Crossrail: Timetable for Success?

1. “A 4tph service to Terminal 5 would also make better use of 2tph by avoiding have them terminating at Westbourne Park sidings which involves the rather unsatisfactory situation of ensuring a westbound train at Paddington has not got any overcarried passengers.”

   For some reason I was under the impression they were building a passenger platform at Westbourne Park for this very reason – simply to get overcarried passengers off a train before it heads into the siding, and (presumably) get them back on another train from the sidings back to Paddington. Am I mistaken here?

2. This is all good news.

   I’m still of the feeling that it might not be possible to keep Acton Main Line open after Old Oak Common (Crossrail) opens. It will be about one train length between the two platforms.

   Perhaps they could provide a travellator and have an “extra exit”?

3. Muzer,

   Yes, but I have been assured that “we will do everything possible” at Paddington to ensure people are not overcarried. The platforms at Westbourne Park are for a last resort e.g. emergency evacuation from the tunnel section, people who refuse to leave the train (and will be greeted by members of BTP at Westbourne Park) etc. Possibly even it may be easier for London Ambulance Service to attend ill passengers if sent to Westbourne Park rather than Paddington.

   We have discussed this at length before, more than once, so that will have to be the final word.

4. Fascinating article and great diagrams.

   Two naive questions. Regarding direct Elizabeth Line trains from Reading to central London that ‘must play very well with TfL’s finances’, I presume this is because all fare income will be attributed to TfL, rather than some to GWR for Reading > Paddington and the remainder for Paddington > inner London destination? And will there be any form of compensation for GWR’s potential loss of income, or was this factored into the franchise agreement years ago?

5. Revenue for Reading-London traffic will be apportioned according to estimates of the proportion of passengers using trains from the two providers. Anything (such as better semi-fast services) which increases TfL’s proportion of the riders will also (as long as the estimates are accurate) increase TfL’s income.

6. GWR are negotiating the next direct award extension with DfT at the moment, hence it is a very good time to have the service pattern sorted to address all the revenue impacts from changes.

7. @Malcolm – This isn’t exactly what happens with ORCATS. It’s the total flow (as evidenced by ticket sales) that is split by a formula reflecting speed and frequency. Unless Reading-Paddington is outside the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement (which I very much doubt), then estimates won’t come into it. It is theoretically possible for an empty train to attract a share of the flow – a point made by the private sector when introduced to the franchising concept, and one which was never answered then or now, Where the estimating issue sort of arises is in the way that the Travelcard revenue is split, which is based on LTS data suitably grossed up.

8. Graham: you’re right; I was confusing the scripts of two different pantomimes there.

9. @ Briantist

   Surely 6 train lengths at least? The OOC platforms are going to be east of the Central line

10. You say that off peak trains from the West will alternate between Shenfield and Abbey Wood but the off peak diagram in the link at the end shows them all going to Abbey Wood.

    Which of these is your prediction? I have a 50p bet riding on this with Geoff Marshall!

11. I think it’s very unlikely that pre-December 2019 timetables will operate into January 2020 on the National Rail network. The timetable changeover could be at the shutdown for Xmas/New Year, though.

    The reason that I think that particular timetable change is unlikely to move is that it’s the deadline for the implementation of the PRM-TSI regulations (accessibility for disabled people) on existing trains (it’s the sunset date for the grandfather clause).

    There is lots of current rolling stock (most obviously, the Pacer trains) that is planned to be scrapped or sold to heritage railways or museums rather than upgraded to compliance. In a number of cases, the replacement trains are faster and/or better-accelerating than the non-compliant trains they replace, and this means that a given service pattern can be delivered in fewer diagrams, ie fewer physical trains required. Obviously, that can only be achieved by changing the timetable. Given that the number of trains available once the obsolete rolling stock has been removed will be lower, it won’t be possible to deliver the old timetable with only compliant rolling stock in places where the new timetable relies on fewer diagrams.

    So the new timetable has to come in before trains start running a full weekday timetable, which will be on 2 January 2020 in England and Wales, and 3 January in Scotland (because of the bank holidays). They could maybe get away with a temporary timetable until the weekend, but Monday 6 January is the absolute last possible deadline.

    There’s no way that Network Rail and National Rail will want the timetable changeover to happen in different places at different times, and even TfL won’t be able to get it delayed in a way that will create serious problems for the Northern and Wales and Border franchises.

12. It will of course be possible to know how many passengers travel from Reading to central London without alighting at Paddington, or that alight at Paddington Crossrail and exit or change onto the Underground without passing through a barrier.

13. Richard Gadsden,

    A point I hadn’t considered. I was thinking more of ensuring Network Rail had the Christmas holiday to get the signalling working in the tunnels so 2nd January would be fine – but it is not a Sunday.

    You could try and struggle on with something similar to the existing arrangements but the problem is that I suspect the terminating platform slots at Paddington would no longer be available for the 2tph service to Terminal 4. It looks like you could delay introduction of GWR’s semi-fast off-peak service to free up an appropriate platform slot but that wouldn’t solve the problem in the peak.

14. Re Herned and Briantist,

    It will be about 1100m between the end of platforms.

    Re Jon,

    Off peak at the Western end: It is actually slightly more complicated than that, just 2tph of the 4tph T4 services and the 2tph Maidenhead will alternate between Abbey Wood And Shenfield. The remaining 2tph Reading, 2tph T5, 2tph T4 won’t alternate but just go to Abbey Wood.

    Neither of you win!

    I didn’t have time to do a fully accurate diagram for that (and how to represent that on a diagram too)

15. Jon,

    Oops. A bit of inconsistency there. I had overlooked that.

    I was told by someone closely involved, admittedly a long time ago, that Elizabeth line services from west of Paddington would definitely alternate between Shenfield and Abbey Wood and it was unavoidable. I even saw some official diagrams showing this.

    However, I concede that you could probably do a bit of tweaking between Paddington, and Hayes & Harlington and be very careful as to the order the trains arrive, to largely avoid this and I can see the attractions of doing so. For example, 1tph Shenfield – Terminal 5 seems a bit silly.

    The master diagram was drawn by ngh. He, on the other hand, is convinced that they will manage to avoid some or all of the need to alternate trains. Also that giving large enough gaps for freight will also tend to encourage a preference for through trains going to Abbey Wood.

    So I fear that your 50p may not be safe and there is discord in the London Reconnections team.

16. @ PoP – Good article and an interesting update. I do wonder if that residual GWR off peak semi fast service is part of ensuring GWR retain a slice of local intermediate revenues. It may also align with GWR keeping fare setting responsibilities at certain stations where it remains the station operator. I note NGH’s remark that GWR are negotiating a direct award and the need for a stable timetable as the basis for revenue assumptions.

    It’s positive that TfL are being pretty bullish about providing decent frequencies in West London. I imagine that will pay off handsomely so long as the service operates reliably.

    @ Al_S – I think your contention only holds true for those using Oyster or contactless cards. Those entries and exits are tracked. Passengers using mag stripe singles / returns or out boundary One Day Travelcards aren’t tracked so impossible to know where one that entered at Reading actually alighted. No one counts / analyses mag stripe tickets that may have been captured by ticket gates. There will likely be a high or very high proportion of Oyster / contactless use so the stats will be of decent quality but not perfect.

17. Re PoP and Richard G,

    Plenty of examples of out of sync timetable changes over the last few years including several on the GWML (Southern and SE due to London Bridge getting the most).
    [The side effect was actually increasing NR timetabling workload so may be not the best idea.]
    The Western region rolling stock PRM-TSI issues with Timetabling impacts should all be resolved by about Easter 2019 (at worst) or earlier, the question is therefore do GWR et al. go for a February change (popular before late May this year) as the delayed December ’18 change or just hold fire till May ’19 (the most probable outcome to reduce NR workload which is now key after May).

    Hence the main timetable recast will be in May ’19 with December ’19 changes being smaller than you might expect.

    The GW service level (excluding CR impacts) will increase post TT change so there won’t be a stock shortage as you describe.

18. Thanks guys. No criticism intended with my short comment on my mobile. The diagrams are great to illustrate service patterns and set alive the text.

    I think the terms are that if there are off-peak services from Shenfield to Reading I owe Geoff 50p. My hopes faded on an initial read but your posts give me a bit more confidence that there is still something to play for and I’ll up it to £20 to his chosen charity.

19. If memory serves me correctly, won’t TfL get a proportion of all the fares between Reading and Paddington? This would include long distance trains stopping at Reading, so TfL would also get a proportion of a Cardiff to Paddington ticket. I wonder how long it will be before there is a “Not via Crossrail” restriction!

20. In the light of various comments, I have slightly modified the wording in the article to suggest that more than half of the off-peak services that originate west of Paddington will terminate at Abbey Wood.

21. Last line of the section sub-titles “The peak: mostly the same”: “There will be an additional 4tph service between Liverpool St (high level) and Gidea Park in the peak direction only.”

    Should ‘periods’ replace ‘direction’?

22. Walthamstow Writer,

    Your comments have the ring of truth although, if that is the only reason, it is a pretty contrived one. I think, technically, a train operating company does not need to have any of its trains call at a particular station for it to determine the fare structure but the case is obviously much stronger if they do and if they are the dominant operator in the wider region.

    I do wonder if TfL originally had their mixed Crossrail service from Reading then GWR proposed its limited-stop off-peak service and then TfL thought that if it works in the off-peak then there is no reason why it shouldn’t work in the peak. By then the GWR service was firmly embedded as part of the plan and it was too late for TfL to suggest they should run it. Besides TfL had already pushed their luck about as far as they could go in the current climate.

23. Twopenny Tube,

    No. As now, the Gidea Park shorts will run in one direction only. Historically, this was so that they could return empty on the fast lines to achieve multiple peak-direction journeys within the peak period. Just one of the really neat operating practices introduced by Gerry Fiennes many years ago.

    Apart from anything else, there isn’t sufficient rolling stock to support the return journey in passenger service.

24. I would like to raise a couple of points with regards to the section on off-peak services. First, you say that “If the Reading and Maidenhead trains have the same calling pattern then obviously with a 10tph off-peak service west of Paddington one cannot achieve an even-interval 15 minute 4tph service.” which assumes that the 10tph west of Paddington are themselves evenly spaced. This would not be the case if they were a mix of Abbey Wood and Shenfield trains. Second, the passage “in the off-peak trains from a given originating station west of Paddington will alternate between serving Shenfield and Abbey Wood” should be clarified to point out that this argument only applies to services based around a 15 min interval like the Terminal 4 trains.

25. I suspect the discrepancy with the GWR semi fast service actually arises over the question of how you serve the stations on the reliefs West of Reading: the current service from stations Tilehurst to Cholsey inclusive is a half hourly extension of a Reading stopper, so rather than truncate this to a Reading to Didcot shuttle you can continue to run through (thus not costing platform capacity at Reading, and equally not using fast line capacity if you do run through) and offering direct journey opportunities across Reading, the Thames Valley as a whole being a significant area of employment, so it is not unreasonable or expect there to be demand for Maidenhead or Slough etc from these stations.

    In the peaks services from these stations run fast from Twyford and Maidenhead anyway, offering roughly 4tph in total from the stations West of Reading, and there is no reason to assume this will change. Hence it makes sense for TfL to take over everything on the slows in the peak periods but not in the off peak.

26. @Jon

    If the bet is Reading-Shenfield, then it seems like you are safe. The Crossrail website’s journey time calculator has various stations as a change away from Shenfield (and all stations east of Stratford) – Heathrow T5, Iver, Reading, Taplow and Twyford. Though this doesn’t quite match what’s been discussed here as a timetable.

    From discussion on RailForums, it seems like the Shenfield to Maidenhead/T4 trains are aimed to be shoulder peak only, with off-peak reverting to just Abbey Wood. ie rather than 1tph Shenfield-T4, it’s more like 1tpd Shenfield-T4. The uneven headways on the eastern branches will be interesting.

27. I must have fallen asleep – last time I looked, the service pattern was Shenfield-Maidenhead/Reading and Abbey Wood – Heathrow. Now it seems its Shenfiled – Paddington and Abbey Wood – Maidenhead/Reading/Heathrow.

    Will there really be no direct trains at all from Stratford to beyond Paddington? When did that happen?

28. Anon E. Mouse (X-Plaistow)

    If you have 10tph arriving from the west at Paddington and they alternate with trains starting from Paddington then the trains from the west must arrive six minutes apart. If the trains are six minutes apart there is no way you can run a 15 minute service interval with the same stopping pattern. Six does not divide into 15 – but does divide into 30.

    If you remove the restriction that, at Paddington, you alternate between a train from west of Paddington and a Paddington starter then obviously an even 15 minute service is possible west of Paddington. But you cannot have both.

    Methinks that maybe the need to have an even interval at Terminal 4 (with the single track section between T2&3 and T4) may have belatedly changed thinking when the off-peak service west of Paddington went up from 8tph to 10tph.

    In the second query you make I was considering the entirety of the service west of Paddington (everything that stops at Ealing Broadway so everything). In that case the statement is true.

    In fact it is the desire to have an even-interval service at Ealing Broadway which I believed would have been part of the reason for alternating the central services. If you remove that restriction then other things are possible.

    In retrospect I can see that probably the importance of maintaining a 15 minute interval from T4 outweighs everything else and the off-peak diagram isn’t quite correct and there must be instances of two consecutive trains from west of Paddington arriving at Paddington.

29. Oh yeah, I meant to say, the whole of the “December 2018” Liz Line timetable was in the “20180810020725” (10th October 2018) daily working timetable.

    I’ve got a copy of it’s but it’s JSON format https://ukfree.tv/styles/images/2018/20180810020725-XR.json

    It’s got the nice new Timing point locations (tiploc) codes…

    PADTLL – Paddington Low Level
    BONDST – Bond Street
    TOTCTRD – Tottenham Court Road
    FRNDXR – Farringdon Crossrail
    LIVSTLL – Liverpool Street Low Level
    WCHAPXR – Whitechapel Crossrail
    CANWHRF – Canary Wharf
    CUSTMHS – Customs House
    WOLWXR – Woolwich Crossrail
    ABWDXR – Abbey Wood Crossrail

30. Great stuff.

    Small typo…

    Not “it will at to the complexity” but “it will add to the complexity”

    [Thanks. Now fixed. Malcolm]

31. Has anybody considered how the Gas Works development at Southall will affect the new services. Initial occupation of the new properties is suggested for 2019 or am I thinking too far ahead here?

    https://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/west-london-news/southall-gasworks-site-construction-begins-13360618

32. “If 4tph to Terminal 5 were the intention from the outset then, no doubt, provision would have been made for suitable infrastructure on the ground to make such a service possible. Even if it made the project unaffordable, passive provision could have been made. ”

    What is the missing provision which gets in the way of a two track, two platform branch supporting a 4+4 tph service?

33. Great article, and thanks for those diagrams, they really do help.
    No bad news? I agree, no bad news re the timetable.
    But there is passing reference to bad news – the possibility (likelihood?) that 345 trains won’t get to the airport in service before December 2019 (Jan 2020?). I think many of us reading this site have been suspecting this for a while, but I think Joe Public is expecting a much improved service to Heathrow from December this year. If the improvement over “Connect” service levels isn’t happening later this year, I think tfl will have a lot of expectation management issues….

34. expectation management

    Public blaming of HAL (Heathrow) may do it.

35. timbeau,

    Will there really be no direct trains at all from Stratford to beyond Paddington? When did that happen?

    Peak hours yes. It happened when west of Paddington went up from 10 to 12tph. Then it was practically inevitable that all the 12tph all went to either Shenfield or Abbey Wood. It can only go to Abbey Wood because of the commitment to provide a direct service to Heathrow as part of the funding package with Canary Wharf.

    Mr SW,

    I really can’t see what more they can do. If Southall already has 10tph (which, I think from memory, is way above the number in the original plan) then pretty much all that can be done has been done.

    The next thing to improve the Southall service would be the extra 2tph all-stations (except Acton Main Line) to T5.

    I don’t think Southall is the only station where massive growth is happening or will happen.

    Marak,

    Better provision, in the up direction in particular for more trains. Either a passing loop for one station, preferably two so that there can be better segregation of the ‘inners’ and the ‘outers’ with the outers making very few stops in the London urban area
    or a two track island platform in the up direction somewhere to help regulate flow.

    For example, Hayes & Harlington platform 5 could have been a through platform and the separate track extended quite a way to the east. As it happens, this would have also assisted with the current day Hayes & Harlington terminators which could then have terminated in the central platform.

36. @ PoP – I am not fully up to date with ORCATS etc but there is already a precedent that key stations served by TfL trains do NOT transfer to TfL nor does the pricing responsibility if it is a major pricing point. Shenfield is a key example of this but the same would have applied to Sevenoaks if TfL had gained the South Eastern Metro services. I think the basic principles on revenue, ticketing and fare setting were set when the “magic agreement” was announced covering HEX, access to T5 and the peak / off peak service split between MTR / GWR. There are also the governing clauses in the Crossrail Agreement that limits TfL’s scope to “do its own thing” on fares where there is an impact on fares tapers / pricing.

    Obviously we’ll see what transpires in 2019 especially with regard to Oyster reaching Reading and what fares / caps apply. I’m also slightly intrigued to see if GWR extend Oyster down the Thames Valley branches (Windsor, Marlow, Henley). There would be a certain logic for people on those routes to have access to Oyster / Contactless. The other lurking “elephant in the room” is the SWR route to Reading but I don’t expect that to suddenly be wrapped inside Oyster – probably a step too far for the DfT given extending Oyster was noticeably absent from the SWR franchise award announcement.

37. Walthamstow Writer,

    I am no expert on such subjects but I always understood the basic principle is that pricing structure of fares is determined over an area and is not down to individual stations. This seems to fit in with your comments. So it would be highly detrimental to GWR (or successors) if TfL decided to cut fares on the Elizabeth line. It could also be detrimental to Chiltern Railways if it led to some of their passengers (many of whom drive a fair distance to the station) switching to Elizabeth line stations.

    Notable is Watford Junction where ‘special fares apply’ as, I believe, it is London Midland’s successor who determines the fares. Here London Overground is effectively nudging into another TOCs area. Nudging in isn’t good enough. Nor is dominating the relief lines but not using the main lines.

    I refrained from mentioning the branches but I do find they are a bit of an anomaly. Possibly with the exception of Windsor Central which is on the south side of the main line and is served by GWR trains on the main (as opposed to relief) line at Slough. It wasn’t fares I was thinking about though.

    I find the strangest is West Ealing – Greenford which is run by GWR yet (Underground excepted) only connects with TfL Rail currently and will only connect with the Elizabeth line. It would make more sense for either Chiltern or TfL to operate this. If TfL operated it I am sure they would have at least looked at the possibility of it being a battery-operated Vivarail train with the train recharged at one end after each round trip (or at each end even). This would eliminate the last of the diesel workings that operates entirely in the GLA area – assuming Gospel Oak – Barking ever gets electrified.

38. Ealing-Greenford may look anomalous, but TfL will have no suitable rolling stock once the 172s have gone and it would be inefficient to have to have a fleet of just one unit (plus maintenance cover!), so it makes sense to provision it from the nearest diesel fleet, however odd it would look on the map.

    The Oyster gap between Reading and Feltham will not be the only one: Reading – Gatwick services also serve Oysterised stations at both ends.

    I imagine in both cases Oyster would charge a ‘via Zone 1″ fare if you tried it, whereas buying a paper ticket (via Wokingham) would be much
    cheaper
    Marlow can’t take anything longer than two cars either.

39. @ PoP – well pricing is usually done by the dominant TOC on a route or if it “owns” the flow. TfL have not taken over any of the stations that GWR shuttles will run from (other than West Ealing). The Greenford shuttle is on TfL fares anyway as is the stopping service as far as West Drayton (and had been for a long time even under GWR operation). However certain key stations are used for fares summation or route pricing – this is why GWR have retained control of Reading, Maidenhead, Twyford and Slough. Reading is clearly a major point in the national rail network and is crucial to pricing throughout major service groupings on GWR, SWR and Cross Country. TfL were never going (and possibly never wanted) to get control of that nor were they going to get pricing responsibility for the GWR branches. As you suggest there are undoubted operational issues too with MTR probably not wanting any responsibility for handling incidents involving diesel traction. They can’t avoid it completely if GWR trains conk out or crash at (for example) Ealing Broadway but that’s not a day to day thing but part of standard emergency procedures that would bring in other parties automatically.

    Watford Junction was the other key station I should have mentioned. Again a major pricing point for LNWR and probably Virgin too. I’ve almost certainly got the terminology wrong here but DfT would not want significant pricing responsibilities to fall outside their influence / control and be subject to Mayoral control unless most of the service was devolved. Crossrail sort of cuts across that now in West London as the service offer looks to be greater than envisaged when the legislation was put together. However in other cases TfL is the minority operator and has to take fares set by others (e.g. Watford Junc, Shenfield, Cheshunt) and will have to do so with regard to Reading and other stations on the line.

40. Interesting

    REALLY confused by the Reading semi-fast situation, where on peak they’re Crossrail services through the core, while off peak they’re near identical GWR services to Paddington high level! To me that seems like a bizarre and illogical split, which will surely not survive.

    As a aside, what happens with the 4 stations between Reading and Didcot, currently served by the GWR stopping service to Didcot? I assume they be served by this semi fast service to Paddington off peak, but what happens during the peak, will they be fast to Paddington from Reading?

41. Mikey C

    There is already a difference between how Tilehurst – Cholsey are served in the peak and off-peak and that is pretty much maintained. Between the 1557 and 1927 departures from Paddington, there are no through trains from Ealing Broadway to Didcot Parkway. Instead, the trains run fast line to Maidenhead East and cross to the relief line to stop at Maidenhead, Twyford and stations to Didcot Parkway.

    On another matter what are the 2-track railway windows on the line between Paddington and Reading after December 2019 and this apparent uplift in service? Does Crossrail result in really slow trips for fast GWR trains or are both lines going to be available almost all of the time in the future?

42. Great info, thank you.

    Any thoughts on the journey time of the Reading semi-fast from Reading/Maidenhead to Paddington?

    ie the ‘standard’ Elizabeth line trains will be 50/35 mins Reading/Maidenhead to Paddington.

    So presumably the semi fasts will be maybe 10 minutes quicker? So 40/25 mins? Does that sound about right? Or could they be slightly quicker than that?

    As GWR will be maintaining peak fast non-stop services from both Reading and Maidenhead.

43. Out of interest and re discussions about service patterns on the Eastern side I’ve added a few scans to the Reconnections Flickr group of the original November 1949 electric timetable., the evening peak makes particularily intersting viewing.

44. Alfie1014,

    Thanks for the timetable. Direct link to evening one is here if anyone is interested. I note substantial station name changes and the fact that the ELECTRIC REGULAR INTERVAL SERVICE is emphasised. Though it didn’t see quite as regular in either timings or destination as I thought it was.

    Clear is the mix of limited stop to Romford then all stations to Shenfield & Hutton, limited stop to Seven Kings then all stations to Gidea Park & Squirrels Heath and all stations either to Gidea Park & Squirrels Heath or Shenfield & Hutton.

    I note also the map shows Eastern Region services from Ongar to Liverpool Street amonst other gems. And what it that loop at Wembley Stadium?

45. SK,

    Timings are the next great unknown to be discovered. The main problem is that we do not know how accurate the station to station journey time calculator on the Crossrail site is. I get the impression it refers to all stations timings but cannot be sure. With the Crossrail site rarely updated these days (except to tell us about the latest artwork) it is hard to trust it anymore.

    Note that the Crossrail site supplies details of services west of Paddington here but it is well out of date. That or we have got our facts for this article wrong.

46. timbeau,

    I take your points but equally the Mayor is on a crusade about air quality. The diesel unit for the West Ealing – Greenford branch will come from Reading. At least, if it is a class 769, it can use the overhead wire as for its journey on the relief lines. I suspect it will have far more carriages than needed for this lightly used branch.

    The Vivarail trains are designed to be absolutely minimal maintenance. Adrian Shooter in charge of Vivarail emphases this point and both the CEO (probably not called that then) and engineer he knows the operating value of that. I don’t think it even needs to go back to the depot for most maintenance which can be done in the platform.

    As for keeping a spare, why bother? Last train is around 10 p.m. and there is no service on Sundays so plenty of time for maintenance. If a spare is really is needed, I am sure an arrangement can be made in advance with either GWR or Chiltern to cover with a diesel train should it be necessary.

47. The GWR off peak semi fast.

    I think most commentators are forgetting that this will eventually become the Oxford – Semi-fast once Appleford – Oxford is electrified and hence fulfil several purposes in one train, one of them being providing the stopping service around Reading efficiently which Crossrail only does to the east of Reading. This is critical through and west of Reading in the off peak to maximise the freight paths including the ever increasing Southampton -Midlands / North container trains (the Reading relief platforms aren’t optimised for Crossrail and everything else). Terminating trains off peak at Reading and Didcot isn’t helpful overall (1 from/to each direction)

    Crossrail isn’t just about London or passengers – time for a wake up visit to the 1,3,7-Trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione shop and see the bigger picture and how it has to fit in.

48. 1,3,7-Trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione is caffeine to save anyone else having to look it up.

49. When I was working for the DfT (on the Crossrail project) we suspected that they might be problems with ETCS so we suggested that the Heathrow Branch could be fitted with TPWS transponders at every signal.

    All trains have TPWS equipment (or rather the Crossrail trains are already fitted) and using TPWS as an effective ATP had (then) recently been used on the East London Line. I am struggling to understand why TPWS is not fitted to the Heathrow branch to allow all trains to operate to Heathrow.

50. PoP: re the loop at Wembley Stadium, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wembley_Exhibition_railway_station

51. Betterbee,

    Thanks.

    Peter Staveley

    Interesting. I suspect though what was acceptable fifteen on twenty years ago is not acceptable now. I can’t really see that TPWS nowadays would ever be accepted in the Heathrow tunnels. It would be like having the Underground reliant on TPWS.

52. … because Terminal 5 will be shared with Heathrow Express which will also be running …
    For how long, one wonders? Somehow, I don’t see HeX being financially viable against that competition, after about 6 months, once foreign travellers get wise to the other services on offer & the lower prices ….
    Apart from any advantages in day-to-day operation of removing a third operator from passenger services & also remembering that, as far in as the spur up to Acton Wells Jn, there’s a lot of freight to be fitted in, as well.

    Mr SW
    Southall will be getting peak-10 tph, which ought to be sufficient, I would think?

    Marek
    The cost of building a second tunnel, I would have thought?

    ID
    Agree with Kit Green that the possible “non-improvement” of Heathrow services, will make a wonderful opportunity to “blame” HeX & HAL for the troubles ….

    PoP
    assuming Gospel Oak – Barking ever gets electrified.
    Excuse me, but the wires are live, now. It’s “just” that the passenger trains are still 2-car diesel units.

53. Greg Tingey,

    You have your opinions on how long Heathrow Express will keep going. We have done this to death before so I won’t expand on that. But remember that Heathrow Express currently uses the main lines not the relief lines so issues about Acton Wells Junction are either irrelevant or worsened if you replace Heathrow Express with an enhanced Elizabeth line service on the relief lines.

    Gospel Oak electrification.

    My bad choice of words.

54. Re Peter S and PoP,

    All trains have TPWS equipment (or rather the Crossrail trains are already fitted) and using TPWS as an effective ATP had (then) recently been used on the East London Line. I am struggling to understand why TPWS is not fitted to the Heathrow branch to allow all trains to operate to Heathrow.

    Except all trains don’t have TPWS fitted – the very notable exception is the HEx class 332s which only have AWS and GW-ATP and the branch is only equipment with GW-ATP and not TPWS hence the persistent choice of ETCS for the branch in addition to GW-ATP as the 2 signalling systems on the branch to apparently avoid grief with Heathrow as the infrastructure owners in the tunnelled section (the tunnel mouth is the change of ownership point).
    All the TfL, ORR and NR analysis focused on GWML signalling implementation risk with no work done for the Heathrow Branch.

    We now have the unfortunate situation that 345s work on ETCS, and the NR ETCS 313 test train and 345s work on ETCS on the branch when GW-ATP is turned off. Hence it looks like fitting TPWS (+) to the branch and 332s ASAP is the way to go. The first GW 387 (the future HEx stock post interior refit) won’t have the first unit fitted with ETCS till early 2020 after the 332s have been retired so it looks like fitting TPWS has to happen which might align with the recent emergency funding announcements.

55. Re PoP @0943,

    It is worth noting that TPWS now is not the same as the original TPWS there have been many useful feature additions and implementation solution options so TPWS of 20 years ago is not the same as options for installing TPWS now also note TPWS+ etc.

    It shouldn’t be as hard to make TPWS+ as safe as GW-ATP on the branch especially as the speed are lower then on the mainline.

56. If GW ATP and ETCS really cannot be made to cooperate in the Heathrow tunnels, it could be a very long time before Class 345 and the Elizabeth Line proper serve the airport.

    The problem is that GWR want the 387s to be reconfigured from their current commuter layout to a more airport-friendly one for Heathrow Express. To do that, they need some cover as there aren’t enough 387s. The Elizabeth Line taking over Reading suburbans will help, but electric services to Newbury have also been promised.

    The current plan seems to be bi-mode converted 319s (769 Flex), ultimately for the Thames Valley branches and Reading-Gatwick. However, Wabtec are running late: they should have already delivered the initial 8 to Northern, but nothing seems to have even reached the test track yet.

    Of course GWR could take unrefurbished 319s as an interim solution, but potentially fall foul of PRM-TSI rules. Original pre-387 plans called for a cascade of 365s, but they are now in Scotland covering for the late 385s while the windscreens are sorted out. ScotRail have a one-year lease, so you won’t see them in Berkshire for a while!

57. Re Greg / Kit / PoP,

    Except DfT carefully put Heathrow on the hook for the next 10 years with the deal.

    GWR will soon take over running operational aspects of HEx and replace the 332s with 387s in Autumn 2019. Heathrow’s new role will soon be just commercial e.g. marketing, (aggressive) ticket sales, setting ticket price and most importantly being on the hook financially and still have to provide the service till 2028 so now sudden pulling the plug option now! It also stops Heathrow playing too many silly games when western access opens.

58. @Peter Staveley
    “I am struggling to understand why TPWS is not fitted to the Heathrow branch to allow all trains to operate to Heathrow.”
    Why are you struggling? It’s simply because –
    1) Network Rail don’t own the branch. Heathrow Airport Ltd (HAL) do.
    2) Until now, only specific trains have operated it, all in some guise under the control of the branch owner HAL.
    3) ATP is in place, considered functionally superior to TPWS and fitted to all the specific trains operating it.
    4) Installing another system costs money. Why spend it when it’s not needed?

59. I was on the Greenford line the other day and it occurred to me – wouldn’t it make sense to make that a Crossrail branch? We have all those services terminating at Paddington, and you’d only need to extend two of them to match the current service, and ideally two more to bring it inline with the acceptable minimum for a station in a city.

    Are there pathing issues? Or perhaps clearance issues with electrifying that line? Or was it not considered worth it. It seems to me that for a small amount of work you could:

    a) improve the status of what is probably the least well-served line in London
    b) remove the anomaly of the service not connecting to other GWR services
    c) reduce the number of trains blocking the westbound platform at Paddington while they’re emptied out to go into the siding

    Of course with the building of the bay they’ve committed themselves in the opposite direction – thus worsening what was already a pretty bad service. I wonder what effect this has already had on passenger numbers.

60. @PoP
    “At least, if it is a class 769, it can use the overhead wire as for its journey on the relief lines. I suspect it will have far more carriages than needed for this lightly used branch.”

    Can the branch platforms all take a 4-car unit?

    As for maintenance cover if TfL were to have its own diesel unit (Vivarail, Pacer*, whatever), I was taking the Stourbridge Shuttle as an example of a short line that has bespoke rolling stock – it has a dedicated fleet of two specialised units of which only one is required at any one time.

    (*ATW [Arriva Trains Wales] have shown the way to make these DDA compliant, by locking the toilets out of use. )

    I suspect if there is only one unit and it isn’t working, potential passengers will find themselves on a Rail Replacement Bus. Indeed the easiest way of eliminating diesel traction on the route at the stations between West Ealing and South Greenford would be to operate this https://www.londonbuses.co.uk/_routes/prefix/e11.html with these https://www.flickr.com/photos/98464140@N06/25144361148/

61. Re Occasional Traveller,

    GWR were aware of the 769 delays when they agreed and their timing takes account of that but may be not the newest delays.
    The 769s work can be done in 2 stages with Northern already having some part modified 319s back so 31/12/19 shouldn’t be an issue (many of the later TL units have had the work done while still at GTR and the outstanding scope isn’t large either mostly (only?) around Passenger Information Screens)

62. @Simon Treanor
    AIUI electrifying the Greenford line has no business case, it’s just way too lightly used and although it’s a relatively short length, the cost would never pay back. And running 10 car Crossrail trains up there would be pointless.

    It would make more sense to me to make it a Central line branch, with or without through trains from one direction or the other as there are curves in both directions at Greenford, though one imagines that even there, the business case is likely to be elusive. It would risk going the way of Epping-Ongar.

63. Re Simon Treanor,

    Already covered on LR at least 20 times in the last decade:
    No.
    The Greenford Branch is the wrong side of the Acton – Ealing capacity pinch point so no paths available. Hence OOC as the last point west for 24tph and the reason there are only 2tph to T5. T5 to 4tph will be the priority for squeezing out any last capacity which they can’t at the moment. The branch would also need hugely expensive infrastructure works.
    Greenford is more likely to see Crossrail trains up the NNML than via West Ealing at the moment.

64. Anonanonanon

    AIUI electrifying the Greenford line has no business case, it’s just way too lightly used and although it’s a relatively short length, the cost would never pay back.

    Totally irrelevant. You have to run the trains anyway. It doesn’t matter if there are no passengers. It doesn’t really affect the business case that much. For example, diesel trains guzzle fuel regardless of how many passengers are on board.

    If looking for a business case you compare the cost of running a diesel, based at Reading, with the cost of a Vivarail train, possibly based on the branch. There are other factors such as passenger satisfaction (limited I agree if there are few passengers) and a desire to eliminate diesel.

65. @occasional Traveller
    “365s, but they are now in Scotland covering for the late 385s while the windscreens are sorted out. ScotRail have a one-year lease, so you won’t see them in Berkshire for a while!”

    The windscreen problem with the 385s seems to have been sorted, and the new ones only take a day of so to fit apparently, so the 365s may be available sooner rather than later. I am sure Scotrail would be more than happy to be released early from the terms of the lease if it means avoiding paying for trains they no longer need.

    @Simon Treanor. Problems with extending Crossrail’s Paddington terminators to Greenford:
    1. electrification: the GWML project has no scope for expansion – on the contrary, it is running very late and has been cut back in places.
    2. None of the stations can take a 9-car train
    3. The reason the service was cut back to West Ealing in the first place (and indeed why Crossrail services are terminating at Paddington) is the lack of capacity, in particular between between Ealing Broadway and West Ealing.

    There will remain diesel trains in London for the foreseeable future – Waterloo-Exeter, London Bridge-Uckfield, St Pancras-Sheffield, Euston-Chester, the Paddington-Penzance sleeper, and all Chiltern services, compared with which the Greenford shuttle is a drop in the ocean.

66. Great article!

    Re. the issue of T5 moving from 2tph to 4tph – Surely the pain / urgency of this depends in part upon the continued operation and exact service pattern of HEX? In the short term, assuming that the free CTA(T2/3)-T5 service on HEX is retained, this could ease the problems – as already pointed out HEX runs on the fast lines H&H-PAD so less path contention, and although changing trains at CTA isn’t ideal, especially with luggage, a service pattern whereby HEX trains were timed to support rapid transfers to the T4 Elizabeth services at CTA (ideally those evenly spaced between the T5 services) would provide a pretty decent overall T5 service. Given what I suspect will be ongoing rivalry between HAL/GWR and TfL I wonder how well this will be orchestrated or advertised for the benefit of travellers!

    Also – to briefly revisit the discussion on access to T5 from the west on another thread – we’re still left with a situation in the peaks (when the semi-fasts stop at West Drayton [WDT] but not Hayes) where it’s probably quicker (and almost certainly cheaper) to use a bus from Slough or WDT than to change trains anywhere.

67. All fair points about Greenford – I did wonder about the paths, and forgot to consider platform lengths. It is a shame though – I think, as we’ve seen with other routes, a better service often means better patronage, but it’s hard to see it justifying that now that it’s just a shuttle with no realistic option to extend anywhere. It’s a shame the West London Tram never got off the ground, that’d probably be the best use for it.

68. @Timbeau – to be fair, most of those Diesel examples could be electric out of London if bi-mode stock was used. Chiltern & the Greenford branch are the only exceptions, which makes Chiltern in particular an interesting outlier.

69. Great article, and as a Hanwell resident it was music to my ears to read ‘Hanwell: the big Crossrail beneficiary’! Getting into the city despite living within 10 mins walk to Hanwell station currently means bussing to Northfields or Ealing Broadway and getting on busy services from there.

    Can anyone help me to understand what your predictions are re frequency upgrades between now and Dec 19 from Hanwell?

    Do we think that due to Heathrow tunnel testing delays, we’ll be stuck with 2tph from Hanwell until the 6tph of Dec 19? A very impatient part of me was hoping we’d see 4tph from May 18 (or when testing was complete on 345s… or from Jan 19!) to PAD upper level, especially since TfL Rail timetables have only been published to Dec 18.

70. Re Timbeau and Jimbo,

    The new East Midands franchise will have Bi-mode so diesel out of St Pancras will be gone within 4.5 years,,

    Re B&T,

    HEx timing can’t be flexed they have to fit in the paths on the GWML fasts (mains) and everything else revolves around that and the single track to T4, hence the additional interterminal stuttle between T2+3 and T5 in the gap.

71. Re James,

    Don’t expect anything till December ’19

72. @NGH – Didn’t know about plans for a T2/3-T5 shuttle. Is that a HEX or TfL / Elizabeth line operated service? Timed to connect with the Elizabeth Line T4 services at the mid-point of the T5 through services? If so then although not ideal it’s still a pretty good T5 service.

73. Is there any scope for HeX to short-term borrow 1 or 2 crossrail 345s as cover for the 387s undergoing refit?
    I realise the seating layout won’t be what HeX want, but it would solve some problems, unless there is a techinical reason the 345s can’t be used in this way (too long? too slow?)

74. ngh and others,

    HEx timing can’t be flexed they have to fit in the paths on the GWML fasts (mains)

    Which is absolutely critical to Crossrail because in means that all of Crossrail has to operate on the basis of 15 minute cycles. So, basically, you can have 4tph or 2tph but not 3tph or 6tph at even intervals. Arguably, tail wagging dog but that’s how the railway is.

75. Re B&T,

    Unadvertised and by HEx, it runs if they have enough working units (which they don’t at the moment so it isn’t). It worked quite well for a few years till this year when rolling stock reliability went out the window (maintenance contract finished so now costing HEx more so doing less?)

76. B&T,

    Same thing with T4 at the moment. You can see them in live departures from Terminal 4.
    http://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/service/ldbboard/dep/HAF

    You can’t see them at the moment for T5 for the reasons ngh gives.

77. Re DJL,

    They could use some of their own Connect cl. 360s when the cl. 345s can work the tunnels…
    The best solution is CR taking over some of the Maidenhead/Readings earlier than Dec ’19. with over 50x of the 70x cl.345 now completed there is at least some foundation for that, admittedly plenty of reasons not to work either…
    wisely it seems TfL want to keep their options as open as possible though.

78. PoP
    Oops – I’d forgotten that HeX uses the main lines – my bad.

    NGH
    I’ve forgotten – will ticket prices change significantly on the GW-run ( ex-HeX ) Heathrow trains after Dec 2019?

    ANON(repeated)
    Because the single bespoke ATP is an anomaly, when everything else is TPWS-fitted & the latter works really well & doesn’t require specialist maintenance for a tiny area & fleet.
    I would also remind you that the Greenford branch sees quite a bit of freight – that why those curves are there at both ends, & quite well-polished, too.

79. Very much approve of this enhanced Abbey Wood – West of Paddington service pattern. (Shenfield terminating Paddington then to Westbourne Park Sidings; hopefully to Old Oak Common long term)
    1) Disappointed that Acton Mainline will not receive 6tph all day – by adding the T5 service (Presenting at Heathrow tunnel is however more important – an increasingly critical timetable constraint)
    2) High level Paddington and Liverpool Street services are important, to provide route knowledge allowing limited branch services to keep running if the core fails for extended periods.
    3) Old Oak Common. Agree having two dedicated platforms for Relief lines in each direction would allow a passing point. However if most Shenfield services are extended then occupancy will be more complex. If HS2 box needs completing first with GWML station partially sat on top, then Crossrail station is unlikely to be opened much ahead. Add in desires from Chiltern, East-West Rail, GWR and HEX (Southern Access Rail) and constraints then this becomes a complex build.
    4) Heathrow. HEX paths are very valuable. If Southern Access is built then private backers may be very keen to provide Surrey through services via airport to HS2 at Old Oak Common with most to Paddington. Once Crossrail has 2 more to T5 (8tph) not convinced they will get anymore.

80. @jimbo
    “most of those Diesel examples could be electric out of London if bi-mode stock was used.”

    Point taken about the East Midland franchise, although lugging that electric equipment all the way from Sheffield just for the last sprint from Kettering to St Pancras seems a bit of a waste.

    Neither SWR nor Southern seem to have any plans to replace their 159s and 171s with bimodes despite, in he former case, much younger post-privatisation EMUs are to be replaced. (And EMUs generally have longer service lives than diesels)

81. I would like to point out that a slight problem with this service pattern is that a peak semi-fast Reading train is bound to catch up to the train in front, whichever train it is that gets sent out before it. At this point, is it really worth skipping so many stops?

82. Saintsman,

    On point 2 it would be interesting to see what happens. I suspect that lack of platform capacity at Paddington High Level will kill this idea and priority given to long distance trains. On the other hand, it could be vital to provide some kind of Airport service so maybe they would get one platform – sufficient to run 4tph.

    The obvious alternative is simply to terminate at Paddington low level – assuming that wasn’t where the problem was. There is a crossover in the Royal Oak portal according to the Open Train Times map of Paddington.

    There is also the possibility of terminating any trains from the west that can’t be accommodated at Paddington low level at Ealing Broadway. This isn’t ideal but it is a lot better than nothing.

83. Re Greg,

    HEx Pricing – We’ll find out in early 2020 if/when there is permanent ticket sale! (HEx sets prices and has revenue risk) so it could be interesting…
    They’ll be paying GWR anyway!

    Re Saintsman,

    3. a) IMHO PoP has an unrealistic belief in passing happening it just doesn’t add up as soon as everything stops at OOC (which is the plan).
    b) OOC GW platforms aren’t on top of HS2 station box very deliberately so work could start as soon as HEx vacate their depot space at OOC next year ideally severing the NNML connection is needed for rapid progress on the GW platforms opening.

84. @Timbeau
    “…although lugging that electric equipment all the way from Sheffield just for the last sprint from Kettering to St Pancras seems a bit of a waste.”

    That “last sprint” is still about 45% of the journey in terms of distance. Distances from St. Pancras to Kettering and Sheffield are about 71 and 158* miles respectively.

    (*N.B. I have not bothered to check which route this is measured via. It shouldn’t make a huge difference to the percentage though.)

85. Anon E. Mouse (X-Plaistow),

    Presumably not if it leaving Reading until sufficiently later so it slots in at Royal Oak portal. Then it won’t catch up with the train ahead. But then you have to be careful it won’t delay the train behind.

    The thing is though that the GWR off-peak service, which more or less does the same thing, was approved ages ago. If it can work for the GWR service, why can’t it work for the semi-fast Crossrail service?

    It does look incredibly challenging though with an all-stations train from T4 following behind. So the T4 train has to make five additional stops yet follow the semi-fast five minutes later at Paddington. Maybe five and a half minutes because the semi-fast could sit in the platform at Paddington low level for an extra half minute. Somehow I suspect the semi-fast won’t be travelling that fast once it reaches suburban London. So maybe the omission of suburban station stops is more about avoiding the scenario where short distance passengers in the evening peak prevent longer distance passengers boarding their infrequent Reading semi-fast train. And, for consistency, the service pattern is replicated in the morning.

86. ngh,

    Nothing in the final article or any comment I have made subsequently suggests I have any belief in trains not stopping at Old Oak Common. The associated diagram clearly shows every single Crossrail train stopping at Old Oak Common. I only suggested the possibility, and it was just that – a possibility ,when I was not aware that it was already the intention to stop everything at Old Oak Common.

87. Re AnonEMouse and Timbeau,

    The limit of electrification will probably be Market Harborough, so an extra circa 10 miles under the wires.

    With 2tph Corby with EMUs, 3 Nottingham/Derby mostly under the wires, only the 1 tph Sheffield isn’t mostly under the wires…

88. @PoP
    Sorry, I didn’t make it clear that in my comment at 14:21, I was thinking of the westbound direction. As you say, the problem in the eastbound direction is not catching up to the train in front but instead delaying the train behind. Point taken about not wanting short-distance passengers on the semi-fasts though.

89. @ngh
    “…only the 1 tph Sheffield isn’t mostly under the wires”
    Pedantic I know, but there are 2tph from Sheffield. The former Derby terminators were extended there at the end of 2009.

90. Have TfL provided some fully precise (and believable) explanation of how terminating westbound trains are to be dealt with at Paddington? (if, as stated here, it is NOT intended to do a near- instant restart and anyone left on train is dealt with at Westbourne Pk reversal and taken back to Paddn). If not, it must be assumed that the whole service will fail from hour one.

    [Sorry but we have already discussed this numerous times and further comments on the subject, unless giving additional new information, will be deleted. PoP]

91. @many

    I stand corrected – it seems my mental map of England has Northamptonshire and Yorkshire much further apart than it seems they really are.

    Meanwhile, back on topic……………………

92. Good news for Hanwell. A lot of suppressed demand (and becoming trendy so usage likely to rise!) Acton I think will get bumped up in time.

    I think that with all the development along the route, especially at Southall and Hayes – it’ll be hugely well used. I’d expect Hayes to be added to the peak Reading semi-fast – which might help slow it down a bit anyway re pathing.

    Greenford – if not handed to Chiltern and extended to High Wycombe (which was proposed and is relatively easily done) – is probably fine as is. But I’d imagine usage will rise with such good Crossrail connections – and crucially, in both directions. I’d say demand from Ruislips, Denham and up would be just as strong headed west – they already have good London services but the TV and Heathrow connections at West Ealing are attractive too (especially if they won’t have OOC services as currently planned). So who knows. It would need a short, simple platform at Greenford but little else. Northolt could also be considered – the tube use is higher than Greenford so worth thinking about.

93. On the subject of ORCATS.

    Trains are categorised as Empty Coaching Stock [EE]; LUL or Metro [OW]; Ordinary Passenger [OO] and Express Passenger [XX] (plus a whole lot more which need not concern us). There is also an accommodation indicator for Standard Class (Only) or 1st and Standard Class

    ORCATS runs once each Bi-Annual timetable has been uploaded into industry systems. It ONLY includes in its revenue projections, trains that are coded OO or XX and the accommodation available.

    Current TfL Rail services are coded OO and the accommodation is Standard Class (Only). The assumption must be that they will stick with this

94. All this talk of “OOC” as a useful/essential stop/junction/changing point reinforces the idea that redoubling Ruislip – OOC –
    AND
    … Then running Chiltern services to OOC might be a very good idea.

    [ IIRC, after HS2 is built, they are supposed, at the moment, to put a single track back? ]

95. Many thanks for this, though I confess about 95% of it was beyond my comprehension.

    H and H is my station and I was only thinking today about when timetable information would be available, and here it is…

    Two GWR off-peak trains an hour stopping only at Ealing Broadway sounds good to me, since from my experience so far I hate everything about TfL and their E-line.

    My completely uneducated hunch though is that TfL only really care about the central underground bit that will take pressure off the Central line.

96. Can someone with a bit more knowledge help me with this question?

    Could we be in a position where stations like Langley, Iver, Burnham which are under TfL control have lower ‘London Zone’ fares, and stations like Slough, Maidenhead and Reading have higher ‘Special fares’?

    The fares east west of WD are still very ambiguous!

97. All interesting stuff. I guess I will become a regular from Custom House. A few points if I may.

    Opening of the Central/Eastern part will come a year before all this, and will probably set the style and maybe even cause initial changes to this western plan. I still expect the “half core service” to Canary Wharf to be one of the first elements to be overwhelmed by demand.

    Travelling on the GWMl westwards, it is surprising how much freight traffic there is. Sometimes I’ve seen more than three full length trains pass me in less than an hour. However are these to be fitted in.

    The just 2 trains an hour to Heathrow T5 are a nonsense, and will surely incur the ire of British Airways there. Presumably as the 4 tph Heathrow Express are free between the terminals the best thing to do is go to the central station and change. Will this be advertised.

    I give the GWR local services two years, in the meantime I suspect they will run rather empty outwards, but carry better loads inwards who will mostly change at Ealing Broadway. It seems futile to run these finite separate service patterns where passengers will be just taking the first train to come along.

    The Reading expresses are a pleasant surprise, I presume they will run on the relief lines all the way. They will surely be the most popular of all the western services. I wonder if they are viewed as an Orcats Raid on GWR’s business from Reading.

98. Mr Beckton
    “The Reading expresses are a pleasant surprise, I presume they will run on the relief lines all the way.” So they won’t be expresses at all, will they? Surely they will only be able to be 2 or 3 minutes quicker than the all-stations trains?

99. Re Timbeau.

    Actually ScotRail are not only looking to keep hold of the 365s they on short term lease – they are in talks about taking on more. Intended uses include the North Berwick branch plus the proposed commuter service out to Dunbar (along with 2 new stations) which the Scottish Government want to happen ASAP. Furthermore unlike the inhabitants of the DfT, the Scotts have never lost faith in the principle of electrification and are already pushing ahead with plans to extend the wires to Perth (requiring further electric trains).

    We have seen what happens before with train leases – witness Northern being short of some Turbostars because Chiltern needed more stock and was able to strike a deal with the ROSCO there and then while Northern couldn’t do anything as the DfT were still trying to make up their minds what they wanted the next franchise specification to be.

    In other words it is just as unwise to crayoinista with rolling stock as it is drawing lines on the map and the needs of the rest of the UK are just as (if not more important) than the needs of Crossrail regardless of what Londoners might say / think.

100. I’ve had a go at timing a peak hour in the down direction based on what’s described above. This is based on current journey times between stations. I’m not a professional timetabler so I make no claims about it, it’s for curiosity only.

     I can see why the Reading semi-fasts might not be able to stop at Hayes as my timings indicate a 4 minute window between the preceding T4 stopper and the following Reading stopper. If that’s the case goodness knows how the GWR off peak service will do it.

101. @ Ngh – could you explain what you mean by the DfT having HEX / HAL “on the hook for 10 years”? Isn’t HEX open access albeit with some specific rights to ensure the link is funded but that runs out soon enough. Surely ORR control track access rights on NR metals so how have DfT “done the dirty” (as implied by your remarks) on HEX? It all sounds rather devious whatever it actually is.

102. @ LHRGuy – This is all a guess on my part but I don’t see TfL doing anything particularly revolutionary about fares beyond West Drayton. I can’t see more public “zones” being created to the west of West Drayton. TfL are in such need of every £ from Crossrail passengers that it would be foolhardy of them to somehow undermine the revenue base that already exists. They are also constrained by wider commercial and pricing issues controlled by DfT / GWR. There may be a tiny bit of tweaking or tidying of fares to make it easy to present to the public in terms of what a single fare is, what the caps are and other things like minimum / maximum fares. The aim is clearly to have a very good train service offer that pulls in the punters regardless of the fares.

     Fares to Reading are pretty high (as with Gatwick) so there are implications around things like the level of deposits held on cards, fares deducted on entry, maximum journey times etc. The impacts are pretty wide in terms of what the overall Oyster / Contactless system has to cope with and process correctly. There are also issues about how any card problems get handled at somewhere like Twyford or Reading. No LU ticket machines or staff out there or Oyster Ticket Stops.

     The only thing I can foresee is some cleverness around daily and 7 day capping once Oyster and Contactless stretch to Reading. I would guess GWR will be part of that scheme as there will be an upside for them from more convenient ticketing technology. If passengers move across to the new facilities then the cost of ticket selling falls and that may give GWR a bit of scope for cost reductions alongside a revenue bounce (as seen in the past when Oyster was added to other NR routes). So sorry if anyone was expecting huge fare cuts and fares freezes to Reading – I just don’t see any of that happening. Too much money at stake and no one wants to give the DfT a reason to come stomping in and stopping TfL doing things. Best tactic is not to do too much and stick within the rules set down and signed up to.

103. Back to the Greenford branch, there was occasion mention of that moving to 4tph to compensate for the loss of through trains to Paddington. That isn’t happening by all accounts. Does anyone know what the source of that was? Something official? Politicians seeking re-election? Or wishful thinking that was turned to fact by repetition?

104. So I’ve waited all this time for a direct service between Ilford and Ealing Broadway that doesn’t rely on the Central line, and there won’t be one?

     So this really is being built for the elite Heathrow – Canary Wharf crowd isn’t it.

105. Re 92TS,

     Given the reliability of the GWML and GEML this will produce the most reliable service in the core.

     Canary Wharf’s rather large donation to Crossrail funding was based on CW getting the majority of Heathrow services so no surprise there.

     The split as is creates journey times that work sensibly with drivers legal working time requirements so helps maximise driver efficiency and any need for changes at busy points on route.

     It keeps service patterns simple.

     (Also Ilford isn’t on the Central line)

106. As well as what ngh says, it is also worth remembering that a same-platform-next-train change, while less ideal than an actual through train, is still considerably better (in many people’s opinion) than a trek through passageways, stairs etc.

107. POP

     The 1949 timetable is a fascinating document which I intend scanning in full, but I recently broke an arm so such activities are somewhat slow and in parts painful, but watch that space!

108. A few quick comments,

     Kate Francis,

     As Walthamstow Writer implies, money talks – so TfL will care about the western end of Crossrail. They know that revenue is dependent on the service offered. They have proposed the idea of taking over the line to Reading (more than was originally intended). More to the point, they bought leased four additional trains and these will have to earn their keep. So TfL do care very much. In fact probably more so than taking passengers off the Central line. In the latter case all that it does is shift revenue from one part of TfL to another.

     LHRguy,

     I cannot see any ambiguity. Neither TfL nor the Mayor have suggested reduced fares. Some people (forlornly), a different set of people, hope they will be reduced. No ambiguity whatsoever.

     Mr Beckton,

     The just 2 trains an hour to Heathrow T5 are a nonsense, and will surely incur the ire of British Airways there.

     Well of course there will be 6tph to T5 but only two of them are Crossrail trains. From a throwaway remark by someone senior in Crossrail a couple of years ago, I get the impression it was British Airways who provided the impetus to get these trains. I suspect, as far as Crossrail were concerned, they were pushing at a door that Crossrail was willing to assist in opening. So I think British Airways will be pleased they have got 2tph initially and will push for more.

     British Airways do have a seemingly good case that would appeal to political patriots. A supposedly British company (even if it isn’t really but it has ‘British’ in the title of its subsidiary) has 2tph at their terminal where as T4, the all-comers terminal, has 4tph.

109. Re WW,

     HEx have signed up to having GWR (and DfT appointed successors) to operate it for them for 10 years. The option of walking away if it became very loss making combined with trying to retain the premium ethos at all costs is no longer there. They need to maximise revenue (with a more able competitor now) and get the public transport access to Heathrow up (for R3/T6 etc. requirements) Hence the premium fares may be less premium in the future if passenger numbers drop when CR opens…

110. @ Ngh – No Ilford isn’t but Gants Hill is about 6 bus stops away and has very regular and very busy bus services linking the two. While Ilford to West London is perhaps not a major flow I can all too readily understand the disappointment of people who were hoping for a faster, streamlined journey on Crossrail. There has long been an unstated assumption that east to west *cross London* travel would be easier with Crossrail (the hint’s in the name) and now we find it won’t materialise for some without an enforced change of train.

     I understand the arguments about splitting service groupings but I remain of the view some people in both east and west London are going to be disappointed by the final service offer. The issue for TfL is whether it remains as “polite grumbling” or gains political “legs” and becomes a problem requiring a fix.

111. Mr Beckton,

     The inter-terminal transfer between T2&3 and T4 or T5 is generally advertised within the airport. As it is intended for terminal transfer this seems reasonable enough.

     Even you are unaware that it is free and you use an Oyster Card or other wave and pay card, you will be charged nothing. In any case, you can’t buy a ticket for the journey. Fares beyond the airport don’t differentiate between the terminals.

     My understanding is that if the Crossrail trains were basically fast from Reading it could be construed as an ORCATS raid – except that the service must have been agreed with all parties (including GWR) so it can’t be as it is part of the basic service. The service (peak hours only) has the significant benefit of providing a better service to Twyford, Maidenhead and Slough. These are stations at which (we believe) GWR will not be providing a peak period service on main line to Paddington. So it is hard to construe that its primary aim is to have more revenue allocated for journeys from Reading to London.

112. Re WW,

     With the Canary Wharf deal, timetabling restrictions and TfL’s constrained budget it will cost more to change and run differently.

     There is also a real possibility that some West London stations wouldn’t get such a good service level if there were changes – that won’t go down well. The split enables more stops on the Western side…

113. How realistic is it that the the Greenford branch will simply close to passengers one day?

     I can’t imagine it would be missed. I spent most of my childhood and teenage years in the area (moved away 15 years ago, so things may have changed), and it was hardly ever a practical option even when the trains ran to Paddington. Taking into account the infrequency of services, Ealing Bdy – Greenford journeys were almost always quicker by Central Line (changing at North Acton) and for the intermediate stations one was better off getting a bus to Ealing or Greenford.

114. A response to this is bound to be highly speculative. But for the time being, I feel that any proposal (however well-justified) to close any passenger line anywhere in south-east England would result in enormous protests. But of course such things may change over time.

115. Ironically, the much improved service at Hanwell and West Ealing may be to the detriment of the Greenford Branch, because many of the buses (E1, E3, E11) pass very close to them before they get caught up in traffic on the routes towards Ealing Broadway.

116. @Mr Ed/ Malcolm

     I doubt a proposal to close the line would get much sympathy, but such things can change over time, usually because they happen in stages. “Death by a thousand cuts”, or “closure by stealth”, except in many such cases each step is considered in isolation, often in a genuine attempt to save the line from closure by reducing the cost of running it.

     The Croxley Green branch is, I think, the most recent branch to be closed in the South East(barring the odd stationless spur here and there). You can see the pattern – it took thirty-seven years from the last through train to London (1966) until the last “parliamentary” service was withdrawn in 2003, albeit for the last seven of those years it was of necessity provided by a replacement bus (taxi) service as the line had been severed by a new road.

     Of course, the two lines are not directly comparable – in particular the Castlebar line is a through route for freight and occasional passenger diversions – it is particularly useful for turning trains round if they have ended up back to front. And unlike Croxley Green, there is no Underground branch across the road for local Crayonisti to try to link up with it.

     So on the Castlebar line we’ve had stage 1 (withdrawal of direct London service), and stage 2 (truncate existing service, severing useful connections). I can quite see that GW are unlikely to prioritise the branch, whether as part of their own operation or providing cover for a dedicated (and unique) TfL unit, so replacement buses (or simply directing intending passengers to the nearest “E” route) may become more common.

     Quite how it would pan out next is difficult to predict, but if it’s going to happen the penultimate stage would be a “parliamentary” service at some godforsaken hour, and so unreliable that it would usually be replaced by a bus (service or special, in the latter case probably a taxi). Replacement by road service may be precipitated by the enforced closure of one or more platforms on the route because of deterioration beyond economic repair (see Kentish Town West, East Brixton, etc), although the relatively recent reinstatement of one of the platforms at South Greenford shows that somebody was willing to spend money on it.

     The area is well-served by buses (e.g a direct connection between the two Central Line branches using the E10 between Ealing Broadway and Northolt, or the 83, 112 and 226 between Ealing Broadway and Hanger Lane ), but at present there is no one bus route serving all the Greenford branch stations – the writing could be on the wall for the Greenford branch if you ever see a proposal for a short extension of the E11 to South Greenford and Greenford stations.

117. How many passengers from the GE side will want to REGULARLY go beyond Paddington? Surely the big benefit for 99.9% of the passengers is being able to go to the West End without having to change at Stratford or Liverpool Street.

     Indeed, as the trains aren’t going beyond Paddington, they won’t be filled with Heathrow passengers with their luggage, and hence might be more pleasant going through central London!

118. I do remember Greenford being touted as 4tph (and wired) but it’s cleared been dropped. Freight notwithstanding, it’s relatively self-contained so maybe they could try 3tph in time and see. I think it’ll be well-used, unless you were walking to work from Paddington, what’s the difference between changing at West Ealing or Paddington if you worked in the West End, City or even CW. Plus long, quicker, newer trains…

     On the point about fast services, Slough will retain its 2tph Oxford fasts – which it owes to HEx services being the ones just behind it, thus providing the buffer to a Reading fast catching it up, enabling the Slough call. Not sure if this has gone bi-mode yet but I’d expect this pathing to improve vs the 90mph turbos it often got.

119. Folkestone Harbour was not formally closed until 2014, but that is really nitpicking, as it had had no trains (or even replacement taxis) for many years.

120. @Mickey C
     I guess that >0.1% of the Elizabeth Great Eastern branch passengers will wish to go to Heathrow. If they require T5, they will need to change twice 50% of the time.

121. @Mikey C
     There are significant employment zones in Ealing, Hayes (incl Stockley Park) and Slough. Not to mention a large number of airport employees heading for Heathrow. Property prices tend to be more attractive to the East, so significant commuting traffic is there. I imagine there are many expecting Crossrail to improve their commute in ways that won’t appear and will be disappointed as a result

122. @Answer = 42
     “I guess that >0.1% of the Elizabeth Great Eastern branch passengers will wish to go to Heathrow. ”

     A typical commuter goes to work 5×45 = 225 times in a year (allowing for annual leave), but probably only goes abroad once. Assuming holidaymakers use Heathrow and the other three airports in roughly equal numbers (and never use Eurostar or a ferry) 0.1 % seems a fairly good estimate!

123. The fact that TfL apparently didn’t want the Greenford branch, and the 4tph hasn’t happened, is a bad omen for its future. Two trains would be required to run a higher frequency and clearly no-one wants to pay for the second. Everything points to a slow suffocation because no-one involved believes it can be turned around, at least not without spending cash none of them have to spare. Connecting with Chiltern is a nice idea, but recent improvement work at Northolt junction favouring the Marylebone route and the lack of through platforms at Greenford probably mean it’s unlikely.
     IMO Vivarail is the only hope here, preferably with batteries.

124. @Answer = 42
     @Timbeau
     There are a huge number of people that work at Heathrow. This is more significant for Crossrail than holiday flight traffic.

125. Don’t forget business travellers using Heathrow, even if they form a small number of journeys in the grand scheme of things.

126. C,

     It makes absolutely no sense to go for 3tph on Greenford – West Ealing. Journey time (with diesel) is 12 minutes in one direction and 11 minutes in the other. So, with a short train, it is a comfortable 30 minute round trip and an 2tph makes best use of resources. If you need a second train then you might as well run 4tph.

     You also want to aim for a consistent connection at West Ealing which a 3tph service won’t give you. Remember, Crossrail has to be based on 15 minute intervals in the west. Look at the euphemistically-described ‘connections’ at Grove Park off the Bromley North branch (3tph ‘connecting’ with a 15-minute-based off-peak service) to see how badly that can work in practice.

127. @ANONANONANON: Even with the property price differential, given the pay scales for a lot of the airport jobs and the working hours. East London remains a poor choice, at least until such time as the fare equals that of the tube and the service runs 24 hours a day. To give you an idea with regards to the hours, the staff manning the Business Premier Lounge at Ebbsfleet have an 04:30 start Monday to Saturday.

     And anyway, most of London would love a single, same platform change to get to Heathrow! My initial reaction to 92TS’s comment was somewhere between “Aw, diddums” and “My heart bleeds”…

128. @Pop Brilliant article and thank you for explaining it so clearly to a novice like me. The diagrams really bring it to life. I need someone to answer my beginner question: selfishly I am interested in what will happen to the evening peak GWR non stop Maidenhead to Paddington service (from Didcot Parkway). Because it uses the fast line would this be unafected by crossrail?

129. @Anonanonanon
     “Vivarail is the only hope here, preferably with batteries”

     I wouldn’t hold my breath. Although the entry into service of any new rolling stock seems to take an eternity (how long ago was it the first complete 710s and 717s were being shown off?) it pales into insignificance compared with the supposedly simpler and cheaper conversions of Vivarail and 319Flex (aka classes 230s and 769). As far as I am aware neither have conducted any tests on NR metals yet (at least, not since the impromptu New Years Eve firework display at Kenilworth, now more than 18 months ago), and the absence of 769s is a significant factor in the rolling stock shortages plaguing Northern Rail – in particular causing the complete abandonment of any service on the Windermere line.

     In any case, I’m not sure why you see Vivarail as the answer to the line – almost anything with two coaches – even a Pacer with no loos, could do the job, but whatever it is, it will be very much a cat that walks by itself, connecting at both ends of the line only with TfL-operated services, but unable to use the same rolling stock as any other TfL-operated service.

     A 165, whether run as a GW service or hired in from them by TfL, still seems the most logical option. (There is a precedent: when Great Eastern was an otherwise all-electric operation, it hired-in a 153 from Anglia to operate the Sudbury branch)

130. timbeau,

     I know it is not a production train and hasn’t gone through the regulatory procedures (but I think its diesel equivalent has) but this video which is eight months old suggests it is not a pipe dream. Even if we are not there yet it seems worth waiting for as it is hard to believe it won’t happen.

131. Andy Commuter,

     Based on a paper to the TfL board around 18 months ago, I think the idea was that GWR would keep clear of the relief lines east of Reading in the peak period. It was intended that there would be the occasional train that would call at the main (not relief) line platforms at Maidenhead, probably Slough and possibly Twyford as well – not necessarily the same train so as to maximise capacity.

     Whether this applies in both directions or just the peak flow direction I do not know. And it would be hard to know if your particular train was affected.

132. The Vivarail train on batteries was running up and down a short section of track at Rail Live in June. (by the way the huge builder’s bag of sand made an interesting temporary train arrestor!). The class 769 engine/generator raft was being shown off at the same exhibition with a large number of class 319 sets stored there with signs in the windows saying either “reserved for Flex” or “available for Flex”!

133. @timbeau
     @pop
     My “hope” (and I concede it is that) would be that short battery d-trains are cheaper to lease, maintain and run than 165s, and thus two of them could be employed on the Greenford branch providing that elusive 4tph at an affordable cost.

134. They would still be a microfleet, with all the costs of training staff to operate and maintain them. There would also be some dead mileage in getting to and from whichever depot they are maintained at. (I don’t know where the 165 for the Greenford branch spends the night, but it may run in service to/from Reading.

135. Me 13:05

     “The area [served by the Greenford shuttle] is well-served by buses (e.g ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the E10 ) ”

     Just seen this
     https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/elizabeth-line/“new bigger buses on route E10

     Coincidence?

136. @timbeau
     Maintenance would certainly have to be done somewhere, but whilst it makes sense sending a Class 165 to Reading where other Class 165s are stabled and maintained, why would you send a battery d-train all that way? VivaRail claim engine maintenance “can be carried out using a concrete pad by the side of the track”. An enterprising Adrian Shooter could maybe do a deal with Plasser to use some of the space in or around their West Ealing depot? Otherwise a concrete pad with road access could be constructed on the other side of the bay at West Ealing. The bay at Greenford could provide a secure-ish location for stabling.
     These may sound like left field ideas, but this is the kind of approach VivaRail are touting.

137. @Malcolm

     “… it is also worth remembering that a same-platform-next-train change, while less ideal than an actual through train, is still considerably better (in many people’s opinion) than a trek through passageways, stairs etc. …”

     Absolutely. Which is why the current desire of designers to end cross-platform changes, and require going up and down stairs/escalators, is all the more extraordinary.

     We have discussed this here before, but Custom House on Crossrail, with such a tedious interchange with the DLR which could have been readily arranged to be cross-platform, is a classic example.

138. I don’t find it as extraordinary as all that. Choice of interchange method is bound to be a trade-off between various “good things”, and you cannot have them all at once. These include (1) price : as cheap as possible, (2) passenger convenience, (3) safety (4) operating convenience. There are doubtless others. (Price is not just generalised meanness – money spent on diveovers and flyunders is not available for other things).

     For safety, cross-platform and same-platform probably require trains of the same length and same frequency (or close to) and balanced flows. The lack of these matches would, for instance, have ruled out cross-platform interchange at Canada Water – although this may also have been impossible for other reasons.

139. The luxury version of cross platform interchange is found in Hong Kong with pairs of interchange stations allowing all permutations of cross platform interchange in all directions. Handy but not cheap or simple!

140. @Anonanonanon

     Engine maintenance may be possible that way, but the passenger accommodation still needs cleaning, toilets (if any) attended to, etc.

141. Bit late to the party and only based on the experience of 12 years commuting on GWML into London/Reading, but there are still a huge number of infrastructure failures on the GWML between Slough and Paddington and around Didcot, and really sluggish timekeeping so 3/4 minute late arrivals throughout fairly standard.

     If anything the resilience has gone down over last few years when I was expecting an improvement. Given that the backup is always shut the fasts/reliefs then I guess there might be much more turning back of fast trains at Reading from the West.

     London Thames Valley grouping is now triggering season discounts for punctuality and reliability, which hasn’t happened for about 10 years. All the extra services won’t help (although I guess they are giving a load of trains up)

     Be interested to see how things go, especially with all the stone terminals all accessed from the reliefs, I just feel the state of NR infrastructure will be a regular limitation West of Paddington.

     Amazed that Reading will have some semifasts to Central London though!

142. As you say, discussed before, but I understand cross-platform interchange between different lines is now out of fashion due to the risk of hazardous overcrowding if one route is disrupted, with corridors considered to allow “buffering” of crowds.

143. @PHIL E
     I don’t think it’s ‘out of fashion’, but it becomes progressively more difficult to apply as station complexes become larger. By definition only two different platform tracks can be brought alongside each other, so at a multiple interchange, which lines and directions are the priority in this respect? For a brand new complete phased network development as in Hong Kong, a number of complimentary interchanges can be planned in detail as described by Ronnie MB with platforms of sufficient width etc. Trying to arrange any cross platform at existing underground stations for a new line threaded through central London is a vastly different and much more costly proposition. Another consideration is different fare areas at key interchanges that can usefully help determine routing for Oyster or other PAYG and prepaid fare regimes.

144. Phil E
     Doesn’t apply with surface lines, like Custom House, though ……
     OOC in future?

145. Thanks for the interesting article. It is good to know that eventually we will get 6 tph at Hanwell after Dec 19. The two questions we keep asking at Hanwell are 1, when will we get Class 345 trains to replace the Class 360 trains and 2, Will we get 4 tph before Dec 2019. Can anyone on here give any answers to those 2 questions?

146. IIRC It’s entirely dependant upon fixing the replacement signalling along the Heathrow tunnels.
     As soon as there is sufficent stock fited with the current/latest version of TPWS & the redundant old ( & specialist) ATP is removed from said tunnels & TPWS grids (etc) are installed, then a full service can start.
     However, as various previous posts have hinted, that date is far from certain.
     [ As others have also mentioned, the existing class 360 are not the problem, as other variants of the same are already TPWS-fitted. It’s the class 332 that’s the problem. ]

147. Cross platform interchange is far easier where the land, the infrastructure and operations are all in the hands of the same legal entity.

     The minute you have two or more inserted parties (for example Network Rail, South Eastern and LUL as at Stratford high level, or Network Rail, Crossrail and South Eastern at Abbey Wood it becomes necessary for all sorts of complicated legal agreements to be made covering who pays / who is responsible for / what access rights each party has / what certifications are required etc.

     This is further complicated by infrastructure differences – at Custom house DLR personnel and maintenance are all geared round shrouded conductor rail NOT 25KV overheads. Similarly Crossrail (who are infrastructure operator / maintainer / owner of the Elizabeth line between Abbey Wood / Pudding Mill Lane and Royal Oak are only geared up to deal with OLE not conductor rail.

     Finally there are practical matters – its not easy to have RRV (Road Rail Vehicle) based plant or indeed have staff passing to and fro to access the middle 2 tracks of an otherwise operational railway and thus any engineering work will be far more expensive and disruptive compared to the situation where each service is kept completely separate.

148. May I venture to suggest that the layout at Custom House maybe dictated by the reuse of the Connaught Tunnel in the east and the getting the tunnels round the Jubilee line in the west? A peek at Google Earth shows crossovers at both ends, presumably to save digging out enlarged tunnels and other mucking about underground at Canary Wharf and getting uncomfortably close to the Jubilee in the process.

149. The difficulties listed by Phil are very real ones, and that may not be an exhaustive list. However, these difficulties could probably have been overcome if cross-platform interchange had been decided on right from the start. But it was not, and I submit that the reason it was not was primarily financial. Crossrail as a whole has been, necessarily, a very costly project, but it was (rightly, in my view) not a fully gold-plated “cost is no object” project.

150. Could I ask what that latest position is re 24 hour operation?

151. @ Mark T – worth noting in passing that there is rather less new cross platform interchange in Hong Kong these days as the system expands. I agree it’s nice to put it in if you can *but* those original interchanges in Kowloon and on the Island are feeling the strain these days. Some of the platforms are not really wide enough for the huge flows now being carried and space has been lost in some places as MTR have added in lifts for improved accessibility. If they ever get round to needing to widen those platforms they’ve got a very involved engineering task on their hands. Expanded interchange at Admiralty for the South Island Line and future reconfigured North South (former East Rail) is on multiple levels and has proved to be immensely complicated to achieve.

     Phil is correct that where infrastructure operators “butt up” against each other you need all sorts of agreements and arrangements to make sure everything is allocated to an owner / responsible maintainer and is safely controlled and operated. Despite DLR and Crossrail being in theoretical TfL ownership the reality is rather different so I can understand why there may have been a desire to provide proper segregation at Custom House. I am not suggesting for a second that it was a key driver of the decision – there will have been good engineering, operational and cost reasons for that. I’ve had to manage and deal with asset and ownership boundaries on stations and it can be very involved and tiresome.

152. There have been a couple of recent incidents reported on by the RAIB where the infrastructure involved lay on the boundary between different infrastructure operators, with neither operator ending up maintaing the piece of infrastructure in question.

     One was the NR/LUL boundary near Wimbledon – a short section of unmaintained track resulted in a derailment. The other was an electrical supply cable attached to a station footbridge, running from the station’s distribution board (TOC maintained) to an item of signalling infrastructure (NR maintained); the cable was drooping, and was eventually snagged and violently pulled from the bridge by a passing train, causing several minor injuries to nearby pedestrians.

153. Thank goodness these clowns don’t schedule the Undetground, or Overground for that matter, imagine the crazy pattern of services that would result, keep-it-simple should mean keep-it-simple.

     “One imagines that TfL just couldn’t bring themselves to offer a better service at Acton Main Line knowing that the station would never be popular owing to the number of Central line Tube stations nearby.”

     Is it really being claimed that the brand new shiny, clean, fast, spacious, air conditioned Crossrail won’t be able to compete with the Cental Line owing to abetter potential in every way? What a waste of money building it then!

154. 
     [Snip for irrelevance and valueless opinion PoP]

     Max Roberts
     Actually, it’s a matter of priorities.
     Acton ML is getting a doubling of service – not bad, but it’s much more important, as a real priority, with only a limited budget ( even if it’s a big budget – see Malcolm’s comment ) to get say Ealing Broadway properly reconstructed. look at all the kerfuffle there has been over that, with re-re-designing & change of contractors and ……
     [ Or the much-needed service improvements at Hanwell, too. ]

155. @max Roberts – the Central and the Elizabeth lines are not intended to compete; they are there to serve different if overlapping markets, and by doing so, the Elizabeth is intended to relieve the Central.

     BTW, I think you will find the clowns who do the specifying are in fact the same people in each case

156. “Acton ML ……… it’s much more important, as a real priority, to get say Ealing Broadway properly reconstructed.”

     What, if any, infrastructure work (or any other capital expenditure) would be required to allow more trains to call at Acton ML?

     I would guess the real issue is pathing.

157. Re Timbeau,

     “I would guess the real issue is pathing.”
     Exactly hence the focus on Interchange stations and existing higher passenger number stations.

     Re Max Roberts,

     Given the constraints they are keeping it simple while maximising service levels

     Re Greg T,

     In the longer term with the future OOC Station just 1100m further east how much point is there trying to sort out Action ML?

158. Update on OOC GWML station construction timing:

     Construction is due to start in 2020 following on from demolition of the HEx depot.
     The 3 northern platforms will happen relatively quickly but the Southern most one will be a bit of a pig. (See my previous comment of the topic 9 days ago)
     Platforms themselves will be built from precast concrete components which will help construction speed.

159. Frankly my main concerns the continuance of steam hauled specials out of Paddington. And Southall steam shed. They are quality experiences compared to Tin Lizzie Line TfL rubbish stock, and bouncy GWR electrics.

160. NGH – do we know when entrances will open at OOC and Crossrail might start calling there, even if sooner than the GW fasts can?

     Is there a timeline for the various overground connectivity?

     Also, ‘valueless opinion’ – ouch. Bit brutal… there can be quite a censorial approach to topics but also especially to certain users. This is an informal enthusiasts’ place to share ideas and information – I say this with gratitude and respect for LR, but the modding sometimes is a bit heavy-handed for what it is.

161. Re: Chris Brady – Nothing wrong with personal views on what’s important in the grand scheme of things, but I trust you are aware that you’re in a rather small minority with that one…

162. I’d agree that the service pattern is not exactly simple. In fact it seems every single station in London has a different one.

     And I suspect the matter will be made worse by a lack of proper information. I guess many screens will only show the final destination. Some will show some special information that is can only be understood within the context (e.g. T5 trains may show ‘not stopping Acton Mainline’, while Reading trains will have a different info. Station screens will probably show intermediate station sliding through (keep staring at it and know their order!). Or will we get proper route numbers (E1 – all stations to T4, E2 – all stations to T5 except Acton ML, T3 – to Maidenhead or Reading, T4 – semi-fast to reading) – that would be something at least…

163. @Christian Schmidt
     At least on platforms and on in-car diagrams, the four (?) separate service patterns could be shown, just as they are on the DLR. Also like the DLR, it’s probably not necessary to show such detail on the Tube Map. Short workings are not so important – if your train stops short you’ve lost nothing – you can just wait where you were tipped out for the one behind. It’s the skip-stopping that matters.

164. Re C,

     May be I was being a bit harsh. The key question is what is the BCR for adding an extra 2 minutes on lots of people’s journeys at a relatively quiet station (with lots of local Central line alternatives nearby) given there are also lots of capacity issues (increasing Acton ML stops would be at the expense of other station service levels (where they often have no alternative to CR).

     With the current signalling headways are limited to 2.5 minutes or 2 minutes post ETCS which will certainly get to OOC. ETCS proceeding further west of the Reliefs will need lots of the UK freight loco fleet fitted with ETCS first.

     The station at OOC won’t open till 2026 as it won’t be possible to get to it given it will be surrounded by construction site.

165. My harsh comment wasn’t aimed at your post, I don’t agree with the Acton thing however but I wasn’t thinking that. But do consider that by 2026, Acton ML will have been open for 7 years and probably changed travel patterns in the area a lot. It’s one thing if it never existed, but to open it and then remove it would I think be impossible.

166. NGH……….have I been imagining things in thinking that a contract is in place for fitting ETCS to all the freight locomotives?

167. Re C,

     The other thing to bear in mind is that the minimum optimal spacing of stations on modern new build metro systems is circa 1800m any less and speed or capacity (tph) (or both) suffer as you create a local pinch point.

     My suspicion is that more Acton ML stops will be possible post OOC opening but 2mins as already just been added to all journey times there is less general incentive to do so. So may be just another 2tph to bring it up to 6?

168. (Another great article, thanks, and some very valid and pertinent points in the comments too)

     Re: Greenford. With the Chiltern franchise due to end in 2021 and an alternative to an all diesel operation almost certain to be sought in the OJEU notice due currently in May 2020, might moving to Greenford to Chiltern make the most sense? It could then be included in a much larger scheme.

169. Re 130,

     ETCS and Freight locos: Contracts for first loco per per type per operator but nothing more yet. Further contracts some what dependant on getting the first one working!
     68/88 will be pretty easy give modern TCMS from Selectron fitted, others slightly harder…

170. c,

     Also, ‘valueless opinion’ – ouch. Bit brutal

     In my opinion, that was the politer way of describing it. It was a short comment along the lines of ‘xxxx. Never mind xxxx what about yyyyy. That is a total zzzzz’ where you can substitute yyyy with something irrelevant and zzzz with something totally opinionated. If we let comments like that through that we might as well not bother moderating and leave you lot to try and sort out the wheat from masses of chaff that a free-for-all would generate.

171. @100ANDTHIRTY Network Rail let a £150m contract in Dec 2017 to Siemens Rail Automation look at design & approvals for fitting ETCS to freight locos, but with fitting starting in 2022 – and no completion date given.
     Given that non-fitted freight – and infrastructure maintenance – locos would prevent going completely to ETCS this seems a little unambitious to me .

172. @NGH: You say 1800m as the optimal distance between stations on a modern metro, but why? I would have thought that it would be more important to have the stations roughly equidistant?

173. Southern Heights,

     The 1800m figure is a very flexible rough-and-ready basic assumption assuming certain population densities. It would include such parameters as how far people are prepared to walk to a station.

     It is basically trying to offset the disadvantages of too many stations (cost and long journey times) against too few (inaccessibility and long station-to-door journey.

     Whether it is correct or not, it is notable that most more recent projects spread stations out further apart than 100 years ago. So compare the original Underground with the Victoria line – and remember the closed stations that were too close to other ones!

     Two factors influencing the change are longer trains (and the associated dual entrances) and giving a higher weighting to the delay caused to others by additional station stops. The latter was not considered by private railways except in as far as it could affect revenue.

     You also have to consider that stationary trains don’t earn revenue and that nowadays rolling stock is very advanced and, consequently, very expensive (both capital cost and maintenance). So, it is not only the cost of the station but also the extra number of trains required to provide a service at that station.

     If the railway came first then there is a lot to be said for having stations roughly equidistant. But, almost inevitably nowadays, new stations serve an existing station for interchange or a high-density urban hotspot (at least compared to the surroundings). So one needs to use the estate agent’s mantra of location, location, location.

174. Re PoP and SHLR,

     Equidistant is ideal but not too close….
     In the first instance the 1800m has nothing to do with population densities or walking times just looking at simple train /network performance, it also happens to make sense with factors outside the rail environment.

175. Re Peter W,

     That contract is only for the initial phase of work, hence no completion date as there is no contract to complete…

176. ngh,

     But can be surprisingly close in the right, or wrong, environment.

     A classic case is Blackfriars/Mansion House/Cannon St/Monument on the District and Circle lines where it would be madness to close any of those stations – not least because of overcrowding at other stations if you did. You really need all those stations to disperse the arriving office workers.

     And there can be exceptional circumstances such as either side of water such as Canary Wharf/West India Quay although this is solved in a different way at Blackfriars.

177. Re PoP,

     Agreed but you would want to replicate that situation now.
     The trains & platforms Blackfriars/Mansion House/Cannon St/Monument on the District and Circle lines are only 55% of the current 9car CR train length (or 45% of 11car length) so the solution is bit different with much bigger double ended station that are better able to cope with passenger numbers.

178. Has the OOC GWML station plan now been finalised?

     Assuming 4 platforms for Relief Lines and Main Lines are essential.
     4tph HEX (or Southern Access replacement) calling on Main Line (with many GW)

     LNW Route Strategic Plan 2018 section 6.3 + promises suggest Chiltern access OOC. East West Rail would also like access – extra platform (s)?

     So if Crossrail / relief lines were to get 4 platforms then space is going to be a challenge.
     Shenfield branch users would benefit from direct access to OOC (as a major interchange) but without suitable turnback (or new branch) then this is difficult to fulfil.

179. ngh,

     Precisely – which is why you have to take such factors into account.

     It is slightly dangerous to base distance on current train and network performance (which is largely determined by signalling) which may change in future. A station location is pretty permanent and, compared to the lifetime of a station, train and network performance are transient features – although at least nowadays performance is partly determined by what acceleration forces the human body finds acceptable rather than the limitations in technology.

180. The average distance between stations between Paddington and Maidenhead is a little over 1.8 miles (not km), the greatest gap being between Paddington and Acton ML (4.5 miles) and the shortest gaps being the 0.75 miles between Ealing Broadway and West Ealing, and between West Ealing and Hanwell. (all distances taken from the GB rail timetable, accurate only to the nearest quarter mile).

     If you include Royal Oak and Westbourne Park (stopping service now provided by LUL) , and exclude West Ealing (which I suspect only exists because of the Castlebar branch), all stations on the route are between 1.25 and 1.75 miles apart except Hayes & Harlington to West Drayton (2.5) and Langley to Slough (2.25) .

     OOC to Ealing Broadway is about two miles. If Acton ML were to close, the distance from there to the nearest entrance to the OOC Crossrail station would be nearly a mile and, given the convoluted road network in the area (largely caused by the maze of railway lines), Ealing Broadway would actually be closer to walk to.

     If a Central Line station were to be provided at OOC, it might be at the expense of both North Acton and East Acton, which are exactly 1100m apart and would both be less than 600m from OOC. And with a Crossrail connection at OOC Acton for Ealing Broadway, would the Ealing Broadway branch of the Central Line still be viable? If not, Acton ML may be needed to serve West Acton’s existing clientele.

     I doubt if there is a general optimum spacing, but equalising station to station times on a given line (taking into account both distances and dwell times) would seem to be the aim to maximise the number of trains you can squeeze through without bunching.

181. Re: Saintsman – page 25 of the West Midlands & Chiltern Route Technical Appendices illustrates Old Oak Common on page 25 of the Technical Appendices document. If East West services get to OOC, they would surely use the same tracks?

182. Regarding station spacing, particularly between Hayes & Harlington and Paddington:

     A major historical factor is surely that the original Great Western Railway was focused on the longer distance traffic so not inclined to be over-generous with station provision in suburban London. Of those that did exist, West Ealing, Southall and West Drayton were junctions for branch lines.

     East of Ealing Broadway, a station that serves as a terminus for two Underground lines, the Underground dominates and, doubtless, the GWR and successors were not inclined to providing a good service once the Underground was established. There would be very little revenue for the short journey to Paddington and the freed up capacity could be put to better use and more profitable revenue.

     It is noticeable how, until now, Acton Main Line has had the feeling of a ‘grudge’ station (one they would close if they could). Also that the late, unlamented Westbourne Park station had very few services and little use in its twilight years and there was very little objection to its closure.

     If the GW Main Line were the only railway service in the area, the situation would probably be very different.

183. Even on commuter lines like on the Southeastern out of London Bridge, there is a significant gap before the first station (New Cross or Deptford).

     If the same station spacing was used as on the rest of the lines to Dartford, there would have been at least 2 stations there.

184. @Mikey C
     “If the same station spacing was used as on the rest of the lines to Dartford, there would have been at least 2 stations there.”

     There were – Spa Road and Commercial Dock (later Southwark Park). Both closed in 1915.

     You can see it on other lines too – The GNR’s Holloway & Caledonian Road station, between Finsbury Park and Kings Cross, which also closed in 1915: the Piccadilly Line’s original name (Great Northern Piccadilly & Brompton Railway) is a reminder that the GNR was so keen to get rid of the local traffic that it actively supported the proposed tube line (and also the GN&CR – now the Northern City Line).

185. Acton
     So, we want to extend the Shenfields to Old Oak Common [OOC].
     But we worry about terminating them there because of platform occupation time.
     We also wonder if Acton Mail Line [AML] is necessary/useful/in-the-way.
     We ideally want to keep the connection to the New North Line [NNML] available.

     How feasible is a grade separated junction immediately West of OOC for one of the down relief lines to cross the remaining reliefs (there would be 2 lines each way immediately outside the station) and meet up with the NNML? Obvs no grade separation required in the up direction as the NNML would just arrive at what I’m going to assume will be P8 at OOC without having to cross anything. Redouble the NNML for a couple of hundred yards — it originally was double track so no new land take — and install a new 2-platform terminus to the North of the existing North Acton tube station.

     If there’s a new Crossrail station ~0.5 miles by road from AML, which has 12tph and pretty-much-guaranteed seats, would there be significant complaint about the loss of a 4tph service?
     And would the removal of AML stops (and station?) and avoidance of terminating at OOC be worth the cost?

186. Yep it’s pretty common so close to a major terminus with many running lines and platforms. Note that Fenchurch St doesn’t quite have the same issues.

     I still think it’s a shame that there isn’t a Kensal/Ladbroke Grove station. I know it’s super close to OOC (and would a trio with Acton ML of very close stations) and understand a lot of the capacity issues – but it’s a different catchment and an underserved (deprived) part of inner London with a lot of potential. I think with the full 24tph headed out to at least OOC, something could have been done. But that ship has definitely sailed.

     Acton ML, as I said, is a little tragic granted but I think will really see an upswing. I guess we’ll have to find out, and it will have a good few years to bed in before OOC changes things up.

187. Moosealot
     Actually we want & will probably need Ruislip – OOC to be re-doubled throughout, for “Chiltern” services to be able to run to/from OOC as terminators there, especially since its very doubtful if you could get much more into Marylebone. ( As you say, there is adequate space )

188. NGH….thanks for the clarification re freight/ETCS. I guess if they can equip a class 37 (Cambrian line), they can do anything!

     For clarity, I’m assuming that ETCS only becomes mandatory if/when they remove the signals and TPWS/AWS. Is this correct?

189. Re Moosealot,

     The OOC Chiltern plan in the long term Route study is a bit of a” what if” for 2043 blue sky thinking.

     I understand the current (fluid) proposal from HS2 is the opposite (as that requires the least civils) that the Up relief from Acton ML rises up after going over the Richmond – Willesden Jn section of the NLL before heading over the turnback sidings and any NNML tracks and usually into P8.
     P5 would normally be down relief through (to Acton ML etc.)
     P6 would normally be down relief to turnback or NNML
     P7 would normally be up relief from turnback or NNML
     P8 would normally be up relief from through (from Acton ML etc.)

     The problem is of course managing the turnback and NNML service interaction to which there is a simple solution… 😉

190. @NGH
     “proposal that the Up relief from Acton ML rises up after going over the Richmond – Willesden Jn section of the NLL ”

     under the NLL, surely?

     @C
     “Note that Fenchurch St doesn’t quite have the same issues.”

     For most of the line’s first century, there were two stations between Fenchurch Street and Stepney East (now Limehouse) – (although only one between 1848 and 1877). Both stations closed in 1941, but one was replaced by a DLR station in 1987.

191. Re timbeau,

     opps indeed under, time for more coffee…

192. 100andthirty,

     Years ago I witnessed discussions about fitting ETCS to steam engines. The consensus was it was doable and would be necessary if heritage trains continue to run on the rail network. The trick is not to attempt to do on the engine but to utilise the tender to house the equipment as the environment is less harsh. So looks like we won’t be seeing Thomas in a mandatory ETCS area.

193. Re: PoP – I’ve heard of a problem with that approach: certain critical bits of ETCS equipment have to be within a certain, too-short distance of the front of the train. If they’re not then you get into the situation where the movement authority could put the front end into a location that is already occupied by another train. I presume that the safety critical nature of the software prevents easy reconfiguration. It doesn’t sound insurmountable, but it might be expensive.
     (Hold on – of course! The solution is mandatory tender-first running!)

194. @Balthazar: Sounds like design flaw in the equipment, surely you can locate the aerials near the front but keep the logic unit under the tender…

195. Is there a freight case for a more imminent doubling of the NNML in the interim? Surely can’t be very complex, in terms of signalling, junctions and trackwork.

     Ideally of course, in 10-20 years it’d be wired from OOC to High Wycombe!

196. @all

     I did an extra of the railway Working Timetable for today at 13:00.

     https://ukfree.tv/styles/images/2018/Working%20timetable%201300.html

     It shows all the timing points for the 13:00 to 13:59 time period today, which includes all the “not for the public to see” Crossrail tunnel sections.

     Note, the working timetable is done to the nearest 30 seconds and shows both arrival and departure timings.

197. @Moosealot
     “…if there’s a new Crossrail station ~0.5 miles by road from AM..”
     If you commute to the station on foot and your residence is 0.5miles in the other direction, I think you’d find the proposition that your walk is going to double from 10-15 minutes to 20-30 minutes somewhat unacceptable. Acton Central might be in your vicinity but doesn’t work well if you’re heading into town. Ealing Common is at least a mile away.
     Acton may have many stations, but they cover a massive area; 2 miles separate North and South Acton stations; the same between Acton Town and East Acton stations. This is about the same distance as Marble Arch to Holland Park, with a similar population density. Despite the apparent plethora of stations, traffic through Acton is notorious and buses are rammed.

     Personally I predict the 4tph at AML is going to draw in significant traffic and surpass expectations. As with Hanwell, property prices in the area have already shot up in anticipation. There’ll be demand for 6tph and no shifting the station once these new commuting patterns are established.

198. @all

     I thought it might be instructive to make the working timetable data into a human-readable diagram.

     https://ukfree.tv/styles/images/2018/Elizabeth-timings.png

     Of particular interest, now you can see it, is the details of how long it takes to get from Paddington Low Level to the reverse sidings and back. The trains have a 2-minute timetabled dwell at Paddington (platform B), another two minutes there, an 11 minute dwell (at “A”, “B” or “C”), 2 minutes back and another 2 minute wait at Paddington Low Level (platform A).

     There’s also an extra minute of end-of-line travel time at Bond Street-Paddington and Woolwich-Abbey Wood.

     The timetable has a service here every 4 minute.

     I’ve included all the other TfL Rail timings and dwells for comparison.

199. @C
     There is a station at Ladbroke Grove, on the Hammersmith tube. It’s less than ¼ mile from the main line. Moving out toward Kensal, Kensal Green is more convenient for pretty much everyone — those inhabiting the cemetery are unlikely to be requiring rail services.

     @Greg
     Full redouble of NNML would be nice, but I can’t see the justification for it. Yes, Marylebone is running at capacity: I’m always impressed when watching the evening peak workings. That said, the line between South Ruislip and High Wycombe is also pretty full – any capacity there was has gone to the Oxfords – so any services run down the NNML to Old Oak Common [OOC] would be replacing a Marylebone service rather than complementing it. I don’t see how terminating at OOC from the West would be any better for through capacity on the GW reliefs than terminating from the East.

     Given Chiltern have a pretty good reputation that they are rightfully proud of, helped a lot by running a standalone service that doesn’t import (m)any problems from elsewhere, I can’t see why they would be keen to start mixing up anything with the Paddington routes more than they absolutely have to.

     If there were more demand via Amersham which could be given Marylebone slots by redirecting via High Wycombe services to OOC, that would be a reason to consider it, but even then I can’t see the cost:benefit ratio stacking up. However, I don’t believe even that such a demand exists because Chiltern run them with 2- or 3-car DMUs: if there was more demand, Chiltern would have lengthened the existing services; and if there isn’t enough rolling stock to lengthen existing services, there certainly isn’t any to be adding new ones!

     @ANONANONANON
     If you are within ½ mile of Acton Main Line and more than ½ mile from North Acton, you are within ½ mile of either Acton Central or West Acton.

200. @:Anonanonanon
     “If you commute to the station on foot and your residence is 0.5miles in the other direction [from OOC],”…………your nearest station is West Acton (less than a mile from AML) so you could connect with the more frequent Crossrail service at Ealing Broadway.

     AML has survived this long, despite years of neglect (I was one of its -very few – regular users in the late 1970s). I don’t think it will go away any time soon.

201. Moosealot
     “If there were more demand via Amersham which could be given Marylebone slots…….. I don’t believe even that such a demand exists ”

     But it might, by the time HS2 Phase 1 (and therefore OOC) is open in 2026. Chiltern services will then have been running beyond Aylesbury to Milton Keynes for two years.
     https://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/route/

     (nb, all projected railway opening dates are only accurate to the nearest decade)

202. @timbeau @Moosealot
     Please stop looking at straight line distances. The rail lines and other obstacles in the area make getting to stations like West Acton considerably longer on foot.

     If you live somewhere like Shalimar Gardens, West Acton is no more use than OOC, Ealing Common, Acton Town, North Acton or East Acton. You’re over a mile away on foot to all of them. Acton Central is over half a mile away, and considerably less useful to most people.

203. Kensal Crossrail station
     There is a proposal at GRIP1 stage for a post-2019 Crossrail station at Kensal Portobello to serve the redevelopments at Kensal Green gasworks and North Pole East, and also improve access to the Dalgarno estate. The gasworks is a landlocked area inaccessible from Kensal Green because of the cemetery and the Grand Union Canal, and too far from Ladbroke Grove or Latimer Road, both well over TfL’s public transport accessibility planning standard of about 1 km. (planning rule: measure distances to stations as the pedestrian walks, not as the crow flies.)

     Only with a station there to enable high densities, could Kensington & Chelsea achieve their housing targets – it is the only large-scale strategic redevelopment site available in the Borough. There are local deprivation issues, and also additional housing stress post-Grenfell. North Kensington isn’t an easy location to build a station on the GWML, although the Crossrail Act safequarded some land and plain-lining provision for one. If authorised, there would be extra trackage between Ladbroke Grove and OOC.

     OOC
     The OOC GWML/Crossrail station still isn’t finalised. Taking the basic as 4 tracks (2 island platforms) on the relief lines, and similarly on the fast lines, a 9th platform might still be required as a peak with-flow bi-directional stop because of the long dwell times incurred by IEPs with their small end-carriage doorways. Alternatively, fewer fast line trains might be permitted to call at OOC in peaks, but a lumpy calling pattern doesn’t help line capacity. Network Rail desires up to 24 tph in peaks on the fast lines within about 10 years to accommodate forecast growth in travel. Maybe the Reading-Crossrail peak semi-fasts are to be a substitute for the present fast line Twyford and Maidenhead calls.

     The Western Capacity Improvement Project (WCIP) has various elements, and includes a late 2020s (CP7?) scheme for inbound grade separation towards Paddington, for the fast lines east of Mitre Bridge, to achieve 5 minute headways on two approach tracks and 2½ minute headways on a central outbound track.

     A Chiltern terminus is mooted at OOC, and there is space on the north side for separate platforms. However it is unclear how the NNML tracks might be linked to that, when Crossrail has 3 reversing sidings planned and authorised in the HS2 Phase 1 Act, on the former NNML main route where it diverges from the GWML.

     Ealing-Greenford line
     The Ealing-Greenford is not under threat of closure. The journey times are competitive for existing users and traffic congestion in the Greenford area is a discouragement for any substitute, particularly if its passengers rely on easy rail/rail interchange at Greenford or West Ealing.

     Yes the EG line has lost its direct service to Ealing Broadway and Paddington, however Crossrail opens up Heathrow and the Thames Valley for jobs, for local residents, and offers by 2020 a fast one-change service at West Ealing to the West End, City and Canary Wharf.

     There might be some merit in reviewing other service options, and some have been suggested by some commentators:
     • A Chiltern direct service between West Ealing and Gerrards X or High Wycombe? This is unlikely to achieve much extra in passenger volume, because of the low density suburbs witnessed for decades by the Central Line passenger volumes on the West Ruislip branch, while it might not fit the longer term plan for Chiltern to access OOC. A Chiltern stop at Greenford on an OOC service might be more plausible for access to/from Buckinghamshire towns.
     • Is a more frequent local 4 tph justifiable? TfL may have views as the public transport planning authority, but it is not the specifier for EG, while the ‘Romster’ service at the other end of Crossrail shows that 2 tph can be a valid service level.
     • Alternatively, and a matter for the West London Leadership forum, OPDC and TfL, might there be merit in having a different northern destination serving expanding West London jobs? That might yield better value, with a direct service for local residents and with other interchange opportunities opened up. That could involve use of the NE chord to Perivale (substitute for Greenford interchange), and trains direct to North Acton and/or OOC. However, funding the cost of new platforms would be an issue, apart from using the proposed Chiltern terminus at OOC.

     In summary, the Ealing-Greenford line continues as a local feeder line, and there is a risk that suggestions for its greater use are really answers looking for a real question, rather than real questions needing an answer!

204. Re Timbeau,

     You have obviously missed the recent EWR descoping / cost reduction exercise, the current plan is that the EWR services (operated by EWR or franchisee) terminate at Aylesbury and anyone going further South changes and v/v for Chiltern unless the future Chiltern franchise can convince DfT to do differently depending on what the ITT says.

     Re timbeau , Greg & Moosealot,

     Chiltern:

     There is plenty Chiltern could do with more rolling stock and most of the long distance services have Loco and DVT wasting 40m of platform at Marylebone.

     There are long term proposals to sort the remain few platform which cause train length issues so everything would either be 6x or 9x 23m (the assumption is no SDO an lots of older stock retained).

     i.e. Train length is the easy and most efficient way to add capacity.

     There are also various proposal for 4 tracking more locations Denham, Beaconsfield, High Wycombe, (but to a greater extent
     (track length) than the original 4 tracking so more than just requadrification) to allow more services to be run which necessitates more passing to make a viable timetable.

     I’d assume re-4tracking South Ruislip -West Ruislip as originally to the original 4 track extent.

     The obvious solution is to extend CR services up to West Ruislip instead of turn back at OOC (with a limited number of intermediate stations (a rebuilt Park Royal/Hanger Lane on new locations to make a decent interchange (always lurking somewhere on TfL very long term wish list), Greenford, South Ruislip and West Ruislip e.g. Alternate Central Line stations)

205. The only consultations I am aware of regarding Old Oak Common (OOC) have been the TfL ones related to the proposed new overground stations. Are we any closer to having a better idea of what services are proposed for OOC (other than HS2) and a final layout of the station?

206. @NGH

     “the current plan is that the EWR services (operated by EWR or franchisee) terminate at Aylesbury and anyone going further South changes ”

     I had missed that, but whether or not people have to change at Aylesbury, the new line is likely to feed more people onto the Chiltern route. And EWR ceartainly seem to still have aspirations to go to Marylebone and/or OOC

207. Re Timbeau,

     EWR aren’t known for updating their website so those are probably the old initial aims pre descoping. (As EWR are beginning to staff up, website updates should happen more regularly.)

     Agree it will increase Chiltern usage.

     Paul,

     As it uses existing railway land and is covered by the HS2 Hybrid Bill don’t expect to see much consultation! The current plan being worked up by the engineers in detail is as I described yesterday @1622.

     NCE article with picture here:
     https://www.newcivilengineer.com/tech-excellence/engineering-plans-for-hs2-old-oak-common-station-revealed/10029616.article
     The green stripey bits are redevelopment land

208. @NGH 12:42

     Just to follow up your interesting logic…

     The Central Line western extension was designed by the GWR and LPTB pre-war to the District Line loading gauge (ie suburban main line size), in anticipation of a 1940-50 New Works Programme, which included scope for District Line trains to Ruislip Depot with 6-tracking to West Ealing, thence the Ealing-Greenford loop, where the Greenford loop ramp to the elevated station was built 2-tracks wide. See the 1937 LPTB Officers’ Conference report for details of this and other 1940-50 schemes.

     So if Ruislip Depot could be released from the Central Line – where would the fewer CL trains then be stabled/maintained? – Crossrail could take over the West Ruislip branch ‘in toto’, using the ex-NNML briefly as a through line instead of as sidings west of OOC (one of three sidings to be retained), with new/reinstated North Acton main line platforms, and then swap over to the current Central Line tracks beyond North Acton and the junction for Ealing Broadway. This possibly (stress, possibly!) might enable depot and/or stabling land release at OOC for development. Would that be a win-win for various stakeholders?

     But Chiltern couldn’t then access OOC…

209. Re JR,

     But Ruslip depot is no where near big enough for Crossrail purposes (which would then also need more stock) unless lots of green fields next door went or there was only a limited release at OOC.

     Re Paul,

     PS – As with all CGI it never correct on the detail

210. @NGH

     Thanks for the link to the NCE article. Thats a nice graphic as well – with the striped green sections looking like manicured lawns, it rather resembles a university campus! A pity they will all be developed but needs must. Hopefully the master plan for the entire development area will be able to include parks and other greenery/spaces for nature, assuming the remaining space can be suitably densified and to pragmatic heights.

     Crossrail via the NNML would be an interesting endeavour, and relates to issues about Chilterns demands/aspirations/provisions on both routes form Marylebone. Would West Ruislip really be the best place to end though? If Denham is to regain four tracks its rebuild would need to be slightly more involved than for West Ruislip – perhaps this would make the provision of terminal platforms easier there instead. But you’d introduce another two track shared section between there and West Ruislip. Perhaps further out still, who knows.
     Would it be fair to say that the six track section between Neasden and H-o-t-H is somewhat underused, especially on the Chiltern side, atm?

211. Moosealot
     I was thinking that terminating the Oxfords &/or the Briminghams at OOC would then give better forward connections into central London, via the CrossLiz line ….
     And freeing up space in Marylebone for the aforementioned service extensions past N Aylesbury.

     The descoping idea of forcing everyone to change at Aylesbury strikes me as well past even Upney in the lunacy stakes, but maybe that’s just me ??

212. Re station distances, I always thought that a long(-ish) gap after the city centre station(s) is a key indicator whether the service is a commuter one (very peaky, am up pm down) or a proper Metro / rapid transit line (with strong off-peak patronage). Another is whether it goes to a single terminus (or at most a couple of city centre stations and then a terminus) or has opportunities in both directions and multiple interchanges.

     As Crossrail seems to be very much about turning two typical commuter lines into Paddington and Liverpool Street into a proper Metro, I would think more intermediate stations on the long stretches to Ealing and Stratford should really have been considered and would be well used.

     In the west, while I would admit that the fairly fast Central Line is providing a similar service (so no need for West Acton Crossrail), I think at stop at Ladbroke Grove would be well. As would be a stop at Westbourne Park once the Westway is pulled down and the land developed. In the east a small detour via Roman Road, which is completely unserved, would have been useful too.

213. If Chiltern trains from High Wycombe would go to OOC and Paddington, then local stations between Wembley Park and Northolt Park could get a decent service – ideally Jubilee Line

214. Christian Schmidt 17:22,

     Aside from any operational issues which would make additional stations difficult, I think this really highlights how, at the western end, Crossrail isn’t the project it was originally planned to be.

     When originally approved it was 4tph to T4, 2tph to West Drayton and 4tph to Maidenhead. If it was thought that the airport services should be limited stop (for operational reasons as much as anything else) then the remaining 6tph peak and 4tph off-peak wasn’t really good enough to justify additional stations.

     What we are now seeing is much better use of infrastructure west of Paddington. Maybe, if there weren’t concerns about the project being unaffordable, in retrospect, more consideration should have been made at the outset to making the most of the service west of Paddington. However, it isn’t just stations. You would also need some extra tracks at some locations to help deal with the mix of stopping and semi-fast trains.

     Intriguing idea though and an argument well-put.

215. Whilst on a normal Metro one might expect stations at distances from the centre analogous to Ladbroke Grove and Kensal, those areas do already have services, at least towards central London, provided by other lines (remember that the H&C was originally a branch of the GWR, branching off only after the first two stations), and new Crossrail would seem to be merely an expensive way to duplicate these.

     It is too often forgotten that the beneficiaries of a shiny new line include those using nearby lines, which become less crowded. Thus the Central (and Bakerloo) Line in West London should be a more pleasant experience after CrossLiz is built, (and Northants and Surrey commuters don’t need HS2 and XR2 to call at their respective county towns to benefit from them)

216. @PoP – “When originally approved it was 4tph to T4, 2tph to West Drayton and 4tph to Maidenhead.” Not quite so, in the sense, that the original proposal was to go to Aylesbury and Heathrow, rather than barrel down the GWML – agreed but without the funding. The eternal problem with Crossrail has been the imbalance between east and west, and the struggle to balance the loads.

     The issue with Crossrail has therefore been to find enough of a plausible western catchment area which can be described as a “metro”, and treated as such commercially and operationally. This the Met’s dilemma revisited, so delightfully illustrated by the experimental automatic door compartment car. What we have now is a compromise that’s as probably as good as it gets – like the Met to Amersham

217. Regarding E-W Rail terminating at Aylesbury, I imagine an enterprising TOC will highlight to the DfT the rolling stock and staff economies of not terminating at Aylesbury. Like the Twickenham-Kingston argument in another thread, I can’t imagine many folk wanting to travel from MK or Bletchley to Marylebone, but people from Winslow might. As we have seen from Crossrail, the service plan used to get the project authorised isn’t necessarily the service that actually happens

218. @130
     “I can’t imagine many folk wanting to travel from MK or Bletchley to Marylebone, ”

     They could during the construction phase of HS2, if Euston is in a mess – EWR is scheduled to open 2 years before HS2. And with the Croxley Link now in the long grass, it would provide an alternative link between the top end of the Met and the West Coast Main Line.

     Not to mention possible direct services from the Wycombe area (or even OOC!)

     A possible compromise is extending the EWR services to the limit of electrification at Amersham

219. Thinking on the very western end, and if services are as popular as we suspect – and paths could be found to extend more trains from OOC:

     Does the platform, pointwork and wiring at Slough still enable 2tph Crossrail to turn there? Could be a useful addition in terms of serving Iver and Langley and enabling farther services to skip them…

     I remember at least 2tph slow from Paddington used to terminate there.

220. Timbeau
     I was thinking of Milton Keynes – Marylebone & Brum OR Oxford – OOC.

     Terminating at Amersham would require bits of people’s back gardens for extra turn-around sidings …..
     Better to run through to Watford Junction along – oh dear …….

221. Timbeau…yes indeed, but a four car train once an hour or even every 30 mins (total 8 cars) is a poor substitute for 8 trains an hour with a minimum length of 4 cars (total typically more than 40 cars). However, I suspect that by the time E-W R is open, the lions share of the work requiring closure at Euston will be done

222. Re C,

     Slough – No
     The realistic choices are West Drayton (previous turnback location pre diversion of 2tph to T5) or Maidenhead. The main problem being freight paths off peak / counter peak and the desire to run some semi fast as well as stopping services.

223. Re 130,

     Make the numbers look good for sign off by altering project boundaries /definitions on the EWR side, then allow the Chiltern operator to pick up the pieces post operating starting. Classic British Engineering Project cost manipulation.

     Expect the Chiltern bidders (for 2021?) and EWR to be able to tap into the Meridians and Voyagers that will be coming off lease from EMT / and possibly XC for extra Long distance stock for Chiltern / all EWR stock.

224. Re Christian S,

     If Chiltern trains from High Wycombe would go to OOC and Paddington, then local stations between Wembley Park and Northolt Park could get a decent service

     Or if the Chiltern (non Oxford /Birmingham/Banbury) trains empty out at West Ruislip to CR etc…

225. NGH……I feel for Chiltern customers if your forecasts come true. Also if Voyagers/Meridians were to stray onto the Aylesbury via Amersham route, fitting tripcocks to the inside frame bogies would be an interesting challenge

226. Re 130,

     Tripcocks – you mean the same bogies as the existing Chiltern 172s with Tripcocks (and (soon) plenty of Aventra with 3rd rail shoes attached in the same way).?

     The Siemens 717s with inside frame bogies also have an alternative tripcock solution for the Moorgate tunnels section.

227. @NGH/130

     Chiltern’s 172s are not fitted with tripcocks.

     http://districtdavesforum.co.uk/thread/12981/class-172s?page=8

     I can’t see Chiltern adopting Voyagers/Meridians to replace the existing Mark 3/Class 68 services. Why replace the excellent with the mediocre? And their end-door configuration is not ideal for services with more frequent stops. There might be a place for them on the Waterloo-Exeter line, as I can’t see the 159s lasting for ever. The lack of end gangways would be a problem though.

228. 100andthirty,

     The Chiltern class 165 have tripcocks to be compatible with current LU signalling.

     Tripcock arming devices (for want of a better term) are going to be installed as part of four lines modernisation (4LM) signalling to be compatible with the existing class 165.

     At some point someone has to break this ridiculous backward-compatibility cycle. I am surprised 4LM didn’t go with TPWS+ but maybe tripcocks were cheaper (and already in place) and no-one was willing to shell out the extra.

229. Crossrail to Ruislip?
     Other than needing to have somewhere to terminate trains, I don’t see any advantage in pushing Crossrail out to West Ruislip over North Acton. Little central line trains aren’t fully utilised on the West Ruislip branch due to the relatively low density of housing up the A40 corridor; unless there is to be significant new development (where?), what would be the point of sending big Crossrail trains up there?

     Four-tracking Chiltern
     Almost all the trackbed between West Ruislip and Gerrards Cross is on embankment, with a significant number of bridges/viaducts that would need to be widened (including the infamous give peas a chance listed viaduct over the M25 and a rather long one over the Colne valley). While I’m sure it’s doable, it isn’t going to be cheap. The down platform at Denham has in the last ~5 years been moved into the space where the passing loops used to be. Better services between London and Oxford/Brum are already being worked on by GW sparks and HS2 respectively, while for intermediate services Chiltern is one of the few London-anchored franchises where lengthening services and platforms is really quite feasible and much more BCR-friendly than major infrastructure interventions, however fun they might be to consider.

230. @POP
     I’d say with much less trackside equipment, mechanical train stops should be considerably cheaper and LUL have much experience of them, unlike TPWS. It probably needs new trains to easily share the 4LM SelTrac system, but it’s interesting that the Chiltern pilot ATP system from the 1990s that still operates on NR infrastructure shares some heritage. It is a cut down version of the old ‘wiggly wire’ SelTrac though, as used on Northern, Jubilee and DLR, not the newer beacon and WiFi type being deployed for 4LM. In the future I could see a ‘native’ ERTMS train being able to emulate limited functions of the new SelTrac, using the STM method in the same way that AWS/TPWS is handled on the 700s by the main ETCS computer and driver interface screen. STM refers to ‘specific transmission module’, a standard method of interfacing class B legacy train protection systems (now known as NTC, or ‘national train control’) to ERTMS equipment on board using ‘plug in’ hardware and software modules. It’s possible that SelTrac beacons might be readable using standard eurobalise reader hardware rather than a specific additional module, but clearly the message format and content is likely to be entirely different and would need alternative ‘device driver’ software to interpret when the train was in SelTrac mode.

231. Re: NGH – You don’t think that the question of diesel emissions at Marylebone (if nowhere else) will be a live issue in the Chiltern refranchising?

232. Four-tracking Chiltern is unnecessary ( IMHO )
     “All” ( that word again! ) it needs is the restoration of the second track Ruislip – OOC.
     Capacity problems solved.

233. Re NGH

     Neither the 172s nor the Aventras have tripcocks

     Pop:

     The newest TPWS is now in the ETCS family, and needs a cab rebuild to install a new screen in the cab which 165s/168s wont have been designed for in terms of space. 165s also don’t have much spare power which could another factor.

234. NGH, sorry I’m unclear why Slough isn’t a suitable point to turn 2tph… given that it used to do just that and has the platforms on the reliefs. Better that West Drayton surely, as it covers two more smaller stops.

     I’m talking future expansion here, not today. But clearly after the second pair to T5, Heathrow services will be full at 8tph Crossrail and 4tph HEx (maybe morphing into something in future). So if no NMML, and the WCML is dead, then West is the only place beyond OOC they could go.

235. @Anon

     How are Aventras (Class 710) going to operate on the Wat-Eus line without tripcocks?

     @C
     If turning at Slough is not possible (is the bay long enough for a 345?) is Windsor & Eton Central out of the question? (I know the branch is on the wrong side of the formation, so a crossing move would eat into capacity on the main lines)

236. C,

     Here is an old photo of the terminating platform at Slough from an earlier article. As you can see it is too short but could be extended at a cost. Don’t forget extending platforms like this one generally involves a high resignalling cost.

     The real problem is that it is to one side of the relief lines so any terminating down train has to cross the up relief line at slow speed. This has almost been engineered out of Crossrail (Hayes & Harlington is an exception). Maidenhead is fine and West Drayton maybe but the final track layout at West Drayton (and which lines are available for passenger trains) isn’t clear.

     In earlier timetable iterations they had 2tph off-peak trains fast from West Drayton to Slough then fast to Maidenhead. I would suggest that rather than terminate at Slough they would prefer to just run fast from there to Maidenhead (a drivers depot location). It would also save a lot of capital expense.

237. timbeau,

     Windsor & Eton Central is absolutely out of the question. You can’t get from the branch to the up main platform at Slough let alone the up relief. And the branch isn’t electrified and the platform at Windsor & Eton Central is way too short.

     Avoiding conflicting moves is absolutely crucial on the GW main line. Anything that causes conflicting moves cannot be considered a long-term solution. Think how much trouble they went to with the Acton Dive Under (admittedly for freight).

238. @Timbeau:

     TPWS+ has been installed on the DC as an overlay. Still tripcocks for the LUL stock and 378s. TPWS+ also be installed next year Gunnersbury – Richmond. Again for 710s not 378s.

239. What does this actually mean for Twyford (and hence Henley branch) commuters? Do they keep their peak express services? Right now the fastest service from Paddington to Twyford comes in at just 21 minutes, compared with a projected 45 minutes on Crossrail.

240. Understood re Slough. Platform extensions and other civics have been kind of intrinsic to a Crossrail (!), so hardly outlandish to punch in a through line. Ideally the bay could become the new up relief with a centre reversing (but through) road.

     And I did always like the Windsor idea (with a dive under from my centre road!) – but that ship has sailed now. Many reasons why it wouldn’t work, but I think some compelling ones why it might have been a hit.

241. @poP

     Point taken re Windsor, although it would be an attractive destination for tourists. I had a recollection that there used to be a through service to Paddington in the morning peak, but that was 45 years ago and looking at Google Earth it doesn’t look possible now.

     @C
     Extending the bay to become a through line would almost certainly involve demolition of the buildings (and entrance) on the north side of the station. Looking at them on Street View, if they are not already listed, they certainly should be.

242. @PoP
     “the final track layout at West Drayton (and which lines are available for passenger trains) isn’t clear.”
     On the sample timetable iterations I played around with, it became clear that if you were able to use the West Drayton/Iver freight loop and platform 5 at West Drayton, you might be able to cross over the Reading/Maidenhead Slow and Reading Fast trains at that point, possibly even in both directions if bidirectional signalling was available on the up relief, and that this would allow the Reading Fast to run a few minutes faster, for reasons I can explain if anyone’s interested.
     It seemed unlikely to me that that was the plan though.

243. The ex terminal bay platform at Slough now houses the staircase of a newish footbridge, so I’d say that it’s out of the question that trains, of any operator, could be turned round there.

244. Slough etc.

     The former east facing bay platform (was P6) has been gone for several years. Unusually Carto Metro is actually very out of date on this and still has it shown which may have lulled some reader in to a false impression of its existence. There is also n

     Also work noting that Carto Metro is completely incorrect in the Acton dive under area too.

     West Drayton. etc.

     The former “goods” loop has been electrified and renamed Up Iver Loop during the recentish resignalling.

     Realistically there won’t be any additional Crossrail services west of West Drayton because
     4 paths on the reliefs will be getting used for the new Western Rail Link to Heathrow WRLtH (formerly know as WRAtH).

245. Re Andrew M

     Twyford / Henley.

     The Crossrail Journey planner is far from always being correct. In the case of Twyford it shows the off-peak all stops journey time where as I suspect most passengers will be aiming for the semi fast which should be 9-11 minutes faster.

     GWR will still run a peak only express service calling at … Reading – Twyford – Maidenhead and Paddington on the mainlines (slots in behind the HEx service Eastbound and and in front of the HEx Service Westbound so the east bound timing probably won’t work that well)

246. @NGH

     Surely they are not keeping 4tph paths clear indefinitely for WRATH? If indeed WRATH ever happens (and the most optimistic estimates have it at least six years away), I suspect it won’t be until after HS2’s station at Old Oak Common is open which will require a major timetable recast on the GWML (and, unlike WRATH, HS2 is already being built).

     If those paths were to be used in the interim to extend services beyond West Drayton, they could then be diverted via Heathrow if and when WRATH is built.

247. The Crossrail Journey Planner and the rest of the Crossrail site will not be updated any more so cannot be relied on for any up-to-date information. This is official:

     From July 2018 the Crossrail website is not being updated but it will still be available for reference about the project.

     which can be found on the TfL Elizabeth line and Crossrail page.

     Unfortunately TfL Rail seem disinclined to tell us very much about the Elizabeth line so very little up-to-date information is available. No doubt people will speculate as to why that is.

248. timbeau,

     I too find that a bit strange. I would have thought, by the time WRLtH came about, ETCS, if not full ERMTS automation, would have meant there would be the capacity available. Indeed the stretch between Hayes & Harlington and Reading seems just the type of line that would get a real uplift from the digital railway, if properly implemented.

249. Re PoP and Timbeau,

     The 4 WRLtH paths are extensions of the existing HEx paths west of T5 i.e. use the Mains east of Heathrow but reliefs west of Heathrow which doesn’t mix with anything else till after ETCS and Paddington throat rebuild on the mains (early CP7 at the earliest see JR comments ).

     ETCS and Paddington throat rebuild on the mains would actually be a far bigger driver for a timetable recast than OOC with all stopping (all services stopping makes it easier not to go for complete recast).

     They also need to find the paths for the through trains on Heathrow Southern rail link…

250. Reserving paths for HSR

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrrIRr9arkM

251. Re Timbeau,

     Future Paths from future capacity improvements…

     Not in DfT’s view as expression of interest for the project have just been submitted.

252. @ngh

     Surely WRLtH wouldn’t be worth continuing through to London? Which would allow the HEx paths free for the SRA plans of Paddington – Heathrow – Woking – Basingstoke / Guildford (and Liz extended to Staines).

     —

     Re: Crossrail journey planner

     Given it was updated with something very similar to the service pattern we have in this article, the info isn’t out of date (just slightly wrong). However, I imagine they give the slowest direct times, rather than the fastest, to manage expectations. Better to under-promise and over-deliver than promise something that happens for limited periods of the day and annoy people anticipating a quicker journey than they will have.

253. By SRA I meant ‘Southern Rail Access’. Which might not be the name now given those Heathrow rail links keep changing names.

254. @Si – the diversion from GWML to Heathrow will take about 15 minutes so there is little point in marrying it up with HEX or Heathrow Connect to provide additional through services to Paddington. Put very simply, it would simply be run down by the following direct service. It won’t release any paths for anything, let alone be useful for a putative Staines-upon-Thames service, even if that were the most desirable use of any released paths.

     There are also tricky commercial issues for through passengers if HAH insist on a toll for trains passing over their infrastructure.

255. I should have added that the SRA’s idea of “spare” paths to enable them to do a Padd-Waterloo roundabout are pure fantasy – there are no paths spare into Paddington.

256. Graham H
     Ditto Waterloo, I would have thought, even after the old international platforms are opened …..
     Or not until CR2 is opened, at any rate (!)

257. @Graham H

     I’m not sure where you are getting this notion of a roundabout Waterloo – Paddington service. I’ve never seen it on any plans with that. The Waterloo services always end at Heathrow, the Paddington services (if any) always go to Staines or beyond Woking.

     And extending services that currently terminate at T5 doesn’t obviously doesn’t free up spare paths, but it doesn’t need any spare paths to run.

     The HEx paths were ‘free’ to go to Woking in my post, as they weren’t going to WRLtH – which, as you said (in answer to my rhetorical question), is pointless.

258. @Graham H: And I thought it was impossible to close any of the level crossings for longer on the approach path from the South?

259. Leaving aside the question of a ‘Heathrow toll’ for the moment, is there a potential benefit from being able to route through trains between a Heathrow Western Access and a Southern Access? I suppose that this question boils down to whether such a route creates significant journey opportunities that cannot easily be achieved by routing through Reading / OOC / London.

     If such a market exists, then the two projects should be developed either as one or in coordination.

260. @answer=42 – that seems the better answer in terms of operations and capacity, but, as noted, it depends crucially on finding spare paths and resolving the level crossing issue. It’s not clear, however, that there is a large Thames Valley to SW London market which isn’t already served by the present Waterloo-Reading services, nor is it likely that Waterloo is in itself a significant destination.

261. @SHLR / @A42
     The current most developed (and promoted) plans for Heathrow southern access by Heathrow Southern Railway ( https://heathrowrail.com ) avoid the level crossing problems which contributed to Heathrow Airtrack’s demise, and the proposed funding model makes them a poster child for the current SoS. Their expectations for path availability (and ROI) do look a tad optimistic to my eyes though…

262. WRLtH /SRA

     1. WRLtH is based on the assumption that SRA isn’t happening but is designed for Southern happening.

     2. To keep costs down you don’t want to terminate trains in T5 (certainly can’t terminate all of them) hence WRLtH trains need to get joined to HEx to facilitate the non terminating.whether it is used as through service is academic… it is all about platform capacity, track layout and construction cost.

     3. Southern assumes that Western is happening as the base case.

     4. Southern involves using the 3rd “hidden” pair of platforms under T5

     5. Southern Links to SWR-Windsor lines provided by diverting the T5 Crossrail services (also assuming raised to 4tph) to the “hidden” platforms and extending them to Staines. (No Level Crossing issues)

     6. WRLtH – HEx link broken.
     WRLtH terminate in existing T5 platforms
     HEx services diverted to “hidden platforms” and extended to Woking on the other new Southern arm (not via Staines).
     (No Level Crossing issues)

     Only need 2 more CR paths between Paddington or OOC (depending on timing) and Heathrow T5 or swapping T4 to T5 and running a shuttle Central to T4

263. If HSR is planning a Waterloo service, but has no level crossing issues, is it the Windsor or Reading paths it is going to poach? And what do the existing users of those lines think of this?

264. @Timbeau
     Isn’t the idea just for Crossrail to go to Staines and passengers change there for existing Southern services?

     @NGH
     Very nice to see that planning of the two projects appropriately recognises the other. On 6), could it make sense for WRLtH, rather than HEx, to be extended to Woking?

     @
     The only potentially significant South-to-West travel market that I can think of is the local employment market, which has developed on the basis of proximity to Heathrow. For this, ‘Change at Heathrow T5’ on the route network described by NGH will be sufficient. Will T5 station be big enough?

265. @A=42

     Isn’t the idea just for Crossrail to go to Staines and passengers change there for existing Southern services?

     Not in the link provided by B&T at 01:37 This clearly shows, in yellow, a Waterloo- Staines – Heathrow service, with the Windsor and Reading lines suspiciously greyed out. Maybe they envisage Windsor, Ascot etc passengers changing at Staines? Breaking the Reading – Waterloo direct services would at least solve the problem of PAYG being accepted at both points but not on the direct trains between them, but it seems a bit of a sledgehammer to crack an Oyster)

     https://www.yumpu.com/en/embed/view/9dyArLVhR7bFYjlG

266. @Timbeau
     I see. But this is in conflict with NGH’s point 5. Perhaps he can elucidate?

     I really don’t see a huge point to a Heathrow – Waterloo service. This seems to up from time to time and I remember calculating that it would be quicker to catch a Crossrail service and change at Paddington for Waterloo. (timings have changed since I did this calculation). Obviously, such a service is not primarily aimed at end-to-end users . Other than local travel, I reckoned the biggest use would be from passengers changing at Clapham Junction. Given the constraints, I would have thought that ‘Change at Staines’ would have the great advantage of simplicity.

267. Heathrow area getting rather complicated with at least four plans now published most of which potentially link into Heathrow Express/Crossrail.

     1/Western Rail Link to Heathrow.

     2/Heathrow Southern Railway

     3/Windsor Link Railway

     4/HS4Air from Ashford to HS2 via Gatwick and Heathrow.

     All of these have their merits but which will actually make the grade as in most cases routes clash?

268. Re A=42 and Timbeau,

     WRTlH has been planned before all the current southern access revival but has passive provision for it, has much greater probability of happening and opening first, there really isn’t a problem.

     T5 Station has 6 platforms
     2 Piccadilly (northern most)
     2 HEx / future Crossrail – these will be linked to WRLtH (in the middle)
     2 in the hidden carven behind the “partition” wall to the south of the in use Hex platforms (southern most) – these will be linked to Southern Rail Access

     Hence linking WRLtH to Woking would involve a reversal on the track work to the east of the T5 station completely fouling everything up while the driver changes ends…

     Waterloo – T5 that is the because the company needs to talk up the connectivity and also started working up the proposal without looking at the SW ITT or December 2018/2020 TT proposals… (Sound familiar)
     DfT aims are slightly more modest/realistic.

     Option 3 (W&C turquoise) – the connection to Chertsey staying east of the M25 is like to get the least local resistance / most support.

269. @NGH
     Thanks for the clear explanations.

270. A presentation by Chris Stokes to the Retired Railway Officers Society in July 2018 described the HSR proposals (Chris is a non-Exec Director of HSR) as using 4 tph paths to Waterloo, 4tph to Guildford/Basingstoke, and 4 tph to Paddington using the Hex paths. HSR envisage a possible extension of the Elizabeth line from T5 to Staines over the HSR infrastructure. Chris was silent on the availability of paths into Waterloo (from Byfleet via Clapham) . In relation to the links with the western link, he claimed that the HSR modelling showed there was no significant cross-Heathrow market.

271. @A=42
     quicker to catch a Crossrail service and change at Paddington for Waterloo.

     Wouldn’t changing at Bond Street be quicker?

272. Transfer of HEx operation* (drivers, train operation and train maintenance) to GWR due to take place in August has been delayed till November…

     *[Commercial aspect (marketing (e.g. aggressive sales techniques)), ticket pricing) of HEx still reside with Heathrow]

273. @ngh – any idea why? Practical reasons, or have they fallen out over contract details?
     Aggressive sales is an understatement.. I find the mugging you get in the arrival lanes from their sales team pretty offensive, and have often wondered exactly how the accounting works between HEOC and HAH – Do HEOC pay commercial rates for their advertising space, how does this fit within the overall “Single Till” framework etc. .

274. I believe the key point of the HSR proposal is a new stretch of railway alongside the M25 to bypass the Egham level crossings, which have been the critical problem in the past.

     In terms of pathing to Waterloo, it would make sense to split the half hourly Weybridge via Hounslow service with both halves going to Heathrow and the Weybridge service going further afield. Equally something could be done with the Hounslow loop service which is bidirectional so another 4tph from Waterloo. Generally I understand the level crossings on the Mortlake stretch and via Hounslow are less of an issue than those in Egham, as there are nearby alternative routes whereas in Egham there aren’t.

     In terms of serving Waterloo, I think this is more a case of operational necessity to provide a Heathrow service from Clapham Junction and other intermediate stations as there’s no suitable place to reverse or divert to anywhere else. Airport passengers are known to prefer direct routes with fewer changes. It seems to me that a Heathrow service from Clapham in particular would be very attractive to a large part of South London who can interchange there much more easily than dragging their luggage to Paddington, even if the journey is slightly longer.

275. @ANON*3 – How “attractive” any of the HSR / WRLtH services are depends hugely on the level of monopoly access fees extracted by Heathrow to use their infrastructure, the funding and cost recovery regime for the links themselves and the resulting fare levels.

     I would assume that there is and will continue to be a complex poker game being played out between HAH, the TOCs, NR, TfL, HSR and the DfT over agreements for a 3rd runway, the imposition of private car drop-off and increased pick-up fees, more general local emission / congestion charge zones and other mechanisms to drive further public transport usage linked to the level of fares (and any profitability limits) of that public transport.

     As previously discussed on other threads, Heathrow and other airports have traditionally operated under a broadly “cost+%” regulatory framework which, given their rather fortunate monopoly position, incentivises them to maximise their cost base to some extent. This doesn’t fit well with UK rail mechanisms – hence the bitterness of the spat over Crossrail to Heathrow access charging and probable resulting mutual distrust, a not-uncommon aspect of dealings with HAH!

     Whether either WRLtH and/or HSR actually get built is, I suspect, highly dependent upon the poker game ending in some form of win-win, but I won’t be surprised if the fare levels end up as deeply unattractive to those not on expense accounts or exhausted after a long flight and thus easy prey for the HEx muggers.

276. @anonanonanon
     “Generally I understand the level crossings on the Mortlake stretch and via Hounslow are less of an issue than those in Egham, as there are nearby alternative routes whereas in Egham there aren’t.”

     I’m not sure there’s much difference – in the four miles between Staines and Virginia Water there are four level crossings, and no bridge except the M25, on which the nearest access to/from the local road network to the south is five miles away. There are four tph off peak in each direction.

     In the three miles between Barnes and Richmond, there are also four level crossings, and one road bridge – the South Circular Road, which is a single carriageway permanent traffic jam. The line carries 8tph off peak each way. At the Barnes end, the road crosses two level crossings in 50 yards, between them carrying 12 tph

277. @B&T
     The government are now politically committed to the 3rd runway at Heathrow, knowing that there will be a need for substantial expenditure on access measures. HAL is refusing to pay anything but the absolute minimum. While the Government’s position was not fixed this did allow a poker game to take place, but the Government have now blinked first. Barring a knock-back in the courts, I think this Government is now obliged to pay for several billions of pounds of public expenditure on access requirements, which it will find both difficult and embarrassing to back away from. At least one of the three (and counting?) high court challenges to the decision is on the basis that the decision is irrational in financial terms. It will be interesting to see how the courts deal with this. Given one of the other challenges is on air quality, the Government has got to say that the maximum will be done to get both workers and travellers to go by public transport. If I was HSR I would be laughing all the way to the bank.

278. @timbeau
     Re: Egham versus Mortlake
     I didn’t say there was no issue in Mortlake, just that there’s less of an issue than in Egham. As you say, the difference in TPH probably stacks against that such that Mortlake is also a problem for new paths.

279. @ Quinlet and others – Here’s the link to Hacan’s (“A voice for those under Heathrow flightpaths”) point of view re. 3rd runway (scroll down for that) and other related matters:
     http://hacan.org.uk/

280. What are the odds that Gatwick builds first & “Heathrow 3” never actually happens?
     Mind you that still doesn’t solve the various Level-Crossing problems which, remember are already with us …..

281. An added complication with the level crossings is that Egham, Mortlake and North Sheen stations are all right next to level crossings. Stopping trains (about half the service in each case) take a long time to approach and clear these crossings. In particular, the crossings lie within the safety margin beyond the signals at the platform ends (up services at Mortlake, down at the other two), which means that the crossing gates have to be down before a train can enter the station, and remain down all the time station business is being conducted.

282. At what point do you start replacing the level crossings? It seems unlikely that building a new rail bypass of Egham is cheaper than replacing the 3 crossings in Egham, but perhaps it is less controversial.

     Of course, as soon as you bypass Egham, there will be complaints from Egham residents that they are missing out on services. Therefore, if you are going to build a rail bypass of Egham, it may be better to build a a couple more links, a new station in Egham and close the existing line.

283. If only the non-stop services use the bypass, the residents are less likely to complain about the trains that still use the level crossing as they are serving the local community.

     Without the non-stop services the signalling arrangements can be configured specifically for trains that always stop (lower speed limit through the station, and thus less time between gates down / signal clearing, and train actually arriving.

284. Timbeau
     The exact same LC situation occurs at Higham’s Park on the Chingford line for up trains & for anything going S or E at Wokingham. [ Where I have observed seriously, dangerously lunatic behaviour by car-drivers, incidentally ] Oh & don’t forget Motspur Park, either.

285. The level crossings will need to be dealt with one day. This timelapse shows how a segment was done in 37 days in Melbourne. Maybe one day something similar could be done in Egham or Mortlake

286. @herned: Maybe – but they seemed to have a lot of space there – in particular they could dig out a new cutting alongside the existing surface-level alignment. This is not really practical in suburban Mortlake.

     I suspect any cutting along there would be below the water table (Mortlake is very close to the river)

     As with The Line Which May Not be Named, it might be cheaper just to build a completely new line (in Tube) rather than tinker with the existing one.

287. @Quinlet

     All that was agreed by Parliament was that Heathrow Northwest Runway has got ‘National Policy Statement’ status in the planning process. No actual plans have been committed to, just guidelines set that HAH’s plans have to follow to get rubber stamped.

     Note that the NPS says:

     5.21 The applicant’s proposals will give rise to impacts on the existing and surrounding transport infrastructure. The Secretary of State will consider whether the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to mitigate these impacts during both the development and construction phase and the operational phase. Where the proposed mitigation measures are insufficient to effectively offset or reduce the impact on the transport network, arising from expansion, of additional passengers, freight operators and airport workers, the Secretary of State will impose requirements on the applicant to accept requirements and / or obligations to fund infrastructure or implement other measures to mitigate the adverse impacts, including air quality.

     5.22 Provided the applicant is willing to commit to transport planning obligations to satisfactorily mitigate transport impacts identified in the transport assessment (including environment and social impacts), with costs being considered in accordance with the Department for Transport’s policy on the funding of surface access schemes, development consent should not be withheld on surface access grounds.

     So far from the Government committing to funding schemes, the onus is on HAH to meet the DfT’s demands.

     What has changed is that Davis report dithering is over, and the ball in Heathrow’s court to get viable detailed plans that the Government can accept, per the guidelines.

288. @Si
     But please note that the NPS says that HAL must take ‘all reasonable steps’ to mitigate the transport impacts. What is considered to be ‘reasonable’ is wide open to interpretation and this is part of HAL’s current argument. Furthermore, 5.22 does not say that if sufficient mitigation is not provided the application will be refused, only that if sufficient mitigation *is* provided then the application will not be refused on surface access grounds. The wording has been very carefully constructed. But it remains the case that if the government did not support runway 3 then the process would never have got this far.

289. @ Timbeau

     I’m not suggesting that exactly the same solution would work, indeed proper tunnelling may be more sensible. Rather that with enough will (and suitcases full of cash), the level crossings issue can go away

290. @herned @timbeau
     I actually think dropping Barnes to Richmond into a cut & cover is feasible, though it would require a lengthy closure. Much of the route is bordered by public spaces, allotments, roads, garages or large gardens, though some residential demolitions would be unavoidable. Vine Rd Rec and Richmond Homebase would make realistic work sites at each end.

     Local support could be there through the LC removal improvements to safety and connectivity, and some judicious extensions to the public spaces/allotments/gardens above the new tunnel. Some cost could be recovered through limited over-route developments, particularly above the new (sub surface) stations.

     Hard to see where the money would come from though….

291. @PoP:

     I think this really highlights how, at the western end, Crossrail isn’t the project it was originally planned to be

     An interesting quote from Crossrail’s first draft of thinking way back in 2002 (p. 16):

     Services to Heathrow and Slough would require more extensive widening of the
     railway to six tracks beyond Ealing to Airport Junction and the electrification of the line
     from Airport Junction to Slough and/or Reading. All options will require major works
     at most stations, including reconstruction of Ealing Broadway

     Evidently the six-tracking (and Ealing rebuild) got dropped soon after that to make the project more affordable (and an Ealing rebuild was eventually added back in to the scheme).

292. @Timbeau:

     [In Melbourne] they could dig out a new cutting alongside the existing surface-level alignment

     See here for the method recently used for grade separating level crossings where the rail corridor was narrower, but using a longitudinal straddle crane to position viaduct sections above the existing rail lines (while they were still in use). It was also significantly cheaper than burying the rail line, and new open space is created beneath the viaducts. Which isn’t to say that building concrete viaducts in suburban areas wasn’t massively contentious.

293. Ian J
     27 August 2018 at 09:01

     ” building concrete viaducts in suburban areas” isn’t far from the way most of the Docklands Light Railway was built.

294. Alan Griffiths,

     I am struggling to reconcile your statement with any of the definitions I have found for ‘suburban’. Wikipedia as a good as any. “A suburb is a mixed-use or residential area…”.

     The DLR was largely built in desolate uninhabited areas where, at the time, there was little housing and lots of empty space created by old industries dying and new ones not yet being present.

295. Back in the late 1930s, the District line through Aldgate East had to be lowered by 7ft. They managed to do all the necessary excavation works while the trains were still running by supporting the tracks on wooden trestles!

     Somehow, I don’t think that would be allowed these days…

296. Well surely it makes sense to keep Crossrail along the GWML – and so the T5 Crossrail terminators would be the best candidates to rejoin via ‘WRATH’ and stop in whichever pattern to Reading, or maybe even Oxford (which we hope to be wired and platformed up by then).

     And HEx would, if the tunnelling at T5 allowed it, run into the unused platforms and continue onto Staines and/or the SW network. This would use higher quality stock, better suited for longer journeys. It wouldn’t be the prime commuting option, but for some if you worked at Paddington or needed HS2 or LO via OOC, it might have cross-Heathrow use.

     Neat and tidy enough? I don’t think Crossrail to T5 as well as HEx to SWT territory is really needed.

297. Pedantic of Purley
     27 August 2018 at 11:27

     Don’t think people either side of the Royal Docks, nor close to the Lewisham extention, would agree with that.

298. Alan Griffiths,

     Even more puzzled now.

     If you mean towards Beckton, there was very little residential (or even active industrial) presence on the elevated section when the DLR went to the Royal Docks. I remember travelling on it and what hit me was the total desolation in the surrounding area. That and the fact that me and the person I was with were practically the only passengers aboard.

     It was much the same when the Woolwich extension was built. There were houses closer to the elevated section, but, if I recall correctly, none particularly close.

     The Lewisham extension goes under the river (so obviously no viaducts there). It surfaces at Greenwich station. It is then on a viaduct to go over the A2 at Deptford Bridge. This was not a residential area at the time of building and much of it to the north of the A2 was derelict. It then drops down sharply and continues to Lewisham at or below ground level.

299. @Ian J @PoP @Alan Griffiths
     Surely we can all agree that a concrete viaduct solution isn’t going to be viable for the routes through Mortlake or Egham, however cleverly it’s constructed?

300. PoP
     You should have seen the area around Beckton before the DLR was built … the docks were closing down when I was on the last train ( A Brake-Van trip organised by Branch Line Society ) to Beckton Gasworks …
     “Desolation” is probably the best word to describe it – IIRC the last scenes in “Full Metal Jacket” were shot there, which tells you a lot.

301. Re Greg,

     And Roger Moore dropped Blofeld down the chimney there in probably the worst Bond intro sequence.

302. And wasn’t some of The New Avengers filmed in around Becton Gasworks as well?

303. @ Ngh – “Keep you hair on” – Bond to Blofeld just before he dumps him down the chimney.

     The Professionals (TV series) also seems to have visited every goods yard and sidings in London. They’ve certainly filmed in the old sidings at Stratford, had a shoot out and a near miss with a class 31 at Old Oak Common and a mass gun fight somewhere I didn’t recognise. They also quite liked kidding people that the Met Line A60s ran through Osterley on the Picc Line. They also quite liked chasing villains who kept jumping on RTs in Willesden and cameo appearances of RM / DMS buses at Turnpike Lane. All great fun if you enjoy spotting 1970s transport infrastructure.

     The 80s and 90s are great for spotting London transport infrastructure in pop videos. The DLR was often a fave. I imagine it won’t be long before someone hires the Crossrail stations for films or pop videos once they’re finished and open for use.

304. WW
     Hasn’t Canary Wharf already been used for a “Star Wars” sequence?
     And I remember seeing a 1970’s (?) TV production, supposedly of agents in occuppied France, c.1943, & there was a shoot-out, near the end of the series, which turned out to be at Stonebridge park, as the old depot chimney there was quite distinctive (!)

     Oh & wonderful docks railways sequences in the Ealing classic “It always rains on Sunday” plus LMS Oerlikon units trundling along viaducts.
     There’s even a web-site, not always accurate dealing with such tings … “Reel Streets” I think.
     Ah, yes – here
     And, of course, this one!

305. It’s a tangent, but rather than a viaduct or trench, I’d say that the best thing for the Mortlake stretch is a fast tunnel from just after Clapham Junction to the Whitton area, with underground stations at Richmond and Twickenham only.

     It’s all PR, so if more trains stopping the level crossings actually stopped at the villages along, the denizens would hopefully be less angry about them!

     The Mortlake route would still be well-served with many local trains, whereas the fast Richmond route might service: 4tph Reading, 2-4tph Heathrow/Windsor each, 2tph Weybridge, 2tph Aldershot…

     Whereas the slows could be fully local, a lot around the Hounslow loop (8-12tph) and Shepparton (4tph). Windsor and Heathrow routing up for debate – largely based on the needs and demand of Putney. And who knows where the Northern line might end up one day.

     Sorry for the segue – Heathrow talk and the trenching of that route got me thinking.

306. @WW: The professionals filmed one sequence at ChambersWharf in Bermondsey.

     I also rememberseeing the white tower in Mill Street appearing as well as the one in Elephant Lane.

307. I dare say an article will appear in due course but Crossrail Limited have announced that the core tunnel section will not open until Autumn 2019. Not yet clear what this means for the phasing of subsequent opening but we may not see Crossrail finished until December 2020.

     Bang goes TfL’s business plan for later years from 2020 onwards. There was not much growth assumed in 2018/19 or 2019/20.

308. So now both “on time” and “on budget” have been shown to be false.

     Serious questions need to be asked as to why this bad news has been kept out of the public domain for so long. This must have been known about for months.

309. It would be interesting to know about how the delay affects any of these timetable changes. Will the new service changes on the western arm now be delayed beyond December 2019? Lots of questions!

310. The GW was meant to see the big TT changes in May ’19 (delayed from 2/1/2019). so the second phase of the GW re-hash will be delayed.

     The big TT impact will likely be on the GEML where there was meant to be a big Greater Anglia timetable rehash in Dec 2019 but this might be delay but the now delayed works to the LST high level platforms (was to happen in June-July ’19).

     Re James,

     ” On time – On budget”
     It has been obvious for 2 years that it was behind the question is just how much. You don’t want to keep announcing short delays better to announce a realistic long one when the picture is much clearer.
     It was also widely known that the value engineering exercises (up to 8 years ago) were dubious and there were plenty of unfunded scope changes (e.g. level access at surface stations). The final cost should still be less than the original budget. Some of the descoping will get much criticism when opeing happens and the public can see what hasn’t been provided (e.g. plenty of step free interchanges to the tube lines aren’t there.)

311. “The bad news is that… well… incredibly, for once, there doesn’t seem to be any bad news.”

     This line may need revising now!

312. At this rate the Bloomberg entrance at Bank will open first (and maybe even the main upgrade as well…….) We might even see tram-trains at Rotherham)

     At least Thameslink was running some trains on the target date back in May.

313. “The bad news is that… well… incredibly, for once, there doesn’t seem to be any bad news.”

     Methinks you spoke too soon! 😉

314. Re timbeau,

     On Thameslink see some good news under the relevant article

315. The Bank branch closure is April 2020. For that to work, to my mind, pasengers from Euston and KX etc need to be using the Metropolitain etc to Moorgate & Liverpool Street or 717s running smoothly into Moorgate or Thameslink to London Bridge. Met/H&C/Circle capacity needs Paddington passengers to be on Crossrail.

     The dominos are in place. It looks like they are safely spaced but its getting tighter.

316. Out of interest, does anyone now the expected final costs as per cent of original budget (both excluding and including risk)?

317. @ NGH – but they could still have announced an approximate delay (e.g. 5-10 months late).

318. @NGH @James @Christian Schmidt
     To be fair, I imagine the decision has only recently been taken, and that it’s partly been taken against the backdrop of the Thameslink debacle. At a guess, going live in December might still be technically possible, but only with risk that’s now considered unacceptable.

     Worse than an opening delay would be passengers in the first few days waiting impatiently in not-quite-finished stations on a railway with multiple signal and train failures. I imagine that this is the sort of scenario causing nightmares at Crossrail and TfL.

319. Re Christian,

     The original Budget was £15.9bn but got value engineered / descoped to £14.8bn (£1.1bn reduction) as part of the 2010 government’s austerity measures then increased to £15.4bn in July 2018 in the light of reality (including unfunded station accessibility work and some Carillion surface station work for NR being tendered unrealistically low).

     So the current budget is 96.8% of the original budget or 105.6% of the value engineered / descoped / trimmed budget.

     Of the £1.1bn 2010/2011 reduction a £300m saving was achieved by lowering inflation assumptions… oops

     Risk was £2.96bn in the 2010-2011 budget costings down from £4.59bn previously of the £1.63bn reduction in risk only on £693m was transferred to construction cost (at P95) , which might have been a bit optimistic.

     Descoping was to deliver circa £800m savings.

     [Other cost went up when they achieved P95 certainty]

     However DfT set aside a contingency of £400m on top of the £14.8bn.
     DfT is picking up circa 75% of the £600m cost increase e.g. £450m not bad given their 2010-11 assumption of £400m…

320. If it was so ready to begin then why a 9 month delay, and not a 6 months till the May timetable change?

     Note: not actually expecting anyone to have an answer on that yet.

321. Does anybody know whether any of the financing is secured against, or otherwise referable to, income from Crossrail? It is all very well to say that the revenue impact will be ameliorated by avoiding cannibalising patronage of other lines, but that only works if everybody is looking at the matter from a whole-TfL perspective.

322. Re Helbelgu,

     It wasn’t so ready!
     Because the next stage of opening Abbey Wood – Paddington (Low Level) isn’t reliant on any changes to the NR timetable so can be independent of the May /December main changes.
     Whitechapel station (v. problematic) is likely to be one of the reasons for the delay till next Autumn so 9-12 months depending out your definition of Autumn! They carefully haven’t specified a month.

323. NGH……..Am I right in saying that the estimates you qouted – which I recognise – don’t include the cost of the trains/depot?

324. Is it possible the 9-12 month delay is deliberately a worst case scenario? Might there be a possibility that the core opens sooner, sans Whitechapel perhaps, than that? By slightly exaggerating the time needed, it presents a future opportunity to ‘save face’?

325. @ Lawyerboy – I understand that there is certainly some TfL borrowing in respect of Crossrail which will be paid back from the operating surplus from Crossrail services. I am not a financing expert so I don’t know the details of when repayments start and what flexibility TfL may have around the payments and terms.

     @ Ngh – nice, but also sad, to see some acknowledgement of my long term observations of delays on the Crossrail project. At least my antennae are still working when it comes to reading between the lines and especially about Whitechapel station.

326. There is, at this early date no apparent indication of when the final two linking stages will open.
     I assume it will have to be on a “Normal” tt-change date, so Dec 2019 &/or May 2020 – please tell me NOT Dec 2020?

327. @Ben – it would be relevant to look, if one could, at the diary of the eponymous Queen…

328. Re Greg,

     December ’19 may be too close to Autumn ’19 to allow the core to bed in.

     The first Anglia TT change in May ’19 has got pushed back to Dec ’19 already and the *big* Anglia TT recast is apparently still on for May’20 but may be reliant on the LST high level platform changes.

     The big GW TT recast is on for May ’19 but the simplest solution might be to go for the through Paddington joining for May 2020 after GW-ATP can be turned off in the Heathrow Tunnels for which very early 2020 seems sensible out-turn (e.g. after ETCS fitted to GW387s that will operate HEx). But Crossrail would still need to run some current GW services from Dec ’19 at the latest else GW have issues (earlier could be helpful)

329. Re 130 ,

     Correct – It thought you might recognise them!

330. NGH: Given there is a timetabled service running in test mode through to Abbey Wood presently I would have thought that with the additional delay announced today the core (sans Whitechapel junction) will be very truly bedded in, so shouldn’t directly affect the other phases.

331. Re Alison,

     Probably wise to allow some time for things to bed in and it is also easier to fix outstanding issues if there are fewer users. It rather depends if Autumn is the beginning of September or late November, if later November there won’t be much appetite for change in December.

     Given the recent non completion of fit-out of most of the core stations by the recent deadline, there might be some readjustment to the level of testing if less testing enables more construction… a reasonable amount of test data to indentify at least some issues will have been generated.

     One suspects and Abbey Wood – Canary Wharf shuttle would have been the only thing open in Decemeber if they had been inclined to open something.

332. “Problematic” Whitechapel: So what has gone horribly wrong with the new station that hasn’t been made public?

333. Alex McKenna,

     Unless ngh is referring to something I don’t know about, nothing has gone wrong with the new station at Whitechapel that has not been made public.

     Whitechapel was problematic from inception and it was known it would be. The site is very constrained – every bit as bad as Tottenham Court Road but in a different way. Even the main site office is located four storeys up in Whitechapel post office building – the one that was at the eastern end of the post office railway. This is on the other side of the Whitechapel Road.

     The platforms are very deep – even for Crossrail. The site is constrained by needing to keep the East London line running most of the time. Not helped by Night Overground (even if it doesn’t currently stop at Whitechapel). Construction was bound to be extended due to the need to alter the layout of the District and Hammersmith & City lines before construction could begin in earnest. A school is very nearby which limits critical noisy operations in the daytime to weekends and school holidays.

     I am sure there is a lot more but I can’t remember it off my head.

334. @ PoP – the difficulties at the site have been evident for a long while. I agree there are a *lot* of constraints but none should have been a surprise to the contractors / project managers. There have clearly been substantial problems along the way because of the need for a lot more possessions and mini blockades on the ELL – often at shortish notice. I’m sure it’ll look lovely when it’s finished but I suspect a lot of lessons have been learnt along the way.

335. @WALTHAMSTOW WRITER

     Lessons that will be forgotten by the time the next infrastructure mega project comes along. Nothing is joined up, expertise retires or moves on elsewhere. Decades between projects.

336. Kit Green
     You forgot to add: Expertise deliberately thrown away & disregarded ( Railtrack )

337. @ Kit Green – not sure I quite agree. Crossrail does seem to have gone to great lengths to catalogue its learning . It will be for TfL to ensure that is all maintained and accessible and let’s hope that they do. As others have said previously on LR there are other projects like the Tideway Tunnel and HS2 that may fill in the gap for the requisite expertise to be able to return to do CR2. I am deeply sceptical CR2 *will* happen but putting that to one side there is some prospect of skills and experience continuity.

     If bodies like IIPAG [1] and the TfL Board do their jobs properly then I’d expect them to insist on the CR2 team demonstrating that they have / are using the lessons from CR1 to avoid risks and mistakes on that project. I’d also expect the DfT and Treasury to demand similar assurances even though I don’t view what has happened with Crossrail as the “disaster” some people are portraying it as. It’s sad it’s happened and that we got to 100 days out from opening before it was admitted but they are simply more lessons to be learnt from.

     [1] Independent Investment Programme Advisory Group

338. Re WW,

     There is plenty of Crossrail learning material out there, but it would be nice if there is a bit more detail. Lets hope the don’t forget about the “Learning Legacy” policy.

     From what I’ve heard CR2 has been learning lessons from CR1 and an example of this appears to be the TBM first, station box /cavern later philosophy which has the potential to vastly improve logistics on trickier sites as spoil can leave and some materials can enter the station site via the tunnels.

339. @ NGH – thanks for the breakdown, given that it seems much of the 2010 ‘descoping’ was accountancy, the current costs don’t look that bad against the original budget…

     re opening date, given that the core is self-contained, it seems to me it really only matters as far as TfL’s budget is concerned. They might have as well said ‘2018/2019/-ish’ instead of a date, then just open it when it is ready and have the official opening somewhat afterward (as used to be the case with new railway lines).

340. The Royal rebooking would be a consideration and take most of a year. The Autumn window is vaguely wide and TfL would be keen to carry revenue passengers asap regardless of any blessing ceremony.

     The Thameslink weekday timetable has settled so they may have waited for that opportunity.

     An abundance of optimism may have delayed a formal capitulation. Could DfT have insisted on prudence this time.

     The construction managers 800,000 bonuses have been paid out and sorted prior to any ‘outcry’.

     The ‘branding’ exercise was authorised and presumably maps printed so is this notice time to shred and redesign?

341. @ngh “The first Anglia TT change in May ’19 has got pushed back to Dec ’19 already and the *big* Anglia TT recast is apparently still on for May’20 but may be reliant on the LST high level platform changes.”

     Although not surprising this is the first time I have seen anyone credible state expressly that the May 19 TSR2 on GA has been postponed, are you able to disclose your source for this?

     The GA franchise agreement requires various platforms to be extended by 1 Sept 2018. Anyone know if this work is actually going to be done? Without it 10 car 720s cannot operate to Hertford East.

     “105.2 Pursuant to paragraph 105.1 such changes to the infrastructure shall include such infrastructure works at each of Hertford East, Wickford, Manningtree, Kings Lynn, Elsenham, Ware, St Margarets and Enfield Lock Stations as are necessary to enable any Passenger Services comprised of 10 rolling stock vehicles to call at such Stations by no later than 1 September 2018”

342. Re WL,

     Anglia aren’t on the revised big TT changes for May ’19 list… (Plenty of refugees from Dec ’18 /Jan ’19 changes that have got pushed back)

     Platform Extensions – that would require someone funding NR to do it, which they haven’t yet.
     Am I the only with sense of deya vu on franchise agreements containing unfunded infrastructure requirements…
     VTEC, SWR, Anglia…

343. @WL – Do you really mean that those platform extensions needed to be ready two days ago?

344. Autumn 2019 falls between Monday 23rd September and Sunday 22nd December. Doesn’t the December timetable change occur at the beginning of December?

345. @NGH the GA timetable changes per TSR2 May 2019 are minor:
     – LivSt SouthendVic 3 -4 TPH off peak only
     – LivSt HertfordEast 2-3 TPH off peak only
     – LivSt Ipswich hourly semi fast extended to Norwich
     – Norwich Cambridge hourly extended to Stansted Airport
     – STAR 2 TPH
     No need to abandon all of those ?

     @Timbeau – yes the Franchise Agreement requires all the listed platforms to be extended (or in some cases only signalling work I think) by 1 Sept 2018. It also includes requirement below, which I assume is not going to happen.

     I know that everything is too difficult nowadays, but it seems odd to me that GA/DfT/NR cant sort this stuff out, Franchise Agreement was signed over 3 years ago. Hertford East cannot accommodate more than 8 cars, so if no work done by 1-1-20 means 5 car only 720s, which is surely not acceptable, or PRM compliant units, 379s perhaps.

     By no later than 31 October 2018, the Franchisee shall incur expenditure of not less than [REDACTED35] to ensure that Automatic Selective Door Opening technology is operational on twenty seven (27) Class 317 units (the “Class 317 Upgrade Units”), the provision of such Automatic Selective Door Opening technology to encompass correct side door enable and the installation of trackside beacons to ninety six (96) platforms

346. @Dan Dodex

     In one sense, yes, but there’s other definitions of the seasons. On Friday the weatherman said ‘while tomorrow is meterologically the first day of autumn, it will be rather summery’ as that’s where the Met Office defines it: 1 Sept- 30 Nov.

     Ancient Gaelic traditions had August, September and October as the Autumnal months. Even Victorian carols like ‘In the Bleak Mid-Winter’ only make sense if the solstice is treated as the middle of winter, rather than the start of it…

     I’d suggest that the Autumn 2019 window could be anything between August Bank Holiday and just before Christmas!

347. @ WL – Network Rail seem to be making decent progress with STAR so hopefully we will get the service running next May. I would not want a 7 month delay just because of timetable issues. Hopefully the relatively self contained nature of the service and modest rolling stock and staffing implications should allow it to proceed on time.

348. WL……Those platform extensions…… is “10 rolling stock vehicles” defined somewhere? 10 vehicles could be somewhere between 200m and 240m long (neglecting the Inter City Express at 260m for a 10 car).

     Also, I’d love to get some of these contracts rewritten to achieve the Crystal Mark from the Plain English Society!

349. Doesn’t Captain Deltic have a rule about season-based timescales. Something like “never trust them” I believe?

350. Are any 315s being retired ? They still seem to be the bulk of TfL’s daytime service.
     Retaining a fleet for the Gidea Park shuttles could be a way of managing the Liverpool Street rebuild.

351. Re Aleks,

     This has been covered many times before in most crossrail article comments (and some times the articles).

     1. Only the bad ones have been retired so far

     2. 315s still account for about 2/3rd of the TfL Rail eastern services

     3. the plan has always been to retain a large number of 315s to enable the Liverpool Street platforms works to be done (and the 7car 345s converted to 9 car a the same time), the 315 lease lasts well into till 2020…

352. Aleks, ngh,

     All very interesting but I don’t understand what problem there is to solve.

     There are enough trains on order to have run Gidea Park shuttles as well as the rest of Crossrail with class 345. You have 7-car trains and you keep some for the Gidea Park shuttles. When the platforms at Liverpool St are long enough you add a couple of carriages. Am I missing something?

     Now, if Howard Smith (Operational Director) comes up with another wheeze to improve the Crossrail service that requires more trains or 4tph to T5 comes to fruition (I hesitate to use another equally valid word), class 315 on the Gidea Park shuttles might be a good idea. Especially if they intend to retain a unit for Romford-Upminster which is the current plan.

353. Re PoP,

     Yes the plan is to convert all the 7 car to 9 car while the platform works are being done hence some 315s needed for a reduced Gidea Park shuttle during the works. The newly lengthened 9 car units then get extensive testing before going back into passenger service. Due to a limited number of Driver Instructors they need to ensure they keep training especially ahead of the CR taking of the Maidenhead /Reading service so can’t lose units for training for 2 months either.

     If the LST High Level platform work now have to happen out of sequence with Elizabeth line route opening then the 9car units will be required before the platform works hence the retention of 315s is required.

354. One small point, currently the Gidea Park peak trains carry passengers in both directions.

355. Crossrail service patterns are a dormant topic but I found the quote about Heathrow operating on both eastern branches.

     Passengers boarding at Ilford will be able to get a train to Heathrow in around 52 minutes.
     Redbridge Councillor Khayer Chowdhury aired his “disappointment” that there will only be a proposed one out of 12 trains an hours going directly from Ilford to Heathrow airport.
     John Goldsmith, relations manager at Crossrail replied that he expects this rate to be fulfilled during off peak times.

356. Is this the situation with the Crossrail fleet?
     15 sets of 7 car 345s were introduced onto the eastern branch for mileage accumulation, driver training, and systems checking.
     When the core is operational and adequate 9 car units are in service, the branch will switch to Paddington and the 7 car 345s will be withdrawn from service.
     The 15 units will have their formation extended with two additional coaches and then enter a period of reconfiguration testing. These 15 units will then provide the capacity to run the western branch and a 6 month timetable change is the planned interval.

     A revised plan is that the 15 are destined for the peak Gidea Park service to newly extended Liverpool Street platforms in 2020. 20 x TfL Rail 315s have had their leases from Eversholt Rail expiring on 19/09/18 extended to 14/12/20. The remaining units have been selected with the greatest available remaining mileage before overhaul to keep down maintenance expense but someone is picking up an additional lease charge. Ongoing improvements are also being made at Ilford depot for example with cab fittings.

     Really happening now, image of 38 year old 315 arriving at Newport Docks.
     https://www.flickr.com/photos/159717706@N06/43786874690/in/photostream/lightbox/
     Sims at a guess, little storage so torn apart quickly.

357. Re Aleks,

     In very brief:
     17x 7car units made, 001-017
     14 have seen passenger service with 3 on the western side (on rotation) and ~9 in service on the eastern side. Some of the 3 just on testing in various locations and should emerge soon for passenger use.

     33x 9 car delivered so far and 2 units worth of extra cars for testing the lengthening process.
     OOC is getting fairly full! Maidenhead and Plumstead sidings will need to see more use in a few months.

     Most of the 315 units have gone to EMR @ Kingbury for scrapping so far.

358. Does anyone know how many minutes past the hour these services will run? I always seem to have to wait at Reading for the Basingstoke train when I get off the fast service from Paddington . I’m hoping these might join up and make the end to end time quicker.

359. @Kevin – if you mean “will there be through services from Crossrail to Basingstoke via Reading”, the short answer is no. Nothing is planned at all. A very long time ago, I gave some thought to extending the dc services from Waterloo to Basingstoke across Reading by demolishing the existing station building and linking the bays, but the back of fag packet calculations suggested that the costs (power, platform lengthening) would far outweigh the benefits and I didn’t see any obvious large new markets to be tapped even by extending through to the Solent from Reading, although these days, a Solent-Heathrow service might be worth investigating if WRatH ever gets built.

     BTW I don’t think anyone has yet published the timetable for Crossrail in detail

360. @ Graham H

     There’s arguably a market for Solent-Reading-Paddington services, provided they are fast in the Thames Valley. Bypass the busy bit of the SWML, add capacity on the Solent-Reading axis. It’s certainly a Network Rail aspiration.

     However, I believe Kevin is talking about getting a fast train from Paddington to Reading, hanging around at Reading, then boarding the Basingstoke stopper (presumably for an intermediate stop).

     @ Kevin

     I don’t think anyone knows yet if the Elizabeth Line service at Reading will tie in nicely with the Basingstoke stoppers. However the Fast Trains will remain faster and more frequent (and on closer platforms at Reading) than stopping trains, so I’d still recommend taking those. Studying the timetable to see which fast trains tie in with the half-hourly Basingstoke stoppers might be a good idea. Gloucestershire, or West Country (depending which half-hour it is), trains might be good, looking at the next hour (but are those 4-6 minute change times too tight?) as then you can cut your wait at Reading.

361. @Si – There may well be a Solent -Reading fast market but whether the capacity exists to extend it to Paddington is a moot point. Solent-Reading to terminate is already served by Cross-Country, of course. (Yes, I’d assumed that Kevin had in mind a fast to Reading, then through to Bramley/Mortimer – the opposite of a large market

362. @Graham H

     I think I’m getting what you are saying – extending the Waterloo-Reading services to Basingstoke was found to be too little benefit for too much cost (totally agree). I got confused by your mentions about the Solent and Heathrow.

     Cross-country is often inadequate (though 2tph rather than 1.5, and longer trains would go an awful long way to fixing it), and the SWML suffers from capacity issues. Therefore Paddington-Southampton services were put on an official wish list, should HEx (giving the capacity between Paddington and Reading) be put on the slows. Access to HS2 and Heathrow were mentioned wrt those services, but more as bonuses rather than an essential part of the case for the service. It’s not too silly an idea, though numbers would need to be run again (especially as it assumed Electric Spine, simplifying power issues a lot) but obviously is drifting off-topic.

363. @Si – There may be two strategic questions here:

     – if you could free up capacity on the GWML, where would be the best use for that? (Eg more Bristols, more Cotswolds or even, perish the thought, more West of Englands). I would put money on the Cotswolds, especially of the Worcester HBf issue could be sorted, but one would need to see the figures.
     – related to that, is there enough of a Solent-Paddington/central London market to provide a genuine alternative to Solent-Waterloo/central London? One would again need the figures. Either option requires you to transfer to LU, either at Paddington or Waterloo, so the choice is further constrained. [Note, I am assuming that the crayonista dream of through Soton-Chelmsford via Bond Street services is entirely the product of fantasy and should remain there.]

     None of that makes the case at all for extending Crossrail stoppers to Basingstoke. The only beneficiaries are Bramley and Mortimer (amongst the less-well used stations in the SE), the costs are substantial and there are no obvious revenue benefits because there are no obvious sufficient time gains for enough people. That’s where public transport is a dog – it works only because enough people are going in the same direction to make bundling trips worthwhile

364. Crossrail – Basingstoke service reminds me of Superlink proposals of 2004 (see Wikipedia). This followed upon London Regional Metro proposals from AECOM/Arup in 2003. The new tunnels would have accommodated all European rolling stock, with the possibility of future use of double-deck trains. LRM also proposed electrification of the line between Heathrow Airport Junction and Reading as part of the core railway.

     Additional elements available from LRM included a junction at Bethnal Green to provide a link to the West Anglia line (providing access to Stansted Airport), a junction at Forest Gate to provide a link to the London, Tilbury and Southend Line (including its link to CTRL at Ripple Lane), and a junction at Willesden to provide a link to the West Coast Mainline.

     Direct services between Heathrow and Stansted and between Slough/Watford and Southend, supported the regeneration of the Thames Gateway and the Lea Valley. Although services over LRM would be decided by the SRA, the proposed route diagram suggested that services should extend far beyond a local metro service, with mention of Bristol and the West, the West Midlands and the North West, Cambridge, Kings Lynn, East Anglia and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. The original Crossrail proposal suggested only four trains an hour outside of peaks, leaving plenty of paths for other routes!

365. Taz
     That superlink would have required a four-track crossrail, or at least two tracks with 4-track stations – something strongly resembling the link between Brussel Zuid & Nord, in fact.

366. @Taz – and a worthy crayonista project to the Soton to Chelmsford service actually operated by Prism (?) briefly around the turn of the millennium, which gave the first class punters * the delights of an at seat trolley service whilst travelling round the NLL in the peaks

     * In practice, there was only the one first class punter, Lord Dawlish writes, and that was he – in an otherwise entirely empty saloon; nearly as good as having the Rothschild’s saloon attached to your Met train…

367. It’s been a while since this article was produced. Quite a lot has happened since then (Crossrail delays, Covid impacts, TfL finance worsening). Does anyone know if/how planning for the “final” crossrail timetable has changed since this was produced? I’m mainly interested in the western end of the line, but any information would be interesting!

368. John Levermore,

     Updated plans made in 2021 count for little as it is really not known what demand will be in future.

     However, TfL papers in 2020 show that TfL would like to increase Elizabeth line services to 30tph in the peaks in the core section. This has, unofficially, been well-known for many years as an aspiration of the Crossrail (subsequently TfL Rail) team for the 2020s. It makes a lot of sense as Crossrail has been built with 30tph in mind and the cost of the extra trains is relatively small whereas the potential increase in income, assuming the latent demand is there, is potentially great.

     This is far less dramatic as it sounds as it will involve taking over the 4tph peak-hours only trains between Liverpool (High Level) and Gidea Park. These trains in the original plan are only intended to be in public service in the peak direction. So, effectively, a slight decrease in service in peak hours in the peak direction on the Shenfield branch.

     Disappointingly for you, this is unlikely to change Elizabeth line plans for the western end as there the restriction is the number of train paths available on the Great Western Main Line. So expect the same number of trains as currently planned with more trains terminating from the east at Paddington and continuing to Westbourne Park sidings to reverse.

     Pure speculation by myself but I wouldn’t be surprised if Terminal 4 remains closed until 2023-24 and that withdrawing Crossrail trains from Terminal 5 for even a short period of time will become unthinkable as it is now well-established.

369. PoP
     … the western end as there the restriction is the number of train paths available on the Great Western Main Line. So expect the same number of trains as currently planned with more trains terminating from the east at Paddington and continuing to Westbourne Park sidings to reverse.
     Time, then to revive an earlier version, which avoids the ( Ridiculous IMHO ) reversal hassle at Westbourne Pk …
     By extending those services up the “New” line through Ruislip & onwards to High Wycombe, etc
     ( At the same time a stringing “the knitting” Marylebone / W Ruislip & Aylesbury )

370. Greg,

     That still doesn’t resolve the pinchpoint west of Westboune Park. Not even worth starting to consider until new station for HS2 interchange is built at Old Oak Common together with the associated track enhancements.

     And then you might need all the capacity for HS2 passengers – but probably not.

371. PoP
     Actually 6 tracks ( If you include the ECS-working ones ) extends to the flyover just to the E of the Old Oak complex, so the “pinch point” is a matter of relaying/resignalling tracks in the already available space, not a mad crayonista dream.
     The latter would be “6 tracks to Airport Junction” – which is do-able, but the costs of that would be prohibitive ( Ealing )

372. PoP, thank you for your reply. It’s interesting to read the aim to increase core section to 30tph.

     My comment was actually prompted by a post on another website (Rail UK) suggesting that services stopping at some western stations (West Ealing mentioned specifically) might be less than those previously planned. So possibly a reduction in some places vs the 2018 plans (possibly more skip-stopping rather than overall tph reduction across the branch?).

373. Greg,

     I never suggested it was a mad crayonista dream. Just that it didn’t make sense to do it piecemeal and now when so much is expected to change along this section of track. I really cannot see a scheme like this being developed or given any kind of priority when future passenger numbers are a big unknown.

374. John Levermore,

     I haven’t heard anything but can’t see it myself. Skip-stopping goes against Crossrail and TfL philosophy.

     What I think is far more plausible is that there is no hurry to restore services to Heathrow given the low level of current use.

     Also remember that if you have already bought the trains (or got them on a long-term lease), the fixed infrastructure is already there and you have already trained your drivers cutting out services doesn’t save that much money.

375. It makes a lot of sense to me to move the services from Liverpool Street High level to Paddington in the peaks as this will mean there is a constant location of services for the Liz Line at Paddington, that Whitechapel doesn’t miss out on these trains, that you don’t need to deal with terrible speed restrictions on the approach to Liverpool street because the 90 degree curve at the station mouth.

     The trains when they turn at Paddington will be using an automatic system, so there isn’t any timing problems.

     Added to this there is the benefits of freeing up platforms 16, 17 and 18 for Greater Anglia services, rather than gumming up three platforms in Zone 1.

376. @Brian: Wouldn’t platform 18 get removed as part of the platform lengthening works this Christmas?

377. @ALBERT J. P.

     Of course, if Network Rail says they will “commence work to extend platforms 16 and 17 at Liverpool Street” in the current works, I’m not sure if “preparation for the full-length Elizabeth line trains which are planned to be introduced in 2021” means the whole work to remove Platform 18 will be done by January.

     It’s still going to be … unique … that Liverpool Street has one 288m platform (9), one 261m platform (11). one 256m platform (13), seven 252m platforms (2 to 8), one 248m platform (10), three 246m platforms (12, 14, 15), one 242m platform (1) and platforms 16 to 18 were 162m.

     I’m not sure if the new platforms 16 and 17 will be just 200m for the length of the current trains or 240m to be the same as the stations in the Crossrail core.

378. Incredible detail thank you! I couldn’t find much official myself so not quite sure how you managed to pull it all together! The crossrail website still only has 4tph at Hanwell and west Ealing, do you still expect this to increase ?

379. Interesting to hear a target date of *September 2022* for connecting the existing West and East ends into the core. If anyone at London Reconnections has any ideas on whether the calling patterns mentioned in this article are still likely (especially regarding the higher tph service suggested for the Western part compared to what Crossrail have put out publicly) I think it’d be interesting.

380. Hi guys, excellent article, and comments even more so. Any chance of an update on timetable plans? Been a long time since it was discussed in any detail. Maybe there’s just no new news. I wonder if post covid work patterns might risk substantially reduced service for some stations east and west of the core? Seems to be a rumour, but maybe people just confusing the plans with current timetable.

381. @ James A

     I was thinking the same thing. I checked online and it’s only 4tph which is a little frustrating. Hopefully it does pick up down the line ….

382. An interesting FOI request (flagged up by a local newspaper) which answers a query about likely services operating through West Ealing once the final phase of Crossrail services are running in ~May 2023:

     This states:
     “From May 2023 we expect service frequencies to the west of London to be 6 trains per hour from Heathrow, 4tph /2tph (peak/off peak) from Reading and 2tph all day from Maidenhead. These will also run into the central operating section. This timetable has not yet been finalised: it is currently planned that West Ealing will receive 4tph, but we will continue to explore opportunities to increase the frequencies of calls at West Ealing.”
     Reference: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-0538-2223

     This compares to the 10tph speculated by the LR article above from 2018. Clearly a lot has changed between 2018 and now, but it would be interesting to know the specific issues which have caused a re-think on retaining more skip-stops instead of having more stops on inner-suburban stations and having a more consistent (all/most stops) to the west of Paddington, as it is to the east of Liverpool Street…

Comments are closed.