|
|
Post by fleetline on Dec 10, 2018 23:27:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Dec 11, 2018 6:09:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Dec 11, 2018 14:35:46 GMT
Yes further delay is not good, but shocking?
This announcement actually looks like the result of a more honest and in depth assessment of what is left to do, rather than the usual "How hard can it be?" perspective which some media articles seem to peddle.
Those with long memories may recall Eurotunnel (a broadly comparable scale project) was also late and over budget, with signalling, power supply and safety requirements significant factors in the cost over-run. As Andrew Baron's case study of the project noted whilst the actual digging seemed to progress reasonably, commissioning challenges proved a lot more challenging. Remember the initial USD 5.5Billion project spiralled to USD14.9Billion so in comparison Elizabeth Line is not doing so badly!
Too often the media implies that once tunnelling is complete the project is almost ready to use. However it was a good 3 years between the media staged breakthrough of the Eurotunnel service tunnel and the link's "official" opening in 1994, (well over a year late), and indeed it was many more months before anything like a full service was operating below the channel. Whilst the financial pain was largely carried by private investors "so who cares" it still shows how big projects are pretty well impossible to budget accurately.
Right now I would prefer the fit out team to be focused on completing the Elizabeth Line prudently, rather than be mired in yet more political finger pointing and points scoring which will not advance the completion date one second!
Too many building projects simply driven remorselessly to meet a delivery target result in progressively more short cuts being taken, short cuts which may come home to haunt you later on, sometimes at serious cost.
The real message here is that any plans for new cross city railways will almost inevitably prove far more expensive than originally budgeted for - no matter how intensively planned and monitored.
It also shows the longer you talk about a project rather than building it the further the eventual cost diverges from figures touted when the idea was first mooted. Sadly it already looks like London has lost out on any possible knowledge and continuity savings to be had by having the existing team moving straight on to delivering Cross Rail 2 but that now looks like a fight for the late 2030s..
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Dec 11, 2018 17:03:02 GMT
Hmm, maybe not even next autumn? Oh dear.
When it finally opens it should still be in stages - as originally planned. This will create space to allow things to settle down and issues (if any) to be ironed out based upon smaller sections of line rather than the whole thing.
Rather than be based upon a strict six monthly phase between stages, they should wait just a few months before progressing to the next stage. Also, when the 'next' stages are ready to roll (with passengers) they should first be tested over several weekends, when passenger numbers are lower, before weekday operations.
Belt, braces, and more.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 12, 2018 0:52:20 GMT
Hmm, maybe not even next autumn? Oh dear. When it finally opens it should still be in stages - as originally planned. This will create space to allow things to settle down and issues (if any) to be ironed out based upon smaller sections of line rather than the whole thing. Rather than be based upon a strict six monthly phase between stages, they should wait just a few months before progressing to the next stage. Also, when the 'next' stages are ready to roll (with passengers) they should first be tested over several weekends, when passenger numbers are lower, before weekday operations. Belt, braces, and more. The TfL business plan is clearly based around an Autumn 2019 start date and an unstated phased build up. It is, though, subject to revision once the new programme for Crossrail is unveiled in Jan 2019. I think we have gone into the land of "vague" statements quite deliberately. It allows the new Crossrail CEO to claim some "upside" if he's able to announce a start date of sorts earlier than Autumn 2019 - a classic case of creating "under promising, over delivering" with your "new" team. It's a standard TfL technique on their projects but not one which was employed by Crossrail. TfL have also said they want to take over some Paddington - Reading services in the near future as it would bring in more revenue. Whether GWR and DfT will be happy about that happening before Dec 2019 (as planned) remains to be seen. It's hard to be clear at this stage as to what is causing such a huge cost overrun. The last Mayoral weekly update report, from Aug 2018, shows all of the core stns at over 90% complete but all had work to do and some were behind where they should be. Signalling software and train reliability seem to be a big isue in the reports - no surprise there. It's also clear that the actual railway was not complete in August with a range of works still be fully completed. There are also long term problems with the provision of operating and maintenance manuals from suppliers. This was preventing staff and maintainer training and also delaying the technical assurance process which has to be achieved to allow the railway to be "signed off" as safe to operate. Although not stated on Crossrail's documents the lack of handover to operators will also be delaying sign off from the emergency services and things like mock evacuations tests. |
|
|
|
Post by patstonuk on Dec 12, 2018 17:17:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deep Level on Dec 13, 2018 18:37:29 GMT
One wonders if it will still open in phases. If you assume that the majority of the delays are down to signalling and that the revised opening date is after the original completion date of December 2019 then surely there would be no reason why the new line couldn't all open in one go.
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Dec 13, 2018 20:31:58 GMT
One wonders if it will still open in phases. If you assume that the majority of the delays are down to signalling and that the revised opening date is after the original completion date of December 2019 then surely there would be no reason why the new line couldn't all open in one go. The displays on the hoardings around the work sites have just been updated and show that the line will still open in stages. The Abbey Wood - Paddington service will be first. Then Shenfield trains will be added. |
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Dec 13, 2018 20:33:39 GMT
One wonders if it will still open in phases. If you assume that the majority of the delays are down to signalling and that the revised opening date is after the original completion date of December 2019 then surely there would be no reason why the new line couldn't all open in one go. Well, if it is over-budget & opens in stages, it won't be the first railway to do tose things-most of the original main lines did, because the companies either had to raise more dosh through a further share issue, or their engineer had a penchant for spending the company's money like a sailor on shore leave-step forward I K-B & the GWR!! If it does open in stages regardless, be interesting to see which part opens first. I would hope as much of the central section as possible, as it would then relieve pinch-points/bottlenecks on other lines and not start pouring even more people towards an already-overcrowded zone. I did say hope, rather than expect. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 13, 2018 22:53:36 GMT
One wonders if it will still open in phases. If you assume that the majority of the delays are down to signalling and that the revised opening date is after the original completion date of December 2019 then surely there would be no reason why the new line couldn't all open in one go. It's pretty clear that the staged opening will be preserved. The next stage has to be Paddington - Abbey Wood as the effort is all concentrated on getting CBTC signalling to work. It makes little sense not to break the back of that work and get it working. A side consequence of doing that is that the transition points between signalling systems at Pudding Mill Lane and Westbourne Park are also being tested (for ECS workings from Ilford / OOC depots). Also the way the train software is being done requires the core to work and be debugged before the next iteration to cope with ETCS in the Heathrow tunnels can be produced. That seems to be a fixed sequence in the briefing documents I've read. The next question is how quickly you can pull in stage 4 (Shenfield route into the core) and stage 5 (GWML into the core and much enhanced service levels). In a Crossrail briefing document linked to in a new London Reconnections article that sequence was still preserved but there was optioneering about the timescales between each stage. A big concern is to get to stage 5 quickly because it pulls in a lot of revenue. The new TfL business plan suggests TfL want to run services to Reading as soon as possible and GWR must be planning on surrendering services in December 2019 as per the original Crossrail plan. Alongside everything else that isn't understood is when class 345s can access the Heathrow tunnels and also when Network Rail can reschedule the platform works at Liv St mainline to lengthen them for 9 car 345s to use them (for the residual peak direction only service into the surface station). That also has implications for what services Greater Anglia can run and they have ambitious franchise obligations. If Crossrail delays the delivery of those then a claim goes straight into the DfT and that's another bill for TfL and DfT to have to sort out. Similar issues may exist out west with the timing of GWR timetable changes but the saving grace is that TfL do have a fleet of trains ready to go and drivers being trained. I think it is too risky to try to open the entire route in one go. There is simply too much that go wrong with such an approach and I strongly suspect Network Rail and DfT would TfL to get lost f they tried such a radical change in one go. Crossrail's reputation is damaged enough and the only hope of restoring it a little bit is to get a viable programme, to deliver it and then run as reliable a service as possible (there will inevitably be breakdowns and sneering headlines but best to have those where there are ready travel alternatives in the early days). That's my view of things. |
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on Dec 15, 2018 13:49:53 GMT
Interesting TfL have suggested looking at the phase 5 services as starting ahead of the Core ( but terminating at Paddington) as a way to offset thé loss of passenger income. As if they don't take over the GWR stoppers then that might affect the release of the 387 which would delay the shutting of the Hex Depot and delay HS2 construction. However the issue with that if fitting 9 car 345s into Paddington as there isn't room I'm told did to them being to long for the currently use platforms.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Dec 15, 2018 14:40:10 GMT
I don't think there are any issues with length at Paddington mainline (unlike Liverpool Street mainline)? There are some curvature issues these aren't any different to those encountered with 7-car trains. If there are though then they could run 7-car trains out to Reading. For Crossrail's signalling issues, it's basically irrelevant how far west a train starts - it only matters whether it takes the high or low routes at Royal Oak.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 15, 2018 15:11:34 GMT
I don't think there are any issues with length at Paddington mainline (unlike Liverpool Street mainline)? There are some curvature issues these aren't any different to those encountered with 7-car trains. If there are though then they could run 7-car trains out to Reading. For Crossrail's signalling issues, it's basically irrelevant how far west a train starts - it only matters whether it takes the high or low routes at Royal Oak. Given 9 car units were only ever supposed to run out west, even in this early phase, then there clearly isn't an issue at Paddington. We've only seen 7 cars because access to Heathrow wasn't ready due to signalling problems and also, even in degraded timetable mode, the bay platform at Hayes and Harlington wasn't ready for 9 cars either. I've read elsewhere that the bay should have come into use on 9 December thus allowing 9 car 345s to be used. That would release 7 cars to the Shenfield route. TfL took the decision to take on the class 360s from Heathrow Connect as they're the only "spare" trains that could access Heathrow using the old BR-ATP equipment. There shouldn't be an issue with 9 car 345s running to Reading and terminating at Paddington assuming that GWR relinquish the paths that was always the plan come December 2019. The question I don't know the answer to is whether Paddington surface can handle the envisaged frequency that was due to be run from Dec 2019. If I was to make a wild guess then possibly not - 4 tph to Reading and 6 tph into Heathrow (IIRC). |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Dec 15, 2018 15:30:17 GMT
Wouldn't a 7car running under ATP be yet another software iteration. I think they're best just sticking to what they have.
|
|
|
|
Post by greggygreggygreg on Dec 15, 2018 18:25:38 GMT
As much PR as there is about the Elizabeth line there will be plenty of people who will be expecting to go from Sheffield to central London direct this December Crossrail is going to Sheffield!? Which zone is Sheffield in? |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Dec 15, 2018 19:31:01 GMT
Crossrail is going to Sheffield!? Which zone is Sheffield in? West Riding  <hums Ilkey Moor baht 'at> [cough] On topic please, we can all make typos/autocorrects from time to time! |
|
|
|
Post by Jerome H on Dec 16, 2018 4:59:23 GMT
Which zone is Sheffield in? West Riding <hums Ilkey Moor baht 'at> [cough] On topic please, we can all make typos/autocorrects from time to time! I'm happy that my little typo has managed to keep people chuckling for 6 months now. Although I suspect this Crossrail launch might beat that record. That said, I do feel for the folks who've managed to get parts of this project completed on time, yet won't receive any praise since it's an all or nothing affair. |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Dec 16, 2018 8:05:33 GMT
I don't think there are any issues with length at Paddington mainline (unlike Liverpool Street mainline)? There are some curvature issues these aren't any different to those encountered with 7-car trains. If there are though then they could run 7-car trains out to Reading. For Crossrail's signalling issues, it's basically irrelevant how far west a train starts - it only matters whether it takes the high or low routes at Royal Oak. Given 9 car units were only ever supposed to run out west, even in this early phase, then there clearly isn't an issue at Paddington. We've only seen 7 cars because access to Heathrow wasn't ready due to signalling problems and also, even in degraded timetable mode, the bay platform at Hayes and Harlington wasn't ready for 9 cars either. I've read elsewhere that the bay should have come into use on 9 December thus allowing 9 car 345s to be used. That would release 7 cars to the Shenfield route. TfL took the decision to take on the class 360s from Heathrow Connect as they're the only "spare" trains that could access Heathrow using the old BR-ATP equipment. There shouldn't be an issue with 9 car 345s running to Reading and terminating at Paddington assuming that GWR relinquish the paths that was always the plan come December 2019. The question I don't know the answer to is whether Paddington surface can handle the envisaged frequency that was due to be run from Dec 2019. If I was to make a wild guess then possibly not - 4 tph to Reading and 6 tph into Heathrow (IIRC). The bay at Hayes & Harlington has been capable of taking 9 car trains for some time. Unfortunately if a train can't access it there is nowhere west of there to turn a 9 car train at present where the drivers have route knowledge. I have seen a comment from Ian Prosser that 9 car trains are not authorised at present. |
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on Dec 16, 2018 12:19:04 GMT
I don't think there are any issues with length at Paddington mainline (unlike Liverpool Street mainline)? There are some curvature issues these aren't any different to those encountered with 7-car trains. If there are though then they could run 7-car trains out to Reading. For Crossrail's signalling issues, it's basically irrelevant how far west a train starts - it only matters whether it takes the high or low routes at Royal Oak. Given 9 car units were only ever supposed to run out west, even in this early phase, then there clearly isn't an issue at Paddington. We've only seen 7 cars because access to Heathrow wasn't ready due to signalling problems and also, even in degraded timetable mode, the bay platform at Hayes and Harlington wasn't ready for 9 cars either. I've read elsewhere that the bay should have come into use on 9 December thus allowing 9 car 345s to be used. That would release 7 cars to the Shenfield route. TfL took the decision to take on the class 360s from Heathrow Connect as they're the only "spare" trains that could access Heathrow using the old BR-ATP equipment. There shouldn't be an issue with 9 car 345s running to Reading and terminating at Paddington assuming that GWR relinquish the paths that was always the plan come December 2019. The question I don't know the answer to is whether Paddington surface can handle the envisaged frequency that was due to be run from Dec 2019. If I was to make a wild guess then possibly not - 4 tph to Reading and 6 tph into Heathrow (IIRC). There's issue at Paddington as it can cope with 4tph but not any more. The platforms the stoppers use are too short for 9 car 345 as an 8 car 387 are used at present. The main way they could take the 9 car 345s is take platforms from GWR which I told means they can't run the full service. |
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on Dec 16, 2018 12:20:06 GMT
Given 9 car units were only ever supposed to run out west, even in this early phase, then there clearly isn't an issue at Paddington. We've only seen 7 cars because access to Heathrow wasn't ready due to signalling problems and also, even in degraded timetable mode, the bay platform at Hayes and Harlington wasn't ready for 9 cars either. I've read elsewhere that the bay should have come into use on 9 December thus allowing 9 car 345s to be used. That would release 7 cars to the Shenfield route. TfL took the decision to take on the class 360s from Heathrow Connect as they're the only "spare" trains that could access Heathrow using the old BR-ATP equipment. There shouldn't be an issue with 9 car 345s running to Reading and terminating at Paddington assuming that GWR relinquish the paths that was always the plan come December 2019. The question I don't know the answer to is whether Paddington surface can handle the envisaged frequency that was due to be run from Dec 2019. If I was to make a wild guess then possibly not - 4 tph to Reading and 6 tph into Heathrow (IIRC). The bay at Hayes & Harlington has been capable of taking 9 car trains for some time. Unfortunately if a train can't access it there is nowhere west of there to turn a 9 car train at present where the drivers have route knowledge. I have seen a comment from Ian Prosser that 9 car trains are not authorised at present. Platform extensions are not signed off so cannot be used. Not quite sure what the hold up is. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Dec 17, 2018 21:39:20 GMT
I don't think there are any issues with length at Paddington mainline (unlike Liverpool Street mainline)? There are some curvature issues these aren't any different to those encountered with 7-car trains. If there are though then they could run 7-car trains out to Reading. For Crossrail's signalling issues, it's basically irrelevant how far west a train starts - it only matters whether it takes the high or low routes at Royal Oak. In another thread it was quite clearly stated that 9 car crossrail stock could not be used to Hayes as the platforms they use at Paddington are too short and that it was not possible to re-platform said trains without wrecking the GWR timetable as the longer platforms are fully utilised.
As such Paddington station in general does have length issues* - the question is what bits of it do GWRs Thames Valley services currently use and how long are those platforms?
If those platforms are also restricted in length then it will effectively prevent a takeover of GWR services by TfL untill Paddington low level is open, if however said GWR services currently use platforms long enough for HST sets or 12 car Electrostars then clearly there would be no issue in 9 car crossrail trains taking over in December.
* and its far from alone in this respect. Waterloo used to vary between 8 and 14 Mk1 coaches depending on which bit of the station you were talking about while Victoria (Eastern) also has a mix of lengths. Liverpool Street also has a combination of long and short platforms, as does Kings Cross etc.....
This sort of problem is of course not one TfL usually have to consider what with all their trains on any given line usually being exactly the same in terms of length, etc
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2018 22:27:44 GMT
The only short platform at Paddington is 14 which can take an 8 car 387, there may be restrictions on using platform 6.
Hayes bay is 200 meters which could be tight fit for a 9 car 345 it could be done if the signal is off the platform.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Dec 18, 2018 0:19:40 GMT
Isn't the entire point of Hayes Bay that it can take 9-car 345s?
|
|
|
|
Post by kesmet on Dec 18, 2018 0:47:24 GMT
The bay at Hayes & Harlington has been capable of taking 9 car trains for some time. Unfortunately if a train can't access it there is nowhere west of there to turn a 9 car train at present where the drivers have route knowledge. I have seen a comment from Ian Prosser that 9 car trains are not authorised at present. Platform extensions are not signed off so cannot be used. Not quite sure what the hold up is. I've asked this before, but there wasn't a reply. So, purely in the cause of curiosity, and because the topic has cropped up again, I'll ask again in a different way: Where do the 7-car trains turn if the bay is not available? Presumably they have passengers disembark at one of the through platforms, but then what happens? (I'm not criticising the previous lack of answer, by the way - no-one is *required* to respond on this forum, after all!) |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 18, 2018 14:27:34 GMT
Platform extensions are not signed off so cannot be used. Not quite sure what the hold up is. I've asked this before, but there wasn't a reply. So, purely in the cause of curiosity, and because the topic has cropped up again, I'll ask again in a different way: Where do the 7-car trains turn if the bay is not available? Presumably they have passengers disembark at one of the through platforms, but then what happens? (I'm not criticising the previous lack of answer, by the way - no-one is *required* to respond on this forum, after all!) I think this has cropped up on another forum. My not 100% recollection of the answer is that if the bay is not accessible then the Padd - Hayes & H shuttle service is cancelled because there is nowhere else that is cleared for trains to reverse in or where all drivers are cleared to drive 345s to. That includes the West Drayton and Maidenhead turnbacks. I know that leaves open the question about what happens if a failure occurs when an in service train reaches the crossover at Hayes and Harlington but I don't know what the answer to that scenario is. If I was to make a wild guess as to why platform extensions are not available for use I'd hazard a guess at platform / train interface issues. The fact that several stations are building sites with or without work happening doesn't help either as PTI conditions will be subject to ongoing change. Ensuring you have camera positions that are not going to be affected by substantive works over a long period is a tough challenge. It's not impossible to resolve but it's not easy either. As ever I am happy to be corrected if people know the facts rather than my speculative musing! |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Dec 18, 2018 17:00:17 GMT
I think this has cropped up on another forum. It may have done, but it also cropped up on this forum a little while back: The bay road can take 9 car trains. It was completed just before the 345s were introduced. However, Network Rail will not allow it to be used on the route until the Heathrow issues are resolved. This is because there would be nowhere to go if access to the bay road wasn't possible. What? Are they serious? TfL and MTR must be furious. If push came to shove surely a 9 car 345 could run to Maidenhead and use the new sidings there? Far from ideal I know but the Heathrow branch issues may not be resolved for ages yet given the collapse of the overall Crossrail programme and the impact that could have on GWR's cascade of stock to allow their takeover of HEX services. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2018 15:11:06 GMT
You can turn a train at platform 4 (up relief) at Hayes and Harlington and also Platform 1 (Down Main)
|
|
