Elizabeth Line / Crossrail Updates.

[Ron Ron Ron]

5 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

I could never understand why mk3's weren't either built with power operated sliding or plug doors, or electric door locks from scratch. For such modern, state of the art (for their time) vehicles, it seems remarkably backward.

 

...or why they were built without toilet retention tanks.

The praise heaped on BR's Mk3 is somewhat diminished by these backward and unsanitary aspects of its design.

 

 

 

.

[eastwestdivide]

24 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

I could never understand why internal door handles were provided on the 4VEPs (at least at the end of their lives), but not on the other Mk1 EMUs that ran on the SW.

Was it that the internal "squeeze" handles were on suburban stock (including outer-suburban like the VEPs), but not on mainline stock? Is that right?

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Ron Ron Ron

[caradoc]

4 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

That was hardly a failure. Interior door handles had been common in the past, with no great apparent problems. It was the passengers that had changed in their behaviour.

Very different from such incidents as the Blue Trains in Glasgow and more recently the current issues with the new Anglia fleet.

Jonathan

 

If they were not a failure why did BR remove the handles from Mark 2d stock, and not perpetuate them on Mark 2e, 2f and 3, to the extent that 50 years later there is still stock on the national network which requires passengers to lean out to use an exterior door handle ? 

 

[corneliuslundie]

As I suggested, interior door handles had been fitted to stock for many years with few problems. As far as I am aware it was not a problem with the door handles but with their users. I assume that more people were travelling who were not so savvy about such things, and there were therefore an increasing number of accidents. The handles didn't fail if used as intended.

Jonathan

[Mike Storey]

4 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

...or why they were built without toilet retention tanks.

The praise heaped on BR's Mk3 is somewhat diminished by these backward and unsanitary aspects of its design.

 

 

 

.

 

They were built to a price. Retention toilets would have required some very significant investment in shore-side infrastructure to empty them, as well as the added complication and cost on board each vehicle. Auto doors would not have proven effective or efficient, given the 1960's technology under which they were originally designed, as well as draughty (I well remember the early problems from the Class 317, an early user of the Mark 3 bodyshell, albeit at only 20m). 

 

Both these problems, as well as others, were "solved" for the Mark 4 stock, but there were innumerable problems with the door mechanisms and toilets (as well as the aircon) for many years after introduction.

 

IIRC, witness the early Corail stock in France. The only difference was that they had internally operated door handles and centralised locking over a certain speed. It was only the faster speeds with TGV that forced European designers to develop designs for self-sealing, automatic doors, retention toilets and a form of pressurisation. That brought standardisation to the European scene, including the UK eventually.

[jamie92208]

14 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

As I suggested, interior door handles had been fitted to stock for many years with few problems. As far as I am aware it was not a problem with the door handles but with their users. I assume that more people were travelling who were not so savvy about such things, and there were therefore an increasing number of accidents. The handles didn't fail if used as intended.

Jonathan

I think it was a bit deeper than that.  A late friend of mine was a locksmith at Pickersgill Kaye in Leeds. They spent a lot of time investigating carriage door locks and John had a test rig running 24/7 for many months opening and slamming a carriage door. It drove the neighbours mad. The end result, IIRC was that a fault was found and the door locks were redesigned.

 

Jamie

 

 

Edited February 19, 2020 by jamie92208

[royaloak]

11 hours ago, rodent279 said:

I could never understand why mk3's weren't either built with power operated sliding or plug doors, or electric door locks from scratch. For such modern, state of the art (for their time) vehicles, it seems remarkably backward.

Because they were only supposed to be in service for 10 to 15 years while everything was electrified and the APT took over so it wasnt worth the expense, that plan didnt quite work out though.

[royaloak]

10 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

...or why they were built without toilet retention tanks.

The praise heaped on BR's Mk3 is somewhat diminished by these backward and unsanitary aspects of its design.

Same reason as the doors.

[decauville1126]

17 hours ago, Mark Saunders said:

 

How to stop a bus when stood at bus stop is another one.

 

 

 And don't forget to press the bell in advance of the stop required, not after!

[phil-b259]

23 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

They were built to a price. Retention toilets would have required some very significant investment in shore-side infrastructure to empty them, as well as the added complication and cost on board each vehicle.

 

This was a big part of why the regional railways fleet of DMUs still dumped the contents onto the track while the NSE designs of the same period all came with retention tanks. Money was tight and with the Whitehall 'managed decline' doctrine still in force away from the SE, retention tanks simply equalled less trains.

 

Also its not just the physical emptying that needs to be considered - in most cases there will need to be a substantial upgrade of the sewer connections - possibly including extra sewer pipes to be laid by the local waste water company to cope with the increased volumes being discharged into the sewer system.

[Ron Ron Ron]

From the previous YouTube videos from Crossrail, that I've posted in the last few days, giving a glimpse of the progress at the Elizabeth Line central core stations, you will have noticed that some, such as Farringdon, are very near to completion.

Bond St. and Whitechapel, having suffered from problems and difficulties in construction, are lagging several months behind, as can be seen from their respective videos.

The following one is from Tottenham Court Rd, which is virtually ready.

 

Crossrail say, that all of the core stations apart from Bond St. and Whitechapel, will be completed and ready by April. Those last two stations are due to be completed by the end of this year.

 

Train and line testing in the tunnels, is due to give way to operational "trial running" later in the year (summer?).

Once completed satisfactorily, this will be followed by a lengthy programme of "trial operations", which will involve using invited passengers to use the stations and trains.

I understand that the trail operations involve an extensive period of working a full operational timetable.

They also report that operations and maintenance teams will be working up to full operational capability during this time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[St. Simon]

Hi,

 

I also believe that 345's to Heathrow with passengers aboard and operating in ETCS will start early next month.

 

Simon

[Ron Ron Ron]

 

 

Paddington low level (Elizabeth Line) station is almost complete......

 

 

 

Down to the ticket hall / intermediate level concourse....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then down to the platform level.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Testing at Farringdon......

A train arrives and the doors open.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Oh!  ....and that sky......

 

 

[caradoc]

Paddington looks absolutely amazing, but no wonder Crossrail cost is costing so much ! Still, once it opens I'm sure the overruns and expense will all be forgotten as it proves its usefulness. 

 

[Bernard Lamb]

10 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Oh!  ....and that sky......

 

 

I saw the exhibition of Crossrail art at the Whitechapel gallery some time ago. Good to see the full size version is in place. It does look as though it achieves its objective. If the trains are as good we will have something for London to be proud of.

Bernard

[jim.snowdon]

3 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

I saw the exhibition of Crossrail art at the Whitechapel gallery some time ago. Good to see the full size version is in place. It does look as though it achieves its objective. If the trains are as good we will have something for London to be proud of.

Bernard

The trains are good enough, but if you have to travel in from the outer zones at anything approaching the peak periods they are an exercise in standing for long distances. Essentially an overgrown tube train with fewer seats and more floor space being used for suburban services. Not so good.

 

Jim 

[Zomboid]

4 hours ago, caradoc said:

Paddington looks absolutely amazing, but no wonder Crossrail cost is costing so much ! Still, once it opens I'm sure the overruns and expense will all be forgotten as it proves its usefulness. 

 

Tottenham Court Road (the refitted tube bit) feels like it was done on a pretty stingy budget, not like the ambitious architecture that you find on the Jubilee line extension. Paddington looks very impressive. Given that it's going to have to last indefinitely then I've no real objection to spending enough money to do a proper job on it.

 

The trains are fine for tube trains too, they're just being used inappropriately on the GWML in particular.

[Gwiwer]

12 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

the ambitious architecture that you find on the Jubilee line extension.

I have never been a fan of the "unfinished" look of the JLE architecture.  In particular the vast cavern which is Westminster station seems very dull, dreary and depressing and is full of unused space which has been dug out at enormous cost.  

 

By contrast West Ham JLE station is in red brick and looks rather good.  

 

What I have seen so far of the XR/EL stations - which is only from posted images - is far better; they are brighter and the space has a defined purpose.  

 

The 345s are unsuitable for what is usually regarded as a regional service out to Reading.  Used by some commuters in preference to the heavily loaded but much faster GWR expresses and used by some simply because they have few if any options now that GWR and TfL have traded pathways.  They are no more intended for Reading - Shenfield through journeys than are the 700s for Brighton - Peterborough but some folk will use them throughout just as a few people who happen to need transport from Brighton to Peterborough (or Cambridge) will sit on a 700 for ages.  They are configured for short-haul high-occupancy urban operation which would describe the section between West Drayton and Romford though services will extend beyond those points.  

 

We shall see how the travelling public takes to them and how travel patterns change once the line finally opens.  Already the good folk of the Thames Valley are making their opinions known on the new order.  In the east they have replaced 315s and are more closely similar to what went before and are I believe not attracting such adverse comment.  

[Zomboid]

4 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

I have never been a fan of the "unfinished" look of the JLE architecture.  In particular the vast cavern which is Westminster station seems very dull, dreary and depressing and is full of unused space which has been dug out at enormous cost

Westminster is my favourite of the JLE stations. I like the way the escalators cross the cavern, and the unfinished look of the walls. Southwark is nice, too.

 

Guess there's no accounting for taste!

[The Stationmaster]

A friend of ours travelled down from Ealing Broadway to Twyford on a 345 last week - cost him nothing as he could use his London Freedom pass but he still thought they were very bad value for money with the seats being pretty awful and the squab not deep enough front to back (let alone hard).   The local 'papers are starting to see complaints about them although two idiots in our neck of the woods have blamed GWR for introducing these trains for some perverse reason I really can't fathom.

 

I have only used them over short distances, and will probably continue to do exactly that, and no longer trips, unless there is no option whatsoever.  I don't mind standing for a short journey as it's less wearing than trying to perch on the seats.  Hopefully some of that might change before too long as my proposals for various retimings of GWR trains to improve certain connections off the branch have gone into this week's timetable stakeholder meeting with GWR.

 

But we now have a truly bizarre situation in respect of travel to & from London with exactly the same fares applying for travel on either a 345, a 387, or an 80X, on the mainline part of various journeys from here.  Crazily with various GWR trains barred in the evening peak for off-peak ticket holders (long overdue as allowing their use was an anomaly) you can either have a peak time 48 minute journey on a 345 with a 10 minute connection into a branch train giving an overall journey time of 70 minutes to the end of the branch or you can (if you pick the right train) return after the peak and have a 26 minute journey on a 387 with a 12 minute connection into the branch train giving an overall journey time of 50 minutes.  if you leave Paddington a couple of hours later, still using an off-peak ticket, you start on an IET with a fairly brisk connection giving an overall journey time of 43 minutes. 

 

One other interesting, but in my view hardly unexpected, development is with the first off-peak fare train of the day to Paddington.  Prior to December this was an IET running in a limited stop 387 diagram and was a busy train both off the branch and for Twyford and Maidenhead originating traffic.  I have only seen it once since the mainline working became a 345 but what appears to have happened is that those people who could are now staring later and getting into a 387 connection on the mainline although there have been some complaints about the longer journey time.  Equally, judging by comments to the local 'paper about the long wait for a connection this might be one where folk are letting the 345 go and are waiting for a 387 to come along.

 

And unsurprisingly as yet TfL have not been prepared to lift their head above the parapet and attend meetings with local commuter and rail user groups.  I think they might get a bit of a hammering should they decide to brave the Thames Valley.

[Ron Ron Ron]

 

[DY444]

On 27/02/2020 at 09:15, caradoc said:

Paddington looks absolutely amazing, but no wonder Crossrail cost is costing so much ! Still, once it opens I'm sure the overruns and expense will all be forgotten as it proves its usefulness. 

 

 

My theory is, and always has been, if you deliver on time and it doesn't work then people never forget because they are exposed to problems daily, whereas if you deliver late but it does work then people quickly forget you were late.  Obviously if you deliver late and it doesn't work then you have a big problem.