Elizabeth Line / Crossrail Updates.

[Siberian Snooper]

2 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

But it appears to contradict Boris's statement that major construction projects would continue.

Jonathan

 

 

Only if the workers, could do so if they are at least 2 Metres apart and it is safe to do so. A lot easier on a building site,  but Crossrail is mostly in final fit out and that usually means at least 2 people in fairly close proximity, one to hold it in place whilst at least one other fixes it.

 

On the other side of the coin, testing of the trains and signalling may be able to carry on without interruption.

 

 

[RJS1977]

3 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

But it appears to contradict Boris's statement that major construction projects would continue.

Jonathan

 

I think it would be better to interpret Boris's statement as "would be allowed to continue". Ultimately it's up to the contractors to determine whether or not projects constitiute a safe working environment for their employees.

[corneliuslundie]

I wasn't disagreeing with the decision, bearing in mind the unusual circumstances of building an underground railway in London, merely commenting that Boris has said such projects would continue.

Other organisations are "interpreting" his statements, too, For example Nationwide only wants to handle "urgent" business, and in our town most of the take-away food outlets have closed - as has the baker. Mind you in the first case it may be lack of customers as much as anything. Our local chippie had only eight customers yesterday and is not so much closing as not bothering to open.

Strange times.

Jonathan

[jim.snowdon]

1 hour ago, RJS1977 said:

 

I think it would be better to interpret Boris's statement as "would be allowed to continue". Ultimately it's up to the contractors to determine whether or not projects constitiute a safe working environment for their employees.

It is, although a complication is the number of self-employed contractors and small contractors, for the choice is the starker one of keeping the money coming in vs. the risk of being infected. Whilst the latter is perceived as being minimal risk, the former is an issue of necessity. 

 

Jim

[Mike Storey]

Strange though that HS2 is also likely to be shut down, but Hinckley C will continue.

[SouthernMafia]

On 07/03/2020 at 12:22, The Stationmaster said:

They are basically a bloated UndergrounD train which can run quite fast - 90mph (which makes them 20 mph slower than a 387 - so they're not exactly an ideal pathing mix with that sort of speed differential once you get out beyond Slough).

 

But since line speed on the Reliefs is 90, and they have far superior acceleration to 387s this isn't an issue.

 

What is now an issue is that although 387 services are generally quicker to Paddington (in the region of 45 minutes from Reading off-peak) if we're timed behind a 345 it still takes 58 minutes and it's yellows all the way. This came to a head last week when unfortunately a SPAD occured on the Down at Langley, a combination of low sun and constant yellows and reds following a 345 service.

 

In regards to 345s going to Reading, I imagine the reason is because if they stopped at Maidenhead as originally planned then Twyford would lose its 15 minute (ish) service interval. An additional GWR 387 service would have to pick up at Twyford, Maidenhead and maybe Slough, which is probably dooable with the Fast Newbury service which runs ahead of the Oxford stopping at Slough from Reading, but this is only 2 hourly.

Alternatively a Reading to Maidenhead shuttle could infill connecting to 345s at Maidenhead.

 

I'm wondering what our service will look like once Crossrail is in full operation, unfortunately I just don't think there are the paths to run semi-fast all day (ie Twyford, Maidenhead, Slough, Paddington) on the Mains so it will probably stay as it is, maybe losing West Drayton and Hayes and just running on the  Reliefs following whatever we get stuck behind.

 

And of course don't forget the huge amount of freight now using the GWML.

[Zomboid]

It's not really in the spirit of improving journey times, but I have wondered what the impact would be of reducing the usual running speeds/ timings on the mains to 110 between Reading and London. On the face of it that would make pathing 387s on the mains easier, though station stops would still be a potential problem.

 

One for HS4 to solve...

[SouthernMafia]

8 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

It's not really in the spirit of improving journey times, but I have wondered what the impact would be of reducing the usual running speeds/ timings on the mains to 110 between Reading and London. On the face of it that would make pathing 387s on the mains easier, though station stops would still be a potential problem.

 

One for HS4 to solve...

 

It can be done with clever pathing currently, but only half hourly and non-stop if we go infront of the Oxford -Padd IET which stops Slough. If we left Reading say 5 minutes earlier, running Up Relief to Slough having called TWY and MAI then this would work, depending on what's on the Reliefs at the time.

 

I think the only real solution is 6-tracking to Hayes.

[Zomboid]

Maybe some kind of magic moving block signalling will help, but it does really want extra tracks of some point.

[Gwiwer]

Maybe this is a case of someone (or someones) sitting in an office making a decision without being aware of how the railway runs.  Differential speeds and stopping patterns are major inhibitors to providing a smooth frequent service.  However without station stops we cannot pick up and set down the very people the service exists for.  

 

It is a done deal for now but had XR / Crossrail / Elizabeth Line trains been confined to Slough stoppers they may have better matched the overall line occupancy and confined the slower stock to the slower sections on line.  Once at Paddington the service will be all stations to Shenfield / Abbey Wood (for the most part) making pathing on the GE side much easier even with the very close headways required there in peak hours.  

 

Leave GWR to run their 110mph 387s from Paddington to Ealing, Hayes, West Drayton, Slough and all stations to Reading alternating with those calls then Maidenhead and all stations to Didcot and maybe on to Oxford one day.  And have XR run alternating Slough / Airport stoppers.  

 

What I see now is empty 345s trundling out to Reading, most passengers happy to time their trips to suit the semi-fast 387s and everything bunching up at the slightest murmur.  Including fitting in the significant amount of freight.  

[The Stationmaster]

9 hours ago, Zomboid said:

It's not really in the spirit of improving journey times, but I have wondered what the impact would be of reducing the usual running speeds/ timings on the mains to 110 between Reading and London. On the face of it that would make pathing 387s on the mains easier, though station stops would still be a potential problem.

 

One for HS4 to solve...

Considerable is the simple answer.  A pretty hefty impact on journey times once you add in the running brake test and that on a route which is in strong competition with the M4.  But the real problem is not the Main - it's the Reliefs particularly with the proposed considerable Crossrail frequencies and lots of stops east of Maidenhead and then West Drayton.   It is very unfortunate, but a regrettable consequence of an overdone frequency with lots of stopping trains at teh east end of teh route, that there has been a SPAD.  And alas equally in my experience it is not unusual for GWR trains on the Reliefs to get delayed east of Hayes, goodness only knows how bad it is for Drivers on freights when they simply don't get a chance to get a run.

 

It's interesting to look back 30 years when in the light of HEX coming along and probably an additional stopping service between Paddington (later, by the second half of the '90s, St Pancras instead of Paddington) and LHR the operators and planners were talking very seriously of the need for six tracking between Acton and Airport Junction in order to both handle the traffic and keep punctuality within reasonable bounds.  In fact I'm pretty sure  if you applied the standard UIC fiche regarding line capacity the advent of Crossrail as it now will be would inevitably have required six tracking out to at least West Drayton (and possibly Iver) with the stopping service going back to the old pattern and turning round at Slough.  

 

But alas Crossrail on the GWML has been done on the cheap without proper thought about the impact of every day perturbation on what is going to be a high level of line occupation by a very mixed bag of train types and speeds.  It is going to be interesting (probably the better word is horrendous) on those occasions when there has to be a two track railway anywhere between Paddington and Reading but particularly east of Maidenhead - the last lot caused major anguish among folk paying thousands of £s for their season tickets and I doubt they'll stand for it if it happens too often.  One broken rail is all it needs

[The Stationmaster]

8 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Maybe some kind of magic moving block signalling will help, but it does really want extra tracks of some point.

Moving block won't solve speed and stopping pattern differentials or the impact of more frequent stopping trains.  Ideal if all trains are the same type running at the same speed and to the same stopping pattern but not so wonderful for a mixed traffic railway with mixed train performance with freights for ever having to slow down and then accelerate behind all stations passenger trains and semi-fast passenger trains trying to keep going too.

[Siberian Snooper]

I think that things will become more interesting, once the core is opened for traffic and there's perturbation west of Paddington and there becomes a lack of east bound trains, particularly in the peaks. I then wonder how long before a decision to cut back Crossrail to Maidenhead as was the initial plan and possibly further in if  perturbation continues to seriously affect the core frequency.

 

 

[Zomboid]

So another dim thought - is the capacity issue driven by Crossrail, or would most of the same issues exist if it only went to Heathrow?

All those stations need to be served somehow, after all, and whether it's a TfL train or a GWR one doesn't change the path that they'll need on the relief lines if both are capable of the 90mph linespeed.

 

I suppose it'll depend on how things are turned round at Maidenhead & Reading in a GWR only beyond Stockley scenario.

 

And how would a "HS4" scenario help (by which I mean new fast lines, possibly on a different alignment from London to at least Reading, or maybe Swindon/ Wooton Bassett)?

 

We're locked in, no harm in a bit of speculative crayon design...

[jim.snowdon]

The Stationmaster hit the nail pretty well on the head with his last post. The critical issue in line capacity is not how fast trains can go, but their average speed, and for a stopping service, that is actually quite low. (Lower than most freight trains, a fact which is not always appreciated by today's ROC based signallers, who are quite up to letting freights out behind stopping services.)

 

Getting the maximum capacity out of any railway depends on all of the trains having the same speed/time characteristics and stopping pattern, which is fine for a typical metro system. In terms of Crossrail, that just about applies to the eastern end, where the service has the GE's Electric Lines largely to itself. Very different on the western end, where it has to share space with freight services and some of GWR's limited stop services. Even the main lines are not immune from this, where the 125mph long distance services have interwork with the 110mph limited stop GWR services.

 

Jim

[SouthernMafia]

5 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

The Stationmaster hit the nail pretty well on the head with his last post. The critical issue in line capacity is not how fast trains can go, but their average speed, and for a stopping service, that is actually quite low. (Lower than most freight trains, a fact which is not always appreciated by today's ROC based signallers, who are quite up to letting freights out behind stopping services.)

 

From my previous experience of sitting next to NR Train Running Controllers in GWR Control, and now sitting in the sharp end of 387s, the Western are pretty good at giving freights a good run, much to my annoyance when you're sat awaiting signal at departure time! It's a regular theme at Didcot, Reading, Basingstoke and Acton, but I agree that for "the greater good' it's the right thing to do.

[caradoc]

On a busy route like the GWML pathing freights is not simple. Given train frequency on the Reliefs, and the impossibility of freights using the Mains, it must be very difficult to get a clear, unchecked run for a freight from Reading to Acton.

 

If on time, but booked behind a stopper, the Signaller has no choice but to run freight on its path, even if that means it is continually slowing and accelerating. If anything is running late, the Signaller somehow has to keep everything moving while adhering to regulating and traffic management instructions, minimising overall delay, and hopefully not being stung for a 'Wrong Reg' delay by Trust !

 

 

[jim.snowdon]

3 hours ago, caradoc said:

On a busy route like the GWML pathing freights is not simple. Given train frequency on the Reliefs, and the impossibility of freights using the Mains, it must be very difficult to get a clear, unchecked run for a freight from Reading to Acton.

 

If on time, but booked behind a stopper, the Signaller has no choice but to run freight on its path, even if that means it is continually slowing and accelerating. If anything is running late, the Signaller somehow has to keep everything moving while adhering to regulating and traffic management instructions, minimising overall delay, and hopefully not being stung for a 'Wrong Reg' delay by Trust !

 

 

A good point, and I owe an apology to signallers for forgetting that they don't create the timetable. It still doesn't entirely excuse the incidence of freights being pathed behind stoppers (and not just on the GW). I get quite a lot feedback from a friend who is a driver for Freightliner and there seem to be no shortage of occasions when some unintelligent decisions get taken about managing freight paths. Freight often seems to be treated as the second class partner behind passengers.

 

Jim

[phil-b259]

On 26/03/2020 at 20:39, The Stationmaster said:

Moving block won't solve speed and stopping pattern differentials or the impact of more frequent stopping trains.  Ideal if all trains are the same type running at the same speed and to the same stopping pattern but not so wonderful for a mixed traffic railway with mixed train performance with freights for ever having to slow down and then accelerate behind all stations passenger trains and semi-fast passenger trains trying to keep going too.

 

Moving block (which in turn requires in cab signalling) would still help - because rather than being determined by fixed signal sections drivers would receive a continuous indication of what sort of speed they should be travelling at.

 

I believe it already happens to a degree with the GWML ATP system - if the signal ahead changes up to a proceed, then the ATP display reflects that change pretty much instantly - saving valuable seconds as opposed to the driver having to continue to slow down till the signal comes into view before applying power.

 

These seconds can prove valuable when you look at the bigger picture, i.e. clearing a junction a few seconds

earlier allows points to be swung for other routes a fraction earlier, which checks other trains less etc...

 

Of course if you go for in cab signalling, it would then be theoretically be possible for computerised systems to also effectively drive the train and let the computer do all the power adjustment / braking rather than the driver. It could also hold the maximum speed artificially low rather than alternating between acceleration and declaration if a freight was following a stopping passenger service for example to even things out and potentially save further valuable seconds overall.

 

It should be noted that LU have had very small block sections and so does the Thameslink core (many of which do not have signals - just those blue / yellow chevron boards) in an attempt to try and mimic some of the benefits moving block signalling can provide with smoothing out traffic flow and thus consequently fitting more trains through a given piece of railway.

 

Naturally, with the differing characteristics of trains which use the GWML, Moving block / in cab signalling won't magically fix everything - but along with ARS and other train regulation technologies it can still help make the best of a bad situation. Long term, I quite agree that 6 tracking from Paddington to Hayes (or even perhaps a HS4 along the Thames Valley including a station under Heathrow) would be needed, but given how close we can to having Crossrail abandoned in the 2008 finical crash, a flawed scheme is better than no scheme at all.....

 

 

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, jim.snowdon said:

A good point, and I owe an apology to signallers for forgetting that they don't create the timetable. It still doesn't entirely excuse the incidence of freights being pathed behind stoppers (and not just on the GW). I get quite a lot feedback from a friend who is a driver for Freightliner and there seem to be no shortage of occasions when some unintelligent decisions get taken about managing freight paths. Freight often seems to be treated as the second class partner behind passengers.

 

Jim

 

Well given freight doesn't vote in general elections and the whole franchise system includes big fines (not to mention causes massive political grief) when passenger trains are late, it is hardly surprising that passenger operations tend to have a higher profile than Freight when it comes to regulating decisions.

[phil-b259]

On 27/03/2020 at 10:57, Zomboid said:

So another dim thought - is the capacity issue driven by Crossrail, or would most of the same issues exist if it only went to Heathrow?

All those stations need to be served somehow, after all, and whether it's a TfL train or a GWR one doesn't change the path that they'll need on the relief lines if both are capable of the 90mph linespeed.

 

 

 

I think the issue is were all services provided by GWR, you would need less trains overall to provide the same service level.

 

TfL are presenting 24tph at Paddington that all need go go somewhere - and even with turning back a proportion at Royal Oak, there is still the need (plus political pressure) to send them as far west as is possible (in accordance with TfLs policy of trying to ape the tube network in terms of service frequency).

 

For example if you want a 15 minute stopping service as far as Slough, then GWR might well be able to do that with just 4 trains. However if TfL are now presenting 8 trains to notionally cover the same demand then you rapidly run out of line capacity.

 

One of the things about Thameslink is that as they have expanded, it has mainly been taking over existing services, not adding extra trains to the network (mainly because the likes of East Croydon cannot cope with any more it has to be said). Thus a Horsham to Peterborough service replaces the Horsham to London Bridge service - i.e. no extra trains or extra pressure on line capacity.

 

Edited March 29, 2020 by phil-b259

[caradoc]

4 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Well given freight doesn't vote in general elections and the whole franchise system includes big fines (not to mention causes massive political grief) when passenger trains are late, it is hardly surprising that passenger operations tend to have a higher profile than Freight when it comes to regulating decisions.

 

Actually, I would have to say that post-privatisation freight, being just as much a customer of Railtrack and Network Rail as the passenger operators, has sometimes (but not always !) been treated rather more fairly. For example, as a Controller my area included the G&SW route from Kilmarnock to Gretna Jc, and with the (as it transpired temporary) increase in coal traffic, an Up Loop was installed at Thornhill. When an Up freight was running late I was sometimes 'encouraged' to loop it there, to save maybe a 10 minute delay to the following passenger service. This I refused to do, as due to the length of the sections the delay to the freight would be upwards of an hour, and would cause it to lose its path through and beyond Carlisle, with all sorts of additional delay, and Traincrew disruption, resulting.

 

[phil-b259]

3 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

Actually, I would have to say that post-privatisation freight, being just as much a customer of Railtrack and Network Rail as the passenger operators, has sometimes (but not always !) been treated rather more fairly. For example, as a Controller my area included the G&SW route from Kilmarnock to Gretna Jc, and with the (as it transpired temporary) increase in coal traffic, an Up Loop was installed at Thornhill. When an Up freight was running late I was sometimes 'encouraged' to loop it there, to save maybe a 10 minute delay to the following passenger service. This I refused to do, as due to the length of the sections the delay to the freight would be upwards of an hour, and would cause it to lose its path through and beyond Carlisle, with all sorts of additional delay, and Traincrew disruption, resulting.

 

 

I don't dispute this, but its a fact that the head of NR has never been called in by the minister to explain delays to freight traffic while on the other hand the men from the ministry have been extremely keen to be seen to give NR / TOCs a good kicking over lateness to passengers / TOC operation not meeting their franchise obligations.

 

Thus while NR knows that Freight is important, you cannot ignore the fact that the onus has (and by that I mean even going back into the steam era) that passenger operations come first and Politicians would like to keep it that way.

 

Edited March 28, 2020 by phil-b259

[The Stationmaster]

On 28/03/2020 at 09:41, caradoc said:

On a busy route like the GWML pathing freights is not simple. Given train frequency on the Reliefs, and the impossibility of freights using the Mains, it must be very difficult to get a clear, unchecked run for a freight from Reading to Acton.

 

If on time, but booked behind a stopper, the Signaller has no choice but to run freight on its path, even if that means it is continually slowing and accelerating. If anything is running late, the Signaller somehow has to keep everything moving while adhering to regulating and traffic management instructions, minimising overall delay, and hopefully not being stung for a 'Wrong Reg' delay by Trust !

 

 

The way we used to do it - when I was i/c freight planning and timetabling on the WR - was to put the freights into gaps where they existed and put them in front of all stations stoppers.  And my timers weren't above putting freights on the Mains when there was suitable path.  The agreement I got, as a member of the operations and timetabling working party, when planning the earlier iteration of Crossrail (that was cancelled in 1994) was that east of Reading I would have two clear freight paths in each direction every off peak hour (and including contra peak flow as off peak) .  One would be guaranteed clear run Reading - Acton, and vice versa, and the other it was. accepted would be in extremis be clear run between Reading and Hanwell Bridge Loops and between there and Acton but otherwise would ideally be clear run Reading - Acton and vice versa.  And clear run meant running all the way on green aspects, not messing with nonsense like double yellow or worse because once the controller was closed, or even worse the brake put in, regaining speed would lose time in running a heavy freight.

 

But the contemporary iteration of Crossrail involves far more trains east of Maidenhead than was the case back then and even more east of West Drayton and quite bluntly the line capacity o is not there to run that frequency reliably.  Even the least perturbation, such as a train of any sort dropping a couple of minutes, will produce a string of worsening reactionary delays - as it already does,  Unless  Crossrail trains are turned round short that will inevitably feed back into the core section - either as delays or extended intervals or cancellations.  The logical choice would be to turn back at Westbourne Park reversing sidings but they are need for booked reversal so trains will have to go further - they could run more or less without interruption to Old Oak Common where reversal would be simple but beyond there it's either Hayes or West Drayton as the only places east of Maidenhead where they can reverse clear of running lines.  I presume the Crossrail operator will have a basic contingency plan in place - as, one presumes, will NR - but it could easily (to use a technical term) quickly turn into a right b*ggers' muddle of an operational shambles without a lot of discipline regarding train cancellations and turning round short. 

 

15 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

I don't dispute this, but its a fact that the head of NR has never been called in by the minister to explain delays to freight traffic while on the other hand the men from the ministry have been extremely keen to be seen to give NR / TOCs a good kicking over lateness to passengers / TOC operation not meeting their franchise obligations.

 

Thus while NR knows that Freight is important, you cannot ignore the fact that the onus has (and by that I mean even going back into the steam era) that passenger operations come first and Politicians would like to keep it that way.

 

What I would say - from experience - Phil is that when you pop round to collect the monthly cheque, for well over a million quid, from a freight customer and his trains have had a month of poor running you get a right ear bending.  Equally when you have customers paying that sort of money on the 'phone complaining about lost business or lost production time because of train delays it can lead to some rather tense conversations and change people's priorities, especially if they start talking to their MP.  When we were running just-in-time trainloads of car body panels from Pressed Steel at Swindon to the Midlands the penalty clauses in the contract were horrendous and those trains had priority over just about everything on the single line between Swindon and Kemble and would be run on time even if there wasn't a margin for them in front of virtually all the passenger services (except one or two peak HST trains).

 

Freight customers tend not to make the headlines but they are mostly very tightly resourced in order to be economical enough to get business in the first place and can lose real money if trains are badly delayed.  a lot goes on behind the scenes (or used to and I hope still does) which doesn't make headlines.  And while it might not mean loss of funds if a politico starts getting a cold shoulder from a major employer in their constituency it can tend to make them 'rather more active' with the relevant Minister.

[SouthernMafia]

On 28/03/2020 at 14:21, phil-b259 said:

I believe it already happens to a degree with the GWML ATP system - if the signal ahead changes up to a proceed, then the ATP display reflects that change pretty much instantly - saving valuable seconds as opposed to the driver having to continue to slow down till the signal comes into view before applying power.

 

These seconds can prove valuable when you look at the bigger picture, i.e. clearing a junction a few seconds

earlier allows points to be swung for other routes a fraction earlier, which checks other trains less etc...

 

Unfortunately the Western got the cheap version of ATP and the release speed does not change until you're basically at the signal. Chiltern have the full version you describe.

 

Someone mentioned a few posts back about 9-car 345s to Reading, of which I have just got off one at Twyford so they are now running to Reading in some capacity.