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

[whole diary]

[Electric train]

I've been trying to remember what Boris did say. I was only half-listening to the programme, and Boris was not really making a lot of sense. The unscripted Boris can't really do coherent logical explanation

Even scripted he struggles to be coherent

and, Andy Marr wasn't helping. 

Not a lot of help you can offer an incoherent BoJo in full flight 

...
I'm sure that there was probably a debate as to whether the line should be sized to enable Euro-dd stock to run through it, but of course the cost of that would have been phenomenal, and as most of us know, the added station dwell times for DD stock can negate the capacity increases.
...

Well, actually, it appears the gauge was chosen before the Crossrail bill (2005) and approved when it became an act (2008), both before the relevant TSI came in. DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) sent TfL^» (Transport for London - about) a formal letter giving them this derogation only in 2012, and that's on the grounds of its advanced state of planning in 2011. That applies for the whole railway, not just the tunnel, though that's the only bit of genuinely new infrastructure.

That derogation was issued under 2008/57, but refers to 2011/275/EU^» (European Union - about), but both are predated by the Crossrail design. Just how unhelpful DfT was it's hard to know - they are easy to blame, whatever the truth.

However, in the reply to this FoI request, it says they looked at gauging retrospectively and concluded the tunnels are big enough to be refitted to GB^▸ (Great Britain) gauge (close to what the French use):

That said, the Department has evaluated the opportunities for passing double deck trains through the tunnel as designed and has concluded that the continental “GB” gauge trains would physically fit in through the tunnels as designed, albeit with the need for alterations to the overhead power supply and platforms. The areas around the tunnel wall that could affect the introduction of double deck train would also need to be kept clear of significant cables and signals so as to facilitate future conversion. This “GB” gauge is similar to the profile of the double deck trains used on the RER in Paris. The platforms and overhead power supplies will need to be designed for the normal main line trains initially and then if capacity becomes an issue in the future, there would need to be a project for remaining conversion works to accept higher capacity trains. Accordingly you can see that we have taken a pragmatic approach to ensuring that the tunnel is future proofed for the potential introduction of double deck trains without unduly adding cost or complication at this stage.

My understanding is that Airport Junction to Maidenhead is being electrified to TSI compliance this is because it falls into the "substantially upgrading" and the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) is listed as one of Europe High Speed lines.  The Paddington to Airport Junction is being brought as best as can be done to comply, as this is existing electrification.

[paul7575]

My understanding is that Airport Junction to Maidenhead is being electrified to TSI compliance this is because it falls into the "substantially upgrading" and the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) is listed as one of Europe High Speed lines.  The Paddington to Airport Junction is being brought as best as can be done to comply, as this is existing electrification.

Electrified to TSI standards, but there's no prospect of the GWML out to Reading (or the GEML^▸ (Great Eastern Main Line) to Shenfield) being retrospectively gauge cleared to TSI standards.  AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) the Heathrow branch defines the structure gauge, and that FOI^▸ (Freedom of Information) asking about double deck trains in the tunnels was therefore fairly pointless.

The Crossrail trains will have 3 sets of doors per side on 9 x 22.5m vehicles, upgradeable to 11 car trains within the 250m station tunnels.  I suggest that planned dwell times would be impossible with double decker trains running at 24 tph; and there'd certainly not be a pro-rata increase in capacity over the planned trains.

Paul

[Electric train]

My understanding is that Airport Junction to Maidenhead is being electrified to TSI compliance this is because it falls into the "substantially upgrading" and the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) is listed as one of Europe High Speed lines.  The Paddington to Airport Junction is being brought as best as can be done to comply, as this is existing electrification.

Electrified to TSI standards, but there's no prospect of the GWML out to Reading (or the GEML^▸ (Great Eastern Main Line) to Shenfield) being retrospectively gauge cleared to TSI standards.  AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) the Heathrow branch defines the structure gauge, and that FOI^▸ (Freedom of Information) asking about double deck trains in the tunnels was therefore fairly pointless.

The Crossrail trains will have 3 sets of doors per side on 9 x 22.5m vehicles, upgradeable to 11 car trains within the 250m station tunnels.  I suggest that planned dwell times would be impossible with double decker trains running at 24 tph; and there'd certainly not be a pro-rata increase in capacity over the planned trains.

Paul

The TSI compatibility is not solely about gauge, the OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") compatibility is electrical safety and passing clearance also the type of Pans, the 387's and 700's on Thameslink have a TSI compliant Pan which are causing a number of issues because the Thameslink route is to an old BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) standard.

[paul7575]

Electrified to TSI standards, but there's no prospect of the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) out to Reading (or the GEML^▸ (Great Eastern Main Line) to Shenfield) being retrospectively gauge cleared to TSI standards. 

The TSI compatibility is not solely about gauge, the OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") compatibility is electrical safety and passing clearance also the type of Pans, the 387's and 700's on Thameslink have a TSI compliant Pan which are causing a number of issues because the Thameslink route is to an old BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) standard.

I was agreeing, that's why I wrote 'electrified to TSI standards, but' at the start of my earlier post?

[stuving]

The TSI compatibility is not solely about gauge, the OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") compatibility is electrical safety and passing clearance also the type of Pans, the 387's and 700's on Thameslink have a TSI compliant Pan which are causing a number of issues because the Thameslink route is to an old BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) standard.

It's not even the same TSI - there's a Conventional Rail Energy TSI (Decision 2011/274/EU^» (European Union - about) as amended), and a high-speed one (Decision 2008/284/EC as amended) too. High-speed is generally from 200km/hr up, so the 125 mi/hr lines do come under it. These TSIs have all the stuff about OLE and pantographs, and a big list of exceptions for each country - this isn't a case of GB^▸ (Great Britain) versus the continent, there is a lot more variation than that.

I guess that the two (OLE and pan) need to be built to suit each other, so if a country has any European interoperable lines it will eventually have to move to standard OLE and trains everywhere, or else split its network into two bits not interoperable with each other. So it's not just red tape (not a good conductor anyway), but may still be overly prescriptive.

[eightf48544]

I guess that the two (OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") and pan) need to be built to suit each other, so if a country has any European interoperable lines it will eventually have to move to standard OLE and trains everywhere, or else split its network into two bits not interoperable with each other. So it's not just red tape (not a good conductor anyway), but may still be overly prescriptive.

Or you fit multiple Pans to suit the particular OLE. As per the DB^» (Deutsche Bahn - German State Railway - about) ICEs with German and Swiss pans, the many 4 voltage locos like the TRAXX which have multiple pans.

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) it's not so much the PANS that restricts cross border interoperability but fitting all the relevant  signalling system receivers and black boxes.

[Noggin]

I guess that the two (OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") and pan) need to be built to suit each other, so if a country has any European interoperable lines it will eventually have to move to standard OLE and trains everywhere, or else split its network into two bits not interoperable with each other. So it's not just red tape (not a good conductor anyway), but may still be overly prescriptive.

Or you fit multiple Pans to suit the particular OLE. As per the DB^» (Deutsche Bahn - German State Railway - about) ICEs with German and Swiss pans, the many 4 voltage locos like the TRAXX which have multiple pans.

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) it's not so much the PANS that restricts cross border interoperability but fitting all the relevant  signalling system receivers and black boxes.

With OLE you obviously have voltage differences (which don't really affect the pan), but you also have differences in the lateral spread of the conductor wire, the vertical variation and the tension that the wire is under. So even though the French quad-voltage CC40100 class had 4 pantographs, it would use different pantographs under the French and Dutch 1500v DC^▸ (Direct Current) networks. (Incidentally, the CC40100 class was built in the 1970s to a reduced loading gauge to allow for operations through the iteration of the Channel Tunnel under construction at the time).

AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know), these differences are generally being ironed out and the TSI's formalise that process. This is partially about enabling cross-border running, but also about the single market, so manufacturers can produce 'run anywhere' kit and individual countries can't implement protectionist rules to restrict their markets to domestic manufacturers and operators etc. Bust as per the comments above, there are loads of derogations, as there's obviously little point in rewiring old branch lines for the sake of meeting modern regs.

In the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), the differences aren't so dramatic as to require separate pans for old and new systems, but the newer kit is much stiffer and with a more precise geometry, so newer trains can run faster and with more pans up on equipment that is able to cope. (Multiple pantographs can cause waves to form in OLE that can ultimately lead to dewirements).

[TonyK]

Presumably, the ultimate decider for a pan-European gauge will be the big tunnels - channel, alpine, etc.

[Electric train]

I guess that the two (OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") and pan) need to be built to suit each other, so if a country has any European interoperable lines it will eventually have to move to standard OLE and trains everywhere, or else split its network into two bits not interoperable with each other. So it's not just red tape (not a good conductor anyway), but may still be overly prescriptive.

Or you fit multiple Pans to suit the particular OLE. As per the DB^» (Deutsche Bahn - German State Railway - about) ICEs with German and Swiss pans, the many 4 voltage locos like the TRAXX which have multiple pans.

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) it's not so much the PANS that restricts cross border interoperability but fitting all the relevant  signalling system receivers and black boxes.

Ah but the TSI does not have much to do about voltage, interoperability is about standard specifications for systems to interface with, for example a manufacture of 1500V DC^▸ (Direct Current) pans would expect all 1500V dc OLE to be to the same clearance, height, wire tension, hardness  and CSA of wire etc  like wise for a 25kV pan manufacture the two pans may be different electrically and mechanically however a manufacture could and do make them do both; like wise the infrastructure manufactures also know what spec they are working too and so do the infrastructure managers.

TSI are about safety and about open market / free trade

[IndustryInsider]

Another fascinating article about Crossrail from the ianvisits blog.  This time concerning the special measures put in place in the tunnels to deal with areas such as under the Barbican which are sensitive to noise and vibration:

http://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2016/04/06/photos-from-inside-crossrails-tunnels/

[4064ReadingAbbey]

The (American) Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers publishes a monthly journal (IEEE Spectrum) for its members - my April edition arrived last week and I was astonished to find a long article in it about the construction of Crossrail.

The article obviously concentrates on the IT and communications aspects and there are some fascinating tit-bits. One is that cheap optical fibres have been embedded in the sprayed concrete tunnel linings to monitor strain in the walls. Obviously one aspect is to be able to continuously monitor the health of the walls but also to see if the linings have been over-designed and could be thinner in future construction so reducing costs.

The entire project has been designed on computers so all the design data is instantly available - not only tunnels and buildings but all the services down to, as the article says, "1 watt lighting fittings". Every asset has an x, a y and a z coordinate. A 3-D post construction survey has been made using scanning lasers so the differences in the 'as-designed' and 'as-built' states of the tunnels are known and incorporated into the database.

This has enabled the use of an 'augmented reality' interface. Not only can a section of, say, a station and all its services be shown on a computer screen but these data can be presented on a tablet computer, that is an iPad. Using a combination of GPS and, where appropriate Bluetooth location beacons, an iPad can be held up to a wall and superimposed on the camera's image of the wall are the positions of all the services behind the cladding or behind the concrete. It should make the problem of drilling a new hole through a bunch of cables or a water main a thing of the past! Essentially the maintenance manual is an iPad.

All very different from finding buried signalling cables...

[TonyK]

Whilst this will one day look "old hat", it is difficult to imagine exactly how. That is a very good example of using state of the art technology to do something useful, relatively cheaply, that would simply not be economical to do using traditional surveying methods. Very interesting indeed!

[Electric train]

Whilst this will one day look "old hat", it is difficult to imagine exactly how. That is a very good example of using state of the art technology to do something useful, relatively cheaply, that would simply not be economical to do using traditional surveying methods. Very interesting indeed!

Because the access into the tunnels to do this type of detailed surveying will been very limited, in some locations it could almost be regarded as intrusive if they have to remove cladding to carry out the survey.  Also the use of this type of technology means it is being constantly monitored and not just checked very now and then, it is cheap to install now compared to physically doing the survey in the future and it also removes humans potentially having to work at height to do some of the surveying.

[Noggin]

Apologies if posted previously, but the MD of MTR Crossrail made a presentation to London Travelwatch a few weeks ago. Not a lot that's new but there are some interesting comparative performance numbers towards the end. If I've understood rightly MTR have massively improved on Abellio's performance, even with the same 315's.

www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/documents/get_lob?id=4175&age=&field=file

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the Guardian:

Crossrail interchanges are too long, says Lord Adonis

Passengers face long walks between trains, with poor links to tube network likely to offset faster journey times, says infrastructure chief


The infrastructure commission chairman, Andrew Adonis, right, with Crossrail^s Andrew Wolstenholme at Tottenham Court Road. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA^▸ (Public Address)

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.

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^» (Transport for London - about) 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 across the capital, with a view to it opening in 2033.