The Final Result: Crossrail Heads to Terminal 5

1. Brentwood to Sheffield? I can’t see Mr Grayling approving that…

   I suspect it’s supposed to be Shenfield (but I can dream…)

2. A couple of points variously related to this story: the cl345, is there no longer rules regarding hi-viz poles and handles?

   Also as regards the delay to rebuilding station buildings in the west, I’m not surprised as things on the eastern branch seem to be moving incredibly slowly.

3. The news about ticketing does seem to suggest Heathrow Express are heading towards a more segmented approach – business travellers swipe their corporate credit card and pay full price, budget travellers book online months in advance and pay little more than the Tube fare. Basically the airline industry replicated in miniature, where the person in the seat next to you might have paid double or half what you did.

   The joint feasibility study includes “additional work on developing western rail access to Heathrow” as well as the possibility of an extra two tph to Terminal 5 – implying a possible link between these two things (eg. if Crossrail were to provide the T5-Slough service as an extension of the T5 service, then 4tph to T5 would be a much more attractive basis for the service than 2tph).

4. PS the roundel in the second-last photo may be discrete, but it is also discreet.

5. Oh and one more thing: this paragraph in the press release seems to imply that Heathrow Express won’t be stopping at Old Oak Common when HS2 opens:

   An interchange at Old Oak Common will connect High Speed 2 to Heathrow via the Elizabeth line in under 20 minutes, from 2026. Four Heathrow Express services from Paddington will continue to run every 15 minutes offering a fast 15-minute connection between Heathrow and central London.

6. 16 “zones” already on Oyster?
   1-9
   Watford
   Hertford (is this one “zone”?)
   Shenfield
   Grays
   Gatwick
   Buses
   Trams

   Or am I well off?

7. That just leaves the 12 tph turning around just outside Paddington.
   Did someone mention Tring, further back up the page?

8. The extension of the Elizabeth Line to Heathrow Terminal 5 is a brilliant idea and will enable more extra trains to operate between Shenfield-Heathrow Terminal 5 and Abbey Wood-Heathrow Terminal 5 services as well to Heathrow Terminal 4 to/from Shenfield and Abbey Wood. And to take over the shuttle service between Terminals 2 & 3 (Heathrow Central) and Terminal 5 and Heathrow Connect will be taken over by Elizabeth Line from late 2018.

   If only the Elizabeth Line could of extend from Reading to Didcot Parkway and to Newbury and Oxford, from Shenfield to Chelmsford/Beaulieu, Southend Victoria and possibly Southminster and from Abbey Wood to Dartford, Gravesend, Rochester, Chatham, Gillingham and Faversham.

   With the Elizabeth Line extension heading northwest to Watford Junction, Hemel Hempstead, Tring and Milton Keynes Central (taking over Southern’s East Croydon-MK Central service).

9. If the Elizabeth Line might extend to Tring and Milton Keynes Central.

10. I hope that the Shenfield to Heathrow trains are an early addition- here in Ipswich pepple were really looking forward to one change at Shenfield to LHR- No, not the fastest but much more convenient as you’ll get a seat and there’s time to sort out your bags.

11. Here we go again: if only the ElizabethLine extended from Haverfordwest to Cromer and Wick to the Porte de Vanves .Do people not read any previous postings…? Does anyone really think that the punters will wish to travel in a tube train further than they have to?

12. I don’t see Crossrail wanting to run Shenfield to Heathrow (and I guess Network Rail, Great Western, and Greater Anglia won’t want them to either) as the performance pollution would be great. The current plan has trains either running GreatWestern+Core, or Greater Anglia + Core. So a late running train on either set of Network Rail metals will not appear on the other set. With a little bit of shuffling, it should be possible to ensure a train is ready to run in the core slot of the late running train, even if it isn’t the expected train (i.e. late running train from Heathrow is replaced in the core by a Paddington starter running early – the late running train stays on Crossrail metals all the way to Abbey Wood). I guess this is an argument for not extending from Abbey Wood unless on separate tracks…

13. AL__S,

    And what about Merstham, Redhill, Earlswood, Salfords and Horley? One fairly obvious consequence of the current limitation on Oyster card is that Reigate is excluded. It would surely be a logical place to include if only there was the capacity to do so.

14. It’s a shame it doesn’t extend south from T5 to join the Waterloo- Windsor line

15. @AL__S and PoP

    The Gatwick line is several zones, though the other extensions aren’t.

    The 16 are (taken from the Oyster Rail blog
    The nine numbered zonesWatford Junction, Ockendon, Chaffont Hundred, Purfleet, Grays (These were two separate zones)Broxbourne, Rye House, St Margarets, Ware, Hertford EastShenfieldMertshamRedhill, EarlswoodSalfords, HorleyGatwick Airport
    Oyster has always been able to do flat fares, which it uses for buses, trams and the cable cars. I believe it uses that to do the two special fares: Stratford International – St Pancras International High Level and Gatwick Airport to Victoria platforms 13 &14 (Gatwick Express) – I’d imagine that this deal could allow a third covering HEx.

16. There is a risky strategy in negotiating where you make a public announcement of success before final agreement has been reached and dare the other party to refute. I’m hoping that that isn’t the reason for the way this improvement was announced!

17. Gaaah, my list tags appeared in the preview but have been stripped. Never mind.
    —

    The easiest way to get 4tph to T5 is to return T4 to the old system that was replaced with the shuttle. Have 2tph to Heathrow Central via T4 – upon arriving at T4, the trains would reverse and go to Central, reverse there and go back to T4 and then reverse and go back to Paddington.

    I suspect, with the rebuilding of Heathrow (with or without Runway 3) as a toast rack bringing about the further decline in importance of T4, we’ll see a return of the shuttle train before too long anyway. This would especially be the case if trains are extended beyond T5.

18. @Willy – something else may come from the SW into Heathrow (SWELTRAC or its current successor) but not the Elizabeth Line extending to meet the SW – see discussion about performance pollution not an hour previous in this thread!

19. re Stationless (No more) @ 01:39

    “A couple of points variously related to this story: the cl345, is there no longer rules regarding hi-viz poles and handles?”

    The poles and handles only ever had to contrast with the background hence Black poles on off-white/cream/mushroom background and light coloured seats is and always has been permissible and doesn’t rely on colour perception just tonal difference which is good practice.

    “Also as regards the delay to rebuilding station buildings in the west, I’m not surprised as things on the eastern branch seem to be moving incredibly slowly.”

    The delay in the west is related to the late addition of step free access (i.e. lifts etc.) at those stations resulting in the original plans being binned and new plans which weren’t always high profile/status enough for the local councils leading to planning dragging on, so the delays aren’t a surprise and the councils are also partly to blame for the knock on delays to their own public realm schemes…

20. Clockwork 2tph to Terminal 5 and 4tph to Terminal 4 will result in a sporadic timetable at Terminals 1-3, with possibly a mixture of 7.5 and 15min intervals, with this additional service providing no turn up and go benefits to Terminals 1-3.

    Surely it would be more sensible to have 6tph 1-3 and 3tph to 5 and 4? That would appear to result in 4tph terminating at Paddington instead of 8tph.

    Surely Reading will also move towards 6tph in time.

    Crossrail is signalled to allow for 30tph, so once there is a third runway, surely they would go for 6tph each Heathrow Terminus.

    No wonder the extension to Tring was cancelled. Its clearly better value for money to send additional trains on existing infrastructure, particularly where it is clear that the capacity will likely be required.

    Can the core be properly regulated without so many trains terminating at Paddington? Can these lines accommodate 6tph each?

21. @Graham H: Meeting the SW Mainline would be fine, just not running on it!

22. What’s the latest thinking around extending the trains from 9- to 11-cars? Is it more of an aspiration than a plan? And what infrastructure works would be required to accommodate them, are the platforms being built for 11-car or will they need to go back and extend / fit out later?

23. @SH(LR)

    Which was the most recent proposal, IIRC – extend Crossrail from T5 to Staines with OHLE and new infrastructure alongside the Windsor line.

    @P Riddy

    3tph to T4/T5 is a non-starter. It kills TUAG to T4, and mucks about with T5 (where you’d be meshing with an even 4tph HEx). T4 is almost perfectly designed to take 4tph: it can’t take more (and will never need to), and 3tph leaves an over-long dwell time at T4. The only way to get an every 10-minutes service to Heathrow rather than 6tph is to have T4 as a shuttle, and either run a 2x3tph (or 1x6tph) service pattern on the Reading branch or have uneven service there.

    I think it’s fairly safe to say that both branches are going to run on a 4+2tph pattern. One can also pencil in that Maidenhead and T5 trains will have the same stopping pattern east of Airport Junction so that the 4tph services to T4 and Reading, and the 12tph to Abbey Wood are evenly spaced.

    And I’m not sure how you got a reduction in Paddington terminators via tweaks at Heathrow (nor how you got the numbers – it’s 12tph peak, 10tph off-peak). Nor do I see why you think it a good thing given service levels have reached the easy-to-deal-with pattern of GWML-Abbey Wood and GEML-Paddington. Tring’s main case for construction was to relieve Euston while rebuilding, but its an operational headache (extending half the Shenfield trains?) until Old Oak Common is built…

24. Re P.Riddy, SI et al.

    4tph Crossrail to T4 and 2tph Crossrail + 4tph HEx to T5 is a function of the current infrastructure west of Paddington and any increase above that will need someone to fund it and as we have seen who funds in the vicinity of Heathrow isn’t simple!

    The *new* 2tph to T5 Crossrail will actually replace the current relatively unpublicised T2+3 to T5 shuttle service at the Heathrow end (which would be more of a pain for Heathrow to operate after Connect finishes) so the only change in reality is adding an extra 2 tph between T2+3 and Hayes & Harlington by diverting the West Drayton terminators west of H &H hence the lack of any surprise from many people as you have also eliminated 4 turn back movements per hour.

25. Re Toby @ 09:23

    “I hope that the Shenfield to Heathrow trains are an early addition- here in Ipswich pepple were really looking forward to one change at Shenfield to LHR.”

    The situation is neatly summarised by: There are 2 hopes; Bob Hope (Deceased) and No Hope, take your pick from the 2.

    The last few evenings performance on the GWML and last night on the GEML nicely illustrate the performance pollution issue.

    Given that Canary Wharf have paid for the Heathrow access makes it even less likely along with it being logistically far easier to run Shenfield services to Paddington (or Old Oak Common from 2026).

26. @SI: I have my crayons buried in the garden with a tonne of rubble on top… But yes, that was my thought too. The Abbey Wood style thing… It’s a pity that getting to the SWML is not really viable, but I will stop there before the moderators start tutting again!

27. Toby: I admit that Ipswich may be a strange place, but I am not sure that everyone there shares your preference for 18 minutes (*) longer on the train “to sort out their bags”.

    (*) The difference between Shenfield-Stratford slow and fast trains.

28. Malcolm fair enough but a single change will be preferable to a double change, and a guaranteed seat will appeal to some over changing at Stratford….

29. Of course, the elephant in the room that no-one has yet pointed out is that 6-min interval services that are wanted at each end of the system off-peak are incompatible with running a 15-min interval service to destinations such as T4. The best that could be managed is alternating 12/18-min intervals.

    BTW, the pun about trains at Maidenhead being “long and stabled” is terrible. I love it! 😉

30. Thanks for the update article. A few comments.

    @ Ngh – not entirely sure Ealing Council would share your views about delays to the western stations. They are not happy nor are local residents. Given that Hayes and Harlington (in Hillingdon borough) is a building site I can’t see why that station is delayed due to design or approval issues. Also your remark, although unofficial, is the first “explanation” of why there is a delay. NR have, if you believe the media, failed to communicate with residents, the councils and won’t make a clear explanatory public statement about the delay. That is not a “good look” these days. The London Assembly members will certainly be asking awkward questions – there is 1 public discussion question and 5 written questions for next week’s MQT.

    @ Pop – I may be out of date but I thought the planned electrification of the Thames Valley branches had been cancelled. Is Henley really going to get an electric branch service?

    @ PoP – You’ve put a lot of stress on Oyster acceptance by HEX. I don’t see that as their main objective. Their objective is to get the Oyster infrastructure in place because it supports contactless and NFC Mobile ticketing product charging. This is very much in line with what their core business users would like in terms of no queues and no ticket purchase. They have saved themselves the cost of buying, installing and maintaining a separate system. If it also allows them to scale back their own ticket selling infrastructure (and cost) then so much the better. Given TfL itself is not promoting Oyster and is expecting a further shift to contactless (see the recent Ticketing Policy paper) then there is a convergence of objectives here. The ability for HEX to be linked into the “Oyster” brand, albeit as an adjunct, is probably incidental. It is TfL that needs Oyster to work into Heathrow for Crossrail services. My very limited experience of dealing with the HAL people on “joint aspirations” suggests they “talk a good talk” but it is always about the upside for them first.

    @ PoP / NgH – while I completely understand the “performance pollution” and “CW paid oodles of dosh” arguments I am not keen on that revised service pattern at all. I wonder how long it will be after the line fully opens in 2019 that the penny drops on the eastern side of London and demands grow for a different service pattern to give direct access to West London and Heathrow.

31. Re Anon E Mouse,

    The bad pun is my fault it was just too tempting 🙂

    What is to suggest 6 minute intervals? as 24tph would suggest intervals based on 2.5minute intervals on average.

32. Apparently, the Mayor has a backlog of announcements due to events at Borough Market and Kensington. So I am beginning to suspect this announcement was pencilled in for last Wednesday and either someone forgot to tell Heathrow Airport to delay it or it was decided that it couldn’t really be held off any longer – for whatever reason.

    Anonymike,

    I had overlooked making the point about preventing delays on one NR branch affecting the other. In the peak, the Shenfield branch should effectively be dedicated to Crossrail so it shouldn’t be that much of an issue.

    Crossrail, and MTR Crossrail for that matter, would dearly love to have the peak service pattern to be reflected in the off-peak but the intervals between trains just do not allow this to happen.

    Matt,

    On the platform lengths issue nothing has changed. The underground stations are designed for 11 car length because you can’t easily lengthen underground station platforms once built. Although it has been done in the past, I suspect it is practically impossible today. A deliberate decision was taken only to allow passive provision for those surface platforms that would need doing in future. There is very little financial benefit (even before taking account the financial consequence of an unused asset deteriorating) in building the surface ones before they are needed.

    ngh,

    The last few evenings performance on the GWML and last night on the GEML nicely illustrate the performance pollution issue.

    I was caught up in the mother of all signal failures which delayed my return home by a number of hours. Amongst other less positive thoughts at the time, I really hope they have separated all the critical functions beyond Paddington so that the main and the relief lines don’t go out together in future. If you had Crossrail, you should have been able to run from Paddington low level to Reading and get at least 4tph. If Crossrail co-operate, you might get the Maidenhead trains to be extended to Reading (possibly at the expense of some lightly used stops). The effect on minimising the disruption would have been dramatic as people could have then picked up their service from Reading.

    Conversely, if Crossrail goes down, people would at least be able travel from Paddington high level to get to Slough and Reading and possibly, with a few additional stops, to a few other places as well.

    Anon E. Mouse

    Not necessarily so. It depends on whether Crossrail are strict about alternating between terminating-at and going-beyond Paddington in the off-peak. You are matching 1 train every 15 minutes with a 20tph service so quite doable with no problems.

    Alternatively, you change the stopping pattern between Heathrow and Paddington to lose time where needed. It only takes a couple of stops to lose the best part of three minutes.

    Anyway, the track to Terminal 4 is single track from Terminals 2 & 3. You have to run every 15 minutes. Nothing more frequent will work.

    I have to give most of the credit to ngh for the long and stabled remark. The biggest challenge was how to introduce it with out it appearing too contrived. By way, the article started off as The Final Result: Crossrail to Terminal 5 but it works better when you say it (with a pause after the word “to”).

33. I’m learning a lot from the articles and comments on this site. What makes the nine minute turnaround ideal? Who else will be using Ilford depot? Would Crossrail have to accept the expensive Express slots HAHA don’t want any more? (I thought Express was on the fast lines) Do all the extremity extra zones (eg Watford Junction) need to be one per station, per franchise price setter or per price? If by coincidence WatfordJ and Redhill were the same price could they share a zone?

    I just spotted I share a name with another Toby. I’m the non-pedantic one without an avatar,

34. Walthamstow Writer,

    As I understand it, electrification of the Henley-on-Thames branch is still going to happen eventually. It is cancelled on the Marlow branch because the challenge of running a 4-car train into the westernmost platform at Bourne End (for Marlow) was too great. The strange thing is that the Marlow branch has electrification masts and wires installed at the start of the branch at Maidenhead. There is also a prominent notice on platform 5 (branch line platform) at Maidenhead telling drivers that electric trains must not proceed on to the Marlow branch, In contrast, there is absolutely no sign of any electrification at the start of the Henley-on-Thames branch.

    On the issue of Oyster card and NFC payment, this was sloppy wording on my part. I agree with you that it is not really Oyster that Heathrow Express is after – it is being able to pay by credit or debit card. My feeling is that with Pay As You Go by credit/debit card/phone/magic bracelet etc. being a phenomenal success (1 billion transactions so far, supposedly) Heathrow Express is looking more anachronistic by not having them. This is what prompted the change.

35. Toby,

    What makes the nine minute turnaround ideal?
    I don’t know for sure and it is a question I mused over myself. I think it is because less than 9 minutes to change end is regarded as too tight, If you make it longer then there is a bigger danger that there is no platform available and anyway it is a bit inefficient.

    More crudely I suspect that with 2 platforms and a 6 minute frequency you want one train ready to board and the other platform occupied for half the time so 9 minutes.

    Who else will be using Ilford depot?
    From memory Crossrail has half of the depot and something Anglia the other half. Besides it is a major Bombardier depot so, theoretically, other trains could be visiting for major maintenance. It is a big site.

    Would Crossrail have to accept the expensive Express slots?
    No. This is all speculation on my part anyway. But if Crossrail at Terminal 5 turned out to be really popular then even a train with just all the seats occupied should be able to easily pay for a slot out of revenue gained. So why would you refuse?

    I was thinking solely of slots in the tunnels as Heathrow Airport own them. As far as I know, you can’t trade slots on the national rail network (Network Rail owned).

    There is the alternative that Crossrail to Heathrow is so successful that it makes sense for TfL to borrow money on the open market to buy out the tunnels at an agreed price. But, I emphasise, all speculation on my part.

36. Anon E. Mouse,

    Thinking about it further, there is no problem at all in having a 15 minute service to Terminal 4. This is what will happen. The side effect is that alternate trains go to Abbey Wood and Shenfield and this is the primary reason why you cannot maintain the peak service pattern in the off-peak. What I think you have highlighted is that maintaining the 15 minute frequency forces not only a different off-peak service pattern but that at Paddington westbound you cannot even maintain the continuing/terminating sequence and that you will have to have two successive terminators (and two successive continuers) at various points in the cycle.

37. TUAG means turn-up-and-go transit service frequency, every 15 minutes or less.

38. PoP: I think you may have meant to write “alternate trains would go to Abbey Wood and Shenfield”. Unless I am failing to follow the discussion, there is no current plan to run trains from any Heathrow station to Shenfield.

39. Malcolm,

    You have misunderstood – or I have. Crossrail don’t want to have Heathrow trains going to Shenfield but, with 10tph on each of the eastern branches, the off-peak timetable won’t work unless they do.

    There is the issue that the Canary Wharf funding requires more than 50% of Heathrow trains go to Abbey Wood (or, probably, more strictly, Canary Wharf). This is complied with because 100% will go to Abbey Wood in the high peak. Now with the Terminal 5 service, I suspect it is almost certain that these 2tph will also go to Abbey Wood. If they ever get 4tph to Terminal 5 then, almost certainly, all will go to Abbey Wood in the high peak and half in the off-peak.

    Note: I mention high peak because the previous Crossrail timetables had a high peak and a shoulder peak. I suspect the former shoulder peak service is the currently planned off-peak service and we are only left with peak and off-peak.

40. PoP: The difference in stub electrics for the two branches may arise from the subtly different station layouts at Maidenhead and Twyford. It is faintly plausible that there may be circumstances arising at Maidenhead under which an electric train might usefully be put in the branch platform, perhaps to load or unload or get it out of the way for a moment. So wires might come in handy.

    Whereas at Twyford the dedicated branch platform is most unlikely to be of any use to an electric train (before the whole Henley branch is electrified) because it is connected only to the branch, and has buffer stops at the other end.

41. PoP: Yes, it is me who has got it wrong. Thanks for the clarification.

42. Malcolm,

    Your comment on Twyford and Maidenhead makes a lot of sense – or would do if the notice added “without permission of the signalman” or something similar. It is akin to having a door with the notice “This door must be kept locked at all times”. If you strictly obey the notice, why have the door?

43. Pop:Indeed. I must admit that I pictured the notice as being at the Bourne End end of the branch platform – you do not say exactly where it is.

    But notices prohibiting things often leave out the exceptions. Your door has an implicit “(unless you have appropriate authorisation to unlock it)”. “No entry” or “no access” typically implies “except in emergency”. And so forth.

44. Other motivations to consider are (not in any particuar order):

    – Another option for Heathrow staff to get to work using a travelcard and avoiding the Piccadilly line.
    – Heathrow staff can commute to Heathrow from a far wider geographical area.
    – The new runway at Heathrow may have involved some behind-the-scenes concessions from the Heathrow owners in order to secure the extra runway, i.e. TfL/Crossrail eventually run all services.

45. The implications of WRAtH (or whatever it is now) might merit some consideration in the new Crossrail context.

    The lack of clarity about service propositions west of Heathrow 5 (I’m aware of some but probably not all) means that HAHL (the airport) will have to consider multiple options – and probably already has…! For WRAtH to try to share the same two HEX platforms is difficult if 6 tph from the London direction with reversing trains involved – or would there be separate new platforms- for which there is space but surely that was supposed to be for SRAtH (or whatever it is now)!

    Should it be a ‘REX’ (Reading Express) separate from ‘HEX’? Or through running – REX or whatever will use the relief (er, increasingly Crossrail + freight) lines? Or all Crossrail on an agreed premium funding deal between the Mayor/HAHL/Grayling (sounds fairytale zone)?

    Anyhow, the medium term future for T5-London services cannot be resolved without consideration of WRAtH – and for that matter whether the new ex-OOC new Langley HEX depot might be either avoidable or ‘Crossrailable’ and of greater rental value for a 30 tph Crossrail?

    Thoughts on a postcard might be welcome.

46. Jonathan Roberts,

    Given the lack of postcard use in the 21st century here is my digital reply.

    I am beginning to wonder if I am suffering from false memory syndrome when it comes to WRAtH. I always had it in my head that they actually built six platform tunnels at Terminal 5 – two for the Piccadilly line, two for Heathrow Express and two for future (undermined) use. I thought the two that currently have no use are 200m long. This was subsequently recognised as a big mistake as they should have built them as 240m long. Obviously, if they exist, these tunnels, could be used for WRAtH. Otherwise you more or less have to extend whatever service is currently using the current Heathrow Express platforms.

    Am I imagining all this?

47. I can’t see WRAtH working efficiently with trains terminating from east and west at Heathrow. In both directions, you would want to terminate at the furthest Terminal, so the tracks in between the terminals would have to cope with all trains at Heathrow (in theory 4tph HEX, 2 tph Crossrail, and 4tph? WRAtH. This doesn’t sound too bad until you consider that these are reversing (6tph T5, and 4tph T3), and you still have to fit T4 trains in too.

    Making Heathrow a Crossrail loop should work, especially if trains can be timed to step back a path when they divert via Heathrow. (This may even ease the pathing on the GWML, allowing faster trains to overtake through the path of the stopping train…)

    Though if this is done, I’m not sure that Crossrail could supply any southern access services, even if they stayed on Crossrail metals, and didn’t interfere with SWT…

48. It has only been mentioned crayonistically, but there’s a strong unfulfilled desire for connections to Heathrow from the south-west. Several iterations of quite serious plans have come and gone. WRAtH won’t cater for the need for connections in from south-west London and the suburban bits of Berkshire and Surrey. Extending Crossrail to T5 at least opens up the possibility of an extension from there to a terminus at Staines. That would at least provide the main link which is currently missing. There’s talk today of an emissions zone around Heathrow to get over one of the biggest environmental obstacles to expansion. That won’t work unless public transport links are provided from directions not currently served.

49. Malcolm @ 1806

    Maidenhead platform 5 sees normal use by EMUs already, e.g. when entering service from the carriage sidings, or when terminating before going to the sidings. It is not at all unusual to have a short wire run onto an unelectrified branch, I thought it was fairly standard practice to guard against the effects of misrouting…

50. @Malcolm
    7 July 2017 at 14:12
    I am not sure that everyone there shares your preference for 18 minutes (*) longer on the train “to sort out their bags”.Toby

    7 July 2017 at 14:31
    a single change will be preferable to a double change,

    So change at Liverpool Street

    re the Henley branch – neither intermediate station gets a reduced service compared with the previous 1 tph. Both tph call at Shiplake as well as (obviously!) Henley. Wargrave continues to get 1tph – this is apparently necessary to make it possible to do two round trips in an hour – BUT the service pattern is clever: alternate trains call at Wargrave only on the outward journey (towards Henley), and the others call only on the way back. This has two advantages:

    1. departures and arrivals at Twyford are every 30 minutes (although Henley is 29/31.

    2. Twyford / Wargrave passengers effectively have 2tph in both directions, because they can always take the first train and circulate via Henley if necessary, (Although I don’t know if there is a fare easement to allow this).

51. @Anonymike
    Last time this subject came up I did some maths on the timetable and reported WRAtH journey times and worked out that indeed, the time penalty for a “via Heathrow” service would be about 15m between H&H and Slough, which would very neatly step it back a path with a 4tph service.
    One might almost wonder if this had been considered in the WRAtH design and influenced the ruling out of other options.

52. Just a little damper on HEX’s enthusiasm for contactless payment by business travelers. None of my US credit cards have contactless. Don’t get me started on the stupidity of the US chip-and-signature cards as opposed to chip-and-pin.

    I do use my UK card for contactless travel and have retired my Oyster. I haven’t tried my iPhone, which of course the US business traveler would have but might not know how to use.

53. Anonymous Pedant 8 July 2017 at 02:45

    Seems to me that the simplest and most effective WratH timetable would be Elizabeth Line trains via Heathrow to Reading , and to Slough (or Maidenhead) not via Heathrow.
    Subject only to better informed people doing the maths and modelling the timetable, of course.

54. What changes are required at Paddington to have HEX passengers use ticket gates? Just a simple extension of the current gate line to platform 6 & 7?

55. @Anonymous pedant – I agree – assuming that the WRatH route diverges somewhere near Colnbrook. Being able to step it back a path is both a blessing and a nuisance: Blessing if everything to Reading goes via the airport, nuisance if you are running a 15 min departure pattern from Padd as the via heathrows will necessarily be run down by the following directs at Colnbrook. You could deal with this by abandoning clockface departures from Paddington but then you’d (a) end up with what the Swiss call a hinkende Takt, and (b) lose the advantages of slipping back into a regular path at Colnbrook. Some things are just too convenient!

    @Alan griffiths -timetable problems apart, so long as HAHL insist on a toll to use the airport, you will end up with either higher fares for a longer trip, or everyone paying the same – with the obvious unfairness for those who merely bomb down the GWML.

56. @Guy

    Paddington Hex would have to have a separate gateline. Like GatX does at Victoria. This allows those gates to apply the flat fare.

57. > Blessing if everything to Reading goes via the airport, nuisance if you are running a 15 min departure pattern from Padd as the via heathrows will necessarily be run down by the following directs at Colnbrook.

    Would they? Surely the point being made is that they slot into the path used by the train 15 minutes later – ie one of the other Reading via Heathrows.

    If your 12tph has 4tph Reading direct, 4tph Reading via airport and 4tph other then the gap between Reading trains alternates between every 5 minutes and every 10 minutes in the core. Assuming the same stopping pattern, this also happens from Paddington to Airport Junction and from Wrath junction to Reading – however the via airport trains will drop back 15 minutes (ie if 10 minutes ahead it becomes 5 minutes behind and if 5 minutes ahead it’s 10 minutes behind).

    Of course, being overtaken means the via Airport ones will be overkill in terms of capacity west of Heathrow.

    Personally, Elizabeth line to Staines (if beyond T5) and Wrath terminating at T5 unless they extend the tunnel that goes into the unused platforms at T5 eastwards (as was in their plans for R3) seems the best option. The Wrath trains can be shorter, and can go beyond Reading to say Oxford and Basingstoke as they aren’t Elizabeth line.

58. Whoops – that last comment was in response to Graham H, with that first paragraph being a quote. Serves me right for not proof reading.

59. Didnt the Gibb report mention though how the need to put specific trains in specific platforms at Victoria for the GatX services can lead to knock on delays on the approach tracks? That would be a nightmare if ever such a situation occurred on HEx/XR shared rails.

60. Re Ben et al.

    1. HEx with dedicated platforms at Paddington has been making the GWML fasts less reliable for almost 2 decades as it removes flexibility when things start to go wrong, so universal gating at Paddington High level for HEx with Crossrail fares gated via low level would allow much greater flexibility in platforming at Paddington which will improve the fasts (the late CP6 Paddington approach plans should also help)

    2. The current WRAtH (or what ever the new name is this month…) plan is that it is connected to the Reliefs (slows) just east of Langley and the new HEx depot.

61. I read something somewhere about current ideas for southern access having some bizarre loop from Feltham that included a station at Bedfont before entering T5 from the west, spearheaded by Hounslow Borough and supposedly with NR thinking it had merits. Surely this isn’t likely to be seriously developed – it looks a mess!

    Why can’t there be just one coherent long term plan to deliver phased access from all desirable directions that’s then stuck to, instead of a hotch-potch of opportunistic and separate projects? Admins: ignore comment if too much a fantasy!

62. @SI
    Yes that was my thinking in terms of timing.
    I’m not sure the WRAtH option makes sense for Crossrail though; it could make more sense for outer suburban through trains to link with HeX. If the pattern was fast Padd High Level -> Heathrow -> Slough -> Reading you could still manage a total journey time of about 45m. Then you alternate to Newbury and Oxford, all stations, which provides a half hourly through service to Paddington for the smaller stations out there but also provides many people with a direct Heathrow service. This could replace the current Oxford stopper service and add a new through Newbury stopper service, (which would in turn allow the Bedwyn diesel services to run fast from Newbury to Reading).
    Yes there will always be an option to change at Reading and get to Paddington a bit sooner, but my experience of the trains out there is that people will stick on a direct train, particularly if they have a seat. And if necessary “via Heathrow” tickets could be marketed with an attractive price tag.
    This suggestion addresses the wasteful use of slots by HeX, which lets face it spends most of the day carting around hot air, but it retains the fast option to the airport. It provides a WRAtH service, and it gives a bunch of people in outer suburbia new direct services to Heathrow and Paddington. What’s not to like?

63. The development of Frankfurt Airport station might mirror the development of WRAtH as it is also on a loop away from and back to a main line (Frankfurt to Mainz). Initially some of the local trains went via the airport while others took the faster and more direct route avoiding the airport. Demand from the airport in the direction away from Frankfurt grew so that fairly soon afterwards all local trains went via the airport (apart from one or two per hour regional services), even though it was slower. Inter-city services also all go via the airport but now on a newer and faster loop which links into the high speed line. Were this to be the experience with WRAtH then it wouldn’t be long before all non-InterCity trains went via Heathrow.

64. @Si – that’s what I meant by a hinkende Takt

    [Literally limping rhythm, but might be translated as a clock which runs on tea cakes, or a syncopated watch. Malcolm]

65. WRAtH? SRAtH?

    Any help for the uninitiated?

66. Western rail access to Heathrow. Southern rail access to Heathrow.

67. @Steve

    Respectively they are Western and Southern Rail Access to Heathrow which are fairly self-explanatory names.

68. WRAtH has been renamed Western Rail Link to Heathrow (WRLtH) under the current incarnation of the scheme under NR rather than the previous HAL/ HAHL leadership….

69. @PoP: I was thinking solely of slots in the tunnels as Heathrow Airport own them. As far as I know, you can’t trade slots on the national rail network (Network Rail owned).

    I’m not sure that you could trade rail slots at Heathrow either – as I understand it, as part of the Crossrail agreement Heathrow agreed to make the tunnels subject to the same access regime as the national rail network. So on paper anyone* could apply to operate services according to the standard price list**, and the regulations require Heathrow to allocate slots in a non-discriminatory way.

    *Well, anyone who also has connecting slots on the GWML, which from 2018 basically means Heathrow Express or TfL.
    ** The price list optimistically includes the “investment recovery charge” but with a note that ORR would have to agree to it, which we know won’t happen.

70. Does anyone know how many stations the semi-fast services will stop at / skip? And therefore how fast these trains will be to Paddington be from say Reading/Maidenhead/Slough?

    Presumably there will be dual pricing, ie a price for GWR ticket to Paddington (on one of their fast services from Maidenhead) and a (cheaper) price for a Crossrail service.

    Under the original plans I would have considered keeping my GWR season ticket from Maidenhead to Paddington as it would have been quite a bit quicker than the stopping every station Crossrail services. But if there are sufficient semi fasts that only stop at say Slough, H&H and maybe Ealing Broadway then I’d probably not bother with a GWR season ticket – Crossrail is presumably keen to attract these commuters/revenue?

71. Re Kon,

    Semifast GWR or Crossrail? if CR Semi-Fast I presume you mean Semi-Slow as the max number skipped would be 2 stations!

    The CR “Heathrows” would skip West Ealing and the “non Heathrows” Hanwell and Acton Mainline

    The residual GWRs semifasts (2tph) call at Twyford, Maidenhead, Slough, West Ealing and Ealing Broadway (and OOC in a decade’s time)

    see the previous LR article for more details:
    https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/one-of-the-family-crossrails-transition-to-being-a-tube/

72. Thanks NGH.

    Yes, I had read the previous article too, and that was certainly my original understanding.

    However, maybe more due to hope than realism, I thought that some of the diagrams/maps/tables in these two articles that showed Taplow/Burnham/Iver/Langley/West Drayton/Southall for example being stations where some Crossrail trains may not stop, and that Taplow/Burnham would have fewer off-peak services per hour than Maidenhead/Slough might mean we get some more ‘semi slow’ services. But perhaps not! Thanks.

73. @ NGH

    You are taking that service pattern from the section headed “The timetabled frequencies that probably won’t be”.

    That article is about the replacement of GW semi-fasts with Elizabeth line services.

    The diagram in the article above has Taplow, Burnham, Langley, Iver and Southall (Reading branch) as “Some Elizabeth Line trains may not call” and Hanwell, West Ealing and Acton ML being “calling pattern not yet determined”. There might be semi-fasts skipping all of those stops, there might be skip stop service where 4 of the 6 trains an hour east of Maidenhead call, but with 3 different stopping patterns and irregular gaps. Either way, there will likely be more than 2 stops missed by at least some Maidenhead trains.

74. The full judgement handed down in the application for Judicial Review, which prompted this outbreak of love and understanding between HAL and TfL / Crossrail is well worth a read (all 47 pages, in particular the later sections relating to “Unjust Enrichment” and “Application of the Regulations”). Can be found linked from the bottom of this page, rather ironically the site of the losing chambers / silk, who get a well deserved kicking from Ouseley J.
    https://www.monckton.com/high-court-rules-heathrow-crossrail-access-dispute/
    It certainly sheds a welcome light on HAL as a double-dealing, money grabbing bunch of sharks whose main aim is to preserve their monopolistic ability to extract usarious rents from anyone unfortunate enough to have to work with them.
    I don’t see how HEX ( at least with its current pricing – I believe the highest rail pricing per mile in the world?) can survive, to the massive relief of air passengers forced to run the gauntlet of their irritating sales agents trying to con unwary, jet-lagged arrivals onto their overpriced shuttle. Hooray for the British Judiciary!

75. Kon, ngh

    Nothing has been published yet but I would suggest that:

    I) Once Crossrail accepts the principle of not calling at all stations it doesn’t really make much sense to have a frequent service at stations like Taplow and Iver.

    II) The semi-fasts need to be at least as attractive in journey times to Paddington if it is going to be accepted that these replace GWR trains – and bear in mind that nothing has been confirmed to indicate that this is definitely going ahead. Whilst some GWR trains could potentially stop on the main lines, the idea is that GWR trains keep clear of the reliefs. This all suggests to me that some of the semi-fasts will have in the order of 7-8 stops Reading-Paddington to provide a journey time that is no worse than before.

    III) There were strong indications that under a previous iteration the timetable had 2tph off-peak trains running fast from West Drayton to Slough then Maidenhead.

76. ANONYMOUS PEDANT 9 July 2017 at 03:31
    ‘What’s not to like?’. I suspect the answer is dependent on service patterns. At the moment Newbury has a vaguely half-hourly service to London although this is complicated by the stopping West of England HSTs (as an aside can anyone confirm my understanding that the 802s will be able to change power collection mode at speed or will they all have to stop?). The Newbury-originating all-stations shuttle to Reading alternates with the Bedwyn semi-fast to Paddington. Since this only stops at Thatcham and Theale passengers from these fast growing towns face having a quick service replaced by a stopper.

77. Littlejohn,

    Not sure I fully understand. I think there is ambiguity about fast growing towns. Theale is only two stops from Reading as it is.

    The question is not how many stops are involved but what the end-to-end timing is. Crossrail on the Shenfield branch is starting to show how replacing electric trains with better accelerating, more easily boardable, electric trains can more than compensate for the occasional extra stop.

    In a sense, the stops are currently omitted because stopping generates such a time (and cost) penalty In relation to the limited benefits at the station involved. Removing most of the reason for non-stopping, which was the restricted diesel performance, means that that it makes sense to re-evaluate the policy.

78. @PoP. In fact Theale is only one stop from Paddington (Reading) on a Bedwyn service . Anonymous Pendant was postulating a new all stopping service ‘…..which would in turn allow the Bedwyn diesel services to run fast from Newbury to Reading’. This would mean that Theale would lose the current one stop at Reading and then Paddington service it currently has in favour of an all stopping alternative. On the face of it a retrograde step.
    The end to end timing is surely only relevant once you get on the train. If your previous (semi) fast now goes straight through and you have to wait for the next all stations then no amount of faster acceleration will offset the delay.
    I’m not sure that I agree with you that stops (in this context between Newbury and Reading) are omitted because of the time penalty. The real driver here is the lack of demand at places such as Midgham and Aldermaston. Is there any suggestion that significant numbers are left waiting on platforms?

79. @LittleJohn

    The plan as things now stand appears to be that the hourly Paddington to Bedwyn service will become worked by 800s or 802s, as to get rid of any Turbos working on the GWML mains. The benefits of this being that they will be able to use the wires from Newbury and the ability to run at 125mph from Reading to Paddington, which will obviously give time savings for passengers west of Reading.

    On top of that a 2 hourly Exeter St Davids semi-fast is planned, which will only call at Reading between Paddington and Newbury.

    I also wouldn’t be surprised if some of the Newbury to Reading stoppers are extended to and from Paddington in the peaks, though that is superstition on my part.

    Also, I can confirm that the 800s and 802s will be able to change from diesel to electric and vice versa while on the move.

    Moving back to Crossrail / Elizabeth Line. It would be interesting if it could be worked out how many more additional stops a 345 could make in the same end to end journey time between Reading and Paddington as the current Turbo services on the GWML reliefs.

80. @Malcolm – I unreservedly recommend you for a *sevère* level course in Swiss German at Herr Doctor Professor Keinschmuenzeln’s academy for older persons who are not yet able to read Schweizer Eisenbahn Revues. Do well and you will also be allowed to read Semaphore as a Leckerbissen….

81. @Martin H. Thank you; some of this I knew, some I suspected and some was new to me (eg the 2 hourly St David’s semi fast).
    While comment has been made about retention of Turbos on the Thames Valley branches, no one (I think) has commented on the Newbury-Reading all stations shuttle. Will this go to 5 car 800/802 (surely a capacity overkill) or will it become another diesel island in an electric sea? If it is extended to Paddington then it will undoubtedly become 800/802, but is that a sensible use of Main Line paths?

82. @LittleJohn

    As the wiring between Reading and Newbury is still going ahead I’d say it’s pretty safe to assume that the Reading-Newbury stoppers will go from Turbos to 387s.

    The 110mph ability of the 387s will allow them to slot between the various 800s & 802s on the mains. I believe it is planned for some 12 car 387s to run on the mains in the peaks to act as Reading capacity busters. Though where they run to has not been made public, but both Newbury and Didcot are the two obvious likely candidates.

83. There is a paper about Crossrail amongst the board papers for the next board meeting.

    Rather curiously it states in paragraph 5.13

    … on Monday 3 July 2017 TfL, DfT and HAL announced the intention to run additional Elizabeth line services to serve Heathrow Terminal 5.

    Announcements from TfL and the DfT are conspicuous by their absence. Still this is the first confirmation we have had from TfL.

84. One has emerged this afternoon via Mayorwatch. Confirms higher off peak frequencies and more trains heading west to Heathrow and Reading. Note the inclusion of a quote from Mr Grayling.

    http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/tfl-confirms-boost-to-elizabeth-line-train-frequency/

    The press release hasn’t reached the TfL website just yet.

85. Should be on there now, also says about off-peak improvements:

    Services on the Elizabeth line are set to be even more extensive and frequent than originally planned when the line becomes fully operational in December 2019, Transport for London (TfL) announced today.

    Off-peak services between Paddington and Whitechapel will be increased from 16 trains as previously planned, to 20 trains per hour – a 25 per cent increase. An additional two trains per hour will run between Paddington and Shenfield and a further two trains per hour between Paddington and Abbey Wood will also be introduced in the off-peak.

    Peak services to destinations west of Paddington will be boosted significantly, with services from Reading doubled from 2 trains per hour to 4 trains per hour, and services to Maidenhead increased from 4 trains per hour to 6 trains per hour.

86. I make that 12 trains per hour going West from Paddington on Crossrail. Which, if only 10 trains are heading to Abbey Wood, means that there will be cross contamination between the Rail lines out of Paddington and Liverpool Street.

87. I notice that paragraph 5.19 contains useful information about the ‘at launch’ timetable:

    “in May 2019 (Stage 4) Shenfield to Liverpool Street services are connected into the peak central tunnel section to run as far as Paddington at this point the service in the central tunnel increases from 15 to 24 trains per hour“

88. Going back in time to @SiliconValleyDave’s comment; the Oslo airport train (Flytoget) takes credit cards by swiping them through terminals at each end, although it is fully gated. This keeps the convenience of paying directly by card while making the payment available to non-contactless card holders. I’m struggling to see how such a system could be implemented on Crossrail but I’m sure minds sharper than mine would have thought of this already…

89. WW13 July 16:10
    if crossrail line is to have increased frequencies particularly in peak periods does this have implications for the number of carriages/trains procured as I am sure there has been speculation that they cut back the order rather too much, or is this increase in frequency only during the implementation stage and the final frequency unchanged.

90. @ Alan Overall Blue MTS – It emerged a few hours later, via Railway Gazette, that the number of class 345 trains has been increased from 66 to 70 so 4 more. This all ties back into a TfL paper a few months ago where all sorts of speculative things were hinted at in the public version. I dare say the “for TfL eyes only” (cue Sheena Easton) version had a fully set out proposition of planned timetable enhancements, expected revenue gains, the extra costs plus the capital expenditure for extra trains.

    Clearly the Board gave all that the thumbs up in principle subject to the ongoing negotiations with DfT, HAL, Network Rail and ORR all coming out right. It seems that this is precisely what has happened and some of our past speculation has been proved correct. Given we are now in July and there is something of a gap in approval meetings plus politicians taking holidays it was astute to secure that agreement months ago as it avoids a need to go back through full governance now. Someone did some effective planning and negotiation.

91. Peak services to destinations west of Paddington will be boosted significantly, with services from Reading doubled from 2 trains per hour to 4 trains per hour

    This would be the first official indication that TfL will take over some of the First Great Western peak semifast paths as foreshadowed in the paper WW mentioned. So much for the idea that TfL will never be entrusted with more services outside Greater London.

92. EDD. I’m struggling to understand your comment – what do you think has to be solved?
    Swiping in and out with my bank card is what I do now to pay for my travel in London. Equally, other payment options are available for those not using bank cards.

93. Having finally seen the press release (still not online) I have added a short postscript at the end of the article and have included the official revised Elizabeth line diagram.

    On other points …

    Verulamius,

    Just to reiterate …

    In the peak there will be 12tph westward beyond Paddington, 12tph to Shenfield, 12tph to Abbey Wood, 12tph terminating at sidings beyond Paddington. All Abbey Wood trains will go beyond Paddington, no Shenfield trains will.

    Off-peak there will be 10tph westward beyond Paddington, 10tph to Shenfield, 10tph to Abbey Wood. To make the timetable work there will be some trains going beyond Paddington from both Shenfield and Abbey Wood. Not ideal but no real issue.

    Alan Overall blue mts

    Crossrail had already ordered 4 extra trains in anticipation of this being approved. Or rather, they had already gained authority to order them. The original contract allowed for the order to be increased.

94. Crossrail website now has the press release. It may have been their earlier. You have to scroll quite a way down the main page to find it.

    No other details updated.

    Crucially, near the bottom, the press release states Five Great Western Railway services will be replaced with Elizabeth line services. These will be peak period trains. This suggests that the off-peak semi-fasts on GWR are not being taken over and also raises doubt as to exactly what happens in the peak. Both in the peak and off-peak some of the London stations such as Hayes & Harlington are going to have quite enough Crossrail trains without needing to have GWR trains stopping there as well.

    Clearly the situation is still unclear.

95. @ Pedantic of Purley 14 July 2017 at 09:36

    [snip for brevity PoP]
    I find it difficult to understand without some indication of the direction of travel. [further snip for brevity]

    I have added the word “westward” to my original comment so I hope that is now clear.
    John, your understanding was correct. PoP]

96. POP 14 July 11.38

    QUOTE Crucially, near the bottom, the press release states Five Great Western Railway services will be replaced with Elizabeth line services. These will be peak period trains. UNQUOTE

    I do wonder why – increasingly in my opinion – `services` is used in notifications instead of `trains`. I find this confusing.

    More than once, I have approached a member of railway staff, enquiring the time of the next train to ….., and after a few seconds, I am advised the next service will be at ___.

    I do wonder if eventually the noun train / bus will be replaced with service!!

97. Steven Taylor 14/7 11.38
    Perhaps my bete noir Train Station will thus become Service Station – Hmmm

98. @IslandDweller: I think he means “Magnetic Stripe” style swiping, which would imply adding readers capable of reading those cards to the gates.

99. The report to the TfL Board says:

    “For Stage 3 the Class 345 train requires to be further developed to incorporate Communications Based Train Control (CBTC) signalling. This is similar to the systems used on several Underground lines in London but needs to be added to the two other systems that will already be fitted to the train, ‘conventional’ UK signalling for the surface sections of route and ETCS for the Heathrow spur. This is complex and a matter of significant focus from the train manufacturer (Bombardier) and TfL”

    Using the expressions like “complex” and “a matter of significant focus” sound like some of the terms that might be used by a civil servant to frighten the Minister!

100. @130 🙂 (Depends on the Minister, of course…)

101. Steven wonders about the use of the word “service”.

     One possible reason for this might be to avoid having to announce that “the next train to Sheerness will be a bus leaving from the station forecourt”.

102. Walthamstow Writer 7 July 2017 at 15:06

     “I wonder how long it will be after the line fully opens in 2019 that the penny drops on the eastern side of London and demands grow for a different service pattern to give direct access to West London and Heathrow.”

     Passenger from Stratford or somewhere further east gets off train at Whitechapel and waits for next Heathrow train. I think its what known to some of us as a “Catherine Tate moment”.

     Beats making three across-the-platform changes at Stratford, Mile End and Barons Court.

103. Alan Griffiths,

     Well, under current plans the east side of London (Shenfield branch) will get 50% of the service that go west beyond Paddington outside peak hours.

     In the peaks they will get no direct service but the corollary to that it that all trains that provide their return journeys will start from Paddington and so be less crowded. So the proposition should be “do you want your trains to go to beyond Paddington and consequentially you also get a much more crowded journey home in the evening peak?”

104. Hmm, the service patterns are shaping up to be quite complex. I wonder how that is going to be communicated to passengers, if at all. Apparently there will just be a single purple line through central London on the maps, with no indication of how the branches at either end fit together.

     Daily users will of course figure out the pattern eventually, but suppose I’m a tourist standing on the platform at Custom House and I need to go to West Drayton. Or perhaps I’m at Stratford but still need to go to West Drayton. Will there be any difference in signage telling me that in one case I’m supposed to hop on the next train, any train, and change somewhere on the central section, but in the other case I can stay where I am until a train with an appropriate destination comes by? Looks like the right choice might depend on the time of day, too.

105. @130: Since Crossrail is formally a mainline railway, wouldn’t a CBTC system installed there need to be ETCS Level 3? It seems strange to speak of it as something that would need to be fitted beside ETCS equipment on the trains. Rather it would be an upgrade of the ETCS eqipment to do Level 3.

     (Brexit may change that requirement, but if the trains are still to have ETCS anyway it sounds suboptimal to choose a different CBTC system for the core).

106. Henning Makholm ,

     We have been through this before but to reiterate …

     There is a requirement for new railways in the EU to use ETCS signalling. However, the problem was that, even now, there is no workable ETCS level 3 and there certainly wasn’t when the planning of the signalling system needed to be made. Remember closure of platform edge doors has to be interlocked into the signalling system and, as far as I am aware, there is nowhere in the world that does this within ETCS.

     Consequently, Crossrail has a derogation to not use ETCS in the tunnelled section. As part of that derogation they were required to commit to ETCS when it becomes available and, I believe, even had to submit a procedure to show how they would do it. Of course, if we leave the EU this may become irrelevant. I would imagine by the time a suitable system was mature enough to confidently use there may be benefits in changing over anyway.

     Note that Crossrail trains will be ETCS 2 signalled on the Network Rail lines out of Paddington and would be capable of using it to Shenfield if it the trackside equipment were fitted.

107. When contracts were let for Crossrail in 2012, no supplier had an proven ETCS-based mass transit compatible CBTC ready for deployment so they opted sensibly for an off the shelf Trainguard MT system to be delivered by a Siemens-Invensys consortium. The following year, Siemens purchased the railway control engineering activities of Invensys (formerly Westinghouse in UK). Siemens (with their British former Westinghouse/Invensys experts) then went on to develop the hybrid ETCS/ATO system for Thameslink, which they now can demonstrate has the same stopping accuracy at platfroms as the Crossrail CBTC, so could be compatible with platform screen doors if desired. In the end, both lines have been signalled by the same company using different systems that are in fact fairly equally matched. Trainguard is moving block like Thales Seltrac. Thameslink isn’t L3, it is L2 but has very short blocks (as little as 70m). Another point is that Crossrail is formally not part of the ‘National Network’ (like all of LU controlled infrastructure) which, aside from the technical compatibility issues, prevents other train companies from bidding for paths on the new line.

108. Henning: I don’t think the varying train pattern need be much of a problem, even for occasional, tourist, or easily-confused passengers. The same issues arise today on the northern line, where depending on your destination, you may sometimes be get there on the first train, sometimes on the second or third, and sometimes you may have to wait many hours for the next through train. “Next train” displays do the trick, supplemented by (at times) an extra message saying “for trains to X, Y and Z, take the next train to Camden Town (or Kennington, or wherever) and change there”. I am sure something similar will occur on Crossrail, made even easier by modern display technology.

     (Other example do exist on National rail lines where the current displays are enormously unhelpful for such issues, but the unhelpfulness is, in my view, down to old-fashioned incompetence – or attempts to cut costs, rather than any real technical impossibility).

109. I think I should qualify my previous comment, because I cannot actually think of anywhere where when the service is running properly the displays are as enormously unhelpful as I claimed. (Though other readers may know of some) (And Diamond Geezer has reported total gobbledegook on the District Line). But there is plenty of enormous unhelpfulness on display in many places when the service is disrupted, and displays get full of lists of canceled trains, instead of telling you about the ones which actually are running. But I digress…

110. PoP….As I understand it, Elizabeth line trains won’t be ETCS Level 2 out of Paddington except for those going on the Heathrow owned section where there is no TPWS. What is termed TPWS Plus or Enhanced TPWS will be used (so-called Plan B report http://www.orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/18856/paddington-0-12-exemption-application-report.pdf). Network Rail ran out of time to fit ETCS L2, what with all there other challenges on the GW main line. I’m sure ETCS will come in time.

     Off topic, this means that the Inter-City Express trains from Hitachi have had to be fitted with the old GW ATP.

111. So from a Reading perspective, still slightly unclear! We lose five GWR services, but gain an extra 2tph Crossrail trains – what’s that, 8 across both peaks? And they might be a bit semi-fast-ish, maybe…
     And with the advent of regular turning back of trains at Maidenhead, does that not mean there’s now sufficient line capacity for Henley trains to run on to Reading?

112. @ Alan G – to be fair the proposed Crossrail service pattern has changed since I made my comment that triggered your “I ain’t bovvered” suggestion. It seems to be iterating every few weeks on recent experience. I understand the operational pressures to try to keep things simple and to minimise disruption risk and you may be right that the public don’t care about the service pattern. However we simply don’t know what will transpire and what expectations the travelling public have and whether they will “flex” in the face of operational reality. There has been next to nothing said in a clear way in the mainstream media about what the actual service will be like on Crossrail. To the extent that the general public have paid any attention at all they just see a very simple line diagram with no indication at all of the service pattern. Only the geeky end of the spectrum reads blogs and Board papers and TfL consultations.

113. @ H Makholm – We have been given a couple of glimpses of what a Crossrail station will look like in terms of electronic info. There have been photo montages of a refurbed eastern branch station and also artists impressions of the train info panels above each portal in the platform edge doors. Those of us who have ridden a class 345 have also seen the train interior displays. I expect there will be pretty clear visual and audio information about the service pattern and relevant advice on where to change trains. However, as I have said before, we have a roughly 18 month transition process from May next year to December 2019 where the TfL Rail / later Crossrail [1] services morphs and expands to its final scope. That will bring various tests of the information provision as people will be required to change trains in different places and between levels within Liverpool St and Paddington stations.

     I expect TfL have been working through these issues for months, if not years. On that basis I would expect a pretty slick operation to be in place but it will, as always, succeed or fail on how well disruption is handled and passengers are kept informed / offered alternatives for their journeys. The media and TfL’s critics will be waiting for the first failure and will be ready to pounce to turn what may be a small problem into something resembling a world wide crisis. Such is the “quality” (ahem!) of so much reporting these days.

     [1] sorry but I refuse to use the “other” name.

114. 100andthirty,

     Thanks for the signalling update. I was familiar with the report but unaware that plan B was actually going to be implemented. Still, as far as Crossrail are concerned, the trains are ETCS compliant and they don’t own the track and lineside signalling on Great Western so they are in the clear.

     The comment about the Hitachi trains and GW ATP is sort of not off-topic because the report you cited stated that it would be impractical to fit GW ATP to Crossrail trains. Difficult, obviously, but it can’t be that impractical if they can manage it with the Hitachi trains. It does seem worrying though when we have to retrofit old systems into new trains at the last minute because other projects get delayed.

115. Mark Townend,

     Thanks for the updated info. It is still the case that no-one has included platform edge doors with ETCS which was one of reasons Crossrail went for a bespoke system. Network Rail pushed them very hard to go the ETCS route but in the end they decided it was just too risky.

     On small correction. You state Another point is that Crossrail is formally not part of the ‘National Network’ (like all of LU controlled infrastructure) which, aside from the technical compatibility issues, prevents other train companies from bidding for paths on the new line.

     The last bit is not true, any more than it is the case for the tunnels to Heathrow. As part of the legal niceties Crossrail have had to issue a document giving charging proposals in the central operating section.

     Of course, it is a document that makes it nearly impossible for any third party to comply with but theoretically any train operator (even freight) could apply to use the Crossrail tunnels.

116. WW
     With my usual cynicism, I expect the first failure on the Lizzie-line will be one of information, not of actual services.
     There will either be too much of it, or someone will “press the wrong button” & it will all be false. ( See references to Diamond Geezer’s posts earlier on this theme )
     I seriously expect that the actual running will work quite well – at least until the through-running past Paddington/Royal Oak/Westbourne Park starts, at any rate!

117. PoP – Thanks for the correction. It was a common understanding in my days at NR that ownership of the Wimbledon-Putney section of the District Line had been transferred from BR to LU instead of Railtrack at privatisation in 1994 specifically to prevent other operators from bidding for paths. Signalling and power remained with Railtrack of course and there was a certain level of empty stock and diversionary usage agreed for the SW main line operator. I assumed a similar arrangement would apply to Crossrail, but it could be that the District line ruse might have been ineffective in that one particular network operator is no different to another in Law for the purposes of access rights and path bidding. I look forward to the Elizabeth line’s first open access steam hauled excursion 🙂

118. @Malcom, 14 July 2017 at 21:35:
     Or, as happened to me several times, years ago, on turning up at Halifax station with my Advance ticket to London:
     “The next service will be the taxi to Newark we’re about to book for you because the wheels have fallen off the Pacers and we can’t run any trains”. (I forget what the actual reasons were, but the Pacers were usually the cause).

     “Service” is a very flexible word.

119. PoP……I have to confess that I don’t know for sure that what follows is true. However I don’t think the slow lines out of Paddington have the old ATP.

     PoP and Mark Townend…..Sadly, ownership of a particular piece of railway infrastructure doesn’t determine whether it’s part of the national infrastructure subject to the Interoperability Regulations. The Member State (for UK, the DfT) has to specifically exempt a railway, otherwise it’s covered by interoperability. The list is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/456044/approved-list-exclusions-from-rir.pdf
     London Underground operations and infrastructure is exempt, for example. DfT chose not to exempt TfL’s Crossrail infrastructure. Practically, anyone who wants to operate though the Crossrail tunnels will need the Trainguard CBTC and trains to the exact dimensions of class 345 to line up with the platform doors. Getting paths in the peak might be a bit of a challenge too.
     Much of the interoperability stuff makes perfect sense when in a Brussels office, but I doubt that they were intended to be applied to Crossrail which, in the central area has all (block capitals, italics, bold and underlined) of a Metro which the Commission determined should not be “interoperable”.

120. Mark Townend,

     Maybe a steam train in the Crossrail tunnels is a bit far fetched but they did manage it on the subsurface lines on the Underground.

     Getting steam trains to work with ETCS is a serious issue. It works best if the there is a tender as there is then somewhere to put the controls in a not-too-hostile environment. And, because steam trains and their crew tend to be infrequent visitors to main line railways they are more likely to cause a problem and be in more need of good train protection. See RAIB report on Wotton Bassett, for example.

121. Oh for an edit button….. in my last post the last paragraph should read:

     “Much of the interoperability stuff makes perfect sense when in a Brussels office, but I doubt that they were intended to be applied to Crossrail which, in the central area has all (block capitals, italics, bold and underlined) the properties of a Metro which the Commission determined should not be “interoperable”.”

122. @Mark Townend – no, that wasn’t the reason I arranged for the transfer of sundry bits of BR infrastructure (including the unmentionable) to LU. My reasons for doing so were (1) to prevent a precedent being set, via the W&C, for privatising part of the tube; (2) to tidy up some long standing anomalies; (3) because it was clear that an integrated railway was so much better – important to save as much as possible from the wreck.

123. @130

     What a fascinating list. Surprising how many NR single track branch lines are included. on the Network Infrastructure lists. It seems incredible that the DfT has to specifically declare that the Babbacombe Cliff Railway here in Torquay (for example) is not subject to interoperability regulations, when for all intents and purposes it is a tilted lift (elevator for American readers)!

     @PoP – I believe all main line certified steam locos’ TPWS/AWS equipment has been inspected and modified as necessary to prevent the kind of in-service tampering that occurred at Wooton Basset. I agree heritage passenger rolling stock provides significantly less protection for occupants in comparison to modern monocoque bodyshells in any kind of collision or high speed derailment,

124. There is a tiny difference, of course, that the subsurface lines were originally built for steam trains. Which does not of course mean that they are necessarily still fit for such trains, but it does lift the odds a bit.

125. @GH – With NR back in the public sector now, perhaps inevitably, we can all too easily forget that Railtrack was a very much for profit rip roaring capitalist venture. I can understand LU wouldn’t have wanted parts of their route network to fall under their control, and with hindsight they were right. Was any consideration ever given to transfer of Gunnersbury – Richmond to LU?

126. @130: This page suggests that the relief lines from Reading to Paddington weren’t initially fitted with ATP, but they were in 1998 (as a result of Southall?).

     @PoP: there is discussion here of the difference between fitting ATP to the IEPs and fitting them to the Crossrail trains.

     Basically the IEPs were specified to have ATP from the start, and so the cab was designed with that in mind. The Class 345s weren’t and redesigning the cab would have delayed delivery by 6 months*, and ATP equipment would have had to go in the passenger area and not the cab. Also there doesn’t exist (yet?) a way of transitioning between ATP and other signalling systems (eg CBTC) while on the move.

     * And since the Class 345s are safer than the Class 315s they replace, this counts as a safety disbenefit, which offsets the small risk increase in going with Plan B on the GWML.

127. @MT – Rightly or wrongly, I judged that Gunnersbury-Richmond would have been a step too far and would have drawn politicians’ attention to the exercise. [LU’s negotiating tactics throughout the exercise were fascinating: the behaved as if they were doing BR a favour – until the final day before the transfer when at the last moment, in the middle of the final meeting to sort out last minute issues, their solicitor produced a volume the size of two phone directories of new indemnities that RT was expected to sign on the spot. Naturally, RT demurred; Jim Morgan,then the relevant zonal director, declared that he would need approval from his Board first. LU – “You must approve them now” ; JM – “No, I won’t and if necessary, I’ll shut the District Line until I have Board approval”. Stunned silence; LU had never, in a million years, considered that such a nuclear option existed. Flurry of phone calls – retreat of LU.}*

     It was noticeable, too, that one of the first things LU did was to go and try to scarify off the NSE racing slugs on the platform edges (not very successfully either).

     On your more general point about the definition of a railway, for some reason,lawyers have struggled with this in recent years; as I may have previously remarked, the first draft of the 1993 Act, included, by implication, film camera trolleys and their track within the definition of a railway; subsequent attempts to put this right, led to a putative legal distinction between a single railcar and any train with more than one vehicle even tho’ there was no legal (or operational ) need.

     *I won’t repeat here again the further story of the cross-indemnities between BR and LU at the time of transfer

128. Every 30 minutes to Terminal 5 (Heathrow’s busiest terminal) is still pretty poor, and I’m sure we have not come to the end of the road yet on changes. If nothing else, it maybe just starts to lay the path for trains being extended via the Western Access to Langley, Slough and beyond.

     I always felt it was a missed opportunity not to include a diveunder from the west end of the Slough relief line platforms to the Windsor branch, that would form a good terminal point for inner services and seems to suit the travel patterns well. Anyone who thinks the Slough to Windsor line is an obscure twig has not travelled on a full-to-busting 3-car set there in the peaks.

     I’m still expecting, nearer the time, for Heathrow Express to “sell out” to Crossrail. Nobody seems to be admitting still that Crossrail will be full and standing from Day 1, and if the Express rolls along pretty empty, the pressure will be irresistible.

     On the east side, I see suggested that eventually Crossrail may look to get out of their residual operation into Liverpool Street High Level. Unfortunately I think the key crunch point is going to be Canary Wharf in the peaks, which will need to get first dibs on any additional Core capacity. It was a mistake I feel to turn the Shenfield line off at Whitechapel instead of east of Canary Wharf, a bit of a dogleg maybe but very many at The Wharf commute from down the Shenfield line. If they are unable to join overstuffed eastbound trains at Whitechapel in the morning peak, or even get into Canary Wharf station westbound in the evening, because it only gets half the Crossrail service, there will be much dissatisfaction.

     Roll on 11 cars. Although I bet some of the platform extensions have been done in a manner to preclude that.

129. Mr Beckton,

     A few comments.

     Every 30 minutes to Terminal 5 (Heathrow’s busiest terminal) is still pretty poor
     I don’t think anyone would dispute this and clearly the aim is to establish some sort of service and then try and beef it up to every 15 minutes. Also, be all ready established in case Heathrow Express decides to abandon its operations.

     Anyone who thinks the Slough to Windsor line is an obscure twig has not travelled on a full-to-busting 3-car set there in the peaks.
     But remember it will be 4-car when electrified. Also it is now every 20 minutes (was half-hourly). Maybe every 15 minutes will not be impossible after electrification. There is already platform six at Slough which is a terminating platform (but possibly not currently long enough for Crossrail trains so would need extending). So there must be cheaper solutions even if less ideal.

     . It was a mistake I feel to turn the Shenfield line off at Whitechapel instead of east of Canary Wharf …
     Highly unlikely. By splitting off at Whitechapel one does ones best to have two balanced branches in terms of passenger numbers. Doing it east of Canary Wharf would produce all sorts of complications. Not least would be a challenge to serve Stratford.

     Roll on 11 cars. Although I bet some of the platform extensions have been done in a manner to preclude that.
     At talks, Crossrail managers assure us that platform extensions have been carried out with passive provision for being able to extend to 11 cars. Not sure about the situation at the Heathrow stations though. I use to think that going to 30tph would happen before extending train lengths but now wonder if they will eventually go for 28tph. It gives a bit more margin for recovery but, more crucially, fits in with Heathrow Express and the 15 minute interval it operates. Of course, if Heathrow Express no longer exists they don’t need to worry about this.

130. @Mr. Beckton

     Why will Canary Wharf commuters from the Shenfield line want to change onto an Eastbound Crossrail train at Whitechapel instead of taking the Jubilee Line as they presumably do now?

131. @Philip

     Cross-platform interchange and an air-conditioned train throughout perhaps? The former should cancel out any potential time penalty from a slightly longer journey and the latter may be adequate compensation for the loss of a seat on the Jubbly..

     THC

132. @Mr Beckton: It was a mistake I feel to turn the Shenfield line off at Whitechapel instead of east of Canary Wharf

     There was an article a few months back in Modern Railways by a former London Transport planning person, who said that he thought in future having a Shenfield branch at all would be seen as a mistake. I assume this is because the existence of the branch will always limit the service frequency to Canary Wharf and Kent, while Crossrail doesn’t do much for capacity on the Shenfield branch that couldn’t have been done by other means. But I suppose Crossrail was planned in the “you can have any transport scheme you like, so long as it goes to Stratford” era…

133. Ian J
     Not so.
     The loadings on the Central line between Stratford & points west are very silly indeed.
     CR1/Lizzie line had to address that overcrowding & overloading problem.
     At present, at the height of the AM peak, you are getting over 50 people emerging from every doorway of an 8-car 315 to transfer.
     This could not be allowed to continue & the bleaters about “It shoudn’t have included Shenfield” seem to pursuing their own special agendas, without looking at the overall picture – I think.

134. Greg Tingey,

     As far as the comment about loading go west of Stratford, well said.

     Ian J, Mr Beckton, Greg,

     I would seriously challenge the comment about doesn’t do much for capacity on the Shenfield branch that couldn’t have been done by other means. Lengthening platforms at Liverpool St whilst keeping the same number of them was practically impossible. Dwell time at Stratford is currently starting to become a real critical factor in the service you can run. Far better to avoid most people having the need to change at Stratford (to/from the Central line) in the first place. No “other means” would realistically totally resolve this.

     A lot of the massive amount of Crossrail work east of Stratford would have needed to be done anyway to produce a reliable accessible railway whatever solution was adopted. Crossrail figures are based on “this is what it costs” not “this is the extra cost above what really needed to be done anyway if we were honest about it”.

     I would also suspect there is a fair amount of latent demand that hasn’t been addressed. It is no good just catering for current levels + small percentage increase. For once, you really want to get ahead of the demand curve.

135. Apologies if this has already been covered elswhere, but have the zoning / charging decisions for Crossrail been published yet? In particular I’m struggling to see how HEX will be able to implement differential (premium) pricing for Oyster / contactless without completely seperate platforms and gatelines (I guess this would be possible although unwelcome at PAD?). Or is the assumption that Crossrail fares for Heathrow will be identical to HEX, attracting a special surcharge (a “Zone 6+”) rather than being placed straight into Zone 6.

     In a similar way, will Daily / Weekly capping apply to Crossrail at LHR, given that the current HEX fare is several times the daily cap??

136. @ Creole – short answer – nothing has been published formally about fares and zones.

     Longer answer – I expect HEX fares will be dealt with by the touch in / out of Paddington. As HEX has a dedicated terminal it can be dealt with specially by way of a dedicated National Location Code or “zone” within the charging system. As HEX trains do not stop between H’row T23 and Paddington you can assume that everyone alighting at Paddington boarded at Heathrow and charge appropriately. As with all of Oyster / contactless there are no clever deals around return tickets – all single journey charging.

     I do not expect HEX to be within any Travelcard zones or in a standard daily capping arrangement. Fares are far too high for that. I’ve just looked at the fares and was glad I was sitting down. 😉

     As for Crossrail more generally then again we only have two bits of info to rely on. Mayoral pronouncements about “TfL fares and passes will apply” and a more recent piece of info (via a Mayor’s answer) that within the zones zonal charging will apply and beyond it “appropriate fares” will be charged. Whether this involves “shadow zones” as has been done for Shenfield, Watford Junction etc was not stated. I’ve seen plenty of speculative comment about what stations will be in what “special zone” but we must wait to see what is formally announced. You can interpret that lovely phrase “appropriate fares” to mean anything you wish – it’s a masterpiece of opacity.

     My own view, most likely wrong, is that standard Z6 fares won’t apply into Heathrow. Some modest premium will be applied. For stations to Reading it seems clear that FGW are not relinquishing control of certain key stations on the route and I assume that is to cover for the fact other FGW trains stop at those places but more importantly to preserve their fare setting role. From what little we know of the train service pattern I can’t see TfL being allowed to set divergent fares from those of FGW west of West Drayton. Don’t expect to travel to Reading for £10 on Crossrail when it’s >£18 on SWT and >£23 on FGW in the peak. We also have no idea at all how, or even if, the SWT service via Staines will be Oysterised at some time in the future. I don’t expect anything to be said about this for a while because of the impending franchise change on South Western (if the “competition” authorities allow it) and also we do not know what approach First will take on smart ticketing more generally on that franchise.

     I know everyone wants to know what the fares and passes situation will be but we just have to be patient (he says, while frantically tapping his fingers on the desk 😉 )

137. @WW – Thanks for the update, and since my earlier post I’ve also been reading the comments in the parallel “One of the family…” thread. The only clear thing is that threading a path for passenger charges through the maze of Tfl / GWR / HAL / SWT / ORR interests will be – well, interesting! I can certainly forsee a massively negative public & press reaction if any surcharge above Zone 6 for LHR access via Crossrail is significant.
     The whole can of worms also gets re-opened when WRATH arrives, when surely the ideal (from a pure passenger perspective) would be to integrate WRATH into Crossrail as a semifast RDG-Twyford/Maidenhead-Slough-LHR-H&H/Ealing Bdy-PAD option using the HEX slots? Which will probably mean that something else entirely is delivered 🙁

138. @Greg T, PoP: I tend to agree (and I was wrong, it wasn’t a senior LT person, it was Michael Schabas, who worked on the Jubilee extension for Olympia and York then for GB Railways and so yes, would have a Canary Wharf-centred viewpoint). But having the lines branch so close to the centre is still problematic, even if the geography makes it a necessary evil.

139. Ian J,

     The views of Michael Schabas are not universally accepted within the industry. Even his recollection of the story of the Jubilee line differs from those of others involved. This is not to say one person is right and another is wrong just that, as with all history, there are viewpoints and perspectives.

     I have said it a number of times but I think Crossrail branching out so soon is almost akin to the Bakerloo splitting at Baker Street. It solves a problem for a while (so it not necessarily a bad thing or a mistake) but eventually, as demand increases, a new bit of railway needs to be built so that each branch is independent.

     Before anyone gets the crayons out, it is meaningless to speculate on the possible route. It won’t happen for a good 30 years at least as there are more urgent issues to address. By then there is no point in applying a solution dreamed up a lot time ago in the past when the situation was quite different.

140. I, too, wonder how fares are going to be handled. A regular journey for me is going to be from Beckton down the Thames Valley to Maidenhead, for which a quick transfer at Custom House will be ideal. But at present the stations down there are not even on the machines on the DLR, and in any event most people are going to want to swipe in with an Oyster, and use that and its capping etc for the bulk of the journey within London. Likewise, London mainstream fares only really apply for 44 years, to those aged 16-60, not so on the National system. Outside these age limits, for the other half of life, there are a range of substantial concessions or free travel within London for its residents. How is that going to be handled? If you are over 60, what (and moreover, how) do you pay beyond the boundary for a day trip to Maidenhead or Windsor?

141. Well, many fares from Boundary Zone 6 already exist for season and London Boroughs freedom pass holders. Not shown on all National Rail ticket machines though, let alone the DLR!

142. @ Mr Beckton – I understand that all LU machines now have the ability to issue tickets from Zone boundaries to NR stations beyond.

     I understand Crossrail are getting a completely new form of ticket machine. They MUST be able to cater for the service that the TOC itself runs. A crucial factor is what decision TfL have taken with respect to wider NR ticket retailing and whether they have gone the “whole hog” or opted for the more traditional “LT era” more restricted range of destinations and ticket types / discounts. I hope they have London Travelwatch “on side” as they watch this sort of stuff like hawks.

     I expect there will be a wider strategy of “integrating” Crossrail into retailing processes used elsewhere by TfL. Overground and LU shouldn’t be too much of an issue. I confess I had not pondered DLR’s ticket machines but I expect TfL will have a plan for this. We must not forget, though, that the overriding ticketing strategy is one of off systems sales and non bespoke media so what transpires for DLR passengers wanting to use Crossrail will be interesting. I don’t pretend to understand child concessions anymore – it’s a complete minefield.

     One final thing to bear in mind that some aspects of the next phase of the Future Ticketing Project are now coming online. Faster pickup of online orders at “rail” stations / tram & River stops kicked in this week. The Oyster app, expanded Hopper ticket functionality, Oyster PAYG weekly capping and “background” fare calculation will also phase in progressively. I expect a lot of this is aimed at taking pressure off station level retailing and some is essential for Crossrail’s expanded range of destinations. Quite how it all work west of West Drayton remains to be seen given TfL is pretty much an unknown entity there and FGW retain control of places like Slough, Maidenhead and Reading.

143. Mt Beckton, Walthamstow Writer

     LU ticket machines are definitely getting much more advanced. On gets the impression that the attitude is one of continual improvement whereas on the TOCs it is done on a need-to-improve basis.

     Buried in the TfL website and definitely not publicised is Bakerloo and District ticketing which is a project to replace the ticket office at the remaining LU stations that have one (the ones that share a service with London Overground) with ticket machines. This would appear to create the anomaly that London Overground stations will have a ticket office except when it is also a London Underground station. It doesn’t take a great leap of the imagination to speculate where this is going to next.

     So, my guess is that the DLR ticket machines will be replaced with much more advanced models. Return from Beckton to Penzance changing at Custom House and Paddington (or Reading). No problem. And as a bonus here are all the different ticket options currently valid.

144. WW
     I understand that all LU machines now have the ability to issue tickets from Zone boundaries to NR stations beyond.
     Thanks for that – I’m a fairly frequent “Boundary Zone 6 to $_Destination” user, but have always used WHC ticket office up until now. Though they are freindly & helpful there….

     Meanwhile, AIUI, “Old-style” Oyster cards are going to be phased-out & replaced with new ones, with wider availability. Do we know how to go about replacing these, yet?

     PoP
     Are you suggesting that LO stations are possibly going to be downgraded/removed at some point in the not-too-distant future?

145. Good speculation. However, who would ever have thought that the DLR would have been allowed in the first place to install their own machines completely different, and less functional, than any Underground ones. You cannot even see your Oyster history on the DLR machines.

     Regarding being able to buy tickets from the zone boundary, that is good progress. Now, how do you touch out your Oyster as you pass?

146. Mr Beckton,

     I presume the DLR ticket machines were installed in the days when the DLR was absolutely nothing to do with TfL or its predecessor.

147. Although originally quite independent, the DLR machines were replaced not that long ago by new touch-screen ones – which still lacked significant parts of the TfL functionality.

     We may seem to be getting away from Crossrail, but the detail of its direct interchange arrangements are surely a key part of the planning. Meanwhile, the 100 metres (literally) between Poplar DLR, major node of the system, and Crossrail Canary Wharf, still seems unbridgeable, despite the intervening gap possibly being able to be bridged by just one extra span on the Poplar DLR station overbridge.

148. Mr B
     What about the place where there will be direct DLR : CR1 interchange, then? [ Custom House ]

149. Mr Beckton 17 July 2017 at 13:57

     “It was a mistake I feel to turn the Shenfield line off at Whitechapel instead of east of Canary Wharf, a bit of a dogleg maybe but very many at The Wharf commute from down the Shenfield line.”

     Do you have a rough idea of the costs for extra tunnelling for that?
     Nearest £100m would do!

150. Mr Beckton. I think the intention is that the Poplar DLR to Crossrail walkway will be created when that patch of land is developed. An opening (currently blocked) has been created at first floor level in Crossrail Place (the new building over the CW Crossrail station) seemingly for this connecting walkway.

151. “Do you have a rough idea of the costs for extra tunnelling for that?
     Nearest £100m would do!”

     @AG

     Would have thought that Canary Wharf Junction to Stratford is much the same distance as Whitechapel Junction to Stratford.

152. @ Greg – launched just this week is this page with all the requisite information.

     https://tfl.gov.uk/fares-and-payments/oyster/using-oyster/first-generation-oyster-cards

     @ Mr Beckton – I am not very familiar with DLR machines. However the operational and security concept on DLR was very divergent from LU for a long time. You could install LU machines at DLR stops as LU machines are rear serviced if they hold cash or notes. That concept has been flexed as card only machines have been introduced and they’ve been stuffed anywhere there was space. I had not spotted the ticketing project page that PoP highlighted about the former Silverlink but now LU stations. As I said previously there are several initiatives whirring away on TfL ticketing and I expect some of it will transfer to DLR in due course – there’s 17 months before Crossrail runs for real in DLR territory so we might get some surprises.

153. Mr Beckton 21 July 2017 at 22:46

     “Would have thought that Canary Wharf Junction to Stratford is much the same distance as Whitechapel Junction to Stratford.”

     What has been built is from junctions underneath Stepney Green (place, not LU station) to Pudding Mill Lane (Portal at site of previous DLR station) with elegant, gentle curves allowing the trains to cruise at speed.

     I think what you advocated would involve four or five times as much tunnelling, with much tighter curves. “You could electrify to Nottingham for that money”

154. Walthamstow Writer 7 July 2017 at 15:06

     I stand corrected about electrification of the Henley-on-Thames branch. I was really surprised to read in Modern Railways that this has been cancelled. Certainly it is the first I have heard of it. Apparently it was done at the same time as Didcot-Oxford was cancelled. In the latter case it is believed that in reality it is delayed pending finalisation of track layout at Oxford and between Didcot and Oxford and not truly cancelled as Modern Railways suggests.

     The source was Mark Hopwood, the MD of GWR, so I could hardly venture to suggest that they may be wrong.

     Apparently they have also cancelled Slough to Windsor & Eton Central. This seems very sad. It is a really short section of track with a shuttle evert 20 minutes so a train runs along the track every 10 minutes. Demand is sometimes very high so the longer trains would be useful. I wouldn’t imagine there is a power supply issue and their can’t be many clearance issues on a railway largely built on a viaduct.

     The whole article reads as a putting a brave face on a bit of a disaster. It is the usual “oh, electrification doesn’t really matter, we’ll get on fine without it” stuff but the description of knock-on effects, particularly to rolling stock, makes one think otherwise.

155. @PoP – well,NR certainly believe they are going to electrify to Oxford (and that from an NR source who lives there). The main problem apparently is the construction of the route on, effectively, the Thames floodplain for much of the way,which makes the mast piling difficult.

156. Re Graham H and PoP,

     They are even doing some piling this week during the 9 day Didcot – Oxford Blockade (mainly to get more of the point replacement (with higher turnout speed), track realignment and drainage works done.

157. @Graham H: The piling only becomes more “difficult” in that you need longer piles to get down to the stable ground… The Dutch do it quite happily in much worse ground (e.g. around Gouda).

158. Yes – saw some of the piles stacked near Ufton Nervet awaiting installation in the Kennet flood plain betwen Reading and Newbury and they must have been 20-30ft long! You have to feel some sympathy for people living nearby as these are banged into the ground overnight!

159. @SHLR – what isn’t clear is whether the HOPS trains can cope (or require some modification).

160. It seems on further investigation (by others) that the electrification of the Henley-On-Thames and Slough-Windsor branch is deferred indefinitely. This would put it in the same status as Didcot-Oxford and is more a case of “we’ll get around to it when the time is right”.

161. Re Graham H, PoP, SH(LR)

     The main HOPS piling train has vibration piling equipment which is only suitable for normal ground (not too hard not too soft e.g. goldie locks). Difficult ground, hard or soft but in this case soft needs (noisier) percussion piling equipment which is normally done using RRVs or occasional using a Kirow Crane for extra long reach from the track.
     Due to the HOPS spec requiring adjacent line running (oops) the length of the arms the piling attachment are on and the size of the vibration piling attachment are limited by the safe swing of the counterweight to the opposite side of the train.

     Re SHLR,
     It isn’t reaching solid ground that is usually the issue with piling (except New York) it is harder to get the friction between the pile and ground in soft conditions which then requires a larger pile surface area hence deeper and larger diameter piles.

162. Question – original plan was to run 8tph on Eastern branches off peak. Part of that theory was to allow freight paths between Forest Gate Junction and North London Line (at Stratford). If off peak Elizabeth line rises to 10tph then how do 4 freight paths (3 class 4, 1 class 6) fit into the that section of track?

163. Saintsman,

     Short answer. I refer you to the article.

     More detailed answer. Because, as stated, if you run 10tph then the timetable means freight actually gets a better opportunity to cross both Crossrail tracks without clashing with an Elizabeth line train. So that is potentially 10 freight paths an hour and you could even have one in each direction crossing the Crossrail tracks.

     Also, actually the original Crossrail plans were only to run 6tph off-peak and even going to 8tph was quite a late development.

164. “Beyond 4tph to Terminal 5 there must be the desire in the medium-to-long term to eliminate the few intended Elizabeth line peak hour workings into Liverpool Street high-level station. This would probably need a 30tph timetable through the central core, with 15tph on each eastern branch. It would either require extra trains or for some of the current Shenfield trains to be terminated further down the line.”

     The current 15tph high peak timetable leaves the trains (albeit with Class 345s still to be lengthened to 9 cars) completely rammed. The planned 16tph peak service on the Shenfield branch will hardly revolutionise travel for the people living along that route (except for opening up better connectivity to places West of Liverpool St). Any talk of reducing the service to 15tph is surely a step in the wrong direction? If anything, the Shenfield branch needs 12tph through the core and a further 12tph into Liverpool St.

165. Ronnie268,

     I have been at great pains over the years to emphasise that the only real capacity improvement on the Shenfield line after Crossrail is built is due to the longer trains and not due to a more frequent service. Nevertheless a 25-30% increase in capacity due to longer trains (9-car without intermediate cabs) is quite substantial on its own.

     I am told that the Crossrail team itself cut the original proposal of 6tph to Liverpool St (High Level) because they were confident that, even on the most optimistic traffic forecasts, 4tph would be sufficient. Whether that is down to sufficient trains or that they didn’t think many people would opt for the terminating trains I do not know.

     If (12 + 3) tph on the Shenfield line really isn’t sufficient then surely that means that you have to go to 11-cars instead of 9-cars that bit sooner. I would argue that would make more sense. For one thing you get a more consistent uniform service on the Shenfield branch, for another you could make better use of platform occupation no longer required at Liverpool St – and there is plenty of demand for that.

     The Elizabeth line will be such a massive step-change in travel that no-one is really confident what will happen on its opening. So a ‘wait and see’ policy is probably best. The good news is that the train contract specified various additional future options. Also, if longer platforms become necessary, the infrastructure design included passive provision for platform lengthening to 11-cars.

166. Agreed that the lengthening is the big improvement (although Maryland, Forest Gate and Manor Park commuters will appreciate the all-stops peak service pattern).

     I can’t understand how the planners came up with 4tph being enough. With the Generalised Journey Time decrease due to direct journey opportunities to the West End, demand will rocket. In any case, I doubt that the Liverpool St High Level terminators will be underused. For one thing, the mix of employment in the Great Eastern region is very City-heavy (see http://commute.datashine.org.uk/). But also, if the Core-bound trains are full (which I’d be very surprised not to see), many will opt to take the Liverpool St terminators at least as far as Stratford (if not the whole way), to access a range of alternative tube options.

     Do you know if the Eastern stations will have platforms lengthened to 11-car (or just 9-car) before Shenfield through-running in May 2019? I haven’t heard anything on that front for a while. After Maryland was included, SDO was specified for the new fleet, and I wondered whether they’d just give up on extending any of the platforms at the other stations (platform 4 at Forest Gate doesn’t look particularly easy to extend, for instance).

167. HeX has been good for the image of Heathrow and against the Piccadilly a business case. Over the years they have tried for other destinations with further penetration into London so not convinced their loadings have been fully utilised. Running alongside Crossrail for a long time doesn’t sound strong. There is peak hours relief and alternates in case of disruption. What else could they do but keep going and maybe try ultra-premium.

     Premier airports do frequently have premium services and I’m convinced there is a gap for a franchise hubed at Heathrow that benefits both by association. Just not duplicating something else.

     Tourists will pay premium fares for direct transfers and hate unfamiliar interchanges. UK users will similarly especially to avoid central London. Identifying the overlaps would be key. Heathrow’s Airport Express could better serve passengers transferring between Airports, and some towns in between.

     Domestic transfers is a segment that Heathrow is pursuing in it’s hub airport capacity.
     Direct services possible are Gatwick, Birmingham, and Luton.

168. Is there really enough transfer traffic between airports to justify a dedicated rail service? And even if there is an untapped demand, do we want to encourage it? All we get is more people flying in and straight out again, and spending money in the duty free. Not good for the environment or HMRC

169. I have not seen any evidence that Hex wished to extend further into London; Paddington is still a terminus.

170. @TIMBEAU

     I sympathise with that view but the UK Government wants London to be a transfer point. 30% of current usage is “people flying in and straight out again”. Policy is to make HRW 50% bigger ” to encourage it”.
     Better to move people by rail and spread the demand.
     A hub at Heathrow is not good for the London environment and transfer passengers pay no taxes here.

     Passenger numbers 2016
     Annual passengers: 75.7 million
     Percentage of international passengers: 94% (71 million)
     Percentage of domestic passengers: 6% (4.6 million)
     Percentage of business travellers: 34% (25.7 million)
     Percentage of leisure travellers: 66% (50 million)
     Percentage of transfer passengers: 30% (22.7 million)

     https://www.heathrow.com/company/company-news-and-information/company-information/facts-and-figures
     https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2018/01/02/heathrow-cuts-domestic-airport-charges/

171. BA do sell connecting itineraries across London airports, but that’s mostly Heathrow – Gatwick, and it’s not a big part of their business.
     They never sell connections via Luton or Birmingham.
     There is nowhere near enough transfer business for direct rail services to be worthwhile. Crayons back into box.

172. @GRAHAM H

     HeX to St Pancras and Moorgate has been considered.

     There is direction from the DoT in the T5 decision

     http://rbwm.moderngov.co.uk/Data/Cabinet/20020228/Agenda/$020228_terminal5.doc.pdf

173. Branson was the one offering that.

174. @ISLANDDWELLER
     BA do sell connecting itineraries across London airports, but that’s mostly Heathrow – Gatwick, and it’s not a big part of their business.
     They never sell connections via Luton or Birmingham.
     There is nowhere near enough transfer business for direct rail services to be worthwhile. Crayons back into box.

     You make the point that the Transfers Heathrow records are those sold on connecting tickets by such as BA and alliance partners. The UK/EU are well known around the world for the low cost open skies network and quite familiar to US and Asian visitors.
     For onward travel at least on one leg they will effectively be unrecorded transfer passengers.
     So Heathrow’s capacity for London as a destination might be nearer half rather than two thirds.

175. Aleks2CV: Sure there will be some unrecorded transfer passengers. But how many is pure speculation. Even if there are as many as you suggest, inter-airport trains are most unlikely to bring in anything like enough fares to pay for their running costs, let alone the paths or the trains.

176. ” inter-airport trains are most unlikely to bring in anything like enough fares to pay for their running costs, let alone the paths or the trains.”

     or new infrastructure.

177. If we ever get a Waterloo – Heathrow ‘Airtrack’ scheme reincarnation, an airport transfer could also be achieved by one change at Clapham Junction. That might be marginally faster and would definitely be less crowded and more comfortable than going via Farringdon especially if the Gatex service gained an additional stop. The best investment then might be additional connecting passageways (with travolators?), baggage transfer measures and Lounges at Clapham Junction associated with the appropriate platforms. Any timed booked connections between flights would have to incorporate sufficient time for the transfer and might include the train fare.

178. @Malcolm
     The distinction between transfer and domestic is whether you clear immigration.
     The discussion was about the ‘value’ to London of having these additional people moving between planes including at other airports.
     These are not international terminal shuttles but domestic services.
     No crayoning it would be up to the airport to know it’s catchment.
     No path is worth an empty train, even on GWML. The current service runs to 2023.
     In a couple of years Elizabeth line will be in full swing and a subsequent Express offering will be evaluated.
     Without OOC Birmingham Airport, Coventry, Leamington, Banbury, High Wycombe direct to Heathrow would be of value to passengers but as you hint maybe not to the network and schedulers.
     We will have a different operating environment after HS2 releases all this promised additional capacity.
     Heathrow, WLL, Croydon, Gatwick, & wherever most silver pounds line to the south seems obvious outside the peak,

179. Heathrow takes somewhere in the region of the same number of passengers per year as Liverpool St or Victoria.
     This should be borne in mind if you are talking of passenger-flows, especially if you consider where & in what proportion those onward/inward passengers are going to/from.

180. Aleks: Whether you clear immigration is one criterion. But whether flights were booked in one transaction may be a more crucial one. But all I am saying is that the number of transfer passengers is a key figure for the viability of any train links. Surveys have been done.

     Heathrow WLL Croydon Gatwick may be feasible trackwise. But most of that route is full up most of the day. Such an additional service could only be put on at the expense of many other more useful trains.

     Airport to airport is best achieved by (1) coach, or (2) changing at Farringdon.

181. Ronnie268 19 December 2017 at 16:41

     “After Maryland was included, SDO was specified for the new fleet, and I wondered whether they’d just give up on extending any of the platforms at the other stations (platform 4 at Forest Gate doesn’t look particularly easy to extend, for instance).”

     Do you mean platform 1, rather than 4?
     You know, the one with the substantial wall at the western end.

182. @Malcolm – in terms of LHR – Gatwick, I was asked to look at what would be involved in providing a train service back in the early ’90s. Setting aside traction issues (obviously),the best that could be done then was about 50-55 mnutes via Olympia and Clapham – that assumed the availability of convenient paths,which , given the frequency with which any such service would conflict with existing services, was a big ask (and would be even bigger today). An interairport coach service would take about the same (unless it called wearisomely at T4) and be very much cheaper but would be less reliable. Volumes didn’t suggest the investment in power supplies and stock would support the investment.

183. @Graham H
     “An interairport coach service would take about the same and be very much cheaper but would be less reliable. ”

     reliability of a railway service tends to be binary (either it works or it doesn’t) whereas if a coach breaks down (or the road is blocked for some other reason) it is possible to go around the problem and get there, albeit maybe not in the expected time.

     Taxi from Heathrow to Gatwick in less than an hour at 8am on a rainy February morning proved to be perfectly possible when we had our Heathrow flight cancelled and the only available alternative was from Gatwick.

184. timbeau,

     if a coach breaks down (or the road is blocked for some other reason) it is possible to go around the problem and get there, albeit maybe not in the expected time.

     This was traditionally the case but, with the advent of busy four lane motorways, I would argue it just isn’t true anymore.

     First of all, you have to actually be able to get off the motorway. Often this is no mean feat in itself.

     Then you will find that the local police force and Highways England have implemented their pre-planned operation for handling a motorway closure at that point. You will find you are not free to go where you want.

     Alternatively, they will have made the decision for you and decided that actually swamping the local roads helps no-one so, as they have an estimated time before the road is cleared, they decide the best course of action is to keep people already on the motorway on the motorway. A particular reason for this is if they need to get emergency vehicles to an incident. You don’t want to be in the situation where they can’t even reach the motorway.

     Although a railway is very binary, so long as he operator can get you to a station, any station, that operator does have the option of laying on alternative transport. So, from the point of view of making the journey (by whatever means) I would argue that rail should be the mode of first resort. Of course once the Elizabeth line is fully open and Thameslink is operating as originally planned I would suspect that rail would be by far the most reliable of travelling between Heathrow and Gatwick.

185. @timbeau – as a frequent user of the M25, I can tell you that delays occur often and unpredictably. And one they occur, you are shafted for alternative routes. It’s of course true that once a railway service goes down, there tend to be very limited speedy alternatives, but I would rely on a railway to get me to the plane on time over any other mode. I’m sure you’ve had a good experience – once.

186. Yes of course if you are already on the broken down train or coach you are stuck. But if the motorway is closed that doesn’t stop subsequent services from setting off and findng alternative routes.

187. timbeau,

     And my point is it does

     Once the motorway is closed, choice often doesn’t enter into it. Unless the police and highway authority have been very successful in keeping the traffic on the motorway and you are the only person who knows about then you are going to have very limited freedom of choice in theory and, in practice, just about none at all.

     Also, don’t forget the Thames Water water leak affecting the railway at South Croydon a few years ago. It stopped the trains to Gatwick. Within an hour people had taken to their cars and before long the road network immediately south of London was rapidly becoming a complete snarl-up. The only way to get the traffic moving again was to get the railway in operation again.

188. @timbeau – I will gladly give you a groat or two if you can describe an LHR-Gatwick route which doesn’t use the M25 and which takes under two hours guaranteed . BTW, PoP’s point is rubbed in these days by people with the smarter sort of satnav that tells you about trouble ahead; that quickly leads to everybody piling onto any alternative. The difference between a 1 hour and a 2 hour journey is missing the plane these days -usually without the benefit of an alternative flight as you describe (maybe I go to too many exotic places where there are fewer than 1 flight per day…)

189. I actually transfer flights between Heathrow and Gatwick and have done the route both by National Express etc coach and by rail/tube through central London, which I prefer due to its greater reliability. The only advantage to the coach is that you can sleep on it.

     I can attest to the low volume of demand. Almost no-one who does not know London well would do this transfer under present conditions. The Thameslink/Crossrail single change at Farringdon will be quite sufficient to meet demand.

190. “greater reliability”.

     There is no single measure of reliability. If you happen to have planned one hour in your plane-catching schedule (to allow for possible delays), then you might be interested in the probability of arriving within one hour of the planned time – this could be estimated from survey data, perhaps. But if you have made different plans (or have a more/less flexible plane ticket), it may be the the probability of arriving within, say, 15 minutes, or 100 minutes, or even 12 hours, which would count for you.

     However, what people typically mean by this phrase is “greater perceived reliability”. This accolade has typically gone to road transport, but as PoP indicates, the M25 could (or perhaps should) be single-handedly shifting this prize to trains – particularly trains on routes with a frequent service.

191. Malcolm, it has been years since I have done the LHR / LGW transfer under time pressure; it was no fun when I did so. Like Graham, I expect a two hour minimum transfer time by either mode.
     There are two specific reliability issues concerning National Express. One is the the M25, which others have discussed.
     The second concerns the ticketing system, unless it has changed in the last few years. In the system I used, the passenger buys a ticket on a specific coach. There are multiple routes serving the LHR/LGW sector; many services (each of which can comprise one or more coaches) are timed to run together in bunches. This allows NatEx to manage passenger load / traffic delays by cancelling (parts of) specific coaches. Passengers are transferred to other coaches / services and the timetabled arrival time can be approximately met.
     This means that there is no point in buying a ticket in advance, since there is a very high chance that it will need to be exchanged for another coach / service. The ticket purchasing machines do not have sufficient information to allow the correct coach to be identified. All ticket purchase / exchange therefore has to be done manually, with a queue that can easily be 20-30 minutes.
     These days, I do the transfer late at night for a morning onward flight or with a very relaxed daytime timetable. Either way, I choose steel wheel on rail.

192. @Answer=42: What an absolutely dreadful system!

193. SHLR
     The system works for the majority of users, keeps costs down and is (was) easy to manage. It just doesn’t work for me.

194. Based on little other than a hunch, I also find it hard to imagine sufficient intra-airport demand to justify direct rail links avoiding central London. But if the huge number of rail journeys between other towns and cities that have to be made (or, which aren’t made because they would have to go) via London are factored in, then potential demand for London orbital rail routes would be much higher. That said, the cost of a rail route alongside (parts of) the M25 is almost certainly prohibitive.

195. @Stewart
     “But if the huge number of rail journeys between other towns and cities that have to be made via London are factored in”

     But an orbital route avoiding London only works is there is sufficient demand on a route between two specified places. For example, of the many people currently travelling via London from (say) Bristol, how many are going to Ipswich – or to Dover – or to Cambridge? Enough to justify direct orbital services to any of them?

196. @TIMBEAU
     “Of the many people currently travelling via London from (say) Bristol, how many are going to Ipswich – or to Dover – or to Cambridge? Enough to justify direct orbital services to any of them?”
     Almost certainly not, taken in isolation. But most of the cost of providing such services would be in the capex for the infrastructure, not in the opex of the services themselves. Orbital routes are inherently more flexible than radial so the demand would be best assessed for the sum of ALL possible orbital journeys, not over individual source-destination pairs.

197. Stewart: I don’t get this. You can only add in the source-destination pairs which could be served by a plausible timetable. The two trains per week which total Bristol-Dover traffic might theoretically justify will clearly not be able to run at a time which suits all the would-be Bristol to Dover passengers. People want to travel at time (approximately) of their own choosing.

198. @Malcolm
     I completely agree, but I think the demand is greater than you suggest and may mean a plausible timetable is possible for some routes.

     The interchange stats for London terminals are below. They show a lot of people are making radial in-radial out journeys that could presumably be made orbitally if suitable routes existed. Now, maybe Bristol-Dover isn’t ever going to look viable, but ECML-WCML or SWML-SEML could be.

     To some extent, the success of London Overground shows the suppressed demand for orbital routes within London, and East-West Rail partly aims to provide something similar much further out. Maybe other orbital routes are desirable too, but it is hard to say without knowing sources & destinations for both the interchange journeys below and journeys made by other modes (mostly car).

     Annual interchanges “made among National Rail operated services (interchanges between rail and tube or other modes are excluded except for cross-London journeys)” (ORR):
     Waterloo 10.189 million
     Victoria 9.638
     London Bridge 8.454
     St Pancras 3.888
     King’s Cross 3.736
     Euston 3.535
     Liverpool Street 3.144
     Paddington 2.843
     Cannon Street 2.351
     Waterloo East 1.377
     Blackfriars 1.199
     Charing Cross 1.068
     Fenchurch Street 0.616
     Moorgate 0.58
     Marylebone 0.496
     Elephant & Castle 0.118
     Farringdon 0.113
     Kensington (Olympia) 0.003
     City Thameslink 0.003
     Vauxhall 0

199. with the exception of a couple of short links in Shoreditch and Bermondsey (and even they mainly used existing disused trackbeds), the orbital lines on the Overground were already there to be used, so infrastructure “capex” was relatively low. I would be very surprised if the BCR for a brand new orbital route would be beneficial.

     It works for the M25 because each passenger (or small group) is in their own vehicle. Multiple slip coaches would be needed to get the same connectivity on a railway. Or interchanges with the radials – in which case you might as well use the existing orbital routes to make the transfer (Circle Line and, to a lesser extent, the orbital route of the Overground (in the rare instances where the long-distance radials connect with it, primarily Stratford and Clapham Junction)

200. Stewart
     There was an (IIRC) Ipswich – Basingrad service, which was liked by many, but was appallingly slow, because of its route & inter-pathing requirements. Which killed it in the end.
     If ( a very big “IF” ) one could arrange something similar now, one would have to try to speed up the passage through Zones 2-6 … which I suspect is not on (?)
     Also, after this coming December, or the following May, that route will be easier & faster with two simple changes – on to Liz-line & then on to the Northern @ Tottie Ct Rd, (!)

     I find those ORR figures interesting, especially the relatively high number for Liverpool St, given that something like 80% of all onward journeys there are made on foot …

201. ORBITAL RAIL – FREIGHT – W10 – M25 BELT

     [A number of restatements of well-known facts removed by Malcolm]

     Freight built the London lines and has a right to paths. These are increasingly constrained.

     [SNIP]
     Lorry tolling is already announced and is a source of funding for an orbital freight line. NIMBYs would agree if that was a commitment not to keep widening the M25.
     London Gateway and the freight operators would chip in.

     [SNIP]

202. HEATHROW RAIL

     [This comment has been shortened by Malcolm. Too many digressions, and I sense that the idea of inter-airport rail is considered too far from feasible by most commentors here. ]

     Heathrow’s CEO John Holland-Kaye has a mammoth task carrying public and government support for the third runway hub idea.

     SNIP

     Heathrow has been tasked by the Government to achieve modal shift targets away from road.

     Those commenters advocating Coaches and walking between railway stations are not really in the spirit of integrated railway journeys.

     Those seeking out faster routings dashing through central interchanges may be self centered and should consider less abled, luggage, kids, granny.

     It does the air industry no good when there are pictures of acres of surrounding countryside filled with cars abandoned for 3 or 4 weeks at a time. SNIP

203. @GregT – i used that service once during a tube strike to get to the City Road (Woking-Highbury and then bus) I was in no hurry that day, which was just as well; slow via Ascot to Clapham (allegedly no SWML paths), slow round the NLL where we kept running down the NLL service in front. It did have a trolley service however -Lord Dawlish writes : jolly good to sit alone in the first class having another coffee whilst watching the crowds on the NLL platforms waiting for their local service….]

204. @Graham H
     “via Ascot to Clapham ”

     Did it run that way? I thought it usually ran via West Byfleet, Virginia Water, Hounslow, Kew West curve, and the North London Line. (Is Woking to Ascot even possible?)

205. HEATHROW RAIL HUB fits with the hub idea of a national asset.
     The idea has already been won for whatever reasons of national pride, some economic benefit, or the prestige of our ministers visiting as many of our embassies as possible without being photographed transiting a foreign airport.

     The question was asked whether an airport train would make money for the operator. Which is really besides the point. The permission to grow Heathrow by 50% was on condition that it was not consequential on growing surface transport by the same proportions, even 50% more road capacity were it feasible would multiply congestion by an exponential magnitude.

     The Heathrow Express was not a franchise. It is licensed to 2023 and pays Heathrow for access to cover the cost of building the eastern link. A future TfH (Transport for Heathrow) would underwrite the rail services from Heathrow and share fare revenue.

     After the Lizzie there may be a residual demand for an express in the morning getting to Business. Doubtful during the cocktail hour after the workday. This concept is to utilise the fleet after the peak to promote the hub. Currently there are three corridors available for a Heathrow link that are not central London.

     1. The Greenford branch onto the NNML to Bicester, Coventry and Brum.
     2. The Dudding Hill line to Luton
     3. The WLL to Gatwick

     The third is the most congested and in regards to pathing the Flyer would call at all stops Shepherds Bush to Clapham Junction effectively replacing one of the shuttles (ok 1 way)

206. Stewart
     While I take your point that orbital demand needs to be looked at holistically (“I can see the whole circle and it is beautiful”), any initial investment needs to be based on the largest potential flows. I can see only three potential demands:
     1. LHR – LGW – which we have demonstrated is minimal
     2. LHR – WCML – probably similar
     3. Cross-Thames
     And if we are talking about a Cross-Thames orbital arc, we are talking about freight, no?

207. @GT
     I would hazard a guess that a fair proprotion of the Liv St interchanges are to/from the Stansted Express, bringing us somewhat closer to the original topic

208. Timbeau
     Lord Dawlish had obviously partaken to well of the morning sherry (!) I think he meant Virginia Water.
     Woking – Chertsey – V Water – Feltham – Hounslow – Kew Jns – NLL

209. @timbeau – You may be right about via VW – was too busy with coffee and the morning press to look at all the passing stations.

210. It is noticeable when riding the 345 that like in the photo above there is an ominous gap with the platform. There was a discussion about heights 1150 rail to platform.
     Is that an EU standard and why these sets with the curved door bottoms are the best value off the shelf designs,
     I see the gap filler steps now on other lines. When the fleet of 6000 new carriages are in service is there a national strategy to standardise platforms around the country, maybe lower rails during ballast replacement.

     What then happens with heritage stock ? Would mk1 slam doors foul the higher edge.

211. Greg Tingey 4 January 2018 at 17:51

     ” There was an (IIRC) Ipswich – Basingrad service, which was liked by many, but was appallingly slow, because of its route & inter-pathing requirements”

     Caught it once, when heading to Bournemouth. When the Jubilee line opened, there was a quicker and easier route between Stratford (London) and London Waterloo.

212. Aleks2CV: The money question about an airport train is not, and never was, about “whether it would make money for the operator”. It is about how the considerable cost of putting on such a service would be met. Additional rail services are expensive toys, and we do not have, and should not have, a government that is prepared to buy such things for vague reasons like “the prestige of our ministers”.

     You are right that restriction of surface transport was supposed to be a condition of the proposed Heathrow expansion. However, there is little sign that Heathrow’s operators are prepared to put their own money into such things (as contrasted with urging the spending of more public money). Indeed the recent legal attempt to maximise the income from Heathrow’s own stretch of railway shows that the airport operators are acting just as we would expect a commercial firm to operate – minimising risk and maximising return for shareholders.

213. The reason Heathrow (and the BAA before it) have put money into the airport express services is not because they expect the trains to make a profit, but to attract passengers to use their airports. This is not dissimilar to the reasons many early railways were funded – not in expectation that the railway itself would pay its way but as a way of improving the business interests of the chamber of commerce / coalmine / port.

214. Alan Griffiths 3 January 2018 at 13:00

     Do you mean platform 1, rather than 4?
     You know, the one with the substantial wall at the western end.

     Absolutely – my mistake. It’s the most heavily used platform by a mile and yet is the only one that looks nearly impossible to extend substantially.

215. If you want big modal change at Heathrow, worrying about inter airport transfers is equivalent to barking up the wrong weed rather than any trees and Crossrail and Thameslink will do an adequate enough job (as does the main local minicab firm at Gatwick given the number of their vehicle on the M25).

     Three much easier cheaper steps for modal change:

     1. Reducing taxi /minicab (inc Uber) use. A well marketed Crossrail and the connections from Crossrail (inc Thameslink but hell will freeze over first in TfL before they advertise it…)

     2. Western / Southern Rail Access. NR has taken over from HAL on working on a sensible new Western Access scheme. There is also 2 private 3rd party schemes for Southern Access scheme that have fewer issues that the former scheme that got shelved because the level crossing barriers in Phil Hammond’s constituency would have been permanently down all the time. (Heaven forbid that the SCC or the 3 local councils should actually sort out plenty of other issues with the local roads and journey times.)

     3. Staff access – people seem to forget about the numbers of staff at Heathrow with stopping crossrail, western and southern services and remote park and ride (via rail) car parks at suitable stations.

216. NGH
     (inc Thameslink but hell will freeze over first in TfL before they advertise it…) – maybe not?
     Surely, when Liz-line opens, T’link must start re-appearing on the maps? The apparent cause, revenue division, can surely be sorted out?

217. @Greg

     (Thameslink on Tube maps?) I wouldn’t bet on it – TfL would rather pretend Thameslink isn’t there at all, especially since it looks like it will be finished first (and will even compete between Abbey Wood and Farringdon).

     If they wanted to, they could have put it (and the Northern City) on any time they like – but in fact they took them off only a few years ago.

218. Re GT and Timbeau,

     TfL are virtually broke and almost need every last penny hence no incentive…

219. @TIMBEAU
     TL has been put back a year TL2k is now Thameslink 20/20 in the adverts.
     The two full timetables should start about the same time.

     @Alan Griffiths
     Is there an updated list of short platforms. When XR was initially scoped for 10 carriages only Maryland seemed to be an issue. Are these further difficulties arising from the expansion to 11 carriages?

220. @GREG TINGEY
     Surely, when Liz-line opens, T’link must start re-appearing on the maps? The apparent cause, revenue division, can surely be sorted out?

     The iconic tube map is still the most referenced plan for travel.
     If you add a new line the ridership goes up like the NLL.
     The TL core is maxed out with the outer services, it’s not designed for additional loads from interchanging tube lines.

221. NGH 15:11

     One of those private Southern Access schemes must be the one described here:
     http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/15808753.Plans_for___1bn_link_between_Southampton_and_Heathrow_Airport/

     An MP seems to think that a few miles of new railway near Chertsey will benefit his constituents.
     Royston Smith, MP for Southampton Itchen, said: “Any additional capacity on our railway network is to be welcomed.”
     No mention that the SW main line between Southampton and Basingstoke is already full.

222. Re ALEKS2CV

     “The TL core is maxed out with the outer services, it’s not designed for additional loads from interchanging tube lines.”

     Really – I thought Thameslink was designed to do exactly that – cope with additional loads from interchanging tube lines. The number of those outer services will be going up by just over 50% in 2018/19.

     Thameslink was actually one of TfL’s justifications for not buying extra Northern and Jubilee trains just a few months ago!

     Re Kit Green,

     One suspects that he hopes some people will go to Heathrow instead putting less pressure on the inner SWML. If Woking grade seperation gets sorted then this really starts to make sense.

223. From looking at the prelimiary reports into future heathrow hub and new airtrack options. Stage one would be a simple link to Staines towards Waterloo. This would provide direct links for where most peope would travel from, regigging local trains would allow more trains to pass through Stains before heading off to London. Only a few would want to go Heathrow so changing at Staines would be fine.

     [Crayoning snipped. LBM]

224. Aleks2CV 09.19 (yes, today, this year) – Could you clarify your question about platform/train interface? I am struggling to work out what you mean.

     For reference:
     – 915mm (aka three feet) above rail level is the British standard heavy rail platform height, which does not of course mean that every ancient platform complies
     – the approximate range 1,100-1,300mm above rail level is typical of floor levels in passenger vehicles of conventional configuration in the UK and the rest of Europe
     – the two “standard” platform heights in western Europe are (forgive me if I have slightly misremembered) something like 760mm and 580mm
     – some platforms on the British heavy rail network are set for level access (which is I believe defined as a maximum 50mm difference in practice), notably Heathrow Express platforms
     – HS2 also plans level access to c.1,150mm high vehicle floors at the stations on the new route
     – the Network Rail system is plagued with structures (including but not limited to curved platforms at c.915mm ARL) that enforce the “tumblehome” curved profile on the lower bodyside of passenger vehicles
     – the absence of the tumblehome on continental rolling stock is directly related to the absence of such structures (and this difference in the *lower* body shape is a significant reason why double deck rolling stock is difficult in the British rail environment – the lower deck is forced to be narrower than on continental vehicles, thus negating some of the supposed capacity benefits – and of course enables low-floor designs including Talgo which are incompatible with the British structure gauge)

     *we will for the purposes of this gauging debate disregard the dwell time impacts of double deckers

225. Aleks2CV,

     The TL core is maxed out with the outer services, it’s not designed for additional loads from interchanging tube lines.

     Well, technically and literally, you are just about correct. But the implication of what you are stating is utterly false and ngh’s comment is closer to the truth.

     It is just about true that Thameslink is not especially designed for additional loads from interchanging tube lines. But it is designed to relieve the tube by having people use Thameslink rather than the tube – so technically it is true that these passengers are not interchanging from tube lines.

     In the early days, opponents of the scheme tried to direct the route away from London Bridge. The proposer’s response was that more-or-less the whole purpose of the scheme was really to serve London Bridge better with a prime reason being to relieve the Northern line between King’s Cross and London Bridge.

     In as much as the Thameslink scheme has had a purpose (it started off as a solution looking for a problem) it has fairly consistently been officially stated that one of its main purposes was the relieve the Underground – and in particular the Northern line between London Bridge and St Pancras.

     Think about it. You are on a train to London Bridge or St Pancras and wish to go to King’s Cross St Pancras or London Bridge as appropriate. Is it really sensible for anyone (passenger, London Underground, GTR) for you not to change onto a train at London Bridge platform 5 or St Pancras Low Level platform A – or even in some cases stay on the train you are already on – rather than use the Underground.

226. @Aleks2CV
     “TL has been put back a year TL2k is now Thameslink 20/20 in the adverts.
     The two full timetables should start about the same time.”

     The full timetables, maybe – but the core is what people will notice, and on Thameslink both key elements (the Canal Tunnels and the Blackfriars – London Bridge spur) will be in use from May this year, together with 90% of the full service, whereas Crossrail’s core tunnel will not open until December, and even then nothing will go through the core from either the GEML or the GWML until next year.

227. Oh for an edit function – its 75% in May 2018 (18tph) increasing by 2 tph at each timetable change to the end of 2019. But that’s still 100% more than Crossrail will have in May.

228. Pedantic of Purley 5 January 2018 at 23:12

     “It is just about true that Thameslink is not especially designed for additional loads from interchanging tube lines.”

     Occaisionally, I’m catching an East Midlands train at St. Pancras.
     Arrive by LU and face a long trek through the station, or change at Farringdon and arrive by Thameslink?

229. NGH Timbeau & others
     Re. ‘Slink on TfL maps – yes, I can see why TfL don’t, but the public disbenefit is immense, isn’t it?

230. BALTHAZAR 5 January 2018 at 23:08
     Regarding platform heights. I had been following the HS2 discussion for designing in level accessible boarding and having moved wheeled baggage this week the gap to platform on the new trains was noticeable.

     My query was are the new trains standardised for EU manufacture different from what we used to make?
     If we raise platform heights after the majority of the fleet is renewed to provide level boarding across the network, would that create clearance issues for running heritage stock or would they be restricted to stopping at unaltered platforms,

231. @BALTHAZAR 5 January 2018 at 23:08

     the absence of the tumblehome on continental rolling stock is directly related to the absence of such structures (and this difference in the *lower* body shape is a significant reason why double deck rolling stock is difficult in the British rail environment – the lower deck is forced to be narrower than on continental vehicles, thus negating some of the supposed capacity benefits – and of course enables low-floor designs including Talgo which are incompatible with the British structure gauge)

     Your explanation is very thorough and to understand the iimplications all UK stock orders are specific to the UK. Cost savings are limited to production runs and standardised components. This gives the new fleet an international look but to UK dimensions.

232. Re GT,

     Indeed. I also suspect TfL aren’t amused by the Thameslink 2tph Medway services via Greenwich that allow GTR to tap into the Abbey Wood – Farringdon revenue pot as you have choice of Crossrail or Thameslink…

233. Another thought on Thameslink being on the tube map. Perhaps TfL would rather wait until the final service plan is sorted out and actually running before attempting to depict it in a meaningful way. There are many choices to make. The common stopping pattern core could just be shown in the central area as a fast link between E&C/London Bridge and KX / St Pancras, or it could be extended out further to other major interchanges, Croydon, Finsbury Park, West Hampstead etc.

234. MT & others
     Actually, the whole of Thamselink would be not only v difficult to show meaningfully on any TfL map, but also, very largely irrelevant.
     What should be shown ( IMHO ) is “merely” the central section where Z 1-2 travel cards are valid, or even just Z1.
     Namely W Hampstead Elephant
     [ Which is what it used to be, IIRC, in the days when it was shown? ]

235. @MARK TOWNEND
     Posted the exact same thing this morning but can’t locate it now so endorsing yours.

     Let the service settle down after full Lizzie and TL 20.20 for a year or two.
     The core is part of NR so extends the other routes transferring at the terminals.

     For the tube map it is not the spare under-used empty link of the 90s,
     It’s the local tube journeys that need to be considered by adding just the core.
     Dwell times, congestion, way finding, peak flows.

     
     [Snip! Repeating what others have stated, crayoning, citing anecdotal data (anecdata), and providing technutopia suggestions will be removed without warning. LBM]

236. TL/LU Map

     That decision has already been made by TfL who have released a preview of the 2019 tube map.

     Thameslink is marked with a NR symbol at Farringdon.

     https://www.standard.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/05/18/10/elizabethlinemap1805.jpg

     Like commenters said maybe not forever.

237. @Greg T – not only would it be pretty tricky because of the likelihood of constant tweaks to the pairing and choice of outer termini, but, divorced from the base network of the rest of the NR suburban routes, it would lead to further anomalies as to what was and wasn’t shewn and what routes were available (eg why show just LBR-Gatwick/Brighton? And the mix of fasts and slows?). A revolutionary thought – perhaps show just the central core with a list of outer termini.

238. Aleks2CV: Those who would like to see Thameslink (or some parts of it) on a tube map are not just referring to an NR symbol. The aspiration is that (some parts of) Thameslink might be shown as an additional line properly displayed on the map. So that someone at Kings Cross wishing to go to London Bridge or Elephant is not tricked onto a tube train, but sees the option of using a Thameslink train for their journey.

239. I think it’s very simple to decide which National Rail routes should be shown on the tube map. When I go to a foreign city I want to know the quickest way to get somewhere and that is how we should think of the purpose of the tube map. It is pointless to show Clapham Junction on the Overground, but not show there is a route from there to Waterloo. Thameslink from Finsbury Park & West Hampstead to Elephant & Castle & London Bridge should definitely be there. Also, Waterloo to Clapham and London Bridge to New Cross/New Cross Gate. You could have an arrow on the end showing that the route goes further.

240. Have to agree with Alex. I find the tube map pointless. I want to see all options for any journey that I’m planning, so I always refer to the full tube and rail map.

241. Having moved offices to near Blackfriars in 2016, I find that several colleagues commuting in from the Metropolitan Line are still walking from Barbican, unaware that they can get to work with a simple change at Farringdon. Likewise a GWML commuter into Paddington is going via Embankment.

     Either completely unaware of Thameslink or not believing Oyster/ Travelcards can be used on it.

242. @Aleks2cv
     Just how recent is that preview map from TfL? It doesn’t show the line going to T5, for example. Perhaps TfL may change its view before 2019.

243. @QUINLET
     Dec 2018 preview was released to press 3 weeks ago https://www.flickr.com/photos/tflpress/sets/72157661724312997

     T5 crossrail is not in the first years schedule
     December 2018: The Elizabeth line opens. It will initially operate as three services:
     Paddington (Elizabeth line station) to Abbey Wood via central London
     Paddington (mainline station) to Heathrow (Terminals 2 & 3 and 4)

     December 2019: The Elizabeth line is fully open, with services running from Reading and Heathrow, including Terminal 5

     citation:https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2017/december/one-year-to-go-until-the-beginning-of-elizabeth-line

244. @Alex
     “Thameslink from Finsbury Park & West Hampstead to Elephant & Castle & London Bridge should definitely be there.
     Also, Waterloo to Clapham Junction
     London Bridge to New Cross/New Cross Gate. ”

     I would add:
     London Bridge to Greenwich (possibly Woolwich) and to Lewisham
     Victoria – Clapham Junction – Balham
     Waterloo – Richmond (maybe Twickenham) and Wimbledon
     Moorgate to Finsbury Park
     Liverpool Street/ Stratford to Tottenham Hale
     West Ealing – Greenford

     all routes with a decent frequency which offer a more direct route between stations which can only be done circuitously on the Tube Map, with a slight slant towards touristic and other destinations popular with visitors to London (Greenwich, Richmond, Twickenham (stadium) – Hampton Court could be indicated by an arrow beyond Wimbledon).

     On those criteria possibly Lewisham- Elmers End should be included too.

     I would not include NR lines which basically offer a limited-stop service over a route where LU provides the stopping service, e.g Fenchurch St/Tower Hill to Upminster, or Victoria – Brixton.

     By all means minimise the clutter by showing them as non-TfL lines (maybe a narrower thickness?) But they should be there.

245. @TIMBEAU

     Personally, I would much prefer to have better frequency information on the tube map.

     https://drive.google.com/open?id=1abHc-5oXBFCw-hIOfuDveokVesE3-dQ3

     Here the lines are thickest for the most frequent. down to outlined for above-average wait times and dotted when just a couple of trains an hour.

246. @timbeau -the problem appears to be the more you include of the NR network, the less the case for excluding any of it. There are no obvious cutoff points and all those suggested will create anomalies, particularly for the casual user. You have only to look at the effect of adding the LO network. I really don’t see any rational alternative to the “LU/NR” variants of the London Connections map of yesteryear, perhaps with the “other” variant in each case as a greyed out background.

247. @Graham H 1818

     The names in a box solution – as per the District Line in this 1951 version
     http://www.clarksbury.com/cdl/maps/tube51.gif

248. Of course thre was & is a map that did & does show all the routes.

     We should know, because it used to be called:
     London Connections (!)
     HERE is one version publicly available, but “hidden”
     HERE is another one

     Pathetic, isn’t it?
     So, given both these maps are publicly funded, why are they not publicised?

249. @Man of Kent – very much so! (Incidentally, that map confirms my suspicion that the District green has become darker over time, as has the Piccadilly blue – no doubt to make way for the Victoria Line shade).

250. The North London Line only made it to the London Underground (not all versions) in January 1976 after:
     (a) a public campaign which included putting large-scale transparent stickers of the NLL over tube maps at targeted stations such as St James’s Park, and
     (b) – more decisively – a GLC decision in Autumn 1975 to give some revenue support to the NLL services (the first time for BR services in London), which was driven by the political desire to avoid a reduction in NLL frequency from January 1976 from 3 tph to 2 tph.
     That in turn led to the GLC order to LT to put the NLL on the tube map. The revised map was, oddly enough, launched at Holborn. It could be argued that the addition of the NLL has helped to lead to the London Overground that we have now.
     [See Wayne Asher’s book “A Very Political Railway”, for other NLL policy details.]

     Given the inextricable relationship between the Mayor, GLA and TfL, it is possible that the most practical way of authorising Thameslink back to the map might be a combination of:
     (a) continuing Northern Line capacity problems with no new Northern Line trains being ordered (in effect, giving the potential stimulus of a public campaign likely to see the backing of local media, just as on previous occasions there was the Evening Standard’s Misery Line campaign, and the campaign in the 1990s to force the case for a new train fleet), and
     (b) changes in London political expenditure priorities with TfL less on the revenue hook (possibly post the current mayoral fares freeze, which cannot last forever)

     Perhaps the Northern City Line as well, and the continuation GN inners as far as the Greater London boundary (TL and the NCL were both on the tube map into the 1980s), to relieve the congested Piccadilly Line still lacking NTfL trains in the early 2020s…?

     TfL’s failure to have new / extra trains running in the next few years means that it can only fall back on the revenue argument in its defence.

251. As a previous user of Thameslink between Sutton and Merton and London I find it difficult to understand why a) it doesn’t appear on tube maps when LO, Tramlink and DLR are included. However the map may be less important than the lack of inclusion in the TfL journey planner. I have asked it today for a journey from Wimbledon Chase Station (Bus and National Rail stop, in fact a Thameslink stop) to Barbican Station LUL station today or tomorrow. Trains are running tomorrow and it tells me to take a bus to a Waterloo line (Raynes Park or Wimbledon) or Northern Line (Morden) station for a journey in excess of an hour when on TL it will take about 50 minutes with a change at Faringdon. This may answer the challenge in other threads when I suggested developing a 4tph Sutton to Wimbledon service that there is no demand. Clearly if modern Londoners using smart phone apps can’t identify the existence of trains on TL Sutton loop they won’t use it and yet it is the quickest route in the area. However such under use also belies the need for a very expensive tram route in parallel to this under advertised service.

252. The LUL map is so well known that it will continue to be issued and updated as a heritage, collectors, enthususiasts keepsake.
     The London Connections map is the comprehensive everything everywhere plan.

     The commenters overwhelmingly want a most useful map. TfL already produce different map versions so there is no limit to what can be issued and users already have their own phone apps or other sources.

     The opportunity is for a LondON Metro Rail Map. The lines would be those meeting the criteria that TfL have determined are required by the users.

     1. Security
     2. Cleanliness
     3. Capacity
     4. Reliability
     5. Frequency 4+tph
     6. Oyster Travel card zone

     At present Thameslink has not demonstrated reliability some 65% compared to ON 95%.

     The Lizzie precedent has shown how to include a line terminus clearly just outside the zone with the Reading droop.

     A Metro map can be independent of TfL/DfT. The task is one of clarity in a pocket format. How to clearly distinguish separate lines.

     If not achievable a compromise for the smaller version is a lighter overlay of alternate direct connections between interchanges. That would avoid a first timer following a tram line to Wimbledon for Z1.

253. @ANDREW GRIMES

     The “Tube Map” shows services that are run by or for Transport For London. This means the London Underground, London Overground (a concession run on NR track by Arriva Rail London), the DLR (run by KeolisAmey Docklands) and the trams.

     It also shows TfL Rail, which is NR track run by MTR Crossrail which will become the Elizabeth Line. It will also soon show the ex-Heathrow Connect service which will be taken over by MTR Crossrail soon (see diagram).

     Every station shown on the tube map you can get TfL fares, not just “matching” National Rail ones, meaning you can just count the number of zones you pass though to work out the fare, for example.

     TfL Rail take over of other services diagram

     https://drive.google.com/open?id=1KplDtOrq3Gpm_c892T-QlppKLAZsvi3U

254. Briantist. The document you referred to indicates yet another lovely new date for the opening of the central section Paddington-Abbey Wood.

255. @GREG TINGEY

     Yes. they are hidden in plain sight/site at

     https://tfl.gov.uk/maps/track/national-rail

     or tfl.gov.uk -> Maps -> Tube and Rail -> National Rail -> London’s rail and Tube services

256. @ROG

     It does agree with http://www.railwaycodes.org.uk/stations/notserved.shtm (see also Xmas Quiz answers)

257. Re: Aleks2CV yesterday 11.23 & 11.29 – Not sure if your question originates from the recent application of Europe-wide Technical Standards for Interoperability in the UK* or from the recent increase in continental suppliers of rolling stock to the GB fleet, but rest assured that nothing requires Britain to be provided with trains which will not fit British infrastructure!

     Two further points of reference:
     – suitable British profile rolling stock can, as demonstrated in practice, have level access to and from straight platforms, but once a significantly curved platform is present the gauging does not permit this (regardless of door position, consider the extreme outer ends and centre of a bogied vehicle and what this means for the minimum stepping distance)
     – if a vehicle is provided with a fixed intermediate step between platform and vehicle floor height, then it is automatically impossible to provide level access from a higher-than-915mm platform because the width of the step + air gap to platform, below this level, will be greater than the maximum permitted horizontal gap (75mm, if memory serves)

     *The application of TSIs to British rolling stock was, a while ago, hilariously assumed by the so-called “Industry Insider” who writes a column in RAIL magazine to mean that the Eurostar/Keolis bid for the East Coast franchise could include the operation of direct Channel Tunnel services using IEP trains. But then again I had already been wondering which industry s/he is actually inside…

258. Briantist.

     Diamond Geezer and Ian Visits say 9th December.

     London Loves Business & other news sources say 18th December.

     The documents you linked to gives 8th December. That’s a third date.

     All very official dates. So which is it to be. Does anybody know?

     https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/crossrail-1.html

     http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/business-news/london-news/10-things-you-did-not-know-about-crossrail-project-aka-elizabeth-line/17754.article

259. @ROG

     We probably won’t know for sure until it gets listed officially here http://content.tfl.gov.uk/track-closures.pdf

     I’m guessing that it’s going to be the weekend of the 8th/9th December 2018 because no-one is going to make a massive change to the operational railway – on a Tuesday before Christmas.

260. Has anyone considered when the new (December 2018) timetable will start? This may also coincide with a 4-weekly railway financial period. So several reasons to start the new Crossrail service then – even if at that stage the only immediate direct Crossrail/NR interaction is with OOC depot workings to/from Paddington low-level.

     However a further point is that TfL Crossrail might wish another week or more of trial running beyond 8th December before going public…?! (They’ll have been doing it for a while before then.) When does HM the Q head for her Sandringham hols on her Class 700? It won’t be any later than that.

261. Milton Clevedon,

     The issue is whether the press launch of the December 2018 tube map ‘exactly a year from today’ from Crossrail opening was really quite as literal as suggested.

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT6vSP8ENdU (Geoff Marshall’s visit to Farringdon).

     That would give 19th December.

     I don’t think this is reliable enough. I am suspicious as I know how these can be slightly spurious fabrications for the sake of publicity.

     Personally (guess, nothing substantiated) I think they intend to run for a few days in shadow mode to make sure they can reliably get the paths to Old Oak Common (and a lesser extent Ilford) depot with the new timetable.

     Wednesday does seem a slightly strange date to go for. And is this an ‘official’ opening date by the queen which may actually be subsequent to public opening? You could do what the theatres do and call the days before the queen officially opens it ‘preview days’. Then you do what they did with London Bridge (the bridge itself) and close it so that the queen can open it.

     A further issue is that TfL will not want to lose revenue and a means of dealing with the extra Christmas traffic.

262. Re Milton Clevedon,

     Timetable change day is Sunday 9th December 2018 so I’did go with that but to be honest Paddington – Abbey Wood start date could be fairly flexible as it is isolated from the rest of the network. Hence the Saturday could make sense with 2 full days before the first working day.

     2019 is 19th May and 8th December

     2020 is 17th May

263. @BALTHAZAR rather like “ticketless travel” means revenue loss to the industy and a desired feature for travellers switching to Oyster. How are users to be sold the benefit of step free access to the platform not the train.
     On curves I would imagine a retractable platform is possible, built into a Harrington Hump or if the vehicle linked to the doors and flexible pressure sensitive.

     Just to check “infrastructure” does still mean the fixed stuff.
     The moving rolling stock is what I meant by Heritage fleet.
     Would improved access for newer vehicles such as altering platforms restrict the ability of VSOE Pullmans or Mk1 coach charters to roam the future network or calling platforms.

264. The historic management and franchising (LPTB/PTE/GLC/LA) of different rail lines whilst interesting is increasingly anachronistic to visitors in the 21st century hence my Metro Rail classification.

     Instead of Kahn/Grayling battling for Fat Controller status with our money fix the objectives and let the Franchises deliver.

     If they can’t/won’t then let the public require it at franchise renewal.
     We no longer have / want competition in buses racing to stops but we can have a league of lines, annual rankings, even relegations by being faded on the map if a criteria worsens.

     Other lines as in <4tph means refer to timetable.

265. The ‘Reading Droop’ referred to above isn’t exactly an elegant way of doing things – the precedent actually belongs to the Upminster ‘Droop’ of 1950’s Beck era. As soon as someone thought of a better way of doing, it was replaced.

     Given the difficulty of displaying everything with clarity, perhaps we are approaching the time where TfL should migrate the tube map to an A4 page with any keys/notes/info along the bottom, to better match its usable aspect ratio to that required by XR.

266. @ Milton C – Sad person that I am I was going through the railway accounting period dates for 2018/19 earlier today. Period 10 18/19 starts on the 9th December. I strongly suspect that TfL will not buck the national timetable change date so I tend to agree with PoP that we have well have a few days of “preview service”, as we did with the Overground on the ELL, and then there will some form of official opening. Then the service will get down to normal day to day service. Clearly the first bit of “new” Crossrail is entirely self contained in service terms so TfL have flexibility as to what they can do without causing disruption to other NR services. This is the same situation as pertained to the initial bit of the East London Line being re-opened.

267. @WALTHAMSTOW WRITER

     I guess the question might be, given that the Liz Line is due to be 24/7 service Friday and Saturday night, that there might be implications about how the 4am-4am of a railway day works when translated into the normal public understanding.

     Thus the end of the train service in the timetable as 8/12/18 will technically be at 03:59 on 9/12/18, and so on.

268. A2CV
     So the Shepperton branch would be mysteriously truncated on your hypothetical map then? ( *cough* )

     Briantist
     Sorry to repeat – yes we all know about these, but as A2CV & others have pointed out, a suprisingly large number of people don’t – to their disbenefit.

269. @Briantist: “the Liz Line is due to be 24/7 service Friday and Saturday night”

     That would be 24/2 service!

270. or a 48h or w/e – lol
     Night tube is good enough branding in common parlance though a transition to Night Line might be in order.

     @GREG TINGEY I’m amongst those that don’t so had to look it up.
     On Connections it is a continuation so no indication if it’s 5 mins or an hour away.
     For TfL’s takeover it is NOT-London so we would not possible wish to go there.
     I have not experienced the line so assuming it has the characteristics for a Metro service: secure, clean, PIXc, 4+ etc then it should be on the Metro Rail map. Given that it terminates 3 stops beyond Oyster TC the entire line should be shown like those on EL.

271. We have been considering the Travel card rail lines. The old NSE rail card map does a good job of NOT London in identifying the correct terminus to use.
     What is missing as an Opportunity Gap is border transition travel.
     An Outer London Rail map – something between the clutter of the Connections plan and the simplicity of the NSE core.

     [An outer London Rail map is getting way off track from this Crossrail to Heathrow T5 topic. Any further comment on this digression may be snipped without warning. LBM]

272. So the criteria becomes three stops beyond “something” – why not 4 stops or 5? And what about semifasts (assuming they can be defined and distinguished from fasts) – three stops on a semifast would take you to Basingstoke; three stops on a fast would take you York). I’m not sure you know much about the geography of the UK.

273. @Graham H – on regular ECML service, York isn’t the 3rd stop outside the Oyster zone. It’s the 4th or 1st (or 7th). 😉

274. Indeed – you could cite Edinburgh or somewhere beyond,on some services. The stopping pattern,of course,changes from time to time.

Comments are closed.