Crossrail - operating discussion and opening day 24th May

[thomalex]

I've been using Liverpool Street recently and from the Liverpool Street entrance there really is a bottleneck at peak periods on the escalators where queues develop to use the single down escalators to the platforms. I really feel they should have gone with 4 escalators here as it's going to become a bit of a problem over time. I do wonder if that's what was originally planned before the gondola lifts were added.

 

[Class 170101]

Once the core is linked east and west I think Liverpool Street and Paddington will become less of a problem as Crossrail passengers won't need to change between parts of the station.

 

[ijmad]

All of the live information screens had stopped functioning when I got on a Paddington earlier. Somewhat frustrating. Hopefully it was fixed by a server reboot or something?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jun 2022 ==

From September it will likely get worse until trains can run through Paddington

Several sources (including ones in this thread) seemed to suggest the date for through running was Sep 12 anyway, although that might be optimistic of course.

 

[Taunton]

Once through running starts, I wonder how much business the residual GWR Paddington relief line service will take. It already seems like a bit of an Orcats Raid on the Elizabeth Line service and revenue at the London stations, but being widely separated at Paddington I guess the majority will just go first to the Elizabeth platforms.

Went to Hayes and back again yesterday. As ever, the service from platform 14 was put up on the departure board just a few minutes before departure, although the train had been in there well before, and there was the running/scrabbling/nearly falling over scrum to get all the way there before it went, probably by those in the know who understand the distance. It really is pretty poor.

 

[Non Multi]

Once through running starts, I wonder how much business the residual GWR Paddington relief line service will take. It already seems like a bit of an Orcats Raid on the Elizabeth Line service and revenue at the London stations, but being widely separated at Paddington I guess the majority will just go first to the Elizabeth platforms.

Went to Hayes and back again yesterday. As ever, the service from platform 14 was put up on the departure board just a few minutes before departure, although the train had been in there well before, and there was the running/scrabbling/nearly falling over scrum to get all the way there before it went, probably by those in the know who understand the distance. It really is pretty poor.

Firstly, it's an ORCATS raid cunningly disguised as the direct local service from Paddington to stations between Reading and Didcot. It's also, in my opinion anyway (not that that counts for much), a better passenger offering than TfL's Mass Rapid Transit. It was certainly the more peaceful choice until last spring, as before then MTR was constantly playing out almost every possible PA message available on the 345s, which made for lovely* journeys.

Finally, If you take the Paddington overbridge route at the country end of Paddington from P1, there should be less crowds and a easier walk to P14, and there's some passenger information screens at the overbridge ticket gate area by P8.

 

[ijmad]

Once through running starts, I wonder how much business the residual GWR Paddington relief line service will take. It already seems like a bit of an Orcats Raid on the Elizabeth Line service and revenue at the London stations, but being widely separated at Paddington I guess the majority will just go first to the Elizabeth platforms.

Went to Hayes and back again yesterday. As ever, the service from platform 14 was put up on the departure board just a few minutes before departure, although the train had been in there well before, and there was the running/scrabbling/nearly falling over scrum to get all the way there before it went, probably by those in the know who understand the distance. It really is pretty poor.

For Paddington to Reading I'd take the fast service from upstairs.

For, e.g. Hayes and Harlington to Reading I'd get on whatever came first as it'd all be from the same platforms, GWR or XR.

For, e.g. Canary Wharf to Reading, if I didn't want to change at Paddington I'd get on the first Maidenhead and change for Reading at Slough, since waiting 30 minutes is much more frustrating than waiting for 15, and there might be a GWR sooner than a 15 minute wait behind me at Slough.

 

[Jamiescott1]

Once through running starts, I wonder how much business the residual GWR Paddington relief line service will take. It already seems like a bit of an Orcats Raid on the Elizabeth Line service and revenue at the London stations, but being widely separated at Paddington I guess the majority will just go first to the Elizabeth platforms.

Went to Hayes and back again yesterday. As ever, the service from platform 14 was put up on the departure board just a few minutes before departure, although the train had been in there well before, and there was the running/scrabbling/nearly falling over scrum to get all the way there before it went, probably by those in the know who understand the distance. It really is pretty poor.

I always find this service quite busy in the afternoons. Its usually on the departure board about 25 minutes before departure.
Unfortunately no fasts stop at maidenhead off peak so this train has a lot of people alighting at maidenhead

 

[Horizon22]

Once the core is linked east and west I think Liverpool Street and Paddington will become less of a problem as Crossrail passengers won't need to change between parts of the station.

Yes this is what I mean by temporary. Frankly big changes to the footfall and way finding aren’t going to happen as a result of a situation that will last probably less than 6 months, which in the expected lifetime of Crossrail / Elizabeth Line, is a blip.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jul 2022 ==

Once through running starts, I wonder how much business the residual GWR Paddington relief line service will take. It already seems like a bit of an Orcats Raid on the Elizabeth Line service and revenue at the London stations, but being widely separated at Paddington I guess the majority will just go first to the Elizabeth platforms.

Went to Hayes and back again yesterday. As ever, the service from platform 14 was put up on the departure board just a few minutes before departure, although the train had been in there well before, and there was the running/scrabbling/nearly falling over scrum to get all the way there before it went, probably by those in the know who understand the distance. It really is pretty poor.

I don’t see how something is an “ORCATS Raid” if it pre-existed. Indeed this Didcot Parkway service was meant to terminate at Oxford, had electrification progressed that far. Now whether GWR should give up all their local paths has been widely suggested; they (and many passengers) are reluctant too although apparently MTR have offered. Probably something that will rumble on for a while yet.

My experience is that many of trains are not in there “well before”. A tad of late running and it’s always very tight with the turnarounds. The timetable is also not built for running into Paddington - it’s built to align with through-running. The scrum at the far end of platforms 12 & 14 is nothing new; when GWR/FGW used to run the local services too there used to be big issues.

As I said above everything is not ideal, but the ideal is not running into Paddington High Level at all, as this is all a temporary measure, albeit it’s been temporary for a lot longer than anyone was expecting!

 

[coppercapped]

Once through running starts, I wonder how much business the residual GWR Paddington relief line service will take. It already seems like a bit of an Orcats Raid on the Elizabeth Line service and revenue at the London stations, but being widely separated at Paddington I guess the majority will just go first to the Elizabeth platforms.

Went to Hayes and back again yesterday. As ever, the service from platform 14 was put up on the departure board just a few minutes before departure, although the train had been in there well before, and there was the running/scrabbling/nearly falling over scrum to get all the way there before it went, probably by those in the know who understand the distance. It really is pretty poor.

Firstly, it's an ORCATS raid cunningly disguised as the direct local service from Paddington to stations between Reading and Didcot. It's also, in my opinion anyway (not that that counts for much), a better passenger offering than TfL's Mass Rapid Transit. It was certainly the more peaceful choice until last spring, as before then MTR was constantly playing out almost every possible PA message available on the 345s, which made for lovely* journeys.

Finally, If you take the Paddington overbridge route at the country end of Paddington from P1, there should be less crowds and a easier walk to P14, and there's some passenger information screens at the overbridge ticket gate area by P8.

I do not understand the logic of claiming that the GWR Paddington-Reading-Didcot service is an ORCATS raid on TfL's Elizabeth line income. Neither the GWR trains nor the Elizabeth line to Reading are new or additional. In fact the Elizabeth line trains offer the same service - including the platforming and announcements at Paddington - as the 2 GWR stopping trains per hour to Reading that they replaced.

I can see no reason why the income - or what there is left of it at the moment - will not be shared in the same way as previously. Either Mr Clarence Yard or Mr Bald Rick made a statement some months ago in one of these forums that the GWR's operating agreement with the DfT allowed for the drop in GWR's income from the loss of the stoppers; implying that there is an ulterior motive in GWR maintaining the Didcot trains is wide of the mark as the changes have already been allowed for.

It seems to me that the comments made in the two quoted posts are very London-centric. People still seem to forget that there is also a significant cross-Reading traffic from the western Thames Valley to employment places such as Maidenhead and Slough even though there is an 8 or 12 minute layover at Reading for pathing purposes. Abandoning the through service will simply make life more difficult for many people - and we don't want to discourage people from using the trains, do we?

 

[miklcct]

How is the interchange at Farringdon between Thameslink & the Elizabeth line? I’m flying from Gatwick in July so was looking at Paddington - Farringdon - Gatwick.

I'll still prefer using the underground instead of the Elizabeth line as the length interchanges at both Farringdon and Paddington can easily nullify any time saving by taking Elizabeth line instead of underground. This is especially true coming from Luton where the change at Farringdon is cross-platform, and it's also much more earlier to get from the H&C platforms at Paddington to the National Rail platforms for onward travel as well.

 

[Mojo]

I'll still prefer using the underground instead of the Elizabeth line as the length interchanges at both Farringdon and Paddington can easily nullify any time saving by taking Elizabeth line instead of underground. This is especially true coming from Luton where the change at Farringdon is cross-platform, and it's also much more earlier to get from the H&C platforms at Paddington to the National Rail platforms for onward travel as well.

I'm not so sure about this. The only cross-platform interchange at Farringdon is of benefit for customers travelling from Westbound Met/C&H line trains wishing to go Southbound on TLRailUK.

If you're starting at Paddington then the Crossrail station is probably just as accessible as the C&H line platforms.

 

[Taunton]

I do not understand the logic of claiming that the GWR Paddington-Reading-Didcot service is an ORCATS raid on TfL's Elizabeth line income. Neither the GWR trains nor the Elizabeth line to Reading are new or additional. In fact the Elizabeth line trains offer the same service - including the platforming and announcements at Paddington - as the 2 GWR stopping trains per hour to Reading that they replaced.

I can see no reason why the income - or what there is left of it at the moment - will not be shared in the same way as previously. Either Mr Clarence Yard or Mr Bald Rick made a statement some months ago in one of these forums that the GWR's operating agreement with the DfT allowed for the drop in GWR's income from the loss of the stoppers; implying that there is an ulterior motive in GWR maintaining the Didcot trains is wide of the mark as the changes have already been allowed for.

It seems to me that the comments made in the two quoted posts are very London-centric. People still seem to forget that there is also a significant cross-Reading traffic from the western Thames Valley to employment places such as Maidenhead and Slough even though there is an 8 or 12 minute layover at Reading for pathing purposes. Abandoning the through service will simply make life more difficult for many people - and we don't want to discourage people from using the trains, do we?

Bear in mind that an Orcats Raid is not something unilaterally decided by the TOC as a sneaky one. Every service group is authorised by the DfT and part of their overall approach. The key thing is they are generally determined after the mainstream TOC has got their service plan lined up.

To suggest that there is significant demand from West Drayton to Pangbourne, etc, is clearly inappropriate. Sure there is demand across Reading, but this would be surely better served by GWR running nonstop Paddington to Slough, and stopping thereafter. Those from Paddington to the intermediate points between Reading and Oxford must get thoroughly fed up of stopping at all those West London wayside points, and likely take an express to Reading and change there anyway. And that's not a London-centric view at all.

 

[AM9]

I'll still prefer using the underground instead of the Elizabeth line as the length interchanges at both Farringdon and Paddington can easily nullify any time saving by taking Elizabeth line instead of underground. This is especially true coming from Luton where the change at Farringdon is cross-platform, and it's also much more earlier to get from the H&C platforms at Paddington to the National Rail platforms for onward travel as well.

I disagree with that. The change from southbound TL to westbound Lizzie is simple and quick, - either by the lift or escalator. Just remember which end of the train to alight from. Similarly, exiting the Lizzie platforms to the mainline concourse is no problem as there are plenty of escalators and wide gatelines.

 

[Snow1964]

I completely agree too - it is beyond frustrating and just noise pollution. With such clear, digital signage, automated voices as well as large, spacious platforms why are we giving these assistants a microphone? It’s really not needed.

Couldn’t agree more, its not assistance, it is unnecessary noise disturbance

 

[Falcon1200]

it's also much more earlier to get from the H&C platforms at Paddington to the National Rail platforms for onward travel as well.

I can't agree with that; Elizabeth Line to the main line (ie most) platforms at Paddington is shorter and quicker than the traipse from the H&C platforms, plus all the station facilities are closer too.

 

[miklcct]

I can't agree with that; Elizabeth Line to the main line (ie most) platforms at Paddington is shorter and quicker than the traipse from the H&C platforms, plus all the station facilities are closer too.

Isn't it just a short walk from the H&C platforms to the high-numbered main line platforms through the footbridge?

Yesterday with my bike I used the H&C both ways (in the morning from Cricklewood with a cross-platform interchange at Farringdon when the Lizzie line hadn't started yet, in the evening I went back to Willesden Green by H&C - Baker Street onto the Met on the same level - Finchley Road cross-platform because Cricklewood had no train service by then, making Lizzie line not a viable choice)

 

[Mikey C]

Came back from Heathrow yesterday evening, and was surprised at the lack of Elizabeth Line signage there (Terminal 2) as they currently still refer to National Rail only. Will the signs be updated when the full Crossrail service opens?

 

[coppercapped]

Bear in mind that an Orcats Raid is not something unilaterally decided by the TOC as a sneaky one.

In the context of the original posts both you and Non Multi wrote "...like a bit of an Orcats Raid on the Elizabeth Line..." and "...it's an ORCATS raid cunningly disguised..." respectively.

In both cases such sentences parse to imply that 'the GWR local service' was added to the timetable AFTER the TfL Crossrail service was planned with the intention of being allocated a share of the fares income — a 'raid' being a 'sudden surprise attack'. This is NOT the case, the TfL Crossrail service to Reading west of Paddington is the same service that was offered by the GWR local service to Reading, with a couple of minor changes. The only noticeable difference is that the trains are a different colour...

Why should there be any change in the way the income is now allocated between service groups than there was previously? I note that @Horizon22 in post #938 agrees with me.

Every service group is authorised by the DfT and part of their overall approach. The key thing is they are generally determined after the mainstream TOC has got their service plan lined up.

As I hope I made clear above this statement does not apply to the current situation on the lines out of Paddington - BOTH service groups have existed for decades, all that has happened is that one of them is now operated by a different company.

Taunton: To suggest that there is significant demand from West Drayton to Pangbourne, etc, is clearly inappropriate. Sure there is demand across Reading, but this would be surely better served by GWR running nonstop Paddington to Slough, and stopping thereafter. Those from Paddington to the intermediate points between Reading and Oxford must get thoroughly fed up of stopping at all those West London wayside points, and likely take an express to Reading and change there anyway. And that's not a London-centric view at all.

Your example is disingenuous. My point was that there is still a passenger flow between the groups <Stations between Reading and Oxford> and <Stations between Reading and points east of Slough>. The individual journey-pairs may be small but the total flow of people on these trains who do not get off at Reading is still significant.

If the name of the game is to encourage people back to the trains - why make life more difficult than it was before by enforcing a change?

Passengers to and from <Stations between Reading and Oxford> and London do tend to change at Reading - and have done so for decades. What is your point?

Came back from Heathrow yesterday evening, and was surprised at the lack of Elizabeth Line signage there (Terminal 2) as they currently still refer to National Rail only. Will the signs be updated when the full Crossrail service opens?

Possibly because the Elizabeth Line IS National Rail?

 

[Taunton]

In both cases such sentences parse to imply that 'the GWR local service' was added to the timetable AFTER the TfL Crossrail service was planned with the intention of being allocated a share of the fares income — a 'raid' being a 'sudden surprise attack'. This is NOT the case, the TfL Crossrail service to Reading west of Paddington is the same service that was offered by the GWR local service to Reading, with a couple of minor changes. The only noticeable difference is that the trains are a different colour...

I believe that it is the case. The original Crossrail plan, going well back, was that it would cover the London suburban service fully. The Crossrail project budget has covered all the enhancements made along the way there. This was eventually unsatisfactory to a different part of the DfT who saw less income from a GWR, or whichever franchise it was at the time, so they introduced a GWR stopping service as well, to get its share of the much increased Crossrail revenue.

And its not just the colour of the paint. The GWR trains use a very inconvenient obscure corner of Paddington, different to the Crossrail station, and once through running starts will doubtless load hardly anybody there for the London local stations in comparison to those over on the Crossrail platform. Let's wait a few months and then see.

Local London services continuing as stopping services beyond Reading has always been an operating (and now Orcats) convenience. There may be custom from Slough and Maidenhead etc to beyond Reading, but hardly any from local stations in the TfL area - and certainly not enough to justify an 8-car emu twice an hour doing so.

 

[ijmad]

Came back from Heathrow yesterday evening, and was surprised at the lack of Elizabeth Line signage there (Terminal 2) as they currently still refer to National Rail only. Will the signs be updated when the full Crossrail service opens?

I noticed that too, although there is some Elizabeth Line branding and proper line diagrams on the platforms themselves which is an improvement. Will we ever see Elizabeth Line branding in the Terminals? After all, I suspect BAA would rather prefer you to buy a HeX ticket...

 

[coppercapped]

I believe that it is the case. The original Crossrail plan, going well back, was that it would cover the London suburban service fully. The Crossrail project budget has covered all the enhancements made along the way there. This was eventually unsatisfactory to a different part of the DfT who saw less income from a GWR, or whichever franchise it was at the time, so they introduced a GWR stopping service as well, to get its share of the much increased Crossrail revenue.

No.

There has been for many decades, going back to 61XX steam-hauled days a local service from Paddington which terminated at Reading. Various parts of the local service from Paddington used to terminate at Southall (which is why the steam shed is there), Slough, Reading, Didcot and Oxford depending on how far one goes back.

Over the years this was rationalised until by the early 1990s the stopping service consisted of two groups, one (stopping at more stations) terminated at Reading and the other, calling at fewer stations between Reading and London, which ran on to Oxford. There were some changes in the pattern during the peak periods.

The DfT categorically did NOT introduce, or cause to be introduced, a GWR stopping service to Reading. It has existed in broadly the same form since the days of the Pressed Steel dmus - in other words for more than 60 years.

And its not just the colour of the paint. The GWR trains use a very inconvenient obscure corner of Paddington, different to the Crossrail station, and once through running starts will doubtless load hardly anybody there for the London local stations in comparison to those over on the Crossrail platform. Let's wait a few months and then see.

It may have escaped your attention but a large number of offices, other commercial premises and flats have been, and are being, built near Paddington. Equally not everyone will use Crossrail to reach Paddington; tube lines and bus services are also very close by and many people cycle. For these groups using a train which originates at Paddington may very well continue to have attractions. In fact for people arriving on the Bakerloo, from the Praed Street sub-surface station and pedestrians and cyclists using the ramp from Praed Street these obscure platforms may be more convenient. Certainly the cycle parks are closer to this obscure corner than they are to the Crossrail entrance.

Methinks that thou doth protest too much...!

Local London services continuing as stopping services beyond Reading has always been an operating (and now Orcats) convenience. There may be custom from Slough and Maidenhead etc to beyond Reading, but hardly any from local stations in the TfL area - and certainly not enough to justify an 8-car emu twice an hour doing so.

 

[Horizon22]

I believe that it is the case. The original Crossrail plan, going well back, was that it would cover the London suburban service fully. The Crossrail project budget has covered all the enhancements made along the way there. This was eventually unsatisfactory to a different part of the DfT who saw less income from a GWR, or whichever franchise it was at the time, so they introduced a GWR stopping service as well, to get its share of the much increased Crossrail revenue.

And its not just the colour of the paint. The GWR trains use a very inconvenient obscure corner of Paddington, different to the Crossrail station, and once through running starts will doubtless load hardly anybody there for the London local stations in comparison to those over on the Crossrail platform. Let's wait a few months and then see.

Local London services continuing as stopping services beyond Reading has always been an operating (and now Orcats) convenience. There may be custom from Slough and Maidenhead etc to beyond Reading, but hardly any from local stations in the TfL area - and certainly not enough to justify an 8-car emu twice an hour doing so.

"Inconvenient obscure corner of Paddington" - you mean where the platforms are? Relief services have terminated there for decades, so I think the regular user has got used to it. Once Elizabeth Line service go underground, frankly I can't see there being much need for using P14 which is already restricted (max 8 car). Paddington itself is not some backwater, and the Maidenhead and Twyford passengers will probably continue to use those services, especially when they run even more skip-stop in the peak.

As stated local passengers in the Thames Valley are rather concerned about losing this service, which may drive them away in a leisure market. Now perhaps that is overblown, but it would be an increase in average journey time if MTR took all of them away. Unless of course the Eliazbeth Line took the path and kept the stopping pattern the same only terminating at Reading instead of Didcot Parkway. But that doesn't seem entirely efficient to me. You mention it's an operational convenience and yes it is, but it's also a passenger convenience. Just because its not "neat" doesn't mean it should be changed.

 

[SynthD]

Why should there be any change in the way the income is now allocated between service groups than there was previously?

It's not an ORCATS raid because they don't use the same platform barriers. The difference in income will be from the Liz line going beyond Paddington, and including Heathrow Connect.

 

[JonathanH]

It's not an ORCATS raid because they don't use the same platform barriers.

It would be naive to think that revenue can yet be apportioned by which set of ticket barriers is used. I recognise that PAYG is heavily used in London but that reduces as the origin of journeys goes further west.

 

[SynthD]

It would be naive to think that revenue can yet be apportioned by which set of ticket barriers is used. I recognise that PAYG is heavily used in London but that reduces as the origin of journeys goes further west.

I haven't tried to leave an upper level Liz platform a wrong way, but it sounds impossible.

 

[MCR247]

I find passengers quite like the GWR stoppers. They’re usually sitting in platform 14 ready for boarding, have slightly more comfortable seats they aren’t sideways, and they ‘feel’ faster due to stopping at less stations. I think that can lead passengers to do ‘irrational’ things such as letting 345s go to wait for the GWR even though the 345s won’t be overtaken

 

[Jamiescott1]

I find passengers quite like the GWR stoppers. They’re usually sitting in platform 14 ready for boarding, have slightly more comfortable seats they aren’t sideways, and they ‘feel’ faster due to stopping at less stations. I think that can lead passengers to do ‘irrational’ things such as letting 345s go to wait for the GWR even though the 345s won’t be overtaken

As someone who takes the gwr service they are busy. Lots of people boarding at Paddington and Ealing and a lot of people disembarking at maidenhead.

 

[miklcct]

I find passengers quite like the GWR stoppers. They’re usually sitting in platform 14 ready for boarding, have slightly more comfortable seats they aren’t sideways, and they ‘feel’ faster due to stopping at less stations. I think that can lead passengers to do ‘irrational’ things such as letting 345s go to wait for the GWR even though the 345s won’t be overtaken

I don't think describing those trains as "stoppers" is appropriate. I will say they are semi-fast services, compared to the "stoppers" of Elizabeth line (well, still not truly stoppers as they still skip a few stations east of Hayes & Harlington) and the express services by high-speed trains.

 

[coppercapped]

It's not an ORCATS raid because they don't use the same platform barriers. The difference in income will be from the Liz line going beyond Paddington, and including Heathrow Connect.

Eh? ORCATS has nothing to do with individual platform barriers.

The income due to each TOC for station pairs which are served by more than one TOC is calculated by the LENNON system which apportions revenue to each TOC from the sales of inter-available tickets. These are tickets which can be used on any TOC, operator specific tickets are not apportioned but are credited to the named TOC. It is based on sales, not which barrier has been used.

The income is split between TOCs either according to allocation factors agreed between the TOCs concerned or by allocation factors generated by the ORCATS model.

Considering the matter further, as contactless tickets are only useable on the TfL Elizabeth line they would seem to be the equivalent of TOC-specific tickets whereby ALL the income goes to that TOC. In this case the TOC is TfL so one could argue that it is Crossrail/TfL which is carrying out the ORCATS raid.

 

[tomuk]

It is based on sales, not which barrier has been used.

What about the Hex barriers at Paddington or the Gex barriers at Victoria? And the overall share of revenue between NR/Tfl on Oyster/Contactless/Travelcards. Are no adjustments made?