Elizabeth Line / Crossrail Updates.

[St. Simon]

So it has now been commissioned I take it from that screenshot?  Although I didn't realise all the sidings were in as they required taking back some leased out land.

 

No, the sidings aren't there, they have been inserted into the Interlocking and the Screens at TVSC, but they aren't on the ground as let (but I don't know when they will be.). It's been done like this so that the stabling sidings can be construct whenever without incurring the huge cost of additional data changes in the interlocking when sidings are brought into use.

 

Just some info on the work over Christmas which we received today:

 

• 78 Signals altered / installed
• 94 Cases Locations altered / installed
• 88 sets of TPWS (including 'Plan B' loops) installed or altered
• 118 train detection sections altered / installed
• 35 sets of points altered / installed
• 40 ATP installations commissioned
• 38 AWS Magnets altered / installed
• 1 Radio Block Centre connected to the interlocking for Heathrow to allow ETCS Level 2 early this year
• 4 workstations at TVSC have been converted to IECC Scaleable standard.

Apparently Christmas 2016 was the largest stage of works for Crossrail West!.

 

Simon

[St. Simon]

Hi,

 

Some videos on my* bits of Crossrail:

 

Acton Diveunder

 

 

Stockley Flyover

 

 

*Obviously it hasn't just been me designing these bits, but I do feel a bit of 'ownership' as I have worked quite a bit of the scheme plans for these

 

Simon

[Ron Ron Ron]

Airport junction new layout

 

​https://www.flickr.com/photos/136515038@N02/32119955920/

[Ron Ron Ron]

[Ron Ron Ron]

Some might say it was inevitable that it would happen at some future point.

TfL have set forward a proposal for Crossrail service frequencies to be increased from an early date, after inauguration.

The proposal involves off-peak services being increased in the central core (up from 16 to 20 tph) and on the eastern sections.

On the western section (GWML) it involves an increase in both peak and off-peak services.

 

On the western section, this requires that during the peak periods, all non-Crossrail services are removed from the Relief lines between Paddington and at least as far as Maidenhead, if not all the way out to Reading.

Specifically, it calls for the removal of 5 GWR semi-fast services in each of the morning and afternoon peaks, that are currently planned to use the Reliefs (2 per hour).

If I've got it right, freight was already excluded for a couple of hours in these peaks?

 

Clearly there are a number of difficult issues involved with these proposals for the western section, not least the expectation of loading more traffic onto the already congested main lines.

There is no indication of what form the extra Crossrail services to Reading will take. For example, will they be a direct replacement for the deposed semi-fast services, that route into the central core, rather than terminate at Paddington mainline?

With TfL's desire to move to a 5 minute train frequency on the "western", this has implications for freight during daytime off-peak and suggests a Crossrail only Relief line passenger service during daytime and evening hours.

This might increase pressure for additional relief lines to be provided, at least for various long sections, if not all the way from Iver or West Drayton inwards.

HEX is bound to get dragged into this discussion, irrespective of its uncertain future post 2023.

 

Trains terminating at Paddington mainline from the Relief lines Present a capacity problem at the point where the Crossrail tracks diverge from the Reliefs, between OOC and Paddington, because of the failure to provide a grade separated junction.

Increases in Crossrail service frequency are ultimately constrained by this junction, if Relief line services continue to use Paddington mainline, particularly in the peaks.

 

This will be a very hot topic and an interesting one to follow as it's debated in high circles.

 

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/16-elizabeth-line.pdf

 

 

Ron

Edited March 3, 2017 by Ron Ron Ron

[Suzie]

I think I can see that diverting some Crossrail on to the New North mainline to Ruislip might prove more cost effective and useful than building new reliefs that just parallel the existing.

[Ron Ron Ron]

I think I can see that diverting some Crossrail on to the New North mainline to Ruislip might prove more cost effective and useful than building new reliefs that just parallel the existing.

That doesn't address the flat junction problem with the dedicated Crossrail tracks. No extra capacity until Paddington mainline services are removed from the Reliefs.

The OOC HS2 station will require quad tracking on the Reliefs from the station itself, eastbound, in any case.

[Glorious NSE]

That doesn't address the flat junction problem with the dedicated Crossrail tracks. No extra capacity until Paddington mainline services are removed from the Reliefs.

The OOC HS2 station will require quad tracking on the Reliefs from the station itself, eastbound, in any case.

There should surely be room for 6 tracks between the portal and Old Oak station though, even if it means rejigging the current layout? Might mean losing the turnbacks, but you wouldn't then need them anyhow.

 

 

With a layout like that you could run an inbound EMU towards Paddington every time you ran an outbound Crossrail train to Northolt, so if you assumed a 3 minute frequency with trains alternating Northolt, Maidenhead/Reading and Heathrow, then there could be a path for a Paddington terminator every 9 minutes.

 

I think 6 tracking between Acton and Airport Junction may become a necessity though...

[The Stationmaster]

Some might say it was inevitable that it would happen at some future point.

TfL have set forward a proposal for Crossrail service frequencies to be increased from an early date, after inauguration.

The proposal involves off-peak services being increased in the central core (up from 16 to 20 tph) and on the eastern sections.

On the western section (GWML) it involves an increase in both peak and off-peak services.

 

On the western section, this requires that during the peak periods, all non-Crossrail services are removed from the Relief lines between Paddington and at least as far as Maidenhead, if not all the way out to Reading.

Specifically, it calls for the removal of 5 GWR semi-fast services in each of the morning and afternoon peaks, that are currently planned to use the Reliefs (2 per hour).

If I've got it right, freight was already excluded for a couple of hours in these peaks?

 

Clearly there are a number of difficult issues involved with these proposals for the western section, not least the expectation of loading more traffic onto the already congested main lines.

There is no indication of what form the extra Crossrail services to Reading will take. For example, will they be a direct replacement for the deposed semi-fast services, that route into the central core, rather than terminate at Paddington mainline?

With TfL's desire to move to a 5 minute train frequency on the "western", this has implications for freight during daytime off-peak and suggests a Crossrail only Relief line passenger service during daytime and evening hours.

This might increase pressure for additional relief lines to be provided, at least for various long sections, if not all the way from Iver or West Drayton inwards.

HEX is bound to get dragged into this discussion, irrespective of its uncertain future post 2023.

 

Trains terminating at Paddington mainline from the Relief lines Present a capacity problem at the point where the Crossrail tracks diverge from the Reliefs, between OOC and Paddington, because of the failure to provide a grade separated junction.

Increases in Crossrail service frequency are ultimately constrained by this junction, if Relief line services continue to use Paddington mainline, particularly in the peaks.

 

This will be a very hot topic and an interesting one to follow as it's debated in high circles.

 

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/16-elizabeth-line.pdf

 

 

Ron

 

Interesting to compare that with both what actually happens at preseent and what Mark Hopwood had to say last night.

 

1. At present freights run in the peak shoulders - particularly in the morning,  In terms of train movements, and probably tonnage) the GWML is the second busiest freight route in & out of London with little or no chance of economically diverting most (if not all ) of teh flows to other routes and similarly no chance whatsoever of being able to economically run many of them at night - the economics of the total trainplan and ciustomers' business plans simply wouldn't allow that.

 

Under Crossrail developments in the 1990s there was an agreement to preserve one freight path in each direction throughout the off peak period and contra peak passenger flow - I seriously doubt there is any viable alternative to that arrangement to retain the business to rail for many of the existing flows over the GWML east of Reading.  Something I know full well because as a member of the then Crossrail Planning Group for operations west of London it was me that made sure those paths were secured.

 

2, It was again made clear last night by Mark Hopwood - to the general relief of the audience as it happens - that post Crossrail introduction to Reading GWR (or successor) will have two paths per hour over the Relief Lines and these will be used for a Class 387 worked semi-fast service which east of Reading will call at Twyford, Maidenhead, Slough, Hayes, and Ealing Broadway.  The implication given was that these trains would run at a 30 minute interval and it was clear (and definitely stated in one case) that the branches would connect into these trains.  The overall impression given by Mark Hopwood - and very much to the relief of the audience - is that GWR is very well aware of journey time demands in order to sustain the present market (and presumably encourage growth).

 

He also incidentally has confirmed that it is GWR's intention to preserve existing fast peak period trains offering branch connections at Maidenhead and Twyford and if Crossrail attempts anything which interferes with that commitment there is likely to be a major uproar, and worse, for Thames Valley commuters.  it was very interesting to learn that not only the local branch user group but also GWR have developed a very good relationship with one of the local MPs who is - on their behalf  - already asking various questions of DfT and NR.  She clearly won't occupy her present position of influence for ever but while she is still there I suspect her voice might carry great weight on behalf of her constituents than that of someone whose main interest seems to be centred on central London and who has little or no knowledge of, and certainly seemingly no connection with, the world beyond the Greater London boundary.  

 

Perhaps, almost as an aside when Crossrail was mentioned, Mark was very keen to point out that easy interchange will be available at Paddington between GWR trains and Crossrail's with a pretty solid indication that in his view this would offer quicker overall journey times than using Crossrail from the outer stations.

 

In my view the answer is very simple - if Crossrail wants to increase the frequency of its toilet-free 'overground' trains to a greater extent on journeys for which they are unsuited (and fail to meet ATOC guidelines) they should build their own railway instead of trying to gain control of one which has plenty of other tasks already west of Acton.

[St. Simon]

Hi,

 

Interesting reading, although the increase in services may not need infrastructure alterations (although I would be surprised if nothing need alteration in one way or the other), it will need a lot of input in terms of risk assessment etc, a lot more work for the design office!

 

Simon

[Zomboid]

It's all very well GWR having a relief line path, but if TfL are running loads of all stations trains, I doubt they'll be able to offer particularly impressive journey times, probably slower than what they can offer now (which I believe have more stops).

[The Stationmaster]

There should surely be room for 6 tracks between the portal and Old Oak station though, even if it means rejigging the current layout? Might mean losing the turnbacks, but you wouldn't then need them anyhow.

 

OOC.jpg

 

With a layout like that you could run an inbound EMU towards Paddington every time you ran an outbound Crossrail train to Northolt, so if you assumed a 3 minute frequency with trains alternating Northolt, Maidenhead/Reading and Heathrow, then there could be a path for a Paddington terminator every 9 minutes.

 

I think 6 tracking between Acton and Airport Junction may become a necessity though...

As there already at least 6 tracks over the section from the portal to Old Oak Common West that should be no problem at all.

 

Ideally, as already posted I would see a need for six tracks as far as West Drayton and that is perfectly feasible in many places but there are a number of awkward 'pinch points', viz -

Old Oak Common West/Friars Jcn to Acton station,

through Ealing Broadway station (although alterations between Acton West and Ealing Broadway and there would also be difficult),  

various overbridges between Ealing Broadway and West Ealing but otherwise plenty of room could be created for six roads by cutting back the Up side embankment,

Hanwell station and Wharncliffe viaduct would clearly be a major hurdle,

Similarly Southall and Hayes stations but otherwise bags of room,

industrial buildings and various structures and overbridges between hayes/Airport Jcn and West Drayton East but already most of that is effectively 5 track,

West Drayton station.

 

I ca really see little point in going much further although Slough (exclusive) might be a reasonable ambition.  

 

However overall I wonder where on earth all the passengers are going to come from.  The real overcrowding on the Paddington suburban/inter-urban network is from Reading on fast trains (none of which would transfer to Crossrail from that far out) and in any case 10 car Class 800s will sweep up some of that plus semi-fasts on the Reliefs running in 12 car formations.  Then peak periods from principally Twyford and Maidenhead which again will be picked up by longer fast trains and for the intermediate (i.e. not to London journeys) by 12 car 387 formations.  The real off-peak overcrowding at present is from Slough inwards but particularly Slough itself and West Drayton.  In part some of this will be met by GWR 12 car formations - which will commence this summer - and Crossrail will obviously takeover much of that apart from GWR continuing semi-fasts inwards from Slough.

 

I think the effective limit for peak period London commuting by Crossrail is going to be east of Maidenhead with Maidenhead itself having a balance between those who want fast (GWR) trains to Paddington and those who are prepared to tolerate going that far on a Crossrail train in order to get to a central area Crossrail destination.  Beyond Maidenhead the GWR view seems to be - judging by what I heard last night - that commuting passengers will use fast GWR trains to get to Paddington and change there for Crossrail if it happens to go where they want to go.  And certainly the impression formed from several things that Mark Hopwood said is that GWR wish to do their level best to continue to satisfy, and develop, that market with fast peak period trains (hence for example their ambition to increase parking spaces at Twyford and develop a multi-storey car park there in order to continue attracting people from the Wokingham catchment area who use Twyford for its journey time advantages).

 

So if a touch of realism enters Crossrail minds the logical extension of more frequent services on their part is to the Greater London boundary at West Drayton and possibly beyond that to Slough (where it would not be difficult or very expensive to create a turnback facility).

[The Stationmaster]

It's all very well GWR having a relief line path, but if TfL are running loads of all stations trains, I doubt they'll be able to offer particularly impressive journey times, probably slower than what they can offer now (which I believe have more stops).

They seem fairly sure that they will be able to achieve what they are promising.  Mark Hopwood was speaking very openly last night on a number of subjects and especially on the rationale behind various timetable changes coming about through electrification and the arrival of Crossrail.  I couldn't see any real difficulty in timing the semi-fasts he talked about with what various people )other than me) have previously posted here about Crossrail's timetable intentions as announced so far.

 

It really depends on what goes on the graph first and I do wonder if Crossrail are waking up to the fact that it isn't their railway and they have to share it with other operators and they can't get their heads round that idea or its implications, hence what might be seen as a bid for Control? Which would no doubt turn round and very royally bite them in a sensitive place if a body is found on the Down Main at Slough and all trains are put over the Reliefs (well all that would fit).  Very simple fact is that even in ordinary workinga  two track railway east of Reading was found to be inadequate well over a century ago, at times of perturbation it would be unworkable.

 

If they want a railway they should build one of their own - simples.

[Zomboid]

The east side is more appropriate for what Crossrail actually is. Running it to Reading is like running it on the GEML to Colchester and Southend. Heathrow is more analogous to Shenfield.

[caradoc]

It sounds as if Crossrail are taking the 'Elizabeth Line' description too literally and think the GWML relief lines are just another Underground Line !

[Ron Ron Ron]

As I said earlier, some might say such a clash was inevitable at some future point, when Crossrail needed to increase their service frequency levels.

An interesting point is that the Crossrail isn't just another operator, where they operate on NR tracks, operating on normal track access agreements.

I may have this wrong, but IIRC the Crossrail deal either involved NR ceding certain rights to TfL, or enshrined certain guarantees, akin to some form of sharing. This would appear to put them on a higher status than the incumbent TOC, or any other operators.

If this is correct, TfL may have a certain degree of extra leverage in arguing for what they want.

It obviously creates a serious conflict that will not be easily resolved.

 

Conspiracy theory hat on.....

On the other hand, there is a possibility it could be a political move in an effort to create a difficult situation that could only be resolved by presenting a case for extra infrastructure provision?

 

 

Ron

[The Stationmaster]

As I said earlier, some might say such a clash was inevitable at some future point, when Crossrail needed to increase their service frequency levels.

An interesting point is that the Crossrail isn't just another operator, where they operate on NR tracks, operating on normal track access agreements.

I may have this wrong, but IIRC the Crossrail deal either involved NR ceding certain rights to TfL, or enshrined certain guarantees, akin to some form of sharing. This would appear to put them on a higher status than the incumbent TOC, or any other operators.

If this is correct, TfL may have a certain degree of extra leverage in arguing for what they want.

It obviously creates a serious conflict that will not be easily resolved.

 

Conspiracy theory hat on.....

On the other hand, there is a possibility it could be a political move in an effort to create a difficult situation that could only be resolved by presenting a case for extra infrastructure provision?

 

 

Ron

 

I am very much inclined to agree with your final sentence as I suspect there is a considerable bit of kite flying going on (or they are total idiots?).  The interesting question raised by your comment regarding their possible access situation is what Network Change procedures have been invoked (or - far worse, not invoked)?

 

But I return to the point, or rather one, I raised earlier about the matter of demand and I cannot see why or how it could increase to the extent their ideas imply.  I took Mark Hopwood's point abut train size last night as being very pertinent as GWR are going to create considerable extra capacity before Crossrail appears and one wonders quite how and why it could develop much beyond that without London commuting from the Thames Valley remaining commercially attractive.  And it is very obvious listening to people here that the attractiveness from the outer stations (Maidenhead and west) centres very much around journey times plus reliability and that these factors are closely followed by passenger facilities/comfort with price not even rearing its head.

 

Maybe TfL's idea is to discourage rail commuting from the Thames Valley in order to increase Congestion Zone revenue?  Or maybe they want to get in before their trains arrive and are boycotted by longer distance travellers?

[Grovenor]

Part of the Crossrail problem is that they have two routes in from the east and only one out West, hence the need to turn back half the trains at Paddington. What happenedb to the proposal to build a junction at Old Oak across to the Watford Line to give them a second route and relieve Euston during the coming rebuilding?

Regards

[chrisf]

Keith, I think you forgot the Heathrow branch.

 

Chris

[The Stationmaster]

Part of the Crossrail problem is that they have two routes in from the east and only one out West, hence the need to turn back half the trains at Paddington. What happenedb to the proposal to build a junction at Old Oak across to the Watford Line to give them a second route and relieve Euston during the coming rebuilding?

Regards

 

Apart from Chris mentioning the Heathrow branch there are other options such as Watford mentioned by you or even going back to the original idea of High Wycombe and possibly Aylesbury.  If they think there's enough capacity on the GWML Relief Lines then there's surely enough up the Joint Line to Wycombe?

 

I think they're just floating some ideas and might like a 'land grab' if they can manage it but equally I think they really don't understand the situation on the GWML if they're thinking like and not realising that it's a busy mixed traffic railway with a lot of longer distance commuters (and other passengers of course).

[jamie92208]

Apart from Chris mentioning the Heathrow branch there are other options such as Watford mentioned by you or even going back to the original idea of High Wycombe and possibly Aylesbury.  If they think there's enough capacity on the GWML Relief Lines then there's surely enough up the Joint Line to Wycombe?

 

I think they're just floating some ideas and might like a 'land grab' if they can manage it but equally I think they really don't understand the situation on the GWML if they're thinking like and not realising that it's a busy mixed traffic railway with a lot of longer distance commuters (and other passengers of course).

 

They may have thought about it but surely they already have some of this experience with the North London Line and the existing Overground.  There's q fair amount of freight there.

 

Jamie

[Christopher125]

That doesn't address the flat junction problem with the dedicated Crossrail tracks. No extra capacity until Paddington mainline services are removed from the Reliefs.

The OOC HS2 station will require quad tracking on the Reliefs from the station itself, eastbound, in any case.

Apologies if I've misunderstood, but if the only trains using the Reliefs between OOC and the Crossrail tunnel were to be Crossrail services, why would there need to be another pair of tracks?

[locoholic]

Is it really true that the Crossrail services join the GWML at a flat junction?

[Ron Ron Ron]

Is it really true that the Crossrail services join the GWML at a flat junction?

Yes.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Apologies if I've misunderstood, but if the only trains using the Reliefs between OOC and the Crossrail tunnel were to be Crossrail services, why would there need to be another pair of tracks?

There are a significant number of Crossrail trains from the east, that turn back after emerging from the tunnel portal.

It is envisaged that these will continue on to the HS2 station at OOC and turn back there, once HS2 is up and running.

With the number of Crossrail trains arriving at OOC, platform occupancy and track capacity in the approach to the station will be key factors in allowing such a high intensity service to operate.

 

n.b. 24tph = one every 2.5 minutes.

 

Ron

Edited March 4, 2017 by Ron Ron Ron