Elizabeth Line / Crossrail Updates.

[Suzie]

Still can't believe that they did not terminate the Crossrail at Abbey Wood between the existing to allow cross-platform interchange. I guess that will come later when they realise what they should have done.

[Christopher125]

Still can't believe that they did not terminate the Crossrail at Abbey Wood between the existing to allow cross-platform interchange. I guess that will come later when they realise what they should have done.

 

The initial plan was to have Crossrail between the existing tracks but a deliberate decision was made to adopt the current arrangement, I can't recall why offhand but probably due to the stabling sidings and ease of construction/maintenance.

[Joseph_Pestell]

The initial plan was to have Crossrail between the existing tracks but a deliberate decision was made to adopt the current arrangement, I can't recall why offhand but probably due to the stabling sidings and ease of construction/maintenance.

 

Just the usual penny-pinching, I think. They could have gone for a Canning Town type solution.

 

Another factor could have been a wish to extend to Thamesmead. But then they realised that no one wants to go there and they don't want to let the residents out.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Come on, Thamesmead isn't that bad. Had my first teaching job there and most of my class were delightful.

[phil-b259]

Still can't believe that they did not terminate the Crossrail at Abbey Wood between the existing to allow cross-platform interchange. I guess that will come later when they realise what they should have done.

 

 

The initial plan was to have Crossrail between the existing tracks but a deliberate decision was made to adopt the current arrangement, I can't recall why offhand but probably due to the stabling sidings and ease of construction/maintenance.

 

 

Just the usual penny-pinching, I think. They could have gone for a Canning Town type solution.

 

Another factor could have been a wish to extend to Thamesmead. But then they realised that no one wants to go there and they don't want to let the residents out.

 

 

The rational is actually very sensible

 

(1) There is the desire to extend beyond Abbey Wood at some stage

 

But..

 

(2) The existing NR line cannot cope with the extra Crossrail trains so needs to be 4 tracked down to Dartford at a minimum

 

And...

 

(3) Building new tracks parallel to the existing ones is much cheaper, quicker and a lot less hassle as it can be classed as an ordinary construction site and not a railway possession / engineering worksite.

 

Also...

 

(4) Having parallel tracks means you can have segregation of ownership, which facilitates separate maintenance   - Crossrails core infrastructure maintenance (including the whole of the Abbey Wood branch) is organised by them.

(5) The two sets of tracks are very different in terms of the type of railway they are. Crossrail uses OHLE and in cab signalling, SE uses DC con rail and lineside signals - it makes to keep them separate from a maintenance / installed kit point of view.

 

Yes it does mean that interchanging passengers will have a less optimal layout - but thats what you get when a project like Crossrail is being run by TfL and treated as 'their' baby and not part of the national rail network.

[Suzie]

The rational is actually very sensible...

 

 

So, that explains it then - bureaucracy and legacy considerations. Perhaps by the time Crossrail gets to Dartford there will be a better interchange at Dartford.

 

I still can't see that it would have been that hard to put fences down the 10' between Crossrail centre tracks and the DC lines outside, with turnback sidings in the middle too beyond Abbey Wood.

 

I rather feel that there is going to be significant exodus of passengers from trains stopping at Abbey Wood such that starting South Eastern trains from Abbey Wood rather than Dartford would free up paths for three Crossrail trains an hour starting at Dartford which might mitigate it. Still a big infrastructure cost to get Crossrail trains to Dartford on existing tracks of course.

[phil-b259]

So, that explains it then - bureaucracy and legacy considerations. Perhaps by the time Crossrail gets to Dartford there will be a better interchange at Dartford.

 

I still can't see that it would have been that hard to put fences down the 10' between Crossrail centre tracks and the DC lines outside, with turnback sidings in the middle too beyond Abbey Wood.

But in such a situation, if Crossrail required to load an RRV onto their tracks it would have to cross a SE line - thus requiring an engineering possession of it. Having the two railways running on parallel avoids this as each can operate while the other is closed (assuming separate access points). Also what if someone working on one SE track needs to cross over to a location case on the other side - either it's a very long walk round or they have to cross the Crossrail tracks - which again destroys the segregation principle and introduces practical complications (For example staff will have to be trained with both AC and DC PTS compitancies if they are expected to come into contact with both systems). Crossrail is also quite likely to operate on a tube style maintained regime on the bits TfL own (I.e. No engineering access during traffic hours) where as Network Rail still uses daytime working with lookouts for many tasks (patrolling, signal maintenance, point gauging, track circuit testing, etc)

 

As for Crossrail going beyond Abbey Wood and replacing SE services - that brings other difficulties like the need to maintain a part dual voltage fleet, plus the frequency Crossrail could offer even if they were simply replacing SE services is well short of what TfL are planning for the rest of the system this devaluing the 'brand'.

 

So while none of these are insurmountable issues in themselves, they do combine to make a shared corridor and terminating in the centre of the layout at Abbey Wood a more costly and diificult thing for the railway owners to manage. As such it's hardly surprising that plans were revised to have the two railways running on parallel - even if it does mean passengers need to go up and over to change trains rather than simply cross the platform.

Edited March 17, 2017 by phil-b259

[Bumpkin]

Surely if Crossrail services were to go towards Dartford they could use the existing third rail. I remember reading it was in the design spec that the class 345 would be able to have the provision to retrofit the units with 750v DC. With a core running pattern to Abbey Wood, could the Dartford trains not just be a 2tph on the existing SE lines after Abbey Wood?

[phil-b259]

Surely if Crossrail services were to go towards Dartford they could use the existing third rail. I remember reading it was in the design spec that the class 345 would be able to have the provision to retrofit the units with 750v DC. With a core running pattern to Abbey Wood, could the Dartford trains not just be a 2tph on the existing SE lines after Abbey Wood?

 

While provision exists to retro fit con rail gear to the 345s, TfL decided at a very early stage it would cause to many issues for them, including having a non harmonious fleet (assuming only a certain number of units were fitted), requiring extra spares to be held, extra maintenance / servicing tasks, extra training etc. You also start having issues with drivers needing to keep their route knowledge up and for them to be trained in DC con rail stuff.

 

TfL also don't like low service frequancies - even 4tph is actually considered too low by TfL and is only tolerated because it is physically impossible to go higher on many NR routes. This was one of the big drivers for TfLs ambition to take over SE, Southern and SWT inners so they could slash the number of individual routes operated forcing commuters to change at hub stations so those remaining routes could support a much grater frequency. In TfLs eyes 6tph is the real minimum and they are constantly pushing for grater than this to bring it closer to tube style frequencies whenever possible (hence the land grab for the residual FGW services on the relief lines). Through running onto SE routes also brings with it yet another source of 'problem pollution' which could adversely affect the planned service on the GWML / GEML branches.

 

As such TfLs stated position is they will not go beyond Abbey Wood until they have OHLE equipped tracks capable of supporting a 6tph service.

[chrisf]

Through running onto SE routes also brings with it yet another source of 'problem pollution' which could adversely affect the planned service on the GWML / GEML branches.

 

This is something which will bring more grief and woe to the enlarged Thameslink.  Be warned.

 

Chris

[Christopher125]

Just the usual penny-pinching, I think. They could have gone for a Canning Town type solution.

 

Another factor could have been a wish to extend to Thamesmead. But then they realised that no one wants to go there and they don't want to let the residents out.

 

I can't recall any serious desire to extend to Thamesmead, the safeguarded corridor is eastwards along the existing route. In an ideal world you'd have cross-platform interchanges everywhere but quite reasonably there are practical considerations which sometimes make it undesirable.

Edited March 19, 2017 by Christopher125

[jonathan452]

This is something which will bring more grief and woe to the enlarged Thameslink.  Be warned.

 

Chris

Like the silly (belated) idea to run a Luton to Faversham service via Greenwich calling at every wayside halt en route.

 

Is this still on the cards or has common sense prevailed yet?

[phil-b259]

Like the silly (belated) idea to run a Luton to Faversham service via Greenwich calling at every wayside halt en route.

 

Is this still on the cards or has common sense prevailed yet?

 

This is NOT a 'silly' idea*, it has come form detailed timetabling work being undertaken and the realisation that Windmill Bridge Junction north of East Croydon won't work reliably with the originally planned Thameslink service frequency.

 

Please read this London reconnections article which gives some background before making such statements http://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/govia-go-via-greenwich/ - also noting the following comment from a reader of said article:-

 

It might be worth noting that the Rainham Thameslink service is that it’s trying to fix a problem the article has ignored completely (i can’t believe the informed writer team didn’t know about it)

.

The simple fact is the rebuild is reducing the peak Cannon Street service as they cannot fit enough trains in to provide the same tph as today due to no inward paths. These have traditionally come via Elephant & Castle reversing outside Blackfriars. So come 2018 these will not be able to run as Cannon Street services will see a decrease in tph. NR hasn’t got a solution to this.

 

And this is where we come to an important point that’s also missing from this article. It’s not a just a GTR suggestion but a joint GTR/SE consultation, hence why it makes it clear it’s visiting SE locations with SE management team attending! The consultation is SE/GTR looking at providing better capacity using the stock it’s planning to have in December 2018 (with SE 377/1) and targeting the increase in capacity where the big growth is.

 

The current NR proposed timetable doesn’t work, GTR franchise award timetable doesn’t work so another alternative has been proposed. It’s worth noting that TL is doing the opposite of Crossrail. Crossrail has its timetable planned first then infrastructure built around that. The DfT green light the BR scheme with infrastructure changes first, then ordered the trains and is now trying to build a timetable around those limits. That’s why the timetable doesn’t work!

 

Basically Rainham has been selected as it has the ability to turn the train round without affecting other services in the new bay platform provided there - otherwise I'm sure the planners would have looked to turn it at Dartford, Gravesend or Gillingham instead.

 

You should also note that Caterham and Tattenham Corner have vanished from the proposed Thameslink network as park of this work and that Maidstone is due to get an all day service rather than just in the peaks.

 

* unusual, surprising, curious, oddball are far more accurate words to use.

Edited March 19, 2017 by phil-b259

[tetsudofan]

With regard to an extension from Abbey Wood to Dartford, if I remember correctly, looking at some of the original maps the lineside from Abbey Wood to Dartford is already protected in planning terms for such an event.

 

Keith

[phil-b259]

With regard to an extension from Abbey Wood to Dartford, if I remember correctly, looking at some of the original maps the lineside from Abbey Wood to Dartford is already protected in planning terms for such an event.

 

Keith

 

Yes the alignment has been officially 'Safeguarded' for a number of years now and extension from Abbey Wood remains an aspiration for TfL. The fly in the ointment is the need to find a way of financing it - and housebuilding within the GLA area is not enough - you need to add in things like Ebsfleet garden City into the mix - which is of course the responsibility of Kent and the national Government to encourage. The other issue is how any extension will affect the SE franchise, particularly with further rail devolution firmly off the agenda and significant differences in things like fares policy (increases being an important part of the funding mix for the DfT).

[jonathan452]

This is NOT a 'silly' idea*, it has come form detailed timetabling work being undertaken and the realisation that Windmill Bridge Junction north of East Croydon won't work reliably with the originally planned Thameslink service frequency.

 

Please read this London reconnections article which gives some background before making such statements http://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/govia-go-via-greenwich/ - also noting the following comment from a reader of said article:-

Indeed(!)

 

And London Reconnections is indeed how I found out about it............... hence I'm more than well aware about Windmill Bridge Junction.

 

Though noting the below in the main body of the article-:

The solution of going to Rainham via Greenwich looks clever but has been treated with deep skepticism and concern. The objections basically fall into three categories:

• There isn’t the demand
• Operationally it is a nightmare
• Long term, you have reduced capacity from East Croydon to London Bridge

One could add that there are also a couple of other concerns. One is that after going to the trouble of building the Bermondsey Diveunder the number of Thameslink trains fully taking advantage of it has gone down from 18tph originally to 16tph and now to 12tph. The other great concern is its impact on the business case for the work to sort out Windmill Bridge.

 

Edited March 20, 2017 by jonathan452

[The Stationmaster]

This is NOT a 'silly' idea*, it has come form detailed timetabling work being undertaken and the realisation that Windmill Bridge Junction north of East Croydon won't work reliably with the originally planned Thameslink service frequency.

 

Please read this London reconnections article which gives some background before making such statements http://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/govia-go-via-greenwich/ - also noting the following comment from a reader of said article:-

 

It might be worth noting that the Rainham Thameslink service is that it’s trying to fix a problem the article has ignored completely (i can’t believe the informed writer team didn’t know about it)

.

The simple fact is the rebuild is reducing the peak Cannon Street service as they cannot fit enough trains in to provide the same tph as today due to no inward paths. These have traditionally come via Elephant & Castle reversing outside Blackfriars. So come 2018 these will not be able to run as Cannon Street services will see a decrease in tph. NR hasn’t got a solution to this.

 

And this is where we come to an important point that’s also missing from this article. It’s not a just a GTR suggestion but a joint GTR/SE consultation, hence why it makes it clear it’s visiting SE locations with SE management team attending! The consultation is SE/GTR looking at providing better capacity using the stock it’s planning to have in December 2018 (with SE 377/1) and targeting the increase in capacity where the big growth is.

 

The current NR proposed timetable doesn’t work, GTR franchise award timetable doesn’t work so another alternative has been proposed. It’s worth noting that TL is doing the opposite of Crossrail. Crossrail has its timetable planned first then infrastructure built around that. The DfT green light the BR scheme with infrastructure changes first, then ordered the trains and is now trying to build a timetable around those limits. That’s why the timetable doesn’t work!

 

Basically Rainham has been selected as it has the ability to turn the train round without affecting other services in the new bay platform provided there - otherwise I'm sure the planners would have looked to turn it at Dartford, Gravesend or Gillingham instead.

 

You should also note that Caterham and Tattenham Corner have vanished from the proposed Thameslink network as park of this work and that Maidstone is due to get an all day service rather than just in the peaks.

 

* unusual, surprising, curious, oddball are far more accurate words to use.

 

Fascinating to learn that the numerous Thameslink 2000 studies and draft timetables produced over around a decade or more starting in 1995 (when I saw the first draft) and at least up until 2003 (when i worked on a much later draft) never took place.  Simple fact is there were numerous timetable studies carried out initially by BR and then subsequently by - mainly - the same person  working for a consulting group based on a certain university in the Midlands on behalf of Railtrack. In fact I rejected one of the very early versions because it had been started from the wrong base in terms of which trains had to go on the graph first in order to produce a timetable which would actually work for everyone.

 

I think from what I saw back then - and probably before various subsequent layout change were authorised - that all the key conflict features were fully identified as were problems of what would or could be left on whatever routes depending on what options were chosen for infrastructure change. It might well be that people came along later who weren't aware of what work had been done but a tremendous amount of timetable work and optioneering was done (in fact I might even have a copy of one the earlier iterations of it somewhere).

 

Whether or not later studies took account of later decisions regarding infrastructure change is a different matter but it's not exactly rocket science for an experienced timetabler or operator  to easily see where clashes were going to happen on various junctions south of the Thames in either earlier Thameslink services or any plans to alter or reroute them and 'Southern domestic' services.

[Ron Ron Ron]

In the first 5 months of 2017, the Crossrail project appear to have reduced their PR output compared with the last couple of years.

 

Here's a trio of the latest videos they've released.

All PR fluff, but at least it gives us a glimpse of what's going on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 18, 2017 by Ron Ron Ron

[jamie92208]

A new series of "The 15 Billion Pound Railway" is due to start this coming Monday evening on BBC2 so that should be worth watching. At least I think It's a new series unless it's a re run of the last set to whet our appetites for a new set.

Jamie

 

Edited to give correct date.  Mea Culpa

Edited May 18, 2017 by jamie92208

[PaulCheffus]

A new series of "The 15 Billion Pound Railway" is due to start this coming Tuesday evening on BBC2 so that should be worth watching. At least I think It's a new series unless it's a re run of the last set to whet our appetites for a new set.

 

Jamie

Hi

 

I thought it was due to be broadcast on Monday 22nd May.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

[Ron Ron Ron]

A new series of "The 15 Billion Pound Railway" is due to start this coming Tuesday evening on BBC2 so that should be worth watching.

At least I think It's a new series unless it's a re run of the last set to whet our appetites for a new set.

 

 

I thought it was due to be broadcast on Monday 22nd May.

 

 

This is the second series.

There are two episodes.

The first is titled.... "The 15 Billion Pound Railway - The Final Countdown" and is due to be shown on.....

Monday 22nd May, BBC2 @ 2100 repeated on Wednesday 24th May @ 2315 (except in N.I.)

 

The first series consisted of 3 episodes.

First shown in July 2014 (each episode repeated on the following night to the first showing) and the series has been repeated three times since (in August 2014, March 2015 and March 2016).

i.e. series 1 has been shown 4 (or 5 times) already.

 

 

.

[eastwestdivide]

Monday 22nd, 1st of 2 new episodes, according to the programme link here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08ry6ly

[PM47079]

Lots of training trips with 345006 & 345007 at the moment on the GE mainline. Extra branding on the trains telling people these are their new Elizabeth line trains

[DY444]

Fascinating to learn that the numerous Thameslink 2000 studies and draft timetables produced over around a decade or more starting in 1995 (when I saw the first draft) and at least up until 2003 (when i worked on a much later draft) never took place.  Simple fact is there were numerous timetable studies carried out initially by BR and then subsequently by - mainly - the same person  working for a consulting group based on a certain university in the Midlands on behalf of Railtrack. In fact I rejected one of the very early versions because it had been started from the wrong base in terms of which trains had to go on the graph first in order to produce a timetable which would actually work for everyone.

 

I think from what I saw back then - and probably before various subsequent layout change were authorised - that all the key conflict features were fully identified as were problems of what would or could be left on whatever routes depending on what options were chosen for infrastructure change. It might well be that people came along later who weren't aware of what work had been done but a tremendous amount of timetable work and optioneering was done (in fact I might even have a copy of one the earlier iterations of it somewhere).

 

Whether or not later studies took account of later decisions regarding infrastructure change is a different matter but it's not exactly rocket science for an experienced timetabler or operator  to easily see where clashes were going to happen on various junctions south of the Thames in either earlier Thameslink services or any plans to alter or reroute them and 'Southern domestic' services.

 

Various spanners have been propelled into the works since the initial studies were done.  One of the bigger ones is the Wimbledon loop service.   The original idea for that was not to run it through the core and terminate the 4tph service in the bays at Blackfriars and there was even a plan to increase it to 8tph.  Then a couple of South London MPs started moaning because their constituents couldn't face the prospect of changing at Blackfriars to go the 250 yards to City Thameslink and the 500 yards to Farringdon so the DfT insisted the Wimbledon service was restored to the core.  This mucked up the junction pathing at Blackfriars because the Wimbledon trains now have to cross the formation to access the core whereas under the original plan they had a direct route straight into the Blackfriars bays.

[caradoc]

Anybody else see the 'The 15 Billion Pound Railway' on BBC2 on Monday 22nd May ? I found it very interesting with excellent insights on the engineering challenges involved. A couple of things that mildly concerned me however;

The 'diamond-shape' concrete canopy at Farringdon; Apart from looking (to me) awful, how much did this thing cost ? No wonder Crossrail is so expensive ! Surely a transparent cover to let light through would have been better ?

The graphic showing trains running through the tunnels had each train trailing a cloud of what looked like blue smoke - What on earth was that supposed to be ? Either the creator believes diesel trains will operate on Crossrail, or the passengers had a serious case of flatulence !