London’s newest train line is now also its busiest - The Economist, UK

[JonathanH]

Given HS2 will be terminating at Old Oak Common for 5 years (or forever) and how many passengers this line is carrying, I think at the very least TfL is going to need more rolling stock to take the line to 28 or 30tph. I wonder how many more paths they could find in the western section where some of the overcrowding has been pretty bad.

On which stretch of the route is each Elizabeth Line service carrying 1,500 people on successive trains, and for how long?

 

[J-2739]

The Elizabeth Line abstracts a lot of passengers from other modes (including buses in the eastern stretch). The key is actually journey opportunities and journey time. Woolwich is being quickly transformed by now suddenly being 8 minutes from Canary Wharf and 15 minutes from Liverpool Street.

Woolwich is very much the winning town on the line.

 

[Mikey C]

I suppose the key question, which we're unlikely to ever get a definitive answer on, is how many car journeys has the Elizabeth line eliminated.

Perhaps we might be able to estimate that from how TfL's overall ridership changed pre-and post-EL opening.

Very few, other than taxi journeys to Heathrow.

It will mainly be people transferring from other modes of public transport, whether NR, tube or bus, which is what Crossrail was designed to do. To relieve overcrowded existing modes of transport, and allow for growth.

 

[davetheguard]

Woolwich is being quickly transformed by now suddenly being 8 minutes from Canary Wharf and 15 minutes from Liverpool Street.

And to think the station at Woolwich almost wasn't built!

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

Apparently, TfL may (or want to) lengthen the 345's from 9 to 11 coaches which explains how busy it is. Although this could be to do with HS2.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Very few, other than taxi journeys to Heathrow.

It will mainly be people transferring from other modes of public transport, whether NR, tube or bus, which is what Crossrail was designed to do. To relieve overcrowded existing modes of transport, and allow for growth.

That is my thought as well. For the most part, the new journeys that the Elizabeth line has enabled are journeys into central London - for which relatively few people would use the car in the first place, I have heard anecdotally of a few people swapping from car to Elizabeth line, but I can't imagine the numbers would be large. For my own part, I use the line several times a week, and that's a mixture of (in roughly equal proportion): New journeys that I wouldn't have otherwise made, journeys that I would otherwise have made on SouthEastern to London Bridge, and journeys that I would otherwise have cycled.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2023 ==

Instead the Department for Transport and Southeastern have used the Elizabeth Line to justify carrying out service cuts.

Really? I've not heard of that? Do you have any examples?

Off the top of my head, I can plausibly believe that the Elizabeth line would have removed a lot of passengers from the SouthEastern Woolwich line, and that might partially account for services on that line not having yet been restored to the pre-Covid 8tph. But I thought the rationale for that was being presented as general reduction in demand, not Elizabeth-line-specific. I can't think of any other national rail routes likely to have suffered because of the Elizabeth line. Are there any?

 

[Taunton]

Well the Central line was barely coping, so a reduction in footfall there is a good thing. Has there actually been a sizeable drop in LU passengers though? I get the impression that the opening of the EL has stimulated new demand, rather than merely poaching.

There has been a very noticeable drop in passengers through Canary Wharf on the Jubilee Line, which is somewhat concealed by separate problems they have there with the trains leading to wider intervals than in say 2019, so as ever comparisons are not straightforward. But it is just as well that the Eliz opened, otherwise even post-covid it would be difficult if this had happened.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2023 ==

Apparently, TfL may (or want to) lengthen the 345's from 9 to 11 coaches which explains how busy it is. Although this could be to do with HS2.

Although the Core can handle longer trains straightforwardly, the surface sections are another matter. It took them about 12 years (no joke, say 2010-22) to extend the platforms for 9 coach trains, and obviously this took all the easy ends to do first.

 

[Jammy Dodger]

Apparently, TfL may (or want to) lengthen the 345's from 9 to 11 coaches which explains how busy it is. Although this could be to do with HS2.

While I know this is provisioned for, will/does Alstom have enough capacity for this? I know they could tack more coaches into the production schedule on after 701/720/730, but they have the HS2 contract coming up, so they will need to change their production lines soon, I'd assume...?

 

[ijmad]

Although the Core can handle longer trains straightforwardly, the surface sections are another matter. It took them about 12 years (no joke, say 2010-22) to extend the platforms for 9 coach trains, and obviously this took all the easy ends to do first.

The biggest problem would be Heathrow, where the platforms are only long enough for 9 cars, but I believe I've also read that 11 cars would foul some of the crossovers in the area. This would be extremely expensive to fix as it's obviously underground, but also under the airport's runways.

Though I do suppose it might be possible to run a mixture of 9 and 11 car trains, if the signalling could cope with that.

 

[321over360]

The biggest problem would be Heathrow, where the platforms are only long enough for 9 cars, but I believe I've also read that 11 cars would foul some of the crossovers in the area. This would be extremely expensive to fix as it's obviously underground, but also under the airport's runways.

Though I do suppose it might be possible to run a mixture of 9 and 11 car trains, if the signalling could cope with that.

The GEML would at most only be capable of 10 carriages, and even then, you would have 3 carriages with locked doors (2 carriages are already on SDO at 4 stations which are only able to accomodate 7 carriages in the platforms at present), Stations Like Stratford, Romford & Shenfield already have platforms capable of 10 carriage trains but even stations like Ilford would require SDO as there is no more space to extend the platforms anymore for longer trains.

 

[ijmad]

The GEML would at most only be capable of 10 carriages, and even then, you would have 3 carriages with locked doors (2 carriages are already on SDO at 4 stations which are only able to accomodate 7 carriages in the platforms at present), Stations Like Stratford, Romford & Shenfield already have platforms capable of 10 carriage trains but even stations like Ilford would require SDO as there is no more space to extend the platforms anymore for longer trains.

I was more thinking about whether the Abbey Wood to Maidenhead/Readings could be lengthened, but I'm sure the residents of Ealing wouldn't enjoy having their stations bulldozed yet again. Historically it seems to me that TfL have almost always gone for frequency uplift first , lengthening later (Jubilee line being an exception). Since the Elizabeth Line core was designed with some headroom I expect we'll see that first.

 

[321over360]

I was more thinking about whether the Abbey Wood to Maidenhead/Readings could be lengthened, but I'm sure the residents of Ealing wouldn't enjoy having their stations bulldozed yet again. Historically it seems to me that TfL have almost always gone for frequency uplift first , lengthening later (Jubilee line being an exception). Since the Elizabeth Line core was designed with some headroom I expect we'll see that first.

Is there any spare capacity outside of the Core section for extra train services to operate?

 

[Horizon22]

It was only very close behind GTR (which is basically 3 TOCs) at the last calculation, so this was naturally going to happen.

And one of TfLs routes that recovered the fastest during 2020/2021

Yes famously Stratford became the busiest station during Covid.

It's very hard to measure the shift from cars. You could infer some of them by comparing the Census data from 2021 and 2031 (when it happens) and assuming EL use for some of the non-car journeys but that would only be a partial answer.

There is also the parallel processes of the ULEZ taking some vehicles out of London and the long term shift from industrial land use to residential redevelopment in Greater London. This tends to reduce car use.

I would expect the EL to replace some car / taxi trips to Heathrow from the GEML side as that would have been a multi change journey before. Less so to Zone 1 or Canary Wharf which are already PT heavy.

Many passengers will also have transferred from other lines, such as the Piccadilly and Central lines to the west of London, and the Central and District to the east.

There's been no massive move away from the Tube / London Underground by all reports; the most abstracted is the Central line (as you might expect). I'm not saying its nothing, but TfL figures don't suggest it is darmatic. I could see taxi usage going down.

Buses are certainly one area, especially in SE London areas, and Southeastern and Thameslink have probably seen significant drop off top (the former more so).

It makes loads of cross London journeys simpler now, even if you think the journey wouldn't originally involve it. It's a tube frequency Paddington - Whitechapel.

Given HS2 will be terminating at Old Oak Common for 5 years (or forever) and how many passengers the line is already carrying, I think at the very least TfL is going to need more rolling stock to take the line to 28 or 30tph. I also wonder how many more paths they could find in the western section where some of the overcrowding has been pretty bad.

Is there any spare capacity outside of the Core section for extra train services to operate?

Almost at capacity already and definitely not in the peak. Without some funky crossing moves onto the Main Line (looking at you Heathrow Express paths...), its practically at 12tph (including freight) which is getting close to a maximum.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2023 ==


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2023 ==

Although the Core can handle longer trains straightforwardly, the surface sections are another matter. It took them about 12 years (no joke, say 2010-22) to extend the platforms for 9 coach trains, and obviously this took all the easy ends to do first.

And there are still short platforms.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2023 ==

Really? I've not heard of that? Do you have any examples?

Off the top of my head, I can plausibly believe that the Elizabeth line would have removed a lot of passengers from the SouthEastern Woolwich line, and that might partially account for services on that line not having yet been restored to the pre-Covid 8tph. But I thought the rationale for that was being presented as general reduction in demand, not Elizabeth-line-specific. I can't think of any other national rail routes likely to have suffered because of the Elizabeth line. Are there any?

Well it was Southeastern put out - you can see it as an excuse depending on your outlook!

Rail firm reduces services ‘after losing passengers to Elizabeth line’

MPs to probe decision by Southeastern Railway to axe more than 700 trains a week

www.standard.co.uk

Southeastern said the success of the Elizabeth line, which carries about 300,000 passengers a day on its central section between Abbey Wood and Paddington, “has reduced demand on our own train services, and we therefore need to adapt our timetables accordingly"

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2023 ==

Woolwich is very much the winning town on the line.

And rental / house prices in the area are reflecting this...

 

[Bigbru]

Is there any spare capacity outside of the Core section for extra train services to operate?

I think an equally significant question to ask would be: Is there capacity to stable the trains? As OOC, Shenfield, Gidea and Maidenhead are only built for 9 cars.

 

[matt_world2004]

Wonder how much of this demand was already there. Just not being captured by southeastern and GwR lacklustre approach to revenue protection at their stations

 

[zwk500]

Wonder how much of this demand was already there. Just not being captured by southeastern and GwR lacklustre approach to revenue protection at their stations

It's a fair question. Also, how does the demand stack up against the ridership predictions for this point in when the line was meant to have opened?

 

[jhy44]

I was thinking Paris RER type development as that is mainline through in tunnels. It would be something that would incorporate Thameslink and Great Northern as well into the network although that would be longer than the RER runs from Centre to Terminus

I do find it quite stark comparing the Elizabeth Line (EL) to Thameslink (TL), they are indeed essentially the same thing (RER) but the EL is far more well-known, well-used, and simply useful for journeys for Londoners than TL, which is arguably designed for non-Londoners in Hertfordshire, Kent and Surrey to get into London. It's particularly woeful for South Londoners. It should be a quick, direct, high-capacity route, but poor connections to other lines and awful-30 min frequencies mean most people I know who live near the line don't even consider it an option and instead bus to the nearest tube. Such a waste. It feels like a wasted opportunity that TL wasn't made more EL like in its central sections.

More trains should have been sent via Elephant & Castle than London Bridge, with new stations at Walworth, Camberwell, giving them, Loughborough Junction, Herne Hill, Tulse Hill etc metro-style frequencies into Central London. A Jubilee-line connected Southwark station could have been built rather than the cross-river Blackfriars. Streatham Common could have been re-built at the junction allowing rationalisation and interchange with the Balham-Norbury line etc.

Perhaps now with the reduction of daily commuting from the home counties into London, there is indeed the spare capacity to increase the London stations and frequencies of TL to make it better resemble its purple cousin and vastly improve public transport connections across the middle of South London.

 

[thomalex]

I suppose the key question, which we're unlikely to ever get a definitive answer on, is how many car journeys has the Elizabeth line eliminated.

Perhaps we might be able to estimate that from how TfL's overall ridership changed pre-and post-EL opening.

I would be curious about this. I would have thought overall not very many given it must be a very limited proportion of people who were driving and parking up in Central London.

Then again there is now a more metro like service running out to Reading and Shenfield, so maybe there are some local journeys outside of London that are now on rail rather then by car.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

From ad hoc observation, it seems to me that eastbound trains are now leaving Abbey Wood busier than they typically were pre-Elizabeth-line. If that's correct, that would seem to imply that the Elizabeth line is generating new journeys with people travelling from Belvedere/Erith/etc. and changing at Abbey Wood.

It'll be interesting to see if there's been a jump in passenger numbers at stations between Belvedere and Dartford.

 

[Taunton]

I think an equally significant question to ask would be: Is there capacity to stable the trains? As OOC, Shenfield, Gidea and Maidenhead are only built for 9 cars.

One also has to ask why the underground core stations were built to full 11-car size, which must have added a considerable amount to construction cost, when all the lines it runs on to to, plus the depots, are incapable of being extended to handle such trains.

The main OOC depot, for example, has no scope to extend the sidings by another two cars between the exit points and the bufferstops; immediately beyond the latter used to be further railway land, part of Old Oak Common sheds, but the railway has sold off the land for housing, still under construction.

 

[Horizon22]

Wonder how much of this demand was already there. Just not being captured by southeastern and GwR lacklustre approach to revenue protection at their stations

Well TfL Rail was running for a good 4 years on the GWML with barriers and such in place from a fairly early point, so not sure the impact will be so bad there.

Certainly more of an issue on Southeastern, however Abbey Wood figures already shot up ~50% before the Elizabeth line opened when the gateline was in place.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 May 2023 ==

It's a fair question. Also, how does the demand stack up against the ridership predictions for this point in when the line was meant to have opened?

Fairly close. Passenger numbers were initially exceeding expectations in the first 6 months, although they were revised down after Covid.

 

[miklcct]

I do find it quite stark comparing the Elizabeth Line (EL) to Thameslink (TL), they are indeed essentially the same thing (RER) but the EL is far more well-known, well-used, and simply useful for journeys for Londoners than TL, which is arguably designed for non-Londoners in Hertfordshire, Kent and Surrey to get into London. It's particularly woeful for South Londoners. It should be a quick, direct, high-capacity route, but poor connections to other lines and awful-30 min frequencies mean most people I know who live near the line don't even consider it an option and instead bus to the nearest tube. Such a waste. It feels like a wasted opportunity that TL wasn't made more EL like in its central sections.

More trains should have been sent via Elephant & Castle than London Bridge, with new stations at Walworth, Camberwell, giving them, Loughborough Junction, Herne Hill, Tulse Hill etc metro-style frequencies into Central London. A Jubilee-line connected Southwark station could have been built rather than the cross-river Blackfriars. Streatham Common could have been re-built at the junction allowing rationalisation and interchange with the Balham-Norbury line etc.

Perhaps now with the reduction of daily commuting from the home counties into London, there is indeed the spare capacity to increase the London stations and frequencies of TL to make it better resemble its purple cousin and vastly improve public transport connections across the middle of South London.

I don't agree with you in North West London. As long as it remains at 15-minute frequency, Thameslink still remains my first choice when heading to Central London given how fast it is compared to bussing to the nearest tube. Not only the City, but also the West End as well (by changing to the Northern Line at Kentish Town, although depending the exact location bussing to the Jubilee is also a competitive option as well)

 

[Taunton]

Certainly more of an issue on Southeastern, however Abbey Wood figures already shot up ~50% before the Elizabeth line opened when the gateline was in place.

I wouldn't be so sure of such accuracy, because the published passenger figures, especially without gatelines but even with them, are subject to some algorithms based on a range of criteria, some of them estimates. For example, on the Wirral lines of Merseyrail a few years ago the annual figures suddenly halved for the line destination, and doubled for the adjacent intermediate stations, when some change was made to the calculation.

 

[NSEWonderer]

Problem is the southeastern cuts actually to some degree hamper even more journeys to and from the lizzy line. With less trains more so the Sidcup line mainly getting reduced it means the interchange times to Abbey wood for the lizzy is too tight for sum compared to the previous timetable.

 

[stuu]

One also has to ask why the underground core stations were built to full 11-car size, which must have added a considerable amount to construction cost, when all the lines it runs on to to, plus the depots, are incapable of being extended to handle such trains.

Enormously less than the cost of doing it retrospectively, which no doubt many would have moaned about a lack of foresight should that approach have been taken.

Not including passive provision at OOC is a fail though

 

[Benjwri]

Enormously less than the cost of doing it retrospectively, which no doubt many would have moaned about a lack of foresight should that approach have been taken.

Not including passive provision at OOC is a fail though

I would rather suggest there are no plans for extension, and that decision was taken at a point when it was more expensive to remove them. I doubt it added a huge amount to the cost, since most stations are tunnelled, and all you are doing is widening the tunnel. The stations that aren’t, such as Paddington, have things like lifts right at the end, and to move them would be a significant and costly redesign

 

[stuu]

I would rather suggest there are no plans for extension, and that decision was taken at a point when it was more expensive to remove them. I doubt it added a huge amount to the cost, since most stations are tunnelled, and all you are doing is widening the tunnel. The stations that aren’t, such as Paddington, have things like lifts right at the end, and to move them would be a significant and costly redesign

You could suggest it, but you would be incorrect. It was deliberate, to future-proof the line. The pedestrian spaces are all designed around the loads needed for 30 tph of 11 car trains. I would also suggest that the costs of setting up lots of different worksites in functioning stations would be astronomical

 

[Benjwri]

You could suggest it, but you would be incorrect. It was deliberate, to future-proof the line. The pedestrian spaces are all designed around the loads needed for 30 tph of 11 car trains. I would also suggest that the costs of setting up lots of different worksites in functioning stations would be astronomical

I think you are misunderstanding what I’m saying.

My suggestion is that at some point there after the designs for the central section stations was completed, it was decided the passive provision for 11 car trains wasn’t needed. This is reflected in things like Old Oak Common depot, and that there will be no provision in Old Oak Common station.

I’m suggesting that when they decided this a quick analysis was done of changing the designs of the central section stations, and it was decided it was cheaper to leave them as. Changing the design isn’t as easy as just copy and pasting tunnel sections, designs have to be redrawn, and a lot of calculations for a variety of things have to be redone. That is the reflected down the line, where parts might be being manufactured or designed.

 

[yorksrob]

I do find it quite stark comparing the Elizabeth Line (EL) to Thameslink (TL), they are indeed essentially the same thing (RER) but the EL is far more well-known, well-used, and simply useful for journeys for Londoners than TL, which is arguably designed for non-Londoners in Hertfordshire, Kent and Surrey to get into London. It's particularly woeful for South Londoners. It should be a quick, direct, high-capacity route, but poor connections to other lines and awful-30 min frequencies mean most people I know who live near the line don't even consider it an option and instead bus to the nearest tube. Such a waste. It feels like a wasted opportunity that TL wasn't made more EL like in its central sections.

More trains should have been sent via Elephant & Castle than London Bridge, with new stations at Walworth, Camberwell, giving them, Loughborough Junction, Herne Hill, Tulse Hill etc metro-style frequencies into Central London. A Jubilee-line connected Southwark station could have been built rather than the cross-river Blackfriars. Streatham Common could have been re-built at the junction allowing rationalisation and interchange with the Balham-Norbury line etc.

Perhaps now with the reduction of daily commuting from the home counties into London, there is indeed the spare capacity to increase the London stations and frequencies of TL to make it better resemble its purple cousin and vastly improve public transport connections across the middle of South London.

From my (admittedly limited) observations, the Thameslink Brighton line services look to be very well used.

 

[md2016]

I do find it quite stark comparing the Elizabeth Line (EL) to Thameslink (TL), they are indeed essentially the same thing (RER) but the EL is far more well-known, well-used, and simply useful for journeys for Londoners than TL, which is arguably designed for non-Londoners in Hertfordshire, Kent and Surrey to get into London. It's particularly woeful for South Londoners. It should be a quick, direct, high-capacity route, but poor connections to other lines and awful-30 min frequencies mean most people I know who live near the line don't even consider it an option and instead bus to the nearest tube. Such a waste. It feels like a wasted opportunity that TL wasn't made more EL like in its central sections.

More trains should have been sent via Elephant & Castle than London Bridge, with new stations at Walworth, Camberwell, giving them, Loughborough Junction, Herne Hill, Tulse Hill etc metro-style frequencies into Central London. A Jubilee-line connected Southwark station could have been built rather than the cross-river Blackfriars. Streatham Common could have been re-built at the junction allowing rationalisation and interchange with the Balham-Norbury line etc.

Perhaps now with the reduction of daily commuting from the home counties into London, there is indeed the spare capacity to increase the London stations and frequencies of TL to make it better resemble its purple cousin and vastly improve public transport connections across the middle of South London.

From anecdotal evidence, the overall numbers may have fallen, but trains are as, if not more busy, on Tuesday-Thursday. Not sure if fewer are travelling but services have been cut, or if Tuesday-Thursday passenger numbers have bounced back fully with significantly reduced passenger numbers on Monday and Friday.