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

[whole diary]

[Electric train]

The presentation was okay, could have done with a little more tech info on the trains, the traction pack, hotel services etc

While I really do understand your thirst for such technical detail, Electric train, I rather fear that if I as an ordinary passenger was given so much information, my head would possibly explode. 

Whilst it is entertaining to see ordinary passengers head explode it is rather messy ................... hence the need for hotel services in this case maid service  

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

The presentation was okay, could have done with a little more tech info on the trains, the traction pack, hotel services etc

I think I agree with ET on this - it was after all a lecture to at least some prospective railway employees and must have included engineering students etc.  So enough info to get them thinking about (and hopefully impressed by) what is presumably a state of the art traction system from overhead wire to wheel/rail interface would have been good.   

[4064ReadingAbbey]

I was also at the presentation at Reading University last week - it's taken some time but now I've got some time to add a couple of further details to Stuving's comprehensive notes.

^ Crossrail expect to carry 200 million passengers in the first year, with 36,000 passengers per hour in the peak.
^ One of the serious operational issues is marrying 'mainline' operating practice - where trains are traditionally timed to the half minutes - with the accuracy demanded in the central core with 24tph running under ATO^▸ (Automatic Train Operation) timed to the second.
^ To minimise rail and wheel wear as the tunnels twist and turn on their way under London and to allow for variations in the trains' speed, the track alignment is being very carefully calculated and installed.
^ Lubrication of the wheel flange/tyre corner is being fitted. The two application methods were 'stick' (of lubricant) or 'spray'. The second was chosen as it can be controlled, the 'stick' being in permanent contact with the wheel.
^ To minimise noise and vibration the wheel tyres and rail surfaces will be as smooth as possible.
^ Half the fleet will be stabled at Old Oak each night.
^ The AVIS is based on the system in use at Central Rivers since December 2014 for measurement of safety-critical items, e.g., brake pad thicknesses. Pads are now changed when individually needed (the implication being rather than changing all the pads on a train at once) which has reduced use of materials.
^ The Crossrail bogies have been (at least partially) designed so that more items, e.g., bolt heads, can be easily seen by the AVIS system so reducing the amount of manual inspection still needed.

[TonyK]

Thanks stuving and 4064RA.

Someone has thought a lot of this Crossrail stuff through. I like the AVIS idea, which I am sure is just a more sophisticated version of systems already in use. All of which began with the wheeltappers.

[ellendune]

I am informed that Boris Johnson alleged on Andrew Mar's programme today that Cross Rail was delayed for months trying to fend off the EU^» (European Union - about) argument that the Crossrail tunnel must be able to take German Trains. 

Anyone know what the truth is (if any) behind this?

[Oberon]

Sounds like he's confusing Crossrail with HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel)

[paul7575]

Apologies for abbreviation overload...

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it), as brand new heavy rail infrastructure, the line should have conformed to UIC TSIs, and been designed for ERTMS^▸ (European Rail Traffic Management System.) and ETCS^▸ (European Train Control System) for signalling and control throughout from opening.   This is all about fitting a suitable ATP^▸ (Automatic Train Protection) system for safety - and the headways intended in the core section (30 tph during perturbation) also require an operable ATO^▸ (Automatic Train Operation) system.

As no suitable off the shelf signalling system was around, TfL^» (Transport for London - about) wanted to treat Crossrail as a metro and thus exempt it from ERTMS and use the same (or similar) line signalling to that used on the underground, communication based train control (CBTC^▸ (Communications-based train control)).  I think this was mainly on the basis that designing from scratch for ETRMS was a major risk to completion, as at that time ERTMS was considered an immature system.   

IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) after much negotiation the core route will still use CBTC as TfL planned, and some parts of the route on existing infrastructure will open with TPWS^▸ (Train Protection and Warning System)/AWS^▸ (Automatic Warning System) with a migration path for the existing routes to ERTMS in due course as it is introduced on the major parts of those routes in accordance with Network Rail's existing strategy.

I think this is the background to what he is saying, it is nothing much to do with running 'German sized' trains, as there is an ongoing dispensation that allows for lines in GB^▸ (Great Britain) to be built to normal GB structure gauge.

I found a Rail Engineer article about Crossrail signalling here:  http://www.railengineer.uk/2016/01/08/signalling-crossrail/

As a PS, does anyone know if interoperability is really being driven by the EU^» (European Union - about) or is it the UIC as 'pushed' by the EU?

Paul

[stuving]

TSIs are EU^» (European Union - about) documents, coming from the commission*. They are based on technical material that is often from the UIC, and may well be written by the same people. For some reason they usually re-write those technical requirements in the TSI, rather than refer to other standards. This makes TSIs rather long, and also publishes material that the UIC doesn't.

I think the commission is the main force behind standardisation, which is seen as a single market issue (thus castigated as "Thatcherite" in much of Europe). One reason for it is to permit competition between operators across borders (not just of cross-border services), but creating a true market in equipment is also a motivation. One country's market is now seen as too small to support several suppliers.

A few years ago the idea was floated of introducing standards for urban rail as well, driven by the equipment market argument. It didn't get much support, though, and I think it was dropped.

*correction - that's now delegated to the European Railway Agency.

[Electric train]

I am informed that Boris Johnson alleged on Andrew Mar's programme today that Cross Rail was delayed for months trying to fend off the EU^» (European Union - about) argument that the Crossrail tunnel must be able to take German Trains. 

Anyone know what the truth is (if any) behind this?

I am afraid BoJo is talking wifwaf.  Crossrail will be TSI compliant that is different to being built to be compliant to European Loading Gauge.

Crossrail was delay by decades not through fighting off Brussels it was the dilly dallying and general bungling ineptitude of our own home grown politicians, who seem to think that deciding not to make a decision is decision taking!

[JayMac]

We continue to grow such politicians here in Bristol.

[stuving]

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, and Andy Marr wasn't helping. 

But I do remember him referring to HMG's over-strict interpretation of the relevant directives, so they had to apply main-line TSIs, and wasted a year arguing about it. I don't think he said clearly who won the argument, but he certainly did mention the requirement to allow German trains to use the line. I don't think he referred to their size - just as well, as I think a lot of German trains are still too big for the UIC gauge called up in the TSIs.

[paul7575]

AFAICS^▸ (As Far As I Can See) Crossrail was always going to need a safe signalling system whatever type of system, and even with its original Maidenhead to Shenfield reach it would seem to have been reasonable to signal it throughout as a mainline railway to avoid having to engineer in two interfaces from NR^» (Network Rail - home page) to TfL^» (Transport for London - about).   (Abbey Wood being operationally separate.)

The ELL has fairly normal signalling doesn't it?   How come they didn't have to suffer from 'not invented here' syndrome?

Paul

[stuving]

More on TSIs:
I think the relevant one would be the Conventional Rail Infrastructure TSI (CR INF TSI), headed "DECISION of 26 April 2011 concerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the ^infrastructure^ subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system", or 2011/275/EU^» (European Union - about) for short. This came into force in 2011, so an earlier version may have been in use at the time Crossrail was planned. If you want to find out more, the RSSB^▸ (Rail Safety and Standards Board) is a good place to start.

This TSI does, despite what I said, call up structure gauges by reference. These are UIC gauges GA^▸ (Greater Anglia), GB^▸ (Great Britain), and GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line) for four different classes of line (IV, V, VI, and VII), though they are called up as EN 15273-3:2009 Annex C.

This directive is marked "Text with EEA relevance" - so it applies in Norway, Iceland (where its relevance is somewhat limited), and Liechenstein (which is, oddly, in the EEA rather than linked to Switzerland), and Croatia (pendingly). Thus it would still be in force here post-Brexit under the "EEA option", and perhaps under some "EEA with differences" options.

The Swiss do not appear to have signed up to this directive, under their pick-and-choose arrangement. Of course the Swiss have been exchanging trains with the whole of Europe for ages, under technical agreements made on a case-by-case basis. They have simply added the TSIs to the list of other peoples' standards to be used for this.

[Noggin]

Apologies for abbreviation overload...

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it), as brand new heavy rail infrastructure, the line should have conformed to UIC TSIs, and been designed for ERTMS^▸ (European Rail Traffic Management System.) and ETCS^▸ (European Train Control System) for signalling and control throughout from opening.   This is all about fitting a suitable ATP^▸ (Automatic Train Protection) system for safety - and the headways intended in the core section (30 tph during perturbation) also require an operable ATO^▸ (Automatic Train Operation) system.

As no suitable off the shelf signalling system was around, TfL^» (Transport for London - about) wanted to treat Crossrail as a metro and thus exempt it from ERTMS and use the same (or similar) line signalling to that used on the underground, communication based train control (CBTC^▸ (Communications-based train control)).  I think this was mainly on the basis that designing from scratch for ETRMS was a major risk to completion, as at that time ERTMS was considered an immature system.   

IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) after much negotiation the core route will still use CBTC as TfL planned, and some parts of the route on existing infrastructure will open with TPWS^▸ (Train Protection and Warning System)/AWS^▸ (Automatic Warning System) with a migration path for the existing routes to ERTMS in due course as it is introduced on the major parts of those routes in accordance with Network Rail's existing strategy.

I think this is the background to what he is saying, it is nothing much to do with running 'German sized' trains, as there is an ongoing dispensation that allows for lines in GB^▸ (Great Britain) to be built to normal GB structure gauge.

I found a Rail Engineer article about Crossrail signalling here:  http://www.railengineer.uk/2016/01/08/signalling-crossrail/

As a PS, does anyone know if interoperability is really being driven by the EU^» (European Union - about) or is it the UIC as 'pushed' by the EU?

Paul

Sounds about right to me.

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. I keep waiting for some think-tank to suggest that we should build HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) to Chinese/Japanese standards (much wider) rather than Euro standards. Lets hope no-one does. 

BoJo could also have been confusing the hoo-haa about the Thameslink trains being manufactured in Germany, an issue that was only really resolved when Siemens dropped out of the tender for the Crossrail units, effectively gifting it to Bombardier. Hardly the fault of the EU though, German company produces a technically superior product to a Canadian (albeit UK^▸ (United Kingdom)-manufacturing) one. HM Government could have quietly had a word in Siemens ear and suggested that they might like to bolt some trains together in the UK and all would have been good, but anyway...

[stuving]

...
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.