Elizabeth line was it worth it?

[cle]

Not at all. My point is that 12tph terminating at Paddingtion represents unused capacity; and would still be excessive even if/when all 12 are extended to OOC.

(12tph would have been more appropriate if HS2 had terminated at OOC, which would then require 6-9tph on Elizabeth Line to accommodate the HS2 traffic into central London. This would also have saved £2bn rebuilding Euston, and £1.6bn digging two 8km tunnels between OOC and Euston. These tunnels will only ever carry 10,000 passengers an hour each way, compared to 36,000 that can be carried on the Elizabeth. But that's a discussion for another thread.)

The flaw is your assumptions about the dispersal at OOC. I think there is a huge chance many head East. If I was going to the West End or City, it’d be far quicker than getting the tube at Euston.

Plus the Overground stations fell through so until they are revived, at the time of posting, Crossrail is doing more heavy lifting. Remember it will also be taking on GWML passengers at OOC too, plus a ton of development in and around there. Having those starters will be very smart - also to enable some capacity arriving into Paddington eastbound where other GWML passengers (and others, eg Bakerloo, local demand) will fill trains further.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

hmm. 400m HS2 trains will each have 1100 seats with no standing pax and there will only be 17 per hour. So 18700 max. Given that folks heading for central London can get off at Euston, I'd expect fewer than 9000 in the peak hour at Old Oak Common. The majority of those will be heading North, West, or South, with I guess fewer than 3-4000 heading East. That's three train loads per hour.

Your point is not valid. London Underground trains, even on the busiest lines, are not full when leaving the first station. They accumulate additional passengers at each subsequent station and are eventually overcrowded. Elizabeth Line trains starting from Old Oak Common lightly loaded will fill up at Paddington.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Nov 2022 ==

Plus the Overground stations fell through so until they are revived, at the time of posting, Crossrail is doing more heavy lifting. Remember it will also be taking on GWML passengers at OOC too, plus a ton of development in and around there. Having those starters will be very smart - also to enable some capacity arriving into Paddington eastbound where other GWML passengers (and others, eg Bakerloo, local demand) will fill trains further.

Exactly.

 

[Nottingham59]

it will also be taking on GWML passengers ... also to enable some capacity arriving into Paddington eastbound where other GWML passengers (and others, eg Bakerloo, local demand) will fill trains further.

Elizabeth Line trains starting from Old Oak Common lightly loaded will fill up at Paddington.

Well, if true, those passengers should be joining the Elizabeth Line at Paddington today. Are there enough of them to fill nine of the 12tph Paddington starters? I don't know; it would be interesting to see the loading figures.

But, in the long run it doesn't really matter, I guess. Once the Paddington starters are relocated to OOC, it should be quite possible to extend some of them up the WCML to relieve Euston, or up the NNL to relieve Marylebone, if the EL capacity (or over-capacity, as I would have it) is still available.

(Personally I would have put in a junction underneath Hyde Park, and run an EL spur to the South West, but that's a separate discussion.)

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Well, if true, those passengers should be joining the Elizabeth Line at Paddington today. Are there enough of them to fill nine of the 12tph Paddington starters? I don't know; it would be interesting to see the loading figures.

But, in the long run it doesn't really matter, I guess. Once the Paddington starters are relocated to OOC, it should be quite possible to extend some of them up the WCML to relieve Euston, or up the NNL to relieve Marylebone, if the EL capacity (or over-capacity, as I would have it) is still available.

(Personally I would have put in a junction underneath Hyde Park, and run an EL spur to the South West, but that's a separate discussion.)

When I've been on the Elizabeth Line platforms at Paddington, very much off-peak, the station has been busy. I've no doubt that in the morning rush hour Paddington will be able to fill the seats on a lightly loaded east-bound train.

I don't know how it will be possible to route trains from Old Oak Common, where the station will be at ground level with the North London Line on an embankment blocking forward advancement, to the WCML which is more than a stone's throw away. As relieving the WCML is supposed to be the purpose of HS2, I think the idea is a non-starter. Access to the New North Line (aka the Wycombe Lines) has been permanently blocked by the Old Oak Common station project. Many Londoners think that was a mistake.

 

[Bald Rick]

Well, only in part. They could have delivered the same East-West connectivity across the capital for much less than they actually spent.

How, exactly?

The most avoidable error was probably the decision to switch between different automatic signalling systems on the move, which seems to have cost approximately two years and several billion pounds in cost over-runs.

Whilst with the benefit of 6/6 hindsight that decision probably was an error, at the time it was taken I; good faith with the best information available. Nevertheless, this is not the reason the project was delivered late, nor did it cost several billion bounds. I fact the whole signalling system out turn cost a fraction of a billion pounds.

And not enough extra capacity to the West, which has led to a great lost opportunity with 12 tph having to reverse at Paddington.

But suburban capacity west out of Paddington has been increased by something like 500% (Someone will correct me here I’m sure). There is absolutely no point in spending money on more trains to run them around half empty. In any event, if you can find a way to run more trains on the GWML west of Old Oak, Id like to see your calculations.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

In 10 years time virtually nobody will question the investment. just like the channel tunnel. A big YES from me.

 

[Bald Rick]

In 10 years time virtually nobody will question the investment. just like the channel tunnel. A big YES from me.

10 years is rather pessimistic. I‘d give it a year at most.

 

[trebor79]

Absolutely worth it IMO. I was seriously impressed when I used it. It's everything that a modern transport system should be.

 

[Bald Rick]

Absolutely worth it IMO. I was seriously impressed when I used it. It's everything that a modern transport system should be.

Agreed. I’ve had a number of muggle friends who have - unprompted - said words to the effect of ‘wow, that’s some railway’.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

10 years is rather pessimistic. I‘d give it a year at most.

I was trying to give a “balanced” reply- but yes, in all probability you are correct.

 

[cle]

In 10 years time virtually nobody will question the investment. just like the channel tunnel. A big YES from me.

I think a year of full EL would equate to all e* users in history… and I love e*

 

[Xavi]

You're acting as if it's going to last 120 years without further substantial expenditure. That's obviously not the case. The rolling stock will need replacing at least once, maybe twice during that time; the control/signalling electronics will presumably become obsolete at some point and also need replacing and so on.

I’m not ‘acting’ anything. Of course there’s maintenance (there is for any infrastructure asset), though the cost is minuscule compared to construction.

 

[AM9]

Honestly, compared to high speed rail in this country, Crossrail seems like a bargain, and we should really get something like it up North. The commuter distances are actually more similar than you'd think, at least for Manchester.

But nowhere near the volume of London commuters on each radial route into the city. Crossrail is built on its grand scale because the it is needed for the volume of passengers that use it not just in the commuting peaks but consistently between the peaks and even after the evening peak.

 

[Brush 4]

Definitely yes. Even though it won't benefit myself, as i don't live anywhere near it, it has been a success from the start. I will do a trip along it next year sometime to sample it. You know it is a success when the media fall quiet. They were all over it during the delays but now,,, silence nationally at least. I hope the local press have been enthusiastic in their coverage since it opened.

 

[MattRat]

But nowhere near the volume of London commuters on each radial route into the city. Crossrail is built on its grand scale because the it is needed for the volume of passengers that use it not just in the commuting peaks but consistently between the peaks and even after the evening peak.

When I say something like it, I mean scaled accordingly. If it only requires, say, Merseyrail levels of operation, so be it. The core tunnel section would also be shorter, so therefore cheaper.

 

[AM9]

When I say something like it, I mean scaled accordingly. If it only requires, say, Merseyrail levels of operation, so be it. The core tunnel section would also be shorter, so therefore cheaper.

Actually, Merseyrail crossed my mind when I was typing my reply.

 

[Nottingham59]

How, exactly?

Firstly, deliver it to time and in budget. Though people will in time forget and forgive the cost overruns, it was delivered four years late and £4Bn over budget.

At the very least Crossrail management could have stopped lying to themselves about how bad the problems were. The comparison on p17 of this GLA report: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/def...ommittee_crossrail_investigation_report_0.pdf
shows how bad this was.

• Internal review: "significant risk to formal Handover in July 2018 and possibly Stage 3 Opening in December 2018"
• Tfl Board minutes: "The overall programme for December 2018 remains on track."

Secondly, the EL network could have been designed diffently.

• By splitting the Eastern side at Whitechapel, the network required digging two tunnels to the East, each of which are capable of carrying 24tph, but will carry only 12tph. That's a huge waste of capacity. A single tunnel carrying 24 tph would have provided the same East-West capacity at lower cost.
• The EL could and perhaps should have been designed for better distribution of trains to the west.

that decision probably was an error, at the time it was taken I; good faith with the best information available. Nevertheless, this is not the reason the project was delivered late, nor did it cost several billion bounds. I fact the whole signalling system out turn cost a fraction of a billion pounds.

It's not the cost of the signalling system that causes the billions of cost over-run, it's the cost of the delays that built up in the whole project because they couldn't get the over-ambitious signalling plan to work.

It was my understanding that the signalling problem was a prime cause of the delays, and this had knock-on effects on the civils. But I'm happy to be corrected on that. But then that raises the question why it took four years longer than planned to dig a tunnel and build the stations.

In any event, if you can find a way to run more trains on the GWML west of Old Oak, Id like to see your calculations.

That's my whole point. By not having outlets to the West, Crossrail in unbalanced and has to terminate 12tph at Paddington/OOC, wasting capacity.

Access to the New North Line (aka the Wycombe Lines) has been permanently blocked by the Old Oak Common station project. Many Londoners think that was a mistake.

So do I.

== == == ==
But overall, I do agree it's a great piece of railway, and the cost over-runs and mistakes will be soon forgotten.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I mean, without doubt I think it's overhyped and made out to be far more impressive than what it really is, but I'm glad it's there. It'll make connecting from Paddington to Farringdon and Liverpool Street a fair bit easier.

 

[JonathanH]

By splitting the Eastern side at Whitechapel, the network required digging two tunnels to the East, each of which are capable of carrying 24tph, but will carry only 12tph. That's a huge waste of capacity. A single tunnel carrying 24 tph would have provided the same East-West capacity at lower cost.

Where would it have gone at the east end if it had only had one branch? The utility of serving both one of the highest flow routes on the National Rail network at 12tph and a major office location at 12tph more than justifies the junction at Stepney Green.

12tph terminating at Abbey Wood via Docklands and 12tph terminating at Shenfield has somewhat more usefulness than 12tph terminating at Chadwell Heath and 12tph terminating at Shenfield.

I guess you are saying that the 1991 plan was better. I think that Stratford would need a substantial rebuild to accommodate the passengers changing trains to the Jubilee line, and it wouldn't have opened up the North Kent corridor.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Yes, £18.8bn is insignificant capital expenditure given the 2009-2022 construction period and our capital city has a world-class addition with a 120-year design life.

I'm not sure it's even that significant in that context. £18bn is roughly half what the government gave to Serco on a single year for their failed Covid testing service.

And compared to the never-ending money-pit next door at Euston, it's a bloody bargain.

 

[cle]

Agree. Yep eastern routes makes perfect sense.

And as mentioned, when OOC opens fully, the western side will be perfectly set. Remember Heathrow is a branch too - and technically two at that!

In any case Mr Nottingham, it’s there so what’s the purpose here? Griping? It may well change in future too - patterns, tph…

 

[JonathanH]

I'm not sure it's even that significant in that context. £18bn is roughly half what the government gave to Serco on a single year for their failed Covid testing service.

Off topic but I can't let that stand. The government did not give Serco £37bn and it wasn't for one year. Most of that money went on testing.

https://fullfact.org/health/test-trace-march-2021/

10 MARCH 2021
WHAT WAS CLAIMED
£37 billion was found to pay Serco for a failed track and trace system.

OUR VERDICT
£37 billion is the two-year budget for Test and Trace. The vast majority is spent on testing not tracing and does not go to Serco.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The government did not give Serco £37bn. Most of that money went on lateral flow tests.

I presume you quote FullFact there? I always thought they were splitting hairs on that one.

Serco maybe weren't the only snout in the trough, we know there was widespread corruption throughout the whole response, but the point still stands.

Crossrail cost half of a failed testing programme.

Whether that shows Crossrail as a bargain or shows just how corrupt the Covid response ended up, I'll let others decide.

Personally, I'm impressed with Crossrail and it's telling that central government weren't the primary lead on it.

 

[Thirteen]

When they refer to Crossrail/Elizabeth Line as having a 120 year life span, I assume that's referring to the tunnels and the stations as it's likely we'll see the line expand and evolve as technology progresses.

By 2142, we might even have Crossrail 4 or 5 although hopefully by that point, we'll have either flying cars or teleportation sorted by then.

 

[Bald Rick]

Firstly, deliver it to time and in budget. Though people will in time forget and forgive the cost overruns, it was delivered four years late and £4Bn over budget.

Well, yes, but that wasn’t the thrust of your post. I’m sure the team building Crossrail would have been keen, in 2010, what they should do differently, based on your valuable experience.

It was my understanding that the signalling problem was a prime cause of the delays, and this had knock-on effects on the civils. But I'm happy to be corrected on that.

I’m correcting you. The tunnelling was late. The stations were late (very). Signalling was an issue, yes. But not the prime cause.

• By splitting the Eastern side at Whitechapel, the network required digging two tunnels to the East, each of which are capable of carrying 24tph, but will carry only 12tph. That's a huge waste of capacity. A single tunnel carrying 24 tph would have provided the same East-West capacity at lower cost.
• The EL could and perhaps should have been designed for better distribution of trains to the west.

That's my whole point. By not having outlets to the West, Crossrail in unbalanced and has to terminate 12tph at Paddington/OOC, wasting capacity.

so it’s a huge waste of capacity having two branches in the east, which was a waste of money, but there need to be more branches in the west?

 

[Brush 4]

Just make sure a fly hasn't flown in with you...................

 

[Nottingham59]

12tph terminating at Abbey Wood via Docklands and 12tph terminating at Shenfield has somewhat more usefulness than 12tph terminating at Chadwell Heath and 12tph terminating at Shenfield.

I totally agree with you on that. The Kent-Canary Wharf-LHR connection in particular will be very useful for many people.

so it’s a huge waste of capacity having two branches in the east, which was a waste of money, but there need to be more branches in the west?

Yep. Given the limitations on the GWML, which as you say has less capacity, beyond OOC, than the EL core.

I guess you are saying that the 1991 plan was better.

Not at all. I'm sure the Elizabeth Line as designed and built will be very successful and I'm confident that in a few years time it will be full.

All I'm saying is that when it does fill up, they won't be able to increase the frequency on the Eastern arms because both traffic flows have to go through the same tunnel in the core. That's an unavoidable result of way the EL network has been designed.

Remember the capacity of the Elizabeth Line at Canary Wharf is less than that of the Jubilee line at Canary Wharf, even though the EL has longer trains, wider tunnel bores and much more expensive stations than the Jubilee.

EL capacity = 12tph x 1500 = 18,000 pax/h (at 4pax/m2)
Jubilee capacity = 30tph x (234 + 585) = 24,570 pax/h (at 4pax/m2)

So they've built a brand new railway from Abbey Wood to Stepney which could carry 24tph, but will only ever carry half that. That's my beef.

SOURCES

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/469455/response/1126934/attach/4/Class%20345%20Data%20with%20Photo.pdf

"Seated Capacity – 454 seated passengers
Standing Capacity – 1046 standing passengers @ 4/m2
Total Capacity – 1500 passengers"

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/cy/request/284276/response/737827/attach/6/RS%20Info%20Sheets%204%20Edition.pdf

"Passenger accommodation:
Please note that standing capacity figures exclude seating capacity
Seating capacity: (Number of seats per train) excluding Perch Seats 234
Perch Seats in Multi-Purpose Area 56
Standing capacities: Floor area available for standing passengers (m2)a 145.92
Maximum observed standing capacity (5 customers per m2) 730
Maximum full load standing capacity (6 customers per m2) 875"
(Which implies Jubilee standing capacity at 4 pax/m2 is 730-145=585)

== == ==
Notes
J: If you include the 56 perch seats, Jubilee capacity is 30x884 =26,520/h
EL: I am assuming the EL core is limited to 24tph, like Thameslink on ATO. It may be possible to increase this a bit. 30tph in the core would give you 15x1500=22,500/h at Canary Wharf.

 

[AM9]

I totally agree with you on that. The Kent-Canary Wharf-LHR connection in particular will be very useful for many people.

Yep. Given the limitations on the GWML, which as you say has less capacity, beyond OOC, than the EL core.

Not at all. I'm sure the Elizabeth Line as designed and built will be very successful and I'm confident that in a few years time it will be full.

All I'm saying is that when it does fill up, they won't be able to increase the frequency on the Eastern arms because both traffic flows have to go through the same tunnel in the core. That's an unavoidable result of way the EL network has been designed.

Remember the capacity of the Elizabeth Line at Canary Wharf is less than that of the Jubilee line at Canary Wharf, even though the EL has longer trains, wider tunnel bores and much more expensive stations than the Jubilee.

EL capacity = 12tph x 1500 = 18,000 pax/h (at 4pax/m2)
Jubilee capacity = 30tph x (234 + 585) = 24,570 pax/h (at 4pax/m2)

So they've built a brand new railway from Abbey Wood to Stepney which could carry 24tph, but will only ever carry half that. That's my beef.

SOURCES

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/469455/response/1126934/attach/4/Class%20345%20Data%20with%20Photo.pdf

"Seated Capacity – 454 seated passengers
Standing Capacity – 1046 standing passengers @ 4/m2
Total Capacity – 1500 passengers"

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/cy/request/284276/response/737827/attach/6/RS%20Info%20Sheets%204%20Edition.pdf

"Passenger accommodation:
Please note that standing capacity figures exclude seating capacity
Seating capacity: (Number of seats per train) excluding Perch Seats 234
Perch Seats in Multi-Purpose Area 56
Standing capacities: Floor area available for standing passengers (m2)a 145.92
Maximum observed standing capacity (5 customers per m2) 730
Maximum full load standing capacity (6 customers per m2) 875"
(Which implies Jubilee standing capacity at 4 pax/m2 is 730-145=585)

== == ==
Notes
J: If you include the 56 perch seats, Jubilee capacity is 30x884 =26,520/h
EL: I am assuming the EL core is limited to 24tph, like Thameslink on ATO. It may be possible to increase this a bit. 30tph in the core would give you 15x1500=22,500/h at Canary Wharf.

So to follow your line (pun not intended), Crossrail east of the Stepney junction (both branches) should have been built to handle 12 tph to make it look neat and tidy to you and to save money, (I doubt that the savings would be worth the while)?
But Crossrail is not all about serving Canary Wharf and Abbey Wood, but it has always been about reducing the congestion/increasing capacity of Liverpool St and smoothing operation of the GEML* and still is.
* The GEML east of Stratford benefits from less interaction between the main and electric lines providing increased capacity and eventually improved local services to Shenfield plus freedom from the slow Southends skipping between the mains and electrics between Gidea Park and Harold Wood. That was the bane of the peak hour service for years, the crossover is now at Shenfield only and the Southends only impinge on the Lizzie terminators over 200m between two crossovers, plus their respective overlaps. Even that could be removed in the future with a minor change to the approach pointwork at the western approaches to Shenfield.

 

[stuu]

J: If you include the 56 perch seats, Jubilee capacity is 30x884 =26,520/h
EL: I am assuming the EL core is limited to 24tph, like Thameslink on ATO. It may be possible to increase this a bit. 30tph in the core would give you 15x1500=22,500/h at Canary Wharf.

The ATO can go to 30tph, and the core stations are designed for 11 car trains as well, so there is potential to increase capacity fairly substantially in the future. There is not necessarily a need to keep the service matched on the eastern side either, so perhaps 12tph to Stratford and 18 tph via CW could happen

 

[MattRat]

The ATO can go to 30tph, and the core stations are designed for 11 car trains as well, so there is potential to increase capacity fairly substantially in the future. There is not necessarily a need to keep the service matched on the eastern side either, so perhaps 12tph to Stratford and 18 tph via CW could happen

I'd go the longer train route. People WILL cram themselves onto the same train, instead of waiting, even if the next one is in 2 minutes, so we should build around that.