Elizabeth Line / Crossrail Updates.

[Ron Ron Ron]

2 hours ago, Fenman said:

Except it’s really not. It's poorly planned, with unpleasant choke points as you move through, and deliberately forces you to walk excessive distances past retail opportunities.

 

An example: BA begged BAA to let their passengers access their lounges direct from security. BAA refused, knowing it would reduce shop rents. It took a decade before BAA finally agreed - after getting BA to pay compensation - and the First Wing opened. That’s at the opposite end of T5 from the public transport, but at least you now only walk one length of the terminal rather than two. 
 

If you think T5 is a “very good terminal”, you really need to travel more!
 

Paul

Paul, I travel frequently around the world and have visited a number of terminals that are better that T5.

A lot more are far worst.

I’ve never used public transport to or from T5, so have not had to take the longer route from the train or bus drop off, but arriving by car or private taxi, I’ve always found progress reasonably swift through to security (both entrances) and security not as lengthy and tedious a process as at say T3 or either Gatwick terminals, nor as bad as Seattle or Vancouver or JFK.

Airside, yes you have to make your way down from the top deck, which can get a little crowded making for the escalators, but once down there you don’t have to go near most of the shops and you certainly aren’t herded through a duty free store on the way, unlike many airports both in the U.K. and increasingly abroad.
The worst bit for me is the long descent to the shuttle and what I personally regard as the insufficient frequency of shuttle trains, out to the B and C gates.

 

Anyway, you dislike T5 and I think it’s a pretty decent and dare I say pleasant terminal, if far from the best.

What was this topic about?

 

 

Cheers

Ron

Edited June 10, 2020 by Ron Ron Ron

[Fenman]

7 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Paul, I travel frequently around the world and have visited a number of terminals that are better that T5.

A lot more are far worst.

I’ve never used public transport to or from T5, so have not had to take the longer route from the train or bus drop off, but arriving by car or private taxi, I’ve always found progress reasonably swift through to security (both entrances) and security not as lengthy and tedious a process as at say T3 or either Gatwick terminals, nor as bad as Seattle or Vancouver or JFK.

Airside, yes you have to make your way down from the top deck, which can get a little crowded making for the escalators, but once down there you don’t have to go near most of the shops and you certainly aren’t herded through a duty free store on the way, unlike many airports both in the U.K. and increasingly abroad.
The worst bit for me is the long descent to the shuttle and what I personally regard as the insufficient frequency of shuttle trains, out to the B and C gates.

 

Anyway, you dislike T5 and I think it’s a pretty decent and dare I say pleasant terminal, if far from the best.

What was this topic about?

 

 

Cheers

Ron

You see I largely agree with that. But it’s very different from what you wrote before, in which you completely disagreed with me and then summarised T5 as “very good”. It isn’t. I would completely agree with your new statement that “A lot more are far worse”, but that’s a whole new proposition. 
 

To bring it back vaguely on topic, I fear some of the Crossrail stations look as if they might have been infected by the same poor planning that has hit airport and some recent railway developments (starting with the terrible walking route and distance from domestic rail arrivals at St Pancras to the Underground stations). Many designers now seem to think it doesn’t matter how far the self-loading cargo has to traipse when connecting. The environments on many recent developments have also been aesthetically extraordinarily aggressive (Stratford International is particularly bleak; King’s Cross Thameslink is also actively unpleasant). We seem to have forgotten the mostly joyful aesthetics of the mostly rather good JLE stations. 

 

I am hoping the Crossrail stations are better than the worst recent examples, and there are some hopeful signs. I guess we’ll find out in a few months time. 
 

Paul

[Joseph_Pestell]

On 09/06/2020 at 20:40, Mike Storey said:

 

I am afraid only four trains per hour, each way, are planned Ron. The five minute interval is a quote from the standard blurb about the central section.

 

https://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/western-section/acton-main-line-station

 

I would suggest two things:

 

1. The scale of the new building is actually not that large, when you see people imposed on the architectural imagery. The building footprint is probably no larger than the present ensemble. The double height facade is a standard feature of all new Crossrail surface buildings. As well as housing the upper lift headroom (a style favoured by TfL), it would also allow much more efficient HLV, particularly with high numbers of users in the peaks.

 

2. The evidence of new and converted housing development in Acton is quite staggering. Usage will no doubt increase in short order, one would suspect.

 

As you note, this is an area with a lot of residential development going on and with further potential. A 4tph service seems a bit inadequate albeit that I recognise train paths are going to be very much at a premium.

But, with longer waiting times at the station for passengers, the building seems a bit more reasonable.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I have not used T5 as a passenger but I have dropped off and picked up passengers there a few times. Seems to me to be fairly pleasant as large terminals go (I much prefer small airports) and certainly far better than the extremely dreary T4. I recall waiting for my wife to arrive there in what felt like a city centre underpass.

[John Harris]

On 08/06/2020 at 19:26, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

 

This is interesting indeed.

 

I first encountered the new trains around four years ago in use on the Liverpool Street line in from Shenfield, they are nice units, however lacking in seats and loos, but you get WiFi.  The theory seems to be that people will only be going a few stops, yet commuters from Shenfield, Brentwood (or the equivalents at the other ends of the line) will be going to Liverpool Street or beyond

 

My local station (Harold Wood) has received a major upgrade, the major part being a platform extension and new pedestrian bridge, however there is still a large step up from platform to carriage, in fact it seems larger than for the current stock.

 

Of course, the local estate agents are already plugging the location as being on the "Elizabeth Line" (though I suspect it will remain "Crossrail" to a lot of folk), no doubt adding a few thousand to the house prices.

 

By a coincidence, my former job regularly took me to Paddington, the new entrance built for Crossrail is opposite the offices I used to visit in Eastbourne Terrace, so that has changed too.

 

jh

 

 

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, John Harris said:

 

My local station (Harold Wood) has received a major upgrade, the major part being a platform extension and new pedestrian bridge, however there is still a large step up from platform to carriage, in fact it seems larger than for the current stock.

This step is necessary to provide clearance for freight wagons - and once the Elizebeth line trains hit NR infrastructure freight has to be accommodated on all lines in case of engineering works.

 

The only way you can fix this is on a mixed use railway is make the passenger trains have a lower ride height, bringing the floor level closer to the platform height as per the Saddler GA units.

 

If the railway is effectively self contained (e.g. the ELL north of new cross or the Crossrail core then platforms can be higher than the norm to remove stepping up.

 

On the GEML though, if the step has increased with the new units then the Bombardier units must have a slightly higher floor height than the 315s they are replacing.

 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, John Harris said:

 

This is interesting indeed.

 

I first encountered the new trains around four years ago in use on the Liverpool Street line in from Shenfield, they are nice units, however lacking in seats and loos, but you get WiFi.  The theory seems to be that people will only be going a few stops, yet commuters from Shenfield, Brentwood (or the equivalents at the other ends of the line) will be going to Liverpool Street or beyond

 

Shenfeild (and possibly Brentwood) will still be served by fast GA trains to London so there is no need to sit on an all stations stopper. It may also be quicker for some at adjacent stations to double back via Shenfield rather than sit on a Purle train for the duration.

[Mike Storey]

11 hours ago, Fenman said:

You see I largely agree with that. But it’s very different from what you wrote before, in which you completely disagreed with me and then summarised T5 as “very good”. It isn’t. I would completely agree with your new statement that “A lot more are far worse”, but that’s a whole new proposition. 
 

To bring it back vaguely on topic, I fear some of the Crossrail stations look as if they might have been infected by the same poor planning that has hit airport and some recent railway developments (starting with the terrible walking route and distance from domestic rail arrivals at St Pancras to the Underground stations). Many designers now seem to think it doesn’t matter how far the self-loading cargo has to traipse when connecting. The environments on many recent developments have also been aesthetically extraordinarily aggressive (Stratford International is particularly bleak; King’s Cross Thameslink is also actively unpleasant). We seem to have forgotten the mostly joyful aesthetics of the mostly rather good JLE stations. 

 

I am hoping the Crossrail stations are better than the worst recent examples, and there are some hopeful signs. I guess we’ll find out in a few months time. 
 

Paul

 

As one of the "designers" ( as a decider rather than an originator), I must challenge that somewhat.

 

If faced with a green field, of course one would design to effect as efficient a transfer as possible. But many "new" station developments, usually redevelopments, do not allow that luxury, as per St Pancras (although I was not a Sponsor on that). The final decision resides usually with the least worst result with the funds available. A more accommodating solution would often result in the expenditure of many millions above the mandated business case. Nice, if you have no accountability for the expenditure of taxpayers' monies. But we live in the real world.

 

As for aesthetics, that is subjective, but I would tend to agree that the brutalist architectural approach taken in recent times, is jawdropping. But I do not understand your defence of the Jubilee (if that is what you meant by JLE?). The "extension" part of the Jubilee, through to Stratford, has some of the most brutalist architecture seen to date. Whether this will survive the next 30/40 years without modification, is yet to be seen.

 

For Crossrail, at least some of the stations have attracted more benevolent design, aesthetically, but whether they meet your high standards of interchange, I suspect, remains questionable. But the cloudy sky at Paddington and the daylight drops of Canary Wharf may ameliorate that.

[Fenman]

2 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

...

As for aesthetics, that is subjective, but I would tend to agree that the brutalist architectural approach taken in recent times, is jawdropping. But I do not understand your defence of the Jubilee (if that is what you meant by JLE?). The "extension" part of the Jubilee, through to Stratford, has some of the most brutalist architecture seen to date.

...

 

It’s true that Westminster, for example, is a pretty prosaic piece of architecture (I preferred it when it was just a giant hole, before fitting out — the sheer volume of space was breathtaking), but some of the other stations are not. I think Southwark is a rather nice example of daylight captured and channeled downwards, with lush and colourful finishes. Will Alsop’s deep blue tesserae at North Greenwich soften the station in a way that’s modern but also reflects the long tradition of colourful tiles on the Underground. Foster’s Canary Wharf is very plain, but manages to be light and airy rather than heavily — lumpenly — Brutal.

 

The contrast with the Holden Piccadilly line extension stations is striking: they were also deliberately modernist, but used albeit hard-wearing materials (and gentle yellow electric light) to soften and warm. 
 

There’s a lovely detail in BR’s otherwise very uncompromising 1960s Broxbourne station: all the materials are tough and strong, designed to withstand a huge through-flow of commuters. But they lined the ceilings with varnished wood, introducing a natural material that is visually soft and warm, making the space feel human rather than just being a vast machine for processing unfathomable numbers of people. 
 

As a sometime client for public architecture I’m well aware of budget constraints and project compromises. But architecture should be a creative discipline as well as a practical one. Aesthetics are important. 
 

Paul

[RJS1977]

On 10/06/2020 at 07:43, Bernard Lamb said:

Back in the era of privatization I read an article by a financial journalist who suggested that you look at the railway as a property company rather than a transport company.  We in the UK did not seem to fully grasp that point of view.

Long before that, a new station was planned at Two Waters to replace both Apsley and Boxmoor on the London end of the WCML, with the new town shopping centre between the station and the main road. Various odd piecemeal developments took place and the whole area is now the centre piece of a long term plan. The shopping centre and market that was built nearer to the town centre is in a bad state and has been declining long before the virus appeared. A missed opportunity.

My "other" local station is in Leipzig. Here they moved the buffer stops about 100m away from the station building and built a vast two tier show piece retail centre. They also removed a couple of platforms to provide more parking and by doing this it lost the title of the largest terminal station, but this loss of status was soon compensated by the income from the new facilities. I suppose the nearest we have to that is the opening up of the beer storage area at St Pancras.

Bernard 

 

Windsor & Eton Central, perhaps?

[keefer]

Like them or not, the retail spaces are there for one reason - they make money. Relatively captive market and a premium on the prices of a sandwich/juice/coffee etc.

Travellers have the convenience of not having to look for nearby shops on the way to/from work in a rush, but they pay for the privilege.

(e.g. compare the prices at a 'normal' M&S to those at a station shop)

[jim.snowdon]

2 hours ago, keefer said:

Like them or not, the retail spaces are there for one reason - they make money. Relatively captive market and a premium on the prices of a sandwich/juice/coffee etc.

Travellers have the convenience of not having to look for nearby shops on the way to/from work in a rush, but they pay for the privilege.

(e.g. compare the prices at a 'normal' M&S to those at a station shop)

M&S seem to to be one of the few shops where normal prices are charged at their station outlets, but as far as food and drink is concerned, I refuse to pay the ransom-like prices charged by the other suppliers that are found only on railway stations.

 

Jim

[Fenman]

5 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

M&S seem to to be one of the few shops where normal prices are charged at their station outlets, but as far as food and drink is concerned, I refuse to pay the ransom-like prices charged by the other suppliers that are found only on railway stations.

 

Jim

At King’s Cross, Waitrose seems to charge ordinary prices rather than inflated ones. Their soft drinks are startlingly cheaper than any other outlet on the station. 
 

Paul

[Siberian Snooper]

2 hours ago, Fenman said:

At King’s Cross, Waitrose seems to charge ordinary prices rather than inflated ones. Their soft drinks are startlingly cheaper than any other outlet on the station. 
 

Paul

 

Similarly Boots at Reading station only seem to charge normal prices.

 

 

 

 

[keefer]

It has been a while since I used a station shop, so it's nice to hear it's not quite the rip-off it used to be.

[jim.snowdon]

The common factor in expensive station food sales is, I think, Select Service Partner, the owners of most of the non-High Street food outlets on stations (and the on train catering for quite a lot of the TOCs).

 

Jim

[John Harris]

On 11/06/2020 at 11:09, phil-b259 said:

Shenfeild (and possibly Brentwood) will still be served by fast GA trains to London so there is no need to sit on an all stations stopper. It may also be quicker for some at adjacent stations to double back via Shenfield rather than sit on a Purle train for the duration.

 

I agree, and I'm not sure if the GA train stop at Brentwood either.

 

The wrinkle is that because Harold Wood is within the "Greater London Authority" area, the fares are subsidised so it pays those who might travel from Shenfield or Brentwood to drive (or be driven) to HW for a substantial saving on the season ticket.  The numbers of cars dropping/picking up is significant in "normal" times. 

 

I get a free travel card from 60, as I live in "London", which covers bus, Tube, Overground and DLR services, I can even travel at peak times on the card.

 

jh

[John Harris]

On 11/06/2020 at 11:04, phil-b259 said:

This step is necessary to provide clearance for freight wagons - and once the Elizebeth line trains hit NR infrastructure freight has to be accommodated on all lines in case of engineering works.

 

The only way you can fix this is on a mixed use railway is make the passenger trains have a lower ride height, bringing the floor level closer to the platform height as per the Saddler GA units.

 

If the railway is effectively self contained (e.g. the ELL north of new cross or the Crossrail core then platforms can be higher than the norm to remove stepping up.

 

On the GEML though, if the step has increased with the new units then the Bombardier units must have a slightly higher floor height than the 315s they are replacing.

 

 

 

 

Thank you for the explanation, oddly the "freight" traffic on Crossrail seems to have been put on the back burner, there were plans for a freight depot near where the line crosses the M25, then later near the old Romford gas works, but I've seen no evidence of any work in that area.

 

I understand what you mean about the steps, though I've seen buses and trains were a step pops out when the doors open?  I'm not a frequent traveller these days, but I have seen, and assisted myself, people helping single parents get strollers off the current trains.

 

jh

[John Harris]

With regard to the comments about the stations, I have to say that the Crossrail work done on my local station has been done tastefully and sympathetically, keeping some elements of the old LNER design.

 

The biggest problems were the delays caused by the archived plans not actually matching the reality of the site.

 

jh

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, John Harris said:

 

Thank you for the explanation, oddly the "freight" traffic on Crossrail seems to have been put on the back burner, there were plans for a freight depot near where the line crosses the M25, then later near the old Romford gas works, but I've seen no evidence of any work in that area.

 

I understand what you mean about the steps, though I've seen buses and trains were a step pops out when the doors open?  I'm not a frequent traveller these days, but I have seen, and assisted myself, people helping single parents get strollers off the current trains.

 

jh

 

Its never been suggested the crossrail core carry freight!

 

However if engineering works close the 'main lines' east of Stratford then freight will have to share the 'Electric lines' with Crossrail stock.

 

Hence why I talked about once Crossrail starts running on Network Rail infrastructure - The core from Royal Oak to Pudding Pill Lane and the entire Abbey Wood branch are TfL infrastructure akin to the London Underground.

 

As for steps on trains, its been considered, but introduces yet more things to fail and could cause extensive disruption if they remained stuck out at a station as the train would likely be out of gauge and couldn't move till it was dealt with.

 

That said I think Merseyrail is going to have them so if its a success then we might start to see them on new trains in the future.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, John Harris said:

 

I agree, and I'm not sure if the GA train stop at Brentwood either.

 

The wrinkle is that because Harold Wood is within the "Greater London Authority" area, the fares are subsidised so it pays those who might travel from Shenfield or Brentwood to drive (or be driven) to HW for a substantial saving on the season ticket.  The numbers of cars dropping/picking up is significant in "normal" times. 

 

I get a free travel card from 60, as I live in "London", which covers bus, Tube, Overground and DLR services, I can even travel at peak times on the card.

 

jh

 

The fares are not subsidised that much - It is a LEGAL requirement that when the mayor sets TfL fare policy, they must not allow a 'Cliff Edge' in fares to occur between the last station within the GLA boundary and the one immediately outside it (In this case Harold Wood and Shenfield).

 

Any fare difference is thus a legacy of what BR did before privatisation (where there was no restriction on 'Cliff Edge' fares.

 

Hence Mayor Kahn's 'fare freeze' could only apply to the tube, buses, trams & DLR - all rail operations (as well as the multi-mode travel card) had to rise every year to stay compliant due to the policy of above inflation fare rises set by the DfT with respect franchised operations.

[62613]

3 hours ago, John Harris said:

With regard to the comments about the stations, I have to say that the Crossrail work done on my local station has been done tastefully and sympathetically, keeping some elements of the old LNER design.

 

The biggest problems were the delays caused by the archived plans not actually matching the reality of the site.

 

jh

Speaking as a former designer, I'd say that that was par for the course!

 

[Paul.Uni]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

Hence Mayor Kahn's 'fare freeze' could only apply to the tube, buses, trams & DLR - all rail operations (as well as the multi-mode travel card) had to rise every year to stay compliant due to the policy of above inflation fare rises set by the DfT with respect franchised operations.

The fares freeze also applies to Oyster PAYG rail fares that TfL are responsible for. IIRC currently TfL are responsible for setting the Oyster PAYG fares of:

• Most of the London Overground network
• Thameslink between West Hampstead - Elephant & Castle & London Bridge
• Kings Cross & Moorgate - Finsbury Park
• Liverpool Street - Harold Wood
• Marylebone - Amersham & West Ruislip
• Paddington - Greenford & West Drayton

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, Paul.Uni said:

The fares freeze also applies to Oyster PAYG rail fares that TfL are responsible for. IIRC currently TfL are responsible for setting the Oyster PAYG fares of:

• Most of the London Overground network
• Thameslink between West Hampstead - Elephant & Castle & London Bridge
• Kings Cross & Moorgate - Finsbury Park
• Liverpool Street - Harold Wood
• Marylebone - Amersham & West Ruislip
• Paddington - Greenford & West Drayton

 

TfL may set the fares, but they cannot freeze them. Please note what I said earlier about it being a legal requirement for the Mayor to ensure that his / her policies do not create a 'cliff edge' situation occurring at fare boundaries.

 

If the fare freeze applied to Paddington & West Drayton (TfL set) while Paddington to Iver fares (GWR set) increased 1% above inflation as mandated by the DfT you would have a massive difference between the two by now. As it is rail fares to West Drayton have not been frozen and thus there has not been a significant widening in the deference between fares.

 

Similarly while TfL may have frozen the fares on other transport modes, they cannot freeze the travel card price as that scheme is a joint effort between TfL plus ATOC / the RDG and the latter will veto any attempt to freeze the cost as DfT policy is fares MUST increase every year.

 

 

[Paul.Uni]

40 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

TfL may set the fares, but they cannot freeze them. Please note what I said earlier about it being a legal requirement for the Mayor to ensure that his / her policies do not create a 'cliff edge' situation occurring at fare boundaries.

 

If the fare freeze applied to Paddington & West Drayton (TfL set) while Paddington to Iver fares (GWR set) increased 1% above inflation as mandated by the DfT you would have a massive difference between the two by now. As it is rail fares to West Drayton have not been frozen and thus there has not been a significant widening in the deference between fares.

I've just looked back at my Oyster journey history statements. Back in August 2016 I did a journey from Hayes & Harlington to Kings Cross St. Pancras on Oyster PAYG for £3.10. Today the same trip would still cost me £3.10.