|
Post by snoggle on Mar 1, 2017 14:15:28 GMT
The papers for the Programmes and Investment Cttee include four papers on Crossrail / Crossrail 2. An updated transition paper - content.tfl.gov.uk/15-crossrail-transition.pdfExtra Elizabeth line services and a rejigged service pattern west of Paddington. This would need 4 extra trains! - content.tfl.gov.uk/16-elizabeth-line.pdfSponsor Board proceedings - worth noting that TfL are now acknowledging that there are cost pressures from the fitting out activities in Central London stns and on modifying existing stations. Looks like some of the project contingency may need to be drawn down. content.tfl.gov.uk/17-crossrail-sponsor-board.pdfCrossrail 2 - interesting to note that Mr Grayling has not yet confirmed that he wishes to see CR2 proceed as per previously agreed timescales. Also confirms that public consultation and commencement of design work has been delayed thus compressing the time available to prepare the Hybrid Bill. content.tfl.gov.uk/18-crossrail-2.pdf
|
|
|
Post by busman on Mar 3, 2017 8:24:59 GMT
Thanks for this update Mr Snoggle. Interesting to note that this proposal will result in the withdrawal of 5 semi-fast FGW peak services between Paddington and Reading. One would assume that the additional Crossrail trains running west of Paddington will continue on to Reading, but this isn't stated. I'm also wondering if there is potential for Crossrail trains to run semi-fast west of Paddington along the relief line. The proposal contains a statement about applying for additional track access. Is this in relation to access to the relief line or in relation to additional trains running on the shared portion of track?
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Mar 3, 2017 11:01:03 GMT
Thanks for this update Mr Snoggle. Interesting to note that this proposal will result in the withdrawal of 5 semi-fast FGW peak services between Paddington and Reading. One would assume that the additional Crossrail trains running west of Paddington will continue on to Reading, but this isn't stated. I'm also wondering if there is potential for Crossrail trains to run semi-fast west of Paddington along the relief line. The proposal contains a statement about applying for additional track access. Is this in relation to access to the relief line or in relation to additional trains running on the shared portion of track? There is a certain amount of gaming the various parties, Network rail etc. In theory it is possible to fully reversible signal the two centrally located lines, add some crossovers and use these as peak hour dynamic loops (effectively giving a third track to overtake the stopping trains), but it would cost money. It would also reduce other direction to one track so would want to keep the sections shortish (just over two stations). It would also require some very smart timetabling, and this is the trade off as any late running train would delay a train in opposite direction so who pays. For those not familiar with the term a dynamic loop is one where the train being overtaken doesn't need to stop and wait, the loop is either few miles long which gives fast train time to overtake, or is shorter because the other train stops at at station or two anyway, which gives the overtaking time. The new electric trains doing 100 - 110mph ought to be able to cover 3 miles in under 2 minutes, whereas a stopper with 2 stations is more like 5 minutes which is enough to pass around them.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Mar 3, 2017 15:29:09 GMT
Thanks for this update Mr Snoggle. Interesting to note that this proposal will result in the withdrawal of 5 semi-fast FGW peak services between Paddington and Reading. One would assume that the additional Crossrail trains running west of Paddington will continue on to Reading, but this isn't stated. I'm also wondering if there is potential for Crossrail trains to run semi-fast west of Paddington along the relief line. The proposal contains a statement about applying for additional track access. Is this in relation to access to the relief line or in relation to additional trains running on the shared portion of track? There is a certain amount of gaming the various parties, Network rail etc. In theory it is possible to fully reversible signal the two centrally located lines, add some crossovers and use these as peak hour dynamic loops (effectively giving a third track to overtake the stopping trains), but it would cost money. It would also reduce other direction to one track so would want to keep the sections shortish (just over two stations). It would also require some very smart timetabling, and this is the trade off as any late running train would delay a train in opposite direction so who pays. For those not familiar with the term a dynamic loop is one where the train being overtaken doesn't need to stop and wait, the loop is either few miles long which gives fast train time to overtake, or is shorter because the other train stops at at station or two anyway, which gives the overtaking time. The new electric trains doing 100 - 110mph ought to be able to cover 3 miles in under 2 minutes, whereas a stopper with 2 stations is more like 5 minutes which is enough to pass around them. So in short it seems that Crossrail services directly replacing lost semi-fast FGW peak trains to and from Reading would reduce reliability and add significant cost (and probably time) to the project. Perhaps the more feasible option is to have additional stopping services replace the lost FGW services 🤔
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Mar 3, 2017 15:51:26 GMT
There is a certain amount of gaming the various parties, Network rail etc. In theory it is possible to fully reversible signal the two centrally located lines, add some crossovers and use these as peak hour dynamic loops (effectively giving a third track to overtake the stopping trains), but it would cost money. It would also reduce other direction to one track so would want to keep the sections shortish (just over two stations). It would also require some very smart timetabling, and this is the trade off as any late running train would delay a train in opposite direction so who pays. For those not familiar with the term a dynamic loop is one where the train being overtaken doesn't need to stop and wait, the loop is either few miles long which gives fast train time to overtake, or is shorter because the other train stops at at station or two anyway, which gives the overtaking time. The new electric trains doing 100 - 110mph ought to be able to cover 3 miles in under 2 minutes, whereas a stopper with 2 stations is more like 5 minutes which is enough to pass around them. So in short it seems that Crossrail services directly replacing lost semi-fast FGW peak trains to and from Reading would reduce reliability and add significant cost (and probably time) to the project. Perhaps the more feasible option is to have additional stopping services replace the lost FGW services 🤔 This is basically the dilemma : reliability, vs track access rights vs intensity of service vs pathing (time taken to clear a signalling section) Fast trains will catch up slower ones, so the wider the speed mix, the less trains per hour. It can be mitigated by grouping them by speeds, but in practice you don't want all the stoppers together a few minutes apart, want to evenly space them throughout the hour. There is already a capacity ceiling (which is why some trains were proposed to skip stations, to clear the line faster), obviously high power giving rapid acceleration and good brakes helps, but a train stopping at a station is probably going to take 2 minutes longer than one going through at 70mph+
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Mar 8, 2017 22:23:32 GMT
The last weekend closure of the Plumstead to Slade Green line has resulted in Abbey Wood station having its new Crossrail tracks laid, for those interested.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on May 22, 2017 17:18:38 GMT
The newspapers have picked up on spar between Crossrail and Heathrow. Basically Heathrow want 2 payments per train for use of its branch line. One for line development and one for usage totalling about £700 per train.
Clearly trying to cover loss of revenue on Heathrow connect and premium HEx.
Not sure if TfL will pay up, or not take over Heathrow connect in a years time if not resolved.
On another topic, TV series tonight 9pm showing fit out etc that's happened in last few months.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on May 22, 2017 23:13:26 GMT
The newspapers have picked up on spar between Crossrail and Heathrow. Basically Heathrow want 2 payments per train for use of its branch line. One for line development and one for usage totalling about £700 per train. Clearly trying to cover loss of revenue on Heathrow connect and premium HEx. Not sure if TfL will pay up, or not take over Heathrow connect in a years time if not resolved. On another topic, TV series tonight 9pm showing fit out etc that's happened in last few months. This has been going on for ages. HAL put forward their proposals - DfT, TfL and City Hall all said they were unacceptable. The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) ruled on the matter and said that HAL's proposals were in part not acceptable. HAL are challenging the ORR's ruling. The latest newspaper flurry is about what TfL may do if the High Court rules in HAL's favour. There is a convenient bolt holt at Hayes and Harlington plus West Drayton and also at Maidenhead so Crossrail / TfL certainly have options to play with. They're clearly not as desirable as serving Heathrow but there is no reason for TfL to pay vastly inflated access charges. It will be very easy for City Hall to portray HAL in a very bad light if this dispute threatens the operation of Crossrail into the airport. I've looked at the ORR's ruling in the past and I can't see that HAL have any grounds for the excessive scale of their proposed charges. A contribution to the marginal impact on operating costs for the tunnel section into Heathrow is fair enough as is a sensible track access charge. It was always the intention that fare income from Heathrow Express would pay back the construction and financing costs for the link which is why HAL have a long term right to paths into Paddington from the Airport. It gives them security of "tenure" for the expected pay back period (up to 2023). Anyone else seeking access to the tunnel and HAL stations and paying access charges is "icing on the cake" in financial terms so there is no justification *at all* for ripping off TfL and future Crossrail passengers who wish to access the airport. The fact that HAL are prepared to appeal the ORR ruling despite the Government's disapproval of their stance says something about their corporate arrogance when they need government sign off and support for airport expansion.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on May 30, 2017 17:55:44 GMT
The court has ruled against HAL's appeal. This means ORR's view that only a marginal cost based charge could be levied for each Crossrail train using the Airport tunnels has been upheld. Seems HAL are not entirely happy and are "considering their position". However they have been warned by the Judge if they seek to reopen other channels for levying a high charge that the Court may seek to challenge the validity of those channels. So, for the moment, Crossrail / TfL / ORR are in a satisfactory position. However we are less than 1 year away from the introduction of TfL Rail (yes they will use that name) services from Paddington to Heathrow and track access is required earlier than that for checking the new trains fit the tunnels and platforms plus driver training. Therefore it's pretty urgent something is sorted out. MTR Crossrail letter to ORR re chargingCourt judgementOn a second point it has been announced the class 345s won't enter passenger service on the Shenfield route until some time in June. londonist.com/london/transport/crossrail-trains-launch-has-been-delayed?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 22, 2017 10:55:00 GMT
All go on the "choo choo" front today. The first Class 345 passenger working has happened this morning - the train is on its way back from Shenfield to Liv St now. Looks like it then goes out of service so don't all dash to Liverpool St hoping for a ride - you'll probably be very disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jun 22, 2017 14:45:35 GMT
Does anyone have the Class 345 running times for today? Hoping to catch it at some point!
|
|
|
Post by Hassaan on Jun 22, 2017 15:19:23 GMT
Does anyone have the Class 345 running times for today? Hoping to catch it at some point! Bit late now, it was 1035 from Liverpool Street and 1139 from Shenfield
|
|
|
Post by Jibran32 on Jun 22, 2017 15:29:31 GMT
Does anyone have the Class 345 running times for today? Hoping to catch it at some point! Bit late now, it was 1035 from Liverpool Street and 1139 from Shenfield Appears that it is now also a daily service as an extra so it most likely should be running tomorrow, not sure about weekends. It should be 1035 from Liverpool Street tomorrow, and the return at 1139 from Shenfield. These are the only two runs per day I think.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jun 22, 2017 16:36:21 GMT
Thanks for the info. I guess I'll just have to wait until rush hour workings begin before I can bag a ride 🙁
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 22, 2017 20:46:06 GMT
Bit late now, it was 1035 from Liverpool Street and 1139 from Shenfield Appears that it is now also a daily service as an extra so it most likely should be running tomorrow, not sure about weekends. It should be 1035 from Liverpool Street tomorrow, and the return at 1139 from Shenfield. These are the only two runs per day I think. That certainly aligns with what Railway Gazette said today - one return trip a day at the moment. At least it gets TfL and Crossrail past the milestone even if in very limited form.
|
|