Should Crossrail be mothballed?

[D365]

I apparently need to add something to the thread, and can't call the idea idiotic, despite there being no other way to really describe this idea. Mothball a railway line still under construction, for which rolling stock has been procured, extensive changes made to the existing network and which only needs signalling issues sorted out. How else can you describe this idea ? Seriously ?

There's Speculative Ideas, and then there's Speculative Ideas.!

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Have a look at Crossrail's youtube channel, they don't look too far off... If we had to wait 2-3 more years I wouldn't be against replacing the signalling with ETCS/ATO provided it could be done in the same or shorter timescale.

Umm the BBC programme the 15Billion Pound Railway made it all out to be rosy and we know what happened after that was aired. There maybe more transparency but still only what they want you to hear and see. What should happen is an independent body publishes a monthly report that isn't sanitised by Crossrail board and TfL then we really know where we are. Wilde has gone back to "we will get this open as soon as we can" mantra again - he spent the first year working out what needed to be done and now we are back at square one. If Grayling had still been there it could well have been mothballed but if it does now its because Khan and other London politicians don't get behind it and be demanding of Crossrail.

 

[Hadders]

No way should Crossrail be mothballed.

You build a new railway for 50 years worth of growth, not for what happens in the first few years.

Should the Jubilee Line Extension have been mothballed because it opened 3 years late?

 

[HSTEd]

Have a look at Crossrail's youtube channel, they don't look too far off... If we had to wait 2-3 more years I wouldn't be against replacing the signalling with ETCS/ATO provided it could be done in the same or shorter timescale.

You mean the material produced by PR people working for management who's continued employment, and indeed future job prospects, depend on things looking like they are going well?

 

[Energy]

You mean the material produced by PR people working for management who's continued employment, and indeed future job prospects, depend on things looking like they are going well?

Yes. They are showing what is happening, you do have to consider what is to look good and what is actually happening but we know that they are testing.

 

[moggie]

We are where we are as they say, so talk of replacing CBTC with ETCS now is of course nonsense. One caveat being the assumption that CR will eventually reach the stage during the forthcoming trial running and beyond of a fault free, fully functional system that works. ETCS in the core of course would have made technical sense but I accept, wholly with the benefit of a degree of hindsight that there was a significant judgement to be made at the time of system selection with minimal evidence. But, that does not excuse or explain the mistakes that have been made by CR in the early days in arriving at the system complexity CR is now saddled with which were entirely predictable, and the ongoing risk those complexities may continue to throw up affecting / creating future performance issues.

Now, others have given their opinion on the choice of CBTC technology over ETCS at the time of procurement but might there also be an argument of TfL / NR silo behaviour? TfL / CR rightly saw this as a metro railway operation with an uncomplicated national rail bolt on at the ends. Yet around the same time Network Rail was progressing an ETCS (ironically with Siemens as their signalling contractor) for Thameslink. While wholly contained on Network Rail metals this surely is as much a metro rail operation as the core of CR. Yet, two different technical solutions resulted and it's not hard to work out which one was the right one. And, importantly the NR solution was successfully developed to completion in similar timescales. Dis the TfL / CR project team ever discuss with the TL project the subject of system selection / development or did TfL / CR see NR as merely the 'bolt on' operations manager of the bits on the end - i.e. GWML / GEML? To my mind this places a significant question mark on the perceived wisdom ETCS development wasn't a mature enough product (albeit in development which was needed whichever the target system) to move forward with on CR.

Some simple truths are;
ignore good ol' fashioned engineering KISS principles and you're planning for trouble.
having the right people with a proven record in at the start is a good idea even if they aren't the type to shout about it. I think we know the answer to that.
'proven' systems elsewhere in the world aren't proven systems in the UK until the first of type is commissioned. They're just sales hype.
the project must understand it's whole system and not just the expensive big ticket glossy juicy bits.
PM's who still believe engineers like to make their own lives stressful because they 'luv complexity' are deluded / talking to other PM's or the contractors sales team and not their engineers.
PM's who still struggle with the unquantifiable risks involved with development and validation of integrated safety system software probably ought to have left the project by the time that component commences.

 

[jfisher21]

Central line is jam packed in normal times so we do ultimately need this, please don't mothballs!

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I honestly can't help thinking that if we had our own train building industry we could have avoided the signalling fiasco. Surely, an intergrated company such as GEC could have designed the signalling and built the trains (through MetCam)?

 

[Domh245]

Surely, an intergrated company such as GEC could have designed the signalling and built the trains (through MetCam)?

I don't see why that'd necessarily be the case? The big manufacturers at the moment don't have that level of integration, admittedly through expansion than through design, but that'd also be borne out if every railway manufacturer in the UK suddenly became BREL 2 Ltd - trains would still be built in (eg) Derby, and signalling designed in (eg) Chippenham by separate people. Rolling stock manufacturers make the rolling stock, signalling engineers make the signalling - they'd still be siloed and only interacting as they'd need to, at which point it doesn't matter where they're based or how their email address ends

 

[Energy]

I honestly can't help thinking that if we had our own train building industry we could have avoided the signalling fiasco. Surely, an intergrated company such as GEC could have designed the signalling and built the trains (through MetCam)?

Not really. Signalling is trying to now come under the standardisation of ETCS so you could easily run say a Bombardier trains with Thales signalling. Crossrail just went for the proprietary CBTC and choose to have the trains change between 3 signalling systems which is causing the issues. And as Domh245 said they may be the same company but they are usually separate divisions.

 

[moggie]

The discussion above provides another more examples of the hype we've been fed about the 'benefits' of digital signalling, or at least how much cheaper it will be compared with the conventional alternative it replaces. Yes it's true that such an intensive service frequency might have been a struggle to achieve with a solely conventional offering but it's clear the jury is out for a while as to whether such frequencies will be needed in the near future.
But what is not in doubt is that when the chips were down this project at least has failed dismally to prove the claim that digital signalling has cost advantages. Quite the opposite, it seems proven that the added complexity of the 'track to train' system interface is far more complex and therefore costlier than the alternative that the digital wonks would have us believe. Yet much of what digital is supposed to bring on the wider network - i.e. NOT the most intensively used section of the network in the whole country, can equally be delivered with conventional solutions enhanced with various 'digital' aids (e.g. CDAS).

One can argue about the detail etc. BUT when it comes to convincing those clueless souls in Whitehall about the merits of future investment in 'digital' signalling such grand failures to deliver on the big promises of the benefits to be had can only undermine the whole industry no matter what the reasons for failure are. One only has to look at recent electrification scheme 'failures' to see what will happen when one fails. GWML* / ECML ETCS projects had better deliver the 'benefits' and the pressure to be seen to be doing so will only be increased by the Treasury / DfT paymasters by the ongoing CR debacle.

*GWML ETCS of course is wholly tied into the CR project and will therefore go down tarred with the CR brush no matter how unfair that may ultimately be.

 

[PeterC]

PM's who still struggle with the unquantifiable risks involved with development and validation of integrated safety system software probably ought to have left the project by the time that component commences.

Im my experience in IT "successful" project managers are the ones who jump ship from each project at the point where they can see it about to go pear shaped but the senior management still think that it is doing well.

What you should never do is take over a project just as it is about to go live.

 

[PR1Berske]

No.

I apparently need to add something to the thread, and can't call the idea idiotic, despite there being no other way to really describe this idea. Mothball a railway line still under construction, for which rolling stock has been procured, extensive changes made to the existing network and which only needs signalling issues sorted out. How else can you describe this idea ? Seriously ?

Well just consider this. Despite everything, despite the cost, despite the purchases, despite the investment and despite the overall cost, it still doesn't work.

So why not pause? Why not accept defeat?


I'm perhaps being a devil's advocate here. But surely nothing is safe from mothballing these days?

 

[AlbertBeale]

...
What this should allow to be mothballed was many parallel bus routes.
...

Local bus routes serve a very different transport need from something like Crossrail; the fact that they run vaguely parallel for a bit doesn't make them interchangeable. (Except in the minds of some transport planners who never need to use local buses - unfortunately some such seem to work at TfL.) And in any case, some of those bus routes have already been scrapped (without waiting for Crossrail to be in place!) as part of cut-backs in bus services in central London in the last year or two.

 

[The Ham]

I would say, no we shouldn't mothball Crossrail. It's problems are primarily linked to us as a country trying to get one project to do too much too late.

Personally we should be in the situation where we're talking of Crossrail 2 opening (likewise HS2) with Thameslink having been completed in 2000 (anyone else remember that it was originally Thameslink 2000?).

That's as well as a load of rail investment across the country, such as Electrification of MML and for TPE services (again to have been completed by now) with talk of Bristol, Manchester & Leeds metro services being electrified.

Yes that may well mean that we'd have to look at upgrading the signalling systems and platform lengths to cater for the growth, but we wouldn't need to be spending as much in our road building and so the overall costs would be broadly the same. However we'd already have a much lower carbon economy as transport wouldn't have reached nearly 2/5ths of our carbon emissions (37% of all carbon emissions).

 

[D365]

I'm perhaps being a devil's advocate here. But surely nothing is safe from mothballing these days?

Good luck trying to explain an empty £15bn+ London tunnel to the public!

 

[Ianno87]

Good luck trying to explain an empty £15bn+ London tunnel to the public!

One that will be *very* fares-lucrative when it is (eventually) up and running.

If we were to mothball something so major, we can kiss bye bye to any future major railway investment for many years.

 

[D365]

One that will be *very* fares-lucrative when it is (eventually) up and running.

TfL can’t afford to not open it.

 

[yorksrob]

One that will be *very* fares-lucrative when it is (eventually) up and running.

If we were to mothball something so major, we can kiss bye bye to any future major railway investment for many years.

If it's a choice between mothballing a line for commuters at a time when commuter traffic is very low, or mothballing regional and branch line routes that are well used now, I would have to go for the new commuter line (albeit temporarily).

 

[Belperpete]

As I have previously pointed out, it is not the interfaces to NR that are causing the problem, as they are not required for the initial commissioning, as for the first stage CrossRail will not be running through onto NR.

Likewise it is not the digital signalling per se that is the problem, but the ATO. It was judged (I suspect correctly) that ATO was necessary for the specified service frequency - manual driving would be too variable to give the uniformity needed for such high frequencies. ATO adds an extra layer of complexity, and a whole world of additional problems. While it would certainly have been possible to provide a simpler system initially, the likelihood is that it would have needed to be completely replaced when the service frequencies needed improving (cf Docklands). I suspect that it is better to have an initial delay now, than a hiatus in a few years time on a line that thousands of people will by then have come to rely on.

One thing that has not been mentioned about the choice between ETCS and CBTC is that there are increasing concerns that ETCS based on GSM-R will not have the capacity to cope with the volume of messages required for a high frequency metro-type service, where every train will need to be in almost constant communication, constantly updating its position so that the train behind can have its movement authority extended.

 

[Ianno87]

If it's a choice between mothballing a line for commuters at a time when commuter traffic is very low, or mothballing regional and branch line routes that are well used now, I would have to go for the new commuter line (albeit temporarily).

It's only going to cost more in future to do the work needed to get Crossrail open (inflation, new contracts etc.).

Might as well get that done and finished whilst numbers are low so its ready to open in 2022 (or whenever) when passengers will be returning and on an upward trajectory again. Otherwise revenue will be missed.

 

[yorksrob]

It's only going to cost more in future to do the work needed to get Crossrail open (inflation, new contracts etc.).

Might as well get that done and finished whilst numbers are low so its ready to open in 2022 (or whenever) when passengers will be returning and on an upward trajectory again. Otherwise revenue will be missed.

In the meantime, what happens to the existing railway that people are using now. That should be the top priority.

 

[Ianno87]

In the meantime, what happens to the existing railway that people are using now. That should be the top priority.

Keeping on with finishing Crossrail off has no bearing on running of the existing railway. It's not like the resorces could be redeployed or anything.

 

[Energy]

One thing that has not been mentioned about the choice between ETCS and CBTC is that there are increasing concerns that ETCS based on GSM-R will not have the capacity to cope with the volume of messages required for a high frequency metro-type service, where every train will need to be in almost constant communication, constantly updating its position so that the train behind can have its movement authority extended.

It works fine on Thameslink so I don't think that is too much of a concern anymore. Hopefully on Crossrail 2 they realise their mistake and use ETCS.

 

[JonathanH]

It works fine on Thameslink so I don't think that is too much of a concern anymore. Hopefully on Crossrail 2 they realise their mistake and use ETCS.

What works fine on Thameslink? The core element of Thameslink is a different type of railway to the core Crossrail route.

 

[si404]

One that will be *very* fares-lucrative when it is (eventually) up and running.

A lot of that is gaining the revenue from West of London, so a lot of that revenue is already provided for with the take over of Reading services from GWR.

 

[xotGD]

We know that passenger growth projections are wrong. What we don't know yet is how wrong.

Crossrail may still be essential to cope with demand, but it could equally be a white elephant due to a shrinking number of commuters.

I'm not saying suspend the project, but if it was back at the stage where the final investment decision (FID) was imminent you wouldn't be pulling the trigger.

Making FID on any rail project to boost commuter capacity would seem to be inappropriate until we have established a New Normal.

 

[mmh]

Yes that may well mean that we'd have to look at upgrading the signalling systems and platform lengths to cater for the growth, but we wouldn't need to be spending as much in our road building and so the overall costs would be broadly the same.

Which roads are not being built or won't be built as a result of building Crossrail?

It's actually easier to construct an argument that Crossrail will encourage new road journeys than imagine road journeys it will replace. It isn't and never has been proposed as a road alternative.

However we'd already have a much lower carbon economy as transport wouldn't have reached nearly 4/5ths of our carbon emissions (37% of all carbon emissions).

What does that mean? 37% is not near 4/5ths. But anyway, Crossrail will not be doing anything to alter carbon emissions, open or mothballed.

 

[Ianno87]

A lot of that is gaining the revenue from West of London, so a lot of that revenue is already provided for with the take over of Reading services from GWR.

There'll be a heck of a lot generated from previously "difficult" journeys being easy - such as East London connected to Heathrow by a single direct train, or passengers taking new easy routes (e.g Thameslink to Farringdon then Crossrail to Canary Wharf)

 

[AM9]

I honestly can't help thinking that if we had our own train building industry we could have avoided the signalling fiasco. Surely, an intergrated company such as GEC could have designed the signalling and built the trains (through MetCam)?

Having worked for a part of GEC, (not railway related) I believe that a single supplier solution wouldn't serve anybody well. For decades, the aircrafty industry (in all manufacturing countries) has succeeded to build platforms designed for the plethora of avionics that are required to get certification to fly. That certification may not be as arcane as certification of railway infrastructure and rolling stock, but technically more complex and ultimately just as safety critical. The standards for comms., navigation, identification, safety monitoring etc., are mostly conforming to international standards that are peer reviewed and administered by trusted authorities worldwide.* ETCS is such a system for the railway that every train manufacturer should provide for in new designs and should be the default for any uncommitted line except maybe the most basic routes. There should be no issue of the hardware not fitting or not working in modern rolling stock. This talk of it being too difficult just perpetuates the jumble of expensive interoperability problems of systems that have been obsolete for decades. Maybe part of the problem is the old 'not invented here' issue. That can easily be fixed by deploying, then making and finally joining in with the development of the system.

* The 737MAX debacle is a (hopefully) rare result of a failure of governance that was hijacked by commercial interests. Time will prove that more concientious authorities outside the USA did not kowtow to mammon.