It is said that one of the problems of Channel Tunnel construction was that the British thought they were building a tunnel that just happened to contain a railway. The French, thinking more realistically, saw themselves as building a railway which just happened to need a tunnel. Luckily, this was a lesson that Crossrail took on board at a relatively early stage.
“Both Operations and Maintenance have been involved in the project almost since day one,” Explained Crossrail Systems Director Siv Bhamra to LR a little while back. “But that wasn’t part of the original plan.”
Andrew Wolstenholme, Crossrail’s Chief Executive since September 2011, later confirms that this was the case.
“When I arrived at Crossrail, I was told the post of Operations Director did not yet exist. That had to change. We lacked balance between the huge engineering and civils focus and the need to start planning at an early stage for the railway to come. That led to the appointment of Howard [Smith], who brought to Crossrail the knowledge and expertise that was missing.”
Andrew Wolstenholme, Crossrail Chief Executive
Howard Smith’s appointment a year later as Operations Director was a sound one. A hardened veteran of the launch of the London Overground, he is intimately familiar with the operational challenges of launching – and running – a new railway in London. Culturally, however, from an early stage it also meant the change in thinking that Bhamra described.
“There’s a real danger on big building projects like this,” warns Chris Sexton, Crossrail Technical Director, in discussing that culture “of making decisions that make sense from an engineering perspective but fail to account for how the railway will actually need to work.
“I hope we’ve avoided that. We’ve had the voices there to help us make decisions where the eventual operational benefits outweigh engineering judgement.”
It is the fact that the operational element has been embedded in Crossrail for some time which means that even as Crossrail are announcing the end of tunnelling we can already start to build up a picture of the railway those tunnels will contain. We will turn to this shortly, but first it is worth a final glance back at how the tunnelling process ended.
Completed Crossover tunnels at Whitechapel
Here, what has been quite remarkable is that the tunnelling phase has proceeded relatively smoothly. There have been few changes of plan during the course of construction – most notably the extraction (or rather the lack of it) of the Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs) from Farringdon – but this is the only major deviation of note.
That is not to say that, in engineering terms, there haven’t been other hitches. The TBMs stalled for a while at Whitechapel, for example. This could be regarded, as much as anything, as a consequence of the TBMs performing much better than expected. Combined with a confidence that they would make up time later though the work schedule could be re-arranged. Indeed the only major delay for tunnelling reasons was due to one of the TBMs hitting an unmarked test concrete pile in the Canary Wharf area. The delay was caused by the need to search for documentation to work out what it was and, most importantly, establish that there were no more of them.
As a final note here it is worth pointing out that some Sprayed Concrete Lining (SCL) work, primarily at Liverpool Street and Whitechapel, is still underway. Ultimately though the running tunnels are now complete and ready to receive the railway they will contain.
SCL work underway at Whitechapel
Building the railway
As was highlighted at the beginning of this article, it would be a mistake to assume that (just like plans for its operation) the construction of the railway itself hadn’t, in fact, already begun. We have covered before the sometimes-forgotten surface elements of Crossrail, and this work has presented plenty of opportunities for the laying of track and other activities. This is especially true on the surface section to Abbey Wood, where the scale of the Crossrail project has required the laying of over a mile of new double track between the Plumstead portal and Abbey Wood station.
This work has been complicated by the need to slew over the existing Network Rail double track railway. An excellent article in New Civil Engineer recently described some of the challenges involved. It is clearly much more complex than a visit to the area would lead you to believe. Much of that difficulty was down to unfavourable geology – alluvium with peat layers as well as potentially unstable embankments. It is highly telling though that despite the scale of work on this mile long worksite, which would normally warrant attention as a major piece of railway work in its own right, it is actually seen as a relatively minor element of the work involved in building Crossrail.
Elsewhere at the western end, electrification masts are starting to appear in great numbers and bridges have been raised or rebuilt. Two major tasks which have not had that much publicity are the rebuilding of Airport Junction and the work at Acton Yard, where a new dive-under has been constructed to avoid conflict with freight trains.
Laying track for Crossrail
Getting operational
It is not just in terms of construction, of course, that Crossrail’s operational work has begun. As of 31st May Howard Smith has technically been responsible for a running railway as the Crossrail concessionaire, MTR, officially took over all services between Liverpool Street and Shenfield on that date.
That those services are not currently branded as Crossrail is deliberate. Back in November we covered the fact that these services would be launched as “TfL Rail,” carefully avoiding the use of the Crossrail name until such time as new rolling stock and services were actually available.
Smith himself has since highlighted another reason for this decision. At the time the Crossrail concession, which follows a similar model to that used on the Overground, was let, neither he nor TfL knew who would get it. As a result ensuring an early takeover of Shenfield services (ideally under different branding) was seen as an important way for both parties to begin to build a long term relationship – so that when the “real” Crossrail came along there would be no disputes or misunderstandings as to working practice. Ultimately, of course, the contract was awarded to MTR – familiar to TfL through their status as co-owners of London Overground operator LOROL. Nonetheless, the principle was sound.
The Philosophy of Crossrail
Just what form that “real” Crossrail will take when it arrives is a far more philosophical question than one might think. Is it a mainline railway? A glorified tube line? A suburban metro system (akin to London Overground) or something else entirely? It has been cast in all of those images, by different people, at various stages of its planning, but until now determining just what Crossrail itself thinks it will be has been far trickier.
Luckily, as we move towards the operational railway, that is becoming easier to see. The result so far seems to be a railway that lies somewhere between mainline and tube line, as the operational approach Smith and his team are taking to a number of the issues below seems to show.
The timetable
Few outside the railway industry likely realise just how far in advance timetable planning is carried out. Whilst final details and tweaks can be arranged in the months before implementation, the basic frequency and service needs to be agreed years in advance. This especially applies to the peak service of a new railway such as Crossrail, as this will largely determine the total number of trains required to be ordered.
As a result, in the simplest of terms, in order for Crossrail to operate trains through the central section and on to Network Rail tracks in 2019 it is actually necessary to agree on the service framework now.
To the second or to the half minute
That leads to the first of many interesting operating philosophy conflicts. The national railway in Britain has, almost since the start of proper train regulation, operated working timetables to the nearest half-minute. TfL on its automatically operated Underground lines has a working timetable that displays times to the nearest quarter minute, but which in many ways operates to the second. Each platform has a target maximum dwell time measured in seconds for example.
The issue of only operating to the nearest half minute may not be too much of an issue from the outset for Crossrail, but if the line ever goes above 24tph then this would appear to be a major area that Network Rail would need to address.
C-DAS to the rescue?
Driver Advisory Systems (DAS) are devices that advise the train driver of the best course of action to take as regards accelerating or braking, whilst leaving it to the driver to make the final decision. As such a DAS is not regarded as safety critical. An analogy would be a car driver with a sat-nav. The sat-nav can advise but cannot authorise a driver to go through a No Entry sign – the responsibility remains with the person behind the wheel. On the railways DAS stand in contrast to Automatic Train Operation (ATO) systems where the driver is relieved of the responsibility for many of the actions that the ATO system takes.
DAS are nothing new. In a very crude form the Southern Railway in the 1930s put white diamonds on posts next to the track to indicate to drivers that they should cease motoring and coast from that point onward. The modern electronic form of DAS is now quite common on the trains of many Train Operating Companies.
What is new, however, is a more intelligent system called C-DAS (for Connected DAS) which receives data from the outside world to give more intelligent advice to the driver. This could, for example, enable a driver to arrive at a junction at the optimum moment or take into account a late running train ahead to avoid applying power unnecessarily. If the technology is successful it is hoped that this would do a lot to overcome the issue of trying to mix and match Network Rail and TfL working. Trains on Network Rail track would approach the Crossrail portals obeying normal signals but at the same time the C-DAS system would be advising on speed so that they entered the Crossrail central section at precisely the right time.
Signalling and the rule book
From the passenger point of view Crossrail may be seen as trying to be all things to all men – a conventional railway outside the centre of London and a high frequency underground service in the centre. From the train driver’s perspective things will be somewhat different and, whatever the appearances are to the public, it is important that the drivers see this as one railway with one set of signalling and one rule book they have to follow. It is true that on the Bakerloo Line and the District Line that Underground drivers effectively have to change from an Underground signalling system and rule book to a Network Rail one (and, of course, Chiltern drivers have to do this the other way round) but this is generally regarded as highly unsatisfactory and best avoided if possible.
Despite initial appearances, from the drivers and signallers perspective, Crossrail is very much a railway that is part of National Rail. It will be run using the Network Rail rulebook which will no doubt have to be supplemented to cater for such issues as Platform Edge Doors and evacuation procedures. The signalling will be supervised from either Didcot (west of Paddington) or the new Network Rail Regional Operating Centre at Romford and both of these locations will have Network Rail signallers. The drivers radios will operative using GSM-R (the National Railway system), even in the tunnels, and not on Tetra network which is the radio network London Underground currently uses.
Stick to the timetable or run an even interval service?
Closely associated with network supervision is network regulation of trains. This brings up the issue of whether one sticks to the timetable. It is here that we are are probably going to see the greatest problems with Crossrail. On Underground lines with a frequent service the objective is largely to maintain even intervals rather than adhere too strictly to the timetable. This can be a problem if sharing tracks on Network Rail where there are other services, but in practice this hasn’t been too a great issue with an absolutely maximum of 4tph of other services to consider.
This need to stick to the timetable will be a bit of an issue for the line out to Shenfield, with the need to accommodate some freight crossing the line on the level and a lot of empty coaching stock movements to Ilford depot. It will be much more of an issue on the Great Western Line out towards Reading where slots are scarce and the railway has to accommodate fast, semi-fast and stopping services.
A further issue is that it would appear to be inconceivable that Crossrail trains, at least those west of Paddington, will not be shown on the National Rail Timetable. It would also be somewhat strange if not all the journey was shown. So it seems that Crossrail, rather like London Overground, will probably put great emphasis on running trains to the timetable and limit out of course working in order to plug any gaps in the service. London Overground themselves are currently finding out how hard it can sometimes be to balance these two competing approaches on their newly-acquired West Anglia services. No doubt they will learn their lessons swiftly, and it should be hoped that Crossrail are watching efforts there closely.
How frequent an off-peak service?
How Crossrail will approach off-peak services is another operational issue that remains of great interest. Indeed this is a subject we have looked at in the past. As a rule of thumb, London Underground nowadays tend to run an off-peak service, even on Sundays of at least 75% of the peak service with the philosophy of “turn up and go” prominent. They have also tried, as hard as is possible, to have a very simple service pattern. There are very few short workings and the interval between trains is generally consistent.
West of Paddington, Crossrail is largely constricted by having what slots are available and these, in principle, were established before the Crossrail Act was passed. On the Shenfield branch it was agreed at the time of the Crossrail Act passing that they could have 6 trains per hour (tph) off-peak to Shenfield which is basically the same as shown now in the TfL Rail timetable.
The problem is, to maintain an even interval service with 6tph to Shenfield will also require 6tph on the Abbey Wood branch. This then gives a combined total of only 12tph through the central section. This would be woefully inadequate by London Underground standards – in essence a train every five minutes – and would even be considerably worse than Thameslink from December 2018 onwards.
It is encouraging to learn from Smith now that, despite all the documentation stating otherwise, the draft agreement with Network Rail for the future frequency of Crossrail off-peak services to Shenfield is actually 8tph. This is a critical improvement because this means 16tph off-peak through the central section which, though still not quite up to London Underground standards, is considerably better than 12tph. Even with this improvement, Canary Wharf will only have an off-peak Crossrail train every 7½ minutes and one wonders whether this will be considered acceptable by those working there.
We must issue a word of slight caution here as regard to off-peak services. Whilst Crossrail and Network Rail are working on the planning assumption that there will be 8tph off-peak to Shenfield, we presume at even intervals, the agreement with ORR (Office of Road and Rail – formerly Office of Rail Regulation) is still only for 6tph so, theoretically, at some point in the future, Crossrail could find themselves limited to 6tph on that branch. However, once 8tph is established, it is very hard to conceive of any circumstances in which this could happen. Just to establish certainty and pre-empt any danger of that happening, at some point a revised Track Access Option application will go to the ORR to ensure that the 8tph cannot be taken away.
Not stopping at …
TfL’s philosophy when it comes to scheduled omitting of station stops is to avoid it when possible. Apart from operating constraints that this causes, it tends to confuse the occasional traveller who wants a simple, easy to understand, message. Nowadays fast trains on London Underground are limited to a few peak-hour services on the Metropolitan Line. Until very recently all London Overground services called at all stations. With the introduction of services to Liverpool Street this is no longer quite true but, in all probability, having services sometimes skipping stations is a situation that was forced on London Overground rather than something they wanted.
Whilst, in general, Crossrail will consist of all-stations services, there will be exceptions west of Paddington. Acton Main Line, Hanwell and West Ealing will see trains not stopping there throughout the day. These, for the most part, will be trains serving Heathrow replacing the Heathrow Connect service. What is more curious is that it looks like there will be 2tph off-peak that will run from London all stations to West Drayton, then fast to Slough, then fast to Maidenhead. This appears to be making best use of limited capacity by extending a suburban metro service to Slough to provide a better service to that town. It will also provide a much better service for the tourist market to Windsor. The continuation fast to Maidenhead is merely in order to terminate at the first opportunity.
Platform Standards
When it comes to platforms it is apparent that here too there is a clash of ideas. With Platform Edge Doors already decided for sub-surface stations it is clear that in the central section the platforms are going to be Underground-style step-free straight platforms with no discernible gap. West of Paddington and at Stratford, and stations east thereof, one would like to think Network Rail standards apply. The problem is that currently they don’t.
The Network Rail standard for platform dimensions is very much an aspiration. Given that nearly all platforms on the system already existed (and therefore had grandfather rights) when the standard was introduced, one can see why a compliant platform is very much the exception.
There are two problems that Crossrail inherits with platforms, both of which are very different. On the Great Western Railway the loading gauge has historically been generous and the desire to minimise the step up into the train not seen as a priority. As a result just about all of the platforms are too low and too far from the track.
By contrast on the line out to Shenfield the loading gauge at stations tended to be narrower than the average. Furthermore, the extremities of the platforms are often higher than they should be. This is because frequently there are bridges at the end of the platform. To save money when overhead electrification was installed a dual voltage system of 25kV was installed with the voltage going down to 6.25kV at bridges with limited clearance. When it was decided to eliminate the 6.25kV sections and have a universal overhead line voltage of 25kV they solved the problem of clearance by lowering the track – which had the effect of making the platforms too high. So on this part of Crossrail the platforms are too close and too high.
It would clearly not be acceptable for Crossrail to have a greater gap than necessary on the Network Rail owned stations. This means that as well as many platform extensions for the longer trains, there will be a lot of work done by Network Rail on Crossrail’s behalf to ensure that the platforms are compliant. One could look at a map of the Crossrail route and take into account that Reading station would already be compliant and draw the conclusion that around 26 stations would be potentially affected and this would amount to around 52 platforms. Unfortunately it is not as simple as this, as on both the Great Western and the Great Eastern there are times (typically Sunday morning) when the line must be run as a two track railway instead of a four track railway to enable maintenance to be carried out on the other two tracks. This means that, at some stations, all four platforms at each station, ideally, should be fully compliant with the Network Rail standard for platforms.
On the final network there will be at least 112 platforms then that a Crossrail train could potentially call at, as this number will be fitted up for cab CCTV. There are also 61 existing platforms which will need extending. For a railway with only 40 stations, 10 of which will have completely new platforms, and Selective Door Operation (SDO) implemented at various locations, this is an awful lot of platforms to extend.
Mind the doors
SDO is necessary because some platforms on Crossrail will not be long enough to accommodate a full length Crossrail train and cannot be extended. Even something as simple as this brings a clash of different practices. London Underground and London Overground select individual pairs of doors for exclusion. The Train Operating Companies and Network Rail appear to have a policy of doing this by carriage. Of course, if you have walk-through trains it is arguable how sensible it is to do it by carriage. It remains to be seen which of these approaches Crossrail will take.
There is also another door issue – whether or not all the doors will be opened by the driver on arrival at a station or whether it will be left to the passenger to press a button to open the door. This may seem like a minor issue, but it one that will potentially have an impact on the passenger journey. In the central sections, for example, where many may see Crossrail through the window of the Underground (particularly as interval times decrease) there will be an expection of automatically opening doors. Yet one can also imagine passenger complaints about waiting on a cold train at Abbey Wood on a winter’s morning, or the near pointless opening of all the doors at lightly-used Iver station.
Driver’s CCTV
Easily overlooked is the issue of CCTV for the driver to open the doors. The London Underground practice is to have cameras located on the platform and have the display in the drivers cab with the signal being send via a leaky feeder cable. This is generally regarded as operationally the ideal set up but technically more complex and expensive. The current London Overground practice is to have the cameras on the outside of the trains.
Cameras on the outside of the trains would clearly be unsuitable for platforms with Platform Edge Doors. We also mentioned the desire not to have drivers having to adopt different procedures on different parts of the railway. From this it follows that the decision has been made to go for platform cameras linked via a leaky feeder cable to the driver’s cab throughout.
It is on issues like this that Network Rail is forced to adopt new practices. Until now CCTV images of the platform provided by leaky feeder signal to the train has been the preserve of London Underground. One wonders whether, having established the principle on Crossrail, London Overground will look at this again and push for CCTV cameras on the platform in future.
Evacuation
Another area where Crossrail is going to rewrite the rule book, rather than rely on precedent, is on the subject of evacuation procedures. One innovation will make evacuation less urgent and the other will make it easier to carry out.
Crossrail will be the first deep running line in Britain with air conditioned trains. This means that the interior of the trains should not be so hot in the first place and if the power remains on the trains will remain cool almost indefinitely – whether or not the train is in a tunnel section. In the main tunnel section there will be a rigid overhead bar rather than a catenary wire so one would hope that the number of times the power has to be deliberately turned off is substantially reduced with the elimination of possible dewirement.
Even if the power is off for any reason, the air conditioning will be able to keep functioning for a considerable time by using the on-board batteries. This should reduce the urgency of evacuation although there will still be the problem of no toilet on board. Having the option of keeping the passengers aboard the train is generally helpful because sometimes the quickest overall solution is to have passengers remain on the train if the duration of the delay can be fairly reliably established. Once you evacuate a train, getting things moving again generally takes a long time.
The other change to evacuation procedures is that passengers will be able to use the walkway in the tunnels. This should make evacuation procedures considerably quicker and there should be no need to turn off the power to the rigid overhead bar that supplies electricity to the train in order to facilitate the evacuation. This is a major advantage, as one of the reasons that evacuation is so problematic on the Underground is the need to be absolutely certain there is no possibility of the power coming back on once passengers are walking down the track.
Moving forward
There is plenty more information to come. Indeed one major area we have skipped over in this article is that of signalling – arguably one of the most problematic areas of Crossrail – similarly rolling stock. We have also not mentioned fare structure, the policy towards fare enforcement and refund policy. These topics, as well as a detailed look at the purpose of the implementation plan and its different stages, we will look at next.
For now, however, it seems safe to say that Crossrail have earned the right to celebrate what is a huge milestone – the end of tunnelling. They should also be commended for recognising that it is simply that – the end of one stage and the start of the next, one for which they appear to have successfully prepared for some time. In that light it is tempting to end this article with the Churchill quote that gave this piece its name. Instead, however, it feels more appropriate to leave the last word, in effect, to Crossrail themselves.
“If we don’t deliver this railway to the best of our ability. If we don’t make it as good as it can be. Then we will only have ourselves to blame.”
Chris Sexton, Crossrail Technical Director
It’s a very valid point, the pressure for which Crossrail’s operational team, and those involved in completing and fitting out its stations and tunnels, will now increasingly bear the weight of in the years to come.
Want to know when part 2 comes out? sign up to our newsletter on the homepage
One question about the platform heights on the Eastern section (I’m not very familiar with that neck of the woods): Why didn’t they lower the ends of the platforms as well as central part?
Re Southern Heights,
Because they didn’t lower the track level at the middle of the platforms only the end near a bridge. Often a pedestrian subway would prevent lowering as well.
I presume the question was meant to be: “Why didn’t they lower the central part as well as the ends?”
Apart from the possibility of subways, it was because this was never really planned. If I recall correctly from what I have read, the line was originally electrified at low voltage overhead (1,500 dc I suspect). The British Railways Board was anxious to advance the idea of 25kV. This then gave a lot of problems with the clearance of bridges so parts were electrified to 6.25kV. This was to avoid the expense of numerous bridge reconstructions and/or track lowering. As a matter of interest this decision to go for high voltage AC was bitterly criticised later by certain Mr G Fiennes who was the manager who saw his patch of railway deteriorate in reliability.
It was then realised that the dual 25kV/6.25kV was not really workable. I suspect there was also very little money in the kitty. So the quick and dirty compromise was to lower the track under the bridges. Changing the platform level at that stage would have been both costly and disruptive and I suspect the overriding objective at the time was to get the railway working reliably again. I don’t think anyone really cared that much about platform heights in those days.
” SDO is necessary because some platforms on Crossrail will not be long enough to accommodate a full length Crossrail train and cannot be extended. ”
That is true, but is not the whole truth. Bridges at both ends prevent platform extension at Maryland at anything resembling a reasonable cost. It seems like a long time since I went petitioning there with my MP to get SDO so that the trains would stop at Maryland.
A careful read of those rather bland notes at GE stations on the Crossrail website reveals that platforms will not be extended at Forest Gate or at Manor Park. Except for platform 1 at Forest Gate, most could be extended within existing railway land.
Gorgeous wide screen photos, love the layout. Great read and analysis as well.
“All London Overground services are all stations.”
I’m sure the author knows this isn’t true (anymore). Not only in the obvious case of Chingford trains skipping Cambridge Heath and London Fields, but also in most (but not all) Chingford Prak trains skipping Bethnal Green, and some peak via Seven Sisters trains skipping Bethnal Green, Cambridge Heath, London Fields and even Stamford Hill seemingly at random.
Good article but really not a fan of the quotes being in all caps – really hard to read.
I’ve been 50/50 on whether to keep them in all-caps or not, to be honest.
On my original design specs for this style of article they looked really good, but actually I’ve been finding that with long quotes they do indeed harm readability that bit too much.
So I’ve decided to turn off the uppercasing. If you Ctrl + F5 the page (to bust your cache) you should see them change.
Do all Overground services stop at all stations? I thought that some of the West Anglia aservices skipped Bethnal Green – London Fields?
Interesting article and part covers something I was musing about when looking at the current TfL Rail timetable which has a mix of peak destinations and stopping patterns. I assume this will probably have to continue even when the route is linked into the tunnels. Nice to see a 8 tph off peak service headway being proposed for the Shenfield line. That’s sensible.
Say hello to Mr Bhamra for me next time you see him. 🙂 We were colleagues many years back. I didn’t know he’d reached such lofty heights at Crossrail. I’m sure he’s loving it.
Crossrail don’t need my validation but the point about early operational input into the project is so so important. I saw it not work terribly well on the JLE and then later involvement with projects where the user ended up demanding variations at the end of a project and having to go with a begging bowl for the money as I’d taken over as Client at the end. Not fun.
The platform works are going to be fun – that’s clearly no small piece of work and I had no idea it was as big an issue as it clearly is. I assume the decision to go for full accessibility has also been a factor. I trust the use of SDO will not affect wheelchair users because the priority areas in the trains will not be at the ends of the units.
The GSMR vs Airwave radio point will be interesting in the Central Area stations which are managed by LU. I assume a working protocol has been established and validated with the relevant emergency services as to how incidents and the local comms process is managed. Crossrail may well be the major influence on passengers flows at some stations so the ability to know what’s happening and communicate seamlessly between drivers, station staff and emergency services will be really critical.
Nice to see my hunch that there had been a couple of “glitches” with the tunnelling was right. Obviously it wasn’t a critical path issue and Crossrail have worked round the issues but the big task is yet to come. There is also the dreaded issue of working up to deadline opening dates that in the public domain. I’m sure the management are well aware and have strategies in place but this is when you get the nonsense appearing over contractor delivery, wages for specialist trades involved in critical activities etc. It is going to be really fascinating to see things come together over the next three years.
I’m really looking forward to reading about the ticketing stuff as this is a big issue that I know has been debated long and hard. There have also been technological and operational philosophy changes (for LU) which will have changed thinking (e.g. no Crossrail ticket offices at LU run CR stations). I’m interested to see how it’s all panned out and how stakeholders have been kept “on side”. I’ll stop musing and await the article!
WAGN, Pincinerator
Do all Overground services stop at all stations?
As implied by WAGN it was true when this was written although I had overlooked the London Fields etc. situation. I have reworded it.
Also, I was expecting this to be published somewhat earlier. It was intended to coincide with the end of tunnelling on Crossrail which actually happened last month. The final breakthough was on May 26th and work was complete by May 29th. My guess is that today’s publicity was arranged so the Prime Minister could be there. Hence no dramatic breakthrough videos with the PM and Mayor watching.
All a bit of a non-event really which in some ways is the point of the article. It is just almost the final bit of the first phase. Everyone seems to forget about the Sprayed Concrete Lining (SCL) which is also a major element of the first phase – so it is not true to say that tunnelling is complete. By the way, the BBC reports on the end of the TBM tunnelling with a lot of pictures of tunnels constructed using SCL!
Walthamstow Writer,
I may have not made things clear enough here regarding radios. Drivers will use GSM-R throughout. In the central section I am pretty sure station staff will use Airwave. I don’t think this changes anything as I don’t believe drivers have ever used radio to communicate with station staff – everything goes via the signaller or controller.
Of course, beyond the central underground section, a lot of staff, as now, won’t have radios.
@ PoP – I thought the LU radio system now allowed station staff to talk to train drivers if their train was halted at the station? In other words there is the ability to communicate to all staff in the station including those driving trains. I believe the emergency services are also able to “tune in” if they are attending an emergency at a LU station. None of this cuts off the normal channels of communication for normal operation but it does aid in having a “holistic” comms channel when an incident has to be managed. I accept I may be out of date but I thought that was what LU was aiming for / had achieved.
I can just see that adding on Crossrail but it being “outside” the stations comms process in terms of incident management may be a tad suboptimal. This is especially relevant given the vast distances and depths involved in the new Crossrail stations. Even allowing for modern construction and new assets to the highest fire protection standards we are still talking about possibly needing to get vast numbers of people away from platforms and trains within minutes if there is a major incident or even just a serious of train breakdowns that block the tunnels. Speedy comms will help meet the need for quick evacuation. I am sure a working arrangement will have been arrived at given the challenge posed by the scale of Crossrail stations and likely passenger volumes.
Walthamstow Writer,
You may well be right. One of the points I was trying to get across in the bit that I wrote was that there are still an awful lot of nitty gritty operating decisions to be sorted out. I think you reply gets this point across better than I could. It also shows up John Bull’s point that you really need to get the Operations Manager and a small team into the project practically at the outset – you don’t want to find yourself sorting out these issues later than you want to because the staffing structure is not yet in place.
As you say, like a lot of things, I am sure it will all be sorted out and I am also sure it will all be tested under exercise conditions just to make sure protocols are in place, adhered to and working.
Nice article.
Suggest more could be said about:
* Line operational issues on the shared section between Westbourne Park and OOC – nothing minor when sharing with GM relief line services, plus HS2 looming from 2026 plus, and WCML-Crossrail eventually. Quart into pint pot comes to mind, when (not if) more than 10 or 20 tph has to be accommodated west of Paddington. This has to some extent been covered by Lemmo in his OOC articles, but merits a reference.
* The not-yet-worked through interface between ETCS and Crossrail signalling at Westbourne Park/Ladbroke Grove (I see that signalling may be in Part 2), where GWML electrification and resignalling costs are in trouble, and timescales may also be under pressure. December 2019 is the desired date for through services west of Paddington, when trains will have to transit between two different signalling systems at 100 kph. (Yes that happens elsewhere, but the systems interface will be another location-specific design that will have to work safely and trouble-free). Also access to the OOC depot is needed from ca. 2017.
* The operational conflicts of seconds-count signalling on Crossrail central tunnel section versus half-minute minimum intervals – and currently minimum 2½ minute headways – west of Ladbroke Grove (not just east of Liverpool Street as mentioned). Also, not discussed, that the Crossrail operator will be penalised if they are 61 seconds late against schedule having transited Central London (in TfL Board paper last summer, I think). That brings the risk of the 7P syndrome – P**s-Poor Preparation and Presentation means P**s-Poor Performance.
Overall, Crossrail wants deliverable service quality guarantees from the operator, but what role does Network Rail have in underpinning that guarantee to either the operator or Crossrail or both?
It will be the passengers who bear the brunt if the underground main line doesn’t interface happily with the aboveground main line, in various dimensions.
@PoP
” If I recall correctly from what I have read, the line was originally electrified at low voltage overhead (1,500 dc I suspect)”.
It was indeed 1500V dc. Indeed, the trains were identical with those used on the local services in Manchester on the contemporary Woodhead electrification (later class 506). The Shenfield ones were converted to ac and became class AM6, later 306.
“It was then realised that the dual 25kV/6.25kV was not really workable. I suspect there was also very little money in the kitty. So the quick and dirty compromise was to lower the track under the bridges. ”
Even quicker and dirtier was to arrange for the neutral sections (between sections with different feed points) to be where clearances were tight. This was, of course, not always possible, particularly where a train would be likely to stop, or be accelerating away from a station.
@John Bull & Pedantic of Purley
This is a really interesting article, as I’m much more keen to know about what is going to happen than what happened in the past. I’m really interested in services rather than tunnels.
Can you clarify a point please. Someone was telling me here BTL on another article that the some of the Crossrail trains from Shenfield will be going to Stratford and then bypassing the Pudding Mill Lane hole, and going to the ground-level platforms at Liverpool Street.
I expressed the view that they wouldn’t: all services from Shenfield will go Stratford then Whitechappel then Liverpool Street/Moorgate and will always go as far as Paddington. This must be the case as they are building a massive sidings for Crossrail at Paddington that stretches all the way to via Royal Oak almost to Westboune Park!
Isn’t one of the points of Crossrail to free up the Shenfield services from the NR platforms at Liverpool Street?
Perhaps I’m wrong… please help!
Briantist,
I did originally briefly cover this but it got culled from a rather long article.
Here is the long version.
The current service from Shenfield to Liverpool St is 15tph in the peaks. Crossrail can only take 12 of those so the original plan was to supplement these with 6tph to Liverpool St (High Level). This was originally not going to be a Crossrail service and would have had different stock but the logic of it being part of Crossrail is fairly obvious. It also means that at times of disruption or planned engineering works Crossrail trains could potentially be diverted to Liverpool St if the capacity was there.
In the event the 6tph became 4tph which is judged to be quite adequate for future demand. The 4tph is confirmed on the Crossrail webpage for the North Eastern Arm although it is shown as “other services”.
You are technically correct in saying “all services from Shenfield will go Stratford then Whitechapel then Liverpool Street/Moorgate and will always go as far as Paddington” as these services will start from Gidea Park in the mornings and terminate there in the evenings. In the contra-flow direction they will run fast as Empty Carriage Stock.
Yes one of the points of Crossrail is to provide capacity at Liverpool but removing 11tph (15 – 4) is still a major benefit and in any case there would still need to be a lot of work at various places to allow this freed up capacity to be used effectively.
@ PoP – thanks for the kind comment. I have fond and sometimes stressful memories of my time working alongside the JLE client team. They were vastly outweighed by the Project Team (no surprise there) but the project had a mind of its own. When the operators were brought on board they faced a mammoth task of trying to get the project leviathan to listen / understand / do what they needed. I remember having to review scheme drawings at 5 minutes notice to make sure ticket offices and gatelines were properly designed. We had a fruitless argument where the project team “reviewed” all my calculations on device quantities and after needless debate they kindly “agreed” the numbers were satisfactory. Given they had no role in determining them or need to review them you can see, from this small example, how daft and lopsided things can get. I even had rather robust discussions with the “man in the green jumper” (aka Architect in Charge Roland Paoletti) about ticket offices. He was almost affronted to have to discuss such a subject with the client’s representative. I won’t deny he did a fantastic job of leaving us with amazing station architecture but the ego was sometimes a bit hard to take!
I think it’s clear that Crossrail really understood long ago that those duplications are ridiculous. Proper discussion and debate with the right people who represent their disciplines professionally is essential but everyone needs to know when to stop and to know who can take the final decision and live with the consequences. There’s a bit of me that would love to be involved now with Crossrail but it’s too late for that as there’s no great scope to influence the shape of things now. It’s about getting it all delivered where you need “nasty” (in the positive sense of the word) project managers who can crack the whip but at the same time understand and work with the operators to give the right result. Too easy for PMs to deliver something and then walk away leaving a half functional mess behind but I suspect Mssrs Morgan, Wolstenholme and Smith won’t allow that.
On the all-doors-open versus passenger-door-control point, it’s not quite as clear cut between Underground and main line. The S stock trains have doors that close automatically if they aren’t used by passengers within a certain time, which would help with the “waiting to leave a freezing cold platform at Shenfield” problem.
Currently in the high evening peak TfL rail trains skip stations outbound from Liverpool Street either 2 between Stratford and Ilford or between Ilford and Chadwell Heath.
Is it definitive that NE section trains going down t’hole will all stop at all stations?
Surely NR must be able to accommodate leaky-feeder CCTV? There’s a multitude of DOO systems currently in use- I think the GA West Anglia may use them all. The 379s on Stansted Express/some Cambridge services use the bodyside cameras and in cab monitors, but the same drivers also use 317s which are not fitted for that and have a combination of platform CCTV & monitors, look-back and I think there may even be some mirrors? If sharing with stock not fitted with in-cab monitors it should surely be possible to set up so that platform cameras feed both in-cab and platform mounted monitors?
David,
Yes. The aforementioned Crossrail page makes this clear in the supplied table.
Al__S,
Of course Network Rail can do leaky feeder. The point is that Crossrail is not content to be told “this is the Network Rail way of doing things”. It is just these things have to be sorted out years in advance – and remember that Network Rail will need to have to learn how to maintain these.
@Pedantic of Purley
Thanks for the clarification.
” The 4tph is confirmed on the Crossrail webpage for the North Eastern Arm although it is shown as “other services”.”
So, will this “other Service” be called “TFL·Rail” ?
“You are technically correct in saying “all services from Shenfield will go Stratford then Whitechapel then Liverpool Street/Moorgate and will always go as far as Paddington” as these services will start from Gidea Park in the mornings and terminate there in the evenings.”
OK, now I see.
“Yes one of the points of Crossrail is to provide capacity at Liverpool but removing 11tph (15 – 4) is still a major benefit.”
Yes, agreed. Would be great if it could allow London Overground movements to the Bethnal Green viaduct!
Thanks for the answer, now next puzzlement: why reduce the voltage to 6.25 kV? The additional equpment would obviously not have save money…
Southern Heights
To reduce the risk of “flashover” or induced current where other structures are close to the live cable.Lower voltage means a smaller clearance is necessary.
@PoP 4 June 2015 at 17:17 “In the event the 6tph became 4tph which is judged to be quite adequate for future demand. ”
4tph Crossrail length trains instead of 6tph current length trains.
@ Briantist – I think the only logical thing for the “other service” is to call it Crossrail despite only going to Liverpool St. If I have understood the branding strategy correctly I believe the Crossrail name will be used from 2017 onwards when the brand new trains start running into Liverpool Street from Shenfield. I can understand TfL not wanting to associate the name of a multi billion pound transformative project with 40 year old trains hence the TfL Rail name in use now. I have not examined the new signage closely at Stratford but I’d not be shocked if the Crossrail name was underneath a TfL Rail vinyl overlay. The Crossrail name is certainly blanked over on signs in the new bit of Tottenham Court Road. I would certainly expect the refurbishment of stations on the Shenfield line to end up with roundels / signs branded for Crossrail but with TfL Rail stickers over the top until such time as TfL wish to utilise the name on stations alongside the new trains. It’ll be interesting to see how this pans out. I also expect Crossrail will be used on the Paddington – Heathrow service which replaces Heathrow Connect in 2018 but I wonder if any TfL signs will be allowed on HAL owned stations at Heathrow itself.
I don’t see why the release of train paths into the eastern side of Liverpool St will do anything to allow more Overground trains which run into the western side. The stated plan is to bolster longer distance Greater Anglia services from Essex and Suffolk into Liverpool St. The only way West Anglia services would ever benefit is if Network Rail’s plan for a flyover at the west end of Stratford station was built to allow Stansted trains to run via Stratford and into Liverpool St. That plan (in their Connectivity document) is not funded and I doubt it ever will be – it seems like an awful lot of money just to reroute 4 or possibly 6 trains an hour. You would then get into a debate about who claims the released paths via Hackney Downs – are they used for local services or by more trains running in from Essex via Bishops Stortford / Broxbourne? You also have the added complications of potential 4 tracking, STAR and Crossrail 2 and how they all fit together and what emerges at the end. I wouldn’t like to try and guess what the future holds. I suggest we pause because we’ve done all this before and it’s not really relevant to the next phase of Crossrail 1.
According to Wikipedia (i.e. handle with care), 6.25 kV AC was converted after further tests showed it to be unnecessary. I’ve quoted the relevant paragraphs below….can anyone confirm their veracity?
‘Early 50 Hz AC railway electrification in the United Kingdom used sections at 6.25 kV AC where there was limited clearance under bridges and in tunnels. Rolling stock was dual-voltage with automatic switching between 25 kV and 6.25 kV. The 6.25 kV sections were converted to 25 kV AC as a result of research work that demonstrated that the distance between live and earthed equipment could be reduced from that originally thought to be necessary.
‘The research was done using a steam engine beneath a bridge at Crewe. A section of 25 kV overhead line was gradually brought closer to the earthed metalwork of the bridge whilst being subjected to steam from the locomotive’s chimney. The distance at which a flashover occurred was measured and this was used as a basis from which new clearances between overhead equipment and structures were derived.’
@Walthamstow Writer
“I think the only logical thing for the “other service” is to call it Crossrail despite only going to Liverpool St. ”
Perhaps. It just seems odd from a marketing perspective to have a service with that names where some of the train’s don’t cross.
“I have not examined the new signage closely at Stratford but I’d not be shocked if the Crossrail name was underneath a TfL Rail vinyl overlay.”
I had a good old look (and took photos) and I can’t see anything off the sort on the inside at Stratford. The sign out front looks very, very peel off though. Given the TFL-Rail signs are TFL corporate Blue and Crossrail has a specific Pantone purple, I think we will get new signs when the service starts (because of the need to show beyond Liverpool Street).
“I don’t see why the release of train paths into the eastern side of Liverpool St will do anything to allow more Overground trains which run into the western side. ”
OK. I’ve Googled and come up with http://www.simsig.co.uk/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=simulations:liverpoolstreet for the track layout.
I kind-of-read-somewhere that a flyover was part of the plan. The reason I think I got it in my head is that the obvious place for the Overground trains – because they are short – is Platforms 16 to 18. The really obvious place for longer long-distance trains is Platforms 1 to 5.
In my head it is easier, once Crossrail is plumbed to the new below-ground tunnel to swap the pathways over to make better use of the Platform lengths to match the services.
This is way beyond what I’m capable of guessing. But my running assumption here is that if you take out the suburban services it allows an opportunity for the track to be relayed and the “Suburban” to swap to the (8 car) shorter platforms 15-18 and the “Main” to get 12-car platforms 1 to 9 and “Electric” to map onto (8-car) 10-14. With the Stansted Express trains getting a couple of fixed platforms wherever works best.
This would, in the long term, make better use of the resources.
I went to Stratford briefly a couple of evenings ago and it seemed like proper emamel signs with no vinyl. Most are located so as to be easy to remove and repaint/spray.
Don’t get too carried away with Liverpool St and the current layout. It will all change once Crossrail takes the majority of Shenfield trains away. In particular on the eastern side (high number platforms) you will have fewer but longer platforms – long enough to take a Crossrail train in fact. Note that the TfL Rail service from 2017 into Liverpool St (high level) will only be formed of 7-carriages so in terms of train length more or less identical to today. Only once Heathrow Connect comes under the Crossrail umbrella will they have a chance to run full-length Crossrail trains in service.
Note that the loss of at least one platform at Liverpool St (which probably means a loss of 4tph capacity) means that the 11tph into Liverpool St freed off by Crossrail is actually more like 7tph. Again, as stated previously, that is assuming that there are not constraints elsewhere (which there are). A bit like Thameslink, the increased capacity is really down to longer trains rather than more of them and the other benefit is the direct connection to Central London. Don’t delude yourself that, to the East of London, Crossrail means more trains. It might mean one or two more trains but nothing substantial.
Re Southern Heights
Transformer cost less then £150k (excluding transportation, neutral sections, installation)
Raising a bridge on a 4 track sections cost = £Xm.
Re Anonymous
Flashover in air depends on:
The impurities in air usually water with impurities in this case steam or diesel emissions (i.e. both contain partial combusted soot)
&
More importantly on the shape of the objects concerned – this has the much larger effect on the ability to generate the electric field strength required for breakdown to occur (circa 3MV/m for dry air). This is much easier if you have 2 lightening rods (spikes) or the standard test method of 2 spheres rather than effectively in geometric terms a wire and flat plate. Also where you have 2 different shapes the field strength will not be uniform between the two objects, in this case it will be much higher near the wire and very low the plate (bridge) making it far harder to achieve break down than simple theory at the time. i.e. the geometry of the actual situation gave them the room to do this.
The modern method would be to get the finite element software out and model it. I have a decent package on an old PC but not the time currently to give a very good answer (legacy of PhD spent playing with HV).
Regarding the GE line electrification to Shenfield – yes this was at 1500V dc (in 1949), which was extended to Southend Victoria and Chelmsford in the 1950s. Apart from the lower clearance requirement under bridges, etc., a major reason for the use of 6.25kV on conversion to 50Hz ac was that the clearance were the same as for the dc, so the change over was done over a weekend (with a steam/diesel service maintained!) – it was just (AIUI) a matter of replugging the overhead from dc to ac supply (and rearranging the stabled emus) – for Liverpool St -Shenfield – Southend. The line to Chelmsford was converted to 25kV, and took a few months to do.
ISTR (from what I read) the Crew clearance trials also involved putting dummy locomen on the steam loco (in various places). And they did result in reduced requirements – which, with a reduced loading gauge, meant the LM Western Lines electrification could could be 25kV throughout, all the way into Euston.
Once the teething problems with the dual 6.25/25kV (which were severe – especially on the Glasgow Blue trains) had been sorted, I didn’t think there were any great problems with it – converting to 25kV (only) was more a matter of convenience/simplification than need: IIRC class 315 (and Glasgow area 314) were built as dual (6.25/25k) voltage, as were the GE (but not GN or LM) class 312s.
The other Gerry Fiennes story on the Shenfield electrification is from opening, on day one with new signalling, when he was on the platform end at Stratford, and the driver of the first train said ‘Guv, I need a pilot man, don’t know the road’ to which the reply was ‘Nor does anyone else, there aren’t any pilot men, off you go’, which he (and all the drivers) did – very cautiously for the first week or so until they became familiar with it.
By contrast on the line out to Shenfield the loading gauge at stations tended to be narrower than the average
??
Quote: “We had persuaded the Ministry (of Transport 1947-8) to go 4 inches out of guage with them”
G F Feinnes, referring to what later became class 306 units for the intial Shenfield electrification, in “I Tried to run a Railway”
Yet one can also imagine passenger complaints about waiting on a cold train at Abbey Wood on a winter’s morning, or the near pointless opening of all the doors at lightly-used Iver station. Indeed – or a cold day & Moor Park or “Ricky” on the current “Met” services – p.o.d. operation would be a very good idea on some existing LUL services – the outer reaches of the Central & District lines can be distinctly chilly, too.
How much energy would be saved in winter by having p.o.d’s I wonder?
timbeau
According to both my copies of “Locomotives of the LNER” (RCTS) & an ancient Ian Allen spotters book, what were later designated classes 306 & 506 were very similar, but not identical. Certainly if you rode in them ( I have ) the internal layout was different, as were the headlight arrangenets.
SH (Lt Rly)
6.25 = 1/4 of 25
Easy to arrange with electric traction = 0.25 the Volts & 4x the Amps. Switchover was automatic, but, as I’ve said elsewhere,the thumps & bangs in a power-car when accelerating through such a changeover could be “interesting”
@Greg
“6.25 = 1/4 of 25
Easy to arrange with electric traction = 0.25 the Volts & 4x the Amps. Switchover was automatic, but, as I’ve said elsewhere,the thumps & bangs in a power-car when accelerating through such a changeover could be “interesting” ”
True, but same would apply for 5 kv (0.2 the volts & 5x the Amps) or any other voltage.
More likely due to there being four traction motors arranged series under 25Kv and parallel under 6.25 kV.
Before they open the new stations, they ought to give some of them names which are more in keeping with their location. A few are no longer fit for purpose: Bond Street (actually no longer exists) Liverpool Street (a tiny, obscure dead end) and Tottenham Court Road (where is the court anyway?).
I think they should be called, respectively: Mayfair, Bishopsgate and Soho. Any takers?
Anon: Two transformer primary windings – in series for 25kV, in parallel for 6.25kV. Traction motors 750V dc and not part of this process! Trouble is when it fails to switch back from parallel to series when supply changes from 6.25 to 25 – BANG.
@Hugh Terry
Someone always wants to do that. Tottenham Court was where the big glass building opposite Euston Tower (of Capital Radio fame).
I’m going to award you one gold shiny moot point.
@Hugh Terry – 5 June 2015 at 11:42
I fear this smacks of the answer to a request for directions: “If I were going there, I wouldn’t start from here.” For better or worse, many London stations, first railway, then UndergrounD, have ended in many case donating their names to the area they serve.
So, from the examples you give:
Bond Street – “I’ll meet you on Oxford Street, outside Bond Street” makes perfect sense.
Liverpool Street is no longer thought of as a street, but the station which bears its name.
There are many other examples of mis-placed station names:
Clapham Junction (in Battersea, named for nearest settlement at the time)
Putney Bridge (in Fulham, off Fulham High Street, once named Putney Bridge & Hurlingham)
Fulham Broadway (in Walham Green, once named thus, re-named at request of local traders to increase trade, and ensuring that the name of Walham Green vanished into obscurity)
West Kensington (in Fulham, named at behest of 19th.Century developers who thought Kensington classier for their new estates – and we thought that was a new idea).
That said, thereare some names which, with the increased provision of renewed services cause confusion: Bethnal Green (overground) and Bethnal Green (Central Line) for example. These are the cases that need addressing.
According to this site
http://www.scot-rail.co.uk/page/electrification
all Scottish 6.25kV sections were converted to 25kV by 1979, so the 1980-vintage 314s would not need to be capable of it.
This article states that Liv Street to Southend was converted by 1980, again suggesting that the 315s had no need of a 6.25kV capability, and I can find no mention of any PEP-type unit having it.
Indeed, it would obviously be undesirable to go to the expense of fitting the extra equipment on units destined for lines about to be converted, so in both cases it was probably the imminent arrival of these new 25kV-only units (and of course the class 86s on the Norwich services) which drove the timing of the conversions.
oops – link to second article here
http://www.railsimulator.com/support-assets/f412061b6c099842eb5b9536e759da90/GEML%20London%20Ipswich.pdf
A really clever trick with passenger-operated button doors is one that has been implemented on the new (M5000) trams on Manchester Metrolink, and which the 345s on Crossrail should copy:
The button can be pushed while the tram is moving.
The door will then open as soon as the doors are released, so it loses the delay between the door being released by the driver and the passenger pushing the door button. If you’re standing by the doors and it’s throwing it down (not a rare occurrence in Manchester), not being rained on at every stop is greatly appreciated. Trams are currently delivering a 30tph service in the core with room to spare, and are expected to go up to 45tph so the platform dwell times must be pretty small.
The button LEDs have a nice simple pattern:
Off: not at a stop, not pushed.
Flashing Green: not at a stop, doors will open when they are released
Red: Door released but not open
Green: Door opening / open
Platform-edge doors could work the same way, but it seems much more important at outdoor stations, especially in the winter. Perhaps the doors could open when released at underground stations, but require a button-press elsewhere?
@Hugh terry
“(where is [Tottenham] court anyway?).”
Unsurprisingly, it was at the far end of Tottenham Court Road!
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/old-new-london/vol4/pp467-480
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol21/pt3/pp120-121
The Euston Road now cuts through the estate, but Fitzroy Square is a relic of it.
The name is actually a corruption of Tottenhall, and probably has no connection with London N16
@Richard Gadsden
I have seen trams abroad that have this feature, and the buttons also – as I discovered by missing my request stop! – give a signal to the driver.
Anon
See Isambard, who has beaten me to it … ( & ) The power feed might have been 25 or 6.25kV AC, but the traction motors would all have been 750V DC, so maybe not ….
Richard Gadsden
Croydon Tramlink has had those for some time.
Of course, it’s much too sensible an idea for a train operator to copy, especially from “someone else’s railway” (or tramway) ??
@Hugh Terry/John UK….Plus add in the expense of changing the name of all the associated interchange stations (no one wants to add to the confusion with ‘alight here at Bishopsgate for main line and Underground services’…..but there’s no other Bishopsgate station, only Liverpool Street???), it ends up simpler to keep things as they are. When they renamed Shepherds Bush to Shepherds Bush Market on the H&C (to avoid confusion with the the new interchange station on the LO/Central Line), I remember reading somewhere that this was more complicated and expensive than it first looks (imagine all the line diagrams at stations that have to be changed, for example!), which was why this was the the first example of a station name change on the tube since Surrey Docks/Quays in 1989.
The Metrolink door idea sounds great…..another good alternative would be to have the doors driver operated within the tunnels (where the platform edge doors renders them redundant anyway), and passenger operated outside of them. For existing tube lines, either idea might work, but could end up just confusing people further, leading to increased platform dwell times (which was the reason for their removal in the first place). It never ceases to amaze me how many people still press the door opening button (usually on the platform) on tube trains that still have this once they stop, even though they have no effect!
@Timbeau & Richard Gadsden
It’s also used on Croydon Tramlink (from opening)
It must be a relatively new feature, because the original T68 trams (from 1992) didn’t have it on Metrolink.
It annoys me every time I get on a new train that they don’t do it.
@timbeau
I think you mean N15 and N17, not N16.
Passenger operated doors.
I am curious as to why this facility was removed from 38TS, D78 and TS85. Also Class 313.
ORR is now the Office of Rail and Road, not the reverse. I suppose it’s heartening that they still consider rail to be the more important part of their remit.
timbeau, John Terry
And if you are at Tottenham Court Road station ignore the first of the large display panels that starts with the origin of the station name. They get the location of Tottenham Court wrong (wrong end of Tottenham Court Road). A result, I fear and suspect, of blindly copying an erroneous entry in Wikipedia (now corrected).
@WW/Briantist
““ call it Crossrail despite only going to Liverpool St. seems odd from a marketing perspective to have a service with that names where some of the trains don’t cross”
It will also be necessary to make it clear to passengers from out east that Crossrail trains terminating at Liverpool Street will not be all-stations – especially as the station omitted – Whitechapel – will be a major interchange.
@Greg/Isambard/Anon
“The power feed might have been 25 or 6.25kV AC, but the traction motors would all have been 750V DC”
All electric trains include dc at some point in the power train – even those using ac supply and driving modern ac asynchronous motors (of which I think the Class 365s were the first on British Rail) have to have a dc supply to be “chopped” to the variable frequency needed to run a train at variable speeds.
@Anon
“Passenger operated doors.
I am curious as to why this facility was removed from ………Class 313.”
It was discovered very quickly that the doors could be opened whilst the train was in motion if you pulled the handle that controlled the doors hard enough.
@anon
“N15 and N17, not N16”
A lucky guess that I managed to split the difference!
@ Timbeau, Greg, Isambard
I wasn’t suggesting that the class 306 traction motors took 25 kV AC. For a start the motors were DC. But we are talking a long time ago, before electronic traction packages and DC links. Everything was electro-mechanical.
The way it worked was the HV AC was fed into one side of the transformer. On the other side was an electro-mechanical device called a tap changer, controlled by the power controller in the cab. The tap changer setting or “notch” varied the output voltage from the transformer by connecting a different number of turns on the output side of the transformer. The output AC was then rectified to DC and fed to the motor. As I recall the full output voltage was about 1000V.
Now, if you reduce the input voltage to the transformer by 4 (from 25 kV to 6.25 kV) then the output will be reduced by the same factor, say from 1000V to 250V. If this were just fed straight to the motors then the train would immediately slow down when the voltage reduced and speed up when the voltage increased.
To get round the train could carry two transformers (one for each voltage) which would also require two tap changers and all becomes a bit expensive. Simpler to arrange for the motors to be connected in series at the higher voltage and parallel at the lower. 4 traction motors per train hence 25kV and 6.25 kV.
Obviously this wouldn’t work with trains that didn’t have 4 (or a multiple of 4, in which case connection would be series-parallel) traction motors. But all the AC EMUs and locomotives had 4 traction motors at that time (even the Cass 80 conversion of the Gas Turbine loco used for driver training on the WCML was converted from a Co-Co to A1A-A1A). All lines with 6.25kV had been converted to 25kV only before any complicated chopper control appeared, and this may have been one of the drivers in eliminating it.
Briantist (in Gigabit internet heaven) 4 June 2015 at 17:01
” some of the Crossrail trains from Shenfield will be going to Stratford and then bypassing the Pudding Mill Lane hole, and going to the ground-level platforms at Liverpool Street.”
There are three new bridges over Marshgate Lane E15, just east of Pudding Mill Lane Portal & DLR station to allow exactly that.
A couple of pedantic points on an otherwise excellent article.
1) If the 25kV is switched off, the train battery will keep ventilation fans running on the train, but it is unlikely in the extreme that sufficient battery capacity could reasonably be provided to run the cooling compressors.
2) LU’s radio is called variously “train radio”, “station radio” or “Connect”. It uses the Tetra technology. LU provides facilities for the emergency services to use their “Airwave” radios on the LU Tetra network, but emergency services radios cannot communicate with an LU radio. Airwave is a brand name for a particular radio operator’s Tetra product.
[I stand corrected had have changed the article so that it refers to the Tetra Network. I have always referrred to it as Airwave and no-one has ever corrected me. PoP]
@Anon 1644
AIUI, for the dual (6.25/25kV) voltage units the input side of the main transformer had tap changers working on a 4 to 1 basis, for the different line voltages, leading for the 306 & 307 units (converted from dc) via rectifier to a (fixed) 1500V dc supply to the pre-existing dc control equipment, while the new ac units had more tap changers on the output side (somewhere) for control, passing variable voltage ac through rectifiers to give a dc supply for the motors. In both cases there was series/parallel switching also, but only as part of the control ciruitry.
The use of dc motors was driven by the difficulty of making a successful fixed 50 Hz frequency but variable speed motor – lower 16-25Hz frequency motors were practicable, hence the use of such frequncies for early electrification schemes, mainly abroad – the development of power electronics over the last 40-50 years has led to variable frequency drives.
Anon
IMHO this is getting too technical for LR….have a look at http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_EMUFailures1962.pdf
Cheers
I
Wow, what an interesting report!
Just goes to show that engineering cock-ups and resulting service impacts due to the rapid implementation of new, inadequately-tested technology is not a new phenomenon ;). Reminds me of the debacle with the Westinghouse transmission-based signalling they were going to use on the JLE, but had to abandon due to the delays and technical difficulties of implementation in time to open for an arbitrary date (to serve the Millenium Dome exhibition at the turn of the century).
To bring it back on topic, let’s just hope Crossrail have learnt these lessons, for all our sakes….
During the mixed 6.25kV/25kV era there were no changeover points on the London side of Shenfield so the whole line from Liv St to Shenfield was 6.25kV.
On the ELL London Overground does have an “ignore the timetable” policy. When this was introduced it was applied in both directions between Dalston Jn and Surrey Quays. Drivers were instructed to depart as soon as station duties were complete and not to wait time. The problem was that by the time southbound trains reached the south end of the core they were often 3 to 4 minutes early and passengers (especially at Canada Water) were missing trains despite arriving on the platform comfortably before the booked departure time. As southbound trains serve 4 different destinations this meant they had to wait over 15 mins for the next train to the right destination and there were a large number of complaints. The policy was then revised to only apply northbound. As far as I know it is still in force
@ Briantist – given that Crossrail branded trains will be running into Liverpool St (surface) for 1.5-2 years before they can go via the tunnel I don’t see a problem. I am sure that TfL will mount an enormous advertising and familiarisation campaign for Crossrail as the service slowly grows and extends and is linked together. The fact that there will be a residual peak time service to the surface station will simply be part of the learning curve. There will also be a time in 2018/19 when Crossrail will be running frequent services in the tunnel *and* on the surface at Liverpool Street! People will simply have to keep looking at platform displays or checking the timetable. There will be a learning curve for commuters over a wide area that will last almost 2 years. A similar issue will also apply to Thameslink but with not quite so many stages of service changes. It will be interesting to compare the approaches taken by the respective controlling organisations.
Your comments re swapping sides at Liv St make little sense to me. The Stratford flyover is in the Network Rail Anglia Connectivity consultation document. I don’t see much of that ever coming to fruition so I expect the very long standing operational practice at Liv St to remain largely unchanged. If it works why try and fix it?
Thanks to you and PoP for feedback on the signs at Stratford. I sit corrected.
@ Hugh Terry – no name changes please. A recipe for utter chaos, confusion and needless expense. I understand the recent one day sponsor’s renaming of Canada Water was not exactly without issues for passengers who were completely bewildered as to what was going on especially as the London Marathon attracts a lot of visitors and new users to the rail network. I don’t understand the never ending desire to fiddle with station names. Ideas related to station renaming so as to suit big business are also ludicrous. It’s a transport system not a silver tea set to be flogged off to bolster the short term bank balance.
Richard and Greg re: door buttons useable before tram stops; it may be due to the difference in the typical environment trains and trams run through in case of an incorrect door release ie a stop short, between stations, or wrong side. It would likely be a bigger drop down from a train, have conductor rails, many lines, fast trains passing, be in an isolated cutting rather than near a street etc etc. SDO and exterior detectors make it less of a problem but rail operators like consistency as a rule ie work to the most restrictive.
Briantist, WW: It strikes me that – although not without precedent – it would be somewhat odd to brand XR services into Liverpool St high level as non-XR when the trains themselves will be drawn from a fully-branded XR Class 345 pool.
I don’t think that changing Crossrail station names is the way to go as other contributors have stated. Going slightly off topic I can think of a few station names that are plain misleading and require attention.
The worst has to be Knockholt, about 3.5 miles as the crow flies from the place it is supposed to serve. Pratt’s Bottom is at least within walking distance, or maybe Broke Hill Links, after the nearby golf course.
When you travel from East Dulwich why do you head south west to reach North Dulwich? Maybe Dulwich Village would be better.
If you wanted to visit “The Mansion House” you would get of at Bank, its right outside the station. Mansion House station could become “Bread Street”, which at least shows that the station’s location is nowhere in particular.
Loughborough Junction sounds like it should be in Leicestershire. Renamed Loughborough Road maybe? Not sure about this one.
And finally, City Thameslink (what a silly name). Holborn Viaduct or Ludgate, either one of these is more geographically correct. You could argue that since its a double ended station, you can’t use one name. Most central Crossrail stations are double ended and get away with using one name.
@BJG -_ I’m sure you are right.Nor is it worth fiddling with non-Crossrail station names. Everyone (except of course American tourists – and why should we pander to them?) knows that Liverpool Street is nowhere near its eponymous city, that Oxford Circus is not Oxford or that Great Portland Street doesn’t lead to the Dorset headland. [Street names are no better – Leicester Square reflects its previous ownership,not that it leads to Leicester, noone plays pellmell in Pall Mall any more, Bread is no longer sold in Bread Street (except perhaps as sandwiches),nor hay in Fenchurch Street or the Haymarket, but everyone knows where they are – even Uber drivers…. So no need to change there either].
City Thameslink as a name was the price we had to pay for a slug of City money towards it
It looks like there is a lot of scope for timetable wrangling. The shenfield service is covered well, but I can’t help thinking the real stinker will be when people discover there are only 4 per hour to Heathrow, even in the peaks (and none from Shenfield). Perhaps I am the only one imagining the crowded peak hour central London stations getting clogged up with luggage as air travellers let up to three trains go while waiting for a Heathrow train.
Similarly, who will want to get a Heathrow Express service to Paddington when you can get a through train that actually goes directly into Central London, not a big old shed in the suburbs.
Sooner or later the Heathrow Express bullet will need to be bitten and H.E. bought out with the service replaced with 8 Crossrail per hour to Heathrow on the slow lines (4 to T4, 4 to T5), calling at all stations, with the four services in the H.E paths ultimately running to Reading via Slough when the western extension is built. This will enable an end to the skipstop stopping patterns on the GWML suburban services.
The release of the HE expresses from the fast lines will also allow more trains from Oxford etc. to run on the fast and enable up to 12 slots on the slow lines all day, rather than the planned 10 peak and 8 offpeak. This will enable an end to the skipstop stopping patterns on the GWML suburban services.
@BJG….actually, Knockholt station was previously named after the village of Halstead (which it is much nearer to), but then the name was changed at the instigation of the deputy chairman of the newly formed SECR in 1900, to avoid confusion with Halstead Essex (whose station is now long gone), and entirely coincidently (!) with him moving to Knockholt. Renaming it Pratt’s Bottom would be amusing though…..probably the rudest station name in the country? =D.
City Thameslink I distinctly remember opening as St Paul’s Thameslink…..wasn’t it renamed to avoid confusion with the Tube station (otherwise people might have thought there was an interchange)?
@Paul….you’re suggestion to buy out HEx and reuse the train paths is far too eminently sensible and well thought out to actually put into practice by those in power! Maybe if everyone at LR chips in, we could buy it out ourselves? Shouldn’t cost much more than a million a head ;).
@ Anonymous at 15:01 I seem to recall reading that the Corporation of the City of London would gave preferred City Thameslink station to be named Ludgate Hill. Unfortunately I cannot now recall where and when I read this. Does anyone know why City Thameslink was chosen? It smacks of the same type of thinking that when local government boundaries were changed following the Maude Report there was a proposal that Greater Manchester (as we know it) be called SELNEC ( South East Lancashire North East Cheshire). Indeed the Manchester PTE buses displayed that name for some time but curiously the great British public showed no affection for this exciting new name.
Would it be more helpful if the four double ended stations on Crossrail were called Liverpool St & Moorgate, Farringdon & Barbican, Tottenham Court Road & Dean St, and Bond Street & Hanover Square? When passengers leave the Crossrail trains there could be signs directing them to their required interchange and/or exit.
Re various “name changes” suggested by commenters above and in other posts.
I am firmly with Graham H on this. I might even go further (not willing to assume too much) in that any pandering to those who are unable to find out where they are meant to be except by the name of a tube or railway station is not on! It is a slippery slope and appears to be the result of the lack of any geographical awareness – what else – except maybe an unwillingness or inability to use anything as archaic as a map.
Never ending clamour would result if the illogicality (in the opinion of some of today’s travellers) was tackled by name changes. And no doubt before long a Mr Pratt who lived near the newly re-named Pratt’s Bottom and who caught the train to London each day would be petitioning for the name to be changed to something else as he felt demeaned by the hilarity that was engendered by the station name.
@RichardB – yes, the whole map disappeared into a fog of bizarre names when Radcliffe Maude hit. Does anyone feel loyalty to Dacorum? Or Mole Valley? [At the time, one of my colleagues had just finished a stint as Secretary to Radcliffe Maude’s Commission and fondly recalled a session organised by the consultants for the outgoing Chief executives of the authorities to be amalgamated. “Would they”, the consultant asked at the beginning of the session,” like to choose a logo for the combined authority?” The blunt Yorkshiremen present said they would not; they would rather stay independent. The consultant was pressing and eventually, one CEO drew a circle with a dot in the middle. “Good” said the consultant; “Now, do you feel loyalty to that?” ]
@0775John, the village of Great Snoring is reputed to have a leading citizen, Mr |Gotobed.
PRATT’S BOTTOM
I remember reading a restaurant review (Evening Standard C.1970)
“Geographically, this restaurant is situate approximately midway between Elmers End and Pratt’s Bottom” Gastronomically, it’s about the same”
[This is the third time you have mentioned this. Could this be the last time, please? PoP]
I always liked BANES – Bath And North East Somerset. Someone clearly wasn’t thinking when a local authority was given that name. Google suggests that the LA (unsurprisingly) prefers BATHNES, but the other moniker remains well-entrenched, not least in the local CAB.
@ Paul, Beds – have you already seen the Crossrail timetable? I’m wondering how you know that there will not be through trains from Shenfield to Heathrow.
Many years ago I was given a proposed Crossrail Working Timetable. This was back when it was a LT / NSE joint project and before there was a branch to Abbey Wood.
@Graham H
“City Thameslink as a name was the price we had to pay for a slug of City money towards it”
if that had been the case, surely it would be called Merril Lynch Central or the like. It was changed from St Pauls TL, as I understand it, because the London Fire Brigade wanted clearer distinction from the Central Line station.
The Swiss have commuter trains where the door buttons become live before the train stops, and the doors even open around 2 seconds before the train finally stops. Works perfectly fine on the trains in to Zurich…
@timbeau – it was City corporation money, not the private sector’s. At the time, we had a choice: the city had offered us in excess of £15m (as I recall) for a transport-related project. The internal debate was whether this, or an intermediate station on the Drain at Blackfriars, was better. There was strong feeling in favour of TLK.
Certainly agree with everyone that name changes to the central stations is unnecessary.
I think the only place you could conceivably make a case for it is at Canary Wharf, with the three separate and not directly connected stations for Crossrail, DLR and underground. That said, given that it is primarily a business district and not really a tourist destination, the typical traveller will be regular in nature and can still probably deal with it okay.
@ambient
” name changes to the central stations is [sic] unnecessary.
it is primarily a business district ……..the typical traveller will be regular in nature and can still probably deal with it okay”
Business premises have visitors too.
Having had to patiently explain to many visitors coming to my office and to the nearby church that Holborn station is not actually very near Holborn itself, and in particular Holborn Circus, I beg to differ. (Not helped by the fact that the nearest station is not actually shown on the Tube map at all!)
The name of a station, or indeed a line, is not a problem for the regular traveller, who would cope whatever the station was called. If some anti-royalist future mayor were to change the name of the “grey” line to the Oliver Cromwell line, the regulars would still find their way around. It is the visitors, tourists etc who would struggle.
@WW@ Briantist – “given that Crossrail branded trains will be running into Liverpool St (surface) for 1.5-2 years before they can go via the tunnel I don’t see a problem”.
We have a similar situation south of the river, which has even more potential for confusion. Some so-called Thameslink services currently run to London Bridge and terminate there, with no simple way of continuing through the core (unlike the future situation we are discussing for Crossrail at Liverpool Street, where it will simply be a case of going downstairs). This running of both “Thameslink” and “Southern” services (in reality the same franchise) over the same route between Croydon and one London terminus, whilst other “Thameslink” services take a totally different route to another central London destination, is supposedly done to avoid confusing the punters.
@Graham H….so that’s where all those past rumours of a new Blackfriars station on the Drain come from! Looking back, do you think the right decision was made?
@ Timbeau – sure although the concept of Thameslink trains starting from London Bridge to head south operated for a long period while work was ongoing on the Thameslink core with months of weekend closures. I got caught by that.
We will also have disjointed Crossrail operation with services run out of Liverpool St and Paddington before any tunnels open. We then have “upstairs downstairs” operation at both Paddington and Liverpool St when the first stage of tunnels open. We then progressively join bits together and then scale up the service offer with FGW, in particular, dropping away on Paddington suburban services. Operationally that’s a big job in and of itself. I still can’t get my head round how trains will run the tunnel section when officially there is no connection to either Old Oak Common or Ilford where most of the trains will be stabled and serviced. I know a facility is being built at Plumstead but I didn’t think that was a fully fledged depot. I trust LR will cover the fascinating logistics involved in rolling stock deployment at some point. Of course it may be the case that interim signalling is provided to allow empty stock moves east and west but which would not support an intensive public timetabled service.
The passenger comms will also be a big job as will things like signage, journey planners and (shout it not too loudly) how the Tube Map will show all of this!! Just think – a new tube map every 6 months for almost 2 years just to cater for Crossrail. 🙂 And then we have to add on Barking Riverside, Battersea Extension and Met to Watford Junction.
Alternatively we already have this map –
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Sameboat_temp_cc4.svg
It shows OSI details if you position your cursor over the interchange symbol and the lines flash if you click on them.
tjw
As does le (la?) Metro de Paris …
timbeau & others on name-changes:
Err … how many names have the present UndergrounD stations called Charing Cross & Embankment had, between them, then?
Though I am of the opinion that this is “the exception that proves the rule”, maybe.
“When it was decided to eliminate the 6.25kV sections and have a universal overhead line voltage of 25kV they solved the problem of clearance by lowering the track” – don’t think so. One of the factors behind eliminating 6.25kV was that it was discovered that 25kV clearances were over-generous, with 6.25kV ones being adequate for the higher voltage. So there was no problem of clearance to be solved, by lowering the track or otherwise.
So, if the platforms being too high must be for a reason that is not connected with AC electrification.
Are the new 345 units replacing the old stock overnight or will, as I suspect, there be a transition period? In that case, surely TfL would be mad to brand the Shenfield to Liverpool Street service as Crossrail from the first day a 345 appears. (Here’s your shiny new Crossrail train next to a 40 year old Crossrail train but neither are going a-Cross London by Rail yet.) I’d introduce the new trains in their purple livery but devoid of Crossrail roundels or with vinyls. Iron out any glitches, let the trains run in and when the full allocation is operating (or when Crossrail proper opens) introduce the Crossrail brand on this route. Let TfL Rail take the blame until the Cinderella Crossrail is ready to shine.
Having seen the negative responses to Overground (West Anglia) last week, I can’t help but feel the TfL Rail brand should have been applied here too until new, reliable trains were working and basics like Twitter information and stock/driver availability ironed out.
The same approach could be used if TfL takes over other routes which it intends to brand Overground, Crossrail (2) etc.
How do the fire brigade cope with all the Sudbury stations, if St Paul’s Thameslink was bad…
@ Anon5 – I rather suspect that a measured approach will be taken about the swap over to the Crossrail brand. For all the reasons you say there may be reputational damage in the early days. However we need to be realistic and accept that even when everything is shiny and bright things will break down and fail. It’s inevitable even with a lot of preparation and testing and training which I expect Crossrail will certainly do.
Not sure I agree about temporary branding and later swap overs for Overground. I understand the logic for Crossrail given it has its own hard fought reputation as a project that has to be ported across to operation. For Overground they need to make sure the basics are got right and maintained. You then build from that. They did that pretty well for Silverlink Metro although there wasn’t the complication of different peak train formations and working into a busy Central London termini (Euston apart).
I completely agree but I’m aware that problems with the West Anglia operation could cause issues to the existing Overground brand. Overground proudly displays posters in its carriages of how many trains run on time. Six months of failures on WA could sway this negatively. Suddenly the Standard and TV pick up the story and the shiny Overground looks in a sorry state, when in reality it’s just the ‘new’ part. Former North London line services were different – Overground had yet to establish itself, so things could only get better. There was no question repainting decades-old stock in the new livery. Overground is now established as a well regarded brand with certain levels of expectations, as demonstrated on Twitter by those expecting a shiny new train set on the Monday after Overground takeover.
The board paper briefing – “Crossrail – Moving to the Operating Railway” at:
https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/rup-20150212-part-1-item-09-crossrail.pdf
has this line on page 18:
Stage 1: May 2017 – Introduction of new rolling stock on Great Eastern – start of ‘Crossrail’
I thought that might include the start of Crossrail branding?
John some great content here and helps the excitement to build when it does get going. I have been so impressed with the workmanship on the tunnels… Not like a British project at all!
Couple of questions: would FGW and SWT told cross rail not to run fast services into London as it would take their market share from Reading? Also wonder what the future is of the desperately slow service from Reading to Waterloo as it will need to compete with the faster electric fgw and Crossrail. Any plans for SWT to make it faster than the 24 station or so stopping service. It’s also intriguing that the airlink bus will likely be replaced by a direct Heathrow train link from Reading.
Reading is arguably now becoming one of the most important hubs in the UK with direct links to Heathrow, Southampton, Gatwick airports in less than an hour.
@Neil H
…the Reading to Waterloo service hasn’t been about Reading to Waterloo for quite some time, really (1958, in fact). Crossrail services to Paddington aren’t going to matter one jot to passengers from Wokingham, Ascot, Staines et al. beyond them being used for access to stations along the GWML via a connection at Reading, so I’m not sure where the impetus would be to upgrade the SWT service…
@ Anon 5 – well being a bit harsh I’d simply call the reliability, comms and train formation issues a “risk”. A “risk” that was completely predictable IMO and one which LOROL and TfL could have taken steps to mitigate / remove during the pretty long preparatory period that existed for this takeover. There must be a mass of accumulated learning in LOROL from the Silverlink takeover and from the subsequent programme of improvements. The possible negative impact on the Overground’s reputation is / was also entirely predictable as a risk. If these things were not fully considered and placed on the risk register for the takeover I’d have to ask what on earth was going on. These sorts of risks are nothing special – they are standard concerns for a transport operator that also has a big public and political profile. When I did risk management and risk reviews for LU these issues were always concerns but perhaps not the highest priorities in our part of the business. Others had responsibility for pulling together the total picture on risk.
Looking back at the TfL Board paper from Dec 2014 about the West Anglia transfer I see that the top 5 risks are listed (para 4.13). Three of the top 5 (enough drivers, enough trains, operation at Liv St) would appear to have manifested themselves so the defined mitigations appear not to have worked quite as well as predicted or the manifestation has varied from what was predicted. If people were expecting a brand new train then TfL didn’t get its messages right did it? I saw the tweets from people expecting a miracle which should have been an instant warning sign to TfL. Some clarity about what will be delivered and by when on Overground and TfL Rail would not have been difficult to put together and to share with passengers. With Abellio’s agreement this info could have posted on stations prior to the takeover or leaflets handed out. It’s not hard but it does cost a bit of money and requires some effort. It also requires some honesty that shiny new trains are not going to fall out of the sky for day one of the operation.
I know I appear to be unsympathetic but I am genuinely surprised it’s gone as badly as it has given more of the risk seems to have sat with the operator rather than with Network Rail’s infrastructure. If we end up with 6 month’s worth of bad operational performance then some very serious questions will need to be asked. If it lasts 6 weeks then that will be a great disappointment.
@ mr_jrt
You are right. My friend, resident in Wokingham, prefers to drive to Twyford station than use the Reading – Waterloo service.
At the London end, his journey is no different from Waterloo or Paddington, so it is just his journey from the chosen starter station that makes the difference
Walthamstow Writer: you’re totally right and thank you for the insight on the board papers. Time will tell. Hopefully Crossrail (to bring it on topic because I’m aware I slightly diverted) will be a smoother introduction especially if, as Paul suggests above, the brand is introduced straight away.
Whether of not it is related to Crossrail I do not know, but the Wessex route study (draft version) currently out for consultation, does include a number of changes to Windsor side services by 2019, including a four tph Reading service, with two trains non-stop between Reading and Wokingham, and the other two all stations but running via Hounslow.
There’s far too much in the route study to clutter up this Crossrail thread, but there are definitely changes afoot.
Am I right in thinking that Crossrail takes over the Paddington-Reading/Heathrow section in July 2016? Does that mean that Heathrow Connect will be re-branded TfL rail?
@ Sakhr – the takeover of the Heathrow Connect service doesn’t happen until May 2018. New Crossrail stock will run on the service from then. The initial tunnel section (Paddington – Abbey Wood) opens 7 months later (Dec 2018). You then have the “joining up” phases with the Shenfield Line linked in to the tunnels service from May 2019 and the GWML from December 2019.
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/benefits/a-world-class-new-railway/
a four tph Reading service, with two trains non-stop between Reading and Wokingham, and the other two all stations but running via Hounslow
That sounds suspiciously like the service that used to run 40 years ago…
There was 4 tph to Reading in 2004 according to a route map I have – it was the big timetable re-write that year that removed two of them in favour of the through service round the Hounslow loop to Weybridge.
@Paul and the other Paul
As I recall, the fast trains ran non-stop from Clapham Junction to, I think, Feltham, (usually via Hounslow but could run via Richmond if expedient), and the slow trains made Richmond and Twickenham calls. At one time I seem to recall there was one fast and one slow to Reading, the other two ran to Guildford via Camberley (reverse at Aldershot) with cross platform connections at Ascot.
Direct trains to the Camberley line are now down to one a day, and it is not even an “authorised route” from Twickenham to Guildford except on the one direct train.
@ Paul, Other Paul & timbeau
You are right, and 50/60 years ago these services were always quite punctual, even with all the loose coupled freights to/from Feltham, the Brentford coal yard etc. Yet punctuality seems worse these days.
@The Other Paul – 8 June 2015 at 04:06
That sounds suspiciously like the service that used to run 40 years ago…
That brings back memories! I was a student then, staying in Reading in the vacs. I seem to rememember using the Waterloo-Reading service occasionally, particularly for the last train back to Reading. (Was it the time of major re-signalling/re-tracking the approaches to Paddington?). Anyway, ISTR the ‘semi-fasts’ to Reading split at (Virginia Water?) front four going off via Camberley (to Guildford?).
On one occasion we drew into a darkened V/Water and stopped. There were supposed to be buses onwards but nothing had been arranged. Eventually buses were found from somewhere.
>Sooner or later the Heathrow Express bullet will need to be
>bitten and H.E. bought out with the service replaced with 8
>Crossrail per hour to Heathrow on the slow lines
The present contract between Heathrow Airport and Network Rail that gives HEx the train paths into Paddington and the platforms at Paddington expires in 2023. The five years between Crossrail opening and this date is a small time in the big scheme of things. A new contract will then have to be done with Heathrow Airport after this. My assumption is that Crossrail and Network Rail are simply waiting this one out.
@JohnUK
“Anyway, ISTR the ‘semi-fasts’ to Reading split at (Virginia Water?) front four going off via Camberley (to Guildford?).”
Virginia Water is the junction for Weybridge via Addlestone. Trains can’t be split/joined there as the main line and branch have separate platforms (i.e the junction is at the London end of the station)
The Camberley – Aldershot (reverse)- Guildford portions were joined/separated from the Reading portions at Ascot.
@Castlebar:
“Geographically, this restaurant is situate approximately midway between Elmers End and Pratt’s Bottom” Gastronomically, it’s about the same”
So that would actually put it quite close to Locksbottom….
(Sorry PoP!)
Thanks @Walthamstow Writer.
So the Shenfield line gets the new trains in May 2017, do you think they’ll be branded TfL rail, and then resprayed for the official ‘launch’ of Crossrail?
Also, will TfL get fare-setting ability on the Hayes-Heathrow stretch from May 2018 when they take over Heathrow Connect?
@ Sakhr – I think it’s clear the new trains will be branded Crossrail and there will be no respraying / no rebranding. They represent the “new world” not the “old world with stickers and temporary paint job”.
I think TfL will get fare setting but what they can’t do is reduce the fares so that the access charge isn’t paid. The huge issue is how on earth you get Oyster card acceptance into the HAL stations at Heathrow. They’re deliberately open platforms without gates because people have luggage plus the desire to provide a “seamless” journey for HEX premium fare passengers. I understand a previous plan to extend Oyster to Heathrow but only on the Connect service failed – don’t know why. You can install validators but the problem is the level of the fare. The maximum fare for everyone would have to rise substantially so that there is no obvious incentive for people to touch in but not touch out at Heathrow because the max fare is less than the through fare to Heathrow on Heathrow Connect / Crossrail. The current Oyster Max fare in the zonal area is £7.60 whereas the Paddington – Heathrow Connect fare is £10.10 so that’s quite a step up. Stations beyond the zonal area have their own maximum fares for Oyster PAYG. I dare say there will be a solution because there has to be one but I can’t see cheap fares being offered into Heathrow prior to 2023. We shall see what happens.
@WW
Please also consider that HAHL (Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd) stations are open because they allow free transfer between the various Heathrow stations/airport terminals. So you can’t just Oysterise them. Arguably the Piccadilly should also allow free transfers, as it is more frequent.
So a separate Heathrow Zone card would be required to navigate the airport rail system – cumbersome but maybe necessary. No idea if that might include Hatton Cross for airport employees travelling within the airport zone, or even a new Cargo Terminal station on the T4 loop as the Piccadilly line loop passes very close by (it could also be called Stanwell Village, the adjoining community). The Piccadilly is wasting of a lot of empty capacity not to serve the southern airport zone for employees and/or real paying passengers. Oh dear, this sounds worringly integrated as a perspective, not very commercial at all!
@timbeau – 8 June 2015 at 14:02
The Camberley – Aldershot (reverse)- Guildford portions were joined/separated from the Reading portions at Ascot.
Thank you for that. It was indeed Ascot. My memory not what it was 🙁
But it was V/Water we were stranded.
@Milton C
“Arguably the Piccadilly should also allow free transfers, as it is more frequent.” It does, provided you have an Oyster. (Necessary to ensure the free travel goes no further)
“include Hatton Cross for airport employees travelling within the airport zone, ”
It is an anomaly that HX is part of the airport zone on the buses, but only for interchange on the Tube (so people can transfer to T4 from the other terminals) – so you can’t change Tube to bus at HX without paying – on more than one occasion I have missed a bus at Heathrow Central that I would have caught had I been able to go through to HX.
I think the gates will inevitably have to go into Heathrow at some point.
For now though, doesn’t the existing ticketing regime rely on paper tickets routinely being checked on board the trains? Is it thus just as possible for staff to do the Oyster touch in/out on board?
If one is going to discuss the possible future options for CR1 in the Heathrow zone it is best to bear in mind that the review into whether LHR or LGW gets the additional runway – and therefore growth – is due to be published shortly. If it goes (as I hope – ymmv) to LHR than I can foresee a substantial review into how rail access is provided to the new terminal and how that affects the existing arrangements, pre-2023 or not.
@ MC – you are charged a fare of zero pence if you use Oyster or Contactless on the Picc Line between Heathrow T4, T123 and T5. The cash fare is an eye watering £4.80. Unfortunately the free transfer does not apply at Hatton Cross from any of the Heathrow LU stations.
http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/Heathrow/Downloads/PDF/travel_around_Heathrow.pdf
The difficulty with the above is that a significant proportion of people at Heathrow may not be in possession of the right type of plastic to make use of the free transfer by tube. On the couple of occasions I’ve used a bus within the freeflow zone I’ve seen visitors complete with luggage quite happily jump on a TfL bus to make an inter terminal transfer. I’d expect Crossrail to also offer the free transfer facility between T123 and T4. I still think ticketing is going to be a difficulty but perhaps Part 2 of the article will tell us more.
@ambient:
I think the only place you could conceivably make a case for it is at Canary Wharf
The Crossrail station there was called Isle of Dogs in the planning stage, but then Canary Wharf Group agreed to pay for the station, and the name changed. In effect, it is a sponsored station name, like Emirates Greenwich Peninsula, Surrey Quays (changed to match the shopping centre), or Grand Central (original name of Marylebone Bakerloo line, still visible in the platform tiling).
@Ian J
Marylebone’s original name was Great Central – Grand Central is a 21st century open-access operator (and a station in New York)
Arsenal (originally Gillespie Road) is another station named after a commercial enterprise nearby.
What about names like Cutty Sark? White City? Crystal Palace?
Re: Door open buttons that can be pressed before the train stops.
In Brisbane (a backwards country town with 2 million population and trains every 30 minutes), all trains built since the 90s have had this feature. It is common practice for alighting passengers to press the door open button well ahead of the train stopping. This helps speed up alighting, but doesn’t help boarding passengers who still need to wait for the train to stop before they can press the button. I was surprised to see this useful feature in Brisbane has not been widely implemented elsewhere.
@ W W (00:53)
It was the case once that there were free inter-terminal transfers by London buses.
When the RFs were being disposed of by L,T., the airport authority bought some redundant and probably clapped-out RFs, and repainted them (in grey with maroon window trims) as inter-terminal transfer buses for this very purpose.
@the Other Paul
Heathrow Express also offers ticketting on smartphones via barcode, so any attempt to gate the Haethrow stations would need to allow for that option, too. This is not, I think, in use anywhere else on the national rail gating systems, though is in use on the quite incompatible Eurostar gating readers.
@Castlebar
“It was the case once that there were free inter-terminal transfers by London buses.”
Isn’t it still?
http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/Heathrow/Downloads/PDF/travel_around_Heathrow.pdf
@ timbeau
I don’t know. I never use Heathrow now.
I was writing from memory. The RFs had the destinations crudely written in short bits of masking tape. There were only 3 terminals then, and the RFs worked from Terminals 1/2 (1 was the old ‘Queens Building’) to Terminal 3 and back. I’m going back about 45 years when I could get a BEA Trident to Le Bourget.
@timbeau
There are still free inter-terminal buses at Heathrow but only airside, unless you are travelling between terminals 4 and 5, in which case you can use a 490 or a 482 free. For the rest, Heathrow relies in Heathrow Express, LUL (if you have an Oyster card) or walking for free inter-terminal transport. IIUC, free inter-terminal transport is an ICAO requirement.
Quinlet/Castlebar
There is a free interterminal bus service landside – it is provided by the TfL services (and the rail services)
I would be surprised if there was ever a landside transfer service between T1,2,3. It must be less than 200 yards from T1 to T3 – indeed Terminal 3 itself is bigger than that. There are now travelators connecting Terminals 1, 2 and 3 via the central bus station.
Some RFs were used airside, but it would seem their principal duties were ferrying passengers between terminal and aircraft – despite the advent of jetbridges (air jetties), impromptu mystery bus tours are still a very common practice airside at Heathrow.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/38949371@N04/14792499611
http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_232824-AEC-Regal-IV-RF.html
https://www.flickr.com/photos/southallroutemaster/14865348855/
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3850/14842387586_9876ec40d3_b.jpg
@Quinlet
“There are still free inter-terminal buses at Heathrow but only airside, unless you are travelling between terminals 4 and 5, in which case you can use a 490 or a 482 free.”
between Terminal 123 and terminal 4 you can use the 555 landside for free (or other routes by changing buses at Hatton Cross), and similarly the 441 between terminal 1 and terminal 5. The train is of course much quicker, but doesn’t run 24 hours a day.
and actually it goes further than that, too. This map shows the extent of free bus travel around Heathrow.
http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/Heathrow/Downloads/PDF/travel_around_Heathrow.pdf
@ Quinlet 0928 – I believe Chiltern have ticket gates that work with barcode technology on mobile phones. Their app certainly handles barcode tickets for their services. I think one other TOC is also going to use similar technology – Greater Anglia seem to use it on a limited scale but are expanding it. There are many gates on the rail network (East Coast main line for example) that have barcode scanners for people with paper “print at home” barcode tickets. It’s all pretty standard stuff these days.
On train door buttons:
Railway Safety and Standards Board, Rule Book TW1, Preparation and Movement of Trains, section 35.1 Stopping a train at stations: You must make sure you do not release the doors until the train has stopped and is at the correct position at the platform (Driver or Guard).
@BrizCommuter
The Paris Métro trains had actual latches on the doors to open to embark and detrain, when I was there 24 years ago. No idea what the situation is there now, ma blonde refuses to go there now…
@ LBM
I think that was on the old Sprague-Thomson metro stock (see wiki)
Were the latches used on any more modern stock?
@Castlebar/LBM
(after a quick check on wikipedia).. the MF67 stock used on several lines still have a latch type thing that you can hold up before the train stops. This doesn’t do anything until the driver releases the doors, but they usually are released just before the train stops so you can step from the train whilst it is just about still moving.
Does anything still running on LU allow doors to be opened whilst moving? the C-stock certainly did
@ Castlebar / Herned – The lift up latches can be seen in this photo (mine) of MF67 stock.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/24759744@N02/6969316547/
I think it is also the case that the push buttons on MF77 stock (photo link below) could also be pressed before trains stop and the doors would fly open slightly before the train halted. I’ve always found Paris Metro train doors slightly scary because they open too soon and then slam shut. Some RER trains also have early opening “latch” door releases too – a bit unnerving on double deck stock and low platforms (as on RER C which I’ve used a fair amount).
https://www.flickr.com/photos/24759744@N02/6823265446/in/photostream/
The two classic designs which I’ve used which were particularly gobsmacking in terms of “loose” doors where the old S Bahn trains in Berlin where the doors would be wide open when the trains were moving. Ditto for the smashing old red stock in Sydney (now long gone). Unfortunately I haven’t scanned my photos of those trains – they’re in the “to do” pile.
London now has a new variant of odd door movements which is on the 09 stock. The doors now sway on their runners and move outwards and inwards by a couple of millimetres – especially if you hit a pressure pulse in the tunnels where there is a vent shaft or cross passage.
MP59 and MP73 stock have the same feature – on the outside as well, as the inside
http://ufies.org/~aleith/transit/paris/line6_bir-hakiem.jpg
Here’s the system in action
The last Sprague stock was withdrawn in 1983
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGcfC9xijGM
Linkie missing from previous post
timbeau
Thank you. I was regularly in Paris from ’68 to ’72 so would have used plenty of Spragues. The latch system was scary to those unfamiliar with it.
@WW – the old Circle line stock with hand operated doors certainly ran round in the summer with the doors left open. I can just remember, as a toddler, being particularly fascinated by this, to the great terror of my mother…
The latch system has always appealed to me because of it intuitiveness. Fans of Donald Norman will recognize that the latch invites people to lift it, and its function is apparent from its appearance, needing no written label or symbol.
The opposite applies to the horrible collection of three buttons in current UK train disability toilets, where the frequency of embarassment got to the point where the buttons now need symbols and written words and a recorded voice.
Hopefully this won’t cut across Part 2 of the article but TfL have released an approval paper for upgrades to the surface stations on Crossrail.
https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/fpc-20150617-item12-part-1-crossrail-stations.pdf
Interestingly this work is all over and above the Crossrail scope of works which would have left many of these suburban stations barely upgraded. The scope also covers works to make station accessible (a long standing issue) and to install ticket gates at constrained sites. The expertise from LOROL’s programme of station improvements is being deployed on these Crossrail sites. Great Eastern is done first by May 2017 with Great Western following on up to late 2019.
The paper also confirms that the Crossrail brand starts in May 2017 when these station works have to be complete and the new Class 345 trains will come into service. I think that gives clarity on that much debated point.
@quinlet 0928
…smartphones via barcode… not, I think, in use anywhere else on the national rail gating systems
Been on GE for a couple of years now – http://www.gatwickexpress.com/en/tickets-and-fares/buying-tickets/mobile-ticketing/
Both Gatwick Express and East Coast (and probably others by now) also offer the printed barcode option.
Still, not as advanced as Italy where you can buy a ticket for any trenitalia train online and all you then need to travel is a 6 digit alphanumeric code…
Would it make any sense to transfer the Epping branch of the Central over to Crossrail?
It would provide an alternative to Shenfield – with far fewer restrictions on frequency – for balancing the Canary Wharf branch; taking a branch off the Central would reduce the overcrowding in the core of that route.
Frequencies would be lower, but with more comfortable and capacious trains and faster access to the same areas of London.
It would need a new Crossrail tunnel from Stratford to Leytonstone, probably with new (and expensive!) stations at both. The branch was originally built to mainline standards, so should be relatively cheap to convert unless I’ve missed some significant overbuilding.
Leytonstone would need improvements to allow all the extra turnbacks, and an interchange would need creating at Roding Valley or Woodford.
Criticism?
One of the key raisons d’etre of Crossrail is to remove some services off the Stratford – LSt section of the GEML (as indeed was the 1940s Central Line extension). If Crossrail doesn’t go to Shenfield, this won’t be achieved.
The restrictions on frequency are likely to get resolved in time. The lesson of history is that, although there may be some interworking at first, in a few decade’s time it is likely that the local tracks of the GEML out to Shenfield will be as separate from the fast tracks as, for example the local and fast tracks between Bromley-by-Bow and Upminster, or between North Acton and West Ruislip. Separation is already almost complete between Finchley Road and Wembley Park, and between Barons Court and Acton Town, spurred on by resignalling from the PPP era when someone decided the Tube and SSL lines could be separated.
@ F Herne
The Chelsea-Hackney line was originally seen as the capacity saviour for the eastern part of the Central Line, along with relief of the services via Gants Hill as some passengers redirected their journeys via Crossrail 1 through stations such as Ilford (and also with interchange at Stratford). However the safeguarded Crossrail 2 route has supplanted Chelsea-Hackney, and no longer protects a Leytonstone link.
Options for extra Central Line capacity therefore look to the New Tube for London, unless a further cross-London line were invented. East London borough preferences for any possible third branch of Crossrail 2 are looking towards Stratford and the river corridor, not towards NE London.
At one time an extension of the Victoria Line to take over the Hainault branch was proposed. Good luck getting on now anywhere south of Walthamstow if that had come to pass……
Crayons were obviously more readily available in earlier times.
@timbeau
I doubt there’s any likelihood of the running lines being segregated like on the LTS and Met at any point in the future. Firstly Ilford depot is only accessible off of the Electric lines and all of Greater Anglia’s EMU fleet 160+ units are maintained there. Other operator’s trains are also overhauled and refurbished there. ECSs to/from the depot use the ELs extensively, some all the way to Liverpool Street, others down to Shenfield then beyond. Other trains including freight use them too, especially at the quieter times of the day. Many freight trains off of the LTS also use the ELs from Forest Gate Junction, whilst this will reduce when the GOB is wired c2c plan to operate 2 passenger trains an hour at weekends into Liverpool Street from Dec 2015 also over the ELs. This is all without perturbation and engineering work when frequently the route between Liverpool Street and Shenfield is worked as a two track railway. In simple terms the only way the GEML works is by having the flexibility to use all of the infrastructure. This applies to equally to the GWML out of Paddington, though at least on this route some mitigation in respect of new infrastructure at Acton, West Drayton and Reading is being provided.
Finally the contractural structure of the railway requires that Network Rail gives all prospective operators fair access to the Network and being under great pressure improve performance. Therefore they are unlikely to do anything that would frustrate their ability to deliver these obligations, such as splitting out the infrastructure for any specific operator.
@Alfie 1014
“I doubt there’s any likelihood of the running lines being segregated like on the LTS and Met at any point in the future. Firstly Ilford depot is only accessible off of the Electric lines and all of Greater Anglia’s EMU fleet 160+ units are maintained there.”
Never say never – 100 years ago, would anyone have foreseen the LTS giving up jts slow lines altogether forty years later? (And it was even later that the last freight moves to sidings across the District line ended) Freight to Mill Hill and Loughton continued for some years alongside Tube trains.
At some point in the future LO’s fleet may have expanded to the point where Ilford depot can’t cope with Anglia’s as well. More freight may go via Ely if that route gets wired up.
So, probably not in my lifetime, but maybe by 2065!
@ Timbeau – well the future of Ilford depot in respect of LOROL (or successor) EMUs is all tied in with the new rolling stock contract. The new supplier not only builds the stock but also maintains it. They also take on the Class 172’s maintenance – presumably to allow them to phase in electric trains on the GOBLIN as smoothly as possible but also giving them a fallback in case of problems. A new rolling stock supplier may opt to build a new depot to look after the trains. Land is obviously scarce but I can’t see Bombardier being willing to share Willesden [1] and Ilford with another supplier. Ilford also the job of looking after part of the Crossrail fleet and will be upgraded for that task.
http://www.tics-ltd.co.uk/assets/files/pdf/Portfolio/Ilford%20Depot%20Upgrade.pdf
Obviously if Bombardier win the contract then life is probably simpler overall. We shall find out next week given the decision is delegated to the Finance and Policy Committee (rather than the Board as I first thought). I think this has been done to allow the “contract standstill” duration and still meet the 1 July deadline for a confirmed decision. If it went to the Board there’d be a 15 day delay and it looks like TfL can’t afford that delay which perhaps shows how tight a programme they are locked in to in respect of this new EMU order and getting electric trains working on the GOBLIN as soon as possible after NR have strung the wires. Not having electric trains ready is likely to be something of an embarrasment if NR have switched the wires on but DMUs are still chugging along, no doubt with people sitting on the couplers by then in the peaks [2].
[1] I’m assuming they own part / all of Willesden TMD. I can’t find a definitive answer on the web so happy to be corrected.
[2] I was going to say “sitting on the roof” but that’s a tad impractical with energised wires in place. 😉
@WW…..surely you’re not suggesting that GOBLIN users will have to ‘train surf’? A practice that I remember was briefly popular amongst the ‘youf’ of SE London on the 465/466 train ends….
Re. Chelney and the Central Line….I think Ken Livingstone really missed a trick to get it funded and built in the last decade as a tube line, since the original alignment to Leytonstone to join the Central would have taken it right past the northern end of the Olympic Park! It could have been called the Olympic Line, coloured gold on the Tube map…..instead, he set in motion the process where it has morphed into Crossrail 2 *sighs*.
@WW: I was going to say “sitting on the roof” but that’s a tad impractical with energised wires in place
The good folk of Jakarta have no such qualms…
Readers who want the facts and figures on Crossrail’s TBM excavations are recommended to view this link: http://www.tunneltalk.com/Crossrail-11June2014-Final-breakthrough-at-Farringdon-completes-TBM-tunnelling.php
@WW
“Not having electric trains ready is likely to be something of an embarrasment if NR have switched the wires on but DMUs are still chugging along”
Not uncommon for the infrastructure to be in place before the rolling stock is ready – see the diesels that continued to work in the NW because the Thameslink cascade is late, or Todmorden curve, or, further back, operation of the ECML with class 91s cobbled together with HST passenger coaches because the Mark 4s weren’t ready (although in this case it was delivery of class 91s ahead of schedule which caused the mismatch)
Anonymously 02:07
I doubt anyone will ever contemplate another tube (gauge) line, unless it is an extension to an existing one. High capacity 240m trains running at 24-30 tph is where its at if you want to move large numbers of people.
Re WW,
When I read that document my feeling was that it would be hard for other bidders to match Bombardier on price (unless their units need far less maintenance.) for those reasons.
@ Anonymously – it was an attempt (clearly a failed one!) at humour about the likely scale of peak overcrowding by the time we get to 2017/18 when electric trains might turn up and be able to work the GOBLIN. We know that TfL don’t envisage doing anything to add more diesel trains to the line before then so the pain will go on. Of course it will get vastly worse for commuters for many months due to the 9 months work of blockades on the route as set out in Network Rail’s documents.
@ Timbeau – fair comment but most places don’t have fairly direct political accountability for rail services nor an Assembly waiting to pounce on anything that’s less than ideal. I can already hear some Assembly members demanding questions from the Mayor (whoever it is by then) if the trains are late relative to the wires being energised. Given there was a lot of pressure from several Assembly members to get the line electrified it’s inevitable they’ll be watching what’s happening. That’s just what happens in London’s system.
@ Ngh – I think you may be right but the crucial factor will be if there is production line capacity to get the trains built quickly. The second factor will be whether the train needs to go through the NR “acceptance” process or whether it’s something that’s got or will have approval by the time the trains are needed. Siemens may have an advantage here while the others may be slightly behind – Hitachi have the Scotrail order and it depends on what Bombardier offer against TfL’s spec. No idea about CAF.
Re WW,
Siemens will be pretty busy being 700s and 707s (1310 cars) and dropped out of Crossrail after winning Thameslink but took the small 150 car order for SWT so will now have less spare capacity but this is another relatively smallish order so might work.
Bombardier will have 585 cars for crossrail to build ( new factory/building though) and about 420 S stock cars left to deliver but I suspect quite a bit has been built. Also the remaining 387s (140 cars) and reaming 378 5th cars so they should have available capacity from spring next year. I think they have upto 5 existing production lines though I’m not sure what is being demolished for the new Crossrail factory.
Hitachi have maxed out capacity at their new UK factory with IEP + Scotrail so the potential 2nd batch of 2nd batch of IEPs for Exeter etc will be built in Japan not the North East.
Having replied to Timbeau earlier about questions to the Mayor I then happened to look at next week’s Questions to Boris. Sure enough Caroline Pidgeon has two questions about the GOBLIN re delivery of EMUs and their timing plus a “more diesels in the peaks” request. Looks like the Line’s User Group has primed her with relevant questions. These are for Written Answers so it should be a week Monday before we see the response.
The billions and billions (40 billion I think in total) going to overseas railway manufacturers from this country is a huge waste for this country. Only 20 years ago we built our own trains in Birmingham, York and Derby. I think its about time we start investing in what little train manufacturing facilities we have left and start building our own stock again.
On the subject of the Goblin, is the service going to be extended past GO post electrification?
@ Miles – given the order quantity is 8 EMUs for the GOBLIN then it won’t run past Gospel Oak. The fleet size is identical to that of the current DMUs. Anyway there are no paths in the off peak because freight operates and in the peak TfL wants to run more NLL/WLL services when Class 378 units are released from the Euston Watford line by the new EMUs due to be ordered imminently.
@ Miles
“The billions and billions (40 billion I think in total) going to overseas railway manufacturers from this country is a huge waste for this country. I think its about time we start investing in what little train manufacturing facilities we have left and start building our own stock again.”
The Hitachis are to be built in Co Durham, Bombardier’s works are in Derby.
Re Timbeau,
Hitachi are to be assembled from imported kits in Co Durham but as noted above they have already run out of capacity as the additional FGW order for AT300s will all be built in Japan as the factory isn’t big enough…
@Paul….I wasn’t for one moment suggesting that it has to use tube stock (indeed, in the original plan the parts of the District and Central lines it was going to take over can both easily accept mainline stock!). It’s just that the regional form of CR2 IMHO has so many flaws and complications which a Tube line (which can have 240m surface stock trains running 30+tph, as you wish!) would avoid.
Going back (some distance) to the signage at Stratford: station nameboards and platform numbers appear to have a TfL Rail blue stripe applied at the top in sticky tape – in some cases it’s not very straight either. It’s not obvious whether it’s concealing a Crossrail purple stripe beneath.
I have been sent an e~mail by a member of a Hanwell local history group, in which he alleges that Crossrail want to make major changes to Hanwell station, but are restricted in doing so by that station’s unique architectural status. It is therefore alleged that Crossrail intend to get repealed some of the planning restrictions that apply because of the listing. Does anyone know more about this? Actual facts, rather than local rumour would be preferred.
@Castlebar – 15 June 2015 at 10:33
Best place to look would be LB Ealing’s planning application search.
http://www.pam.ealing.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet
There’s this sentence
The bus stop to the north of Manor Road could be relocated to outside the existing station building if space there can be created by demolishing the redundant ticket office
here
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/benefits/changing-spaces-building-communities/urban-realm/london-borough-of-ealing#Hanwell
@Castlebar:
I suspect it comes down to an individual’s definition of “major.”
Crossrail are looking to make a number of improvements at NR stations they don’t directly control (like TfL did on the Overground) so that the entire railway is step free.
From the recent Finance Committee papers (which I’ve not finished reading entirely yet):
“Hanwell – one lift installed internally and one within a new, free-standing,
structure”
So it’ll be whatever works are necessary to to achieve the above.
@Timbeau
I said OVERSEAS, Bombardier is Canadian/German and Hitachi is Japanese. Besides as already mentioned Hitachi only assembles the trains, as does Bombardier I assume. There are depressing graphics showing the parts made the new class 800s (I think I saw one for the class 378s when they were first built) will be assembled in Britain. Of course the windscreen wipers, carpets, cab radio and perhaps the toilet seat were all made in the UK, but the traction equipment, bogie design and electrical components were not listed.
@ miles
You said overseas MANUFACTURERS. The factories are in the UK, even if their owners and designers are foreign. Point taken about imported components.
@Martin Stratford – they don’t. All TfL Rail signage is just vinyl on old signs.
Re Timbeau and Miles
There is quite a lot of UK content in Bombardier’s products (traction motors and control electronics being the most obvious imports). Bombardier has a very healthy UK supply chain.
Siemens also import quite a lot of UK made parts for their units so not as Germanic as they might appear (pantographs + HV gear pre transformer, 3rd rail gear, brakes, seats, CCTV, PIS, on board signalling and comms equipment, train software, head+tailights, couplers, wiring looms + control boxes, DOO equipment, traction power and control cabling and other bits)
The only UK made traction motors and control electronics actually appear in “French” Alstom made units.
[If you pick the options correctly on a Boeing 787 could can get the non US content to just short of 80% which raised a few eyebrows in the states! Rivets and carpet featuring high on the US made content..]
The origin of content question can get very complex. If a train is assembled in the UK by fitting German airconditioning in a Japanese-built bodyshell mounted on on bogies built in Switzerland, which include traction motors assembled in France using primary windings made in India from copper mined in Zambia, how much of the content comes from each country?
@ngh/timbeau – I seem to recall at the time the IEP contract was let, that a figure of 70% local content in terms of value added, was being mentioned – it may be possible to pin that down?
Re Graham H
70% value added sounds remarkably high unless it includes the decades of maintenance as well?
Hitachi have made a good job of sourcing lots of the small parts locally (all the interiors, passenger electronics (including passenger counters!), signalling electronics, glazing, gangways, couplings, wheelsets, brakes, exhaust systems, fuel tanks, all lighting (interior and exterior), pantographs etc.
timbeau @ 15 June 2015 at 15:58
Algebra
@John U.K.
The bus stop to the north of Manor Road could be relocated to outside the existing station building if space there can be created by demolishing the redundant ticket office
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/benefits/changing-spaces-building-communities/urban-realm/london-borough-of-ealing
That quote refers to West Ealing, while @Castlebar was referring to Hanwell.
I expect the Crossrail plans for Hanwell are subject to change as Ealing Council have managed to get the southern entrance to Hanwell station re-opened:
Second entrance at Hanwell Station reopens (5 December 2014):
http://www.ealing.gov.uk/news/article/1133/second_entrance_at_hanwell_station_reopens
Given this entrance is on the right side of the line to access Hanwell-proper (although still via a slightly convoluted route) it’s likely to attract more passengers than the main entrance.
This may well be an aside, but as this is a discussion about Crossrail, has anyone been out to Canary Wharf since the opening of the roof garden? I stumbled upon it today as I was wondering around the area and took the opportunity to go up and take a look. It is beautiful and peaceful as word does not seem to have got out that it’s open. I took a few pictures as a momento of my visit.
@Anonymous – 16 June 2015 at 18:40
@John U.K.
The bus stop to the north of Manor Road could be relocated to outside the existing station building if space there can be created by demolishing the redundant ticket office
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/benefits/changing-spaces-building-communities/urban-realm/london-borough-of-ealing
That quote refers to West Ealing, while @Castlebar was referring to Hanwell.
Thank you for the correction.
The Hitachi suppliers page has 2 PDF images that details all the UK & European sourced components to confirm ngh’s list of locally sourced components.
As the one time (Network South East) – project Operations and Business Manager for Crossrail (1) , – up to 1996. I could add a few comments to this worthy thread. Not sure the planned TT is right – as we always (then) believed) on the full value of a semi-fast 4 tph Reading – Shenfield , with put in’s at Maidenhead , Slough and even West Ealing.
Removing the Metropolitan line / Chiltern spur to Aylesbury . Amersham and Chesham and even reversers at Harrow) was probably the right decision (costs being very high in all areas)
However – timetables can always change – good to see the project very much in hand…
When the news broke of Bombardier winning the Crossrail contract everyone was waxing lyrical about how much design work for the train will be taking place in Derby. I also doubt Bombardier – though it is a Canadian company – will outsource much of the components to its home country.
@straphan
“I also doubt Bombardier – though it is a Canadian company – will outsource much of the components to its home country.”
As a Canadian but not a rail professional, I am not aware of any train design or manufacture performed in Canada by Bombardier. The company had purchased German rail companies for their train division.
Thunder Bay? I think it is situated in Ontario. And Ontario is a part of… Canada?
(http://www.bombardier.com/content/dam/Websites/bombardiercom/Sites/supporting-documents/Bombardier-Transportation-SiteFactSheet-ThunderBay-Canada-en.pdf)
@TKO
Yes of course, thank you for the correction. I was thinking of rail vehicles built for Europe, which their Thunder Bay, Ontario plant doesn’t appear to do, just North American vehicles. This plant was owned by Hawker-Siddeley Canada 1965-1979 but it doesn’t appear on their chronology:
1912 Founded by Canadian Car and Foundry Company of Montréal to manufacture railway boxcars;
1962 Contract for 162 Rapid Transit Cars for the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC );
1963 Selected to supply 8 six-car trains for Expo ’67 in Montreal;
1977 First order of 395 BiLevel commuter rail cars delivered to GOTransit;
1979 Contract 250 Light Rail Vehicles for the TTC streetcar system;
1992 Contract for 216 T1 metro cars for the TTC subway;
1998 Contract for 156 T1 metro car contract for the TTC subway;
1992 Bombardier acquires Canadian assets of UTDC;
1994 Plant modernization and expansion completed;
2000 Contract for 106 Via Rail Renaissance (rebuilding and refurbishing);
2006 Contract for 234 Toronto Rocket subway cars for the TTC;
2008 Contract for 204 streetcars for the TTC;
2010 Extra 186 Toronto Rocket subway cars for the TTC;
2010 Contract for the supply of 182 light rail vehicles for Metrolinx;
2011 Contract for 50 BiLevel cars for GO Transit.
Mike,
As you say, though the mention of Via Rail Renaissance refers, I think, to sleeping cars built for the Nightstar service planned through the tunnel: when this suffered from second thoughts (or accountants or something) the partly-built fleet was snapped up by Canada, where they are doing sterling service on (I think) the Canadian. I would go on about arriving late into Toronto … [SNIP: muchly off topic]
@LBM
You´re absolutely right in your assumption that the canadian plants of Bombtrans (sorry Bombardier) doesn´t play a major part in the design and/or manufacturing of rail vehicles for the european market. No part at all is my (less informed) guess!
And I´m also sorry if my previous comment had a slightly harsh tone – english is not my prefered language…
@TKO – having worked with Bombardier on their TLK bid, there was certainly no sign there of anything being outsourced to Canada.
As we are talking Bombardier, don’t the channel tunnel car shuttles have internal Bombardier / Hawker Sidley makers plates? Were these built in Canada?
Back on topic (ish) – Heathrow Express
The original HS2 plan was for the HEx depot at Old Oak Common to move to North Pole East (south of the GWML and to the EAST of the WLL). The new plan based on amendments to the HS2 hybrid bill appears to be moving them to Langley so more WRAtH sidings than HEx sidings?
Also more CR sidings at OOC for additional WCML CR stock.
@ngh
Yes, Langley not North Pole for HEx. But it’s not clear how contingent all that is on WRAtH progressing satisfactorily (which has been silent recently), or whether HAHL (ex-BAA) have signed up to it. Suspect there’s some murkiness to be clarified, which may be awkward as the HS2 Select Committee is hearing OOC petitions shortly, beginning with GLA and TfL on 1st July.
@ngh
The sidings you refer to are simply the intended turn-back sidings west of OOC, for trains terminating there, NOT for overnight stabling purposes. However three sidings are now proposed there, not two as before. The key change is the acceptance by HS2 Ltd that it will incorporate the initial alignment design for the proposed WCML-Crossrail link, on its approaches to OOC. This causes consequential changes west of OOC including the alterations to turn-back sidings, and a flyover for eastbound trains on the GW relief line.
I wondered whether there was a connection with the expiration of current HEx service arrangements before HS2 opens.
Re Casper,
I was wondering that too! The last time I had a proper look at HEx contracts (2+ years ago), some of the maintenance and rolling stock contracts expired pre 2023, I think from 2017 onwards which happens to align with the proposed HS2 construction start date (HS2 opening date not being too relevant apart from providing more passengers from OOC to use CR to access Heathrow and therefore push for CR to takeover from HEx if it hasn’t already done so)
Doesn’t HEx have track access rights in place till 2023?
Re Straphan,
Yes it does – end of 25 year term in 2023 but a fair number of their other contracts weren’t for a matching 25 years, rolling stock and maintenance were certainly shorter.
Crossrail & Thameslink
I have been looking at some of the Crossrail publicity and there is no mention of Thameslink just a National Rail symbol at Farringdon. I would have though that Thameslink should be promoted as the North-South Crossrail and Farringdon identified at the CrossRail hub. I would think a lot of people would want to interchange from the North South route to the E-W route and vice versa.
While politics and franchises may be in the way I vote to promote Thameslink as Crossrail North -South and the present Crossrail as Crossrail East – West to emphasise how these two railways provide new journey oppertunities from the West to the South ( and the other 3 combinations)
@An engineer
Of course that’s sensible, but it won’t happen whilst TfL try to pretend that nothing exists if they don’t run it themselves. You’ll be advocating putting the Northern City Line back on the Tube map next!
…never mind the fact that TfL do not consider London Overground to be a national rail operator and therefore the double-arrow symbol is yet to appear at any overground station where there are no other operators’ services.
@An engineer – indeed that was NSE’s intention, way back in the ’90s, but “Dis vis aliter*” as the mayor would say.
*The Devil thought otherwise…
@Graham H
It would be as dippy as RATP only showing RER lines A and B on the metro map because the others are worked by SNCF
@timbeau
For clarity, I can reveal from my recent 30 second piece of research that RATP do no such dippy thing. I think timbeau’s point would be made, actually, whether or not they did so. (Two wrongs would not make a right).
@timbeau – that was not the intention. TLK and CR were seen as different in function to LU lines (remember that CR included the outer reaches of the Met at this stage). It was also the case – and the point of the “London RER” – that between them TLK and CR put most of the major OMA/Roseland settlements within one interchange of each other. There weren’t at that stage any lines C, D and E… Changes to both the CR and the TLK networks since the turn of the century, and the peculiar camelopard that is CR2 have muddied the concept greatly.
What is shown on the maps is, as has been exhaustively ( and exhaustingly) discussed in this forum already, a question of whether you try and show everything on one map.or perhaps have two levels of mapping.
Yes, I remember Farringdon being talked of as London’s future “Chatelet Les Halles” but there is one big difference: at C.L.H. there is cross-platform interchange in both directions between RER lines A and B, whereas at Farringdon there will be a lot of going up and down escalators to interchange between the Crossrail and Thameslink lines. It remains to seen how inconvenient this will feel, psychologically.
Perhaps we should wait until 2018 and see what happens with maps portraying London’s rail network? We have done it to death here and we know a range of very senior TfL people read what is said here. We could end up being pleasantly surprised.
We may be too close to, or too familiar, with it, but London has had an RER/S-bahn/call-it-what-you-will for longer than most people realise. For what was the original purpose of the Metropolitan Railway, if not to connect the Great Western, Great Northern, Great Eastern, and London Chatham & Dover Railways? (with the Midland added later, and the GER service connection diverted first to meet the LBSCR and SER at their respective New Cross stations, and more recently (in 1902!) to the Tilbury line at Bow. Indeed, to this day what is now known as the H&C runs over ex GWR and ex LTSR tracks for nearly half its total length, but the longer distance services have been almost completely crowded out by the huge demand for local journeys.
The Metropolitan District similarly had connections at its western end with the LNWR, GWR, LSWR and LBSCR (via the jointly owned WLER) and still uses LSWR tracks on two of its western branches and the aforementioned LTSR connection at the eastern end, although now “only” going to Upminster. Even a vestige of the LNWR service remains in the Olympia shuttle (operated by the LMS until 1940), although the service to Windsor GWR disappeared very early.
And of course there is the other hook-up between ex-GER and ex-GWR lines, known as the Central Line.
The French and the Germans learned from our pioneering mistakes – notably by putting in fewer stops and having a separate Metro/U-bahn for local traffic, but the sub-surface system has as much in common with S-bahnen and RERs as it does with U-bahnen and the metro. (including interworking with other main line services e.g north of Harrow and south of Putney)
@Peezedtee – we were where we were in 1992 and had TLK materialised in the planned form then, I dare say more would have been done to improve interchange. If we had had the luxury of starting from scratch then,I doubt if anyone would have chosen Farringdon as the natural interchange point, but funds were tight and the opportunity was there.
@timbeau – all that may be so, but the London of 1961+ (and post-war Paris, as the RER comparator) is a radically different place to that of 1861 – much bigger, with a significant longer-distance commuting traffic. Remember – no trams, no tubes, buses for the middle classes only (minimum fare often 6d, few services before 0800) – as Robbins remarks in his history of London Transport,many people walked long distances to work. Little by way of commuter services on most main lines. Functionally, a modern RER is very different in intention to the original Met.
@Graham H
“the London of 1961+ is a radically different place to that of 1861”
Quite so – and the Metropolitan Railway was a major catalyst in making that difference.
If you were building a network from scratch in present-day London, you would be unlikely to end up with something looking much like the SSL network. But London wouldn’t be the way it is now if the SSL hadn’t been built.
@timbeau -it’s an interesting question asto whether the Met (as originally conceived)) changed London’s trajectory of development. The corridor from Paddington to the City had already attracted London’s first bus service, taking advantage of the New Road and the City Road, but the first round of public-transport led suburban development seems to have been to the north – Holloway, for example, to the point that by 1900,London had a distinctly north-south layout, with continuous development having reached both Enfield and Purley, and although Earls Court (still a farm in 1861) developed quite early with the arrival of the District, further west, much of Ealing was very late C19. All these are well away from Met territory
Now, if the Wimbledon loop service were transferred to the Overground, then the strongly desired addition of Thameslink core to the Underground map would have to happen (and Farringdon be transformed in publicity terms to the London Hbf it will resemble in reality). Serious cart before horse logic, but ‘if you put it on the Map, they will come’ as some movie star didn’t say.
@Graham H
“much of Ealing was very late C19…..well away from Met territory”
Indeed, but Ealing’s expansion was very much a product of the District, which would not itself have happened if the Met hadn’t started the ball rolling.
Although it soured quickly, the MDR was set up by the Met not to compete, but to complete the Circle. The separate company was a common financial move to separate the financially risky operation (building a new line) from the safe one (operating the existing one) – a lesson the banks have had to re-learn quite recently.
@Fandroid
“Now, if the Wimbledon loop service were transferred to the Overground, ”
Interesting – as one of the few NR services south of the River to not stray outside Greater London, (and minimal sharing of tracks with services that do) it makes more sense than many. A downside is the lack of interchange with the rest of the Overground.
And would the good burghers of Wimbledon accept a loop service terminating at Blackfriars if it was added to the spaghetti-with-tomato-sauce that is spreading across the Tube map?
And would the good burghers of Wimbledon accept a loop service terminating at Blackfriars if it was added to the spaghetti-with-tomato-sauce that is spreading across the Tube map?
They would presumably be less likely to do so now than they might have been a few weeks ago!
@Graham H – 20 June 2015 at 12:50
… and although Earls Court (still a farm in 1861)
Indeed, there were still farms in Fulham until the First World War.
@JOhn UK – interesting*; presumably looking a little out of place by then, surrounded by late C19 terrace and villa housing. Somewhat like the Express Dairy farm at Finchley which survived into the 1960s – but we are into Betjeman territory here…
^Perhaps that’s why the LCC had an isolation hospital there?
But there are still ex BR double arrow symbols outside Walthamstow Central three weeks after the Overground takeover plus other instances of revised signage still to be attended to.
Plans for the new Crossrail Station at West Ealing have been released with station including a bay platform for Greenford service .
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/crossrail-unveils-designs-for-new-station-building-at-west-ealing
Saw some new(?) signage today at Ford Aerodrome car boot here in West Sussex this morning. Looked-to-be-new TFL-RAIL signage for Ilford, Gidea Park, Forest Gate and other signage being sold from the back of a van.
Anyone missing any?
@ John UK
and I can remember the last orchards being grubbed out on the Great West Road just west of Hounslow West Station to clear the land to build the new airport hotels in around 1960.
Many people have little knowledge of just how rural Middlesex was even in the 1930s/40s. It wasn’t only the railways that caused it, but particularly the A40 and then the expansion of Heathrow
@Castlebar – Yes. Without wallowing in Betjemaneseque nostalgia for that”lost Elysium”- a couple of observations:
– my parents had friends who lived in Burns Way Hounslow until c1960; their house backed onto ploughed fields. The field is still there (!) but out of cultivation – no doubt green belt, but it really adds nothing to “urban separation” or as a green lung.
– as late as 1960, Pinner Hill not merely had a working farm (cattle) but you could walk further up Pinner Hill and reach”shaggy” countryside with the odd isolated farm house – now golf courses (or possibly mechanical bumblepuppy sites) ,I believe.
You can still capture some of this around Osterley Park and Syon Park just about but it does show(a) how late a lot of conventionally described suburbia was developed, and (b) how the arrival of rail services didn’t necessarily lead to substantial suburban development.
@timbeau. But my cart before horse proposal (to get the Thameslink core onto the Map) would fail utterly if the Orange line stopped at Blackfriars. So the good burghers of Wimbledon need have no fear.
Indeed the Wimbledon loop doesn’t interchange with the Overground but it does so with Tramlink, the District Line and most importantly, Crossrail at Farringdon (the reason for this diversion and the main topic!).
@ GH
Again, not veering off, too far down Memory Lane, we have both made the point, (yours was ” how the arrival of rail services didn’t necessarily lead to substantial suburban development.”), that sometimes, rail services can actually come too far in advance of the population designed to use it.. Although in Roseland, there are many examples of railways being closed, lifted and built over, (and now desperately needed), there are examples within the GLA and environs where rail services once existed and would perhaps now be sustainable. You will no doubt remember the old station on the eastern side of the Kew triangle, the old derelict stations on the WLL, the Alexandra Palace Branch etc.
Perhaps in some cases, the railway came too soon? Some subsequently failed (the idea of linking the two GWR branches at Uxbridge come to mind with a planned precursor of a “Wimbledon Loop” type of service. In others, they perhaps failed because rival companies refused to talk with each other (Southall – Brentford, West Drayton – Staines perhaps, and certainly the St Albans – Welwyn – Hertford line), and perhaps those earlier failures have led to the delay of new initiatives such as Crossrail. Perhaps because of earlier failures, a fear of another failure was created to the extent that recent re-openings have tended to vastly underestimate actual use after the re-opening, and the situation we are now faced with that Crossrail is likely to be maxed out from the day of opening it.
I remember how long it took to get the go-ahead for both the Victoria Line, and then the Picc’s westward extension to Heathrow. Was there a culture just to save money via a closure than to risk “early retirement” rather than suggest a new rail initiative? Is that why we are getting Crossrail about 40 years after Gerry Fiennes suggested something like it?
@GH, @ Castlebar
The underlying history of Middlesex is simple. It let itself be built over enough to lose a lot of the inner zone to the LCC, both east, north and west of the City. Unlike some other railways, the GWR and LNWR actively discouraged 3rd class travel until the 1870s/1880s, therefore much of what are now Zone 3 /Zone 4 suburbs had no transport incentive to develop until the expansion of the Met and MDR and their later derivatives, which made the most of the NW/W zone. Blame the GNR and GER for northwards expansion until then (the Midland was a minor latecomer).
So much of Middlesex was still very leafy in the 1920s, and ripe for tube expansion. Farmyard (or small-holding) noises were still normal near Pitshanger in the 1950s, I remember them. Meanwhile on the roads front in the 20th Century, MCC supported arterial road developments from near its boundary (think of the A4, A40, A41, A10), plus an orbital Middlesex spine which is the North Circular Road. People gradually crayoned in the housing and industrial estates. MCC narrowly avoided sponsoring an airport near ‘Heath Row’ in 1938 (roughly where T4 is now). It was notionally planned to have had Underground and SR services.
@Castlebar
Another explanation is th at many of the inner – now closed – stations well pre-dated the tram network and were put out of business when trams started to compete in those areas. Even when the railway companies were not actively discouraging 3rd class travel, they all found it difficult to compete with tram frequencies and accessibility.
@ Jonathan Roberts
I remember Pitshangar in the 1950s too. You are absolutely right. When I was young (in the early 1950s), I remember Ruislip Road East being so narrow that two buses (97s, and they were only 7′ 6″ wide in those days) could not pass each other unless one pulled in and stopped until the other had got by.
Quinlet > Yes to that too!
Yes, the Ruislip Road under the Ealing-Greenford branch was only widened in the late 1950s/early 1960s, and then used a different arch under the railway. (The route 211 RF’s joined a little further west, towards Greenford.) Similarly along the Ruislip Road west of Greenford towards Yeading, where parts of the former road are now housing estate laybys, eg near the VIKing telephone exchange.
Much of Perivale Lane was only changed from rural days when the A40 underpass was built (? around 1980), which finally allowed a bus route to connect Perivale with Ealing – and Ealing with Tesco’s Hoover building. That route is still very rural past Horsenden Hill, north of the Grand Union Canal towards Sudbury Town, so (to get back towards theme) it can safely be said that the Central Line’s Ruislip branch offers quite enough radial transport capacity for that catchment.
Crossrail will rightly concentrate its principal capacity on the GW main line, where however there are fewer local stations than you would expect with a Metro-style service – 2¼ miles West Drayton to Hayes, 1¾ miles Hayes to Southall, where redevelopment (eg Southall ex-Gas Works > housing) are expected in-between the existing stations.
Further to my post on 20th June re West Ealing Station . I passed through station on Greenford to Paddington train yesterday and noticed that a worksite has been set up at street level with I presume work to clear site of redundant platform etc about to begin while planning permission for new station entrance, lifts etc is being sought.
If CR1 is going to be operated under the name ‘ Crossrail’, what will CR2 be called ?
Diagonal Rail, obviously
Resurrect a name once suggested for the Victoria Line: VICtoria to KINGs Cross (ViKing Line)
Or, as it connects Wimbledon and the west with the Lea Valley, by way of a circuitous route including the Grosvenor area around Victoria – the Wi-G-Lee Line.
V ictoria
A ngel
SE ven Sisters
Vaseline – I’ll get my coat.
Happyrail?
To be opened in the next reign, so perhaps the Caroline
Connects NE London to West London: The NE W line. (At the glacial rate with which railway infrastructure grows in this country, it is unlikely that the name will become inappropriate very quickly).
Indeed, if the service runs to Guildford it will run over the 1880s-vintage Cobham Line – still known as the “New” line, having no more recent challengers on the South Western for that title.
@Grham H
“To be opened in the next reign” – the next reign but three, unless you think HM will outlive her son, her grandson, and her great grandson.
Given the longevity of both the Queen and Prince Philip, it is unlikely either of Prince William’s children will succeed to the throne until the second half of this century. Are you expecting XR2 to take that long to be built?
…or is Graham H getting all Classical (or Slavic!) on us and using Caroline as the adjectival form of Charles…?
Re Slugabed,
I was assuming germanic latin with the Rex Carolus III line, shortened to Caro-line
Anonyminibus 24 June 2015 at 10:52
“If CR1 is going to be operated under the name ‘ Crossrail’, what will CR2 be called ?”
Crescent rail
If the naming of the Overground lines are anything to go by, XR2 will be named “Crossrail” and any confusion created will be ignored.
@slugabed – yes, that’s what I had in mind; ngh has further developed the thought!
@timbeau and Jim Cobb – I fear that both your pessimisms will be right…
@Slugabed.ngh
As for my lack of classical Latin, I can only say “Mea culpa”.
especially as, in a senior moment, I forgot the current heir’s grand-daughter has the French version of the feminised form of Charles, not the Italian/German form.
I always get the royal Carolines and Charlottes confused: the Hanoverian era had three Queens and three Princesses all called one or the other: three Carolines and three Charlottes
Crossrail 2 naming
CR1 has a simple X / cross like branch pattern if this where extrapolated to CR2 you might get Octorail with 8 potential branches / tentacles (more likely Heptarail with just 7 though)
Archetuthis-rail?
@ Jonathan Roberts
We were obviously in the same area at the same time. The ONLY thing I question is that R Rd East now runs under a different arch of the Greenford Branch Line. Everything else is as you say. This is based on (very) local knowledge and I was an inmate of the (fairly) local grammar school (Drayton Manor) who received a bit of extra playing field bordering R Rd East because of the road re-alignment when the local woods (known to us as the ‘Ups and Downs’) were grubbed out for the road widening/straightening.
I am told the “Pitshangar” (now re-branded by incoming estate agents as Pitshangar Village – a place that was unheard of 50/60 years ago), – is the most sought after area in west London, (although different estate agents in other parts of west London say differently).
Given the rate of residential and commercial development around Acton Main Line over the next 3 years, 4tph is going to be a pretty underwhelming start, especially as it starts a year after the central and eastern sections. It would be good to know why TfL can’t take over Heathrow Connect now, stop it at Acton Main Line and bring forward West Ealing to Greenford shuttle, in advance of Crossrail proper starting out west, as they did with the TfL Rail services out east.
@ Dean Learner
Unfortunately, your idea is so blatantly obvious that it is a non-runner. MANY years ago, proposals/promises/election promises were made not only to extend the Greenford service to Acton, but then to Olympia and Clapham Junction too. This idea was more recently revived by EPTUG (Ealing Passenger Transport Users Group) and it was until recently (in fact it might still be) on their website. But because nothing happened, I bet it will be much harder to implement now.
TfL are now in the process of releasing funding and instructing MTR Crossrail to modernise the Shenfield line stations.
https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/fpc-20150730-part-1-item10-crossrail-stations.pdf
I’ll admit that I hadn’t thought of Crossrail contracting out the station improvements to the operator. What’s the plan for the western side stations?
It sort of makes sense, in that the mega-project scale of the tunnelling works is run by an organisation that is designed to do just that, ie manage a massive project which is mostly isolated from trains and passengers . The smaller scale work that is planned for the operational stations requires a management organisation that is quite different in nature.
@ Fandroid – If I have understood the various papers correctly there are four streams of Crossrail work.
– main construction of the tunnels, new stations / ticket halls, tracks.
– fit out and commissioning of the above
– Surface works contracted to Network Rail to add junctions, tracks, sidings and major station works like reconstructed Ealing Broadway, Southall, Hayes etc
– station modernisation / acccessibility works contracted through the TOC (where not in the NR stn works scope).
I have a sneaking suspicion that TfL may have decided a while ago that it wanted more control at station level hence the revised form of lease they have secured from Network Rail. This gives them greater scope to direct works and development potential at these locations. There may also have been a secondary concern about NR’s ability to deliver at sufficient pace and efficient cost hence taking some works away from NR and altering the balance of lease based asset management responsibilities. Avoids TfL being hammered for leaking roofs or damaged drains which would normally be NR freehold responsibilities and may not necessarily be repaired as speedily as TfL may want on a flagship service like Crossrail. I’d hazard a guess that MTR Crossrail have some onerous performance levels for rectification of passenger / staff facing faults.
Almost as a ‘throw away’ via IanVisits, I see that track laying has started towards the Connaught Tunnel and beyond. Is there going to be an update soon?
LadyBracknell,
Realistically I don’t now expect an update until late September when we expect to have more information to hand to report on. If you just want to know how the project is advancing then head to the Crossrail website. There’s quite a good report on their new concreting train and their near you page is vastly improved.
I’ve sent John Bull some of my entirely amateur and uninvited photos of track laying either side of Custom House station and Connaught tunnel.
I now have a few more.
Thanks PoP, I was on the Crossrail site a couple of days’ ago, but couldn’t really find what I wanted.
@Alan, I am going to wonder out to Prince Regent in the near future with my camera to get some updated photos, but would like to see your pictures in the meantime. Where can I see them, please?
LadyBracknell 23 August 2015 at 17:53
Try my facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/alan.griffiths.9803
10 & 13 August 2015
Many thanks. I am ridiculously excited about Crossrail, especially this eastern section.
AG
I looked @ your err, ****book page.
De nada.
Where would one find x-rail pictures on it, because I could not see any, nor any obvious link?
@ Greg – I can’t see anything either but I suspect that’s because I’m not on Facebook and depending on how people structure their pages non members sometimes can’t get beyond the “home page” for an individual. I refuse to be on Facebook – I have enough of a web presence already.
LadyBracknell,
The Crossrail news item for the concreting train includes a video which explains that they have laid temporary track through the Connaught Tunnel. They are also laying track at some of the portals.
The big facility at Plumstead has come on leaps and bounds recently, and is where the very long concreting train is based. That could be worth including as part of a future article, given it was not supposed to exist, then became temporary and is now permanent, and from what I can see is now even bigger than the substantial permanent facility in later plans.
Lots of work coming along quickly at Abbey Wood too. Another bridge was installed this weekend.
I couldn’t find Alan’s facebook pictures either, but I appreciate his attempting to post a link. It’s pouring rain this morning and so I will wander out east another day. By the way, that concreting train would solve over-crowding on the commuter lines.
I would like to use the image – Completed Crossover tunnels at Whitechapel – on my Site,
Who should I contact to obtain approval ?
Thank you
Lourens,
Contact [email protected]