On 14 September 2017 a formal ceremony took place to install the final four rail sleeper clips on Crossrail. As reported by Crossrail themselves, this marked completion of the installation of all the track that Crossrail Ltd was directly responsible for.
It would have been wrong not to mark this completion with some kind of event. It is traditional to have some kind of ceremony when trackwork is completed on a new railway line. The formal event itself was decidedly underwhelming, what was more interesting was the gradual realisation that the construction of Crossrail is almost complete.
Hype
When one talks of ceremoniously completing the track, one may well think of the railways of the east and west coasts of America being connected. This is seen as a historical event in the same category as the Russian and American forces meeting up at Elbe towards the end of WW2. Seeing four screws inserted to install the final clips on the eastbound Crossrail track didn’t quite generate the same level of excitement.
Indeed screwing the clips in place was hardly a task vital for the progression of the project. The line had already seen plenty of works trains going up and down at low speed. Because the rails still have to be ‘stressed’, and that cannot be done until the temperature in the tunnels reaches a steady state, there were even small gaps in the rail at various locations. If works trains can safely run over these small fish-plated gaps then they can safely run at low speed over a track which has four rail clamps not screwed down.
Temporary track joint
Stage managed
The Crossrail event was, unavoidably, stage-managed. Not only did it happen at a civilised hour during the working week, it also happened at probably one of the most conveniently accessible locations within the Crossrail tunnels at Whitechapel. Less cynically, the always effervescent Crossrail Chairman, Terry Morgan, pointed out in a video interview that Whitechapel is particularly appropriate because “Whitechapel has been a huge challenge for us over the years and it now looks like a station”.
Whitechapel starting to look like a station at platform level
We cynically suggested to senior Crossrail staff that the screws might already have been put in place by machine and unscrewed especially for this purpose, but we were assured that these were genuinely the last clips to be installed. However, when asked, it was confirmed that someone with a bit more experience would be along later with a calibrated torque wrench.
The non-ceremony
There were no great ceremonies and no speeches. The media were there but not in force. The Secretary of State, Chris Grayling, was there offering his appreciation for the work done to anyone dressed in Crossrail orange workwear who appeared to be hanging around for the occasion without any kind of purposeful intention. Thus it was that both LR’s editor and the author of this article were thanked profusely by the Secretary of State for the work they did building Crossrail, and the beaming smiles offered in return appeared to be interpreted as appreciation for the sentiments made.
The official ceremony with distinguished people present to officiate
Whatever the official reason for the trip to Whitechapel, for visitors it was probably more interesting to see the final completed Crossrail station tunnel – though fitting-out remains to be done.
The unofficial ceremony with our editor making out that it was him who tightened up the final screw thus completing track work on Crossrail
Presentation is everything
One can argue that the media event was at least in part about impressing the Secretary of State for Transport – that it was more about Crossrail 2 than Crossrail 1. It was certainly an opportunity to remind the Secretary of State how well the construction was going and, by holding the ceremony in the mighty cavern of Whitechapel eastbound platform, emphasise the great potential of Crossrail 2 to help alleviate London’s transport problems. Certainly, the BBC’s reporting suggested this was really about the need to get on with Crossrail 2, with a defensive Chris Grayling seemingly keener to promote the cause of HS2.
Alternatively, one can take the view that the ceremony helped get across the message that Crossrail Ltd is entering its final stage of construction, with most work close to completion and the start of testing and handover about to begin. It is hard to imagine that by early July 2018 the work at Crossrail will largely be done and that relatively few people will remain on the payroll.
Nearly 90% complete… maybe
In an upbeat video Andrew Wolstenholme, Crossrail’s Chief Executive, claims the work is “approaching 90% complete” (and remember, as far as we are aware, that is specific Crossrail work). He also talks of having great confidence that the work will complete on time in December 2018 and “within the funding envelope”. In the BBC interview, referenced earlier, Val Shawcross, the Deputy Mayor for Transport, spoke of a slight concern that Network Rail would not finish “five stations in the West of London” on time for the full opening to Reading but added that this would not delay the introduction of the service and would only lead to the stations being not quite complete.
Partly complete platform at Hayes & Harlington, one of the five stations of concern, where there is no sign of Network Rail progressing with getting the station work finished
Confusingly, A more recent paper for the Programme and Investments Committee suggests that progress is 87% complete. It is possible that both figures are accurate with them measuring slightly different things. Alternatively, the “approaching 90% complete” figure involves some fairly liberal rounding of values.
Nuffin’ to do wiv us, gov
There is, seemingly, a contradiction between suggesting work on Crossrail is largely complete and the apparent amount of work which remains to be completed for opening of the main section in December 2018. One possible explanation for this is that it is down to demarcation.
In the early days of Crossrail there was little attempt to differentiate between the construction of Crossrail and its operation. Apart from anything else, it would have unnecessarily confused the public and the politicians. Anyway, it wasn’t important then. When it came to showing a public face, Crossrail took on board all aspects of the project. When the Crossrail route was extended to Reading, the Crossrail website was comprehensively updated to reflect this fact even though the matter was of very little importance to the construction company building the new line.
In contrast to the Reading announcement, the Crossrail website has done little to acknowledge the fact that it was recently announced that Crossrail (or rather the ‘Elizabeth line’) would serve Terminal 5. The website had an absolutely minimal update with the two of the three main maps still out-of-date, a cursory press announcement, an inaccurate home page and no mention of the decision to serve Terminal 5 in its latest Quarterly Update – either on the relevant webpage or Crossrail’s Chief Executive’s associated video. This is easy to explain: Crossrail Ltd is now only focused on things directly in its remit. To Crossrail, extending the Elizabeth line to Terminal 5 is an irrelevance.
So, we may have the situation where Crossrail’s “approaching 90% completion” figure refers just to works that Crossrail Ltd is responsible for. In contrast, TfL Rail may be looking at a bigger picture and taking into account that more work, such as operational trials, needs to be done. TfL Rail also increasingly seems to be the overseeing mind of the overall project, with Crossrail Ltd now concentrating on the engineering aspects.
What’s in a name?
A consequence of the decision to name the completed line ‘the Elizabeth line’ was that, for the first time, people had to think about whether they were referring to ‘Crossrail’ (the construction company) or ‘the Elizabeth line’ (the line itself).
Around the same time, another player was starting to portray their own identity. This was TfL Rail, a TfL subsidiary which is the management company responsible for specifying the service that will be run. They will also ultimately be responsible for running that service. Lurking in the background, but now becoming important nevertheless, is MTR Crossrail – the service management company which will actually run the Elizabeth line on a day-to-day basis. MTR Crossrail is already running the TfL Rail service between Shenfield and Liverpool St.
Just to add to the complexity, the main contractor for the surface works is Network Rail. Here we are in a bit of a strange situation, because Network Rail is subcontracted by Crossrail to deliver the specified work at an agreed fixed price and in an manner consistent with Network Rail standards. The nature of the relationship with Network Rail is also slightly different from other Crossrail subcontactors in that Network Rail handle their own press releases and community engagement. This makes it appear as if the work is nothing to do with Crossrail Ltd – and to a large extent it isn’t.
Demarcation lines
A further consequence of Crossrail naturally focusing on their own work is that no word is made of imminent completion of trackwork beyond the area that Crossrail is responsible for. In fact, if you go less than a couple of miles to the east of Whitechapel, far more interesting and significant track work is taking place as Network Rail is working hard to join the track at Pudding Mill Lane portal with the National Rail Network. This should be completed very shortly and is a prerequisite for the testing phase, as it will enable a train maintained at Ilford depot to access the tunnels – and without a train you cannot test a lot of the equipment there.
The arrangement at Pudding Mill Lane will see the portal leading down to the Elizabeth line flanked by the up and down ‘electric’ lines to Liverpool Street. Thus, to commission the portal it is necessary to re-route the busy up line into Liverpool St so that it lies between the portal and Pudding Mill Lane DLR station, which has been relocated well to the south.
Without ceremony, Network Rail are getting on with the job of joining Crossrail to the National Rail Network at Pudding Mill Lane portal. In the foreground is the track that will lead to Liverpool St (high level)
A live wire
The current in the first live section of overhead line will be switched on within a couple of months. It is believed that by 31st October both eastern branches will be live all the way from Stepney Junction.
After the initial switching on, we expect to see a delay in switching on the remainder of the live overhead wire or rigid contact rail. Switching on means that extra precautions have to be introduced when working on any station construction affected – which slows down construction progress. Even the rebuilding of Custom House DLR has been affected by the first stage of going live. As always, Crossrail is as much about getting the logistics right as it is about the construction itself. We expect to see the remainder of Crossrail go live in February 2018 when the rest of the fixed contact bar in the tunnels will be energised.
Overhead wires at Abbey Wood start to give a feeling of a completed railway
With electrification wires present at Abbey Wood, there is a real feeling that the railway is complete even if the station has a few more weeks of work to go. Around Prince Regent and Custom House there is frenzied activity as a multitude of orange-clad workers finish off the electrification work.
Activity as seen from Prince Regent
Railway construction companies have learnt to keep the duration of time between the copper catenary wire going up and the wire going live as short as possible to avoid delays caused by the theft of copper wire. One consequence is a short sustained period of intense activity and that activity has been very apparent on Crossrail in the last month.
The warning message has been put up at Custom House but it is rather misleading – the wire is not overhead and, at the time, it wasn’t live.
So what is left for Crossrail Ltd to do?
Judging by the upbeat mood and comments it would certainly seem to be the case that there is not that much left to be done by Crossrail Ltd. The work broadly falls into five categories. These are:
- complete the fit out in the tunnels
- test systems integration
- complete the stations Crossrail are responsible for
- complete the depot at Old Oak Common
- construct a maintenance depot at Plumstead
We will look at each of these in turn.
Complete the fit out
We are told that fit-out in the tunnels is pretty much complete between Abbey Wood and Canary Wharf. The fact that so much has already been done means that the methodology for fitting out is well established and it is now a case of continuing the good work all the way to the Royal Oak portal at the Paddington end. The Platform Edge Doors (PEDs) are starting to come into their own now as they provide a barrier between the track and the work still going on in the stations.
The main logistical problem with fit-out will be to integrate this with the testing of trains in the tunnels. The works trains will need to leave Plumstead in the morning prior to commencing work on the parts of the tunnels that still need fitting out. Testing of Class 345 trains based at Abbey Wood can then commence in the tunnel and take place during the day and then the Class 345 trains need to be parked up at Abbey Wood to enable the works trains to return to their base at Plumstead to be maintained and stocked up for the next day’s work.
Testing systems integration
The tunnels are very complex and they contain signalling, power, drainage, communications, air extraction equipment and a host of other things. At stations it gets even more complicated. All this has to be thoroughly tested by Crossrail and approved ready for handover to TfL Rail in early July 2018. Clearly, testing cannot commence in a particular stretch of tunnel until fit-out is complete. Platform Edge Doors will be amongst the last things to be tested because, as explained above, these are needed to separate activity in the stations from the systems testing.
The plan is to begin testing with a Class 345 train in November. With the power live it ought to be possible for it to arrive under its own power at Abbey Wood ready to commence testing, but the suggestion is that it will be loco-hauled (and propelled) to Abbey Wood from Ilford. Tests can then commence as far as Canary Wharf. Initially, this will involve a single train at very slow speed. As testing progresses up to six trains may be in the tunnel at one time – three in each direction.
Even at this stage, the task ceases to be solely an in-house Crossrail activity as the train will be driven by a driver from MTR Crossrail under directions from Crossrail staff. Furthermore, it seems, judging by their introduction on TfL Rail, that TfL Rail has largely taken responsibility for the trains. So we can expect to see integration tests as a joint activity between Crossrail Ltd, TfL Rail and MTR Crossrail.
Complete the stations Crossrail are responsible for
All appears to be going well with station construction in the central area. Crossrail Ltd is responsible for the 10 stations between Paddington and Abbey Wood (inclusive). Crossrail is reporting that many of the escalators are already in place in these stations and that, in some of them, the decorative features are now being installed. Work is done by contractors and they are due to finish in the summer of 2018 so that the stations can be handed over to TfL Rail and MTR Crossrail staff in early July.
Even Abbey Wood station is due to have at least a couple of escalators
Canary Wharf station has been largely complete for some time as it was built by a private contractor in lieu of a £500m payment towards the cost of Crossrail. Private enterprise was anxious to finish it as soon as possible to enable a development above the station to open at the earliest opportunity.
Elsewhere, Abbey Wood is due to open in October 2017, with only the Elizabeth line platforms not accessible to station users.
Complete the depot at Old Oak Common
It is easy to overlook depots but they are vital to any railway. The Elizabeth line depot at Old Oak Common will be a completely new one and Crossrail are responsible for building it. This needs to be operational by May 2018 when it is planned that six 9-car Class 345 trains will take over the Heathrow Connect service and replace the existing 2tph service with a train every 15 minutes between Terminal 4 and Paddington.
In fact, the first section of Old Oak Depot is planned to be brought into use at the end of November 2017. Prior to that, from the end of October, it is expected that one of the Elizabeth line sidings at Maidenhead will be used to store one of the first 9-car Class 345 trains.
Whilst a delay to completing stage 2 (operation of Terminal 4 – Paddington High-Level services) caused by delays finishing the depot would not be a disaster, it would certainly raise concerns within TfL Rail. They have been very open about the need to test the ETCS signalling track-train interface that will be used on this section of the Elizabeth line.
Even if ETCS is delayed on the Great Western Main Line, it will be vital that the trains work with this signalling as it will be the only option available for Class 345 trains when in the Heathrow tunnel. To test the trains and the signalling interface in the Heathrow tunnel, the trains need access to a functioning depot – hence the requirement for Old Oak depot to be partially operational in November.
Construct a maintenance depot at Plumstead
The construction of a new maintenance depot at Plumstead is probably the last big job that Crossrail needed to start. As the land has been in use as works site for construction it was not possible for work to commence on this until the end of August 2017. It is due to be completed by the end of August 2018.
Disappearing into oblivion
The end of Crossrail will not come with a bang, but a whimper. As more major tasks come to an end it will be the nitty-gritty of handover and snagging lists that will consume the time. The large numbers of people who worked on the project will continue to move elsewhere – possibly to HS2, Crossrail 2 development, Thames Tideway Tunnel or even to TfL Rail. The familiar Crossrail logos will start to disappear, the Crossrail website will have less to report and, no doubt, TfL will start to build up its own publicity machine. MTR Crossrail will work unobtrusively preparing for the launches of the various stages of the future Elizabeth line.
Followed by…
As Crossrail starts to wind down and TfL Rail starts to ramp up, we will also see new players enter the scene to finish off the work. The DLR has been working for the past few months getting Custom House DLR station fit for purpose as an interchange to the Elizabeth line.
York Road entrance at Ilford station prior to Crossrail refurbishment
Local authorities are already making plans to spruce up the areas around the Elizabeth line stations. Camden seems set to introduce its planned pedestrian-friendly changes to Tottenham Court Road once traffic restrictions due to Crossrail are removed. The Mayor and London Buses are keen for the opening of the Elizabeth line to coincide with a full closure of Oxford Street to traffic.
York Road entrance at Ilford station after Crossrail refurbishment. Following that, the London Borough of Redbridge are progressing with improving the urban realm.
Crossrail construction is just part of the work necessary to create the Elizabeth line – but it is an enormous part. It won’t be long before it will be a case of ‘job done’ for Crossrail and for others to take over. With that in mind we hope to look shortly at the task TfL Rail now has as they, and MTR Crossrail, ramp up and get more involved with getting the Elizabeth line ready for passengers.
Great article showing the complexities of PFI partnerships.
Any ideas:
(a) if/when the Liz Line will run 24 hours on the weekend?
(b) if/when we’ll know whether London City Airport (LCY) is getting a station?
(c) if some trains will be fast/semi-fast? I doubt it due to lack of paths and if paths exist, that they’ll be shared with unpredictable (delayed, etc) traffic, though thought I’d ask.
(d) what will happen at Maidenhead to the Marlow/Bourne End branch line?
(e) how the extension of Crossrail to Reading will impact the service that the Great Western Railway offers its passengers both near and far to London?
Two points. It is notoriously hard to measure percentage completion of a project. In my mind 87% and approaching 90% represent the same thing within the tolerance of any declared value. It is much easier to measure the spend and the time left to the completion date, but neither, of course give any indication of likelihood of completion on time!
Of the work situation still to do, In my view, the systems integration is by far the most risk. It is good that a whole year is allowed. The trains will have to be proved to work on the Trainguard MT system and to transition to and from TPWS and AWS on the move. Same for transition to and from TPWS and AWS. This has not been done before. Also they will have to transition to/from ETCS in the Heathrow tunnel. From experience this work is not trivial. As to the actors involved in the transition, factor in Bombardier as a key player as they will be supporting the trains though warranty and maintaining them, and Siemens who, again from experience, will probably be supporting the signalling for longer than anyone expects.
Ant,
(a) No, but Crossrail and TfL Rail have been working on the basis that it will be requested sooner rather than later.
(b) Considered feeling is that a station for the London City Airport is a load of puff. The economics doesn’t stand up. That is before you have to factor in the cost of other journeys taking longer due to the additional station stop. It seems to be one of these suggestions made by one party in the hope that a different party will pay for it. If it was worth doing it should have been done at the outset.
(c) West of Paddington only. Some will omit stops to avoid delaying other trains. Others will be semi-fast as they will replace GWR semi-fast services.
(d) Bourne End/Marlow branch will remain diesel operated and run by GWR. Bourne End platform is too short for 4-car trains continuing to Marlow and all new electric units seem to be at least 4-cars long these days.
(e) See article describing the Elizabeth line taking over some of the GWR services here.
On b) an airport station would be at least a 200m walk from the Airport entrance to a station entrance. A station would involve building platforms on Albert and Factory Road to either side which wouldn’t be popular with local people or firms.
Custom House Crossrail station is only 1200m walk away so a bus shuttle or improving the walking route (covering, moving walkways) are more sensible options. The ideal minimum Crossrail station spacing is 1800m hence they really won’t want to put another one north of the Thames east of Custom House…
On C) Semi slow is probably a better description than semi fast but the the stopping services will be significantly faster as they will be timetable for high power EMUs not DMUs with poor acceleration or EMUs running to DMU timings with plenty of waiting as at present…
Presentation is everything
“One can argue that the media event was at least in part about impressing the Secretary of State for Transport – that it was more about Crossrail 2 than Crossrail 1.”
Astonishing!
“The arrangement at Pudding Mill Lane will see the portal leading down to the Elizabeth line flanked by the up and down ‘electric’ lines to Liverpool Street. Thus, to commission the portal it is necessary to re-route the busy up line into Liverpool St so that it lies between the portal and Pudding Mill Lane DLR station”
Up line diversion already in use. Such a smooth job that regular passengers have hardly noticed.
@PoP
“all new electric units seem to be at least 4-cars long these days.”
Plenty of 3-car units being built or converted for use outside London (classes 320 (formerly 321), 331, 380, 385) but even these would be too long to fit the Marlow platform at Bourne End.
I doubt that converting a 456 or 466 to ac would be worthwhile.
Unfortunately the 375’s (et al) have the pantograph well on an intermediate coach so no easy solution there either….
Talking about transitions, what happens to the live o/h wire at the tunnel portals where the live o/h Rail commences, Some sort of bounce absorbing device??
Immediately to the west of the Royal Oak portal, the track around the area that shall become the Westbourne Park turnback sidings is yet to be installed.
This area was until recently laid with track for works trains for constructing / fitting out the tunnels.
I’d assumed the installation of the turnback sidings was a Crossrail responsibility, rather than Network Rail (due this area being north of the old railway boundary, on what used to be a bus depot).
Is this a Network Rail responsibility or is it another area that Crossrail need to complete?
A few comments.
The latest Crossrail Transition paper to this week’s Investment Cttee is placing a great deal of stress on the signalling issues. Reading the section about the Heathrow service it looks to me that the programme is on a knife edge now. Clearly the risks are significant for everyone but so is the technical task and the associated assurance evidence process. I don’t envy anyone involved in this work. The pressures on them will be immense.
The same paper also talks about the wider transition issues which you’ve covered. I detect there a tightening of the programme. I know that on paper there are months of testing but that’ll be gone in a flash. Again the assurance issue and regulatory sign offs are looming large with an acknowledgement that existing processes have never been used for something as large as Crossrail. Let’s hope that there have been years of discussion with ORR and others about how to get through that crucial last phase. I assume there has been a process of progressive assurance and co-operation thus far to avoid issues at the last minute.
You have missed one new TfL organisation that is being established. A new subsidiary called “Rail for London (Infrastructure)” is in place to take on ownership of the new core railway and to be responsible for its maintenance and upkeeping. They also have a role in the regulatory structure in terms of access to infrastructure etc – a form of “Network Rail”. It looks like the actual maintenance activity will be tendered and contracted out. I assume they will also handle administration of warranties for assets transferred to their responsibility.
I wonder who will end up handling claims from Crossrail? I assume there will be a whole load of them and more will emerge as we near the end of the work. There will also be issues around the actual performance of assets vs what was specified. I also assume someone (or a team) has been handling all of the necessary legal vesting issues and revisions to existing / creation of new NR / LU asset interface agreements and plans. All “boring” but crucial work that has to be done to ensure everyone understands who is responsible for what.
One question – I thought “The Lizzie Line” (ugh) was being handled operationally as part of London Underground’s corporate structure? Mark Wild, the LU MD, is certainly leading on a number of issues and new committees. All other contracted railways (Overground, DLR, Tramlink) are under Leon Daniels within whatever his directorate is now called. TfL Rail is a brand not an operational entity if we’re being strictly accurate. Happy to be corrected as the structure is certaintly byzantine in places.
J Stafford Baker…..
Here are a couple of references to the transition systems to/from catenary and overhead rail. It has been used in a number of tunnels in UK already – eg Edinburgh Waverley to Haymarket and, as far as i know, the Severn Tunnel.
https://www.furrerfrey.ch/dam/jcr:5beace53-28a1-40a4-92ab-fe91780f607d/ROCS%20brochure%20Sept%202015.pdf
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.5370/JICEE.2012.2.4.463
The main line assurance/regulation process requires significant projects (Crossrail is certainly significant) to be assessed to ensure compliance with all the key requirements.
A Notified Body (NOBO) to assess compliance with the Technical Specifications for Interoperability and all the EuroNorms that support the TSIs
A Designated Body (DEBO) to assess compliance with the Notified National Standards and the various standards they call up
An Assessment Body (ASBO – honestly) to assess compliance with the Commission Regulation (EU) 402/2013, Common Safety Method.
Compilation of a Technical file for authorisation by ORR.
The challenge is to do all this for all the sub systems, and cover off all their interfaces, deal with systems for which there are no TSIs – the central core signalling and Platform Screen Doors and then deliver all the assurance at system level. Remember, this process post dates the start of Crossrail.
My limited experience is that a project that a) recognises and embraces the assurance system, b) builds the generation of evidence into the delivery process and c) commits the resource to organise, test and present the evidence is well on the way to success. Personally, I am confident Crossrail will have all this in hand. It has already brought one significant asset type into service using the process – the trains.
Walthamstow Writer,
Leon Daniels is due to retire “towards the end of the year” so I suspect there might well be a bit of a shake up. It seemed a bit illogical so much came under his remit but I suspect he was seen as a safe reliable pair of hands of known quantity whereas London Underground has seen quite a change at the top and in other senior positions in the past couple of years.
And I suppose, yes, strictly speaking, I should have referred to ‘Rail for London’ and not ‘TfL Rail’ but I was trying to get across the point that Crossrail is starting to hand over to the TfL operational side. If you ask the relevant people they say they work for TfL Rail!
I travel to/from Paddington/Slough 5 days a week. It looks like at LOT of work still needs to be done on all the stations between those mentioned. I’m sure it’s all in hand, but, it’s not obvious to me on my daily journies.
@130, WW: Comparing the wording of recent couple of reports to the Board and the Programmes and Investment Committee is interesting to get a sense of where the biggest issues have been and currently are. The September board meeting included a paper which noted:
For Stage 3 the Class 345 train requires further development to incorporate Communications Based Train Control (CBTC) signalling… This is complex and a matter of significant focus from the train manufacturer (Bombardier) and TfL. The Commissioner has met with Bombardier’s President and CEO and there are regular updates meetings between Bombardier and the MD London Underground.
For the Bombardier President and CEO, (who have had plenty on their plate with the Siemens merger and aircraft issues) to have had to meet with the Commissioner suggests pretty heavy pressure on Bombardier from TfL to deliver.
The latest paper confirms that the MD London Underground is still involved in meeting with Bombardier. On the other hand there is more focus given to potential Network Rail delays. For the Great Western works they say:
While NR believe it has time to complete the necessary works, there is little, if any, leeway
This is in relation to things like platform clearances and turnbacks which are vital to running trains, not the ‘nice to haves’ like station rebuilds. Note that they say that NR believe they have time, not that they believe NR has time.
The TfL Business Plan tabled at the 15 December 2016 Board Meeting revealed the Elizabeth Line will be within TfL’s Rail division until after commencement of services to all destinations, when it will become part of London Underground from the 2020/21 financial year. The Underground has emerged as an integrated business from a chequered background. However, the addition of this new ‘tube’ line will probably be the greatest challenge to the system since its amalgamation with the Metropolitan Railway, on the formation of the LPTB near ninety years back. I presume the non-standard train livery is unlikely to be modified. Will station signage be modified from the planned Crossrail colours to the LU standard?
Ex croydon 11 October 2017 at 23:59
“It looks like at LOT of work still needs to be done on all the stations.”
Also true east of Stratford.
But works to existing stations are not on the critical path for opening the line.
It’s hard to see how putting the Elizabeth Line under LU makes sense, given that unlike the rest of LU, a third party, MTR Crossrail will be handling the business of running the trains and stations. This makes the set-up more like the DLR or London Overground, so a management team wholly operating with that approach makes more sense to me.
Unless of course there’s a secret plan to start contracting out tube operations…
Re: East and West station work…
It’s no secret that Network Rail has finance issues. They’re trying to delay the work as long as possible so that it doesn’t make their already atrocious accounts look even worse. I expect the completions will all be late and TfL/Crossrail Ltd/GLA/Boroughs will be keen point the finger.
@ 100&30 – thanks for that mini-update. All the euro stuff and TSIs are after my time. While I have no engineering qualification or competence I have done a lot of work on assurance processes, safety cases / certificates and work with the SQE directorate. Interesting to see it’s all changed again in terms of names and roles but the essential output is the same. I agree with you that Crossrail will almost certainly have had a focus on this all the way through the project in order to avoid any “surprises” now.
@ PoP – I do know Mr Daniels is going soon. I, too, expect a reshuffle but not necessarily one that affects the rail modes. I think it will be about walking and cycling being hived off into a “Healthy Streets” directorate. We shall see in due course. I was more making the point that Taz touches on about the merging into LU of what is a NR contracted service with all the regulatory and financial issues that come with that. I agree that the changes in LU have clearly been substantial in the last 12-18 months (a lot of old hands have gone) so can see why Mr D was persuaded to stay on. I can see why culturally people refer to what is the current brand name as their employer but I was being my nit picky precise self in terms of the respective corporate bodies.
@ Ian J – You’ve picked up on the same nuances in the papers that I have. As you say once MDs feel they need to be in regular contact then things have got a little “stressed” further down the organisational structures on both sides. I also get a sense that we are not far from a controlled version of “panic stations” about getting the Paddington – Heathrow service transferred and operational from next May. The warning signs are clearly there on a number of fronts. As I’ve said umpteen times we are now in the difficult bit of the project as public deadlines are now looming very large.
@ Alan G / Paul – I’ve not been to look at the progress in East London but I think several of the stations have active programmes of work well underway. Ilford is one which I see regularly from the outside and there’s no sign of a contractor on site there to replace the main station building. They’ve got 18 months or so until Crossrail proper runs from there so perhaps there’s no time issue at that site and they want to be finished at the smaller stations first.
West London is different. I have used Hayes and Harlington in the last few months and that was largely demolished with a contractor on site. I don’t know if that work has now stopped or not. I believe all the other station rebuilding / refresh / accessibility works are outstanding and are being retendered by NR hence the delay. I expect budgetary issues are the reason why. We know from media coverage that Ealing Council are livid about the delays. I suspect others are not happy either. I can see that complaints about these delays, and especially to accessibility works, will become ever more strident. I suspect the Mayor will get sick of Mayor’s Questions about this.
If the stations in West London are not ready on time:
a) what technical constraint does this place on operation? While not opening doors in the last carriage is a nuisance on the ELL, it’s manageable. I feel these platform extensions are massive though. Can anyone enlighten me?
b) wouldn’t this be a huge mistake on Grayling’s part politically? I can write Sadiq’s speech for him where he says that Crossrail and London have delivered, but Grayling and the Conservatives have failed to do so.
IS & others
Re – station “completion” ( Above-ground, only, of course )
I would have thought that, provided the platform-surfaces are finished, smooth & level & some form of adequate lighting is provided, then the stations could/can open “on time”.
Yes / No?
There would/will undoubtedly be lots of embarrassing questions asked about the rest of the works still being a bulding site, & as ID implies, a lot of political mud-slinging, but the railway would be operating …..
Ian Sergeant,
I don’t think the issue is extending the platforms. There seems to be progress being made on these – at least sufficient for them to open. Where I think there is concern centres around the stations looking half-complete which is not the image that TfL want to portray.
So, Hayes & Harlington is perfectly functional. The picture shows the terminating platform incomplete but I have caught an 8-car (no SDO) electric GWR train from it. It was just the platform surface felt temporary, the shelter felt temporary and the signage and information inadequate. Similarly, there is a perfectly functional temporary ticket office and temporary side entrance but no real sign of the permanent ticket office and main entrance getting rebuilt.
As another example, the existing entrance at West Drayton is perfectly useable but one does not feel that the permanent new entrance has anywhere near the progress that one would expect at this stage of the project.
It all reminds me of the pictures of the first stage of the Victoria line opening where passengers seemed to be walking through building sites to get to the platforms. It might have been acceptable then but I don’t think TfL and the Mayor’s Office think it acceptable now.
One can imagine the PR damage inflicted by plastering roundels everywhere where development is unfinished. I thought that was one of the reasons why TfL Rail as a brand was created, though? An almost disposable identity to avoid any potential for a poor starting image tarnishing brand ‘Crossrail’?
Honestly, too much thought is given about branding. People will take Crossrail regardless if a bit of paint is missing or there is a temporary shelter. People will take the fastest routes for them to get to where they need to be. No one is ever going to say “I won’t take crossrail because I don’t like the temporary signage, so I’ll take a different route which is 30 minutes longer…”. The only legitimate concerns in my opinion should be about people with accessibility needs who may not be able to use incomplete stations for whatever reason.
Re: Paul – “The only legitimate concerns in my opinion should be about people with accessibility needs who may not be able to use incomplete stations for whatever reason.”
Is it possible that in some way it would be *illegal* to start the public service under such conditions, based on a legal requirement to ensure defined accessibility levels wherever works above a certain threshold in nature have been carried out?
@Ian S, PoP, Paul:
The issues which are singled out in the TfL update are:
some adjustment of platform heights, installation of the DOO CCTV system and the provision of turnback facilities at Hayes and Harlington Station
I am not sure if the platform heights relate to accessibility or whether there are gauging issues. But without the Driver Only Operation CCTV then Crossrail won’t be able to run, as they don’t have any guards and the trains aren’t designed to run with guards. Potentially the platform height is integral to the safety case for DOO using the Class 345s in which case it could stop them running too.
Presumably the turn back facilities at H&H are considered essential to the timetable they have planned as well.
The update makes it clear that the problem is not so much the time taken to do these fairly minor works, but NR being able to get possessions in the context of the much bigger electrification and IEP clearance works. Reading between the lines NR have much bigger problems on the Great Western and the risk is that the needed Crossrail works get pushed aside as the focus is on trying to complete electrification.
@IanJ
The temporary absence of DOO cameras could be overcome with platform despatch staff (qv Bromley South).
@Paul & Balthazar: Surely the lack of access for the less abled would only be a problem if the station was previously accessible or is new?
@SHLR – not so; the moment you change key parameters, such as platform heights and stepping distances, you lose any grandfather rights to the old, non-compliant, kit.
@Ian J – your interlinear readings are, if anything, an understatement as to what is currently going on in NR. Managers in other parts of the organisation complain that GWML is laying waste to virtually all other programmes..
I’m puzzled by the absence of logic in passing the Liz Line over to LU. Yes, it is like many ‘underground’ services which have their extremities above ground, but wouldn’t this leave the peak services into Liverpool St High level as *totally* running on mainline tracks? And during the run-in period while services to the west start from Paddington a similar ‘no-going-below’ will happen. In the subterranean areas crossrails of all possibilities will be frequent metro services, with LU applicability, but outside the central zone it just seems misplaced.
I do not understand the apparent DOO CCTV problem.
The DOO cameras are fitted to each carriage & the monitors are in each cab as with most modern DOO stock.
So it is not a station fitting out issue, unless the platform doors are going to be in the way of the view. But it was not a problem on the Jubilee line extension.
Train board DOO systems are two a penny now so they should work out of the box. . And in any case it would be a rolling stock not an infrastructure problem.
Does anyone know how the OHLE WIRE connects to the power RAIL in the roof when the track reaches the tunnel portals? Some sort of special connecting device?
J S-B
HERE is the Furrer u Frey page describing their product.
IIRC, they simply string a wire parallel & very close to the overhead “rail” for some distance, with the rail slowly rising & the wire descending, so that there is a seamless transition from the p.o.v. of the moving pantograph.
J Stafford-Baker….. short answer – slightly flippant – connectors and wire – in principle not much different from connecting two lengths of copper catenary wire. Longer answer is probably in the linked documents that were used to reply to you above although I confess I haven’t checked.
@Alison W – it’snot possible to be completely “tidy” on this but try the following:
– LU -runs own trains on mostly own infrastructure, decides services without reference to anyone else
– LO – runs own trains on NR infrastructure, has weak DfT “influence” on services
– eventually, other franchised services -TfL simply a franchise with weak input to service spec.
On that basis the Elizabeth is a close analogy to the District, say.
Jim Elson…… Class 345 do not have bodyside cameras. They would provide an “interesting” image of not very much at the stations with Platform Screen Doors.
Therefore Crossrail adopted a system similar to that on the Victoria Line (and, in principle, all LU lines from 1992 Tube Stock on): cameras on the platform, with a leaky feeder transmitter (probably under the platform nosing stone) sending the images to the train which are relayed to monitors on the left hand side of the cab. For info the monitors are behind the photo of the author of this article https://issuu.com/railmedia/docs/tre-may-2017, which are the only photos of the class 345 cab I’ve seen.
Whilst this system is more complex than bodyside cameras, it delivers images that are infinitely superior to those of bodyside cameras and generally need fewer images. Then again, I’m biased, having been greatly involved in the LU systems.
For the sake of accuracy in the LU references, S stock follows the same general principles as the other lines but uses microwave transmission, not leaky feeder. Central line/W&C locates the leaky feeder in the space between one running rail and the negative conductor rail.
I am slightly mystified about the comparison with the District Line, but no matter. As the article makes clear, the day-to-day running of the line will be in the hands of MTR Crossrail anyway. The overall supervision will be by the TfL subsidiary TfL Rail, and the overall supervision of TfL Rail could have been plausibly grouped with the Overground or the Underground (or Tramlink?). The choice is an internal management issue for TfL, and fiddly details about “own infrastructure” should not have much bearing on it.
The public famously is said not to know the difference between Under- and Overground anyway – as witness the notorious claims that West Croydon was suddenly more accessible to (North-)Londoners when it appeared on the Tube map.
@Malcolm – no mystery, the core of the District is LU infrastructure, but in places it runs over NR metals. Maybe the question of who owns the infrastructure shouldn’t matter (and don’t as far as the travelling public is concerned) but it will make a difference as to whose standards apply.
Re passengers walking through stations that look like building sites, at various places TfL is happy to run stations with parts of the wall or ceiling missing. The passageway and escalator between the District/Circle and Northern lines at Bank/Monument has had chicken wire mesh instead of ceiling cladding for quite a long time.
Jim: Yes, but that is at existing stations. Such things on a “renewed” line with brand new trains may attract rather more critical press and public attention, and rightly so (in my view).
The use of the term TfL Rail in the article is incorrect and slightly confusing. TfL Rail is a temporary operating brand, originally intended to be replaced by the Crossrail brand at the start of Stage 1 (introduction of the Cl345 on the GE). However, with the move to the Elizabeth line, the TfL Rail brand is now being retained until the start of Stage 3 (December 2018).
The organisation within TfL responsible for overseeing operation of TfL Rail / Elizabeth line is Rail for London (RfL), and the assertion above that “If you ask the relevant people they say they work for TfL Rail” is not true. If anything, you would more likely get MTR Crossrail station employees stating that they work for TfL Rail, as they are the customer-facing side of the railway.
Sorry to be pedantic but I do think this is an important distinction as TfL Rail will cease to exist from December 2018. It is RfL who have received the Class 345 units from Bombardier and it’s RfL who will receive the central stations from CRL.
@ Alison W – the internal transfer of “Crossrail” under LU occurs in 2018/19 when the cross central London section opens. This was a footnote to the business plan to explain the sudden huge expected surge in “LU” revenue (and fall in another budgetary line) in that financial year.
On the general issue re unfinished stations you can absolutely guarantee that local councillors, council leaders and Assembly Members will be heaping burning coals on whatever TfL / Mayoral / Network Rail head they can find as we head through 2018 and into 2019. The pressure re accessible stations will be enormous as this will seen as a monumental failure by TfL and Network Rail. I am casting the net wider than NR here because that’s what politicians and the relevant lobby groups will do and the public will just be annoyed if they’re having to trudge through building sites and can’t use lifts or escalators because they’re not finished.
To say “branding” doesn’t matter sort of misses the point here. The Crossrail Project has deftly managed a long, complex and at times disruptive project with very little PR fall out at all. The general consensus all the way through has been a “job well done”. Of course they have to finish but as set out above they will slowly melt away from public sight as works finish and operators start “playing trains and stations”. Any problems become LU’s issues and that means the inevitable risk, given LU’s poorer public reputation, of people going “oh look they’ve given it to LUL and look at the mess it’s in”. This is why people don’t want building sites in West London or anywhere else. They want to offer a decent, high quality seamless service from day one. There is also the not unrelated issue that half built stations are not very attractive and won’t have working ticket gates in them (many of the West London stns are currently too small to have them) and this will impact on revenue and fraud levels. Again a problem no wants if it can be avoided.
WW
I suspect there’s going to be an awful ot of ankle-kicking under the table going on in the run-up to December ’18. Though I suspect that the handover to “TfL rail” of the Padders – Heathrow T4 bit will pass largely unremarked, as, like the current service Liverpool St – Shenfield it’s obviously a temporary expedient.
BUT – if there is still work incomplete in December ’19, when full through running starts, then yes, there will be sheets of flame all over the landscape, accompanying games of pass-the-parcel for blame.
@ Greg – it won’t go unremarked if it’s late. It’s clear to me that things are extremely tight based on the cautious but pointed wording in the latest paper. As 100&30 has said getting signalling integration tested, working reliably and signed off is no small challenge especially with transition between systems happening on the move. I assume there is some sort of fall back position in place for the train service but one that’s not been made public.
I assume there is some level of timetable recast to allow 4 tph into Heathow for TfL Rail with some loss of FGW services on the slow lines. As the extension of Oyster PAYG and contactless to Heathrow accompanies next May’s switch over as well as the likely adoption of TfL rules on child tickets, Freedom Pass times etc I expect locals are looking forward to TfL taking over. They won’t be happy if there’s a delay. TfL may not go into “over drive” about pushing the service next May but it will surely appear on the Tube Map then. We need only look to East London to see what happens when you do that – lots and lots of extra passengers as on TfL Rail to Shenfield. Ironically I expect HEX *will* push the introduction of Oyster PAYG and Contactless on its services next May so that publicity will be largely outwith TfL’s control. Interesting times ahead.
WW
So: affected stations: Acton ML, Ealing Bdy, W Acton, Hanwell, Southall, Hayes & Harlington …
Anyone else got a present view on works progress at these locations, please, & likely prognosis for next May?
WW and others……. we mustn’t be too nervous about this. There are still more than two years to go before the Elizabeth line opens end to end. Even then, I’m sure that some things can be introduced later if absolutely necessary. The take-over of Paddington-Heathrow can still happen even if the ETCS interface with class 345 isn’t ready; just keep the current Connect trains which, after all, have nowhere else to go right now. Moreover even the most incompetent and ambitious Grand Designs builders achieve a lot in two years. Network Rail and its suppliers are not incompetent!
I went to a presentation on Monday about the progress of Crossrail. The very senior engineer presenting was candid; he’d like to have got some of the activities finished six months ago, but I detected no panic or concern that it can’t be done, even allowing for the positivity of public presentations.
When I think back to the challenge of getting a new signalling/ATP/ATO system into service that no one had ever used before, Crossrail looks quite doable! Challenges, yes; impossible, no.
@ Greg – I think you mean West Ealing. I think there might be some worried looks if a class 345 turns up at West Acton. 😉 West Drayton is also on the list. I understand TfL Rail (MTR Crossrail) take over station management of the London area stations in December this year.
@ 100&30 – I’m not suggesting that anything’s impossible just potentially difficult. However engineers have a way of coping with this stuff as you will know all too well. Retention of the Connect EMUs is obviously one element of a short term fall back and running half the service to somewhere other than Heathrow with 345s is the other.
100andthirty 18 October 2017 at 15:04
” the current Connect trains which, after all, have nowhere else to go right now. ”
I’d fancy ’em for all stations to Manchester Airport from wherever. Liverpool? Bolton? Stalybridge (later)?
I concur with 100andthirty.
More positively, on Monday the speaker emphasised how well they were picking up issues quickly – on all fronts – and resolving them before they became a massive problem. He emphasised how everyone involved saw the benefit of phased introduction that is taking place rather than a ‘big bang’ approach.
I also agree one should not panic too much about stage 2. I am assured that if it all goes terribly wrong TfL can just keep running Heathrow Connect as it is. There are no horrible timetable or other fundamental issues. Just a bit of reputational damage in not meeting the planned start date.
In a similar vein, Howard Smith of TfL Rail (RfL for über-pendants) recently emphasised to the Programmes and Investment Committee their concern about testing in the tunnel because of the limited opportunities to do that. Against that, he reminded committee members that this was all being tested at the Melton Mowbray test centre (Old
DarbyDalby test track as it used to be known) so it isn’t exactly a leap into the unknown.The paper presented to the Programmes and Investment Committee last week is probably a reasonable summary of the true situation as opposed to some of the hyperbole expressed.
@PoP – I entirely agree with you (but Old Dalby rather than Old Darby)!
Timetable wise, doesn’t the present 2 tph GWR Paddington to Hayes shuttle run in the opposite slots to the 2 tph Connect trains, so between them they’ll form the basis of the 4 tph TfL operation?
I don’t see it as being an “über-pendant” (sic) to question referring to Howard Smith and his team as being from TfL Rail. Will they “move” to RfL from December 2018 when the TfL Rail brand disappears? Why not keep things clear and just refer to RfL and MTR Crossrail,?
Whenever there is the slightest hint of a problem on the lines out of Paddington (such as today), the Heathrow Connect gets pulled. Will TfL be so compliant when they start running their shadow Crossrail service?
Paul B
Good question, as after May 2018, the service will be under a different operator/TOC with, presumably different “Terms & Conditions of Service” so to speak.
Paul B,
Totally guessing but I suspect TfL Rail will argue that, as their service will be every 15 minutes (every 30 minutes now), they should at least be able to run a train every thirty minutes.
More interesting will be when the Crossrail service goes ‘down the tube’. TfL will no doubt be arguing that if the problem is at Paddington (High Level) then they should not be affected. Indeed they would probably argue that it is more important to keep their service running to assist in clearing any built up of passengers at Paddington (High Level).
I also wonder if Paddington (High Level) had to close for any reason but the Crossrail station could remain open whether there would be any planning to try and handle the situation better e.g. more Elizabeth line trains to Reading even at the expense of temporarily reducing frequencies in the central section of the Elizabeth line.
There is now a supervisory board for the GW lines that includes Network Rail and all the main operators that use the line. I would expect such a group to work collaboratively on developing various contingency plans to be implemented when reasonably forecastable events happen. Such a plan should balance all passengers’ interests.
It will be interesting to ask this question of the supervisory board’s independent chairman when he appears at a conference in a couple of weeks time.
@ PoP – it will be very interesting to see what the service management strategy will be for Crossrail. At present there seems to be two different approaches for TfL’s contracted rail services. If something goes wrong on the Overground you tend to get a total service suspension until whatever is broken is fixed. Partial service suspensions are less common. With TfL Rail they try to keep the service going if they can and will skip stop / cancel individual services to try to get back to timetable. Obviously the underlying schedules vary by route as will the crewing complexity.
Handling disruption on the full scale Crossrail service is going to be a real test for MTR and Network Rail given the breadth of the service area, the numbers of people likely to be handled and the inevitable “media spotlight” the service will be under for a long time. We already know that the route of Paddington is prone to certain types of incident with large scale service impacts. I assume a lot of planning work is being done to review past incidents and generate future recovery strategies.
I am still unclear when the name Elizabeth line comes to Shenfield and Heathrow. Official advice states that the Elizabeth line arrives with opening of the central tunnel section. But the Shenfield and Heathrow services will remain isolated at that time, so perhaps remain TfL Rail until later stages of opening?
Taz,
Exactly that. So TfL Rail as a brand name dies in December 2019.
@ PoP – really? I thought the TfL brand dies in December 2018. That is how I have read the explanatory “branding” info put out by TfL. Either I can’t read or TfL haven’t explained very well.
I agree that having three “not quite connected” services is something of a challenge in terms of wayfinding and information provision. It is surely no more difficult than the challenge TfL have with two completely NOT connected services from May 2018? – one out of Padd and the other from Liv St.
This November’s issue of “Modern Railways” quotes this for Stage Three:
“The main Crossrail opening is scheduled for December 2018 with the launch of stage three. From this point passenger services will operate through the new twin tunnels, between Paddington (new underground) platforms and Abbey Wood, via the West End, City and Canary Wharf. From this date services will be referred to as the Elizabeth Line.” (Author – Dan Harvey)
Walthamstow Writer, Graham Feakins,
I am pretty sure you are both correct. This page seems to make that clear. Definitely not as it had been previously portrayed by numerous people involved with the project.
This won’t be the first time I have been misled. I have been to various talks where they mentioned the first 11 trains on the Liverpool St – Shenfield service will be in service by September 2017 with the clear implication (if not actually stated) that others will follow. It seems to be the case now that there won’t be any to follow and a full class 345 service to Shenfield will not happen until May 2019.
PoP. When there has been total disruption of the inner part of the GWML, they tend to turn the long distance services around at Reading, but also turn the local services around at Ealing. I suspect the message will be “use Waterloo” rather than change Elizabeth Line services .
To muddy the water even further:
At least some of the 6x 9 car 345s (018+) that have left the factory so far are being delivered with Elizabeth Line branding.
The one being used for clearance testing in the tunnels (based at Plumstead sidings) in the last fortnight definitely has Lizzy Line branding visible.
Re 7 car units the 17th and last 7 car will leave the factory shortly so the will be more than the initial 11 but not enough to run a 100% 345 service on the GE till 2019.
And I was convinced I was told that they did not want to use the term ‘Elizabeth line’ whilst there were any class 315 still running.
@PoP I think you can remain convinced until such time as they run Elizabeth branded trains in service. Any sighting prior to that are no more than the effects of the eagle eyed and those in the know of where to look. I very much doubt that driver training qualifies as in service either.
I visited Abbey Wood Station yesterday and it’s a major improvement on what was there before . I can also report that I was able to use the lift from the booking hall to Southeastern platforms so step free access from new entrance is available. However, the other lifts between upper and old lower street level are not yet in use .
I spotted a new Class 345 train on the opposite side to the station with a locomotive attached .
Just to confuse the branding issue. I was changing trains at Stratford yesterday and noticed a 345 (in service) which was branded with “tfl Rail” and – additionally – a banner on the side announcing that “these trains will form the Elizabeth line”. (Or words similar to that – only caught a quick glimpse).
Also noted that the electronic displays on the side of the 345 unit show both the final destination and the four character train reporting number.
Re Melvyn,
You saw 345021 (9-car complete with “Elizabeth Line” branding) which is being used for clearance tests in the tunnelled sections while hauled by diesel locomotive because the OHLE isn’t all live yet.
A nice shiny new tunnel and what do they do? Put a grubby diesel locomotive in it! I guess it won’t be forever…
I’ve just been reading about the 345’s on Wikipedia (probably not the best place for facts), it says that they can be fitted with shoegear for 3rd rail use. Is this actually true?
Re SH(LR),
Yes all Aventra units can easily be fitted with 3rd rail gear as they are all essentially dual voltage units.
See London Overground’s 710s (first unit on test track last week) or SWR’s future 701s with 3rd rail fittings.
Custom House station. Although the station hasn’t reopened yet, the new “Elizabeth Line” roundel is now proudly on display (accompanied by the DLR roundel) overlooking the Victoria Dock Road entrance. I’ve put a picture in the Flickr pool.
Can’t remember which article the comments about links between Farringdon Crossrail and Barbican were discussed, but photo 4 here shows the new signs without a roundel pointing towards Barbican
In the video on the Crossrail website linked above by Herned, towards the end an image of the new tube map including the EL is shown. But the line includes a kink at Paddington and shows all Shenfield services terminating at Liverpool Street. Is this just how operation will be in the early days before trains go through the core serving all destinations ?
@Stuart: Check out Diamond Geezer’s extensive post on the subject….
@Stuart
Exactly so. December sees the core section opening, with trains running through from Paddington to Abbey Wood. This section is entirely self contained so any teething problems will not migrate onto the rest of National Rail. The Stratford-Whitechapel spur will open in May 2019, with trains running from Paddington to Shenfield. Finally the connection at Paddington will open at the end of 2019, allowing trains to run all the way through.
The BIG change will therefore come in December this year, with the opening of (most of) the new tunnel and (all of) the new stations, and the resulting additional capacity in central London. (We should notice a similar effect in May 2018 when the main Thameslink core route re-opens between Blackfriars and London Bridge, together with the new spur through the Canal Tunnels). The later hooking-up of the Great Eastern and Great Western main line services will have a much smaller effect on capacity, as the through trains will be, for the most part, simply existing services paired up, albeit the people who currently have to change at Liverpool Street or Paddington will appreciate them.
@Timbeau
“The BIG change will therefore come in December this year, with the opening of (most of) the new tunnel and (all of) the new stations, and the resulting additional capacity in central London.”
That said, it is worth pointing out that the additional central London capacity added in December will only be 62.5%* of the total capacity that Crossrail will add.
(*At peak times.)
@anon E Mouse
“…..and (most of) the resulting additional capacity in central London…..”
IslandDweller 18 December 2017 at 16:08
Custom House DLR station has reopened.
The lift to street level on the corner of Victoria Dock Road and Freemasons Road is still not working .
Newham and TfL staff met on site a few days ago and have agreed what minor kerb works are needed to allow buses to turn around there.
Ross Lydall report in the Standard today, claims serious commissioning issues could delay published dates.
(1) Sub station failure at Pudding Mill Lane, three month impact.
(2) Software commissioning issues delaying use of 345 into Heathrow, so existing stock likely to continue in use past May timetable change.
(3) Budget under pressure.
IslandDweller,
Today seems to be a day for stale news. ITV even had Caroline Pidgeon claiming that TfL was trying to hide this as a secret.
It has all be out in the open for a while see:
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/pic-20171212-item13-elizabeth-line.pdf (December 2017 reporting the transformer failure)
and
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/board-20180130-item10-elizabeth-line.pdf (published last week).
The latter in paragraph 4.7 includes the contingency plan for Heathrow Connect if the signalling cannot be successfully commissioned in the Heathrow tunnels by May 2017. There is good reason to suspect this contingency plan will be implemented.
There still ought to be time for full implementation as planned between Paddington and Abbey Wood in December 2018 providing there aren’t too many more fairly serious problems.
POP. Are you sure this is entirely old news? Ross Lydall asserts that the Pudding Mill Lane transformer has failed yet again, which I think does count as significant news.
Re POP and Island Dweller,
A mix of old and new news, another (3rd) attempt to the switch the juice on didn’t go to plan yesterday.
CP probably saying that because SK has said he doesn’t want it discussed – therefore it is almost guaranteed to get discussed!
It is strange that the BBC does not appear to report this at all.
Caroline Pidgeon’s comments on ITV now make more sense. If it is true, as she claims, that the Mayor wanted this discussed in ‘part 2’ (the private bit of the meeting) then he is on very dangerous ground. The 1972 Local Government Act pretty much spells out the very limited justification that can be had for moving an item from ‘part 1’ to ‘part 2’. Commercial confidentiality is the main legitimate justification.
ngh,
The good old Streisand effect.
So is it known exactly why the switch-ons failed?
All I read yesterday was “design error”, I had expected this stuff to be fairly standard almost off the shelf kind of equipment.
I find it unsettling that something as “routine” as comissioning a new substation should fail & worse, fail three times. This suggests that something is very much out-of-the-ordinary here. For everyone’s benefit, more. clear information is going to be needed.
PoP’s suggestion that SK (?) or someone is trying to suppress discussion on this is a very worrying sign.
RE SH(LR),
A large collection of standard and some custom items in reality. It is adjacent to the River Lea opposite the A12 just south of the GEML.
400kV 3 phase to 50kV (+/-25kV) substation to supply the 4 separate Crossrail Autotransformer* feeds. (but not the connections or autotransformer feeds)
National Grid /UKPN contracting /Alstom & Costain JV but the finger pointing will all be in the Alstom direction and this is SK’s only legitimate justification for part 2 in terms of damages. (Crossrail Contract C644).
Howver I suspect SK is trying to keep a lid on bad news for as long as possible as when it starts coming it won’t stop (and not just on Crossrail). A secondary commercial impact will be that Oxford street pedestrianisation is kicked into the long grass if there are Crossrail delays (for phase 3 December 2018) and he really won’t want that part of the discussion coming out now.
*A more stable and efficient 25KV train supply (+25kV contact wire/ OV rails and return conductors) is created locally using +/-25KV via Autotransformers.
Autotransformer feeds are relatively new to the UK and this is the only one that hasn’t directly involved Network Rail as the customer.
From my observations of the TfL meetings over several years, commercial issues are always confidential, and the implications of the failed transformer for its supplier will certainly be in the commercial category. I doubt we will ever see the investigation report which is a shame as a proper RAIB style report would provide lessons for others.
I thought the reports from the management were unusually frank, and far less upbeat than is usual for these folk.
Was it just me or were the questions from the “lay” members of the board quite simplistic?
Re SH(LR),
At a guess I would suspect they got the earthing arrangements very wrong as they are very complicated in this type of installation…
100andthirty,
This is where I have really had disagreements with TfL and have vehemently protested via email.
What was happening far too often that there was a legitimate commercial sensitive element in a discussion that needed to be in ‘part 2’. However, to me the wording and the spirit of the Local Government Act made it quite clear that only the parts that needed to be in part 2 could be discussed in part 2. Far too often there was a tendency to move the subject to part 2 en block – and it would then appear (less the sensitive bit) in the subsequent sanitised minutes as if it had been discussed in part 1 whereas it was clear to anyone who attended the meeting that it was not.
I am pleased to say in the past six months there has been a much better, more professional approach and I hope it continues.
So yes, Sadiq Khan (or TfL) could restrict discussion of any commercial consequences of the failure of the transformer to part 2 but everything else (such as how it puts the opening date at risk) has to be in part 1. Otherwise, it is a formal complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.
ngh,
Which then begs the question: If Network Rail are the only people in the country who have any experience of autotransformer feeds, why on earth was Crossrail (with zero experience) doing this themselves rather than subcontracting this to Network Rail?
To add to the insult, Pudding Mill Lane portal is in the heart of NR territory and it would have made a lot of sense for them to do it anyway.
Re PoP,
NR don’t do it themselves they subcontract too, the key difference is that they are a much more active, intelligent and probing customer than Crossrail as regards electrification and they know how to manage the (sub)contractors. However adding it to the NR scheme of works would have been sensible as NR were aware of previous Alstom autotransformer installation issues where they were NR contractors.
Crossrail probably regarded themselves as better at Project Managing than NR and didn’t want to load up NR with more than the minimum
“NR don’t do it themselves they subcontract too, the key difference is that they are a much more active, intelligent and probing customer than Crossrail as regards electrification and they know how to manage the (sub)contractors.”
Given that virtually ever major electrification project in the last 3 years has been late and overbudget, this is a remarkable claim to be making!
James,
GOBLIN apart, Network Rail’s electrification problems were largely in areas which were in Network Rail’s (and predecessors) control – such as real basics like knowing where the signal cables were buried. As far as I am aware, in the past few years, the contractors have basically delivered what is required.
Re James,
In respect of the power supply connections, most of rest has been a shambles (GEML, ECML and WCML upgrades aren’t for example but they sucked up a lot of NR’s electrification expertise and are hardly noticed and haven’t got any publicity.
NR with the Autotransformer feeds is the only current* UK electricity user not to get supplied via a Distribution Network Operator (UKPN / SSE etc.) but direct from National Grid this means they have a lot more technical and legal box-ticking to do that the DNO would normally do (and have been doing this for auto-transformer feeds on WCML ECML GEML upgrades and GW electrification), It appears that Crossrail haven’t done the technical box-ticking required of them and are in danger of a getting raised eyebrow from OFGEM. There is a requirement to have sufficient in-house expertise and not to be reliant on subcontractors.
*Crossrail will become the second soon (hopefully!)
I have now actually view the relevant part of the board meeting.
On the issue of openness, the discussion was open until sensitive issues came up that legitimately needed to be in part 2. The Mayor then explained why it needed to be discussed in part 2 and terminate the discussion in part 1. No problem as such but, for all we know, there could have been more that should have been discussed under part 1.
The Mayor handled it very professionally and correctly except that he should have asked board members at that time if there were other questions (not of a sensitive nature) that they wished to ask. By moving the rest of the discussion to part 2 he risked not discussing openly things that could have been in part 1 contrary to the Local Government Act.
I think he acted with the best of intentions put, procedurally, it wasn’t quite done correctly.
@PoP: As far as I am aware, in the past few years, the contractors have basically delivered what is required
Didn’t Balfour Beatty get kicked off the Northwest electrification for failure to deliver?
The history of these giant projects is generally that the early days run well. The civil engineering comes first so early leadership is usually by folk well issued to civil engineering. Under their watch, all the fit out and equipment contracts are placed during their watch. The fit out and systems work is at least as difficult as the civil work but far less impressive to watch (tunnel boring machine vs software development, for example). Of courrse, any delays in the civil work squeezes everything else and delays in fit out and systems squeezes testing commissioning and training as explained at the TfL Board. Whilst politically embarrassing, I will still see Crossrail as a major success every if it is six months late and a few £m over budget.
A few more tantalising details here
“An explosion” suggests a dead-short across something, which simply shouldn’t happen, but I suppose we will find out, eventually?
Re Ian J,
I think PoP’s few years starts at the moment BB walked away (they left rather than being kicked as they realised they were going to lose a huge amount of money on it) from the Northwest Electrification Phases 1 -3 (later phases they were awarded had yet to start when they walked). “Carillion” were/are* still dealing with the legacy of BB’s lack of ground survey and wrong choice of mast foundations and mast locations that blocked signalling sight-lines) on the current Manchester – Bolton – WCML (Phase 3) work.
*staff are back on the job after a couple of mid-weeks days (mostly nights) off
Re 130,
Completely agree – many LR writers and long term commentators had penciled in early 2018 as the point when all the bad news would start to explode.
“Embarrassing” is what happens when you have to tell HM there won’t be something for her to open in December on the date you have already booked in her diary! One can just image Boris leaving SK a note in the desk drawer. “Have already booked HM in for Crossrail opening, no pressure! 😉 “
@NGH 1 Feb 11:12: I thought autotransformers were used on the WCML Weaver Jn. to Glasgow in the 70’s?
So what is going wrong? We’ve been doing 400kV for over half a century and surely over the length of the existing electrified network there are comparable interfaces?
It looks like a case of people following the ‘letter of the law’ without actually understanding how electricity works. I hope there’s a good explanation and ‘lessons can be learnt’. We’re certainly going backwards fast on electrification at the moment.
ROGER B I’m no expert but ATF is explained well (section 8 page 14) in this document from Network Rail ironically produced for GW electrification http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/sites/default/files/sitedocuments/Planning-and-Building-Control/Planning/nr_a_guide_to_overhead_electrification.pdf
is an upgrade on previous 25kv electrification schemes, in some quarters it known as 2 x 25kv and first introduced on the south end of the WCML in the late 2000s.
@ALfie1014
Thanks for the link. I can think of a few people who could do well to read it, especially the ‘Why electrify’ page!
Interesting to read the additional info in the comments here. I did watch the Board Meeting clip when this “delay” news broke. I was actually quite pleased to have my long held suspicions about problems at Whitechapel and elsewhere actually being confirmed. At least my “reading between the lines” ability hasn’t completely left me. Just for the record I don’t want Crossrail to be late but am not astonished about issues emerging now.
Although you couldn’t see Terry Morgan’s face I could tell from his speech and tone that he was not a happy man – especially on the electrical supply issues. I know Terry from his Tube Lines days and have seen him in explosive and “fed up” form. I don’t think I’d have wanted to be the rep from the supplier explaining what had gone wrong!
I suspect we will see an enormous amount of pressure being applied to get the railway to an operable state for December. Whether it is “finished” is another issue. I am sure Her Maj will be able to be cut a ribbon, smile and ride on a train perfectly well at some point in early December even if there are issues at some locations or the public service doesn’t start immediately afterwards. If nothing else I suspect a great many “performance bonuses” are tied to milestone delivery dates including an operational railway in December. That usually concentrates minds never mind the formidable political pressure that will be bearing down from both City Hall and Horseferry Road.
@Herned: “has committed to running the first electric trains from London to Bristol by the end of 2016, from London to Nottingham and Sheffield by 2020 and between Leeds and Manchester by 2018.”
Made me laugh that….
@ ALFIE1014.
Thank you, however according the Alan Baxter article the benefits are small – “the ‘existing’ system requires a booster transformer every 3-8km”, whereas the autotransformers are every 5-8km.
The Wikipedia article is better and lists other places where autotransformers are used, which include HS1.
The Alan Baxter illustrations do show why the ‘new’ system is so much more cumbersome and hence expensive. The illustration on his p18 (pdf 22) says it all.
@ RogerB
My understanding from this document and elsewhere is the autotransformer system reduces the need for supply points from the National Grid – there being only 4 between London and Bristol/Cardiff. Each one of those costs £many so the less required the better
Re Herned, Roger B & Alfie,
Circa £20m + the National Grid cost of getting to the site, with auto-transformers and more importantly their supply system there can be much bigger distances between feeders, the feeders can be located much closer to existing National Grid infrastructure reducing costs by 8 figure sums per feed.
2 separate issues feeds & autotransformers:
The traditional electrification feed approach was to take a single phase supply from the local DNO causing a massive load load imbalance and unhappy DNOs who you have to pay more for the privilege (higher DUOS charges), this lead to lots of local feeds that were cheap to install to attracted, significantly higher cost of use because of the phase imbalance issues. There was little involvement with National Grid (ironically apart from 3rd rail supplies in S. London where the DNO (UKPN) does comparatively little between National Grid and Network Rail at the New Cross and Wimbledon substations namely the busbar and switch gear between the 275/400kV supply and the step down transformers (e.g. 4x 275kV to 33kV at New Cross)). With this approach it was difficult to go for autotransformer systems with single phase DNO feed due to the higher voltage requirements.
So when you want to go for higher voltage feeds (for autotransformer systems) you might as well go the whole hog and do it properly, i.e. 400KV and all 3 phases which makes the substation and main transformer a lot more complicated that at traditional simple British Rail OHLE feed (in some ways incredibly similar to a 3rd rail substation but just without the rectifiers typically a 3rd rail substation is 33KV AC 3 phase in, 750V DC out). The problems were with this main feed transformer. But it keeps National Grid happy with a balanced phase loads and cuts out the distribution network (DUOS) costs completely.
Take the Alan Baxter Guide with a gritter lorry full of salt as it is riddled with errors (written by firm of surveyors and structural engineers) if you want a better guide to overhead railway electrification try Garry Keenor’s:
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/OLE/author/admin/
scroll down and click on the image of the front cover to download the pdf
Re Roger,
You’ve got confused between booster transformer and autotransformer.
@NGH
NR is the only current UK electricity user not to get supplied via a Distribution Network Operator (UKPN / SSE etc.) but direct from National Grid
London Transport used to generate its own electricity, having three power stations: Neasden (Met), Lots Road (UERL) and Greenwich (trams/trolleybuses), supplemented by the Grid as the network expanded after WW2. When did it stop generating its own power, and who does it buy its electricity from now?
Clarification – Greenwich was originally built for the London County Council trams.
@Timbeau – Neasden went in c. 1963, Lots Road was decommissioned in October, 2002, whilst Greenwich still operates in a generally standby mode. Having said that, it was announced in 2015 that it would be upgraded to run full-time and work was expected to be completed by 2017. Whether or not that ambition has been fulfilled I don’t know.
LU buys electricity independently of the DNO or Grid that supplies it. It’s almost irrelevant who it pays for power as the electrons don’t respect either the buyer or the seller; they just take the shortest route! This is probably me not understanding the “sophistication” of a competitive electricity supply with a common “supply pipe” (the grid).
There was a time when LU naively thought it was using (emphasis on “using”, not on just “buying”) hydro electricity from Scotland.
Re timbeau,
LU has connections from the Distribution Network (i.e. UKPN former EDF London and before than LEB) rather than the grid (National Grid), i.e. supplemented from the distribution network not the grid.
Re 130,
Everyone buys electricity independent of the Distribution Network post mid 90’s market split (large /medium /small business and domestic market splits occurred in phases). Hidden or largely ignored on the bills from the chosen retail supplier will be connection specific charges related to the Distribution (DUOS*) and Transmission (TUOS**) that reimburse the distribution networks (DUOS) and national grid (TUOS) for the costs and regulated (RAB) investment. With the billing and payments from the retail suppliers to the generator, DNO and NatGrid routed through Elexon.
Think of the DUOS etc. charges as being similar to Network Rails’ track access charges.
The connection specific charges relate to the location, connection properties (voltage, phases, max current) and usage of the supply (phase imbalance, power factor). For most domestic and small commercial users this won’t matter for big users it does.
NR mostly buys electrons with a distinctive Cherenkov blue tinge.
*Distribution Use Of System
**Transmission Use Of System
Re 130,
Mind you LU didn’t always have to pay for electricity, the transfer of the W&C from BR didn’t result in the bill payer getting changed as it happened at the same time as the relevant part of electricity privatisation with the arguements going on for years to get the mess sorted out (Railtrack had come and gone and paid the bills in the interim).
[All traction electricity supplies are unmetered and based on modelling as they are too big to meter.]
I thought Pendolinos do have meters. They were fitted by Virgin because they disagreed with Network Rail’s estimates and thought they were being overcharged – and they were.
I understand that at least all modern national rail EMUs have meters.
Re PoP,
But the supplies don’t and NR still have to model and allocate OHLE system losses on top of the actual usage on the train.
Technically it isn’t metering as it isn’t legally accurate enough to be called a meter, most recent EMUs have on train metering, the supplies don’t.
The W&C will not have been the only line using NR supplies – presumably LUL trains to Richmond, Wimbledon and Harrow & Wealdstone lines are powered from NR substations? (Or are the Overground trains powered using electrons paid for by LUL?) And what about the East London Line?
@PoP/NGH – The supplies most certainly were metered – there was a notorious incident in the late ’80s, when NSE’s electricity bill leaped by several millions one quarter following the discovery of a hitherto “forgotten” meter at (I seem to recall) Hackney Downs. Modelling also took place at the consumer (railway)end for planning purposes and, no doubt,similarly at the supply end, but charging was supposed to be on “actuals”. Sectorisation was certainly pushing the business sectors to look at on-train metering but any substantive work was overtaken by privatisation (I have vague recollections of a 317 being fitted experimentally with a meter,but that wasn’t really my side of the house)
I’m hearing that the Pudding Mill Lane electricity supply was successfully switched on at some unearthly hour on Thursday 1st February 2018.
12 weeks later than intended, so someone has their work cut out to deliver other tasks around that.
I imagine NGH is already completely familiar but if anyone is interested I was surprised to find so much information about charging for electricity use on the main line:
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/industry-commercial-partners/information-operating-companies/on-train-metering/
When you say meeting ‘at Elbe’, I presume you mean ‘on the River Elbe’?