Elizabeth Line / Crossrail Updates.

[DY444]

3 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

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

 

 

Maybe but also the expansions have resulted in cases of the auto top up being insufficient to cover the cost of the journey on which the top up is initiated (most notably at Gatwick Airport).  The further recent expansions of the system have caused the range of more expensive fares to increase and the likelihood of this becoming a bigger problem has increased with it. 

[jim.snowdon]

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

 

Maybe but also the expansions have resulted in cases of the auto top up being insufficient to cover the cost of the journey on which the top up is initiated (most notably at Gatwick Airport).  The further recent expansions of the system have caused the range of more expensive fares to increase and the likelihood of this becoming a bigger problem has increased with it. 

A good point - I don't use mine that far afield.

 

Jim

[The Stationmaster]

16 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

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

 

It's always been like that Jim - long before the Ealing & Shepherds Bush opened judging by old photos.  Part of it is possibly due to it being quadruple track in broad gauge days which would have required a wider overall formation than is the case now although I think the widening there was to the south side not the north side.   But as you say apart from the structures it wouldn't be too difficult to accommodate six running lines there.

17 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

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. 

Usage of the Greenford branch expanded massively when the service was extended through to Paddington (which subsequently facilitated the removal of the car park siding at Ealing Broadway).  The service has undergone many changes over the years and was first cut back from its maximum route extent following the post-war extension of the Central Line to Ruislip which resulted in the closure of the GWR halts between Old Oak Common and Greenford and ended the need for trains to run that way to Ealing from Paddington.  It has perhaps been inevitable that as the service has had to be contracted back from serving teaching really useful destinations such as Paddington and the major interchange and local destination at Ealing Broadway usage would shrink - no doubt an unintended consequence of other changes.

 

Transferring it to TfL would undoubtedly cause problems as the triangle at the Ealing end is now the only turning facility anywhere near the GWML at the London end and it remains in use as a freight route (albeit not very busy) plus a diversionary route which has gained greater importance with the current loss of the section via Park Royal.  Maybe TfL should bite the bullet and build its own railways - one of their expansionist ideas is already running into opposition over the proposed Bakerloo Line extension to Hayes (not the one adjacent to Harlington ).

[KeithMacdonald]

It seems that some crucial TFL projects are being delayed by an unlikely reason - interference from HMRC. They are trying to enforce the IR35 tax rules on contractors who run their own businesses. I'm told it especially applies to IT contractors, and some have quit because of it. But as all the projects involve IT for signalling and communications, it has a knock-on effect.

 

https://www.contractoruk.com/news/0013219tfl_blames_ir35_changes_project_delay.html

[Gwiwer]

On 04/11/2019 at 14:22, St. Simon said:

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.

Not necessarily.  A 2-car fleet could be used to manage capacity on other routes where peak strengthening might be felt necessary and indeed on the Greenford shuttle also under discussion here.  Two 2-car units could run the Windsor Central branch without platform or signalling changes AFAIK and offer the much-needed capacity boost over the solitary diesel two-car unit currently in use.  

 

So a fleet of perhaps 20 2-car units could be deployed on the Henley (2 units coupled), Marlow (2 single units at peak times, one off peak), Windsor (2 coupled), Greenford (one), Didcot - Oxford stoppers (2 single units) and Bedwyn - Paddington (3 trains of 4 cars) which would release a couple of 8xx for their intended main line duties, with at least three for peak use and two spare.  

[RJS1977]

Though presumably if Didcot-Oxford was electrified, the 387s would work straight through from Paddington rather than having a separate Didcot-Oxford shuttle.

[KeithMacdonald]

2 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

Though presumably if Didcot-Oxford was electrified, the 387s would work straight through from Paddington rather than having a separate Didcot-Oxford shuttle.

 

I thought it was common knowledge (but I may be wrong) that the reason the Didcot-Oxford electrification has been "deferred" by Network Rail is because they cocked it up? The planned improvements included altering several listed buildings, and nobody has got permission to alter them. But that might be an urban myth already.

[RJS1977]

That may or may not be the case, but I was replying to Gwiver's view that the Thames Valley branches and the Oxford line should be electrified with multiples of 2-car units running on them. My point was that *if* Oxford was to be electrified, it would be better to extend the Paddington-Didcot service back to Oxford, rather than continue an Oxford-Didcot shuttle.

[Gwiwer]

387s could indeed serve Appleford, Culham and Radley but given the platform lengths and patronage a 2-car might be the better option. Keep the 387s where they are most. needed

[RJS1977]

However I'm sure there are a fair number of people in Tilehurst, Pangbourne, Goring and Cholsey (and possibly even some east of Reading) who would welcome being able to get to Oxford without having to change trains...

[jim.snowdon]

2 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

387s could indeed serve Appleford, Culham and Radley but given the platform lengths and patronage a 2-car might be the better option. Keep the 387s where they are most. needed

I, and at least one other well known person on here, could be tempted to say that they could be best kept on the Paddington suburban services.

 

In reality, once TfL take over the bulk of the suburban services with their 345s, where are the displaced 387s headed for?

 

Jim

[royaloak]

43 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

In reality, once TfL take over the bulk of the suburban services with their 345s, where are the displaced 387s headed for?

 

Jim

tHeathrow Express.

[caradoc]

1 hour ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

I thought it was common knowledge (but I may be wrong) that the reason the Didcot-Oxford electrification has been "deferred" by Network Rail is because they cocked it up? The planned improvements included altering several listed buildings, and nobody has got permission to alter them. But that might be an urban myth already.

 

What listed buildings are there between Didcot and Oxford please ? The only one that springs to my mind is Culham, and the route could easily be wired without affecting that. AFAIK the reasons for not continuing the OLE from Didcot to Oxford are the cost overruns and delay to the whole GWML project, and the ongoing impasse over the rebuilding of Oxford station.

 

And if the wires do ever get extended to Oxford the stopping service must surely be restored to the pre-electric service, ie through to Oxford. It would be ludicrous to continue terminating the stoppers at Didcot and force passengers to change (on 3 trains out of 4, given that the continuation of the Didcot/Oxford trains to Banbury only runs every 2 hours) onto an identical EMU for Oxford.

 

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by caradoc
Missing words

[St. Simon]

3 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

However I'm sure there are a fair number of people in Tilehurst, Pangbourne, Goring and Cholsey (and possibly even some east of Reading) who would welcome being able to get to Oxford without having to change trains...

 

Hi,

 

There's an hourly Banbury / Oxford Stopper from Reading that serves the local stations between Reading and Didcot.

 

Simon  

[phil-b259]

10 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

Not necessarily.  A 2-car fleet could be used to manage capacity on other routes where peak strengthening might be felt necessary and indeed on the Greenford shuttle also under discussion here.  Two 2-car units could run the Windsor Central branch without platform or signalling changes AFAIK and offer the much-needed capacity boost over the solitary diesel two-car unit currently in use.  

 

So a fleet of perhaps 20 2-car units could be deployed on the Henley (2 units coupled), Marlow (2 single units at peak times, one off peak), Windsor (2 coupled), Greenford (one), Didcot - Oxford stoppers (2 single units) and Bedwyn - Paddington (3 trains of 4 cars) which would release a couple of 8xx for their intended main line duties, with at least three for peak use and two spare.  

 

One problem you might get with a 2 car OLE fleet is pantograph spacing - to run at full line speed two 5 car 800 class units must use their outermost pantographs - thus giving time for the contact wire to recover from the uplift forces of the first before the second arrives.

 

Lower speeds do not cause as much disturbance to the wire so pantographs can be more closely spaced, but that compromises performance.

 

Granted the newer GWML OLE is pretty robust - but there is still quite a bit of BR legacy stuff (i.e. headspans) around in the London area.

[phil-b259]

7 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

I thought it was common knowledge (but I may be wrong) that the reason the Didcot-Oxford electrification has been "deferred" by Network Rail is because they cocked it up? The planned improvements included altering several listed buildings, and nobody has got permission to alter them. But that might be an urban myth already.

 

The Didcot to Oxford electrification has been deferred because Oxford City Council cannot make their minds up what they will allow as far as station expansion goes - NOT NR!

 

Oxford station badly needs an extra through platform (and other substantial layout changes) which will involve substantial remodelling work- and only a fool would go and wire up the current layout then have to tear it down a few years later.

 

Yes the official reason for not going to Oxford given was the cost overruns on the GWML scheme - but in reality that was a useful fig leaf to hide a multitude of sins which were already giving NR massive problems when it came to dealing with Oxford.

 

The decision to make all 800s bi-modes, plus the 319 tri-mode proposal has provided further justification for not rushing ahead until the future situation at Oxford has been sorted.

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by phil-b259

[Zomboid]

4 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

One problem you might get with a 2 car OLE fleet is pantograph spacing - to run at full line speed two 5 car 800 class units must use their outermost pantographs - thus giving time for the contact wire to recover from the uplift forces of the first before the second arrives.

 

Lower speeds do not cause as much disturbance to the wire so pantographs can be more closely spaced, but that compromises performance.

 

Granted the newer GWML OLE is pretty robust - but there is still quite a bit of BR legacy stuff (i.e. headspans) around in the London area.

I don't know the full story on OLE, but there's ways around such things - these hypothetical 2 cars would be for branch lines, where speeds would be low enough to not cause an issue, and adjacent pantographs don't seem to be a problem on other routes at pretty decent speeds - 2x 86s on the WCML aren't limited to a crawl (they can do 75?), and I think someone said in the 800 thread that if a 2x 5 car 800 has the inner pans raised they can run at 80mph, which may not be line speed on the main line, but it's not going to cause major tailbacks on the slow lines either.

[caradoc]

9 hours ago, St. Simon said:

 

Hi,

 

There's an hourly Banbury / Oxford Stopper from Reading that serves the local stations between Reading and Didcot.

 

Simon  

 

Sorry to contradict you St.Simon, but no there is not ! The Didcot/Oxford DMU shuttle is half hourly, but the extension to Banbury is only roughly every two hours, and only a few run through to or from Reading, mostly in the peaks. For example, the following stoppers from Oxford run beyond Didcot; 0351, 0517, 0550, 0638 (0608 ex Banbury), 0721, 0835; The next one is then 1607 !

 

[jim.snowdon]

8 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

One problem you might get with a 2 car OLE fleet is pantograph spacing - to run at full line speed two 5 car 800 class units must use their outermost pantographs - thus giving time for the contact wire to recover from the uplift forces of the first before the second arrives.

 

Lower speeds do not cause as much disturbance to the wire so pantographs can be more closely spaced, but that compromises performance.

 

Granted the newer GWML OLE is pretty robust - but there is still quite a bit of BR legacy stuff (i.e. headspans) around in the London area.

From observation, the trailing pantograph, even when it is ten cars back, is running in the wake of the first and the contact wire does not stabilise until well after the train is out of sight. Conversely, if the two inner Pantographs on a 2x5-car 8xx train were used, the second one would be effectively running in the slipstream of the first, rather than in the more disturbed wake further back. 

 

Jim

[phil-b259]

7 hours ago, Zomboid said:

I don't know the full story on OLE, but there's ways around such things - these hypothetical 2 cars would be for branch lines, where speeds would be low enough to not cause an issue, and adjacent pantographs don't seem to be a problem on other routes at pretty decent speeds - 2x 86s on the WCML aren't limited to a crawl (they can do 75?), and I think someone said in the 800 thread that if a 2x 5 car 800 has the inner pans raised they can run at 80mph, which may not be line speed on the main line, but it's not going to cause major tailbacks on the slow lines either.

 

But if your 2 car unit is restricted to 75mph then its going to be pretty useless as a 'strengthener' unit out on the congested mainline (where everything else passenger wise can go up to 90) it drastically reducing the number of units needed. With TfL taking over stopping services, any remaining GWR services will be timetabled to run as fast as possible.

 

Providing a tiny fleet of all new units just for a couple of branch lines doesn't come close to making a decent BCR - if you really want to be rid of diesels on the Marlow branch* then the only viable solution is converted stock, be it ex-LU D stock or BR built unit converted to battery conversion.

 

* The Windsor and Henley branch could quite easily cope with a 4 car unit.

 

[St. Simon]

7 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

Sorry to contradict you St.Simon, but no there is not ! The Didcot/Oxford DMU shuttle is half hourly, but the extension to Banbury is only roughly every two hours, and only a few run through to or from Reading, mostly in the peaks. For example, the following stoppers from Oxford run beyond Didcot; 0351, 0517, 0550, 0638 (0608 ex Banbury), 0721, 0835; The next one is then 1607 !

 

 

Yes, you are quite right, I get off at Tilehurst, so I could only remember that there was at least an hourly Turbo!

 

Either way, there are still local stoppers to Oxford from Reading.

 

Simon

[Zomboid]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

But if your 2 car unit is restricted to 75mph then its going to be pretty useless as a 'strengthener' unit out on the congested mainline (where everything else passenger wise can go up to 90) it drastically reducing the number of units needed. With TfL taking over stopping services, any remaining GWR services will be timetabled to run as fast as possible

You'd only run into difficulties if they ran a bunch of them together. If the pan is at the middle of the unit then coupled to a 387 the gap between pans would be 3 coaches, which is a common unit size.

It's all fantasy anyway, but these make believe 2 cars would probably be fine making an 8 car into a a 10 (or 4 into 6) as well as on their branch services.

[phil-b259]

3 hours ago, Zomboid said:

You'd only run into difficulties if they ran a bunch of them together. If the pan is at the middle of the unit then coupled to a 387 the gap between pans would be 3 coaches, which is a common unit size.

It's all fantasy anyway, but these make believe 2 cars would probably be fine making an 8 car into a a 10 (or 4 into 6) as well as on their branch services.

 

Its not the number of cars in a unit - its where the pantograph is that counts, and you cannot always work on the basis units with a single pantograph will always be a certain way round

 

On a 3 x 20m car unit, the pantograph will be at one end of the intermediate car - when two 3 car units are coupled together gives a minimum of around 45m between pantographs.

 

On a 4 x20m car unit, coupled to a 3 car unit, the minimum spacing will be around 70m, while a 4 car coupled to a 2 car gives a minimum of 50m

 

On a 2 car unit, even if the pantograph is mounted towards the middle of the unit, then with two units coupled together you only get around around 30m between pantographs. this is likely to be too short to allow running at linespeed on the likes of the GWML - which in turn impacts on timetabling and pathing.

 

Of course one solution is to do as the class 800s do and have a pantograph at each end - thus allowing spacing to be increased to the maximum regardless of how, and what configuration of units are coupled, this however increases costs (as does developing a bespoke vehicle - all current EMU designs do not allow for less than a 3 car configuration) which is really the nub of the situation. Longer vehicle lengths (e.g. 23m rather than 20m) also help.

 

However you try and dress it up, 2 car EMUs are simply NOT a viable option (in BCR terms) for UK OLE operations and as such will NOT be appearing on the GWML or annoyware else! If you want to get rid of diesels from the Marlow branch then you are looking at battery propulsion or hydrogen fuelled conversions (or new builds tagged on to an order for another operator.

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by phil-b259

[jim.snowdon]

17 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

One problem you might get with a 2 car OLE fleet is pantograph spacing - to run at full line speed two 5 car 800 class units must use their outermost pantographs - thus giving time for the contact wire to recover from the uplift forces of the first before the second arrives.

 

Lower speeds do not cause as much disturbance to the wire so pantographs can be more closely spaced, but that compromises performance.

 

Granted the newer GWML OLE is pretty robust - but there is still quite a bit of BR legacy stuff (i.e. headspans) around in the London area.

From observation, the trailing pantograph, even when it is ten cars back, is running in the wake of the first and the contact wire does not stabilise until well after the train is out of sight. Conversely, if the two inner Pantographs on a 2x5-car 8xx train were used, the second one would be effectively running in the slipstream of the first, rather than in the more disturbed wake further back. 

 

Jim

[jim.snowdon]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Its not the number of cars in a unit - its where the pantograph is that counts, and you cannot always work on the basis units with a single pantograph will always be a certain way round

 

On a 3 x 20m car unit, the pantograph will be at one end of the intermediate car - when two 3 car units are coupled together gives a minimum of around 45m between pantographs.

 

On a 4 x20m car unit, coupled to a 3 car unit, the minimum spacing will be around 70m, while a 4 car coupled to a 2 car gives a minimum of 50m

 

On a 2 car unit, even if the pantograph is mounted towards the middle of the unit, then with two units coupled together you only get around around 30m between pantographs. this is likely to be too short to allow running at linespeed on the likes of the GWML - which in turn impacts on timetabling and pathing.

 

Of course one solution is to do as the class 800s do and have a pantograph at each end - thus allowing spacing to be increased to the maximum regardless of how, and what configuration of units are coupled, this however increases costs (as does developing a bespoke vehicle - all current EMU designs do not allow for less than a 3 car configuration) which is really the nub of the situation. Longer vehicle lengths (e.g. 23m rather than 20m) also help.

 

However you try and dress it up, 2 car EMUs are simply NOT a viable option (in NCR terms) for UK OLE operations and as such will NOT be appearing on the GWML or annoyware else! If you want to get rid of diesels from the Marlow branch then you are looking at battery propulsion or hydrogen fuelled conversions (or new builds tagged on to an order for another operator.

 

Which all makes me wonder on earth we go on with the combinations of 2- and 4-car units on the Clacton services, or the 3x325 sets which bat up and down the WCML at speeds in the 70s creating more wire disturbance than anything else. Or, for that matter, 2x86s in any one of three combinations. I'm not convinced, although if anyone can produce a clearly explained argument for why these combinations cannot be operated, I'll give them a hearing.

 

Jim