Jump to content
 

Elizabeth Line / Crossrail Updates.


Recommended Posts

It is only a matter of time before zoologists recognise the London Underground rat as a specific breed. Should make for an interesting Latin name.

 

Probably be given a code like Underground stock, maybe UR (Underground Rat)?

 

Interesting fact I've been told, and with the hours I've spent down there I believe it:

 

The PA systems on the stations are split in groups such as platforms, ticket halls etc. Each group has a tone superimposed, which if broken throws up an alarm for fault finding/reporting purposes. This tone is inaudible to us humans, but rats can hear it. Hence they do not appear on stations. Exceptions are on the sub-surface lines (Met,District,H&C) (there is strictly speaking no Circle as it is regarded as part of the Met/District). On these lines they will pass through as they survive more on the sections between which are partly open air. (Quite why they don't do that on proper tube line sections mystifies me though, perhaps the tone penetrates the tunnels by bouncing off the walls?).

The mice however are a different breed, being totally deaf and immune to the tone. Also, insects - when did you see an insect down there? Works like those electronic pest killers you get from Maplins.

 

Stewart

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

It is only a matter of time before zoologists recognise the London Underground rat as a specific breed. Should make for an interesting Latin name.

 

The mice seem to be far more common - I've often wondered if Darwinian influences are at work and the Bakerloo LIne ones are gradually evolving in a different way from those on the Circle Line?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I stand corrected on those mosquitoes, though I've never actually seen any. I can honestly say I've only witnessed 1 insect, and that was on a Met line train between Baker St, and KGX, must have been brought in as a passenger!

After the Kings Cross fire, and the following report into it, there were many changes that had to be made. Smoking was banned, fire detection systems were installed, PA systems and radio also were installed. I joined the job in about 2004, just as the PPP upgrades were beginning. Since then, many/most of the original systems have been replaced (I no longer work on the PA systems so am not as familiar with them). Most electronic systems have around a 15 year lifespan before renewal; this would date the originals from around 1990ish, which is about right considering the KGX fire was in November 1987. I tend to believe that the HF sound does actually get rid of most of the insects, but maybe there are exceptions. I've only ever seen 1 rat on a station, around midday at Temple; it did come out of the tunnel though. Mice are everywhere, just look in the suicide pits anywhere on the tube, make sure when you spot them that you speak loudly about them in the vicinity of young women and watch their reaction!

 

Stewart

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Euston is full of rodents, it is quite interesting to watch the track in some of the platforms and notice just how many rodents there are which you don't notice unless you make a real effort to just look at the track for a few minutes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

It is only a matter of time before zoologists recognise the London Underground rat as a specific breed. Should make for an interesting Latin name.

Rattus Subterraneous would be the Latin name methinks.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Apparently the DfT have vetoed the connection to the WCML on the suspicious grounds that 'it doesn't offer value for money'

 

What isn't explained is how NR will cope with the extra trains Euston will have to handle during its rebuild.

 

http://www.hemeltoday.co.uk/news/crossrail-off-the-tracks-as-plans-are-shelved-1-7513704

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know that the WCML was ever part of the plan. Looks like an option was looked at discounted at an early stage.

 

As for Euston during the rebuild, who knows? To be honest, 18 platforms seems a lot for the amount of traffic there. Judging on Waterloo, you could probably run the service from more like 12.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I didn't know that the WCML was ever part of the plan. Looks like an option was looked at discounted at an early stage.

 

As for Euston during the rebuild, who knows? To be honest, 18 platforms seems a lot for the amount of traffic there. Judging on Waterloo, you could probably run the service from more like 12.

 

It was announced some time back, and seemingly rather off the cuff, as a  possible addition which was being looked at (some time after an earlier proposal to link to the WCML had been ruled out).  Like you I'm not entirely sure why Euston needs so many platforms although I suspect a habit of relatively long turnrounds for longer distance trains has something to do with it as does any segregating by service group/operator.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I didn't know that the WCML was ever part of the plan. Looks like an option was looked at discounted at an early stage.

 

As for Euston during the rebuild, who knows? To be honest, 18 platforms seems a lot for the amount of traffic there. Judging on Waterloo, you could probably run the service from more like 12.

 

The concept was sound - Crossrail will be up and running before HS2 and due to capacity restrictions on the GWML around half to 2/3rds of trains coming from the East will turn round in the Royal Oak sidings. Rebuilding Euston for HS2 will inevitably cause problems - and like London Bridge the suggestion was to divert some services away from there which gave more room for manoeuvrer when it came to actually phasing the rebuilding etc. (again London Bridge highlights some of the potential pitfalls). Finally with TfL working towards putting stations on the NLL / WLL in the vicinity of Old Oak - the addition of regular services onto the WCML improves the potential for it to become a Stratford style rail hub and the redevelopment potential (should TfL get their way and build over / move the various train servicing depots to new locations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In principle running the Tring services from Crossrail seems a good idea. Though the overground to Watford would probably fit better with the nature of the Eastern branches. That wouldn't fit with TfLs shameless empire building though...

I'd just missed that it was ever part of the plan.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In principle running the Tring services from Crossrail seems a good idea. Though the overground to Watford would probably fit better with the nature of the Eastern branches. That wouldn't fit with TfLs shameless empire building though...

I'd just missed that it was ever part of the plan.

Also I think a 200m train on the DC lines would be something of an overkill, not to mention requiring the line to be converted to AC and all the platforms to be extended.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The concept was sound - Crossrail will be up and running before HS2 and due to capacity restrictions on the GWML around half to 2/3rds of trains coming from the East will turn round in the Royal Oak sidings. Rebuilding Euston for HS2 will inevitably cause problems - and like London Bridge the suggestion was to divert some services away from there which gave more room for manoeuvrer when it came to actually phasing the rebuilding etc. (again London Bridge highlights some of the potential pitfalls). Finally with TfL working towards putting stations on the NLL / WLL in the vicinity of Old Oak - the addition of regular services onto the WCML improves the potential for it to become a Stratford style rail hub and the redevelopment potential (should TfL get their way and build over / move the various train servicing depots to new locations.

 

The further advantage was that - although the levels and angles aren't the easiest job in the world - linking across to the WCML from the Old Oak area would not be a massive task especially when compared with tunnelling under Central London.  Equally although it would require alteration to the HEX depot layout it wouldn't be too difficult to provide Crossrail with its own pair of running lines from Westbourne Park to Old Oak Common West - after all it will be more or less in that situation as far as Old Oak Common East in any case(with only crossing GWR and HEX ecs trains to worry about if it had a pair of lines to the West as well).

 

In many respects it would still be quite logical, although expensive, to take Crossrail up the Joint Line to HIgh Wycombe, or further north, as originally proposed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I think a 200m train on the DC lines would be something of an overkill, not to mention requiring the line to be converted to AC and all the platforms to be extended.

You could make a similar argument about the GWML, the suburban trains are 5 or 6 car and a lot of extensions are needed. Plus the line needs converting to 25kV.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

You could make a similar argument about the GWML, the suburban trains are 5 or 6 car and a lot of extensions are needed. Plus the line needs converting to 25kV.

 

Not really - because the GWML was a prime candidate for getting wires as part of the HST replacement. While there is still some concern about the merits of extending Crossrail to Reading - the very simple fact is it relied upon the main GWML electrification & resignalling to Bristol, etc (and the associated rebuilding of Reading station) to make it happen as Crossrail were adamant that they would not fund the works themselves.

 

Unfortunately for the DC lines, the WCML already has overheads and as such there is no reason to invest money converting the DC lines to the same method of power supply.

Edited by phil-b259
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

 

In many respects it would still be quite logical, although expensive, to take Crossrail up the Joint Line to HIgh Wycombe, or further north, as originally proposed.

 

And thats the problem. Because the WCML already has Overheads and is a 4 track railway costs would be limited to the chords and connecting lines in the vicinity of Old Oak. Heading up to High Wycombe not only requires a significant amount of new electrification plus once you get beyond Rusliup there are the complications of mixing fast and slow services on only a single pair of tracks thus limiting the service frequency.

 

Of course, as with the Reading situation, significant investment in the Chiltern route done as part of a wider package  (i.e. electrification) might well make extending Crossrail to the likes of High Wycombe more attractive - but if such investment happens it will be decades away. By contrast the link to the WCML could be up and running a lot quicker.

 

As has been touched on elsewhere virtually every single railway reopening, station opening, new service opportunity in the past 20 years has exceed all 'predicted passenger figures by quite some margin - which makes you question whether there is something seriously wring with the BCR calculations used to asses new proposals. In the case of the borders railway, had the potential ridership figures been closer to the reality then those dynamic passing loops could have been made a bit longer and avoided the situation where the station dwell times are such (due to passenger numbers) that trains have trouble hitting their single line slots 'on time'. Thus with the WCML Crossrail connection I remain deeply suspicious of the Governments stance, particularly in the post Brexit situation where a rise in short term financial concerns are already making their presence felt in Whitehall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Not really - because the GWML was a prime candidate for getting wires as part of the HST replacement. While there is still some concern about the merits of extending Crossrail to Reading - the very simple fact is it relied upon the main GWML electrification & resignalling to Bristol, etc (and the associated rebuilding of Reading station) to make it happen as Crossrail were adamant that they would not fund the works themselves.

 

Unfortunately for the DC lines, the WCML already has overheads and as such there is no reason to invest money converting the DC lines to the same method of power supply.

 

The Reading rebuilding wasn't necessary for Crossrail although it does have benefits for it.  The original Crossrail planning proposed only a single additional platform at Reading which would have been relatively cheap to add although limited in capacity although a second platform wouldn't have been a massively expensive add on; the main works at reading would have been the depot and stabling sidings although the site for those has of course been used instead for the new 'traincare depot' to replace the facilities in the triangle (which would have stayed under the Crossrail scheme in order to provide a depot for what became Thames Trains/FGW/GWR).

 

The split now is rather different from what you say as electrification east of Maidenhead is largely on the Crossrail contract as I understand things with the GWML works starting at Maidenhead thence westwards although obviously they have some involvement further east.

 

Resignalling/revised signalling control has always been a separate matter as part of the planned WR signal renewal of life expired/outdated 1960s schemes although Crossrail would have ridden on the back of the 'Swindon super panel' which was planned in teh early 1990s to takeover most of what has now gone to Didcot plus a lot more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

 

The split now is rather different from what you say as electrification east of Maidenhead is largely on the Crossrail contract as I understand things with the GWML works starting at Maidenhead thence westwards although obviously they have some involvement further east.

 

 

Sorry Mike, I mis-phrased my original post re electrification boundary as I was indeed aware that Maidenhead represented the limit of all originally authorised Crossrail works but TfL (who seem to have had 'lead sponsor' credentials relating to Crossrail) were adamant it was not going to Reading unless someone else (i.e. NR & DfT) undertook the necessary work as an 'extra'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I think a 200m train on the DC lines would be something of an overkill, not to mention requiring the line to be converted to AC and all the platforms to be extended.

 

Hi,

 

I'm my dealings writing feasibility reports for Crossrail 2, where the Class 345's are to be used, I have found out that they do have the ability to run off third rail, although whether or not the shoes are fitted on the units for CR1 I don't know, so DC lines might not be required to convert to AC

 

Simon

Edited by St. Simon
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I'm my dealings writing feasibility reports for Crossrail 2, where the Class 345's are to be used, I have found out that they do have the ability to run off third rail, although whether or not the shoes are fitted on the units for CR1 I don't know, so DC lines might not be required to convert to AC

 

Simon

Yes I've heard of that provision too, but I believe there is some extra kit to be fitted to make it workable.  Also I doubt an infrastructure that only supports 4-5 car trains can cope with trains double the size without some upgrade. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be noted that while it isn't currently being progressed, TfL have got the necessary passive provision at Old Oak Common for the WCML link - the GWML Up Relief will approach the station on a flyover, allowing the Crossrail reversing sidings to be extended north along the NNML and a future connection with the WCML.

Edited by Christopher125
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

It should be noted that while it isn't currently being progressed, TfL have got the necessary passive provision at Old Oak Common for the WCML link - the GWML Up Relief will approach the station on a flyover, allowing the Crossrail reversing sidings to be extended north along the NNML and a future connection with the WCML.

Can someone please explain NNML to me I don't think the North Norfolk goes that far.

 

Jamie

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Can someone please explain NNML to me I don't think the North Norfolk goes that far.

 

Jamie

 

It's going to involve some 'interesting' gradients as well!

 

The logical think with Crossrail if a northern route is in mind is simply to keep it on the north side of the Relief Lines - easy to provide a separate pair of running lines all the way to Old Oak for trains which will reverse there thus keeping them completely clear of the relief Lines although obviously Crossrail trains joining the Relief Lines to head west will have to cross the Up Relief somehow which would involve slewing the Reliefs if a flying junction is in mind (but as there's no sign of it as yet i presume a flat junction will be the initial situation?.

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...