Reading - Paddington route set for overhaul - BBC report

[jonb]

@Annetts key, the details I have were as follows:

Maidenhead East (8336) - No Reverse detection, further investigation was required
Slough West (8326) - No detection in Reverse and when Normal, no detection on the “B” end. Faulty supplementary detector believed to be the cause
Dolphin Junction (8296) - No Reverse detection. Believed to have been a worn crank
Maidenhead East (8334) - Loss of detection
Dolphin Junction (8301) - Detection lost in Normal on the “B” end
Maidenhead East (8335) - No Reverse detection. Believed to be supplementary detection fault

Hope that helps, yesterday evening was particularly busy with the Heathrow issues, hence the slightly late reply!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Mar 2025 ==

A very Interesting post from Rail Operations and Performance Manager for the Elizabeth line on Linkedln, highlight just some of the issues dealt with over the last week.

5 days and 5 very different shifts in the Elizabeth line Route Control Centre at Romford ROC! Monday started with an early turn on the Central desk, not much to report for the commencement of the… | Jon Bradley

5 days and 5 very different shifts in the Elizabeth line Route Control Centre at Romford ROC! Monday started with an early turn on the Central desk, not much to report for the commencement of the working week. Performance for the AM Peak was 94.3%, but some challenges later in the day on other...

www.linkedin.com

Thanks for the comments, hopefully it shows just a snippet of how varied (and disruptive), incidents can be which affect the Elizabeth line. This week has been particularly challenging for performance all round, with plenty to review and digest in the coming days.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

There’s quite a few contradictions in your post I’m afraid.

At the moment there’s a lot of firefighting to keep things to an even bare minimum standard of service. Longer blocks (such as Project Brunel) might have achieved some things but that has not been day-to-day reliability of key assets. It is not an exaggeration to say that on a weekly basis there are several reports of kinks/bumps in the track (normally on the Main lines) resulting in stop & cautions, contingency plans, reduced service etc. for many hours.

“Passenger demand” & a “reasonable journey time” cannot be met if the infrastructure is up to scratch and there’s disruption on a near daily basis. And clearly there are some fundamental issues - some of which are cultural - which need to be addressed in the Thames Valley area.

It’s about short-term pain for longer-term gain to uplift the reliability of track assets. As I said, Project Brunel was implemented for about a year (not consecutively) but hasn’t seemed to have the desired impact. Therefore some other approach is needed.

And one good way to “increase revenue” is by running a dependable & frequent service and costs can be reduced with longer enginering blocks when work can be centralised as opposed to smaller, bitty closures.

Possibly need to look at what Anglia did on the GEML, that was dire infrastructure wise 2010 but they worked with many weekend closures to get it where it is today, fairly reliable busy any messure

 

[Siemens Staines]

Today there seems to have been an issue near Reading station that has prevented access to P10/P11 from the Berks & Hants, which affected most IETs given that Didcot to Swindon is closed this weekend. These trains were then using the Up Relief to Ruscombe

 

[Annetts key]

@Annetts key, the details I have were as follows:

Maidenhead East (8336) - No Reverse detection, further investigation was required
Slough West (8326) - No detection in Reverse and when Normal, no detection on the “B” end. Faulty supplementary detector believed to be the cause
Dolphin Junction (8296) - No Reverse detection. Believed to have been a worn crank
Maidenhead East (8334) - Loss of detection
Dolphin Junction (8301) - Detection lost in Normal on the “B” end
Maidenhead East (8335) - No Reverse detection. Believed to be supplementary detection fault

Hope that helps, yesterday evening was particularly busy with the Heathrow issues, hence the slightly late reply!

Yeah, no problem, if you were busy, you were busy.

So, on that list, "worn crank" is an example of poor maintenance. Cranks are supposed to be lubricated with a grease gun at prescribed intervals to reduce the wear rate. The worn crank should have been noticed and replaced long before it got bad enough to result in a points failure.

Supplementary detectors are used to detect that the switch rails are in the correct position in the middle (meaning part way along the switch rails) and towards the back of the points. The reason is so that in long switches the switch rail position is confirmed all along the length and not just at the tips (which are detected by the point operating equipment point machine / clamp lock / HPSA).

Because the switch rails at the middle and rear don't always get driven to the exact same position with each operation, and because the mechanical back drive (as used on many points) is subject to heat expansion and due to some installations not being 'perfect', it's sometimes tricky to keep the detection for supplementary detectors within specification. Any reduced tolerance can and does lead to 'no detection' failures being reported by the signaller.

It should also be pointed out that a signaller reporting 'no detection', or variations thereof may also be caused by the point operating equipment being unable to complete the movement of the switch rails. There can be many causes, including but not limited to:

• If conventional metal slide chairs (without rollers), lack of lubrication or sand (from trains or blown by the wind from adjacent land) or other contamination causing excessive friction. Lack of lubrication is obviously a maintenance issue, but may also be weather related as the sun/wind/rain affects the lubricant.
• Sand/other contamination can also affect other types of chairs/baseplates. The type that has a nylon "pad" especially.
• Misadjusted chair/baseplate rollers (a maintenance issue) or the height of the sleeper/bearer having changed due to either track maintenance or poor ballast conditions.
• An obstruction. You name it, someone has found it in a set of points, including bits of twigs/branch, drinks cans, pieces of ballast (either due to track maintenance or dropped by a ballast train). But more importantly, nuts due to broken chair bolts (a maintenance issue).
• Either the point machine moving on the sleepers/bearers or the stock rails moving on the sleepers/bearers. Often due to wear.
• Worn rails making it hard to adjust the point operating equipment to meet the specification.

And many other potential problems...

And then there is mechanical or electrical faults with either the point operating equipment or the detection systems (including supplementary detectors). Or the controlling equipment or interconnecting cables.

 

[Horizon22]

Possibly need to look at what Anglia did on the GEML, that was dire infrastructure wise 2010 but they worked with many weekend closures to get it where it is today, fairly reliable busy any messure

Exactly. And now if you compare the GEML and GWML (which is sensible as a metro proposition runs on both) it is night and day.

For whatever reason it was like NR Western was somehow caught by surprise by 345s, the full Elizabeth line metro offering and even the intensified GWR service. I’m sure some were warning about it but for whatever reason this didn’t result in the required reliability.

Of course when you get disruption now the service is slashed more severely that it would have been before so there’s more passengers impacted overall due to the additional journeys.

 

[Bald Rick]

Possibly need to look at what Anglia did on the GEML, that was dire infrastructure wise 2010 but they worked with many weekend closures to get it where it is today, fairly reliable busy any messure

In short, they did two big things:

1) Spent several hundred million quid re-electrifying the route from Liverpool St to Southend snd Chelmsford.

2) Kept the peak timetable well below the service levels of 2019, meaning there is more capacity to enable recovery from incidents (of whihc many still happen).

3) Had an enitrely new fleet of trains which perform much better than their predecessors, but are generally in similar timings. This also enables easier recovery from smaller incidents when they hapoen.

Obviously there’s lots more to it than that.


Also, perhaps not as obviously, is that the GWML has more trains on it now than it did in 2019, all day and not just in the peak. Which means less capaciy to enable recovery from incidents.

 

[Class 170101]

Possibly need to look at what Anglia did on the GEML, that was dire infrastructure wise 2010 but they worked with many weekend closures to get it where it is today, fairly reliable busy any messure

But the Elizabeth Line did not exist back then. So there were fewer metro services then than now (4tph v 8tph) so all fitted on two tracks without significant journey time penalty for faster services (about 10 minutes) now, when there is a two track block, you can add 10 to 20 minutes (and maybe more) depending on how much is blocked.

It should be noted that users and potential users said that the Sunday metro service, as it was pre Elizabeth Line, was inadequate. I also doubt it could go back to something like that now as demand has ballooned and it runs through the Centre of London which needs a frequent service.

It should also be noted that even though there was a full two track timetable before the Elizabeth Line NR did not always use it to its full potential prior to Crossrail construction and fill it with either maintenance or renewals which suggests they either didn't have the resources or finance to do the work or potentially they didn't have the work to do in the first place.

 

[Annetts key]

For whatever reason it was like NR Western was somehow caught by surprise by 345s, the full Elizabeth line metro offering and even the intensified GWR service. I’m sure some were warning about it but for whatever reason this didn’t result in the required reliability.

You are assuming that the maintenance system and infrastructure condition was 'okay' beforehand. That's an unwise assumption from my point of view. Because I don't think either was good enough even three years ago.

If you reduce the amount of maintenance, it takes some time before the full effect is seen. And infrastructure that did appear to be coping can suddenly and rapidly become unreliable at a random later date. If you then increase the traffic levels, yes, this then puts you in an even worse situation. The wear rate and failure rate increases, any problems cause even more disruption to the service, and it's considerably harder to get back to having a maintenance regime that can restore the infrastructure back to being reliable.

 

[sh24]

To this interested layman, it sounds like a blockade of the entire route to reset maintenance is the only way to go?

 

[Horizon22]

But the Elizabeth Line did not exist back then. So there were fewer metro services then than now (4tph v 8tph)

That simply isn't true. There has been an intensive metro service between Shenfield and Liverpool Street for decades. TfL Rail - as the predecessor of the Elizabeth line - was in operation since 2015 as well.

 

[Starmill]

The 315s on the Electric lines worked 6tph off peak and a lot at peak times.

 

[The Planner]

To this interested layman, it sounds like a blockade of the entire route to reset maintenance is the only way to go?

That would cost a considerable amount to the point it could make the maintenance unaffordable as well. Either that, or other parts of the region are dropped priority wise to their detriment.

 

[Bald Rick]

That simply isn't true. There has been an intensive metro service between Shenfield and Liverpool Street for decades. TfL Rail - as the predecessor of the Elizabeth line - was in operation since 2015 as well.

I think they meant on the GW.

 

[Class 170101]

That simply isn't true. There has been an intensive metro service between Shenfield and Liverpool Street for decades. TfL Rail - as the predecessor of the Elizabeth line - was in operation since 2015 as well.

6tph Monday to Saturday off peak, more in Monday to Friday Peaks. That hadn't changed in decades
But 4tph on Sundays split 2tph Gidea Park and 2tph Shenfield during the all day two track railway and immediately before TfL Rail / Elizabeth Line came along had been around since about 2004 until 2019 or so.

 

[Horizon22]

6tph Monday to Saturday off peak, more in Monday to Friday Peaks. That hadn't changed in decades
But 4tph on Sundays split 2tph Gidea Park and 2tph Shenfield during the all day two track railway and immediately before TfL Rail / Elizabeth Line came along had been around since about 2004 until 2019 or so.

I’m pretty sure the timetable was more intense than that.

But regardless this proves the point I was making; Anglia prepared for an intensification of the route sufficiently and not just in the resourcing and infrastructure (as @Bald Rick laid out) but also the difference in running a regional railway to an intensive metro one. It needs different management, responsiveness, planning, timetabling etc. This is something Western has seemingly not done well.

 

[Bikeman78]

The 315s on the Electric lines worked 6tph off peak and a lot at peak times.

Indeed. It was at least 12 per hour in the peaks, usually alternating between Gidea Park and Shenfield. It generally ran like clockwork. I can only recall one occasion where they pulled out stops. By 2021, it was eight trains per hour off peak.

 

[Jamiescott1]

Points failure at Maidenhead