At yesterday’s TfL Board Meeting “Crossrail Enhancements” were discussed, in a non-public session, and agreed. These enhancements were the extension of Crossrail to Reading, which will be officially announced today.
That Crossrail will be extended to Reading should not be a surprise. Indeed if you are a regular reader of our articles you have probably followed this ongoing saga for some time, and the only surprise is that it has taken so long for this announcement to be made.
Two DMUs at Reading that have probably terminated there and are waiting to go back to London. How long before they are replaced by 9-car electric Crossrail stock? Note the overhead line support girder already in position and designed to be as unobtrusive as possible when viewed from the platform. Thanks to Unravelled for this photo.
The Clues Started Appearing
For those looking for indications that Crossrail would go to Reading it did seem that there were a lot of pointers that on their own were not really significant, but which taken together made one think that, at the very least, the issue of Crossrail being extended to Reading was being actively considered. As long ago as last September the Maidenhead Advertiser reported that
Crossrail were unable to confirm whether a decision has been reached concerning talks to terminate the service at Reading.
A spokesman for Crossrail said it was a decision being reviewed by The Department of Transport and Transport for London.
Despite this, only a few months ago we began to wonder if Crossrail really would only reach Maidenhead. Slightly worryingly at the time, Network Rail announced the commencement of work at Maidenhead to build carriage sidings. These, it was universally agreed, would be needed if Crossrail terminated at Maidenhead but not if it terminated at Reading – where a new electrified depot is currently being built complete with copious electrified sidings. In fact work at this location (or the lack of it) turned out to be the first indication that it was crunch time for a decision to be made. The site was levelled certainly, but that was probably something that would need doing whatever use was subsequently found for it. No follow-on work was announced on the Crossrail website and all subsequent activity on the site itself was for a long time conspicuous by its absence.
A glance at the roof at the west end of platforms 3 and 4 at Slough gives the only clue that there was once a very short bay platform for trains terminating from the west. There is no currently obvious satisfactory way of terminating such trains today.
Another factor which suggested the extension was coming was that, according to the Crossrail website, plans included “another TOC” providing a Reading-Slough shuttle. Normally it is a good idea to get the final track layout in place before electrification, yet Network Rail still seemed to have no track or signalling plans to accommodate terminating trains at Slough from the west – and it was not obvious how this could be satisfactorily done with the existing layout.
Due to all the above, we awaited with interest Crossrail Chairman Terry Morgan’s lecture at the Institute of Engineering and Technology (IET). Sure enough Reading received a mention – albeit as an apparent throwaway remark: “Who knows it might even go to Reading when electrification is done”. As an LR commenter previously correctly pointed out: “A bit too much of a throwaway line to get excited about (on its own)”. Taken with growing evidence elsewhere, however, a picture was developing.
We’ve been here before but the situation has changed
For us here at LR Towers always looking for an easy story, it seemed time to start digging up the history of Crossrail going to Maidenhead or Reading from previous articles and repackaging it. The trouble with that is similar to the story of the economics student taking an exam and realising that the questions were the same as last year. He points this out, only for the invigilator to smile and reply “yes but the answers are different this year”.
So, with the benefit of hindsight we look once again the the history of Crossrail going to Reading, before looking at some of the issues that this raises – a few of which have only surfaced in the past 12 months or so.
If not Reading why not Slough?
The bay platform facing London at Slough. Currently far too short for 9-car terminating trains but there is no reason why it could not be extended.
From the outset it was originally proposed that Crossrail would terminate in the west at Reading. Indeed it was a bit of a surprise when prior to putting a bill before parliament Crossrail proposed that the service be cut back to Maidenhead. Maidenhead would not seem to have been a sensible option as a place to terminate the service if it was not to go all the way to Reading. Slough, for example, was getting on for being almost twice as busy if you included passengers changing from the branch service to Windsor & Eton Central. Furthermore, it also had a platform that was once used for trains terminating from the east. So why Maidenhead and not Slough?
Maidenhead station relief lines platforms looking east towards London. The wide and long platforms are typical of the Great Western relief lines between London and Reading. The station already has a fifth platform (for the Marlow branch line) and the layout means it would not be easy to add a further terminating platform for 9-car trains without making transfer from the branch shuttle quite inconvenient. Nevertheless this appears to be what will still happen. A sixth platform is still planned but the location will not be ideal. This will enable platform 5 to become a through platform and platform 4 used for terminating Crossrail trains. Despite the announcement being made, only some trains will be extended to Reading and it appears that this awkward arrangement will still be necessary.
Maidenhead is only three stations and around six miles beyond Slough. One of those intermediate stations, Taplow, is so little used it is only marginally busier than the quietest station on the London Underground. In fact if it wasn’t for Iver, which is even quieter still, it would be the least busy station due to be part of Crossrail. Taplow is situated at the outer edge of the built up area of Burnham and is surrounded by sports grounds, a sewage works and countryside. Clearly this station is not in a category for which one goes to a great effort to improve the service.
Burnham, the other intermediate station, whilst much busier than Taplow, is also not heavily used by London standards. Only Maidenhead with around 4 million passenger journeys a year starting or finishing there, as well as people changing from the local branch line to Marlow, provides any justification for Crossrail to go beyond Slough but not as far as Reading. One could either, therefore, believe that Crossrail went to Maidenhead because the figures did stack up and justified it on its own merits or, just possibly, the intention all along was to go to Reading eventually but, as Sir Humphrey would say, the timing was not right.
One disadvantage of going to Maidenhead (and no further) was that there is nowhere obvious to terminate a train. As mentioned at the start, this is the place where real money would have to be spent that would be wasted if Crossrail subsequently got approval to continue on towards Reading.
The original reasons given for terminating at Maidenhead not Reading
Many reasons have been given in the past for the decision to terminate at Maidenhead as opposed to Reading. The four that were the most prominent were as follows:
- Reading would be unaffordable because not only would the full cost of electrification from Maidenhead to Reading have to be borne by Crossrail, it would also have to pay for the substantial costs of immunising the signalling.
- There was little point in going to Reading as the Crossrail trains would be all-stations stoppers and attract very little custom to and from London at the only two stations affected (Twyford and Reading). This is because by the time users were this far out from London they would prefer to catch a fast train and change at Paddington if necessary.
- Maidenhead to Reading was a third of the distance of London to Reading, so by cutting out these two stations one also cut out a lot of the cost of electrification. One would also reduce the number of trains needed by two, which on its own would save at least £20m (and probably nearer £25m).
- Going to Reading substantially increased the complexity and risk of the project, which threatened confidence on it being delivered on time. Furthermore, even if the case could be justified on strict cost-benefit grounds, it increased the cost of the final scheme which would reduce its chances of getting government financial approval. In other words, as the project could make its case without including Reading, why risk everything by including it?
The arguments begin to fall down
All these arguments have became substantially weakened by events and changing circumstances in recent years.
The argument that, by going to Reading, Crossrail would incur considerable extra costs was probably a very reasonable one in the days of Railtrack. Railtrack were a commercial firm through and through, and were well-known for quoting astronomical prices for infrastructure upgrades. These must have included a substantial profit margin. It would take not only the replacement of Railtrack by Network Rail, but also a few years of experience and growing confidence in their way of working, for this fear to go away. Once the planned electrification of the Great Western route was announced most of these costs disappeared anyway, or at least effectively got allocated elsewhere.
The claim that few people would use Crossrail services from Twyford or Reading to go to and from London, whilst possibly true, at least for Reading, is the argument that was probably always the weakest. It seems to be generally apparent even to non-railway people that in the peak period the flow of passengers to and from Reading from these stations is just as important as the flow to London.
The slow train is an OK train
Even ignoring the above, there is the opinion held by some – notably including Crossrail Chairman Terry Morgan himself – that some passengers won’t care about journey time, and will accept the slower journey simply to get to their destination in London without having to change at Paddington.
Looking at the figures, there does seem to be some validity in Terry Morgan’s argument – at least as far as Twyford. Maidenhead is the westernmost Crossrail station for which we have published expected journey times to Paddington. This is given as a very respectable 37 minutes. It is 39 minutes in the reverse direction but this clearly includes some recovery time between Taplow and Maidenhead to ensure that the trains arrive at their final destination on time. In comparison the few non-stop trains from Maidenhead to Paddington in the morning peak at the moment typically take 24 – 26 minutes. There is one, exceptionally, that takes only 20 minutes but that is an HST starting from Worcester. An all-stations (except Acton Main Line) train currently takes 50 minutes.
So, if one were to travel to the city from the Thames Valley east of Reading, one of the worst case scenarios would see you having to change from main line to Crossrail at Paddington in less than about 12 minutes to arrive any quicker than one would if travelling on an all-stations Crossrail train. On top of this the all-stations train would probably pretty much guarantee you a seat for the whole journey, whereas one may well end up standing on both legs of the journey if one chose to change at Paddington for a faster service.
Even from Reading, where the time saving by changing at Paddington amounts to around 20 minutes before taking into account the time taken to actually change at Paddington, the Crossrail service will be attractive to some passengers who value a guaranteed seat all the way (at least on the morning journey to London). For many regular commuters a seat on a direct train may rank above any marginal time saving achieved by changing at Paddington.
Making the best use of capacity
The argument about Crossrail Ltd saving costs on purchasing trains when terminating at Maidenhead does not really makes sense unless it is seen solely from the point of view of costs attributable to Crossrail. One doesn’t have to be a railway expert to understand that if the four trains per hour per hour (peak), two trains per hour (off-peak), are extended from Maidenhead to Reading one can probably safely discontinue the existing half-hourly all-stations Reading to London service and also, as an added benefit, use the slots freed up for something more useful. Trains would potentially be utilised better overall, although the fact that non-Crossrail trains could probably be much shorter and require fewer carriages would be a factor against this argument. Clearly, once electrification all the way to Reading was a done deal, the situation might arise where the question to be asked would not be what is the extra cost of Crossrail going to Reading? but what is the extra cost of Crossrail not going to Reading?
That the writing was on the wall for this particular argument also seemed to become clear when the award of the Crossrail Rolling stock contract to Bombardier was announced which, although many did not notice it at the time, included an option for another 18 units.
Risk Management
The argument about risk to the overall project of taking Crossrail to Reading also became substantially weakened when Network Rail completed work at Reading a year earlier than originally scheduled. This they achieved by practically shutting Reading station for more than a week at Easter 2013, instead of the originally planned four days. They also have a very aggressive schedule for electrification, including full electric services to Oxford by 2016. This means that infrastructure changes at Reading are no longer likely to be on the critical path. Furthermore since, from Network Rail’s perspective, London – Swansea is effectively one electrification scheme, there is no longer any reason to believe that the risk factor for Crossrail suddenly rises when one gets beyond Maidenhead.
Who was pulling the strings?
One curiosity about the decision to only go as far as Maidenhead is that it was always presented by Crossrail as an internal decision borne about by pragmatism. In fact it seems that the invisible hand of government was there in the background, warning Crossrail off both Reading and building a station at Woolwich. As has already been highlighted though, if the intention was never to go to Reading one would have thought that Crossrail would have stopped at Slough. It is hard, therefore, not to get the feeling that at least unofficially Reading was always the ultimate long-term objective. If today’s announcement wasn’t a total surprise it was perhaps a surprise that it has taken so long to be made. Network Rail have been in favour of this at least since the publication of the London and South East Route Utilisation Strategy where they stated:
Option A1:
Extend services beyond the committed Crossrail terminus of Maidenhead to ReadingThis option is recommended for implementation in 2018. This is primarily due to capital cost savings in infrastructure which would otherwise be required, mainly at Maidenhead. It would also provide passenger benefits and improve train performance on the route.
Putting Reading on the Crossrail Map
Changing the plan and terminating at Reading is bound to raise some issues. A little realised fact (mentioned earlier) was that, under the proposals to terminate at Maidenhead, the Crossrail off-peak service to its western outer limit was only intended to be 2tph. This would admittedly have been supplemented by a further 2tph involving other local services. No doubt many people will now be looking for at least a 4tph Crossrail service throughout the day to Reading. Just as Croydon Council heavily supported and encouraged the 4tph London Overground service to West Croydon to “put Croydon on the (tube) map” we can expect the council at Reading to be very keen to see their town featured on the Crossrail route diagram. Even in the unlikely event that no-one actually catches a Crossrail train all the way from Reading to London, and instead uses the fast services, the diagram will serve to publicise Reading’s accessibility from London. Crossrail will symbolise a frequent metro service and 2tph to Reading isn’t going to do it justice.
A question of accountability
The question of jurisdiction and accountability will of course also become far more relevant. With Crossrail terminating at Maidenhead one could just about accept the need for Crossrail to be run by TfL with no local input or say on the service. As my colleague John Bull has previously pointed out, Crossrail’s fuzzy jurisdictions are a potential point of contention between TfL and the DfT. Similarly, whilst Reading Council have been broadly supportive of the proposals one would expect them to have some sort of representation concerning Crossrail decision making and not be reliant on the Mayor of London to act in their best interests.
Fortunately this may in fact be less of an issue than it might at first seem. Despite the distance, Reading Council and TfL have a history of positive dialogue. Indeed for a time the two bodies were in negotiation to allow Reading to use Oyster as the smartcarding system for their buses, a plan which was ultimately vetoed by the DfT. Nevertheless there will no doubt be instances where their priorities diverge.
Branch Issues
Branches at the western end of Crossrail. A decision will need to be made about the existing peak-hour through trains on these branches as well as who is in the best position to run them.
The question of accountability will certainly be relevant when one looks at the Henley-on-Thames branch (to Twyford) and the Marlow branch (to Maidenhead). These will effectively become Crossrail feeder branches as the vast majority of passengers will continue their journey by Crossrail in either the London or the Reading direction.
Both branches currently have a limited number of through trains to and from London. Henley has two departures in the morning and three arrivals in the evening. On the Marlow Branch there are none to or from Marlow but there are two departing from Bourne End in the morning and two arriving in the evening. One presumes that there will be a local desire to see these services retained but they will probably have to be short trains because of restricted power supply on the branches as well as short platforms. It would seem to be an inefficient use of train paths to allow these to continue in the peaks.
Whilst it is difficult to see the off-peak hourly service to Marlow being substantially altered after electrification it should be possible in future to run a half-hourly service (currently hourly off-peak) on the Henley-on-Thames branch assuming that electrification would allow the present end-to-end running time of 12 minutes to be reduced by a couple of minutes.
What could become very interesting and controversial is any proposal to treat these two branches as Crossrail feeder services, such as the rumoured plan for Greenford – West Ealing. With some justification the DfT could argue that really these branches ought logically to come under the Crossrail umbrella but this becomes very difficult to justify if Crossrail continues to be solely run by TfL. Nonetheless, it is tempting to wonder whether one – or both – of these lines will be shifted to Crossrail in the official announcement.
Oyster – or ITSO?
Finally, on the subject of issues raised, it was always promised that Oyster would be available at all Crossrail stations. Whilst Maidenhead was probably pushing the Oyster scheme to its limit, Reading will probably be seen as a step too far. If someone is commuting from, say, Burnham to Reading and using local buses at one or both ends, a London-based Oystercard really is not the appropriate smartcard solution. At the same time it would seem a retrograde step and certainly out of keeping with its image if Crossrail users were forced to buy paper tickets. Possibly ticketing will be the most contentious issue and probably one that was not envisaged when Reading was originally dropped from the scheme to avoid risk to the project. It must be remembered though that Crossrail is not due to reach the Great Western Main Line (GWML) until 2019, so they are quite a few years left for ITSO (a DfT-led smart card) to be successfully implemented in the Reading area.
What Next?
It is generally the temptation when one scheme is approved to look and think “what next?” Those looking for a change from a metro scheme to a longer distance solution (more like Thameslink) should bear in mind that, as already stated, the original plan always was to go to Reading. The town is an obvious outer limit to Crossrail services and it is hard to envisage any scenario where a good case can be made to go further westwards. It would make far more sense to develop Reading as a hub than it would to extend Crossrail services.
Extending from Abbey Wood?
The other temptation is to look at an extension from Abbey Wood. Abbey Wood, like Maidenhead, was not the first choice of terminus which was Ebbsfleet. Part of the reason for the decision to terminate at Abbey Wood was the same as for Maidenhead – to make Crossrail as a whole more affordable and more acceptable to parliament.
We really cannot expect any decision soon on extending beyond Abbey Wood. The situation is much more complex and would either involve a lot of sharing services with the intensive South-Eastern services or major new line building to double the line (i.e. four track) at least as far as Dartford. There is also the issue of the power supply, which is presently third rail and incompatible with Crossrail trains. Whilst various scenarios are possible one suspects that Network Rail are more than happy to bide their time and see how the idea of converting existing third rail tracks works out. TfL would no doubt be concerned about reliability and would probably like to see segregated tracks or, at the very least, have substantial say in the running of South-Eastern services before seeing Crossrail extended beyond Abbey Wood. One must bear in mind that, unlike Reading, nothing has changed here to justify a reconsideration.
At the previously-mentioned IET lecture Terry Morgan commented on extending from Abbey Wood and his unsolicited comments look at the issue with a fresh perspective. He is no dyed-in-the-wool railwayman, but someone with an engineering and project management background. One of his early achievements was at Land Rover with the development of the Land Rover Discovery model. Morgan is a man who only believes in railways when they do something useful – such as revitalising economies and basically enabling commerce to function. He is also well-known for strongly resisting “specification creep”.
Whilst making it clear that any extension beyond Abbey Wood should not begin until after the project has been completed and delivered, Terry Morgan expressed surprise that there had not been more campaigning in North Kent for Crossrail to be extended as an enabler to enhance the local economy. The implication was that he would like to see early progress made on this extension as soon as the initial scheme was complete and handed over.
There are, of course, other schemes for Crossrail being talked about, such as the idea of taking over some of the West Coast Main Line services into the Home Counties. This is believed to be favoured by the mayor and various proponents of HS2 (Network Rail included) who see this of benefit – either in the construction phase by re-routing traffic away from where the disruption is taking place or because an HS2 approach to Euston with reduced impact is then possible.
Another Route to Heathrow?
Of possible relevance to the future of Crossrail west of London is the Western Rail Access to Heathrow (WRAtH aka WRAP). Like all proposals related to Heathrow it is of course dependent on a decision on the future of Heathrow airport itself. In essence the scheme involves creating a tunnel so that trains can approach from the west. The proposal involves two trains per hour, non-stop, Heathrow to Reading and two further trains per hour to Reading calling at Slough and Maidenhead. Under current plans this would be built in Network Rail’s Control Period 6 (2019-2024). Given that Crossrail will by then already be serving both Heathrow (from the east) and Reading, as well as Slough and Maidenhead it might be decided that it would make operational sense for Crossrail to run this service. Yet again though we come back to the issue that if the service comes under the sole control of TfL, there will be no local accountability.
Alternatively Heathrow Express have made it clear that they are keen to run WRAtH. With Crossrail threatening some of their Paddington Heathrow revenue and the uncertainty of what happens after their concession expires in 2023 it is not surprising that Heathrow Express is looking for new markets and consider this one an as one particularly suited to the company.
Summing it all up
When all factors are considered one can see that, whilst the coming official confirmation and announcement will answer a lot of outstanding issues that have been raised, it also raises a lot more issues and opportunities. We at London Reconnections always did believe that we would be reporting on Crossrail developments for many years yet. Today’s announcement is just the next step for Crossrail, signalling the start of opportunities for yet more development rather than being the final part of the project. When it comes to Crossrail, it seems there is plenty still to come.
Unravelled has taken many photographs of Reading station during rebuilding.
They can be found here.
This was today. . .
http://youtu.be/PybspgUevoI
Oyster at Twyford would be unworkable due to the station layout as the bridge at both northern and southern ends falls outside the confines of the station, but the lifts, part time only, don’t.
On the Henley branch only Henley station is manned the others are ticket machine or ticket on train service, 6 cars is the max on the branch line due to platform length, and the direct services are always full by the time they reach Twyford
Similarly on the Marlow branch, Marlow has on train ticketing as does Furze Platt except in morning peaks when and sometimes those too if the stationmaster is on holiday.
There is a strong local lobby for the direct Henley & Bourne End services, and the fast Twyford-Maidenhead-Paddington services, so that when FGW cut them some years back, they were reinstated within 2 weeks! Twyford also has 3 fast evening HST’s one of which half empties at Twyford so it is a very busy station, around 1.2 million journeys not including the heavily used branch line, and Henley regatta week adds even more strain.
Anonymous,
Think more of Oyster at Twyford would be unworkable due to the current station layout.
It also depends on your meaning of unworkable which sounds a bit strong. Given that Oyster has been implemented in some manner in just about every station in Zones 1 -9 I hardly think it is going to be defeated by Twyford. The solution at Twyford may be less than optimal but hardly unworkable and certainly not worse than some solutions in London.
How is Oyster more unworkable than the situation at present?
According to Modern Railways (March 2015) funding has been allocated for a passing loop at Bourne End “allowing operation of two direct trains per hour throughout the day”. I presume the “direct train” means direct (i.e. no change at Bourne End) from Marlow to Maidenhead and is a reference to the situation where, when a Paddington bound train starts from Bourne End, the “Marlow Donkey” makes a shuttle journey between Bourne End and Marlow, if I recall correctly.
What is the betting that at some point the message will come out that you can have a half-hourly service on the branch line OR retain your through train (1 only per day in each direction planned after Crossrail opens)?
As stated in the article, it beats me why they don’t really take a good look at the branch line to Henley and try to get a thirty minute service viable when it is electrified. They could at least attempt this in the morning peak with trains not stopping at Wargrave and Shipley in the Henley direction.
@PoP – here’s a whimsical thought – why not equip the onboard TTI with a portable Oyster reader -half man,half gate, as it were? A MORAG perhaps – (Mobile Ontrain Reader And Gate)?
Re PoP et al,
Henley Branch – they can do “30 minute” at certain points in Regatta week it just needs some staff at either end to encourage passengers to get on/off quickly for fast turnarounds and using the Up Relief Platform at Twyford for the second train.
1 train when electrified should easily shave 1.5 to 2minutes off.
Journey time is 12 minutes distance, circa 4.5miles with 2 intermediate stops.
Most of the residents I know in the area drive to Twyford anyway…
The rumour mills are current suggesting TSGN’s surplus 365s in a few years go to GW services
PoP
Or even more sensibly, operate a Maidenhead – High Wycombe service, with a Marlow shuttle?
Um ……
Re PoP,
“What is the betting that at some point the message will come out that you can have a half-hourly service on the branch line OR retain your through train (1 only per day in each direction planned after Crossrail opens)?”
As long as that point is after the 1st Thursday in May, it shouldn’t be a problem.
@anon 0219
“Oyster at Twyford would be unworkable due to the station layout as the bridge at both northern and southern ends falls outside the confines of the station, but the lifts, part time only, don’t.”
Don’t see that as a problem – the layout is similar to Teddington or Norbiton, with a bridge or subway open to the public, except they don’t have lifts. Oyster readers at the bottom of the stairs and at the entrances to the platforms are all that’s required
The volume of people getti no off the fast trains in the evenings would make barriers on the bridge or stairs not feasible, especially if the Henley branch were included in Oyster, as you would have to go out the barrier then back in to take a Henley train, when they leave as soon as all passengers from the evening HST’s , a lot of people, have boarded, and at that time of night there is usually only one member of staff at the station & it is unstaffed after 8:30 week nights much earlier in weekends
Bourne Aend already has 2 platforms to enable the direct Paddington service with a shuttle to Marlow. During Henley regatta alternate trains do not stop at Wargrave in order to make sure that the service frequency is maintained
I think the discussion about Oyster at Twyford is suffering from confusion between Oyster readers and Oyster gates. Clearly readers without gates are entirely feasible, anywhere at all regardless of the layout. Some of the stations mentioned as comparators may be like that. Whereas a gateline may be easy, tricky or impossible, for reasons mentioned above, or for other reasons.
@ngh Your description of how the Henley branch is worked in Regatta week is a bit puzzling. If a second train is involved, then there will be no rush to get passengers on and off at Twyford, as the train will wait there until the other train gets back. Unless the two trains are flighted, two up trains then two down, but Henley has only one platform.
Indeed, Oyster readers on the platform without readers were what I had in mind. Wimbledon has them for interchange between train and tram, for example
Oops. Free-standing Oyster readers on the platform without GATES were what I had in mind! I imagine the same will be provided at Reading and Shenfield for people interchanging
Malcolm,
Anonymous is talking about one branch then another in the same short paragraph which isn’t helpful. I can quite understand why you are confused. He also mentions that Bourne End already has two platforms (true) which enables a direct Paddington service with a shuttle to Marlow (true). However this is not the same as being able to run a two-train half-hourly shuttle between Marlow and Maidenhead without changing trains.
Clearly a Marlow – Maidenhead half-hourly shuttle is a much better allocation of resources once Crossrail is open and I would suggest be of greater benefit to passengers than retaining the (by then one) through train. No doubt those that lose out will campaign for the retention of and even more through trains without regard to cost or the inefficient use of resources.
Incidently, if I recall correctly, two trains used to be able to pass in the days when one of the guards operated the ground frame at Bourne End. I may have remembered incorrectly so don’t rely on that.
@PoP
“funding has been allocated for a passing loop at Bourne End”
Bourne End is actually a reversing station, so a passing loop would be an unusual layout. The current two-platform layout has access to and from Maidenhead from both platforms, but the Marlow line is only connected to one of them. Thus trains cannot pass there – if two trains arrive from Marlow and Maidenhead, the latter has to use the platform with no access to Marlow, and has to go back to Maidenhead.
In the days when the Whitby branch had two trains, they passed at the reversing station at Battersby which only had one platform: however it was long enough to take two trains at once (last in, first out, of course). That would only be an option at Bourne End if you were to re-instate the level crossing and demolish the new police station.
I visited the branch last year, and confirming my memory of the stations layout from google maps, I think it would be possible to re-layout the junction at Bourne End so that Marlow trains could access both platforms, but this would restrict the length of all trains to 2 cars.
Bourne End could still have a through London train in 2019; after all that’s what currently promised. However, I think that such a short-formation train taking up a rush hour path on the approaches into Paddington will be increasingly untenable in the following decade. One approach would be add cars at Maidenhead, but I expect that by 2030 Crossrail will have completely taken over the Paddington relief (slow) lines.
I agree with PoP that two trains per hour on the branch would be the best use of resources. Planned for now, we could have a light rail solution with overhead lines energised at 750Vdc, thus dispensing with a heavy transformer on a 2-car train.
@Edgepedia
Would a portioned working for Henley and Bourne End work? This would allow through services to both without the problem of short formations on the main line. Would the layout at Maidenhead (where the trains would join and divide) be suitable for this.
“Light rail solution with overhead lines energised at 750Vdc thus dispensing with a heavy transformer on a 2-car train”
Since such a train would be trapped on the branch, it would need dedicated depot facilities. Three-car ac units are not unusual, and even 2-car units have existed (Class 309/1, the French Z11500 class, etc).
With the current layout, a train coming from London and dividing at Maidenhead for Bourne End and Twyford would need to cross over to the up platform, thereby blocking the up line for about seven minutes. However, I guess a connection from the down platform to the branch is not impossible.
Anyone know what the options are for 2-car 25kV trains for the Great Western branch lines? Can the Class 313 or 319s be reconfigured, or will new stock be needed. It appears that the Siemens Desiro City is limited to 3-car minimum, but I could find a minimum length for the Bombardier Aventra or Hitachi AT100/AT200 series.
You can’t reconfigure any current British ac emu to become a 2-car set without fairly drastic surgery, because the conventional position for the pantograph is on a non-driving car (a cabless middle car), and you need a driving cab at each end of the unit.
Although most A-trains are of 3 or more cars, Wikipedia tells us that Hitachi has built a few 2-car A-trains for its home market – known as Kyushu Railways’ Class 810, East Japan Railways E257 and Seibu Railway’s 30000 type.
Well that puts the spanner well and truly in the Marlow-electrifying works, if nothing longer than two cars can reverse at Bourne End…
@Malcolm, 28 February 2015 at 17:27
“Well that puts the spanner well and truly in the Marlow-electrifying works, if nothing longer than two cars can reverse at Bourne End…”
I suspect relaying the junctions with shorter modern geometry and judicious moving of the bufferstops might just allow a 3-car D78-derived unit to be squeezed in at approx 54m versus current 46m 2 car turbo. Replace the current crossover with a slightly shorter ‘scissors’ arrangement and you’d have a passing place for half hourly service. Use the diesel- converted Vivarail D-train concept and you could avoid electrification of the branch altogether, clearly at the price of through workings to Paddington, but tactically that could allow electrification resources to be concentrated on the late running main lines. From branch stations you’d still be getting a single change ride to central London Crossrail stops, so overall there’s little loss of convenience for most commuters, except those who work very close to Paddington. A similar approach could be taken on the Henley branch, with the alleged high acceleration of the D-train perhaps allowing half hourly service with only one train (perhaps a double unit to handle peak crowds on regatta days). The Windsor branch with high-performance stock might be able to accommodate a 15 minute or more likely a 20-minute interval service and then there are the Greenford trains of course. A small micro-fleet of D-trains on a ten-year TfL-Rail contract to run the lot perhaps based at Maidenhead with a small depot which could also administer the Crossrail stabling sidings there . . .
@MT – hardly a cheap solution… particularly if a new depot, however small, is required.
As far as I can see from Google Earth (which has a class 165 conveniently arriving at Bourne End to give scale), both platforms at Bourne End could take a three car set. the problems would be twofold:
1. The platform at Marlow can only take two cars: but it looks like it could be extended.
2. You cannot easily modify the junction at Bourne End to allow trains to/from Marlow to use the platform currently not so accessible without shortening it. Without that modification you are limited to either one train running the full length of the branch, or two separate ones – with everyone having to change at Bourne End for Marlow – which is inconvenient as there is no possibility of cross platform connection there.
If you want to increase the frequency, a three car set (e.g a 313 or a 319 with the intermediate trailer removed) could run to Bourne End, with something like a Parry People Mover to work the “donkey”.
Alternatively, note that Bourne End is not the mid-point of the line: there would appear to be room for a passing loop at Cookham.
All of this is down to the incredible short-sightedness in closing Bourne End – High Wycombe.
Re-opening of which is getting progressively less likely/more difficult, as it’s necessity (?) becomes greater
@Mark Townend
Beware what you wish for!
Local commuters value the through Paddington trains highly, on the Henley and Bourne End lines. Henley has the capability to be a significant railhead for the Chilterns, if there were more through trains.
I fear though that most haven’t read the prognostications in the 2011 LSE RUS, where they might be doomed to more frequent shuttles, even if electric. Does this remind anyone of the Wimbledon-line politicks arising with Thameslink? Will local general election manifestos pick up the topic?
With GW electrification costs now 60-70% higher than forecast, beware the missing masts on one or two GW Thames Valley branches. Are there any yet visible on Windsor/Marlow/Henley? None were expected on Greenford, anyhow. Roll on D-Stock, perhaps. Maybe some of those will then work close to their District Line home!
In Henley regatta periods only one train is used on the branch line as two would block the main line and then require a reverse towards Reading in order for the train to enter the bay, as it is through trains from Paddington to Henley have to be carefully timed in order not to hold up trains heading down the relief lines to Paddington
On the Marlow branch the length of the platform at Marlow is an issue and room for extension doesn’t really exist, also the train runs slow Marlow to Bourne End due to several open crossings, known for accidents, have been on a train when this has happened. This means the only way to do half hourly service safely is the current configuration
The tourism and local politics issues will probably ensure that Windsor/Marlow &Henley get electrified
@timbeau – the problem at Bourne end seems to be that although, in physical terms, a 3 car can just be accommodated, the current rules relating to junction standage permit only a 2 car set.
@Graham H, 28 February 2015 at 18:31
“hardly a cheap solution… “
Fair point, even a tiny depot will need to employ a few people which is where the ongoing costs would arise no matter how simple and limited the facilities provided. A small sub-fleet of refurbed 31x 25kV units especially short formed for the branches and maintained at Reading would be more economic and preferable, assuming the electrification can be completed. If not a small number of turbos could be held on to rather than going elsewhere to replace pacers. One or two ecs runs in and out of Reading late evening and early morning could serve to collect and distribute the sets, as I assume must happen today with the turbos. Electrification would ensure a long term future for the direct Paddington services, but it will be interesting to see how loadings change following completion of Crossrail. I recall the Henley branch direct London service being reported as one of the most consistently overcrowded in the country.
@Milton Clevedon, 28 February 2015 at 19:02
“Local commuters value the through Paddington trains highly, on the Henley and Bourne End lines. Henley has the capability to be a significant railhead for the Chilterns if there were more through trains.”
Henley could be a Crossrail terminus if the currently planned Maidenhead terminators were extended there, two trains per hour. Although the branch bay at Twyford is limited to 100m, (4 car turbo) other Platforms on the branch are longer:
Wargrave – 148m
Shiplake – 180m
Henley – 170m
All look fairly easily extendible to the 200m Crossrail requirement.
Some other infrastructure work would be required, most importantly at Twyford to provide a double junction with the relief lines and a train’s length of double on the branch itself. A branch round trip takes about 30 minutes with a reasonable turnback allowance at the terminus so trains would be crossing at Twyford and the current single lead junction with both directions of through branch service sharing the Up Relief platform would be unsuitable.
@timbeau, 28 February 2015 at 18:37
“You cannot easily modify the junction at Bourne End to allow trains to from Marlow to use the platform currently not so accessible without shortening it.”
Yes, that’s true but it might be possible to put in a slightly shorter ‘scissors’ that creates two platforms of equal length. The problem is perhaps that a tight turnout partway along the longer platform would probably result in the portion of the platform alongside being unusable due to the coping stones having to be cut back to cater for vehicle end swing to the extent that stepping distance would be excessive. However, a separate new platform section beyond the new scissors could be constructed out as far as the river bridge, accessed along the existing platform. In excess of 100 metres would be possible, and in an electrified future that could allow a four car through London service from Bourne End to run, with a ‘Donkey’ pulling up to the stops behind it in the old part of the platform, for easy interchange.
@Greg Tingey, 28 February 2015 at 18:58
“All of this is down to the incredible short-sightedness in closing Bourne End – High Wycombe.”
Agreed one of the more unfortunate of closures, but the awkward arrangement at Bourne End is largely a result of the unexpected post-Beeching survival of the Marlow service rather than any rational plan for the wider area.
The former Bourne End to Loudwater route is now protected from further development in the vain hope someone might pluck up the courage to reopen, with all the associated demolition it would cause
It is not completely impossible to make a case for local on-branch maintenance. I give you the Stourbridge Town branch.
The requirement for justifying this arrangement is for savings achieved by implementing changes (in that particular case by changing both engineering and operational characteristics from heavy rail) to exceed the costs of local maintenance provision. This is dependent on local circumstances, of course.
As an aside, I note that the Vivarail website also claims local maintenance provision as an advantage of their “Class 230” D Stock conversion concept.
@Caspar Lucas – As you say, the case for small maintenance depots depends on local circumstances,although its noticeable that in Switzerland – the classic land of small independent operators – there has been a secular trend to amalgamate operators, standardised rolling stock, shared spares and – most importantly -multi-skilled staff. None of these things apply in the UK apart from the very limited and telling example of the Stourbridge line. I doubt if the Marlow and Henley punters would like the consequences of Swiss practices.
@ Anonymous 1 March 2015 at 17:51
This conflicts with what I was told late last year.
Is there a source for this info please?
i think I read it in connection with the refusal of a planning application on the route by Wycombe District Council
Another interesting aside about Twyford is that you have to walk across the branch line to get from the main car park to th platform, then go along the platform to the ticket office!
@Castlebar
Used a bit of my Google-fu and found this.
So, not protected, per-se as I read it, but the application had so many flaws refusal was easy…
@Mr JRT/Castlebar
The decision does not suggest that re-opening the railway is envisaged – it suggests the trackbed is proposed for use as a cycleway
Thank you both Timbeau and mr_jrt
I suspected the post by Anonymous on 17:51 on March 1st was pure supposition and the route is not at all protected for possible future re-opening after all. Your postings both tie in with my previous understanding, but that 1st March posting made me feel that I might have missed something.
BUT…(to look on the bright side) if the alignment is converted into a cycle route under one ownership,the alignment (such as it has survived) will not be further obstructed by buildings.
The cycle-route presents a different challenge to eventual re-opening but is not the “game over” scenario that a couple of hundred yards of completely obliterated alignment would be.
@Slugabed
the alignment has already been built on at Bourne End
https://goo.gl/maps/O1N7o
Timbeau.
“further”
New GW franchise announced:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-deal-for-rail-passengers-in-west-of-england-and-wales
Key bits for the London end of things:
42 Months extendable for 13 (i.e. till electrification and new stock introducted)
The introduction of 58, 4-car electric trains for Thames Valley services
[29x 387/1s + 29x 365s or 319s or possibly the last option if still available for 387s as well?]
25% increase in seats overall.
Redevelopment of Reading Station creates 4 extra train paths in each direction per hour
@ngh:
“Continued redevelopment of Reading Station”? What is there left to do at that station?
@Anomnibus
It’s not finished yet, I think the major works finish at Easter, and then there are more minor bits until sometime later in the year… but essentially this is the old favourite of reannouncing things that are already happening
@ngh and others – this may be materialisation of Osborne’s promise last Thursday for a new high speed service to the West of England, in which case, he clearly doesn’t know where the WoE is, and the rumour machine about splitting the GW franchise is wrong (unless it applies after 2019). It must also constitute something of a first (pun alert) for a Tory minister to announce a non-competitve franchise award as something new and exciting…
Anomnibus,
Simple. Freight lines. See Network Rail announcement. Just because the passenger stuff is complete …
Also a bit of re-signalling.
The Railway Gazette is reporting this breakdown of the 58 EMU’s for the Thames Valley:
“The franchise will also deploy 58 four-car EMUs on Thames Valley suburban services from London Paddington. These will include 21 Class 365 units coming off-lease at Great Northern under the Thameslink Programme, the 29 Class 387/1 units currently entering service at Thameslink as a stopgap measure pending delivery of Siemens Class 700s and an extra eight Class 387s to be ordered from Bombardier as an option on Govia Thameslink Railway’s current order for Gatwick Express Class 387/2 units.”
Full story at http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/policy/single-view/view/first-great-western-plans-at300s-to-cornwall.html
Note the improved services on the West Ealing-Greenford branch from 2017 and more from 2018, in the interactive map:
“West Ealing to Greenford
The benefits are additional services from May 2017 and further extra services from December 2018”.
Extra services and electrification offered also for Slough-Windsor and Twyford-Henley (no reference on the latter about through trains retained or not), but particularly note the omission of electrification on the Marlow-Bourne-End-Maidenhead Line. This may mean no wires on that branch, and by implication, no through trains.
Re Herned
I though completion in operation benefits terms was now Most August BH this year as everything had gone well so far?
Re Graham H,
Reading FGW PRs as well suggests discussions on another batch of IEP for West of England still going on…
From the RG article
@Graham H
“new high speed service to the West of England, in which case, he clearly doesn’t know where the WoE”
…………unless he is talking about the 801s (IEPs) promised for that line.
@Milton Clevedon
“particularly note the omission of electrification on the Marlow-Bourne-End-Maidenhead Line.” Possibly the non-availability of any electric units short enough to reverse at Bourne End?
There is no mention of electrifying the Greenford or Gatwick services either, so it will not be the only remaining diesel island – but note that Reading-Basingstoke will be electrified as well (would the ac/dc capability of the 387s and 365s allow extension deeper in SWT territory? – or do we see an all-ac Paddington-Salisbury service at some time in the future!)
@timbeau
The point was that Marlow was to have been electrified, but now appears it won’t be. Neither West Ealing-Greenford nor Reading-Redhill were to have been wired or 3rd railed in the first place. Reading-Basingstoke is principally part of the ‘Electric Spine’ freight project. Interesting that EMUs will be used there, but it isn’t stated if these will be local shuttles as now, or run through to Paddington.
The majority of Salisbury Line passengers would not appreciate a longer journey time to a London terminus further removed from their end destination than is Waterloo, while the LSE 2011 RUS showed that train capacity will be severely stretched on Reading-Paddington fast lines (even with those forecasts, now outdated by a few years). So don’t expect the Salisbury line will end up at Paddington – those trains are full enough now west of Basingstoke.
I’ve sent a tweet to the DfT asking if they’ve cancelled Marlow electrification. I’m not holding my breath for a reply though. FGW have replied saying it “doesn’t look like” the Marlow line will be electrified. I doubt the FGW twitter desk have a full franchise spec in their hands though.
Looking at the interactive map and list of benefits I wonder how “double speak” interprets “additional services” and “timetable improvements” as somehow being different. I rather suspect they’re the same thing. I also wonder what “a new ticket office concept” is when applied on the London – Bristol / Oxford / S Wales / West Country routes?
GH 10.14:
I could never correlate the Chancellor’s statements last week (which to me clearly related to the FGW direct award) with a redrawn franchise map (which was surely never going to happen before 2019).
But I note that the FGW direct award, without optional extension, ends in April 2019 instead of March, which was the date in the DfT’s rail franchise schedule published October 2014. As it happens, the same schedule says that April 2019 is the end date of the forthcoming SWT direct award.
Re. Electrification to Redhill:
OHLE requires a different maintenance regime to 3rd rail.
3rd rail is pretty robust at the train-conductor interface, but requires more substations and transformers, all of which have to be monitored and maintained.
OHLE has a more complex train-conductor system, being basically a continuous suspension bridge structure that requires regular tensioning and monitoring. It’s also a little more fragile as the wires aren’t quite as robust as a solid metal rail. (Although there are alternatives to conventional OHLE that use overhead rails instead.) OHLE maintenance requires specialist teams and equipment. 3rd rail maintenance requires a very different set of procedures, so there’s very little overlap in skills, logistics, or equipment. If you run OHLE into South West Trains’ territory, which already has 3rd rail out to Basingstoke, you’ll need to have maintenance teams and logistics in place that can handle maintaining both systems.
If you’re going to roll out electrification, you also have to roll out the maintenance and logistics systems for it too. Extending from Reading to Redhill (which is well within 3rd rail territory) could be an extension too far—i.e. it may tip the project over into requiring an additional team, support equipment, and logistics centre to maintain the additional catenary.
Extending OHLE into other franchise territories also means having to interface with multiple TOCs when planning OHLE maintenance, as well as dealing with the additional fallout if a cross-franchise maintenance job comes in late and disrupts both networks.
In short: I can understand why Network Rail may be reluctant to make this project any more complicated than it already is. The more interfaces they add—be they physical, technical, or even contractual—the more expensive the project becomes, and the harder it is to project manage. In the UK, the fiasco that was the West Coast Route Modernisation project still looms large in the industry’s collective memory.
@Milton Clevedon
“The majority of Salisbury Line passengers would not appreciate a longer journey time”
Salisbury services take 49 minutes from Basingstoke to Waterloo
The best time from Basingstoke to Paddington , including a 7 minute connection at Reading, is 57 minutes.
“LSE 2011 RUS showed that train capacity will be severely stretched on Reading-Paddington fast lines ”
(and the SWML isn’t?)
As for “further removed from their end destination”, isn’t Crossrail all about remedying that?
Perhaps best to wait for the imminent update of Network Rail’s electrification strategy before we go into hyper drive about fill-in electrification schemes and their justification or otherwise? The update is due within days apparently (source Railforums).
Re WW
Before the end of next Monday so plenty of jam tomorrow promises can be made???
@ timbeau
Which trains then serve the local stations between Reading and Basingstoke? (I assume you are relying on a cross-country timing between Reading and Bas).
What capacity do you think will be available for many extra Reading passengers to board full 12-car trains (which will be needed to be soon via Andover – have you seen how the town is growing?).
There’s already one West of England at 10-cars and another at 9-cars and people stand from before Basingstoke, let alone from Basingstoke itself, where the West of England trains offer a fundamental part of the main service to Waterloo. Remove those, and you’d need to invent others.
What additional track capacity between Reading and Paddington will be available for additional trains demanded from the Far SW via the GW route?
Why should the Reading rebuild allocate any capacity for Basingstoke-Paddington when GW electrification and Far SW demand could use that in a far more relevant way?
Net journey times WILL be slower for many via Paddington.
I suggest you are creating plenty of new problems just to satisfy a notional desire to have a all-AC train (does the AC there mean All-Crayon?).
You’ve offered an idea (which I consider is no solution to anything). What fundamental questions are you answering which justify that scale of impact on passengers and in denial of future GW capacity for other more relevant corridors.
If you want to hear about SW capacity medium-term solutions, go to the Modern Railways’ event this Friday. The SWT franchise is already thinking about further initiatives for its longer-distance services, and, as an alliance with Network Rail, more radical capacity measures. The West of England line sees improved services from this December, as an early example.
As it keeps getting mentioned, the lecture will take place in the Lecture Theatre at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 1 Birdcage Walk, Westminster, London SW1H 9JJ at 14.00 hours on Friday 27 March 2015.
@timbeau -6 minutes faster to Plymouth!? Now that’s really fast, a real high speed service at last…
@WW. The ‘new ticket office concept’ might be a repeat of what is planned for the new Oxford Parkway station. That sounds seriously similar to the LUL proposals for ticket office closures.
@Ngh – yum yum lots of jam!! 🙂
And Network Rail is subject to the Freedom of Information Act from 24/3/15. Bet they’ll be inundated with requests.
@Milton Clevedon
“What fundamental questions are you answering which justify that scale of impact on passengers and in denial of future GW capacity for other more relevant corridors.”
Capacity on the SWML
Direct access from Wiltshire to Haethrow via WRAtH
Combining WraTH -Reading, Reading – Basingstoke and Basingstoke Salisbury locals into a through service (not necessarily instead of the Waterloo – Salisbury – Exeter service, although as you say ” the West of England trains offer a fundamental part of the main service to Waterloo. Remove those, and you’d need to invent others.” – the Southampton line could mop up any slack left by WoE services very easily.
Avoids the technical risks of an AC/DC switchover at Basingstoke (I’ve seen the problem occur often enough at Farringdon to recognise a single-point-of-failure!)
@timbeau. Combining all those services that you mention: WRAtH, Reading-Basingstoke and Salisbury locals would make a seriously slow service from say Whitchurch (Hants) to London. I suspect that there aren’t many fast paths left between Basingstoke and Reading, so these extended WRAtHs would have to do the stopping service there. That takes 25 mins (with the added time of a planned extra station at Green Park). Then the diversion via Heathrow adds time as well. The existing Salisbury stoppers run to Waterloo with just one stop at Woking. My suspicion is that canny locals would just hop off at Basingstoke and then catch a train (same platform) up the mainline to Waterloo. Currently that service gets to Basingstoke at xx.30 offpeak, and is followed at xx.35 by an electric service.
@timebeau
A separate service overlay, say Andover-Reading-Heathrow regional service, is indeed a different matter to wrecking the main West of England service. There used to be Reading-Salisbury local trains back in the 1960s and 1970s before the local services were reformed to become (more successful) through trains to Waterloo.
It looks like Derby will benefit from an order for new trains for GWR see – http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2015/03/24-derby-to-build-new-trains.html
whats isnow needed is to make Ealing Broadway the equivalent to Stratford with passengers able to change trains between longer distance commuter trains and Crossrail and underground trains . However, for this to work more Crossrail trains might be needed at Ealing Broadway ?
Railtrack’s Western Route study is recommending through trains Paddington, Heathrow, Reading, Basingstoke, and then onto Southamption or Salisbury. These are 1 or 2 TPH and are in addition to existing Waterloo services, not instead of.
Railtrack?
Oops, National Rail of course.
The point is that NR sees a demand for access to Heathrow from Southampton/Salisbury and so are assuming some paths will be required for it, but there is not enough capacity on the line to divert *all* Salisbury traffic to Paddington. The SWML may be fuller than the GWML, but that doesn’t mean there is spare capacity.
Who does route studies? How about Network Rail, that would be third time lucky?
There is such a thing as National Rail, but it mainly runs the timetable enquiry website, organised by ATOC.
If we get many more re-organisations though, we’re going to run out of snappy ways of producing a well-known phrase or saying from selections taken from the list:
British, National, Rail, Train, Railway, Track, Company, Organisation, Office, Choo-choo
Malcom
You forgot: Commission [ As in BTC ] …
oh, & Board with apologies to Graham H, too (!)
@Malcolm – 🙂 Rail for Britain, or Rail Britain would be fashionable….
@ Malcolm – let’s not forget that Office of Rail Regulation has now become Office of Rail and Road as its responsibilities have been recently been expanded. Notice how the abbreviation has been carefully preserved.
http://highwaysmagazine.co.uk/office-of-rail-regulation-to-be-renamed-office-of-rail-and-road/
@Malcolm – you know who I am talking about, the company who looks after the long bits of metal on the ground, wot the trains run on, British Rail or something 🙂
Note an interesting article in Rail Engineer indicating that ‘Enhanced TPWS’ is to be installed between Paddington and Heathrow as, reading between the lines, ETCS isn’t ready for installation on the GWML.
One hopes it will be ready for installation in the main tunnels – memories of the JLE spring to mind.
In that article (just under the map) it explains that Siemens Trainguard will control trains between Abbey Road and Westbourne Park as “developing ETCS Level 3 in the timescales was too risky”. This CBTC system is not compliant with the Technical Specification for Interoperability , so there is derogation with a commitment to migrate to ETCS Level 3 ” when there is sufficient confidence that a mature product can deliver the specification of the sponsors.”
As it notes in the article similar derogation is being sought for the railway west of Westbourne Park to allow trains to operate with Enhanced TPWS.
If anyone is interested, there’s a Network Rail paper on ORR’s website about enhanced TPWS.
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/18635/paddington-0-12-exemption-etcs-plan-b-study-enhanced-tpws-2015-07-18.pdf
As far as I know, enhanced TPWS will replace the ATP that was fitted some years ago and is now obsolete. In principle, enhanced TPWS puts “train stop” grids at every signal and more speed limit enforcement – although I stand to be corrected by those who have more signalling knowledge than me!
I have been trying to get around to doing an article on that document for ages.
I, for one, would be delighted if you do. It seems to have been written in some sort of code. Your accessible style will make it much more digestible!
The linked article on signalling is interesting. The use of “auto reverse” for trains terminating at Paddington but turning at Westbourne Park sidings is interesting. Trains will run on ATO into the sidings while the driver walks to the other end of the train ready to take it straight back out. Similar in concept to how the DLR can “turn round” in a split second at a terminal but without running to sidings or the “driver” having to walk somewhere. Also noteworthy that test trains will be running Abbey Wood – Canary Wharf from late 2017 – in part explains why so much effort on track laying etc is going into that section now. There are obviously other sensible reasons why that’s being done first given the tunnel section works are more involved given the station interfaces and through running east or west are later phases anyway.
I was slightly startled to see that Crossrail are working on the basis of 60 second dwell times at Paddington and Liverpool St. That’s pretty long on a service working to 2.5 min headways but I guess the crowds will be such that you need that sort of dwell.
Walthamstow Writer 12 January 2016 at 19:20
” noteworthy that test trains will be running Abbey Wood – Canary Wharf from late 2017″
Maybe because Canary Wharf and Custom House stations will be finished and the tunnels are fairly short?
Re WW,
They also need the track laid Abbey Wood – Canary Wharf for construction logistics reasons as so much is being feed from Woolwich
The fact that Crossrail trains will be “driverless” when doing the auto-reverse (in the sense of nobody in the cab) is slightly worrying from the safety aspect for a heavyweight overground service, but I suppose we’ll get used to it, and at least it isn’t on mainline metals.
At the LHR end of things, I was just rewatching the Londonist’s Heathrow Express cab ride and realised that he mentions and shows an *in tunnel* spur which I can’t find details of elsewhere (eg. not on Carto Metro or in Joe Brown’s rail atlas) at around 0:50. It isn’t the short-lived Heathrow Junction (which was above ground, anyway). Anyone have more details? Futureproofing against a northern terminal, perhaps?
@AlisonW
This in-tunnel spur is probably the link to the space left in Heathrow T5 for the platforms for the western access rail route to T5. This unused space is mentioned when the HEx manager explains the layout at T5. From the sequence on the video clip it would be seem that the spur is located immediately after entering the Heathrow tunnel, but this could be the result of editing.
A comment in the video is the use of a driver at each end on the shuttle to T4. With the 15 min frequency and a 4 min journey time, the turn round time is 3 min at T123 and 4 min at T4 – probably not quite enough time at T123 for a driver to change ends incuding a 100m walk (5 x 20m cars).
Looking at the other end of Crossrail, pressure seems to be mounting up to take it beyond Abbey Wood…..
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/14201852.Pressure_mounts_on_government_to_extend_Crossrail_from_Abbey_Wood_to_Gravesend/
Anonymously @ 2126
I see their point but it will require quite a lot of expensive knitting.
Good to see support for TfL taking over Southeastern from LB Bexley and Kent CC in particular.
@Old Buccaneer…..By ‘knitting’ do you mean OHLE? Why couldn’t you just use dual-voltage stock (although I have not idea if the Crossrail units have this capability)? In any case, more trains would be required, so perhaps these could be specified as dual-voltage from the outset.
What I found interesting was this comment from the leader of Bexley Council (which is fairly Conservative-leaning, but not as much as neighbouring Bromley), which kinda sums everything that has been recently discussed on this website:
‘More capacity is needed beyond what can be provided within the Southeastern train franchise *or by Transport for London taking over the Kent Metro services*.’
Hence why they want CR to extend further into their borough.
@ Old Buccaneer / Anonymously – in the recent article linked to above about Crossrail’s signalling there is a reference to possible extensions into Kent. It says the 345’s have the space for third rail power equipment (plus I assume the requisite electrical capability to handle the current).
But I can’t quite understand why they want Crossrail extended to Gravesend instead of Ebbsfllet.
quinlet
Because it’s a lot easier, operationally, to go to Gravesend ( Like Reading at the other end)
But, unfortunately, Ebbsfleet, like Abbey Wood is effectively a dump in the middle of nowhere, also where do you turn the trains round etc?
Conversely, there might, just might be a case for extending to, of all places, Higham, so there’s space for storage/turnaround sidings, etc.
[ “Think Cockfosters” if you like the analogy ]
As for “expensive knitting” (Old Buccaneer) didn’t we agree that, in the long run, it’s cheaper than 3rd rail low-voltage DC?
Hence electric spine, etc, of course ….
Once Crossrail has reached Dartford, assuming sufficient dual voltage trains 4tph east of to Gravesend would surely be relativity easy. There’s also an area at Hoo Junction earmarked for stabling sidings.
Calling at Ebbsfleet would require construction of a westward facing rail connection to the North Kent platforms at Ebbsfleet. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to rebuild Northfleet so that there’s a pedestrian link to Ebbsfleet?
@Greg
The advantage of Ebbsfleet is, of course, connectivity and, of course, though it is just a dump at the moment it is scheduled to be soon(?) surrounded by housing. I can’t see that Gravesend would find it much easier to turn trains round or stable them than a new platform at Ebbsfleet (which would be required with a west to south link). Higham or Hoo Junction would find it much easier to manage a service operationally within almost existing infrastructure.
Rebuilding Northfleet to provide a decent pedestrian interchange with Ebbsfleet would be an alternative but not as good, I think.
There is very little benefit in going to Ebbsfleet unless the Garden City is built. In one direction you either have almost no passengers most of the time and exceptionally a lot of arrivals off the Eurostar (or just possibly HS1 domestic) for the remaining periods. Neither fits in well with a metro service.
Gravesend has a 12-car turnback platform and almost guarantees a steady stream of passengers.
@anonymously
“In any case, more trains would be required, so perhaps these could be specified as dual-voltage from the outset.”
If you expect the services to be extensions of the Abbey Wood branch ones, rather than a shuttle, you would need more than just the new trains to be ac/dc – at least half the total (enlarged) fleet would have to be capable (any that are not converted would be restricted to the Shenfield route).
quinlet,
I can’t see that at all.
Ebbsfleet is difficult and not of great benefit – unless the Garden City is actually built (but see below)
Higham has no turnback facilities and you can’t really do that on the two track main line.
Hoo Junction isn’t a station so you have all the problems associated with detraining a 205m (initially) or 250m (probably one day) train.
Gravesend would cost almost nothing as the ideal facilities are in place. It also is surrounded by that vital ingredient – people.
Should a Garden City eventually be built then Ebbsfleet could be reconsidered either additionally to Gravesend or instead of – bearing in mind though the difficulties of taking something away once people have it. It that happened there would be virtually no wasted expenditure.
Re WW,
The way every EMU in the last 20 years has been built they can’t not take the current from 3rd rail as the 25KV is converted to lower voltage DC before being converted again to 3 phase variable frequency AC. You just select whether you want 3rd rail or rectified transformer output as the source for the traction motor controllers. (EMU traction motors all tend to run less than 1200V worldwide (most lower) as insulation starts to get harder above this point). The biggest bits of 3rd rail equipment will be the shoe beams and the circuit breakers (no traction current fuses any more). Adding AC capability to a DC unit may only cost 200-300k given recent orders.
Re Quinlet,
Otherwise you get big problems with service patterns so a lot of the potential benefits aren’t achieved and the BCR isn’t great.
Gravesend will also be needed for interchange with some of the HS1 services as Ebbsfleet doesn’t and can’t do everything.
CR to Gravesend is need to provide capacity relief on all 3 via Dartford routes.
e.g.
A number of semi-fasts on the Greenwich line start at Gravesend so capacity improvement on most Greenwich line stations (Exc Abbey Wood and Greenwich where the Semi-fasts stop) would need some if not all semi fasts removing and replacing with CR services.
Gravesend all stops go via Sidcup so more room along that route there.
Gravesend – Charing Cross semifasts are routed via Charlton then Blackheath Lewisham and Tanners Hill flydown hence many possible efficiencies at Lewisham if they go
It might also allow some re-jigging of SE HS1 services patterns (Ebbsfleet or Dartford only wouldn’t)
Re Greg,
The previous Crossrail plan and costing was segregated running till Dartford then just the existing further east.
http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab656259048fb93837ecc0ecbcf0c557.r23.cf3.rackcdn.com/assets/library/document/a/original/abbey_wood_to_hoo_junction_book_05-10-09_watermarked.pdf
£560m to Gravesend in 2007 CR prices
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldcross/112/8040122.htm
Re edgepedia,
Agree on moving Northfleet instead…
Have the crayons come out?
Re PoP et al,
A good deal of the “Ebbsfleet” Garden City site is actually closer to Swanscombe* or Greenhithe* (“for Bluewater”) stations or both of them than Ebbsfleet station.
*(both on existing CR safeguarded route)
Also see the more familiar Clapham and Battersea naming issues…
Passenger wise also not forgetting that the Maidstone West branch shuttles run between Paddock Wood /Tonbridge and Strood. Building a proper at station at Hoo (staff halt at the moment) could nicely sort this issue too.
(and for the Crayonistas building a Southfleet station on the NIRU Southfleet – Fawkam Jn route would also be closer than Ebbsfleet station to some of the Garden City!)
The Ebbsfleet Garden City project stretches from very close to Bluewater to the Ebbsfleet area, and runs mostly on the “wrong” side of the ridge that separates the A2/M2 from the North Kent line. Quite how Crossrail is supposed to serve this in any meaningful way without an entirely new railway line being built through the development escapes me.
Besides, anyone moving into the new development will already have HS1 Domestic trains to St. Pancras, via Stratford International. Why would they bother looking for jobs that require them to take the slow train to Charing Cross or Cannon Street?
The only option I can think of would require rebuilding of Ebbsfleet’s domestic station, with the North Kent line diverted through it instead of going via Northfleet. (The old route could be retained as an avoiding line for freight, to make up for the loss of passing loops at Gravesend.)
Re 130,
If has been safeguarded, House of Lords bill committee’d and been consulted with Local councils with out issue it has gone just a little beyond crayons already…
There is much confusion between Ebbsfleet and Ebbsfleet Station…
You can serve Ebbsfleet without calling at the station
“There is much confusion between Ebbsfleet and Ebbsfleet Station…”
not to mention its more venerable namesake.
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=633224&Y=163602&A=Y&Z=115
– nearest station, Minster (handy for Kent International Airport (Manston) though!
timbeau says “handy for Kent International Airport (Manston) though”
…which closed in 2014 and is now festooned with portaloos ready for possible use, instead of the M20, for stacking lorries next time Calais catches a cold…
@Malcolm
“stacking lorries next time Calais catches a cold…”
Such is progress. If crossing the Channel had been as difficult in 597 as it seems to be now, would St Augustine have bothered coming to Ebbsfleet?
We seem to have got a long way from Reading (or even Abbey Wood, which is also mentioned in the original article)
To be fair the article did discuss extending from Abbey Wood so I think we are on topic. Just let’s not get carried away with something that’s not going to happen any time soon.
Re PoP,
The Ebbsfleet board got a shake up late last year with some interesting and useful board members in an attempt to make things happen. It looks like this campaign is a result of that.
Agree it won’t be anytime soon and also links to the value of released paths from a Bakerloo extension from Lewisham to Hayes.
Provision of more housing is rapidly rising up the government agenda as they well need vote from younger age groups to get elected in 2020, they seeming know they haven’t delivered on it so far.
Transport as a key facilitator for more housing is linked to that (unless you are in DfT…)
“I have a dream” that CR takes over the North Kent lines from Gravesend to Gillingham, thus removing all the semi fasts from them, and allowing a set of regular stopping routes using Dartford, Gravesend and the Dartford avoiding loops as termination/turn back points thus hopefully achieving a full segregation for LOROL to take over. I realise it’s just that!
As ngh says, the Ebbsfleet board has changed & the mentioned campaign is under way
See HERE
That’s a lot of local & regional political weight, al singing off the same hymn-sheet.
Thought: CR1 fully opens in 2019 & there’s a major election in May 2020, isn’t there?
IMHO this will come sooner rather than later.
Love that picture caption: “Crossrail preview of Abbey Wood, which could be extended to Gravesend”. Abbey Wood merged into Gravesend — horrible thought.
The ‘Garden City’ will be built, though it’ll drag way behind demand. 1 million plus people in London in the next decade alone is going to see continuing problems.
Crossrail to Gravesend, with a link from Northfleet to Ebbsfleet would be easier. Northfleet & Ebbsfleet are very close but the current set up is a joke.
An extension will make sense given those population numbers and looking at housing planned. There’s 5-10k homes coming at Abbey Wood/Thamesmead, 20k up Dartford, maybe 5k around there, and then space for many more at places like Stone & Greenhithe. Ebbsfleet plans are about 20k homes.
The marshes at Slade Green are green belt but being eaten into and authorities are looking at changing the classification. They’ll be a lot less resistance than many other areas of green belt.
@timbeau – He didn’t – he landed in Thanet. [Somewhat off topic, but Ebbsfleet – if indeed the same as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’s Ypsweonsfleote – is last mentioned s.a. 457 when the invading Saxons drove the Britons back to London (also the last mention of London until 604). No CR1 to ease their trip].
More to the point, and to pick up Ed’s and ngh’s remarks, it ‘ll require something much larger than any half-dozen Hayes’ paths to cater for even the planned growth in the corridor, let alone what hasn’t yet crystallised. Now, if only there was some means of turning that increase in the taxbase into infrastructure spend…
@ Graham H
“Now, if only there was some means of turning that increase in the taxbase into infrastructure spend…”
A few years ago there was government talk of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to do just that, tied to specific transport infrastructure schemes. However I’ve not read or heard anything about TIF in the last 2 years.
Yes, there was! Daughter of DLT (Development Land Tax). But , now: “TIF! Wherefore art thou, TIF?”
Graham H says “He didn’t [land at Ebbsfleet]– he landed in Thanet. .
It is entirely possible to do both, provided that, as timbeau indicated, one refers to Ebbsfleet (Planet Thanet) rather than Ebbsfleet (England).
Malcolm – when you came over with the Ninth, didn’t you land at Rutupiae?
Graham: I probably did, and built a magnificent fort there, but it was so long ago, my memory is not what it was, all the landmarks have shifted, even the rivers and the sea are not in the same place, so it’s a bit tricky to give a definite answer.
An update to previous debate about Oyster to Reading. The GWR franchise agreement dated 22nd March 2015
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/486668/red-fgw-franchise-agreement.pdf
contains this section:
“(c) from the commencement of the operation of passenger services by the Crossrail Operator at Maidenhead, Slough, Twyford and Reading stations (in respect of Reading, to the extent it is reasonably able, recognising that the Franchisee is not the operator of Reading Station) retail and load both ITSO and Oyster products and (subject to conclusion of relevant negotiations in relation to “contactless technology”) support the agreement proposed to be entered into in relation to such contactless technology;”
@Matthew Dickinson, channelling the GWR franchise agreement:
“to the extent it is reasonably able, recognising that the Franchisee is not the operator of Reading Station”
As there are many other stations operated by Network Rail on which Oyster works, notably Paddington, it shouldn’t be a problem. What will be interesting is that both Reading and Feltham will be on Oyster, but none of the intervening stations. This could lead to some interesting anomalies.
timbeau,
What will be interesting is that both Reading and Feltham will be on Oyster, but none of the intervening stations
It is the same for Reading and Redhill.
Oyster and the western extension of Crossrail to Reading.
Seems that oyster will not be accepted after all, at least not yet. In December this year, tfl take over the local service, but at this point Contactless will be enabled, but not oyster. I wonder if this means those of us with the oyster60+ or freedom cards will not get our free ride to Reading after all.
The same concept (contactless accepted but not oyster) will be true for Luton Airport Parkway, which had been promised by various political announcements as ‘getting oyster soon’.
I’m guessing (and would welcome opinions from the experts on here) that this is because the original oyster technology can’t cope with any more zones.
Re Island Dweller,
Effectively correct, the technology limitation is due to the oldest Oyster cards of which there are number still around. The solution is always stated as X years away. One wonders whether TfL is just hoping the oldest cards issue will sort it self when enough of the cards have die or whether they are hoping contactless will avoid the need to do anything.
Is it possible or viable to organise a recall of the “oldest Oyster cards” and send out replacements with suitable credits for what was held? Is there a visible difference, or number series, that would help holders to see if they need to replace the card?
Diamond Geezer discussed this on Friday, September 27, 2019
There is space on an Oyster card for one more zone – that’s zone 15, or zone F. It was TfL’s intention to reserve this zone for Crossrail stations out to Reading. They said so in an internal ticketing newsletter circulated this time last year, but a later edition suggested this might no longer be the case, and now we know it won’t. TfL would much rather passengers used contactless than Oyster anyway, because the electronic transaction costs them less, so expect this to be the future.
TfL’s most recent innovation is stations which aren’t in any specific zone because you can’t use Oyster, only contactless. The first of these was Brookmans Park on 29th August 2019.
St Albans, Harpenden and Luton Airport Parkway have been lined up to go contactless before the end of the year, maybe in October, followed by Welham Green, Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City in November.
@IslandDweller – Oyster 60+ is NOT valid to existing Oyster locations such as Gatwick, Grays, Hertford, Potters Bar, or Radlett.
@Aleks/ Island Dweller
The examples cited by Aleks are neither within Greater London nor operated by TfL. Oyster60+ is valid to, e,g Shenfield, Watford Junction and Epping, albeit in most cases only on services operated by TfL. My understanding was that the same would apply out to Reading – i.e not on GWR (or indeed SWR) services beyond the GLA boundary.
The other irritation with services and stations where contactless works but Oyster doesn’t is that is stuffs people like me who have a National Railcard (Senior in my case) added to their normal adult Oyster.
I would happily ditch my Oyster and use contactless exclusively if TfL would allow Railcards to be associated with a nominated contactless card, but there’s no sign of this happening that I’ve ever seen.
Anyone with more knowledge than me know if this is possible and planned??
Also… (sorry if this gets a bit ranty), the great beauty of the whole zonal Oyster / contactless environment is universal simplicity. Surely the situation where some stations accept contactless but not Oyster is going to cause significant problems where unsuspecting travellers touch in at one end of a journey using Oyster only to find they can’t touch out at a contactless-only destination?
As discussed in previous posts, there are still several cases where Oyster capabilities exceed contactless, so unless these are extended to contactless I forsee some very vocal complaints at this pollution of a great system.
@Timbeau however I had understood that the Freedom Pass would be extended to Reading with the advent of the Elizabeth Line. Indeed I had read that TfL was legally required to extend the remit of the Freedom Pass. If this is correct some form of extension of Oyster functionality would be required as the barriers would not open when touched by Freedom passes in Reading. Also TfL would have a gaping hole in the data it gathers on passenger movements.
Does anyone have a definitive answer to this issue?
B&T,
As you are probably aware, there is a press release partially covering fare issues on the Crossrail website which now appears to be revived.
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/tfl-rail-to-operate-services-to-reading-from-15-december
In places it is a bit vague – I suspect deliberately so. Given the amount of care taken when writing these and how unpalatable facts are often just omitted, I suspect that, although Freedom Passes will be valid all the way to Reading, 60+ passes may not be. This may be the start of trying to curtail the benefits of 60+ which must lose TfL a significant amount of revenue from London residents who are able to use it for their commute to and from work. I may well be wrong in all this so don’t treat my thoughts as reliable.
I almost hesitate to mention the name of the former Mayor who introduced 60+ passes. At the time critics pointed out it cost very little to introduce but as the pension state age rose the burden on TfL would significantly increase leaving a headache for his successors.
Already TfL/the Mayor has announced that new 60+ cards will have to be revalidated for eligibility every year and this will cost the user £10 each time in administrative costs.
Freedom Passes (or 60+) will never be an add-on to contactless (as an alternative to the Freedom Pass) because the photo is required. Yes, Oystercard has perhaps been too successful. The trouble is, with TfL trying to wean people off Oystercard just as other parts of the country are trying to introduce something similar, I can’t see them investing in Oystercard 2. As Peter Hendy was fond of saying in so many words, TfL run a transport service and would rather leave accounting services to the banks.
@PoP – Thanks, I hadn’t seen the press release and it does clarify things, not in a good way for me and I would guess many other people. I can see how Oyster 60+ leaves an ever-widening gap in TfL revenue as people retire later in life but it will take a brave politician to curtail it – unlikely in the current environment of escalating Bread & Circus promises!
That said I can’t see a fundamental policy or revenue-based reason why National Railcards can’t be linked to a contactless card for TfL fares which would remove the logic, for what I imagine to be a significant number of people, to use Oyster by preference. If TfL really do want to encourage people towards contactless then the IT work to do this (not trivial I suspect?) would move a sizeable swathe of Oyster holdouts across.
A bit of web searching reveals this lengthy thread on RailUKforums, which goes off on multiple tangents but makes the core point about the need for TfL to somehow support adding Railcards to (at least TfL registered..) contactless cards. I think this will turn into a major storm once the changes hit in December / January and certainly undermines reducing the use of and need for paper tickets.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/tfl-rail-to-reading-no-oyster-so-no-railcards.192696/
Crossrail website says:
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/tfl-rail-to-operate-services-to-reading-from-15-december
“Between 15 December 2019 and 2 January 2020, existing ticketing arrangements will apply and TfL Rail fares will remain at the same price as the current GWR fares. However, in line with TfL’s wider policies, children under 11 who are accompanied by an adult, as well as customers who are eligible for the Freedom Pass, will be able to travel for free to Reading on the new TfL service.”
Alan Griffiths,
Note it is silent on 60+ pass.
On the subject of Crossrail to Reading, somewhere (I can’t located it now) I read a comment about those over 60 not eligible for a Freedom Pass could benefit from cheaper fares using a Senior Citizen Railcard. Of course, that could mean nothing and be intended for a readership outside London. But it could imply that 60+ would not be valid and this was an attempt to sweeten the pill slightly.
I am keeping an open mind as to whether 60+ will be accepted until I see some real evidence either way.
Alan Griffiths,
Found it!
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2019/september/tfl-rail-to-operate-services-to-reading-from-15-december
The fact that this is stated in a TfL press release makes me think that a 60+ card won’t take you to Reading for free.
B&T
Well, at present, one can still (Provided you do it in advance – like up to just before you go through the barriers) get a ticket for: “Boundary Zone 6 to $Destination” where the destination is between there & Reading. ( Or even further, but irrelevant here ).
It doesn’t matter if you have an Oyster or a Freedom Pass, this works now & will, presumably still work in the future,
And, you can get Railcard discounts on those fares. I did this, going to Windsor earlier this year.
@PoP – Oh the irony… But it doesn’t bother to point out that those same Senior Railcard holders won’t be able to use this discount with their TfL-registered contactless card or gain any benefit from reduced daily / weekly caps! And will be forced to buy and use a paper ticket as I don’t believe that TfL support GWR mobile or ITSO / GWR Smartcard single journey tickets? Crazy…
Which raises another point… What, if any, Caps will apply to journeys beyond West Drayton?
@GregTingey – but “Boundary Zone 6” doesn’t exist in the connected world! I can’t recall the last time I bought or used a paper rail ticket, having travelled quite happily for a good while using a combination of Mobile / eTickets and Oyster.
A quick search for “Boundary Zone 6” on the Trainline and GWR apps only offers “Loch Eil Outward Bound”, which isn’t really what we need!
I guess I’m really just frustrated that TfL, having set the bar for paperless rail travel, seems to be moving backwards with this development.
This desire/assumption that Oyster should/will be phased out as TfL move to contactless bank credit and debit cards seems to miss the point that the poor will not possess such cards unless something radical changes. TfL have an obligation to provide access to all not just those possessing bank accounts. In practice I think Oyster offers a very convenient solution to this problem given cash payments have been abolished on buses.
@RichardB: Prepaid and other sort-of-banking-kind-of-products are available. Many of these include contactless cards as standard…
The days of only banks offering payment cards have long gone….
It’s still easier for people on really tight budgets to use an Oyster card rather than some sort of pre-loaded bank credit card. Some people add £2 at a time to their oyster before getting on the bus – I’ve seen this in my local newsagent next to the bus stop. Oyster cards will be around for a while yet, as not all of us want, or can afford to, live in a cashless society.
I realise that this comment is getting into deep geekery and pedantry.
From next Monday (25 Nov), tfl rail will be operating six (in service) trains between Reading and Paddington, using the paths of existing GWR services, services that won’t run. (The 0732 service, 9P17, is an example).
I presume that, in a legal sense, these will still be GWR services and the revenue will be attributed to GWR, but where GWR have sub contracted tfl to operate the service on their behalf?
Re Island Dweller,
Correct.
The remaining platform DOO cameras should be finished this weekend hence the Monday off peak start to familiarise TfLrail staff ahead for 3 weeks before the peak services swap