Just in case anyone thought this might be a whodunnit concerning a pair of minimal trousers, let it be known that its current use is to describe an apparently strange feature of the Crossrail timetable. One of the features of current and May 2023 timetables is a 2tph (trains per hour) service that runs in the peak-period only and in the direction of the peak only, between Gidea Park and Liverpool Street National Rail station platform 17. In the May 2023 Elizabeth line timetable it consists of five services in the morning and five services in the evening.
A strange thing to do?
The obvious first question is why run the service at all? It would appear to make minimal difference to the service provided on the Elizabeth line and added a totally unnecessary complexity to the operation of the line. It would also appear to be hardly worth running for the sake of 2tph. If you are going to implement such a service then surely it makes more sense to run it more frequently.
One also might question what this odd-ball service is supposed to achieve. After all, trains from Liverpool Street National Rail station to Stratford aren’t exactly infrequent and there are also the alternatives of the Elizabeth line or even the much-slower Central line. At first sight the trains would almost appear to be a candidate for YouTubers to video a ‘Ghost trains on Crossrail’ feature.
The apparent absurdity of the Gidea Park shorts appears even worse when one examines the Elizabeth line timetable in detail. To fit these two trains per hour in, significant delays have to be introduced to other trains to or from Shenfield in order for timings to even out at Whitechapel. This evenness is required so that Shenfield branch trains can dovetail with the 12tph Elizabeth line service to Abbey Wood.
According to the public timetable, one Gidea Park train from Liverpool Street National Rail station in the evening peak means the subsequent Elizabeth line train from Paddington has to have its Whitechapel-Stratford running time extended by three minutes in order to follow the Gidea Park train four minutes later. The following train has its running time extended by two minutes and the one after that by one minute in order to maintain a four-minute interval at Stratford. But then the next two trains each arrive five minutes after the previous one. Insertion of other trains leads to similar but different adjustments.
One could ask if this is what passengers really want? After all, it has been abundantly clear how much passengers dislike the temporary extra few minutes that most trains approaching Paddington from the west have had added to their running time. From May 2023 the extra minutes added when approaching Paddington will largely disappear but between Whitechapel and Stratford these extra minutes will remain.
Killing one argument
It has been argued by some that these trains are needed to retain route knowledge into Liverpool Street National Rail station case of disruption. This does not make any sense.
First and foremost, a few early morning and late evening trains already use Liverpool Street National Rail station so that a service can be provided at times when the central tunnels are closed overnight for engineering work. This particularly applies on Sunday mornings.
Secondly, a ‘hot spare’ is kept at Liverpool Street so some route knowledge would be maintained even without early morning and late evening services serving Liverpool Street National Rail station.
Finally, if trains are needed to be run to keep up route-knowledge you don’t do this by running extra trains in the peak that don’t go where they need to go. This increases your rolling stock requirement whereas keeping up route knowledge off-peak can be achieved without either significant capital expenditure or leasing costs.
Perpetuating the situation
One might have thought that with just two Gidea Park short services in each peak in the current November 2022 timetable, they might disappear with the full May 2023 24tph peak timetable to be replaced by an extra two through trains to Paddington. Unfortunately, the May 2023 timetable does not offer any improved frequency on through trains in the height of the peak period. So, to provide the same ‘peak of the peak’ frequency as the current November 2022 timetable, the Gidea Park shorts need to be retained.
Remember that the November 2022 timetable was not a proper 22tph timetable. It was a 20tph timetable with two extra services squeezed in (‘pushed through’) between Paddington and Shenfield in the peak hour in the peak direction. So, in the peak direction, you had 10tph + 2 push throughs + 2 Gidea Park shorts in the November 2022 timetable and 12tph + 2tph Gidea Park shorts in the May 2023 timetable. In the contra-peak direction there were 10tph to and from Shenfield in the November 2022 timetable which will increase to 12tph in May 2023.
This means that at the ‘peak of the peak’ there is no improvement in services on the Shenfield branch in the forthcoming timetable. There is also no reason to suspect that there will be any increase in services during the peaks for the next few years.
So why do it?
To understand why we have Gidea Park shorts you need to understand two things that can easily be ascertained by looking at what is really happening.
The first is that, contrary to what you might expect, evening Gidea Park shorts leave platform 17 from Liverpool Street in the evening peak fairly well loaded. This is probably best described by saying you can get a seat but you might have to look for a while before you find one. Furthermore, people don’t tend to get off at Stratford but instead continue their journey on the Elizabeth line. Presumably the situation is reversed in the morning with arrivals at Liverpool Street platform 17 in the morning.
The second is that at the height of the evening peak, Elizabeth line trains leave Stratford with passengers squeezed together in the vestibule areas and some intending passengers are left standing on the platform. This is because of people transferring from the Central line utilising the cross-platform interchange there. This might seem surprising given that the Elizabeth line largely replicates the Central line in central London but there is also cross-platform interchange with the District line and Hammersmith & City line at Mile End so many District line passengers and some Hammersmith & City line passengers may well travel the one stop on the Central line from Mile End to Stratford.
Does the problem of overcrowding at Stratford really need fixing?
It seems obvious that we have a situation where something ought to be done. However, it could be argued that the concern is overblown. Anecdotal impressions are not the same as reliable data. It is probable that this is only really an issue on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays due to the tendency of commuters to work from home for some of the week.
It could also be argued that the worst that happens is passengers can’t catch the first Elizabeth line train home at Stratford. The problem disappears every half-hour as a Gidea Park train starting from Liverpool Street mops up all the waiting passengers and then the cycle repeats itself.
It needs to be borne in mind that by Ilford, four stops further down the line, a large number of passengers will have already left the train so the extremely cramped travelling conditions will only apply for around ten minutes.
How did we get to this?
There are really two causes of this situation. The first happened before World War 2 and the second was a consequence of Crossrail planning.
Some of the problem stems from having a cross-platform interchange at Stratford between what were originally the Shenfield Electrics and the Central line. This cross-platform interchange was a crucial feature of various transport improvements planned for East London. It was all part of a grand scheme often referred to as the 1935-40 New Works Programme. The scheme is worthy of an article all of its own as there is very little information available on the scheme as a whole, even though two critical parts – the Central line extension eastwards and the electrification of the line from Liverpool Street to Shenfield – have been extensively documented.
The planned Stratford cross-platform interchange between an Underground line and a main line railway was, and still is, almost unknown with Queen’s Park and Barking being the only other examples. At the time the main-line electric suburban trains were eight carriages at most and it was expected that seats would be provided for most passengers. In other words, Stratford’s interchange platforms weren’t designed for use by 200m long full-size trains configured to carry significant numbers of standing passengers. An Elizabeth line train can carry around 1500 passengers but a Central line train is intended for only 930 passengers.
The other problem was that Crossrail, as originally proposed, didn’t have a branch to Abbey Wood. All trains from Central London would normally continue eastwards at least as far as Gidea Park. With at least 20tph planned on the busiest portions of the line, it was believed that sufficient capacity had been planned for. The proposed 20tph would be an increase of 2tph over the most frequent service that had been run on the Shenfield service before then and the trains would be longer and configured for higher capacity.
When the branch to Abbey Wood serving Canary Wharf was proposed the benefit-cost ratio of Crossrail improved dramatically and also gave the political impetus to proceed with the scheme. The potential disadvantage of the future service actually being worse on the Shenfield branch, frequency-wise, than the existing service was recognised. Very early on the Gidea Park shorts were a fundamental part of the revised Crossrail scheme that included a branch to serve Canary Wharf and a supplementary service of 6tph to and from Liverpool Street National Rail station was proposed. This would at least give no worse a service even if the trains were only formed of eight standard length carriages.
At some point prior to ordering the Class 345 Crossrail trains it was decided that there was only a need to run 4tph Gidea Park shorts. This was probably down to the fact the intended trains were longer and of a ‘metro’ style layout with provision for a large number of standing passengers, significantly increasing the capacity of each train.
The reason we only have 2tph Gidea Park shorts is not obvious. There certainly should not be any technical reason why 4tph could not be run but it was probably initially felt that 2tph would be adequate in a post-Covid world. The trouble is that as timetable changes involve Network Rail (even though no other services are affected) a short-term improvement is unlikely even if it was felt that 4tph should be run. It is worth noting that the new timetable is due to run until Saturday 9th December 2023 and not ‘until further notice’ which is the phrase generally applied when it is expected that the timetable will change sometime prior to the next national timetable change date.
Why not 3tph?
Another curiosity is that the Elizabeth line team have plumped for 2tph Gidea Park shorts and not 3tph. 3tph would allow a consistent four-minute interval from Gidea Park to Stratford in the morning and Stratford to Gidea Park in the evening. A simple explanation is that the team is wedded to the idea of Crossrail operating on a half-hour or quarter-hour cycle. It does seem an obvious improvement though, both in terms of achieving an evenly-spaced timetable and increasing capacity at Stratford by 7%. It also neatly fits in with the 30tph peak service on the Central line with alternate Central line trains going to Epping and Hainault.
A Possible Explanation
Perhaps the most convincing explanation given for not providing more Gidea Park shorts with the May 2023 timetable is that the Elizabeth line team are anxious not to change too much at once in order to maintain reliability which is critical to the Elizabeth line success.
The May 2023 timetable brings two significant changes on the western side of the capital. There will be an extra 2tph to Heathrow and the temporary padding in the timetable as trains approach Paddington from the west will be largely removed. It is understandable if the planners felt that increasing the frequency of the Gidea Park shorts was an unnecessary additional risk.
With the current service pattern established and people depending on it, it makes sense not to make too many significant changes in one go. Even if the planners were confident that a new timetable was sound, there are also related issues such as having sufficient staff to operate it and having sufficient availability of rolling stock.
What is concerning though is that current weekday demand generally across the rail network is considered to be no more than 80% at most of what it was pre-Covid. If this meant that the Elizabeth line could expect a significant further rise in demand before the next planned timetable change if a further drift back to the office continued, it is hard to see how the necessary further increase in capacity will be provided.
The Bigger Picture
Possibly the main thing to be considered when examining the issue of overcrowding at Stratford is not to look at the problem in isolation without considering if there are bigger issues elsewhere along the line to be addressed. There are only 70 Class 345 Crossrail trains and an objective of the December 2023 timetable should be to use these to their best effect, whether it is as a hot standby, better resilience or to improve the service where that can be achieved.
We are not yet into the ‘final’ timetable but already there are anecdotal comments about the mix of airport passengers and inner west London passengers causing a problem of apparent overcrowding as well as reports of the Abbey Wood branch being heavily used. Clearly we need to wait and see what the ‘final’ timetable will bring but, in the case of overcrowding at Stratford, it can only get worse.
If one thing is already apparent it is that May 2023 will not be the end of Crossrail timetable development, but only the end of the initial entry-into-service phase of the Crossrail service pattern. Quite how rapidly and how extensively the next phase develops remains to be seen.
Thanks to Matt for his proof-reading which has improved the text considerably and to ngh for recent information on the subject matter.
> it is hard to see how the necessary further increase in capacity will be provided.
Wasn’t it always planned for the Crossrail trains to be extended from 9 to 11 carriages eventually? Although I can’t imagine that will be a quick process.
> Queen’s Park being the only other example
Er, what about Barking? And arguably Queens Park is not a cross-platform interchange, but a same-platform one.
[I overlooked Barking thinking all C2C trains left from platforms 7 & 8. Now corrected. Thanks.
but Queen’s Park truly is cross-platform interchange not same-platform. PoP]
Interesting article.
If you took out the Gidea Park Shorts then the “electric” lines between Liverpool Street and Stratford could be used to re-route the Stanstead Express which runs ironically very slowly along the curved viaducts north of Bethnal Green. The route could re-join the current one at the Copper mill Junction, serving Stratford 11 and 12 and (missing out the Lea Valley Reversable).
This would have the wonderful knock-on effect of allowing the Liverpool Street to Chingford London Overground trains to have the timetabled space to stop at London Fields and Cambridge Heath, which they can’t do because of the Stanstead Express and also allowing more services than 4tph London Overground.
Those extra running times for trains from the central core can be seen in the Elizabeth Line Working Time Table at https://content.tfl.gov.uk/may2023wttmarch.pdf (thanks to IanVisits for that link), where for example train 9W50RG, the 1720 at Stratford (actually 17a20 1/2, where I think ‘a’ means arrives 1 minute earlier) has a departure – not passing (if my assumption that italics means passing, non-italics means stopping is correct) – time at Pudding Mill Lane Portal of 17c17, which I think ‘c’ means arrives 3 minutes earlier, and similarly for the other slower trains in the example above.
The EL WTT is a bit of a cumbersome document, all 153 large pages of it: the above example is on p89.
[‘a’ is definitely arrives one minute earlier, italics do mean passing. I couldn’t face examining this particular working timetable. West of Paddington it and the associated Train Planning Rules are almost incomprehensible to a layman. PoP]
ps a couple of typos (sorry, Matt!) – “and add a totally unnecessary complexity” should be “and adds…”; “the intend trains were longer” should be “the intended…”.
[ I would argue the first is not wrong but I have changed it anyway. All errors are ultimately mine and Matt may have marked it for correction and I may have overlooked it. Thanks. PoP]
In early iterations of the Crossrail timetable, there were 6 “shorts” per hour between Liverpool Street High Level and Gidea Park, combined with the 12 trains per hour through the Crossrail tunnel; total of 18tph in the peak direction.
Before the Abbey Wood branch was invented, the idea was that 24tph through the core all went via Stratford, then terminating at a mix of Ilford, Gidea Park and Shenfield (IIRC).
So the “shorts” were devised as the best way of maximizing the overall Electric Line frequency, but going into Liv St High Level to make space for trains coming from Abbey Wood.
I think pre-Covid the 6tph was reduced to a proposed 4tph, but Covid has eased the capacity requirement further to justify only 2tph to meet demand.
An interesting read. It does make sense that the main purpose of these shorts is to ease crowding around Stratford.
I would argue that there is another LUL to NR cross-platform interchange at Highbury & Islington although this is only cross-platform in the sense of there being numerous cross passages between the adjacent tube tunnels there.
Some thoughts:
” … at the height of the evening peak, Elizabeth line trains leave Stratford with passengers squeezed together in the vestibule areas and some intending passengers are left standing on the platform.”
So much for restricting trains to 9 coaches, rather than the originally (?) intended 11 & the official (? again) pronouncements that – “It will take many years before we need that extension.” Oops.
“At the time the main-line electric suburban trains were eight carriages at most ” – and, before CrossLiz opened, the successors to those original units ( AM6/306 ), usually class 315’s were disgorging something like 60-80 passengers per door on an 8-car train (!)
” .. reports of the Abbey Wood branch being heavily used.” As in full-&-standing from Woolwich inwards? Yes.
Unfortunately, this mitigates against the socially-necessary extension onwards to Dartford / Ebbsfleet. The contrast between the class 345’s & some of the stock used beyond Abbey Wood is stark. From a passenger’s p.o.v. class 376 are easily the worst, though I’m told the drivers like them.
I’m rather surprised on the occasional evenings when I get the Elizabeth Line eastwards from Tottenham Court Road by how much busier the Abbey Wood trains are than the Shenfields. Maybe it’s a sign of how unpopular Southeastern Railway is in its catchment area.
@ Brian: I can’t see anybody in Waltham Forest being happy about Chingford trains stopping additionally at Cambridge Heath and London Fields. There are vastly more people who would be delayed than people who actually want to make that trip.
Thanks, PoP; apologies, Matt!
A quick look at the near-incomprehensible WTT shows similar jiggling at the west end to take account of the differing service intervals within and outside the core – for instance, at least some of the AW-T4 trains that depart at 06 and 36 rather than the standard 09 and 39 wait at Acton Main Line for several minutes to take up their westbound GWML path.
Just shows how difficult it is to maintain consistent clockface timetables when service intervals vary by both time period and by location, a challenge that EL timetablers have risen to.
@Phil E:
In addition to “how unpopular Southeastern Railway is in its catchment area”, a major thing is also obviously that northeastern London have the central line, the district line, the DLR and to some extent the Victoria line, while southeastern London only has a sliver of DLR in addition to the regular railway network.
====================
Re the cross-platform side track, do we only count stations where both lines run through trains?
I would count terminating trains too, and that would add Greenford and Upminster.
If cross-platform interchange with through running counts even if the interchange can only be done in one direction, then we can add West Brompton to the list. At the time the cross-platform interchange was built at Stratford there were already cross-platform interchanges in one direction at Barbican and Moorgate.
If we would count tram – rail cross-platform interchanges then we can add Wimbledon and Elmers End.
You could also argue that it’s a useful cross-platform interchange between the District line and Overground at Gunnersbury, although both platforms are used by both services.
I don’t know if the Metropolitan line still runs any trains on the fast lines between Harrow-on-the-hill and westwards. If so you could technically change between those trains and Chiltern trains cross-platform at Harrow-on-the-hill, but it would more or less only be useful if you got on the wrong train and need to go back where you came from 🙂
@MiaM if you’re allowing single direction and non-tube services you can also count the DLR – c2c connection at Limehouse
“At the time the main-line electric suburban trains were eight carriages at most and it was expected that seats would be provided for most passengers. ”
Liverpool Street to Gidea Park (and sometimes Shenfield) were run with trains of 3 x 3 car units in the original sliding door era. 8 carriage trains were to and from Southend, which in those days shared the slow/electric lines. Nothing to do with capacity or platform length, and the joys of changing to and from Central Line trains at Stratford, but a historical note of a ‘train spotter’ nature.
Incidentally, speculating on the reason for the Gidea Park shorts, a factor not mentioned is that as in the orginal modernisation scheme, there are still sidings and a signing-on point at Gidea Park, so perhaps getting crews as well as trains to the right place has something to do with it.
@GregT
Lengthening trains involves costly platform extensions (and there’s already a lot of Selective Door Opening because many ‘legacy’ platforms aren’t long enough for 9 car trains – even after a round of lengthening). Therefore any medium-term capacity boost was planned to come from running higher frequencies (up to 32tph according to Network Rail long term planning, which is a 33% increase – bigger than the capacity boost train lengthening would give).
Of course, running higher frequencies needs work too – Old Oak Common with its 4 Liz platforms is the turn around capacity needed. However, that’s at least 7 years off currently and getting further away.
Seems like the Crossrail people might have made one of the (three) fundamental metro planning errors of branching too early. Forty years after the Bakerloo Line branched too early to get to Stanmore, the Jubilee Line opened to fix it. Wonder what they will open in 40 years time to fix Crossrail if this turns out to be a serious issue.
Re differential use for Abbey Wood versus Shenfield trains, if people live in places convenient for their workplace commute then it might be the case that SE London commuters have a significant West End contingent and Shenfield commuters do not. Hence the West End section of Crossrail will initially be capturing more SE London commuters than Shenfield ones.
When the Crossrail plans were finalised, I calculated roughly 45,000 station entries a day on the Shenfield Line, one of the most used commuter lines in London, but still less than either the North London branch of the Northern Line, which were around 60,000 each at the time.
Max Roberts 09:15
Absolutely. You are not the first person to think this and won’t be the last. In Crossrail’s defence I would argue that they probably knew this but also knew that without the branch to Abbey Wood nothing would have got built.
You are in good company. Jonathan Roberts, a transport consultant who has written for this website, emphatically made that point a few years ago at a talk at London Underground Railway Society when giving a talk on the Bakerloo line and openly posing the question how long it would be before this was recognised as a problem with Crossrail and how long before it would be fixed.
I see two potential problems. The first is Crossrail 2 is a higher priority and decades off. The second is that, with all the deep piling happening in London and no safeguarded routes other than Crossrail 2, a Jubilee line solution just won’t be possible when the time eventually comes.
Twopenny Tube,
At the time of writing I wasn’t sure how long the original Shenfield Electric stock was as I couldn’t determine then whether it was run as a 6-car train or a 9-car train. I suspected the former but it turned out to the be the latter. However, I was careful with my wording (I thought). At the time (implicitly of it being planned) the main-line electric suburban trains were eight carriages at most as far as I am aware with the longest electric suburban trains being on Southern Railway. No doubt someone will tell me if I am wrong.
In any case the AM6 units built for Shenfield electrification were just over 54m long so a 3 car set was just over 162m which is only slightly over the length of a modern day train consisting of 20m carriages and only slightly longer than a Southern Railway EPB 8 car electric suburban train.
I suspected people might try and cite other examples cross-platform interchanges from Underground to British Rail/National Rail.
To be clear the crucial word in the article is planned. I am well aware of various cross-platform interchanges that accidentally and serendipitously came about.
I would argue that Stratford is the pinnacle of these examples. Queen’s Park qualifies. Barking probably qualifies as there was considerable effort made so that District line trains dive under the main line to serve platform 6 before passing over it to regain its original route. Highbury & Islington was planned during the Victoria line but on completion was only an interchange between two Underground lines (Victoria and Northern City branch of the Northern line) even though the long term plan was for it to become part of Great Northern Electrics. In any case, strictly speaking, only qualifies as same-level interchange and not cross-platform.
@Si
I’ve never really understood why there is a need to terminate trains at Paddington / Old Oak Common?
Is the problem that the trains would be too crowded in the core section, making it hard to use for local trips within the core?
Or isn’t there any need for that frequency west of Paddington?
If the problem is that freight trains share the slow GWR tracks, then maybe Acton Mainline could be reconfigured to make a usable platform edge on the northern edge of the northern platform and the tracks reconfigured so that the freight trains has to use a single bidirectional track for a short stretch before joining the Overground lines to reach Willesden Junction or the Dudding Hill line? By doing this the new platform edge could be used for Crossrail trains towards Paddington, whine todays platform for trains to Paddington could be used for terminating and reversing trains. Sure, a single reversing platform can’t handle that many trains, but it could likely handle the 8 additional TPH that is desired to run in the core section.
And yes, Old Oak Common would be a great interchange with HS2 (and whatnot), but I would say that terminating Crossrail trains there is a band-aid for the problem of freight trains sharing tracks with passenger trains on busy lines.
If the reason is to avoid delays on the Shenfield line propagating to the GWR and vice versa then the solution would rather be to have hot standby trains both at Liverpool Street (which we already have) and at Paddington, and also be able to with short notice retrain.
I’m shocked noone has mentioned Greenford eastbound/ up as another location of cross platform interchange!
@MiaM
Short answer, less need for core Crossrail frequency west of Paddington.
Having used the line since the 1950s, the services were very generous indeed until I think the 1980s. The Shenfield electrification services did in fact provided just as many if not more trains in the peaks than the Elizabeth Line does! As well as Gidea Park, Shenfield was well provided also – but not only that several trains an hour continued to or from Southend Victoria.
The only difference was the services were a mix of stopping and semi fasts with different station stop patterns – some trains only stopping at Romford, Seven Kings, Stratford, Liverpool Street, whilst others did for example all stations to Ilford then fast to Stratford. A handful indeed had Ilford or Seven Kings as the first stop out of London. In addition to these there was also several trains that terminated at Ilford. (That isn’t possible now the track layouts have been rationalised and Ilford’s bay platform removed.)
Some of the services ran on the fast then switched to the slow tracks (the up/down electric lines) and it was a bit of a juggling act but it did work because back then there were far more crossovers some of which took trains straight from the fasts to the slows and vice versa – these were controlled by the iconic 1949 built signal cabins which were well provided en route.
Clearly there was far more flexibility then compared to the current two track route that has far fewer switches the Elizabeth line has to contend with. Yes the Elizabeth line did have a mix of stopping and fast trains with some variable patterns (including some trains that terminated at Chadwell Heath) until last year and in fact I was hoping these would continue as it was a sort of hark back to previous service offerings. That didn’t happen its all standardised now except for these somewhat slightly off pattern Gidea park services.
I don’t have sight of any timetables for the period when the Shenfield line had such an intensive service but surely someone will know something.
Rog,
Thank you very much indeed for this comment. I had been investigating what the original service consisted of and it was much as I had been led to believe but it is good to get it confirmed. I also thought that the trains must have run on the fast lines (which were also electrified as well as the ‘electric’ lines) and this confirms it. I am pretty sure many trains also ran empty in the reverse direction of the peak on the fast lines so as to enable another peak hour service to operate.
I think one reason trains are not scheduled to terminate at Chadwell Heath is that it misses the large traffic generator of Romford which is the next stop down the line. After that there is Gidea Park so one might as well continue to Gidea Park – especially if the ultimate destination (or originating point) is the carriage sidings there.
So, from a Timetabling perspective, why can’t the Gidea Park trains leave Liverpool Street three minutes earlier so that they don’t force the trains coming through the core section to have to wait?
Some inclusion of loading data would aid understanding. I did read that Shenfield branch loading was closer to recovery than others. The Chadwell Heath turnback was the closest available space to replace the Ilford bay. The Gidea Park starters serve the urban commuters and depot which have fed development. Having the capacity to supplement peak hours when demanded up to 6 tph is planning rather than a mystery.
Lachlan,
Imagine you have a line of toy soldiers all equidistant apart (the service as at Whitechapel). You need to add extra soldiers (Gidea Park shorts) in the middle of the line (the service as at Stratford) and keep them equidistant apart. In fact you need to insert an extra soldier for every six soldiers.
You are restricted to moving soldiers already in the line to the right (as time only travels forwards and not backwards – you can’t subtract minutes from point-to-point timings). It doesn’t matter where you insert the extra soldiers, you still have to move soldiers to the right.
LongBranchMike / MiaM,
Lack of demand is part of it – you don’t need as many trains in the west as through the core. However, because of the freight sharing you are limited with how many trains can be sent that way anyway (perhaps not enough).
Using a third platform at Acton Main Line to turn trains around instead of at Paddington is not very useful – its limited compared to two reversing sidings at Paddington and it’s the emergency situation of the GWML being closed that is why the reversing sidings are a bottleneck in upping core frequency rather than an inability to turn a higher scheduled number of trains – it needs to turn the whole core frequency in an emergency. A reversal platform at Acton ML wouldn’t sort those problems at all. OOC effectively extends the segregated-from-the-GWML reversing sidings and removes the automatic reverse operation that is limited to 24tph. If you are going to be playing with new platforms and tracks to allow more trains to reverse, you’d be better off focusing the effort into getting the relevant parts of OOC built a bit earlier than currently planned.
Si.
I agree its not useful to reverse at Acton Main Line because of conflicts for example with freight etc on the line to/from Acton Wells.
Old Oak actually has more reversing sidings. Technically there’s four. The tracks leading to/from the GWML can be used as such, thus in theory there shouldn’t be any capacity problem and indeed all four can be in use when the GWML is closed. I suppose the problem is as always, the demand is greater when there’s a full service of through trains to Heathrow/Maidenhead/Reading with just the two centre sidings available, its then that things don’t work out and trains get delayed, stuck in a long queue, and auto reverse plays tricks, whatever. I expect its why some deem a turn back at Acton (or even the new Old Oak station) would offer relief. In light of the HS2 debacle it does seem now that a turn back at either (or both) is going to be a necessity.
I’m afraid I’m going to have repeat myself, w.r.t. “lack of demand” west of Paddington.
As that assumption is clearly rubbish, as observed by myself & others in the period before the GWML electrification.
In those days, the “stoppers” & semi-fasts that used the slow ( “relief” in GW-speak ) lines usually consisted of 4 or 6-car dmu’s, the latter being 2×3’s.
On arriving at Ealing Broadway in the AM peak, large numbers of commuters emerged from said trains, much in the manner of toothpaste being squeezed out of a tube(!) Loadings of over 200% were commonplace.
Similarly, down outer-suburbans filled up to well over 100% loadings, as people tried to commute out towards Slough/Maidenhead/Reading.
It was abundantly clear that there was a lot of suppressed demand, which has now been accommodated by first, electrification & now by the completion of CrossLiz.
People now only decant from CrossLiz, etc, if they are heading locally, or for intermediate points between Ealing & PAD, which are much smaller numbers, of course.
Greg,
You have clearly misunderstood/misread Si’s comment.
There isn’t as much demand in the west as in the centre core. There is a lot of demand between Heathrow and intermediate stations to Paddington and clearly, from what people are saying, the current service is inadequate for this. But, as the more perceptive have pointed out, this may be because space is not efficiently utilised with a train starting out full of passengers with luggage not making it easy for other passengers to subsequently join it. Not that this affects anything. Ideally you should have more trains and more separation between airport passengers and local commuters and other local passengers.
Si got it spot on with his second sentence:
However, because of the freight sharing you are limited with how many trains can be sent that way anyway (perhaps not enough).
@Si “limited compared to two reversing sidings at Paddington” referring to the three turnback sidings at Westbourne Park.
A future “Old Oak actually has more reversing sidings. Technically there’s four.” In the event of more turnback capacity requirement the existing sidings would still be serviceable, along with the OOC depot, and was there not even the idea of extending an overrun onto the New North Main Line to park one or two reversals.
TfL have put in a bid for funding more 345s “before the manufacturing line is ‘closed'”. Since all carriages have been built what are they referring to? Does the assembly line remain mothballed for an interval after completion in case of any issues revealed in service? The reason given is to collect HS2 passengers intended for Euston, even though half the fleet would already start empty from OOC and disembark their central London transfers before embarking the bulk of peak loads to the East. Would these advance trains be ‘spare’ for a decade and would there be any more ‘slots’ above 24tph for additional units.
So, can we agree on that there is demand for more trains in the west, but freight trains limit the capacity of the slow/stopper lines?
If so I think my proposal for modifying Acton Main Line to have a reversing platform in the middle makes sense. My proposal would only single track the cargo line east of Acton Main line for a really short section.
Assuming that that single track part could cope with the cargo trains, I would think that it would be a decent cost-benefit to my proposal simply due to that the “only” things needed is building a platform edge (note that it’s just an edge, not a full platform) and some track layout changes on areas that are already railway land. No new stairs, elevators, ticket barriers, pedestrian bridges, rail flyovers or so would be needed.
Also turning trains at Acton Main Line could make the public opinion swing in favour for adding tracks to the GWR between say Acton main Line and for example the Airport junction. It’s always hard for politician to decide that some people have to suck it up with more noise and vibration next to their homes, but if those politicians have many other inhabitants in the same areas on their side then it gets way easier.
Note that I’m not saying that I’m 100% sure that this would be a great idea. However I’m 100% sure that it would be a great idea to do a feasibility study and a cost-benefit analysis.
If GWR at some point in time would get additional tracks there would anyway be merits to have the ability to reverse trains early (for the same reasons as why trains should be able to reverse at Old Oak Common and for that sake to reverse at Gidea Park).
The only argument against running more Crossrail trains west of Old Oak Common would be if there wouldn’t be enough passenger capacity in the core section. But then the ugly solution would be to provide a better service off-peak than on-peak west of Old Oak Common (as there would be enough capacity in the core section), signalling both that there is need for even more capacity in the central section and also that it would be great if work hours were more spread out.
Just to comment its Royal Oak rather than Old Oak when the reversing sidings are referred to! I know I slipped up but its confusing when there are two ‘Oaks’ so near each other!
The track diagrams I have denote the reversing roads as Westbourne Park sidings however the tunnel approach and portals are Royal Oak. The reversing sidings are known as Turnback A and B.
Original Crossrail plans provisioned 3 through roads & two turnbacks – essentially 5 turnbacks in lieu of the GWML not being available.
PoP
Point taken … oh one small detail …
At Acton ML. most freights do not join or leave the slow/releif lines until well W of that station, where the new diveunder is located.
There’s a pair of freight-only lines to the N of “AML” for some distance.
MiaM
There’s a really easy way to free up extra capacity between PAD & airport Jn …. scrap HeX.
Um, err ….. { See also L-R’s article on this subject. }
I would like to add, that I’m pretty sure in the latest round of passenger usage statistics (collected by the dft), daily rail usage has hit the 100% of pre covid several times. The assertion that ‘rail demand is only at 80%’, no longer really holds.
Additionally, it’s also rather telling that as of the last ORR rail stats, the Elizabeth line carried only 2 million fewer passengers than the entirety of the Thameslink / Southern / Great Northern franchise.
I would argue there’s likely need for more peak extras, wherever one can squeeze them….
@glbotu The point about peak demand loads holds, but I understand those are reached on Tuesday, Wednesday & Thursday. The point about overall numbers and revenue being lower (some 80%) is the reduction in travel on Mondays and Fridays. The introduction of flexible seasons is both a reaction and driver of altered work patterns.
@Rog the two ‘sidings’ are Turnbacks B and C, A is a ‘loop siding’ accessed at both ends available for alternate through running possibly.
@Greg
Scrapping HEX does nothing for capacity on the relief lines. Freight is the issue on the relief lines, that’s not going to be shifted to the mains… so all it would do is add to the load on the EL services
PoP – thanks, that was absolutely my point. I’ll add that Slough and West Drayton are probably more in need of extra trains than Heathrow, and that Heathrow is getting the extra 2tph in May is more to do with business/political demands and to provide certain West London stations with emptier trains to try and deal with crowding issues there.
Aleks – thanks for the correction about siding numbers
MiaM – Acton Main Line is too far east to be of any use for the worst of the West London crowding. There’s also little demand there so you’d not gain much above turning trains at the Old Oak depot if you want additional reversing capacity pre-OOC.
Greg – how does scrapping Hex create capacity for trains on the Reliefs? Are you suggesting putting freight in those paths on the Mains, freeing up space for more stoppers?
‘Scrapping’ HEx should create relief capacity, because you use the main paths for all the ‘semi fasts’ to Reading / Didcot / Newbury that currently run on the reliefs. They then cross back over to the reliefs between Langley and Iver, when you have fewer Elizabeth Line trains.
@gbotlu
There are only two each hour on the reliefs now, everything else is on the mains
I’d obviously have to look at the timetable, but 2 tph fast would eat a considerable amount of stopping capacity. Especially when you’re talking about Elizabeth Line frequencies with all stops services. It wouldn’t be one for one.
The take up of Crossrail services is certainly impressive. But does anyone have any idea of how much of this is new traffic?
After the May timetable change the GWR EMU off peak pattern out of Paddington appears to be three trains every two hours from Newbury running on the mains from Reading, and two trains every hour from Didcot running relief until crossing over onto the main by flat junction just after Slough. Maidenhead and Slough will be getting two “fast” GWR trains and four Liz line trains a hour. How does this compare with other towns a similar distance out of London?
@glbotu Fast Liz line trains crossing over to the main fast line and then back again would currently need to be done by two flat junctions, sapping capacity.
My prediction for the Liz line west of Paddington is that trains will gradually call at more stations between Hayes and Harlington and Paddington as Tfl’s remit is Transport in London. The next big change will come with Old Oak Common opening as it seems HS2 will terminate there to start with and all Liz Line trains will need to be extended to turn round there.
I don’t see a West Access to Heathrow giving much benefit once Old Oak Common opens with all GWR trains calling there.
This link shows part of the September 1957 timetable.
https://www.dropbox.com/l/scl/AADQhNjNQyiIlZXR-vdPJETXw4ktCMYDS8s
This may help with the historical perspective mentioned in various comments.
Re the side track of where to put the freight trains: It’s worth noting that if freight trains don’t have to stop at signals along the way, they can easily have a higher average speed than local and some regional services. Sure, the freight trains are slower than intercity style passenger trains, but still.
(I’m sure that it’s a bad idea to put freight trains on the fast/main tracks of the GWR though, but the main reason for that is that all the freight yards and freight connections face the slow lines).
@MiaM
“all the freight yards and freight connections face the slow lines”
Not all of them – that’s why the Southall crash happened
glbotu – the space is there already on the mains (due to not having the superfast Bristols) and what you suggest will be occurring in May.
The Shenfield-Terminal 5 trains are taking the space vacated in the off-peak on the Reliefs by the all-day diversion of the Didcot semi-fasts onto the Mains from Slough inwards.
Get rid of HEx and you either don’t re-fill the paths between Paddington or Airport Junction, or you lose the empty paths between Airport Junction and Reading that allow services to call at Slough on the Mains or move over to the Relief lines in the Slough/Maidenhead area.
@Brian Butterworth
Stansted Express via Stratford would use the mains not the electrics. There’s also little capacity to run them via 11/12 given the Hertford East and Meridian Water terminators. The trains would also conflict with freight to and from the NLL which hang over Stratford Central Junctions when over a certain length.
Chingfords could be all stations now, but would increase the journey time and require more crew and stock resource. It’s a choice to keep them as they are.
Re the Gidea Park shorts. If you are/were a commuter who works near Liverpool Street (or who changes there for the Overground route), it is much more convenient and quicker to take a Lizzie train that terminates in the mainline station. The time needed to get from and to the busy Lizzie Line underground platforms adds to a journey time that is already longer than in the 2019 timetable. So a lot to be said for running peak trains in and out of the mainline station.
This link shows part of the September 1957 timetable. Replacement link with public permission to view.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4tnenwhfx0vkjga/Sep1957%20table16.jpg?dl=0
This may help with the historical perspective mentioned in various comments.
The Elizabeth line was running today – Sunday. Worth mentioning that the daytime service is 4tph to Shenfield + 4tph reversing at Gidea Park.
When I was talking about ‘removing HEx’, that was in the context of adding Western Rail Access trains. So you run the ‘semi fasts’ on the relief to Iver / Langley and then you have a grade separated junction to Heathrow then run those on the fasts from Heathrow junction. So ‘express trains to Heathrow still run, just are now also Wrath trains. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
I presume this is what TfL want money for now. Additional trains and stabling facilities £0.5-1bn for 30tph, delivery schedule over 2023-28, although this was three years back now! https://content.tfl.gov.uk/fc-20200930-supp-agenda-public.pdf
@ Kit Green
Thanks for the timetable extract. As I recall, a similar offpeak pattern was running through the 60s and 70s, Monday – Friday, a 20 minute interval all stations Gidea Park to Liverpool Street, alternating with a 20 minute interval Southend to Liverpool Street, calling at all stations to Romford, then Ilford and Stratford. These shared the slow/electric lines.
At some point, possibly after franchising (Silverlink (?) First Great Eastern (?) for Shenfield, someone else (?) for Southend), Southend services tended to be non-stop from Shenfield to Stratford, and there was a 10 minute interval “Metro” service, all stations Shenfield to Liverpool Street, and that was more or less the off peak situation until Crossrail came along. There were a few added ‘fast’ trains from Romford for periods, when trains to and from further afield such as Harwich (not sure that lasted very long), Colchester, Clacton, and Braintree stopped at Romford.
Peak services to and from Shenfield and Gidea Park were very much closer together , as a previous contributor has mentioned, and included some that had different starting or ending points, and some missed one or two intermediate stations.
Since this seems to be becoming a general Lizzie Line discussion, can I have a gripe about selective door opening? As per https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/elizabeth-line-trains-are-too-long-for-some-stations-54856/ you have to avoid the rear 1 or 2 carriages if travelling to several stations on the line. Quite understandable, but can we have some clear annnouncements and information on the train display? There is a vague announcement about short platforms as the train approaches one of these stations (which we found was truncated when we travelled to Maryland, causing us to overshoot). But one is not told which cars are affected and there is no other advance information provided.
@glbotu:
It would be interesting to know what the cost of the Western Access would be as compared to adding an additional pair of tracks between the existing airport junction and somewhere around Paddington, possibly combining with an additional flyover and whatnot to connect Heathrows existing track at the airport junction to the line to Reading.
Sure, that would mean a few minutes longer journey time between Reading and Heathrow as compared to Western Access, but on the other had you could increase service frequency on the GW main line. Given that Paddington somehow were able to handle trains from the existing quad track railway before Crossrail, I would think that Paddington would be able to handle the trains from four tracks while Crossrail handles the trains from two tracks, i.e. a total of six tracks.
A major downside of the Western Access is that it kind of is mutually exclusive to the southern airport connection, and the southern connection seems to make way more sense.
Btw just a flyover at the existing airport junction could be part of some “extensive minor upgrades” work programme, where loads of possible projects is evaluated and when they make sense gets a go ahead. I’m thinking about projects that are too big to fit within existing operations and maintenance budgets but too small to be considered a major project. A “crayonista” example would be quad tracking Praed Streed junction to Edgware Road station, making it possible to increase the frequency on the Hammersmith line while still being able to terminate loads of Circle and District line trains at Edgware Road station. Afaik it’s about a third of a mile of redoing a cut-and-cover line, way beyond the scope of any operations/maintenance budget but also nothing compared to for example the Crossrail project. Not sure if this is a good example but you get the point.
I think the business case for a 2nd crossrail evolving from a split of the eastern branches of CR1 is probably now much better than the costly safeguarded route. Also possible to design it so that it takes over the SWML in the west, meaning some of the objective of the current CR2 route is retained.
Re Chris, 24 March @19.06. “.…appears to be three trains every two hours from Newbury …… How does this compare with other towns a similar distance out of London?”
Certainly for Newbury, a comparison with other towns is less straightforward than might be imagined. Picking a day at random (Tues 23 May), there are in fact more off-peak direct trains from Newbury to Paddington than 3 per hour because (I think) you are only considering the EMUs. You also need to add in the West of England expresses from Plymouth, Paignton etc which call at Newbury. There is also the bay to bay shuttle from Newbury to Reading which provides a relatively short wait for a connection, so rail provision from Newbury to Paddington is not solely provided by the EMUs.
Or, having just re-read your post, did you mean how do Maidenhead and Slough compare with other towns a similar distance out of London?
@glbotu
Instead of “‘Scrapping’ HEx” you meant “extending HEx”. And, yes, that would have addressed the problem of the semi-fasts on the Reliefs (though going via Heathrow takes as long as stopping at all the stops between Slough and Paddington), had they not addressed that by moving them to the Mains from May.
@MiaM
Adding an extra pair of tracks from Airport Junction to Paddington goes beyond Network Rail’s pre-pandemic super-high-growth long-term scenario (which called for an additional up track to allow more resilience (not more capacity) for a rather ambitious am peak service on the Mains – 4 Heathrow, 3 Exeter and beyond, 4 Bristol, 4 South Wales, 2 South Cotswolds, 2 North Cotswolds, 2 Oxford stoppers for 21tph). It does nothing for any of the problems talked about here – not least as the Didcot/Oxford local trains have been on the Mains in the am peak for some time already (and will be on the Mains all-day from May).
Western Rail Access does something entirely different to 6-tracking to Airport Junction. And for the same reason it is absolutely not mutually exclusive to Southern Rail Access. Western Rail Access is NOT about a London radial service at all – it’s a Heathrow radial service.
The only reason through trains are talked about for it is because it’s operationally convenient to run the two Heathrow radial services through rather than terminate them both at the airport. In fact, given Western Rail Access is primarily about linking Slough and Heathrow (two big employment centres and transport-nodes with a lot of traffic between them) with a high-capacity fast service, Southern Rail Access compliments it (and vice versa) by making Heathrow even more of a transport hub for the region.
But all this is veering off topic…
N7
Problem: extra branches on CrossLiz …. where/when are you going to fit them through the central section, without degrading the service-frequency further out at the extremities?
Greg T,
I think what N7 is suggesting is a Bakerloo/Jubilee line situation where you completely remove the branch.
In this case, I think what N7 is suggesting is that the Shenfield branch is separated from the Elizabeth line and after Stratford (westward) it has an independent route to link up with either the South West Main Line at the earliest practical point or that it proceeds to the route of Crossrail and takes over the route of Crossrail 2 from Victoria southward.
I suspect the answer has to be that this may make sense one day when there is money available but it needs to be planned taking into account the overall situation at the time and not a knee-jerk reaction to today’s problem.
In any case, the situation is bit different from the Bakerloo/Jubilee line situation in that there is capacity to run a substantial service into Liverpool Street National Rail station should TfL choose to do so. They could even run 24tph on the Shenfield line (12 Elizabeth line to Paddington and beyond and 12tph into Liverpool St) with a bit of investment (signalling in particular) which would be substantial over-capacity. It is a real pity they lost the ability to terminate trains at Ilford which would help cut out unnecessary mileage and enable a more tailored service though I totally understand why this was eliminated.
Could they still terminate trains at Ilford and reverse in the car sheds with some efficient working? There is a centre siding at Chadwell Heath as mentioned above.
Taz,
They could do that but it would involve crossing the down running line to continue westward. It is clear Crossrail was built with the aim of avoiding intermediate turnbacks for regular use except between the running lines. There is a turnback at Hayes & Harlington using newly built platform 5 but that was built with the intention of only being for emergency use if the Heathrow Tunnels were blocked.
I suspect you would either have to expensively reconfigure the layout or accept it would be easier just to continue to Chadwell Heath.
The Elizabeth Line challenges trying dovetail an almost pure metro operation onto conventional mixed traffic railways on two of the branches, the result is there will always have to be some compromises. Having some history on the east side at least as planner on the Anglia side many moons ago turn back capacity at terminals is a major constraint. Gidea Park terminators restrict overall capacity as the effectively use up pretty much two paths as they are emptied out in the platform and then move forward into the centre road (or sidings) to reverse or berth. I’m not sure if the original plan of 6 tph turning here included any infrastructure improvements to deliver it? Yes you have the Chadwell Heath turnback but as mentioned it is short of the main traffic centre of Romford and was primarily designed to permit ECS from Ilford to operate London bound without conflicting at the London end of the depot.
The increase in peak services from the May change at Shenfield causes EL services to leech over into platform 4 (whereas previously all booked workings were planned to operate from 5 and 6). In the evening peak this could constrain any increase in GA Southend Victoria services which are all routed through this platform and down the dive under, again to avoid conflicting with UM (plat 2 services). Currently there are 5 of these in the high peak evening hour, whereas in the morning peak there are currently 6 going up to 7 from the May timetable change.
Comparisons with much earlier Shenfield electric timetables are a bit of a red herring too as firstly the signalling at that time probably wouldn’t meet modern standards in terms of spacing and overlaps (though ETCS could possibly compensate for this) but more relevant was the fact that these timetables included an element of overtaking with some services using the Main Lines which was possible when other services using these lines were much less frequent but impossible with the pre COVID timetable of 20 tph (though now down to 17) in the high peak.
[Thank you for a very informative comment. PoP]
Mark Norrington: Yes it must be a sort of red herring as to how the actual operations were undertaken. Having stood at the ends of Seven Kings platforms on many occasions, that was a good location to see how the line’s operations worked. First a good number of the signals were at least semi automatic and one could see these stretching into the distance and how much ‘leeway’ there was especially in the peak hours – which were fascinating because there was almost always a train coming through on any one of the four tracks.
Secondly, one could see the movements at first hand and then see what the signalling staff in the nearby Ilford Car Sheds cabin had to deal with – including empty stock in and out of the depot – and indeed some of these workings went straight to or from the fast lines. (This is all done by weaves these days to the east of Seven Kings station.) One could see when the cabin staff intervened in the system.
Thirdly there were plenty of double track crossovers en route for extra flexibility especially Stratford, Forest Gate, Ilford, Seven Kings, Goodmayes, Chadwell Heath, Romford among others. Clearly the combinations helped to offer a certain amount of leeway in the system – probably more than what is offered today.
Fourthly good use was made of Ilford flyover. That is semi fast down trains as far as the eastern end of the flyover and then onto the down electric. Or those on the up electric which then took the up fast lines from the western end of Ilford flyover. This arrangement is still possible these days but only used in emergencies.
As PoP indicated a number of empty stock workings were sent via the fast lines in order to commence peak hour workings in the relevant am/pm direction, so they managed to squeeze it in all in somehow.
In regards to my earlier comment I meant the up fast to the up electric! Soz!
Rail Forum had a discussion on the Shenfield frequencies with one assertion it was 15 trains per hour. It was said the Shenfield line had some of the heaviest metro frequencies in the world. Thats possible. Of course no-one on the forum had sight of any full timetables either thus there was a lot of apocryphal stuff but what people were saying well I can concur more or less as per my experience too. Others were discussing how the various trains could be fitted in between each other with so many different stopping patterns and destinations etc.
But one thing is certain the frequencies were more than what TfL offers!
Link: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/shenfield-metro-before-tfl-rail.242868/
I had a quick look at some of my archives and crossovers were plenty. Besides those I have mentioned there were also those at Bethnal Green, Bow Road (mainly single lead ones at various locations), double ones to the east of Gidea Park and also some at Shenfield. Those at Gidea Park evidently could permit all stopping trains (or maybe first stop Ilford/Seven Kings) to that point then switch to the fast for Southend Victoria – certainly useful if a train needed to get past one ahead going to Shenfield only. Or maybe to switch outer stopping trains which commenced from I think 1956 or 1958 (eg Chelmsford, Ingatestone, Shenfield, Brentwood, Harold Wood) to the fast for Liverpool Street.
The turnback at Chadwell Heath isnt new by the way. Its in the original plans for the Shenfield scheme. It was originally a loop line between the down and up electrics – evidently it could permit trains to arrive/depart in either direction.
One curiosity on the maps was the old outer platforms at Stratford (old layout) was wired in the eastbound direction only thus electric trains could terminate here but not proceed further. Certainly that was altered to provide more flexibility plus full continuity on all lines to Liverpool Street
@Rog I think the Chelmsford trains stayed on the fasts and tended to be Romford/Ilford/Stratford. It was the Southends using the dive-under which did the Brentwood, Harold Wood, then switched to fast to Stratford and used the flyover bypass to hit the Underground platforms. As the Southend trains filled earlier they were cut back intially Brentwood, then fast from Shenfield, now Billericay. These arrive at P1 and join the fasts. The dive-under single track is bi-directional so in your example of following a terminator, that would berth at P4 and allow the following through train access to P5.
@Mark Norrington I have been on a service ‘withdrawn’ at Chadwell Heath presumably to even out the service. Maybe it was a late decision but the announcements should be made from Ilford. Many were confused and took a while to decant onto an already full platform. The following service was late running and already carrying a double load so few got on. Most boarded the one after but some were left on the platform I noticed with buggies, bikes, and trolleys. I doubt any ‘savings’ were made or improvements to service intervals.
In terms of ECS and returns on fast lines the situation now is that all runs are ‘in service’ so peak frequencies in both directions? Do the Gidea Park shorts run ECS back to Gidea Park depot for the day?
May I ask an historical question? Why was the Ilford flyover created? Would it not just have been easier to move the “Electrics” on the two north-side track of the four between Ilford and use the north-side platforms for the inner services and just extend the relevant platforms at Liverpool Street?
Given that the “Overground ” services used to go to Broad Street and there wasn’t a Stanstead Airport to require an Express to?
@Aleks: I dont think the dive under was bi-directional in those days.
I do find there were stopping Chelmsfords that must have caused the following Southend not to take the dive-under. For example in 1958 the 20.05 (C) and the 20.21 (S) which both left Shenfield at the same time eg 20.49.
Interestingly there was a through train from Enfield Town to Southend on Summer Sundays in 1958! This went via Lea Bridge.
@myself (!) re Bethnal Green (in prev comment) its long lead (not single lead) crossovers that took trains right across from one side to the other.
Without the Ilford flyover, all the Shenfield & Southend trains would have had to cross the mains, somewhere, on the flat, yes?
It was always two-track, with a fast-to-electric loop on the S (up)side & simlarly on the N (down) side – those are still there, of course.
Brian Butterworth,
But how would you get the cross-platform interchange with the Central line at Stratford then? The entire scheme centered around this and I suspect they were fairly constrained as to exactly where they could put this.
Besides, The westernmost platforms at Liverpool Street need to serve the Hackney Downs route. I am pretty sure the longest platforms needed for the long distance trains were the central ones. They couldn’t even lengthen the Crossrail platforms (15-17) without sacrificing platform 18 and that only gets them to 200m I think. This would be far short of the 240m plus platforms needed for a steam engine and 12 coaches let alone taking into account the need to accommodate both the incoming engine and the outgoing one.
@Brian & PoP the Ilford flyover was to move the stopping service from the electrics to the Stratford Central line platforms.
@Rog Exactly with two trains departing Shenfield at the same time the Chelmsford would be on P3 main line and the Southend would be on P5 facing the dive under. There was no other option. I started using the station daily from 1970 so can’t say exactly how it was for LNER DC electrics but the taste and smell of crockery, tea room, lady announcer booth, trolleys, milk churns, chick trays, porters, mails, red star, newspapers, freight elevators, permanent way, and wooden crossings all felt decades strong. P4 and 5 were both used as terminators whenever available but peak times would reverse in the sidings.
All ‘arrivals’ on P4 for the semi-fasts were from the Southend dive-under. The Chelmsford up services were on the main-line P2. Before electrics there were only 3 Platforms with everywhere switching. After it was possible for up Chelmsfords to access P4 or P1 when needed maybe for mixed traffic.
If you were referring to the up services P2 and P1 could depart at the same time but the P1 would be held in the cutting. Even if the P1 Southend service arrived first it would be timetabled to depart after the P2 Chelmsford arrival with the phenomenon of cross platform jumpers.
Many predicted the E.Line would be packed soon after opening, although they couldn’t have foreseen the Covid effect on commuting. It seems they have been proven right, and the current Mayor’s claim for a larger fleet is the consequence, with Old Oak as an excuse. No doubt, if the trains are built, services will be boosted well before Old Oak is opened.
@Pedantic of Purley
I don’t know the sequence of Central Line extension to Stratford and Ilford flyover dates. Obliviously the first happened during WW2 (1941) but the Ilford flyover has something of the 1960s about it. I know of the Cross Platform Interchanges at both Mile End and Stratford are part of the New Works programme, it just the Ilford flyover looks like post-war concrete.
I’m more than happy to be put right about this.
Brian Butterworth,
I can’t remember the exact details but the Ilford flyover was an integral part of the 1935-1940 New Works programme. Once Stratford interchange platforms were planned, the flyover became essential. It I am pretty sure it was left half-complete during wartime and only finished around 1947.
I don’t understand the concept of post-war concrete. Post-war concrete is pretty much identical to pre-war concrete. You might associate concrete with the 1960s but that is a fallacy. The Roman’s had concrete of sorts and I regularly use a concrete footbridge which was the first use of concrete in Surrey for a bridge and it was built in 1910. What I believe changed in the 1960s was the increasing use of prestressed concrete and architects not being afraid to use it for the outer finish.
Don’t forget that Southern Railway had a concrete factory in the 1930s and many platforms and lamp posts on Southern are very distinctive and from that era.
Regarding platforms at Liverpool Street, I would imagine that it was not only length that would have to be retained for the expresses, but also width, for the considerable amount of mail and parcels, some associated with the passenger trains, and some for mail trains (and perhaps newspapers). Thuis would have been another factor, and changing round to suit the new electric suburban service, and avoid the need to cross the main lines, would have been impractical or even impossible.
The Wikipedia entry on Stratford station states “By 1938 the major contracts were let (for electrification) and work started. Despite the commencement of World War 2 in 1939 work continued on the scheme but the scheme was postponed in late 1940. In February 1946 the LNER announced work would recommence. On 5 October 1946 the new interchange platforms with the Central Line (see below) were opened.” Central Line services started on 4 December 1946, extended from Liverpool Street, and went on to Leytonstone from 5 May 1947.
Confirming and amplifying Taz’s reply, in 1947 the Railway Magazine (Jan/Feb issue p12 and Jul/Aug p249) included maps of the Central Line’s 4 December 1946 Stratford and 5 May 1947 Leytonstone extensions. These show the platforms at Stratford as providing interchange with what are marked as the LNER Local lines (the other lines being marked Thro’): that naming appears to be in anticipation of the later post-flyover state, with the note “Pending L.N.E.R electrification, lines marked Through are Local Steam, and Local are Through”.
Re the Ilford flyover:
These are the dates that carto metro free fr lists:
Central line:
(Liverpool St)-Stratford 04-12-1946
(Stratford)-Leytonstone 05-05-1947
(Leytonstone)-both branches 14-12-1947
Newbury Park – onwards 31-5-1948
Great Eastern Railway Society lists 30-09-1947 for the Ilford flyover.
This verifies what we already know, that all this was built within the same time period.
The central line platforms at Stratford could had been placed anywhere, it would just had been a case of placing the tunnel mouths in a suitable location. Given that the tunnels would either have to cross under almost all tracks at one end of Stratford, it would probably not had made that much difference when it comes to temporary disruption and whatnot.
The conclusion is that for some reason they really wanted the suburban trains to end up at the eastern side of Liverpool Street and also end up on the northern track pairs on the route from Ilford and eastwards. Great arguments for the Liverpool Streeet station end has already been given in this discussion. As a bonus, both at Bethnal Green and at Stratford the fast lines also diverts northwards (while Bethnal Green has it’s own track pair for slow trains, making it six tracks towards Liverpool Street). It would probably had been awkward to have these fast train routes cross the slow trains.
I don’t know about the junction that connects to the GOBLIN – which trains (if any) used that junction back in the days?
So the remaining question is why did they want to keep the suburban trains on the northern pair of the quad track from Ilford and eastwards?
Wikipedia states that the Gidea Park sidings opened in 1931. I can’t find any information on the sidings at Ilford, but for example a date on a Flickr photo tells that they are way older than Crossrail.
So, what is the actual reason?
@MiaM: The suburban tracks had to be on the north side for Ilford car sheds.
@Aleks: I tried to reply once & gave up but here it is again – hoping you will understand what I mean – Basically the Chelmsford was an all stopper so it had to use the route that linked to both Chelmsford and the dive under. Thus the Southend had to use the other tracks. I am sure it wasn’t the only example. I know you said you’d used Shenfield from 1970 but we’d used the line long before then for day trips to the sea, the pier and the Kursaal – it was a 306 on several occasions to Southend as well as some that avoided the dive under.
@Rog track layouts here: https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=18.0&lat=51.63052&lon=0.33046&layers=170&b=1
That movement is possible, later simplification may have taken out some crossovers. I only remember semi-fasts from Chelmsford. The electrics were extended to Chelmsford in 1956 around the time of the switch from 1500vDC to 6.25kV AC.
MiaM
Ther real reason(s) is/are HISTORY. If you don’t go back to the beginning & then work forward, you will miss an awful lot (!)
Liverpool St was built in two stages the present, airy, glassy section, now called West side was the original, with the main lines on the E of that section, with much longer platforms. Quite soon afterwards, the by-then GER realised they needed a larger station & added East side, now gloomy & under the ‘orrible low roof.
This, conveniently, put the “real” main line longer-dstance trains in the middle, with a carriage ( i.e. road-carriage ) entrance in the middle. Those of us who can remember Britannias & N-7’s in LST, with the pant of Westinghouse brake pumps, understood how it all worked.
The main-line suburbans & outers – such as Southend always worked form the high-number platforms. The planeed pre-war electrification was a wonderful excuse tro sort out some truly horrendous pathing & crossing arrangements & it’s worked well since then.
The DC/AC switch was quite a bit ater than 1956: from memory, the first AC electrification wasn’t until the late 1950s, and it took a couple of decades for existing DC to be converted.
“The LNER decided to electrify the Liverpool Street to Shenfield section of the Great Eastern Main Line (GEML), known as the Shenfield Metro. Civil engineering works began during the 1930s, but World War II intervened. Work was completed in 1949 and extended to Chelmsford and Southend Victoria in 1956, using Class 306 (AM6) EMUs.[50] It was converted on 4–6 November 1960, in the wake of the BR 1955 Modernisation Plan, to the new standard of 25 kV AC (initially with some sections at 6.25 kV).” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_electrification_in_Great_Britain#1,500_V_DC,_overhead_(historic)
The discussion started about typical service pattern.
The 1956 extension to Chelmsford was operated by an hourly 3 car 306 shuttle to Shenfield. The reversing sidings at Chelmsford are still used for some originators.
The semi-fast pattern from Chelmsford (1) and Victoria (2) was 20mins all stations to Gidea Park, then Romford, Ilford, Stratford. The third Victoria was fast from Billericay.
The Chelmsford shuttle would need to cross the down line outside Shenfield for P4. The semi-fasts would cross to the Electrics for the regular passenger platforms at Brentwood, Harold Wood, and Gidea Park then back again to the mains. This allowed fasts to pass them before switching to serve the Central line platforms.
The 306s ran stoppers from Gidea Park every 20 mins as 6 car pairs. 307 slam door stock ran the longer routes.
306s could run as triple units with 9 cars when needed with the longer platforms on the semi-‘fasts’.
In Peak hours 306s would run to the Ilford Bay and Shenfield.
The 6.25kv section ran to the Chadwell Heath sub-station for clearance concerns (later relaxed in 1976). Loaned AC stock such as LTS units was used until fleet AC conversion in 1961-62.
The 306 era ended in 1981 (32 years) with the 315s (41 years) until the Elizabeth line. Service frequencies increased such as 10 minute Gidea Park.
Peak service patterns were very different and varied with continuous growth and further electrifications.
Shenfield (& Hutton) Station was rebuilt in 1934 from 3 to 5 platforms with the Southend line loop. The Elizabeth line rebuild has added a bay platform 6 and longer sidings. P5&6 are Elizabeth, P2&3 Mains, P1&4 Victoria branch.
Interestingly for Reconnections the LT 1935 Modernisation plan, with the Northern Heights and Central extensions, included the LNER inner locals. The proposal was to electrify the northern pair of the 4 track line and incorporate the Hainault loop from Seven Kings into the central. The 306s were ordered in 1938 from Birmingham and Metro-Cammell with 6 units built in 1939 (without electrical and traction gear) finished in a Blue and Cream livery. They did however have First and Third class accommodation later removed after the Ministry of War Transport abolished all first class transport on suburban London services in 1941. They were stored for the duration and when work resumed the scheme was expanded to electrify all four tracks. Even the goods lines were covered as there are still catenary hangars under the bridge at Goodmayes into the Tesco car park.
The last page here shows the entire Victoria route at 6.25kV as well as Leigh – Shoeburyness.
https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_EMUFailures1962.pdf
@All
Thanks to everyone for their diligent research into the complexities around this section of line. I must admit that my first ever trip out of Liverpool Street (to Colchester, for Uni) was just before 15 October 1987 and the “Great storm of 1987” and the 18 November 1987 King’s Cross fire! (Also my I started commuting from Hove to London Bridge station was mid February 1992, just in time for the IRA to bomb me…)
I had always assumed (“makes an ass out of u and me”) that the Stratford Central Line platforms had been done the way they were because of the abandoned (“Bow”) bay platforms 7 and 4 were a useful worksite and wide planforms to tunnel to/from on their way to/from Mile End. I note that platforms 4a/4b for the DLR to Canary Wharf are to the numerically wrong side of platform 3/3a (“Spanish Solution”).
@BB The DLR ran to the correctly numbered platform 4 and was relocated in 2007 to the improved versions of a and b.
The NLS has OS maps showing track layouts in 1914 and 1944. You can see where Stratford Station was originally on the north locals now 9, 10, 11 and 10a. Also the ‘useful worksite’ is a southern development of former sidings, signal box, and the Woolwich line station in the triangular Eastern Junction. The abandoned “Bow” platforms were all part of the 1935 scheme and newly built but never commissioned for regular passenger service just a head shunt.
MiaM suggested “adding tracks to the GWR between say Acton main Line and for example the Airport junction” which I’m sure we’d all agree is the way it should be, however I expect the residents of central and west Ealing and Hanwell would not relish the substantial destruction which would fall upon them which would be required by widening the cutting which the lines there run within.