Crossrail have issued an OJEU heads up for their rolling stock requirement.

http://www.publictenders.net/tender/69743

The only new feature AFAICS is that they will probably be calling for 63 x
200m length trains (for 57 diagrams).

I'm wondering if this is a clear indication they are moving towards
'Thameslink style' fixed formation trains, Crossrail were originally
proposing running two 5 x 20m units in multiple, allowing them to run singly
offpeak...

Paul S

On 3 Aug, 18:34, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Crossrail have issued an OJEU heads up for their rolling stock requirement.

http://www.publictenders.net/tender/69743

The only new feature AFAICS is that they will probably be calling for 63 x
200m length trains (for 57 diagrams).

I'm wondering if this is a clear indication they are moving towards
'Thameslink style' fixed formation trains, Crossrail were originally
proposing running two 5 x 20m units in multiple, allowing them to run singly
offpeak...

Paul S

Thameslink trains can be 4 or 8 cars long. I think you mean "LUL-
style" fixed formations.

"Dr. Sunil" wrote in message
...
On 3 Aug, 18:34, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Crossrail have issued an OJEU heads up for their rolling stock
requirement.

http://www.publictenders.net/tender/69743

The only new feature AFAICS is that they will probably be calling for 63
x
200m length trains (for 57 diagrams).

I'm wondering if this is a clear indication they are moving towards
'Thameslink style' fixed formation trains, Crossrail were originally
proposing running two 5 x 20m units in multiple, allowing them to run
singly
offpeak...

Paul S

Thameslink trains can be 4 or 8 cars long. I think you mean "LUL-
style" fixed formations.

The intended new stock for the Thameslink Project is fixed formation, 160 or
240 metres (8 or 12 car, if 20 m carriages are chosen).

Peter

"Dr. Sunil" wrote in message
...
On 3 Aug, 18:34, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Crossrail have issued an OJEU heads up for their rolling stock
requirement.

http://www.publictenders.net/tender/69743

The only new feature AFAICS is that they will probably be calling for 63
x
200m length trains (for 57 diagrams).

I'm wondering if this is a clear indication they are moving towards
'Thameslink style' fixed formation trains, Crossrail were originally
proposing running two 5 x 20m units in multiple, allowing them to run
singly
offpeak...

Paul S

Thameslink trains can be 4 or 8 cars long. I think you mean "LUL-
style" fixed formations.

No, I really did mean like the [yet to be built] 'Thameslink style fixed
formations', either 8 or 12 car length; but probably 10 car in the Crossrail
case, assuming they don't go for something like the Alstom articulated
design.

Paul S

I have wondred about the rolling stock for crossrail services but one
question i have is that couldn't some 2/3 carriage EMU'S be built so
that peak hour trains can be split/attached so that they can serve
some of the thames valley branches instead of having a shuttle on
those lines?

One such route i am thinking about is the Maidenhead to Marlow branch,
doesnt this have through services to London during peak hours?

"anthony" wrote in message
...
I have wondred about the rolling stock for crossrail services but one
question i have is that couldn't some 2/3 carriage EMU'S be built so
that peak hour trains can be split/attached so that they can serve
some of the thames valley branches instead of having a shuttle on
those lines?

One such route i am thinking about is the Maidenhead to Marlow branch,
doesnt this have through services to London during peak hours?

Marlow and Henley won't be electrified as part of Crossrail (and probably
not as part of the GWML electrification). So they'll either lose their peak
trains through to/from Paddington, or these will be dmus. One reason for
running Crossrail with 10-car trains throughout the day is that the central
area stations will be double ended, so trains that use the full length of
the platforms will be desirable.

Peter
(old enough to remember when the Henley to Paddington through trains were
Hymek + coaches)

Peter

On Aug 3, 8:40*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"anthony" wrote in message

...

I have wondred about the rolling stock for crossrail services but one
question i have *is that couldn't some 2/3 carriage EMU'S be built so
that *peak hour trains can be split/attached so that they can serve
some of the thames valley branches *instead of having a shuttle on
those lines?

One such route i am thinking about is the Maidenhead to Marlow branch,
doesnt this have through services to London during peak hours?

Marlow and Henley won't be electrified as part of Crossrail (and probably
not as part of the GWML electrification). So they'll either lose their peak
trains through to/from Paddington, or these will be dmus. One reason for
running Crossrail with 10-car trains throughout the day is that the central
area stations will be double ended, so trains that use the full length of
the platforms will be desirable.

Peter
(old enough to remember when the Henley to Paddington through trains were
Hymek + coaches)

Peter

I was wondering just the other day why there wasn't a joint
procurement process for Thameslink and Crossrail... something the
coalition could look at?
Tim

On 4 Aug, 07:54, TimB wrote:
On Aug 3, 8:40*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:





"anthony" wrote in message

....

I have wondred about the rolling stock for crossrail services but one
question i have *is that couldn't some 2/3 carriage EMU'S be built so
that *peak hour trains can be split/attached so that they can serve
some of the thames valley branches *instead of having a shuttle on
those lines?

One such route i am thinking about is the Maidenhead to Marlow branch,
doesnt this have through services to London during peak hours?

Marlow and Henley won't be electrified as part of Crossrail (and probably
not as part of the GWML electrification). So they'll either lose their peak
trains through to/from Paddington, or these will be dmus. One reason for
running Crossrail with 10-car trains throughout the day is that the central
area stations will be double ended, so trains that use the full length of
the platforms will be desirable.

Peter
(old enough to remember when the Henley to Paddington through trains were
Hymek + coaches)

Peter

I was wondering just the other day why there wasn't a joint
procurement process for Thameslink and Crossrail... *something the
coalition could look at?
* *Tim- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is the question I have been asking.

the official argument for separate fleets is that Crossrail needs to
have 23 m long cars with three doors a side because of the capacity
requirements/ station dwell times while Thameslink can accomodate only
20 m long cars with two doors a side because of curvature. - despite
similar capacity/dwell time issues.

I'm still not convinced.

Rogert

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 01:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
"Capt. Deltic" wrote:
This is the question I have been asking.

the official argument for separate fleets is that Crossrail needs to
have 23 m long cars with three doors a side because of the capacity
requirements/ station dwell times while Thameslink can accomodate only
20 m long cars with two doors a side because of curvature. - despite
similar capacity/dwell time issues.

If they want to really future proof it they should build UIC gauge double
decker trains instead of ****ing around with piddly UK gauge EMUs that
will be packed from day 1. It won't happen of course because there might
be the odd bridge that'll need raising by a foot on the out of london routes.
Obviously this would be a huge expense compared to digging 10 miles of
tunnel under london....

B2003

On 4 Aug, 11:09, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 01:39:30 -0700 (PDT)

"Capt. Deltic" wrote:
This is the question I have been asking.

the official argument for separate fleets is that Crossrail needs to
have 23 m long cars with three doors a side because of the capacity
requirements/ station dwell times while Thameslink can accomodate only
20 m long cars with two doors a side because of curvature. - despite
similar capacity/dwell time issues.

If they want to really future proof it they should build UIC gauge double
decker trains instead of ****ing around with piddly UK gauge EMUs that
will be packed from day 1. It won't happen of course because there might
be the odd bridge that'll need raising by a foot on the out of london routes.
Obviously this would be a huge expense compared to digging 10 miles of
tunnel under london....

The bigger problem is that UK platforms impinge on the UIC gauge,
which is full width practically down to rail head level. So to run
UIC stock, you will need to rebuild every platform on the route, and
in so doing make those platforms unusable by conventional UK rolling
stock because the gap would be too wide. The only UIC platforms in
the UK are on HS1, and at St P, Stratford and Ebbsfleet, separate UIC
and UK platforms on separate platform roads are provided for
international and domestic trains (not sure whether Ashford has UIC
platforms, no doubt someone will be along shortly with an answer).

If you went down this path, then you'd end up with UIC platforms on
the relief lines and UK platforms on the main lines, so effectively
the releif lines would become crossrail only. Assuming Crossrail to
Reading, then things like Oxford stoppers would be confined to the
main lines as far as Reading, and if Crossrail only goes to
Maidenhead, then Reading stoppers and the like would also be forced on
to the main lines as far as Maidenhead. Is that compatible with the
projected timetables?

Robin