Elizabeth Line / Crossrail Updates.

[jjb1970]

3 hours ago, lyneux said:

Looks like its 1:68th Scale. So somewhere between S and OO.

 

I wonder why not make it one of the common scales?

 

Guy

 

A lot of static display models are 1/87 or 1/120, and you do see some in 1/160. Another popular scale in 1/66. However, because these models are basically desk top display models and not intended to be part of a model railway system the scale doesn't really matter. The manufacturers seem to plough their own furrow, having their own market space working with train builders and operators, and feeding some production into retail channels. They do a couple of modern Chinese locomotives in 1/66, including the HXN5 (ES59ACi) diesel which are superbly done.

[Grovenor]

3 hours ago, lyneux said:

Looks like its 1:68th Scale. So somewhere between S and OO.

 

I wonder why not make it one of the common scales?

 

Guy

What evidence do you have for that scale?  I have seen similar gifts from Bombardier when I worked for a purchaser of trains and those were 1:87.

[jjb1970]

the listing states 1/68. A lot of these models are odd scales.

[lyneux]

16 hours ago, Grovenor said:

What evidence do you have for that scale?  I have seen similar gifts from Bombardier when I worked for a purchaser of trains and those were 1:87.

It’s in the listing. Of course, the listing might be wrong…

[The Stationmaster]

Interesting morning yesterday enroute to Ally Pally.  Part of my trip involved travelling from Twyford to Reading ona 345 in order to catch a fast to Padd to avoid theslow Liz Line journey.  Having watched, on the 'Staff Information' screen, the 345 with an empty stone train tight on its tail coming down the relief - and teh freight gaining time once the 345 gt west of Maidenhead I duly h joined the 345 at twyford.

 

First thing I noticed, it being some time since I last rode on one, is how the riding over jointed track at pointwork feels to have gota lot 'harder' that it earlier was with these units.  Perfectly ok on cwr but not now so good over pointwrk even on the 'straight' route.

 

The approach to Reading was even more interesting because having been routed iover to the Up Relief toPlatform 15 I had the distinct impression that the Driver was almost 'feeling his way' with power going on, then off and slowing then regaininga a bit of momentum.

 

The situation at Reading was even more interesting -a 387 sitting in Paltform 14 so it was obvuously not available to the S 345 and Platform 13 seemingly empty until what turned out to be  a ballast train ran throughpastin the Up direction.  The latter as an ofdd because according to RTT thos train was cancelled )see below) - well it wasn't and it ran through Reading right on its booked time and was still running on time when I passed it further east while heading for Padd in an IET.  Most odd.

 

Incidentally my journey. to Ally Pally by direct rail routes is probably barely 45 miles - outwards it took 6 trains to do it!

[RJS1977]

Sounds like you took a route that involved more changes than necessary though - as you say, you deliberately avoided doing the all stops to Paddington, which whilst slower, would have reduced the number of changes. (I wasn't expecting the 387 and the fast to Paddington would be running as it was a strike day).

 

In theory (if you were prepared to get the stopper), you could have done Elizabeth Line to TCR, Central to Holborn, and Piccadilly Line to Wood Green, or Elizabeth Line to Farringdon, H&C/Circle/Met to King's Cross and thence to Ally Pally (if trains were running from King's Cross).

 

 

One time, when the early 21st-century terrorism situation was at its highest, my parents made me promise them I wouldn't go into the centre of London, or on the Underground. But I wanted to go to Ally Pally, so I went from Reading via Richmond, Gospel Oak and Crouch Hill, then W7 bus - and the same to go home!

[Mike_Walker]

Yes, I was going to say you didn't have to go via Reading, Mike.  And are the seats on a 80x actually any better than those on a 345?  OK so you'd have to endure it for a shorter period of time.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Mike_Walker said:

Yes, I was going to say you didn't have to go via Reading, Mike.  And are the seats on a 80x actually any better than those on a 345?  OK so you'd have to endure it for a shorter period of time.

For the time at which I left home I had no real alternative but to go via Reading as the saving in journey time was worth it and in fact it was the route/times National Rail enquiry site gave me. (6 minutes slower than a booked connection into a 387 at Twyford would have been - if there had been one, the train I used doesn't connect into a 387).   Then District to Edgware Road and Circle from there to KX - the quickest way from Paddn to KX with minimal changing.(*the H&C was closed until 14.00)and in any case I was at the wrong end of the train for that when  arrived at Paddn.

 

Coming back it was simpler as by then the B&C was open and having allowed plenty of time at Ally pally I had a 30 minute wait at Paddn for the 387 departure so my nett journey time was 1h 40 mins.

 

The seats on an 80X are considerably better than those on a 345, the riding is better through pointwork (although not as good as a 387) and the IET actually has useful things like toilets which are, of course  absent on the 345s.   I normally avoid 345s like the plague they are because because 387s are considerably more comfortable and you aren't forced to travel sideways if a train is busy.

 

Incidentally the easiest route for me - although not the quickest by a considerable margin - is 387 connection Twyford to Ealing Broadway, Liz Line Ealing Broadway to Farringdon, Thameslink Farringdon to Finsbury Park and change there for Ally Pally although that was not possible on the strike day (nor I think wiill it be possible on next year's timetable. unless the 387s stop ar Ealing Broadway on Saturdays - which i haven't checked).

 

Like so many journeys in London the possibilities are almost endless!

[Mike_Walker]

2 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

For the time at which I left home I had no real alternative but to go via Reading as the saving in journey time was worth it and in fact it was the route/times National Rail enquiry site gave me. (6 minutes slower than a booked connection into a 387 at Twyford would have been - if there had been one, the train I used doesn't connect into a 387).   Then District to Edgware Road and Circle from there to KX - the quickest way from Paddn to KX with minimal changing.(*the H&C was closed until 14.00)and in any case I was at the wrong end of the train for that when  arrived at Paddn.

 

Coming back it was simpler as by then the B&C was open and having allowed plenty of time at Ally pally I had a 30 minute wait at Paddn for the 387 departure so my nett journey time was 1h 40 mins.

 

The seats on an 80X are considerably better than those on a 345, the riding is better through pointwork (although not as good as a 387) and the IET actually has useful things like toilets which are, of course  absent on the 345s.   I normally avoid 345s like the plague they are because because 387s are considerably more comfortable and you aren't forced to travel sideways if a train is busy.

 

Incidentally the easiest route for me - although not the quickest by a considerable margin - is 387 connection Twyford to Ealing Broadway, Liz Line Ealing Broadway to Farringdon, Thameslink Farringdon to Finsbury Park and change there for Ally Pally although that was not possible on the strike day (nor I think wiill it be possible on next year's timetable. unless the 387s stop ar Ealing Broadway on Saturdays - which i haven't checked).

 

Like so many journeys in London the possibilities are almost endless!

No they won't be stopping at Ealing Broadway or Hayes (for easy connection to LHR) something else Mr H got a severe ear-bashing over on Thursday.  Of course, the reason is stopping at one or both when running on the UM takes a big bite out of capacity.  Which took us off into recalling the wistful realms of a 5-track railway from Slough to Hanwell Bridge that Mark was proposing nearly two decades ago.

[jonhall]

Apparently now carrying one in six of all rail passenger journeys in Great Britain!

 

https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/the-elizabeth-line-is-the-uks-busiest-railway-61344/

 

Jon

[The Stationmaster]

43 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

No they won't be stopping at Ealing Broadway or Hayes (for easy connection to LHR) something else Mr H got a severe ear-bashing over on Thursday.  Of course, the reason is stopping at one or both when running on the UM takes a big bite out of capacity.  Which took us off into recalling the wistful realms of a 5-track railway from Slough to Hanwell Bridge that Mark was proposing nearly two decades ago.

Really it needs six tracks and ythey would fir ar b nor too difficult a job for most of that distance apart from the cost of bridgeworks.  Similarly - possible Ealing Broadway apart - squeeze in six, and definitely five fromActon to  Hanwell.

 

Problem is that TfL has dumped onto the GWML a train service it isn't really able to handle over the longer term - shame they didn't pay for their own railway instead of overcrowding somebody else's.  And somebdy has wondered why I have asked for our local rail user grou to keep hgoing to fight the depredations of TfL.

 

BTW the quickest way to the airport is to change at West Drayton, not Hayes, and catch the 'bus; a route my daughter alway uses. (train service allowing of course) 

[The Stationmaster]

3 minutes ago, jonhall said:

Apparently now carrying one in six of all rail passenger journeys in Great Britain!

 

https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/the-elizabeth-line-is-the-uks-busiest-railway-61344/

 

Jon

And how many of those are abstractions from existing train services that were there before it opened?

[Northmoor]

15 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

And how many of those are abstractions from existing train services that were there before it opened?

Hopefully a significant quantity from the Central Line (and probably the Piccadilly as well), as relief of the core section congestion was always part of the justification for Crossrail.

[Steadfast]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

The seats on an 80X are considerably better than those on a 345, the riding is better through pointwork (although not as good as a 387) and the IET actually has useful things like toilets which are, of course  absent on the 345s.   I normally avoid 345s like the plague they are because because 387s are considerably more comfortable and you aren't forced to travel sideways if a train is busy.

Acton to Padd or vice versa on a 345 is fine, indeed the concept seems pretty good for a London people mover. Rapid and regular, just a shame more trains don't call at Acton from a personal perspective. I can't imagine what travelling to Reading on them is like though. Transport for the London Borough of Reading?

 

As for IET seats...less said the better! Save that for another thread

 

Jo

[Mike_Walker]

Some years ago, the Marlow & District Railway Society had a talk on the Crossrail (as it then was) project.  Initially it was to be by the public relations manager, west and hearts sank as he was a typical PR man but for unknown reasons at the last minute he was replaced by his opposite number from the east.  He was a revelation in that he had a civil engineering background and could therefore go into the interesting things like how the central section was being built.  However, in response to those members concerned at the effect it would have on the GWML he rather surprised us by saying: "Frankly, I can't understand why we are going out to Maidenhead (this was before the terminal moved west to Reading), who is going to catch an all-stations metro type train from there when they can get on a semi-fast GWR service?  In my opinion our western terminal should be Heathrow."  There was broad agreement with that.

 

The problem is that the east and west sides of the central core are totally different railways.  On the GEML, Elizabeth Line services have basically replaced the previous GE all stations stopping services between Liverpool St and Shenfield which have always operated on their own dedicated lines.  All the other passenger services to places like Southend, Walton, Ipswich and Norwich plus all of the freight traffic is routed along the main lines so the arrival of the EL has made no difference.

 

The GWML has always been a four-track mixed use railway.  Local and semi-fast passenger services have traditionally been restricted to the Relief (Slow for those in other parts of the country) lines along with freight. The latter on the GWML is dominated by heavy stone trains restricted to 45 (loaded) or 60mph (empty) which also take longer to accelerate or stop compared to the 75mph intermodal trains which make up almost the entire GEML freight business.  Since the arrival of the HSTs in 1976, class 1 passenger trains have had almost exclusive use of the Main lines allowing unbroken 125mph running west of Acton.  The frequency of these can be up to 10 an hour in each direction compared to the GEML where the only really fast trains are the hourly Norwich services running at a maximum 90mph west of Shenfield.  GWML timetables have always been designed around these constraints.  East of Hayes there were all-stations services into Paddington,  west of there there was a mix of all stations and limited stop trains which all ran "fast" after Hayes stopping only at Ealing Broadway and sometimes Southall.  If you wanted to go to one of the inner stations you changed at Hayes where a stopping service would be the next up train.  At times it was very tightly timed and things could go wrong - many is the time I've been on a semi-fast that has crawled down the DR behind a delayed stopper - but generally it worked.

 

From May, the EL will have almost sole use of the Relief lines east of Slough;  GWR's semi-fasts will usually cross to/from the Mains at Dolphin Junction although a few will make the move at Stockley Junction east of West Drayton.  The only non-EL traffic on the Reliefs will be freight.  This is to try and ensure that EL services arrive at Westbourne Park within seconds of their booked path.  With up to 24 trains per hour each way in the central core this is essential if the service is not to melt down.  At present, eastbound EL trains often stand for up to 5 minutes at Westbourne Park to await their correct time/path through the core but that will no longer happen after May.  Fortunately, the 387s have a top speed of 110mph and impressive acceleration so they shouldn't be too big a drag on the reliability of the 125mph IET services but you can see why it is not possible to stop at Ealing without taking a large bite out of the capacity.  The crossovers at Dolphin are 45mph which is a bit of a restraint so the timetable has been designed so that up and down 387s will pass over Dolphin Junction at roughly the same time - fortunately it's a traditional double junction (due to space constraints) not a modern single lead like Stockley.  The latter is a 70mph crossover and therefore, in theory, causes less potential disruption to the Main lines but there are three intermediate stations between the two junctions which EL trains will be calling at and causing a major obstacle if GWR services routinely stayed on the Reliefs as far as Stockley.  At the end of the day, the service from May will be a compromise and one which requires a high degree of punctuality if it is to work reliably.  We can only hope - a lot of senior management have fingers, toes and various other anatomical parts firmly crossed!

 

For those of us travelling from Maidenhead and Twyford we will have our fastest ever all-day services to/from Paddington and the timetables of the Windsor, Marlow and Henley branches have bee recast to make connections as far as possible with GWR services on the main lines rather than EL.  Regrettably the downside is the loss of easy connections onto LU or to the airport without resorting to the EL.  However, I understand that in the peaks some EL services will actually operate semi-fast.

 

Mike is of course right that the GWML really needs to be a 6-track railway, indeed when Mark Hopwood asked me to draw up a plan to widen the GWML that was our first thought but there simply wasn't the land available so we went for 5 tracks.  The intention was that there would 3 relief and 2 main lines.  The middle relief would have been bi-directional allowing a tidal flow.  In the morning peaks it would be used by London bound semi-fasts and in the evening by westbounds.  At other times it would host semi-fasts and freights in either direction as required.  Sadly, I no longer appear to have the original drawing on my computer.

 

[The Stationmaster]

Mike makes some very interestng points but for many years the all stations stoppers at teh eastern end ran to.from Slough with very v few turbib round shoirt  of there.  However as frequenncues in the peak increased Hayes became a regularly used turn round point once the parcels had traffic had ceased.  (iteffectively replaed Southall turn rounds which had ended many years earlier).  Slough would in fact bee the ideal place to turn round Crossrail trains  while the east facing middle bay could readily have been reinstated to hold a 4 car 387 to provide al allstations service to Reading this allowing semi-fasts to avoid calling at R Burnham and taplow if journey time reductions were needed.

 

The root of all the current problems and constraints is Crossrail where - un like the previous plan - what we now call 'national rail' has not had the necessary close involvement to keep TfL's various ideas in check.   Hence he situation Mike has described above although part of the five tracking proposal was planned back in the early -90s in order to separate semi=fasts and stoppers east of Iver and preferably extended at some cost back to Dolphin but excluding Langley station Dolphin to Langley would have cost very little as it amounted to simply reinstating the fifth track. and even exye tending it to Slough would by then have ve been fi airly simle as well as it too amounted to not much more than reinstatement but it would have involved considerable slewing.   Regrettably - mainly because Crossrail was cancelled in 1994 none of this happened but as usual we can only look back and see the relatively cheap options that have been lost. Hayes to Southall would of course - back then - have taken six running lines and - stations apart - these could extend through to the major road underbridge east of Southall. (in fact I had recreated there  six lines as part of the works for Heathrow Express and those six lines still exist east of Southall. as far as the Uxbridge Road underbridge).

 

Above all - with not inconsiderable experience of operation on the GWML I have very great concerns about what is going to happen in times of perturbation  - most often not of the railway's making in that area - and simply running a two-track timetable yo cater for engineering works.  and the latter is nec vitably going to happen as track needs to be tamped regularly and track needs to be relaid, quite likely at increased intervals in the case of the Relief Lines carrying. very frequent services.   and under the access Conditions no one operator - passenger or freight - can be treated any more of less favourably than any other operator and speaking from a sensible train operating viewpoint Class 1s should get priority to achieve optimum use of track capacity usage.  I wonder how TfL are going to like it when they are faced with the inevitable two track timetables?  Or indeed how they are going to like it wehrn the container train diversion service has to be implemented?   

 

BTW our Branch User Group got the PR bloke back in the early days of teh Crossrail project - he hadn't got a clue and was laughed down on several of his comments.  Marlow was lucky!

[Mike_Walker]

The PR man referred to addressed the Marlow-Maidenhead Passengers' Association on several occasions and was the guy originally to be sent to speak to the MDRS.  As with the Henley group he was roundly laughed at by the MMPA and as said hadn't a clue.

 

Yes, I was aware that in an earlier period the stopping service terminated at Slough rather than Hayes but I passed it over in the interests of brevity.  The other important thing to remember is that the original Crossrail proposal was by BR and would have been integrated from the start not a glorified tube line superimposed on the "big railway" by an empire-building London Mayor!

[The Stationmaster]

4 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

The PR man referred to addressed the Marlow-Maidenhead Passengers' Association on several occasions and was the guy originally to be sent to speak to the MDRS.  As with the Henley group he was roundly laughed at by the MMPA and as said hadn't a clue.

 

Yes, I was aware that in an earlier period the stopping service terminated at Slough rather than Hayes but I passed it over in the interests of brevity.  The other important thing to remember is that the original Crossrail proposal was by BR and would have been integrated from the start not a glorified tube line superimposed on the "big railway" by an empire-building London Mayor!

Yea s - and as i;ve mentioned nt long sibnce I was amember of teh Western Review  (and Timetable Review) Group for the previous Crossrail scheme virtually from u its inception.  and I very nearly became the Train Planning Manager, West for Crossrail  only really missing out on that because te scheme was cancelled although I'd had an interview already for Eurostar.  

 

But I need to make it clear that the never publicised intention to add the Henley branch to the scheme - while it was suggested by me in order to solve the emerging platform capacity problem at Reading - was not actually added to the scheme plan by me but by those already involved.  The platforming problem at Reading was the consequence of the scheme only going to have a single, new, platform face dedicated to Crossrail trains and no way of adding at second platform at reasonable cost.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Mike_Walker said:

The PR man referred to addressed the Marlow-Maidenhead Passengers' Association on several occasions and was the guy originally to be sent to speak to the MDRS.  As with the Henley group he was roundly laughed at by the MMPA and as said hadn't a clue.

 

Yes, I was aware that in an earlier period the stopping service terminated at Slough rather than Hayes but I passed it over in the interests of brevity.  The other important thing to remember is that the original Crossrail proposal was by BR and would have been integrated from the start not a glorified tube line superimposed on the "big railway" by an empire-building London Mayor!

 

However if it wasn't for that 'empire building mayor' - which actually of course is THREE discrete people ( Ken Livingstone, Boris Johnson as well as Sadiq Kahn) Crossrail would have been killed off by Alistar Darling or George Osbourne in the aftermath of the 2008 banking crash!

 

As I seemingly keep having to remind people the ONLY REASON crossrail survived to be in exsistance today was the structure that put TfL in the driving seat - and in particular, the legislation which obliged TfL to substantially up their contribution through extra council tax / business levies which were ring fenced exclusively for crossrail - and which legal experts made very clear to HM Treasury would have to be rfeunded in it entirity if the scheme got cancelled.

 

Had Crossrail been structured as per the previous attempt (say Network Rail & TfL joint venture with no link to London council tax / business rate payers) it would have been very easy for the DfT / HM Treasuary to abandon as 'unfordable'

 

So yes, while The Stationmaster and others do highlight valid shortcomings the reality is the choice you have is not between the top notch crossrail with a 6 track GWML etc and the current setup - the REAL choice is what we have now OR NOTHING!

 

In that context despite its shortcomings Crosrail / the Elizabeth line is still a very welcome addition to London transport network and no amount of moaning (however justified it may be) from GWML users changes that.

Edited March 20, 2023 by phil-b259

[ColinK]

As a Northerner staying in Abbey Wood for the weekend to attend the Ally Pally exhibition, I’ve now made four journeys on the Elizabeth line; from my perspective it is great, fast and frequent.  I don’t like the seats facing into the coach as I like to see out, but nothing to see as our journeys were mainly in tunnel.  Our journeys into London mid morning had lightly loaded trains, but surprisingly busy coming back at 2130 on Saturday and packed at 1730 today, indeed some people couldn’t get on, makes you wonder what they did before the line openned.

 

What did surprise us was how deep the line was in Central London and just how far you have to walk from station entrance to train.

 

Manchester needs something similar linking Piccadilly and Victoria, never building the Pic Vic tunnel was a huge mistake.

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

A blast from the past Part 1

 

Take from my handwritten notes of the 'Western Side' Crossrail planning meeting held o23 April 1993.

1. Case for Paddington -Readng is still strong but the Aylesbury route might be delayed as the whole schemed is under review

 

2.  Start of electrification  on  the Western side from Easter 1997 in connection with Heathrow wiring.

3.  Clearance of site for depot construction work at Reading to be complete by 1 January 1997 with additional yard  capacity at Didcot hopefully commencing in June 1995 (to allow closure of Readng West Jcn yards to clear space for theh Crossrail depot and stabling sidings.

4. Crossrail services from Reading to commence in Autmn 1998

 

Part 2

 

 

 

 

Part 3.  The Trains -

Note they would have toilets and overall they would have offered an improvement in comfort and design on current BR trains then operating either side of London

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mike_Walker]

Now that would have been a much better scheme, much better than what we've got.  How was it proposed to reach the GWML from Wembley?  Presumably by a tunnel.

[Siberian Snooper]

The trains look infinitely better than what has been provided. Also they had toilets, a great improvement, especially on a Sunday when there are no GW semi fasts.

 

 

 

 

[jonhall]

3 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

Now that would have been a much better scheme, much better than what we've got.  How was it proposed to reach the GWML from Wembley?  Presumably by a tunnel.

 

What aspect is better? 

 

Jon

[lmsforever]

Why was the line to Aylesbury dropped ?