On 11 December 2017, TfL announced that they were seeking ‘launch partners’ for the opening of the Elizabeth line. What is on offer is “a unique opportunity that will align with this historic moment for London”. For a number of reasons, the announcement raised a few eyebrows at LR Towers.
For starters, we are talking about the opening of a public transport service, not the Olympics or another major sporting event. Nor is the sponsorship directed at arts programmes that a commercial company may well want to be associated with. For another, TfL’s record on attracting sponsorship has often been patchy. It is notable that, for a couple of years now, free travel New Year’s Eve travel on the TfL network has not been sponsored.
Why would you?
What seemed most curious, however, was quite why a large company (as such sponsors would need to be) that would naturally be aware of the need for reputational management would want to risk being associated with the opening of a transport service. Worldwide, such events hardly have a stellar track record of passing without a hitch. Indeed the opening of the Terminal 5 building at Heathrow shows just how badly these can go wrong on launch day. On the railways, both c2c and Thameslink have shown that the introduction of a new rail service pattern can be problematic.
The risks are multiplied when new infrastructure is involved. With the opening of Terminal 5 and the January 2015 Thameslink change to London Bridge, an underlying cause was the use of new infrastructure without any opportunity for a gradual build-up of activity (a ‘big bang’ approach as opposed to a phased approach).
On a crude analysis then, based on historical precedent, the opening of Crossrail (from a brand perspective at least) is by no means a ‘dead cert’.
Any company interested in such an opportunity would no doubt wish to do their homework first. If they stumbled across a report on Elizabeth Line Operational Readiness and Integration, issued just a few days earlier in anticipation of a TfL Board committee meeting on the following day, then they may well have started to experience nagging doubts. The report and the meeting that followed were relatively frank and open about progress on both the Crossrail (construction) and Elizabeth line (signals and commissioning, broadly) sides of the project.
It is fair to say that on both sides of the project there are currently some issues, the most ear-pricking of which was perhaps the “failure of high voltage transformer equipment at Pudding Mill Lane during initial testing”. Even the most non-rail minded person might suspect that such an event was not exactly normal, however much it was played down. A few innocent questions about what that meant exactly and what the consequences were might quickly persuade any interested company that there might be safer ways of achieving positive publicity.
The halcyon days of September
Just a few months earlier, in September 2017, the picture looked very different. At Whitechapel station we witnessed the symbolic tightening of the final rail of the Crossrail tracks. Then things seemed well on the way to successful completion and project members clearly looking forward to the testing of the first Class 345 train, under its own power, in the tunnels. With a generous amount of testing time available and few apparent concerns, things were looking good. This wasn’t to say that progress was being taken for granted. Most critically, there was still the question of signalling in the Heathrow tunnels, long seen as the riskiest issue of the project. No such doubts were expressed, however, about being able to switch on the high voltage supply to the central tunnel catenary.
Indeed the biggest issue in September 2017 appeared to be that Network Rail’s programme would see certain above-ground station works only completed shortly before the opening of the complete Elizabeth line in December 2019 (Phase 5). Ideally, these should have been finished months ahead of this date to enable follow-on urban realm work to commence.
And now…
It is clear from the most recent TfL Board meeting that the going has started to get tough on Crossrail. Sir Terry Morgan, Chairman of Crossrail was present as an invitee to explain the current situation. Howard Smith, Chief Operating Officer for Rail at TfL was also present to talk about current operational issues. Thanks to the clear and informative testimony given, combined with other information available, it is now possible to build up a hyperbole-free account of where Crossrail stands in relation to various launch phases.
Phase 1: Initial launch
The first stage of a five-stage Crossrail launch was supposed to take place in May 2017, with the phased introduction of the Class 345 on the existing TfL Rail Liverpool St – Shenfield route. This was, in many ways, an artificial deadline and indeed the launch date did slip slightly. In the end, the first train carried passengers in June and (initially at least) only did one or two trips, additional to the standard timetable, each day.
Doors. It’s always the doors
It has to be said that even Phase 1 has not gone entirely smoothly. Problems have been encountered during the introduction of a completely new class of rolling stock – something that isn’t likely to surprise anyone who has followed recent rolling stock introduction in London and elsewhere. Not for the first time, some of these related to doors, as here TfL are pushing the state of the art once again. More specifically, door closure and software issues with Driver Only Operation (DOO) and monitoring that process.
These are a repeat of the issues that happened on the Victoria line with the 2009 Tube stock (with the door closure) and on the London Overground class 378 (with the DOO software), but of course with different stock and a different set of circumstances, albeit – like the 345s – by the same manufacturer, Bombardier. As Terry Morgan was at pains to point out to the TfL Board though, this is a risk one has to accept when you strive for the best.
The ‘best’ in this case largely relates to the width of the doors, seen as a key feature of the Class 345. It also makes sense to make them ultimately as reliable as possible. The challenge appears to be getting the software to distinguish effectively between critical indications of a problem (such as a scarf trapped in the doors and being pulled from the outside) and non-critical indications (such as clothing being pulled from the inside or someone leaning on the doors).
Whilst a bit concerning, the Victoria line has shown that this is a solvable problem – and a problem well worth tackling head-on. Today, the Victoria line regularly achieves previously unheard of reliability, without compromising safety, and the development of the hardware and software related to door closing no doubt paved the way for Bombardier and TfL to push the envelope even further here.
In a similar manner, DOO needs to be as reliable and as safe as possible. Whilst the RMT will doubtless disagree, there is no reason why DOO cannot be far safer than having the guard give a starting signal, as long as it is implemented properly. The method adopted on Crossrail of monitoring the doors with platform-mounted cameras and in-cab displays is novel on Network Rail, but standard on London Underground. It is not cutting-edge technology but it does rely on getting the basics right – such as the station lighting.
Station lighting is a decidedly low-tech area, but it was with this that issues occurred. Fixing it wasn’t helped by the delayed start to various station rebuilding contracts. One of the frustrations here is that not only do you have to get the lighting sorted out on all the Crossrail platforms, but you also need the work completed on the fast lines in case the signaller has to reroute the train for any reason.
Troublesome on introduction: the new normal
Such problematic introduction of a new class of rolling stock seems to be the norm in this day and age. This may be even more so with TfL than with conventional Train Operating Companies (TOCs). TfL are a naturally picky client, as they now will have to deal with any long-term consequences of build-failures over the lifetime of the fleet. Most TOCs only really need to look as far ahead as the end of their current franchise.
As trains get more complex, and long-term safety and reliability become paramount, it is increasingly important for TfL’s fleet rollouts to be right, rather than fast. Indeed, in retrospect, it is surprising that TfL hoped to have six Class 345 trains in service by September 2017 and, at one stage, even expected the whole weekend service to consist of Class 345 trains by that date.
The reality is that the trains are still bedding in and consequently any issue is absolutely pounced on. With Ilford depot being very conveniently situated and plenty of spare trains about, trains are withdrawn for the investigation of the slightest imperfection.
Not fake news but possibly misleading
All that said, the paper presented to the December 2017 TfL Board Programmes & Investment committee meeting reports that:
In total 31 new 345 trains have been built. Twelve of the 160 metre long units have been accepted for passenger service on the Liverpool Street to Shenfield line with up to nine trains in passenger service each day.
Note the very careful wording. Accepted for passenger service does not mean having been run in passenger service. They may well be stored elsewhere, pending withdrawal of Class 315 units when confident enough to do so. ‘Up to nine trains’ could also mean none at times, and there have been occasions when a concern has certainly meant that this is the case. For example, no 345s were running on the morning of February 1st 2018, causing problems for the service pattern.
Note too that nine trains in passenger service on a particular day does not mean nine trains in passenger service at the same time. This is much more likely to mean four or five in service at any one time. It could even mean that only three are in service at a given point, with each train being swapped over twice during the day.
The trouble may not be over soon
Despite the problems with the launch of Phase 1, there do not appear to be any underlying problems here that cannot be fixed with the time available. The slow rate of progress is slightly concerning though, not least because East London really could do with the extra capacity on the class 345 on all its peak hour services.
Delays in testing trains in the core
At the Board meeting the incident causing the ‘failure of high voltage transformer equipment” was described as an explosion. Clearly the time for pussy-footing had passed. Terry Morgan explained that this just should not have happened. Indeed from his tone it seemed likely that the relevant contractors – in this case, an Alstom TSO/Costain Joint Venture – may have found themselves been on the receiving end of a verbal explosion from Crossrail’s Chairman. What amounted to a standard piece of equipment had been ordered, and it (or rather the installation of it) had been substandard.
It is perhaps not surprising that this ‘explosion’ was one of the few things from the Board meeting that seemed to get some notice in the press and on Twitter the next day. That it was perhaps less dramatic than the description suggests, however, can probably be deduced from the fact that the incident itself actually happened back in November 2017 at Pudding Mill Lane substation. There, power is taken from the nearby National Grid super grid transformers and stepped down from 400kV to 25kV and passed through two feeder cables into the substation. In the substation itself, there are three bays of switching – two intended for the Great Eastern Main Line (GEML) for Network Rail and one for Crossrail.
There are a series of voltage transformers which step the 25kV down to 110V for use in the circuitry protection system. Only the Crossrail side of things should have been connected up, as the Network Rail setup was not ready to be commissioned. Unfortunately, it turned out that this wasn’t actually true. When the Crossrail side was energised, the Network Rail cabinet – which had been connected – shorted, causing the attached voltage transformer to overheat… aggressively.
The failure was certainly unexpected. There is a limit to how much one can scrutinise one’s suppliers, and Crossrail themselves will no doubt have been writing ‘supplier quality assurance issue’ in bold letters on their own internal progress reports to TfL. The truth is, sometimes things happen that are simply bad luck.
That failure did, however, have consequences. Most crucially, it meant the previously stated optimism of being able to get the power switched on in January 2018 didn’t happen. It was a solvable problem and the voltage transformer was easily replaced, but no doubt extra checks were made prior to any planned switch-on which, sources suggest, led to a conservative approach to attempting to turn everything on again, as a further critical failure could not be afforded.
Think of it as analogous to a space launch. Crossrail experienced one launch failure and several occasions when the subsequent launch was aborted during the countdown, which meant that further issues needed to be resolved.
One such date for a planned switch-on was the evening before the Board meeting – clearly Crossrail really wanted to turn up with some good news. Unfortunately for them, it was not to be and the switch-on was delayed. A further attempt was planned for 31 January 2018, no doubt in the knowledge that there was an Assembly Transport Committee meeting the next day. In the end, this too was missed – but only by a matter of hours. It must have been a great relief to all within Crossrail when, in the early hours of the 1 February, the power to the central section was finally, successfully, switched on.
Explosions tend to be dramatic and the disruption to the test programme for Crossrail must have been substantial. Not only was the eastern end of Crossrail affected, but progress would have come to a halt on commissioning practically identical switchgear in the Old Oak Common area. Nevertheless, in one sense, this is probably now not something Crossrail are losing sleep over. The science behind electrical supplies is well-known and predictable. Testing will always identify the problem and the problem can be resolved.
Indeed its impact will likely end up being financial, rather than logistical, as it has disrupted the finely balanced work schedule. As the test programme is compressed to try to catch up, a lot of overtime is now going to have to be budgeted.
Trouble in the Heathrow Tunnel
Whilst the thought of the phrase ‘explosion on Crossrail’ appearing in print probably gave Crossrail’s engineers (or at least their Press Office) a few sleepless nights, the problem really worth watching seems to have been emerging further down the line for TfL.
For months, Howard Smith has been telling the TfL Board that the biggest concern is the signalling in the Heathrow tunnel. Part of the concern was the lack of engineering possessions available for testing the tunnel-based European Train Control System (ETCS) signalling equipment.
ETCS is a European signalling specification for the safe operation of trains. In fact it is used throughout the world, especially in China. The current National Rail standard, Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS), is very safe. TPWS is largely responsible for the incredible safety record achieved in recent years. It is not, however, 100% fail-safe in all circumstances and does not always protect against human error. For example, it won’t always prevent a buffer stop collision at a terminal – not the sort of thing you want to happen on a terminal platform in an underground tunnel at, say, Terminal 4.
The problem is that whilst very reliable once working properly, ETCS is known to be a fickle beast. Like all electronic signalling systems, it is very susceptible to hostile electrical environments. Unfortunately, it seems that a hostile electrical environment is exactly the sort of thing one finds in a round bored tunnel with a 25kV, 50Hz AC catenary running alongside it, with the added complication of a similar but different signalling system already present. Which is an accurate description of the Heathrow tunnels.
To make matters worse, the ETCS system installed at Heathrow is not exactly the ‘out-of-the-box’ version typically installed on a brand new railway today. Heathrow has the bolt-on edition tacked onto an existing signalling system (ATP) and ETCS was not around when it (ATP) was first conceived. The new track to train signalling being put in place for Crossrail also still needs to work in conjunction with existing trains that know nothing about ETCS and which were built in the days when regulations concerning electromagnetic interference were a world away from today’s tight, rigorously-enforced standards.
It seems this has indeed caused issues. Howard Smith’s comment to the TfL Board perhaps sums the current situation perfectly:
It performed as expected as in functionally it works, but the reliability needs a lot of work before we’d be happy with it as a passenger service.
Worryingly, the impression given is that things now work when adverse factors (such as other trains) are isolated out, but they just don’t in the real-world environment. These means that even if these initial tests had worked perfectly, there would have still been a long way to go.
The only game in town
The problem for TfL is that, when it comes to signalling systems in the Heathrow Tunnel for the Elizabeth line, ETCS really is the only game in town. True, there is the existing system (Automatic Train Protection – ATP) on which the newer setup is overlaid. ATP is an old system, however, based on an even older one brought in on the Great Western Railway (GWR) as a consequence of the 1988 Clapham Junction railway accident. Indeed it was largely introduced to abate political pressure following the resulting public inquiry and subsequent publication of the Hidden Report into the derailment. That report urged the government to pressurise British Rail to trial in operation a truly safe signalling system as soon as possible. ATP itself is due to be phased out over much of GWR and no replacement system other than ETCS is likely to be approved as a successor.
Perhaps, a few years ago, there would have been the possible alternative of attempting to fit ATP onto Crossrail trains, but even then it would likely have been regarded as unrealistic. The fact that there are already two leading-edge signalling systems (ETCS and CBTC) that the trains need to support is hardly likely to be helping the current situation. Adding further complexity would have been impractical – indeed the need to do so is one of the things the push towards ETCS is supposed to eliminate. At least TPWS and ETCS can be peacefully co-existing bedfellows. The same cannot be said for ATP.
Tracking the problem down
Wherever the problem lies in the Heathrow tunnels, the issue does not appear to be with the train (or at least not with the train on its own). Sources suggest the 345s are working fine on the test track. Given that ETCS is used in tunnels worldwide, the physical constraints at Heathrow shouldn’t be a fundamental problem either. What is unique to the Heathrow tunnels is the ATP signalling already there. This is not to say that this is necessarily the cause of the problem, and all manner of other electrical factors, from WiFi provision to something associated with the airport, could be causing issues.
Whatever it is, it is as-yet undiagnosed and for the signals engineers involved this is a serious problem. Unlike wiring in power supplies, signalling is something of a black art. Indeed the problems at London Bridge in January 2015 showed just how difficult it can be to detect faults, no matter how hard you try. At Heathrow, the situation is likely made more challenging by the fact that not only do TfL not own the track, but Network Rail don’t either (although they did commission and install the current system). It belongs to Heathrow themselves. This means that getting substantial amounts of time to investigate is going to be very hard indeed.
Should the problems persist, then the only possible light on the horizon is that from May 2018, TfL will be responsible for all services between Terminals 2&3 and Terminal 4. This may at least mean they can curtail the hours of operation to get more time on track, although this will probably not go down well with Heathrow Airport. To say that Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd (HAHL) have form for being both commercially aggressive and sensitive about their rail link would be something of an understatement. Indeed, having lost an application for increasing track access charges, Heathrow are now proposing a levy of 60-90p per passenger for all services that use the Heathrow tunnels. With TfL probably feeling that HAHL should have accepted their original legal defeat with good grace and HAHL seemingly convinced that TfL will not be paying their fair share of the costs, one suspects the airport’s owners aren’t necessarily inclined to be a good neighbour right now.
Does a solution exist?
The worst-case scenario, of course, is that the signalling issue is never resolved. There are precedents for this. TfL’s predecessor had to abandon the signalling system intended for the Jubilee line very late on in the day and retrofit conventional Underground signalling. In the past, Network Rail has had small signalling schemes that were supposed to take a few days to commission but actually took months, during which alternative arrangements had to be made.
Even if a technical solution is eventually found the budgetary consequences of any delay would be severe for TfL. The pressures on TfL’s budget line right now, primarily from massive cuts in the government subsidy, but also due to life within a capped fares regime, are intense. As TfL’s recent business plan highlighted, they are now highly dependent on all of the Crossrail phases opening on time, within the total funding envelope and delivering a reliable and revenue earning service from day one. If a solution is not possible within the current setup then retrofitting a new signalling system into Crossrail is going to ensure that those three funding objectives are going to be well and truly breached.
The contingency plan
The good news is that TfL do have a short-term contingency plan in case they can’t get the signalling in the Heathrow tunnel working and signed off before May 2018. And if you can find a bookmaker willing to give you odds on that happening, then the betting advice from LR Towers is that you take them.
That plan is simply to continue running the existing Heathrow Connect service using the existing Class 360 rolling stock into the airport, presumably with the swift application of some Elizabeth line decals. This would then be supplemented by a new half-hourly service using new Elizabeth line Class 345s between Paddington and the bay platform at Hayes & Harlington. This would replace the existing GWR service currently operating with their Class 387 trains between these two stations.
Such a service would still have many benefits, both for passengers and from the point of view of phasing in the Elizabeth line. It would mean that Old Oak Common depot would be operational and building up experience servicing and maintaining trains for passenger service. If implemented as currently planned, these would also be the first 9-car 345s running in service, which will help identify faults that may not manifest themselves in the existing (temporarily 7-car) fleet operating in East London. It would also mean that, for the first time, Selective Door Operation would be used – another vital operation that needs testing thoroughly prior to full fleet introduction.
Unfortunately, it seems that even this contingency plan is in some doubt. Although the trackwork and signalling are complete at the bay platform at Hayes & Harlington, the platform extension isn’t. Network Rail is due to complete the work in April 2018, which we suspect all involved would agree is potentially cutting it rather fine.
Luckily for TfL, it seems that Howard Smith is the only person who could out-plan Batman. There is… wait for it… a contingency plan for the contingency plan.
This involves shifting ‘spare’ 7-car Class 345 trains from East London out west, where they will fit somewhat snuggly into the (un-extended) 8-car bay at Hayes & Harlington. Critics would no doubt point to this as a further failure to stick to the plan, but it’s not something that TfL would be likely to lose much sleep over. At present, they are not short of trains of either the 7-car or 9-car variety. They would probably argue that, right now, it’s not the length that matters, it’s what you do with it that counts.
Which begs the question, of course, as to exactly how such a contingency service would run. It would certainly retain a half-hourly stopping service to Heathrow. Currently this terminates at Heathrow Terminals 2&3 Monday to Saturday, but it is presumed that it will be extended to Terminal 4 to replicate the intended future service. This would mean various other Heathrow Express shuttles between Terminals 2&3 and Terminal 4 would be withdrawn. Perhaps the TfL-rebadged class 360 trains will run Paddington – Terminal 4 – Terminals 2&3 – Terminal 4 – Paddington to mimic the existing service. One would also like to think that TfL would run this service on Sunday as well. Currently Heathrow Connect run just one train an hour on Sundays.
Back to the future launch
We now get back to the primary theme of this article and the launch of the Elizabeth line between Paddington and Abbey Wood in December 2018. We have already seen how testing has been delayed and this means that the programme is starting to look very tight indeed. To quote Mark Wild, head of London Underground, on 30th January 2018:
We can still do it but it is very hard and complex and of course it brings with it cost pressures as well.
This did seem to a recurring theme – ‘it can still be done’. The trouble is, the assertation does now seem to carry an unspoken addendum ‘provided nothing else major goes wrong‘. The level of uncertainty must be worse because the delay to the testing programme caused by the power issues means that the signalling for the central tunnel section, Communications-Based Train Control (CBTC), still hasn’t been tested in the tunnel at all. Commissioning and testing are now underway, but it is a complex process. There are only 10 months to get it fully working, operational and signed off. By way of contrast, the Automatic Train Operation (ATO) signalling for Four Lines Modernisation now being installed, admittedly on a range of existing operational Underground lines, is scheduled to take another six years.
Crucially this also means having the same trains – with the same software that is proving tricky out to Heathrow – fully tested on the core, and staff fully familiarised with them. Theoretically, that CBTC-to-train interface should be much easier than the situation at Heathrow, but only time will tell. No doubt if issues occur fingers will be pointed in Bombardier’s direction, but this is one occasion on which they would likely be able to plead mitigating circumstances. Designing train software that works perfectly with one signalling system is hard enough. On the 345s they’ve got to make it work perfectly with three.
Finishing the build
Another telling comment from Terry Morgan at the Board meeting referred to both the line and the stations on it:
I’m satisfied in terms of construction, from a schedule point of view, that we will have an operating railway between Paddington and Abbey Wood at the end of the year – there’s going to be a fair amount of scrambling about at the end. I could equally take you to a station at Tottenham Court Road which looks ready to open and looks absolutely wonderful. But I could take you to another station at Whitechapel, a complicated station, very difficult ground conditions and which has proved to be very difficult to get on time and similarly at Bond Street.
From our September 2017 visit to Whitechapel we cannot say we are fully surprised at the issues being experienced at that station, which were known early on. The suggestion that Bond Street (far more important) is in a similar situation though is a bit of a concern. The good news for potential passengers is that information from elsewhere suggests that Terry Morgan highlighted Bond Street more because the costs will go up in ‘the fair amount of scrambling about at the end’, rather than a fear the station would not be completed on time. Indeed, if asked, Morgan would probably point out that even if the cost did overrun slightly, it would still be well below the high-end-of £15 billion price tag originally put on Crossrail back in 2007. This will hardly be good news for TfL’s accountants, however, for now-obvious reasons.
What about Woolwich?
Somewhat more worrying is the almost complete lack of any pictures detailing any work at Woolwich station. Construction here had the considerable advantage, unique amongst the stations Crossrail is responsible for building, of being an underground station that doesn’t have to interface with an existing one. It also lacked the site constraints that other stations had. All this means that ‘no news’ here is probably not good news. One really would have expected it to be an early showcase station and the lack of any real mention in, for example, in the Crossrail Quarterly Updates, seems to suggest that this station is behind schedule.
The only real saving grace with any level of incompleteness at Woolwich – if this turns out to be the case – is that it is not a critical interchange, so the number of people affected will be reduced. Indeed, one must remember that originally there was not going to be a station at Woolwich at all, as there was no real transport imperative for it to exist.
As is often the case, it is the need to facilitate housing that was the reason that Woolwich Crossrail Station was built. In a rare piece of good news for TfL, they may not even suffer much revenue loss from a delayed opening here, as a large portion of the passenger traffic at Woolwich was expected to be passengers abstracted away from nearby Woolwich Arsenal DLR station. Their accountants will be less worried about a lack of money from Peter, when they know that most of that money was just going to come from Paul.
Problems at Paddington?
Terry Morgan might have been somewhat cagey as to exactly which stations are of concern, but Paddington has for a long time been one of them. This was not so much a case of the work not being ready for the opening, more that all of the contingency time was rapidly being eaten up. There have certainly been past reports of problems to do with the electrical fit-out and industrial unrest in this area.
Given the relative openness with which Morgan approached the Board, it is perhaps something of a relief that there was no suggestion that any of the stations – presumably including Paddington – wouldn’t at least be operational on time. Paddington will be the final station on the line for the present, so a lack of operational capacity here would be extremely challenging. The remaining area of concern is that, with no through trains until December 2019, Paddington (Elizabeth line) station is probably going to be busiest in its first year of operation – so the year you really do not want inaccessible areas or workmen in fenced-off sections completing the cosmetic station fit-out. One also suspects that, with its large central platform located within its very spacious station box, itself below a massive concourse, Paddington may have been lightly pencilled in as the ideal station in which to have Her Majesty formally open the line that bears her name.
The opening of St Pancras International may have given us some idea of what to expect. When St Pancras International was opened by the Queen the station was partially incomplete and many of the retail units were little more than shells. More likely, a half-finished Paddington station would see to a switch to an alternative venue – Farringdon or Canary Wharf perhaps – with its reduced size necessitating a rapid scrubbing of many names from the opening ceremony’s guest list.
The likely reality
Ultimately, one can see where all this is going. If a Crossrail station can be safely opened when the railway is due to open, then there is no doubt that it will be. Some stations may not be in a pristine state, and there may still be further work to do, but ultimately if they are functional then that’s all that really matters.
This will undoubtedly be a disappointment but is not unusual, and given the scale and complexity of the project, it would still represent a significant victory for all those involved. Indeed it is worth remembering that on the day the Victoria line opened in 1968, the entrance to Walthamstow (Hoe St) station was via a muddy car park. Similarly, when Vauxhall Underground station opened in 1971 the smell of concrete was almost overpowering, with nearly all the walls still in a bare state.
The real downside to stations not being finished prior to opening is simply that the finishing work gets a lot more expensive. Work has to be done in the few engineering hours available at night instead of in the daytime. Wage costs go up, as does the cost of plant hire because the job takes longer. Worse still, some options to do the work in a particular manner are no longer available and time can be wasted repeatedly getting out equipment then securing it away again at the end of the short work shift. There is the alternative of closing the station at weekends, of course, but this wouldn’t be a good look for TfL – and it would also mean a potential loss of revenue.
Change in tone
Until now, the message concerning Crossrail and its transition to the Elizabeth line have been highly positive. It is perhaps for this reason that a shift to a more cautious tone is so worthy of note. If all goes well then London will still get its new line, on time, although most likely now pushing that rescoped funding envelope (if not moving slightly beyond). Phase 1 delays can be shrugged off. The voltage transformer explosion has taken away almost all the contingency from the testing schedule, meaning the Crossrail team are exposed to risk on that front that they really were not expecting. Dealing with that risk and getting the project over the line when things get tight though is, ultimately, what Chief Engineer (and Thameslink veteran) Chris Binns would be likely to say he and his teams are being paid to do.
What is more worrying is that a fundamental aim of Crossrail was to link Heathrow directly with the West End and Canary Wharf. A delay would not be too serious, though it would have financial implications, and again dealing with this is likely what Howard Smith would claim he too is paid to do. But at present, it is not known whether the signalling issues at Heathrow can be resolved, at least as long as the current Heathrow Express trains are still running. Or – which would be even more serious – whether they hint at wider train-to-track issues with Bombardier’s 345s that will manifest with CBTC on the core tunnel section as well.
At the end of the day, the current consensus within LR Towers is that the Elizabeth line will still open on time – a fact helped by the exact date still not yet being announced. Some stations will not be in the state that one might desire, but they will be capable of serving their purpose. All that can be rectified. We do wonder, however, if it will be possible to catch a new Elizabeth line train from Heathrow to Canary Wharf in December 2019.
What would be the loss of a bet for us, should this not happen, however, would result in far larger consequences for TfL. Financially, they need the Elizabeth line to open on time – and not just to secure those curious sponsor monies that it would apparently accrue. They need Lizzie paying her way sooner rather than later, or the TfL Finance Department’s 2018 Christmas party will be a sombre one indeed.
Like transport and a good natter? Join us for drinks tonight near London Bridge! LR is also a community-funded website. You can also help us continue to write by visiting our shop or backing us on Patreon.
The considerable input from ngh, Jonathan Roberts and John Bull is acknowledged and appreciated.
The “obvious” answer re. the Heathrow tunnels problem is, presumably to “simply” abolish the outdated ATP & go with the newer systems that do work?
Please note the quotes in that sentence & the omission of any liklihood of HAL actually “playing ball” with such a proposal.
As you hint, of course: it is not known whether issues at Heathrow can be resolved, at least as long as the current Heathrow Express trains are still running. Quite. [Slight reselection of quote to, hopefully, eliminate confusion. PoP]
[Snip. Certainly with the very first comment we want to be 100% focused on topic – not even deviating a little. PoP]
“ATP is an old system, however, based on an even older one brought in on the Great Western Railway (GWR) as a consequence of the 1999 Ladbroke Grove accident.”
A minor detail, but ATP was originally developed by British Rail, but the development programme was suspended during the Railtrack era. The equipment was fitted (but not operating) on the GWR train involved in the 1997 Southall crash.
[You are, of course, correct. The Hidden Report was result of the Clapham Junction rail crash not the Ladbroke Grove one and I have corrected this. PoP]
The Hidden report was the inquiry into the 1988 Clapham Junction crash.
Ladbroke Grove was investigated by Lord Cullen.
A very interesting article. Good to hear that the transformer issues were down to installation error rather than fundamental design, which some sources were suggesting.
Re Woolwich, any ideas what the issues are? One would expect putting a station into a big rectangular hole on a fairly unconstrained site would be one of the simpler fit-outs
How quickly could ETCS be fitted to the Heathrow Express trains I wonder?
pedant point but: “London will still get it’s new line” s/b “its”
[Fixed. Ta. PoP]
Good read – I’d lost touch with how this was coming along, it’d been good news for so long I took my eye off this ball!
Exciting times, looking forward to exploring the central section later this year.
Why is it taking another year after the central section opens to run through service through? I know there’s Network Rail stuff outstanding on the GWML but what’s the issue with the east London portal?
Thanks
It seems reasonably obvious that TfL Rail is intended as a sacrificial goat to the cause of branding, given how horrendous the service is out east at the moment. The weekday service is already struggling at below the frequency promised, and the publicity (or lack of it) around weekend closures is a failure. “The line is closed every weekend, but we don’t see any benefit, and the weekday service just gets worse” is a frequently heard refrain on Twitter, and TfL Rail’s Twitter mentions are a wreck. (The works are clearly needed to deliver the Elizabeth Line, but seeding goodwill on it has now utterly failed.)
The worry that I have – which the rebrand and reaching any completion milestones won’t fix – is that at the moment both staff and TfL are at the long end of a game of telephone from both Network Rail (who will presumably remain as track operators on the shared infrastructure) and MTR. Information which is getting to passengers is either too late, too inaccurate or too generic to be useful. I don’t see what pieces of that puzzle are going to change in the interim…
The Great Western Railway ceased to exist in 1948.
It seems reasonably obvious that TfL Rail is intended as a sacrificial goat to the cause of branding
As I remembering writing at the time, this was clearly one of the reasons they went with TfL Rail in the first place. So that they had a throw-away brand if they ended up needing it.
Speaking pragmatically, it was a very smart move.
@james 31/12/47, to be precise, but the name “Great Western” has been used in various forms (GW Main Line, Great Western Trains, Greater Western) since the 1980s, first as a division of the Inter City sector of British Rail, and from 1996 by the privatised franchise. Since 2015 the franchise has actually been branded as “Great Western Railway”
@Simon Adams
“Why is it taking another year after the central section opens to run through service through? I know there’s Network Rail stuff outstanding on the GWML but what’s the issue with the east London portal?”
There is Network Rail stuff outstanding on the GEML too. They want to run in the central core whilst it is still isolated from both the GEML and GWML, before risking any potential teething problems arising in the core affecting existing NR services.
There is also the issue that there will not be the capacity to run a full service from both Shenfield and Woolwich whilst the two-platform Paddington Low Level is the only western terminus.
There has been some industrial action from electricians at Woolwich. I’m not sure if it’s specific to that station, but issues with electrical fit out have been known for a while.
TfL may not worry too much about losing passengers at Woolwich due to the DLR, but Southeastern’s service will improve from May (back to pre-London Bridge rebuild levels) and Thameslink start their service through Woolwich.
No mention of the interface between the Train, Signaling System and Platform edge doors. This was a cause of problems during the original JLE commissioning that were not really cured until the original signaling was replaced by the current CBTC system. The trains need to be able to stop in the correct position without the need for manual realignment if the proposed 24TPH schedule is to be maintained.
Alto the change over from ETCS to CBTC and vice versa may be a challenge as well.
Simon Adams, Timbeau. The official opening is December 2019. One of the risks they are managing is that of wrecking the services that are currently self contained when both ends are joined up. Given that there is lots that is ‘new and novel’, especially in signalling as PoP has so eloquently described, it is in everyone’s interest to have an extended period running the self contained services. This plan had been in place for quite a while…..probably from not long after Howard Smith was appointed as Operations Director.
Managing risks is a well known technique in projects. Groups of people trawl though what could go wrong and what has, in the past, gone wrong. They assign a probability of the risk materialising and the consequences if it does. From this comes management strategies for reducing the probability, or making sure the risk is eliminated and sums of money to cover the risk if it materialised. The staged opening is a sensible strategy to manage unreliability on day one. I wouldn’t be surprised if the transformer explosion risk was assigned a low probability, simply because of prior good experience.
I have been caught out in the past when all the high risk things worked properly, but none of us imagined that our supplier would mess up some trivial part which we imagined would be bought off the shelf, with proven good performance, and they designed from scratch (with all the development risks that would involve).
Re John M,
There will be a future article covering signalling in more detail.
Pedantry corner re Woolwich: “unique on Crossrail, of being an underground station that doesn’t have to interface with an existing one.”
Not true. Canary Wharf is underground (a long way down – on my open house visit many years ago the lift failed so I’ve counted every step back up to street level…) Although it shares a name with two other stations (DLR and Jubilee) it is entirely separate from them – it will need to be an OSI – there are no ‘within gateline’ connections. Further complicated that actually the nearest DLR stations are Westferry or Poplar.
[Reworded to make it clear (as if it wasn’t already) that we are only talking about stations being built by Crossrail. PoP]
Secondary question re Canary Wharf. We know that the station box and escalators / lifts was paid for and physically built by Canary Wharf Group directly. Do we know if CW are also managing the fit out there, or is this in the hands of the Crossrail contractors who are working on the other stations?
Very interesting thanks. For some reason this is never mentioned in the press but none of the Ealing stations have even started improvement works yet.
West Ealing Station is supposed to be fully replaced, it just a piece of scrap ground at the moment with no start date.
Ealing Broadway, a major hub, has been promised improvements and step free access and no work has started. Same at Acton and Southall.
A most illuminating article for which many thanks. I suspect there may be many more to come!
I have two points which may (depending on your viewpoint) be regarded as nit-picking.
1. The ‘new’ half-hourly service to Hayes & Harlington in the contingency plan isn’t really ‘new’ as it simply replacing AFAIK the current 387-worked GWR-branded service. The contingency is actually rather simple and could be regarded as a very sensible sub-step introducing 345 FLUs (i.e. 9-car trains) for the first time on some different infrastructure.
[I have now made it clear that this is simply a replacement for the service you mention. PoP]
2. I am no expert but I think there is potentially some confusion in the use of ‘signalling system’ in the article. The thrust of the article in the impact on reliability and testing, not to mention on-train fitment etc. is essentially the same, although there are no doubt further detailed sub-issues arising. To my understanding, ETCS is a complete system incorporating both signalling and train protection. Both TPWS and ATP (as used in this application; it is also a generic term) are solely train protection systems. The Heathrow branch must also have conventional signalling installed, although I don’t know the details offhand, as does of course the main line to Reading.
I think, but am not sure, that only one of TPWS and ATP can be active on any one section of track but I don’t know what the transition arrangements are on the (Great) Western lines. I am not sure exactly which elements of all this impact on the testing process.
Thinking about it further while writing this, if the aim is to avoid fitting the particular ATP system to the class 345s, does that mean that all the route between Paddington and Reading as well as the Heathrow branch is being resignalled with ETCS as the ‘simple’ alternative of replacing with TPWS (while retaining the signalling) in order to facilitate introduction of the Elizabeth line, class 800s etc (Avoiding fitting the particular ATP equipment which is probably obscelescent)?
Interesting update, thanks.
I’m still hearing the 9th December 2018 will be Elizabeth’s opening day.
I was a little surprised to hear that Elizabeth isn’t going to be a “night tube” – but some airport services will run overnight.
When they say that the Pudding Mill Lane and Royal Oak portal’s won’t be in use this December, there needs be be some access because the depots aren’t in the PAD-ABW stretch.
“ATP itself is due to be phased out over much of GWR”
Really? Class 800s are being fitted with it, so I thought its future was pretty secure. Or are we talking about its replacement with ETCS, which I for one am still rather dubious about actually happening?
Muzer,
Class 800s are being fitted out with GW-ATP due to ETCS not being ready on the Great Western Main Line – a story in itself for later. It was a late change. It wasn’t part of the plan and one would imagine once ETCS covers the GW-ATP area on the GWML the GW-ATP will be decommissioned on the main line west of Airport Junction and from the Class 800 trains themselves. Expected later article will probably cover why you really don’t want GW-ATP around if you can possibly avoid it.
Briantist,
My understanding is that some very late and very early Airport services will run but not 24 hours and they will only run as far as Paddington (High Level).
According to the articles on the BBC website TfL are hoping that the extra income from the Elizabeth Line will help reduce the pressure on their budget. How long it will take for the revenue to exceed the operational costs and how much revenue will be abstracted from other lines are interesting questions worthy of discussion. Of course late opening will increase the budgetary pressures.
Ben Sherliker
The Ealing ( & other ) stations lack-of-perceived rebuild is exercising the local press at fairly regular intervals. IIRC, the explanation/excuse being given is that “That’s all Network Rail’s problem” & is nothing at all to do with the Elizabeth Line – or some permutation of the above.
I certainly get the impression of parcels being passed, rapidly, even as we speak …..
From an outsider’s view, Woolwich at least _appears_ to be running on time. They’ve extended their hoardings recently to start groundskeeping the entrance up on the dial arch green. Going off Crossrail videos it was one of the first to get it’s PEDs up, which I assume is a later stage of platform fit-out? That ceilingless concrete frame over the entrance has been there a while though.
On the phase 1 slips – I’d suggest now is the best time to be getting picky about 345 defects. Assuming they haven’t been sold off already, TfL Rail must still have the rest of the 315s to sub in, which they won’t be able to do in later phases.
Why was not ETCS installed on the Heathrow branch at the dawn of the Crossrail project? Was is Heathrow (LHR Airports Limited as it now apparently is), a regulated business, permitted to cause the tiniest problem to a major public project?
I appreciate that the answers are regulatory / policy, rather than technical.
Please note the Heathrow branch DOES NOT have ‘conventional signalling’
Think about it, the sole users if the line are the Heathrow Express and later on the Heathrow Connect.
Given the use of the BRITISH RAIL DEVELOPED ATP* on the GWML and its ability to ensure railway safety, combined with operation of the Heathrow service being by a dedicated fleet of EMUs, there was absolutely no need to fit ‘conventional’ signalling on the Heathrow Spur.
As such until the new ETCS signalling is commissioned on the Heathrow spur ALL trains must be fitted with BR(GW) ATP – if not an Engineers Possession is required!
By contrast, out on the mainline things are very different. Up until the Ladbroke Grove incident only the GWR High Speed train fleet had ATP fitted and I also believe its installation trackside was confined to the ‘main’ lines rather than the ‘relief’ lines. While this is now no longer the case, its still true that all Freight locos, plus the Turbo fleet and the 387s are not fitted with BR(GW) ATP.
As such TPWS is still an essential requirement for the GWML as it is fully compatible with BR(GW) ATP. Indeed one of the mitigations against the non commissioning of ECTS on the GWML sections used by Crossrail is to massively increase the provision of TPWS equipment to cover ALL signals (and not just those protecting junctions as per the majority of the country).
* Note that British Rail commissioned 2 ATP schemes which use totally different equipment as part of its investigations into ATP following the Hidden report – (although the Clapham crash would not have been prevented, Casualty causing SPADs at Purley and Bellgrove (Glasgow) a couple of years later certainly would have been). One ATP system was fitted on the GWML (main lines only) between Paddington and Bristol Parkway, with another completely different system installed on the Chiltern line between Marylebone – Banbury / Aylesbury (excluding the LU owned bits). While both schemes were successful in terms of proving the concept, Central Government refused to provide funding to expand either system or to roll out ATP nationally claiming such things as ‘Too Expensive’ Thus it was that the rail network (including significant parts of the GWML) lacked any form of protection against SPADs until a particularly horrible collision at Ladbroke Grove galvanized minds to push ahead with the rather cheaper and simpler TPWS so as to provide the essential SPAD protection of ATP systems as quickly as possible.
Answer=42,
ETCS is relatively new and still undergoing development and improvement. ‘At the dawn of the Crossrail project’ it would have been hard to find any reliable kit that interworked between manufacturers.
Besides, what would be the point with no ETCS trains around equipped to test it in any meaningful way?
In this country it has only really started to come of age with the very successful implementation on Thameslink – but still not yet in use on passenger-carrying trains as far as I am aware.
Two questions:
1. Why doesn’t the central section also use ETCS signalling? Is there some advantage to using CBTC over ETCS in the central section?
2. If it costs a lot to complete fit-out at the stations after a service starts running, could you sensibly run the trains through the station without stopping in order to complete the fit-out (obviously not possible at Paddington or Canary Wharf, although for different reasons).
Aneconspeaks
1. Long answer could be an article in itself. Short answer is that ETCS does not yet support platform edge doors and hasn’t yet proved itself at the sort of frequency Crossrail is planning and frequent stopping at stations that will be in use. Remember the plan is to fit ETCS to the core of the East London Line for commissioning in 2023 and that is regarded as semi-experimental.
2. Presumably, apart from reputation, loss of revenue exceeds extra cost of fitting in the work with the station open for about 19 hours a day.
I believe that Crossrail was given a dispensation by the EU to fit CBTC to the centre area rather than ETCS as ETCS was not sufficiently developed to support the stopping accuracy and interface required for PEDs.
There is also a dispensation for fitting PEDs as they infringe the ‘european gauge’.
Not sure what will happen with Brexit ?
Have the EU put money into Crossrail ? If so what impact will Brexit have on this ?
I guess this is the official ‘Crossrail does a downer’ article and mine, written a month ago, simply doesn’t count anymore… Will give LR a shout anyway – its an interesting read!
https://1londonblog.uk/2018/01/bond-streets-crossrail-station-off-track/
Yes it does seem the station at Bond Street has some issues, its very slow going as I have noticed. The Davies Street side shows more progress. Hanover Square entrance hasn’t even been built yet. Apparently they need to finish construction of a ventilation shaft first – it seems the actual superstructure cannot yet be built as the space is needed for access. I suspect the Davies Street entrance may be the only one of the pair available for December 2018.
Woolwich seems to be doing quite well, as I noted on my visits earlier this year. I was hoping to do an update on this station sometime in the summer. I don’t think the electrician’s strike has had any real adverse effect.
I think its Crossrail’s own contractors fitting out level minus four (the actual Canary Wharf station.) I’ve seen them at work in the entrance lobbies and the escalators there’s a big window at the back of the building (on the Poplar side) overlooking the ticket hall and escalators and one can see the guys at work. The entire oversite development and station box was built by Canary Wharf Contractors Ltd so unless I am wrong, they have done their bit.
@ John M – if we take TfL’s own Business Plan then Crossrail doesn’t make an operating surplus until 2020/21. It is the through services that will drive significant growth in revenue that will outstrip costs. For 2018/19 the operating loss is shown as £162m falling to £25m in 2019/20 and then moving to a surplus of £311m in 2020/21.
We do know that the DLR is expected to lose patronage and revenue in 2019/20 and 2020/21 before recovering. The numbers are not huge but the numbers are rather more modest in the latest Business Plan compared to last year’s document. The situation on the Tube is not easy to sort through as line level revenue and patronage forecasts are not published. Patronage is assumed to be broadly flat for the next 2-3 years but revenue shows an increase – those sneaky Travelcard price increases no doubt helping here. I have obtained a lower level breakdown of some of the business plan numbers via FOI which is why I’ve made these observations.
My guess on Crossrail’s numbers is that TfL are assuming three basic things
– increase in patronage and revenue on services which transfer across (e.g. those to the west)
– growth in revenue from serving new markets with new links (e.g. Abbey Wood) with the core service plus some level of transfer from the tube / DLR
– a substantial rise in patronage and revenue as the separate arms of Crossrail are joined together during 2019. Service levels being much higher to the west plus a known transfer of some GWR services must give a form of “ORCATS raid” in TfL’s favour. This is, of course, an officially sanctioned “raid” not a speculative one.
I’ve deliberately not mentioned Heathrow as no one in the public domain yet knows what the fares are going to be for TfL Rail / Crossrail. I am sure there will be some modal transfer but goodness knows how much.
@ PoP – is it the case that Heathrow and TfL are “in court” over access charges? I’ve lost touch with the goings on here but had assumed a settlement had been reached given all the positive news around CR trains reaching T5 and Oyster / CPC ticketing a few months back. It’s far from good news if the parties have still had to go to court to reach some sort of settlement on access charges. That must surely pose a risk to the May deadline as why would Heathrow allow MTR Crossrail onto their infrastructure if charges aren’t agreed? Whatever track access agreement there may be with GWR will surely cease in May.
Walthamstow Writer,
That bit got tacked on in the editing stages. I have my doubts unless there is an appeal or there is some new issue. Then again, it seems entirely believable so I didn’t query it.
I’ll try and get this clarified.
Ben Sherliker
While I agree that there is local concern about delays to the Ealing stations, it’s not true that no work has started, at least at Ealing Broadway. As anyone using the station could observe, the hoardings have been up for six months or so, the small building at the north end of the forecourt has been demolished, and a new footbridge has been constructed at the eastern end of the platforms. Work is currently under way to replace the platform roof. Whether the less visible internal works are in progress is of course anyone’s guess.
Ealing Council is understandably concerned about delays because it cannot complete its redesigned forecourt, roadway and cycle lanes until the station work is finished.
@Phil: there was absolutely no need to fit ‘conventional’ signalling on the Heathrow Spur
ATP is not a signalling system. It is a train protection system that monitors whether the driver is correctly observing the conventional lineside signals and stops the train if they are not. ETCS, on the other hand, is both an in-cab signalling system and a train protection system.
I do wonder how much longer Crossrail will be able to parrot out “on time and on budget” for…
On mysterious electrical issues down on the railway – I can heartily recommend this article from Singapore, tracking down a rogue train… https://blog.data.gov.sg/how-we-caught-the-circle-line-rogue-train-with-data-79405c86ab6a
Must say I’m very confused by this ETCS malarkey. Was this installed specifically for Crossrail on the Heathrow branch (and when exactly?). What was used before?
If so, why not use CBTC in common with the central tunnels (presumably because of HX?)
@130: This plan had been in place for quite a while…..probably from not long after Howard Smith was appointed as Operations Director
Back in 2010 a new government had been elected that had carefully avoided promising to build Crossrail and commissioned a spending review to identify budget cuts. That was when TfL came up with the phased opening to reduce risk, which as you say reduces cost. About £1 billion was saved, the trade-off being that Crossrail would open in stages during 2018 and 2019 instead of all at once in 2017 as originally expected. The current issues with rolling stock, signalling etc strongly vindicate this decision.
The other area where I am having doubts about progress is the work at stations on the Shenfield Line. As touched on in the article works at places like Forest Gate and Manor Park seem to be a long way behind and are causing issues for the platform / train (PTI) CCTV. I’ve seen no demonstrable start at Ilford yet – the ticket hall building remains untouched when the plan is to pull the whole lot down. They won’t get that built by Dec 2018. I’m less clear about what’s happening further out at Romford. I know the through service into the core doesn’t start til May 2019 for the eastern leg but I suspect politicians will be expecting step free access from Dec 2018 at all of these stations but that looks very doubtful.
@WW: That must surely pose a risk to the May deadline as why would Heathrow allow MTR Crossrail onto their infrastructure if charges aren’t agreed?
My understanding would be that ORR’s decision (that Heathrow’s proposed infrastructure recovery charge wasn’t allowed) will stand unless Heathrow somehow get it overturned on judicial review. Under EU and British law (and the original Crossrail agreement) Heathrow are obliged to give non-discriminatory access to their infrastructure to anyone who meets the criteria in their Network Statement.
Heathrow applied to ORR in November for permission to levy a mark-up (amounting to about 60-90p per passenger) on their track access charges, and consultation on that ended in January, but the proposal would come into effect from 1 January 2019 so wouldn’t affect the 2018 launch of TfL Heathrow services.
An interesting observation in the proposal document is that Heathrow does not seem to know what TfL’s fare policy for Heathrow will be, and that “Given that HEX is for the first time facing direct competition, it is reasonable to anticipate a potential fare reduction in response.”
WW’s mention of an ORCATS raid has prompted me to wonder whether Crossrail will lose a small amount of Abbey Wood-Farringdon revenue to Thameslink? It is unclear whether this is a TfL flow or a National Rail flow, though I don’t know what the different allocation methods of the two may be. Either way, any loss of revenue to TfL must be troubling at the moment.
The new Woolwich station is nearly ready, according to TfL:
As for Crossrail itself, spokesman Richard Storer told the committee it was “90% complete” and showed photographs of ticket gates in place at the new Woolwich station, as well as work on installing the escalators. Tours will be available for the public in May. As for Abbey Wood, there is “a little bit of work” left, he said.
Via the 853 blog.
Thanks to Ian J’s enlightenment, I have reworded the bit about the dispute about Heathrow and TfL to make it clearer what is now involved. I have also included the link Ian provided.
Crossrail has recently applied for amended track access to reflect the current complications with Heathrow:
http://archive.nr.co.uk/browse%20documents/track%20access/1%20current%20consultations/2018-02-05-mtr%20corporation%20(crossrail)%20ltd-sa19-section22-closes%2006march%202018/mtr%20crossrail%209th%20supplemental%20form%20p%20industry%20consultation.pdf
The detail in the application form confirms the points made in the article above.
@MoK
“Will Crossrail lose Abbey Wood-Farringdon revenue to Thameslink”
Very little, I suspect. The Thameslink route will be slower, less frequent and more expensive than the Crossrail route
Re Man of Kent,
Yes – it is a massive ORCATS raid by GTR.
Existing Outer Crossrail stations currently served by GWR, TFL rail, Heathrow Connect and Southeastern are / were always to remain under the DfT fares structure (i.e. RPI+X% ) What the GTR service does is lock Farringdon into this arrangement and remove most possibilities of TfL trying to be creative with Fares such as freezing most crossrail ones. TfL finance department are probably quite pleased about the non freeze though.
Re WW and Ian J,
Most of the work to install Oyster at Heathrow was done in during the Xmas GWML re-signalling blockade.
The 60-90p should enable us to have good go at estimating potential Crossrail fare strategies.
a) Same as tube so it costs them 60-90p/ passenegers but they grab loads of passengers and ease some issues on the Picc. Unlikely as they will haemorrhage cash
b) Tube +60-90p an blame nasty Heathrow for being more expensive and still get lots more passengers
(Tube fare to Z1 peak £5.10 offpeak £3.10 cash 6.00)
Again unlikely because of cash haemorrhage.
c) Some sensible extra cost above the DfT controlled Hayes and Harlington fare (£6.40) so probably around £8.00 (less than £10 is good psychologically if they want to grab as many passengers as possible
d) keep the Connect fare (£10.30 from Paddington)
Ian J & PoP
As was discussed on Thursday in the Royal Oak, the whole set of issues with Heathrow access is deeply political, as well as having significant revenue sums from passengers being involved. In a not unrelated matter, of course the whole issue of a “Third Runway” @ Heathrow &/or a second runway @ Gatwick is also heavily political, & all of these issues involved are interconnected.
I think that the “HeX” exclusive contract (for want of a better phrase) expires in 2023 & so they & “HAL” will want to extract as much money as they possibly can, in the time remaining to them. Their success or otherwise, so far, may be viewed in the light of the various decisions of the courts.
@M0K @Timbeau @NGH
Sounds like you’re confusing passengers and revenue there.
Assuming there’s a single gateline at both Abbey Wood and Farringdon (is there?) then Thameslink traffic is indistinguishable from Crossrail and GTR (with DfT complicit?) have indeed pulled off an ORCATS raid on Crossrail.
Does ORCATS allocation recognise journey time or other differentiators between operators, or is it just based on number of services? It may not matter that most people would choose the Crossrail route, GTR will still take their cut based on the number of services calling.
Re Greg,
That significant revenue may soon dry up depending on what TfL do on Heathrow Crossrail fares and marketting them. The key would appear to be what maximises TfL revenue at 6x 9 car trains per hour..
Re DCI Burnside,
From memory the allocation is very crude and just based on the number of services.
GTR are also raiding Southeastern.
The intersting part is what happens with stations further out than Abbey Wood:
Take Dartford – Farringdon as an example:
a) Thameslink 2tph
b) SE to London Bridge 12tph then Thameslink to Farringdon 16tph
c) SE to Abbey Wood 5tph then Crossrail 12tph
With b) you can see why TfL don’t want Thameslink on the tube map!
It would be interesting to see how HAL have calculated their costs in the submission to the ORR. My jaundiced view, having dealt with them in the past, is that they will have loaded them to a frankly unbelieveable level – and doubtless included the costs of drawing up their costings and implementing a charging and audit regime using >£1K/day consultancy rates. They also seem to ignore the future impact of WRATH and possibility of running through RDG-T5-T2-PAD-Core services.
Nasty, duplicitous, grasping bunch desperate to preserve their monopoly stranglehold irrespective of any wider public benefit….
re: ORCATS raids. It’s difficult to see this as a raid, given that the original idea of Thameslink was to run many more trains from places such as Bexley, which then disappeared thanks to Stephen Abbott’s campaigning (see also the end of the Sutton Loop Blackfriars terminators). It’s only relatively recently that more Kentish services have appeared in the timetable after concerns over the ability of Windmill Bridge junction to cope. Hence Caterham lost its proposed TL service but Greenwich got one (the Rainham/Luton service starting in May).
Why sticking TL trains across North Kent East junction on the flat is seen as a better bet than Windmill Bridge is another question….
@B&T – Of course HAL are going to try to get as much money as they can from the Crossrail – they don’t lose anything if they fail, but could have gained a lot if they won. Their shareholders would expect nothing less from them. HAL are a private company and so their only interest in public benefit is if it increases their value to their shareholders.
Supermac
Section-Lengths ( In response to your question ): there simply isn’t room across the junctions between Norwood/Selhurst/W/E Croydon for 12-car trains in many places, so a transitioning train will be occupying two block-sections. Putting one or two an hour across N K E Junction is “easier”, especially since that bit has been resignalled..
It is also why (Assuming guvmint reckon “that it is affordable”) the Windmill Bridge complex is next up for a comprehensive rebuild – see also the various “Study in Sussex” articles from L-R towers
Re ORCATS…..I am familiar with the principle, but doesn’t it get awfully complicated when Oyster is involved? I’m assuming that the Elizabeth line link from Abbey Wood to Farringdon isn’t a National Rail regulated flow for the normal national rail settlement process, more that the fare revenue will be split based on surveys of passenger journeys (Travelcard revenue is split this way I understand). If I were TfL, I would argue that I can identify Oyster and contactless traffic flows quite accurately from touch in and touch out times and locations, and therefore clearly identify how many use the Elizabeth line and how many use Thameslink.
Greg Tingey,
We are drifting into commenting here when elsewhere would be more appropriate but anyway ….
Although your point is weakened somewhat (but not entirely) by the fact that the trains removed from Windmill Bridge Junction are 8-car trains (or reduced length units (RLU) to use the correct terminology). Sources within Network Rail have pointed out that at North Kent junction a waiting 12-car train (full length unit) will only just fit into the signalling section. From their point of view it is just as well the Rainham trains will all be RLUs.
Of course, if you are a Greenwich line user you would probably far rather see a 10-car (or even 12-car if you are very lucky) South Eastern service train than the RLU that will be substituted for it.
@130
I would argue that I can identify Oyster and contactless traffic flows quite accurately from touch in and touch out times and locations, and therefore clearly identify how many use the Elizabeth line and how many use Thameslink.
In many cases you can, either because of separate barrier lines at one or both ends, or because one or both routes requires an OSI (e.g Wimbledon – Victoria via Clapham Junction, via Earls Court or via Vauxhall, which can and do all charge different fares because the route taken can be identified by the barrier lines you pass through).
But as I understand the layouts at both Abbey Wood and Farringdon, there will be a common barrier line for Crossrail and Thameslink services, and obviously no OSI (or pink reader) as they will both be direct services.
DCI Burnside and Timbeau:
I don’t know about Abbey Wood, but Farringdon has three barrier lines now and will gain a fourth when the eastern (Lindsey Street) entrance opens. The current barrier lines all give free access both to LU and Thameslink platforms and there are no pink Oyster readers within the station.
I think that there are a few misunderstandings in some of the comments. This is my understanding.
CBTC was preferred over ETCS for the tunnel because of the project risks of doing ‘Moving Block’ level 3
TPWS and AWS are both used together on the entire rail system all over the country.
The issue with Heathrow tunnels is that they were not ever fitted with TPWS or AWS and therefore the protection is provided by ATP alone.
The plan originally was to have ETCS Level 2 Overlay (conventional signals in place) fitted between Paddington and Heathrow for the start of the Crossrail service. However, that went the way of all things projects and so the plan is to use Level 2 overlay in the tunnels but for its protection capability.
My understanding that the tunnel testing issues are much more to do with the CL 345 interface than the NR infrastructure. Testing has been done using NR’s 313 test set and I believe that to be complete.
@JIMBO – Yes, HAL are a private company but also operate a ruthlessly protected “regulated” monopoly [Unsubstantiated statements snipped. LBM]. Although maybe not the worst airport to work with (try getting anything done at Dusseldorf, and London City can be pretty difficult…) they’re near the bottom of the pile.
The Bobby
Yes
IF you could get the Heathrow tunnels/trains fitted with TPWS, that would help enormously, But you would have to get HeX/HAL to pay for it at a “reasonable cost” – now see many others’ comments on their willingness to act in what other people would regard as a reasonable/civilised fashion.
Also, I’m given to understand that the Heathrow tunnels act as a giant waveguide for all the various signalling systems emissions & the r/f signal environment in there is, shall we say “not pure”?
Which really does not help, either.
Timbeau….I was reacting to others’ comments that the Thameslink route is slower than the Elizabeth line will be. Thus, on average, it will be possible to make an educated guess which route passengers touching in at Abbey Wood and touching out at Farringdon (or vice versa) have taken. Clearly, this won’t work if a passenger has, say, decided to do a little train spotting en route. Oyster usage assessment won’t just use this technique, but it will help. Equally they won’t seek perfection. Oyster revenue apportionment is semi scientific, I understand but also involves negotiation. I am not an expert on this subject and freely confess I might be entirely wrong!
Let me substantiate a little… The framework under which HAL operate for “Regulated Charges” is essentially Cost plus Percentage Margin. This framework permeates much if not all of their thinking, leading to a situation where they are heavily incentivised to maximise their cost base – the more that they can demonstrate that something costs them to run, the greater the percentage uplift they can trouser for their shareholders. A key challenge for the ORR, assuming that they concede on the principle of this type of cost recovery, will be to match the well honed army of HAL Cost Accountants to challenge the costing assumptions made within the HAL submission, line by line, rather than nod them through with no clear demonstration of value for money or cost comparison with other rail infrastructure.
For those arguing about Abbey Wood and Farringdon then Abbey Wood has a single gateline. This won’t change once Crossrail services commence. Farringdon currently has three exits and will gain one extra ticket hall plus the connection to Barbican. On the face of it it will be next to impossible to determine how people have travelled between the two places without some form of journey time parameter being applied to the data and then having to be checked again against any service disruption data. I dare say some clever box of tricks can do that sort of analysis but it’s not exactly precise. And as for people exiting at places other than Farringdon (or Crossrail stns) then wibble flip as to how you measure that.
And just to reiterate I did not see the “orcats raid” thing as particularly affecting the eastern end of the service. It was much more to do with the transfer of services from GWR to TfL that would bring in the money – especially if a better service level and being on the “tube map” causes a big generative effect on that line (as I suspect it will).
Walthamstow Writer,
How on earth can TfL taking over GWR services possibly been seen as an ORCATS raid? For an ORCATS raid you need two operators serving the same station. TfL are pretty much taking over the service from Twyford to Acton Main Line (except Slough) in its entirety.
Call it a takeover of a profitable service (assuming it is) with an intent to increase revenue by all means but an ORCATS raid – surely not?
@ PoP – I did put the phrase in commas each time I used it which I assumed was enough to convey the sense it was similar to but *not actually* an ORCATS raid. I did say it was officially sanctioned when I mentioned it yesterday. The fact that the DfT have allowed TfL to take on more services to Reading than originally envisaged just confirms the “officially sanctioned” aspect. I assume they have had to deal with the consequences of that with First Group in respect of an unexpected change to the scope of their franchise and the related revenue impact. Not sure I need to be “corrected” quite so strongly given it is clear that TfL will be getting a higher share of the Reading – London flow than originally expected.
Re: ORCATS sand revenue sharing, I can’t say too much but there have been methods/formulae in use since the introduction of Oyster PAYG to handle the revenue split for “interavailable” routes, which will he used here if the route taken by the passenger can’t be inferred from the validations.
Using Oyster for revenue allocation is a very complex beast due to all the unrated NR stations – it’s taken years to obtain any sort of agreement between TfL and the TOCs.
TheBobby
Interesting comment about the ETCS problems being at the Class 345 end. If it is true that it works (reliably) with the NR 313 test set then it shows that a solution is possible.
The problem with ETCS is, without consulting the specification and doing lots of measurements, one cannot simply assume that the Class 345 is the ‘guilty’ party. It could be that both the track-based and Class 313 train-based signalling are out of spec but nevertheless work with each other. They had lots of similar problems abroad (especially in the Netherlands) in the early days of ETCS.
This could explain why there is so much time booked to run Class 345 trains on the test track at Melton Mowbray. This in turn means there is no time for the Class 710 which has resulted in a Class 710 unit being sent to France (by lorry) for testing there.
@ James – do you mean “ungated” rather than “unrated” NR stations? Interesting that an agreement took a long time. I had assumed that an agreement had been achieved fairly early on but I am not that suprised to hear that the TOCs dragged it out. Plenty of form for that when it comes to London’s smart ticketing!!!
Yes, sorry, ungated. Phone induced typo!
Re PoP and TheBobby,
The 345s are apparently working fairly happily at the test track but there isn’t any GW-ATP installed there.
Any GW-ATP related interference issues will manifest themselves on the train because of the way ETCS and other protection location systems work. ETCS and GW-ATP co-existence was always more likely to be a problem as they use the same frequencies hence the ETCS interface (computer) module on the train can have difficulties with trying to interpret transmissions in the “wrong language” picked up by the ETCS antennae module or unexpected spurious electronic signalling generated by much more powerful GW-ATP electrical and magnetic fields being picked up by the antannae module.
Regarding Ealing stations, yes some preliminary work has started at Ealing Broadway but nothing is happening internally behind the hoardings (I’ve looked and the old shop fronts are still there and spoken to the workers).
Speaking to Matthew White at Crossrail, they cancelled the contracts to improve stations across Ealing and are retendering at the moment (supposedly to save money?).
The tender is supposed to be granted in April and work is supposed to finish by Dec 2019. Seems unlikely.
Crossrail say it is their responsibility to build and improve the stations. I don’t know why Val Shawcross is blaming Network Rail.
They have extended the platforms throughout Ealing to allow trains to run, however. I think they blame Network Rail’s delayed electrification efforts for Crossrail’s delays but I don’t see how that stops them sorting out the stations.
Re: NGH
I’m sure that the issue between GW-ATP and ETCS exists if they say it does. What makes no sense is that it worked in testing on NR Class 313 ETCS test train, and not on the Class 345…..
TheBobby,
Well it sort of does. Network Rail had a Class 313 to use for testing long before a Class 345 was available. Moreover, no doubt Network Rail will argue that their Class 313 test train is their standard ETCS test train and known to be compliant with the ETCS specification.
Although Captain Deltic will point out that historically it was otherwise, the whole point of ETCS is that it is meant to be inter-operable between different trains and different locations and regardless of which manufacturer supplied the equipment.
What we don’t know is to what extent Network Rail (or their sub-contractor) are shugging their shoulders and saying ‘well, we have installed compliant kit and it has been tested and it works. The problem is at your end’. Of course, no doubt Bombardier (and their supplier) at no doubt saying the same about the Class 345 kit.
Fitting the “H” tunnels with TPWS & removing the GW-ATP ( which is going to go anyway ) would solve, if not all of these problems, then a great deal of them.
But – that would require the willing & helpful co-operation of “Heathrow Express” & HAL, wouldn’t it?
Re PoP and the Bobby,
We are effectively in Rumsfield’s 2nd category Known Unknowns – The equipment beneath floor level on 313s and 345 is completely different and much more complex on 345s so the potential is there for the EMC issues to be much bigger as GW-ATP effectively predates EMC regulations (they had to delay implementation of the first (EEC) EMC directive because it turned out to be more complex.
It was a few years ago and ETCS specifications and software have moved on a little since then but a presentation by Spanish Infrastructure operator, ADIF’s ETCS expert outlined that a range of tests were necessary on any new part of the railway to prove; that the infrastructure works to standard, that it worked with a reference train and that it worked with the train types planned for the line. The train had to demonstrate that it worked with reference infrastructure and that it worked and that it worked in all the places it was due to operate. They had discovered this need by bitter experience.
More recently, DB opened their new high speed services between Berlin and Munich before Christmas 2017 and it was a disaster for them. Their track and trains used different suppliers kit, and the homologation tests had all been satisfactory. Their problem, reading between the lines, was that all the trains didn’t match the few trains used for homologation (wiring and other hardware faults were alleged). One surmises that not all trains were actually tested on ETCS before being put into service on ETCS.
Building on this, I wonder if the class 345 has visited NR’s reference ETCS site for tests?
Greg Tingey 09:55,
The problem for your solution has nothing to do with any potential problem with HAL.
The problem is that TPWS is not completely fail-safe. Would you think it acceptable that TPWS was used for the deep tube for example? If not, then why would you think it is acceptable for the Heathrow tunnels?
Also, ORR would have an absolute fit if you applied to install signalling that was less-safe than what was already installed and working. If you want to add a new service you need to, at the very minimum, ensure that safety (across all operators) is at least as good as before your service was added.
Incidently, on the last point, level crossings are a particular problem (though obviously not relevant here).
Re 130
“Building on this, I wonder if the class 345 has visited NR’s reference ETCS site for tests?”
The units used for the Heathrow tests came from ETCS testing at Old Dalby and returned there after each attempt for more testing.
Walthamstow Writer 8 February 2018 at 23:27
“The other area where I am having doubts about progress is the work at stations on the Shenfield Line.”
The official Crossrail and Network Rail position is that the major rebuilds at Ilford and Romford stations don’t begin until autumn 2018. All the other station works, east of Stratford, are supposed to be completed by the end of March 2018.
They haven’t told the 7-times MP for Ilford South how they intend to maintain passenger flow during the re-build.
NGH – Does Old Dalby count as a NR reference site? Has the class 313 been to Old Dalby, for example, to benchmark the trackside kit?
Re 130
There are 2 reference sites:
Hertford Loop and Old Dalby.
Old Dalby was the first installed with ETCS in 2003 which NR later ripping it out to reuse on the Cambrian line and then ETCS was reinstalled by NR in 2016 along with GSM-R and other ERTMS components to enable full ERTMS testing to 110mph (the line speed on the Hertford Loop is comparatively very low but good enough for the Thameslink core ETCS purposes). Old Dalby is also the designated as the test site for all future initial stock ETCS/ERTMS testing.
NGH. Thanks, useful extra knowledge
@B&T: It would be interesting to see how HAL have calculated their costs in the submission to the ORR.
It will also be interesting to see whether ORR accept the principle of charging actual costs plus a markup at all. This might be the regulatory approach Heathrow are used to, but it is not how ORR approach Network Rail.
As I understand it ORR decide what Network Rail’s costs *should* be if they were a fully efficient organisation, and then base Network Rail’s income on that. If NR’s costs are higher (and they generally are) then NR has to make up the shortfall from its own resources.
ORR is meant to be an impartial organisation. I can’t see how they could allow a more generous means of calculating income for Heathrow without allowing the same approach for Network Rail. Which would totally destroy the government’s rail budget, so won’t happen.
It will be interesting to see what submissions TfL, the DfT and Network Rail might have made to the ORR consultation. There is potentially more at stake than 90p per passenger to Heathrow.
Ian J
You have touched on a sore point, there, perhaps inadvertently:
… more at stake than 90p per passenger …
Would that it were *only* 90p or £1 per passenger – if that was the actual surcharge that HAL/HeX were asking/charging, I don’t think we would be having all these problems.
( Would we? )
Re Ian J,
The CAA is probably one of the few (only? – I can’t think of any othersof the top of my head) that would allow “cost +”[Margin]. BAA was an early privatisation and pretty much every other comparable regulator of later monopoly privatisations (Electricity Gas Water Phones) uses or used “RPI-X” (previous years costs + RPI% – X%, where X is a improvement in efficiency). Unfortunately RPI-X had its problems so most regulators have shifted to RIIO* (or equivalents) which is more sophisticated and harder to game and doesn’t lead to gratuitous RAB increase just to create debt to have offsettable interest. It looks like another potential management fail with Heathrow now having lost all of it BAA era team who had a slightly better understanding of rail and the departure of which lead to the whole argument.
*RIIO: Revenue = Incentives + Innovation + Outputs
Just think about all those efficiency saving from ETCS have lower maintenance requirements than track-side colour light signals and ATP for train protection 😉
It could actually be quite entertaining if ORR control the Heathrow costs from the NR side of things (NR being Heathrow’s rail maintenance contractor)!
Mind you if the CAA ever went to RPI-X or RIIO then a new terminal would be getting built at Gatwick immediately and nothing would happen at Heathrow so it won’t happen!
Re ORCATS, journey time and time since the last connection is part of the formula, so I cannot see Thameslink getting much of the Abbey Wood-Farringdon flow. However, there is also a substantial bonus for direct services (which is one reason why low frequency services to major points of the ECML work), so things may look different for Erith to Central London.
@IanJ – “It will be interesting to see what submissions TfL, the DfT and Network Rail might have made to the ORR consultation.”
Are / will these submissions (be) published and available anywhere? The HAL / ORR relationship does smack of an Infinite Force meeting an Immovable Object…
It’s suprisingly difficult to find actual, direct, single fares inside the zones from the TfL webpage … however:
… Heathrow sits in Z6 so if you start in Z1 ( Charing Cross ) & go by tube; £5.10 / £3.10 Peak/off-peak single by tube.
To the equivalent station ( W Drayton ) gives the same fare….
But Heathrow Connect web-page says: £10.30 single – a surcharge of £5.20 – without any forward-into-Z1, either. Never mind HeX’s fares.
So, the current surcharge, per passenger is at least that £5.20 – & somehow I can’t see ORR wearing that, especially in the light of recent court judgements.
What happens if you are using Oyster & go to Heathrow via the “connect” service – the information seems unclear to me, in that you are told: “Oyster not valid”, but the Hayes – Heathrow fare appears to be £6.30. In other words, an even heftier surcharge.
I wonder what happens if you have a “geriatric’s pass”? I would assume the same £6.30?
[As a reminder, the Hex single fare is £27 ! ]
P.S./Aside: I am really suprised that there hasn’t been a massive press campaign about this, err, let’s call it “exorbitant” shall we, pricing structure.
I guess one effect of Lizzie into LHR will be to redouble the efforts of the HEX muggers to flog tickets to unsuspecting tourists in the Arrivals exit lanes. Always reminds me of the Religious Recruiters scene in Airplane!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4CizzE-zZo
The major rebuild at Ilford has been explained, what exactly does the rebuild of Romford entail? I’ve looked through the Crossrail website and it states “a sustantially improved ticket hall with revised entrances”. Given that the ticket office is on the mezzanine and that the costs of punching through the arches on the south side are prohibitive, I wonder what their current plans are?
@Greg
I did the connect today. £12.60 return from H&H without a YP railcard (though thats another story I could happily invent a few novel swearwords about). I deliberately used a paper travelcard beforehand though, so only needed the extra ticket from Hayes onwards. I was told subsequently after purchasing a YP railcard that it would have been valid on Connect, so I assume others are too. Though priv passes aren’t.
Robcomet
As far as I can make out, the answer is: “Mostly Cosmetic”
There is some information from LB Havering here & some interesting diagrams/maps, concerning work-schedules & routes, but with very little detail on the station itself here
@BEN
I was checking out the progress of the Crossrail builds just last weekend and it cost me, using Oyster £3.10 from West Drayton to King’s Cross.
Which compares nicely with HS1 St Pancras to Stratford International – a six minute ride – £3.90.
@Ben -according to the RST website, National Rail priv tickets are available on HEX so I can’t see why they wouldn’t be available on Connect,being part of a wider franchise on which there are no relevant priv restrictions. (But perhapsit wasTfL privs you had in mind?)
Graham H,
I strongly suspect that the rule is that discounts valid on National Rail are honoured but free travel is not.
It makes a lot of sense. You tap into the discount market without the aggravation of setting it up yourself and no complexities and, as a result, get some revenue that you may well have otherwise not have got. On the other hand, there is no commercial benefit in honouring free travel (e.g. London Freedom Pass).
It does seem absolutely staggering that a single on HEx from Terminals 2&3 to Paddington, bought a long time in advance, will cost either £22 or £25 standard class yet Eurostar are offering singles from St Pancras to Amsterdam from £35 single.
That is surely one of the inherent features of yield management, as well as an element of promotional pricing. HEX don’t see the need to reduce their prices to fill their trains whereas Eurostar do? It’s not that uncommon either, I once flew from Berlin to Stansted for €6.99 and then paid £25 or something to get home from there…
@PoP – that may well be true about HEX (I haven’t had occasion to find out) but surely not of Heathrow Connect, which is just a brand of a franchise. Free staff travel is available universally (if you hold the right pass) on all franchised operations with virtually no restrictions.
@Herned – I had a colleague who flew to Newcastle from LHR for £1 (plus taxes, alas)
@GrahamH
Heathrow Connect is a TOC!
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/tocs_maps/tocs/TrainOperators.aspx
Graham H, Briantist
But a strange TOC if your link is correct as it has no managing director and no headquarters address.
Surely Heathrow Connect is neither a TOC nor a branded franchise? The Wikipedia website entry suggests it is a joint venture between GWR and Heathrow Express. It is surprisingly difficult to establish this for sure with their own website seemingly going to great lengths not to tell you anything useful ‘About Us’ when it comes to ownership..
There is nothing in the annual reports of either First Greater Western Ltd or Heathrow Express Operating Company Limited , to suggest that Heathrow Connect is in any shape or form a joint venture. The report for the latter claims all the credit. It also reveals that since 1 September 2015, HEOC was “required to operate as a Train Operating Company rather than as a service provider, on an arm’s length basis similar to any other UK TOC”. Ownership of infrastructure (and it would seem trains) remains with Heathrow Airport Ltd, and the ultimate parent is FGP Topco Ltd.
For 2016, HEX claimed 5.95m pax, with a further 0.48m on Connect. The latter seems quite low – a back of the envelope calculation brings it to an average of less than 30 pax per train – so perhaps it is only journeys starting or originating at Heathrow, excluding any wholly National Rail element.
One other piece of info – Chris Green is a non-exec director of HEOC Ltd.
@PEDANTIC OF PURLEY
Fair point. I’m just going by the day-to-day usage of “TOC”, which seems to have somewhat drifted from idea of a Train Operating Company.
Plenty of TOCs have multiple owning companies that aren’t in the name. MTR Crossrail Ltd is 100% owner by MTR but the staff wear “TFL Rail” on their backs.
The main reason, and this came up in the Christmas Quiz, is that the TOC that is currently Heathrow Connect is going to be switched over on 20th May 2018 to TFL Rail.
Of course, there is a company that owns three TOCs – GTR. Virgin owns only 10% of Virgin East Coast. Greater Anglia is now only 60% Nederlandse Spoorwegen.
What a fascinating response to my post. I’d assumed (wrongly) that HECon was a TOC; because of its history and operating context – and future controller. The RST website is silent on the TOC status issue, of course.
I know we must treat Wikipedia with caution, but that asserts that the TOC is Heathrow Express (open access operator) from the airport to airport junction then (in legal / regulatory terms) GWR assume responsibility for the rest of the journey to Paddington.
I apply my “who do I sue?” test. If I had a dispute it would be with either Heathrow Express or GWR (though heaven knows how I’d know which) but I’d never be in court against “Heathrow Connect”
From Memory:
Connect fulfills some of GWR’s franchise commitments between Paddington and Hayes &H for which they provide most of the drivers and the safety case, everything else is provided by HEOC.
Pre 387 deliveries to GWR, GWR would get hit massively (PPM and irate passengers left on the platforms) for HEOC axeing the Connect services in preference to the
connectsExpress if they were short of stock. Now at least the passengers don’t have to wait long and there is much more capacity on other trains services.@Greg Tingey
In my experience “massive press campaigns” tend to be politically motivated. HeX is a private commercial operator where other modes of transport and other airport choices are available. There’s not really a political angle, so the press isn’t very interested.
(BTW I think there’s more scope for a “massive campaign” about the poor availability of “boundary zone” fares which should be made available at ticket machines and online – who’s in?)
Oh! Do we have an edit feature suddenly? 😉
Southern Heights,
No but I do try and correct comments when it is clear to me what is intended. Especially if it have been pointed out. I occasionally correct other people’s spelling errors and typos on the basis that I often have to correct my own so, if I have the time, it is only fair that others benefit too.
@ Greg / Briantist – the TfL fare scale applies on the GWR route as far as West Drayton hence why there is no Zone 1 surcharge and why you’d still be paying your £3.10 off peak if you got on the tube (or even TfL Rail, DLR or Overground) on the other side of London as far out as Z6.
Freedom Passes are not valid on Connect into Heathrow or HEX anywhere so you’ll be paying the extension fare for Connect or full fare for HEX. Personally I’d just get off and get the 140 bus to avoid paying such ridiculous fares if I was on that route. Normally I just use the Tube to Heathrow.
It is worth just noting in passing that in the TfL papers for next week’s Programmes and Investment Cttee there is one of “Technology and Data” funding. This covers a wide range of services / asset groups at TfL including ticketing. There are a number of very interesting budget lines on ticketing matters including 2 or 3 specifically to cater for Crossrail fares / ticketing issues. I assume “Oyster / CPC into Heathrow” is covered in those categories as it is not specifically mentioned.
@ Greg – there will be no “massive campaign” because the arguments at present are all about esoteric economic / rate of return issues that the general public have next to no interest in. If any “brown stuff / fan collisions” are to happen then it will be when TfL announce how Oyster will work into Heathrow and what the fares will be. I expect this is all known already at a principle level and there will be papers whizzing around TfL and City Hall in respect of pricing options for final sign off. Clearly the technology has all been specced so it must be clear how they expect it to work. It is worth also saying that we have been here before – Oyster was going to be extended to Heathrow about 3-4 years ago but it all came to nought. This time will be and has to be different given TfL will be running into Heathrow. I also expect that City Hall will have a very clear narrative to support whatever decision has been taken about fare levels and concessions into Heathrow. We haven’t got that long to wait before we find out – probably late April or early May given we tend not to get much notice these days of fares changes in any detail.
@ Briantist 1829 – Surely GTR have only one TOC? It is one overall franchise and only one legal entity controls the services. They have chosen to have 4 brand names associated with it for whatever reason. I suspect Gatwick Express being branded separately *may* be a DfT requirement but don’t know. The same applies with the new West Midlands franchise – only one company but now two brand names for some silly reason. No wonder the public are confused about “who” runs their trains.
@WW – Gatex was certainly a “must have ” so far as DfT was concerned, which caused the bidders much difficulty in timetabling and rolling stock allocation. Stagecoach, for example,pondered having a Gatex portion of each Brighton fast, which was left behind /picked up at Gatwick. Far from ideal but something which attempted to meet the spec…
WW’s comment about Freedom Passes not being valid into LHR has prompted a memory. I think I recall someone commenting back on an early Crossrail article about the fact that Freedom Passes would be usable all the way out to Reading because (iirc) “the rules require that all services operated by TfL are covered by them”.
If I do recall this correctly, then once LHR services – or at least the ‘Connect’ ones being transferred to XR – move to TfL branding then won’t the present premium disappear for such passes?
Re: WW – there is a very, very good reason why there are two brands for the West Mids franchise, but I suspect it is off topic.
@AW
If this is the case, the 60+ Oyster card would also be valid on these TfL services.
Re WW, Briantist and Graham H,
There is popular new sport south of the Thames – GatEx OBS Baiting! The typical “game” involves:
GatEX OBS: “I’m afraid Southern Tickets aren’t valid on GatEx”
Passenger: “And I’m afraid you can’t sell brand specific tickets only TOC specific ones and GatEx is brand not a TOC” while reaching for a folder containing the relevant documentation and the GTR website on their smart phone.
GatEx OBS “Have a nice day” while walking off.
The aim of the game being trying to lure a less aware OBS into trying to prosecute and then watching GTR have to back peddle and have to put it on paper giving everyone else carte blanche…
@Balthazar
Off topic perhaps but I am sure that one part is within the L-R area.
@NGH
You may not be able to sell brand-specific tickets, but you can sell tickets for specific services (e.g Advance) or groups of services (e.g Off-peak) so it would not be difficult to specify “not valid on the xx00, xx15 xx30 and xx45 services from Victoria” (These trains are marked GX in the timetable for ease of identification)
@Timbeau. But that immediately freezes the timetable.
Additionally, it’s not simply an ‘Express’ brand issue. GTR have been trying to prevent passengers with tickets branded ‘Thameslink’ on services branded ‘Southern’ and vice versa. Equality unenforceable, as explained in NGH post above.
Re Island Dweller and Timbeau,
And half of the GatEx services provide the Southern fast services to Brighton and circa 4-5 stations between Gatwick and Brighton so in the peak flow direction in rush hour most of the passengers on the extended GatExs will actaully have “Southern” season tickets”.
As part of the franchsie GTR were required to equalise Southern and Thameslink fares over time so hopefully that should be no problem in the future.
A problem exists in that some Redhill fares were more expensive than Gatwick ones leading to more Gatwick tickets valid for Redhill being sold.
@NGH What exactly is defined as the ‘brand’, though? If the Southern ticket said “not valid on non-stop services GTW-VIC”, effectively excluding GX, would that be legit? Though GX seems to stop at East Croydon a lot nowadays…
If Thameslink/Southern tickets are interchangeable, I’d have thought Brighton station staff would inform customers annoyed at cancellations!
Hessie,
But it seems that the operating entity does not want people to think that the tickets are interchangeable, even though (apparently) they are (legally). So it is not surprising if the staff (at Brighton or elsewhere) have been instructed to make no announcements which might let this cat out of its presumed bag.
Island Dweller: I’m not sure that the “freezes the timetable” argument carries much weight, since if the timetable were to change, the tickets could be changed to suit (and the small number already issued would not be a big problem). But if tickets can be restricted to “groups of services” (e.g. off-peak), it is not clear to me how “trains branded PQR in the public timetable” is not (legally) a group of services. Though it seems from the items in the folder referred to by ngh above, that it isn’t.
Malcolm,
I am guessing but presumably the idea is to stop TOCs further differentiating between different types of passenger (as in ‘first class’, ‘standard class’) and to keep the fare structure simple within a TOC Also to avoid the TOC being unduly restrictive in which trains one can use.
Invitations To Tender nowadays sometimes include the requirement to withdraw First Class. Such measures to prevent differentiation could be defeated if the company were allowed to brand certain trains ‘Premium Express’ and charge higher fares. More to the point, charge higher fares than the regulated prices for single and return tickets.
One can understand the desire to prevent GTR rebranding certain trains between London and Brighton as ‘Brighton Belle’ or something similar and charging a higher fare.
Presumably the fare differential for Gatwick services was to encourage competition between TOCs. As soon as it is the same TOC that becomes meaningless. Chris Gibb, amongst others, has pointed out the absurdity of a different fare for Gatwick Express and the problems it causes – not least with uneven distribution of passengers on trains.
PoP: Yes, encouraging competition between TOCs is one thing, whereas competition within the same TOC is meaningless as competition. But as an exercise in maximising fare income through market segmentation, it may well be in the operator’s interest.
But franchise specifications, as you point out, tend to discourage or entirely prohibit certain types of market segmentation. Perhaps the unclear situation here results from unclear specification of this big franchise. Different fares for different existing brands (stemming from former divisions between TOCs) is not necessarily an undue complication to the fare structure. But it should, I reckon, be either permitted or banned, not the vague in-between situation which seems to apply here.
In my view, multiple competing TOCs on the same overcrowded tracks like the Brighton main line is a recipe for not making the best use of scarce capacity. A knowledgeable benign dictator (KBT) or intelligent client with proper links to the various communities on this populous area is required to make decisions that upset the fewest. Whatever the SoS decides to do with son of GTR a KBT will also be needed to ensure that cross London links actually work.
Trying to get back on topic, if Abellio Greater Anglia and Great Western Trains are as successful as they hope, there will need to be a KBT to ensure that cross London link, aka the Elizabeth line, works as capacity there will be at a premium too.
@ Alison W – your recollection is correct. I believe Quinlet made the comment you are referring to. While not wishing to in any way criticise what he said I remain a tad sceptical about Freedom Passes being valid to Reading. I am also just going to wait to see about the ticketing and pass arrangements into Heathrow.
@ Nameless – the 60+ Pass is a Mayoral initiative rather than a supplemented statutory concessionary scheme as the Freedom Pass is. Whatever legal obligations exist for the Freedom Pass do not necessarily transfer automatically to the 60+ Pass. The latter is funded from TfL’s budget which is under severe pressure. The Freedom Pass is a matter for the Boroughs through the umbrella London Councils who manage the funding, apportionment and issuing of Freedom Passes.
I doubt the current Mayor would wish to introduce validity differences between the two passes but it does boil down to money and how many people are expected to use new services and the revenue foregone. If some extortionate “fee” has to be paid to HAL for use of their tunnels to the airport then that has to figure in the deliberations.
@Alison W
The 1999 GLA Act does, indeed, require Freedom Pass to be valid on all TfL rail services and hence the initial view that Freedom Passes would be valid as far out as Reading. However, elsewhere in the Act there is a reference to services that are ‘in or in the vicinity of Greater London’. This ambiguity is, of course, very helpful! However some negotiations have taken place about defining precisely what this means with a view to limiting Freedom Pass availability to Iver or Langley. I’m not sure if these discussions have reached finality yet, but this would make far more sense.
“in the vicinity of Greater London” eh? I could see phrase this ensuring long-distance *starting* from London are not included, but a service which spends a substantial amount of time within Greater London is possibly a different beast. Indeed, where there are substantial volumes of commuters could be considered as ‘vicinity.
This one, as they say, will run and run …
Alison: Most services which spend most of their time outside Greater London (Euston to Northampton, say) can still be used by London-restricted tickets like the Freedom pass for journeys within London. That says to me that the key to availabilty of these tickets is the actual journey that the holder is making, not the characteristics of the train they are making it on.
Someone trying to justify free travel from Reading to Maidenhead on the basis that the train will subsequently serve lots of London is on rather shaky ground, I think.
Re. the discussion about e.g. Gatwick Express/Southern/Thameslink ticketing, I wonder how things will be dealt with this coming Sunday for ticket holders as per Southern’s online page, which I replicate in full. Note it is headed “No trains between London Victoria and Clapham Junction on Sunday 18 February” but then adds:
“Date:
18 February – 18 February 2018 11:59 PM
Routes affected:
Between London Victoria / London Bridge and Brighton / Portsmouth Harbour / Bognor Regis / West Croydon / Sutton / Epsom / Dorking / East Grinstead / Caterham / Tattenham Corner / Tonbridge and also between Watford Junction and Clapham Junction
Engineering work is taking place between London Victoria and Selhurst, and also between Shepherds Bush and Clapham Junction closing various lines.
Trains will not run between London Victoria and Clapham Junction.
Some services from/to London Victoria will be diverted to start/terminate at London Bridge, with some calling additionally at Norwood Junction. Other services from/to London Victoria will be revised to start/terminate at alternative stations or will not run.
Until 22:00, services between London Victoria and Caterham will be diverted to run between Shepherds Bush and Caterham, calling additionally at Kensington Olympia, West Brompton and Imperial Wharf. After 22:00, these services will run between Selhurst and Caterham only.
Buses will run every 10 minutes between London Victoria and East Croydon (also calling at West Croydon).
Buses will operate overnight on the following routes:
•Between London Victoria and London Bridge
•Between London Victoria and Clapham Junction
•Between Clapham Junction and East Croydon
Before 08:00, buses will run between Balham and Streatham Hill. After 22:00, buses will run between Balham and Tulse Hill, calling at Streatham Hill.
There is no Gatwick Express service all day.”
“In the vicinity of Greater London” was a phrase debated in parliament.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1963/jul/25/clause-21-housing-powers-in-greater
The conclusion was
“An authority must be actually touching or contiguous to the Greater London boundary or close to it”
@Matthew Dickinson
At that time, “authority” could mean any one of county, urban district, rural district and county borough.
Does it now include county, district, unitary authority and region?
And exactly how far is “close to it”?
Authority would now mean the successor authorities, so for Crossrail:
Iver (South Bucks District Council)
Langley (Slough Unitary Authority)
Slough (Slough Unitary Authority)
Burnham (Slough Unitary Authority)
Taplow (South Bucks District Council)
Maidenhead (Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead)
Twyford (Borough of Wokingham)
Reading (Reading Unitary Authority)
“Close to” is of course undefined, but I would personally feel that South Bucks and Slough are, and the rest aren’t.
@MATTHEW DICKINSON. For accuracy, the correct titles for Slough and Reading are Slough Borough Council and Reading Borough Council although both are Unitary Authorities, as are Windsor & Maidenhead and Wokingham.
@MATTHEW DICKINSON
Discussion of the relevant part of the 1963 Bill was about the local authorities in the vicinity of the new Greater London which dealt with the provision of housing i.e. at the borough or district level.
TfL is at the GLA level which comprises both a “county” and a region.
I think you will find that the legislation on which TfL rests (basically the LRT Act) has a wider definition, talking of travel in connexion with London. This gave LRT and gives TfL a locus in such matters as the Scottish sleepers or services to Victoria Coach Station. I don’t believe contiguity of authorities is an issue these days.
There is something to be said for allowing Langley and Iver to be included in free travel – but no further.
In the case of both Iver and Langley (especially Iver) they are relatively lightly used so the cost is not too great. They would also be consistent with Brentwood which is outside the GLA but the station is run by TfL. It makes some sense to not define borders too rigidly and there are parallels e.g. Caterham and Tattenham Corner branches and the Metropolitan line north of Northwood.
Slough on the other hand, the next station along is in a different local area (Slough rather than South Bucks), the station is not run by TfL and the passenger numbers involved mean there would a huge loss of revenue to either TfL or GWR with very little reason to justify it. Once you accept that Slough is not included it must follow that anywhere to the west of Slough should be similarly excluded.
PoP
Or the last northern bit of the Central Line, of course, as well as Shenfield.
Dare I mention *cough* Shepperton *cough*? In ticketing terms, that is.
Malcolm writes: No.
Of course that might just turn Iver into a giant carpark… 🙁
Greg Tingey,
The northern section of the Central line – Yes
Shenfield – No
Shenfield station is managed by Greater Anglia so is largely analogous to Slough.
Southern Heights,
Possibly interestingly, that was the plan once. The M25 is close by but DfT/Highways Agency said no because the M25 already had far too many entrances/exits and traffic hasn’t sorted itself out from one entrance/exit before it needs to sort itself out again for the next one. What is more frustrating for proponents of the scheme is that I think the two nearest interchanges (M4/M25 and M40/M25) do not enable you to leave the motorway network. So near yet so far!
Late to the party here. Re PoP @ 8/2 19:17.
Some Thameslink trains are running in passenger service with ETCS, and have been for a while. I was on one on Monday and again this morning.
‘In the vicinity of Greater London’
The 1999 Act is actually very specific that Freedom Passes must be valid on all rail services operated by TfL.
s.242 (3) requires the Freedom Pass to be available on the London Local Transport Network which “consists of—
(a)bus services which together make up the London bus network within the meaning of section 181 above;
(b)services using a system of guided transport which are provided by Transport for London or under an agreement entered into by Transport for London under section 156(2) or (3)(a) above or under a transport subsidiary’s agreement;
(c)railway services which are so provided
(d)tramway services which are so provided; and
(e)services on the river Thames or a tributary of the river Thames which are so provided.”
The legislation is ambiguous when read with the ‘in the vicinity of’ section. As Malcolm says, it would be rational for availability to be defined by the journey that the holder is making rather than by the nature of the operator. However, that’s not what the Act says.
The requirement is not, it should be clear, for free travel on all these modes (that is only a requirement for buses). However a concession is required and it must be the same concession for each type of service. Hence free travel on TfL rail could only be avoided if free travel on the Underground was also abandoned. Given political realities, this seems unlikely.
Malcolm writes “Euston to Northampton” which, of course, is an annoying one in that I can use the fast service to Harrow & Wealdstone, but not to Watford Junction, though my pass covers Watford Junction if I take the DC services, even if I only change to them at Harrow. (Note that Watford is inside the M25!)
PoP
Shenfield station A TfL link & info-page, implying that it’s “one of theirs”.
But wiki says “NR” – not G-Anglia.
Um.
Greg,
That merely means it is served by TfL trains.
If in doubt, check on the National Rail website. Alternatively, a visit to the station should leave one in little doubt. For example, the Greater Anglia branded station signs and all staff in Greater Anglia uniform.
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/SNF/details.html
A further big clue is that the gates there don’t accept TfL 60+ Oyster cards – or didn’t recently. You have to be let in/out by staff. That is not something TfL would allow if they ran the station.
@ Greg – wikipedia says managed by Greater Anglia, owned by Network Rail.
That is the case for most stations on the NR network (there’s a handful of mostly-newer stations that aren’t).
Whoops, I should clarify and expand.
Network Rail own most stations on the National Rail network
The franchises/concessions/LUL operate most of those stations on Network Rail’s behalf.
Network Rail operate some of the larger stations (eg Stratford International or London Victoria)
Network Rail don’t own a handful of the stations on the network, which are owned by the people who funded their construction (eg Stena owns Fishguard Harbour, Stobart Air owns Southend Airport, Worcestershire CC will own Worcester Parkway).
LU stations on LU tracks that are served by National Rail trains (eg Amersham) are owned by LU.
Heathrow tunnels and HEX are a cautionary tale of third party investment.
If the tunnel asset was built and transferred to NR ownership when sponsors had recovered a predefined margin we would not be in this mess.
Heathrow expansion will be dependent on modal shift to public transport. Realistically only Crossrail people swallowers can move the numbers.
HEX absorbs 4 fast line slots which GW could use with wider benefits..
In a rational world post expansion Crossrail LHR would be 12 tph not 6 with sole use of tunnels.
In an open access bid what price HEX airport jn Paddington rights?
There’s a lot of politics and planning debate to come before a mid 20s solution emerges.
@Si – and amusingly, Hatch End is owned by heirs of a Victorian estate developer. One of the lessons being painfully and expensively learned by such private owners is that franchisees don’t automatically stop there just because there is a station, although I agree that Heathrow is unlikely to suffer that fate (which awaits Worcester Parkway apparently).
@Robert Knight – and, of course, much the same could be said about Gatwick in relation to a waste of capacity. Given the cost of expanding capacity pretty well anywhere, it may well be that the concept of a dedicated airport service charging premium fares is a concept whose time has gone.
Graham H ( & R Knight )
Is the question of when Gatwick will be “free” to start planning/building a second runway ( ? May 2019 ? ) relevant here?
Because G’wick repeatedly state that they (unlike Heathrow) will not need any public subsidy & they can start building “as soon as” …
At which point a 3rd runway at LHR & also all the other problems, as we are discussing here, become, if not irrelevant, but of much lesser importance?
Si 17 February 2018 at 11:31
I don’t think this “Network Rail operate some of the larger stations (eg Stratford International” is quite right.
One day, Stratford International will be among the larger stations. As yet, Stratford International isn’t one of the larger stations on the DLR..
@Greg T – I should have said, to be clear, that the issue I had in mind was rail capacity, although I agreethat including a requirement for a separately identifiable Gatex brand in the franchise spec seemed to have a very great deal to do with Gatwick lobbying and nothing to do with transport planning issues.
My comment about the “uselessness” of dedicated airport links was reinforced recentlyby trips to Stockholm Arlanda and Wien. In both cases, the links took up line capacity where there was a shortage, the arrangements to buy tickets ranged from the very difficult to the nearly outright impossible, and the prices were very high – in fact, on the way back to Arlanda, a cab for four of us was cheaper and picked us up directly from the hotel.
The “cab for four” syndrome probably also applies even in London, though the necessity hasn’t arisen for me so far. If so, it places an upper limit on HEX premium pricing. It would be interesting to know others’ experience on this.
@Graham H: On my second to last trip to Wien, we had no trouble avoiding the overpriced CAT (City Airport Train), the ticket machine for the S Bahn was there in plain sight and the S Bahn was well sign posted. But I take your point about capacity as there is a single track section which limits capacity.
On my last trip I arrived too late to use either and was forced to use the bus, in fact this was actually better as it went to West Bahnhof, very close to my hotel.
Just in the sake of pedantry (because we’ve gone rather off piste here), the National Rail site claims that Stratford International is managed by Southeastern.
@SHLR – for the avoidance of doubt (but at the risk of annoying the moderators), whilst I could find the S-bahn ticket machine, at the time it required large supply of small change which I didn’t have. The airport express appeared to have no means of buying a ticket at all which rather defeated the point of the exercise – and on the way back, it was literally impossible to find the airport platforms at Wien Mitte, but admittedly they were rebuilding the joint at the time.
The change-availability point is often overlooked by operators – in the case of the Brussels airport link, the airport proposed to gate the exit from the landside arrivals part of the airport, and seemed surprised that we remarked that arrivals rarely carried a fistful of small change for the country they were about to visit. (“But we will provide change giving machines in the arrivals hall….”)
@Graham H, SHLR
Isn’t credit/debit card payment capability almost universally provided on ticket machines these days?
Filings by Heathrow Express Operating Company limited at page 4 (goo.gl/nRocRZ) note that it operates HeX and the Connect service with track access charges paid to Network Rail for use of the infrastructure between Paddington and Airport Junction (but no figures given). Suggest re discussion above about is it a TOC is that Connect is a brand of HeX as Southern, Thameslink, etc are brands of GTR.
Looking at its charges HeX operating company has 2 outstanding charges. The floating charge with Baa Funding Limited records that in 2008 BAA agreed to pay a number of ‘BAA guaranteed bonds’ with two fixed notes outstanding. One is due to expire this year (£300m) and the other in 2020 (€750m).
@LBM – there are credit cards, and then there are credit cards that have to be resident in the country of use.
@Graham H, LBM: Yes Credit Cards are, however quite a number of European countries operated national schemes (Bancontact/Mistercash in Belgium, Carte Blue in France, EC in Germany) before Schengen and budget airlines opened up the Union. It has taken some of these countries a while to catch up.
So if you have a credit card it might well be accepted (especially with a chip and a floor limit that is greater than the ticket cost), but a debit card, which is flagged as “always online to issuer” might be declined (except at French and Italian Toll Plazas).
I could write an article on this, but I don’t want to bore people to death..
@ Graham H – the only dedicated Airport links that I’ve used are the Airport Express in Hong Kong and Narita Express (NEX) in Tokyo. I only did the HK one once as dragging luggage over long interchange distances and then battling with the normal MTR is really not recommended. I use the Cityflyer bus which is virtually door to door to the hotel I usually stay in and very convenient. Tokyo is very complex with multiple services to both Narita and Haneda airports. I’ve found NEX very easy to use – especially if you get one that runs round the Yamanote loop – but it is, of course, expensive and reservation only. I am sure that with more research I could have coped on a much cheaper local / competing service but my Tokyo “learning curve” remains pretty steep.
One place that is nightmarish is Singapore (SG). There is no direct rail (MRT) link from Changi Airport – you must change from a two station MRT shuttle and board a typically packed MRT train. There are no express airport buses either and while there are theoretically shared shuttle minibuses they magically disappear if there are loads of taxis waiting. I hate the expense of taxis but having done the MRT and local bus once and looking like a wreck [1] by the time I reached my hotel I’ve not dared do it again. It looks like Changi Airport may eventually get direct MRT service to “downtown” sometime in the mid to late 2020s but the SG Govt have yet to confirm their plans.
[1] the heat and humidity is something else if you’re dressed for a UK winter!
I share your scepticism about airport shuttles but given how people from many countries in the world have limited public transport experience then “making it simple” (in theory) will have an obvious attraction to politicians and business people keen to encourage tourism and inward invest,ent.
Changi does have the benefit of being not very far from the city centre so the taxi fare is a lot more affordable than say Gatwick.
When I visited Japan I had bought the Japan Rail Pass which conveniently included travel on the Narita Express. I haven’t checked but I’ll be astounded if you can use an Interrail pass or similar on the Heathrow Express!
I would tend to agree with WW that the dedicated airport trains are convenient if you are not familiar with the city or the public transport system. I happen to like the Vienna CAT, even though it’s more expensive than the S bahn (but still cheap by HEX standards). Rome Airport dedicated train has a neat trick in that the express link is first class only while you can get standard class in the stopping service. The most egalitarian must go to Dusseldorf (airport terminal, not IC) and Dresden where the trains are just straightforward local services with no premium fares.
@Quinlet Or consider the airport of Amsterdam which in itself is a major interchange station for trains in the west of the country, so people don’t have to take a shuttle at all.
Heathrow’s location is too eccentric though to offer any meaningful through services (like the local trains at Düsseldorf) or interchange for passengers not flying, so you’ll have to deal with shuttles, for better or for worse. Whatever airport you fly into, getting into central London is expensive and given the amounts of business travelers and tourists who are actually doing just that I can’t imagine the prices going down by themselves.
In that regard it is sad that the infrastructure is privately owned. As Graham H remarked, we’d get some relief if Gatwick manages to expand, provided the infrastructure of the BML can keep up with the demand.
Vienna – The S-Bahn options seems to have upped its game, the ticket machines are very easy to find (in the arrivals on the right before the decent to the station) and take coins, notes and cards and also sell multi day travel card equivalents – you can get several days for the price of a CAT single. The CAT stock also isn’t well suited to travellers with luggage and the S-Bahn is noticably better. With the opening of new main station there are also plenty of Airport to Hauptbahnhof services that have better onward connectivity than Mitte..
Perhaps the usability of an airport service depends on a fine balance speed, price and simplicity factors. Most go to Heathrow by Tube because it’s cheap and simple, even though it’s much slower than HEX. This contrasts with my experience of JFK where the E train is is about as fast as the Piccadilly Line, but then involves a change onto the Air Train with a long-ish walk. I was surprised at just how few people use this route, even when looking down from the viaduct over bumper to bumper traffic on a busy early evening. It’s a fair bet that even with a bit of a price premium, the Crossrail service will strike a favourable balance between price and, above all, simplicity, taking a lot of people from the Piccadilly and HEX
To digress from the subject of airport connections for a moment, I came across this article on the Rail Engineer website which goes into some detail about the challenges of connecting all the signalling systems.
And back to airport links, does anything outdo the waterbus to Venice airport as a way of arriving in style for your flight?
@Herned 1229
Interrail passes are valid on Heathrow Connect but not HEx. Britrail passes are valid on both. All line rovers are valid on neither (beyond H&H)
For style, the steam railway to Ronaldsway airport ( IoM ) must come a close second.
@Graham H
amusingly, Hatch End is owned by heirs of a Victorian estate developer.
As a former Hatch Ender, I never knew that. Who had to cough up when the station caught fire (after my time)?
@Herned. You can use your JR Pass on Narita Express because it is run by JR East who are in great competition with the faster and cheaper Keisei Railway Skyliner, as well as the various bus and private railway companies that operate airport express coach services. Both JR East and Keisei operate other levels of services from Narita Airport, through to destinations south of the city, the latter using the subway system and Keikyu Railway to reach Haneda Airport. In effect, Tokyo has several Crossrail equivalents already. HEX has no comparable competition.
Back on topic…
The first cl345 test run (9 car) into Paddington station was early this morning.
Meanwhile less emphasis is being placed on ‘launch partner’ and more on ‘commercial partnership’ lasting for a year and is basically a load of advertising opportunities.
All detailed in a press release which, according to the press release page was issued on 31 Dec 2020 (screen snapshot here).
Fascinating read! I’m a Paddington resident (long enough to have checked in for flights in the station) and frequently fly from Heathrow. But I am a bit perplexed how this will all work out operationally. I’m fine with the engineering side – although aware it may take longer than predicted (no news there) I know it will get there eventually.
But I don’t quite understand what happens with the HEX after the Elizabeth Line is operational? Surely the profit is in moving Canary Wharfians to Heathrow (as proven by HEX)? So boarding a service at CW, the suits will be whisked directly to the airport, no? They are not going to have to change trains or – horrors – concourse levels – to join the HEX?
The whole thing is so poorly explained by Crossrail (despite the frequent “updates”) that I can only assume they are still “working on it”. The short-term effect will seem to be an even-busier Paddington (since no direct LHR access at first) but that will hopefully be brief. Then what? IMO, It would be nice to see the HEX gone – it’s very poor value for money, rarely meets the promised times, seems to have neglected the issue of passengers with luggage (although not as obviously as Connect) and worst of all, hogs two prime platforms at Paddington that could be used by commuters.
I was dismayed when I found out the new Heathrow link was one-way London-bound. By that I mean that despite Crossrail “extended to Reading” there was no possibility of taking a train to or from Heathrow to Reading as the access was London-bound only. Odd. I now understand a completely separate service is planned from Slough to LHR, which seems… odd again. Could the two not have been integrated? In the meantime there is a “shuffle” at Hayes possible? How inconvenient.
Finally, what is the attraction of the Reading service? It would appear to be much slower than the existing fast mainline train service – so it would be quicker by far for a Reading area commuter to take GWR to Paddington and switch to Crossrail there. Some progress? (Although truly many Wharfians reside in Maidenhead, so that’s maybe the explanation.)
@Answer=42 -I don’t know the answer to your question of 19/2 (except, of course, presumably the insurers); I never knew the ownership either until I came to sign the lease on behalf of Silverlink, which stood out like a sore thumb amongst all the rest.
@SteveP -there’s a number of threads on this site which will answer your questions in detail. On the HEX point, the Elizabeth Line will be running through services to the airport when the line opens throughout; HEX seems set to carry on until its licence expires- whether it will continue after that is uncertain at the moment;the expectation is that it will cease then and the entire Heathrow service will be provided by TfL.
A through service from Slough is impossible at the moment; I’m not sure where you may have got this misinformation from.
There have been a number of projects to provide a western connexion enabling through services to run from Reading to Heathrow;none has yet been selected definitively, let alone financed.
It is not expected that the Elizabeth Line will be profitable in the sense of covering all its opex and capex. Differential fares will not be charged for different market segments; the CW – Heathrow traffic will pay the same fares as everyone else.
@ Steve P – the situation with Crossrail and HEX is relatively straightforward until the early 2020s.
– HEX continues to run Paddington (main line) to Heathrow T5 as now. As Graham H says there are uncertainties post 2023.
– Crossrail / TfL run Paddington (main line) to T4 from May 2018 until Dec 2019.
– From Dec 2019 a full through service across Central London will run to Heathrow T4 andT5. At Paddington this will be from the low level station. No Crossrail services will ordinarily run from the High Level stn after Dec 2019 AIUI but I may be misinformed about how legacy GWML overnight services will run.
If people wish to change at Paddington to / from HEX and then use Crossrail then they do face a change of levels from Dec 2018 when the initial core section of Crossrail opens and serves Paddington. It remains to be seen whether any deal is done about through fares involving HEX.
All we know about western rail access to Heathrow is that the idea is being worked on and the government has previously said it was supportive. I suspect any possible progress is tied in with the extent to which HEX remains successful post full Crossrail service and also the development of a third runway and terminal 6 at LHR. It is worth noting that Heathrow Airport Limited have taken a strangely pessimistic view about the extent of additional transport infrastructure that is needed to support an expanded airport and meet environmental conditions. They certainly don’t seem to want to put their hands in their pockets for new or improved rail links.
@Stevep (querying the attraction of the Reading service)
You seem to have fallen into the common trap of assuming an all-stations service will be used primarily by end-to-end passengers. Just as passengers for Shenfield favour the Greater Anglia Southend services over the TFL Rail stoppers, and passengers for Basingstoke the Weymouth services, Reading passengers from London will continue to use the Intercity services. Crossrail will only be taking over the stopping services, used by passengers for Iver, Taplow, Twyford, etc. Yes, these go to Reading – some people from Twyford etc want to go there too!
@Quinlet: However a concession is required and it must be the same concession for each type of service
Which raises the question of why the cable car (surely a form of guided transport) isn’t free for Freedom Pass holders – their concession is the privilege of buying a paper ticket for the same cost as an Oyster PAYG user.
PoP
Yes, well.
The inimitable Diamond Geezer has eviscerated that
load of old tosherr … advertising puff very nicely!WW
It is worth noting that Heathrow Airport Limited have taken a strangely pessimistic view about the extent of additional transport infrastructure that is needed to support an expanded airport and meet environmental conditions. They certainly don’t seem to want to put their hands in their pockets for new or improved rail links.
Yes, well, they want us, the taxpayer to cough up, don’t they, or so it seems.
IMHO another reason for 2nd runway @ Gatwick (!)
@GH
I was obviously mistaken in my understanding that the Hatch End station freehold belonged to one of the Dawlish Estate family settlements.
Greg: Just because Heathrow Airport Limited is acting like any company with shareholders should be expected to act does not necessarily mean that “we, the taxpayer” or anyone else should automatically oppose them. Sometimes what is good for a particular company happens to be also good for the rest of society. At other times, of course, this is not the case.
By all means support a second runway at Gatwick (*), but this should be favoured only if it is good in itself, not as a way of spiting Heathrow.
(*) Though not here really, since this article is about Crossrail.
@WW, SteveP
Heathrow Airport Holdings Limited are facing resistance from their airline clients on the costs of building the third runway. One option Heathrow are exploring is not building a new terminal (whether numbered 6 or 1) and expanding the existing ones. As a passenger, this sounds like fun.
Hence, they are dragging their feed on funding any southern/western approach. I think they would like someone else to pay for it. Graham H has shown in the past that such a link cannot be funded by farebox alone.
If the third runway is not built, Heathrow would obviously be against funding the S/W link. Nevertheless, even if the number of takeoffs/landings is quasi-fixed, passenger numbers per plane are growing at the rate of about 2% per year (can’t be bothered to recalculated the exact figure). Sooner or later, such a link will be needed.
In the interests of stirring the pot, I should point out that the cost either per plane or per passenger of expanding Gatwick airport is generally agreed to be much less than that of Heathrow.
In conclusion, I don’t see a South/West link from Heathrow being built much before 2030.
[Although about airport expansion the writer made it clear that this is in relation to rail links to the airport so allowable. PoP]
Thanks @Graham H and others – I’m playing catch up having just found this site, so apologies if I go over old ground. Links appreciated
I suppose this
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/our-railway-upgrade-plan/key-projects/heathrow-rail-link/
is just a conversation starter? How unfortunate these projects cannot be joined up.
[Welcome anyway. We try to be more forgiveable with newbies. Clearly you can’t know everything that has gone on before. PoP]
Ans=XLII
I should point out that the cost either per plane or per passenger of expanding Gatwick airport is generally agreed to be much less than that of Heathrow.
Thank you – said much better than I did …
But that’s the (rail) point, isn’t it (very probably) that the costs of rail-infrastructure improvements for G’wick will be much, much lower [ Assuming that Windmill-Bridge/ E Croydon needs doing anyway ] & that extra monies will be much-less-needed for Heathrow.
Apart from any actual improvements for airline users, wich is outwith this discussion, I think.
HAHL should be very very worried by yesterday’s court win for Client Earth with DEFRA & DfT on their air pollution (non) reduction strategies…
The difference with Gatwick is that they are at least proposing funding the majority of public transport improvements unlike Heathrow.
To put the Heathrow side of the argument, the forecast increase in passengers following Heathrow expansion is much greater than for Gatwick. The total net benefits to the economy are supposedly larger. Personally, I have my doubts but here is not the place to detail them.
To bring the argument back to railways links, the capacity required for expanded Gatwick is less than for expanded Heathrow.
And to continue on the Heathrow-v-Gatwick-as-far-as-it-relates-to-railway-links …
I don’t know about today’s NR managers for the Brighton Main Line but a few years ago I was very struck by how close they liaised with Gatwick Airport over future intentions. The case was that Windmill Bridge Junction was necessary anyway but if the second runway was to be built both Network Rail and Gatwick Airport were in a very good position to exploit extra potential capacity on the Brighton Line at relatively small cost. Also much was made of the Thameslink programme with the routes as they then were showing just how many people could get to Gatwick without a change of train.
I suspect part of the problem with Heathrow is such an alliance is less easy to establish and who do you establish it with anyway?
@PoP: In that respect Gatwick wins hands down. Especially if you look at the number of destinations with one (fully accessible) change:
– Kent
– Sussex
– All of the SWR territory
– East Midlands trains
– East Coast (As far as Inverness!)
And that stretches out even further once Cross Rail opens….
Southern Heights (Light Railway),
Lille, Paris, Brussels, Avignon, Amsterdam.
You missed Bourg Saint Maurice, I think that’s where the Snowtrain goes to…
However I should have put some caveats with my last comment! The following are excluded:
– Isle of Wight
– Sheerness
– Marshlink
– Bromley North
@SH(LR)
From Bromley North station, bus 119 takes you to East Croydon station…
@SH(LR)
Actually, Marshlink is not excluded as it is possible to catch a direct train from Gatwick to Hastings.
[quote]
The following are excluded:
– Isle of Wight
– Sheerness
– Marshlink
– Bromley North
[/quote]
There are many things such a quote could be about!
@Moosealot: I didn’t have buses in mind… @Anon.E.Mouse: Well I never! I always thought that Eastbourne to Hastings was indirect via Brighton only…
@Shlr
Even if there were no direct trains from Hastings to Gatwick, there are direct trains from Ashford and Rye to Brighton.
The original list also omitted
Anywhere on Great Western or Cross Country’s territory with a direct service to Reading.
It’s probably quicker to list places not within one change of Gatwick
The SWR list should also exclude Lymington, and the Bagshot -Frimley route, although in the latter case most stations are within shouting distance of a Blackwater Valley line station with a direct Gatwick service.
We can also add anywhere on the SSL, Jubilee, Picadilly or Victoria lines, and all but three stations on the Northern Line.
and orbital Overground
@Timbeau
Bagshot-Frimley can reach Gatwick with a single change (at Guildford) although this will cease to be in December when the Ascot-Guildford service is split into separate Ascot-Aldershot and Guildford-Farnham services.
If I declare Mornington Crescent, would it be possible to get back to completing Crossrail (spell check wanted Crosstalk!)
[Let’s do that anyway. Digression over. PoP]
Hang about, the original SH(LR) brief was a single ‘fully accessible’ change, which has to mean in both directions.
@ 100andthirty: Diagonals are not allowed.
Heathrow Airport 3rd runway public consultation to 28/03:
https://www.heathrowconsultation.com/
Part 1 / Expansion consultation, section 4.3 of the consultation booklet, deals with surface access.
Ans=42
Article ( paywalled, but may be accessible) via Ian Visits about public transport access, proportions of traffic & potential disputes regarding Heathrow in New Civil Engineer
After reading all the arguements about airport access for Crossrail and its rivals, I turned on French TV to watch the evening news. It included a piece about why using public transport to Lyon airport is so expensive. The situation is worse than Heathrow as it’s a monopoly. The company running the express tram to the airport has exclusive local public transport rights. You can’t even run a bus into the city from there…
https://www.francetvinfo.fr/economie/transports/video-rhonexpress-la-navette-trop-chere_2623650.html
I note with interest that the latest TfL Finance Report (Period 10) shows Crossrail capital expenditure £190m over budget for the current financial year. It also now clearly acknowledges that there are delays / problems at Woolwich, Whitechapel, Farringdon and Bond Street. There is confirmation that there have been design changes and more staff have been retained than expected – this tallies with what Terry Morgan told the TfL Board. It also says that the project should complete within its overall budget which I assume includes contingency, some of which has been released to cover the current year overspend.
@Walthamstow Writer
Do you have a link to said report? I’m struggling to find it
@ Ronnie268
https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/fc-20180305-part-1-item05-finance-report.pdf
The longer answer is
Go to – TfL.gov.uk
then page down to bottom of home page and select “publications and reports”
then select “Committee and Panel Meetings” from the Category drop down menu
then select “Finance Committee” and the appropriate date.
All the other regular TfL meeting papers are accessible from the above sequence but select a different meeting and relevant date.
It seems they have finally managed to plug it in!
Official press release here.
Must be a considerable relief to the Press Office as they have recently be rather desperately trying to make out all the important news is about the
CrossrailElizabeth line roundel and art installations – most notably in their delayed Quarterly Update (YouTube).Would it be worth getting a professional presenter? I dozed off.
RogerB,
Usually he isn’t that bad and he does speak clearly and (normally) with enthusiasm. It is probably better to have the Chief Executive do this than someone who is a professional presenter. I think the problem was, try as he could to hide it, his heart wasn’t in it as he was reduced to talking (yet again) about artwork (it has been fully covered before) and those roundels. The emphasis on the latter, a really minor part of the work, just gives the impression of misdirection. I mean if the project is less than 12 months away from running trains under central London you would expect the subject matter to be something a bit more interesting.
And on the same day (today) with very little fanfare, the first trains through the OTHER cross London link operated. (Only three each way a day, but it seemed to go without a hitch)
(Direct trains from London Bridge to Finsbury Park, through one re-opened link and one brand new one)
Given Thameslink/Southern/GN’s recent woes, not least at Redhill yesterday, a low-key launch was probably not a bad idea.
@WW: It also now clearly acknowledges that there are delays / problems at Woolwich, Whitechapel, Farringdon and Bond Street.
To be picky, it acknowledges that there were delays at Whitechapel and Farringdon, leading works to be “completed later than budgeted” – the significance being that money was spent at a different time than expected hence the budget variance (not necessarily an overspend as there may be an equivalent ‘underspend’ in the earlier period when works had been expected to happen) – on a multiyear project, ‘year to date against budget’ reporting isn’t as useful a metric as something like expected vs actual cost at each milestone would be.
Dont know if its relevant but seems every train on TfL rail today were Class 315 (unless anyone actually saw otherwise?) Are TfL afraid of pushing their 345’s to the limit?
Had a dig around – 345’s not running due to frozen windscreen wash!
ROG
A quick redesign/refit required?
Exactly a redesign/refit is needed. But they had put these through extreme weather testing down to -20c http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/HS2/crossrail-trains-undergo-intense-weather-testing-in-austria/159954
It beggars belief that they should fail such a simple hurdle – the Beast from the East and Storm Emma!
Putting the correct screen wash in the reservoir and having heated nozzles is the usual ‘gold’ standard for cars.
If frozen windscreen wash is indeed the reason, then this is most likely due to improper selection of fluid, not a design issue with the trains. In Scandinavia, and most likely elsewhere, the fluids contain ethanol, isopropanol or glycol to bring the freezing point safely outside the climatic parameters.
I do wonder if someone went with the green option without fully considering the implications?
Re Viking in Danelaw,
Agreed – I’ve got a nice bottle of ethanol / glycol mix under the desk which is good to -30C which is going to get used diluted later.
In cars what people forget is that the much of the time the fluid is kept nicely warm in the engine bay which isn’t the case on trains. This is important because at speed there is significant kinetic undercooling of liquids “in flight” leading to constitutional super cooling* *which needs pre-heating to avoid. [As party trick you can actually get molten lead at room temperature if you have very clean air so there aren’t any bits of crud in it to act as nucleation sites for solidification to start occuring, There is a circa 10,000 fold energy difference between hetrogeneous and homogeneous nucleation which is which the former virtually always occurs i.e. snow flakes form on PM<2.5s]
*also see freeze distillation.
It is also perfectly possible that no-one looked at the phase diagram for the concoction they fill them up with, diluting with a moderate amount of water could be a lot worse than just a little or a lot of water.
For the benefit of us mere mortals, I have looked up various terms and hope the following is a simple English version of what ngh is saying.
In your car the windscreen wash tends to be near the engine so that it is warm. Consequently it is in a liquid state and will tend to remain in a liquid state when squirted.
In a train the windscreen wash tends to be cold and so develop solid particles within it (which may be very small). This means that when squirted you risk squirting out a mix of liquid and solid matter. When a substance reaches its notional freezing point it tends to need an impurity in it to trigger off the freezing (otherwise what will happen is something known as supercooling where you expect the liquid to freeze but it doesn’t). It is the solidified matter that tends to trigger off this freezing once the spray leaves the noozle – or a snowflake. Hence 100andthirty’s comment about heated nozzles. If the windscreen wash comes out as a pure liquid, slightly warmed, you are likely to get away with it not freezing as there is nothing to trigger the solidification process.
Just to add my own comment that water is actually very strange liquid. For example, its alleged chemical formula, H₂O, would suggest it would be a gas at room temperature. It would not surprise me if diluting with a moderate amount of water could be a lot worse than just a little or a lot of water.
Re PoP,
except screenwash is a chemically a “mixture” rather than a “pure” liquid which makes things more complicated…
NGH also mentioned the “wind chill” or kinetic cooling factor of being in a slipstream, at speeds rarely achieved in a motor car even in good weather.
Adding to all this, class 345 are not the fastest or most streamlined trains used on the network, pretty much all of which have screenwashers. Surely there is a body of standard good practice?
That said, all rolling stock projects I’ve worked on have suffered with something reasonably standard that we thought “couldn’t possibly go wrong”. Even worse was what became a standard curse….”well done, that system is performing really well”…………………………
And just to show you how weird and complicated this can get there is also the Mpemba effect if the water is boiling hot. Lots of good videos on YouTube of boiling water or coffee instantly freezing when thrown in the air e.g. this one.
Yes, water is really weird stuff, and all that. If it wasn’t, then life might not have happened. But maybe it’s time to gently reel in such whys and wherefores, and return to Crossrail. (If we really must know why the screenwashers failed, then perhaps we should eschew anecdotes and speculation, and see if someone actually knows).
By chance, I’m in Austria this week, using a rented Volvo. It was -12 on Tuesday – and the car had been parked in an unheated garage. The screen washers (front and rear) worked perfectly at speeds over 100kph. The swedes know how to deal with cold!
Besides the 345’s windscreen wash failures, Canary Wharf Crossrail station now making the news – its almost completed: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/first-glimpse-inside-nearly-finished-biggest-and-best-elizabeth-line-station-at-canary-wharf-a3778321.html
Rog 1 March 2018 at 22:36
I was on one of the trips on Wednesday lunchtime. Still lots of fitting jobs to complete.
@ Rog – I was at Canary Wharf on Wednesday. Not sure I’d go with the “nearly complete” tag. It has moved on from my visit in 2017 but there is a lot to do. The ceilings look terribly incomplete and no one could tell me what the end design finish is supposed to be like. At platform level a fair bit is still left to do in terms of the platform edge doors being fully tested and then finished off but that’s reliant on trains and signalling. I was also struck by how awkward the platform / train CCTV cameras look all perched on arms at 90 degrees to the PEDs. Perhaps it’ll look neater upon opening but it’s looks a mess now.
Station systems like CCTV, public address, help points, fire systems, some seating and ticket gates were all visible. No wayfinding signage yet. Took a fair bit of quizzing to determine where the ticket machines will go. We could actually walk on the final floor finishes this time. Architecturally Canary Wharf is pretty boring really – lots of black, grey and silver with a splash of yellow for the lifts and escalators. Given the basic box design is similar to Canary Wharf JLE you can see how immensely boring the Crossrail station is in comparison to the vault that is the Jubilee Line station. The other missing element is the absence of advertising displays – I assume these will arrive once the successful “sponsor” has been selected.
In conversation with one of the staff members I was struck that they were adamant the line opens on 9 December 2018. Now I know that’s the “official” date for the timetable change (and is no doubt the project target date) but no one has officially confirmed the 9th as the day – in fact recent media events have been deliberately vague about the exact start date.
My photos of the station are on the London Reconnections flickr collection if people are interested.
@AG @WW Interesting thanks. Clearly it means in real terms CW Crossrail still isn’t complete – they’re just throwing out distraction memes to keep others off the scent 🙂
@Rog: I wouldn’t be so sure! In the weeks upto Christmas, London Bridge station looked like it was nowhere near being ready for use.
Having had the builders in recently, I had the same experience at home….
Noting of course, that, on opening after Christmas, London Bridge was very usable but far from “finished”.
@ SHLR – There is no doubt that things have moved on at Canary Wharf but they have been at it for a very long time on that site. It may sound trivial but I really did expect the ceilings to be finished at ticket hall level given the electrical infrastructure is clearly all installed as are many of the station system which hang at ceiling height. I agree it may not take long for skilled installers to finish it off but don’t advertise the place as “finished” when it demonstrably isn’t. The other bit we didn’t see is the station control room and actually getting all the systems linked together and working properly is no mean feat and that’s before the operators get their hands on and say “oh could you just make it do that” “we’d really like a camera here” “could you just tweak that” etc etc. It’s the difference between planning on paper and having something that works in the as built / furnished environment. They also need to get “sign off” / complete assurance processes for various regulators too.
I know I am being picky but it might have been better to hold off til May or June when I would expect the place to genuinely finished for handover for operational staff training.
No link to London Reconnections flickr collection on tablet site.
@ Taz
https://www.flickr.com/groups/londonreconnections/
@WW that’s possibly why the ceilings aren’t in yet: they want to be sure there aren’t any changes needed to cabling or lighting or signage that will be easier to wire in before the ceiling goes up.
@WW: London Bridge isn’t completely finished either, there are still lots of bits being worked on, even though it’s open, I think the actual completion date is closer to the end of May.
Heck, it took TFL two months just to re-open Duke Street Hill and Tooley Street eastbound!
On Woolwich, you claim that it ‘ is that it is not a critical interchange’
How so?
The lazy assumption that a place with a DLR and network rail station simply falls into the ‘not critical’ category is somewhat naive.
Capacity exceeds, and continues to exceed the amount of transport offered to commuters, the Elizabeth starting at Woolwich as planned in Dec 2018 is of enormous significance, take it from a daily commuter.
@ Johhno”
“The lazy assumption that a place with a DLR and network rail station simply falls into the ‘not critical’ category is somewhat naive.”
The assumption that because two or more lines serve the same locality it is a useful interchange is also a bit simplistic! Abbey Wood will be an easier interchange with South Eastern. As for the DLR, how many people are going to double back at Woolwich (crossing under the river twice)? Interchange to Crossrail will also be available from the DLR at Custom House, Stratford and (sort of) at Canary Wharf. (Or, for Woolwich branch passengers, the walk from West Silvertown to Custom House is not much longer than that between the Woolwich stations)
For DLR passengers wanting Abbey Wood and points east, the interchange with NR at Woolwich Arsenal will still be more convenient.
I’d imagine Woolwich-Woolwich Arsenal would be a valid Out of Station Interchange. Most line diagrams show it as such, including the awkward ‘three sections’ line diagram that is the most recent.
I agree that it is a bit pointless as an interchange between rail-based modes at the moment – especially if there is also the potential ‘outerchange’ between the Canary Wharf Crossrail station and the DLR at Poplar, allowing a non-double-back/long-way-round change from the Woolwich DLR branch to the Elizabeth line at Whitechapel and west. The OSI only will be of use if the proposals to extend the Liz east of Abbey Wood come into fruition.
However Woolwich is an important interchange from buses – and while TfL revenue won’t be hit if the station opens late as those passengers are currently using the DLR, those using the service would obviously prefer to have longer trains going beyond Bank than the status quo!
Johnno,
You also forget that with Abbey Wood open as an interchange many passengers from Kent will choose to change there rather than via Woolwich Arsenal on the DLR. There is also expected to be backflow from Plumstead, for example, to Abbey Wood to continue the journey to central London via the Elizabeth line.
Prob not relevant – however I spotted a purple liveried Elizabeth Line train (my first sighting!) complete with Elizabeth Line roundels along its sides (its a sort of two tone purple livery) on test on the GWR main line into Paddington this pm. I was on a Hammersmith train so couldnt take pictures.
The dot matrix indicators on the sides said “Shenfield via Stratford.” (no such route will exist – not via Paddington main line station anyway!)
I know these trains have done a couple of stints into Paddington at night, however having checked on social media, since there are no reports of any other sightings, today could be the commencement of daytime testing. Unless anyone knows better?
The recent video showing the test train from Abbey Wood or the pictures at night of the one on test at Paddington don’t do justice to the quite nice livery.
@ Rog – testing on the Great Western Mail Line (GWML) started on Monday this week. The train was noted on another forum. There are a number of test paths between Old Oak Common and Maidenhead – they show up on Realtimetrains.
From Dec 2019 there will be trains to Shenfield via Stratford from the GWML so the display is accurate but about 21 months early!
Crossrail have also confirmed that tracks and signals are now all linked up for all portals on the route – Pudding Mill Lane (Stratford), Royal Oak and Plumstead. If I’ve read the release properly there is still a bit of electrical wiring work needed at the Stratford end but nonetheless a significant milestone has been achieved – a new joined up cross London main line railway route.
@WW Thanks. Is there a link to the other forum?
@WW sorry meant to add, this one was going to Paddington. I wouldn’t have seen it otherwise (as I was on a Hammersmith & City train heading out of Paddington.)
@WW The other thing is the train was running into Paddington. There’s no such destination (as I described eg Shenfield via Stratford) by way of running into the main line station to do that it would have to go down into the Crossrail tunnels and thence Paddington (Lizzy Line station.)
Please moderators… can someone merge these three comments, I dont want to be accused of a mass screen estate grab thanks!
[No. Three short comments is fine. In fact we prefer this if they are unrelated. Makes it easier to specifically reference later if necessary. Also, if we don’t like a comment for any one reason you don’t risk losing the lot if we get enthusiastic with the delete button. Mind you, I don’t always practice what I preach. There is plenty of give and take. PoP]
@ ROG The use of arbitrary destinations on test is something that I have come across before. When Tramlink was being tested, and drivers being trained, before its opening the trams used a variety of displays on their (then) linen blinds. A common one was for route 4 to Sutton and, if memory serves, a 7 with references to Uxbridge Road.
ROG 22:44
Probably District Dave.
http://www.districtdavesforum.co.uk/thread/27551/class-345-testing-introduction
People shouldn’t be afraid to link to it. We don’t see ourselves as rivals but more offering a complementary service – and less ‘instant newsy’ than District Dave.
There is also a discussion there on Detrainment at Lewisham
http://www.districtdavesforum.co.uk/thread/29328/passengers-leave-nr-train-lewisham
@ Rog – the forum was railforums.co.uk
The daytime test trains are not, AFAIK, running into Paddington. They’re turning at Old Oak Common.
I don’t see the issue with a “wrong” destination display. The train is under test and no one is going to catch it. You could view “Shenfield via Stratford” as a bit of a teaser type advert for the future service pattern. It would be equally erroneous to show Paddington as a destination given trains are not running there either atm.
“Shenfield via Stratford” is what the TfL Rail trains say when they are docked at Liverpool Street, which is probably the closest programmed GPS location….
Briantist 7 March 2018 at 19:55
“Shenfield via Stratford” is what
passengers at all stations west of Whitechapel will want to see, unless they are looking for
“Abbey Wood via Canary Wharf”.
That is what I’m expecting to see when the central section opens in May 2019.
@ALAN GRIFFITHS
“Shenfield via Stratford” is what the trains say now and will continue to say when they depart from Liverpool Street High Level during the peak hours service. They won’t be calling at Whitechapel. The line is going to be called the Elizabeth Line on all services that are currently called TfL Rail from 8th December 2018 no matter if they run though the central section or not.
My guess is that from the lower levels the trains will say “Shenfield via Whitechapel” when it opens but otherwise just the destinations.
It’s only actually at Liverpool Street High Level that you won’t be able to get to Whitechapel on an Elizabeth Line train. Perhaps it should say “fast to Stratford” or something?
Briantist,
I doubt if anyone at Liverpool St High Level will have any expectation of being able to catch at train to Whitechapel.
I suspect it is ‘via Stratford’ just because they want to keep it consistent and have a ‘via’ and Stratford is the best place to choose.
I also suspect ‘via’ is not really being used for its true purpose. It is really used to highlight a busy intermediate station the train goes to.
So ‘Abbey Wood via Canary Wharf’ at Heathrow is really getting the message across to first time users unfamiliar with the network that the train goes to Canary Wharf. Just as ‘Woolwich Arsenal via City Airport’ achieves much the same objective.
The over-use of “via” can be a nuisance. On many train departure displays it takes up an extra line, thereby reducing the number of trains that can be shown. On SWR “Guildford via Epsom” is useful additional information (as there are three routes to Guildford). “Woking via Weybridge” is not – at least not once you are past Clapham Junction.
@ Timbeau. The use of an additional via line can potentially cause confusion. When waiting at Finsbury Park for the first Peterborough to Horsham train last week I was slightly thrown as the ultimate destination line of the platform display was alternating, with equal time value, between ‘Horsham via’ and ‘London St Pancras’, with the “calling at” display beginning with ‘London St Pancras’
Perhaps, given that the train was diverted from its previous destination, some reference to NOT going to Kings Cross may have been more appropriate.
via St Pancras is actually useful, as it identifies to the uninitiated that it is a London train despite the relatively obscure ultimate destination.
Timbeau: agreed, provided that any “via St Pancras” (or Epsom, or Weybridge, or Stratford, etc) wording disappears once the train has past that point, when it becomes 100% incorrect.
Indeed, but I was talking about displays on the platform, rather than on the train.
Agree that the in-car destination displays on South Eastern, which don’t update as the train progresses along the route, are very confusing. Joining an “up” service at London Bridge and being treated to a list of all the stations the trains has already been to……….
The latest nonsense I have come across is SWR’s habit of displaying “this train will now end its journey at Waterloo” when in fact it was always going to go to Waterloo and what has actually changed is the stopping pattern.
@Timbeau
That nonsense about ending “early” at Waterloo is not a new phenomenon. It’s been happening with platform displays and automated station announcements for a long time now (which is what I assume you meant).
Briantist 8 March 2018 at 10:51
” My guess is that from the lower levels the trains will say “Shenfield via Whitechapel” when it opens but otherwise just the destinations. ”
My insight, which I hope is not unique, is that they are naming the next stop after Whitechapel. On both branches, busy destinations which will continue to attract passengers unfamiliar with the line.
I have been bemused by the discussion about ‘via’. Surely trains from Liverpool St. lower level to Shenfield don’t have a choice which way they will go, hence don’t need ‘via’. Equally, trains from Shenfield will have only two choices, to Liverpool St high level, or to one of the western destinations, but Liverpool St low level isn’t going to be a destination (except degraded operations?) What I don’t think we know is whether TfL will adopt London Liverpool Street High Level as an officially displayed destination. So I don’t think via is needed at all.
130
LU frequently use “via” on those tubes where there isn’t a branching option …..
( As well as telling you which “Line” you are on, at stations where it’s the only tube line! )
@ 100&30 – We will found out the reality in May 2019 but I would not be shocked to see trains showing “via” once the service in the core section has a choice of eastern destinations. Reaffirming to people that their train runs via Stratford or via Canary Wharf (both large scale destinations and development hubs) is probably no bad thing alongside whatever the other elements of service information provision are. Giving reassurance to the very large commuter flows on the Shenfield route who will experience a “learning curve” on their services seems sensible to me. Commuters to Canary Wharf and Abbey Wood are likely to be “new” for the initial tunnel operation or people who’ve diverted from DLR and Jubilee Line and made a conscious decision to do this. They will need re-educating come May 2019 as only half the trains, rather than all, will go their way.
It’s a wee bit harder to think of a distinguishing “via” station in the west other than to, perhaps, say “via Slough” for Reading trains whereas trains for Heathrow will be rather clear!
@WW
Of course, if Heathrow Western access happens in the fullness of time, Heathrow will become a ‘vai’ point! West Drayton being the other option, though Langley or Iver would be a better fit for DMIs.
@BEN – I’m sure that WRAtH, HRL (or whatever it’s called these days), who operates services over it and the eventual service pattern will become the next act in the long-running HAL/TfL/NR/ORR/DfT dance. Although pretty unimpressed with HAL’s behaviour over their attitude to track access charging for the current LHR spur I do recognise that there’s a bit of a dilemma here. NR (and DfT?), probably fairly, see this as an absolute textbook example of where 3rd party funding should form at least part of the package, with HAL as the obvious contributor. For their part HAL, after their defeat in court to ORR over historic investment costs will want some type of guarantee over cost recovery / profit especially as, under the pressure from airlines to cap the landing & pax boarding charge impact of a 3rd runway, HAL must look to build their other sources of revenue.
Introducing pax drop-off charging under a smokescreen (cough..) of environmental concern helps a bit, but not if public transport access becomes too convenient and cheap – so a low-cost, convenient, fast western rail access operated as part of the Elizabeth line as a through service is not neccessarily in HAL’s interest, and unless they can pocket a significant premium fare surcharge I don’t see them agreeing to fund much if any of WRAtH (and, like the original Airtrack proposals to Staines, might even try to prevent it happening).
For Airtrack, BAA were very much the sponsors – what they did originally object to was the notion that anyone other than they would operate services over the Airtrack link into T5.
The only way I can forsee WRAtH actually getting built is if funding it becomes a condition of final approval for 3rd runway – and even then I wouldn’t count on a decent service attractive to anyone not able to charge their fare to expenses…
Worryingly lack of new detail in this month’s Crossrail board report. Looks like some further bad news is being suppressed.
On another note, the lack of a “jump to the bottom of the page” link makes reading articles with many comments such as this a very frustrating experience on mobile.
James 05:15,
Actually I am a bit reassured. The Crossrail report to the Board or Programmes and Investment Committee is normally about this length. It is disappointing there isn’t a further update on the signalling in the tunnels or even the acknowledgement that class 345 trains won’t be running in the Heathrow tunnels in May (but everyone knows that).
Also, there does not appear to be a ‘part 2’ (discussion in private) which is reassuring. Sometimes this is used as an excuse to discuss it all in private (even though they are not supposed to).
It feels like they have been reporting Crossrail as 90% complete for over a year!
It would be interesting to go through previous board papers and plot a time series of X against time, where is the official percentage of how complete Crossrail is. I suspect you’d see a significant flatlining of the graph in the last 12 months!
James,
Yes, it does seem that way. I think part of it is because Andrew Wolstenholme talked up the figure as ‘nudging 90%’ when others were reporting 87%.
Another factor is that some of the predetermined figure is based on milestones so if critical bits don’t happen you don’t get the percentage point even though a lot of work is done.
Also you need to take into account that 100% complete, I am told, is the figure for the December 2019 end of project. So it will only get to 97% complete if all goes well in December 2018.
I did hear a figure of 91% complete and the Quarterly Update refers to “over 90% complete”.
@James
Maybe the calculation’s being done by the Windows installer team where 99% done means “probably more than 5% but maybe not.” They need to add the estimated time-to-completion feature as well: Crossrail will be complete in 2 years… 10.7 millennia… 41 minutes and 18 seconds…
@Moosealot, PoP: The completion percentage depends on which percentage you are reporting!
If you are measuring elapsed time, then it should move as a constant. If you measure it in terms of tonnages of materials used then you would have rapid progress at certain times but almost none at others….
You can even say that Crossrail is zero % complete, if all you are measuring it by is if it’s fully up and running… 🙁
So without knowing what the % complete is based on it’s not really a very useful figure to determine if construction is actually on track….
Southern Heights (Light Railway)
I am told it is based on an industry standard for construction measurement. The mysterious ‘Spon’, which seems to inveigle its way into all construction calculations is at the heart of it.
@SHLR – indeed. I used to do some work for various oil majors which comprised writing a review of the operation of some of their rail-served terminals. The work in detail comprised analysis and what iffery and a bit of cerebration, followed by writing a report (which usually took only a few days); The whole process took about six weeks, but the client could never understand that there was nothing for them to see until suddenly the project output went from 0 to 100% complete overnight. There’s project management, and then there’s project management.
@ James – I suspect there was no additional “bad news” on Crossrail by the time the report was prepared and signed off for publication. Whatever news there is in pretty much in the public domain anyway – we know class 345s are being tested on the GWML. There is plenty of forum chatter about problems with the 345s in service on the Shenfield line but I’ve not seen any resolution of those issues yet. The next progress reports will emerge in May when there is a Programmes and Investment Cttee.
I would expect more to be said then because we should be close to the start of services out of Paddington to Heathrow plus a range of other issues should be complete or in progress and some stations should be on the verge of handover to the operators for operational training. I would also expect Board Members on the panel and at the subsequent Board meeting to be asking a lot of pertinent questions given only 7 months will remain until opening of the core service.
@ JAMES 13 March 2018 at 08:10
On another note, the lack of a “jump to the bottom of the page” link makes reading articles with many comments such as this a very frustrating experience on mobile.
Agreed, but my workaround is to search for word “Mail”, click up arrow to get last occurrence, and you are beneath last comment.
Don’t you mobile users have the “Recent Active Articles” column on the right-hand side on the main page or indeed on this page at the top? From there, one simply clicks on the link to the latest comment made out of a selection of the five articles listed.
So, in the present case, there’s this appearing before I send this:
Taz on Crossrail: Cutting it Fine (23:15, 13 March 2018)
(actual links probably not copied and pasted over here but just hover over or ‘click on’ the latter part, which then becomes highlighted) or use a computer like I do…. I’m sure somebody else can amplify and/or correct what I’ve just said – I don’t use a mobile to view LR….
@graham. That usually works, sometimes it takes you to start of article instead of end of comments. Can’t discern the pattern of why this occurs. A mild irritation in the bigger scheme.
IslandDweller. I think you are taken to the start of an article if the comment is still being moderated.
[Correct. Since there is no comment that can be linked to. Annoying but, realistically, we will have to live with that. PoP]
@IslandDweller
You might notice a pattern with who’s comments that occurs with. I think some individuals are automatically moderated for content before being released into the wild. In these cases, clicking on said comment pre-moderation takes you to the start of the article.
Ian Visits has just posted that the track & knitting are finally all connected at all the portals & entry/exit points, which should expedite matters.
Could I just add that some people’s comments are being flagged as for moderation for totally innocent reasons. Basically they are just unlucky and get flagged for something that isn’t actually a problem. We try and approve these as quickly as possible. So don’t read too much into this.
Greg Tingey,
In fact, it happened about a week ago. Official confirmation here and here.
BBC Tom Edwards has tweeted that fares to Heathrow using Crossrail are now announced. (I’m not clever enough to link to his tweet). Confirms Crossrail will be more expensive than piccadilly line, but oyster fare will be lower than current prices. Hopefully someone better with links can publish the full fare list shortly
I.D.
Try The Standard here
And
City AM here
IMNSHO, it’s still a rip-off, but nowhere nearly as bad as at present ….
Crossrail fares to Heathrow appear to be only a few pence lower than the current Heathrow Connect fares.
Fares are shown in this image:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYZNI3yU8AcZ1rN.jpg:large
Looks like there are savings to be made for those of us on the east side of London by touching in and out at Ealing Broadway. The through off peak fare from Heathrow to Canary Wharf will be £10.10. But if I do the journey as Heathrow to Ealing Broadway then Ealing Broadway to the Wharf it becomes £6 + £2.80. That eats into any time saving of course, but interesting to see this ‘fare split’ opportunity.
Of course, there are similar anomalies using oyster to Gatwick – for my journey I can make significant savings if I touch in and out again at East Croydon.
Daily Cap including Heathrow CR is £12.50 (very good news given the other fares) which is good for staff or those travelling from within the Oyster area as their other travel is virtually free (i.e. 40p during the peak).
Z1-Heathrow (Peak) £12.10 (+£7 more than tube)
Z1-Heathrow (Off-Peak) £6.00
GW stations in the TfL area will see fares 10p to 70p lower than current peak fares and 20p to £2 lower off peak
PS looks like a good early morning arrivals revenue grab from HEx…
Surely there’s a misprint in the Twitter image, which shows a PAYG off-peak CR LHR-PAD fare of £10.10 but an off-peak CR LHR-“TfL Zone 1” fare of £6.00 – Surely PAD is a TfL Zone 1 station??
Also – no explicit mention of TfL 60+ Oyster / Freedom Pass / Railcard/Oyster discounts. Any info on whether they will still apply to LHR CR services??
B&T,
Short for for ‘Paddington then onward journey by tube to any other Zone 1 station’
I’m not sure where the error crept in but the £6 figure is wrong.
tfl confirm it should be £10.10
The Fares press release is the first official confirmation that TfL Rail will not be running Class 345s to Heathrow from May
Exceptionally, I have cut and pasted a useful comment originally by Greg Tingey which quotes original documents when referring to free passes to the post on Crossrail fares. So that we maintain some sense of order further comments on fares in this thread will be deleted.
It seems there may have been an outbreak of common sense between DfT, HAL, GWR, NR and HS2.
1. Operation of the HEx services will transfer to the Great Western Franchise operators in August 2018 for an initial 10 years. HAL will continue with marketing, ticket pricing and revenue, GWR and successors will do everything else.
2. The existing HEx stock will go by the end of 2019, with HEx services then operated by modified GWR 387 (12 units) and maintained at Reading depot.
3. HEx’s Old Oak Common depot will close when the 332s go off lease at the end of 2019 to allow HS2 station construction at Old Oak Common, the proposed new HEx depot at Langley will not be now be built as the replacement units will be maintained in Reading.
4. HEx will introduce Oyster
5. GWR will lease an additional 19x 769 Tri-mode EMUs converted from 319s by Brush mainly for use on GW Stopping services including Windsor, Henley, Oxford, Basingstoke and the North Downs Line (Reading – Gatwick). Only Greenford and Marlow will remain 2car DMU operated.
6. DfT is progressing both Heathrow Western and Southern Access.
7. TfL and NR looking at getting 4tph Crossrail to T5 by the mid 2020 (so 12 tph Heathrow T2-3 to Paddington) presumably aligning with Crossrail OOC station opening with 24tph Crossrail (e.g. all turn back would be at OOC)
8. DfT aim to give GWR a 2 year direct Award extension from April 2020 to 2022.
Some detail covered in First Press Release here: http://www.firstgroupplc.com/news-and-media/latest-news/2018/28-03-18a.aspx with additional details from those involved.
Also possibly highly significant …
Heathrow Express existing Class 332 top speed 100 mph
Class 387 top speed 110 mph
Also Class 769 is presumably four cars long which means quite a lot of platform work on Reading – Gatwick unless they introduce SDO. Having longer trains rather than more trains overcomes a lot of problems but introduces others. It also makes the possibility of going to Oxford more feasible/logical – assuming there are the train paths between Didcot and Oxford which can be surprisingly busy with freight.
Some good news from ngh there. Common sense indeed.
I am led to wonder whether and how the price differential between HeX and other services will be maintained, will it finish up with some of the uncertainties which have already been seen on Gatwick Express?
Re PoP,
100 vs 110mph. In the short term apparently not, but useful in the longer term
Re PoP,
Reading – Gatwick platform lengths, only 3 short platforms and about as simple as you could wish for to sort:
Ash P2 only – Can be sorted by bringing a currently Out Of Use section up to scratch (no signal issues) only 5..5m extra needed to tick all boxes. Quick cheap and easy
Sandhurst (both platforms) an extra 6.5m is need to tick all boxes, the station is on an embankment but both platforms can be extended easily at the “rear” end of the platforms to avoid any signalling changes.
Good news indeed! Is there any clarity on what “DfT progressing Western and Southern Access” means in practice? Is this more than inviting proposals for funding and construction, and does it imply that Network Rail, who have been making all of the recent running on WRAtH, are being shunted aside?
Guess the people at Heathrow Southern Railway – https://heathrowrail.com/ – are now in overdrive.
The Langley depot always seemed like a crazy idea, with potential conflicts with WRAtH. Still think there are better uses for the HEx paths, but lets see how popular the service is once Elizabeth Line is fully up and running….
What is the world coming to – thirty year old trains transferred to the Thames valley, whilst those pampered Northerners get new ones? Will these “tri-mode” units be diesel or battery?
Intriguing use of 769s to bridge the electric deserts on the old Southern – I particularly like the idea that all three modes might be used on the Reading-Basingstoke route – AC to Reading West, then lower the “pan” for the switch to diesel through Mortimer and Bramley, and then shut down the engine again to make the final approach to Basingstoke on dc.
As for coach length, many of the Mark 3 emus (Classes 317-322, 455) are fairly easy to convert from 4 car to 3 car as the intermediate trailer has no traction or auxiliary equipment. Indeed classes 318 and 320 were built as 3-car and several 321s have been converted to 320s. (I have also seen a 455 running as a 3-car). However, the 319s may be different, as their more complex traction arrangements may require equipment under the trailer. (And even if not, that may be where the generator sets will go on the 769s?
In the distant past (early 1970s) I have seen 6-car 1st generation dmus on the Windsor branch and 4-car on the Henley line, (both on through Paddington services), but can those branches still take 4 car sets?
The 332s currently working HEx. What will happen to them? At 20 years old they are far from life-expired.
Re B&T
WRLtH (formerly known as WRATH pre NR):
TWAO imminent and not having the Langley depot (HS2 Hybrid act) will help smooth thing over with the local council who get some well located development land.
Given the timetable DfT have set for southern access no one else could realistically come up with a suitably polished proposal. Note Chris Garnett of the imfamous IoW report is a Non Executive Director of Heathrow Southern Rail Ltd.
Re Timbeau,
769s – The space under the driving cars will go over to the diesel engine / alternator rafts with existing equipment moved to under the non motor intermediate car, (no space under the motor / pantograph/ transformer intermediate car). So they will be stay 4 car units.
Henley Branch can take 6 car (2x 3car Network turbo) on the odd peak and all day during regatta week in current times.
As an aside some of the ex GN 321s that have been on short term lease with Greater Anglia are going to Scotland post 4 car to 3 car conversion due to the Hitachi (385 double vision windscreen) issues. The spare “4th” cars are being canabalised and stripped pre scrap auction.
@ Ngh – I do get a real sense that some complex but sensible joint working has gone on to try to rationalise the operation of GWR, facilitate Crossrail operations and also to “assist” Heathrow. I wasn’t aware of the Cl769 proposal until I saw your post – that’s interesting but suprising. I do wonder quite what the “big picture” is re Heathrow given we are only being given little parts of the picture every few months. Still it’s good to see something sensible happening that appears to have more “upside” than “downside” for the various parties and passengers.
Re WW,
I’m sure I’ve mentioned the 769 North Downs Line proposal on LR about a year ago (may be as late as last May?) – Hence I knew there were 3 “problem but not really a problem” platforms from memory.
Agree there is more news to come, some is dependent on NR GW CP6 plans being approved in the Autumn (e.g. Wiring to Oxford in which case more back fill with ex C2C 387s or GA 379s when they are spare) and more GW signalling upgrades to ETCS. But I suspect some will be driven by practicalities for example if it proves impossible to use GW-ATP and ETCS concurrently in the tunnels as they both use the the same 27MHz frequencies and hence the need to get the 332s and 360s out of the way so ATP can be turn off on the Heathrow Branch.
ngh,
I must admit to being surprised at the ‘platforms not really a problem’ thing as I am sure I read in a Network Rail route study that it was a factor preventing longer trains on running Redhill – Reading.
However, I suspected that Dorking Deepdene would be one of the worse offenders but a quick measurement on Google Satellite suggests they are 76m long (not a 100% reliable way of measuring I know) and Wikipedia suggests the carriages are on the short side of 20m.
Re PoP,
Dorking Deepdene are 88m usable length with a nominal unit length of 80m and a positioning margin of 5m they are 3m longer than required…
@NGH
“As an aside some of the ex GN 321s that have been on short term lease with Greater Anglia are going to Scotland post 4 car to 3 car conversion due to the Hitachi (385 double vision windscreen) issues. ”
Is this additional to the five that were announced last November?
https://www.transport.gov.scot/news/welcome-8m-contract-boost-for-kilmarnock-rail-firm-and-scotrail-passengers/
There are also seven already in service, converted in 2015/16.
Re Timbeau,
No, just the first of the 5 has actually left GA for Wabtec in the last week with the others to leave soon.
NGH
Surely no wiring to Oxford until the desperately-needed full station rebuild is “cleared”?
Malcom
I echo your Q.
Does all this mean that HeX’s present ( Insert $Derogatory_Term-Here ) fare-structure will cease to exist from August this year – i.e. passengers will still pay a surcharge, but only the “lower” one, as per Crossrail/TfL rail/Liz-line?
Greg Tingey,
I must admit with wiring to Oxford that was my thought although I would probably written ‘highly desirable’ rather than ‘desperately needed’. I suppose you could rewire until short of the station but I thought there was also a plan to four-track all the way from Didcot (or at least Oxford – Kennington Junction). Oxford-Didcot can be surprisingly busy despite the demise of Didcot power station. Apart from freight there are also the Cross Country services.
Re Greg,
The Oxford problem is the resignalling next summer not the station rebuild as the signalling isn’t immunised. As soon as the resignalling is done electrification can be done. It doesn’t need to wait for the station rebuild. The resignalling (and associated track changes) have active provision of the planned rebuild.
HEx fares: NO HAH/HAL still in control of HEx fares but they get a lower cost structure post change and they can bring down the HEx fares if they lose too much revenue to Crossrail.
@NGH
Surely last year’s order for the extra 320s can’t be due to the class 385 windscreen issue, which came to light more recently.
Problems with previous curved windscreens (classes 303, 309) caused them to be replaced by flat ones. What has changed to make them acceptable again?
Timbeau
The previous curved windscreens were replaced by flat windscreens when so-called missile proof windscreens became de-rigeur. Whilst curved missile proof was available even then there were might expensive.
Curved windscreens were then as now in an attempt to make train fronts look modern. (in my view a vain attempt if you’ve got a massive corridor connection on the front of the train)
“a vain attempt if you’ve got a massive corridor connection on the front of the train”
On the contrary, a wrap-round windscreen could make a big difference to a gangway-fitted front end.
The wrap-round windscreens on the gangway-fitted 123s had a certain touch of style that their flat-screened class 126 cousins lacked. Likewise the comparison between the Essex AM9s and their dc cousins (4CEP/4CIG etc) south of the river.
The AM9s’ looks were certainly not improved when they lost their wrap-round windscreens. The 123s were withdrawn before they could suffer such indignity.
Of course wrap-round windscreens were also used to good effect on their gangway-less contemporaries (classes 303/311, as built, and class 124).
Wrap round windscreens made a brief come-back in the 1980s with the Class 442.
Timbeau
Look carefully at a class 442 and you’ll see a mighty pillar behind the curved bit of the screen. Equally, it’s curved in one direction only and is flat for the driver’s normal sightline. I also recognise that beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I wouldn’t describe either class 309 or class 442 as handsome!
Rolling forward to today’s regulations, the challenge is to accommodate the windscreen, the gangway and comply with the current crashworthiness regulations. I suspect that the designers of the class 385 would have specified flat glass to their industrial designers if they had even an inkling that this might be a problem. For the UK, I believe the class 385 is the first that has had to do so.
Going back to @NGH 28/3 13:11…
The DfT commitment to Heathrow Southern Access does open up some interesting options! If even half the kites being flown on the Heathrow Southern Rail site actually fly, and HEx revenues decline then a 4tph semi-fast Woking-T5-T2/3-OOC-PAD to replace HEx, and Crossrail extended from T5 to Staines both sound very attractive…
“I wouldn’t describe either class 309 or class 442 as handsome! ”
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, of course, and I would agree the 309s couldn’t hold a candle to the contemporary 303s. But my contention was that the loss of the wrapround screens had a negative effect on their looks.
“For the UK, I believe the class 385 is the first that has had to do so.”
First to do what? Curved windscreens appear on other modern stock. Notably – sound of thread being dragged vaguely back on topic – the class 345s
Sorry – previous ref should have been @NGH 28/3 18:11 (eyesight…!)
B&T,
I am not quite sure who would be attracted. Some users definitely, Heathrow Airport certainly in terms of passenger access and as a sweetener for another runway. Hard-headed investors no – unless they get Heathrow Airport to cough up.
My fear with their proposal is that they seem to have a naïve belief that they can run extra trains to Paddington and Waterloo. This seems to be a fundamental problem with a lot of these schemes. Either the slots aren’t there or, even if they are, it is somewhat arrogant to assume that they are best filled by their particular scheme. BML2 springs to mind.
@PoP – Yes, agree that these schemes tend to assume that they are the natural and best user of slots, and many of the ideas at HSR do seem rather fanciful, but the two I listed, with the caveat that WOK-PAD would need to be a replacement for HEx rather than addition, seem both credible and quite attractive?
Six tracks out to airport Jun from Padders is eminently do-able & also eminently horribly expensive.
As regards Waterloo … not until CR2 is built (!)
As regards Waterloo … not until CR2 is built (!)
Even then you haven’t solved the problem of level crossings on the Windsor lines!
@Greg/PoP
CR2 is unlikely to help much with Heathrow Southern access, as it will only release paths between Wimbledon and Waterloo (main). Nothing in the Windsor side. The closest it will get to Heathrow is Kempton Park, about three miles from Terminal 4.
One way of providing services from Waterloo to a southern access point near Feltham without requiring additional paths might be to break out the Hounslow Loop services (plus, from Dec 2018, a proposed additional Waterloo-Hounslow service) so that they all (6tph) go to Heathrow instead – 2tph via Richmond, 4 tph via Hounslow. An extra 2 tph via Richmond could be added by splitting the Kingston loop, with the “via Kingston” leg either terminating at Twickenham or reversing to provide a yet further 2 tph to Heathrow. There are no level crossings between Twickenham and Feltham, but capacity on the Whitton/Feltham stretch, which also takes the Chertsey, Windsor and Reading line trains, might require quadrupling on the site of the former Feltham marshalling yard. .
timbeau,
True, but it might release platforms. Remember Lady Bracknell – the line is immaterial.
And that Waterloo would the wrong destination.
Southern Heights (Light Railway)
Waterloo might be the wrong destination, although I don’t really see why, but on the way there it would potentially call at Clapham Junction giving a massive opportunity for interchange – including to Crossrail 2 (if built).
There are other possibilities from Clapham Junction. If you don’t like Waterloo as a destination (why not?), what about the south London line (i.e extending the Overground service to Heathrow) – although this would reduce the number of trains into Waterloo
Surely Southern Access to Heathrow has to be broken down further into two fundamentally separate projects, ie towards Woking and beyond, and towards Waterloo, and the solutions and impacts would be completely different.
Maybe I’m overthinking this, but could the DfT’s enthusiasm for LHR Southern Access be as much to do with HS2 / OOC as with Heathrow? A rapid connection to OOC from the SWML (and much of Southwest London / Berkshire / Surrey) would open up a significant, affluent catchment area for HS2 as well as LHR, without the need to battle through Zone 1. I would guess that there is significant pressure to make a success of HS2 after all the debates, and HAH/HAL are a strident HS2 supporter…
With the western side of London becoming a permanent car park on the Motorways, towns that depend on easy access to Heathrow as selling point or feeling the pinch. A lot of Heathrow Employees drive quite long distances to work due to their long shifts at least missing the morning peak.
Both of the LEP’ s (local entrprise partnerships) have been pushing for improved rail access and that’s a lot of local chambers of commerce pushing at dozens of local Tory MP’s. Wrath first start appearing the Thames Valley LEP documents..
A reasonable semi fast network of stops to all the local major stations. will cross a lot of boxes and allow local businessment to be cabbed from a local station rather than the airport itself.
Half hourly to Reading is simple enough.
The earlier reports for Southern Access suggest 8tph to the South.
Whether that be two routes of 4tph or 4 of 2 tph, will depend on what’s available.
For Southern access, it all depends on what possible infrasructure improvements are put into the Windsor Lines. I think we are looking at 18tph in the peak. The key for a Waterloo would be a half hourly semi fast via Staines – Feltham- Hounslow -Brentford-Putney – Clapham and Waterloo. If I remember from the old Airtrack proposals only 15% of the Waterloo services passengers would be going to the airport in peak.
To the South the two options imply connections either near Virginia Water or Chertsey.
The former could mean you could send a trains to Camberley and points South, or the main line via Woking – Farnborough – Fleet – Basingstoke or split options Via Woking in all different directions.
@Rational Plan
the 8tph are proposed (in the SRA proposal from https://heathrowrail.com/) to be 4+(2+2) – 4 Liz to Staines, 4 HEx to Woking, of which 2 go on to Guildford and 2 to Farnborough North and Basingstoke.
Serving Virginia Water with the HEx trains via their proposal would be good for interchange to Bracknell, etc, however I don’t think Camberley can be easily served by direct London trains without dealing with the level crossing at Sunningdale.
As for any potential London-bound services using SRA, wouldn’t via Richmond make more sense than via Hounslow as the via Hounslow route is relatively close to the Piccadilly line?
Re SI,
1. The spare capacity is on the via Hounslow route (trying swapping any of the existing services to the slower via Hounslow route will result in big protests)
2. The level crossing issues are far smaller on the via Hounslow route.
Re B&T,
The problem is then what services do you link the trains from the West via the new western access that go east of T5?
Getting rid of HAH’s massive and slightly impractical high speed low capacity crossover cavern is a major way to rip cost out of WRatH to create WRLtH v2.
Timbeau @ 13:58. Class 385 is the first UK train that has to conform to the latest crashworthiness requirement and have a gangway. I have seem lots of photos both of the exterior and of the inside of the cab. It’s clear that the designers had a big challenge to come up with something that likely to be fit for purpose and not look like a dogs breakfast.
I would suspect that the designers now know what went wrong, but equally suspect that they won’t say what they’re doing until there’s something to demonstrate and they’ve shown it off to the drivers’ representatives.
@NGH and @B&T You have two access routes from the west, one from the GWML and one from the Southern. Perhaps there might be a benefit to mirroring this in the East, with the existing access from the GWML and a new route to Feltham, perhaps after T5 running via a new station at T4 – allowing current T4 trains to be concentrated towards T5 and further points either northwest or southwest thereof.
Lest I be considered crayonisticly flamboyant, LB Hounslow had similar ideas a couple of years ago: https://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/west-london-news/new-rail-route-would-link-10741250
Even if a link to Feltham weren’t considered, would there be a benefit, depending on the number of trains coming in from the west to T5, to forget the T123-4 spur and build a new one 5-4 to use 4 as a terminal station for services from the west?
@Si
“wouldn’t via Richmond make more sense than via Hounslow as the via Hounslow route is relatively close to the Piccadilly line?”
I realised that after I wrote it, but as NGH points out, the spare capacity is on that side and it would also be easier to re-engineer at Whitton as you would not need a grade separated junction. You could route the Reading and Windsor services via Hounslow to create more paths on the Richmond line – the time penalty is not great, and indeed some services go that way anyway – but that would lose the useful Richmond stop, with its connections to the Underground and Overground, from those services. (Maybe the proposal for an Overground service to Kew Bridge would ameliorate this)
Either way, there have to be found paths on both lines (Hounslow and Richmond) for the stopping services.
@B&T
“A rapid connection to OOC from the SWML (and much of Southwest London / Berkshire / Surrey) would open up a significant, affluent catchment area for HS2 as well as LHR, without the need to battle through Zone 1.”
Such connections already exist at Richmond and at Clapham Junction, both of which have Overground services which pass OOC.
Further uses for class 769?
1/Ashford to Brighton Coastway East.
2/Uckfield to London.
Both routes with substantial amounts of third rail and liberating
turbostars for use elsewhere.
@BEN – back in the days of BAA (pre HAL) I was told that the long-term LHR master plan was to abandon T4 and develop further terminals in a “toastrack” formation between the current L/R runways, effectively extending the T5 A/B/C model. T4 is a pain to operate out of, very much the short straw, with restricted “cul de sac” stands and all northern runway traffic needs to hold to cross the southern runway, made even worse when (if) Runway 3 arrives. No idea if this plan still holds true, but I wouldn’t think that very significant investment in T4 ground infrastructure makes much sense.
@TIMBEAU – “Such connections already exist at Richmond and at Clapham Junction, both of which have Overground services which pass OOC”
Yes, agree that this covers much of the south / south-west suburban traffic but Woking is served by many SWR mainline trains that bypass Richmond, some of which also sail through Clapham Junction- and potentially reduces growing Clapham Junction congestion?
@NGH 20:40 – “The problem is then what services do you link the trains from the West via the new western access that go east of T5”
Agreed – and who is going to run them, and would any “through” passengers (eg those going from Woking / Staines to PAD or Elizabeth Line stations) still be charged a high fare supplement? Lots of challenges here, but after what seems like years of a Mexican standoff between BAA/HAL and the other stakeholders there does seem to be a glimmer of common sense emerging in the latest announcements.
The construction / infrastructure problems are significant, but the scale of redevelopment envisaged should Runway 3 gain approval, potentially affecting the western side of T5, mean that they could be solvable?
Re Hughs,
2. Uckfield – see previous LR discussions as to why 769s to Uckfield are a non starter…
Good luck trying to get Mk3 suburban stock through the reverse curves in the Oxted tunnel.
What goes around comes around – in the distant mists of time, the original suburban-only GWML electrification scheme was devised as a way of using the spare Class 319s displaced from Thameslink. That got forgotten as the blood rushed to the railway industry’s collective head, the scope of electrification increased, and brand new trains were ordered.
Now the same trains will run to Oxford after all, only with a diesel engine underneath.
Meanwhile Heathrow Express will have happen to it what happened to Gatwick Express – it will become a marketing name and premium ticket price for just another commuter service.
Even if T4 is abandoned, the line between there and T123 could be extended southwards.
What is the problem with 20m Mark 3 stock (Class 455/319/769) in Oxted tunnel? Electrostar/Turbostar stock appears to have very similar dimensions and doesn’t seem to emerge from the tunnel with battle scars..
OK – alternative service pattern to route Waterloo – Heathrow trains via Richmond instead of Hounslow, using existing paths.
Existing stopping services to Twickenham via Richmond (currently 2 tph to Hounslow and 2 tph to Kingston) run to Feltham and Heathrow (4tph).
The resulting “loose ends” (i.e 2tph Twickenham via Kingston and 2 tph Twickenham via Hounslow) tied together to run Waterloo – Hounslow – Twickenham (reverse) – Kingston – Waterloo. This routing is already used by some Sunday services. Making the flyover line at Twickenham reversible might be desirable to avoid conflicting moves.
The new Waterloo-Hounslow-Twickenham service (essentially the existing Weybridge service, to be split in December to provide another path between Feltham and Staines) could be extended either to Heathrow or to increase the service to Kingston to 4tph.
Post CR2 the Kingston services might terminate there or be diverted at Strawberry Hill to Shepperton.
@B&T
I believe that the current Heathrow 3rd runway plan is to retain T4 and not to build a new T6 (which I guess would have been called T1).
NGH & others re guaging through the Oxted tunnels ..
Erm.
Are not class 170 or 171 used on trains to Uckfield?
And, since their coaches are 23m long, there should be no problem at all with 20m coaches, even without the chamfered ends the 170’s have …..
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh, Timbeau mentioned CR2 ….
From Ian Visits, it appears a “planning inspector” has given permission for a build on CR2 safeguarded land.
Um
@ANSWER=42 – The latest Heathrow consultation documents (most background / detail in https://www.heathrowconsultation.com/documents-resources/our-emerging-plans/ p42 onwards for Terminal options) retain T4 but aren’t exactly enthusiastic about it. In the medium term they probably don’t have other options to retain capacity during the development phases. The Airport Commission Masterplan certainly still envisages the central toastrack and HAL focus their development plans along this axis – in part due to the public transport benefits and reduced number of “front doors”.
They’re also keeping open the option of apron / terminal development between R3 and the current northern runway, although maybe not with a dedicated Front Door, and you also have the guerrilla warfare being conducted by Surinder Arora and Willie Walsh proposing non-HAL terminal options.
I guess keeping T4 does establish a beachhead for Runway 4…:-)
So the 769 solution for the North Downs and Reading-Basingstoke emerges. Why not just extend the 3rd rail as both routes are 3rd rail connected? It will be interesting to see if the 769 acceleration in diesel mode can emulate the requirements necessary for the additional 1 or 2 stations being proposed for the Basingstoke route at Grazeley and Chineham. The electric train acceleration has been anticipated as necessary if these stations are added to maintain the performance of the freight trains on the route.
@Andrew Grimes
– ORR doesn’t like third rail, even as extensions of existing schemes.
– Electrification schemes have developed a habit of coming in well over time, and over budget, and often under spec as well.
– 769 is available now, 3rd rail infill schemes would take time and resources
If electrification is a pre-requisite for the new stations, that should be added to the cost of the stations.
Re Greg,
The Turbostars are narrower than the 20.Xm Electrostars and both have chamfered ends which is the key feature. The bogie centers on the Turbostars are surprisingly short for 23m vehicles so the center throw isn’t as big as you would expect.
You could run 319s/455s/769s through the tunnels but you would have to resignal to ensure that isn’t another train in the tunnels at the same time which then reduces capacity on the route.
I think it is time to dig out the previous discussion and link to it…
Re B&T,
The master plan is indeed toast rack with variations depending on with or without R3, T6 etc.
West to East
T5A (as today)
T5B (as today)
T5C (as today)
Stands (as today with fire station and fuel storage) or T5D if more terminal capacity is needed e.g. no T6
T2E (new with Control Tower in the middle)
T2D (new effectively on top of current main T3)
Remains of Central area inc bus station and car parks and road access to T2
T2A full width across the old T1 rather than today half width
T2B as today but with underground people mover link to T2A instead of the current bit of recycled T1 to get rid of cul de sacs
T2C new partially built on some current stands
The T2 and T5 buildings would all be linked via people mover as T5 is today.
That’s hard to picture. Are there maps? And to be on topic, do they include the rail links?
Re Toby,
Try the image at the top of this page and the middle image at the bottom for the rail tunnels underneath (right click on image and open in separate tab to expand):
https://www.heathrowexpansion.com/the-expansion-plan/
Note the main image at the top shows T6, modification to 5A to provide more aircraft parking stands west of the short stay carpark and no 5D, just the existing stands/fuel storage/fire station
@NGH
The top image shows a non-toast rack format for T6. I don’t get the logic in that.
NGH
Err … no, or not in Chrome anyway – no disgrams or layouts or sub-level markers at all.
Right-clik for new window on centre-lower picture just gets “The Planning Process” & lots of verbiage
Personally, I would build Southern access to Heathrow and a line from Heathrow to a bay at either Feltham or Staines. Afterwards, once it is built, then think about where to extend it, if you decide to extend it anywhere. This way you avoid the endless hostility to the line from the communities the train would go through.
Fortunately, new railway lines are not planned in the way suggested by Aneconspeaks. The suppliers of the money, and those responsible for coherent planning, insist that there is a reasonably sensible plan for the destination of any new train service. Though of course sometimes circumstances result in changes. But there has to be some plausible destination in the initial plans.
Re Greg,
I was and am using chrome… Right click then “open IMAGE in new Tab” (6th item on the menu) or “save image as” 7th item.
The dotted lines show tunnels for underground, current rail, future Western and Southern* rail access and buried M25 section. *Southern access till it surfaces then along side M25, note 4 heavy rail platforms under T5 are shown not just the current 2.
https://your.heathrow.com/takingbritainfurther/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/TBF_technicaldrawing_resize.jpg
This may be an old version
Oops! I meant to post this comment here and not on the IOW item, which also discusses the Oxted line tunnel clearances:
NGH first discusses the Oxted tunnel restrictions here:
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/can-mend-… on 29 June 2017 at 21:21 and then Steven Taylor on 30 June 2017 at 12:03 gives us a walkthrough photo link:
https://momodem1.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/a-walk-thr…
(I wonder whether the shortened links will cut and paste so as to function – we’ll see in a moment)
The links work – and I’m wondering why Oxted tunnel has the reverse curve, which shows up well in the penultimate photo. Was it deliberate, or did the two headings perhaps miss (as has happened elsewhere)?
@Betterbee
As I did the original post with the links, I felt I should respond.
I am reasonably sure the reverse curve at the north end of Oxted Tunnel was deliberate. It is situated as soon as you enter the north portal, by the deep approach cutting. The reason could be geological, or due to route compromises owing to objections by the Gentry (Marden Park is nearby). The headings would have to be completely out of line for subsequent adjustment requiring a reverse curve. Really unlikely in my opinion.
The tunnel has a most interesting history, and is initially straight, then a long curved section with the reverse curve at the north end.
The tunnel had had a number of collapses – 1919 – from memory and the southern `straight` part of the tunnel was completely relined with a different profile – hence part of the tunnel is now horseshoe – the southern part — and the rest has initially straight sidewalls.
The tunnel is interesting in that it was partly constructed in the mid 1860s for the Surrey and Sussex Junction Railway – abandoned for more than 10 years – and then subsequently completed. The following link give full details.
http://www.cnhss.org.uk/archives/bull103c.htm
Howard Turners famous three volume history of the LB&SCR is incorrect in stating that the tunnel was fully completed in the 1860s. I was in communication with him just after the books were published about the mistake in the book. However, there was no internet in this days. Historical research often involved getting a Readers Ticket for the British Museum. A much slower process. Although most original documents are no on-line. If you are interested in the LBSCR, his trilogy is a must purchase.
A “well informed source” told me that they are paying big money to Electricians and Electrical Engineers, to get the new Tottenham Hotspur stadium at White Hart Lane finished.
Could make Crossrail late.
Alan Griffiths,
This seems to be very public knowledge. It is even reported in the football section of the Standard.
Most reports seem to suggest the issue that one or more of the stations (most notably Whitechapel) may not open on time rather than the line may be late opening.
@PoP: Head mounted lighting thingies for customers? 😉
Pedantic of Purley 10 June 2018 at 12:59
“Alan Griffiths,
This seems to be very public knowledge. ”
I learned that later!
I ran into an MP of my acquaintance at Stratford station about 09:30 Saturday morning.
Chatting on the Jubilee line. I thought I’d been told something that wasn’t secret, but wasn’t well known either.