Crossrail bits and bobs

[tsangpogorge]

Crossrail is basically 'all stations' west of Paddington, except some very minor stations don't see calls in every service. The probable calling patterns of Crossrail and residual GW are shown on their website here, updated last month: http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab65625...service_pattern-reading_to_central_london.pdf

The GW is generally a four track railway from Paddington as far as Reading and then to Didcot, but as part of the Crossrail on-network works a fair number of relief line (slow line) stations between Paddington and Reading will gain loops and/or third platforms that will allow overtaking and turn back opportunities.

Thank you, I wonder why West Ealing and Hanwell are only served by four trains per hour, is that timetable an overall improvement to current service levels?

 

[LLivery]

I don't really mind it being named, but what annoys me is how they've apparently decided to use roundels.

Outside the stations there will be purple roundels with "Elizabeth Line" on the centre bar, as shown here, which no other TfL service does, they use the service type (Tube, Overground, Busses, etc.) in the roundels outside the stations and the station name on the platforms. I can't recall any roundels ever having line names in them.

I would be fine with the new network being called Crossrail (much like the RER in France) and the lines getting names, but the roundels would still need to say Crossrail in that case.

It's not consistent. This frustrates me.

I agree, the network should be known as Crossrail and of course each line named differently like the RER. TfL are just getting carried away with branding. Hopefully with XR2 almost certain, common sense will come through. Then again, they still think missing Earlsfield is sensible :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thank you, I wonder why West Ealing and Hanwell are only served by four trains per hour, is that timetable an overall improvement to current service levels?

Hanwell currently has 2tph while West Ealing currently has 4. However at West Ealing, 2 of those 4 are Greenfords so there will be an increase westbound, just not towards Paddington. Also as the Greenford branch will no longer run through to Paddington and the frequency will be increased.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's Heathrow that shouldn't be getting Crossrail, having promised £500 million towards its construction and then reneging on the promise, it apparently not being legally binding. Think what use that service could be in other parts of west London.

Because refusing to serve one of the most important Airports in the world; something which I'm sure helped the BCR massively for Crossrail, through pure spite would be a good idea... I'm sure us Londoners and users of the airport would love that.

 

[edwin_m]

Thank you, I wonder why West Ealing and Hanwell are only served by four trains per hour, is that timetable an overall improvement to current service levels?

Four trains per hour is TfL's target for inner suburban stations, which many fall short of at present. Those four trains will of course be a lot longer than the existing ones!

 

[essex_commuter]

It will almost certainly be to provide clearance for the 23m bodied class 345 Crossrail units. Clearly the work will have to be done now, rather than the day before they enter service next year. It will be a combination of longer body, different ride height, making stepping distances safe etc etc. The fact that the Crossrail units also have centre doors (as a result of the third door set being introduced on each carriage) will also affect the platform/train interface problem.

That makes sense, thank you!

 

[coppercapped]

It will almost certainly be to provide clearance for the 23m bodied class 345 Crossrail units. Clearly the work will have to be done now, rather than the day before they enter service next year. It will be a combination of longer body, different ride height, making stepping distances safe etc etc. The fact that the Crossrail units also have centre doors (as a result of the third door set being introduced on each carriage) will also affect the platform/train interface problem.

I agree with all of that, except for the bit about the longer bodies! The Class 165 and 166 units were built with 23m long coaches...

 

[swt_passenger]

I agree with all of that, except for the bit about the longer bodies! The Class 165 and 166 units were built with 23m long coaches...

Yes but wasn't the original questioner referring to somewhere in TfL Rail's current operating area, i.e. on the Liverpool St to Shenfield line?

 

[coppercapped]

Yes but wasn't the original questioner referring to somewhere in TfL Rail's current operating area, i.e. on the Liverpool St to Shenfield line?

Ah! That's quite possible - I was only looking back a page or two and the references were to Hanwell and West Ealing so I assumed that you were talking about the western section. Mea culpa!

 

[hassaanhc]

Similar alterations have also been taking place on the western side. Most of Southall's P4 (Up Relief, on the outside of a curve with the track canted away from the platform) was rebuilt over Christmas, and is now several centimetres closer to the track (and a tiny bit higher). This has made it significantly easier to board both classes 165/166 and 360. There was previously a large horizontal and vertical gap which almost everyone struggled with.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

On a slightly different note, now that the new SouthEastern Up platform has opened at Abbey Wood, I'm somewhat unimpressed. Much of the platform has a canopy, which looks extremely nice, but which doesn't cover the full width of the platform. The result is that if it's raining, no matter where along the platform you stand, you'll still have to get (slightly) wet when boarding a train.

Also, where there were previously a couple of stops for different lengths of train, there is now only a single S stop. This means that 4-carriage trains stop right at the far end of the platform from the entrance, which inevitably causes some panic whenever such a train pulls in.

This is in addition to the new(ish) bridge that features lots of structural beams that appear designed to be able to support a roof, but which nevertheless lacks an actual roof, and which as a result regularly becomes flooded in wet weather.

None of this has done anything to dispel my long-standing impression that Network Rail excel in building things that look nice but take little account of the need to make things convenient/pleasant for passengers

 

[miami]

On a slightly different note, now that the new SouthEastern Up platform has opened at Abbey Wood, I'm somewhat unimpressed. Much of the platform has a canopy, which looks extremely nice, but which doesn't cover the full width of the platform. The result is that if it's raining, no matter where along the platform you stand, you'll still have to get (slightly) wet when boarding a train. (

There's a massive difference between standing in the rain for 10 minutes and walking in the rain for 10 seconds.

However if you're that concerned, perhaps buying this would fix the problem?

 

[Taunton]

It's Heathrow that shouldn't be getting Crossrail, having promised £500 million towards its construction and then reneging on the promise, it apparently not being legally binding.

I think you will find that it was the government's own Aviation Regulator, the CAA, who determined that Crossrail, and its costs, was mostly beyond the authority of Heathrow to support. Heathrow is subject to government regulation on its finances, as otherwise being in a monopoly position they would be a target for investors to buy and jack the charges way up. Well done CAA for avoiding a further raid on the pockets of those who travel by air.

And the sums were originally suggested £230m, agreed by regulator £70m. It's not a windfall for Heathrow because they hoped to just add the expenditure to their asset base which justifies an increase in their regulated charges to recover the expenditure, in fact with losing their margin on this Heathrow themselves have lost out financially as well - which the CAA spotted.

the new SouthEastern Up platform has opened at Abbey Wood, I'm somewhat unimpressed. Much of the platform has a canopy, which looks extremely nice, but which doesn't cover the full width of the platform.

This has happened elsewhere with new construction. I believe some new interpretation of 'Elf & Saf'tey regulations (but which conveniently left out the extra risk of passengers slipping in the wet/ice at the platform-train interface) has led to it ...

The probable calling patterns of Crossrail and residual GW are shown on their website here, updated last month:

I believe that after opening the service pattern will itself adapt further over a few years, in particular the terminating of more than 50% of the service at Paddington.

Firstly Heathrow Express will become so non-competitive, an overpriced operation to a terminus in Bayswater, that it will cease, in fact I suspect that the negotiations for this are already covertly in hand. A bit like Metronet etc being taken over by TfL. This will lead to an increase in the service to Heathrow. It's already proposed that Crossrail will serve T123 and T4 stations there, but not the main BA terminal at T5, which has already had the Chairman of BA taking this up with both Boris and the Prime Minister.

I also suspect that the duplicate Great Western outer suburban service won't last long before being absorbed. I think it's just a current milksop to the GW franchise.

I have always thought the best service pattern would be for the inner all stations operation to run to Slough, then down the branch to Windsor. Given Crossrail's substantial gradients going down into The Core there would seem to be scope for a diveunder at the west end of Slough to achieve this. Meanwhile services beyond can run fast on the Mains to Slough and then stop beyond.

Both east and west legs of the system actually have quite a freight traffic, containers to the east and aggregates to the west, and while when running at line speed these will fit between passenger services, them slowing to diverge and cross over is what causes current issues on the North London Line with comparable integration. The need for Crossrail to present to time at Paddington or Whitechapel, however, will have a real impact. The truth is that a high frequency, high speed, passenger service, which inbound cannot be relied on to present to the minute, plus a Metro frequency stopping service, plus freight, semi-fasts, and all the ancillary services, does not actually fit easily on a 4-track railway.

I think Crossrail is indeed going to be full from day one, and one of their issues will be insufficient rolling stock to enhance services. Inbound in the am from West London, westbound in the am peak from Stratford, and westbound in the pm peak from Canary Wharf (both the latter can only have half the core service), are going to be the main issues

 

[leomartin125]

Hi,

According to the Crossrail website and a map I saw inside April 2016's Modern Railways magazine, a lot of the primary stops on the GWML between London Paddington & Reading will not have a National Rail Connection. These stops include:

> Hanwell
> Southall
> West Drayton
> Iver
> Langley
> Burnham
> Taplow
> Twyford

And the following stops do include a National Rail Connection:

> Ealing Broadway
> West Ealing
> Hayes & Harlington
> Slough
> Maidenhead
> Reading

Does this mean that as of 2019 when Crossrail services start on the GWML, GWR services will no longer call at the first set of stations and these instead will be Crossrail only stops? So the list above this paragraph will be the only GWR calling points for any services as of 2019?

Thanks,
Leo


Map Available Here:
http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab656259048fb93837ecc0ecbcf0c557.r23.cf3.rackcdn.com//assets/library/image/c/original/crossrail-route-map-geographic-outline-interchange.gif?v=1

 

[Ianno87]

Hi,

According to the Crossrail website and a map I saw inside April 2016's Modern Railways magazine, a lot of the primary stops on the GWML between London Paddington & Reading will not have a National Rail Connection. These stops include:

> Hanwell
> Southall
> West Drayton
> Iver
> Langley
> Burnham
> Taplow
> Twyford

And the following stops do include a National Rail Connection:

> Ealing Broadway
> West Ealing
> Hayes & Harlington
> Slough
> Maidenhead
> Reading

Does this mean that as of 2019 when Crossrail services start on the GWML, GWR services will no longer call at the first set of stations and these instead will be Crossrail only stops? So the list above this paragraph will be the only GWR calling points for any services as of 2019?

Thanks,
Leo


Map Available Here:
http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab656259048fb93837ecc0ecbcf0c557.r23.cf3.rackcdn.com//assets/library/image/c/original/crossrail-route-map-geographic-outline-interchange.gif?v=1

Correct. Those stations (excluding West Ealing) will be served by a half-hourly semi-fast service from Paddington to Reading and beyond (Didcot/Oxford most likely)

West Ealing is shown as an interchange as it is where passengers will change for the Greenford shuttle service, which is curtailed to start/finish at West Ealing, with interchange required for onward travel.

The remaining GWR Relief Line service does not call at West Ealing, but the connecting Greenford shuttle will be operated by GWR. A rare (but not unique) example of a TOC not connecting with itself.

EDIT: I'm surprised Twyford is not shown as a connection (as it is the connection for the Henley branch, and I'd be surprised if the GWR semi-fast didn't stop there, plus there'd be the extra calls by Main Line fast services in the peak). Might be an oversight from when the map was edited to extend to Reading.

 

[CapitalStar378]

There's a massive difference between standing in the rain for 10 minutes and walking in the rain for 10 seconds.

However if you're that concerned, perhaps buying this would fix the problem?

You should try the new platform 5 at Cardiff Queen Street, no canopy, just 2 oversized bus shelters. Wales gets spoiled by NR!

 

[snowball]

This has happened elsewhere with new construction. I believe some new interpretation of 'Elf & Saf'tey regulations (but which conveniently left out the extra risk of passengers slipping in the wet/ice at the platform-train interface) has led to it ...

In a recent issue of Modern Railways, Ian Walmsley devoted a page or two of his "Pan Up" column to the trend for canopies not to keep the rain off. He concluded that it wasn't Elf 'n' Safety and was probably due to architects going for elegance over function.

 

[swt_passenger]

Does this mean that as of 2019 when Crossrail services start on the GWML, GWR services will no longer call at the first set of stations and these instead will be Crossrail only stops? So the list above this paragraph will be the only GWR calling points for any services as of 2019?

The calling patterns are also shown in the table linked in my post #90 a couple of weeks ago in this thread.

 

[Busaholic]

Because refusing to serve one of the most important Airports in the world; something which I'm sure helped the BCR massively for Crossrail, through pure spite would be a good idea... I'm sure us Londoners and users of the airport would love that.

Londoners live in an awful lot of places, but Heathrow isn't one of them. The services would be far better used elsewhere.
As for BCR, perhaps the same could be said of HS2, but you can always change plans later. Heathrow is a privately-owned airport that wants to have its cake and eat it, and is disliked or even actively hated by people living in whole swathes of west and south London.

 

[phoenixcronin]

Londoners live in an awful lot of places, but Heathrow isn't one of them. The services would be far better used elsewhere.
As for BCR, perhaps the same could be said of HS2, but you can always change plans later. Heathrow is a privately-owned airport that wants to have its cake and eat it, and is disliked or even actively hated by people living in whole swathes of west and south London.

I would say that I myself live in West London under the Heathrow approach and have never personally had any problem with noise etc, and certainly don't hate Heathrow.

In fact, the way I see it if there is expansion at Heathrow then there will have improvements in rail access, which will inevitably benefit me/others on the path from heathrow to central london

 

[ijmad]

The remaining GWR Relief Line service does not call at West Ealing, but the connecting Greenford shuttle will be operated by GWR. A rare (but not unique) example of a TOC not connecting with itself.

Strikes me as a very obvious candidate for a London Overground-branded Romford-to-Upminster style arrangement, also feeding Crossrail. Seeing as the franchise is up for renewal in April 2019, I'm supposing there may be negotiations on this front with the government and/or future possible TOCs?

 

[mr_jrt]

Strikes me as a very obvious candidate for a London Overground-branded Romford-to-Upminster style arrangement, also feeding Crossrail. Seeing as the franchise is up for renewal in April 2019, I'm supposing there may be negotiations on this front with the government and/or future possible TOCs?

In the short-term, probably. Mid-term, I believe the plan is to make the line part of the Chiltern franchise (operating a High Wycombe to West Ealing service), but this will require new platforms on the NNML at Greenford, along with reinstating the double track from there to South Ruislip.

 

[Ianno87]

Londoners live in an awful lot of places, but Heathrow isn't one of them. The services would be far better used elsewhere.
As for BCR, perhaps the same could be said of HS2, but you can always change plans later. Heathrow is a privately-owned airport that wants to have its cake and eat it, and is disliked or even actively hated by people living in whole swathes of west and south London.

And "whole swathes" of south and west London use Heathrow and/or are employed directly or indirectly as a result of Heathrow. Crossrail also significantly expands Heathrow's employment catchment area to encompass a good chunk of east London, and a bit of South East London too. That strikes me as excellent value for money for "ordinary" Londoners.

Also, Heathrow is a national infrastructure asset, and Crossrail has a very significant proportion of its funding provided by Central government. As a non-London taxpayer who has contributed to this cost, having Crossrail service its purpose of improving access to Heathrow is far more useful to me than having more trains to Slough or Maidenhead.

 

[swt_passenger]

Strikes me as a very obvious candidate for a London Overground-branded Romford-to-Upminster style arrangement, also feeding Crossrail. Seeing as the franchise is up for renewal in April 2019, I'm supposing there may be negotiations on this front with the government and/or future possible TOCs?

Except GWR (or Chiltern as per earlier reply regarding a lengthened route) will still be a DMU operating franchise by then, and LO won't, once GOBLIN electrification is complete.

So it may be logical in terms of the map, but it isn't logical if you are a train operator with hundreds of EMU drivers and no other DMUs.

 

[MancMetro]

Andrew Adonis has criticised the long distances passengers will have to walk at Crossrail interchanges:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/12/crossrail-interchanges-not-good-enough-lord-adonis

Crossrail interchanges are too long, says Lord Adonis

Commuters in the south-east of England have been promised a faster, easier journey on the £14.8bn Crossrail line, but may find their progress slowed considerably by a lengthy walk to connect to London Underground services.

Crossrail, to be named the Elizabeth line in honour of the Queen, is expected to speed up journeys and increase capacity between Reading, Heathrow, central London and Shenfield in Essex when fully operational.

Upgrades and Crossrail are designed to ease congestion, but transport chiefs and passenger groups say much more investment is needed

However, commuters needing to change from Crossrail on to the tube or other services could find time savings eroded by the distances they need to cover within stations, according to Andrew Adonis, the chairman of the national infrastructure commission.

“The interchanges are not great. There are going to be a lot of passengers walking a long way to change between trains – and they are very long trains,” Lord Adonis said of Crossrail, speaking at an infrastructure conference in London.

The former transport secretary, who held office in the last Labour government when Crossrail was officially announced in 2009, said: “I tried as a minister at the last minute to unpick this, but it was too late.”

Adonis compared the Crossrail interchanges unfavourably with other additions to the London transport network, especially the Victoria line, which was constructed in the 1960s and has cross-platform connections with the Northern and Bakerloo lines at Euston and Oxford Circus. “Those save passengers five to 10 minutes every day,” he said. “Not enough people pay enough attention to interchanges.”

He declined to say where he believed the biggest problems were, although Adonis did intervene in the plans for the Bond Street hub in central London, originally designed as a separate Crossrail station from the existing Underground station, which serves the Central and Jubilee lines.

On direct journeys, the high-capacity Crossrail line, due to open in phases between 2017 and 2019, will bring passengers to central London from outer western and eastern suburbs substantially faster than the tube. Crossrail trains will be more than 200m long, roughly double the length of trains on the Northern and Piccadilly lines, with a capacity of 1,500 passengers.

Howard Smith, Transport for London’s operations director for Crossrail, said: “The Elizabeth line will greatly increase the capacity of central London’s transport network, supporting regeneration and cutting journey times across the city.

“We are investing millions of pounds upgrading existing stations along the route, including at Paddington, Liverpool Street and Tottenham Court Road, to make it as easy as possible for our customers to interchange with our existing services.”

Senior sources at TfL acknowledged that Crossrail interchanges were not ideal, but said constraints such as sewers and existing lines had limited the construction of tunnels, and that alternatives would have been more expensive. The final budget, which was partially financed through local business rates, was subject to intense scrutiny before approval and reduced to £14.8bn in 2010.

The interchanges for the planned Crossrail 2 should be more successful, with Adonis having championed the next cross-London line as a scheme of national importance since being appointed head of the infrastructure commission last year. The chancellor, George Osborne, has approved development funding to speed up plans for the north-south route acrossthe capital, with a view to it opening in 2033.

 

[coppercapped]

Londoners live in an awful lot of places, but Heathrow isn't one of them. The services would be far better used elsewhere.
As for BCR, perhaps the same could be said of HS2, but you can always change plans later. Heathrow is a privately-owned airport that wants to have its cake and eat it, and is disliked or even actively hated by people living in whole swathes of west and south London.

Absolute rubbish, except for the 'privately owned' bit. That's correct.

(I presume that, from the tenor of your post, that if the airport was owned and operated by the state, it wouldn't be 'disliked or even actively hated' even if nothing else had changed?)

 

[ijmad]

Except GWR (or Chiltern as per earlier reply regarding a lengthened route) will still be a DMU operating franchise by then, and LO won't, once GOBLIN electrification is complete.

So it may be logical in terms of the map, but it isn't logical if you are a train operator with hundreds of EMU drivers and no other DMUs.

Very good point. I assume it's not as easy for a driver to make the transition from EMU to DMU as it is driving other stock of the same family?

 

[edwin_m]

Very good point. I assume it's not as easy for a driver to make the transition from EMU to DMU as it is driving other stock of the same family?

With 1 diagram you'd either just have one unit and cancel the service whenever it is unavailable, or have 2 units as a not very cost-effective 100% spares ratio.

 

[Taunton]

“The interchanges are not great. There are going to be a lot of passengers walking a long way to change between trains – and they are very long trains,” Lord Adonis said of Crossrail, speaking at an infrastructure conference in London.

The former transport secretary, who held office in the last Labour government when Crossrail was officially announced in 2009, said: “I tried as a minister at the last minute to unpick this, but it was too late.”

Adonis compared the Crossrail interchanges unfavourably with other additions to the London transport network, especially the Victoria line, which was constructed in the 1960s and has cross-platform connections with the Northern and Bakerloo lines at Euston and Oxford Circus.

Absolutely true. The rot set in with the Jubilee Extension, and has continued with Crossrail.

I blame it on the way that architects have managed to move on from buildings to infiltrate station overall design. Engineers used to design, and the Victoria Line was a classic, for the convenience of passengers. Architects design to win awards from fellow architects, and always hate existing buildings and structures, and integrate with them as little as possible.

Take Crossrail at Custom House. With the new line rising into the station at both ends it would have been straightforward to loop the eastbound DLR around the outside and provide two islands, one for each direction. But no, the separate platform layout for both was retained, meaning everyone interchanging has to traipse up, over and down the bridge, and if at the wrong end of the Crossrail train, all the way down to the bridge as well. It would have also allowed the platforms to be somewhat wider as well. But I bet it wins some architects' awards.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Cross-platform interchange between a ~240m long Crossrail train and a 90m long DLR train is a recipe for disaster when things go wrong. Not having that interchange makes it possible to regulate passenger numbers in situations where there are unusually large transfer flows (e.g. if Crossrail were blocked).

 

[FOH]

Cross-platform interchange between a ~240m long Crossrail train and a 90m long DLR train is a recipe for disaster when things go wrong. Not having that interchange makes it possible to regulate passenger numbers in situations where there are unusually large transfer flows (e.g. if Crossrail were blocked).

But for the other 99% of the days when everything is fine, a right pain in the backside. If you want some distance i think Canning Town has the sweet spot between upper and lower levels.

 

[edwin_m]

Providing cross-platform interchange gets more and more difficult as the ground under London gets more full. This is especially so with Crossrail, where the platforms are much longer and have to be straight or almost so to minimise stepping distances. The use of main line loading gauge means the tunnels are also larger than traditional Tube tunnels, and the need for step-free access and emergency evacuation/intervention shafts makes traditional station layouts unacceptable for Crossrail or any other new construction. Many of the same things could be said of the Jubilee Line Extension, even including the tunnel diameter as it is the only Tube route to provide an evacuation walkway.

The cross-platform interchange for the Victoria Line was achieved by linking one direction of the Victoria into one of the existing two platforms for the line to be interchanged with. Two new platforms were then built nearby to take the existing and new line in the other direction. All the reasons set out above mean that it would be impossible to do that for Crossrail or even for the Jubilee Line.