|
|
Post by jimbo on Oct 3, 2020 1:42:17 GMT
Finance Committee Date: 30 September 2020 Item: Update on Funding Negotiations link "We are also in discussions with DfT in order to resolve the additional £1.1bn of funding that Crossrail Limited (CRL) have stated they need to complete the project, as this issue was deferred in the first half of the year. This is an becoming increasingly critical issue because, even though the £750m Loan Facility Agreement will not be exhausted in cash terms until March 2021, CRL will soon have committed all of its funds within the current £14.964bn funding envelope. At this point, the project will be no longer be able to make financial commitments and will be forced to shut down. This would have catastrophic consequences for the project’s progress, resulting in a significant, and a potentially permanent, loss of critical resources, significant claims and lengthy delays to completion of the project. There will also be additional costs – both of safely decommissioning the project, along with additional prolongation costs if the project is to be restarted at a later date." |
|
|
|
Post by revupminster on Oct 3, 2020 5:51:05 GMT
safely decommissioning the project-- is this a nuclear power station they building down there. This is one long fiasco. Crossrail 2 is doomed with the level of incompetence that still dogs this project.
|
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Oct 4, 2020 11:23:52 GMT
The decision to transfer governance of CrossRail to TFL does seem completely counter to previous D/Transport stance on mainline railways.
For years the Government have opposed all and any attempts by the mayor to take control of the suburban rail network in South and East London stressing Network Rail is in most cases the asset owner and Network Rail is responsible for its maintenance hence they are charging TOCS to operate services across those lines.
Apart from blame and cost liability tranfer, I really cannot see the logic of making TFL take over Crossrail.
Inherently CrossRail is simply a short bit of mainline tunnel/track linking exisiting mainline tracks to the east and west of the capital. So not massively different from ThamesLink.
The lines to the west and east have always been key elements of the national rail network and it makes you wonder if the real driver here is to dump the risk of all further cost increases onto TFL (at a time when they are financially distressed) whilst not even committing to provide the financial resources which are clearly going to be needed to get this cursed line operational and neatly allows Central Government (D/Transport) to wipe their hands and dodge responsibility for the chronic mess that CrossRail has become.
Yes the core section will operate platforms interconnected with various tube stations. But at no point will those connections actually entail trains passing onto the TFL network, those platforms simply allows passenger transfer, which happens perfectly happily at many other locations like the Bakerloo north of Queens Park without any need for TFL to accept responsibility for the non TFL activities.
Doubtless there are all sorts of interactions in the core, but it seems grossly unfair to dump TFL (and london rate payers) with the mess made by CrossRail contractors on what is essentially is a piece of mainline railway where at some future time Central Government could presumably just change their mind once again and decide to claw back those operations once they see the opportunity to create a new money making franchise (once TFL has done all the work necessary to finally get it operating profitably).
If I was TFL I would say thanks, but no thanks - without a massive gold plated commitment from D/Transport to fund the costs of delivering CrossRail.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 4, 2020 11:53:38 GMT
The decision to transfer governance of CrossRail to TFL does seem completely counter to previous D/Transport stance on mainline railways. . Wasn't that always the plan? |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 4, 2020 11:56:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Oct 4, 2020 13:31:25 GMT
The decision to transfer governance of CrossRail to TFL does seem completely counter to previous D/Transport stance on mainline railways. . Wasn't that always the plan? Yes which explains why the trains will be driven by MTR staff and the Central London stations will be operated with Underground staff. Outer London stations will be run by TfL Rail people. Indeed some already are. |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,197 
|
Post by Tom on Oct 4, 2020 18:24:41 GMT
Yes which explains why the trains will be driven by MTR staff and the Central London stations will be operated with Underground staff. Outer London stations will be run by TfL Rail people. Indeed some already are. If you look very closely, whilst the outer London stations are staffed by people in TfL Rail uniforms, wearing TfL Rail name badges, their staff ID badges show they're MTR Crossrail employees. None of the front-line staff providng TfL rail services are TfL employees. The contract with MTR, like the one with Arriva for London Overground, is a very tightly defined one which even details the uniform the staff are to wear, in order to promote the appearance of an integrated system. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Oct 4, 2020 19:29:52 GMT
Yes which explains why the trains will be driven by MTR staff and the Central London stations will be operated with Underground staff. Outer London stations will be run by TfL Rail people. Indeed some already are. If you look very closely, whilst the outer London stations are staffed by people in TfL Rail uniforms, wearing TfL Rail name badges, their staff ID badges show they're MTR Crossrail employees. None of the front-line staff providng TfL rail services are TfL employees. The contract with MTR, like the one with Arriva for London Overground, is a very tightly defined one which even details the uniform the staff are to wear, in order to promote the appearance of an integrated system. Which is why I used "people" rather than "staff". |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,197
|
Post by Tom on Oct 4, 2020 21:32:01 GMT
Good point - but worth remembering that in TfL management speak "our people" = "our staff" and it's easy for people to miss the subtlety.
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Oct 5, 2020 8:21:12 GMT
The decision to transfer governance of CrossRail to TFL does seem completely counter to previous D/Transport stance on mainline railways. For years the Government have opposed all and any attempts by the mayor to take control of the suburban rail network in South and East London stressing Network Rail is in most cases the asset owner and Network Rail is responsible for its maintenance hence they are charging TOCS to operate services across those lines. Apart from blame and cost liability tranfer, I really cannot see the logic of making TFL take over Crossrail. Inherently CrossRail is simply a short bit of mainline tunnel/track linking exisiting mainline tracks to the east and west of the capital. So not massively different from ThamesLink. The lines to the west and east have always been key elements of the national rail network and it makes you wonder if the real driver here is to dump the risk of all further cost increases onto TFL (at a time when they are financially distressed) whilst not even committing to provide the financial resources which are clearly going to be needed to get this cursed line operational and neatly allows Central Government (D/Transport) to wipe their hands and dodge responsibility for the chronic mess that CrossRail has become. Yes the core section will operate platforms interconnected with various tube stations. But at no point will those connections actually entail trains passing onto the TFL network, those platforms simply allows passenger transfer, which happens perfectly happily at many other locations like the Bakerloo north of Queens Park without any need for TFL to accept responsibility for the non TFL activities. Doubtless there are all sorts of interactions in the core, but it seems grossly unfair to dump TFL (and london rate payers) with the mess made by CrossRail contractors on what is essentially is a piece of mainline railway where at some future time Central Government could presumably just change their mind once again and decide to claw back those operations once they see the opportunity to create a new money making franchise (once TFL has done all the work necessary to finally get it operating profitably). If I was TFL I would say thanks, but no thanks - without a massive gold plated commitment from D/Transport to fund the costs of delivering CrossRail. A simple link between existing main-line railways, with no goods traffic, and no through running to anywhere else on the Underground network. How could it possibly have cost so much, for so little? |
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 5, 2020 8:45:10 GMT
brighamShort answer-this evolved from the simple idea of an East-West Tube line to relieve the Piccadilly & Central Lines into additional servicing of Heathrow & then two further lines at the East End. In other words, trying to create more and more passengers using TfL into Central London, as TfL wasn't even in existence when this idea was first mooted. It sort of growed, like Topsy, and any growth project will need feeding with money in the usual all-consuming Molochian way these things do.
|
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Oct 5, 2020 9:34:48 GMT
The decision to transfer governance of CrossRail to TFL does seem completely counter to previous D/Transport stance on mainline railways. For years the Government have opposed all and any attempts by the mayor to take control of the suburban rail network in South and East London stressing Network Rail is in most cases the asset owner and Network Rail is responsible for its maintenance hence they are charging TOCS to operate services across those lines. Apart from blame and cost liability tranfer, I really cannot see the logic of making TFL take over Crossrail. Inherently CrossRail is simply a short bit of mainline tunnel/track linking exisiting mainline tracks to the east and west of the capital. So not massively different from ThamesLink. The lines to the west and east have always been key elements of the national rail network and it makes you wonder if the real driver here is to dump the risk of all further cost increases onto TFL (at a time when they are financially distressed) whilst not even committing to provide the financial resources which are clearly going to be needed to get this cursed line operational and neatly allows Central Government (D/Transport) to wipe their hands and dodge responsibility for the chronic mess that CrossRail has become. Yes the core section will operate platforms interconnected with various tube stations. But at no point will those connections actually entail trains passing onto the TFL network, those platforms simply allows passenger transfer, which happens perfectly happily at many other locations like the Bakerloo north of Queens Park without any need for TFL to accept responsibility for the non TFL activities. Doubtless there are all sorts of interactions in the core, but it seems grossly unfair to dump TFL (and london rate payers) with the mess made by CrossRail contractors on what is essentially is a piece of mainline railway where at some future time Central Government could presumably just change their mind once again and decide to claw back those operations once they see the opportunity to create a new money making franchise (once TFL has done all the work necessary to finally get it operating profitably). If I was TFL I would say thanks, but no thanks - without a massive gold plated commitment from D/Transport to fund the costs of delivering CrossRail. A simple link between existing main-line railways, with no goods traffic, and no through running to anywhere else on the Underground network. How could it possibly have cost so much, for so little? Who said it was simple? |
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Oct 5, 2020 9:48:43 GMT
A simple link between existing main-line railways, with no goods traffic, and no through running to anywhere else on the Underground network. How could it possibly have cost so much, for so little? Just one example that suggests it is not a simple task. Joining the Underground stations at Liverpool Street and Moorgate including step free access to all areas and creating 200m long platforms under office buildings with basements then creating escalator and lift shafts, large ventilation and escape shafts. Integrating the old and new back of house systems. The complex is amazing in size and scope. |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Oct 5, 2020 11:11:09 GMT
Yes which explains why the trains will be driven by MTR staff and the Central London stations will be operated with Underground staff. Outer London stations will be run by TfL Rail people. Indeed some already are. If you look very closely, whilst the outer London stations are staffed by people in TfL Rail uniforms, wearing TfL Rail name badges, their staff ID badges show they're MTR Crossrail employees. None of the front-line staff providng TfL rail services are TfL employees. The contract with MTR, like the one with Arriva for London Overground, is a very tightly defined one which even details the uniform the staff are to wear, in order to promote the appearance of an integrated system. On the same theme, judging by the comment below what TfL are trying to do (make everyone think that TFL Rail / Crossrail / London Overground are as much theirs as the Underground, DLR and Trams) seems to be working. This comment was made on a film which shows Overground trains at Clapham Junction He says a lot more, including that he thinks the 378's are nicer inside than the S stock trains. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 5, 2020 17:09:04 GMT
A simple link between existing main-line railways, with no goods traffic, and no through running to anywhere else on the Underground network. How could it possibly have cost so much, for so little? It's not the Canal Tunnels, nor even the Gotthard Base tunnel. If it was just a tunnel between Pudding Mill Lane and Royal Oak, with no intermediate stations, and using conventional block signalling, it would have cost a lot less (and been completely useless). What's costing the money is the stations. Digging the railway line to connect them together was the easy bit. Indeed, if you forgot about the stations and just ran trains through it non-stop you could probably open it next month. |
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Oct 5, 2020 18:32:26 GMT
....the Govt realise they have now tamed this mayor and all future mayors by means of the Covid bail-out?
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Oct 6, 2020 8:20:02 GMT
This project has had so many 'extras' tacked on to it that it is no longer recognisable.
As a reminder, it started out as a grand scheme to link the railways of the 'Big Four' into an integrated, National network. It consisted of two main arteries running NW-SE and NE-SW across the bottleneck which is London. The cross-shape of the lines on the map gave the project its name, although unofficially at first.
The present project has become so inflexible, it can do virtually NONE of the things it was originally designed for.
After finding out that there is NO provision for goods traffic, I now discover that the stations on the central core have Platform Edge Doors. Great! Somebody's brilliant idea, no doubt; or would be, if British passenger trains had a standardised door layout. In fact, it's nothing more than a break-of-gauge.
The line links railways with a common track gauge, a common electrical supply system, and a common overall loading gauge. Why would anyone not build the link line to the same standards?
Even Brunel knew the break-of-gauge was an unmitigated evil; even Watkin and Forbes agreed.
It's as comical as the Metropolitan Inner Circle Completion Railway Company adopting 5'3"!
|
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Oct 6, 2020 9:09:02 GMT
Crossrail was always a link across London for suburban railways, equivalent to the RER in Paris; it was never a general purpose railway in the sense that you describe.
In today’s world, that means rapid transit timetables and consistency of stock; PEDs are just noise in the scheme of things.
And, if we compare the one true cross city mixed traffic railway that does exist - the Castlefield Corridor in Manchester - then that is hardly an advertisement for the benefits of that approach, whether nationally or locally.
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Oct 6, 2020 17:00:52 GMT
Crossrail was always a link across London for suburban railways, equivalent to the RER in Paris; it was never a general purpose railway in the sense that you describe... It clearly was as far as Peter Parker was concerned: "The link across London would provide through trains, cut-out inconvenient interchanges between train and underground or taxi, and thus save valuable time. It would help commuters from the outer suburbs of London and Inter-City travellers alike. It would make a journey from Peterborough to Portsmouth or Watford to Woking as straightforward as the London Underground already makes a ride from Barnet to Balham." The idea dates back to wartime, and the legendary railwayman and historian George Dow. His concept, for linking MAIN LINE railways across the London bottleneck, were discussed extensively at local government level in the immediately post-war era, and they invariably involved the easing of long journeys for both passengers and goods. The project has become debased, until it has become little more than a glorified CLR/Piccadilly Tube relief line; London's second 'Big Tube', built to main-line dimensions and, like the first one, not accessible to main-line trains. A subtle and expensive exercise in achieving maximum inflexibility. |
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Oct 6, 2020 17:09:57 GMT
Crossrail was always a link across London for suburban railways, equivalent to the RER in Paris; it was never a general purpose railway in the sense that you describe... It clearly was as far as Peter Parker was concerned: "The link across London would provide through trains, cut-out inconvenient interchanges between train and underground or taxi, and thus save valuable time. It would help commuters from the outer suburbs of London and Inter-City travellers alike. It would make a journey from Peterborough to Portsmouth or Watford to Woking as straightforward as the London Underground already makes a ride from Barnet to Balham." The idea dates back to wartime, and the legendary railwayman and historian George Dow. His concept, for linking MAIN LINE railways across the London bottleneck, were discussed extensively at local government level in the immediately post-war era, and they invariably involved the easing of long journeys for both passengers and goods. The project has become debased, until it has become little more than a glorified CLR/Piccadilly Tube relief line; London's second 'Big Tube', built to main-line dimensions and, like the first one, not accessible to main-line trains. A subtle and expensive exercise in achieving maximum inflexibility. Those ideas may have been promoted by some, but “Crossrail” as a buildable concept owes little to that vision, and has long been promoted as an RER. While we can debate which lines should have been joined, what we have with Crossrail and Thameslink is precisely the concept Peter Parker outlined, even if we may need Crossrail 2 before connection to the LSW. And even there, the experience of Thameslink shows that the complexity of the grander visions is not entirely desirable, as it allows different waves of disruption to amass, instead of keeping them apart. And while I respect George Dow and have his history of the GCR on a shelf behind me, I stand by my sense of relief that his vision, as considered post WWII, did not come about, given the salutary tale provided by Manchester. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Oct 6, 2020 17:39:31 GMT
When I've seen trains running in the tunnels they look very like main line trains.
The platforms are so long that effective passenger safety control requires platform edge screens.
In case people haven't noticed some class 319s have been converted to carry packages on pallets into Liverpool Street. Presumably these could be extended through the tunnels.
Sorry about the wait but the project will come together.
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Oct 6, 2020 17:49:31 GMT
I happened to be in Ilford today at a time when it was possible to see significant activity underway - see tweet below...
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Oct 6, 2020 18:09:10 GMT
When I've seen trains running in the tunnels they look very like main line trains. The platforms are so long that effective passenger safety control requires platform edge screens. In case people haven't noticed some class 319s have been converted to carry packages on pallets into Liverpool Street. Presumably these could be extended through the tunnels. Sorry about the wait but the project will come together. There are much longer platforms on the ECML, none of which have platform edge doors. I'm sure the same applies throughout the National Network. Can someone list the number of classes of train currently on NR register which can pass through the new link? I'm thinking it isn't going to be many. I'll start the list with 319s... |
|
|
|
Post by johnlinford on Oct 6, 2020 18:14:15 GMT
Perhaps I've missed something but, timetabling and track ownership aside, is there any physical reason any train with a suitably qualified driver, suitable traction system and suitable signalling equipment couldn't run through the tunnels (stopping at stations would require platform edge door alignment, but through-running as a shortcut wouldn't)?
|
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Oct 6, 2020 18:27:58 GMT
Perhaps I've missed something but, timetabling and track ownership aside, is there any physical reason any train with a suitably qualified driver, suitable traction system and suitable signalling equipment couldn't run through the tunnels (stopping at stations would require platform edge door alignment, but through-running as a shortcut wouldn't)? I think they’re a number of pretty good reasons! As for loading gauge, I don’t believe it’s a particularly restrictive gauge - certainly not compared with Thameslink. |
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Oct 6, 2020 18:28:38 GMT
When I've seen trains running in the tunnels they look very like main line trains. The platforms are so long that effective passenger safety control requires platform edge screens. In case people haven't noticed some class 319s have been converted to carry packages on pallets into Liverpool Street. Presumably these could be extended through the tunnels. Sorry about the wait but the project will come together. There are much longer platforms on the ECML, none of which have platform edge doors. I'm sure the same applies throughout the National Network. Can someone list the number of classes of train currently on NR register which can pass through the new link? I'm thinking it isn't going to be many. I'll start the list with 319s... I don’t think they’re on it. At the moment, I think you’ll find classes 345 and 66. |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Oct 6, 2020 20:55:59 GMT
There are much longer platforms on the ECML, none of which have platform edge doors. I'm sure the same applies throughout the National Network. Can someone list the number of classes of train currently on NR register which can pass through the new link? I'm thinking it isn't going to be many. I'll start the list with 319s... I don’t think they’re on it. At the moment, I think you’ll find classes 345 and 66. The portion of line owned by TfL (and in tunnel) will use CBTC signalling and therefore only suitably equipped trains will be able to travel along it under normal circumstances. I suppose that if the route was closed to passenger services and operated under the same rules that allow non CBTC equipped trains to travel on the LU lines which also have automated train control signalling, then just about anything that is physically in gauge could travel through the tunnels. Even perhaps "kettles on wheels"!! Erm, who wants to seek permission for a late night steam special hauled by Tornado? I wonder if Tornado would also unintentionally activate the station fire alarms? After all if Class 66 diesel locos are allowed in these tunnels, even though they also vent waste gases into the tunnel atmosphere ...... so why not steam? |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Oct 6, 2020 23:36:22 GMT
The Crossrail core has non-standard platform heights, this may well affect other stock.
I suspect during construction parts of the fire alarm system will be disabled after an appropriate permit is issued.
Crossrail will probably want a lot of money before allowing a pressure vessel and to be conveyed on their line
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Oct 7, 2020 7:43:52 GMT
...All of which proves the point: It ISN'T compatible with the National Network, and the reason for that is simple:
At some point in the scheme's development, it stopped being a main-line railway, as Peter Parker described it, and turned into 'London's Newest Tube', to use a previous line's marketing tag.
I wonder how much time and money would have been saved, had it been built as such in the first place? Perhaps not much, a bigger hole being just a smaller one on a bigger scale.
Who knows? Anyway, London got another prestige new transport development, so who cares?
|
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Oct 7, 2020 7:53:35 GMT
...All of which proves the point: It ISN'T compatible with the National Network, and the reason for that is simple: At some point in the scheme's development, it stopped being a main-line railway, as Peter Parker described it, and turned into 'London's Newest Tube', to use a previous line's marketing tag. I wonder how much time and money would have been saved, had it been built as such in the first place? Perhaps not much, a bigger hole being just a smaller one on a bigger scale. Who knows? Anyway, London got another prestige new transport development, so who cares? Some money, some time - and it would have just been a duplicate line. What Crossrail does do, in a way that the cockeyed Bakerloo extension to Hayes does not, is take suburban rail into the centre of London, and break the need to change for many travellers. The Dow vision of Crossrail is a mainline option is one we should be glad never came about, and we would now be debating how it could reliably deliver capacity with all the disruption of multiple routes and mixed train types. |
|
