Crossrail/Elizabeth Line. From construction to operation - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[stuving]

I'm wondering how they would link the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) and GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) anyway?  As Graham posted on the previous page, it's a short distance, but it is a very 'busy' stretch of land.  Does anyone know what the current thinking is regarding the route it would take?

One answer (to 4064ReadingAbbey's post too) is "the study will look at the possibilities". Plans for the area were already being reviewed to see how to integrate HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)), which I guess is why this study had to start now.

The original Crossrail option was to link to the DC^▸ (Direct Current) lines via a longish tunnel. Option K1 in the London & SE RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) would presumably link to the Cricklewood line just before its connection to the WCML slow lines. Note, however, that the RUS studiously avoids actually saying which WCML lines it would use - unless "slow lines" below means "Slow Lines".

This is what the RUS says about infrastructure:

A new chord would be required to connect the GWML slow lines with the WCML slow lines in
the Old Oak Common area. A number of potential route alignments for such a connection
exist through the Old Oak Common site.

These would pass through, or interact significantly with, the proposed new HS2 station site.
Therefore a robust infrastructure solution is only likely to be achievable if the design of this
link is considered in conjunction with planning for the proposed HS2 station at this location.
Work will also be required away from the immediate Old Oak Common station site, for
example to the Dudding Hill route and its junction with the WCML which is likely to need
to be reconfigured to a double track connection. Some modifications to junctions in the
Wembley Central area may also be required.

Other elements such as a new Crossrail depot strategy and possible additional turnback
infrastructure on the WCML would depend on the specific train service proposal adopted.
If HS2 goes ahead this link would potentially reduce the amount of work required to the
London Underground network in the Euston area to accommodate HS2 passengers.

[IndustryInsider]

Thanks for that, Stuving.  It's another piece to slot into an ever increasingly complex jigsaw, isn't it!  Well worth pursuing though in my opinion, as it will be a useful boost to the Crossrail route whatever alignment is eventually chosen.

[paul7575]

I'm 99.9% sure the RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) means the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) Slow Lines, i.e. the AC electrified pair used by freight and London Midland.

The first significant problem is the lack of a through route from the DC^▸ (Direct Current) lines to north of Watford Jn (other than via the down fast), so Tring and any other intermediate stations would be impossible to include in the scheme without massive remodelling at Watford Jn, and AFAICT^▸ (as far as I can tell) from the WCML(S) online sectional appendix there is no junction that provides for a connection with the DC lines anywhere in the vicinity of Wembley Central, it appears to be a completely independent railway north of Willesden Jn.

The Junctions they refer to modifying 'in the Wembley Central area' must by default be 'Sudbury Junctions' where the route from the up and down Willesden Relief lines - via the underpass and used by passenger trains to/from the WLL - joins the 'Slows'.

Paul

[Btline]

The effect of that will be that Twyford, Maidenhead and Slough will be served only by all-stations trains to London and any passengers from west of Reading to those stations will have to change at Reading.

Or the toiletless Crossrail trains will have to be extended to Newbury/Bedwyn and/or Oxford.

I can see that going down well.

No - some would be semi -fast. With a bunch of trains leaving for the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) and another bunch going off to Heathrow, there would be paths available for skipping stops.

Journey times to Paddington would increase - no more non stopping trains. But once you factor in the Crossrail train taking you to directly to your destination with no Tube, that time is more than made up. Plus more comfortable.

[eightf48544]

I have always thought that Crossrail even from the very first early 90s version (the one to Reading and Aylesbury) didn^t work West of Paddington. Nothing that has happened since including the extension Maidenhead to Reading has changed my mind.

Fine to the East 12 tph to Shenfield and Abbey Wood  but where do 24tph go West of Padd given the limited capacity of GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) to Reading?

It has already been commented upon in this thread the disruption that Crossrail stopping trains cause to the semi fast services from Oxford and Reading which call at Twyford Maindenhead and Slough. Crossrail also disrupts the heavy flows of commuters from Both West and East of Reading to Hayes and Ealing Broadway.

A link to Aylesbury? This was  originally planned but I^m not sure how many tph that would absorb and it doesn^t seem to fit in why Aylesbury?

So where could the surplus Crossrail trains coming out of the tunnel at Padd go?

Some suggestions, why not a link to West Ruislip and West Ealing (via Greenford branch)  from OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot))  via North Acton and Greenford (new interchange stations). That could absorb maybe 10tph,  4tph  to West Ealing 6 tph West Ruislip. Electrifying OOC to West Ealing with a link to GWML would also enable Crossrail trains to be turned thus evening out wheel wear from the curves on the Heathrow branch. Which is a problem with the current /Heathrow units.

However that still leaves 4 tph to terminate of Padd so a link to WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) OOC to Willesdan but does Crossrail share the New lines difficult as they 3/4th rail electrified. Use the flyunder Southern use to get to the slow lines? Could these lines absorb an extra 4 or more trains an hour? Where would they terminate? Tring seem a long way for Metro service.

From the start Crossrail has been an East and Central London project aimed mainly at relieving the Central Line from Stratford to the West End and  providing a higher capacity direct link from North Kent to Canary Wharf, the City and West End to relieve the DLR^▸ (Docklands Light Railway) (Woolwich/Lewisham branches), East London Line and London Bridge/Canon Street/Charing Cross.

I am afraid we in the TV will just have to lump all stations trains with not many sideways seats and no loos.

[paul7575]

Some suggestions, why not a link to West Ruislip and West Ealing (via Greenford branch)  from OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot))  via North Acton and Greenford (new interchange stations). That could absorb maybe 10tph,  4tph  to West Ealing 6 tph West Ruislip. Electrifying OOC to West Ealing with a link to GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) would also enable Crossrail trains to be turned thus evening out wheel wear from the curves on the Heathrow branch. Which is a problem with the current /Heathrow units.

However that still leaves 4 tph to terminate of Padd so a link to WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) OOC to Willesdan but does Crossrail share the New lines difficult as they 3/4th rail electrified. Use the flyunder Southern use to get to the slow lines? Could these lines absorb an extra 4 or more trains an hour? Where would they terminate? Tring seem a long way for Metro service.

London and SE RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) only ever has a maximum of 6 tph on the GWML reliefs beyond Stockley.  Then with 10 tph to Heathrow subsuming both Connect and eventually Hex and an extra 2 tph, that leaves 8 tph for the WCML.

Having read the RUS again (since my post yesterday) I still cannot see why anyone thinks it is in any way suggesting using the DC^▸ (Direct Current) lines.  There is no feasible connection route.

Tring is a comparable distance to Reading, and might only get 4 tph itself, with another 4 tph terminating nearer London.

Paul

[4064ReadingAbbey]

No - some would be semi -fast. With a bunch of trains leaving for the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) and another bunch going off to Heathrow, there would be paths available for skipping stops.

Journey times to Paddington would increase - no more non stopping trains. But once you factor in the Crossrail train taking you to directly to your destination with no Tube, that time is more than made up. Plus more comfortable.

Hmm! It is very likely that east of West Drayton the Crossrail trains will have to have a standard stopping pattern - at least in the peaks - because of the number of trains. The Crossrail website states that there will be 6 trains per hour in the peak east of West Drayton and 10 from Hayes inwards - this density implies all the trains will be stoppers as they will have to be sequenced into the tunnel section correctly and at the right intervals. Time saving from skip-stopping between Hayes and Paddington will be marginal at best[1].

So between West Drayton and Reading there are really only four stations which are suitable for skip stopping - Iver, Langley, Burnham and Taplow. This could imply that the longer distance Crossrail trains (i.e., the ones starting from and terminating at Reading) might be candidates so as to reduce overall journey times from Twyford and Maidenhead; the Maidenhead terminators would then serve these four stations. A study of the individual traffic flows would be necessary to find out whether or not this pattern would be in the interests of the bulk of the passengers and, of course, of the railway! It would mean, at only 2 trains per hour, that these four stations see no benefit from Crossrail in terms of increased frequency.

That Crossrail automatically gets you to your destination faster is simply not true. Crossrail will only take you to your destination more quickly if it happens to lie near one of its stations - more especially those in the central tunnelled sections. For anywhere else in London - anywhere else, Westminster, South Kensington, Shepherd's Bush, Wimbledon, Hackney, Hammersmith, Clapham - a change will still be needed. There will be little or no time saving for such journeys.

As for comfort... There have been reports in the press by visitors to the mock-up of the Thameslink trains recently shown in London which serve a similar market. Several people reported on the hard seats and tight knee-room of the layout shown. Comfort is, as is well-known, in the bottom of the beholder - but it would seem that there are questions in this area that still need to be answered. "More comfortable" certainly cannot be assumed.

[1] This ignores the future of HEx - if these are added to the Crossrail flows then the chances of skip-stopping between Hayes and the tunnel portal drop even further.

[tom m]

So between West Drayton and Reading there are really only four stations which are suitable for skip stopping - Iver, Langley, Burnham and Taplow. This could imply that the longer distance Crossrail trains (i.e., the ones starting from and terminating at Reading) might be candidates so as to reduce overall journey times from Twyford and Maidenhead; the Maidenhead terminators would then serve these four stations. A study of the individual traffic flows would be necessary to find out whether or not this .

In my experience a lot of the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) services either stop at Taplow and Burnham and skip Langley and Iver or skip Taplow and Burnham and stop at Langley and Iver, it seems logical as the traffic between these stations has to be fairly minimal due to the short distances between. I cant see why a similar service pattern cant be maintained post Crossrail.

[grahame]

From a purely theoretic view, there are lots of places that trains popping out "at Paddington" could go with a "bit" of extra construction.  Some sensible and some rather silly.  Inner junction options include ...

* Hammersmith, via Hammersmith and City
* Watford and the up the West Coast
* Cricklewood and then up the Midland Main Line
* Richmond, via link to North London Line
* High Wycombe, via Greenford

Taking traffic out beyond Acton Main Line on the GW^▸ (Great Western) main line ...
* Greenford, from West Ealing
* Heathrow, from Hayes and Harlington
* Staines, from West Drayton
* Windsor and Eton Central, from Slough
* Bourne End, from Maidenhead
* Henley-on-Thames, from Twyford
* Reading
And I have left out Marlow and Brentford so as not to require reversals!

Someone mentioned Aylesbury too ... via Princes Risborough is included above; getting on the "Met" somewhere would be possible (multiple "bits" extra) and you could then look at Aylesbury, Chesham, Watford and Uxbridge.    Getting silly, yet Baker Street to Aldgate is a bottleneck and perhaps better suited to underground services than to outer suburban stuff.

[stuving]

Having read the RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) again (since my post yesterday) I still cannot see why anyone thinks it is in any way suggesting using the DC^▸ (Direct Current) lines.  There is no feasible connection route.

Quite. The point is that the RUS refers to the previous proposal as if it is being resurrected. It does not mention that it is going to use different tracks, so does not address how the implications for existing services would be different. Originally, the Euston (now Overground) service was to be stopped, and he Bakerloo line would terminate at Willesden. What is intended now? Does the route need two metro services? Is the Euston service dropped, or reduced? It's all very well to say it has to be studied, but the RUS team already know a lot about this.

On journey times and toilets, the obvious point is that the longer Underground lines are all less than an hour from the Circle Line to their terminus, most much less. So 40-50 minutes for Crossrail ought not to be a problem, unless you find the Underground already causes too long a wait. There is the alternative of nipping off the train at a suitably equipped station, though the gap to the next one can be rather long late at night.

TfL^» (Transport for London - about) have a map of toilet provision at stations you (meaning mainly the older members of the forum) can download. You could look at it for hours without detecting any logic in the pattern of where they are, and which are inside the barriers (though that's not really relevant if you have a travelcard).

[eightf48544]

The Aylesbury link was in some of the very early Cross rail plans in the late 80's early 90 I think. One of the consultants working on the plans used to travel from Taplow and I had several chats with him.

The link was across OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)) Willesdan to Dudding Hill and then down onto the GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line) line. Linking to the Harrow line not the Wycombe branch.

They even had a mock up Crossrail train at Padd very much like a Heathrow Connect ie a proper outer suburban unit.

Taking Graham's proposed terminal points most are feasible some would be more easy to execute than others and soem would be prohibitatlively expensive.

* Hammersmith, via Hammersmith and City very difficult because although Crossrail comes up beside the H&C the H&C immedialely dips under the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) so difficult to make a connection which would ahve to be a flat double junction. Although you could reinstate teh Ladbroke Grove curve to North London line and run to Clapham Junction or most of South London.
* Watford and the up the West Coast reasonable woulf require flat junction at OOC capacity on WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) might be an issue
* Cricklewood and then up the Midland Main Line interesting connection from OOC to Dudding Hill Line possible calacity issues on MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) with enhanced Thameslink
* Richmond, via link to North London Line interesting but possible capacity problems from Gunnesbury To Richmond. Could go onto the  Hounslow Loop via Acton South Jn. This opens up destinations on vitually the whole of SWT^▸ (South West Trains), Southern and South Eastern but would require dual voltage trains. 
* High Wycombe, via Greenford Probably the easiest but I'd go to both High Wycombe and West Ealing from OOC with new interchange stations at North Acton and Greenford. That would help relieve conjestion on the Central Line to West Ruislip line. Might be possible to build a diveunder at OOC to avoid flat junction. Also don't forget HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) has plans to build (Ventilation Shaft) on the track bed precluding reinstating a doulbe line.

Taking traffic out beyond Acton Main Line on the GW^▸ (Great Western) main line ...
* Greenford, from West Ealing Feasible but requires flat junction but see above going via Park Royal.
* Heathrow, from Hayes and Harlington suggest coninuing to Reading when West chord from T5 or use link to Staines from T5 line if ever built.
* Staines, from West Drayton very interesting could link with proposals for T5 Staines link but probaly easier via T5 if link built.
* Windsor and Eton Central, from Slough No branch on mainline side
* Bourne End, from Maidenhead yes but not Marlow as trains Crossrail trains too long to reverse at Bourne End would require platform lengthening or SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) and possible loop at Cookham. Reopen through to High Wycombe!
* Henley-on-Thames, from Twyford Yes, would require platform lengthening or SDO at Wargrave and Shiplake also require some redoubling or a loop. Maybe a second platform at Henley?
* Reading yes perhaps  Didcot Newbury?
And I have left out Marlow and Brentford so as not to require reversals! Brentford also wrong side of Mainlines.

However the problem is that most of the destinations are too far for a Metro stoping servcie and really require proper outer Suburban stock and at least semi fasts.

I am afraid I still cannot find anything to refute my asertion that Crossrail does not work West of Padd and that I am afraid we in the TV will just have to lump all stations trains with not many sideways seats and no loos.

[ChrisB]

TfL^» (Transport for London - about) have a map of toilet provision at stations you (meaning mainly the older members of the forum) can download.

Very remiss of you Sir not to provide a link :-)....pretty please?

[grahame]

TfL^» (Transport for London - about) have a map of toilet provision at stations you (meaning mainly the older members of the forum) can download.

Very remiss of you Sir not to provide a link :-)....pretty please?

https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/toilets-map.pdf

[grahame]

And here are some other specific maps ...

Cycles
https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/bicycles-on-public-transport.pdf

Step Free
https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/step-free-tube-guide-map.pdf

Avoiding Escaltors - for those with dogs too large to carry.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/avoiding-stairs-tube-guide.pdf
(see green circle with red surround for stations to avoid)
Note that TfL^» (Transport for London - about) staff will stop escalators for guide dogs, and guide dogs can be trained / certified to use escalators.

[Btline]

The vast majority of people work in the West End, City or Canary Wharf. Crossrail services all these places, and many commuters will be able to walk to their destination in less than 15 minutes.

Yes, commuters to Victoria, Westminster, Waterloo and Holborn will still need the Tube - but they need to get the Tube already! In all but Victoria's case, the Tube journey will be much shorter than at present.

I'm sure a skip stop pattern can be achieved with the high acceleration electric trains and modern signalling. I'd expect all trains to stop at Ealing and Hayes - including any future Heathrow Express and Reading semi fasts.

I'd say that Crossrail does work West of Paddington, as long as no trains terminate at Paddington. The idea to divert WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) slow lines services from MK^▸ (Milton Keynes), Tring and Watford is sensible. In the East, an extension from Abbey Wood to the Ebblesfleet area should be added ASAP (i.e. before Crossrail is declared "full").