We were surprised when on 14th June 2024 it was announced that agreement had been reach by TfL, the DfT and the train maker Alstom to provide 10 new trains for Crossrail. We were not surprised that agreement had been reached, we were surprised that it was announced.
During the run up to the general election there is normally a moratorium on new announcements to prevent a government (local or national) making announcements in the hope of influencing an election result. As far as we are aware, this cannot be imposed on private companies so when Alstom was going to announce the deal it made sense for the government to issue a press release with the minimum of details to confirm the deal. It was noticeable that, despite the information being available elsewhere, TfL did not issue a press release.
The Plan for the 10 New Trains
Five of the 10 trains were agreed upon in order for TfL to provide a service to central London from the future Old Oak Common station, where HS2 trains will terminate – at least until arrangements are made to reinstate the plan to terminate HS2 at Euston. For the order to be agreed it was necessary for TfL to show there was a business case for the other five trains.
Given that the order has been approved, it is obvious that there must be internal TfL documents about this. The big questions were when would such documents come to light and what were the actual proposed enhancements planned.
Those hoping for a definitive answer in the first of the documents to be released will be disappointed. TfL did not have to demonstrate how the trains would be used, they only had to demonstrate they could provide a business case for one or more scenarios. This is what TfL have done and they have produced two possible scenarios showing how the extra trains could be deployed whilst making the point that with only 10 new trains they cannot implement both proposals. The document, which is not easy to find, can be read here.
Extending Services to Old Oak Common
Both proposals, of necessity, extend trains terminating at Paddington to Old Oak Common station. This is supposed to require four new trains plus one maintenance spare. However, the need for five trains seems a bit surprising as the proposal is only for 18tph between Paddington and Old Oak Common. In the peak period there is already a 12tph service passing Old Oak Common station (currently being constructed). So, we are only talking about extending 6tph from Paddington to Old Oak Common. There appears to be something we have not grasped here – maybe it is intended to have a substantial turnaround time at Old Oak Common? Or possibly, for some reason, there is a desire to not use the Westbourne Park sidings to reverse trains that would still terminate at Paddington and for the trains to continue instead without passengers to the Crossrail depot at Old Oak Common.
A disappointment is that the proposal isn’t for all trains that currently terminate at Paddington from the east to terminate at Old Oak Common. This is what we were expecting as TfL had previously described this as highly desirable. One of the disadvantages of continuing to have trains from central London terminating at Paddington from is that they will continue to have to be checked to ensure all passengers have left the train before proceeding to Westbourne Park sidings.
At Old Oak Common station there will be four platforms for Crossrail trains including two platforms for terminating trains. Not only would it appear to be operationally simpler to terminate all trains there rather than at Paddington, it would make it easier for passengers changing at Old Oak Common for a GWR train to the west or HS2.
The proposal is to have an 18tph service between central London and Old Oak Common. It would seem to make sense for this to apply all day in order to handle passengers using HS2. One problem with that is that currently the off-peak service on the Elizabeth line is only 16tph. Either TfL will need to implement 20tph off-peak in the central section which was supposed to be the intention once the final phase of introducing Crossrail was implemented, or they will need to reduce the service to Old Oak Common to only 16tph outside the peak period.
The Two Options
The two options proposed are called Package West and Package East. For those who have read our previous speculative article as to what service would be provided, Package West is similar to Option 1 combined with Option 3 and Package East seems to be almost indistinguishable from Option 2.
Package West
Package West is primarily intended to address the problems of overcrowding between West Drayton and Paddington in peak hours whilst providing a modest increase in services in the central operating section by running an extra 2tph between Paddington to Stratford. Although not explicitly stated, we presume that the ‘Gidea Park Shorts’ which terminate at Liverpool Street Main Line station will be withdrawn.
One can see that increasing the service between Paddington and Gidea Park or Shenfield without increasing it between Paddington and Abbey Wood is going to be slightly unsatisfactory leading to consecutive trains to and from the Shenfield branch in the central section and a slightly uneven gap in trains to and from the Abbey Wood branch.
To provide 10tph to West Drayton would require an additional 4tph between West Drayton and Paddington. One wonders whether this is achievable. No indication is given of the intended stopping pattern but one strongly suspects that Acton Main Line, Hanwell and West Ealing will be provided with at least 6tph in the peak period but not necessarily by trains terminating at West Drayton.
We have made the presumption that terminating trains at West Drayton will only happen in the peak period as it is a peak period problem that is being addressed. Also, with only 12tph planned to serve Abbey Wood in the peak period in this scenario and 10tph of these trains already extended westwards beyond Paddington (or Old Oak Common eventually) it seems that the new West Drayton service will have to be a West Drayton to Shenfield service.
Package East
Package East concentrates on increasing capacity in the central operating section by running an extra 4tph through central London, of which 2tph continue to or start from Gidea Park (or maybe Shenfield) and 2tph continue to or start from Abbey Wood.
Package East is the obvious enhancement to make and, like Package West, eliminates the Gidea Park Shorts (we presume). It provides 2tph extra on both of the two eastern branches giving 4tph extra between Whitechapel and Paddington. Not only that, it is the one predicted to provide for the greater number of additional passengers. 22m extra passenger journeys are predicted compared to 16m passenger journeys with Package West.
The Winning Option Will Be…
We are going to stick our neck out and suggest Package East is the more likely option. It would benefit the greater number of passengers and relieve overcrowding in the central operating section. This will probably, but not necessarily, mean it would be the more revenue positive option. It would also improve mobility in central London. It should also be easier to implement from an operational point of view even though it has a slightly more frequent service in the central operating section (as well as both the eastern branches).
Package East is also restricted to parts of Crossrail where TfL have complete control or, for practical purposes, almost complete control. It should therefore be easier to implement and more reliable to operate. Project West is dependent on reliability on shared Network Rail tracks (mainly with freight) and on a section of line known to be prone to disruption – though Network Rail are working on that.
Or Maybe Implement Both Options?
The obvious logical thought is why not implement both options if they are both so beneficial and both have a positive financial case? Intriguingly, the document refers to “a change to the existing contract to extend the backstop date allowing TfL to exercise further options up to 13 more class 345 trains”. It is not clear if this means 13 more trains in addition to the 10 already ordered, or that it includes the 10 already ordered so up to three more trains could be ordered in future. It seems that the latter is more likely. Funnily enough, a crude calculation suggests that implementing both options would require a total of 13 trains.
Another consideration in favour of the plan being to implement both options is that TfL have already mentioned making full use of the trains in advance of them being needed for services to Old Oak Common. Old Oak Common won’t open before 2028 at the earliest and is not due to be served by HS2 until 2030 at the earliest. If one were confident about obtaining three further extra trains prior to the opening of Old Oak Common, then one could probably implement the other features of both Project West and Project East with the 10 trains already acquired.
The Future
It is clear that TfL expects significant growth on the Elizabeth line in the next few years and is anxious to deal with any current overcrowding. The 10 new trains, bringing the fleet total to 80, are expected to be delivered by the second quarter of 2026. This may mean that these trains could be brought fully into service at the June timetable change although that is probably unlikely. It is possible that the necessary train paths will be put into the June 2026 working timetable so that TfL can embrace the enhanced service as soon as possible. This would be considerably easier if Project East were to be chosen as TfL have considerable autonomy in running the central section and eastern branches from their control centre in Romford, and so would not be so dependent on a fixed national timetable change date.
Other than implementing both Project West and Project East, beyond 2026 it is hard to see how the number of trains could be subsequently significantly increased in the peak period, except between Paddington and Old Oak Common. That leads to looking in future at what the expected demand will be on Crossrail in the 2030s and how to provide for it.
Must disagree …
“Package East” still leaves the timewasting & therefore expensive operation of needlessly terminating trains in the Royal Oak sidings & not implementing needed improvements further west ( NOT Heathrow, please note! )
Quote: ” It should therefore be easier to implement and more reliable to operate.” – No, because of all the faff of turning round between Paddington & Royal Oak!
[Quote is taken out of content. It is perfectly valid in context. PoP]
It seems in the follow on options for the extra 13 trains mentioned, there hasn’t been a mention of train length extension by one carriage (I understand the central core sections have passive provision to extend by one carriage with changes to PEDs, and SDO elsewhere on the network where the platform isn’t long enough/can’t be extended).
Any visibility to an extra carriage order in documents released (or rumours)?
[We will cover the whys and wherefores about an extra carriage in a future article but the short version is that TfL would rather run more trains so long as there is the capacity to do so than resort to extra carriages. PoP]
Maybe it’s too obvious to mention, or was mentioned in previous article, but terminating at old oak common (as opposed to further west) means there will be completely empty trains starting from OOC. So there is less benefit for places like Heathrow or West Drayton but far greater capacity for eastbound HS2 passengers specifically.
‘completely empty trains starting from OOC’ seems very unlikely. Even without HS2 trains, it is likely that some Great Western passengers would prefer to change at OOC than Paddington. For some the attraction of a guaranteed seat will outweigh the time taken by Elizabeth Line trains versus GW trains.
I agree that as soon as Old Oak opens for interchange it will become very attractive to change there if your onward journey would be via the Elizabeth line.
Heading out of London, a change at Paddington to a long distance train may suit many better.
I assume more journeys starting from Old Oak Common would divert revenue to TFL and help with TFL’s business case.
“>It seems in the follow on options for the extra 13 trains mentioned, there hasn’t been a mention > of train length extension by one carriage (I understand the central core sections have passive > provision to extend by one carriage with changes to PEDs, and SDO elsewhere on the network > where the platform isn’t long enough/can’t be extended).”
My feel on this having been to the Elizabeth line depot at Old Oak Common recently was there would need be some works to
a) extend the main storage tracks and remove/move the car park and Loverose Lane currently located there.
b) need to extend the depot building. The far end is located near an embankment that is between Old Oak Common Lane (higher) and Loverose Way (level with the depot). That will potentially require earthworks. There is space there, but it’s not been prepared for extension.
It’s just a higher overall cost to extend carriages – it can be done if/when required, but it seems to be quicker/cheaper currently to get more trains in the short term
One thing which isn’t clear to me from the proposals (or the simplified diagram here) is whether the Old Oak Common terminators would use a Westbourne Park-style turnaround setup to the west of OOC or instead start eastbound from their arrival platform. If the latter then you have the unwelcome prospect, especially for those changing from the GWML or HS2 with luggage, of selecting which non-adjacent platform to go for, which even with Next Train indicators seems less than ideal.
B&T,
Edit: The following comment was shown not to be totally correct. See subsequent comment which corrects the errors included in this comment. PoP
Sorry, I made this diagram too simplified. I did it more to show the relative positions of Westbourne Park sidings, the depot and Old Oak Common. The diagram of the platforms is indicative based on images released on the HS2 website showing island platforms. I have now updated it to include a crossover.
The trains will terminate in the platforms. This is one of the reasons many operators are keen to terminate at Old Oak Common not Paddington.
I think you are overstating the problem.
Worst case peak scenario and off-peak there will be 10tph starting from further west and 8tph starting from Old Oak Common from the inner platforms. So, assuming an even split for the terminating trains, a total of 14tph will depart from the same island platform and the very longest wait would be six minutes but the average wait would be slightly over two minutes. So the sensible strategy for anyone with luggage will be to head for the ‘up’ island platform and get the next departing train from there and just accept there is a small possibility that won’t get the next train and you will be delayed by six minutes. In my experience people with luggage aren’t over-fussed by being delayed by the odd few minutes. They are far more concerned with the ease of travelling with luggage.
If there are 4tph from West Drayton in the peaks then one scenario is all eastbound trains (including the 4tph terminators) start from the ‘up’ platform for their eastward journey to London. Even if, for some reason, only 2tph terminators start from that island platform you would be very unlucky (1 in 8 chance) not to have caught the first train eastward by heading for the ‘up’ platform.
Old Oak Common already .. the FOUR HS2 platforms are in tunnels, many meters below ground with TWO sets of escalators. · The conventional rail side of the station will include platforms for the Elizabeth Line (Crossrail). These 8 platforms will be accessed by an overbridge from the first floor concourse . Trains will run-though some of these platforms to bypass to skip this station. Liz Trains will reverse like at Shenfield and Abbey Wood.
[My understanding which may be wrong is that HS2 will have 3 island platforms. Once Euston HS2 is open (if ever) then there will be an up island platform, a down island platform and a centre island platform for non-stopping trains (if any) so eventually 4 platforms in normal use. Also I am told that as far as the GWR and Crossrail platforms go then in both cases stopping the trains is going to be ‘all or nothing’ as a mix of stopping and non-stopping trains won’t work. PoP]
Brian Butterworth:
> Trains will run-though some of these platforms to bypass to skip this station.
Citation needed on the ‘will’ there. They can (though it is likely hard to timetable due to lines being full), but I don’t believe there is anything definitive saying they will or not yet. All the planning/timetable wishlist documents I’ve seen have had everything stop there, so it would be a change of plan to have some trains non-stop OOC.
I have had it pointed out to me that a document showing the future track layout at Old Oak Common shows that not only will there be the capability of reversing Elizabeth line trains in two of the platforms, there will also be Westbourne Park style turnback sidings.
Consequently, I have updated the diagram showing the layout between Old Oak Common and Paddington.
I have been assured that the intention is that all trains to London will normally depart from the ‘up’ island platform. I suspect most trains from London that terminate at Old Oak Common will do so by crossing over to the ‘up’ loop platform which will be platform 7. In the event that this is not possible then the affected trains will continue to the Old Oak Common turnback sidings so they can return to platform 7 for their London-bound journey.
Thanks for that, and for the link to the excellent Network Rail document. Looks like the wider Old Oak Common area will definitely become the West London interchange of choice, with the only missing element now being restored Willesden Junction WCML platforms / stops?
@B&T track layout detail included but that document looks several years old (preCovid)
The approved scheme included access to the NNML as on the main layout, but downgraded on other illustrations as tbc and passive provision only. They are not even using it for sidings and last I read the bridge was to be removed for raised road clearance.
It will be interesting to see if the intensification leads to a more snappy, ‘Metro’-like speed and dwell time profile through the central core. This may not be possible until all the Paddington terminators are eliminated.
Alek
“Permanently” closing the NNML would be a serious long-term mistake, removing flexibility & opportunities for the future
This whole episode re the NNML exposes the huge limits & contradictions as opposed to the advantages of the UK’s rail networks. While they are much vaunted they are too massively contrived in so many ways and yes even what is happening to HS2 is a great mistake, it does not behold the fact HS2 basically has no resilience. Its meant to provide resilience to other lines but its not when the result is this silly kind of chaos. Its trains can’t go anywhere else besides Old Oak, Interchange or Curzon Street.
And that is exactly where the NNML should have come in. An alternative route that could provide opportunities for trains to reach Euston if the normal (HS2) route was blocked. After all, GWR are adopting the idea of sending its trains to Euston in order to avoid the grand melee that will arise from the many closures to provide for the new Old Oak Common station. A huge irony because in the 1830s the original GWR had planned to go to Euston! And that’s possible because the GWR and the WCML virtually shake hands at Old Oak (well thereabouts rather!)
The fact HS2 has to stop at Old Oak Common is a grand parody of everything that is wrong with our railways. It beggars disbelief there is no resilience of any sort. The whole area around Old Oak is one where a vast node of the UK’s railways come together (many connective opportunities too) and yet HS2, it stops here deep in a grand bunker of sorts leaving people to scatter and to try finding other ways of onward travel that will no doubt leave other services such as GWR and EL overflowing and creaking under pressure.
Some will say HS2 can’t go to Euston over the normal routes. Well if it can’t then why bother extending it northward so it can serve Manchester, Liverpool via normal rail routes? Maybe the Tories were right? Curtail the whole shebang and limit the trains to a goodness knows what use is it for railway that’ll not even shave anywhere near twenty minutes or half an hour off the trip to Birmingham or vice versa. It could even be a cynical ploy to appease the ghosts of Marples and Beeching by ensuring more rubber gets burnt on the surface of tarmacadam.
Euston itself has been badly planned, botched, and butchered even, and that’s the exact result that is needed! A station that doesn’t serve the needs required of it and doesn’t even have resilience not even for HS2 to get there by alternative means. One might as well send HS2 to Marylebone then sit back and enjoy the spectacle that would arise as a result of that. At least Marylebone would have by then got the OHLE needed to make it a fumes free station.
What people want is convenience, ease, less faff, and a system that can be completely relied upon – and no doubt a clearly dedicated and reliable route whichever way the trains run. The idea is to get the trains from A to B clearly, reliably, and conveniently, and not to have more of the chaos and the despair that’s so regularly an end product of the UK’s railway system.
The fact TfL has to run around in panic trying to get 10 more Class 345s on its books shows how badly thought out the whole thing is – and I’m sure chaos will ensure despite the fact they now have these extra units on hand. The EL will manage somehow but it’ll be a complete mess and the question is, will HS2 attract more people to the idea of rail transport – or simply turn people away from it?
Rog
I’m afraid the current botched iteration of HS2 has already earned it the moniker of “Wormwood Scrubbs-to-Winson Green”!
Extensions to Stangeways, Walton & Armley are postponed (!)
As for “thought” & “planning” – both of those require experts in their fields & we were told, not so long ago, that “The country has had enough of experts”
It is to be hoped that, after last Thursday/Friday, that more rational processes are under consideration?
@Nick BXN
It is odd that the dwells are so long. I used it the other day when there were slight delays and the dwells were 15-20 seconds instead, it felt so much faster
The new Elizabeth line trains should be in service in two/three years time. HS2 won’t open for 5 to 10 years so that makes ‘package east’ the only available option initially.
Are there any plans to open the non-HS2 parts of Old Oak Common station before HS2 is ready?
The document PoP linked above at 11 July 2024 at 16:24 shows the timescale has the OCC GMWL (sic) station in testing between December 2028 and June 2030, from when the EL service increase (TBC) would start.
It’s interesting that this article doesn’t discuss where the additional trains will be stored, as there isn’t capacity for them in the existing setup. I’d be interested to know how much thought has been given to this non-trivial problem, which likely exists both pre- and post-Old Oak Common.
The ten new trains will be available from 2026, and can be accommodated at the depot until capacity is provided at Westbourne Park sidings or elsewhere.
https://board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/b3334/Use%20of%20Chairs%20Action%20Elizabeth%20Line%20Upgrade%20Plan%20Opportunities%20To%20Support%20HS2%20And%20Provide%20Capacity.pdf?T=9
Pepperpot,
Thought has been given to storage. It is not mentioned because there isn’t really much to say at the moment.
This article https://www.modernrailways.com/article/building-success-elizabeth-line (which I think is available to read without subscription) makes it clear that they are trying to identify a suitable place. I would trust this article more than the minutes of the TfL board partly because it is more up-to-date and partly because it comes from an interview with Howard Smith who is the director of the Elizabeth line. The relevant paragraphs are at the end of the article.
Mr Smith suggests there is space at the main depot at Old Oak Common to stable another two or three trains each night, while another option would be to stable two trains overnight in the turnback sidings at Westbourne Park.
Ignore the comments about using Aldersbrook Sidings (Ilford). At 160m these are not nearly long enough. The article mentions extending them by building a deck over the river Rom. There are two problems with that. The first is that the River Rom is miles away. They mean the River Roding. The second problem is they are currently building a block of flats on the far bank of the River Roding so they would not be able to extend the sidings to be of sufficient length for Crossrail trains.
Currently we have a maximum of three extra sidings available at the depot and two extra trains could be stored overnight at Westbourne Park sidings. That leaves five more sidings as an absolute minimum that need to be found. I am sure they are aware of this and giving it a lot of attention.