Jamiescott1]

Didcot too far on a train with no toilet for those with medical needs who frequently need to use the toilet

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Didcot too far on a train with no toilet for those with medical needs who frequently need to use the toilet

It isn't only those "with medical needs" who frequently avail themselves of a lavatory. For most old men, an expanded prostate does the trick!

 

[cle]

Just as well there are fast trains from Didcot with toilets then! And toilets at the station - I’m sure a semi-fast Crossrail service would be 60-70 mins to Central London. It’s not that long without a bathroom if you plan and don’t guzzle water.