Jump to content
 

Elizabeth Line / Crossrail Updates.


Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

It would make sense to electrify the Thames Valley branches, just to standardise on rolling stock maintenance and spares,  but then common dog is not very prevalent in such situations.

 

Hi,

 

The problem with that is the Bourne End to Marlow Section, whilst it could be electrified, the junction at Bourne end prevents anything longer than a 2-Car unit, so you'd have to have a separate fleet for just that section. There is a proposal to have a double junction at Bourne End to run longer trains (which has been totally rejected by NR Ops, and if you saw the plans, you'd be in agreement with them!), but that would only increase the length to 3-Cars, so you'd have to get a 323 or a 331 to run the service!

 

You can electrify all the other sections of the Thames Valley service and run 4-car 387s or 769s fairly easily though.

 

Simon

Edited by St. Simon
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

It would make sense to electrify the Thames Valley branches, just to standardise on rolling stock maintenance and spares,  but then common dog is not very prevalent in such situations.

 

 

I think the expectation on isolated branches is that pretty soon there will be a battery operated option so no need to wire.

 

A pattern is building -

  • Bi-mode -
    • solves the issue of the IEP on long distance services to the far west and north of Scotland
    • Gaps in wiring allowable (Trans Pennine)
  • Spot solutions for railways that only operate point to point and don't venture far if at all on the main lines
    • Bletchley to Bedford use of ex LT stock
    • IOW - more ex LT stock but retaining their electrics
    • Wrexham - Bidston - ex LT stock with batteries and diesel
  • Longer range solutions
    • Class 319 Flex
    • Class 320 Hydrogen units

It seems to me that traditional wiring will soon only be a mainline option and not the first choice when upgrading to a non carbon based solution.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 hours ago, Zomboid said:

They managed to electrify the Paisley Canal line. A similar approach on a bunch of other routes would probably make them viable.

(There are electrification substations at the junctions for all the GWML branches - West Ealing, Slough, Maidenhead and Twyford, which won't hurt. Some even have the necessary switchgear already installed for the branches)

In part because the Windsor and Henley branches were added to the original electrification plan - and then taken out of it when the costs of the GWML scheme got out of control.  Windsor would be an easy add-on especially as the run-off (the Main line) is already wired at Slough.  Henley would be more difficult because of the number of overbridges but most of them are over 100 years old dating back to the doubling of the branch and one is already home to a lot of rust in all the wrong places.  Some work was done at Twyford but never went anywhere

 

Bourne End/Marlow was never included in the electrification plams having got the boot fairly early on from the development of the sc heme because of the short platform at Bourne End which isn't long enough for a 387 and can't be extended because of various site constraints.

 

Oddly Henley was included in the early 1990s version of Crossrail although it was never made public.  Platform occupation problems at Reading (using only a single platform in that iteration of the scheme) badly constrained the service and I suggested at one of the planning meetings that adding Henley would solve that problem so that was done and built into the trainplan and overall scheme.   And of course the really big difference than, apart from not including LHR, was the inclusion of a route to High Wycombe and possibly a bit further which was cut out of the current version.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

Once the branch train is platformed at either Greenford or West Ealing, it is shut in behind signals, so holding it to make connections should have no effect on any workings between the GW and Chiltern lines. 

As regards electrification, on its own, you are right, it would never make a business case. But, in an enlightened world, as applied in Europe when the railways decided to electrify their networks, and quite possibly even in BR days, it would simply have been wired as part of the network, not treated in isolation. The problem is that in the UK, where there isn't proper joined up thinking about transport strategy, it will be destined to remain an isolated oddity. Ditto. the other three remaining Thames Valley branches.

 

Jim

Hi Jim

That's true while it's holding at the platform but, when departing late from W.Ealing, it would surely be liable to delay workings using the paths between the passenger services and that would be the knock on effect I'm thinking of. You couldn't in any case hold it for long at W. Ealing (at Greenford it isn't an issue as it doesn't connect with specific trains on the Central Line) without delaying its own next services. It's a fairly slow line and the branch train doesn't spend that long at each end

9 hours ago, Zomboid said:

The Greenford branch would do well by being taken over by TfL, and appearing on the Overground maps.

Isn't West Ealing going to see a more frequent service once crossrail starts operating properly anyway? The interchange at Greenford with the central line ought to be pretty good already.

That was the assumption and I really hope that it's only the delay to the start of the full Crossrail service that's currently making the service on the branch less than useful.

I'm not sure about making it Overground. I think there is an assumption among users that an Overground service will be comparable in frequency to the Underground where you just turn up and get the next train in a few minutes without needing to consider timetables. That works on some lines but not on others. The Richmond-Stratford and Clapham Junction-Stratford services both have four trains an hour but they're not evenly spaced so you can wait for over twenty minutes and do need to know the timetale to use it efficiently. 

18 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

There's also the daily Chiltern service from High Wycombe to West Ealing.

That's the "ghost" train that replaced the daily on that line to Paddington after the connection was severed at Old Oak Common. I think it stops at W. or S. Ruislip on the way to W. Ealing but not on the return. I've not been on it yet but will as it's always fun to travel on unusual lines. They have to run it or go through the whole closure procedure.

Edited by Pacific231G
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

That was the assumption and it may be that it's only the delay to the start of the full Crossrail service that's currently making the service on the branch less than useful.

I'm not sure about making it Overground. I think there is an assumption among users that an Overground service will be comparable in frequency to the Underground where you just turn up and get the next train in a few minutes without needing to consider timetables. That works on some lines bu not on others. The Richmond-Stratford and Clapham Junction-Stratford services both have four trains an hour but they're not evenly spaced so you can wait for over twenty minutes. 

 

Well, Upminster - Romford is now Overground and there're getting a new 710.....

 

Most of the Overground runs at 4tph with only the ELL getting close to Underground frequency.

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, Siberian Snooper said:

It would make sense to electrify the Thames Valley branches, just to standardise on rolling stock maintenance and spares,  but then common dog is not very prevalent in such situations.

 

 


 

This isn’t anything new though is it, the Marks Tey to Sudbury line has operated as a diesel branch in a electric world for a long time...

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

Well, Upminster - Romford is now Overground and there're getting a new 710.....

 

Most of the Overground runs at 4tph with only the ELL getting close to Underground frequency.

That's really why I have doubts about the Overground generally, though 4tph would certainly make the Greenford branch more useful. That would though require two sets on a lightly used line as I don't think you could get 4tph out of a single set.

The ELL is the Overground service I use most often to visit friends in Sydenham though for comfort I tend to prefer the Southern service to London Bridge.  

For an integrated urban transport network you need people to be able to flow through the system from node to node fairly freely not worrying about missing the 8.43 and facing a long wait. You certainly shouldn't have to plan to travel on a particular train and then allow enough time to get to it from other stages of your journey.  For example, to get to Sydenham I need to use the Central and the Jubilee lines and if using the ELL I'd be arriving at Canada Water at a fairly random point in the hour. If the ELL was running a possibly uneven 4tph service I might then be faced with a 15-20 minute wait on the platform which would be both frustrating and a totally different experience from other urban transport systems. Via London Bridge it becomes a normal tube-rail connection where, if  I did have to wait, I could browse WHS or get a coffee just as I would for a longer distance journey. Coming back it's a lot simpler as I could walk to Sydenham to get a particular train and then change to the tube with both lines offering a train every few minutes.

Edited by Pacific231G
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
46 minutes ago, billbedford said:

Most of the Overground runs at 4tph with only the ELL getting close to Underground frequency.

With works currently on-going to increase tph on the ELL core route even further.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, billbedford said:

 

Well, Upminster - Romford is now Overground and there're getting a new 710.....

 

Most of the Overground runs at 4tph with only the ELL getting close to Underground frequency.

 

Thats only because TfL would have to keep a solitary 315 unit at Ilford long after everything else the run has been replaced by Bombardier stock!

 

As the Thames Valley branches will remain diesel worked, Reading depot will still maintain DMUs so its not a hardship to maintain one more to run on the Greenford branch. If TfL were to run it they would need to keep a solitary DMU on their books at Wembley or hire one in from GWR / Chiltern anyway.

 

The other thing to consider that is electrification of the Grenford branch would require extensive AC immunisation works to protect the central line - and that work is prohibitively expensive given the revenues the line would generate (even with an enhanced service)

 

 

Edited by phil-b259
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Thats only because TfL would have to keep a solitary 315 unit at Ilford long after everything else the run has been replaced by Bombardier stock!

 

As the Thames Valley branches will remain diesel worked, Reading depot will still maintain DMUs so its not a hardship to maintain one more to run on the Greenford branch. If TfL were to run it they would need to keep a solitary DMU on their books at Wembley or hire one in from GWR / Chiltern anyway.

 

The other thing to consider that is electrification of the Grenford branch would require extensive AC immunisation works to protect the central line - and that work is prohibitively expensive given the revenues the line would generate (even with an enhanced service)

 

 

Given the physical and electrical separation of the two railways at Greenford, I wouldn't like to be too certain on that. However, whilst we have no grand plan for electrification in this country it is but an academic exercise.

 

Jim

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

Given the physical and electrical separation of the two railways at Greenford, I wouldn't like to be too certain on that.

 

Jim

 

Standards require a minimum 2 mile distance (can easily be more after detailed modelling / investigations) between the physical end of the conductor rail and the end of DC immune signalling kit being used.

 

The rails do not have to be physically connected either, the non- electrified North Downs line requires DC immune signalling in the Dorking area thanks to the unconnected Horsham - Dorking - Leatherhead line being electrified and passing underneath.

 

While I'm not sure of the minimum distances when dealing with 25KB OLE, I believe the reason the West London Line 25KV finishes / starts where it does was due to the Hammersmith and City Underground line passing over the WLL to the south and the effect stray 25KV traction currents would have on LU signalling.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be LU's standards that would apply, not NR's, and without a physical connection, the only issues could be differential induction into LU's running rails where they are parallel (which is not for very far) or stray current (which would only apply if there was a preferential route for it to leak out of NR's rails, cross to LU's side and leak into their rails, then back again at some point. And in all of this, the laws of physics determine that the traction return current has to return from whence it came.

 

 The end of the 25kV wiring on the West London line was more probably determined by the extent of 750V electrification into North Pole depot, which I believe got there first.

 

Jim

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Changes to TfL buses due to the Elizabeth Line https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/elizabeth-line/user_uploads/west-london-elizabeth-line-bus-changes-response-to-issues-raised.pdf

 

I'm not sure when exactly these changes will happen but I believe that the changes to the 140 & 427 routes, plus new services 278, N140 & X140 will start in December to coincide with TfL Rail taking over the Reading services

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is a few hundred metres at Greenford really going to pose a bigger EMC problem than Bromley by Bow to Upminster?

 

I realise they're not identical and that was built a long time, but if performance of either system was seriously compromised by proximity to the other then by now you'd think that has been solved.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

It would be LU's standards that would apply, not NR's, and without a physical connection, the only issues could be differential induction into LU's running rails where they are parallel (which is not for very far) or stray current (which would only apply if there was a preferential route for it to leak out of NR's rails, cross to LU's side and leak into their rails, then back again at some point. And in all of this, the laws of physics determine that the traction return current has to return from whence it came.

 

 The end of the 25kV wiring on the West London line was more probably determined by the extent of 750V electrification into North Pole depot, which I believe got there first.

 

Jim

The end of the 3 25kv on the WLL was determined by the presence of an overbridge.  But the overhead is (was?) definitely live to its greatest physical extent and one 373 set proved by running on it using 25kv power, it was however something of a shame when the unplanned experiment came to an end and the leading pantograph on the 373 set went overheight and didn't auto lower before it collided with said overbridge.

 

Apart from such obvious places as the southern end of the WCML and North Pole Jcn - Shepherds Bush the separation between 25kv overhead and 3rd rail at Friars Jcn on the GWML is probably little more than 20 feet (vertically) and I know there were some interference issues there.  Similarly within a few yards of that vertical separation there is another, of c.30 feet vertically, between the GWML and the Central Line plus of course the fact that the two systems are directly adjacent in the eastern approach to Ealing Broadway.

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 30/10/2019 at 16:19, Ron Ron Ron said:


I’ve seen it suggested elsewhere (probably on some London forum, or some such) that Oyster may eventually be abandoned in favour of regular touch and go contactless.

 

Hmm.  They'll have to figure out what to do about travelcards, concessions and railcard discounts if they do that.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Oyster and Travelcards will not be valid beyond West Drayton. Contactless payg will be available from January (the annual fare change) on a point-to-point basis exactly as is the case between Merstham and Gatwick Airport

 

Oyster is available between those stations and points within the zoned area but the drift to payg means there is felt to be no need to extend Oyster to Reading. 
 

Freedom Passes will also be valid for travel on TfL (Crossrail) trains only out to Reading on the same basis as exists currently to Watford Junction and Cheshunt. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Bus changes are being brought in well in advance of the Elizabeth Line opening. This has already been the case where new route 301 links various areas to Abbey Wood and has been used to justify modest frequency reductions on other routes. 
 

It must be remembered that TfL is staring down the black hole of budget deficit for various reasons. Buses are being chopped and changed in many areas to save money. This is pushed as more closely meeting demand. 
 

TfL has not got the message that, whilst it may not cost the user any more to use a second or subsequent bus within 60 minutes of first touch-on, passengers resent waiting in general and will resist having to wait twice if their route is shortened. It usually lengthens overall journey time and increases user uncertainty. One bus not turning up is inconvenient; two not turning up and the car might be used instead. 
 

The Greenford branch has always been lightly used. It serves only a few stations which are better connected by bus to Ealing and other centres. Perhaps a long-term solution would be to extend the Central Line in a new tunnel from Ealing Broadway to West Ealing then taking over the existing route. While that could pose problems for the freight and light engine moves which currently run that way some could potentially be accommodated overnight outside Central Line traffic hours. Such a service might then turn back at Greenford or continue to the depot location  at West Ruislip. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One wonders if TfL's budget problem is not behind the very recent change to the minimum threshold for Oyster auto top-up, which is now £20 instead of £10.

 

Getting back to the Greenford line, was there not a plan, a long time ago now, to extend the Central Line from Ealing Broadway? Although there are no provisions in the structures, there is more space on the up side of the cutting west of Ealing than appears ever to have been needed by the Great Western.

 

Jim

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

It would be LU's standards that would apply, not NR's, and without a physical connection, the only issues could be differential induction into LU's running rails where they are parallel (which is not for very far) or stray current (which would only apply if there was a preferential route for it to leak out of NR's rails, cross to LU's side and leak into their rails, then back again at some point. And in all of this, the laws of physics determine that the traction return current has to return from whence it came.

 

LU might well have their own standards* - but the laws of physics do not depend on who the infrastructure owner is!

 

* which could of course vary from NR ones.

 

The point in any case is not traction current as such - rather the ability of a tiny amount of inducted traction current to cause potentially lethal wrong side failures of signalling equipment. It doesn’t matter that the potential of that occurring is small - if it exists it MUST be mitigated against.

 

The reason for the 2 mile minimum on 3rd rail routes is that a DC track circuit relay only requires 1V to pick - and under certain conditions electric trains can easily make this appear on tracks some distance away from where the 3rd rail ends.

 

I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about AC matters to comment in detail - but I would imagine that it puts its own limitations of the types of signalling equipment which may be used in the vicinity.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Is a few hundred metres at Greenford really going to pose a bigger EMC problem than Bromley by Bow to Upminster?

 

I realise they're not identical and that was built a long time, but if performance of either system was seriously compromised by proximity to the other then by now you'd think that has been solved.

 

Before the LTS got electrified, British Rail would have been required to discuss and in principle pay for signalling alterations required to the parallel Underground tracks. Fortunately at the time electrification was being proposed LU were also looking at making improvements to the District lone so both parties were able to factor in each other’s plans.

 

The fact that 60 years have elapsed doesn’t change the laws of physics - indeed the advance of technology including computing / software and complex electrical devices means the risks posed by stray currents are even grater.

 

The biggest difference however is the costs of the LTS scheme were however easily outweighed by the benefits of LTS electrification which generated substantial fare revenue thus creating a positive BCR (or whatever they called it back then).

 

The case at Greenford is very different - a two car unit is overkill for the numbers of passengers on the branch and the amount of fare revenue it raises is minuscule.

 

In the event of electrification there will HAVE to be alterations (the question is just one of how many and how expensive) made to immunise the adjacent Central line as well as all the other costs that come with such a project.

 

Unlike the District line in the 1960s, the current 1992 era signalling system used by the Central line is planned to stay in use for another decade or two - so its not as though there is an opportunity coming up to do what was done in the 60s on the LTSR.

 

The upshot is that the BCR for electrification of the Greenford branch is extremely  poor.

 

One ray of light might be the HS2 works - even though it’s below ground this this location, the sheer shallowness of the tunnel may require  immunisation works on the Central line and thus ease the burden on any future Greenford branch OLE scheme.

 

Also if both ends of the branch eventually get OLE (and thus required no additional work) then a Romford to Upminster low cost  ‘infill’ electrification might have be possible.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, billbedford said:

What I've seen discussed is changing the Oyster to a dumb card and keeping the account details on a centralised system.

 

That's the Oyster back office project.  It's been been underway for quite some time and is apparently running very late.  It not being there is a big factor behind the mess now being put in place with contactless only at Brookmans Park and now out to Reading.  You don't need to be a brain surgeon to figure out that the differences between Oyster and contactless validity is going to cause confusion.       

Edited by DY444
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...