Elizabeth Line / Crossrail Updates.

[The Stationmaster]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44942322

More money

 

I wonder if that includes the additional costs of extending to Reading or whether that is being kept separate?

 

As faer as cost overruns on the BNR aside are concerned I suspect a lot of the money - definitely on works at stations - still has to be spent as many of them are still building sites while the only one that is allegedly 'finished' (Maidenhead - at platform level) looks like it was financed by robbing a child's moneybox, incredibly cheap and tacky looking.  I presume Burnham might also be 'finished' at platform level but the amount spent on installing and wiring loudspeakers on almost every lamppost looks like incredible overkill.

[St. Simon]

I wonder if that includes the additional costs of extending to Reading or whether that is being kept separate?

 

Hi

 

Is there additional cost in extending to Reading? I gather that the Reading Remodelling (and resignalling out to Twyford / Maidenhead) largely, in not totally, Crossrail proofed the area?

 

Simon

[The Stationmaster]

Hi

 

Is there additional cost in extending to Reading? I gather that the Reading Remodelling (and resignalling out to Twyford / Maidenhead) largely, in not totally, Crossrail proofed the area?

 

Simon

 

Originally according to TfL there was no cost - which I simply couldn't understand as it was easy to see where extra  costs would occur.  However more recently they announced that they were ordering additional sets in connection with an expansion (i.e. extension) of their operations on the GWML.   That of course should hardly come as a surprise as by extending services to Reading they increase the cycle time in each unit diagram therefore there comes a point at which they either need more trains or have to shorten the cycle time elsewhere in order to cover the effect of extending their working.  There might also be an increase in any mileage based maintenance costs together with a potential increase in crewing costs.  Presumably there will also be an increase in Track Access charges as they will be running additional mileage?  

 

All of these things are part of the simple facts of costing a train service and deciding the economics of it.  For example the running time only of the cycle time will be increased by c.30 minutes (plus any pathing time) for each out & back working extended through from Maidenhead to Reading, on 2 trains per hour that makes an extra hour of running time and on 4 tph it is obviously twice that; multiply that up over a 16 hour operating day and you need a lot of extra diagram hours.  Then add in any potential increase in turnround time as the layout at Reading is not as suitable for reversals as that at Maidenhead and there are likely to be more conflicting movements/demands for platform space which could potentially add even more time - for example there are already instances when Class 2 trains on the Down Relief suffer delays waiting a path to their booked platform or any available platform (and not that we yet know if Reading can actually handle 4 reversing Crossrail trains per hour anyway because of the increased need to reverse trains from the west on the Relief Lines side once Crossrail begins running to Reading).

 

Cycle time - time from  depart station A, run to terminating station B, turn round at Station B, run from Station B to Station A, turn round at Station A.  Cycle then repeats - part of the very straightforward way of working out what size fleet you need to operate any particular train service once you couple it with service frequency.  To get at the total number of units or whatever required that number will then need to equate to the percentage availability figure for the fleet you are going to use in order to give a total fleet size for a particular service.

[St. Simon]

Originally according to TfL there was no cost - which I simply couldn't understand as it was easy to see where extra  costs would occur.  However more recently they announced that they were ordering additional sets in connection with an expansion (i.e. extension) of their operations on the GWML.   That of course should hardly come as a surprise as by extending services to Reading they increase the cycle time in each unit diagram therefore there comes a point at which they either need more trains or have to shorten the cycle time elsewhere in order to cover the effect of extending their working.  There might also be an increase in any mileage based maintenance costs together with a potential increase in crewing costs.  Presumably there will also be an increase in Track Access charges as they will be running additional mileage?  

 

All of these things are part of the simple facts of costing a train service and deciding the economics of it.  For example the running time only of the cycle time will be increased by c.30 minutes (plus any pathing time) for each out & back working extended through from Maidenhead to Reading, on 2 trains per hour that makes an extra hour of running time and on 4 tph it is obviously twice that; multiply that up over a 16 hour operating day and you need a lot of extra diagram hours.  Then add in any potential increase in turnround time as the layout at Reading is not as suitable for reversals as that at Maidenhead and there are likely to be more conflicting movements/demands for platform space which could potentially add even more time - for example there are already instances when Class 2 trains on the Down Relief suffer delays waiting a path to their booked platform or any available platform (and not that we yet know if Reading can actually handle 4 reversing Crossrail trains per hour anyway because of the increased need to reverse trains from the west on the Relief Lines side once Crossrail begins running to Reading).

 

Cycle time - time from  depart station A, run to terminating station B, turn round at Station B, run from Station B to Station A, turn round at Station A.  Cycle then repeats - part of the very straightforward way of working out what size fleet you need to operate any particular train service once you couple it with service frequency.  To get at the total number of units or whatever required that number will then need to equate to the percentage availability figure for the fleet you are going to use in order to give a total fleet size for a particular service.

 

Hi Mike,

 

Yes, I see what you mean from an operational point of view, but I don't think there's anything in terms of construction costs (apart from additional car stop markers!)?

 

Simon

[iands]

Hi Mike,

 

Yes, I see what you mean from an operational point of view, but I don't think there's anything in terms of construction costs (apart from additional car stop markers!)?

 

Simon

When I was working on the Crossrail project (on the 'client' side), it was recognised that some work was required relating to DOO CCTV provision at stations to the west of Paddington. IIRC, ever station required something to be done in terms of DOO CCTV, but it wasn't huge amounts of money (relatively speaking).

 

Regards, Ian.

[The Stationmaster]

When I was working on the Crossrail project (on the 'client' side), it was recognised that some work was required relating to DOO CCTV provision at stations to the west of Paddington. IIRC, ever station required something to be done in terms of DOO CCTV, but it wasn't huge amounts of money (relatively speaking).

 

Regards, Ian.

 

But effectively all going west of Maidenhead adds is any work at Twyford where platforms (except the Up Relief) are being extended but that is clearly partly for IET/Class 387 and presumably TfL will also want CCTV added for Class 345s (at their expense I would hope).

 

I wait with baited breath to see how the conundrum of dealing with a Class 345 in the Up Relief platform at Twyford will be tackled as that platform cannot be extended at all.

[iands]

...I wait with baited breath to see how the conundrum of dealing with a Class 345 in the Up Relief platform at Twyford will be tackled as that platform cannot be extended at all.

 

Hi Mike,

 

Presumably then, Twyford would need SDO if the platform can't be extended.

 

Regards, Ian.

[St. Simon]

I wait with baited breath to see how the conundrum of dealing with a Class 345 in the Up Relief platform at Twyford will be tackled as that platform cannot be extended at all.

 

The Class 345s have Automatic Selective Door Operation installed on them (the same system on the Class 70xs and Class 80xs), not needed just yet, but will by when the service is extended to Maidenhead / Reading.

 

Simon

Edited July 26, 2018 by St. Simon

[jim.snowdon]

The Class 345s have Automatic Selective Door Operation installed on them (the same system on the Class 70xs and Class 80xs), not needed just yet, but will by when the service is extended to Maidenhead / Reading.

 

Simon

And will it be compatible with the SDO system on the 387s?

 

As it is, although the relief line platforms at both Hayes and Southall have been extended to 9 car length, the SDO on the 387s is still operating in 7-car mode. It must be frustrating for passengers who find themselves not only having to walk up a length of empty platform but then past the eighth car just to get to the first door that is open. Some of that is down to the daft placing of the stop markers, where current signalling designers seem to have lost both an understanding of their original purpose and adopted them as if they were signals.

 

Jim

[HillsideDepot]

The whole stop marker thing has gone madly out of control.

 

Not relevant to Crossrail, but on recent travels around the South West many of the smaller Cornish stations now have more stop markers than passengers! 2, 3, 4 for Sprinters, 5 XC, 5 IET, 2+4 HST, 2+7 HST, 2+8 HST, 10 IET, and finally 11, 12, 13 left over from loco hauled days. 

 

How ever did we mange in the past?

[jim.snowdon]

The whole stop marker thing has gone madly out of control.

 

Not relevant to Crossrail, but on recent travels around the South West many of the smaller Cornish stations now have more stop markers than passengers! 2, 3, 4 for Sprinters, 5 XC, 5 IET, 2+4 HST, 2+7 HST, 2+8 HST, 10 IET, and finally 11, 12, 13 left over from loco hauled days. 

 

How ever did we mange in the past?

We treated them as guidance for drivers, who were expected to know where to stop in order to get the train in the platform anyway. My understanding has always been that they were put there (and possibly originated by the Southern Railway for its electric services) to guide the driver as to the best place to stop so that the train would be conveniently placed for passengers with respect to the platform saccess and other faciliies. This was at a time when the Southern routinely reduced train lengths off peak, so many trains were shorter than the platforms.

 

Now, it seems that they appear on the signalling diagrams (even though they were an operational convenience and not integral to the signalling) and have to be subject to signal sighting (ignoring the fact that to get the train stopped at a particular stop marker requires action to be taken by the driver long before he can see the markers (or, sometimes, the platform).

 

I would suggest that the problem is that common sense left some time ago, probably soon after the demise of British Railways.

 

Jim

[St. Simon]

And will it be compatible with the SDO system on the 387s?

 

As it is, although the relief line platforms at both Hayes and Southall have been extended to 9 car length, the SDO on the 387s is still operating in 7-car mode. It must be frustrating for passengers who find themselves not only having to walk up a length of empty platform but then past the eighth car just to get to the first door that is open. Some of that is down to the daft placing of the stop markers, where current signalling designers seem to have lost both an understanding of their original purpose and adopted them as if they were signals.

 

Jim

 

At the moment no, Class 387s use Tracklink 3 (which has yet to be installed on Western) and the 80x's / 345's use Packett 44 ETCS Data. I have had some discussions with the RAM on this one and integration of the two is on going. The possible reason for the use of 7-car SDO for 9 Car Platforms at Hayes and Southall is that they may have not officially been brought into use yet (although I'm not sure of that). 

 

We treated them as guidance for drivers, who were expected to know where to stop in order to get the train in the platform anyway. My understanding has always been that they were put there (and possibly originated by the Southern Railway for its electric services) to guide the driver as to the best place to stop so that the train would be conveniently placed for passengers with respect to the platform saccess and other faciliies. This was at a time when the Southern routinely reduced train lengths off peak, so many trains were shorter than the platforms.

 

Now, it seems that they appear on the signalling diagrams (even though they were an operational convenience and not integral to the signalling) and have to be subject to signal sighting (ignoring the fact that to get the train stopped at a particular stop marker requires action to be taken by the driver long before he can see the markers (or, sometimes, the platform).

 

I would suggest that the problem is that common sense left some time ago, probably soon after the demise of British Railways.

 

Jim

 

Car Stop Markers are NOT a Signalling Designer Responsibility, they are a TOC responsibility most of the time. Car Stop Markers are not routinely drawn on Signalling Plans, there's usually no need for them, but sometimes can be drawn on if a certain stop car marker is required in a certain place by the signalling designer (for instance to ensure a train doesn't stop the its back end over a level crossing, for instance at Camborne).  

 

Signal Sighting is required for all signage used by a train driver, it doesn't matter if it's for guidance or otherwise, it is required to have a sighting form and gone through the committee. Nowadays, drivers are required to pull up to the correct stop car marker, their provision is still driven primarily to ensure a train is stood at a suitable location on the platform (as you say for passenger access and facilities).

 

Because we now have such a massive variety of stock length and door positions, multiple stop car markers are required.

 

Simon

[The Stationmaster]

...I wait with baited breath to see how the conundrum of dealing with a Class 345 in the Up Relief platform at Twyford will be tackled as that platform cannot be extended at all.

 

Hi Mike,

 

Presumably then, Twyford would need SDO if the platform can't be extended.

 

Regards, Ian.

 

Presumably so Ian, the interesting bit will be where the train will stop as it will in any case be a change from the 387s as an 8 car formation is readily platformed at Twyford.  So if passengers have got used to being in the rear 3 coaches there will need to a big re-education campaign.

 

The other interesting thing will be to see whether or not CCTV is installed at Twyford for Class 345 Drivers but that applies in any case at numerous stations Crossrail trains will call at on the GWML.

 

PS  Someof the platforms at Twyford have stop markers in three different designs for three different types of train (16X, 387, 800). in all sorts of combinations.   I do wonder if there'll be any room left or unused lamposts where the markers for the junk heap 345s will be able to be placed

Edited July 26, 2018 by The Stationmaster

[Ron Ron Ron]

Although the Elizabeth Line service pattern hasn't been formally announced, The Londonist has produced a map using information derived from TfL press releases and statements, the Crossrail website and other sources.

It's only an informed guess at the moment.

 

Note: They've lightheartedly nicknamed it The Purple Train in this instance.

 

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

[royaloak]

The whole stop marker thing has gone madly out of control.

 

Not relevant to Crossrail, but on recent travels around the South West many of the smaller Cornish stations now have more stop markers than passengers! 2, 3, 4 for Sprinters, 5 XC, 5 IET, 2+4 HST, 2+7 HST, 2+8 HST, 10 IET, and finally 11, 12, 13 left over from loco hauled days. 

 

How ever did we mange in the past?

Been to Camborne have you?

[Christopher125]

London Reconnections: Crossrail: Timetable for Success?
 

"Sufficient information is now available, unofficially, so that we can be fairly sure of the exact service pattern now proposed for Crossrail in December 2019. Furthermore, we can have a good guess at how it may develop in the coming years. The good news is that the service pattern is better than we were generally led to expect. The bad news is that… well… incredibly, for once, there doesn’t seem to be any bad news"

 

The big news has to be the proposed 2tph semi-fast service during the peaks from Reading (calling at Twyford, Maidenhead, Slough, West Drayton and Ealing Broadway only), alongside a 2tph stopping service. A similar semi-fast service will be provided by GWR off-peak.

Edited August 17, 2018 by Christopher125

[lyneux]

I live in Hanwell. That's great news to brighten up my Friday. 

[The Stationmaster]

London Reconnections: Crossrail: Timetable for Success?

 

"Sufficient information is now available, unofficially, so that we can be fairly sure of the exact service pattern now proposed for Crossrail in December 2019. Furthermore, we can have a good guess at how it may develop in the coming years. The good news is that the service pattern is better than we were generally led to expect. The bad news is that… well… incredibly, for once, there doesn’t seem to be any bad news"

 

The big news has to be the proposed 2tph semi-fast service during the peaks from Reading (calling at Twyford, Maidenhead, Slough, West Drayton and Ealing Broadway only), alongside a 2tph stopping service. A similar semi-fast service will be provided by GWR off-peak.

 

I believe the 2tph GWR semi-fast service might be a dead duck being replaced by the cr*prail trains with no toilets of any sort, no luggage racks, sideways facing bench seats for the vast majority of seating, no tables or fold down small tables at every seat, and a lower running speed.  We'll be back t sopme features which disappeared from Thames Valley local trains almost 60 years ago.  And I bet there won't be a reduction in fares to compensate.  The only 387 remaining worked services will be some in the peak which have very limited stops east of Reading.

 

Plus of course nobody has yet publicly stated if Reading can actually platform 4 cr*prail trains turning round per off-peak hour in view of all the other use that takes place, and will have to additionally take place, on the Relief Line island platforms with outer Thames Valley stoppers also required in future to turn round at Reading instead of running through.

 

However if there really will be a 2tph GWR service (the last utterance from GWR was that there wouldn't be one, a few months back)  then it is major victory for local commuter etc groups in the GWR franchise renewal consultation and hopefully, and logically,  it will be the service which connects with the branches - at least for eastbound travellers.  However it then leaves an interesting question - will cr*prail Oyster cards be available to use on the far better quality GWR trains?  the London reconnections comment about changing to cr*prail at reading instead of Paddington betrays an ignorance which passeth all human understanding.  Who on earth is going to bail out of an HST or 387 at Reading in order to endure a considerably slower journey to London in a grotty train when all they need to do at Paddington is leave the pl;atform end and turn right towards the new UndergrounD station?  The answer is nobody but a total idiot or someone taken in by the nonsense spouted in London Reconnections.  Class 800s might not be the height of passenger comfort compared with an HST but they'll definitely beat travelling sideways at 90mph (in places) on the Up Relief especially if as is so often the case many travellers will use the toilet as journey's end nears.

 

In fact for me one thing will not change at all and that is that it is sometimes quicker to travel via Reading to/from Paddington than by the more obvious direct semi-slow route.  A couple of weeks back I came home from Liverpool St (ex Great Yarmouth) and travelled via Reading instead of direct down the Relief from Paddington.  It took me 12 minutes longer but was easier to access the departure platform at Paddington from the taxi than it was to get to 387 land, gave me ample time at reading to get to the Up train and a cross platform change onto the branch instead of a rush hoping the lifts would be in the right place (arthritis and heavy suitcases don't mix well).  We could have left Paddington 12 minutes later (but we wouldn't have had a free orange juice and, more importantly we'd have had the rush to get the branch connection.  Oh and before anybody says anything there is, and long has been, a public fare for doing the trip that way so obviously some people who are paying do that as a matter of course.

Edited August 20, 2018 by The Stationmaster

[lyneux]

Breaking News: The project has been slipped by 9 months: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45367990

 

So much for my hopes of 4 or 6 TPH at Hanwell by the end of the year...

[Ron Ron Ron]

It's a little over 3 months to go before the initial service through the Central London core section was due to begin, in December.

The signs were fairly clear that some of the new central core underground stations, were not going to be ready in time.

 

Even without knowing anything about the amount of full operational testing required, it doesn't seem right that there was enough time left to carry all that out in something like 4 months.

 

The next bit of important information will be the revised timescales for the phased opening (they say the same staged process will be followed).

 

 

Ron

Edited August 31, 2018 by Ron Ron Ron

[jim.snowdon]

It's that stage in the project timescale where any accumulated delays earlier on come home to roost, essentially because system integration and testing has to be a sequential process. Unlike most aspects of civil engineering, the timescale cannot be reduced by throwing more bodies at the job. It's also that stage where project managers don't like conservative estimates of timescales - if the job might take 2 months, say, if all goes well, and 6 months if it doesn't, they will always stick 2 months in the projections, and then chastise the engineers for being late.

 

It does pose the question, at least for those of us on the western end of Crossrail, as to when we will lose our rather nice 387s for the overgrown Tube train that the 345s represent. Will TfL seek to take over the outer suburban services on the planned date, even though they may have to terminate in Paddington Main Line in lieu of running into the tunnel section?

 

Jim

[steve W]

..........Unlike most aspects of civil engineering, the timescale cannot be reduced by throwing more bodies at the job. It's also that stage where project managers don't like conservative estimates of timescales - if the job might take 2 months, say, if all goes well, and 6 months if it doesn't, they will always stick 2 months in the projections, and then chastise the engineers for being late.

How true, and not just the civil engineering area either. Whilst commisioning (marine sector) Iv'e been on the recieivng end from the same managers time amd time again who do not seem able to grasp the nettle of reality..

['CHARD]

 

It does pose the question, at least for those of us on the western end of Crossrail, as to when we will lose our rather nice 387s for the overgrown Tube train that the 345s represent. Will TfL seek to take over the outer suburban services on the planned date, even though they may have to terminate in Paddington Main Line in lieu of running into the tunnel section?

 

 

Aren't the 387s staying, ultimately to take over from the core (i.e. not the 360/2) Heathrow Express fleet in part?

[Ron Ron Ron]

Aren't the 387s staying, ultimately to take over from the core (i.e. not the 360/2) Heathrow Express fleet in part?

 

 

Not in part.

A sub-fleet of 387's will be modified, repainted and refitted to take over the whole 4 tph HEX service.

GWR are going to be operating HEX on behalf of Heathrow Airport (HAL).

It's still going to be HEX, owned and managed by HAL, on HAL's open access licence.

 

The other 387's will be operating Thames Valley services, except for the relief line local services between Reading/Heathrow and London, which will go to TfL's Elizabeth Line.

They should be serving Oxford too, but we know what a massive c**k up has happened over that.

 

 

.