Discussion:
Latest Crossrail Wild video
Add Reply
Recliner
2020-10-01 10:31:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
September update:

Robin9
2020-10-04 10:53:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thanks for the link. I'll watch it this afternoon via Wi-Fi on my TV.
The comments from the public show how annoyed most people are
by the endless and repeated delays. It's going to be very difficult
to arouse any serious enthusiasm for Crossrail 2 after this shambles.


--
Robin9
Robin9
2020-10-05 10:16:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I watched this yesterday. Mr. Wild gave the impression that there
has been a slight set-back but nothing serious and consistent
progress was being made. No mention of the need for still more
money He now says that in early 2022 the line will be opened,
and possibly sooner. We'll see


--
Robin9
Recliner
2020-10-05 12:09:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robin9
I watched this yesterday. Mr. Wild gave the impression that there
has been a slight set-back but nothing serious and consistent
progress was being made. No mention of the need for still more
money He now says that in early 2022 the line will be opened,
and possibly sooner. We'll see.
It's clear that he's shooting for public services (Abbey Wood to Padd low
level) in the core tunnels before the end of 2021. But through services
probably won't start till at least the second half of 2022.

Something else I read: they'll need to do the platform extension work at
Liverpool St while all TfL Rail services are still using the high level
platforms. That wasn't the original plan, and might cause problems for the
Shenfield services.
b***@nuttyella.co.uk
2020-10-05 15:52:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 12:09:41 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin9
I watched this yesterday. Mr. Wild gave the impression that there
has been a slight set-back but nothing serious and consistent
progress was being made. No mention of the need for still more
money He now says that in early 2022 the line will be opened,
and possibly sooner. We'll see.
It's clear that he's shooting for public services (Abbey Wood to Padd low
level) in the core tunnels before the end of 2021. But through services
probably won't start till at least the second half of 2022.
Of course when they do start running the central core service timetable will
probably be completely buggered most days by problems on NR lines either end
just as happens on the ELL except much worse. It should have been kept as a
london only fast tube service on dedicated tracks.
Recliner
2020-10-05 16:17:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 12:09:41 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin9
I watched this yesterday. Mr. Wild gave the impression that there
has been a slight set-back but nothing serious and consistent
progress was being made. No mention of the need for still more
money He now says that in early 2022 the line will be opened,
and possibly sooner. We'll see.
It's clear that he's shooting for public services (Abbey Wood to Padd low
level) in the core tunnels before the end of 2021. But through services
probably won't start till at least the second half of 2022.
Of course when they do start running the central core service timetable will
probably be completely buggered most days by problems on NR lines either end
just as happens on the ELL except much worse. It should have been kept as a
london only fast tube service on dedicated tracks.
To a large extent, it has separate tracks to GWR and GA services. The Abbey
Wood branch is XR-only, and most of the services on the Shenfield slow
lines will also be XR-only.
b***@nuttyella.co.uk
2020-10-06 07:36:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 16:17:07 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 12:09:41 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin9
I watched this yesterday. Mr. Wild gave the impression that there
has been a slight set-back but nothing serious and consistent
progress was being made. No mention of the need for still more
money He now says that in early 2022 the line will be opened,
and possibly sooner. We'll see.
It's clear that he's shooting for public services (Abbey Wood to Padd low
level) in the core tunnels before the end of 2021. But through services
probably won't start till at least the second half of 2022.
Of course when they do start running the central core service timetable will
probably be completely buggered most days by problems on NR lines either end
just as happens on the ELL except much worse. It should have been kept as a
london only fast tube service on dedicated tracks.
To a large extent, it has separate tracks to GWR and GA services. The Abbey
Wood branch is XR-only, and most of the services on the Shenfield slow
lines will also be XR-only.
Still NR tracks though. Plus the longer a line is the greater the probability
of problems. Thats unavoidable for suburban and national services but for
something thats supposed to be a metro service taking some of the load off the
central and piccadilly lines its length IMO is going to be a problem.
Recliner
2020-10-06 09:06:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 16:17:07 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 12:09:41 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin9
I watched this yesterday. Mr. Wild gave the impression that there
has been a slight set-back but nothing serious and consistent
progress was being made. No mention of the need for still more
money He now says that in early 2022 the line will be opened,
and possibly sooner. We'll see.
It's clear that he's shooting for public services (Abbey Wood to Padd low
level) in the core tunnels before the end of 2021. But through services
probably won't start till at least the second half of 2022.
Of course when they do start running the central core service timetable will
probably be completely buggered most days by problems on NR lines either end
just as happens on the ELL except much worse. It should have been kept as a
london only fast tube service on dedicated tracks.
To a large extent, it has separate tracks to GWR and GA services. The Abbey
Wood branch is XR-only, and most of the services on the Shenfield slow
lines will also be XR-only.
Still NR tracks though. Plus the longer a line is the greater the probability
of problems. Thats unavoidable for suburban and national services but for
something thats supposed to be a metro service taking some of the load off the
central and piccadilly lines its length IMO is going to be a problem.
Yes. Personally, I don't think Crossrail should go as far as Reading. I
think Slough was far enough. As a rough guide, don't think it should have
gone much outside the M25.
Basil Jet
2020-10-06 09:42:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 16:17:07 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 12:09:41 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin9
I watched this yesterday. Mr. Wild gave the impression that there
has been a slight set-back but nothing serious and consistent
progress was being made. No mention of the need for still more
money He now says that in early 2022 the line will be opened,
and possibly sooner. We'll see.
It's clear that he's shooting for public services (Abbey Wood to Padd low
level) in the core tunnels before the end of 2021. But through services
probably won't start till at least the second half of 2022.
Of course when they do start running the central core service timetable will
probably be completely buggered most days by problems on NR lines either end
just as happens on the ELL except much worse. It should have been kept as a
london only fast tube service on dedicated tracks.
To a large extent, it has separate tracks to GWR and GA services. The Abbey
Wood branch is XR-only, and most of the services on the Shenfield slow
lines will also be XR-only.
Still NR tracks though. Plus the longer a line is the greater the probability
of problems. Thats unavoidable for suburban and national services but for
something thats supposed to be a metro service taking some of the load off the
central and piccadilly lines its length IMO is going to be a problem.
Yes. Personally, I don't think Crossrail should go as far as Reading. I
think Slough was far enough.
Windsor IMO, assuming crossing the mainline is at all possible.
--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Spoon - 2009 - Transference
Recliner
2020-10-06 10:04:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 16:17:07 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 12:09:41 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin9
I watched this yesterday. Mr. Wild gave the impression that there
has been a slight set-back but nothing serious and consistent
progress was being made. No mention of the need for still more
money He now says that in early 2022 the line will be opened,
and possibly sooner. We'll see.
It's clear that he's shooting for public services (Abbey Wood to Padd low
level) in the core tunnels before the end of 2021. But through services
probably won't start till at least the second half of 2022.
Of course when they do start running the central core service timetable will
probably be completely buggered most days by problems on NR lines either end
just as happens on the ELL except much worse. It should have been kept as a
london only fast tube service on dedicated tracks.
To a large extent, it has separate tracks to GWR and GA services. The Abbey
Wood branch is XR-only, and most of the services on the Shenfield slow
lines will also be XR-only.
Still NR tracks though. Plus the longer a line is the greater the probability
of problems. Thats unavoidable for suburban and national services but for
something thats supposed to be a metro service taking some of the load off the
central and piccadilly lines its length IMO is going to be a problem.
Yes. Personally, I don't think Crossrail should go as far as Reading. I
think Slough was far enough.
Windsor IMO, assuming crossing the mainline is at all possible.
Too expensive for a grade separated crossing, and is the station suitable
for 9-car trains?
Trolleybus
2020-10-06 10:49:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 16:17:07 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 12:09:41 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin9
I watched this yesterday. Mr. Wild gave the impression that there
has been a slight set-back but nothing serious and consistent
progress was being made. No mention of the need for still more
money He now says that in early 2022 the line will be opened,
and possibly sooner. We'll see.
It's clear that he's shooting for public services (Abbey Wood to Padd low
level) in the core tunnels before the end of 2021. But through services
probably won't start till at least the second half of 2022.
Of course when they do start running the central core service timetable will
probably be completely buggered most days by problems on NR lines either end
just as happens on the ELL except much worse. It should have been kept as a
london only fast tube service on dedicated tracks.
To a large extent, it has separate tracks to GWR and GA services. The Abbey
Wood branch is XR-only, and most of the services on the Shenfield slow
lines will also be XR-only.
Still NR tracks though. Plus the longer a line is the greater the probability
of problems. Thats unavoidable for suburban and national services but for
something thats supposed to be a metro service taking some of the load off the
central and piccadilly lines its length IMO is going to be a problem.
Yes. Personally, I don't think Crossrail should go as far as Reading. I
think Slough was far enough.
Windsor IMO, assuming crossing the mainline is at all possible.
It's single track from Slough and a single platform, so capacity and
the ability to recover during disruption are poor.
Roland Perry
2020-10-06 11:14:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trolleybus
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Personally, I don't think Crossrail should go as far as Reading. I
think Slough was far enough.
Windsor IMO, assuming crossing the mainline is at all possible.
It's single track from Slough and a single platform, so capacity and
the ability to recover during disruption are poor.
If Crossrail is supposed to be for shifting commuters deep into the
core, rather than them being dumped at Paddington on legacy services,
then Reading is a sensible terminus. And don't forget the people
commuting *to* Reading from smaller stations on the GWR corridor.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2020-10-06 13:45:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Trolleybus
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Personally, I don't think Crossrail should go as far as Reading. I
think Slough was far enough.
Windsor IMO, assuming crossing the mainline is at all possible.
It's single track from Slough and a single platform, so capacity and
the ability to recover during disruption are poor.
If Crossrail is supposed to be for shifting commuters deep into the
core, rather than them being dumped at Paddington on legacy services,
then Reading is a sensible terminus. And don't forget the people
commuting *to* Reading from smaller stations on the GWR corridor.
But conveying commuters from stations in Berkshire to Reading isn't TfL's job. As Neil says, Crossrail should be
focusing on travel in the Greater London area.
Graeme Wall
2020-10-06 14:29:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Trolleybus
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Personally, I don't think Crossrail should go as far as Reading. I
think Slough was far enough.
Windsor IMO, assuming crossing the mainline is at all possible.
It's single track from Slough and a single platform, so capacity and
the ability to recover during disruption are poor.
If Crossrail is supposed to be for shifting commuters deep into the
core, rather than them being dumped at Paddington on legacy services,
then Reading is a sensible terminus. And don't forget the people
commuting *to* Reading from smaller stations on the GWR corridor.
But conveying commuters from stations in Berkshire to Reading isn't TfL's job. As Neil says, Crossrail should be
focusing on travel in the Greater London area.
That's just a useful bonus.

Problem is that with Crossrail taking up the paths from Slough inwards,
what about people travelling from stations between Reading and Slough?
Is there any logic in having two services operating back to back and
making people change when one train could work through?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Roland Perry
2020-10-06 14:57:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Trolleybus
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Personally, I don't think Crossrail should go as far as Reading. I
think Slough was far enough.
Windsor IMO, assuming crossing the mainline is at all possible.
It's single track from Slough and a single platform, so capacity and
the ability to recover during disruption are poor.
If Crossrail is supposed to be for shifting commuters deep into the
core, rather than them being dumped at Paddington on legacy services,
then Reading is a sensible terminus. And don't forget the people
commuting *to* Reading from smaller stations on the GWR corridor.
But conveying commuters from stations in Berkshire to Reading isn't
TfL's job. As Neil says, Crossrail should be focusing on travel in the
Greater London area.
Are there enough paths for both the Crossrail trains you'd be running
only as far as Slough, plus the legacy commuter services from Berkshire?
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2020-10-06 15:40:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Trolleybus
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Personally, I don't think Crossrail should go as far as Reading. I
think Slough was far enough.
Windsor IMO, assuming crossing the mainline is at all possible.
It's single track from Slough and a single platform, so capacity and
the ability to recover during disruption are poor.
If Crossrail is supposed to be for shifting commuters deep into the
core, rather than them being dumped at Paddington on legacy services,
then Reading is a sensible terminus. And don't forget the people
commuting *to* Reading from smaller stations on the GWR corridor.
But conveying commuters from stations in Berkshire to Reading isn't
TfL's job. As Neil says, Crossrail should be focusing on travel in the
Greater London area.
Are there enough paths for both the Crossrail trains you'd be running
only as far as Slough, plus the legacy commuter services from Berkshire?
No, they'd need to change where the services meet.
Roland Perry
2020-10-06 16:11:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Trolleybus
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Personally, I don't think Crossrail should go as far as Reading. I
think Slough was far enough.
Windsor IMO, assuming crossing the mainline is at all possible.
It's single track from Slough and a single platform, so capacity and
the ability to recover during disruption are poor.
If Crossrail is supposed to be for shifting commuters deep into the
core, rather than them being dumped at Paddington on legacy services,
then Reading is a sensible terminus. And don't forget the people
commuting *to* Reading from smaller stations on the GWR corridor.
But conveying commuters from stations in Berkshire to Reading isn't
TfL's job. As Neil says, Crossrail should be focusing on travel in the
Greater London area.
Are there enough paths for both the Crossrail trains you'd be running
only as far as Slough, plus the legacy commuter services from Berkshire?
No, they'd need to change where the services meet.
And the local trains reverse and go back to Reading? Has Slough got
enough platforms for that, as well as reversing the Crossrails.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2020-10-06 20:12:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Trolleybus
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Personally, I don't think Crossrail should go as far as Reading. I
think Slough was far enough.
Windsor IMO, assuming crossing the mainline is at all possible.
It's single track from Slough and a single platform, so capacity and
the ability to recover during disruption are poor.
If Crossrail is supposed to be for shifting commuters deep into the
core, rather than them being dumped at Paddington on legacy services,
then Reading is a sensible terminus. And don't forget the people
commuting *to* Reading from smaller stations on the GWR corridor.
But conveying commuters from stations in Berkshire to Reading isn't
TfL's job. As Neil says, Crossrail should be focusing on travel in the
Greater London area.
Are there enough paths for both the Crossrail trains you'd be running
only as far as Slough, plus the legacy commuter services from Berkshire?
No, they'd need to change where the services meet.
And the local trains reverse and go back to Reading? Has Slough got
enough platforms for that, as well as reversing the Crossrails.
Remember that Reading was never the original target for Crossrail. What
would have happened at Maidenhead?
Roland Perry
2020-10-07 05:32:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 12:14:46 +0100, Roland Perry
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Trolleybus
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Personally, I don't think Crossrail should go as far as Reading. I
think Slough was far enough.
Windsor IMO, assuming crossing the mainline is at all possible.
It's single track from Slough and a single platform, so capacity and
the ability to recover during disruption are poor.
If Crossrail is supposed to be for shifting commuters deep into the
core, rather than them being dumped at Paddington on legacy services,
then Reading is a sensible terminus. And don't forget the people
commuting *to* Reading from smaller stations on the GWR corridor.
But conveying commuters from stations in Berkshire to Reading isn't
TfL's job. As Neil says, Crossrail should be focusing on travel in the
Greater London area.
Are there enough paths for both the Crossrail trains you'd be running
only as far as Slough, plus the legacy commuter services from Berkshire?
No, they'd need to change where the services meet.
And the local trains reverse and go back to Reading? Has Slough got
enough platforms for that, as well as reversing the Crossrails.
Remember that Reading was never the original target for Crossrail.
It was, but they had to deny it in order to reduce the projected costs
(awaiting some tooth fairy to pay for 'extending' it to Reading).
Post by Recliner
What would have happened at Maidenhead?
Crossrail would have reversed, but the locals from Reading would have
run through to Paddington. Whether they in fact had sufficient
paths/platforms to do that is probably lost in the mists of time.
--
Roland Perry
Clive D.W. Feather
2020-10-09 15:00:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Remember that Reading was never the original target for Crossrail.
It was, but they had to deny it in order to reduce the projected costs
(awaiting some tooth fairy to pay for 'extending' it to Reading).
No: they wanted to make sure that the Reading rebuild didn't get dumped
on the Crossrail budget. Once the rebuild was done and dusted and, more
to the point, paid for, suddenly Reading was the plan all along.
--
Clive D.W. Feather
Basil Jet
2020-10-06 11:29:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trolleybus
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Yes. Personally, I don't think Crossrail should go as far as Reading. I
think Slough was far enough.
Windsor IMO, assuming crossing the mainline is at all possible.
It's single track from Slough and a single platform, so capacity and
the ability to recover during disruption are poor.
I think the entire formation is double track. The station is massive and
used to have three platforms, although most of it is taken up with
restaurant seating areas at the moment which could be repurposed. I'm
surprised no-one mentioned that the line is not electrified and would
need to be. I don't think any of these are show stoppers, although
crossing the fast lines at Slough could be.
--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Miles Davis - 1967 - Miles Smiles
Recliner
2020-10-06 11:49:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Trolleybus
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Yes. Personally, I don't think Crossrail should go as far as Reading. I
think Slough was far enough.
Windsor IMO, assuming crossing the mainline is at all possible.
It's single track from Slough and a single platform, so capacity and
the ability to recover during disruption are poor.
I think the entire formation is double track. The station is massive and
used to have three platforms, although most of it is taken up with
restaurant seating areas at the moment which could be repurposed. I'm
surprised no-one mentioned that the line is not electrified and would
need to be. I don't think any of these are show stoppers, although
crossing the fast lines at Slough could be.
It would need something like the Hitchin flyover in a built-up area to
cross the main lines: huge and expensive. There's no way that would have
been done, and for what reason? The cost of electrifying the Windsor
branch would be trivial by comparison.
Basil Jet
2020-10-06 12:36:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Trolleybus
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Yes. Personally, I don't think Crossrail should go as far as Reading. I
think Slough was far enough.
Windsor IMO, assuming crossing the mainline is at all possible.
It's single track from Slough and a single platform, so capacity and
the ability to recover during disruption are poor.
I think the entire formation is double track. The station is massive and
used to have three platforms, although most of it is taken up with
restaurant seating areas at the moment which could be repurposed. I'm
surprised no-one mentioned that the line is not electrified and would
need to be. I don't think any of these are show stoppers, although
crossing the fast lines at Slough could be.
It would need something like the Hitchin flyover in a built-up area to
cross the main lines: huge and expensive. There's no way that would have
been done, and for what reason? The cost of electrifying the Windsor
branch would be trivial by comparison.
I believe there is cash value in having trains running through the
tourist parts of London with "Windsor" on the front.
--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Miles Davis - 1967 - Miles Smiles
Roland Perry
2020-10-06 13:29:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Trolleybus
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Yes. Personally, I don't think Crossrail should go as far as Reading. I
think Slough was far enough.
Windsor IMO, assuming crossing the mainline is at all possible.
It's single track from Slough and a single platform, so capacity and
the ability to recover during disruption are poor.
I think the entire formation is double track.
erm: https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/signalling/slough#T_WINDSEC
--
Roland Perry
Basil Jet
2020-10-06 13:45:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Yes. Personally, I don't think Crossrail should go as far as Reading. I
think Slough was far enough.
Windsor IMO, assuming crossing the mainline is at all possible.
 It's single track from Slough and a single platform, so capacity and
the ability to recover during disruption are poor.
I think the entire formation is double track.
erm: https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/signalling/slough#T_WINDSEC
Obviously the track is single, but the formation is double,
because the disused land and wide bridges are still there.
--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Miles Davis - 1967 - Miles Smiles
b***@nuttyella.co.uk
2020-10-06 13:37:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 12:29:56 +0100
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Trolleybus
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Yes. Personally, I don't think Crossrail should go as far as Reading. I
think Slough was far enough.
Windsor IMO, assuming crossing the mainline is at all possible.
It's single track from Slough and a single platform, so capacity and
the ability to recover during disruption are poor.
I think the entire formation is double track. The station is massive and
used to have three platforms, although most of it is taken up with
restaurant seating areas at the moment which could be repurposed. I'm
I doubt Windsor town council will give up their major shopping centre
without a fight frankly. It probably should have been kept as a station but
its took late now. The current station is just a miserable single track halt.

Windsor low level station would make more sense wrt size but unfortunately its
3rd rail and linked to the wrong part of the network.
Loading...