In an unexpected piece of potentially good news for London, it was reported last month that 10 new trains could be built for Crossrail. We look at the substance of the reports, catch up with what has been happening on Crossrail in the past year or so, as well as newly-introduced political complications, and speculate as to what improvements may be in the pipeline as a result of five of the trains being potentially unexpectedly available.
The Alstom and Old Oak Common Problems
It has been known for a while that the Alstom (formerly Bombardier) plant in Derby where the Crossrail trains were built was facing closure. This is an ongoing political story with seemingly no new orders in the pipeline. The lack of new orders was primarily down to the DfT not approving any new UK train orders in the past year or so despite there being a clear need, for example the Networkers on the South Eastern Railway are becoming problematic and need to be replaced.
In order to provide some work for the train manufacturer, there was talk of bringing forward an order of five trains for Crossrail to provide a peak 24tph to Old Oak Common in west London where HS2 is due to initially terminate. Until such time as approval and the subsequent construction is completed, the ultimate intended terminus at Euston has had its approval and construction delayed, so will not be available until several years after HS2 opens.
The need for five more Crossrail trains
Having the majority of Crossrail trains serving Old Oak Common was considered vital as otherwise there would be no suitable provision for HS2 passengers to continue their onward journey to Central London. TfL have long argued that this is a problem of the government’s making and so it should be the government that funds these five extra trains.
We have to admit at LR Towers that we had thought the plan all along was to have all Crossrail trains continue westward at least as far as Old Oak Common and our articles from a few years ago reflect this. Because we understood this was the intention, we had assumed that the revised order of 70 trains for the final stage of the original Crossrail plan was sufficient to accommodate this.
The reason for this confusion is not entirely clear but it seems that official press releases reference to 12tph continuing to Old Oak Common was misleading to us as the press releases must have been referring to trains already continuing past Old Oak Common that would in future stop at Old Oak Common station once built.
A Bigger Problem
To complicate matters further, Alstom made it clear that an absolute minimum of 10 orders was necessary to avoid closure of their factory. Once closed it would be almost impossible to reinstate it as the specialist team would be dispersed forever – possibly abroad. Already sub-contractors are initiating layoffs so we were already past the point of being able to have a decision in a timely manner.
The obvious problem, apart from getting the government to approve the order of five trains for Crossrail, was that absolutely no prospective orders were on the horizon until trains for HS2 were required and certainly nothing that could be relied upon to provide future work.
The Political Solution
With, amongst other things, disquiet from MPs in the Derby area, the government really needed a way out. The solution, similar to an early episode of Yes, Minister, appears to be to find a need for a facility by creating a demand for it, so that it is no longer an embarrassment. It seems that the government are offering 10 Crossrail trains to TfL providing they can make a business case for them. One suspects TfL will ultimately have to pay for at least some of the trains eventually, but without government support they would not be able to place the order.
The Business Case
The feeling amongst some that has been reported had been that providing a business case is almost a formality with a government of the day anxious to make the deal happen. Less optimistic views express the difficulty of ensuring a business case will satisfy the Treasury.
One must remember a business case calls for not only the capital or the leasing cost of the trains to be factored in. Also required to be factored in are any associated capital costs such as extra tooling required at the depot, any increase in the size of the inventory of spare parts, and construction of any extra sidings that may be required. Finally, it is necessary to take into account any running costs such as the extra staff involved.
A General Election Intervenes
With everyone quietly hoping for a smooth ride, it came as a bit of a shock when a general election was announced. As so often seems to be the case when railways are involved, political events intervene to cause plans (and even projects already being constructed) to be delayed or even cancelled.
There is little doubt that the election is going to delay decision-making by at least six weeks. If Labour takes control of the country there will almost certainly be a reassessment of the situation which could delay things further. On the other hand, it may be something Labour would be keen to authorise quickly as they would not want the demise of the plant at Derby to become an event that tarnishes their first days in office.
A further complication could be the relationship between the London Mayor and a future Labour government, if elected. From the perspective of those anxious to see the extra trains in service, this could be a quick win for the government and would certainly help support their party mayor in London.
The Big Question
The obvious question to raise, assuming these five trains materialise, is “How are TfL going to use five extra Crossrail trains?”. To be clear, there is no shortage of options. Given the success of Crossrail there are definitely sections of the Elizabeth line that would benefit from more capacity now. With a considerable amount of construction, mainly blocks of flats, continuing apace along most of the route of the Elizabeth line, it is almost inevitable that the extra capacity will be needed eventually.
To us there seem to be three obvious desirable improvements to the Crossrail service pattern. These would address the three issues that are already appearing:
- One issue is the lack of peak period capacity in the central section.
- A second issue is that there are only 2tph Crossrail trains to Heathrow Terminal 5.
- A final issue is that of peak period overcrowding, especially in the morning peak, on trains serving suburban stations west of Paddington.
Finding Solutions
For two of these three issues there are obvious solutions. For one of them, it is easy to think up potential solutions which would not necessarily be the solution that TfL would implement if they were to address the issue themselves.
We look at the most likely options and also include one that initially looks promising but almost certainly will not happen for a number of years.
Option 1: Extending “Gidea Park Shorts” to Paddington
There is a 2tph peak-period-only service in the direction of the peak that runs between Gidea Park and Liverpool St main line to supplement basic Elizabeth line peak period service. The trains involved are colloquially referred to as the Gidea Park Shorts. They have always been unpopular with the Crossrail planners and, subsequently, with the TfL personnel who oversee the Elizabeth line. The original plan was to have 6tph on this peak service but that was reduced to 4tph and, presumably, the 70 trains ordered for Crossrail included provision for 4pth. Once Crossrail commenced full running through central London only 2tph was timetabled, with no indication that this number would ever be increased – quite the opposite in fact.
It was known, but not publicly stated, from the outset that these trains were regarded as unsatisfactory but introducing them was initially the only realistic way of catering for a slightly busier branch to Shenfield than the one to Abbey Wood.
More recently mention has been made at a TfL board subcommittee of an intention to extend these so they terminate at or start from Paddington. Presumably they would run in service on the return journey rather than in the peak direction only.
Coincidentally, TfL have predicted an eight percent rise in Crossrail passengers in the coming year which is almost the exact increase in capacity that running these 2tph trains through the central section will provide.
The original implication is that the timetable would need to be fudged to cater for 14tph to and from Stratford in the peaks, but only 12tph to and from Abbey Wood. This would not be ideal but by strategically losing a minute or so on some journeys, a reasonably even-interval timetable could be created. This implementation would go some way to provide extra capacity in central London in the peaks which would be very welcome even though the existing service can just about handle the current demand.
Of course, should such additional services be introduced, it would make sense to extend them to Old Oak Common in the future.
Likelihood: Given what has already been publicly stated, almost certain.
Estimated Extra trains required: 1.
Option 2: 14tph between Paddington and Abbey Wood in the peaks
If Option 1 were implemented and the trains were available, it would make a lot of sense to go one stage further and have 14tph on both eastern branches in the peaks in order to have an alternating service to both branches from central London as now. This would also mean 28tph in the central section as opposed to 24tph currently. The maximum designed frequency of the central section of Crossrail is 31tph so there would still be some flexibility in the timetable to recover from minor delays.
A benefit of Option 2 is that peak period trains between Whitechapel and Stratford in the peak direction would no longer have to have delays built into their schedule in order to ensure an even interval at Whitechapel (in the morning) or Stratford (in the evening). This in turn could reduce the extra number of trains required.
One possible issue is the ability to terminate 14tph at Abbey Wood in the two platforms available. Turnround time would be a little over seven minutes but it takes the three minutes for the driver to change ends and in that time a departing train needs to clear the first set of points before next train can enter. It is notable that the initial Paddington – Abbey Wood section was instigated at 12tph despite the plan being to run 15tph until the Shenfield branch joined the system. Nothing was officially stated but it was widely believed that terminating 15tph at Abbey Wood was too challenging and was either unachievable or simply an avoidable risk factor.
Whilst nothing has been said specifically about a desire to increase the peak services to Abbey Wood, Howard Smith, director of the Elizabeth line, in a board subcommittee meeting a few years ago expressed the desire to increase the frequency of the central section to 30tph to maximise revenue in these days when TfL is severely hampered by budgetary constraints.
As with Option 1, a timely extension to Old Oak Common would appear to make sense.
Also, similar to Option 1, Option 2 could provide capacity for a further year’s growth assuming that the expected increase in passengers per year continued at eight percent.
Likelihood: We think this is highly likely given desires to increase frequency on the central London section.
Estimated Extra trains required: 2.
Option 3: Additional 2tph all-stations peak service from West Drayton
For clarity, this is about extending 2tph services that currently terminate at Paddington to West Drayton. It would not increase the number of trains through central London.
Option 3 is rather different from other options for a number of reasons. Unlike other options proposed here, it is not based on any known aspiration of TfL. Instead, it is speculation by us as a solution to a known, if not generally acknowledged, problem. We have also been very specific in a solution to this problem whereas, if it were addressed, there could be other solutions available.
Whilst, to our knowledge, not part of TfL’s current thinking, originally this was part of the plan – at least in the peaks. What happened to this plan? Well, to oversimplify it, these proposed trains terminating at West Drayton were diverted to Terminal 5 once an opportunity arose to serve Terminal 5 instead. Unlike the original proposal, the present-day Terminal 5 service is not confined to the peak periods.
The problem that Option 3 is trying to solve, or at least ameliorate, is the somewhat unsatisfactory service that Crossrail provides in the west London suburbs. We are talking about West Drayton to Acton Main Line (inclusive).
As far as we are aware, the infrastructure is fully in place at West Drayton to terminate Crossrail trains from London, as was originally planned, although it is not currently used. Platforms 3, 4, and 5 are fully signed as Elizabeth line platforms although the track serving platform 5 is currently only used by passing freight trains.
The first and main issue is that, in the morning peak, passengers at some stations (most notably Acton Main Line) are struggling to board trains. The issue at Acton Main Line has been partially solved since November 2023 by stopping at Acton Main Line two limited-stop trains in the morning that originated from Reading. As these Crossrail trains replaced a semi-fast service GWR used to provide, one can understand passengers already on the train being a bit irritated by having their trains call at the nearest station to London which happens to be relatively lightly used – though usage is rising fast and is probably mainly constrained by the lack of train capacity.
Whilst not a problem as such, the fastest 2tph peak services in the peak direction to and from Reading make a call at West Drayton mainly, it seems, to provide 6tph to London to satisfy demand at this station. Conventional wisdom is that it doesn’t make sense for long distance trains to make stops in the suburbs to satisfy a local need, as the detriment to longer distance passengers is greater than the local benefit. Also, ideally, one would like the trains to be full of passengers long before approaching London.
The third problem with Crossrail services in the west London suburbs is the highly unsatisfactory clash in the morning peak between airport travellers and morning commuters. This evokes many complaints from both sides but primarily commuters who are upset at being unable to board trains with space available due to airline passengers with luggage blocking the vestibules and gangways. Putting it bluntly, in busy periods, airline passengers and rail commuters don’t mix well.
Option 3: The background
To understand the what Option 3 is trying to solve we need to look at the background starting with the passenger flows.
For most of the Elizabeth line, the peak passenger constitution of passengers could be described as ‘urban and suburban commuters’ and that is all you really need to know. In an ideal world one would probably have a sub-category of ‘outer suburban commuters’ for passengers travelling from or to stations from Romford to Shenfield inclusive but that is about it. As nowadays there is very little extra that can be done for such outer urban commuters (such as limited stop trains) due to operational constraints, they have to be treated the same as the urban commuter. Their highest priority is a frequent service. They would like it to be fast and, if possible, they would like a seat but are prepared to trade off standing for a speedier journey.
West of Paddington things are rather different. There are four distinctive traffic flows and each have different requirements. These flows are:
- Commuters from outside London: Commuters living outside the GLA boundary are looking for a fast journey which is not too infrequent and carries them in a fair level of comfort.
- Airline passengers: These passengers are looking for reassurance that they have the correct train and want to get between the airport and central London as speedily as possible and as conveniently as possible with their luggage.
- London commuters: Primarily they want to be able to board a train when it arrives. Ideally, they would like a frequent service. The expectation from passengers joining at busier stations in the west (Hayes & Harlington, Southall, Ealing Broadway) is that some, at least, of the trains will not call at all stations. This is partly because this is what they have been historically used to.
- Local airport workers: These are a large, easily forgotten group who need a service from their local suburban station to either Heathrow or West Drayton. The latter station is more convenient for outlying services such as airplane maintenance facilities and can also be conveniently used to bus staff to their place of work. They need a reliable service that they can board. They also tend to travel against the main flow of traffic.
As well as these main flows it is important not to overlook passengers (airline or airport workers) travelling from west of Hayes & Harlington who also need a convenient connection at Hayes & Harlington to reach Heathrow.
Also not explicitly mentioned are airline passengers who are commencing or finishing their journey in the London suburbs. Though probably not large in number, they still need to be catered for.
The three main current problems in the morning peak are:
- Not enough commuting capacity especially at Hanwell and Acton Main Line, both of which have just a 4tph service (and two extra trains at Acton Main Line in the morning peak).
- Airport passengers are mostly travelling on ‘all stations’ trains to and from the airport which makes the journey longer and less attractive.
- The mixture of local commuters and airline travellers on busy trains does not work well. This applies especially on journeys from the airport.
Additionally, as already mentioned, it would be desirable to further improve the fastest services to and from Reading in the peaks.
Option 3: A possible solution
Solutions to the issues stated are largely constrained by two factors. One is the mixing of all-stations stopping trains, and trains that are skipping some stations. This leads to a loss of capacity due to the limited number of trains that can be run. The other is the issue of the need to cater for freight trains.
There are very few freight paths between West Drayton and Acton in the peaks and those that do exist are rarely used. They appear to be for exceptional use only. In any case they do not cause the constraint that they do for off-peak services.
Assuming the trains are available, it would appear to us to make sense to have a 2tph all-stations service from West Drayton to Paddington where the train would continue using an existing train path to either Abbey Wood or Shenfield. In the London direction in the morning peak this would act as a ‘sweeper’ to clear any outstanding passengers waiting on the platforms. In the West Drayton direction, the extra services would better distribute passengers wishing to alight at stations between Acton Main Line and Hayes & Harlington. The evening peak, being more spread out, is not so critical but one is unlikely to be able to make a good business case for extra trains that are only required in the morning peak.
We must emphasise this is just one possible solution to the problem of passengers unable to board in the peak period. The terminating platform at Hayes & Harlington could be used instead though that would be operationally more challenging. Also, an introduction of extra trains could require a complete timetable recast including changing stopping patterns.
Likelihood: A complete wildcard. We think it makes sense but there may be challenges we haven’t taken into account.
Estimated Extra trains required: 2.
Option 4: Additional 2tph all day service to Terminal 5
For clarity, this would extend 2tph trains from Shenfield that currently terminate at Paddington. It would not increase the number of trains through central London.
Option 4 may seem to many the most obvious option to implement if additional trains were available. One reason is that this has already been talked about and is almost certainly an aspiration of TfL. However, there are a number of factors that make this option highly unlikely to be implemented in the next few years. These are ones of timing, operation, and resilience.
Any potential new trains are unlikely to arrive before 2026. This is shortly before a major overview of the best use of services on the approach to Paddington including Heathrow Express. Heathrow Express is only guaranteed to continue until 2028. So, it makes sense to wait until that review has taken place before committing to extra trains to Heathrow.
Operation of an extra 2tph Crossrail trains to Terminal 5 is surprisingly awkward. Terminal 5 has two platforms, but one is dedicated to Heathrow Express. Crossrail trains from Terminal 5 in the June 2024 timetable depart 15 minutes after arriving meaning one can’t simply continue with the current service pattern, as terminal layover time needs to be reduced. Fitting in an extra 2tph off-peak into the mix that includes freight traffic would be quite problematic.
Because of multiple issues with infrastructure on the Great Western Main Line approaches to Paddington a lot of planned engineering work is talking place over the next two years. In additional to that, tracks will need to be diverted to serve the platforms at the new Old Oak Common station. What would absolutely not be wanted would be an extra 2tph all day, seven days a week adding to the complexity. Also, TfL tends to adopt a cautious approach to increasing services. It is likely that TfL has a strategy of ensuring the new infrastructure is reliably working before venturing to add additional services throughout the day.
Likelihood: Unlikely before 2028. Then dependent on a review of services into Paddington.
Estimated Extra trains required: 2.
The Unknown Factors
Our look at potential future options for Crossrail is quite speculative. We do not fully know what is in the minds of those that decide what Crossrail services are to run. The complexity of the timetable cannot be taken into account without a deep understanding of all the issues involved and how the timetable could be rewritten.
Other factors provide some possible flexibility that we have not taken into account. Estimates of the extra number of trains required for various enhancements are bound to be approximate and rounded to the nearest whole number. There are other factors that could be taken into account when considering the number of trains required:
- A generous dwell time currently scheduled at central London stations. If more trains were to be run through the central section, one would imagine there would be a desire to cut this slightly which in turn leads to slightly better train utilisation.
- ‘Stepping back’, where a driver takes out a subsequent train could be introduced at Abbey Wood (and Shenfield). Stepping back is undesirable operationally but if needed it does improve train utilisation by reducing turnround time.
- Fewer trains required for maintenance during the day (as a portion of the total fleet) can increase train availability.
- We suspect there are currently 2-3 trains spare due to only 2tph Gidea Park Shorts being run instead of the originally planned 4tph.
A further consideration is: what if TfL could produce a good business case for more than 10 trains? Would the DfT and the Treasury agree to an increased order? And where are these additional trains going to be stabled?
Finding somewhere to stable any extra trains is almost a topic in itself. This seems already to be starting to be an issue with no obvious contenders (but many possible options). Any business case is going to have to cover the cost of any new stabling locations as well as the cost of the trains. We have been led to believe there is still some spare capacity at Old Oak Common but we do not know how much.
Making the most of what you have got
There is another way of looking where TfL should be investing money, and it basically involves the question “where could one most effectively spend what money one has or can make available?” Economists will normally tell you the answer is ‘agglomeration’. In simple words make the most of what you currently have. Or, more crudely, sweat your assets. The logic behind this is that in most cases it is usually a more effective use of money to build on what you already have rather than start again from scratch.
If you have a brand-new railway capable of supporting extra trains and you also have the demand for those extra trains then buying those trains them is almost certainly the most cost-effective thing you can do. Indeed, to many it doesn’t make sense to think about Crossrail 2 or the Bakerloo extension until you have made the best use of Crossrail 1.
The Waiting Game
At the moment we are waiting for a new government to be elected and for that government to make a final decision. In this day and age very little can be assumed before being confident it will go ahead, as HS2 stage 2 has shown – however much sense it makes to proceed. We live in hope.
As a “Reading Flyer” user (I like the name) from Twyford, the thing which I would like is to swap the West Drayton stop for a Hayes and Harlington stop. This way, we could access trains to Heathrow on a more regular basis. But to skip it entirely would also be nice and make my journey to work even better.
It does seem strange that so many of the EL trains terminate at Paddington rather than continue further west. Surely the best “sweating of assets” that could be done would be to extend these trains and bolster the services to more destinations along the line.
A wild card, perhaps:
What are the agreements re Heathrow Express? Would it be possible to remove that service and replace it with increased Crossrail services?
@MiaM
Please see our article from last year on Heathrow Express.
RE “Turnround time would be a little over seven minutes but it takes the three minutes for the driver to change ends and in that time a departing train needs to clear the first set of points before next train can enter”
This could be solved the same was as at Stratford for the Jubilee line where there is an extra driver ready to jump into the cab, with the driver who just brought in the train walking to the back to pick up the next arriving service.
For the west side, couldn’t most of the issue in the west also be solved with lower cost by connecting to the 2tph Greenford shuttle instead of creating new services to T5 or West Drayton ? Or is the GWR/TfL issue to large for that ?
As an ex-Airport Worker and now infrequent Airport Passenger coming from the distant west, mainly to T5, the semi-fast stop at West Drayton is a godsend. Using the 350 bus service from WDT to T5 is normally the quickest and certainly by far the cheapest route to T5 (and BA’s HQ) from the west, although maybe not as well used as it should be due to the (deliberate?) lack of promotion. So really hope that any thoughts of removing the stop are extinguished very quickly!
I think its likely that Crossrail services west of Paddington will become all-stop at some point (rather than the current mix of semi-fast & stopping services). This will require some extra trains.
While pre-Crossrail usage figures for West Ealing, Hanwell, etc were lower than equivalent inner-suburban stations on the GEML that wasn’t due to lower population density, but rather the previous poor service provision at those stations. With the current Crossrail service, usage at these inner-suburban stations west of Paddington continues to grow – the current service of only Heathrow-bound trains stopping at these stations doesn’t appear sustainable.
It’s hard to argue that outer-suburban stations west of Paddington should continue to benefit from semi-fast Crossrail services (at the expense of inner-suburban stops) when outer-surbuban stops east of Liverpool Street operate with all-stop services without a problem. Should Burnham get semi-fast services while Brentwood seems to work fine with all-stop services?
Given Reading, Twyford, Maidenhead and Slough already have non-Crossrail fast services to Paddington (and Taplow and Burnham passengers can change to a fast service at Slough if desired), few outer-suburban passengers will have slightly longer journey times while a far larger number of passengers while benefit from increased frequency (and being able to board rush-hour services).
Stabling for 5 extra trains – can the T5 station box be accessed?
Making some of the existing trains longer would also keep the factory busy, and could provide some flexibility in capacity, I would imagine? Or is this not likely to be a good business case?
Re “Should Burnham get semi-fast services while Brentwood seems to work fine with all-stop services?”
Well, actually, Brentwood used to have half-hourly semi-fast services on Sundays between Southend Victoria and London Liverpool Street (covering Shenfield to Romford inclusive, then fast from Romford to Stratford)… but Greater Anglia withdrew this when TfL Rail introduced a more even frequency pattern. Historically, the Sunday service at Brentwood used to be 4tph in each direction, of which 2 semi-fast and 2 all-stops, but the distribution had been such that the 2 semi-fasts arrived at London Liverpool Street only a couple of minutes after the 2 all-stops service, so effectively a 2tph service. Now, the Sunday service is 4tph, all of them all-stops, but distributed evenly every 15 minutes. This makes the loss of the semi-fast services at least bearable.
The other factor about Brentwood that should be remembered is that, because the train frequency is high (8tph during the daytime Mondays-Saturdays) and the journey time to Shenfield is short, one can often cut five minutes or so from a Brentwood-central London journey by doing a double-back via Shenfield and getting a fast train (which is often less crowded) from there (fast trains between Shenfield and London are 7tph during the daytime Mondays-Saturdays, albeit not evenly distributed — departure times from Shenfield are usually 05, 08, 20, 25, 38, 45, & 51 past the hour).
Does Burnham have the benefit of an easy and frequent double-back to a station with frequent fast trains? If not, then the situation would not be comparable to Brentwood.
Maybe I’m missing something, but if a number of trains an hour of passengers are being delivered to Old Oak Common by HS2 it seems to me that a roughly similar capacity of empty trains is needed at Old Oak Common to allow for their onward travel.
It would seem sensible to have some trains heading East that start at Old Oak Common and (service enhancements aside) making that happen is the primary driver for the purchase of additional trains.
It is also reasonable to class those arriving at Old Oak Common as having something in common with the passengers arriving at Heathrow in that there will be more luggage than the typical commuter.
If one assumes that those arriving at Old Oak Common would have previously travelled on existing Euston services and dispersed by public transport from Euston to destinations in London and beyond then more West to East (incoming) or East to West (outgoing) traffic will be generated and routes that might not have used Crossrail (to get to Euston) will now incorporate Crossrail to Old Oak Common.
In revenue terms, having Old Oak Common in Zone 3 would help TFL extract more income to fund the additional service as (say) tube from Euston would just be a Zone 1 fare.
Long Branch Mike:
Thanks, will (re) read that!
Thorum:
The Greenford shuttle is unfortunately not electrified.
TBH although it would be expensive, I think that long term the Greenford shuttle should be given over to the underground central line. This has been discussed in previous comment sections on this blog. Just looking at the satellite photos at google maps it seems like there is enough space for additional tracks to the north of the existing quad track between West Ealing and Ealing Broadway, but I don’t know who owns that land and what implications re noise and vibration on adjacent buildings it would have. The point is that technically it seems to not be that hard to join the Central Line at Ealing Broadway with the Greenford shuttle tracks. The result would be that the two western forks of the Central line would join again (but in a way that won’t cause Hainault loop style service pattern issues). The Greenford shuttle has too low ridership, even potential future ridership, to warrant being a part of Crossrail, while the Central line will likely never have any other extension west of Ealing Broadway.
The only downside to this it that it removes the possibility to use that land for additional tracks for the GWML/Crossrail route (i.e. separating slow passenger trains from freight trains and whatnot).
Thank you for highlighting the current mess on the western section of the line. Those points combined with the severe unreliability that was experienced recently made it a real pain to use.
It really is frustrating when you have to miss a train due to it being at capacity, then having to wait at least 15 minutes for another train you may not be able to board and watch the semi fast services cruise by with lots of space available. The fact that the stopping services all originate from Heathrow only adds to the frustration due to the luggage concerns that were mentioned.
Also, at Acton Main Line there is a new housing development literally opposite the station which has only added to the passenger numbers at that station. Something has to change.
I’m amazed they haven’t done anything to tighten up the timetable through the core. Even at the busiest times of the peak the dwells are too generous, off peak it makes it feel so much slower than it could be.
The Greenford branch is not sensible option – the flat junction is a major issue, and it would be massively over capacity given the low passenger numbers. And then there’s the electrification, short platforms…
Thank you for another very enlightening article. However, I’m a little confused because I’d always assumed that the reason so many trains terminate at Paddington is because there is no space on the lines to the west and not because of lack of stock and that any increase in service would have to wait until the probable disappearance of Heathrow Express in 2028.
I agree with previous commenters that the current service pattern is a mess and that a simplified fast, semi-fast and all stops pattern would make a lot of sense. And I don’t know how many people it affects but the fact you can’t get a train direct from Hanwell or West Ealing to stations west of Hayes and Harlington always feels like an irritating, and possibly, unnecessary anomaly.
‘it is important not to overlook passengers (airline or airport workers) travelling from west of Hayes & Harlington who also need a convenient connection at Hayes & Harlington to reach Heathrow.’
It’s surprising just how convenient the bus connection from Hayes & Harlington is. Not only is it cheaper but given how frequently the buses run it can often be almost as quick as waiting for a connection train.
‘Also not explicitly mentioned are airline passengers who are commencing or finishing their journey in the London suburbs. Though probably not large in number, they still need to be catered for.’
Another small but possibly not insignificant group are airline passengers heading for hotels in the suburbs. Maybe I’m the only one who does this but over the years before or after the long trek to my home in Devon I’ve stayed in Kingston, Richmond, Kew, Ealing and Hayes & Harlington.
What option might exist for lengthening existing trains rather than increasing service frequency?
Central stations have capacity for an extra carriage, but how about outside of the core?
@Colin – see https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-1608-2122 for the exact answer to your question.
I’ll try and cover some of the comments raised in separate comments.
Reading Flyer and West Drayton stop
I think the inconvenience of missing out a West Drayton stop on the Reading Flyer has been hugely overstated. Most of the benefit to passengers on this service comes because between West Drayton and Paddington it only stops at Ealing Broadway. The morning peak hour trains starting at Maidenhead only take 4 minutes longer than the ‘flyer’ (admittedly no use if you start from Twyford or Reading). The ‘slow’ train from Reading also only takes 4 minutes longer to West Drayton than the ‘flyer’.
Remember this is just a hypothetical option not a TfL plan.
Its ironic the Elizabeth line (sorry Crossrail) is essentially for the rich (HS2/Heathrow airport/Canary Wharf) thus its quite endearing the graffiti ‘Eat da rich’ continues to be hugely visible right across the Old Oak site as it has for years!
Never mind! Hopefully the line does get its extra trains for many less fortuitous people would like to be able to travel beyond those very places and not be penned in like cattle.
Greenford Branch
To terminate the Crossrail trains on the Greenford Branch there is no need to electrify (except for a short section) nor is there a need to worry about platform lengths or lack of passengers. Simply electrify a short section of track on the Greenford Branch for trains to reverse.
I suspect the real main problem has been highlighted by Herned – the flat junction is a major issue. Also it would be pretty pointless to extend only this far since this would only benefit passengers at West Ealing, Ealing Broadway and Acton Main Line. If you are going to do this why not extend to platform 5 at Hayes & Harlington? This would benefit more passengers but would still have the flat junction problem. The advantage of going one stop further to West Drayton is that by then you have lost the 6tph to Heathrow so the flat junction is much less of an issue.
Forget about extending the Central line to Greenford. Apart from a myriad of other problems, it is often forgotten that West Ealing to Greenford is on an important freight route (using the west curve to travel towards Reading) and I can’t see London Underground wanting to share a route with freight trains even though it would be technically possible. Also, the Central line uses ATO which is very expensive to signal. It is not worth the cost on the Greenford branch.
Inconsistency of train pattern on west and east branches of Crossrail
This has been to some extent already answered but I will add my bit.
People keep forgetting that on the western branch between Acton Yard (adjacent to Acton Main Line) and Reading Crossrail has to share tracks with freight. Or, more accurately, Crossrail has to make provision for freight trains by making slots available in case they are run. I believe that freight trains now run at 60mph over this section (I am not sure) so it makes sense to try and have passenger trains before and after the freight train slots averaging 60mph to maximise the line capacity. It is more complicated than that but that is the general gist.
There is also the issue of a huge political backlash if trains were made all stations especially given what passengers are used to. It is true that at Twyford and Maidenhead there is the alternative of the half-hourly fast GWR trains. It is also true at Slough but not in the peak period in the peak direction. So the people of Slough really need something better than an all-stations train to and from London.
As already pointed out, the line out to Shenfield used to have some trains that were not all stations. Even today the hourly off-peak only Romford-Stratford alternative by Greater Anglia trains does the journey in 10 minutes as opposed to Crossrail’s 21 minutes. Surely Romford passengers (over 11 million entries and exits per year) deserve something better than an all-stations service to London?
Until very recently, TfL Rail ran a service from Shenfield to Liverpool St using class 315 trains that omitted certain stops in the peak period. Prior to that, the original Shenfield electrification has a clever pattern of trains to ensure most stations had a very limited stop service in the peaks but in those days they had the advantage of being able to utilise the fast lines (especially useful for running the trains empty against the peak flow).
It is 36 miles from Paddington to Reading but only just over 20 miles from Liverpool Street to Shenfield.
Adding a carriage to existing trains
It is true that Crossrail’s tunnelled section under London has provision for up to 11 carriages whereas trains currently only have 9 carriages. It has been pointed out by IanVisits that extended to 10 carriages would be much easier than extending to 11 carriages and I tend to agree. In particular, the Heathrow stations look as if they could accommodate 10 carriages with only minor alterations but 11 carriages would be involve major reconstruction.
There is a lot that can be written about this (and may be one day I will). For the moment a couple of issues immediately spring to mind. The first is that, unlike the London Underground where passengers are roughly 50% peak period/50% off peak period, for Crossrail the passenger split is roughly 56% peak/44% off-peak meaning the business case for longer trains rather than running more trains in the peak period is harder to justify. Also, Crossrail has quite long sections (e.g. west of Slough, east of Stratford) where the off-peak traffic and, to some extent, even the peak traffic, is quite light making even longer trains less attractive from a business case point of view.
I suspect just running longer trains would have minimal impact on improving the peak situation between West Drayton and Paddington.
Stepping Back
Stepping Back is an option and is mentioned in the article. Stepping back is great for a line like the Victoria line. It is also essential for various other Underground lines to have the frequencies they do have – most notable the Bakerloo, Northern and Jubilee where one terminus has to handle all (or almost all) trains in a limited number of platforms.
Stepping back is less desirable on a line where trains depart for multiple destinations so operationally is avoided when possible. The basic rule is to keep the driver with the train if possible.
Imagine a scenario where a driver at Abbey Wood is due to take out his/her final train of the day and it is due to terminate at Paddington. For some reason that train is cancelled and the next train after that is due to depart for Reading. The Reading train has no driver (they were due to arrive on the train that was cancelled) and the available driver will exceed their permitted hours if they were to take the Reading train to its destination – assuming the driver would have agreed to work beyond the end of their shift.
Exercise for the reader: What is the probable least worst option for the controller in a situation like this?
cjw714,
I’d always assumed that the reason so many trains terminate at Paddington is because there is no space on the lines to the west and not because of lack of stock and that any increase in service would have to wait until the probable disappearance of Heathrow Express in 2028.
You are basically correct. The issue is freight. There might be an issue getting what limited slots there are for freight out of the peak period. In practice there is usually little or no freight run in the peaks. Since the basic structure of the Elizabeth line timetable was implemented there have been a couple of improvements. I believe freight can now run at 60mph. And ETCS signalling has now been implemented between Heathrow Airport Junction and Acton Main Line which should mean a marginal increase in line capacity.
There are probably other tweaks that can be done if the will were there. Reducing dwell time at Ealing Broadway- even by a few seconds – should help and having extra trains call there would actually help this. In conjunction with this it may be necessary to slightly relax the Network Rail train planning rules concerning the minimum timing between Elizabeth line trains.
“Well, actually, Brentwood used to have half-hourly semi-fast services on Sundays”
Not just Sundays. Almost 40 years ago, I used to commute from Brentwood to L’pool St. The rush hour service pattern then was that Southend Vic trains stopped all stations to Harold Wood then switched onto the “fast tracks”, then ran non-stop, before switching back across at Stratford. It was a super service for us Brentwood commuters, but I can see with the intensity that the Great Eastern lines now have, it wouldn’t be possible now.
Fun fact. On the way home the switchover just after Gidea Park was taken at a pace that caused a fair jolt – adequate to waken those of us who were dozing after a day at the office….
Extra carriages: I agree the order could be reshaped or increased to allow trains to be extended. AND the new carriage needs to have one (disabled spec) toilet in case of emergencies (as we have already seen happen), with high reliability fittings.
Ideally add another or two as refurbs in existing carriages.
[Whatever people may think about the desirability of toilets on Crossrail trains, it won’t happen. There might be some kind of emergency ‘pop-up’ toilet for emergencies made available in future. I believe this is being discussed in the rail industry. PoP]
Stepping back/ATO: There is another way to do stepping back, although hasn’t yet been done. Fully automatic train operation from the penultimate station to the last station on the branch (one or both may also need to be equipped with Platform screen doors for safety).
Driver of the train gets out at the penultimate station, and then dispatches the train from a control panel on the station itself (and then walks to other end of platform).
Permanently stationed non-driving member of staff dispatches the train from the platform at last station back to penultimate, where the waiting driver gets in.
Easier to schedule staff to achieve.
A major issue with longer trains is that the stabling sidings at OOC are constrained – it may be possible to fit 10 car trains but almost certainly not 11 car trains, which seems a bit of a an oversight.
Re the example scenario with drivers, stepping back and whatnot at Abbey Wood: The driver drives the “wrong” train and at a convenient station swaps trains with a driver on a train going the other way, and the station is selected so the drivers won’t run out of allowed driving time.
Btw, a factor that I don’t think has been mentioned in this particular article and all it’s comments is that currently all trains west of Paddington goes to Abbey Wood. Thus the Shenfield trains and the GWML trains can be seen as separate services that shares the same tracks on the central core and also shares the same branding. As long as there is padding in the time table to allow for a small delay when entering the shared core section any major disruptions either on GWML or the Shenfield route won’t affect the other.
Having Shenfield trails go west of Paddington (or rather west of Old Oak Common in the future) makes it harder to avoid problems on one end affecting the other end.
Btw I think that it would be great to have a computerized decision aid for handling minor delays/disruptions. In particular it would be great to have some software that could in a few seconds recalculate which trains each driver has to be on and whatnot to make their max drive time limit work and still avoid delays as much as possible. This ties in both to the hypothetical example scenario at Abbey Wood and also the risk of problems when connecting GWML services to Shenfield services.
Btw: Has there ever been any study on either adding a fifth track to as much as possible of the GWML Paddington – Airport junction? Also, has there ever been any study on if it would be feasible to run three tracks in the peak direction and a single track in the counter peak direction? Thinking about being able to both run Crossrail trains and regular GWML trains fast in the peak direction.
Something that would be very prone to delays, but might work at least in theory, is to at peak hours have switches at all stations along the route and schedule slow trains so that they always stop at the same platform no matter which direction the train is going, and have those trains pass each other in between the stations, while the other station track is free for fast services in the peak direction during rush hours. Given that Crossrail runs trains so often, any delays could be mitigated by retraining so whichever train gets turned around, runs fast or runs slow westwards from Paddington is decided on-the-fly depending on when the trains arrive from the core section v.s. when there is a slot in the time table for a train westwards. (This of course also ties in in to a decision aid for delays, stepping back and whatnot).
Btw re stepping back: Another solution is to always change drivers at some place in the core section, for every train, and have some drivers only drive Abbey Wood – “core change point”, some drivers only Shenfield – “core change point”, and some drivers only drive between Reading and/or Heathrow and the “core change point”.
Evening (local) peak westbound is a big issue.
The regular non-peak service for Acton and Hanwell is a T4 train every 15 minutes (all stops).
But from 5pm, and for an hour and a half, it becomes a 10-20-10-20-10-20 minute interval. In the 20 minutes between trains, there are 5 terminating at Paddington and 2 for Reading (1st EB and WD then semi-fast, 2nd EB S, H&H then all stops). So there are no trains to Acton, West Ealing or Hanwell for 20 minutes. These trains are often jammed pack at Paddington.
The irony is that the later train in the 10 minute interval is preceded by a T5 train, so is often much more comfortable. So we effectively have a half hour service (unless you want to be a sardine).
Miam: “Has there ever been any study on either adding a fifth track to as much as possible of the GWML Paddington – Airport junction?”
Its not possible to do this due to many constraints and has always been a problem beyond Acton where the GWML does indeed become four tracks through Ealing Broadway and as far as West Ealing. There is some possibility beyond West Ealing of additional tracks but complexity & cost is the issue.
The Acton fly-under was built to resolve some of the issues. But a lot of problems remain and the increased traffic plus the new Old Oak station is not going to help.
Paddington to Old Oak west was previously six tracks or more, and it still is as far as Scrubs Lane (give or take a couple or two pinch points as well as some track removal) those extra tracks were generally for empty stock workings.
After Ladbroke Grove 1999 it was decided to re-arrange how the tracks were utilized so it was basically a four track system rather than a six track system with the outermost tracks being dedicated solely to Old Oak depot workings. The history of this is complex so I’ve probably missed some detail or other. However since then other instances (Crossrail no doubt) has reduced that capability further and the new Old Oak station is another of those.
Plus trackage on the north side of the GWML by Ladbroke Grove/Kensal Green gas works has been reduced so the GWML has got progressively narrower (for want of a better word) in terms of potential capacity yet the trains have increased considerably.
With Crossrail/Elizabeth line/HS2 Old Oak (no matter where the trains go, the airport or Reading) the problem is how to squeeze more trains into a system of decreasing capacity.
Ranger writes
The regular non-peak service for Acton and Hanwell is a T4 train every 15 minutes (all stops).
But from 5pm, and for an hour and a half, it becomes a 10-20-10-20-10-20 minute interval. In the 20 minutes between trains
That is very curious. I checked with the standard Elizabeth line timetables (both old and new) which can be found here and this is not true.
However if I use National Rail journey planner this is exactly what is reported and I have to presume this is what actually happens.
I have a feeling this must be a change that was made for some kind of operational reason and never made it to the Elizabeth line timetable. If what is reported is correct then you feel these stations really need a 6tph 10 minute interval in the evening peak.
Building a fifth track would be so disruptive, it would probably be easier to build a new line. I did look into this a few years ago out of curiosity and it would have involved so much fiddling I practically gave up. So that’s not going to happen. Nice article though.
@PoP : “That is very curious. I checked with the standard Elizabeth line timetables (both old and new) which can be found here and this is not true.”
I think the timetables you’ve linked to describe the 20-10 pattern as well?
Trains to Hanwell depart Paddington at x09 x24 x39 x54 Off Peak
Then in the evening peak it’s 1725, 1735, 1755, 1805 etc
The problem being the peak Reading flyer in the x45, x15 slot ex-Paddington, which catches up with the x35,x05 stoppers with no problem and blocks them from being any later.
And the flyers can’t use the later x50,x20 slots because these are occupied by semi-fasts.
There’s always going to be some kind of compromise here. If given a clear run, the flyers would take less than 15 minutes from Paddington to Airport Junction but the stoppers need over 20 minutes. You also have 4 semi fasts that need squeezing in between the 4 stoppers, ideally alternating with each other. And these 10 trains are all trying to hit some combination of the 12 x 5 minute interval Abbey Wood slots at Paddington. That’s before you try and squeeze in the T5-Shenfield trains.
The morning peak timetable keeps the 15 minute frequency on eastbound ex-T4 stoppers, and deals with the headway problem with extra padding on the Reading flyer (used for Acton Main Line stops on a couple of trains) and some tight flighting at Airport Jn.
Drivers stepping back is already in use at Shenfield with current service levels
Anon 23:39
You are, of course, correct. I don’ t know how I managed to misread the the timetable or maybe I read the wrong timetable.
Thank you for pointing this out and the additional information.
Using Opentraintimes I too had spotted that the evening Reading flyer filled the 20 minute gap at xx45, xx15. The obvious thing to do is to stop this at Acton Main Line. There is ample recovery time built in as evidenced by it catching up the previous service so that is not the issue. I suspect ‘they’ don’t want to put it in because there is a risk of passengers to Slough and beyond not able to board due to Acton passengers making a short journey.
Your comment really highlights the issue here and the difficulties in fixing it. I also note that running the T4 trains at uneven intervals is awkward due to the single track section between T2&3 and T4. I am surprised they can do it – but then the interval is slightly closed up by the time these trains get to T2&3.
This really shows up the need for an extra 2tph. And that is before the extra predicted 8% annual growth. It is primarily a capacity issue not an issue with the stopping pattern. If Network Rail could agree to a slightly reduced interval between trains (subject to the signalling supporting it of course) that would help enormously.
One would have thought that if the morning timetable can keep the 15 minute frequency then the evening one could too but there may be some subtle issue we don’t know about.
Anon 01:42
Thanks again for the information. Of course, it may be necessary at Shenfield due to a slightly less optimal track layout than at Abbey Wood. Also, a Shenfield it is easier to dig oneself out of a hole if the service is disrupted. For one thing most trains terminate at Paddington so the service pattern is simpler. For another, an unwanted train in platform 5 can simply be put it in the sidings and get it out of service.
rog: Thanks for the reply!
I get that Ladbroke Grove really changed things, and I realize that what I suggested would more or less need switches that lead offending movements onto buffers
But:
Given that aparently Acton Main Line needs more trains, and there seems to be enough room for additional tracks up to east of Ealing Broadway, I think it would be worth studying the possibility of having five or six tracks here, where two are fast like today, and the other three or four tracks are used by slow and semi-fast trains stopping v.s. not stopping at Acton Main Line. This way it would be possible to only have some trains stopping at Acton Main Line but still have the maximum number of trains that the two slow tracks at Ealing Broadway can accommodate. Also widening the line to five or six tracks west of West Ealing would also help making it possible to maximize usage of the slow tracks West Ealing – Ealing Broadway in combination with varying stopping patterns west of West Ealing. This would result in West Ealing having an “unwarranted” good service for operational reasons, since I don’t think it would be possible to gain any extra capacity by not stopping all trains there when those trains stop at Ealing Broadway anyway (which is a busier station which thus most likely anyway would have longer dwell times).
PoP: Thanks for pointing out the cargo trains on the Greenford branch.
This makes me think of a hot take that maybe ought to just be luke warm: Since the Central Line and Crossrail have stations near each other in the core section, maybe it would be worth studying removing the Central Line to Ealing Broadway and repurpose those platforms to terminalte Crossrail trains that would otherwise terminate at Paddington or in the future at Old Oak Common. Or maybe study letting the Central Line take over one of the District Line tracks, so the District Line would have two rather than three terminating tracks and the Central Line would have one rather than two tracks, while Crossrail would have two terminating tracks and two through tracks.
To make this possible the freight trains would have to be removed from West Ealing and eastwards, and that could be done by redirecting them onto the Greenford branch and then connecting the (disused?) cargo-only “mainline” at the North Acton area to a new curve to the Dudding Hill line and Willesden Junction (i.e. the lines that currently connects to cargo trains on the GWML to the east of Acton Main Line station). This would free up West Ealing, Ealing Broadway and Acton Main Line from all cargo trains (except trains that starts or ends at Acton Yard?), and also any cargo trains that isn’t passing through Willesden Junction upper level is also moved away from possibly interfering with the Overground between Acton Central and Willesden Junction (upper level).
In theory there might be more emissions from diesel cargo locomotives, but in practice I would assume that them not having to wait at red signals as often (as the Greenford shuttle has a really low frequency and the line from Greenford to North Action is only used by cargo trains).
I think this is one of all things that ought to be studied by some kind of independent organisation. How about trying to engage schools, like universities or perhaps the education level below uni, to do these studies as part of the education?
Otherwise it would likely either end up being some sort of joint committee consisting of Network Trail, TfL, the cargo operators, and maybe HS2 and GWR might also want to chime in, and of course DfT, and all of them would likely try to defend what they have rather than honestly studying what would be the greater good even if it one of them feels like they are losing out. Or it would end up being a so called “independent” study that is actually funded by DfT and/or TfL and they would of course not just go to a job fair for transport planners and randomly select the committee members by casting lots, but rather select people who are likely to come to the “wanted” conclusion.
(This kind of connects with what I’ve been bringing up every now and then over the years in the comments on this blog – that a way more comprehensive study should be done regarding overall rail improvements in and around London – like for example possibly coming to the conclusion that building a boat load of flyovers in south London might make it possible to achieve metro style frequencies on some of the suburban trains that currently suffer from many flat junctions, and that all those flyovers might cost way less than for example building additional rail/metro lines and thus might have a way better cost-benefit factor)
Given that Acton Main Line is East of Acton Yard, where all the freight traffic heads to/from (or via if it’s headed to Dudding Hill or Willesden), could this be made into a reversing point for EL trains from the East?
If a third platform face isn’t possible because of the aforementioned freight line towards Willesden, then west of the station there’s a junction to the diveunder, and a lightly used stretch of Eastbound running line between there and the junction to the yard. This is probably long enough for an EL train to reverse.
If either of these is possible, AML could then be served by 4tph terminating from Shenfield, allowing all (or most) trains from further West to skip it, freeing up vital minutes for extra stops at Hanwell or wherever else may need one.
Paul: Good idea!
Looking at the photos on google maps, it seems relatively easy to add a platform edge to the northern side of the existing northern platform. North of the platforms there are three tracks that pass through the length of the platforms, of which the northernmost ends in a buffer which I assume is to protect the goods lines from any runaway shunting movements from the yard. The other two tracks seems to be both for through running goods and for connecting the east end of the yard to Willesden Junction (both level) and the Dudding Hill line. If goods could do with a single track on the north side of Acton Main Line, and preferable also a few train lengths westwards of Acton Main Line, then the eastbound slow trains could be moved to the current westbound goods line, and the current eastbound slow line could be turned into a terminating platform and possibly stabling for a few trains. It could also be used as a passing loop with switches to both directions not only on the east side but also on the west side, so in the peak direction some trains could stop at Acton Main Line at the middle track while non stopping trans run on the northern or southern slow track (depending on the direction).
I think that my ideas would give better results, but would also be less likely to get a go ahead as they would require way more work.
Btw re my idea of reusing at least one of the Central Line platforms for Crossrail/slow trains at Ealing Broadway: Looking at the track layout it might be possible to the cargo flyover for eastbound slow/Crossrail trains while terminating trains would use the current eastbound line. This would not even require any changes at/around the flyover, except of course connecting the current eastbound track to what currently is a Central line platform. The southern Central Line platform track has an underground platform on it’s northern side and the current eastbound Crossrail/slow platform on it’s southern side, so it would be easy to adapt the platform height to the trains. If desired it would even be possible to have a dual height platform shared by Crossrail and the Central Line if the height of the current Central Line tracks and it’s island platform would be adjusted.
Also: If enough money could be allocated for a relatively large station rebuild, it might be possible to turn one or both of the current Central Line platforms to through running platforms. They seem to approximately line up with what seems to be a bus road northwestwards from the station, so maybe it won’t be necessary to dig through basements of existing buildings on the west side of the road.
It’s surprisingly hard to find photos of Ealing Broadway station from platform level showing what’s going on to the west (buffer end) of the Central Line platforms. I assume there are stairs/escalators and/or some ramp or whatnot to reach street level, but I couldn’t find any map or pictures of the station layout.
We seem to have regressed to fantasy schemes that, even if possible, represent extremely bad value for money. We had a purge on these suggestions a few years ago. As a general guide, if you haven’t actually visited the site(s) in question then your suggestion is probably not a good one as either there is a fundamental problem you haven’t grasped or, just possibly, it would have been seriously suggested before by those with the relevant data to make informed decisions.
If I had my way I would ban any ‘crayonista’ suggestions where the proposer had not visited the relevant sites. A visit to Ealing Broadway would give some idea of the difficulties faced.
A possibly relevant fact is that Central line usage at Ealing Broadway was expected to drop substantially once Crossrail was open through to central London. This hasn’t happened.
Having said that, with the proviso of the flat junction issue described in the next comment, I don’t think terminating trains at Acton Main Line is totally stupid.
I think it would be madness to terminate trains at Acton Main Line at present but may not be in future. There are various reasons for this:
1) Once Old Oak Common is built, going to Acton Main Line is only an extra one and a quarter miles beyond Old Oak Common.
2) At Acton Main Line there is space to reorganise the track arrangement to provide a new side terminal platform (bad idea) or, I think, a middle terminating platform (the current up line) so that trains can terminate there with no conflicting movements.
3) As stated, terminating at Acton Main Line would not conflict with freight movements.
4) As stated, providing terminating facilities meaning that a better service could be provided to Acton Main Line and other trains would no longer need to call. If necessary passengers from and to the west could change at Old Oak Common but I suspect these passengers are few. Acton Main Line’s passenger numbers look as if they are growing substantially and will continue to do so if the necessary service is there.
5) If Old Oak Common becomes busy, it could be useful to be able to terminate trains away from the station so as not to occupy a platform unnecessarily.
6) More operating flexibility.
Update 11/07/24: I now realise that turning back at Acton Main Line makes no sense because there will be a turnback facility at Old Oak Common as well as the ability to terminate trains in the inner Elizabeth line platforms.
Flat Junctions
Any idea involving terminating platforms to the side of the through route on the Elizabeth line are almost certainly not going to form part of any plan. The design of Crossrail has gone to extreme lengths to avoid these as flat junctions considerably mess up the service. Gidea Park has a central terminating siding between the running tracks (which was already in existence) as does Maidenhead. Chadwell Heath also has an existing central siding for terminating trains but this is now only used in an emergency.
Hayes & Harlington has a side terminating platform which is only used in an emergency. It is intended for use when there is a problem in the Heathrow Tunnel.
Ilford had a side platform for terminating which was too short for Crossrail trains but it probably could have been extended and would have been useful if it were not for the flat junction issue. If trains were to terminate at West Drayton the situation would not be too bad as you don’t have the additional 6tph Crossrail trains to Heathrow. In the peak you only have 6tph in one direction and 4tph in the other plus, of course, any freight trains.
I hope that helps when considering future possibilities.
**Reading Flyer and West Drayton stop**
Agree that this is all hypothetical and not visible in any plan, but I have to bite and say that the main value of this stop is for people coming from or changing at Reading from stations west, and the benefit isn’t so much the admittedly slight journey time improvement but the added frequencies. TBH for many users it would be just as (maybe more?) useful to replace the West Drayton stop with one at Hayes & Harlington – as per the comment from @cjw714 the fairly frequent and fast Central Terminal Area bus service from there is a great alternative to the crazily overpriced CTA / T5 / T4 Elizabeth line hop and equally underpromoted by the ever-grasping HAL…
Also, (slightly off-topic anecdote here) a strange pricing anomaly which I discovered by accident last year was that GWR were pricing any Advance ticket from the west which involved an Elizabeth Line sector at roughly **half** the cost of one which didn’t! So an Advance ticket from Plymouth (or Stroud) to Ealing Broadway, (routed via Paddington!), would be priced at half the cost of a PLY-PAD or STD-PAD Advance. Same in reverse, and same with PLY-RDG vs. PLY-WDT! Happy days, sadly now ended as they seem to have identified and squashed this rather nice quirk. Also *any* decent GWR Advance fares now seem rare as hen’s teeth 🙁
@PoP @MiaM
I share the concerns about excessive crayoning in the comments, and was definitely wary of making the suggestion about Acton Mainline, but it seemed worth mentioning.
I agree flat junctions would be an issue, but those two options at AML would both allow reversing between the running lines.
RE: Stepping back vs automatic reversing.
Someone mentioned the possibility of adding automatic reversing at terminal platforms as an alternative to stepping back.
It occurs to me that this might be prohibitively expensive to implement in an area that doesn’t already have some level of automatic operation, but maybe something similar could still be done with additional drivers being stationed near the end of the line?
The idea is as follows:
Driver A brings train A to the penultimate station and gets off.
Drivers X1 & X2 board the train at opposite ends
Driver X1 drives the train to the terminus
Driver X2 drives the train back to the penultimate station
Meanwhile, Driver A walks to the other end of the platform at the penultimate station
Drivers X1 & X2 get off
Driver A gets back on and drives the train to wherever its going.
Thus Driver A stays with train A (after a brief separation)
I imagine this would require more than 2 additional drivers though, and I have no idea if this would be more or less expensive than adding the automation.
I can also see a way it could be done with an odd number of drivers, utilising stepping back at the terminus (but since those drivers only go one stop, it would be without the operational issues of conventional stepping back)
I’m sure this has probably already been thought of and dismissed as a bad idea.
@DJL
This exact approach is used elsewhere and works absolutely fine. It has the advantage of being relatively simple to schedule, since drivers stay with their trains apart from during the reversing process, and with some variations it can be implemented independently of the configuration of the terminus (reversing sidings vs bay platforms, island platforms vs side platforms).
The main disadvantage is slightly boring shifts for the drivers doing the reversing, and that there are two additional driver changes per reversal, which can slow things down if this process is not designed in an efficient way. It also relies on the reversing drivers arriving at the penultimate station in time on the reversed train, or there being sufficient buffer of reversing crews to balance the number of trains in the reversing process simultaneously.
IanVisits website is reporting that funding has been approved and the order for 10 more trains has been signed:
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/tfl-orders-10-more-elizabeth-line-trains-saving-alstoms-derby-factory-73050/
It would be interesting if any parts of the business case TfL produced for this are released. It might point towards how the trains may be used.
[And the press release from Alstom for further confirmation PoP]
I’m finally going to comment on this long thread, now that it appears that TfL have managed to persuade someone to approve the release of money for some new trains & therefore save “Derby Works” ( Bombardier —> Alstom )
And to my great relief, I must say … the idea that the country that invented railways could no longer manufacture its own rolling stock, was …..
Back to the main subject (!)
The idea that it was a surprise that loadings, especially in the West were so high & unexpected, leading to the determination to reverse ( all of? ) the ex-Shenfield trains just W of Paddington is, I’m sorry to say, entirely false.
The relevant TOC (GW) had all the necessary information by 2012 or earlier & they &/or the DfT ( I presume ) chose to ignore it.
Nowadays, passenger loadings are done automatically, either by weighing mechanisms on the trains themselves, or by optical counting at the entrance/exit points. Bit, before then, it was done by dedicated, usually hired-in teams of Passenger Counters, monitoring the trains at specific periods. I was one such passenger counter in the years (approximately ) 2003 – 2012, & one regular station surveyed was Ealing Broadway, often in the AM peak.
At that time, the longest trains were “GW” six-car diesel units ( 2×3) & on arrival inbound they were often at 200+%loadings, with people bursting out of the doors on arrival, & immediately loading themselves onto the Central Line for the rest of their journeys.
What was remarkable, to us at any rate, was that the outbound trains were also loading up, at Ealing, to about 130-160% capacity … The passengers were heading for the employment centres of Slough/Maidenhead/Reading.
With those loading statistics, it SHOULD have been obvious that there was a considerable suppressed demand, & I’m certain our numbers & statistics were examined by the people at GWR.
Now, the inevitable has happened, the suppressed demand has manifested itself & the trains are ( Surprise! ) fully-loaded, so that both more trains, both in service, & physically available, are going to be needed.
Last personal observations, as a result of travelling LST PAD on Friday, well out of the rush hours. Going both ways, the gatelines at LST ( Liverpool St) main entrance to the concourse were close to capacity & even though I deliberately waited for a PAD (Paddington) terminator, it was full-to-standing at least as far as Tottenham Court Rd. The preceding Heathrow train was well-wedged.
With ridership of the Heathrow Express falling I suggest TfL offer to take it over now and run exactly the same service (and with the same stock) but under Elizabeth Line (or even Overground!) branding – fare structure to be the same as for the Elizabeth Line services to Heathrow. This would take a significant amount of the pressure from the current Elizabeth Line airport services.
Thanks for the interesting article. Given the new trains, the peak pressures on western side, and (potential) benefits of matching service pattern on trains to West Drayton (and beyond) and trains to Heathrow, maybe an option (somewhere between options 3 and 4)
could be peak 8tph to/ from West Drayton (and onwards) matched with peak only 8tph to Heathrow?
I think, probably, that the “solution” to the HEX/HAL problem is very simple …
Do what the operating railways did, in the mid C19th, when it became apparent that the compulsory lunch/dinner (etc) stop on longer-distance trains at Swindon/York/Crewe (etc) was a royal pain …
Buy them out.
Offer HEX/HAL an apparently overgenerous sum, simply to be permanently rid of the problem.
There is, after all, good historical & legal precedent for this.
As regards service patterns ….
1: More trains, total, West of PAD is compulsory
2: A few more trains ( 4tph?) all-the-way to Reading would be a very good idea
3: A semi-fast Reading-PAD service? IF it can be fitted into the existing all-stations pattern, otherwise, no.
4: Lastly … longer trains, as provided for in the base infrastructure?
Maybe – It’s a good idea, but insufficient information at the moment.
Continuing my theme of more information, from the time before-Cross-Liz, on service patterns & loading ….
One of the other venues where I & my passenger-counting colleagues operated in the period up to 2012 was … Stratford.
At that time, in the AM peak, the inbound locals Shenfield-Liverpool St required two counters per carriage ( i.e. One per door, they were so packed in! ) These people then jammed themselves onto the Central line, for stops beyond LST.
Now, of course, you are getting a two-way crossflow – the vast majority of people on the Central will walk across to CrossLiz, but some will remain on the Central for Non-CrossLiz destinations, such as St Pauls, Chancery Lane, Holborn & Oxford Circus & a few will also go over “against the flow” from CrossLiz to get on the Central to those same destinations.
But the great majority will be filling the Cross-Liz trains up to the brim, or at least 100-115% loading, anyway.
At which point the long-term decision needs to be made: More trains on the Shenfield arm, breaking the 10-minute (6thp) cycle .. OR .. longer trains, with extra coaches inserted, as in the long-term plan?
I think I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader!
There seems to be a general commentariat expectation that “Come 2028, Elizabeth Line will take over HeX”.
I think there are bunch of problems with that idea –
– The main lines, currently used by HeX, don’t have grade separated access to the Crossrail tunnels
– As discussed above, there isn’t the capacity to send another 4x trains per hour down the relief lines between Acton Yard and Airport Junction
– If capacity on the relief lines could be found, trains would have to fit between other EL services so wouldn’t be able to run any faster than them
– However much we sneer at it, there is a market for a premium, uncrowded, fast service into London. HeX competes with taxis as much as with TfL services, possibly more so. An outcome that pushes more people into taxis along the M4 isn’t one that HAL, DfT or even TfL would be keen on.
– I don’t think the numbers are public, but I suspect at the prices being paid, HeX is still generating profit for HAL and commercial revenue for DfT/Network Rail
– Paths on the GWR fasts are also an issue; however GWR/HAL/DfT will be considering the eventual resurrection of some kind of Western access project, and the possibility that this could be merged with HeX (think Didcot/Newbury to Paddington via Heathrow) making better use of those main line paths whilst retaining the fast service to the airport.
– We don’t know what the impact of HS2/OOC will be on any of this. The stakeholders may be reluctant to make any substantial change before HS2 opens.
My prediction is thus that HeX will last longer than anticipated
Regarding Heathrow Express,
Surbitonian,
I suggested something very similar in a comment to a Heathrow Express article a while back. Only difference is I suggested that Heathrow Express match Elizabeth line prices for Heathrow-Paddington because that way they would probably get a lot more revenue. Remember a lot of HEx fares are discounted because they are bought in advance or they a sold through a third party which takes a hefty commission. It would probably be better if TfL took over because they would publicise it better but I suspect they wouldn’t want to.
Paul,
I understand all the points you make and don’t disagree with them but I think we have all been looking at this in slightly the wrong light.
According to their own press release, Heathrow Express “HEx serves an average of 16,000 customers and passengers a day”. That was in March 2023 and the latest figures show a 4% annual drop despite rising passenger demand at the airport. So lets call it 15,000 a day. Which is approximately 1000 customers per hour with 4tph in each direction. So around 125 passengers per train or 16 passengers per HEx carriage. So if TfL ran 8tph to Heathrow they could easily absorb 125 passengers per 9 carriage train especially as they would be running 2tph more than now.
So another way of looking at this is “does it really make sense to use up four paths per hour on the Great Western Main Line into Paddington for the sake of an average of 125 passengers per train?“. Lightly loaded doesn’t begin to describe it. I would also argue Heathrow Express exclusively occupies two very useful platforms at Paddington (platforms 6 & 7) which could be put to better use.
Now your point about passengers switching to taxis is perfectly valid as are other points but someone has to decide what is in the best overall interest. Maybe the best thing is to leave things as they are but my belief is the greatest good for the greatest number can be achieved by just getting rid of Heathrow Express and doing whatever is necessary to ensure Crossrail runs at least 4tph to Terminal and 4tph to Terminal 5.
Greg,
For once I largely agree with you but you tend to overlook one or two issues.
On the subject of off-peak loadings, if loading really are that high I am at a loss to understand why they aren’t running 20tph off-peak which was the plan right up to opening the first section (Paddington-Abbey Wood). It is currently 8tph off-peak on each eastern branch (7½ minutes between trains). It was understandable to go for reliability at the start but I would have thought they would be in a position now to provide 10tph to Shenfield and 10tph to Abbey Wood off-peak without losing profitability. Maybe the December timetable will finally see the 20tph off-peak timetable. They could even terminate half the Shenfield branch trains at Gidea Park to stop overcapacity at the outer end. That would still give a 5tph Elizabeth line service to Harold Hill, Brentwood and Shenfield.
We have tried to explain to you time and time again that it is not a case of not anticipating demand between West Drayton and Paddington but more a case of there just not being the capacity to provide more trains under the current rules. That is not to say things might not change in future. And yes, I think they should be seriously thinking of adding another carriage (10-car is much easier to implement than 11-car) but I have seen nothing to suggest they are even thinking about it. We really need to save discussing lengthening trains for another day.
The issue at Stratford is complex and horrible and you have highlighted it yourself. You can run more Elizabeth line trains but that risks overwhelming the Central line at platform 6 in the evening as Elizabeth line passengers disembark from the adjoining platform 8. Similarly, run more Central line trains in the morning (platform 4) and you risk overwhelming Elizabeth line trains on platform 6. This of course is not helped by a currently unreliable Central line service.
From my observations, I just don’t think one could justify more Reading trains even if one could run them. The relief lines track west of West Drayton is not signalled for high capacity as far as I am aware and you have to share it with 2tph GWR semi-fast Didcot-Paddington services as well as freight. Everybody forgets about freight no matter how many times it is mentioned.
Surprisingly, overall passenger numbers are significantly down at stations west of West Drayton compared to pre-Covid. Although Crossrail numbers continue to rise they more than offset by the reduction of passengers on GWR trains.
@PoP
Good points.
I suspect a lot comes down to the Heathrow Express finances. The high fares mean that even at those light loadings that’s an annual revenue of ~£100 million (based on the £37 return fare, some pay less, some pay more), of which a healthy chunk is going to GWR and Network Rail, plus I imagine some of it ends up at HMRC/Treasury via HAL.
This compares to the TfL revenue figures of ~£200m for the entire Elizabeth Line…
So much as you’re absolutely right that the greater good would be to can HeX, the accountants are going to argue that the revenue is more important and that it’s helping pay for other things. If the numbers continue to decline at 4% a year, this might change, but I reckon they’ll level off as a core of travellers are going to be willing to pay the premium.
Paul
There’s an obvious ( AND Expensive! ) answer to that …
An extra pair of running tracks between Paddington ( Royal Oak portal ) & Airport junction … it is, actually do-able, but it would certainly cost.
Um, err …
PoP
Many thanks for that information on passenger loadings – & you’ve reminded me of a vital statistic, which I must unearth from where I buried it, about national railway use over the years ….
You also said: West Drayton and Paddington but more a case of there just not being the capacity to provide more trains under the current rules – all too true, as I think I agree with, above!
@PoP
Any reason that you think TfL wouldn’t want to run the existing Heathrow express services?
Tom,
The main reason is that a service with first class accommodation, 110mph trains and toilets on board aimed at airport passengers doesn’t really fit in with what TfL does and feels comfortable doing. It would also potentially lead to confusion with passengers unsure of which Paddington station they should be using. You could also argue that running a premium service (in quality even if not in price) for airport passengers is not really part of TfL’s remit – then again neither is running a cable car for tourists.
Asking the question ‘what’s in it for TfL?’ leaves me struggling to think of a good reason. My suspicions are that I think TfL would rather it just died making it much easier for TfL to run 4tph to Terminal 5 (assuming they could somehow squeeze in a couple of extra tph between Airport Junction and Acton Main Line). And I am sure TfL can see Heathrow Express is a bad use of the fast lines into Paddington.
Any scenario that requires TfL to compensate Heathrow Express would almost certainly be unpopular with the Mayor and TfL accountants.
If TfL were to take over, they would effectively be running two competing services. Personally, I am not convinced of the genuine benefit of Heathrow Express – at least regarding times savings. I think the benefits of using Heathrow Express for a faster journey from the airport to Paddington are largely illusionary as they is often quite a queue at Paddington to get through the ticket gates. Also, if TfL provided 4tph to both Terminal 4 and to Terminal 5 most passengers with a valid ticket would be better off timewise with 8tph available to Terminals 2 & 3 and 4tph to terminal 4 (with the option of changing at Terminals 2 and 3) rather than being restricted to 4tph with Heathrow Express.
Is EL affecting local bus services? Are people changing their routes and, say, going north to Hayes and Southall rather than going south to the Piccadilly Line in Hounslow to get into London? What about services along the Uxbridge Road?
@PoP
Are you really saying that on the one hand Heathrow Express is very lightly loaded, but on the other hand it’s not worth using because of queues at the ticket gates?
Honestly, having used it myself fairly recently, the biggest time benefit was that it happened to be the first train that showed up at Heathrow, with a 12 minute wait for the following EL, and that meant that end to end it saved me about 25 minutes.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Heathrow Express loadings are heavily skewed in favour of the inbound Airport->Paddington direction.
Why?
– Heavy marketing at Heathrow, including sales reps
– Contactless users more likely (as I did) to board the first train that shows up and swallow the extra cost, especially after a long flight
– International travellers less likely to be aware of the size of the premium in their own currency, or the strengths/limitations of all the options
– If you’re outbound to catch a flight you’re on a defined schedule, and plan ahead to get to the airport at a specific time. Inbound you just want to get where you’re going as quickly as possible.
– If you’re in most parts of Central London it’s much more intuitive to head for the EL and go straight to Heathrow than mess around getting to Paddington