News on progress of existing TfL schemes has been in short supply during most of 2019. As if to make up for this, the 23rd October meeting of the Programmes & Investment Committee provided not only comprehensive background papers on a range of subjects but also a very informative discussion of the issues raised.
We hope to try and cover most of the major areas where we have updates of what is happening and, to that end, we kick off with Crossrail using information gained from the above committee and other sources to establish where we are today. The main source of information was Mark Wild’s (chief executive at Crossrail) presentation to the board members of the above committee.
Accepting the reality of today
Various threads weave their way throughout the current Crossrail planning and project assurance process. The first notable thread is that there is very much a ‘cold light of day’, ‘this is where we are now’ approach which is a welcome contrast to the optimistic ‘only give the good news’ approach of two to three years ago. It is clear that the TfL board members on the committee have confidence in the current Crossrail board – not only to complete the job but also report back the truth and not try to hide anything. Obviously there are some things that, because of commercial sensitivity or other reasons, cannot be put in the public domain but nowadays a lot of effort all round appears to be made to ensure that this is kept to the minimum necessary.
Another really noticeable change in attitude is that focus has moved away from opening as much of Crossrail as possible as quickly as possible to an approach that would maximise revenue and minimise costs. Consequently, various stages are considered more important than others and the order of importance is in marked contrast to the ranking that would have been given just two years ago.
The income-based plan
Currently, in terms of enhanced journey opportunities, very little has been achieved to date compared to what was present before Crossrail. The Liverpool St – Shenfield service now has nice new shiny trains (sometimes) but the timetable is basically unaltered. The Heathrow service continues much as before using the same rolling stock. Improvements amount to a 2tph service on Sundays (it was just 1tph) and a new half-hourly service between Paddington and Hayes & Harlington. Even that latter service was, strictly speaking, just taking over a recently-introduced electric service provided by GWR.
In terms of revenue it is hard to see how any such progress as there has been in implementing TfL Rail services, prior to the Elizabeth line opening, has provided any significant new sources of revenue (as opposed to reallocating existing sources).
Getting to Reading is really important
One of the surprises to outsiders when the delay to Crossrail was announced must have been the determination to press forward with introducing Crossrail services to Reading in December 2019. This was originally to be done as part of the stage that was due to be implemented last. To insiders this was no surprise. The line to Reading, which is outside the London fares zone, is the only part of the future Elizabeth line expected to generate significant amounts of revenue from each passenger journey.
Much effort has been expended during 2019 to ensure that TfL runs a Paddington – Reading service on commencement of the December 2019 timetable. With the tunnel section of Crossrail not yet available, this means continuing to utilise platforms at Paddington main line station that were originally expected to be freed up by the full opening of Crossrail.
Providing a Reading to Paddington service (now designated phase 5a) on time but out of sequence appears to provide a win all round. It brings in revenue to TfL, it enables existing drivers to be used productively and gain experience, it shows progress is being made and it enables the operating team to gain more real world experience.
You might have thought that TfL’s gain in going to Reading would be GWR’s loss but this appears not to be the case. It turns out that it is actually quite difficult for GWR to efficiently roster their stopping services to London and it isn’t the moneymaker one might expect it to be. One suspects this is at least partly because of where the stock is stabled and where GWR drivers’ depots are located. A further factor could be that TfL has more opportunity to interwork the stock with other services (initially Crossrail to Heathrow) which should lead to productivity gains. Apart from any financial benefit, one suspects GWR would rather concentrate their management resources on the potentially-far-more-profitable long- distance services to Wales and the West Country.
What is quite concerning is just how tight the schedule has been to get the railway ready for Class 345 (Crossrail) trains to Reading. Network Rail have so far kept their promise in getting all the necessary platform CCTV monitors installed and working. However, as is often the case, Network Rail have cut their works schedule rather fine. Indeed Twyford and Maidenhead (not lightly-used stations) have yet to have CCTV works completed although they are not behind schedule. This uncompleted state so close to the timetable implementation date has raised concerns by at least one outside review body.
Getting 9-car trains in use
Another concern in going to Reading is that the ideal would be to use 9-car Crossrail trains rather than the 7-car ones that are generally currently used. The difference between a 7-car and 9-car train would appear to be two cars but in the case of Crossrail the real difference is found in the train-based software. 7-car trains use software which is old, of limited functionality and not intended to be enhanced. 9-car trains contain the next generation of train-based software which has yet to be extensively used – at least on a Class 345.
Things aren’t going well with the introduction of 9-car sets. They do run, at times, between Hayes & Harlington and Paddington but their mean time to failure is reported to be around 500 miles at present. Generally one expects the figure to be at least 20,000 miles and even more with modern debugged stock with London Underground’s ‘S’ stock believed to be around 60,000 miles. Given the current unreliability of 9-car trains, it is no surprise that it is almost inevitable that the initial TfL service to Reading will be formed using 7-car trains.
Getting to Heathrow – properly
One of the bits of good news was that Mark was confident that TfL could be running Class 345 trains to Heathrow Terminal 4 in “the early part” of 2020 now that issues with the signalling have been identified as solvable – if not already solved. It seems that here, and in some other places too, the biggest problem now is to get sufficient railway possessions (exclusive use of the track) in order to either test the system or install hardware.
What was not mentioned at the committee meeting was whether Heathrow would be initially reached by 7-car trains or 9-car trains. Either way it would mean a 15 minute interval service to Heathrow, being able to finally get rid of the old Heathrow Connect class 360s (which are problematic and only 5-cars long), having a far more marketable product and further opportunities for operational experience.
Opening the core section – who cares?
Taking the theme of being concerned with revenue, it now seems that TfL ( or at least parts of TfL) and Mark Wild, seem rather less concerned with opening stage 3 (Abbey Wood – Paddington) than has been the case in the past.
The driving force behind this reduction in importance of opening stage 3 (Paddington to Abbey Wood) is partly down to revenue. It has long been argued that most Elizabeth line revenue from stage 3 opening would simply be abstraction. That is, it is revenue TfL already gets – typically on the Underground – and the financial effect would be to transfer that revenue to a different column in a financial report.
A note of caution was made by one of the project sponsors on the idea that stage 3 was not important from a revenue perspective. He agreed with the short-term prognosis but argued that in the long term it made sense to open as soon as practical. He pointed out that the TfL staff needed for Crossrail to open were, for the most part, already employed. He then further pointed out that, until assets such as stations were handed over, contractors would still have to have their own staff in the building. The implication was that ultimately it would be TfL paying for these staff. Presumably, once TfL staff are in place, it would make sense to open the line as soon as practical. Although, initially, revenue would largely be abstraction, traffic would gradually build up so the sooner that process was initiated the better.
Not wanting an unreliable railway…
In addition to that, in total contrast to the previous Crossrail regime, Mark Wild does not want to open stage 3 until it is believed to be solid and dependable. Or to put it another way, you don’t open it if you know you have outstanding issues. Part of this philosophy is down to the fact that once open it is more difficult to fix things on a live railway than it is on a not-yet-opened railway. As stated by Mark, “Opening Canary Wharf to Abbey Wood would be a cheap shot.”
A factor that may have influenced this de-emphasising the importance of stage 3 is the on- going delay at Bond Street station where it seems that everything that could go wrong has gone wrong. At present a 12tph service between Paddington and Abbey Wood could be run if the only thing holding it up was Bond Street. But, even then, Bond Street must be available for emergency evacuation. However, it has been deemed that it would not be possible to run 24tph without Bond Street being fully open because it wouldn’t be able to safely handle an emergency evacuation from the tunnels.
The argument goes, if you can’t open Bond Street, why open stage 3 if you won’t be able to follow on with stage 4 a few months later? You could argue opening stage 3 will enable the service to settle down and give confidence one is ready for a stage 4 opening but equally it could be argued that without Bond Street open such reassurance is of limited value.
.. but a ‘metronomic one’
Using a delightful phrase, Mark stated that ‘before going to stages 4 and 5 it was fundamental to have a “strong, stable, metronomic 12 trains per hour”. So clearly the current chief executive does not intend to be rushed if things are not right. On this he appeared to have the backing of board members. Certainly there was no dissent from the committee.
Stage 4 – the first critical stage
Stage 4 see most trains from east of Stratford diverted into the Crossrail core rather than terminating at Liverpool St (high level). This stage was stated as being significant for revenue growth. This is probably largely due to new journeys (especially off-peak) between east London and the centre of London such as the West End. It is also a stage that really has to align with a Network timetable change as other trains (especially freight trains) interwork with the current TfL Rail trains to Shenfield. As well as that, the frequency and service pattern east of Stratford have to align with the service pattern in the Crossrail core. So this means calling at all stations at all times of day (unlike at present) and the trains, for the most part, evenly spaced out (also not the case at present).
Because of the restrictions of when stage 4 can open and the need not to miss its target date, Mark Wild is anxious to have a stable stage 3 before even considering this – hence the importance of not opening stage 3 unless he is confident they will soon be ready for stage 4. It might be notable to point out that at around this time last year Mark expressed concern in the original Crossrail plan as to how quickly stage 4 was expected to open after stage 3 – not enough time for the initial service to settle down in his opinion.
The original plan intended to have a stage 3 opening in December 2018 and stage 4 opening in May 2019 whereas Mark suggested the time between these two events should not be less than six months. It will be interesting to see what pressures there are to open stage 4 once stage 3 is eventually opened.
Stage 5b – fully open
Stage 5b is the full opening of Crossrail incorporating through running from the central section onto the Great Western Main Line for services destined for Heathrow, Maidenhead or Reading. This is the second of the two yet-to-be-finalised critical stages in terms of both revenue and aligning it with a Network Rail timetable change – so basically December or May with a possibility of September if really necessary. Stage 5b would also be expected to provide genuine revenue growth. Through services from Heathrow to Central London and Canary Wharf will generate new rail journeys and through services to London from places such as Slough would also generate new journey patterns. Of less significance, but not to be forgotten, is the reverse situation. This could mean tourists based in London being more inclined to visit Windsor or travellers from London to the West Country or Wales choosing to change at Reading rather than Paddington.
Liverpool St platforms not mentioned
Mark did not elaborate on when Network Rail’s works to re-configure the east-side Liverpool Street terminal platforms for longer trains would be taken forward. The current length of the platforms restrict Crossrail trains serving Liverpool St to a maximum length of seven carriages (160 metres or eight ‘conventional’ carriages). What is desired is the ability to operate nine carriages (205 metres, or slightly longer than ten ‘conventional’ carriages). Without this platform lengthening 9-car Crossrail trains wouldn’t be able to use Liverpool St (high level) in an emergency or during engineering work. Furthermore, the few residual peak-period services still intended to terminate at the existing Liverpool St station would have to remain 7-car and not be interworked with the rest of the fleet.
If a summer period were the favoured slot for Liverpool St platform works, as they were before, then an autumn or winter stage 4 opening in, say, December 2021, could see peak-time Crossrail services terminating at Liverpool Street continuing to be formed with 7-car trains until summer 2022. They would then be withdrawn and, after the extension works are completed, they would be replaced by 9-car trains.
Project Key Areas
The relative importance of different stages of opening means nothing unless you can actually get the railway working. Mark Wild identified three very different key areas that needed to be tackled.
The first of these was, not surprisingly, the physical infrastructure and to this end we are talking about ‘must have’ rather than ‘nice to have’ so issues such as the rebuilding of Network Rail stations or accessibility, important though they are, do not get factored in at this stage.
The second key area was software. In particular, this is generally signalling software but also refers to train-based software which may have a role in many additional functions such as Selective Door Operation. It is indicative of the modern world that for so many projects (not just railway ones) it is software that becomes a major area of concern when trying to complete a project whereas thirty to forty years ago, a software element would not even exist. Before being too quick to blame software, it is worth remembering that many of the projects would not be so beneficial (once they are working properly) without the software element and in some cases these projects simply could not have been implemented without modern software.
The third key area was assurance and handover. Mark emphasised that this wasn’t just a case of ‘getting the paperwork done’. It was a vital component of the project. Procedures had to be in place and tested. Documentation had to be approved by regulators and approval couldn’t be taken for granted and without approval the line could not open.
We shall look at these three key areas in detail.
Physical Infrastructure delays
It will come as no surprise to anyone who has closely followed the Crossrail saga that the big two problems with stations were at Bond St and Whitechapel. Whitechapel is probably less talked about because it will probably be ready before Bond St so is not critical. This assumes that Whitechapel can at least be used for evacuation though, to date, there hasn’t been any suggestion that Whitechapel would not be fully open in time for a stage 3 opening.
There was some good news. GSM-R (the radio system) is now working in the tunnels. It was probably GSM-R that Mark was thinking of when, a year ago, he referred to the tunnels still not being fully kitted out.
Even Farringdon, a station where progress has generally been good, is only now nearly complete and has reached the status of ‘PPE free’ which, in very simple terms, means that workers did not have to walk around in a hi-viz orange jacket whilst wearing steel-capped boots and a hard hat. Amongst the things still to complete here (but not specifically mentioned) are the hostile vehicle mitigation measures (bollards to you and me) to be installed outside the station. Incredibly this is only now being done and it has turned out to be a surprisingly complex job involving advance diversion of utilities which has taken longer than originally expected. It is hard to see how the station could have opened without these in today’s terrorist-aware climate, yet somehow the original Crossrail team believed in the summer of 2018 that this station was still on track to open in December 2018 despite work on the bollards not even having been started.
Much publicity has been given in the press to the inadequacies of the fire alarms which have had to be replaced as not compliant with railway standards. Mark stated this came as a surprise and could not have been discovered before testing. Here at LR Towers, we can’t quite accept that as it is believed the very same problem was one of the factors that delayed the opening of the Walbrook entrance of Bank station which finally opened at the end of November 2018 when it should have opened that summer. So there were at least some warning signs.
The fire alarm issue was presented as just something else on the list that had to be sorted out and Mark state that ‘fire work’ should be complete by November 2019. However it was not made clear what ‘fire work’ consists of. We are aware that as a consequence of Grenfell Tower a lot of panels have had to be removed and ‘fire work’ done behind them before they are refitted. It probably won’t surprise the reader to know that this was apparently a particular issue at Bond Street and is probably what has led to past stories of contractors calling Crossrail ‘the Hokey Cokey line’ because you put the panels in, then you take the panels out.
Mark stated that construction output was “broadly in line” with the plan. This was reassuring but this reassurance was somewhat shattered when the words “at a P50 level” were added to the sentence. This means there is a 50% chance of being broadly in line with the plan. Having at least an 80% confidence level (P80) would be much more reassuring. Given the history of Crossrail, one is inclined to get nervous when a programme of works is reported to be on schedule but the confidence level in the reporting is effectively as low as it you can get and still report it in a positive way. Any lower and you are saying it is more likely than not that the target will not be met.
Software Delays
There were many failings of the original Crossrail team but probably their biggest one was not comprehending at all just how difficult and time-consuming software validation and integration is. It would be not too much of an exaggeration to suggest that they were allowing a number of months for some things that they should have been allowing a number of years. To a very limited extent this was understandable in the early days of the project but, as the software complexity became apparent during the lifetime of the project ,the timescales should have been adjusted accordingly.
One of Terry Morgan’s (previous Crossrail Chairman) defences to Crossrail’s failure to deliver was that TfL procured the trains so the critical software on the trains that was causing a major problem was TfL’s problem not one for Crossrail Ltd. Thankfully this doesn’t wash with Mark Wild who has previously stated that as systems integrator it is his job to integrate the systems and that includes getting individual systems working regardless of where they came from or where they are located.
A critical point of the project is to get to the point where trial running can be tested in the tunnels. This means running trains to the proposed timetable. Unfortunately, whilst a lot of multiple running has taken place successfully it has identified software problems that mean moving up to trial running, which is the next phase, is not yet possible.
At present Crossrail is on version 10 of the critical software and it is really hoped that version 11 will allow trial running as version 10 is so nearly there. At one stage it was expected that version 8 would be sufficient for trial running so there is quite a bit of delay there. The elapsed time between software versions is relatively long as the software has to be amended and thoroughly retested.
Assurance and Handover
When referencing assurance and handover, Mark emphasised the scale of the job. “Undoubtedly the largest handover outside of China”. Of 30 elements to the process, according to the planned timeline six or seven should have been handed over by now but “only two were handed over so far”.
What’s the timescale ?
Of course, what everyone wants to know is what the latest timescale is and is it being met. Here the news was slightly disappointing but not unexpected. Because of the delay to trial running, it is becoming more challenging to meet the planned opening window of October 2020 – March 2021. The software delays moved it towards February – March 2021. What Mark actually said was “February to May 2021” but in the context of what was being said we presumed he meant to say March not May. He admitted that, if version 11 of the software had a problem that meant trial running was still not possible, then obviously that would make the situation even more challenging.
It doesn’t really matter which phase of the project (other than the first almost trivial one) you look at. It seems that the expected delay is around two years and, in most cases probably slightly longer.
Possible future dates
If we assume that Crossrail succeeds in opening stage 3 in March 2021 then, because of the need to align with Network Rail’s timetable, it would not really be possible to open stage 4 before September 2021. Quite possibly December 2021 is more realistic due to the need to be absolutely confident, in advance of a major national timetable change, that the proposed changes can be implemented. Aside from the repetition of an embarrassing scenario, such as happened in the May 2018 timetable change, Network Rail’s procedures for approval of timetable changes are now far more rigorous than they used to be and rail operators need to be able to demonstrate that implementation of changes will not cause problems.
Even if stage 4 opens in September 2021 then through running to both Heathrow and Reading by December 2021, as currently expected, is going to be pretty challenging and would break Mark Wild’s self-imposed rule about having a minimum of six months between each opening phase. So, it is starting to appear as if a full opening of Crossrail in December 2021 is unlikely with May 2022 as a more realistic earliest possible date and later in the year being more likely.
Where are we now?
One left the meeting not feeling confident that targets and dates would be met but that the project is in a much better organised state than it was before. Although unpleasant unexpected surprises cannot be totally eliminated, there no longer seem to be fundamental problems that may hold the project up a further serious extent. To put it another way, it now all seems doable. The only real questions about dates are how close to March 2021 for stage 3 and December 2021 for stage 5 can the project really get? It might be better for planning purposes if full through running was not envisaged until 2022. Somehow we can’t yet see the Queen’s diary secretary getting ready to put a date in Her Majesty’s diary for the ceremonial opening of stage 3.
Many thanks to Jonathan Roberts. This article was based on his original notes and he has followed up with advice, suggestions and corrections.
Thanks for the update. On the subject of software, I’m not really clear why this couldn’t be developed in parallel with the actual construction such as on a test track somewhere. Or is it that it isn’t possible to model the complexity unless you were to build an actual duplicate of all the systems?
The shifting sands of Crossrail delivery mean that it’s more likely that other projects, which were depending on it being finished, will in fact clash with it: for example the Paddington Square redevelopment of the Bakerloo line ticket hall at Paddington; and the major closure for Bank station upgrade in 2021. Each of these is linked with other projects as well.
All to say – the sooner the better!
@Herned: I suspect you’d need a tunnel somewhere that is a few miles in length. It might even need to be underground!
I don’t think there are any spare ones lying around (except possibly Mail Rail, but that would need an extensive refit). This would be needed to test the radio (GSM-R), 25kV AC traction and undergroundedness together.
So, what kind of inflammable cladding panels did they install? On an underground railway??? Surely not. I often worry that we are in the hands of safety “experts” when they STILL allow new blocks of flats to be made almost entirely of wood, without any sprinklers. What could possibly go wrong?
Software is extensively tested off site. What isn’t possible to test is the integration of all the systems. There are myriad systems interfacing from separate companies who are (legitimately) secretive about their products – and so nuances or mistakes don’t get found until tested on site.
Re Alex McKenna,
The issue is not the panels but not enough fire stops (and done well enough) in the gaps behind the panels.
Grenfell causes a reassessment of how much fire stopping was needed, thus the increase.
Re RJ90,
Exactly – the signalling software is tested extensively off site at Siemens in Chippenham.
There is plenty of stuff only found on site in a whole lot of signalling projects these days.
One of the key issues is that the additional functionality is being added to the signalling software as well as sorting out all the local equipment issues and making it work on ETCS fitted and enabled rolling stock.
I’m not sure the use of the phrase of “Strong and Stable” is wise bearing in mind it’s history.
But better to have a later opening with a reliable service than an earlier late opening with a flakey one.
Why don’t they just use a normal, conventional signalling system?
Margret Thatcher
Like this do you mean ?
[Snip of unrelated question. LBM]
I just mean with normal colour light signals.
Margret Thatcher,
It depends by what you mean by ‘normal’.
‘Normal’ National Rail signals would not be acceptable in the tunnels (including the Heathrow tunnels – which currently has its own special signalling) so you would have to have ‘normal’ tube signalling. But this is not suitable to run out to Shenfield let alone Reading.
‘Normal’ tube signalling would not allow 24 trains per hour for loads of reasons including the fact that the crude ‘train-stops’ are not suitable for either high speed running or closely spaced signals (unless at very slow speeds).
There is also the issue that ‘normal’ signalling does not support platform edge doors.
Normal signalling (i.e. state of the art) on the Underground is ATO (automatic train operation) as exemplified by the Four Lines Modernisation Signalling on the Sub-surface Railway. So that isn’t exactly something to draw comfort from.
Finally, any signalling has to interface with the signalling existing (or future) on the Great West Main Line out of Paddington, the system in the Heathrow tunnels and the system out to Shenfield. So it doesn’t matter what system Crossrail chooses. It will still have to address all these issues.
Looking at the bigger picture, the signalling installed determines what services can be run for the next 30-40 years. Far better (and cheaper in the long run) to get this right now, even with the high costs of delays, than be stuck with it for a long time to come. This includes reliability and once the modern signalling is working it will probably be very reliable indeed.
It’s not explained why Canary Wharf – Abbey Wood is a ‘cheap shot’. It has new journey options and additional TfL revenue as well as utilising drivers and trains.
I can only think that station availability is not much farther ahead than the core and would require converting yet more 9 car units. There has been no suggestion of using 7 car units in the core from either end.
This report supposes a Stage 3 opening at sometime during 2021. However there was a planB worked on even before issuing the EOP schedule and the recent signage indicates alternatives. TfL have stated that they will avoid the £15m pa penalties to NOT operate CW-AW from 2022. One interpretation might be that the section needs to reach at least the City (Liv ST LL).
The 50% probability is in line with the briefing to the Mayor in September that another 6 month contingency may be needed with £400m of funding.
The additional revenue of TfL East does not ring true to say it comes from off-peak. At those times the cross-platform interchange at Stratford is available albeit with a small time penalty. Only on Saturdays (assuming a night service) would there be a significant advantage over tube and bus alternatives. To state that Peak revenue is fully met for existing commuters disregards the crowded conditions, inability to board packed tubes at Stratford, and use of alternatives with long walks. Stage 4 will attract more users of peak revenue than revenue from marginal leisure increments. (More significant for the London economy though than TfL).
The lack of attention to Network Rail infrastructure work is a mistake other than for financial management of an evaporating budget and leads to situations like “the uncompleted state so close to the timetable implementation date concerns raised by at least one outside review body”.
A final resolution is that the Liv St remodelling is considered an afterthought. It is no longer a priority to divert services asap. Only once stage 4 has settled into reliable operation will the additional peak services (and the diversion option) be withdrawn, covered by the reduced summer demand and 2 car increase in remaining train length. (2023?)
In addition to being able to run 24 to 30 tph through the tunnels, one of the things that a conventional signalling would find difficult to achieve is the requirements that limit a certain number of trains to each zone. The zones ensure there is enough air available to breathe for the passengers on board.
The signalling is linked to the air conditioning among other things.
Aleks,
I think it is considered ‘a cheap shot’ because it is relatively easy to do but would really screw up progress on the rest of the line given that so much of the final construction and maintenance is based at Plumstead. Also, if introduced, you wouldn’t be able to do test running to the proposed stage 3 timetable because you would have to factor in the existing service. Given that testing of the timetable involves playing out many scenarios whereby services are disrupted by out-of-course events this would not go well.
@Aleks Unfortunately 7 car units do not support the CBTC signalling that is required to operate in the central tunnels and out to Abbey Wood.
At the beginning of the article it is stated that GWR would be better off focusing on their long distance operation – with the implication that TfLs Elizabeth line is going to be so much better than anything else!
Well, what many Londoners still don’t understand (despite it bing explained many, many times) is user groups of Thames Valley commuters have made it crystal clear that longitudinal seats and no toilets are NOT acceptable regardless of how frequent Elizabeth line semi-fast trains are!
As a consequence there has been much lobbying by said groups to get GWR to keep hold of their semi-fast Reading services which will provide ‘proper trains’ for the inhabitants of Slough Maidenhead, Twyford – plus the Henley, Marlow and Windsor branches to use.
Thus GWR have made it very clear they will continue to serve the Thames Valley commuter market and in turn they have resisted TLs attempts for a total takeover or to meddle with the fare structure / Oyster acceptance beyond the GLA boundary.
TfL may well have gone to Reading for fares revenue – but using overgrown tube trains unsuited to home counties commuters expectations (however brilliant they may be within the GLA area) and that will be slower than the GWR offering means that where choice exists, using GWR to Ealing Broadway / Paddington high level is a far more attractive proposition – and the fares revenue will be divided up as per the ORCATS* rules which take such necessities into account.
Any ECS costs will marginal compared to the ORCATS revenue GWRs continued semi-fast operation will accrue from retaining significant semi-fast operations and thus expectation that this somehow provides an opportunity for further transfer of services to TfL in future is well off the mark.
*ORCATS (Operational Research Computerised Allocation of Tickets to Services) is a large centralised legacy computer system used on passenger railways in Great Britain. It is used for real time reservation and revenue sharing on inter available tickets between train operating companies (TOCs). The system is used to divide ticket revenue when a ticket or journey involves trains operated by multiple TOCs. The system was owned by British Rail, and is now managed by the Rail Delivery Group.
Journey time Maidenhead to Paddington on Crossrail: 35 minutes. Journey time Cockfosters to Leicester Square on Picadilly Line: 38 minutes. Just saying.
Phil,
As I am merely reporting what was said at a meeting, I don’t feel a need to respond but anyway…
Don’t forget that Crossrail trains do have some transverse seating. Just saying.
Given that Crossrail trains are first of a design intended to be standard for Bombardier main line stock, ‘overgrown tube trains’ is hardly a fair description.
As you point out, there will be some remaining peak GWR trains on the main line that stop at places like Maidenhead and Slough so passengers could vote with their feet if they wanted to. These may be only be during peak hours but, from my experience, the off-peak trains are hardly busy. In the days (not so long ago) when they were diesel turbo trains off-peak usage was very light indeed.
You give the impression that we are talking about all of this being outside the GLA area yet that extends as far as West Drayton. There are seven intermediate stations between Paddington (exclusive) and West Drayton (inclusive) and also seven between West Drayton (exclusive) and Reading (exclusive). Just saying.
The off-peak passenger numbers at places like Iver, Langley, Burnham and Taplow, even with trains that they approve of, is incredibly low. Transport policy should be more geared to the greatest benefit to the greatest number not those who create the biggest objections. I am not saying passengers from these places don’t have a valid point but that it must be seen in a bigger context.
We have covered the issue of toilets so many time, as a matter of personal policy, I refuse to repeat the arguments yet again.
Re Aleks,
A small number of retained 315s can continue to run the Liverpool Street High level peak extras.
Liverpool Street remodelling can only be done after diversion of the service to the core due to the loss of a platform. It isn’t about lack of investment – it is about lack of Crossrail completion to the required degree.
In addition to Kevin’s comment, the 7 car units can’t work with PEDs or stop with the precision to use them.
Re Phil ,
It is worth looking back at this LR article on the Crossrail timetable:
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2018/crossrail-timetable-for-success/
While there may be residual off-peak GWR semi fast services, the future GWR peak service is just an extra stop at 1 station added in to a service to/ from west of Reading rather than a semi fast service as such. Hence for most of a peak hour it will be quicker Crossrail will be quicker because the services are more frequent (6tph peak 4 off peak).
The Crossrail train running times will be significantly quicker than the existing GWR ones which assume the need to substitute for a 165/166 DMU if needed.
The current journey times from Maidenhead to Paddington
48.5minute stopping
43,5minute semi-fast
22 minute non stop IET
The Crossrail journey time is 35 minutes – a reduction of 13.5 minutes or 38%.on the current stopping service or 8.5minutes or 24% less than the current semi-fast.
Crossrail will also off better journey times to those travelling east of Paddington.
The full TfL rail service doesn’t start from this December (just 5a) so don’t read to much of the short term into the long term. With 2b and 5b to come in the long term.
5b will see the more limited stop Crossrail service to Reading added.
What makes Thames Valley commuter different to other commuters and why should they be treated any differently?
As the journey time to the far side of Central London is less than DfT traditional 1hr threshold for toilets and TfL have toilets on trains.
Re Malc0lm,
Or 56 minutes on the Piccadilly Line from T5 to Holborn
Thanks for clarifications and the notes. So my take-away is –
Immediate attention is on the TfL West running from next month.
Mid 2020 Heathrow and maybe 9 car service.
End 2020 TfL West Station refurb completions.
May 2021 Stage 3 in doubt.
Dec 2021 Stage 3 not certain.
By the end of 2021 construction use at Plumstead should have finished and 9 car running on TfL West plus trial running in the core should be near an in-service stage.
If Dec 2021 Stage 3 has not happened what then, May 2022 or whatever month is technically possible? Would Canary Wharf and TfL prefer a 2022 trial service to Abbey Wood with not yet ready for prime time reliability? Reputational risk and public support would be low enough already.
I am assuming Stage3 opening is prevented by lack of core stations, Bond Street evacuation readiness, and trial running test completion. That presumably requires the 24tph interlacing of branches at Whitechapel Junction, still possible with an Abbey Wood 2022 peak hours only weekday trial service. Despite outstanding issues and the need to fix things there is a morale boost of committing to running Crossrail trains on all 3 branches in 2022.
So 43 year old (in 2023) Class 315s are planned to be retained for the LivSt summer remodel after Stage 4, they could convert last 7 car 345s during the blockade but maybe ultimate prudence is to retain options should anything prevent LivSt completion.
With the reference to HM do we all now agree that the ‘Elizabeth Line’ is the service through the central core tunnel?
I’m old enough to remember when Buckinghamshire commuters were supposedly up in arms about longitudinal seats on the S Stock. They seem to have got used to it (or found the transverse seats if they really care).
Meanwhile GWR are likely to experience a big increase in demand for long distance services as the sparks effect kicks in. I doubt there’ll be much space left for Thames Valley commuters on them in peak.
What about fares out to Slough and Reading etc???? I suspect we will be treated as 2nd class customers now we know that they won’t be in TfL zones. Much higher fares than Oyster customers, despite the fact that there have always been out of London zones (Amersham,Watford Junction and of course (Brentwood on Crossrail).
Re Dan Wall,
Which is one reason stage 5a is so attractive to TfL financially!!!
Unless there were fare cuts the existing ticket prices don’t align with any Oyster Zones and Oyster is effectively out of zones including the “hidden” ones needed to make it work.
Contactless is of course a different matter in that it doesn’t have the zone limitation of Oyster.
@Ian J – that’s a very interesting point as to whether there will actually be a sparks effect – not because of the pedantic point that the IETs don’t travel by electricity throughout their whole journey (I’m guessing that the average punter from Bath doesn’t care what happened in the Severn Tunnel!) but because the interiors are – shall we say – controversially improved over HSTs. It will be interesting to see some data idc although eliminating external factors (IC demand is very flat, if not falling, at the moment, will be tricky.
Re Ian J,
We’ll see what happens after the timetable benefits kick in post December. But some of the added capacity so far has already been filled but the new timetable should even loadings out a bit.
(and HEx finally reduced to just 1 platform at Paddington, which will make some of the other fast service platforming easier)
I suspect that there may already be some evidence of the sparks effect. When I travelled from Newbury to Paddington in pre-electric days it would be in a 3 carriage 165 which was frequently approaching full by the time it reached Newbury and rammed by Reading, such that experienced travellers from Reading ignored it. It has been noticeable that the extra capacity provided by the IETs seems to have been quickly filled up – sometimes the 5 carriage Class 80x seems just as full as its predecessor.
@ Graham H
I would have thought that the use of 8 and 12 car EMUs in place of the previous DMUs must be an enormous improvement. It was not uncommon to see 3 car DMUs pulling into Paddington in the peak in the not too distant past, with scenes reminiscent of Mumbai inside.
As to the longer distance trains, the 800s are a little bit dull inside but the legroom is much improved and the number of seats and frequency/timing improvements should attract more people
Re Graham H and Herned,
And the ability to use a laptop in the IETs is much improved with the extra pullout support on the fold down tables.
Sparks effect traditionally a mix of increased capacity and reduced journey times not just the use of electricity…
@NGH and others – I think the comments offered rather underline my implied assumption that the “sparks effect” is a redundant if not misleading term in this context. Interestingly, as the responses show, customer reaction is different to different features and the simple assumption that “new” will score above “old” isn’t necessarily true. No one mentioned seating, yet there has been really extensive public condemnation of the IET seats compared with what they have replaced.
@Herned – there is an elasticity of demand to overcrowding, but no one has ever shown me a number for it. The suspicion is that it is quite low (ie people will continue to travel because they have no choice) and the metric is presumably symmetrical (ie increasing capacity within the train itself won’t attract that many more punters). The elasticity may change over time, of course, as people change their travel habits, but as remarked on another thread, most commuters don’t have much short term choice about when they travel. This is, of course, the basis of much regulation theory, especially for those who prefer POOT (Passengers On Overcrowded Trains) to PIXC.
One further point, there is – as we have all discussed many times here – a strikingly close relationship between demand and the volume of service, but that is as much about frequency elasticities as the capacity of the individual trains.
To note – I would distinguish between crowding on individual trains
@ Graham H
Clearly it’s impossible to put any sensible figure on it, and I suspect that for journeys into Central London for work it is close to 0. However for local journeys where cars or buses are a realistic alternative, I would expect a big improvement in the rail service to entice a fair few more people to use it
The other driver for demand on the Thames Valley services in the short and medium term is the impact of M4 / M25 works. The M4 “Smart Motorway” programme will see a whole lot more disruption over the next few years and if the LHR 3rd runway ever becomes a reality (less and less likely in my view..) then any of the current plans will see major works around the M4 / M25 junction.
Commuting on the M4 (which to my shame I did for many years) is already horrible, but further disruption is likely to make it completely unbearable – driving at least some of these commuters to rail.
If TfL & GWR between them can provide a decent, frequent and reliable service then they could capture a fair slice of this traffic..
Build it and they will come.
Look at the WCML following Route Modernisation, introduction of the VHF timetable and lengthening of Pendolinos to 11 coaches. The line is full to the brim!
The idea that a particular type of seating on an Intercity Express Train disliked by some (not all) people will vanquish any such growth on the GWML is ridiculous. The Pendolino was equally, if not more, controversial in its own way and this has done nothing to stop ever growing passenger numbers on the WCML.
I wonder if TfL/Crossrail would open up “contractual obligations” service for Canary Wharf, e.g. one round trip per day (a bit like a Parly service). Not disruptive to testing the schedule for other services, but enough to claim that there is a service to mitigate contractual penalities
An aspect to moving people heading to central London from car to rail will be the expansion in 2021 of the ULEZ, bringing an additional £12.50 (+?) cost per day per vehicle. I suspect this will concentrate minds strongly on the cost effectiveness of train over car, no matter what comfort level pax demand.
@Anonymous – you clearly travel on a different WCML to the rest of us – – yes, on Friday evenings, trains are full to standing, but o/p mid week?
In terms of ambience. including seating, it most certainly does make a difference to the marginal passenger (otherwise operators would not bother with it). The relative weighting to the individual ambience components – such as ride, noise, comfort, facilities – is, I agree something of a black art, but it is worth saying that from a perusal of the trade press and its readers’ letters over the last forty odd years, I have never heard anyone complain about eg lack of wifi, only sometimes about noise, but very frequently about “ironing board” seats, seats with no windows and lack of 4 bay configurations, with families, especially, complaining about long distance journeys under such conditions. Taller, longer legged colleagues are particularly critical of Pendolinos because of their profile.
People travel under such conditions because they must, and it is the factors that drive that “must” which contribute to growth.
@Graham H: I think that once HS2 opens, then the Pendelinos will disappear rather quickly. Their age and likely maintenance will make them uneconomical. Not fast enough to compete with HS2, too expensive to maintain for the marginal time saving over normal rolling stock.
Southern Heights (Light Railway) 30 October 2019 at 18:41
” once HS2 opens, then the Pendolinos ” will have very few services to run!
1 an hour London – Manchester calling at Milton Keynes, as well as Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester?
2 or 3 an hour London – Birmingham, calling at Coventry, possibly going on to NW England?
Re NGH
The point is the Thames Valley is NOT London any more than Redhill, or St Albans are!
London is the area covered by the GLA, or if you feel like being generous, the area within the M25 a most.
West of Slough is equivalent to East of Shenfield, South of Coulsdon, north of St Albans, etc and such folk have long benefited from normal train seating, and on many routes toilets.
Rai users in Berkshire, Kent, Essex, Surrey, Hertfordshire,etc do not have the opportunity to express their annoyance with TfL or the mayors decisions through the ballot box – and as such it is not right that the Mayor / TfL ignore them because they don’t have to face any political backlash – which is effectively what TfL have been doing for a good few years now as regards Crossrail.
So yes, you get direct trains to the City / Docklands via the Elizabeth line – but so what? Nobody likes standing for long periods on trains regardless of how ‘direct’ they might be and the adoption of a longitudinal layout more or less guarantees that for peak time Thames Valley users.
You wouldn’t get away with providing Redhill, Chelmsford, Tonbridge or Hemel Hempstead users with overgrown tube trains – so why should the users of Maidenhead or Twyford put up with it just because they happen to lie on a line to be served by TfL?
Survey after survey will reveal that commuters from outside London have different expectations from those within the GLA urban area and this should be respected. If TfL do not want to cater or this market and design their trains exclusively around their urban metro clientele (for which he Elizabeth line trains are admittedly ideally configured) then they should be trying to push out franchised operators who DO respect their users expectations.
User groups representing those who currently use Thames Valley stations, who lest we forget, invest in expensive season tickets – particularly those coming from the Henley / Marlow branches, have made it very clear that the passengers they represent are going to actively avoid Elizabeth line trans if at all possible precisely because of the tube train interiors . Yes that might mean a slightly longer overall journey time – but if it means getting a seat with a table (flip down seat back type or traditional table) and access to a toilet then its a penalty worth accepting. Hence GWR will still do good business on their 2tph semi-fast peak time services.
Overall, given the way TfL want to operate this line – going further west than Maidenhead is a big mistake – and while I accept that having a dedicated sub fleet just for Reading is impractical, it is completely unacceptable to try and displace GWR semi-fast services and their much superior trains, particularly as he main reason is simply to grab cash to plug holes in their budget rather than actually care about providing the levels of on board comfort Thames Valley users (and most other home counties commuters beyond he M25) expect.
Quite concerned/irritated/annoyed by any suggestions that “Stage 3” of the project isn’t to be rushed as it’s of less financial benefit to TfL than Stages 1 and 2.
Yes I don’t want it opened when it’s not ready, but Stage 3 is Crossrail, or least the start of what we have all paid billions for. Stages 1 and 2 are just sticking Lizzie Line trains on existing tracks. The residents of SE London are desperate for the capacity and new journey options that will be provided when trains run from Abbey Wood, especially with the Southeastern franchise stuck in stasis, and loads of new housing being built along the river.
Re AlisonW
Not all Thames Valley rail users are London commuters!
At present, the timetable provides good connections from the Thames Valley branches for trains heading west and there are reasonably substantial flows from the likes of Henley to Reading for example.
There is no ULEZ in Reading and the M4 provides a decent road alternate.
These are the sorts of journeys which face being lost to rail if users are forced onto TfL trains which they do not like or which do not connect well with branch line services (I understand 20 minute waits will become common at Twyford after the TfL takeover).
In the 1960s favoured method of softening up branches for closure (i.e. discourage use) was to deliberately mess up connection times at interchange stations – and while I am obviously not going so far as to say that the Elizabeth Line spells doom for Henley & Marlow, in this environmentally conscious age we should be promoting ALL rail travel and not let the actions of TfL ride roughshod over the need of the home counties who have no electoral stake in the decisions TfL takes.
I understand not wanting to open am unreliable railway on the tunnel section, but they could consider running 12 tph Monday to Friday (when Bond Street allows) so that at least Londoners finally benefit from all the money spent and restore a bit of faith in British infrastructure projects.
Phil,
The journey between Twyford and Reading is timetabled at eight (8) minutes.
Re Phil,
I read a few years ago that the number of regular commuters into Reading exceeds the number of commuters leaving from Reading, predominantly going to London. The six rail routes into Reading (GW from London and Thames Valley branches, Oxford/Didcot, Newbury, Basingstoke, Guildford, Staines/Ascot) each contribute significant peak hour flows into Reading. Travel by car into central Reading is something to be avoided at peak hours. However if a destination is one of the business parks on the outskirts of Reading, readily accessible from the M4, then a car is the preferred option.
@AA – “However if a destination is one of the business parks on the outskirts of Reading, readily accessible from the M4, then a car is the preferred option.”
Agreed, but interesting to see if the new Green Park station, hopefully open next year, will make much difference? With only 2tph connection timings will be critical I guess..
@AA – the reverse commuting into Reading was a wellknown phenomenon even in NSE days, especially on the Windsor/North Downs routes, with peak arrivals usually well beyond full-to-standing. Winnersh, Martins Heron and to a lesser extent Wokingham were all major generators of Reading flows.
Reading station’s location seemed to be the key, with the town centre within very easy walking distance, major office sites almost next door, and a very effective bus service operating out of a bus station well sited next to the rail station. Cycle traffic was/ is noticeably heavier than on many other commuter runs. So – easy trip end distribution seems to be the key factor. An interesting comparator would be places such as Basingstoke, where the station is more isolated and the employment centres are strung out along suburban streets, or Northampton, where the station is remote.
Even as far into London as Ealing Broadway & when the trains were 3 or 5 &-if-you-were-lucky 6 car diesel sets the AM commute westwards to Slough & Reading was almost as rammed as the inward-bound services.
It was quite clear that there was suppressed demand, simply because I doubt you could get any more people into those trains ….
Phil,
I actually have some sympathy with your view though it is tempered by various issues. It is very slightly analogous to the idea of replacing a perfectly satisfactory main line stock service from Hayes to Charing Cross [up to 45 minutes] with tube trains (not even oversized). I am not that keen on that even though I can see it does give some benefit to passengers on other Southeastern lines although it does nothing to improve the overall capacity into London beyond that achieved by extending the Bakerloo to Lewisham.
I do wonder how much the objections to a lack (not total exclusion of) transverse seating is really genuine. I don’t want to re-open the arguments about this as we have covered them many times. What I want to do is point out that though this raises vociferous objections but, to my knowledge, no-one has ever done a proper survey of before and after on lines such as the Metropolitan to discover whether this is something that people get used to (or even, horrors of horrors, prefer) or whether it is a deep-rooted dislike that doesn’t diminish with time.
What prevents my sympathy moving into an area of doubt when it comes to replacing class 387 with Crossrail trains is considering platform occupation at Paddington.
To continue with the service that you want (and that you seem to assume everyone else affected also wants) you would effectively need to dedicate a platform at Paddington for this service. Now platform occupation at Paddington is critical and effectively determines what service can be run on the Great Western Main Line in future. Slots into Paddington are also at a premium but not to the same extent and will be less of a problem with ETCS and possible infrastructure improvements to Paddington’s throat.
So, the only way the service that you want can be provided is by otherwise compromising Crossrail or using dedicating a platform at Paddington for this service. The latter prevents an additional future service to be provided elsewhere and will be a bad use of resources. So, the question is, which improvement to GWRs service do you want so see cancelled so that you can have transverse seating and a toilet on the train? As I said, greatest good for the greatest number.
@Phil: Survey after survey will reveal that commuters from outside London have different expectations from those within the GLA urban area and this should be respected.
So can we have some numbers? The same for the number of commuters who would rather wait for a marginally faster train only to lose that time because of a long walk at Paddington?
I’m sure that on a wet and windy winter’s day when they’re late for work, people are just going to start to board the first train that comes along, tables be damned! As long as it gets you off the cold and wet platform and onto a warm (full-sized) train.
Re Phil,
The “decisions”/”choices” TfL makes are largely based on physical realities with hardly any choice in reality.
TV commuters might have expectations but if they don’t align with practical realities they will always remain expectations.
Expectations will eventually align with reality as they have done elsewhere, when rising passenger numbers have forced change. There is always some discontent but it goes away. There will be huge passenger growth in the London area along the line especially with new developments.
You also seem to be confusing changes at various stages of Stage 5 with the actual service changes.
The GWR 2tph semi-fast peak will transfer to Crossrail at Stage 5B with through running, GWR will still do some residual peak stops but this isn’t a semi-fast service but a last stop before / after Paddington fast service. Till this change happens the Twyford waits might be a bit longer* – Part of which is also down to GWR doing a once in a generation optimisation of their timetable due to electrification, new rolling stock and changing passenger demand elsewhere on the network.
*By bit longer I mean a few minutes (which is probably no bad thing as time keeping is likely to be better post December)
Peak waits at Twyford to/from the Henley branch are currently mostly in the 1-4 minute mark but will change to typically 4-6minutes with the exception of Henley to Paddington in the evening peak of ~9minutes (this will reduce post stage 5B).
A comparison of typical peak “interchange” time at Twyford currently and after stage 5A in December:
[before / after / difference]
Henley – PAD am peak 2 / 6 / +4
Henley – RDG am peak 8 to 14 / 2 / -6 to -12
Henley – PAD pm peak 7 / 9 / +2
Henley – RDG pm peak 4 /4 / 0
PAD – Henley am peak 3 / 3 / 0
RDG – Henley am peak 2 / 10 / + 8
PAD – Henley pm peak 7 / 5 / -2
RDG – Henley pm peak 10 / 5 / -5
The interchange time to intermediate stations east of Twyford will also decrease post stage 5B.
Re PoP,
1 Platform (6) has been crowbared off HEx from December to allow improvements to long distance GWR services.
1 Platform (13) has also been lost to allow longer trains on the relief lines.
Any word on the Great 27MHz Foulup?
Re Alex,
Mostly sorted (a good example of what you can’t test in the test facilities! but need real in situ. testing for) but a few other issues to sort in the Heatrow Tunnels for example GSM-R not reaching everywhere with longer trains to T4…
Easter-ish for Heathrow and 9car (a pre requisite) is probably sensible.
Is the plan now just to screw ATP and do a weekend cutover to ETCS (tested through prior weekend closures) along with 387s vice 332s and 345s vice 360s? Or have they managed to get the two systems playing nicely such that there will be a longer transition period?
@Graham H
30 October 2019 at 18:30
Being fortunate enough not to have a driving licence, I travel on the WCML peak and off peak, weekdays and weekends. Whilst of course mid-week off peak trains are not full and standing, they are still far from just carrying around mere fresh air. ORR figures show that between 2011 and 2019, passenger journeys on Virgin Trains services have gone up by over 30% (https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/1476/passenger-journeys-by-train-operating-company-table-1212.xlsx). In this period, the number of services and the lengths of trains operated by Virgin have changed very little. Those extra 10 million passengers per annum have got to go somewhere… It’s a similar story for West Midlands Trains growth.
I completely agree with your comments on ambiance being about a balance of factors. This is precisely the point I was making about the seats – there are many other big improvements elsewhere on the IETs that for many (if not all) people will outweigh issues with seat comfort. From my perspective, I am loving the amount of legroom. Surely must be the most generous Standard Class legroom on any long distance rolling stock operating today?
@GH
Agree about Reading offering easy trip end distribution.
Also I suspect an agglomeration effect for interchange capabilities as there are up to 10 rail routes depending on how you count them:
Bristol/South Wales/Swindon, Cotswolds/Oxford/Didcot, London -Thames Valley suburban, London express, Staines/Ascot, North Downs, Basingstoke local, Kennet Valley, West of England, CrossCountry.
I would example Bath as another location with easy trip end distribution, albeit with far fewer rail services and a smaller jobs volume. It is popular on the Solent-Avon corridor, and from Chippenham. On Solent-Avon the mostly 3-car GWR train capacities can get unpleasantly overcrowded during peaks, busy shopping times, and for crowd events (eg Bath rugby, Bristol football).
Any combination of more trains, longer trains AND more standee space would be welcome…
@Phil
It is not correct to say it is “TfL riding roughshod”. An extension to Reading is being undertaken only with the involvement and explicit sanction of DfT (who is concerned to get best value from services), and at least the acceptance of GWR.
The extra train capacity is likely to be appreciated by the growth in commuters to/from and via Reading, let alone at other growth origins/destinations along the London-Thames Valley corridor. There is a high travel volume A4/M4 corridor to relieve.
In due course a Heathrow to Reading line will offer more trains – who knows what type as no operator named yet – serving principal stations between Slough and Reading.
@Phil
Let’s compare two different sets of “overgrown tube trains” serving “home county commuters” (and a cross-London journey for the sake of it):
Romford to Heathrow T2/T3 – 64 minutes
Amersham to Liverpool Street (fast) – 63 minutes
Reading to Liverpool Street – 61 minutes
Chorleywood to Liverpool Street (all stations) – 58 minutes
Chesham to Baker Street (all stations) – 58 minutes
Maidenhead to Canary Wharf – 55 minutes
Reading to Bond Street – 54 minutes
Amersham to Baker Street (all stations) – 52 minutes
Shenfield to Paddington – 52 minutes
Chesham to Baker Street (fast) – 51 minutes
It’s pretty comparable, yes? And Class 345’s have the high-back seats in 2+2 commuter train formation in the middle carraiges. Unlike S8 with only low-backed seats.
And the S8 seats backlash was mostly from Northwood and Pinner – ie *inside London* – as they were worried that, with fewer seats per train, they might not get to sit down in the am peak. Northwood and Pinner are roughly as far out as Slough or Terminal 4. I’m not sure seats would be an issue until Hayes or Southall, which are closer in.
Northwood to Farringdon – 43 minutes
Heathrow T4 to Farringdon – 40 minutes
Slough to Farringdon – 36 minutes
Pinner to Farringdon – 36 minutes
Langley to Liverpool Street – 35 minutes
Heathrow T4 to Bond Street – 35 minutes
Slough to Tottenham Court Road – 32 minutes
Northwood to Baker Street – 32 minutes
Southall to Canary Wharf – 31 minutes
Hayes & Harlington to Whitechapel – 30 minutes
@Phil and responses
I’ve a lot of sympathy for some of this; quality of seats, tables of some sort, or at least somewhere to put a coffee or a laptop, toilets. On a tangent I find GW’s decision to replace buffet counters with trolleys most frustrating….
But there are a couple of things that keep cropping up that I do find to be a bit red-and-herring-ish: I’ve met very few non-rail-enthusiast people with a strong opinion about which way train seats should face. My recent experience of peak time Thames Valley services has been that more standing room would be welcomed, and even if there is a toilet, actually reaching it is impossible anyway.
And this business about political control, well, it might be a popular bit of pub rhetoric in Maidenhead or Marlow, but Thames Valley local authorities don’t – and have never had – any control over rail services. You have no more or less political control over the TfL service than you do over the GW service or any other operator. TfL can only operate these services over NR metals with the blessing of the DfT – if TfL make a complete dogs dinner of it such that TV commuters are incensed and real votes are at stake, the DfT won’t hesitate to re-think, just as they would if it were GW.
However … it’s noticeable that the new ( 717? ) units out of Moorgate have transverse seating, but new TfL units will have many fewer longitudonal seats ……( Except those on the “GOBLIN” route of course! )
Consistent it certainly is not.
@Jonathan Roberts re Bath/Chippenham. The Dec timetable revision is expected to lead to another surge in London commuting numbers from this axis as a direct result of the additional services on the peak hours non-stop Chippenham – Paddington bringing that journey down by around 15 minutes to just under the hour to Chippenham, 1hr 10 to Bath.
@PG: which, of course, was what it was when HSTs were introduced. Let’s hope that this time they don’t start putting in all the extra stops …..
Re Paying Guest and Roger B,
Made possible by running the new Bristol TM via Bristol Parkway fast services to make some space on the via Bath ones, and reduce the end to end journey time impact, by providing some faster alternatives. So slowing down the via Bath services with extra stops does create too much attention.
Great overview and saves me wading through the report but this a damming indictment on the previous Crossrail leadership and Jacobs whose Project Representative reports have proven to have been worthless at another huge cost to the taxpayer. I also feel that this is case of once burnt twice shy and the pendulum has swung too far the other way now and to be accepting delays of upto three years is politically risky.
It is now even worse than that I’m afraid.
“TfL has announced that the opening “will not occur in 2020” and admitted its total cost could soar to £18.25 billion, in a statement to the London Stock Exchange. The line will now open “as soon as practically possible in 2021”, with no commitment to this happening by March 2021.”
More here
Thanks for the update, well written & informative!
I do get the idea after walking the Whitechapel platforms every day for the last year (from EEL Platforms Southern end to exit and back), that the number of works actually doing something each night is very limited. One would assume that on nights (and weekends) when the station is closed that a whole swarm of workers would be in there getting the services fitted out.
However given that every night it looks as if just a few bits of trunking or a single light, camera, speaker etc get added that infact only a single set of works are actually doing anything. Whilst I accept that other things may be happening behind the screens, and hence I’m not seeing everything that happening – there is still a huge amount of work that actually needs to be done.
I just wonder if they are having issues getting sub contractors in to do any work as they probably had other contracts to move onto in their diaries by now.
On the plus side the incoming government will have a project ready & waiting to absorb £650 million of additional infrastructure spending.
However the comments from “A TfL spokesman” that “Full testing is due to get under way next year” does seem cautiously worded. But perhaps following on the class 710 debacle, it would be a brave person who presumed ORR approval would arrive on a fixed date in the future.
If ORR were to identify any issues that needed a new software update would they want to see a complete re-test? (Because of the safety implications of operating in tunnels)
Also I was wondering how any future software changes get validated; will the tunnel section need to be closed for days (?) to prove everything is still working OK: how many units with the new version of software would need to run together in test to prove to ORR satisfaction that nothing had regressed
PeterW – A comparison of what can happen without proper software testing of upgrades though is the Boeing 737Max debacle. At least with a train you can’t fall thousands of feet but as a passenger I’d still want reassuring that _any_ change was safe.
(and given, as a passenger, I’d never know if there’d been an overnight software update I’d always be in the dark…)
One of the comments above suggested a life for the computerised signalling system of 30 – 40 years. Keeping that running that long sounds almost impossible from the obsolescence point of view. 10 possibly 15 years from equipment design (not installation or commissioning) seems more realistic. The original Victoria Line ATP was kept working for 40 years mostly because it was extremely reliable and the failures of things like the capacitors could be replaced by modern ones without too many approval problems. The magnetic amplifiers were another story though – we never got any working spares made. The train born ATP (safety) boxes largely survived as all units with cabs were originally fitted and there were quite a number of spares as well. With the formation of ‘block’ 8 car trains the middle cab Safety boxes were donated as a source of parts to repair other boxes.
Some of the non-safety parts of the present Victoria Line ATP was based on a cut down version of Windows XP – I don’t know if that has been replaced ? Also the laptops needed for upgrades used PCMIA cards (remember those ???) so can no longer be replaced.
The Central Line was dependant on an obsolete microprocessor – there was a move to get some more manufactured as the US military used them extensively but I don’t know if this happened. There were challenges in that as they needed to create an obsolete IC fabrication process as well as replacing the original test equipment. Bothe were not easy as the microprocessors were used in safety critical applications so the manufacturers would need to demonstrate that the new chips were functionally equivalent to the originals.
I have to say, as one for whom the whole basis of staying in the current house rather than moving out to Berkshire was based on the opening of Crossrail, as I need to be both in Docklands and the Thames Valley, the continuing shilly-shallying with dates is beyond infuriating. When the completion date of a project constantly slips into the future by as much as the time passes, you know nobody has got a clue.
Passing the various work sites it is apparent that, for all you would expect an “all hands to the pump” approach, in fact there is blow all going on. Passing Custom House on the DLR, as I do, there was one Crossrail train there about a year ago. Since then, nothing. Likewise Custom House station work seem to have been abandoned since it’s year-long closure finished 2 years ago. It reopened with the works mostly, but not completely, done, and nothing seems to have been progressed there since. There’s still scaffolding all over the DLR platforms, probably now all rusted into position.
Re John M,
The Central Line issue is being resolved by ripping out and replacing with a new design – the first train is being tested currently.
Re Peter W,
710 debacle etc.
A big issue is that the Siemens signalling (software) is proving problematic:
– (Safety Critical) Issues found in code used in previous installations. (and why was this not spotted previously…)
– New functionality needed to be added
– First time it has been overlaid over ETCS
– Updated physical equipment (come items) vs previous installations
The current estimate is Feb 2020 for signalling software ready for full testing (at which point more train stuff will be found….)
Which then causes major rolling stock software progress and testing issues.
The 710 issues were of course partly down to Bombardier having thrown all their software engineers at the 345s in 2018 to try to meet the CR deadline (unnecessarily). The other 710 issue (production) being the modification of the S-Stock for the Thales CBTC signalling at Derby took far longer and needed more work (extra wiring) than anticipated (that shouldn’t have been needed for the first 2 choices of SSR re-signalling supplier) took up space and staff – Now completed
Bombardier have been completely open with ORR about software and the ORR have learned a lot which has made them start asking a lot of questions of everyone else…
(e.g. Stadler units for Anglia and CAF for Northern)
Mr Beckton,
You have my sympathy and I can understand your frustration. It is one thing for a project to be late (things happen) but over-optimism with dates has damaged commercial firms, wrong-footed ordinary households (like yours) and had a knock-on effect and on other transport projects that have assumed Crossrail would definitely be running by a certain date.
On the issue of Custom House DLR, this is nothing directly to do with Crossrail though obviously spurred on by the anticipation of Crossrail opening. What is frustrating is that, even without Crossrail, a fully open Custom House DLR station with all staircases and lifts functional would be really useful when large events take place at Excel. Yet there doesn’t seem to be any hurry to finish of the final bits despite having the bulk of the work done. It feels almost as if they have taken the attitude that, with Crossrail delayed, there is no need to get a move on with completing the work.
Of course, it could be that somewhere there is an ‘understanding’ not to take away workers from a potential pool of workers available to work on Crossrail.
John M, ngh
Presumably what John M was really doing was highlighting what is becoming a fundamental disconnect between the lifetime of ATO signalling and the anticipated lifetime of trains. Yet, currently LU philosophy seems to be to replace the signalling and the trains at the same time whenever possible.
I would have thought it unrealistic to expect exactly the same signalling to be in use forty years later. The technology is advancing too quickly for that. Existing parts may become unobtainable and, even if you could keep the system going, future benefits will be lost by adhering to an obsolescent system.
But then, the trains might may appear the same on the outside but they too have been upgraded throughout their lives.
To me it seems clear that the signalling has to be designed to be upgradeable. The Thales system on the Jubilee and Northern lines is already sort-of does this and the LU signal engineers would already like to upgrade it to take advantage of new features and reduce maintenance. The trouble is there is nothing in the budget available to do this.
Re PoP,
Much of the Siemens Trainguard is designed to be easily upgradeable as technology progresses / identical spares become harder to source.
Especially as regards future migration path to ETCS L3 with it just providing the interlocking etc.
@POP
” the LU signal engineers would already like to upgrade it to take advantage of new features and reduce maintenance.” I’m sure they would, but I hope someone has done the cost/benefit on doing this, and on installing software generally. At the moment it looks as thought the whole network has to be out of operation for months while it is checked and de-bugged and I’m not sure the benefits outweigh this.
RogerB,
But it will be already in use on the Northern Line Extension and the Metropolitan, Hammersmith & City, Circle and District lines so it will already be checked and debugged.
Of course, there may be outstanding bugs but we know that there are bugs, non-critical bugs, in the existing software that are unlikely ever to get fixed.
One of the attractions is homogeneity over the entire Northern line (including extension) which should reduce problems.
NGH, can you expand? “The Central Line issue is being resolved by ripping out and replacing with a new design – the first train is being tested currently.”
I suspect you may be thinking of CLIP replacing the DTS rather than the ATC which has a much more modest life extension project scope (outside of CLIP) ?
JohnM, issues with magnetic amplifier obsolescence are still being resolved by upgrading to new equipment designs.
Two points from me: one regarding the West, one regarding the East:
– West: The standard formation of a peak, stopping service on the GWR is an 8-car Class 387 train. In the AM peak there are usually no seats inbound from West Drayton. In the PM peak there are usually no more standees outbound from Hayes & Harlington. Hence the DfT standard of no standing for more than 20 minutes is largely adhered to under normal conditions.
The 9-car Class 345 has 450 seats in total. Two 4-car Class 387 units have a total of 446 seats. We can argue about the comfort of those seats, but hey – hands up who likes the ironing board Fainsas from the 387s? Anyone? Anyone? No? Thought not.
Thames Valley commuters will therefore not be losing any seats whatsoever. Indeed, once the full-blast Crossrail timetable comes on stream, they will benefit from a higher-frequency service, which in turn will be required to accommodate the inhabitants of the thousands of new flats springing up around all GWR stations.
– East: If TfL are looking for a revenue uplift, may I suggest they temporarily convert more Class 345s to 7-car and replace all Class 315 units on the Liverpool St – Shenfield route? The problem for passengers on that route isn’t to do with the type and orientation of seats – it’s to do with getting on the train at all in the peaks! Replacing the Class 315s altogether with the far more spacious Class 345 units would bring in a fair amount of extra peak fares simply because people would physically be able to travel. Some of the redundant Class 315 units could then be used to replace the Class 317 units on the West Anglia side of London Overground (which I understand have utterly abysmal reliability) until the Class 710 are properly taught how to couple and uncouple and can be brought into service there.
I also wonder who will hold the source code and copyright for the software that is being developed. Assuming that it will be the supplying company, then one has to also factor in murgers/insolvencies/corporate (profit motive factors) over its lifetime.
The Network Rail work on the above ground stations at one point seemed to be programmed in far too late in the day, but now seems they will complete before through running commences. Almost as if NR had a far better view of the actual crossrail completion than the CR project board; or am I crediting NR too much here?
@Simon
Based on my limited experience on West Ealing, I am afraid you give NR too much credit indeed.
Following on from my comments above about continuing lack of any visible progress on the incomplete works at Custom House, a straightforward above ground station, I see there are other comments elsewhere about the same lack of anything going on elsewhere. At Royal Albert Dock the contractors’ compound round the tunnel refurbishment is still in place at what must be a couple of years after the works finished. Why? By Prince Regent DLR there is plant which seems to have been sat motionless, but presumably still on hire, for months. Why?
There is surely going to be an “Emperor has no clothes” moment on all this some time soon. A decent project manager (of whom they have hundreds it seems) would have worked through :
– What is the minimum set we can do that can get the project opened. In recent articles (eg Modern Railways October) there are still references to station artworks being installed. Blow the artworks, and the architects scooping up their self-congratulatory industry awards for something proving difficult to build, let’s have bare concrete station walls and the trains running. Do the fancy stuff later.
– Make public what are the actual items and steps required to get things going. There is far too much bland “another £100m needed”, without any explanation of what it is needed for, and why. Surely the contracts were both budgeted for and let long ago. Why does the work need further money? What is the money and work actually for? When is it to be started and finished? How many shifts are the contractors doing? And all that detail. THAT is what a project manager should be doing.
Regarding the mainstream consultancies who merrily validated the reports up to 2018 on progress, and drew substantial sums for doing so, which turned out to be works of complete fiction, I can only suggest that they initially are asked for all their money back, and if not that the files are sent to the relevant Squad of the police.
Mr Beckton has voiced what I have always felt. Surely any project, whether it is installing a shower or building a railway, should be scoped and designed in detail. Then the contract to build it should be let. At that point, those bidding for the work know what is involved, so how can they subsequently come back and ask for more money.
The answer, I guess, is that the scope of the work has changed. But why was the scope not correct in the first place? And surely the people who got the design wrong should be the ones to pay for any extensions?
It’s not so much that the scope has “changed”, as why is it allowed to change. What was so wrong with the scope in the first place. If anyone’s coming along with their own ideas at this time, then other than things that downright won’t work, which should not be coming out at this late stage, then leave it alone as originally designed and contracted.
Take the story about the Canary Wharf station fire systems all having to be replaced. I simply cannot believe that they were designed and fitted to the station, unsatisfactory for a station. The initial, correct specification would have been done, checked and approved years ago. It was always known that Crossrail were going to use it as a station, they would have been checking and approving at each stage. For those who don’t work in this area, all this is Construction 1.01 from college. And as we know, Crossrail had controlling all this a whole coterie of the best paid people in the construction industry.
@MR BECTON
I think you might need to read and consider Dame Judith Hackitt Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety: final report (159 pages)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-building-regulations-and-fire-safety-final-report
@JC 21:40 12/11 – I would hope that there’s a robust and monitored Escrow clause in all of these contracts, where the source code (and all updates and extensions) are lodged with a neutral 3rd party body and available in the event of bankruptcy etc. Pretty standard for any serious project, although in practice it’s not as effective as it sounds – auditing compliance is near impossible, and the supplier probably doesn’t own the rights or have access to large parts of critical firmware or library code in any event.
Re Mr Beckton @ 16:49
Canary Wharf station was built by Canary Wharf Group rather than Crossrail.
CWG were anxious to start earlier than needed to get the retail rents above station so signed contracts before the CR spec was finalised…
(As covered by LR before).
Hence it has been known for along time that lots at Canary Wharf needs replacing as CWG specified far cheaper than Crossrail spec.
As Briantist pointed out the building industry now view anything to do with fire in a different light
Across Crossrail this has lead to a lot of extra work for example taking down many the panel and fitting extra fire stopping behind to slow any potential fire spread behind.
NGH
Otherwise known as the “Grenfell Effect”, I presume?
Re Mr Beckton
Getting the artwork up doesn’t affect the critical path either directly or indirectly terms of resources.
Doing the fancy stuff later would cost more be more disruptive and not make any difference to getting it open.
A problem is that claims from contractors even in some of the simplest cases are taking at least 8 months to resolve and the complex ones far longer so predicting cost is very difficult as there are lots of indirect costs coming through years later. Contractors costs have often shot up because of earlier delays by others. The contract structures for virtually all building contact aren’t simple.
Two consultancies were raising issues for years but virtually now one was reading or sharing the content widely – all there just not appreciated.
A simple metric that showed things were in trouble 3 years ago was that spend was on profile but the number of unsettled claims was rising as was the time to settle which showed really costs were substantially higher and progress slower – effectively the progess numbers ween’t percentage but on a per 115 basis.
Stage 1 and Stage 2a: “In terms of revenue it is hard to see how any such progress as there has been in implementing TfL Rail services, prior to the Elizabeth line opening, has provided any significant new sources of revenue (as opposed to reallocating existing sources).”
True, but the reallocation has been between National Rail (GA and GW) and TfL. Individual fares per passenger journey are low and volumes are low to the west, but the reallocation HAS provided a significant new source of income to TfL.
Seems the sub heading above OPENING THE CORE SECTION – WHO CARES? was very prescience following yesterdays press reports in the ES that stage 3 is now late 2021 and stages 4 & 5 are down for the two timetable changes in 2022. The only caveat to this is this is TfL business planning assumptions so maybe if Messrs Wilde and co come good the core section could still start earlier.
Nicholas Lewis,
Yes. But note that this has been not well-reported.
The reported is based on an Assembly Budget and Performance Committee scrutiny meeting. You can see the video (4+ hours) here https://www.london.gov.uk/budget-and-performance-committee-2020-01-06. I think the relevant bit is about 50 minutes in.
What was actually said was that the TfL budget is planned on the presumption that Crossrail won’t open until the second half of next year and probably in the final quarter. The silence on any successful trial running (which should have taken place in December) is what I suspect prompted this.
However, Mike Brown, who made the statement, emphasised that this change was not as a result of any update from the Crossrail board. Based on past experience it just seemed prudent for TfL to make this assumption when preparing its budget.
It appears that the Crossrail board will meet on Thursday and provide an official update to TfL (and we hope, indirectly, to the rest of us).
It was accepted that due to the need to coincide with Network Rail timetable changes, there was virtually no possibility of having a through service to Reading before December 2022. So three full years late and I suspect even that might be optimistic.
There is lots of other interesting stuff hidden amongst the bulk of it – which is extremely boring. It seems that TfL believe they cannot go ahead with long-term projects where the money for the whole project life cannot be assured. This is putting future projects in doubt. This is not because they don’t have the money or a budgeted plan but because they cannot be sure that they will actually have the money at the later stages of the project.
I’m totally incapable of grasping the technical details of Crossrail, but must support Phil in his description of how inadequate the passenger facilities are on the 345s. My station is Hayes and Harlington. When I moved here about three years ago there were 8 trains an hour. 2 were the lovely GWR 387s from the bay platform to Paddington. All transverse seats with high backs, tables or seatback trays, power points, wi-fi, loos, litter bins and luggage racks. After a while 387s also ran from Didcot Parkway and Reading to Paddington. So that was 6 out of the 8 trains an hour. The other two were the Heathrow Connect trains. They were transferred to TFLRail in May 2017, meant to be operated by 345s but weren’t because of the signalling problems. TfLRail immediately took the accessible loos out of service. Now TfLRail run 6 facility-light trains an hour from H&H (2 from Reading, 2 from the bay and 2 from Heathrow). That irks me, and I’m much closer to London than Reading. So I think passengers beyond H&H have every reason to be angry about the lack of facilities. My take on this is that TfLRail (like TfL) has a mass transport mentality that has little interest in the human characteristics of their customers. For them they are simply numbers and could as well be (and are) treated as freight.
Three more Crossrail stations ready for trial running – Problem project Whitechapel among signed off stations, reports Building Magazine.
“Three more Crossrail stations have been cleared to support trial running of trains.
“In a letter to London Assembly transport committee Navin Shah, Crossrail chief executive Mark Wild said that despite a majority of construction being brought to a stop by covid-19 the trio of stations had been signed off to allow for the next phase of the project.
“Wild said: “We have also achieved endorsement from Crossrail’s Rail Assurance Board for the staged completion 1 status at a further three stations – Liverpool Street, Whitechapel and Woolwich. This certification is an essential requirement for entering trial running…”