At the beginning of the year it seemed that Crossrail was experiencing something of an information blackout. At a TfL board meeting in late January, the Mayor, its chairman, moved all further discussion about the project into ‘part 2’ (public excluded) at the earliest opportunity.
The sound of silence
At the more recent Programme and Investment Committee meeting in February the Crossrail progress report must have been the shortest on record. There wasn’t even an attempt to discuss anything about the project in the public part of the meeting (other than a very brief resumé of the short document already issued) before the members took sanctuary in part 2.
The near silence at board and committee level was subsequently reflected in the lack of any substantial public news about the project. There were certainly issues that legitimately should not or need not have been made public at that stage, but reluctance to feed the public with information was surprising at a stage of a major construction project when one would expect publicity to be ramped up prior to its planned opening.
Winding down
One plausible explanation for this near silence is that Crossrail Ltd (the construction company and custodian of the Crossrail website) is winding down. Major players, such as long-standing chief executive Andrew Wolstenholme are preparing to stand down. In parallel with this, TfL, more specifically TfL Rail, is taking more and more direct control for the project.
Construction is a fairly predictable and one can predict with a fair amount of confidence what the future may bring. Introducing a state-of-the-art railway, which is inevitably pushing at the limits of technology, is usually fraught with problems that need to be solved. One can understand the desire not to announce news until one is sure it will happen. In the case of bad news one generally wants to wait until there is some reassuring information to give, or at least that one can properly inform the public of the exact situation.
Crossrail Ltd has gallantly attempted to provide some genuine construction news with details of forthcoming open days of future Elizabeth line stations. The trouble is that the only visits arranged so far are for Canary Wharf station and Custom House. Canary Wharf station is the one station in the central section that Crossrail did not build itself. It has been largely complete for many years and has featured in previous ‘Open House’ weekends. Custom House is the only completely new above-ground station and, uniquely, built in kit form using pre-formed concrete castings.
Some Actual Crossrail news
In late March, Crossrail released pictures showing progress being made in various areas. This includes stations. The pictures are encouraging, but one wonders what there is still to do in other parts of the station. Also encouraging was a picture of Old Oak Common depot and a somewhat badly-captioned photo purporting to show the catenary being installed in the main tunnels. In the tunnels there is no catenary, as the copper wire is held in a horizontal position within a rigid bar.
Rigid overhead conducting bar being fitted in a tunnel
Art for art’s sake
Slightly concerning was the February ‘quarterly’ update – published about four months after the previous one. At a time when one would expect it to be packed with the latest news, it appears to concentrate, for the large part, on the artwork associated with the project. This is a subject that has been well-covered before. One has a feeling that there is an unwritten rule in the Crossrail press office ‘if you can’t find anything you are allowed to say, talk about the art’.
It is worth remembering, of course, that one of the press office’s roles is to talk about subjects their audience wants to hear. Not everyone is interested in construction or railway operating details. At LR Towers we think Crossrail might be doing itself a disservice – the documentary on Crossrail construction on BBC2 drew the biggest audiences of any programme on that channel. Arts projects matter, but the public can be interested in railways too.
Going west
At this point you are probably wondering what this specifically has to do with Crossrail’s western progress. The problem for those wishing to avoid the subject of Crossrail in public meetings is that there is plenty of highly visible work going on between Acton Main Line and West Drayton. Or rather, there are plenty of highly visible construction sites with some work going on. Tellingly, there is also not a lot happening in various areas – most notably station reconstruction.
Also highly visible is the impact, or lack of impact, of TfL taking control of these stations. In contrast to the impressive reputation that goes before them, the impression is one of reluctance to do anything more than the minimum necessary at this stage. With TfL services and some class 345 trains serving these stations from May, it is going to look a sorry sight at some to see the latest state-of-the-art trains serving stations that are neglected, or building sites, or both.
One can understand that TfL Rail management may have more serious things to worry about at the moment and they are perhaps not inclined to focus on a few stations in the west of London that they have recently taken over. Nevertheless the takeover of stations from other operators should be the execution of a standard procedure by now for TfL. The shortcomings are thus not likely to be down to incompetence. One cannot help feeling that money is playing a large part in this. This cannot tell the whole story because some of the things that let down the latest TfL stations are things that could be easily put right with a bit of tender loving care.
TfL Rail almost in denial
Until now, when TfL took over a National Rail station, they wanted the world to know it. ‘Under new management’ was the subliminal message with the implicit suggestion that things can only get better. Of course, you can’t instantly transform a station that needs major structural improvements, but you can do a lot of small things that make a difference. Chris Green of Network SouthEast fame showed that just by applying a bit of paint in the first few weeks of ownership you can send out the message that improvements are coming.
Station sign with no indication as to who runs the station
In contrast, on stations between Acton Main Line, Hayes & Harlington and beyond, it would appear that TfL are anxious to do as little as possible to highlight the fact that they run the stations. Almost all references to the previous management have been eradicated, with white paint suitably applied to station name boards (and even on platform number signs) leaving the passenger with no idea as to who runs the station.
Temporary ticket office at Hayes & Harlington. The sign has the Heathrow Connect logo and there is nothing to show that it is actually run by TfL
Spot the uniformed member of staff
Of course, you cannot completely hide your identity when running a station. The first giveaway has to be the uniform the staff wear – assuming you can see them. It is not clear whether this phase of station takeovers is supposed to be covered by TfL’s legendary ‘staffed from first train in the morning to last train at night’ policy, but at stations like Acton Main Line or Hanwell it is inevitable that even when the staff are there they are not always visible. Staff do, in fact, wear the distinctive TfL Rail uniform, but one wonders whether the average member of the public would even notice that.
The ticket machine test
Another area that is generally a giveaway as to who runs the station is the ticket machine. It is clear that the original machines have had their software updated for TfL use. The labelling on the machine has also been updated to be consistent with TfL ticket machines. In a small omission of detail, the original framing of some of the functions with a First Great Western pink border has been allowed to remain.
Ticket machine still with First Great Western pink border
Like the issue of spotting staff, one wonders in these days of Oystercard and other contactless payment whether many people even look at the ticket machine.
The alcohol test
Incongruous notice at Hanwell
It is possible to ask whether it matters if the passenger thinks that TfL runs a station or that it is run by a conventional TOC. The answer is ‘yes’ – for the simple reason that the Conditions of Carriage are slightly different at TfL run stations to other National Rail stations. The expectations associated with the Conditions of Carriage work both ways: An operator cannot expect passengers to obey their rules if it is not clear whose set of rules they should obey.
Many of the differences in the Conditions of Carriage are extremely subtle of course – such was whether a police officer (other than a British Transport Police one) can demand to see your ticket. Some, however, can have a major impact on passengers. TfL do not permit alcohol on their stations or on trains, so on stations that get taken over by TfL you will often see notices concerning the restrictions applied to drinking alcohol or carrying it in open containers. Somewhat perversely, if the train is not a TfL train, once aboard you are free to consume your alcohol but if alighting at a TfL-run station, one is no longer permitted to drink alcohol or have an open container containing alcohol.
The signage test
Incomplete signage at Southall
A further expectation is that stations taken over by TfL quickly have their signage replaced with standard TfL signage. Given that the station takeover can be prepared for long in advance, there are few reasons for this not to be completed fairly soon after takeover. As a portion of the railway budget the cost is tiny, but these things have quite an impact. Chris Green was famous for his painting-lamposts-red ploy and that was for good reason. The same was true of the early ‘orangification’ of the North London line. It helps new ownership get noticed and provides a better station environment for the passenger. It also sets expectations for passengers familiar with TfL signage.
Inconsistent signage at Hayes & Harlington with noticeably different typefaces
Unfortunately, the application of signage to these latest TfL stations seems to be entirely haphazard. Worse still, by replacing some signs but not others it makes the visual language for passengers worse than what it was before. On top of this, signs that were missing continue to be missing.
Where there is progress
It is not all doom and gloom, however. It is clear that a lot of progress has been made in extending platforms ready for the arrival of class 345 trains in May. These trains were originally intended to be 9-car from the outset. Even with an initial offering of 7-car trains now planned, the extended platforms are needed if selective door operation is to be the exception rather than the rule on that section of line.
Until very recently, the one platform where progress was noticeably lacking was the most important platform of all – the bay platform at Hayes & Harlington. This platform is where the class 345 trains that, initially, are unable to run in the Heathrow Tunnels will terminate. Failure to complete this would mean that 7-car class 345 trains would have to be used. If that happens then all the other platform extensions will be of limited value. Most existing platforms are only currently long enough for seven 20m carriages, so even GWR’s current 8-car class 387 fleet is unable to have the doors opened on its last carriages at most stations.
It is a bit frustrating that most of the platform extensions seem to be largely ready and could be brought into use shortly, if there were a will to do this. Whilst this might initially seem to show a lack of determination to get on with implementing improvements though, a piecemeal introduction would perhaps cause a lot of confusion for both passengers and staff. The activity going on to sort out the final details (such as installing customer information systems) on the platform extensions suggests a considerable effort is being made to have these extended platforms ready by the time the 7-car class 345 trains (which are the length of a conventional 8-car train) are put into service in late May.
Platform extensions at Southall
With the planned replacement of class 387 by class 345 due on May 20th, it does seem to makes sense to wait until the introduction of the new fleet before opening the platform extensions. One complication here though is that the drivers of the existing class 360 Heathrow Connect trains, which are being temporarily retained and run by TfL, will have to get used to the new stopping locations on the platforms.
Progress elsewhere
In addition to platforms extensions, there is also a lot of progress on installation of the aforementioned customer information systems throughout the length of platforms. These will provide details of the next three trains. Whilst they were being installed minor hiccups occurred, such as all the screens at West Ealing working perfectly but being partially obscured by notices stating that ‘this equipment is not in use’. Misleadingly, the sign at the busy platform 3 at Ealing Broadway informed the numerous waiting passengers that ‘This platform is not in use’.
Working CIS at West Ealing – despite what the notice says
Where there is almost no progress
What is extremely disappointing, not least to people like Val Shawcross, the Deputy Mayor for transport, is the almost universal lack of progress on station rebuilding. Delay has been variously blamed in the past on Crossrail and Network Rail. Whatever the situation once was, it seems that Crossrail is no longer involved with anything west of the Paddington portal and that Network Rail is doing – or not doing – the work directly for TfL.
LR Sources currently place the blame firmly on Network Rail’s shoulders. It is telling that planning permission for various stations building upgrades has only recently been granted and, to the frustration of many, Network Rail haven’t yet even let the contracts for station rebuilding.
Either Network Rail don’t appreciate the desired urgency of getting on with station rebuilding or cash constraints prevent them doing the work earlier or their planning resources are overstretched, If their planning resources are overstretched, they are either not willing or not able to ‘buy in’ the additional resources necessary. As far as they appear to be concerned, if the stations are ready by December 2019 when the Elizabeth line fully opens then they have done all that is required of them.
This station rebuilding delay is a great pity, because first impressions of TfL Rail in West London are not going to be impressive. That leaves a trust gap that the Elizabeth line will need to overcome, a particular concern given that brand arrives in December 2018. The delay also means that councils cannot get on with associated urban realm improvements.
Whilst station renovation costs in relation to the overall project are small, they are an obvious target to choose when trying to make the inevitable savings that become necessary as a project ends up spending more than its budgeted costs elsewhere. Stations (other than very large rebuilds that take years) tend to be targets for savings because the work on them is normally done towards the end of the project when the need for avoiding an overspend often becomes paramount. Also, the work is often deemed ‘non-essential’ as service introduction targets can be met without renovating an existing station.
When cancellation of station reconstruction is usually necessary it is to avoid the overall cost of a project not exceeding the money available. In the case of western stations on the Elizabeth line it is not a cancellation but a postponement – although Network Rail might argue nothing has been postponed. In this case it seems to be a cash-flow issue as the money will eventually be spent anyway.
In the case of the Elizabeth line stations involved, the reconstruction delay may also be regretted because it could be the reason why TfL Rail are reluctant to improve the existing stations by any more than the bare minimum necessary.
It is now time to look at the individual stations involved.
Acton Main line
Acton Main Line is a strange station. Nowadays, it is the first station out of Paddington. Its current inability to take passengers directly to any station in London other than Paddington must make it unattractive compared to nearby Underground stations and bus routes. This unattractiveness is reflected in the passenger numbers, which put it on par with Sundridge Park on the Bromley North branch.
Off-peak, the clientele seems to consist almost entirely of those wishing to look at locomotives at the adjacent freight depot. Indeed anyone not carrying a large camera, notebook or binoculars looks somewhat out of place.
One positive about the future of Acton Main Line station is that the existing small brick ticket office on the road overbridge is being replaced with a decent station entrance at the side. Despite planning permission only being granted in December 2017, construction workers (wearing their Carillion hi-vis jackets) are on-site behind the anonymous blue hoardings getting on with station construction – or at least some fairly major pre-construction works.
Construction work at Acton Main Line
No doubt TfL are hoping that the attractiveness of a service beyond Paddington and a future service of 4tph (up from the current 2tph) will mean that the station will be much busier than it is at present.
Ealing Broadway
Ealing Broadway station must epitomise the unsatisfactory nature of Crossrail station improvement in West London. Work was started with much fanfare a few years ago and a small worksite set up on Haven Green opposite the station. Some demolition had taken place but then work stopped – raising the question of why it was started. Essential operational work such as lengthening platforms and emergency-escape overbridges continued. In the evening peak, passengers from the Tube to platform 3 are currently subject to a detour to enable them to catch their onward train home, due to the limited station reconstruction works that are currently taking place. One suspects this may have be been unnecessary if the station buildings and concourse had already been rebuilt.
Hoardings at Ealing Broadway. The scene is almost unaltered from over a year ago
Along with Hayes & Harlington, Ealing Broadway is a west London Crossrail station that will continue to be served by Great Western Railway with 2tph in the off-peak period – but none in peak hours.
West Ealing
The unsatisfactory nature of a lack of station reconstruction continues at West Ealing. Hoardings make it clear where the new station building will be but, like adjacent Ealing Broadway, it appears to have been a few years since any work was done on preparations for it. A particular disappointment at the moment is the total lack of shelter if waiting for the GWR shuttle to Greenford – which only runs half-hourly.
Platform 5 for Greenford with the extension to platform 4 already in use
Hanwell
In contrast to all the other stations covered in this article, Hanwell station is a sheer delight. It is a grade II listed station and as much as possible has been done to preserve the charm of a mid-Victorian GWR station. TfL is onto a potential winner here as the best thing to do is almost nothing, to keep its heritage status. Indeed it is quite hard to change anything and even putting LED lamps inside the original lampposts took a long time to get approval – which had previously led to problems with GWR class 387 trains calling there in hours of darkness.
Unusually for the GWR main line it has three platforms numbered 1, 2 and 3. Platform 1 (up main) is the best preserved simply because the public have no access to it. Its only blemishes are its distinctive and incongruous First Great Western platform number and the seemingly-needless yellow line – possibly of value to staff but one cannot imagine even staff being allowed access other than under a ‘possession’.
The delightful platform 1 at Hanwell which has no public access
Of particular note is Ealing Council’s worthwhile effort to create a sympathetic southern entrance. Sadly, as is often the case with heritage on London Underground, the ‘sticker fairies’ (albeit this time council ones) have adversely impacted on the good work by plastering the replica Victorian lamps with out-of-keeping notices giving a telephone number to report the lamp if faulty.
The ‘new’ southern entrance to Hanwell Station
Even at Hanwell though one feels that just a bit more sympathetic effort would go a long way. There is a waiting room on platform 3 (up relief) which is spartan but immaculately clean. However, if the door is closed, the passenger has no idea if it permitted to be used. A simple sign telling the station user it is a waiting room would cost very little and show a bit of care and attention.
Spartan waiting room
The heritage lampposts look unloved. Whilst it is well-known that painting lampposts when there are live 25kV wires overhead is problematic, the application of a few tins of paint to the base of the lampposts would make the station feel less neglected.
Lamp post base that could do with a repaint
Major work will eventually be needed at Hanwell to provide lifts for step-free access from entrance to the platform. It will certainly be a challenge to do this and preserve as much of the heritage as possible. No platform lengthening will be done. Selective Door Operation will be used and this understandable given the stations heritage use and low passenger numbers.
Hanwell, like Acton Main Line, should benefit a lot from being served the Elizabeth line as the service will go from 2tph to 4tph.
Southall
Southall tells the familiar story of a new station building just not progressing. At least, in the case of Southall, the original station building is still present and usable. Platforms are being extended. Rather sadly, installation of an electrification mast on the up relief platform has resulted in an enormous hole in the roof which cannot be pleasant when it is raining. With the need for Health & Safety it is practically inevitable that the power must be turned off before any work can be done on it. This seems to be rather typical of a lot of little issues – not really worth doing because the station is due to be reconstructed in the next couple of years.
Hayes & Harlington
If anything epitomised the sorry state of affairs at TfL stations on the line it is Hayes & Harlington station. This has the potential to be a busy station with 10 trains an hour all day once the Elizabeth line is fully opened.
Hayes & Harlington station is also potentially an important interchange station for people from all stations to the west of it (as far as Penzance). This is because they will be able to change here (and possibly at Reading as well) for a train to Heathrow. For longer distance travellers the alternative is to go into Paddington and backtrack. This involves either catching the an expensive Heathrow Express service or changing from Paddington High Level to the Crossrail station.
With no good news yet on the signalling issues in the Heathrow tunnels, it looks like Hayes & Harlington station is going to be used as an interchange for more passengers than originally anticipated – and those passengers will have a longer wait at this station. It would appear that this has not been taken into account by anyone at TfL Rail – or, if they have, they are not proposing to do anything about it.
Entrance to a rather dilapidated and unadvertised waiting room on platform 3 at Hayes & Harlington
The current station is a mess, with some demolition work undertaken but no progress on the new building. Waiting facilities are spartan, with a covered shelter on platforms 4 and 5 that is exposed to the wind because it lacks walls. Although platform 3 at least has some sort of canopy, the waiting room is narrow, long and bare. Worse still, it is not advertised as a waiting room and, as at Hanwell, one could easily be forgiven for believing passengers were not allowed to use it.
The all important longer platform 5
The real problem with the rebuilding of Hayes & Harlington station is that, according to the plans, it is integral to the lengthening of platform 5 to accommodate 9-car class 345 trains. It appears that ultimately the rebuilt station will have a concourse above the platforms accessible directly from the road overbridge – as now, but the concourse will be much bigger. In preparation for this the ticket office has been relocated to a temporary office at the side of the station. If coming from the temporary ticket office one reaches platforms 4 & 5 by walking behind the buffer stops of platform 5 – the bay platform that needs to be lengthened. In fact the plans show it being lengthened all the way to the road bridge over the railway.
Improvised temporary train arrestor consisting of polystyrene blocks located beyond the fixed stop light on platform 5
What appears to be happening is that some lengthening of the track at platform 5 is now taking place and the closed off portion of the already built platform is being prepared for service use. This would suggest that the platform is being made just long enough for a 9-car class 345, whilst still allowing pedestrian movement beyond the buffer stops. To make matters worse, in trying to get this relatively simple task completed, the original contractor assigned to this task was Carillion.
London end of platform 5 with no easy way of extending further
It is known that TfL will initially use 7-car class 345 in May and these will not yet go all the way to Heathrow but terminate at Hayes & Harlington for the foreseeable future. It would appear that TfL are not confident this platform will be extended in time. Network Rail, on the other hand, insists it will be ready but as usual they appear to be cutting things fine.
What might be happening here is that TfL is being prudent and being ever more cautious with their staged opening. If TfL initially run 7-car class 345 trains these will use the new platform extensions, but not rely on the full length of the platform and hence not all the monitors. By bringing in the new CCTV platform monitoring in two stages (7-car then 9-car) it further reduces the potential for implementation problems to disrupt the new service, as well as getting over any potential length issues with platform 5 at Hayes & Harlington.
A further potential reason for TfL opting to be more cautious and initially provide 7-car trains is so that the power supply is not taxed more than it is at present. This should not be an issue but, in light of events over the past few months, one can understand if TfL Rail is extremely wary of power supply issues. It is notable that both TfL Rail with Crossrail and GTR with Thameslink are adopting a far more cautious approach to upgrades with a desire to break them down into discrete piecemeal elements rather than go for an everything-on-the-big-day approach.
Summing Up
The number of passengers using intermediate stations between Paddington and Heathrow on the Elizabeth line will be relatively small and will probably not detract from the impression given to most people by the Elizabeth line when it opens. Nevertheless, for an unwillingly selected few, the initial impression is going to be of nice new train set providing a valuable new service to unloved, incomplete stations.
Interesting update. A few comments.
1. I wonder if TfL have decided not to re-sign / repaint at locations where construction work will be ongoing for at least 18 months and possibly longer? I agree with you that the current mess is not satisfactory but I can sort of understand a reluctance to install new items that may end up being moved or damaged during construction. Typically roundels and TfL signs didn’t appear on the Overground until decorative / upgrade works were well under way / nearing completion. We had “stickers” over the old signs on the GOBLIN for a long while. I also wonder if they are waiting to just use “Elizabeth Line” branding and colours hence nothing substantial will appear until December 2018.
2. If I was at City Hall I think I’d now be getting nervous about how accessible Crossrail will be at its western end come Dec 2019, never mind December this year. Politically the accessibility aspect is important and Assembly, Mayoral and Government representatives have their names associated with this commitment. The potential for a lot of red faces is certainly there given the lethargic progress on stn works. Accessibility lobby groups that support Labour at City Hall will not keep quiet if the stations are not accessible once the full Crossrail service starts operation.
3. Is it the case that the “old” station redesigns have all been binned by Network Rail thus necessitating a re-run of the planning application process? This may partly explain the ludicrous delays – note I’m not blaming the councils here as they all clearly want decent facilities at these stations and welcome the investment.
4. I don’t use the GWML very often but I thought the trains were well used on this line – especially in the peaks. Once TfL take over some of the services in May the line will appear on the Tube Map. We know that that simple change practically guarantees increased patronage as people are suddenly aware of the route. Therefore I’d perhaps counter that rather more people will face the prospect of trudging through building sites than do at present.
I do hope things get a move on out west but time is ticking by very quickly now. Every day lost eats into whatever programme float there is / was.
You opine: “The number of passengers using intermediate stations between Paddington and Heathrow on the Elizabeth line will be relatively small…..” Actually this cannot be true. Even the unfriendly HConn. can be packed to the gunnels in the rush-hour from Paddington.
And you pointed out the unfriendly rush hour arrangements at Ealing Broadway which force those coming from the Tube lines to have to walk the length of platform 4, then over the new bridge, and then the length of platform 3 to where the trains stop, all due to fears of over-crowding on the over-bridge at the country end.
Hayes and Harlington Hayes is always crowded during the rush hours, and frequently trains are so crowded to cattle-train conditions so that intending passengers cannot board. The station environs are also a mess. For the last week the power supply has been cut meaning that there;s been few lights, no info. systems, no ticket machines, and no Oyster machines for much of last Wed., Thurs., Fri. and at the weekend. And TfL failed to employ extra staff in the ticket office due to the ticket machines being u/s.
A real bone of contention is that there is no drop off / pick up area or turning circle outside the station. Outside platform 4 Station Parade is aggressively ‘policed’ by private security who take photos of all drivers and then issue them with heavy fines.
You failed to mention West Drayton. This is a building site with the main buildings half demolished. It has been like this for a year. And perhaps you could also survey the other stations towards Reading which are all suffering from the malaise of no-one actually getting on with any preparations or rebuilding.
As an aside the Elizabeth Line is starting to be called the ‘Tin Lizzie Line’ due to the delays in rebuilding the stations etc. and the expectation that it might all just be a TfL fantasy after all.
Sorry for the typos above. One other issue re: H&H is why has the station name sign at the entrance to the upper foyer been removed. This was raised earlier this year and nothing has been done to replace it.
C.J.Brady,
West Drayton was not covered because this only focused on stations that are due to be served by TfL trains from May. I am well-aware that West Drayton is as bad, if not worse, in some respects. It is probably worthy of an article on its own at an appropriate time.
From my limited experience, I would say the other stations on the Great Western Main Line that TfL run are not too bad – but that is mainly because there wasn’t much work planned there anyway.
C.J.Brady,
The number of passengers using intermediate stations between Paddington and Heathrow on the Elizabeth line will be relatively small.
It doesn’t matter how busy the trains are. There are not that many of them (compared to up to 24tph in the central area and 12tph on both the eastern branches). In additional to that, a large proportion of those users in future will be travelling directly to or from Heathrow so not affected by the intermediate stations. So, as proportion of future Elizabeth line users, the numbers will be relatively small.
C.J.Brady,
re: H&H … why has the station name sign at the entrance to the upper foyer been removed. This was raised earlier this year and nothing has been done to replace it.
I don’t know why it was removed but I suspect it hasn’t been replaced because TfL don’t want to have their logo adorning a station that one cannot exactly be proud of.
I live in the area and use the line daily. I’ve not much experience of LO but it was immediately obvious to me of a change as staff appeared in the evenings at long last and many signs changed from day 1.
I was so impressed I wrote about it on my site!
The delays are disappointing and some stations have barely altered from half finished worksites but as mentioned this seems to be Network Rail’s fault.
http://feelingealing.co.uk/2017/12/11/tfl-take-running-great-western-rail-stations-west-london/
Oh, also regarding this “The number of passengers using intermediate stations between Paddington and Heathrow on the Elizabeth line will be relatively small…..” and Pedantics point above about many using the line straight to Heathrow.
True, but as with other parts of the Crossrail routes the number of homes now being built or proposed around all stations is huge eg: http://feelingealing.co.uk/2018/02/14/166-flat-tower-block-plan-approved-esso-petrol-station-site-southall/
Having watched, in a professional capacity, the working & loadings of services at Ealing Broadway, Acton ML, Hayes & Southall during the peiod 2008-13, I can assure you that here is a huge suppressed demand for “travel facillities”. Load factors well in excess of 200% were the norm for the 5 & 6-car “GW” dmu sets in use at the time.
However, I agree with WW in that the lackadaisical attitude to station rebuilding does not bode well. W. Ealing appears almost unchanged from last June/July, for instance & the run-around-the-houses at Ealing Bdy is very bad “pubilcity.”
I suspect that TfL are bracing themseleves to lay the blame on NR ( & others ) if the usual press outcry starts in mid-May & will point the finger, whilst pleading ( with some justification? ) “But you know the Lizzie-line doesn’t open until December & this isn’t it!”
Hoping that ploy could be extended until the final full opening in 2019 strikes me as a futile enterprise, but that might just be me & being cynical.
I am amazed that Acton Main Line is still open.
I used to live in Acton and occasionally used the main line station if I was going to the Paddington area (usually to catch a train to the West Country). However, the infrequent service, limited range of available destinations, and the basic facilities were not the main disincentive to travel. Given that in those pre-Oyster days it was almost impossible to buy a ticket there, you always had to run the gauntlet of Paddington’s ticket inspectors on arrival there, and they invariably refused to believe that is where you had come from, giving you the third-degree about how come you were the only person on the train without a ticket. (The obvious answer, that there was only one station without ticket issuing facilities and you were the only person to have boarded the train there, didn’t seem to occur to them). On at least one occasion the argument went on so long that I missed my train west.
It seemed at the time that the management were trying to drive custom away to the point where they could close it. (Westbourne Park was still open in those days).
Was thought ever given to diverting local services via North Acton and West Acton, replacing the Central Line’s Ealing branch and allowing a more frequent service on the West Ruislip branch?
Having had a spin on TfL Rail (east) this afternoon I think you could almost write the same article for stations there as has been done for the western stations. Stations have limited TfL Rail branding, no proper roundels in sight and many stations have works ongoing. The difference is that work is actually taking place albeit fairly slowly but it’s a very busy route and opportunities to do meaningful work in traffic hours is limited. This confirms my suspicion that no major sprucing up / rebranding will happen until TfL is ready to launch the full Elizabeth Line branding. The only real change I noted was the recent addition (drum roll) of TfL style bench seating at Ilford. Surprisingly Redbridge Council is already changing the public realm near the station despite no major works having started to replace the ticket hall. I can’t see the revised Ilford station being ready for May 2019 when the GEML joins the core. It’s not a small job to remodel Ilford station.
I did manage to see the wired up Pudding Mill Lane portal for the first time so the GEML is now properly linked into the Crossrail tunnel section.
I’ll concede that there are some stations on the eastern side where there is a lot of work in progress and some where they don’t seem to have started in earnest (main entrance at Ilford and Romford). But elsewhere there have been considerable improvements (e.g. York Road entrance at Ilford).
More to the point, I think that on the eastern side there is little doubt that TfL is in charge of the station. Certainly you wouldn’t think it was another company. The only exception is Shenfield where there is nothing to indicate TfL run the station – and that is because they don’t.
On the western side there are even very new-looking GWR posters and (alcohol posters excepted) very few TfL posters.
A query: If the ticket machines have had their software updated, does that include the option of having ‘Boundary of Zone 6’ as a starting point? This option is available at ticket offices and enables users of Disabled/Freedom passes to only pay for that part of a longer journey that falls outside the zones.
@Timbeau
What purpose would that serve though? Ealing Broadway needs the high level of service that the Central provides – at least until the Elizabeth is fully open, and the West Ruislip branch is mostly fine (and if they wanted to up frequency, then there’s the White City terminators).
@PoP
The key words there, and the source of the confusion, is ‘Elizabeth line’.
The article is mostly focused on the intermediate state of TfL Rail (while talking about the future Elizabeth line services to come) and phrases like “a large proportion of those users in future will be travelling directly to or from Heathrow so not affected by the intermediate stations.” exacerbate the confusion of the claim being made by re-focusing just on the part of the future Elizabeth line that will become TfL Rail next month.
While, obviously, the roughly 15 million NR passengers a year that these intermediate stations see will be a drop in the Elizabeth line ocean, they will make up most of the people using TfL Rail in West London, with Heathrow-Paddington passengers making up only a small proportion (though more than currently due to the fare changes) of passengers on the line.
Thanks for the good work in putting together another helpful update.
The piece of the puzzle that I’m particularly struggling with is the use of the class 345 trains into the Heathrow Tunnels. (Presuming it’s OK to comment here – or should this be on another thread?)
The published plan was that this should happen next month (at the timetable change) but it seems to be accepted that this now won’t happen in May – so the current 2 trains per hour service will continue to the airport using the existing class 360 units.
As I understand it – this is because, thus far, the implementation team have been unable to get the 345 sets to behave properly in the tunnels, even though they apparently do behave as specified in test conditions.
Does the recently announced switch of HEx services (the service to be managed by GWR using class 387 units instead of the HEx class 332 units) mean that the 345 units won’t be able to access Heathrow until the 387 units have replaced the HEx 332 units (and thus the unique signalling associated with those units is decommissioned)? Is that the correct sequence and is there a public date for this to be implemented?
@ Island Dweller – I don’t believe there is a dependency between use of 345s into Heathrow and the proposed release of the 332s / subcontracting of HEX to GWR using 387s. Last I read the 345s were expected to be able to run to Heathrow “later this year” once the signalling issues are resolved. 387s aren’t due to appear until late 2019 / 2020 which is a fair way into the future. I am sure others will have more detail than this.
“It has been largely compete for many years” – surely this is a type and it should be “compLete”, right?
[Yes. Word now competed by the addition of an ‘l’ PoP]
I’m wondering all underground and crossrail are for east and west and north is already have more than enough underground stations why south London ignored why
The link to Crossrail’s February update is broken – it looks as if there’s a superfluous ” on the end of the URL.
[Or alternatively a missing ” at the start. Now fixed. Thanks. PoP]
@IQBAL: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail_2
@IQBAL -Actually, all the recent tube extensions (Victoria, Jubilee, Elizabeth, NLX), as well as BLE, have added new stations south of the river. Perhaps not as far south of the river as many would like, but S London has fewer tubes in the first place partly because of the greater density of suburban mainline railways, partly because the owners of those railways fought off tube extensions in Edwardian times, and partly because surface transport (trams and buses) was well developed compared with broad swathes of N London where the tubes could fill a pretty blank canvas.
Can anyone advise which of the GWR buildings and canopies that survive at the stations Crossrail will serve will be spared the wrecking ball?
West Draytons, for example, might be neglected, but the worst damage was how messily half the canopy was ripped off for, presumably, the new building and lifts.
Thanks
Ben,
I wonder what you think is worth preserving.
Acton Main Line has nothing of historical value.
Ealing Broadway and West Ealing are currently architecturally dog’s dinners and only complete reconstruction can improve it – not sure what was there originally.
As stated in the article, Hanwell will be preserved to a high standard. This makes sense here because there is something worth preserving and passenger numbers are sufficiently low for heritage preservation not cause problems operating the station.
Southall should retain its platform features, I hope, but the station entrance will be relocated and completely new.
Hayes & Harlington is surely not worthy of any kind of preservation.
At West Drayton I would suggest the damage is largely done. Against preservation, is the opportunity for a suitable modern station with a new, far more pleasant, approach to it.
Further west, the planned changes are pretty minimal when it comes to station reconstruction. Probably the most significant potential for heritage destruction is the trimming back of canopies for electrification – which has already been done.
If you want to see preserved GWR stations in London in original GWR colours then make a journey either to Hanwell or between Hammersmith and Royal Oak on the Hammersmith & City and Circle lines.
@RAYL
I’ve been asking TOCs for ticket machines to sell tickets starting from “Boundary Zone N” for years – they don’t do it (I suspect because TVMs don’t sell any tickets not starting from point of sale) nor can they be booked online and collected. I don’t believe TfL TVMs are any better in this respect.
I wonder just how much extra revenue TOCs make from (a) commuters who don’t know they can buy tickets starting where their Travelcard ends and (b) those who know but in too much of a hurry to queue and instead buy the full fare from a TVM?
@Graham H
Not quite all the recent Tube extensions – the Piccadilly Line has been extended three times since 1971 (when the Victoria Line was extended) but has yet to cross the river…..
However, Crossrail should be added to that list, as two of its new stations are south of the river. Indeed, more than a quarter of Crossrail’s route from Reading to Abbey Wood is south of the Thames (including both ends, despite what is shown on official maps).
http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab656259048fb93837ecc0ecbcf0c557.r23.cf3.rackcdn.com/assets/library/document/e/original/elizabeth_line_network_map-july_2017_a_.pdf
But indeed, the north/south difference is basically because the Southern Electric got in first.
Most of “central” London (i.e the City and West End) is north of the river and early Underground lines were built on the cut and cover principle, which is not practical to use under large bodies of water. Even when the District did penetrate south of the river, it was on LSWR tracks.
Underground lines crossing the river had to wait for Tube tunnelling techniques, and t both the first two true Tubes (three if you count the East London Line) went under the river). But by this time, South London was already sewn up by the main line companies, and opposed any poaching on their territory.
Another reason for that was that the railways to the north of London had little interest in suburban traffic as they had more lucrative markets in long distance passenger services (> 100 miles), goods traffic from the Atlantic ports (Liverpool, Bristol) and, above all, coal. The southern companies (and the GER) had none of these so saw suburban traffic as an opportunity rather than a nuisance.
What suburban branches there were north of the river were largely self-contained (Northern heights, Epping, Wat-Eus) and relatively easily converted to Tube extensions).
@RayL / Martin
I’m sure I’ve seen a TVM which allowed this, but can’t recall where.
There is always the option of buying a ticket from the last station on your route at which the season ticket is valid. Split ticketing does not require you to be on a train that calls at the split point if one of the tickets is a season or rover. All that is required is that both tickets are valid at the split point (no “doughnutting”)
However, you need to be careful – a Season from Waterloo to Woking, plus a Woking to Guildford single, might be technically invalid on non-stop trains routed via Cobham (as they are non-stop, there is of course no clue in the public timetable which route they take).
Re Islanddweller and WW,
345s/332s/360s/387s and the Heathrow Tunnel (aka the elephant in the room)
1. 387s are designed to have the same ETCS /ATO equipment as 345s easily retrofitted later (space for electronics modules and necessary wiring loom additions etc all built in). (Also the reason for GTR opting to send 387/1 ex Thameslink to GN when the opportunity arose given potential ETCS early adoption there)
2. 345s and modified 387s are in the same bucket as regards signalling capability and ability to use the Heathrow tunnels (ETCS but no ATP).
3. Ominously the 2015-plan B in the event of ETCS being delayed was to install TPWS+ on the GWML from Paddington to Airport Jn but to leave GW-ATP on the Branch line as they thought the mainline would the the tricky bit and the Heathrow Branch the easy bit, in reality the opposite has happened.
4. Fitting TPWS+ to the Heathrow Tunnels / branch only requires more than standard basic work on 6 signals and associated hardware, the rest is simple standard fitment. (discarded as 2015 long list option 15)
5. Plan C (current plan) is to keep going as is with variations on 7car or 9 car into the H&H bays.
6. If only 1 of GW-ATP and ETCS will work at any one time in the tunnels then fitting TPWS+ to the branch to help with migration would be very useful otherwise you’re looking at a “big-bang” style switch over from HEx using all 332s & (1x 360) to 387s at the same time as ETCS goes live and presumably also TfLrail / Elizabeth line also swap to using 345 at the same time as 360s don’t/won’t have ETCS.
fitting ETCS+ on the branch allows a gradual migration to new stock as 332s/360s/345s/387s can all operate before GW-ATP is switched off and 360s/345s/387s afterwards and then just 345s/387s after ETCS switch on.
7. TfL need this to work as Crossrail to Heathrow is apparently going to bring in an extra low-medium 9 figure sum annually even after cannibalising Piccadilly line users.
8. Given 7. the dosh will be forth coming to make it happen…
9. The current approach seems to be attempting to make it work before the “if” in 6. becomes certain not just a possible.
10. The big focus still has to be on getting the Paddington – Abbey Wood services started in December.
Thanks to POP for the well documented article.
It’s worth noting that MTR Crossrail Ltd, who are now operating under the name “TFL Rail” to the public at this time are required by contract to defer to Transport For London (the government department) for their public relations interface.
It does make it a bit confusing about the stations to the west of London, as they are owned by TFL, operated by MTR Crossrail (TFL Rail) but don’t yet have trains run by MTR Crossrail (still Heathrow Connect and sometimes GWR).
Also, some of the TfL Rail stations to the East, I noted last week, still have three or four ex-franchise signage and paintwork on the stations (a bit of First Great Eastern, National Express East Anglia, Abellio Greater Anglia and perhaps some BR Network SouthEast).
The sticker at the top of the pictured ticket machine starts with “Oyster: Top-up”. Which gets the message across, but doesn’t make a lot of sense.
It’s just a small thing, but TfL have traditionally pretty good with the small things – and it’s why they have comprehensive style guides on clear language on signage and in publications. Is this just another result of budget cuts at head office?
@Martin @Tibeau South Western Railway (with the functionality added under South West Trains) S&B TVMs can sell Boundary Zone tickets.
Re Another Martin,
“Is this just another result of budget cuts at head office?”
Just the recent retirement of the chief enforcer…
@ Ngh – thanks for that comprehensive explanation about the signalling issues out west. I assume the “worth loads of dosh to TfL” remark is predicated on TfL being able to run a 4 tph service into Heathrow not 2 tph as a temporary measure.
“Chief enforcer” being a Mr L Daniels??
@ Briantist – TfL do not own the stations to the west. They are owned by Network Rail. TfL Rail (MTR Crossrail) are the Station Facility Owner who lease the stations from NR. I’ve not seen any TfL Board papers that indicate that TfL have secured “long leases” as they managed to do with the West Anglia takoever. That arrangement didn’t change the ultimate ownership but gave TfL greater rights over commercial use of the stations and enhanced maintenance responsibilities. It should also smooth any later changes of operator for the Overground concession. Heathrow Airport retain ownership and control of the Heathrow stations that Crossrail will serve. I suspect that if TfL *did* own the stations west of Paddington that the rebuilding works would be rather more advanced than they are as they’d have got the design and procurement actitivies completed by now with contractors on site many months ago. For example TfL have already let the accessibility work contracts at a number of stations out west.
And the station name is STILL missing from the front of Hayes & Harlington Station – outside the upper foyer. All that can be seen is a broken concrete block presumably holding the roof up. It is as though TfL is embarrassed to be managing this dump of building site.
On branding, I previously had the impression that TfL Rail was deliberately created as a lower standard brand to be used on Crossrail east and west before it becomes the proper Elizabeth Line.
On NR, I think that they struggle to do upgrades has been clear for a while. But while small county councils have little options, I would have thought TfL would be able to plan for NR’s (in-)competence levels, e.g. by establishing all interdependencies themselves and feeding NR a series of limited and well-defined projects to review and deliver.
Just looking at maps (I don’t know the area well), I would anticipate Acton ML replacing trips from a number of nearby Tube and London Overground stations. Just 4 trains an hour is pitiful, for a station that will have fast direct trains to the West End, City and Docklands. Not only faster to many destinations, the service will be new, clean and air-conditioned. Unless, your destination is actually on one of the other lines, Elizabeth Line and change looks the better option for most Actonians…
@RAYL @Martin @Timbeau @Muzer
I’ve thought for a while a campaign needs to be launched to make “boundary zone” tickets available for online booking. There’s no good reason they can’t; the only logical reason that they aren’t is that the TOCs/DfT prefer not to advertise them or make them easy to obtain as most travelcard holders don’t even know they exist so end up overpaying for longer distance fares
Thus a well-organised campaign is likely to be the only way to get them made available.
@C.J.BRADY: Just how important is that sign really?
I would have thought that most people would be more interested in identifying the building as a station. One would assume that most people would at least have some faint idea of where they are located.
Having just looked on streetview, the hoardings have nice shiny pictures of a class 345 and even a giant route map for Crossrail….
Lots of other signs, are there too!
@NGH – Thanks for that. It’s difficult to keep up with all the signalling issues on this project! Suffice to say there are four (yes, four!) different train protection systems in play here:
AWS/TPWS
GW ATP
Crossrail CBTC
ETCS
Different parts of the infrastructure have different systems installed both today and in the future, and the various trains in use also have varying capabilities:
Infrastructure:
New E-W core tunnels final – Bespoke Siemens CBTC (future conversion to ETCS specified but no current firm plans)
GW main line to Heathrow Airport Junctions today, mains and reliefs – GW pilot scheme ATP (obsolete), AWS, TPWS (including TPWS+ additional loops at high speed junction signals but not at all intermediate plain line signals).
GW main line to Heathrow Airport Junctions final, mains and reliefs – AWS, TPWS (possibly enhanced further under ‘Plan B’) – eventual ETCS overlay on existing colour light signalling.
Airport branch today – GW ATP ONLY.
Airport branch final – ETCS overlay on existing colour lights (with possible future removal of signals).
Train compatibility
332 today – GW ATP, AWS. Not sure about TPWS as these trains may have missed the general fleet retrofit. With their limited range of operations, over infrastructure fully equipped with GW ATP, they didn’t need it.
332 future – Conversion to ETCS complex and expensive, probably not economic.
360 today – GW ATP, AWS, TPWS.
360 future – As a more modern train than the 332, conversion to ETCS possible, and very likely eventually for use elsewhere but difficult to justify economically now for such a small subfleet for this project.
345 today and future – Built natively to operate under ETCS and CBTC. Standard backwards compatibility for AWS and TPWS using STM (specific transmission module) method, which consists of ‘plug in’ hardware and software modules that adapt the native ETCS computer and traction/braking interfaces to behave according to ‘Class B’ legacy system specifications. The ETCS computer and DMI screen and cab controls emulate the legacy system.
This train is definitely not envisaged to ever emulate the GW ATP system as that would require much effort in designing a custom STM emulation method and equipping a large fleet with STMs and specialised antennae that would then become obsolete in very short order. Totally uneconomic.
Remembering that the airport tunnels are today equipped solely with the GW ATP system, fitment and operation of multiple systems in the airport tunnels seems to be troublesome. Firstly there is the problem of adding the new transponders. The tunnel was built with derailment containment measures throughout which consist of a raised slab of concrete between the rails approximately at rail level. While the original design clearly made allowances for the current GW ATP trackside equipment, new transponders for ETCS (or indeed AWS/TPWS) require a space to accommodate them to be cut into the concrete slab. Secondly there may be problems operating both the GW ATP and ETCS systems alongside each other during a transition period. There’s nothing wrong conceptually with two protection systems overlaid on the same underlying signalling, but there may be technical incompatibilities between the particular systems concerned, perhaps because of similar electromagnetic frequencies interfering or overwhelming each other in close proximity of respective transponders and on-board reciever antennae if they’re both ‘live’ at the same time. While that is highly unlikely to lead to any safety problems, it could result in unacceptable reliability as confused on-board equipment fails safe and brings trains to a stand. Fitting AWS/TPWS in the tunnels might be a practical interim measure to cover the rolling stock changeover but that does mean yet more expensive holes cut in the derailment protection slab. It might be a price worth paying nonetheless. That could also require the 332s to be retrofitted with TPWS, if they do not already have this functionality, although the very similar 333s in Yorkshire must already have this so could be a design template, and addition of TPWS is usually a comparatively simple modification that uses the same traction and braking interfaces as AWS (which the 332s definitely have – I have seen a cab desk photo with the sunflower clearly visible).
@Pedantic
Thank you for your reply but I fear you are missing a few things of worth, albeit perhaps small things.
As this now, presumably dumped, mock up of West Drayton shows, the station buildings could be quite a pleasant feature if it were decide to spruce them up.
http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab656259048fb93837ecc0ecbcf0c557.r23.cf3.rackcdn.com//assets/library/image/1/medium/1402_141222_west_drayton_view_01_medium.jpg
Likewise, whilst the entrance to Hayes station is bereft of any pleasantness, the two surviving canopies and side buildings were welcoming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayes_%26_Harlington_railway_station#/media/File:Hayes_%26_Harlington_stn_slow_platforms_looking_west2.JPG
I notice in the plans the ghastly entrance was supposed to remain though, with only the Victorian buildings being demolished for platform extension.
I don’t see the point of ripping stuff out or down just for the sake of a fresh slate when objectively the architecture might be of better quality or design than what is to replace it. Granted Hayes needs the bay extended and that is unavoidable, but could such a quality of brickwork, timbering, ironwork, and masonry ever really be justified for a suburban station in this day and age? No.
Ditch the poor quality and cheap stuff certainly, but try and retain the good quality heritage stuff unless it is unavoidable.
Suburban architecture has largely died a death by a thousand cuts. Hayes and West Drayton especially have some nasty and utterly generic buildings. West Draytons buildings especially seem easy enough to keep. I hope this is still the case.
@Mark cheers for that summary. I was under the impression that the 332s did not have TPWS but I’m not sure where I got that from. I didn’t even realise they had AWS, though, but I don’t doubt you, and Wikipedia also agrees that they do. I’m just wondering why on earth they would have fitted it in the first place given the captive nature of the fleet…
Also kind of offtopic for Heathrow, but it’s worth pointing out that the 800s DO have BR(W) ATP. So designing a modern-day implementation of ATP isn’t exactly impossible. I’m not sure about the 387s but I’m guessing they’re operating on the same TPWS+ derogation that the 345s are using? Or perhaps they are allowed not to have it at all because the Networkers they’re replacing don’t have it?
@MUZER – AWS was standard mainline equipment when the 332s were built, while TPWS was not yet envisaged. I expect it could not be justified releasing the units later for TPWS retrofit when they clearly didn’t need the new system in normal service. I didn’t know about the 80xs but I expect they had to do that order to avoid any safety degrade compared to HSTs they are replacing until enhanced TPWS or ETCS is more widely rolled out to replace the GW ATP (on the limited routes where it is fitted). The STM emulation method on ETCS-native modern trains makes such adaptation much more practical than on older stock. You can also ‘mix your own’ protection system using standard Eurobalises and packet 44 messages to provide a modernised (and improved) version of AWS/TPWS for example, and there’s now a standard limited supervision (LS) implementation of this type in the ETCS specs. Much of continental Europe is going down this route now as it achieves interoperability much more economically than full supervision level 1 or 2.
Summary ( I suppose )
How quickly & cheaply can the GW ATP utterly non-standard “system” be dumped?
I agree that boundary zone tickets would make life a bit easier, but would they offer anything more than a ticket from/to a named boundary station?
@Bryn
If you buy a ticket from the last station in Zone 4 to a station in Zone 6, you pay for three zones. If you buy one from the boundary of Zone 4/5, you only pay for two.
@Bryn: Price (sometimes they’re cheaper), flexibility (sometimes they’re valid via multiple routes where a named station wouldn’t be), lack of possible conflict with people’s understanding of the rules which may stem from older versions of the Conditions of Carriage which would not allow them to be used with Day Travelcards (as opposed to the current Conditions of Travel which permit this).
Thanks to both.
And just to throw into the mix: sometimes the boundary is at a station (so the station is in two zones) (e.g. Bounds Green), and sometimes it is between a pair of stations (e.g. between Alexandra Palace and New Southgate). In the first case, a boundary zone ticket would not be cheaper than a ticket to/from that station, but in the second case, it might be. But in either case, the other advantages which Muzer has just listed would still apply.
Ah, my local line… Where do I begin?
Let’s start with a small grammar mistake in the paragraph about Ealing Broadway:
One suspects this may have be been unnecessary if the station buildings and concourse had already been rebuilt.
Regarding passenger numbers: these are indeed small on the GWR. Yes, the previous Turbos were hopelessly overcrowded, but that is because they were tiny! The longest formations were 6x23m, which ran about 10x in the high peak hour. Compare that to Southern into Victoria (30+ tph as a mix of 8, 10, and 12-car trains), or even Fenchurch Street.
Regarding the stations:
– Ealing Broadway: you will notice that the footbridge at the far (London) end of the platform also has stairs leading to the embankment south of the railway line. Is there a second entrance planned there, or will this only be an emergency escape?
– West Ealing: the extended platform 4 is not really in use, as 8-car Class 387s still use SDO. This is because the Down platform is still not formally extended, and the SDO equipment on the Class 387s cannot tell what platform the train is calling at.
– Hayes & Harlington: the same issue applies to the bay. The bay platform 5 is already long enough to take an 8-car Class 387, but the not-yet-officially-extended platforms 3 and 4 are not. Hence blanket use of SDO applies, and the carriage at the London end of the train does not open its doors at platform 5.
As far as staffing is concerned: they are not really visible, that is true. However, most stations (with the exception of Hanwell and Acton Main Line) were staffed during most of the day even during GWR days, and during that time staff presence was rather patchy, with a noticeable lack of presence during disruption. The station staff was TUPE’d across to TfL during the takeover, and it seems like they have not yet been adequately
brainwashedretrained to see confronting angry commuters for the fun that it really is.With regard to the station rebuilds: they will eventually become a problem if not carried out reasonably quickly. Yes, the commuter numbers are not very big by comparison; and the switchover from 5 or 6-car Turbos to 8-car 387s means I can now be certain of being able to board the first train that comes along at Hayes or at Southall. However, have a look at the satellite view of the Hayes and Southall areas on the map website of your choice. You will notice there is a large patch of brownfield land immediately to the north of the railway between these two stations, which until recently was a huge cheap car park for Heathrow customers. That patch is now a sea of cranes and scaffolds, with an endless procession of cement mixers running up and down The Parkway. All told, I estimate there are about 20 000 new dwellings either just finished or being built within walking distance of these two stations. Given how crowded the trains and stations are already in the peaks, longer trains and larger station buildings will need to come soon, otherwise people will cease to fit on the platforms.
It’s worth also adding, that Hounslow Council has recently decided to re-zone most of its industrial estates to permit ‘dwellinghouses’ being built on them, subject to planning permission. This is relevant to Crossrail, as there is a mix of supermarkets and workshops/warehouses occupying the north-east corner of the borough, which extends as far north as the Grand Union Canal (Brentford Arm); and as far west as The Parkway. This area is about 20 minutes’ walk from Hayes & Harlington station and could be used to build another few thousand flats, which will mainly be ‘Crossrail-dependent’.
I wonder how I am going to get from Beckton DLR to the likes of Langley and back, changing to Crossrail at Custom House, starting with a TfL 60+ Oyster, and with no opportunity to buy a beyond the boundary return – the DLR ticket machines will certainly not sell this.
No need to refurbish Acton ML, as the new tube map, including the Elizabeth Line, places it north of the Central Line in the vicinity of the Park Royal Business Park. Nobody will find it there…
@MR BECKTON
Won’t the system just take your boundary-to-Langley and back from your PAYG fare? Why would you need to “buy a ticket” when the system can automatically calculate the extra when you go beyond a pre-bought Travelcard zone?
If you have, for example a Zone 1 to 3 “Travelcard” and take a trip to – say- Uxminster – you just get paid the extra when you exit the station at the end. That’s the joy of PAYG.
The main issue when you want a Zone X to somewhere ticket is when you’ve got an Annual Gold Card from somewhere outside London and you want to travel via London. So, if you travel from Brighton to Z1 every weekday, at the weekend you want to travel to Cambridge, you’re going to want a Z6 to Cambridge return ticket (with 33% off).
@Mr Beckton
Won’t Langley be Oysterised? It may even be within the 60+ validity.
If not, buy a ticket from the boundary to Langley online and collect it at Custom House (NR station so must have that facility)
Ben,
I hadn’t even realised Hayes & Harlington still had a nice GWR valence. Although I should had done because it is quite clear in the second picture in the article. Clearly I was distracted by the shabby waiting room.
The picture mentioned also shows an uninspiring modern ‘tin’ roof so there isn’t really that much remaining that is original. It is a personal opinion but now that they have removed the valanced roof from the original platforms 4 and 5, you have lost the preservation of the station and, in this case, I don’t think it is really worth preserving what remains. I quite understand that others might think differently.
The plans submitted at the end of 2017 to the London Borough of Hillingdon for the rebuilt of West Drayton station are at http://planning.hillingdon.gov.uk/OcellaWeb/showDocuments?reference=31592/APP/2017/3250&module=pl
The plans for seem to be unchanged and are approved. We are next waiting for Network Rail to put the work out to tender.
As a general point, if you look up a station on the western branch on the Crossrail website, it usually has a helpful link to the planning application.
Two minor comments. Boundary zone 6 tickets used to be available from the Great Northern ticket machines at Kings Cross ( not tested for a couple of years).
I previously posted on LR the observation that mid afternoon on Heathrow Connect was full and standing from Southall in the up direction but most disembarked at Ealing Broadway.
Thanks to NGH and Mark Townsend for illuminating the signalling mysteries for the Heathrow services.
I’m a regular at Hayes and Harlington, changing there for the 140 bus to Heathrow. Not much fun.
@ Briantist – Mr Beckton said he holds a 60+ Pass. These passes, like the Freedom Pass, do not have a PAYG type facility on them. Therefore you cannot add cash to permit automatic extension tickets. If, as surmised here more than once, Freedom Passes and 60+Passes are not valid all the way to Reading but are valid a bit further than boundary zone 6 then the need for certain groups of passengers to buy extension tickets for use on a through TfL run service will exist. OK the volumes of users may not be very high but I can expect there will be questions asked.
Let us hope, therefore, that whatever ticket machines are going to be installed at Crossrail stations have a clever facility that allows people to touch a Freedom / 60+ Pass on the ticket machine reader and then permits them to purchase an extension ticket from whatever the future boundary (for those passes) is to their intended destination. If this facility exists on machines at Custom House then Mr Beckton will simply need to buy an extension ticket from the lovely new Crossrail ticket machine – assuming someone has been clever enough to programme in this facility.
*If* the boundary of Zone 6 is only as far as Freedom / 60+ Passes will stretch going west then a conventional ticket extension facility would suffice on Crossrail ticket machines. The big unanswered question is how far Freedom / 60+ Pass validity stretches!!
For those of us who hold different types of passes then we simply become adept at either touching in and out at interchange points where pass validity starts / ends and using a separate PAYG Oyster card or we accept that we have to pay for travel where our pass would otherwise be valid in order to avoid getting off trains, exiting stations then re-entering and then doing this again at the next limit of our pass validity and then getting on a third train to our destination!!! Yes there are instances where that could be done but life is too short and, no, I’m not saying here what pass I have. 😉
I have never had a problem asking for “Boundary Zone 6″ to $_Destination” tickets from my local NR station, which is now run by TfL ( Walthamstow Central, of course )
WW
As some people may not know, the Freedom Pass area is not congruent with the normal 1-6 zones ( Dartford is the obvious case ) Never mind “Oyster beyond the zones” cases such as Gatwick.
There are other anomalies, of course, some of which appear to be down to TOC foot-dragging, but I think I’ll stop now ….
As a Freedom Pass holder, let me offer an example to show why it would be good to be able to buy a ‘boundary zone 6’ or even ‘Freedom Pass boundary’ to a further destination.
If I’m going to, say, Chatham from where I live in SE London, my Freedom Pass covers my journey either to Bromley (or beyond) or Dartford. So do I get a Bromley-Chatham ticket or a Dartford-Chatham ticket?
I may choose come home on a different route from that I used to head out. I may meet a sympathetic inspector but I may have my ticket checked by someone who’s having a bad day.
@ Greg – I would sincerely hope that no one struggles to buy boundary zone extension tickets from a staffed NR station (regardless of the TOC). As it seems that ticket offices will not be present at LU operated Crossrail stations this rather puts the onus on ticket machine functionality. Looking at some FOI released documentation it seems TfL do offer boundary zone extension tickets to many NR destinations from *LU* ticket machines. What is not consistent is what is offered at DLR stations and possibly at TfL Rail / Overground machines but I confess I have never had to use those machines so don’t know what they can do. I do know that other TOCs have very varied policies as to what ticket vending machines can or cannot issue. Another ridiculous source of inconsistency for which there is no real justification given the never ending pressure to close / reduce ticket office opening hours. The public deserve to have a consistent level of facility offered to them.
@ Alan BG – I am not sure there is any easy answer to your dilemma where there are different routes from different boundary points to a given destination. There has long been different route based pricing on BR / NR routes so buying a single each way once you’ve decided on your route is the only practical, if a tad cumbersome, solution.
WW:I thought Alan’s dilemma seems to have an easy solution with the boundary to Chatham ticket which he mentions. Whether such a ticket (a) exists, and (b) can be readily purchased are questions whose answers are not clear to me. But I thought his point was that he could see a strong benefit (to him) if they do exist – this because others had questioned the usefulness of the whole concept.
If such a ticket does exist, it would presumably be valid by any accepted route from any point on the said boundary. (Though if your chosen point was, say, West Drayton, the only acceptable routes to Chatham would cross London, so the ticket would only in practice be valid from, say, Dartford, so it’s not really absolutely any point on the boundary, just the reasonable ones).
@WW and others
As I have argued on other strands, unless some ingenious lawyer can earn his or her undoubtedly vastly inflated salary and come up with some dodge, Freedom Passes will be valid through to Reading.
The ticket exists. You can’t buy it online. The tickets look like they are to old NSE destinations, e.g. Worcester not Birmingham. The Worcester one is exactly the same price as from West Drayton but presumably valid via feltham too.
TfL / NR are replacing the ticket machines at Hayes & Harlington right now. A poster mentions enhanced alternatives for ticket purchases whilst the work is carried out. This is actually to open the ticket office during normal hours with the usual singular person serving. Par for the course,
If anyone would like to try out one of the new ticket machines, there is one installed and being used by the public at the South Entrance to Ilford Station, the one on York Mews.
When you touch the screen, it shows the active display at your eye height, so it works if you’re tall or in a wheelchair.
It’s also multilingual. I was demonstrating the live automatic video translation mode of Google Translate on my phone (to the gateline staff) by pointing the app at the machine and switching it to Italian.
I also selected some tickets in Greek. The list of destinations used a keyboard with autocomplete, but I didn’t think to type “Boundary”…
Malcolm
“Boundary Zone 6 to – Tun-Wells/Knebworth/Biggleswade/Woking/Shepperton/Woodbridge” certainly all exist.
I will be testing “Swindon” next month & “Rochester” in July (!)
@ Malcolm – as you say the specific example involved travel out from the Bromley area and possible return via Dartford. Freedom Passes stretch to Dartford so beyond the usual zone boundary. If Alan was travelling both ways via the Bromley route then it makes sense to buy a Boundary Z6 ticket in this instance. Boundary Z6 is a different place to Dartford although I suspect the difference in fares is mere pennies (depending on the destination of choice). As Greg says boundary zone tickets certainly do exist.
@ Quinlet – I am aware of your view re Freedom Pass holders. The example involving journeys to the west concerned a 60+ Pass holder. AIUI that concessionary product has no legislative backing – it is a Mayoral invention and TfL funded. While I can see for simplicity’s sake that the Mayor might want to align the validities it is yet another potential strain on TfL’s finances. I dare say we will find out what’s happening at some point in 2019.
@ Briantist – if the new ticket machine is what I think it is then there is also supposed to a trial version being installed at the mezzanine ticket hall at Stratford station. I don’t know if it is in place yet.
@GREG TINGEY 18 April 2018 at 14:58
“Summary ( I suppose )
How quickly & cheaply can the GW ATP utterly non-standard “system” be dumped?”
As a new tunnel railway with metro characteristics, it was necessary to provide a train protection system of some kind for Heathrow Express, and as the GW ATP pilot scheme was being planned and implemented around the same time as the airport rail infrastructure, it seemed the perfect fit. By the mid-90s, the newly privatised GW intercity operator was no longer mandated to use the system, and the Thames Turbo fleet was never equipped. Without the Southall and Ladbroke Grove tragedies, it is plausible the system, which was only meant to be a technology demo, may have been removed, apart from in the Heathrow tunnels, as BR and then Railtrack had already decided it was not the general network-wide train protection solution they were seeking. Two decades later it is still in situ.
Going back to the original article, while first impressions are obviously important, I am not convinced they are always that significant in the long-run. To take two recent examples both the Edinburgh Tram and Heathrow Terminal 5 have overcome inauspicious beginnings to become both pretty successful and popular.
On the issue of branding I am still surprised that TFL rail is disappearing in December this year as it would seem to make more sense to keep the branches as TFL rail until they are joined to the core next year. It certainly seems like TFL could benefit from the extra year to get eveything up to standard in the west before the stations are re-branded. And if nothing else it would make explaining the situation at Paddignton and Liverpool Street on the tube map much easier,
@cjw714
I think you’re correct. It is illogical to have an “Elizabeth Line” operating for up to a year in multiple disconnected sections. A sensible approach would be to retain “Tfl Rail” for Paddington to Heathrow/Reading and Liverpool Street to Shenfield until they are integrated with the core.
Maybe they all need to share a train fleet though, even before the through passenger service?
Anon
Yes as regards the trains – class 345’s will be operating out of both the termini before the joining-up ocurrs – indeed, they aready are, in a limited fashion
@cjw714
It’s worth pointing out that it is also “illogical” for the same staff – those under the employ of MTR Crossrail- having to use two different brands on essentially the same trains running under the same control.
The new train fleet has to access the core from one of the existing depots (Old Oak Common or Romford) and are already be controlled from the new building at Romford station.
From December 9th, the whole train fleet will have “the Elizabeth Line” branding: it’s not practicable to put special decals on the trains when they are not in the central section. The fact that passenger’s won’t be using the portals for six- or twelve- months doesn’t mean that the trains and staff won’t!
It’s worth recalling this isn’t that odd. The Jubilee Line extension ran as Stratford shuttle for a while, and the Victoria Line started in stages too.
The reason for low numbers of passengers at Hanwell is the appalling reliability of the Heathrow Connect service. We only get two trains per hour at all times (except Sunday, which I will come onto).
The service last week had two of the rush hour trains on Tuesday morning from Hanwell to Paddington and two in the evening for Paddington to Hanwell cancelled and all trains were cancelled on Friday rush hour. It seems that the first hint of a problem on the lines into Paddington and Heathrow Connect is cancelled which means Hanwell users get no service as GWR can’t be bothered to stop their trains at Hanwell
A more reliable service and the passenger numbers will rise but the Hanwell users are just fed up with a shoddy service and we feel completely ignored by Heathrow Connect and GWR. We would rather take a 15 minute bus ride to Ealing Broadway rather than rust going to Hanwell Station for the 4 minute journey due to the unreliable service.
On Sundays, we don’t get a service, even though the Heathrow Connect service still runs from Paddington to Heathrow – rumour has it a Heathrow Connect executive said the people of Hanwell weren’t cosmopolitan enough to travel outside the parish boundaries on Sundays!
With a reliable service, Hanwell passenger numbers will increase but it looks like we will have to wait a while for the 4 trains an hour that we all thought we were going to get on May 20th
Briantist – Thanks for the explanation; I knew there were probably some good reasons I had overlooked.
@TIM RUSS
I think your comments are very interesting.
As a passenger (or at least potential passenger) at Hanwell, you are caught in one of the strange disincentives of the way the railways are run. There are a considerable number of financial penalties schemes between TOCs and Network Rail, a lot of day-to-day control room management is focused around the “PPM”
“The public performance measure (PPM) shows the percentage of trains which arrive at their terminating station within 5 minutes”
This means on a 32-minute trip from Paddington to Heathrow, it is very easy for that delay to happen. So there is an incentive to skip stops to make up time to “terminating station”.
In addition, the are four tracks (two up, two down) between Heathrow Junction and Paddington. Any stopping service limits the trains that can use the route. This means there is also an incentive from an “overall PPM” view to dump the local service over that of the long-distance high speed services and Heathrow Connect because – quite frankly – they cost more to their TOCs to be late.
The good news is that the Elizabeth Line won’t be being held to the lower standards of PPM from the end of this month.
TfL have a different set of rules: their services are measured to flag up station cancellations (one is a “minor delay”, two a “severe delay”) and lateness isn’t just measured at the last station on the line.
Under the new management, the improved service will be monitoring the intervals to make them “underground like” in their reliability, I understand,
Do you have any suggestions about how this should be done at Hanwell?
Tim Russ, Briantist,
The Hanwell issue is interesting and I sympathise.
Ideally, Hanwell should have 4tph and that will eventually happen. I don’t know what the original plans were regarding Hanwell if TfL had successfully managed to reach Heathrow with their own trains in May but the current and new timetable from 20th May creates problems.
Logically, Heathrow Connect trains wouldn’t call at Hanwell. It doesn’t make sense for a semi-fast airport service to call at a lightly-used station like Hanwell. Especially when there is a local service from Hayes & Harlington to Paddington that doesn’t call there.
The problem is that timings on the Paddington – Hayes & Harlington shuttle time are already extremely tight so adding a stop to these services is not practical. It is about 25 minutes point-to-point running time on a half-hour service. So using two trains offers no slack and using three trains on the current timings would require an extra platform at Paddington (or at least leads to complications and platform shuffling). So you can’t currently add a Hanwell stop.
If I were in charge I think I would omit the Hanwell stop if the train was running late as the knock-on effect of late running would be significant. But I wouldn’t feel happy about it and I suspect the people that do this are fully aware of the consequences of their actions but can’t do much about it.
I think that, even if there wasn’t a PPM regime (does it apply to Heathrow Connect?), they would have to omit stops at Hanwell on occasions as it is preferable to cancelling a train in its entirety in order to get the service back on time.
People keep writing that the Hanwell station is lightly used. The reason for this is simple: only two trains an hour and no weekend services, and only a south exit with a longish walk to the nearest bus-stop. If it is served four times an hour and the northern exit is open, I am sure the footfall will increase dramatically.
PoP…….re adding stops on a 25 minute run on a half hourly service. If metro principles are really to apply on the main line, the next question should be……”how can I speed up other elements of the service to save to time ‘lost’ by adding the Hanwell stop?” I am confident that the higher performance and bigger doorways of class 345 will help when they are brought into use. Also, based on metro principles again, a 5 minute terminus turnaround is quite generous!
@Harjinder Singh – Hanwell seems to be a “good” illustration of the use of PDFH values in service planning [Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook]. The PDFH assumes that the relationship between frequency and volume is linear. All the evidence is that it is, in fact, some form of function, with volume increasing very rapidly when you move from 2tph to 4 tph or more (but then tailing off as you get above some much higher tph values (my guess would be above about 10-12)..
The Hanwell stop was inserted into the Heathrow Connect service purely because not so long ago it was the only electric service on the patch. It was therefore least-wasteful from a capacity point of view to insert that stop into the train with the best acceleration rate.
As mentioned before, the Paddington-Hayes shuttle train has very tight turnrounds at both ends (from memory: something like 5 and 7 minutes respectively). There was therefore no scope to insert a Hanwell stop in these trains without breaking the turnrounds. Crossrail trains are meant to have even better acceleration than the Class 387s, which means the Hanwell stop can be inserted without breaking the turnrounds at either end.
As far as passenger numbers go: prior to the introduction of the Class 387s most trains on the route in the peaks were 4-6 car Turbos (Class 165/166). They were often hopelessly overcrowded at Hayes & Harlington or Southall, which meant the Heathrow Connect service – having come almost empty from the Airport – was full by the time it got to Hanwell (never mind West Ealing…). Hence peak ridership from Hanwell was suppressed by crowding, as few people had the appetite to risk going to Hanwell and wait 30 minutes because they were unable to get on the first train that came along. Not to mention that peak Connect services into Paddington were almost always late due to drivers being unable to close the doors at Hanwell or West Ealing.
Once the 4-6 car Turbos were replaced by 8-car 387s (all of which now stopped at Southall as they actually had some free space for those passengers unlike the Turbos), the Heathrow Connect service had plenty of space to ‘mop up’ passengers from Hanwell and West Ealing, and so more people started using Hanwell station, as they now were pretty much guaranteed to get on the train they were planning to catch; and the said train was also far more likely to get to Paddington on time. Sadly, the Class 360s have hit somewhat of a rough patch in terms of reliability (as is very common for fleets that are about to be replaced…), and the recent spate of cancellations has meant that people living within the Hanwell catchment area once again have to trundle along on a bus to Ealing Broadway. This time around, though, because the SDO system on the Class 387s does not appear to be set up for Hanwell, there is no chance of GWR stopping their trains there instead – like they used to do when the Turbos were still operating.
The lack of a Sunday service at Hanwell stems from the fact, that the GWML is – more often than not – reduced to 2-track operation on Sundays. As neither Hanwell nor West Ealing have any platforms on the Main Lines (and because these stops eat quite heavily into the capacity available), these stations are closed on Sundays even if trains still operate on the Relief Lines. Which isn’t exactly the end of the world – West Ealing to Ealing Broadway is about 7 minutes by bus; whereas Hanwell to Ealing Broadway is about 10-15 minutes (depending on traffic) – and Hanwell to Boston Manor station is about 5 minutes on the bus.
@GRAHAM H 23 April 2018 at 10:01
All the evidence is that it is, in fact, some form of function, with volume increasing very rapidly when you move from 2tph to 4 tph or more (but then tailing off as you get above some much higher tph values (my guess would be above about 10-12).
My hunch from personal experience is the same. From the moment of random journey demand instantiation, as long as you know what time the next service is, you can easily waste up to 15 minutes or so having a coffee, sitting comfortably at home, catching up a little extra work at you desk, reading magazines you have no intention of buying in a local newagent, etc. Access to real time departure information is becoming ever easier using smart apps of course, so the usual process is, enquire, make way leisurely to station/stop to meet selected departure, board, travel. Simples! The only point of reducing interval below your notional 10 or 12 minutes is to meet capacity demand.
@Briantist
“their services are measured to flag up station cancellations (one is a “minor delay”, two a “severe delay”) and lateness isn’t just measured at the last station on the line.”
This is definitely a improvement, but the measure should also take into account the service frequency – skipping a stop (or terminating/starting short) at a station with a 2tph service is much more of a problem than on a 12 tph service.
As it is, the financial penalties are derisory. The paltry compensation available for cancellations on short distance services (where a 25 minute delay can amount to a 100% overrun in journey time) values the victim’s time at less than the minimum wage. (and costs the operator more to process than the compensation paid out!).
Thanks for the replies.
I will try and answer them all.
Both entrances at Hanwell Station are now open and have been for about 2 years so access is easy from the south side of the station. It was the south side that was closed and the North side that was open for years.
One thing that I haven’t experienced using Heathrow Connect is the train ‘missing stations’. As the only service at Hanwell is Heathrow Connect, I think there would be chaos if a HC train that was timetabled to call at Hanwell and passed through.
Our frustration is with the HC service which seems to be cancelled whenever there are issues around Paddington as Heathrow passengers can still get Heathrow Express to the airport and then GWR are very slow to add in their trains to call at Hanwell as additional calls.
My usual train is 07.39 which I have only failed to get on once due to overcrowding (problems further up the line caused cancellations on trains into Hayes and Harlington and Southall so the HC train was rammed)
387s do call at Hanwell but only during daylight hours when we have HC cancellations
We don’t ask for much at Hanwell – 4tph during morning and evening rush hour would work with 2tph the rest of the day and evening and a Saturday and Sunday service.
My solution to the timing problem and give much needed capacity to the Heathrow service is drop Southall out on the 2tph 360 service trains for Heathrow to Paddington I know there are reasons not to do this which I’m sure you will all tell me about, but as a user of Hanwell I do feel we are treated like 3rd class citizens by the rail companies
@GrahamH – sounds like a good point for research, surprised some sort of function hasn’t been contrived yet though, given such observations cannot be unique to either the UK or post-privatisation era.
For all the talk of ‘simply get a bus to x instead’, it must be appreciated that buses, whilst a great form of transport, can still be seen as a lesser form of travel than train in convenience, reliability, experience. Adding an additional interchange between modes for a given journey can be seen by some as a great inconvenience.
Have the bus side of TfL been talking to the rail side wrt to frequency of services and calling pattern – if the proposed cuts to service in West London go ahead, there will be far less capacity to ‘simply get a bus’ if a train doesnt/wont show.
Re Straphan,
I thought the 332s used on HEx were having a greater deteroriation in reliability hence the 360s being borrowed from Connect services to keep the premium Express service and inter-terminal shuttles operating at the expense of the connect services. (The original maintenance contract now have expired…)
Similar issues with driver shortages result in HEx operating in preference to Connect.
@ Ben – the whole point of the bus cuts / changes in West London is to force / funnel people on to Crossrail. I have rarely seen such a monumentally bad set of changes associated with the introduction of a new / improved rail service. It remains to be seen quite what the consultation process threw up by way of public response.
I don’t think TfL ever plan any aspects of the bus network to act as a “fall back” option in the event of problems with rail / tube services. I’ve had that said to me officially when I raised queries about changes at Tottenham Hale which removed direct bus access from E17 to Seven Sisters. And oh the irony when TfL had to close the Vic Line early last week north of Seven Sisters for emergency engineering works and then advertised buses to Seven Sisters that don’t go there anymore!!! The fact that the public will typically look to buses as a fall back and TfL *direct* people to use them in the event of problems does not seem to register with the planners at all.
@ Straphan – your point about how the GWML is operated on Sundays raises some serious questions. I assume Network Rail have reserved rights to close some of the lines for regular inspection and maintenance. No surprise there as such provisions exist across the network. However this does raise some questions, assuming no changes, to the level of service TfL will be able to operate on Crossrail post Dec 2019. Does anyone know if the frequency and stations served on the western section will be much worse on Sundays than it will be Monday to Saturdays (general off peak frequencies, not rush hours)? If it will be much reduced this would seem to be contrary to the general statements that have been made about Crossrail service levels.
Walthamstow Writer,
If it is anything like I heard on the eastern section, the expectation is that there will be reductions of service on some Sunday mornings as maintenance is done closing two of the four lines. That is one reason why platforms are also being extended for Crossrail on the fast lines out of Liverpool Street – so the Elizabeth line trains can still serve the stations when the ‘electric’ (slow) lines are closed for maintenance
The obvious problem is though that it would appear that the intermediate stations between Paddington and Hayes & Harlington (exclusive) do not have platforms on the main lines or, if they do, they are not in use.
TfL Rail have now published Timetables on their Paddington – Heathrow Airport service and it shows that ” Acton Main Line, Hanwell and West Ealing are not served by TfL Rail services on a Sunday”. Slightly strange wording. Why not just ‘on Sundays’?
It could be that this is only temporary whilst work is completed in anticipation of the full Elizabeth line service.
For those looking for gloom and doom note that the timetable is supposedly effective from 20 May to 8 December 2018 – so no class 345 in the Heathrow tunnel until December at the earliest then.
@Mike Jones
The 4 tph at Acton Main Line is indeed pitiful. Worse, there’s no indication of when this will start. TfL boasted of how they will take over Heathrow Connect with services calling at Acton. What they didn’t say was it’s still only 2 tph AND the GWR services will cease at the same time, so it’s still 2 tph until who knows when?
Re PoP,
Given the level of major works across the NR network many with uncertain outcomes, timing and potential permutations combined with the biggest set of timetable changes in generation in May means virtually everything* is being given a till 8th December end date until they know a change can definitely be made so expect timetables to be replaced about a fortnight before changes (There aren’t the resources to plan anything sensibly given all the permutations until after the May TT change has bedded in, and barely enough afterwards given all the extra timetable planning work needed given the quantity of engineering work this year.)
*Excluding big well planned long term blockades e.g. Derby rebuild and resignalling phased over 5 months this “summer”
PoP: apart from the odd wording that you identify, TfL’s Heathrow timetable has a couple of other poor features:
a) the diagram at the front has south to the top, the opposite way round to the Tube map etc (and to general convention).
b) due to the ordering of the columns, at a quick glance it looks as if the xx16/xx46 departures from Paddington provide connections to Heathrow. If the xx48/xx18 shuttles to T4 were to the left of the Paddington trains, that impression would be avoided.
And the xx46 trains Mon-Fri take 68 minutes to get from Southall to Hayes & H!
PoP
The Main platforms at Ealing Broadway can be used, actually, but only when specifically opened – or such was the case up until about 18 months ago, certainly.
Still leaves Acton ML, WEaling & Hanwell out in the cold, though ….
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
NGH
I assume that, if you drag your way through individual TOC’s web-pages, you can find timetables for post-19th May?
Because, as usual, less than a month to go & the new NR electronic tt is still not visible…
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Betterbee
Do you think someone ought to tell TfL, somehow?
Graham H 23 April 2018 at 10:01
@GrahamH “Hanwell seems to be a “good” illustration of the use of PDFH values in service planning [Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook]. The PDFH assumes that the relationship between frequency and volume is linear. ”
This isn’t actually the case in the latest PDFH
Daft question about the Heathrow service. There appear to be very fast turnrounds at T4 – do the shuttle trains have a driver at each end so that one steps off the leading cab with one at the north end ready to take over immediately for the run back to Paddington? I can’t see any other way of achieving almost instantaneous turnrounds. I’m assuming the shuttle / Connect services interwork across T4.
I don’t think the issue at Hanwell is so much about frequency, as it is about reliability. Prior to the introduction of the 387s (which significantly increased the capacity offered at Southall), train 2Y18 (08:09 off Hanwell) was a regular feature on the DfT’s most crowded trains list. Hence, in the high peak (which is when most people travel), people didn’t bother taking a train from Hanwell as they had little hope of actually getting on the train, and thus there was a significant risk of them sitting on the platform for 30 minutes. Ditto West Ealing – they had a choice of a hopelessly overcrowded Heathrow Connect and an equally crowded 2-car Turbo off the Greenford branch.
Now that passengers are close to 100% sure they can board the first train that comes along, they are choosing to use these stations in greater numbers. Once there is no more capacity to accommodate them, demand at these stations will again taper off.
Regarding my comments about using a bus rather than a train: of course the default position should be that passengers are able to use trains 7 days a week. However, unless someone forks out for building extra platforms at Acton Main Line, West Ealing, Hanwell, and Burnham, this will almost certainly not be possible on many Sundays. In which case I think it is right to skip those stations altogether – three of these stations are still within Inner London, and passengers in the catchment area have a variety of alternatives that aren’t that much worse.
I believe the Sunday two-track restrictions on the GWML will remain, as is the case on other mainlines into London (e.g. WCML, GEML, SWML). If they do, those four stations will have to do without a Sunday service; and the best the rest can hope for is a severely reduced frequency. The typical Sunday timetable currently comprises of 2tph all-stations trains to Reading or Didcot (more-or-less evenly spaced), and 1tph Heathrow Connect (which runs immediately behind one of the stoppers). I cannot see how GWR or HEx would give up more paths for Crossrail so that they could run – say – 4tph.
@Timbeau: I only go by what I see and hear on my commute. And I have seen at least 2 360s sitting in Old Oak Common for weeks on end (including 360 205, ‘dressed up’ in Express livery). The recent cancellations were justified by ‘train faults’. I have not seen a 360 running on the Main lines as a HEx replacement. And – finally – after a few weeks of cancellations Heathrow Connect has become more reliable again. Driver establishment issues don’t tend to resolve themselves within weeks – unlike mechanical issues…
ngh,
Yes, I suspect that and should have worded my comment better. What I meant was the doom and gloom merchants will pick on this as evidence that we are stuck with the current service until December.
In the old days this would be labelled as ‘until further notice’. Alternatively there would be a box with wording inside to the effect that the timetable may change before it is due to expire and passengers should check nearer the time.
Betterbee,
The diagram being the illogical way around was the first thing I spotted but thought maybe it is just me so I didn’t mention it.
I didn’t spot the 68 minute journey though.
Greg Tingey,
Thanks for the update. I strongly suspect you are correct about Ealing Broadway. Otherwise they seem to be going to a lot of trouble providing access to a platform that won’t be used. I was a bit dumbfounded when I looked at the station diagram on the National Rail website where it stated ‘platform 2 not in use’ and denied the existence of platform 1.
On the issue of the timetable mistakes, I suspect someone should tell TfL Rail but then one is inclined to wait a few days and see if they update it. Just as well they don’t have printed copies these days.
Walthamstow Writer,
Not a daft question at all. I was puzzled by it. I think what has happened is that they have added a minute to the working arrival time and that a train pulls out from one platform at Terminal 4 as soon as the previous train has arrived at the other – thus ensuring a train ready and waiting at all times. This would seem logical as T2&3 to T4 is single track so one wants to utilise that single track as effectively as possible.
I thought they wouldn’t have enough sets to run this service as I mistakenly thought the Heathrow Connect trains were 4-car units and ran in pairs but I now realise they are actually 5-car units run singly. That means that Straphan’s comments about overcrowding now make more sense to me.
100andthirty 23 April 2018 at 09:38,
Now we have the timetable it is fairly obvious that there is an awful lot of padding. Four minutes are scheduled for a Heathrow Connect class 360 train from Southall to Hayes & Harlington but nine minutes are scheduled for a TfL class 345 train from Southall to terminate at platform 5 at Hayes & Harlington. So I suspect at least three minutes of that is padding although it could be to wait for a path to cross the up relief.
Similarly, it takes six minutes from Paddington to stopping at Acton Main Line but supposedly it takes ten minutes in the reverse direction.
So, yes, one could query why it would be so hard to add a stop at Hanwell. Perhaps, at least, after the new service has settled down and they are confident such an additional stop by the class 345 Hayes & Harlington shuttles would not cause problems. It would also give an early opportunity to test the Selective Door Operation on the new trains.
@PoP:
Trains terminating at Hayes & Harlington have to negotiate a 25mph turnout. Given the linespeed on the Relief Lines is 90mph, this means the signalled approach is MAR (Mandatory Approach Red), i.e. train has to come to a stand at the signal ahead of the crossover before it is given permission to proceed (at a snail’s pace) into the bay. Trains into Platform 4 just apply the brake as normal.
Coming into Paddington trains are very often held at Royal Oak. The Timetable Planning Rules also require 1 minute of engineering allowance to be added approaching Ladbroke Grove.
On a very separate note, there is another element on the GWML which isn’t up and running yet. The Acton Diveunder (which grade-separates up trains on the Relief Lines from freight trains departing Acton Yard) is out of use. It was put into service in the summer of last year, but I have noticed it was put out of use a few months ago.
Its all seeming a bit underwhelming. On the Underground you can expect (with infrequent exception) a service 7 days a week, early till late, with a frequency generally greater than 4tph in the suburbs. It doesn’t seem like the all singing, all dancing, definitely-part-of-the-tube-for-marketing-purposes “Elizabeth line” will match these concepts? Can’t help but think the mismatch of metro aspiration with NR capability will cause frustration and disappointment over time.
Re Greg,
Some TOCs* are going publish 2 weeks before the change ( aka T-2 ) so don’t expect anything till the last minute.
*e.g. GTR.(don’t believe anything the online planners say at the moment!)
The expectation is that GTR will probably be T+1 i.e. make it up after the event so the stats don’t look bad…
GTR will stay at rolling T-2 during the gradual introduction of the May TT change in May and June (….July) as it effectively has been since January to an extent.
Other TOCs with big infrasture work during the working week at the moment will be operating T-2 (or slightly better T-4 or T-6) till December. E.g. GWR via Newbury where there are about 10 mini blockades this year.
Generally expect weekend timetables to be changeable.
straphan,
Thanks for info. I am very surprised Acton dive under is not in use but you are correct. On the relevant diagram on Opentraintimes it is marked as SHUT. Yet there hasn’t been a mention of this.
Pedantry alert: The code MAR is used in route tables on signalling plans and was always conventionally taken to stand for Main (class of route), Approach released, from Red.
There is a timeout applied on the berth track before the junction signal clears to yellow, which is dependent on the berth track length but is not designed to bring the train ‘to a stand’ as it would be for a call-on or shunt class route using a position light aspect aspect, rather the intention in this case is to bring the train ‘under control’.
Flashing yellow/double yellow approach sequences (MAY-FA3/4) have been used for diverging routes into bays in the past but are not allowed in modern layouts. Other options for speeding up the approach to the bay at H&H may be possible. Those interested in the subject might like to read up on these in –
Rail Industry Standard RIS-0703-CCS Issue: 1.1 Date: March 2018
“Signalling Layout and Signal Aspect Sequence Requirements”
(continues until p.94)
https://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/RIS-0703-CCS%20Iss%201.1.pdf
Re Ben,
But the GWML has traditionally tried to operate with at least 2 tracks 24/7 which makes the prospect of night Crossrail much more realistic (the existing GW services during the night are timetabled not to stop at Acton ML, West Ealing and Hanwell for the reasons discussed above.). The day time equivalents are transferring to Crossrail so fingers crossed.
Re PoP,
The Acton Diveunder has been out of action since last October/November from memory.
R.e. suppressed demand.
Everyone I know plans their journey by typing the destination into Google and pressing “route by public transport”. Timetables are for places with no internet access (i.e. nowhere).
So, if the bus to a station with high frequency service takes 15 mins and the service frequency at Hanwell is 30 minutes, then about half the time Google will direct users to catch the bus to the better served station instead of waiting for the low frequency service.
That would suppress demand quite a lot.
(Google is notoriously optimistic about bus services as well. Journeys by bus always take much longer than predicted. Train travel predictions are usually much more reliable.)
@Ben: The part of the route under TfL control will no doubt enjoy a tube-like service as you described. The reality, however, is that the conventional rail routes are governed by a different regime, need to be open throughout the night on weekdays (freight…); and also host traffic other than Crossrail. Not much that can be done about it…
@Bob: The major flaw with journey planners is that they assume that you are able to board the first service that comes along. This is simply not true for many stations in the peak, and was indeed not true of Hanwell or West Ealing until a few months ago.
What’s wrong with the very expensive Acton dive-under? Does anyone know?
Bob & Straphan
Proper timetables are essential for almost anything other than a single journey ( even if that “single journey involves changes ) You have toi be able to “put a picture together” that a Journey Planner won’t do. The latter are, as we all know, also subject to strange glitches in their programming at times …
There are post-may 20th PDF timetables available here: https://www.railplan2020.com/timetables
(I cannot comment on their accuracy, but that’s what is being publicised at the Thameslink stations)
Re Dave,
They were thought to be accurate, but as of last week no longer accurate, most train times will still be accurate but not all. Expect an update in circa 10 days.
Reverting to the Acton Dive-Under problem …
Time for an FoI request, perhaps?
[ To whom should such be directed: NR? DfT? a.n.other body? ]
That all of that time, effort & money to be spent & then to have the resulting work sit idle seems, odd to say the least.
@ngh: What happened there? I know Network Rail had issues sorting out May 18 oop Norf (what with the Bolton electrification running late), but I thought down here Thameslink was going to be OK?
@Greg Tingey: you’ll find most people under 30 do not plan their journeys like that at all… They just use Google.
Greg Tingey,
Probably a better first step would be to simply ask Crossrail.
Try [email protected]
They have generally been very good in the past at answering questions although, with Crossrail winding down, that might not be the case now.
Or ask (& tell) Lord Berkeley of the Rail Freight association.
It was his persistent insistence in the Lords & elsewhere that got the dive under built. He argued that without it freight would be seriously delayed in Acton Yard. That is what is happening now & an approximate £30 million pounds of our money has been thrown down the drain.
It was his hard work & benign influence that also got the west coast main line quadrupled in the Trent Valley.
@Greg: I just downloaded the “proper” (public facing) timetable for the post May 20 services.
They’re about as clear as mud, lobbing in lots of services that either don’t stop or don’t go anywhere near where I live.
I’m going back to google! And I’m over 50…
As reported in another forum, the Acton Dive-under was structually damaged by a Road-Rail Vehicle (RRV).
It is currently under going repair. (As reported on Crossrail website (Route/Near You)).
Also reported on the Crossrail website is the fact that the electrification between Westbourne Park and Stepney Green is to be turned on on 20th May.
New TfL Ticket Machines at Hayes &Harlington Station
You might like to visit the Station and see the brand new TfL ticket machines. All ready for CrassRail
They have slots for coins and notes. And clearly advertise Oyster top-ups.
BUT in the confusion of labels and notices on the facia there are two:
1/ says ‘Bank Cards only’ – thereby stopping anyone without one from purchasing a ticket such as young people &/or tourists, and
2/ the other says ‘No Oyster’ top-ups
You couldn’t make this stuff up.
C.J.Brady
@C.J.Brady: Go and visit any Tramlink stop, they don’t accept the new £1 coins….
@C.J. Brady: Tried using them yesterday and today at H&H and Southall. They are God-awfully slow compared to the machines they replaced; the keyboard input on the screen is much smaller, and – best of all – neither of the machines was able to print my pre-purchased ticket.
As the old Polish saying goes, ‘Better is an enemy of good.’
@STRAPHAN: The notices announcing the new ticket machines at H&H and Southall et al mentions the word ‘improvement’ – hmm – horrendously slow, incapable of issuing tickets ordered in advance, not accepting cash, no Oyster to-ups, etc. And TfL call that an improvement!! The mind boggles at the ineptitude. For all of their faults SWR machines like at Feltham can and do issue tickets as expected.
Ticket machines
Well … I got a new Oyster, but a TfL new machine in a TfL station would not give a refund on the old one – I had to get the staff to help me on an old & large “UndergrounD” machine …
Joined-up thinking / processing / customer service: What’s that?
Maybe the problems you mentioned above should be put to TfL, soonest?
Greg Tingey,
If you want these issues raised with TfL then it going to have to be you that does it. No-one is going to do it for you. For one thing, only you can describe the exact problem. For another, I don’t think anyone else really cares.
Re PoP & Greg,
To be fair I think several hundred thousand others* who will be in similar situation will when they find out, especially those south of the river give how few TfL ticket offices there are in many bits of south London. (Perhaps TfL should reimburse travel costs for travelling to TfL station to do this 😉 )
* E.g. both my retired parents who use Oyster for occasional pre 0930 NR journeys and non freedom pass journeys such as East Croydon (with quick up ramp though gates and back down again) – Gatwick for the silly Oyster price.
When Dad inquired of TfL what their migration plan was for those affected in detail they got very sheepish…
@ Ngh “TfL got very sheepish” – I bet they did. Although clearly not enough to justify retention of ticket offices on LU on its own the loss of that interface has left TfL with a real problem as to how you conduct a smartcard “swap out” process. I have yet to find a high volume smartcard system that does not have or has not had a need to swap over generations of cards due to card security improvements or functionality step changes. Even highly automated systems like Hong Kong and Singapore with minimal staffing levels have retained a form of assistance office or a smaller network of well distributed customer service centres. Having had to use those facilities in both places I’ve always found them very efficient.
If TfL had retained a small network of customer service centres at key points away from the central area then they’d be in a somewhat better position (IMO, of course). If Merseytravel can combine a ticket office / travel centre / retail shop and make it work I don’t see why London could not have done the same – if necessary merging facilities with those at bus stations that have been kept open.
Re WW,
I suspect TfL is hoping / praying everyone is as clued up as he is and does a “precision” top up so it then zero balanced at the end of a journey last week so no transfer required and no daily /weekly capping issues. [With new card now set up and ready for use.]
This is unlikely to be the case with many users who aren’t easily able to align the stars though.
A government type impact assessment would probably show it disadvantages those with protected characteristics but TfL won’t have done one of those…
Regarding the many people who keep oyster cards for occcasional use, I suspect that there may be an assumption that people will just write off the balance. That is probably what I will do. I’m prepared to make a fuss about such things when necessary, but I think I am going to reserve my fuss-making muscles for other targets.
Malcolm,
But you are not just writing off the balance. You are writing of the balance plus the deposit you paid on the card. I suspect TfL would love you to put the card in the bin because it is no use to them.
I always top up my oyster card and buy my weekly travelcard in a newsagent between my house and the station. Means I get to deal with a human being, and avoid having to use the ticket machines at the (non TfL) station.
Have I missed something?
New for old Oyster exchange. – can someone please explain.
@NGH: That’s horribly complicated, why not just register the card(s) instead?
@nameless
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares-and-payments/oyster/using-oyster/first-generation-oyster-cards
@ Malcolm – you may be content but I can think of some Assembly politicians who will be anything but happy about it. Obviously it’s your personal choice *but* the politicians will be extremely unhappy about the *possibility* existing because the process is viewed as being too cumbersome. There are regular “screams” about the level of PAYG balances (and deposits) held on cards that are inactive / very low use and demands for TfL to be proactive in getting people to seek refunds so the cash balances held are reduced.
Some people are happy to have money “locked up” on card balances so they won’t do anything about removing them or surrendering cards. I’ve got money sitting on Dutch, Japanese, Hong Kong and Singapore smart cards but obviously I can’t do much about this while sat half way round the world from three of those countries! However there will be people in, or close to, London who may not have sought refunds even though it may a sensible thing for them.
Has anyone spotted the typo on the new TfL ticket machine screens?
No – its not the announcement that Oyster top-up is available when it isn’t.
No – its not the statement that pre-booked tickets can be obtained when they can’t.
No – its not the clear and obvious facilities for cash payments when there is also a statement that bank cards can only be used.
It is a genuine typo of the Grauniad variety, demonstrating sloppy and unprofessional programming.
@CJ Brady
For the benefit of those of us without easy access to such machines, please do tell! (or provide a screenshot)
@PoP: You are writing of the balance plus the deposit you paid on the card.
People who got their Oyster via a season ticket before 2009 (perhaps most of those still holding early Oysters, since it was season-ticket only for a long time) didn’t have to pay a deposit.
The newly installed machines at H&H and Southall have ‘No Oyster Available’ writ large under the screens…
This is getting a tad too farcical for my liking…
Regarding unused Oyster cards; the public transport authority in Lisbon gives you the option to purchase a paper-based ticket with RFID-chip embedded inside. The ticket is made of reasonably durable card and credit card-sized. It is more than durable enough to withstand a week-long trip. It comes with a non-refundable deposit of… €0.50.
Perhaps something worth adopting in London?
@Straphan – I think train tickets in the Netherlands use a similar format.
@ Straphan – London already uses a “smart paper” ticket – for One Day Bus and Tram passes bought at Oyster Ticket Stops. I have yet to see one being used by anyone but the concept exists for London.
@WW: Thanks, I was blissfully unaware of that as an annual season user…
On a related ticketing note: Paddington station is a mess when it comes to ticket barriers. There are three sets of ticket barriers (for platforms 1-5, 8-11 and 12-14) at the ‘London end’ of the station, and a hotch-potch of barriers at the ‘country end’. Only the barriers serving the ‘suburban’ platforms are equipped with any Oyster/Bank Card facilities. During times of disruption (which will be very frequent in the run up to Crossrail commencing through operation!), when suburban trains depart from the low-number platforms, passengers face a confusing trek around the concourse, only to be directed by a member of staff to touch in/out on a single Oyster reader somewhere around the corner from their own field of vision. Wonder if GWR and TfL will sort this mess out?
@STRAPHAN . I don’t think there are any barriers to Platform 1. Pax are decanted straight onto a multi-use area which also serves as access to toilets, various eateries and the First Class Lounge. Pre-Crossrail there also used to be access to Eastbourne Terrace, which made it a handy platform if you wanted a taxi.
@Littlejohn: Google Platform View shows there aren’t any barriers….
The scam at Paddington bordering on criminal fraud is that if you can’t touch in or touch out you can get charged a penalty fare for an unresolved journey. HConn to say Hayes is an example when it is advertised as departing from 12 and it turns up at 11. The mad rush round to 11 includes the gateline staff helpfully opening the gates at 12 thereby incurring a penalty fare for not touching out, then of course the system bans you from touching in on 11. So the ever friendly gateline staff simply let you through. Then when you get to Hayes it is impossible to touch out because the system doesn’t understand what’s happened. All of this confusion must be earning millions for TfL / NR in unresolved journeys.
There is a barrier for platforms 2-5, which does not support Oyster; as well as a bunch of gates tucked away onto the footbridge at the country end of the shed in random places. These also do not support Oyster.
@CJ Brady
I don’t understand that. If you’ve touched in on platform 12, and then the staff let you out the gates on 12 and in at 11 without touching out or in at either, the system surely has only registered the first touch in – so why is there then a problem touching out at Hayes?
@ Straphan – I imagine it will be a phased change at Paddington. We know Oyster will reach Reading in Dec 2019. Therefore all the platforms from which you can reading (or Slough) on a fast / semi fast will need readers on gates or validators. We know Heathrow Express gains Oyster at some point in 2018 or early 2019 so their dedicated platforms will need gating – presumably separately to trigger the HEX only fare.
The bigger issue seems to be from May this year to Dec 2019 if the platforming of trains is as bad as stated. I assume TfL will be exercising some influence over how things operate as I expect they will have staff around Paddington. They will also perhaps be more focussed on the link between operational behaviours and any volume of card balance / incomplete journey queries they have to resolve. We shall see. I assume that as we are now past the local council elections that we might see a little more promotional effort from TfL as to what they are taking on from May.
Straphan 2 May 2018 at 10:00
“Wonder if GWR and TfL will sort this mess out?”
Network Rail responsibility for Paddington station?
Not sure if people have seen this official Paddington to/from Heathrow Airport (20 May to 8 December 2018) timetable?
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/paddington-heathrow-terminal-4-20-may-8-december-2018.pdf
2tph at Acton Main Line. To H&H. Sunday’s excepted.
I’ve been working on a draft “what to do during during unexpected disruption” overlay to the official TfL Rail/Elizabeth Line….
https://ukfree.tv/styles/images/2018/newq-draft-compressor.jpg
The interplay between Crossrail and the Central Line is quite instructive, as well as the Hammersmith and City Line.
Work to finish the bay platform at Hayes and Harlington has apparently been proceeding well this weekend.
Re Alan Griffiths,
A mess created by GWR, HEX and TfL all wanting different things, at least HEx have now bought into the gating /barriers concept so NR can now do the sensible thing.
@ Ngh – I have read elsewhere that the bay works are complete or nearly so meaning TfL *may* be able to use 9 car 345s from 20 May. This will mean the return of the 7 car units back east in short order. Lots more class 37 workings dragging them back across London. Obviously we shall what transpires in 13 days time.
Will the 7 car trains be returned via the tunnel, or via North London?
@ Alex McKenna; I don’t think the connection at Paddington has been completed yet, and I’m pretty sure Class 37s wouldn’t be allowed in the tunnel, so a trip round the North London Line would seem the way to go.
Return via NLL, don’t expect anything quick given the amount of work ROG have on at the moment as well as being 1 loco down.
The connection is physically completed but not available for normal use yet (signalling etc)
Also there’s far too much completion and testing work to do in the tunnel to allow time for mere stock transfers.
Is Acton East Junction to Action Wells Junction not electrified? That would seem to be the only short piece of line preventing them from going under their own power.
Presentation to London TravelWatch Board Meeting 17th April 2018 by MTR Crossrail’s Managing Director, Steve Murphy says “Services between Liverpool Street and Shenfield and between Paddington and Hayes & Harlington / Heathrow T4 will continue to operate as ‘TFL Rail’” http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/documents/get_lob?id=4535&age=&field=file
@TAZ
I think it might just be possible that the document you have seen dated 17th April 2018 was copy-and-pasted from a document of longer internal vintage.
TfL will point you to the “official page” at https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/countdown-to-launch which says
“December 2018
The Elizabeth line opens. Three separate services will operate:
– Paddington to Abbey Wood
– Paddington to Heathrow
– Liverpool Street to Shenfield”
Taz,
I suspect Briantist is correct. It is a London Reconnections rule not to trust individual pages in a presentation as sometimes they are actually quite old.
Alternatively, you would be surprised at how often people, who you would have thought were better informed, are not up-to-date on the current situation.
@ Pop / Taz / Briantist – I understand the point being made about “cut and pasting” but would a Managing Director really make that sort of mistake presenting to a statutory passenger body? I know it’s possible but it seems unlikely. I know Mr Murphy from a long time back – it’s not the sort of thing he’d get wrong.
I wonder if a decision has been made to call the “new shiny bit” Lizzie Line but the name is only applied to the existing NR branches when they are added in to the core? A subtle way of postponing some of the rebranding activity where we know there are delays to station rebuilds. Also maintains a naming distinction between services for the period where passengers will face mandatory interchange (Liv St & Paddington) until through services commence. We’ll see what happens come December this year.
Walthamstow Writer,
I did wonder if the original decision had been quietly reversed and this was the first revelation. But it would not look very impressive to keep changing this decision. In addition to Briantist’s link which is, presumably, official there is the Crossrail website with the draft 2018 tube map.
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/maps/elizabeth-line-tube-map-december-2018-draft
Nowhere is TfL Rail mentioned.
Regardless of who is correct, the left hand doesn’t seem to know what the right hand is doing. In such circumstances, in the absence of other information, I go for the cock-up theory and would suggest Mr Murphy has just got it wrong.
Re PoP,
But the Murphy presentation is new (during a time of
suspiciouslyvery little CR public interaction including news items) and all the other sources have been around a while (6+ months at least) with no particular reason to update them (and every reason to hold fire given uncertainties)For example: If they can’t get 345s working in the Heathrow tunnels it might be good reason to hold off on Crossrail branding at the western end till 2019…
If so warming up plan B as the most probable outcome to a select audience makes sense.
ngh,
Not buying it. Nor am I buying Walthamstow Writer’s comment about Mr Murphy wouldn’t make a mistake as basic as that. If the rest of the document were 100% accurate I might.
On page three it is stated
We all know that isn’t true as the first Class 345 stock did not enter passenger service until June 2017.
On page eight the full passenger service diagram does not include Terminal 5. Admittedly it does refer to going to Terminal 5 in the text but this does show how willingly people use out-of-date diagrams in presentations.
I still think he just got it plain wrong.
1. Most if not all trains I have seen shunting around the Old Oak Common depot are 9 cars in length.
2. They all have ‘Elizabeth Line’ roundels on them, rather than ‘TfL Rail’.
3. I haven’t walked round with a measuring tape, but I believe the position of the buffer stop at the Hayes & Harlington bay has been pushed back, and thus the platform extension is now in place. Work has also begun on the Platform 2/3 island.
Re Staphan,
1. All the 9 car units are delivered to Old Oak Common as will the extra 2 car to add on to the 7 cars next year so currently there should be about 4-5 times as many 9 cars at OOC as 7 cars.
2. the trains are delivered with Elizabeth Line roundels and then a TfL Rail one placed on top until they gave up.
Re PoP,
I can see much wriggle room for interpretation in the wording of the Stage 1 comment.
@ngh: Fair enough – again, I only go by what I see…
The H&H bay looks complete, though, and the platform extensions all look as if all they need is commissioning. Aren’t these the only obstacles to a 9-car service?
On the slide in Mr Murphy’s presentation headed “Stage 5: Full Passenger Service”, why is the journey time from Liverpool St to Heathrow (41 minutes) longer than that from Canary Wharf to Heathrow (39 minutes) ? Is this to do with stopping patterns, or am I missing something ?
Jim R
Papers for the latest Programmes & Investment Committee meeting have been published this morning. Another very terse Crossrail update, although a whole paragraph is dedicated to – you guessed it – the artwork!
James,
I think the latest strategy is to focus on how the project has managed to achieve high standards of safety and very few work-related injuries.
Note too that the minutes for the last meeting report this item (and others) as if held in public session – when they weren’t. The latest bad habit they seem to have got into is to move everything to part 2 (private discussion) then report the non-contentious bits as if it were held in public.
Jim Rickard,
According the the Crossrail website:
Liverpool St to Heathrow Central (sic) : 33 minutes
Canary Wharf to Heathrow Central to : 40 minutes
Abbey Wood to Heathrow ‘Central’ is 51 minutes on the Crossrail website but 52 minutes according to the slides.
I think that figure of 41 minutes is just plain wrong and there is no obvious explanation such as a typo or confusion with another station.
PoP
Thanks. Added to the earlier comments from yourself and others, it does make one wonder how carefully the whole presentation was checked/proofread.
@PoP Agreed – it really is unacceptable for a project that has cost billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to be hiding from scrutiny by pretending any and all bad news is “commercially confidential”
Also, the fact that Mike Brown and the Mayor are meeting with the Global CEO of Siemens suggests there are some serious issues with the signalling in the central tunnel
@James 13:33
Just as likely is that TfL doesn’t have the cash flow to pay for signalling reworking on the scale now seen to be required and within the timescales now becoming urgent, so maybe a chat to Siemens about them funding works upfront in return for higher scale payments downstream = government-supported private sector 3rd party funding, and a good revenue return for Siemens’ investment.
MILTON CLEVEDON ….9 May 2018 at 13:48 “Just as likely is that TfL doesn’t have the cash flow to pay for signalling reworking on the scale now seen to be required and within the timescales now becoming urgent…….”
Why would TfL be expected to pay for rework? Crossrail has bought an off the shelf CBTC system (in as much as any of these systems is off the shelf) and it is for the supplier to make it work.
Surely who is expected to pay for any rework depends on the small print of the contract (which, presumably, no commenter here has seen, please correct me if I am wrong).
A further relevant principle is “you can fix the price, or fix the timetable, but never both”. Of course this is highly generalised, and might not apply here, but I suspect that well-published target opening dates have provided suppliers with rather more of the high-value cards than TfL may be comfortable with.
Re James,
Wrong reason for that meeting…
100andthirty,
To sort of paraphrase Malcolm’s thoughts …
Siemens can probably demonstrably show that their system works in a ‘normal’ environment. They can also probably show that it works in a long tunnel from Royal Oak to Custom House. So they would argue it is fit for purpose in a tunnel. So, for them, it is a case of ‘your tunnel is faulty, not our equipment’.
Neither side can be 100% sure they would win in court. So each side has an incentive to negotiate. The only relevant factor is how much they are going to settle for (bird in the hand) to avoid going to court (two in the bush).
Even if Siemens admit liability, TfL has a duty to mitigate losses and give Siemens an opportunity to put things right. So they could be talking about the need for possessions and who pays for the them.
Re PoP, 130, Milton Clevedon,
But the signalling issues are in the ETCS area not in the CBTC area?
If the CBTC system and/or the CBTC to TPWS/AWS interface is problematic then Siemens will have big problems in HK at the moment too and you can bet MTR won’t have any Chinese walls (pun intended) for any issues on the 2 projects!
NGH…..we know about ETCS issues and it’s more complicated than just Siemens as the Heathrow trackside equipment is Alstom’s.
We don’t know about any CBTC issues because everyone is keeping schtum apart from oblique “programme pressures”.
And the Commissioner and Mayor might be meeting the Siemens CEO about something else entirely, TfL do a lot of business with Siemens.
ngh,
Sorry. Mental block as regards mixing ETCS and CBTC. It would have made more sense if I had written ‘ in a tunnel from St Pancras to City Thameslink’.
Malcolm 9 May 2018 at 15:27
“A further relevant principle is “you can fix the price, or fix the timetable, but never both”. ”
Is that the technology dimension of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle?
Re 130,
The TfL report is pretty positive about CBTC compared with ETCS
CBTC:
I.e. going well after a late start with delays due to no juice after the transformer and NR’s new one adjacent was blown up by some contractors and the fitting of the PEDs was completed late, so it doesn’t sound like CBTC is a problem.
whereas ETCS
is far more ominous.
I’m aware of the Alstom (or rather ACEC) heritage in the Heathrow tunnels, it is interesting to note that SNCB ripped out their identical ACEC equipment when ETCS role out started – what do they know that Crossrail /NR missed? 😉
ETCS’s heritage is interesting politically in that they went for the Belgian solution to avoid a Franco-German stand off on some of the equipment standards. This means GW-ATP (aka TBL1) is a bit too closely related to ETCS for its own good (e.g. balise frequencies).
HK is also similarly afflicted with TBL1 thanks to the BR links but is going to use the same Siemens TrainGuard CBTC as the crossrail core to replace it instead.
Alan Griffiths: I’m slightly uncertain, but probably not.
I’m glad we’ve sorted out which tunnels we’re talking about. I was royally confused having read the transition report which seems to contain *good* news in respect of the core’s signalling system testing. I was encouraged by that but clearly there’s a fair way to go to get to the point of running a 4 min headway shadow timetabled service.
@Ngh – in respect of the Hong Kong reference are you referring to resignalling of the East Rail route (Hung Hom – Lo Wu / Lok Ma Chau)? That’s the only bit of railway in HK that I can think of that might have a BR (Translink) influence over it. I assume East Rail is being resignalled in advance of the rejigging on the East / West Rail service pattern / eventual Cross Harbour extension of East Rail to Admiralty.
@ James 1331 – in terms of project disclosure I do find it hugely ironic that I can pull up very detailed reports about all of the Hong Kong rail projects currently in build and see all the “nasties” that have arisen in terms of difficult ground conditions, contractor problems and huge cost overruns. That’s in a country that is effectively controlled by Communist China. Meanwhile in the so called “cradle of democracy” we can’t see any real detail on any Network Rail or TfL controlled projects which are spending billions of public money.
@Malcolm, Alan Griffiths:
you can fix the price, or fix the timetable, but never both
Or to add another dimension, there is the classic project management triangle of scope, cost and schedule (or as often put, ‘fast, cheap, or good – pick any two’). So you can fix both price and timetable at once only by reducing the scope – ie dropping Heathrow from the current phase of service.
@WW: once things actually go wrong (and the high speed line to the mainland in HK has clearly gone badly over budget) then maximum transparency is a good idea, as the organisation is effectively forced to beg government for more money. But when there is a possibility that things could go wrong, but an internal belief that things can be rectified, then organisations will tend to want to avoid external scrutiny (at risk of then causing more pain if things don’t work out).
The fact that the Mayor is meeting with the CEO of Siemens but it is not revealed what they are talking about is itself interesting – it is when either side go public with their side of the story that you can tell things are going really badly. If they are talking to each other in person and not by press release that means they must feel the situation is serious but not critical.*
* The story of a German general speaking to an Austrian general towards the end of the First World War:
German: “The situation is serious, but not critical.”
Austrian, with a smile: “No, the situation is critical, but it is not serious”.
Back to that presentation to London Travelwatch.
I am struggling to see how “the Elizabeth line will provide connections with … c2c” (page 13) unless you rely on the fact that some c2c trains serve Stratford and Liverpool St at weekends.
AIUI the “real problem” is the outdated “GW-AWS” (for want of the correct term) used in the Heathrow tunnels ( ? And between there & Padders? )
I know it would cost, but surely the “simple” solution is just to rip it out & refit compatible signalling to all trains using the tunnels. [ See also NGH’s comment on SNCB ]
Or is the “special” postion of HeX & HAL regarding the tunnels themselves what’s holding up this “obvious” move?
Greg Tingey,
We suspect that is or will be a problem. I am not convinced they yet have it working with that switched off. But it is just that – speculation.
Malcolm 9 May 2018 at 20:08
“Alan Griffiths: I’m slightly uncertain, but probably not.”
Excellent!
@ Ian J – I take your point but all projects have good and bad moments. Things go well, people make mistakes, other people are great at solving problems and getting projects back on track. That’s how it is. It would do no one any harm for that reality to be public knowledge. It might actually educate the public that projects like Crossrail are difficult, complex, balls-aching things to get right and that there are reasons for disruption, traffic diversions etc. The TV programmes have helped somewhat in that regard but proper disclosure about project progress, costs, scope and timescale are essential. For what is supposed to be the “most transparent administration ever” at City Hall the volume, frequency and quality of published information has declined markedly.
Yes there have been battles over transparency on the projects in Hong Kong but that’s largely because MTR’s past record of delivery was exemplary in terms of cost, time and scope. These latest series of projects have all had real difficulties which has upped the ante for local politicians who are not used to bad news or extra bills for project cost overruns. However at least the public can find out what has gone wrong, why and what the cost and time implications are. No such info in London despite pretty obvious clues if you walk round and take a look or can spot what is missing in the papers that are published. Saying you’re “the most transparent administration ever” and being worse than Mayor Johnson’s tenure of TfL is not a good look (IMO, of course).
Hayes & Harlington Station – 10-05-2018
At noon a bunch of proud TfL ‘suits’ (sans actual suits but they had rolled up shirt sleeves) with prominent dangly ids. were joyously congregating in the upper foyer of Hayes Station. It appeared to be the day of the actual ‘takeover’ of TfL. A shiny new blue ‘Tin Lizzie Line’ train went through – at least its doors didn’t drop off. They looked on proudly. Never mind the squalor of the station – STILL a building site with no rebuilding progress in evidence after all of these years. Never mind the new TfL ticket machines that don’t accept cash, don’t issue pre-paid tickets, don’t top-up Oysters, etc., i.e. basically don’t work as advertised. Meanwhile the stairs from the upper foyer down to platforms 2 and 3 are now permanently blocked. This means that passengers have to lummox themselves and luggage over the bridge to / from platform 4. BTW the Station still doesn’t display a name outside. If all of this makes TfL staff proud then GHU on a bad day.
C J Brady
And this is the bunch [Snip. LBM] who want to take over all of London’s suburban lines?
Apart from these stations how are they getting on with the Goblin line or is that also Gob like most of TfL?
[We realise that this is an emotional issue, but in our experience calling people names leads to a deterioration of the quality of the comments. As such, we will be closely watching the tone and wording of comments. LBM]
I find the non-working of the ticket machines very worrying – time for some really bad publicity on that front, to get theor attention concentrated, methinks.
[OK… but you’re not doing any ‘really bad publicity’ about it on LR. LBM]
Re WW,
They are “transparent” – there is nothing to see!
C.J. Brady: Conventional wisdom would suggest that in order to rebuild a station it must undergo a period of reconstruction, during which various parts of the station will be shut to passengers. This is captured in the popular saying ‘no pain – no gain’.
I do hope they sort out the ticket machines, though – their lack of functionality certainly takes the biscuit…
@Straphan: Isn’t that rebuild being done by NR?
@John Coffin: The Overground has been a huge success and many of the problems on the Goblin have been outside of TfL’s control…. I have used the NLL before it was Overgrounded and TfL have done a good job on taking it over. If you are going to accuse them of being all “Gob” then some concrete facts would be appreciated…
@ J Coffin – before you start throwing round the insults at least get the facts correct. The delays to the station rebuilding on the Western section of Crossrail are down to Network Rail. They are contracted and funded to deliver these changes but seemingly went for designs that resulted in costs that blew the budget or else were hopeless at setting reliable project estimates. And that after many months of effort with local councils to get acceptable schemes through the planning process.
None of this is to do with the devolution of train service operation to TfL. It’s very hard for TfL to have sparkling stations when Network Rail have knocked several of them down! By all means have a go at TfL / MTR Crossrail if their train services between Paddington and Heathrow T4 are a disaster after 20 May.
As for the GOBLIN then the delays in delivering the electrification are again Network Rail’s responsibility for a range of reasons discussed here in the past. The service has settled down after a few wobbles with DMU availability. As for the new EMUs then there appear to be problems with Bombardier being able to get type approval – I’ve read about software issues on the class 710s but don’t know how true that is. Now you can I suppose blame TfL for selecting Bombardier to build the trains but there are no guarantees that any manufacturer can get new trains into squadron service without a hitch in the UK.
And just to note – we have no idea what those TfL people were doing at Hayes and Harlington. Just because some problems have not been instantly resolved by their sheer presence does not mean their presence is not worthwhile. I attended hundreds of site meetings in my time at LU. I dare say some passing strangers thought I was wasting my time or having a “jolly” out of the office. They’d be wrong though.
Re SH(LR) & WW,
“Isn’t that rebuild being done by NR?”
Who subcontracted quite a bit of it to Carillion…
NR’s target date is December 2019 and the goal posts were moved mid way with having step free access to the platforms (not in original spec) but without adequate funding to do so hence the descoping of the station plans that already had planning permission.
RE WW (Goblin)
Completely new software build for the 710s (and subsequent Aventras for Anglia/SWR/LNWR) and Bombardier want to get it sorted before any approval /acceptance process. The good news is that all the dual voltage units for Watford DC and Goblin are finished so a quick change over looks on the cards.
No train builder has managed to get anything delivered and in service on time in the UK for quite a while with the situation apparently similar in the rest of Europe too.
The Crossrail transformer fiasco resulted in some damage to the adjacent new NR GEML feed transformer so I don’t know whether there is enough power to run Goblin including electric freight until it is on line.
C. J. Brady: the stairs from the station building down to plats 2/3 are very much open – I used them on my way home last night…
Looks like these days there’s nothing Network Rail won’t screw up…
Quote from TfL press release:
So this very strongly suggests that it is still the intention that the Heathrow service will be called the Elizabeth line from December. Also all reference to rolling stock seems to be to Elizabeth line stock.
BBC London news (after 10pm main news) last night (10 May) featured a look inside the new Old Oak Common Liz line depot. Plus a few words with the leader of Ealing Council whose nose was very out of joint about lack of progress on station upgrades.
Sadly this BBC piece was not by their very well informed correspondent Tom Edwards – he would not have announced that “Elizabeth Line trains will serve Heathrow from later this month”…… Which is exactly what the poorly researched presenter announced at the end of this piece.
So this very strongly suggests that it is still the intention that the Heathrow service will be called the Elizabeth line from December. Also all reference to rolling stock seems to be to Elizabeth line stock.
..which would tally with my observations of a lot of 9 car Class 345s with ‘Elizabeth Line’ roundels shuffling about at Old Oak Common.
IslandDweller,
That was one line in an otherwise excellent report highlighting the issues.
And as to criticising Tom Edwards for his poor research and claiming he is not very well informed, well you yourself are not very well informed as the report was by Karl Mercer and Tom Edwards had nothing to do with it.
@poP
Island Dweller said that “this BBC piece was NOT by their very well informed correspondent Tom Edwards “
@ Island Dweller – Having just watched that TV clip I see Mr Bell of Ealing Council is not best pleased. Hadn’t heard that a bridge installation has now been aborted twice! I imagine some very harsh words are being exchanged behind the scenes. I appreciate Howard Smith has to be positive in front of the cameras but I wonder if he really thinks Network Rail can deliver multiple station upgrades, some very substantial in nature, in barely 18 months. I’m left wondering quite how many weekend possessions are going to be needed to allow building works to proceed apace (incl new overbridges and lift tower structures to ensure accessibility). Let’s hope it doesn’t take them over a year to get the new lifts commissioned as it did at Blackhorse Rd (Overground).
I understand Ealing Broadway with its very heavy passenger traffic is not going to get escalators. They are two a penny in even the most shoddy shopping centre.
There is plenty of space for them onto the Central line & up Crossrail platforms. With the gargantuan sums spent on Crossrail surely some moving stairs could have been provided.
@ Ngh – thanks for the update re the 710s. Broadly matches what I’ve seen elsewhere. They’re going to have to get a move on though as we’re not that far away from “Summer” when the new trains are supposed to be in service on the GOBLIN – only months later than envisaged in the supply contract. 😐 And don’t Greater Anglia’s initial batch of new trains need to be in service late 2018 / early 2019?
Interesting that the exploding Crossrail transformer has had other impacts too. Wasn’t aware of that one.
@Island Dweller
“he would not have announced that “Elizabeth Line trains will serve Heathrow from later this month”…… ”
Well, what he actually said was that “trains are already running on the eastern end of Crossrail (aka TfL Rail) and will be running from Paddington to Heathrow from later this month”. He didn’t say what trains though.
In any case, trains have already been running from Paddington to Heathrow for twenty years.
IslandDweller, timbeau,
Grovelling apologies all round. I blame the hangover. I read that as ‘this BBC piece was by their not very well informed correspondent Tom Edwards’ which naturally I took exception to because he is.
Walthamstow Writer,
I got the impression that Mr Bell was not so annoyed with the bridge installation not happening but that he implied that Network Rail didn’t tell people so they closed the road for no reason.
Some detail of the work that didn’t happen is here.
@NGH
But why do 710s and subsequent Aventras need completely new software? Isn’t the 700 a new generation design that presumably would have required all-new software?
Is it not so much new software as a new release? – which i presume is a control event that has its own acceptance process?
I meant 345 not 700, I think
Re Island Dweller,
Much more than just a new release…
Re answer=42,
The computer system used on the 345s was originally developed for the original Aventra (aka Mk1) design that Bombardier tendered for Thameslink and didn’t win with and none were ever built. As a precursor it was fitted to the initial batch of “mk2” electrostars – the 379s built for NatEx as Anglia Franchise holder for Stansted express and WAML use. The idea being to test the new computer hardware and software on a known mechanically bedded in platform before using it on the new Aventra platform (to avoid the kind of issues Siemens had with the 700s and 707s). The same hardware and software was used on the subsequent mk2 electrostar orders; the 377/6 &/7 for Southern and the 387s for GatEx, GN, GWR and C2c (somewhat predicated by the difficulty in being able to source more of the original industrial PC hardware and security of the obsolete operating system the computer’s ran, the new system is IP network based and designed to be easily ETCS and ATO fittable)
Hence the 345 computer systems are not as new as one might think (9+ years old) and have been a bit more problematic that expected on the 345s with new different systems including doors, Air-Con, traction electronics, traction motors and traction motor cooling to previously and more demanding running conditions hence a good point for major new software build.
Bombardier’s bundling and prioritisation strategy with 345 software updates appears to have been much better (given its aviation software expertise?) than Siemens’s initial strategy with the 700s which had minimal bundling and prioritisation
In pursuit of getting ETCS to work properly on GW, it’s fortunate there’s a common computer platform on board the GWR 387s and TfL 345s. I’m guessing solutions developed for one class should be adaptable to the other.
Walthamstow Writer 11 May 2018 at 14:09
” I’m left wondering quite how many weekend possessions are going to be needed to allow building works to proceed apace (incl new overbridges and lift tower structures to ensure accessibility). ”
Three lift towers (roughly made of cubes, stacked on top of each other) were craned in to Forest Gate station over a weekend.
Subsequent work has spread over a very long time. Key constraint now looks as if it is the fitting out of the station building.
If station works on the Great Eastern parts of the Elizabeth Line are any guide, Mayor Khan will be getting publicly cross with Network Rail about it, approaching the election of Thursday 7th May 2020.
@ Alan G – My point was perhaps too subtly made. I said “apace” to reflect the enormous demands there will be on Network Rail NOT to have incomplete stations post Dec 2019. I am aware that the works at the eastern stations have been proceeding but not exactly at a roaring speed. I can see the need for a lot of possessions out west to ensure that overbridges and lift towers *are* craned in as quickly as the site preparations allow. This will put a lot of pressure on local authorities and train operators along the GWML to prevent any delays to the work.
The political influence on NR / Crossrail from the Mayor. DfT, Assembly members, MPs and councillors will be immense as they will want a wholly accessible service in operation from December 2019. Remember the long political battle to secure agreement and funding for the accessibility works? Those who fought for it will be watching to make sure it materialises.
Mark Townend 12 May 2018 at 11:29……….. In referring to common computer platforms, I hope your tongue was firmly in your cheek! Class 345 has a touch screen ETCS driver interface to its on=board signalling sub-system which in turn has modules to cover the ETCS itself, the Siemens Trainguard CBTC and TPWS/AWS.
Class 387 has a speedometer and controls for TPWS/AWS.
I am wondering how the gating of the Heathrow stations will impact the free transfer of passengers, staff, etc between the various terminals at Heathrow, including those making international connections. They are currently all just sent to the Express, with free access on and off the platforms. There is no other transfer facility provided.
Separately, and more local to me, the fitting-out of the platforms at Custom House now includes all the platform posters etc with service details. These are visible from the east end of the DLR Custom House platforms, and from DLR trains between there and Prince Regent.
@Mr Beckton: A timely question: see here:
Please note from 20 May 2018, to travel on the shuttle trains, you can get a free Inter-Terminal Transfer ticket from the machines in the station. You can also use an Transport for London Oyster card or a contactless payment card which will not be charged when travelling between terminals.
@Mr Beckton. Pedant moment. Passengers on a connecting itinerary (one ticket number – bags checked through) are not directed to the rail connection between terminals. They stay “airside” (ie, they don’t clear the UK border) and are transferred by bus within the secure area of the airport.
Only passengers who buy two separate tickets (which the airline industry doesn’t call a connection – because they don’t get any of the protections around delays and cancellations) have to come “landside” and use the train.
Re 130,
And the 387 cab desks deliberately have plenty of blank space to replace and retrofit new equipment… (Keeps the upfront cost down)
The underlying Mitrac systems are the same, just what is attached to them is different in places.
Reports today that Crossrail could go over budget by as much as £500m. Not clear if this includes the existing contingency that is presumably part of the overall budget.
Bad headlines, but £0.5bn is still only about 3% of the overall £14.8 bn budget.
@IslandDweller
Pedantissimo moment. Persons making international connections, even if they have two separate tickets, can (and at LHR are strongly encouraged to) stay airside (using the shuttle buses if required), provided that they have luggage that is checked through. Most full-service airlines will through-check luggage but refusal to do so is becoming more widespread – and very difficult to identify in advance.
NGH…..I noted that the Mitrac systems are basically the same, but there will/are lots of challenges in getting the signalling sub-system working fully. We have heard about the Heathrow tunnel interface issue. What we haven’t heard yet is how well the CBTC is working and how the interfaces are working that require signalling systems to change whilst the train is running. Class 387 has some of this to come!
If the basic Bombardier signalling sub-system interface with Mitrac is working well on class 345, then that is a good sign for the class 387.
Finally, it is, perhaps a matter of degree, but my impression of the class 387 cab and the equipment already fitted is that it will be challenging to find space even for the ETCS standard display. I imagine the other kit will be squeezed in elsewhere. However, as someone used to tube train cabs, I thought class 387 was cramped in the extreme.
Crossrail needs £500m bailout by taxpayer, Chris Grayling to tell MPs Capital’s new train line hit by huge cost overruns
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crossrail-needs-500m-bailout-by-taxpayer-chris-grayling-to-tell-mps-lv77md5vp
@ CJ Brady – I am very sceptical about that Times article. Until we get a lot of extra detail about precisely what is costing more, why and how it is funded I’m not getting “excited” about it. It has a rather nasty “political” smell about it given the “leak” has most likely emerged from the DfT. I will leave things there so as to avoid a moderator’s axe falling.
You don’t suddenly wake up one morning towards the end of a project to find you have gone £500m over budget. Such amounts, unless Noddy has done the budgeting and accounting, would have been building up and readily identified for some time, likely years.
Mr Beckton,
The phraseology has changed in recent months from ‘within budget’ to ‘within the funding envelope’ which accounts for about £200m. The chances of exceeding budget given as a percentage have been steadily going up so that is no surprise.
That leaves £300m. The suspicion is that the stark choice is ‘do you want it on time or on budget?’ and that costs for being ready for the December opening have steadily gone up. Apart from any political fallout, it may be cheaper to pay up rather than lose a substantial revenue stream.
But then, if £200m is ‘within the funding envelope’ is that additional to the £500m or part of it?
Let’s not forget, that interchanging passengers with through tickets have tickets either for the same airline; or for two airlines within the same alliance. Airlines tend to group flights by the same airline (e.g. BA at Terminal 5) and by the same alliance within one terminal. Thus, most passengers interchanging at Heathrow never need to leave the airside part of the same terminal.
I had a nasty experience trying to collect advance tickets from a TfL Rail Western Station. To top it off the TfL Customer Services were trying to palm off my complaint to Great Western Railway, even though they took over the stations earlier this year. This does not bode well for the forthcoming introtuction of trains which is only less than a week away.
@PoP: But then, if £200m is ‘within the funding envelope’ is that additional to the £500m or part of it?
Construction News reports that
Sources close to the project flagged to CN that there is risk allowance and contingency plans built into the Crossrail cost forecasts, which is typical for large infrastructure projects
…which seems to imply that the (suspiciously round) £500m headline figure includes the £200m contingency, and also that there is further contingency built into the extra £300m.
Strangely a “rail industry insider” speaking to the Telegraph has pointed to the cost of the Bakerloo Line link tunnel at Paddington as an example of a cause of the cost over-run – I had thought that this (and the step-free access for the outer stations) was a separately-funded project which wouldn’t be included in the original funding envelope anyway.
If the latest board paper on finance is to be believed, the money problem is more down to undercollect than overspend with various reasons for why expected income to pay for Crossrail was not as great as anticipated.
I would treat this with a handful of salt. There seems to be a lack of grip on reality in various papers – Oxford Street pedestrianisation continuing according to plan, Bank Bloomberg entrance opening as planned next month (so further delay then), silence on the upgraded Victoria line timetable planned for June, plans to spend, spend, spend.
PoP, Ian J (etc)
In the light of today’s damning report on Carillion by the House … I wonder if Carillion’s implosion had a significant effect on the supposed shortfall in Crossail’s finances?
[ PoP – a lack of grip on reality.. – you can say that gain! ]
Note also the very similar wording of statements coming out of DfT, TfL and Crossrail – they are evidently coordinating their messaging about this in advance of the June ministerial statement. This might hint that there is some kind of understanding between them about how the overrun will be covered.
@Pop
TfL’s website (Improvements at Bank station) contradicts that June date. It says the Walbrook entrance will open in August.
Link
https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/bank-and-monument
“Walbrook entrance
A new station entrance on Walbrook (at the Bloomberg building), with step-free access to the Waterloo & City line, is also being built. The entrance will have two lifts, four escalators and a new ticket hall when it opens in August 2018”
@PoP
That same finance report does also show that £426m more was spent than budgeted on Crossrail in 2017/18, and the narrative only mentions that capital spend was lower, except on CR, with no further explanation of the divergence. Elsewhere in the report much smaller variances are explained. Eyebrow-raising at least!
@Timbeau: I thought it was originally May 2018!
@SH(LR)
It was:
Or possibly February:
or last December
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/november/bank-station-work-starts-on-a-new-entran
or December 2015
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/new-walbrook-entrance-bank/
Looking at the CN article in more detail on the pre-March ’18 position:
Which has grown by an extra £236m recently…
It is worth noting the 4 stations are majorly behind will effectively mean some spending originally allocated to last year for items at those stations has yet to be spent before we have gone into unexpected extras and overruns so plenty of cost still to come in.
FY2015-16 was meant to be the most expensive for Crossrail (construction) with costs falling in subsequent years, which they did in 16-17 by 13% and costs were meant to be down by a further 31% from 2016-17 in 2017-18 but were only down 4% in reality which suggests plenty of can kicking earlier.
Re Greg – Carillion.
The only Crossrail core contract involving Carillion awarded by CR was at Paddington for works to the existing station and underneath and should all have been completed not the new Crossrail station itself however they were doing plenty of surface station and other works on the western side for NR as the biggest contractor on the western surface side.
timbeau,
Ho, ho, ho. August 2018 eh?
Actually, it was originally scheduled for completion in 2012. To be fair to TfL, the first few years of delays were due to the contractor in the main project encountering problems – nothing to do with TfL.
I look forward to it opening and reading in the Board minutes that it opened on time.
On the way home this afternoon I called in at Hayes Station for the Metro. There were two uniformed TfL staff loitering in the upper foyer.
I asked them when the station’s name sign was going to be put back at the front of the station. The said that they didn’t know it was missing!!!! I said its been missing for quite a few years. They still didn’t understand what I meant.
Then they said that the upper foyer was going to be closed and demolished anyway so no sign was going to be replaced.
Now I understood that the upper foyer was going to be retained in the new station. After all there are stairs going from it in Station Road and bus stop down to platforms 2 / 3 / 4.
And I know from the tests that NR did a few years ago that the bridge at the London end cannot be used for rush-hour crowds due to health and safety – its simply not strong enough.
They then said that the whole station was going to be rebuilt. Hmm – there’s no sign of that even being started – and Crossrail money has run out.
But we do need the station name back!!!
Apologies for long post.
I made a trip to Hayes & Harlington on a GWR class 387 today. Various things noted.
• The previous Heathrow Connect was late due to emergency engineering works so ran fast from Paddington to Hayes & Harlington thus confirming that Hanwell can easily lose one of its half-hourly trains if things run late.
• Masses of workers in orange on the platform extensions clearly getting them ready for next Monday morning and the arrival of the first class 345.
• The rails leading to Acton dive under are very rusty.
• On the class 387 it is (correctly) announced that only the doors on the first seven carriages will open on arrival at Hayes & Harlington because (it incorrectly states) the station has a short platform.
• The bay platform at Hayes & Harlington has indeed been extended and I am in no doubt it is long enough for a 9-car class 345. The catenary veers to one side before terminating at a pole to the side of the buffer stops but that doesn’t matter because the pantograph isn’t on the first carriage these days.
• There are indeed new ticket machines that accept cash but state that there is no cash in the machine.
• There is no station name on the main entrance but that hardly matters, not least because the bus stop right outside the station says ‘Hayes & Harlington’ followed by a National Rail double arrow sign.
• The waiting room entrance is as uninviting as ever with still nothing to indicate it is a waiting room.
• The station appears to be completely devoid of any ‘no smoking’ signs. Not surprisingly, I saw a couple of people smoking.
• There are no toilets on this station (or any of the other ones except, possibly, Ealing Broadway) and from Monday there will be no toilets on the train.
On the very positive side:
– The station platform signs have been temporarily pasted over with paper ones with the station name in a blue Johnson font. Although this sounds trivial, it does make the signs appear largely consistent although there are a few old ones still in the old black font. It gives the feeling that change (for the better) is about to happen.
– best of all was a very noticeable staff presence. On both exits were staff ‘inviting’ you to touch in and touch out. There was also a member of staff on the platform who announced every train. To me, this alone meant that the station seemed to be much better than when I previously visited it.
@PoP and C J Brady: The CGIs (Computer Generated Images) on the Crossrail website seem to suggest that the station buildings at all Greater London stations west of Paddington – except for Hanwell and West Drayton – are due for demolition and wholesale replacement. Hanwell will stay as is, and West Drayton will have a new building built next to the existing one.
At both H&H and Southall, the existing buildings and stairs can barely cope with peak passenger flows as is, never mind if the forecast demand increases do materialise (and given how many blocks of flats are going up in the area they most certainly will). Moreover, the location and layout of station buildings at both stations makes it impossible to build lifts or ticket gatelines, or indeed other basic amenities (e.g. toilets at H&H or cycle parking at Southall).
In a Geoff Marshall video on Old Oak Common depot Howard Smith states that Paddington – Heathrow will go to 9-car in the summer of 2019.
My guess is that they are in no hurry to go to 9-car as the demand isn’t there yet so why have an extra two unnecessary carriages?
Re PoP
….and another 14months-ish to sort the signalling 😉
Straphan
Which suggests that the rebuilds will be ( Are not? ) part of the specifically-Crossrail budget, but a n other money-pot ???
Greg Tingey,
I have never quite fully understood this.
On the eastern side I believe that TfL have a 125 year lease on the stations. There is a specific item of TfL expenditure to upgrade the station buildings beyond what was already an essential part of Crossrail (e.g. OHLE upgrades and platform lengthening). These station upgrades are not part of the Crossrail contract – so isn’t included in the £14.8 billion. TfL contracts the work to Network Rail who generally sub-contracts it.
On the western side I believe there is no such long term lease and that the work involved is bundled in with other work (.e.g Acton Diveunder, Airport Junction) for which a figure of around £2bn was agreed with Network Rail. Clearly, subsequently, the two sides can come to an agreement on any variations later with all the fallout that creates.
I suspect there was a ‘complete by December 2019’ requirement with specific earlier days for critical items e.g. Airport Junction, signalling, overhead line. Possibly it was taken for granted that the rest of the work would be done at the earliest opportunity rather than the last minute.
I could be completely wrong on all this and clarification from others would be appreciated.
Perhaps a similar lease on the western stations will occur after the works on them are finished by NR?
@ PoP – I have seen nothing in TfL papers to indicate a long term station lease provision on western stations. It is possible nothing is being done yet because no one knows exactly what is going to be built! There was rather more clarity out east and on the West Anglia route. TfL, via MTR Crossrail, have led on the design and procurement and project management of works to the Shenfield line stations.
In terms of station works to the west and east then TfL have a web page that sets out in broad terms what is being done and deadlines.
https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/tfl-rail-improvements?intcmp=35316
One of the TfL Board papers says contracts will be placed for the western station rebuilding works in this Summer. Those for the remaining eastern stations will be later this year. This seems to be mostly Ilford and Romford as other station works are posted for completion this Summer. Note that December 2019 looms very large as the completion date for all outstanding major works not finishing this Summer. This reinforces my view that an awful lot of possessions are going to be needed west of Paddington to get all this work done. There’s only so much that can be done in conventional engineering hours and not very much on an operating railway with high intensity passenger and freight workings.
There is also a “what we’ve done so far” page.
https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/what-we-ve-done-so-far
Like you I am not 100% clear about the split of works on surface routes. I think Network Rail have a form of trading / funding agreement for upgrading existing surface routes and stations. I am less clear whether that has included major works like the Stockley flyover and Acton dive under. Obviously it has included track, signalling and overhead wire upgrades. What is clear is that a number of the accessibility works at western stations are being funded and procured by TfL with other works at the same location being for NR. That’s evident on the webpage info and was the basis of an agreement some time ago.
@PoP
Could it be that there is nowhere to park the “spare” trailer cars 8 & 9? They are therefore being incorporated into trains as soon as practicable.
Re Nameless,
No – They haven’t started building the spare 8th and 9th cars for the 7 car units yet so not a problem. 001-017 were built as 7car to be lenghtened in May-July next year (to align with LST platform works) and 018-070 are /will be built as 9 car. (034 was delivered to OOC this week)
All the units delivered (and now the majority overall from this week) have been 9car ones for about the last 8 months.
9 cars will be used on Paddington – Hayes&H after this weekend just 360s remain in use on the Heathrow branch which say there are still problems on the Heathrow Branch and they don’t see them being fixed soon.
@ Ngh – re your final para re Heathrow and an earlier remark about Autumn 2019 for the use of 345s it looks to me as if TfL have effectively “given up” trying to run 345s to Heathrow until the switch to GWR sub contracted operation of HEX with 387s due late Summer 2019. I assume this allows all the old BR ATP kit to be removed given your previous comment that the 387s don’t use it / need it. Therefore once the 332s are out of use then the H’row tunnel can switch to ETCS and the 345s can run.
@WW – That seems a sensible strategy. The ETCS could possibly be testing in the Heathrow tunnel network prior to this at night with the ATP switched off so they can be sure it all works properly with both new classes, then a swift changeover could take place with both 345s and 387s starting service together.
When is GWR due to take over operation of Heathrow Express? Dec 19 or before?
7-car Class 345s began operating the Paddington-Hayes & Harlington service on Sunday. Even though platforms have been extended, and new ‘9’ stopping position indicators have been put in, Class 387 services still operate with SDO…
@ Straphan – a quote below from Railway Gazette re GWR and HEX.
Under the agreement approved by the Department for Transport, FirstGroup’s Great Western Railway, which holds the Great Western franchise, is to operate the service under a management contract running from August 2018 until 2028; it is expected that the arrangement would transfer to any future holder of the Great Western franchise.
GWR will operate Heathrow Express services using its Bombardier Transportation Class 387 Electrostar EMUs. A dedicated pool of 12 of the EMUs will be modified by December 2019 to provide first class accommodation, high speed wi-fi, additional luggage racks and on-board entertainment.
The agreement means there is no need to build a new depot to replace the current facility at Old Oak Common which Heathrow Express must vacate by the end of 2019 as part of the High Speed 2 project.
So the takeover is later this year but with what looks like a phased programme of 387 upgrading / replacing the 332s. I suspect there may be enough 387s in use by Sept 2019 to allow ATP to be switched off and for TfL to get 345s into Heathrow – just in time before the big switchover in Dec 2019. I suspect they’d like this to happen earlier but it is clearly dependent on the signalling technology working. We shall see what transpires.
straphan,
Not disputing what you saw but I am surprised as there is no announced Sunday service for the Paddington – Hayes & Harlington service so presume it was a training/proving run.
Presumably, eventually, the either the class 387s will be updated so they know that they can open all the doors as the platforms are longer (if GPS activated) or the relevant balises will be moved (if activated by those). I would have thought the any balises would have been moved as part of platform commissioning.
@Walthamstow Writer: All the Class 387s have already been delivered to GWR:
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/last-ever-electrostar-finished-in-derby-as-18-years-of-production-come-to-an-end
@PoP: possibly, I just saw a 345 out of the windows of a bus!
@ Straphan – I know. They will be upgraded internally for HEX duties. I assume that will take a period of time to achieve. I’m not making any other point – just trying to answer your earlier query.
My 12:08 from Ealing Broadway to Paddington today went through the Acton diveunder, so it is apparently in use again.
@Mark T: The ETCS could possibly be testing in the Heathrow tunnel network prior to this at night with the ATP switched off
Is it actually possible to switch the ATP off? I had thought that it used passive balises – if the issue is that the ATP balises are inappropriately responding to ETCS radio transmissions, then it might be necessary to remove them entirely before the 345s can run.
Re Ian J,
ATP uses very high powered (probably part of the issue???) active balises.
RE WW/Straphan,
That is my best guess at a preferred sensible option given current 345 /ETCS testing progress in the Heathrow Tunnels.
The issues holding up 9 car introduction from Paddington to H&H is just paperwork getting signed.
3x 7car units on the Western side at the moment.
The GW ATP uses active transponders at signals that are comparatively high powered compared to ETCS Eurobalises. It also uses additional intermittent transponders as well as ‘infill loops’ in some places that can stretch for a considerable distance on approach to a signal. The additional transponders or loops are used to update ‘better aspect’ information to the train sooner if a signal steps up on approach, allowing a train to cease braking and start accelerating as appropriate again sooner. The system was based closely on the hardware elements of the Belgian TBL1 train protection system but I believe is more sophisticated in its detailed functionality. Belgium has since completely replaced the trackside hardware of TBL1 with a new active Eurobalise-based system known as TBL1+.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_balise-locomotive.
It is in ETCS level 2 systems that the Eurobalises are usually passive, with fixed data interrogated by the train for precise positioning and with movement authority conveyed and continuously maintained and updated by separate radio communications.
ALC
21 May 22.18
Possibly, the dive-under is back in operation with the new time-table?
One hopes so.
Greg Tingey: Yes, the Acton Diveunder has been reopened, took a dive through it this morning.
One funny thing I noticed with the Class 345 is that at Paddington the middle doors of some carriages remain closed. Presumably this is because some ‘elf’n’safety’ bod was worried about the gap between the 23m carriage and the platform on a curve.
The joke is on them, though – platform 11 at Paddington, where the 345s generally terminate, is on the inside of the curve – meaning the middle doors are closest to the platform edge. This creates no end of confusion for passengers.
As might be expected yet again LHR is ripping off unsuspecting tourists and locals alike. With the TfL take-over of the HConn and the GWR takeover of the HEX the free inter-terminal shuttles at LHR are now no more. So everyone now has to pay to go from Central to T4 & T5. That’s a scam that’s been kept quiet. Ripoff Britain again.
Absolute Rubbish CJB!!!
Nobody is ripping anybody off.
Transfer passengers should obtain a Transfer Ticket from the machines or the staff manning the barriers in T2/3, T4 and T5. I was there yesterday in the T2/3 station watching what now happens.
Even if they use their Oyster Pay-as-you-Go or Contact-less there is zero charge, thats if you ensure you touch in and out, – the same as if you use the Piccadilly line to do the transfer.
Next you will be saying people will be charged to access the Heathrow Lost Property Office, which happens to be inside the barriers at T2/3!!!!
In order to get a transfer ticket you have to present some form of pre-payment device. If you have a contactless credit card maybe the transfer is free. If you have an Oyster card maybe the transfer is free. But what about about paper Travelcards? Anyway if you are an arriving airline passenger and you have to transfer from say T2/3 to T4 what can you use? You have to use something. And if you have none of these pre-payment devices then how do you get a free transfer ticket? You can’t. So you have to pay.
No. You get a ticket from a machine by the gate line. Free. No payment.
The issue of passengers transferring between flights at Heathrow has been done to death in this thread already.
The vast majority of passengers change flights within the same airline or alliance. These are generally co-located within one terminal precisely to make transfers easier.
Those who need to transfer to a different terminal can use a number of airside shuttle buses, so that they do not have to go through the tedium of crossing the UK border. Indeed, many of those passengers do not have leave to enter the UK anyway.
The very few remaining who change between terminals on the landside can, as mentioned before, get a free transfer ticket for the trains; or use buses within the Free Travel Zone.
If you need to moan about TfL Rail/Elizabeth line (which you seem to like doing a lot), can I suggest you first get the facts straight, please?
CJB, straphan,
I tend to agree with straphan. There is a difference between objective comment and bordering on muckraking – based on, at best, erroneous perceptions.
We are not afraid to have comments that ‘speak out’ but they must be justifiable. We all have grudges but most of us try to remain objective and not dwell on one aspect. It is noticeable that CJB has never stated anything positive, nor has CJB commented on any other subject.
Hello, long term lurker here. I appreciate the detail and information you’ve all contributed, especially when TfL are still being so cagey about things on the western side.
I’m sure I already know the answer to this, but do we have any more clarity on stopping patterns for stations like Hanwell and West Ealing? I had assumed new signalling and faster acceleration would allow all Heathrow trains to stop somewhere like Hanwell – but as far as I can tell only the four ph T4 terminators will stop there. We still don’t even know if we’ll get a Sunday service at all.
Feels like this will be very confusing for travellers and will lead to long waiting times in the core for “the right sort of Heathrow train” – and as a resident of the area, I’m sad that we will now basically end up with a pitiful service on what is London’s flagship line. It may end up being faster to get a bus to Ealing which would deliver no benefits over the situation today.
The brave new world of TfL Rail staff excelled themselves today – Sunday. At about 10.30 am Hayes & Harlngton ‘Station’ (actually the permanent TfL building site) had trains calling at all four platforms – with no discernible pattern.
There were no less than SEVEN blue-uniformed staff on duty. All had been well trained to do – ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Well maybe just to check that passengers touched in or out.
So without guidance or announcements intending passengers were waiting on all four platforms.
On platform 4 there were about 30 passengers waiting for Paddington. On platform 2 there were about 40 waiting for Paddington.
A GWR train was due in 5 minutes on platform 2. Despite two staff in the upper foyer no-one directed passengers to platform 2 – they were too busy playing on their iPads. On platform 4 there were four staff and yet no-one directed anyone to platform 2 either. The GWR train drew in – packed to the gunnels – when suddenly there was a mad rush from platform 4 over the bridge to platform 2. Most never made it. The GWR driver simply closed the doors and left.
One can only hope for improvements to customer service when the new station is eventually built in ten years’ time. The service can’t get any worse.
CJB,
Don’t be ridiculous and stop looking at Hayes & Harlington as if it were a station with unique problems and look at the rest of the world, or at least the UK. There is a world outside Hayes & Harlington.
You had trains calling at all four platforms! There are passengers at Thameslink stations who would dream of such a scenario. Go to the North of England and hear the stories there. Passengers at some stations are lucky to get a rail replacement bus every now and then and no sign of when any rail service will resume. Note – neither of these two run by TfL Rail.
Believe me, it has the potential to get very, very much worse.
For added info, no Thameslink services today at all between London Bridge and St Pancras. Much reduced service on the Brighton Line. No trains at Redhill. Only two fast trains an hour East Croydon (very busy station) to London Bridge. Half hourly service London Bridge – Greenwich (very popular leisure route, even on Sunday). Whole area of mid-Surrey bereft of trains and having rail replacement buses. Stop whinging and consider yourself lucky compared to some.
@CJB: So what would have been gained by sending the passengers to platform 2 if the train was already full to bursting?
@CJB
Having a look at Hayes and Harlington, the normal platforms for TfL Rail services are 4 and 5, that are shared with some GWR services.
A train wouldn’t normally go from Platform 2 at this station, as this is the “fast” line that is usually used by express (well, non-stopping) trains.
The problem for TfL Rail customers is that the GWR stopping services only call at two TfL Rail stops: Ealing Broadway and Paddington, and these would normally use Platform 4, which shares with TfL Rail.
My guess is that it was GWR that have stopped the train at P2 to “make up for” a missing stopping service on P4 and this may not have found it’s way into the passenger information system.
Perhaps when the station was run by GWR, they could communicate such as unscheduled change to their own staff, not those of another ToC.
Also, having been to that station recently, I’m not sure advising people to scramble up and down those stairs is great for anyone’s safety.
Also, you do know YOU ARE PERMITTED to speak to any of the staff with the usual British “excuse me, can you help?”
And judging by the incredible number of weekend closures on the eastern arm of Crossrail as indicated by the notification of TfL track closures, those in west London could be so much worse off than they are.
@Briantist
” YOU ARE PERMITTED to speak to any of the staff with the usual British “excuse me, can you help?”
Unfortunately, the honest answer to that question is often “no”, because, as you yourself say “they could communicate such an unscheduled change to their own staff, not those of another ToC” .
Sadly, even within one TOC, passenger-facing staff are often kept as much in the dark as to what is going on as the passengers themselves.
@BRIANTIST 5 May 2018 at 21:50
[i]I’ve been working on a draft “what to do during during unexpected disruption” overlay to the official TfL Rail/Elizabeth Line….
https://ukfree.tv/styles/images/2018/newq-draft-co…[/i]
Draft follows TfL format (UndergrounD lines solid, other modes outlined) but key is not consistent (all forms solid).
It’s been a while but sometimes these documents sit in the ready draw without further proofing when needed quickly.
The MD MTRs presentation was consistent with most of our understanding of the proposed operation. The actual public pronouncements are likely delegated responsibilities with similar arguments debated each way as also echoed on LR.
It is still possible for TfL parts to continue longer subject to carriages/trains/drivers/signals/timetables/power/’insert name here”, which was the MD’s document ‘Title’.
The TfL programme link on Crossrail work shows what TfL is doing/done on stations. Painting, seating, modernised toilets, refreshed waiting room.
It is also clear that NR is doing the infastructure, lifts, stairs, buildings, ticket halls.
In the east Ilford and Romford are the largest ‘builds’ not intended to complete until December 2019, that maybe similar to the west except TfL/EL east is scheduled to commence in May 2019.
LR has noted the TfL spending deferrals due to revenue shortfalls. Could be an explanation for the delayed surface station works in E & W given that EL operation begins on SE branch, and construction continues into 2019.
Existing surface station work would probably not be part of the Crossrail Ltd budget and overspend, it’s TfL and NR.
Aleks
There is something horribly borked with the link you provided ( In my browser at any rate )
…..
I just get a load of guff about freeview finishing in 2 days & may other irrelevancies
@GT – same here (opera)
Sunday @ Hayes.
Relief lines closed west of Airport Junction. TfL Rail services Pad-LHR using Relief Lines platforms 3 & 4, GWR services, fast and stopping on the Mains – platforms 1 & 2.
@TP1: Given the stopping headway on the GWML will still be 4 minutes (Network Rail never made any changes here), I think the provision of 4tph (which is what TfL defines as ‘turn up and go’) at Hanwell is probably the best you could hope for. And given this is twice the frequency that calls there today, I’d say that is an improvement in anybody’s book. The wait for ‘the right train’ to Hanwell will be no longer than the wait for the train to Maidenhead or Reading.
As far as Sundays are concerned, Network Rail is always going to require prolonged periods of two-track railway operation, in order to do maintenance. These are almost certainly going to happen on a Sunday, as this is the quietest day in terms of passenger demand – at least for local trains. In which case, Hanwell, Acton Main Line and West Ealing will almost certainly get knocked off in order to maximise the number of paths available. The only question is whether Network Rail will choose to continue with today’s arrangements or not. By today’s arrangements I mean a complete lack of service provision on Sundays regardless of whether there is a track closure or not. It may be, that in future Network Rail will shift its policy (most likely at the request of TfL), and agree to provide the standard off-peak pattern of service on those Sundays when two-track closures are not required.
Apologies, headways on the reliefs as far as Airport Jn are 2.5/3 minutes (following non-stop/stopping). Still, the logic applies.
@Greg / Graham no worries guys. I was just referencing Braintist’s draft map for feedback, no new links from me.
https://ukfree.tv/styles/images/2018/newq-draft-compressor.jpg
Specifically the Rail Services (outline on map) are shown as Tubes (solid in Key).
A map key should reference the map content.
A colour guide to lines is a different matter in the context of using MS Paint.
(The post was corrupted by my attempt to indicate a quote with formatting.)
@ALEKS
Thanks for your comments. The “final” version they went with is this one…
https://ukfree.tv/styles/images/2018/Elizabeth%20Disrupted.pdf
I note, with interest, that Ian Visits took some photos in the new bit of Farringdon for the Liz Line, and it’s a solid line.
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/tube-map-mistake.jpg
Briantist,
That disruption map is a bit misleading because they apply a dagger to Romford-Upminster and Greenford-West Ealing to show only a half hourly service but they don’t give any indication that the main GWR service shown is also only half-hourly. Worse still, the GWR service will eventually be off-peak only.
@ Briantist – who is “they” in terms of someone doing something with your disruption map?
It is probably just the way my brain works but I really struggle with the concept of an all embracing map like that given disruption is often localised. We have no idea how MTR Crossrail will manage and recover the service if it falls over nor how parallel servces may or may not be affected. I am also bemused that you don’t show the District Line reaching Earls Ct from Ealing Bdwy and by the apparent Newbury Park to Romford rail link (buses 66 and 296 provide a link).
If I am faced with rail system disruption I often try to get on the bus network and then head in an apparently illogical direction to reach either other bus services or a rail service well outside the scope of disruption. Often doing something that looks “daft” is by the far the most effective way to get and keep moving. The hordes all crowd to the “obvious” routes meaning they become intolerably crowded and prone to delay and disruption themselves.
D’oh – now there is a new tube service between Newbury Park & Romford. Bus connections should already have their own convention.
The map assumes you already know which bit is TfL/EL because you planned your journey on it, never assume on public releases. If the line is shown on a map put it in the key.
TfL daggers on rail services within GLA indicate not turn up & go (<15 mins or peak hours or no w/e). For the GWR line the schedule (between GWR & EL) would normally be full but I get the pedantry. If EL is disrupted in the core then the alternate rail service option from Paddington would be augmented with displaced 345s on the GWR line?
Farringdon EL platform indicators are consistent.
Here is TfL Overground at Finchley Road
http://www.londonbusblinds.com/proddetail.php?prod=ENAMEL45
DLR at KGV
https://www.thetrams.co.uk/dlr/pictures/003523/image/original.jpg
Before the design standards Tubes were shown in outline too
https://i1.wp.com/www.transportedbytechnology.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/IMG_2744.jpg
also Highbury branch, East London Section
‘TfL Rail’ brand is bottom (with Southern) in customer satisfaction.
Passenger watchdog Transport Focus spring 2018 report released today.
Satisfaction ratings “significantly declined” for seven train operators, including TfL Rail – down 18% percentage points to 69% – which recorded the joint lowest overall score alongside Southern.
Whatever they call it the surface station painting and ‘branding’ won’t be done until building work is finished, unlikely to be much before the commencement of core service from that section.
Aleks,
You have a point but I suspect the substantial numbers of engineering works reducing the eastern end service to next to nothing at weekends and the slow introduction of class 345 on the line up to Shenfield is far more significant.
And I know people love to hate Southern but, since the recent timetable change, it has been running really well.
Briantist 19 June 2018 at 07:07
“I note, with interest, that Ian Visits took some photos in the new bit of Farringdon for the Liz Line, and it’s a solid line.
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/wp-content/upload…”
Signs that make absolutely no claims of step-free access?
Pedantic of Purley 19 June 2018 at 12:04
” I suspect the substantial numbers of engineering works reducing the eastern end service to next to nothing at weekends”
No weekend closures scheduled for July 2018.
Neighbours were sent a letter in mid-April 2018 warning of two weekend closures of Forest Lane E7 so that a big crane could remove the temporary footbridge and the temporary ticket office at Forest Gate station.
I suppose its conceivable that could be done with such a short period of power switch off that no passenger trains have to be cancelled.
Alan Griffiths 12:33,
Maybe because it is just taken for granted that Crossrail will be step free?
Not much point in putting a blob on every single station.
The equivalent enamel signs on the Underground don’t show step free access either. I hope the Mayor doesn’t spot that or he may start demanding these are all updated (and it is expensive to update enamel signs).
Alan Griffiths 12:39,
Point taken but there have been lots of closure and these would have been at the time satisfaction levels were taken.
They don’t send letters telling you when the railway closes – only when it disrupts life outside railway property. So don’t go too much by them as regards rail disruption. Pleased to hear they seem to be getting towards the end of work at Forest Gate station.
@Briantist
I don’t think that the solid purple IanVisits reports from Farringdon is an issue. Overground signage at stations is a solid orange line:
https://www.salvoweb.com/categories/for-sale/country-uk/item-991-london-overground-enamel-line-diagrams
Moosealot,
So even the second-hand enamel signs are expensive!
The latest minutes of the Programmes & Investment committee have been published with the usual art and safety-dominated update with precious little info on progress.
Amusingly, elsewhere in the minutes there is an inadvertently revealed nugget of information on something that could be going wrong. In the Investment Progress report the section on Bond Street is labelled “Bond Street Station Upgrade and Water Ingress”! Of course there is no mention of water ingress in the text.
Elsewhere I note that completion of step free access at Victoria (due in June) and the Bank W&C entrance (due in Feb) have both been pushed back to the end of the year. TfL’s ability to deliver projects on time seems to be deteriorating rapidly.
Regarding London Reconnections long standing joke about the opening of the Bloomberg Place entrance
So if you are a betting person, which do you think will open first:
a) Crossrail – due to open December 2018
b) Bloomberg Place entrance – originally scheduled to open 2012 then 2015 then various dates up to 2018 then May, June, August and now ‘late in 2018’?
Closer to being on topic:
Full fleet of new class 345 trains in passenger service on the Great Eastern section from Liverpool Street to Shenfield
Plan date: 17-Oct-17
Actual/Forecast: Date 11-Apr-18
Status: Complete
Clearly the sight of many TfL branded Class 315 trains at Liverpool Street is a figment of our imagination.
PoP
And, of course, class 345’s are still being delivered … I saw one parked at Crewe on Saturday.
( What was it doing there, though, since they are built in Derby … ? )
Greg Tingey,
Mileage accumulation. Speak to ngh next time you are in the pub and he will give you the full story but basically a clever trick (think of all those unused freight paths and opportunities for relatively high speed running). Bet Siemens and GTR wish they had been as smart/had the same facilities up norf.
@PoP
Status: Complete
Method of completion: changing the definition of “full fleet” or possibly “in service” to something we had already achieved.
@PoP
“Actual/Forecast: Date 11-Apr-18
Status: Complete”
Is it possible they were indeed all delivered and in use by April 11th (thereby meeting the forecast), but the need to transfer some of them west for the H&H service has left a shortage on the Liverpool Street lines?
timbeau,
When I went to Liverpool St in the evening peak a couple of weeks ago I saw three class 315 in the platforms. I caught one to Stratford and saw at least one more passing the other way. At no point did I see a class 345.
Putting the kindest interpretation I can on the statement, I cannot see how it is true.
@Timbeau. I pass Stratford frequently. It’s always a mix of 315 and 345, I don’t think there’s ever been a day when the service was entirely operated by 345.
Is very hard to understand how this milestone has been marked ‘complete’
Re PoP @ 0812
The 17x 7car 345s were never a complete replacement for the 315s which will be arround for another 15-16 months.
The worst 315s have been stored and all drivers 345 trained and extensive knowledge is being gained from 345 running.
The platform cameras and radio link on the GEML are proving problematic so 345 use is at a low level till they are sorted.
3x 7car (rolling swaps) are also at OOC for Paddington – Hayes & H
2x 7car on test duties (one at Crewe)
So 12 available for the GEML (inc maintenance)
Re Greg 0838
2 units based at Crewe for mileage accumulation:
345001 (7car) permanently there for ultra high mileage accumulation on several million miles
+ Another unit (currently 345040? this fortnight) after all other testing (Derby and Old Dalby) just before delivery to Old Oak Common to get the fault free miles testing done.
046 was the last to leave Derby for Old Dalby.
Availability of 9car units for December is looking good…
Passed a 345 in the sidings at Rugby yesterday. Mileage accumulation or on its way South…?
Re A-MOUS,
Mileage accumulation
Re NGH 26 June 2018 at 13:53
345001 (7car) permanently there for ultra high mileage accumulation on several million miles
Several million miles by one unit? That would take years.
Or is the aim to get the fleet mileage into the millions?
So sounds like they will still have worn out class 315 when TfL is rebranded the Elizabeth line in December. I wonder if they will re-sticker the class 315 with Elizabeth line stickers.
Re Kit,
Slight mental arithmetic fail hundreds of thousands…
Re PoP,
The plan was always to have the 315s in service till after the Liverpool Street platform works complete in 13 months and the 7 car unis are then converted to 9 car.
@Kit,NGH: So one worn out 345 to join the 315’s?
@PoP: But the Shenfield-Liverpool Street service will only become part of the Elizabeth Line in May 2019 once through running into Paddington (Low Level) commences – it will remain branded as TfL Rail until then.
I don’t think either the TfL Rail brand or the Class 360s will be disappearing from the GWML come December 2018.
Straphan,
Not true. We have checked this out loads of times with loads of different reliable sources. For example check out Elizabeth line on the TfL website. It could not be more specific.
The TfL plan was to complete all brand work by December 2018 and launch the new line.
Steve Murphy MD MTR Crossrail on 17th April 2018 said Stage 3 (December 2018) marks the planned introduction of the first Crossrail services through the Central Operating Section (COS) between Paddington (Crossrail station) and Abbey Wood via Tottenham Court Road and Canary Wharf.
• Services between Paddington and Abbey Wood will operate as the Elizabeth line.
• Services between Liverpool Street and Shenfield and between Paddington and Hayes
& Harlington / Heathrow T4 will continue to operate as ‘TFL Rail’.
Commenters on here pointed out the discrepancy and suggested the MD of the operator was incorrectly briefed or used old material.
Also that the brands Crossrail/TfL/Elizabeth were confusing to the public.
That Elizabeth’s USP is the core. That TfL performance is bottom of the TOCs.
That 315s may still be running peak hour Liverpool St services in 2019.
That surface station refurbishments outwards of Paddington & Liv St will not be completed in 2018. Is it certain HRW Central & T4 will have Elizabeth Line 345s by December?
TfL have probably already designed all their printed media. A rebranding in the public’s perception is not a one day switchover but will grow through 2019. Until a passenger is riding a train to a core station it will not feel like an Elizabeth Line service to them.
@ALEKS
” Services between Liverpool Street and Shenfield and between Paddington and Hayes
& Harlington / Heathrow T4 will continue to operate as ‘TFL Rail’.”
I’m interested to hear how the same trains are going to operate with two different names! Will they be employing people to stick the right stickers on the right trains every day?
I’m sorry, but everyone is quite clear that TFL Rail stops existing the first week of December of this year. The blue outline line becomes a solid purple line on the map on that date. (Tfl Rail will have shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible!!)
Visit Abbey Wood station if you have the time, there’s always been a “345” train there with the Liz Line branding on it.
@p
Pop
The text in that link is ambiguous
“December 2018
The Elizabeth line opens. Three separate services will operate:
•Paddington to Abbey Wood
•Paddington to Heathrow
•Liverpool Street to Shenfield”
Nowhere does it specifically state that more than one of those three separate services will be branded “Elizabeth Line”
@Briantist
Not difficult to operate three separate fleets separate, even if they use identical rolling stock. After all, there will be no inter-working between the three routes – that’s the point
Timbeau
There will be no passenger-carrying interworkings. Empty stock of 345’s is another matter … maybe.
@Briantist “The blue outline line becomes a solid purple line on the map on that date.”
Which map are we talking about? It will cased (‘outline line’) where the DLR/Overground would be cased, and solid where the DLR/Overground would be solid.
If you are talking tube map, then the line will be an ‘outline line’. Ditto the in-car line diagrams. And I’m sure I had this discussion with you earlier in the month.
@Greg, Timbeau, etc
Even if there are empty stock interworkings between the same stock, but with different branding, they seem to be able to not mix them up with the 315s in East London.
That said, that draft Dec ’18 tube map does seem to use Liz lilac for the ex-TfL rail sections and so PoP is correct despite the ambiguous (for pedants at least) wording.
I wouldn’t go by the draft Dec 18 tube map available on Crossrail’s website. There have been a few changes to the normal map – that was probably intended as nothing more than a house style mock up for illustrative purposes.
@Ben
True, but it’s the ‘house style’ that we’re discussing. Everything we’ve seen that has a solid line for the Liz is something that is a solid line on the DLR or Overground. A mock up with a solid line is easier to make than a cased line and shows clearer the Liz line. House style says cased on the Tube (sic) Map and the mock up agrees with that.
@SI
There are three possible answers to the questions:
– deduction: TfL have always shown “opening soon” lines in a slightly different style to the final version on the main tube map. Cf. JLE, Victoria Line etc.
– research: There’s a BBC documentary showing them picking what the new map will look like and it’s solid purple; it’s also like that already on the train displays.
– access: I’ve asked someone who should know and told you what they said.
@Timbeau
Given what is publicly known about the locations of the depots, and what we also about driver/train mileage issues before they can be used in public service, I’m assured that trying to keep two service names running with the same set of trains is deemed unnecessary.
[Minor Snip PoP}
Braintist
Re your v useful posting of 19th June @ 07.07 ( & Ben’s comment on draft maps, which triggered this )
With this link – the map showing CrossLiz diversions …
I’ve noticed a couple of omissions.
Two stations have double exits to other tube stations – the E end of Farringdon connects to Barbican & theW end of Liverpool St connects to Moorgate – & these are not shown.
Is it likely to be revised to show these, I wonder?
Given the probability of not all the new station infrastructure being open on the 9th December I suspect we won’t be seeing a final day 1 version of the map till quite late on.
I actually find myself agreeing with Straphan, Timbeau and Aleks, A recent Operator MD presentation is probably far more interesting than simplified version of things on the website sanitised by committee comms team. If the Crossrail Comms guidelines are anything link the Thameslink Programme ones then there will be an emphasis on simplification till very late on and the final plan is confirmed (no confusion with nuanced detail which isn’t included at this stage) and Timbeau’s careful reading of that except is exactly the same as mine. Readers need to carefully reverse engineer what was meant before it got “comms teamed”.
There will be 3 completely separate fleets anyway:
315s based at Ilford (will continue to run LST High Level services till LST platform works (June -July ’19) complete and 7car conversions completed
7car 345s based at Ilford (will continue to run LST High Level services till LST platform works start June ’19)
9car 345s based at Old Oak Common (/Plumstead)
and given that OOC is is currently managing 4 separate 345 sub fleets:
7 car x3 units on rotation for Paddington – H&H till OOR signs on the dotted line.
9 car infrastructure test units with extra test equipment on
9 car driver training (e.g. ready for use in December)
9 car acceptance testing
Hence 4 sub fleets at OOC shouldn’t be a problem in December for two 9 car TfLrail* / Elizabeth line sub fleets in service based at OOC.
*TfL is just bit of vinyl over the factory Elizabeth line underneath which can later be peeled off with low temperature hot air gun (or hair dryer).
The Heathrow Tunnels problems, the retention of the 360s and replacement of the 332s next summer and all the other issues all suggest phased brand introduction unless the idea is to trash Boris’s Lizzy line branding and have to replace it with Crossrail?
@GREG TINGEY
Thanks.,
“Two stations have double exits to other tube stations – the E end of Farringdon connects to Barbican & the W end of Liverpool St connects to Moorgate – & these are not shown.”
This particular diagram, which is used in conjunction with an app, isn’t showing all possible connections, but the minimum amount you need to know to show disruption routes.
So, adding Barbican’s platforms to the diagram doesn’t add anything that you don’t already know at Farringdon.
The same issue with Liverpool Street/Moorgate: there’s no way of getting to other Liz Line stations via Moorgate as the Central and Circle lines are sufficient to do that. All you could do from extra Moorgate is change at Bank for the Central line, which is a complication not a simplification!
So, there’s lot of additional information on the tube map. This particular diagram is just about Liz Line stations when there’s no Liz Line.
@Briantist: I’m a little surprised Thameslink isn’t shown as an alternative from Abbey Wood to Farringdon (although I appreciate that right now frying pans and fires spring to mind…)
@BRIANTIST “I’m interested to hear how the same trains are going to operate with two different names! I’m sorry, but everyone is quite clear that TFL Rail stops existing the first week of December of this year. The blue outline line becomes a solid purple line on the map on that date. ”
https://ukfree.tv/styles/images/2018/Elizabeth%20Disrupted.pdf
The ‘final’ map shows TfL Rail & Elizabeth Line co-habiting in outline, In text & logo roundels.
There is likely to be a period of transition.
TfL publicity shows TfL Rail lines to Dec 2019
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7291/26849829643_7c39f3c0dd_c.jpg
Press release Jan 2018 shows TfL-Rail being replaced with Liz Line on Dec 2018 Map.
http://www.cityam.com/279357/mapped-heres-elizabeth-line-open-stages-crossrail-project
@Briantist
Your deductions are wrong/based on bad evidence. This close in (a year), the maps showing what the network would look like when new lines were opened were accurate, at least save for some small details. And in other posts you see solid lines in places where solid lines are used for the Overground/DLR too and ‘deduced’ that therefore the Elizabeth line will be solid everywhere.
You haven’t mentioned some other source before, just declared – sometimes with dodgy deduction, sometimes with none – that the Elizabeth line would be solid in contradiction to the evidence to the contrary. If you had simply said you had non-public knowledge, or someone else did and told people (like the BBC documentary) then sure, that’s a legit argument – but one you haven’t made until now.
We are considering putting a temporary ban on discussion of what exactly maps will look like, and which brand names will be used when. These might normally be interesting topics, but the discussion seems to be producing unnecessary heat. Please remember, in any discussion about the future (not just this one) that the future is always unknowable, and if someone sees it differently from you, then however mistaken you feel they are, they hold the view for their own good reasons.
Please do not take the sequence in which this message happens to appear as implying that this request is aimed at any particular subset of our commentators. It is a perfectly general message, meant to apply to all.
But how are passengers going to change trains at Paddington once the core section is open
Overgrounded: sorry if I seem dense. But I do not grasp the import of your question. Presumably passengers will change trains at Paddington in the normal way, by getting off one train, walking (if necessary) to a different platform, then getting on another.
@Overgrounded
Until 2020 services from Paddington to Heathrow will continue to start and terminate in the National Rail station.
Two levels up from the Elizabeth Line platforms.
@ Briantist – I can think of a few extra options that apply at Moorgate but not at Liverpool St in respect of reaching Crossrail destinations via alternative routes. I appreciate you are trying to keep things simple but you are missing viable alternatives that may not be immediately intuitive to the average passenger.
@ Overgrounded – in the year following the Core’s opening passengers will face an extended interchange route at both Liverpool St (for approx 6 months) and Paddington (for 12 months). As Malcolm says this is not hugely different to any current need to interchange between the tube and National Rail services running out of a main line terminal. Crossrail stations are larger, deeper but also equipped with lifts and escalators. They just can’t magically make themselves adjacent to the main line platforms – people will need to come up to sort of street level and then cross the main line concourses.
@WW
“in the year following the Core’s opening passengers will face an extended interchange route at both Liverpool St and Paddington”
Extended from what? They will be no worse off than they are now – they can change from Liverpool St or Paddington main line station to any of the existing Tube lines, as they can now, and will have the additional option of changing for Crossrail.
@Overgrounded: pardon the bluntness, but they will use their legs*. Much like they do so today to access the tube.
*Except, of course, those who are mobility-impaired, who will now gain a second accessible onward route from Paddington.
On a separate note: the entire Class 360 (formerly Heathrow Connect) has been withdrawn from service today. Any ideas why?
NR website live departures currently shows about one Heathrow Connect service in three running, and no T4 shuttle. No indication as to what is running the remaining services – probably one unit is enough to maintain the 90 minute frequency.
@ Timbeau – Here we go again. Is it really necessary to challenge just about everything I write here and elsewhere?
I pointed out quite clearly that Crossrail stations are further away from existing tube lines and also deeper than such lines. The stations themselves are also vastly bigger so passengers may have extended walking distances depending from what carriage they alight. To that extent passengers will face a longer interchange distance than they currently have. The Circle / H&C lines are closer to the Paddington suburban platforms than Crossrail is. Ditto at Liverpool Street. That is what I was referring to. Would you like me to get a tape measure out to verify it? The only marginal improvement is that Crossrail stations are equipped with lifts and escalators that will ease the vertical distance travel compared to the endless steps most tube stations have. Neither Paddington nor Liverpool St are overflowing with escalators from the sub surface lines. I’ll grant you the Central Line platforms at Liv St do have escalators but you still have to navigate steps between the LU and NR concourses.
@WW
Of course if passengers choose to use Crossrail at Paddington they may have longer interchanges than if they continue to use the Circle Line. But they will still be able to use the Circle Line if that suits them better, in which case their interchange times will be same as they are at present. No-one will in 2019 will have to have a worse interchange than they have at present. That’s all I meant.
timbeau: the fact that partial or full opening of Crossrail services will not make anyone’s journey harder is well worth pointing out.
But so also is the fact that the benefits of using Crossrail as part of a journey involving interchanges may be rather less than one might think, because many such interchanges will involve longish walks.
These are two independent and different observations, and should not be confused. (I am not suggesting that the people making the observations are confused, but the people reading these comments may be.)
Sorry about changing the subject. I’ve been playing with the new TfL ticket machines at H&H on the GWR mainline. I tried to book GWR tickets to Castle Carry and also to Penzance. Both attempts failed. After 15 minutes of entering the booking details the first finally gave up and referred me to a ticket office. And after 10 minutes the second timed out and kept reverting back to the splash screen. Aren’t these machines supposed to sell tickets for all services? Maybe others could play too and see what happens.
Going back to the subject of what the various bits will be called, and when, I’m currently staring at a poster on the Marylebone concourse whose headline is:
“TfL Rail is now running between Paddington and Heathrow. Part of the Elizabeth line from December 2018.”
If that tells us anything…
Going back to the situation with Ealing stations, I’ve been communicating with network rail for a while.they had extended their deadline (after many other missed deadlines) to choose a contractor to deliver the stations to the end of Q2.
This has passed and they have no answer. Getting ridiculous now. West Ealing is getting busier as the larger capacity Crossrail trains (which are very nice) are running. Very narrow platforms there are unsafe.
At Ealing Broadway they started some prep work, failed to replace the bridge and have now given up it seems.
And this is just to choose a contractor. I don’t see how they are going to get stuff finished by end 2019 at this rate.
The stations will still be able to cope – for now. Ealing Broadway has a second bridge at the London end of the platforms. During recent reconstruction a one-way flow was introduced, whereby entrance onto the Down platform (Pl. 3) was via the London-end footbridge, and egress was via the old stairs. That can be turned into a more permanent solution.
It’s make do and mend for the rest, sadly. People will just have to be a bit more patient when waiting to exit the station via the narrow stairs; and they will have to be told to keep moving at the other stations (West Ealing, Hanwell, Southall, H&H).
I will keep making the point, though, that there are north of 7000 new flats being built around Hanwell, Southall and Hayes:
– Wickes Store, Hanwell: ca. 300
– St Bernard’s Gate: ca. 300
– Southall Waterside (ex gas-works): 3750 flats
– Southall Village (Toplocks estate): unclear, but likely ca. 500 flats
– Old Vinyl Factory (Hayes): 500 flats
– Hayes Coffee Factory: 1400 flats
There are also many other smaller developments springing up. Given a relative lack of higher-end job opportunities in the area, those people moving in will mostly commute to central London. Indeed, the Elizabeth Line features rather heavily in the marketing materials of the developers. Once these projects are completed, the pressure on Hanwell, Southall and Hayes & Harlington stations will increase significantly. If the station upgrades are not completed by then, we will have a problem.
Straphan ( & ohers)
What has “gorn worng” here – is it “just/simply” the implosion of Carillion, or are there other factors involved?
For a variety of improbable reasons, I’ve had to use W Ealing sveral times in the past year – work had started & seemed to be going well, but now … nothing. [ Agree re, narrow platforms – are they still length-curtailed as well? ]
@Greg, Straphan (& others): Nothing unusual there, they started to repaint the canopies about 10 years ago. It’s still not finished… However in the meantime we have got lifts!
They haven’t finished the leaks in the canopies either. What a complete shambles…
Should have mentioned, that’s my local station not Crossrail…
@ Ben S – if Network Rail are missing deadlines to place contracts this suggests one key thing. It suggests that the prices that have been submitted are in excess of budget. I would not be surprised if contractors have taken a look and decided that the politically driven end date of Dec 2019 gives them the chance for a nice fat pay cheque either up front or in terms of claims later on. If costs are in excess of budget then NR have to go back to TfL and DfT and find a way forward – yet more descoping or more money. Every day that there is a delay makes the situation worse until someone takes the political decision that Dec 2019 is no longer an immovable deadline. It will be a brave politician who takes that decision given the likely fall out and reputational damage.
I seem to remember the original Crossrail specification was to leave the ‘legacy’ stations (i.e. on the Great Eastern and Great Western) as they were, with only the bare minimum operational upgrades required to run the service (platform extensions, door-CCTV, and the like). I think it took a huge political push to commit Crossrail to making proper station upgrades, including step-free access. I can’t remember whether the budget was extended to cover this extra spend, but regardless, such a late addition was either not costed properly, or allocated what the programme could afford, rather what was really needed.
@ Straphan – I think you are correct re the original specs. There was then a conscious decision from TfL that a more consistent passenger experience was needed hence why there has been the upgrade programme on the eastern end. This was then added to with the cross party political push for full accessibility. Again TfL seem to have taken up the procurement mantle for the accessibility schemes at some stations out west plus the eastern ones. I assume this was an attempt to derisk delivery of the works and because TfL is probably providing all the money. As for the western stations ….. well we’ve had plenty said about that. I suspect Ealing Council may be close to the “exploding” stage given the importance they place on the improved stations as part of wider strategies for improving the borough’s attractiveness.
There is, actually, an obvious way out of the “station refurb problem” – but it is one that very few politicians ( who all seem to want if NOW & “perfect” ) would contemplate.
Lay put the facts to the public, whilst dumping as much as you think you can get away with on Carillion … state that the refurb works will, nonetheless take place, but will be slower & later & also, imprtantly, that “we” [ The local authorities, TfL etc ] are not going to be ripped-off by “greedy contractors” trying to exploit short deadlines.
I hope that the public would buy that one, maybe?
I don’t think it was ever expected that all station upgrades would be complete by December 2019. The critical path is all about what was needed fro the new trains to run, not to make the stations more convenient for passengers.
Starts aren’t expected at Ilford or Romford before autumn this year.
The northern entrance at Ilford, in a mews off York Road, and the footbridge to it are limited. The new southern entrance, in Ilford Hill, can’t open until there is safe passage through a substantial building site. The main entrance can’t close until the southern one is available to passengers.
Not so much gridlock as buildlock.
Greg Tingey 8 July 2018 at 08:41
“There is, actually, an obvious way out of the “station refurb problem” – but it is one that very few politicians ( who all seem to want if NOW & “perfect” ) would contemplate.
Lay put the facts to the public, whilst dumping as much as you think you can get away with on Carillion ”
You’ve got me wondering if Sadiq Khan (not only Mayor of London, but also a former Transport Minister), can resist the temptation to say that TfL’s work is done and ready, the delays are all on Chris Graylings railway network.
The lift schemes at Ilford and Romford were designed around the existing bridges.
Installations at Maryland, Forest Gate, Manor Park, Seven Kings and Goodmayes are progressing. Some canopy removals were required but the intention is re-instate to match around the new lifts. These stations are on long term leases to TfL. Even so Network Rail retain a lot of responsibility for things like lighting and adjusting the platforms for the 345s.
Out west is a different story. As mentioned elsewhere the stations are not switching to full TfL control. Network Rail should be managing all the work with TfL assistance in some areas like specification and procurement. Their favoured contractor going bust has not helped.
@CDPL “Installations at Maryland, Forest Gate, Manor Park, Seven Kings and Goodmayes are progressing. ”
Is there a link to progress reports anywhere?
FG & SK have visible progress. Others appear stalled. GM has had some seven completion date deadlines on outside posters passed. The ‘temporary’ booking office has been a fixture for 2 years.
The sites have had streetscaping outside – already dug up again by utilities in places.
Decayed masonry has been refaced on frontages.
Platforms lengthened.
Recently a new brand pole was erected at SK – can’t tell if it is dual vinyl rip-off.
None of these customer oriented modifications are considered operationally critical for any service phases. All the construction sites are branded CrossRail & Network Rail. NR have rewired the route and will for example reinstate a freight loop at GM on the site still in use by CrossRail contractors.
@ CDPL – Romford: surely you mean subway? There is no “existing bridge” access to the platforms (except for the Upminster service).
We spoke to crossrail and network rail a year ago or so in a big meeting with MPs etc, (I only got the meeting after going on the BBC news and publicising these delays).
They claimed that they had cancelled the contracts to build ealing stations as they were too expensive but were in the process of tendering for new ones (they never explained how this would be cheaper, nothing seems to get cheaper over time).
They explicitly said the money was there and was all ring fenced.
But they have lied many many times in the past, so I don’t believe them. No news so far on awarding a new contract. They have been planning this for over 10 years so there is no excuse to leave this all to the last minute and if they need more money, so be it.
It is a real safety issue , they can’t expect to double passenger numbers on stations as predicted without safe stations.
Also as far as I understand it they are legally obliged to make all stations step free under the disability act.
But I imagine they will just hide behind some technicalities and close the stations at peak times, which will be no use to anyone.
Carillion wasn’t the original main contractor for ealing stations, so I don’t think that made much difference (although the were doing some stuff so it didn’t help)
There was some stuff in the press that crossrail were £500m over budget, and were asking for that from the government, but I don’t know if they got it.
It’s actually not that much really, 3% over a £15bn budget seems a reasonable outcome.
The Dec 2019 date is what they are all sticking to as a party line but that will soon start to become impossible.
Ealing council have been hopeless, I have been telling them this for 5 years and they pretend they just found out. The TfL grant for complimentary works outside the stations were due to expire before dec 2019 (as stations should have been finished before then) and it was only when I pointed this out that they asked for an extension (and got it, thankfully)
Time to go back to the press I guess, but it doesn’t seem to matter what we do.
Ben,
Thanks for the update. I do not have the information you do so can only comment on periphery matters.
Worse still, I am sure in the early days there was a much-highlighted replacement design for Ealing Broadway station in the early days of the Crossrail website. These images then disappeared without trace. So, by my reckoning, we are at a third attempt at rebuilding the station.
The disability act was replaced by the Accessibility Act but has roughly the same requirements but is more inclusive. Incredibly, I believe that either Crossrail was specifically exempted or exempted by virtue of preceding this legislation. Certainly most stations not already compliant were covered by the ‘Access for All’ scheme but, in some cases, these had to be fought for and could not be taken for granted.
The ‘£500m over budget’ is a bit misleading and appears to be more to do with income in the form of developer contributions being lower than anticipated rather than cost-overruns as such. Also a change of Mayoral/TfL policy to maximise rent from properties and land rather than sell it off whenever possible.
I wholeheartedly agree it is all very unsatisfactory and agree that there is a safety aspect – or will be once the line is fully open. This does point to the work being essential one day so the delay is particularly concerning. I note that ‘Near You’ maps on the Crossrail website
show a distinct lack of construction activity west of Kensal Green whereas you would expect it to dominate the map. What makes this so much worse is that in some cases demolition has taken place meaning the stations are worse than before.
I suspect Ealing Council have learnt the hard way that nothing they say or do will speed progress so have basically given up.
@Ben Sherliker
“were in the process of tendering for new ones (they never explained how this would be cheaper, nothing seems to get cheaper over time”
Perhaps because the new contract is for less work – i.e a more basic station?
“as I understand it they are legally obliged to make all stations step free under the disability act.”
This is certainly true for new stations, but there are many stations on both National Rail and London Underground which are not step free, and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. (“Reasonable adjustment” is the buzz phrase).
The cheapest way to make all stations step-free would be to close any that are not, but that benefits no-one.
The (16/17) usage stats for stations on the Crossrail network make for interesting reading.
The western end is an oasis of calm in comparison with the eastern arm. The least used station out east is Maryland (1,250,086). There are six stations in the west with lower figures than that, three of them in LB Ealing.
Iver 229,982
Acton Main Line 238,536
Taplow 274,398
Hanwell 354,886
Langley 817,586
West Ealing 923,710
Maryland 1,250,086
Burnham 1,317,976
Twyford 1,383,438
West Drayton 2,066,386
Manor Park 2,373,788
Southall 2,683,640
Gidea Park 2,797,104
Harold Wood 2,973,440
Forest Gate 3,207,020
Shenfield 3,746,572
Hayes & Harlington 3,844,544
Maidenhead 4,609,112
Slough 5,670,498
Ealing Broadway 6,372,718
Romford 8,833,544
Stratford 42,251,592
timbeau,
Agreed but …
When considering the ‘oasis of calm’ bear in mind that a Crossrail train (and a Thameslink train come to that) can dump an awful lot of people in one station at one time. Some of the ‘oasis of calm’ stations are actually periods of quietness followed by frantic activity as opposed to the eastern side which will have 16tph in the peaks (inc 4 to Liv St high level) so have a continuous high level of activity.
And a quick visit to Hayes & Harlington will confirm Straphan’s comments about an incredible amount of residential building work.
And Ealing Broadway’s entry and exit figures do not include the numerous people who, in the evening, catch the tube to there then catch GWR or TfL Rail (as is) to finish their journey.
I do wonder how much further they can de-specify the stations given the Mayor’s determination that inclusion (e.g. accessibility) is so fundamental to his policies. In any case it seems madness to invest billions in a new railway and not update stations which will need doing unless there is no surge of customers when the line opens as the Elizabeth line – and if their isn’t why bother to build it west of Paddington?
@PoP
Indeed, but it will take time for traffic to build up as people move into the areas newly served by the longer trains – and some of those stations will have only 2 or 4 tph even after Crossrail arrives.
It is not clear whether Ealing Broadway’s entry/exit figures include people switching between NR and the Tube – the figures look extraordinarily high if they include only people travelling to and from Ealing itself. (And do they include people using only the Tube?)
PoP
Ihate to say it but incredible short-sightedness, coupled with worrying about which specific, exact box any monies come from.
Timbeau
No, & yes, respectively.
The station can barely cope, right now – it really needs serious enlargement.
@ Timbeau – I would expect the Ealing Broadway numbers to include entry and exit flows for all services. I am actually surprised it’s as low as 8.8m. Given there is a large network of frequent buses that either feed directly into the station or stop within 5 mins walk I would expect a high level of station patronage (minimum 10m) given there are two tube lines and a reasonable NR service. Interestingly I’ve just looked at a little spreadsheet I created from LUL data for annual entries and exits at tube stations – LU’s number for Ealing Broadway is 16.79m for 2016/17 which is much more like it for a busy Z3 railhead. It’s not a station I use very much but it’s always busy and crowded when I do, even off peak.
Ealing Broadway doubtless needs more work, but Ben’s original article was about all the stations in Ealing council’s area – Broadway’s entry/exit figures alone are 50% more than the total of the other four.
@poP
“The disability act was replaced by the Accessibility Act but has roughly the same requirements but is more inclusive. Incredibly, I believe that either Crossrail was specifically exempted or exempted by virtue of preceding this legislation. ”
Crossrail’s new stations are compliant, but what are the requirements of the Accessibility Act in respect of existing stations? In the case of trains, non-compliant ones have to be converted or withdrawn by a certain date (hence the rush to replace Pacers) but closure is not an acceptable option for a station and there is not an infinite budget for modifications.
Greg Tingey,
Ihate to say it but …
No Greg. You love to point out such things.
timbeau,
Accept your premise about not being an infinite budget but the plan was for these stations to be rebuilt. We had the pretty pictures in the early years. At the moment we are getting the worst of everything. Go one stop further to West Drayton and there is a wonderful scheme to improve the station and its surrounds (including opening up the frontage of the Grand Union Canal) but all that has happened is some demolition and some partly completed work, apparently abandoned.
West Drayton might not be the busiest of stations but the access for able-bodied people is appalling with narrow subways. When Crossrail trains arrive here and usage increases those passageways will not be able to cope. Meanwhile, passengers will probably be able to wistfully look at the half-completed new footbridge foundations and speculate as to where the lifts may eventually be located.
The DDA was replaced by the Equality Act 2010, it is not retrospective and changes to stations and structures are only required when they are new build or under going refurbishment. Station Operators are covered by access to Goods and Services so it is the station operator that is required to provide reasonable alternatives if the station that you wish to use is not accessible to your needs.
The national ‘pot’ for funding improvements is very limited, it was slashed by the Government from £42M per year to £25M in 2014 for the remainder of CP5, much to the dismay of accessibility groups. I’m not aware of any announcement on funding for CP6 yet? As per normal ‘they’ expect others Local Authorities, 3rd parties, developers, to pick the tab in lieu of central Government funding. Funding is generally targeted towards the busiest stations or those where accessibility improvements would provide the greatest benefit. The result can therefore be very patchy. Network Rail has an interactive map https://www.networkrail.co.uk/communities/passengers/station-improvements/access-for-all/ which shows the grand total of three projects in the whole of East Anglia, (all of which have been completed).
Currently under 20% of all the stations on the national network are fully accessible and I estimate at current levels of funding it will take between 90 and 125 years to make the network fully accessible and to be fair some will never be truely accessible as the cost would outweigh the benefit to the small numer of users.
TfL have chosen to supplement the ‘national’ funds for their own stations but presumably in their current financial situation are having difficulties in finding sufficient funds to do all they would like when the they would like and are struggling with Network Rail’s notorious poor cost control!
Regarding the passenger figures: please bear in mind that until recently the trains offered by GWR in the peaks were no longer than 6x23m, with 3+2 seating. In the AM peak, even with a good service I did not always manage to board the first train that came to Hayes & Harlington, and I never bothered going to Southall as getting on anything other than a Heathrow Connect serivce was nigh on impossible. During days with delays, boarding a train was a complete lottery. As such, I think the historic passenger numbers for the Greater London stations are somewhat suppressed by the lack of rolling stock.
Regarding Ealing Broadway, my own observations seem to suggest that National Rail passengers entering/exiting the station are a small fraction of the total traffic. The vast majority of users board the Central Line – either arriving at the station by bus/cycle/on foot; or interchanging from National Rail services. Once the Elizabeth Line comes, the number of people interchanging for the Central Line will drop dramatically – don’t think I need to explain why…
“Once the Elizabeth Line comes, the number of people interchanging for the Central Line will drop dramatically – don’t think I need to explain why…”
Indeed, one wonders what the future of the Ealing branch is, especially if traffic on the Ruislip branch increases – could it be reduced to a North Acton shuttle?
(The Crayonista in me always favoured routing Crossrail via North and West Acton instead of Acton ML, but that ship has sailed, I think)
The proposed swap from District to Piccadilly at Ealing Broadway may also reduce demand for the Central, as the Picc is faster than the District.
@Timbeau: The Picc and District go to very different places in Central London than the Central. The Picc also takes absolute ages to get to anywhere useful within Zone 1 (Green Park and points east) due to its twisty route and the number of stations it has to serve.
There will still be some demand for connections between Ealing and Shepherd’s Bush and Notting Hill, but I also believe more peak services will be cut short to North Acton/White City or diverted to Northolt, leaving Ealing Broadway with something like a standard 7.5 minute frequency all day.
@ Straphan – Understand why you say transfers to the Central Line (CL) from GWR / TfL Rail will drop once Crossrail runs through. However I would not go so far as to question the viability of the CL link. It may well be that travel patterns shift to bring more traffic into Ealing Broadway to change to / from Crossrail given waiting and journey times should drop. Presently difficult journeys will become rather easier in future.
I’m having exactly this debate on another forum where people are saying usage of the Central Line will plummet meaning TfL can scrap the 94 bus. I’m very sorry but I don’t see it at all. That is not the broad history of London’s transport network. If genuine improvements are delivered then demand rises, journey patterns mutate, development then follows which triggers more demand and journey adjustments. None of that positive cycle gives a justification to take the axe to parts of the transport network. And yes I know LT and TfL have tweaked the bus network to link to new tube routes but only very rarely have routes been removed in the entirety when you have the scale of mobility demands that we have today. I accept the 1960s and 70s were somewhat different times for public transport compared to today.
If people want to go down the route of proposing network links are cut / removed / reduced then they should really take a holistic approach across the network and remove the most underused links first – anyone up for closing most of the Met Line north of Harrow and Bakerloo north of Queens Park for much of the off peak and closing Woodford – Hainault? No, didn’t think so.
“The Picc and District …….. go to very different places in Central London than the Central. ”
The District, maybe, but the Picc and Central’s catchments overlap over a wide stretch of the West End from Kensington, through Mayfair, Regent Street, Soho, Holborn, and on to Clerkenwell.
“The Picc also takes absolute ages to get to anywhere useful”
Ealing Broadway – Holborn (14 stops) 28 minutes
North Ealing – Holborn (14 stops) 33 minutes
So you don’t need to be much closer to Piccadilly Circus than Oxford Circus (for example) for the Picc to be the quicker way to Ealing.
(North Ealing used as a surrogate for E Bdy because at present the Picc doesn’t serve the latter)
That said, I note that West Acton’s passenger stats for recent years are about double those for North Ealing, so people with a choice do seem to favour the Central over the Picc. However, this may be due to frequency – reduce the frequency on the Central (as loadings will be lower after Crossrail) and that advantage evaporates
WW: This shows up the difference between railed transport and rubber tyres. All significant existing rail links are granted a free pass when it comes to closure threats. But a bus route – any bus route – can be dropped with a stroke of an accountant’s pen.
@Timbeau “Indeed, one wonders what the future of the Ealing branch is, especially if traffic on the Ruislip branch increases – could it be reduced to a North Acton shuttle?”
It would be very strange to have White City east-facing terminators and North Acton west-facing terminators not very far away: I doubt there would be any rolling stock savings vs running Ealing – E London trains. And rolling stock savings are surely what it’s all about – freeing it up to send more trains via Greenford.
Add in that the Central line links Ealing Broadway with places that the Liz and Piccadilly wouldn’t – most notably the Shepherd’s Bush/Westfield area (yes there’s buses, but aren’t they busy already?) and I can’t see how any changes beyond a frequency reduction can be in the pipeline for Ealing Broadway.
I’m sure there’s lots of opportunities for things to do with Ealing Bdwy – N Acton if you have a big pile of cash and a fresh supply of coloured wax, but we’re not living in that world.
Some of the OOC based 9car 345s are having the factory “Elizabeth line ” branding over-vinyled with TfL rail as per the in service 7 car ones were, hence it looks like we might see some 9 cars in service on the Western End soon.
@si
“things to do with Ealing Bdwy – N Acton if you have ……….. a fresh supply of coloured wax, ”
the wax is usually brown or orange
@PoP 10/7 09:10 – I’ve never figured out why West Drayton is so little used for access to Heathrow, especially T5, from the west. Until (if..) WRLtH gets built it’s arguably the most reliable, fastest and certainly by far the cheapest way to get there from Reading and points west using the 350 bus (or U3 for CTA – admittedly a bit more tortuous and prone to delays). You see a smattering of wised-up travellers, often with BA crew bagtags but it definitely feels like something that everyone – GWR, HAL, even TfL – would rather keep well hidden, I guess to preserve their Reading-Heathrow coach / HeX revenues?
As you suggest, the WDT steep stairs and narrow subways aren’t exactly friendly to those with heavy luggage, but far better than being stationary in a jam on the M4 in the Railair coach!
Hayes is a more obvious choice with the rail connection and more frequent buses – the 140 goes direct to T1-3 every 6-7 mins. But again it is odd that it isn’t more publicised – presumably to avoid revenue opportunities going missing..
@B&T, Herned
Hayes is definitely the better shout for T123 with the excellent 140 (after the Crossrail bus changes come in, this changes to the X140 and becomes even better for anyone just wanting Heathrow). West Drayton’s 350 remains better for T5 though. In terms of T5, one also mustn’t forget First’s commercial 7/N7 route from Slough to Heathrow, which might be even better (but don’t quote me on that).
As always, T4’s the runt of the litter, with just the 2tph from Hayes and the 482 and 490 bus routes (the latter may be a good almost-24-hour link to Feltham but the former doesn’t go anywhere very fast)…
Is it necessarily an income thing, or could it be a desire not to have local buses get too filled with airline passengers (who might also have bulky luggage and/or a lack of knowledge about using public transport in London)?
@Phil E
I suspect you’re right – especially knowing that things are like at the airport end! It’s not exactly easy to find the local buses at Heathrow terminals 4 and 5 (at the central bus station it’s different as they’re by the coaches) and if you’ve ever tried to find the local buses at Gatwick you’ll know that there’s pretty much no signage whatsoever…
And London buses are cashless, which could be a problem for anyone coming Oysterless from beyond London
Timbeau…….if Oysterless they still have the option of contactless
I’m still never sure how contactless works for foreign bank cards – don’t the ‘foreign currency transaction’ charges add considerably to the cost for the user?
@ The Orange One – I don’t see how anything gets better post Crossrail changes at Hayes and Harlington for bus passengers. The X140 will be all stops south of Hayes and will run every 12 mins. There may be the additional new 278 from Ruislip but that is not on a compatible headway meaning badly co-ordinated and fewer overall departures. It would make far more sense for TfL to retain the 140 as it is and stop faffing about with successful services. I also don’t see the 350, only every 20 mins in the peaks, as a particularly attractive option either. Quite why TfL saw fit to muck about with the old U5 and 350 I don’t know.
Plenty of people use the 140 from Hayes towards the airport – especially airport workers and air crew. The latter nearly always have luggage of some form so concerns about luggage are probably misplaced.
ChrisMitch: Not quite as considerably as you may think, there is typically a percentage and a per-transaction charge (though this may vary from one card provider to another). But TfL only makes one transaction per day (after the day is over), rather than one per journey.
ChrisMitch. The FX charge varies from bank to bank, but about 3% is typical. Pretty insignificant on a £1.50 fare.
Not everyone has a contactless card, and people traveling together may only have one between them (particularly if there are children in the party – only children with Zip cards get free travel, and you have to live in London to qualify for one).
Also, from the west, only the slow trains call at West Drayton and Hayes. From Reading and beyond it is probably just as quick to double back via Paddington
For children it’s more complicated than timbeau states – see this complex page full of rules, exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions. But your point remains valid, timbeau, because the chances of tourists taking that lot in and getting it right are remote, and as you say, groups of adults may not have enough cards.
@WW – Are you sure the X140 will be all stops between H&H and Heathrow CTA? The proposals here: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/changes-to-suburban-bus-services-to-support-the-elizabeth-line.pdf show only two intermediate stops, although I guess it may have changed after consultation?
@Timbeau – I guess it depends a bit on exact connection times at Reading, but I’m pretty certain that if you exclude the obscenely costly HEX services it’s quicker from the west to go via WDT (T5) / H&H (CTA) than to double back via Paddington, and certainly a lot less costly to use the bus services than to pay the Heathrow rail premium between H&H & LHR.
I guess my original question (why isn’t WDT better used and publicised for LHR access from the west) is based on using it happily several times to get to / from T5 and being surprised by how few others seemed to be doing the same. I can see that H&H / X140 would work better for CTA (T2/3).
@B&T
Good points, but if you are coming from west of Reading you don’t need to change at Reading for Paddington but you do for H&H (with a further change there for the bus). And when you have a plane to catch time is of the essence – and as most flights are booked long in advance you can book your HEx ticket in advance too, making the premium you pay rather less. So I can quite understand why the bus option is not popular.
And many people prefer trains to buses, seeing them as more reliable. If you are prepared to use a bus, you can use the Railair connection direct from Reading.
@WW, B&T
I also believed that the X140 after H&H stopped Harlington Corner, Heathrow Central only – hence despite the frequency drop it might be better for airport pax as they get to skip all the intermediate stops. I’m certainly not a fan of the 140/X140/N140 split, but for those people I’d have thought having a nonstop would be better…
@all bus access to Heathrow from the GWR discussion people
Not seen a serious argument against the 7/N7 from Slough yet for T5 access – while the 350 may be every 20 minutes and requires Oyster/contactless payments, the 7 is every 10, takes cash and it also means you can use a first stop Slough train from Reading to connect to it as opposed to an all stopper.
I still maintain this is only serious as a one way option, anyone heading the other way will have trouble finding the stops at Heathrow…
@TO1 – I’ll give Slough / 7 a try next time I travel to T5. I’m slightly wary as I suspect the potential for delays in Slough town centre & A4 is higher than the back roads used by the 350 from West Drayton, although I agree that using the semi-fasts from Reading makes it attractive. Potential for major holdups on the M4 (now near universal in peak times) makes me avoid the Reading Railair coach if possible.
Don’t agree that the local buses are hard to find at T5 – they’re all straight outside Arrivals with all the other coach stops, although someone (HAL?) does keep messing around with which stop each bus / coach uses, maybe to confuse unwary passengers and lure them to HEX…
I suspect that the subject of journeys to LHR from the west is more complex than some acknowledge and that there is a considerable untapped market. I travel from Newbury to Heathrow (T3 and T5) three or four times a year and always by taxi. For my wife and I (both in our 70s) it is a matter of speed and convenience. Door to door in under and hour (AA Routefinder quotes 53 minutes) with no luggage to worry about. Yes, traffic on the M4 can be slow but on a recent occasion when there was a serious accident on the M4 it was a simple matter to go via Basingstoke and the M3. AA gives a time this way of 1 hour exactly. Against this the National Rail (NR) website gives an average journey time of about 1 hr 45 min (via Paddington and HEX – the only option quoted) so adding on the journey time to the station and an allowance for waiting for the train your journey can be well over 2 hours. GWR , with changes at Reading and H&H, is marginally quicker but still with a total door to door journey time of about 2 hours. That extra hour or more offsets an awful lot of traffic delays.
Cost? Return taxi fares are in the order of £145. For 2 adults National Rail quotes a pound or so more; GWR is considerably less (no HEX premium) but against that there are the 2 changes and we prefer to avoid the hassle. For a family of four even GWR comes out more expensive.
There is another potential market which would use Heathrow if it was easier/quicker to get to by train. I have family members who regularly fly from Birmingham because it is easier for them to get to by car. Given the choice and an easier western rail access they would certainly use LHR and travel by train.
Regarding the Railair link, it seems not to be promoted on either the NR or GWR journey planner websites – you have to search for it yourself (which implies of course that you already know about it). The Heathrow website says journey time is ‘approximately 45 minutes’. Which it is, in the early hours. During the ‘normal’ day, times are 55 mins to T5, 1 hr 11 mins to T2/3. So not a lot of incentive to use it.
Of course, people’s circumstances differ and no doubt there will be other examples where a rail journey is clearly better; like I said, it is a complex subject but I do think that these complexities have been missed by some.
For many places from the west (though unfortunately for Littlejohn not Newbury) the cheapest and easiest way to get to Heathrow is by a direct National Express coach. This should also be the quickest option as well, for example the scheduled time of 1 hour 40 minutes from Chippenham compares favourably with any combination of trains or train and Railair bus from Reading. However, as has already been mentioned several times this depends on the state of the M4.
Getting back on-topic I don’t think larger numbers of people are ever going to start using the local GWR stations to access Heathrow. However, improved accessibility and more welcoming stations may tempt a few more people to use them which might slightly reduce congestion elsewhere. The game-changer will be the long-awaited western rail link which should have been built years ago and must, in my opinion, be a pre-requisite for any future expansion. Financially it may be hard to justify but there must surely be an environmental benefit of shifting people from the M4 onto trains.
Two brief asides. Firstly Hayes and Harlington is really useful for accessing the airport hotels on Bath Road. Secondly if you search for Heathrow (bus) on the National Rail journey planner it shows you routes using the Railair Link.
@CWJ714
“…………. if you search for Heathrow (bus) on the National Rail journey planner it shows you routes using the Railair Link.”
So as Littlejohn says, you won’t find it unless you already know about it
CJW714. ‘if you search for Heathrow (bus) on the National Rail journey planner it shows you routes using the Railair Link’. If I searched for ‘Heathrow bus’ I would expect to see something like the 140 from H&H. I’m not sure I would expect to find a coach from Reading.
@ The Orange One / B&T – I apologise. I’ve gone back and checked. You are correct about the X140 being limited stop south of Hayes and Harlington. That makes the loss of the 140 even worse. It runs x7 daytimes and x10 evenings. In the future if you can’t use the X140 then you’re left with the 278 every 12 daytimes and, horrendously, x20 evenings. That’s just rubbish. Even more rubbish is the utter mismatch at all times between the 140, 278 and X140 frequencies. Connections at Hayes will be an utter lottery. With a bit of luck TfL will scrap their half baked proposals.
cjw714 13 July 2018 at 01:11
” there must surely be an environmental benefit of shifting people from the M4 onto trains.”
Try telling that one to Chris Grayling, who thinks electrification is poor value for passengers.
@Alan Griffiths: And as usual he will long gone before the final bill is presented….
@WW
We in the benighted provinces (the Graylinged lands perhaps one could call them) would weep with joy at the prospect of buses every 20 minutes in the evening… and it doesn’t seem too bad for what is mostly low density suburbia (I used to live in Pinner so I have reasonable knowledge of the area)
Re: Alan Griffiths – Electrification *is* poor value for both passengers and tax payers… *if*costs stay at GWML levels and there is not confidence that they will come down by something like 75%.
At a recent talk Sir Peter Hendy, no less, was asked a question about whether costs will come down and his response side-stepped that issue and emphasised what was now possible without extension of electrification, by the use of bi-modes and other technological developments.
Make of that what you will.
Balthazar 15 July 2018 at 11:29
“At a recent talk Sir Peter Hendy, no less,”
once again demonstrated his astute sense of when a senior public servant can and cannot comment on subjects sensitive to elected persons.
Re: Alan Griffiths – Yes, indeed, but also gave no impression that Network Rail sees it as important to bring down electrification costs.
Hendy is an absolute master at getting across the right political message.
Re: quinlet – Well, I’d hope so but I was there and it sounded as if there was no intention to reinvigorate electrification. There would have been no contradiction with the DfT position if he’d said: “We are going to bring down the costs of electrification to make it affordable again”. But he didn’t.
@ Balthazar – I think Sir Peter has to be especially cautious. I have nothing but my own gut feeling but I am quite surprised he hasn’t been kicked out by Grayling as the ultimate sacrifice from Network Rail. In the currently febrile atmosphere surrounding all things “railway” it would be a brave person who went “off piste” in their remarks to any audience. I have little doubt that Sir Peter knows all too well what has to happen with the costs of electrification and he has probably kicked off work to properly understand what’s gone well / badly and to make the necessary changes inside Network Rail. Let’s face it there are far too many problems with electrification schemes for anyone to stand up and try and defend the delays, poor planning, poor execution etc etc.
I agree that the DfT obsession with bi-modes as the answer to every problem is far from ideal and bodes badly for the future economics of the railway. However Network Rail have to get some aspects of their performance and the governing standards regime reviewed and sorted out to get costs down across the board. We are not going to see much change from the DfT while we have the current Secretary of State and that may mean a week, a year or another 4 years given the political volatility in UK politics.
@HerneD: You would be surprised how many people use those buses, even in the evenings!
@Walthamstow Writer: to be honest, connections between buses and trains in that part of the world are usually down to chance – despite people calling that area ‘suburbia’ it is chock-a-bloc with traffic for a good part of the day. The quoted headways on the 140 are very much theoretical – it is not uncommon for three to turn up within 2 minutes.
Of the proposed changes in my local area, I consider the cutting short of the 427 as the most painful. Routes 207/427 are very well used to the east of Southall, and I don’t think the Elizabeth Line will change much in that respect, particularly as:
– it doesn’t stop anywhere near Ealing Hospital or West Ealing Broadway shops;
– there are 300+ flats going up at St Bernard’s Gatehouse (next to Ealing Hospital), and their future inhabitants will have just under 1km to their nearest Elizabeth Line station (Hanwell) – meaning they might want to take a bus…
As far as the 140 is concerned, I’m reasonably positive about the proposed changes. The 140 is rather unmanageable at present, and splitting it in two makes sense to me. My only issue is that I’d like to see the 278 extended to South Ruislip, to serve the retail park there.
Straphan writes: “inhabitants will have just under 1km to their nearest Elizabeth Line station (Hanwell) – meaning they might want to take a bus…”
That is a 10 minute walk for someone reasonably fit. And West Ealing station is right next to the shops (well, within a 5 minute walk).
from Transport for London investment programme report
Quarter 4 2017/18
We have completed the replacement of the canopy roof at Ealing Broadway.
On the Great Western section lift schemes (Hanwell, Iver, Langley and Taplow), design works are progressing. Construction will start in summer 2018, with all four schemes due to complete in time for the full opening of the Elizabeth line in December 2019.
MTR is continuing its station refurbishment programme. Works to repair and decorate platform canopies at Chadwell Heath, Goodmayes and Ilford are substantially complete and
focus is now on the roll-out of new platform shelters and seating.
Work will also begin in the summer to refurbish the station buildings on the Great
Western section that are not being upgraded by the Crossrail project.
@ Straphan – and to think that the 207 is also getting a frequency reduction on its new contract. I agree the 427 change is ludicrous and that Crossrail does not offer anything remotely like an appropriate replacement.
I don’t consider the 140 changes to be a split. It’s really a curtailment of the stopping service with a badly designed “express” service overlaid on top. Short, local journeys will get worse and I can see people getting frustrated as express buses go past their stop whereas now every bus would stop. Cross Hayes journeys also get worse because of the increased instances of forced interchange. TfL seem to have developed a fondness for taking routes that are the most popular and then restructuring them to make things worse.
@John Bull’s Dog: So your point is that the ‘improvement’ TfL is offering people is a train service they need to walk for 10 minutes at each end to get to vs a bus that is nearly door to door?
Blimey, that’s proper progress now, innit?
P.S. – you’re a really fast walker if you can pull off 1km in 10 minutes, especially if allowing for traffic lights.
@Walthamstow Writer: Agreed. My preferred solution would be to cut the 607 back to operate between Southall and Uxbridge as an express service (possibly via the new Southall Waterside estate), and reduce frequencies on the 207/427 to every 10-12 minutes each, but keep their routes as they currently are.
Cross-Hayes journeys will indeed get a bit worse, but – to be fair – the 90 is somewhat underutilised in this neck of the woods, and I believe it has the capacity to pick up the slack somewhat. Yes, people will have to wait longer for a bus, but not that much longer…
I’m also cautiously supportive of the X140 – going north from Hayes or Southall (e.g. to Wembley or Harrow) is painfully slow, and I welcome anything that can be done to improve the situation. Bus journey times on orbital journeys around the suburbs are currently abysmal, and this is one of the main reasons why we are seriously looking into getting a car.
The latest Commissioner’s Report, for next week’s Board meeting (July 2018), has this rather bland statement about the surface works being done by Crossrail.
“The upgrade of the existing rail network for Crossrail, being undertaken by Network Rail, continues. There have been some further challenges on the timescales for the award of contracts for enhancement works on western stations, but Network Rail remains committed
for these stations to be upgraded by December 2019, when the full Elizabeth line will be in operation.”
I struggle to see how the envisaged major works at western stations will be done in a little over a year given the need for new contractor to remobilise on site even if contracts were placed today.
Straphan:
Walking “less than a 1000m” in 10 minutes is walking at 3.5 miles per hour. This is about average for someone in London. Fast is nearly 5 miles per hour (or more).
But the point is that walking for 10 minutes to a train station is reasonable. It really does not require a bus because “it is too far to walk”. And attempting to provide such bus transport for everyone who lived “a 10 minute walk from their local trains station” would be a poor use of resources.
Isn’t Hanwell only getting 4tph? So with a 10 minute+ walk and an average wait of 7.5 minutes (assuming they are regular interval), a fair few people will surely choose to get a bus to Ealing Broadway where there are more Crossrail services and the tube options
@Herned
That assumes that people set out to walk to the station randomly, with no regard for the timetable. In reality, with only 4 trains per hour, would be passengers would mainly have regard to the departure times and set out for the station with those in mind. This would reduce the average waiting time at Hanwell and, for regular users, could well bring it down to 2 or 3 minutes.
A good point, but I would still suggest that lower frequency and a longish walk is more likely to lead to increased use of the bus
@Quinlet
“In reality, with only 4 trains per hour, would be passengers would mainly have regard to the departure times and set out for the station with those in mind.”
That shows a touching faith in the timetable. Setting off with a particular train in mind assumes that it will be running (and on time). Living on a 4tph route, I set off when I’m ready. There is always the chance that the train preceding the one I should have caught is running late.
Regarding what is architecturally worth preserving on Western Stations. I have written an article for Architects Datafile, a professional architectural magazine, interviewing the architects’ (Bennetts Associates ) about their designs for Ealing Broadway, Southall, Hayes and Harlington and touching on West Drayton. They are all interesting and practical buildings and are designed to be be integrated with new ‘modular’ Network Rail footbridges and other station structures at platform level.
In a nutshell the once very attractive GWR Ealing Broadway station was obliterated long ago and has little or nothing original worth preserving at street level. There are some vintage canopies at platform level but I am not certain their long-term status. This is the second ‘new’ design for Ealing Broadway after the local authority expressed concern about some aspects of the first design submitted by another architectural practice.
The original Southall station building on the road bridge over the line is effectively being decommissioned and left in place, with an entirely new station built slightly to one side of it. It will be repurposed for some sort of community usage (a lucky escape for this attractive, though no longer complete, building).
At Hayes and Harlington the original, rather drab Victorian station building on the road bridge disappeared at the very start of the 60s to be replaced by an equally uninspiring modernist ticket office and entrance. Before the latest Crossrail modifications started, the red brick 1860s vintage red brick Victorian waiting rooms, parcels offices etc on Platform 4 (the slow up) were repurposed to form part of a new passenger entrance and ticket office at ‘street level’ in Station Approach, a cul-de-sac which diverges from the main Station Road just before the start of the bridge. Being in addition to the modernist station building sitting on the road bridge, effectively this gave the station two entrances/exits. However, the Victorian platform-level building and its canopy have since been dismantled and conserved, and the plan is to rebuild part of the handsome brick and stone facia and incorporate it decoratively (somewhere near the street level entrance) into the interesting looking new glass and steel station with its bridge-level cafe. Let us hope that they do keep this last remnant of its GWR architecture. The new station will retain the ‘split level’ double entrance philosophy, albeit in a much more integrated, accessible and intuitive way. Regarding the old platform canopies that’s a matter for Network Rail and does not fall within the architect’s remit and I cannot comment on their future.
Regarding West Drayton, essentially this is getting a modern glass and steel ‘extension’ with new NR platform footbridge etc. The 1860s listed ticket office (actually the second station building) of what was the first intermediate stop to be established on the GWML, is to be retained and will be integrated with the new architecture. Anyone wishing to read what the architects have to say about the new station designs at Ealing, Southall and Hayes can use this link: http://www.architectsdatafile.co.uk/news/crossrails-family-affair/
Correction: re my comment above regarding station buildings on the western section. The current West Drayton Station building dates back to 1884 not the 1860s. Although a railway structure of architectural merit and historical interest, it is not in fact a listed building as i stated.
Herned:
I find it touching that you believe that someone would prefer (a) to walk 5 minutes to the bus-stop, wait 5 minutes for a bus, have the bus crawl rather slowly to Ealing Broadway, before leaving the bus and walking 5 minutes to the train station and then getting a train rather than (b) walk 10 minutes to Hanwell train station and wait 7 minutes on the platform for a train. And that you believe option (a) will be quicker, easier and more convenient.
Taking the bus to Hanwell: If you have to walk 5 minutes to the bus-stop from your house, and then when you get off the bus, walk 5 minutes to the station, you might even find you can get on and off the bus at the same stop. But, hey, you will save ‘a longish 10 minute walk’.
By the way, bus stops are usually designed to be 500m-800m apart in urban areas (and nearer 800m than 500m). The idea is that potential passengers are about 5 minutes walk away from their nearest stop (which would mean you have to walk up to 400-500m to your nearest stop, hence double that for the maximum spacing between stops) . You don’t want the bus stops too close together since lots of stops will slow the bus down.
JBD
Isn’t it supposed to be that you are within 500m of a bus-stop anywhere in London – or have I got that ‘orribly wrong?
( 290 metres, approx to my nearest 2 stops )
@ John Bull’s Dog
I can think of lots of people who do similar things. When I lived in Herne Hill, it was vastly more popular to catch the bus to Brixton for the Victoria line, rather than use the Southeastern train service because it was ‘only’ every 15 minutes.
People don’t always make logical decisions. Time spent travelling, even crawling up Uxbridge Road on a bus, feels more productive than sat waiting on a platform.
On the subject of bus stop distances, I would be astounded if the average distance between stops in London is more than 500m
The discussion about Hanwell may have almost run its course.
But the mention of Brixton also brings in the issue of tube versus national rail. There does seem to be a general tendency all over London to default to a tube journey, and only use national rail where the tube is not possible, or significantly less satisfactory. (Maybe ‘new’ things like Overground and DLR are blurring this distinction somewhat).
I do realise that I may be displaying a North-London bias here – sweeping up most of South London into an appended exception class.
Malcolm. I think you highlight a common trait. My husband defaults to the tube every time, even if using National Rail is easier / quicker. It has taken me years to educate him that getting off a southern service at London Bridge and getting a tube to the West End isn’t quickest when there are trains to Charing Cross every few minutes.
@Malcolm
Observation at Richmond and Wimbledon suggests the NR trains are far busier (despite being more frequent) than the District Line
@Greg – I think it is 400m – of course how useful that is depends where the bus goes.
@John Bull’s Dog
“you have to walk up to 400-500m to your nearest stop, hence double that for the maximum spacing between stops”
I think the logic is faulty there – not every street is served by bus. If two parallel roads served by bus are 500m apart, someone living on one of the side streets could have to walk 250m just to reach a bus route – if the junction of their side street with the main road were to be half way between two stops 800m apart (and some side street or other will be a the midpoint), the total walking distance is 650m.
@ Greg – I believe TfL work on the basis of a bus stop being within 400m for most of Greater London. There are some glaring exceptions to this even in built up areas – largely because of “NIMBY” residents campaigning against buses with the usual litany of crazed excuses ranging from the mass murder of children to the foundations of their homes being undermined. The reality is much more about not wanting a large vehicle getting near their cars or having a bus stop outside their home. The other annoyance is that it is usually a minority who shout loudest depriving the majority of public transport access. I suspect we will see this rear its head again when TfL get round to running their “demand responsive transport” trial.
@ JB’s Dog – As already mentioned you’re assuming people basically act rationally about perceived and actual journey times. They don’t. People make all sorts of crazy decisions about what routes they take, where they change and about access time to modes.
One personal example – on journeys from Central London I usually change from tube to bus at T Hale so I can get the bus to the top of my road. This is despite the fact that Blackhorse Rd offers a closer interchange from the same tube line to the same bus. It is also despite the fact that I theoretically have a faster journey by going to the end of line and taking one of several buses and having a slightly longer walk from where they stop. My “logic” for doing what I do is that T Hale is a safer, nicer place to wait and interchange doesn’t involve crossing a busy main road. Blackhorse Rd does have a nasty road to cross and waiting conditions are horrible – nasty narrow pavement, poor bus shelter beside a fume laden road. Travelling via Walthamstow is much more crowded, there’s no guarantee that the buses run as scheduled and they’re all much more crowded and slower than just the one bus from T Hale. All completely illogical if you use a theoretical time parameter of going via the fastest route but it does reflect what TfL knows from market research that people dislike travelling and changing modes in crowded, uncomfortable conditions. Obviously, in the peak, crowding is unavoidable for many *but* people still have their preferences and their behaviour may change if a better option emerges. We will probably see this writ large when Crossrail opens.
I am not saying your view is “wrong” just that people don’t act predictably or logically.
WW
123 or 230?
Has the 400m ever been clarified as specifically ‘as the crow flies’ or as that which people walk? No doubt there are maps which denote a 400m radius ‘ring’ around each bus stop, but it would be very interesting to know if a similar things exists for actual walking distance taking into account road/alley layout
@Ben
TfL Guidelines for Planning Bus Services gives two alternative definitions:
“35. In residential areas, it is desirable for the bus network to run within about five minutes walk of homes, if this is cost-effective and if roads are suitable. This is about 400 metres at the average walking speed.
36. The 400 metre guideline will be used alongside other indicators of
accessibility to the network. These may for example be demographic, such
as low car ownership, or physical, such as steep hills, parkland or
severance due to main roads.”
In my experience, most planners and developers just draw 400m circles, which indeed means that some individual points will be over 400m from a stop.
It would seem that public concerns about “Finisihing in time” for CrossLiz stations is spreading.
Ilford for example
@ FIRSTWAVE59 Your link is to a 2015 article. Does it therefore refer to designs which have been axed.
I meant to point out last week that TfL Rail have done a highlighted update on station reconstruction on their website which I think is quite recent. They clearly expect public relations problems in this area as they are going to great trouble to highlight what is their responsibility and which future items are dependent on Network Rail.
A summary on what has been done so far is here.
A summary of future improvements is here.
Regarding the Elizabeth Line/TfL Rail name change for the Paddington and Liverpool Street main line services, a look at TfL’s “Track closures six months look ahead” document reveals two “TfL Rail” closures over Christmas for Paddington to T4 and Liverpool Street to Shenfield.
So at least one part of TfL still believes we will have TfL Rail services running after the scheduled opening of the core on the 9th of December…
PoP
Do we foresee some “pass-the-parcel” moments come Dec ’19 – I wonder ?
That distribution of responsibilites is certainly interesting.
@ The Orange One – I don’t think that means very much. TfL will have a scheduled publicity and launch blitz for “Elizabeth Line” later in the year. I expect you will see names change on documents like the Closures Look Ahead when the launch has happened. It’s a tiny thing in the scheme of things and will change at the appropriate point.
I suspect people choose tube over train (where they have a choice) because the former is seen as far more frequent then the latter, after all trains have their timetables displayed on platforms and in little booklets, which the tube doesn’t. Similarly I’ve yet to know people who aim for a specifically-timed tube but plenty who catch such a train service. It’s the ‘turn up and go’ expectation writ large.
As regards the TfL Improvements page, I noticed under Romford: “A new platform is due to be finished by summer 2018.” This is the first I’ve heard of this. Is this a mistake?
@Ben: No doubt there are maps which denote a 400m radius ‘ring’ around each bus stop, but it would be very interesting to know if a similar things exists for actual walking distance taking into account road/alley layout
See here for some (New World) examples, and here for some discussion of the 400m ‘standard’ from an experienced transport planner (and note the rule of thumb that people will walk further to a faster surface – hence the discussion about how far people will walk to a Crossrail or tube station).
From a London point of view, the fairly fine rough grid of the predominantly nineteenth-century inner London streets probably give a lower average distance to a bus stop than the larger blocks of 1930s ‘Metroland’ and its Underground equivalents in outer London. At least the declaration of the Green Belt meant that London missed out on the worst excesses of 1950s/60s car-oriented cul-de-sac-isation.
Ironically some of the biggest barriers to pedestrian permeability can be surface rail and tube lines.
DfT has published its Annual update on Crossrail: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/annual-update-on-crossrail-2018
I’ve not followed this v closely but looks like an additional £590m of funding . £300m to Crossrail Ltd – funded 50:50 by the DfT and TfL and then £290m “for completion of the programme of works on the national rail network” funded by the DfT and NR.
There’s lots to read between the lines too. I enjoyed this: “As with all projects of this nature, there have been a number of engineering and technical challenges that have already been surmounted in order to build the first new railway for a generation, and there will continue to be challenges right up until the final completion of the project.”
A fine example of saying a lot without actually saying v much.
@ Alison W – when I was commuting I used to aim for a specific tube train on the Vic Line. This was largely off the back of the bus connection working properly but that specific train usually avoided a mass influx of NR passengers at both T Hale and Seven Sisters meaning it was somewhat less crowded as it headed into London. The Vic Line was on a 4 min headway at that time of day so missing it did make a demonstrable difference. There was also the issue about certain tube departures being crowded because of NR train arrivals at Walthamstow Central and Blackhorse Rd. The one thing you dreaded was meeting the wall of interchanging passengers who would crowd out the platform and train. As you can see there is a sort of crazed logic involved! I don’t have the nightmare of the commute anymore so tube travel is now far more relaxed – no one hurries for Vic Line trains when they’re every 1-2 mins almost all the time. Of course the high service level has vastly increased the demand so it’s still a battle to get a seat at certain times.
@A-Mous
“an additional £590m of funding . ”
That’s almost double what the 1974 London Rail Study Report estimated it would cost to build it – from scratch!
(yes, I do know that you should add a zero to get close to 2018 prices)
@ A-Mous – The statement is interesting. Not a great surprise that it’s rushed out on the last day of the parliamentary session given the £590m overspend / additional funding. Slight shame that confirmation of this appears to be late. I assume some of the procurement delays for station works has been caused by lack of confirmed funding with NR. I recognise, though, that funding might not have been able to be finalised without a better view on scheme scope and costs of each station scheme. Still it’s good that something has been unlocked.
I note the rather bizarre statement about how the Coalition govt reduced the budget which carefully omits the large scale descoping of planned facilities that quite clearly happened at that point in the project. Let’s not tell people what they’ve lost. I wonder what sofa TfL have found £150m under? That’s a lot of money to find at short notice even if some level of risk provision has been made for cost overruns.
How much of the £590m that needed to be found is because the refurbished stations were required to be step-free (rather late in the project), but no money was provided to pay for it?
@Aneconspeaks: Additional funding of £19 million was provided for step-free access on the Shenfield branch by TfL from “efficiencies and some reallocation of the operating budget” (AKA the back of the TfL sofa), and £14 million for the Reading branch stations by the DfT.
@WW: The original budget for Crossrail would also have seen it open by now (in theory!). Compared with previous years’ statements any mention of opening dates is conspicuously absent – not necessarily a sign that they will be delayed, given that TfL are still reiterating them, but at least shows the minister isn’t providing any hostages to fortune.
Also, it is interesting that Network Rail’s works account for only about 15% of the project budget, (£2.3bn out of £15.9bn) but almost half of the cost overrun.
While the announcement of the funding may be late, I assume that it was agreed some time ago between the DfT, TfL and Network Rail, given the accuracy of the Times report of a few months back.
@ Ian J – we’re obviously in the realms of wild speculation about a programme that was abandoned long ago but I do wonder if a tighter programme might have forced the pace on some issues like the western surface stations. I suspect it would not have fixed things like signalling and the main station construction but interesting to speculate.
I hadn’t spotted the lack of dates in the statement. In government and TfL circles I don’t think Crossrail “finishes” until the early 2020s anyway. In a recent rather complex TfL Finance Cttee paper there are some very involved shareholding mechanisms and references to a defined contractual term “Final Completion of the Crossrail Project”. Sadly the definition isn’t provided but it seems to be sometime between now and 2023/24 – most likely 2021 (at a guess). As I’m sure you know large projects have a residual life in terms of claims, liabilities etc long after the assets have entered public use. I’m not suggesting public services will be delayed to 2021 but I’m not going to be shocked if contractors are still on site at some stations in 2020 after train services are running to Reading.
@WW What “large scale descoping” took place under the Coalition government? I thought that the only significant change was delaying the end date by 1 year.
@ James – I understand that a “value engineering” exercise was undertaken. I understand this removed elements of scope from the project. It is my understanding (I may be wrong) that there was supposed to a link between the Circle / District platforms at Paddington into the Crossrail ticket hall. I am sure I’ve seen plans for this. It’s not been constructed. I expect there must be others but I can’t prove it (others may have extra insight). The question in my mind is how do you lop off hundreds of millions of pounds off the project cost while extending the programme by a year (with all of the impacts on contract costs, overheads etc)? Some of it is down to removing risk / contingency monies by allowing more time for technically challenging thinks like signalling / ATO. However the main remaining thing to do is build less than you originally planned and do the rest to a lower quality. Of course there is some element of doing things more efficiently but Crossrail has reprogrammed and changed its approach to work packages hundreds of time in response to real life issues – as you would expect them to do. However it’s not without its financial and programme consequences as we are now seeing in a few cases and others which we may never hear about but will be the domain of claims managers and lawyers. Standard stuff, I’m afraid, on a project of this scale – there will be some disputes and claims that drag on past opening of the service to the public.
In a former life I had some insight into the stuff that dragged on from the Jubilee Line Extension. Clearly a different era and different pressures and I’d expect Crossrail to have reviewed a great many lessons from the past before they set up their approach to delivering the project so they could minimise risks.
A smaller scale item but it’s clear some elements of the Farringdon / Barbican link including lifts and a footbridge have been abandoned in more recent times. Before I am accused of being overly selective there have, of course, been the few notable expansions of Crossrail’s scope by the project sponsors – namely accessible stations on the full route and trains to Reading. Crossrail, though, famously trotted out the “project’s not for expanding” line every time their Chairman and Chief Executive gave their update to the London Assembly.
Walthamstow Writer,
The situation at Paddington with interchange to the Underground is complicated but I don’t think value engineering came into it.
The original plan was to have a ‘cut and cover’ underground passage to the District and Circle ticket hall. At the time of Crossrail being planned, the District and Circle line platforms at Praed St would probably have been where the majority of interchange with the Underground would have taken place – for passengers travelling to Baker St and Euston for example.
When the proposal was surveyed in detail it was decided that it just wasn’t feasible. I seem to recall it was something to do with load-bearing issues. Therefore, a late decision was made to build a deep-level passageway to the Bakerloo line instead. I suspect that this would have been far more expensive but better for intending Bakerloo line passengers. This was not part of the Crossrail Act and needed separate authorisation (one of only three major additional ‘variants’ that were applied).
There was then the issue about what to do about interchange with the Praed St platforms. As the Circle line was no longer a circle and many passenger would be heading for the Hammersmith & City line platforms via the pedestrian overbridge instead, the need for it was greatly reduced so it got dropped.
With the exception of Farringdon and station buildings west of Paddington , I am not aware of anything that got descoped that directly affected the final result as far as the public were concerned. The layout at Abbey Wood was changed (saving money) but saving money was not the reason behind it. It was to do with keeping Crossrail separate from the south-eastern lines and ease of future extension.
On the other hand, there has been some additional unplanned work. Not only for step-free access but also I am aware that at Custom House there are escalators yet these were not originally intended to be included. You also have the issue of the upgraded DLR station at Custom House which I believe is entirely due to Crossrail yet somehow got kept off the Crossrail budget – as far as I am aware.
Walthamstow Writer,
“project’s not for expanding”
‘Scope creep’ was the term in vogue at the time.
@PoP 06:11
Escalators were originally planned at Custom House Crossrail (also to assist DLR access), as part of Crossrail planning priorities, and promoted by Crossrail in local consultation material. However an early round of value engineering (cost reductions) initially saw them off. Newham Council objected and proposed a five-year escalator review, in its detailed planning decision on the station design. Crossrail wanted this option deleted, and lodged a planning appeal against Newham in 2012.
Partly thanks to the technical assessment which I undertook in summer 2012, there was clear evidence that deletion of the escalators would mean Crossrail could not deliver a working station with adequate facilities for people with reduced mobility, with insufficient lift capacity particularly at busy times with ExCel in use. Crossrail withdrew its appeal and agreed to build escalators at once, so the Council then withdrew its planning requirement for an escalator review.
Links here to the technical assessment and other papers:
https://mgov.newham.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=1224&MId=8205&Ver=4
https://www.jrc.org.uk/PDFs/JRC518-Custom-House-station-Proof-of-Evidence-final-20092012.pdf
https://mgov.newham.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=1224&MId=9224&Ver=4
Re PoP, WW and JR,
Value engineering:
Abbey Wood – the Station will need major work if CR is extended eastwards as there is one though CR line and one terminating CR line. The station building can easily enough be modified (separate concrete pours for easy + clean demolition of stuff in the way) but the main issue will be re-engineering the bridge as one set of support pillars of the supports are in the way of extending the terminating line (northern most) further east. do-able but expensive and a long-ish road closure.
Cost reduced for this phase of CR but with Ebbsfleet extension of the cards the cost of that has been increased by way more than the saving on the main CR build.
Most value engineering actually fails as the cost reductions are never fully seen and the benefit reduction usually bigger than anticipated but it is all about quickly coming up with savings without decent analysis.
NGH: Looking at the Google Street view from Felixstowe Road one can see the build at Abbey Wood in progress. Whilst there is clearly a concrete slab in the way the Dartford side of that slab is clear, with the bridge already capable of taking two lines below it.
@ Aneconspeaks – Do we really have to do the Reading thing again? PoP has written about this extensively. I agree it was NOT in Crossrail’s scope which is the context in which I wrote my comment. Of course it became relatively simple to do once GW electrification beyond Maidenhead became a live project. Nonetheless to actually activate services to Reading required a deal with TfL, DfT, GWR and CRL in terms of running rights, franchise adjustments and extra trains. There will be some implications for the Crossrail works to ensure that depots, sidings and systems can cope with and represent the services to Reading correctly. Extra sidings are being added at Plumstead, for example. That may be for operational convenience or it may simply be to cope with the larger fleet for Reading services.
I need to double check the announcements but I thought a special funding deal had been put together by DfT and TfL to make Crossrail fully accessible. DfT are picking up the cost for some of the western stations while TfL are doing those in Greater London including some in the borough of Ealing such as Hanwell. TfL are doing the procurement and project management on those schemes, separate from other works Network Rail are doing. These extras announced in 2014 fill in the gaps where accessibility was NOT in Crossrail’s core scope or that of the “on network works” contracted to Network Rail.
[checks]
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/government-confirms-step-free-access-funding-for-crossrail
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/mayor-and-transport-for-london-announce-step-free-access-for-all-london-crossrail-stations
Given the funding for these “extra” schemes was NOT part of Crossrail itself when announced then I am left wondering whether any of the accessibility works are part of the cost overrun and which pot of extra funding the costs fall in to – the £150m each from TfL / DfT or the £290m from DfT to Network Rail. Hard to be certain without a lot more detail.
Looking at the TfL website project info for TfL Rail improvements it is clear that the work is split at many locations but not at others. Some eastern stations were always going to be accessible and that is Network Rail’s scope and work. Similar issues apply out west but not everywhere. I doubt the public will ever see the detail cost breakdowns and what scope has cost more than planned. At some sites it’s going to be very involved with multiple bits of work contracted by different parties while others the work is with one party (NR). I imagine some of the London Assembly Committees will try to get their teeth into these issues but what level of disclosure they will get from Crossrail and Network Rail remains to be seen. I wonder if the National Audit Office are sniffing around any of this given DfT are joint sponsors of Crossrail?
The extra trains part of Reading was done by shortening the train length to nine carriages.
The Crossrail procurement programme launched in December 2010 was valued at approximately £1bn for 60 ten-carriage trains with a capacity of about 1,500 passengers and construction of maintenance depots.
In December 2013, the European Investment Bank (EIB) agreed to provide loans to Transport for London for the rolling stock of up to £500M. On 6 February 2014 Bombardier was awarded a £1bn contract to supply 66 trains of 9 carriages, with an option for 18 more. In July 2017 an option for four more units was exercised taking the order to 70 units (for T5).
The design capacity is for 11 carriage length trains so is the option still exercisable once usage is measured?
Re WW,
The plan from LR coverage at the time was that the station rebuilds could be value engineered so that the access works could be paid for out of the existing pot of money allocated for the stations. The problems was the station rebuilds had already been through an unrealistic value engineering exercise…
@WW
“Nonetheless to actually activate services to Reading required a deal with TfL, DfT, GWR and CRL in terms of running rights, franchise adjustments and extra trains. ”
Weren’t there also some savings to offset some of that, because Reading depot could be used instead of building new facilities at Maidenhead?
Aleks,
The extra trains part of Reading was done by shortening the train length to nine carriages.
Such complete and utter rubbish that I hardly know where to start.
The trains weren’t shortened. The specification called for trains not exceeding 205 metres. Despite everyone assuming that meant 10 x 20m carriages that was never specified. Bombardier got smart and went for something approximating 9 x 22.5m carriages. In fact the driving ends are slightly longer than the intermediate carriages. This saved a bit of weight which translates into a reduced power requirement and reduced track maintenance costs.
This was also very clever as it maximised the length possible for TfL Rail services Shenfield – Liverpool St (with 7 carriages), ‘standard’ Crossrail trains (9 carriages) and extended trains (11 carriages). The latter will make full use of the underground platform lengths.
And here is the short answer of ‘the Reading Question’. I refuse to write the long answer yet again. Crossrail was originally extended to Reading simply to save money. The infrastructure had been built and paid for. The original plan called for a Reading – Slough shuttle to cover the Maidenhead – Reading local services. By agreeing that Crossrail should go to Reading (for which I am quite certain Crossrail would have made sure it was cost neutral to them), the DfT saved on not having to provide a shuttle service, not having to build a west-facing terminating platform at Slough and, possibly most important of all, got themselves out of a timetable mess with too many trains of different calling patterns between Maidenhead and Slough.
timbeau,
Weren’t there also some savings to offset some of that, because Reading depot could be used instead of building new facilities at Maidenhead?
As far as I am aware nothing has changed in this respect. I believe Maidenhead is just a stabling yard and drivers depot for outstabling and that was always intended to be the case. I don’t believe any Crossrail trains are due to be stabled let alone maintained at Reading although it wouldn’t surprise me of the last train of the day stayed in the platform and became the first train of the next day. Could be interesting to see if any Crossrail drivers are based at Reading in future but I am pretty sure the current plan done not include this.
When the extension to Reading was announced I was quite surprised that there was no suggestion of any scaling back of any Crossrail works at Maidenhead. The only thing that might have changed was there was once an option to have a platform 6 at Maidenhead to handle branch trains without the trains having to come onto the
mainrelief line but I think this was dropped before the Reading announcement.Re Aleks,
I think PoP has best summarised things extremely politely with:
“Such complete and utter rubbish that I hardly know where to start.”
Part of the reason for Bombardier winning many recent rolling stock tenders was the ability to have different length of EMU cars with the new Aventra platform unlike the old platform Electrostar platform they were fixed to 20.x m car lengths with fixed door positions. They are now offering 20.x m 22.y m 24.z m and 26.w m car lengths with orders for the first 3 cars lengths already and flexibility of door positioning.
The Crossrail tender had envision 20.x m stock but BT came up with better solution which allowed evenly spaced doors with 3 sets per side on the car offering and improved dwell time solution.
As a simple example the 10car 24.z m units BT are supply to Anglia and London NorthWestern are the same length as 12 x20m (suited to the traditional 240m platform length) but have 4 fewer bogies which assuming they are unpowered bogies saves 18+ tonnes immediately which then has knock on effects on reducing traction equipment, cabling and power requirements which then adds further weight reductions which then leads to another virtuous cycle etc.
Crossrail state that their ‘new’ platforms are “over” 250m in length which does suggest a possible extended train of eleven carriages.
With the current 7 car fleet it is hard to judge but the legacy extensions seem shorter. My expectation had been that a tenth car could be inserted when needed with minimal alteration.
Was it not 6 additional trains for Reading and 4 for T5?
Aleks,
Could I urge you to read previous articles on Crossrail rather than coming up with your novel ideas?
In particular the articles about Crossrail and going to Reading and Crossrail: One of the family.
Platforms in tunnels are built to maximum length (11 cars) from the outset as they are almost impossible to extend afterwards. In the open air, Crossrail platforms are generally extended, if not already long enough, to 9 cars. There are exceptions where this cannot be done such as Maryland (bridges at both ends), Hanwell (heritage issues) and probably various stations towards Reading where it is neither necessary or cost effective. SDO will be used at these stations.
There is no cost benefit in extending platforms to 11 cars in the open air until they will be used although, generally, passive provision is made for them. Apart for the construction cost (with no benefit) that means that part of the platform has to be maintained to railway standards despite no usage.
Note that going from 9 cars (equivalent to 10 x 20m cars) to 11 cars gives you 22% benefit whereas going from 12 x 20m cars from 10 x 20m cars only yields 20% benefit – another advantage of longer but fewer carriages.
There are no plans for 10 car trains in future. Basically, it wouldn’t make sense to do the massive amount of disruptive work in future for the sake of an 11% capacity increase. It would make far more sense to go from 9 to 11 cars in one hit and get a 22% increase.
Aleks,
Extending to Reading originally only involved extending 2tph from Maidenhead to Reading (future running time 12m). So in fact they only needed 1 extra train bringing the fleet total from 65 to 66 trains.
Further plans to take over most of GWR services on the relief lines as far out as Reading only required around an extra 4 trains as there wasn’t much left to take over. They also plan to run 2tph to Terminal 5 but these can be considered to be a diversion of the previously planned West Drayton terminators so the total number of trains required is largely unaffected by this.
So only 5 extra trains have been added since the original order which was for 65 trains and is now for 70 trains.
Thanks for the background. My base was the 60 fleet number, so that has evolved.
The further option for another 14 from 70 trains must have been possible route extensions. Surely the civils would take much longer than a build option.
The 250m is an aspiration where possible like the Thameslink extensions, but not possible for much of the Crossrail legacy lines. Would that indicate a future mixed fleet like the 12/8 car 700s. Most of the Paddington to Abbey Wood section will have that length provision and potential demand growth from the Wharf estate.
A general inquiry that applies to the 345 layout as much as other recent introductions used in underground tunnels, how does smoke screen segregation work during an incident. Are there any barriers in the end gangways that can be pulled across to keep parts of the affected train clear prior to recovery? I appreciate that Crossrail have an evacuation walkway and cross-passages in current standards so maybe more of an issue for the Underground.
I remember reading somewhere that the 2tph from T5 off-peak would be split between Shenfield and Abbey Wood but can’t find that reference now and wonder if it was some sop to local politicians to fulfill an initial commitment of new services and access to Heathrow. Is all future still speculative?
Can anyone recommend a database for stations including operating parameters and platform lengths?
Aleks,
Would that indicate a future mixed fleet like the 12/8 car 700s.
That would be almost inconceivable for two main reasons and a host of minor ones.
The first major problem is that the frequency of Crossrail at the two-platform termini (Abbey Wood and Shenfield) means that you don’t really have a choice as to where to send the next train. You have to get it out of the platform and send it to wherever is most convenient, timetable-wise. The line between Terminals 2&3 and Terminal 4 is single track so again you just have to get rid of the train to whatever destination is appropriate. So, unlike Thameslink, you really need a homogenous fleet just for normal working let alone at times of disruption (any port in a storm).
Crossrail will be a high capacity metro service with a lot of people making relatively short journeys (e.g. Paddington to Liverpool St). You really don’t want people reluctant to use part of the platform because they are not sure how long the next train will be. It is noticeable how now that S stock is universal on the Subsurface Railway that the seventh carriage on S7 stock is no longer less crowded than the other carriages. Previously, on stations shared with the District line, passenger were reluctant to wait at the very end of the platform.
Are there any barriers in the end gangways that can be pulled across to keep parts of the affected train clear prior to recovery?
Smoke control on Crossrail will be done by means of enormous fans capable of blowing or extracting smoke along the tunnel (again something we have covered before). They will be selected as appropriate to avoid passengers being overcome by smoke in the very unlikely event of fire. As far as I am aware there is no attempt to control smoke within the train. Remember passenger evacuation from tunnels will be a lot easier with a permanent walkway and no risk of falling onto live rails. So it is probably more a case of get away from the train rather than trying to make it less dangerous to remain.
Aleks,
I remember reading somewhere that the 2tph from T5 off-peak would be split between Shenfield and Abbey Wood …
You need to apply a bit of logic here. We assume that the T5 service is every half hour. We also assume trains alternative between going to Shenfield and Abbey Wood.
During the peaks (24tph), in any hour it follows that either both or neither train starting from T5 terminates at Abbey Wood – exclusive nor (XNOR) in computer speak.
During the off-peak (20tph), in any hour it follows that one train from T5 goes to Shenfield and one train goes to Abbey Wood.
The only restriction is that overall more trains from Heathrow Airport must serve Canary Wharf than not as part of the deal with Canary Wharf and their financial contribution to the project. How that is achieved is not restricted but the current philosophy is to have 50% of trains from Heathrow going to Canary Wharf (and by implication Abbey Wood) in the off-peak and more than 50% in the peak. So it is quite feasible that you could have 4tph from T4 to Abbey Wood in the peak and 2tph from T5 to Shenfield. I suspect for timetabling and goodwill reasons that in practice both of the 2tph peak services from T5 will go to Abbey Wood but, theoretically, there is no requirement to do so.
Can anyone recommend a database for stations including operating parameters and platform lengths?
The are in the Network Rail sectional appendices and various other documents but these are an absolute pain to look up so I don’t bother.
@PoP, WW:
The 2009-10 ‘value engineering’ exercise was called Project Assure. An interesting example of a piece of value engineering is alluded to here – compare the drawings on pages 11 and 12 – the proposal being to omit a previously planned link between the Central Line and the Western ticket hall at Tottenham Court Road station, as well as a mezzanine level at that ticket hall. The document is from the pedestrian modelling that was done to demonstrate that this wouldn’t overload the Eastern ticket hall. It is not made 100% clear if this option was taken up in the end.
The other major change that I am aware of was a redesign of Whitechapel station that reduced the cost – but that was also I think in response to local objections to the previous design.
@ Ian J – thanks for that info. I wasn’t aware of the TCR change and am somewhat disappointed at such a cut in the scope of the design. I know the congestion analysis shows there’s little issue with its removal but it does leave some issues if (a big if) Crossrail 2 is built. A classic case of leaving issues for the future to resolve.
@PoP
“We assume that the T5 service is every half hour. We also assume trains alternative between going to Shenfield and Abbey Wood.
…
During the off-peak (20tph), in any hour it follows that one train from T5 goes to Shenfield and one train goes to Abbey Wood.”
I thought that we had already established that the Crossrail off-peak Heathrow service would be formed of:
— 2tph T4 – Abbey Wood
— 2tph T4 – Shenfield
— 2tph T5 – Abbey Wood
assuming a 15 min frequency to T4, a 30 min frequency to T5 and a 6 min frequency to each of Abbey Wood and Shenfield.
@WW: The analysis did take Crossrail 2 into account (see the final page of the document) and concluded that:
The Western Ticket Hall requires an additional gate in the PM Peak [in 2076!] to cater for the Line2 demand. It should be noted that the gateline is constrained by the introduction, in CPFR 5, of a specific requirement
to provide a 2.5m wide access corridor behind the POMs. Accommodation of additional gates may
require some reconfiguration of the ticket hall, including encroachment into adjacent retail space.
Assuming that POMs are Passenger Operated Machines, it sounds like the only alteration needed for Crossrail 2 would be either remove the requirement to be able to empty the machines from a secure area behind (a requirement unique to London Underground, National Rail ticket machines don’t need this), or to take over some of the retail space. So very minor in the context of Crossrail 2 as a whole.
@PoP
While I am sure you are generally right about the serious disbenefits of operating a fleet of differing train lengths on Crossrail, a number of major urban services do just that, including the RER in Paris and the S Bahn in Munich. In both these cases the platform indicators show whether the train is either long or short and platform markings show where the short trains stop.
Re Aleks,
“Thanks for the background. My base was the 60 fleet number, so that has evolved.
The further option for another 14 from 70 trains must have been possible route extensions. Surely the civils would take much longer than a build option.”
Just where are you getting your numbers from as they are highly dubious? Wikipedia happens to be far better for most Crossrail stuff or LR if you really want to be accurate.
The number needed in service for the Maidenhead rather than Reading timetable happened to be 60 with a standard 92% utilisation level gives a requirement of 65 units that was initially ordered, which looks like the only sensible origin for that 60 number in which case you are looking at some very old (7+years) pre-tender material from the OJEU etc.
The 14 options are to take the operating frequency up to 30tph from the initial 24tph not for any route extensions.
Fire Isolation shutter:
345s between the 4 & 5th car in 9 car units in reality at one end on the 5th car (cars labelled …4xx and …5xx) 3rd & 4th in the cars in the 7 car units (cars labelled ….3xx & …5xx)
700 s 8 car between 4 & 5th cars or 12 between the 6 & 7th cars
And all the 10 car Aventra for Anglia, SWR and WMR between the 5 & 6th cars.
In all case the fire shutter is at the electrical separation point between the two sub units that form each unit.
As we have had a fair bit of “debate” about the retention / removal / replacement of the “TfL Rail” branding here is the first bit of TfL created information that confirms the use of “Elizabeth Line” for all bits of what will eventually form the full through Elizabeth Line service.
Courtesy of Diamond Geezer who tweeted about the regular update of the TfL track closure look ahead document –> http://content.tfl.gov.uk/track-closures.pdf .
Clearly shows Elizabeth Line naming applying to the surface level services running from Paddington to Heathrow and Liverpool St to Shenfield when there are planned engineering works in the early weeks of 2019. You can clearly see the change in brand names and colours for the same service by looking at entries in Nov and Dec 2018. I think that is reasonably definitive as to what TfL are going to do come December.
Strictly, all that this evidence proves is that at least some part of TfL expects that the brand names will be used as you describe, and are prepared to publish stuff accordingly. To conclude that that actually will happen requires two further assumptions: that all of TfL is of the same mind on this question, and that no change-of-mind occurs between now and then. However, both ‘assumptions’ seem quite reasonable and probable.
@WW, Malcolm
The line names, as described on the Track closures lookahead chart, are not consistent:
London Overground
DLR
London Trams
TfL Rail
Elizabeth line
Underground lines do not have the word “line”
e.g. Circle
Why does it not just say “Elizabeth”?
Nameless
Because the CrossLiz service is NOT a “tube” line, any more than the Overground services are.
@ Nameless
Elizabeth line simply reflects existing practice with the Victoria line.
Note to self – “don’t bother commenting or sharing info in future”. It only creates trouble.
@WW – 🙂 first rule in politics – the punters always know better than the evidence in front of them.
Re WW,
There is of course the possibility that internally TfL may use Elizabeth Line (as a core service has started) but some parts may be branded as TfL Rail for while longer to passengers.
@WW
I believe that by delaying the project completion date by a year, one less TBM was required for the tunneling phase (as there was more time to do it with a smaller number of TBMs). This presumably had a positive impact on the costs?
The Barbican-Farringdon link is an interesting one. It appears to have been removed from the project scope without any official announcement or explanation.
‘Inside Out London’ comes to Hayes
The BBC1 programme ‘Inside Out London’ is going to be doing a feature on the impact of Crossrail and has selected Hayes as one of the places to highlight. They visited last week to do the filming. It is planned to put the piece out in September 2018.
I’ve never heard of the “BBC1 programme ‘Inside Out London’ ”
What time of the week is it on?
@ Alan G – usually on around 1900 or 1930 Mon or Tues. I imagine it will spring back into life when the autumn schedules resume. I Player says there will be episode of Inside Out London on 3 September 2018 at 1930.
@Alan G: See this here
I received this email last week…
Dear Mr _______________,
From 10:00 on Monday 1 October, the main staircase to platforms 2 and 3 at Ealing Broadway station is being demolished. This is to allow for the construction of a new staircase and lift. Until late December 2018 customers will be required to access platforms 2 and 3 via the footbridge at the far end of platform 4.
Customers are advised to plan your journey before you travel.
Yours sincerely,
Howard Smith
Director of Operations, TfL Rail
Hochtief brought in for Crossrail station construction work 21 January 2019
https://www.building.co.uk/news/hochtief-brought-in-for-crossrail-station-construction-work/5097419.article#commentsJump
German contractor has been chosen to carry out £40m of improvement work at Hayes and Harlington, Southall and West Drayton stations.
Three Crossrail stations still without contractors 21 JANUARY, 2019
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/three-crossrail-stations-still-without-contractors/10039105.article
Three out of the six western Crossrail stations still have no date set for the appointment of contractors to carry out the “significant” works to prepare them.
At Acton Main Line works include a new ticket hall building, new lifts to provide step-free access to platforms, platform extensions, new platform canopies, lighting and information screens.
At West Ealing, there is to be a new glass and steel ticket hall building, and a new footbridge with lifts. Platform extensions and platform widening are also required as are canopies.
At Ealing Broadway the plans are more extensive and include a new entrance canopy running the length of the forecourt, a new façade, a ticket hall twice the size of the existing one, four new lifts, stairway improvements, platform extensions and new toilet facilities.
The delay in appointing a contractor is another blow to the stations which has already been pushed from December 2018 to December 2019. Invitations to tender were issued in November 2017. Three contractors are competing for the remaining package.
To make best use of the railway possessions Network Rail had accelerated work on the foundations for the new lifts, ticket halls and passenger footbridges at Hayes & Harlington, Southall, Ealing Broadway and Acton Main Line. Bridge spans, lift shafts and steelwork, were installed at over the Christmas period by an existing contractor.
Aleks 27 January 2019 at 12:00
“Hochtief brought in for Crossrail station construction work 21 January 2019”
Significant, but not on the critical path for running trains through the new tunnels.
@ Alan G – I agree not significant in relation to the core. It is, though, important the works on the Western section get a move on. TfL want to take over the Reading stoppers in Dec this year and it won’t be marvellous having passengers traipse through building sites at the London end. Furthermore there are several “fed up” local authorities who just want those stations rebuilt. There is also the political demand for fully accessible stations and it’s likely that the full rail service will not coincide with completed stations. If the experience at the eastern stations is anything to go by it could be 2022 by the time these western stations are rebuilt and that would be a disaster in the wider context of Crossrail hopefully being fully open in 2020. You just have to hope that work will now proceed apace to get the surface station works finished alongside everything else that has to happen. Interestingly no one in a senior position has assigned any sort of priority to getting the surface station works completed.
@WW – “Crossrail hopefully being fully open in 2020”
no one is remotely suggesting that, not even close to being fully open, but it would perhaps be the end of being fully closed.
For the past year I have had 2024 as the year I will no longer ride a 40 year old train carrying my suitcase up stairs. Mark Wild is now suggesting 2023 so our expectations are not so wildly apart any more.
TfL still publicly hope for RAP2 with the centre and west open in 2019/2020.
The end of 2020 sounds more realistic with Heathrow & Bond St.
315s, Ilford, Romford, Ealing are at least 3 more years when funded.
Progress on three more Western stations for TfL Rail (West).
Transport for London (TfL) has awarded an access for all (AFA) contract to Murphy for construction of step-free access at four stations on the Great Western Main Line route into London. In total 11 lifts will be installed at Hanwell, Iver, Langley and Taplow railway stations and two twin-span bridges will be installed at Langley and Taplow. A new ticket office will also be built at Iver. All stations will also receive a power upgrade. No mention of toilets.
Murphy rail director Paul Mohan said: “This project has some really interesting and complex engineering aspects to it. We will be excavating down to a Grade II listed subway at Hanwell and managing some very short possessions.”
Work on site has not yet begun by Hochtief at Hayes and Harlington, Southall and West Drayton stations.
Contracts not yet issued for the three largest projects at Acton Main Line, West Ealing, and Ealing Broadway. Nor platform works at Paddington GWR.
Progress on FOUR more stations.
Announcement using Crossrail site
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/network-rail-awards-final-west-london-station-upgrade-contracts-for-crossrail-project
Andrew Jones Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) “The Department for Transport has regular discussions with Network Rail and Crossrail Limited regarding the Network Rail works. Network Rail closely monitors its finances through monthly reporting to Crossrail Limited.
In Control Period 5, £16.6m of funding was allocated to the build elements of the Crossrail station upgrade works at West Ealing, Ealing Broadway and Acton Main Line. Of this funding £16.6m has been spent.
In Control Period 6, £64.4m of funding has been allocated to the Crossrail station upgrade works at West Ealing, Ealing Broadway and Acton Main Line.”
Network Rail now attends Crossrail Board meetings every other month.
TfL’s aspiration for TfL West is now Crossrail Stage 5a but in reality more like 2.5.
Mark Wild’s statement that Eastern stations are ‘ahead’ of the Western branch refers to Stage 3 being ahead of Stage 5 in the programme. NR has now programmed 5a with CCTV scheduled for installation by September to allow testing and trials with MTR from October. Platform extensions are expected by December utilising prefabricated sections trialled at Slough. The language used is reminiscent of Crossrail Mk1 with accelerated installs, abbreviated testing, incentivised contracts, mitigation measures (SDO?)
At the PAC yesterday Mark Wild’s attention was on his 10 Crossrail stations. His declaration was that ALL Elizabeth Line stations would be step free with the exception of the three in the last western contract that he could not remember the names. The reality is closer to half so far.
Bond Street delay of another 2 years is now explained as redesign – not expanded but likely the ventilation system widely discussed.
Tony Meggs struggled three times to get out the words ‘Twenty-Twenty-One’.
The panel asserted that all Crossrail scope will be delivered so passenger toilets and through services from East to West?
The Crossrail Mk2 team is coming together with Mark Wild more confident out front addressing stakeholders over social media compared to the December announcement of Dynamic Testing from the second week of January!
Interesting
Suggesting that with the exception of Bond St, the whole thing may be open, with full through running, before Bond St joins the party?
What. specifically is wrong with the ventilation there?
From 19th May 2019, more and later Sunday TfL trains Liverpool Street – Shenfield. What’s more, all of them will stop at Maryland.
However, none stop at Maryland, Forest Gate or Manor Park on Sundays 19 & 26 May or Sundays 2 & 9 June.
The reason given is “testing of the new Elizabeth line trains transitioning between Crossrail tunnels and Network Ria infrastructure”.
I’m surprised its so early. Any clues or comments?
AG
I presume they want to get Shenfield – Paddington up & running asap after Abbey-Wood-Paddington?
@ AG – based on what’s been said elsewhere it’s to allow testing of how trains are identified on NR infrastructure as they approach the transition point at Stratford. Trains won’t just be recognised on the core signalling when the train is sat at Stratford. NR’s signalling and control clearly has to communicate with the core and vice versa so being able to run a sequence of test trains into and out of the core makes sense. It strikes me as a sensible move to get the transition points tested and sorted as quickly as possible. After all trains still need to get from depots into the core in order to run the core service.
I would not read anything in to the timing. After all if things were running to the original schedule passenger trains from Shenfield would be plunging in to the core as from tomorrow morning!! As it is we’ll be lucky if it happens in 2021 given Crossrail seem determined to keep the 6 month window between the two branches feeding in to the core. I can see the sense in that given the service becomes harder to operate effectively as each phase takes place.
Trains “sat at Stratford” in platform 5 won’t all be Elizabeth line trains.
At weekends and some other times there are Shoeburyness to Liverpool Street trains twice an hour.
Dated: 14-10-2019
“Work on site has not yet begun by Hochtief at Hayes and Harlington, Southall and West Drayton stations.”
Correct
Heathrow Airport – Taxi Drivers Fined For Pick-ups / Drop Offs
In a situation unique in the tourist world, Ballymore the freeholders of a complex named High Point Village which includes StayCity, a ‘hotel’ within HPV, are imposing draconian and heavy fines for taxi-cabs and private cars driving into Station Approach, at the entrance to StayCity and the nearby train station of Hayes & Harlington all near Heathrow.
Now all cab firms – black cabs, mini-cabs, etc. – are refusing to take customers anywhere near StayCity or Hayes & Harlington Station, especially from the Airport.
This draconian attitude, driven by the financial greed of Ballymore, means that taxi-cabs and private cars entering Station Approach to say drop off or pick-up airline &/or train passengers at StayCity or Hayes & Harlington Station, are all being photographed and then sent demands for heavy fines backed up by aggressive debt collectors. This involves notorious ex-clamping firm PCM security – in aggressive uniforms – taking photos of reg. plates, but also of the drivers and passengers. Some of the latter could be young children, or young women – who could be very frightened by the aggression of the situation. Exactly where are these photos going? How secure are they being kept?
Worse, customers of StayCity , via TripAdvisor, report that they have to pay for parking for overnight stays – fair enough. But when they leave and load their cars outside the hotel entrance in the morning, these aggressive PCM security staff photograph them and then send them a demand for a heavy fine of £100 just for the few seconds taken to load their luggage.
Now Network Rail have just confirmed that this whole situation will be permanent because the rebuilding plans for Hayes & Harlington Station do NOT include any drop-off / pick-up places for cars or cabs, and even the disabled driver / passenger areas have now been removed.
Hayes and Harlington is supposed to be a jewel in the crown for the new Elizabeth Line, yet it will have no facilities for taxi-cabs nor private cars due to this draconian and uncooperative aggression from Ballymore, owners of Station Approach, and its no-parking contractors PCM.
This scam situation has been going on for some years. However it has become internationally known and many forums including TripAdvisor carry reports of innocent drivers being ripped off or of airline passengers finding it impossible to get a cab to StayCity.
As folks here may know Hayes & Harlington Station is to be one of the jewels in the Cross Rail / Elizabeth Line, (albeit it is still a building site after over 6 years). However Network Rail have now admitted that the new station will NOT have any facilities for taxi-cabs and cars to turn around; nor anywhere to drop off / pick up StayCity customers or intending train passengers.
For a new station on Cross Rail, and one near the busiest airport in the world, this situation is absolutely appalling.
Ballymore and PCM have a valuable income stream from this scam. And it now appears to be permanent.
It appears that Hillingdon Council &/or Trading Standards are unable or unwilling to do anything about this abuse. Ditto Cross Rail / MTR / T4L / Network Rail / whomsoever. It is clearly apparent that they are not even working together to solve this issue.
There’s one of those prmotional artiste’s illustrations of what could be – here (scroll down):
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/western-section/hayes-harlington-station
http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab656259048fb93837ecc0ecbcf0c557.r23.cf3.rackcdn.com//assets/library/image/h/original/hayes_harlington_station_architect_impression_170788.jpg
It clearly depicts the new Station entrance with a couple of cabs / cars parked outside in the middle of Station Parade. Since cars and cabs are effectively banned this image is highly misleading and needs to be removed or changed.
S Byers 15 October 2019 at 11:04
“Heathrow Airport – Taxi Drivers Fined For Pick-ups / Drop Offs”
Can I suggest sending this to any media in the Republic of Ireland that you can get contact details for?
Presumably the approach road was on railway land and got sold off ‘by mistake’?
Is the new glass box entirely within railway land?
There is still the “other” main entrance, on the bridge, which is public highway, of course.
But I suspect that isn’t the point, is it?
It’s going to be very hard to build the glass box without access over Station Approach and stopping to load and unload materials there. It seems strange that the BR Property Board, or whatever it was called at the time of the sale, didn’t make provision for a right to stop at the station.
I suppose there would be an option to set the station back from Station Road and leave room for a couple of taxis to pull up there. Only another couple of years delay for the redesign.
For this to be legal there must be very clear signage. Simple road markings would not be sufficient. This is because any ‘penalty’ would simply be for breach of contract, that is, the driver, by stopping, has breached the contract for use of the road. PCM is a member of IPC who, in principle, must agree to the signing scheme for Hayes and Harlington. However, IPC is the cut price trade association which does not have the quality control that its bigger rival, the BPA, operates. Someone local might like to check this, as I was only able to look at google street view. If the signs are inadequate then contact should be made with both the IPC and DVLA.
Following on from Quinlet comment, only a statutory body can issue a fine. What is happening here is that invoices are being issued (though no doubt printed in a way that mimics the design of a statutory parking penalty).
As Quinlet points out, they are (in theory) unenforceable unless certain conditions are met but in practice contesting such changes requires a huge amount of time and effort.
The most recent Google Street view, if you look carefully, shows a painted road-surface, saying:
“No Drop & Collection Private Road”
Which should be visible HERE
But, it’s not exactly what you would call “prominent” or “well-displayed” is it?
And a couple of unreadable ( In the picture ) signs on each side of the road, which do not conform to standard signage …
Addendum
It appears that people are finally doing something about this.
This link – to a Money Saving forum site – gives a lot of details & how to complain & other procedures.
It is to be hoped that PCM &/or Ballymore are “dissuaded” from their attempts to extract money from unsuspecting & innocent people ….
The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 in effect institutionalises private parking contractors and their methods (outside Scotland). Whether it will prevent scams like this one remains to be seen. It was a private members bill, which probably only got through because it didn’t really change very much.
The Secretary of State “must” draft a code of practice, following a consultation. If the contractors don’t comply, they can get struck off from the list of bodies able to get DVLA data. 6 months after the enactment, there seems to be little progress in creating this code of practice, I can’t find any announcement of a consultation. There is no time limit for the SoS’s leisure in complying with this “must”, so maybe he can hold off for years. Then, even if the code of practice is sensible, how strict will DVLA be in striking people off? My suspicion is that DVLA will not be a very strict regulator.
The act doesn’t regulate charges, as far as I can see, so probably the Beavis case will still apply. This is the 2015 supreme court case that found that an £85 charge was fair enough, thus overturning long precedent that penalty charges had to be related to actual costs and losses incurred. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-34721126
Ultimately what seems quite wrong is that parking enforcement contractors often pay landowners for the privilege of being enforcers on their land. They have every reason to design things to tempt people to contravene the rules, so that they can make money. 100% compliance is the last thing they want. Entrapment was considered untenable when local authorities were doing it with speed cameras, and the law was quickly changed to stop it. But apparently entrapment is still a legal method of making money out of parking charges, at least outside Scotland.
From what I can see on Google street view, the road markings and signs are inadequate, though there may be others which comply. In these circumstances the recipient of a PCN may be advised to do nothing until the operator seeks to enforce payment through the County Court and to challenge the signing at that point. There are many on-line advocates who will help (for a small fee)
@Ivan
The DVLA does take action against operators but they will not publish their criteria for this and their actions appear to be quite inconsistent. The BPA has a more public sanctions points regime against operators which can lead to them being expelled (and, as a consequence, denied DVLA data). The BPA most recently expelled a member under these circumstances last week. The IPC, of which BCM is a member, is less rigorous and open on this issue.
I understand that DVLA have now been informed and may take action against BCM.
Will EVERY above ground Elizabeth line station have a purple roundel with the station name in the middle?
I’m dying to know
Rikki Blake
It depends … upon who is running the station.
I think that Stratford, for instance will have more than one symbol, but Maryland, right next door ( So to speak ) will probably only have the Purple Roundel. It should be obvious why that might be so.
Similarly for Ealing Broadway &Acton Main Line on the other side …..
Thanks Greg!!
My local station is Hanwell and i really hope there is at least a white board with a “tube style” roundel.
I’ll continue to hold my breath