|
Post by 35b on Sept 6, 2018 20:13:31 GMT
Meanwhile, a very interesting article on London Reconnections today which suggests that even if the testing hadn’t been an issue, stations would.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 6, 2018 21:55:06 GMT
Meanwhile, a very interesting article on London Reconnections today which suggests that even if the testing hadn’t been an issue, stations would. Exactly. There are multiple issues but in essence physical construction at stations is late that then delays fit out, commissioning and testing. Continued work on stations restricts what can be done on the track. The loss of testing time after the substation explosion combined with a number of issues including reduced hours of testing, low productivity during testing, immature software development and more time needed for resolution. Terry Morgan also told the Assembly this morning that when they mitigated one risk they found other risks emerging. It therefore got to the point, despite multiple attempts at risk mitigation and programme revision, that they had to conclude that they had run out of time to provide a railway that was operable, safe and reliable. The Crossrail CEO also confirmed the sequence of operational testing and familiarisation, shadow timetable operation and trial operations would take several months. Crossrail Ltd had an independent assessment made of remaining work vs time to assist them and Sponsors in understanding the issues. The bit that was a bit bizarre is that the way the Crossrail governance structure works the Mayor only knew a day or two before the public statement was made of the delay. It seems Crossrail Ltd has had years of very considerable "room for manoeuvre" in respect of its own decision making without needing frequent cross checks / approvals from Sponsors. The Mayor's comment on this suggested he wasn't particularly happy with the arrangement but it was too late to change it. While it is very disappointing to have a delay it is reassuring that the management team and Crossrail Board had the "b*lls" to take the difficult decision in time.
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Sept 17, 2018 10:15:30 GMT
One question - would it be possible to start the Paddington to Reading service early as the trains are available?
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Sept 17, 2018 10:53:15 GMT
One question - would it be possible to start the Paddington to Reading service early as the trains are available? The trains would need to use the existing high-level platforms at Paddington, i wouldn't think paths are available for them.
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Sept 17, 2018 10:58:41 GMT
One question - would it be possible to start the Paddington to Reading service early as the trains are available? The trains would need to use the existing high-level platforms at Paddington, i wouldn't think paths are available for them. Can they not be turned around more quickly in those platforms?
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 17, 2018 12:51:41 GMT
There have been Paddington-Reading services since 1840. Is Crossrail not simply going to take over existing paths?
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Sept 17, 2018 13:40:44 GMT
There have been Paddington-Reading services since 1840. Is Crossrail not simply going to take over existing paths? They took over the Heathrow Connect paths, not the GWR ones.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 17, 2018 15:35:51 GMT
There have been Paddington-Reading services since 1840. Is Crossrail not simply going to take over existing paths? I thought the GWML service was subject to a timetable recast at some point fairly soon? That, if I understand comments made elsewhere, provides the building blocks for the later transfer of elements of the GWR suburban services to later switch to be Crossrail services while allowing GWR to retain an off peak semi fast Reading to Paddington service. I doubt Paddington has enough space for TfL to take over all GWR suburban peak services as there are issues with platform lengths / stepping gaps for 9 car class 345s. Is there also a potential issue arising from Crossrail's delay that may put in jeopardy GWR's ability to release class 387s to take over HEX services? I may have that wrong as I'm not entirely certain on the detailed timing of that transfer. Also delays to transfer of services causes problems for TfL, DfT and GWR in terms of their respective contracts and assumed costs and revenues. Alongside everything else that's up for debate / reconsideration we have yet another franchise / concession contract set of issues to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by occasionaltraveller on Sept 17, 2018 16:37:18 GMT
I believe GWR were due a timetable recast in December, but that has now been deferred to next May to ensure that Network Rail have enough time to plan the timetable properly - preventing a repeat of the Thameslink debacle.
That said, there's no real reason that TfL couldn't take over the GWR suburbans in December 2018 as planned, running into Paddington High Level (though probably now branded TfL Rail rather than Elizabeth Line). These would be the all-stops services: GWR retain the semi-fasts. That then releases 387s for refitting as an airport service rather than commuter rail.
The deadline for 387s to Heathrow is end of 2019, because that's when the current Heathrow Express depot at Old Oak Common is due to be demolished to make way for HS2.
387s may also be the only solution to the Heathrow tunnels signalling issue. If GW ATP and ETCS really can't be made to co-operate, get ETCS working on the 387 (which is supposed to support it), then one night cut over to the new signalling and relaunch Heathrow Express with the new trains. It saves getting permission from the Office of Rail and Road to retrofit the tunnels with AWS+TPWS.
GWR have contracted with Porterbrook to lease 19x 4-car Class 769 Flex, which is a Class 319 (ex-Thameslink) retrofitted with diesel engines as a 'tri-mode', retaining its pantograph and third-rail shoes. The press release stated that these would be used from spring 2019 to cover for 387s while being refurbished. However, the project is running late: the first one of the original 8-unit order for Northern has only just left Wabtec (who are doing the conversion) for initial testing. Spring 2019 is looking unlikely!
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Sept 19, 2018 7:28:00 GMT
Today’s Board Meeting at City Hall gives a pathetic (or very telling) two pages to Crossrail regurgitating what has already been picked up on by those on this forum and London Reconnections.
Section 2 is set to be very well used this time round.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 19, 2018 13:18:03 GMT
Today’s Board Meeting at City Hall gives a pathetic (or very telling) two pages to Crossrail regurgitating what has already been picked up on by those on this forum and London Reconnections. Section 2 is set to be very well used this time round. At the Transport Cttee session last week Sir Terry Morgan confirmed that Crossrail Ltd Board meeting papers would be released and published for future meetings. He did, though, warn that the papers would be subject to some redaction because those Board meeting have no "part one / part two" structure unlike local government ones. He also wryly noted that there would be obvious pressure to minimise the level of redaction. This was in response to the very pointed remarks Heidi Alexander, Deputy Mayor for Transport, made about the project's governance structure and her saying "if we were starting a project like this now I would not have the governance structure that was used for Crossrail". She added "giving flexibility and autonomy is fine when things go well but it doesn't work when things go wrong and people demand to know why action was taken earlier to prevent a waste of public money". If Crossrail 2 ever happens I expect there to be some fun and games between DfT and City Hall as to how governance and transparency work for that project. TfL Board Papers haven't been saying very much about Crossrail for many months. The transition update papers have also stopped which reflects that the transition to an operating railway ain't happening any time soon. It also poses some interesting issues about those activities which have already moved from Crossrail to TfL - will TfL be able to resource a higher than anticipated level of Crossrail related works given the extended duration of the project?
|
|
|
Post by revupminster on Sept 20, 2018 17:18:26 GMT
The GWR timetable in January for InterCity trains is expected to be the same as for HST without the accelerated timings the electric trains would have given. They are having lots of problems with the 800's and 802's but most of the HST's will be gone by then.
Electric locals to Newbury, The Devon Metro, and the half hour service between Exeter and Penzance is expected to start as planned.
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Sept 21, 2018 12:05:43 GMT
The slow lines are handled by Class 387s and Networkers though.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 26, 2018 13:48:51 GMT
Courtesy of a Diamond Geezer tweet it seems TfL has called an emergency Finance Committee meeting tomorrow to deal with "Crossrail funding" issues with the Government. There is very little detail but I wonder if TfL are having to make emergency cuts to their main budget or draw on extra borrowing to meet their share of the extra extra [1] funding? content.tfl.gov.uk/fc-20180927-agenda-crl.pdf[1] by this I mean extra on top of the July funding statement where TfL have to fork out tens of millions extra.
|
|
|
Post by jukes on Sept 26, 2018 16:05:30 GMT
Courtesy of a Diamond Geezer tweet it seems TfL has called an emergency Finance Committee meeting tomorrow to deal with "Crossrail funding" issues with the Government. There is very little detail but I wonder if TfL are having to make emergency cuts to their main budget or draw on extra borrowing to meet their share of the extra extra [1] funding? content.tfl.gov.uk/fc-20180927-agenda-crl.pdf[1] by this I mean extra on top of the July funding statement where TfL have to fork out tens of millions extra. The original Crossrail budget agreed in 2007 was £15.9b. In 2010 as an emergency measure by the Treasury, without any consultation and based upon no concrete evidence whatsoever, the Treasury arbitrarily cut £1.1b from the budget despite being told by DfT and TfL that it was too much, especially as actual construction work had only started 11-months earlier! So the revised budget was £14.8b. A few weeks ago it was announced that the budget would increase from £14.8b to £15.4b of which £300m was going directly to NR. However, it would not surprise me if DfT were trying to offset some of that against the TfL budget rather than central funding. It's also possible that because of factors beyond the control of TfL, some addition funding is needed and DfT are trying to force more out of TfL. There is a lot of scuttlebutt around that DfT are (having already cut the £700m revenue grant) trying to force TfL to pay most if not all from its own crippled budget. The talk is that DfT want TfL to defer the new tube programme (other than the Piccadilly Line) by a further 10-years (at least) as they don't consider the Bakerloo, Central and W&C Lines as in desperate need of new trains!
|
|
|
Post by rtt1928 on Sept 26, 2018 17:35:32 GMT
Do the DfT want three lines of the London Underground to be out of commission as the existing rolling stock is beyond economic repair and maintenance and cannot be replaced
(Apologies if this is taking things off topic)
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 26, 2018 17:35:52 GMT
The original Crossrail budget agreed in 2007 was £15.9b. In 2010 as an emergency measure by the Treasury, without any consultation and based upon no concrete evidence whatsoever, the Treasury arbitrarily cut £1.1b from the budget despite being told by DfT and TfL that it was too much, especially as actual construction work had only started 11-months earlier! So the revised budget was £14.8b. A few weeks ago it was announced that the budget would increase from £14.8b to £15.4b of which £300m was going directly to NR. However, it would not surprise me if DfT were trying to offset some of that against the TfL budget rather than central funding. It's also possible that because of factors beyond the control of TfL, some addition funding is needed and DfT are trying to force more out of TfL. There is a lot of scuttlebutt around that DfT are (having already cut the £700m revenue grant) trying to force TfL to pay most if not all from its own crippled budget. The talk is that DfT want TfL to defer the new tube programme (other than the Piccadilly Line) by a further 10-years (at least) as they don't consider the Bakerloo, Central and W&C Lines as in desperate need of new trains! Not surprised by those suggestions. It is clearly a very unsubtle way of trying to undermine the Mayor's policies and create an enormous crisis by 2020 which removes his ability to do anything on fares after 2020. As I've said before the fares freeze is a ridiculous policy when inflation remains an important factor in the cost base of TfL. However several government decisions and actions by Tory local authorities are part of a wider agenda to remove flexibility from TfL that would not be removed if there was a Tory mayor in charge. It's really cr*ppy politics but that's no great shock. Nice to see we're back in the worst days of the 1980s when it comes to funding line upgrades. We'll be burning people to death in tube stations next. (and yes that's in somewhat poor taste before someone has a go but these decisions about not funding maintenance and investment properly have consequences ... eventually).
|
|
|
Post by jukes on Sept 26, 2018 21:17:30 GMT
Do the DfT want three lines of the London Underground to be out of commission as the existing rolling stock is beyond economic repair and maintenance and cannot be replaced (Apologies if this is taking things off topic) Well the DfT can argue that the 92 stock on the Central and W&C is only just over half its design-life of 40-years. They could also argue that the Bakerloo is not the most heavily trafficked or strategically important line and could survive with a reduced level of service for perhaps an additional 5-years beyond the original programme replacement date.
|
|
|
Post by rtt1928 on Sept 27, 2018 5:23:01 GMT
Do the DfT want three lines of the London Underground to be out of commission as the existing rolling stock is beyond economic repair and maintenance and cannot be replaced (Apologies if this is taking things off topic) Well the DfT can argue that the 92 stock on the Central and W&C is only just over half its design-life of 40-years. They could also argue that the Bakerloo is not the most heavily trafficked or strategically important line and could survive with a reduced level of service for perhaps an additional 5-years beyond the original programme replacement date. They could conceivably employ that argument, but the result would be a massive own goal for them given the state of TfL’s finances and the potential of diminished passenger numbers on the lines concerned.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Sept 27, 2018 17:12:55 GMT
Whilst the old adage of no smoke without fire may apply here, I think it a bit early to assume that rumours of cuts are facts.
Obviously if the foregoing proves correct, it appears that once again Londoners are being caught up in the undeclared hatred (war) between Tories and Labour politicians.
Meantime no amount of finger pointing and buck passing will get Crossrail up and running any quicker, and indeed this current spat is probably going to make things worse.
What worries me most is the implication in those rumours, that some officially politically neutral Civil Servants at DoT are complicit in politically motivated decisions. Sadly it will be 25 years before we find out what really went on and whether any DFT officials stepped the wrong side of the line and can be held to account.
Almost inevitably behind the scenes HM Treasury is pulling the strings. One might suspect their focus is not on railways, health or pretty much anything else at the moment except having enough cash in the kitty to handle the potential aftermath of 29 March 2019. At least that is one decision the public did have their say on, even if it means having to kick down the road plans for spending on new tube trains, mainline electrification projects and indeed plenty of other very sensible public infrastructure plans at least until HMS Britain finds calm waters.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Sept 27, 2018 20:22:05 GMT
Do the DfT want three lines of the London Underground to be out of commission as the existing rolling stock is beyond economic repair and maintenance and cannot be replaced (Apologies if this is taking things off topic)
No, they want to engineer a situation where the current Labour Mayor gets booted out of office by frustrated commuters in favour of a Conservative, or at the very least the current incumbent is forced to abandon his policy of freezing fares where he can and come back into line with national policy of RPI + 1%
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 27, 2018 23:07:07 GMT
Whilst the old adage of no smoke without fire may apply here, I think it a bit early to assume that rumours of cuts are facts. Obviously if the foregoing proves correct, it appears that once again Londoners are being caught up in the undeclared hatred (war) between Tories and Labour politicians. Meantime no amount of finger pointing and buck passing will get Crossrail up and running any quicker, and indeed this current spat is probably going to make things worse. What worries me most is the implication in those rumours, that some officially politically neutral Civil Servants at DoT are complicit in politically motivated decisions. Sadly it will be 25 years before we find out what really went on and whether any DFT officials stepped the wrong side of the line and can be held to account. Not sure anyone is assuming that rumours are facts. What I have detected is a general "direction of travel" in terms of how government and Treasury are dealing with the current Mayoralty. It is also worth noting that TfL themselves have axed hundreds of millions from capital investment and that maintenance spend is also reduced at a budgetary level and even lower than Budget in terms of actual spend. That is not remotely encouraging. Worse TfL's previous record of reasonably consistent delivery of projects to time and budget is being blown out of the water even if we completely ignore Crossrail. That just gives more ammo to the Treasury to not trust TfL to spend public money wisely. Worse it means ratings agencies will take a more pessimistic view about TfL's overall competence and that could make borrowing more expensive. Having to also cope with Crossrail "bail outs" and the associated consequences is not good either. And the Mayor and Deputy Mayor still think we're going to get Crossrail 2 going - dream on! Slightly surprised by your remarks about civil servants. There's plenty of comment here and elsewhere from people who've seen / experienced the inside to know that certain key figures clearly had their own agendas which could be defined in political terms if you wished. Regardless of which party is in power does anything ever change in terms of basic attitudes at HM Treasury? I doubt it very much and the same could be said about the policy emphasis at the DfT re roads vs rail / public transport. Not much changed since the 1960s despite 50 years of mounting evidence to the contrary of the DfT's basic stance about where it spends its money. The problems with Crossrail will only serve to reinforce that bias even if it is a rip roaring success once open. It is never about post opening operation, it is always about proving the value of spending the cash before anything is formally agreed to and making sure no one makes a disaster of the process of actually spending it. I shall stop now as I am tempted to veer off into subject areas that will incur moderator wrath!
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Sept 29, 2018 7:31:47 GMT
THREAD SPLIT:
Posts discussing the impact of the Elizabeth line on other services have been moved, see link below:
districtdavesforum.co.uk/thread/30011/
Please use this current thread to discuss the delayed opening as per the thread title. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Oct 3, 2018 20:43:19 GMT
Saw a post on LinkedIn today that stated they have managed 6 trips where a test train transitioned from the Shenfield line into the tunnel section.
This is progress.
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Oct 4, 2018 9:20:11 GMT
Interesting that London Assembly members are using the pretence that the delay to Crossrail, “was hidden from public”, when they are actually seething about themselves not being made aware in time to explain to their constituents. The chair of the assembly (Caroline Pidgeon) has also gone after Section 2 of the board papers turning such meetings into "little more than theatrical performances". The chair has also called for future projects to have more robust independent scrutiny, with the publication of minutes from all meetings and private board sessions. Is it just me or does that sound like a call for trial by public opinion? BBC news article: London Assembly members 'misled' over Crossrail delay www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45732602
|
|
|
Post by trt on Oct 4, 2018 12:02:11 GMT
I'm wondering with this timing and everything about the cancellation of the MLX (Metropolitan Line eXtension). Does seem curious that the "absolutely this is the very last and final nail in the coffin" came at exactly the same point in time as the Mayor was allegedly "made aware" of the certainty of CR (CrossRail) over-running.
EDIT Expanded abbreviations as per forum expectations.
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Oct 4, 2018 13:37:06 GMT
I'm wondering with this timing and everything about the cancellation of the MLX. Does seem curious that the "absolutely this is the very last and final nail in the coffin" came at exactly the same point in time as the Mayor was allegedly "made aware" of the certainty of CR over-running. I suspect that you are referring to the Metropolitan Line Extension?
re: crossrail, admittedly I am full of 'hopium' in making this comment but if at all possible I would wish to see the Paddington - Abbey Wood service open sooner than next Autumn. It would be a great moral booster for all concerned - including passengers! If an intermediate station (eg: Bond Street) is not ready in time then so be it. It can open later - like Pimlico opened later on the Victoria line.
Indeed, in the face of such regret (loss of face, political / financial fall-out) that the service is delayed even getting the Whitechapel - Abbey Wood section open would act as a 'good news' milestone. Yes I know its barely any stations but the Victoria line set a precedent by also opening in smaller bites. Ditto the Jubilee line extension.
Simon
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,781
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 4, 2018 14:26:51 GMT
It makes a difference which stations are and are not ready, and the reasons why those that aren't aren't.
It's no great disaster if eg Woolwich isn't ready but trains can run through. Whitechapel on the other hand is a key station for various reasons and seems to be the furthest behind and is not necessarily in a state where trains can safely run through while work is on going.
I believe Bond Street is also regarded as key, possibly because other stations around it couldn't cope with the increased loading? (If so, that does raise questions about what happens if it needs to close while in service (e.g. local power failure)
|
|
|
Post by banana99 on Oct 5, 2018 20:29:44 GMT
It makes a difference which stations are and are not ready, and the reasons why those that aren't aren't. It's no great disaster if eg Woolwich isn't ready but trains can run through. Whitechapel on the other hand is a key station for various reasons and seems to be the furthest behind and is not necessarily in a state where trains can safely run through while work is on going. I believe Bond Street is also regarded as key, possibly because other stations around it couldn't cope with the increased loading? (If so, that does raise questions about what happens if it needs to close while in service (e.g. local power failure) It's chaos now! If Oxford Circus closes then Bond Street gets all in a tizz ("They're still pouring off the Central Line" I heard once at the top of the Jubilee Line escalators meaning that Bond Street was closed too due to "overcrowding") with station after station closes due to "overcrowding" as people change/alight there rather than where they expected.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 5, 2018 23:36:51 GMT
Interesting that London Assembly members are using the pretence that the delay to Crossrail, “was hidden from public”, when they are actually seething about themselves not being made aware in time to explain to their constituents. The chair of the assembly (Caroline Pidgeon) has also gone after Section 2 of the board papers turning such meetings into "little more than theatrical performances". The chair has also called for future projects to have more robust independent scrutiny, with the publication of minutes from all meetings and private board sessions. Is it just me or does that sound like a call for trial by public opinion? BBC news article: London Assembly members 'misled' over Crossrail delay www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45732602I've read the full letter that Mrs Pidgeon sent to the Mayor. I am afraid I think this is just a load of political grandstanding to try to create a "storm" out of not very much. She is deliberately ignoring what was said in both meetings to try to make it seem the Mayor lied. I don't believe he did provided you go by the absolute process which is that until Crossrail *formally* state they are late and won't meet the deadline then nothing is confirmed. Anyone with a working pair of eyes and legs could have walked round the Bond St area, Whitechapel, Liverpool St / Moorgate and Woolwich and known MONTHS AGO that the thing was late. The lack of any commentary about Bond Street for over *2 years* in Crossrail reports / videos etc was more than enough of a clue to me. Of course the Mayor, the Commissioner and the TfL Board will have been more than aware for several months that things were very difficult and Crossrail was losing room for manoeuvre in terms of risks and programme rescheduling. That is only correct. Until the formal statement is made though nothing is confirmed, it is just speculation. While this may seem to be a subtlety it is how the governance is set out. She has said the "new Crossrail trains are late". No they aren't. There are loads of the things sitting in Old Oak Common. The train contract signature was not late - Sir Terry Morgan explained that very clearly to her in one of the sessions. Why she is choosing to ignore what was said to her truthfully is beyond me. The element that *is* late is the integration of the various bits of signalling and control system kit with the train. That is NOT the same as the trains being late. Again why she is wilfully ignoring this when it was explained more than once to several Assembly Members I just don't understand. The only bit I agree with is that the governance structure and associated disclosure arrangements need to be reviewed for future projects. Mrs Pidgeon may be howling about Crossrail but plenty else is not going right in LU project land and we have next to no detail about that. The latest Investment Report has a whole paragraph about nosing stone replacement on SSR platforms but not a single word about why the signalling migration testing has slowed to walking pace, the initial section was not activated and has been merged with a later section or any detail at all about the substance of the most important bit of the work. Is this also a "cover up" and "failure of governnance"? If so, it's been going on for the last 18 years of TfL's existence and is probably worse now than ever before despite "this being the most transparent Mayoralty ever" (to quote the Mayor). It would be nice to have Crossrail Board papers released and better reporting but there will *always* be matters concerning costs, risks, contractual disputes that you really do NOT want disclosed for a variety of reasons including legal ones if a dispute is expected. Mrs Pidgeon would be the first person on the barricades denouncing cr*p commercial settlements and "waste of public money" by TfL - one reason why you don't reveal your negotiating position or potential risk values in public. On that basis there will always be parts of meeting papers and the actual meetings held in private. Mrs Pidgeon struggles to accept this reality in her letter saying all such instances should be "minimised". That's all very well but you can guarantee that every single large contract package on a scheme like Crossrail will drown in potential / actual claims and disputes over the project life. It's the nature of things - contractors always try to rake money in from claims, clients try not to pay anything but there are always risks that materialise and they have financial and time consequences. What would be far better is to have what happens in Hong Kong where there are clear, detailed and enumerated reports on all of the MTR major projects. You can read them online and see what's gone wrong, why and what the cost / time implications are. Now MTR Corporation have their own set of woes at the moment on a range of issues but at least this is all public and people can find out. We don't have that clarity in London. A bit more thought and a lot less rhetoric from the politicians would go a very long way - to think we have another 18-20 months of this nonsense in the run up to May 2020 Mayoral Election.
|
|