|
|
Post by Chris L on Mar 18, 2021 19:51:26 GMT
simple, yet beautiful! Quite surprised no contractors were early enough to do such works Step free access was a late addition for the stations in the west. Network Rail were slow to progress the contracts. |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Mar 18, 2021 20:50:17 GMT
Alas only step free to the platform. I'm still shocked, given how long this project has been coming, that Crossrail doesn't have level boarding throughout.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,772
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 18, 2021 21:52:04 GMT
Alas only step free to the platform. I'm still shocked, given how long this project has been coming, that Crossrail doesn't have level boarding throughout. This is because they chose a non-standard platform height for the core, meaning that they can't have level boarding at platforms where other trains need to be able to call. Why they chose a non-standard platform height I don't know, but at least on the face of it it seems a ridiculous decision. |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Mar 18, 2021 22:02:26 GMT
boo if all trains will soon be all stations - sad news. Its bad enough that this is already the off-peak situation. re: the impending longer trains, I must dust down my camcorder for present-day length trains. I'll be shopping in Ilford later this week... It’s been the off peak situation for quite a few years now though. If they plan to run semi-fast services in the west, I don’t see why they can’t do it in the east. It would also be nice to get the peak service level back to what it was 30 years ago! Whenever I have compared services today to those of 30 years ago I've been told that the service is as intense as it could be. No-one seem to believe otherwise. I know that train frequency is less than it used to be because I lived it 30 years ago - and still have a 1982 timetable book. I do not have the data in front of me at the moment but it is something like 6 trains per hour in the rush hours (including some trains which terminated in the bay platform at Ilford) fewer today than there used to be. Is it any wonder that before the pandemic services became so overcrowded that passengers would be left behind? I was always told that it was because passenger numbers had risen - this may be true but its not the true reason. I feel sure that especially passengers who travel to Stratford or Liverpool St to / from stations Romford and onwards will feel very put out / short changed at the loss of faster services - six extra stations* (Maryland, Forest Gate, Manor Park, Seven Kings, Goodmayes and Chadwell Heath) and noticeably longer journey times. *(Even more when services start travelling underground - Whitechapel) It would have been far better had local services (so called 'Shenfield Metro') not been hived off from East Anglia services and instead just as the west will include trains to Reading off-peak services to the east of London included trains to Southend On Sea^ and some Great Eastern Main Line destinations. (^ie: retaining the off-peak Stratford, Ilford, Romford and then all stations service) |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Mar 18, 2021 22:14:37 GMT
It’s been the off peak situation for quite a few years now though. If they plan to run semi-fast services in the west, I don’t see why they can’t do it in the east. It would also be nice to get the peak service level back to what it was 30 years ago! Whenever I have compared services today to those of 30 years ago I've been told that the service is as intense as it could be. No-one seem to believe otherwise. I know that train frequency is less than it used to be because I lived it 30 years ago - and still have a 1982 timetable book. I do not have the data in front of me at the moment but it is something like 6 trains per hour in the rush hours (including some trains which terminated in the bay platform at Ilford) fewer today than there used to be. Is it any wonder that before the pandemic services became so overcrowded that passengers would be left behind? I was always told that it was because passenger numbers had risen - this may be true but its not the true reason. I feel sure that especially passengers who travel to Stratford or Liverpool St to / from stations Romford and onwards will feel very put out / short changed at the loss of faster services - six extra stations* (Maryland, Forest Gate, Manor Park, Seven Kings, Goodmayes and Chadwell Heath) and noticeably longer journey times. *(Even more when services start travelling underground - Whitechapel) It would have been far better had local services (so called 'Shenfield Metro') not been hived off from East Anglia services and instead just as the west will include trains to Reading off-peak services to the east of London included trains to Southend On Sea^ and some Great Eastern Main Line destinations. (^ie: retaining the off-peak Stratford, Ilford, Romford and then all stations service)  Agreed - if traffic levels return to pre-pandemic levels, the 9 car trains will not offset the reduced services. They should have been aiming for 15tph from the core to Gidea Park /,Shenfield, with a few extras from Chadwell Heath to Liverpool Street mainline. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Mar 19, 2021 9:15:18 GMT
Alas only step free to the platform. I'm still shocked, given how long this project has been coming, that Crossrail doesn't have level boarding throughout. This is because they chose a non-standard platform height for the core, meaning that they can't have level boarding at platforms where other trains need to be able to call. Why they chose a non-standard platform height I don't know, but at least on the face of it it seems a ridiculous decision. The core section height benefits lots of passengers and makes for faster boarding and alighting. Humps are being provided at the other stations where possible. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,772
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 19, 2021 11:32:32 GMT
Level boarding would have been available at all stations without the need for humps if they'd chosen to use the standard platform height and trains with a floor height to match.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Mar 19, 2021 12:33:11 GMT
Level boarding would have been available at all stations without the need for humps if they'd chosen to use the standard platform height and trains with a floor height to match. Platform clearances don't permit that, particularly where they are curved. The Stadler ramp solution has come late to the options and works well. |
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Mar 19, 2021 13:28:30 GMT
Level boarding would have been available at all stations without the need for humps if they'd chosen to use the standard platform height and trains with a floor height to match. Platform clearances don't permit that, particularly where they are curved. The Stadler ramp solution has come late to the options and works well. It has come late to the UK market, that lays solely on the administrative/legislative bodies of this country. 'Gap filler' based solutions whether they be on trains themselves or on platforms have been available for some time in other parts of the world. Combined with the developments of the past two decades in low-floor rolling stock design, there really is no excuse for building high floored sub-100mph metro-style trains in the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Mar 19, 2021 19:22:32 GMT
Platform clearances don't permit that, particularly where they are curved. The Stadler ramp solution has come late to the options and works well. It has come late to the UK market, that lays solely on the administrative/legislative bodies of this country. 'Gap filler' based solutions whether they be on trains themselves or on platforms have been available for some time in other parts of the world. Combined with the developments of the past two decades in low-floor rolling stock design, there really is no excuse for building high floored sub-100mph metro-style trains in the UK. If lines were new and independent of the existing railway that would be the case. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Mar 19, 2021 19:23:36 GMT
Latest update.
This mentions the first half of 2022 - not the financial year.
|
|
|
|
Post by A60stock on Mar 25, 2021 14:51:15 GMT
Is Hanwell not receiving the tfl style roundels on the platforms?
|
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Mar 25, 2021 15:02:06 GMT
Possibly not. It is listed.
|
|
|
|
Post by A60stock on Mar 25, 2021 15:16:04 GMT
Surprised, as FGW/GWR were allowed to install their own signs there? I thought every station has to have its name displayed on the platforms?
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Mar 25, 2021 16:24:42 GMT
West Ealing has joined Acton Main Line this afternoon becoming the 2nd of the heavily delayed tranche of TFL Rail West stations to be opened to the public. Ealing Broadway is believed to be the next station in line to be commissioned.
|
|
vincenture
Quiz tryhard, and an advocate for simpler, less complicated rail routes
Posts: 885
|
Post by vincenture on Mar 25, 2021 21:39:19 GMT
Judging from progress, it looks like West Drayton may be reaching there first
|
|
|
|
Post by itfcfan on Mar 25, 2021 23:24:33 GMT
West Ealing has joined Acton Main Line this afternoon becoming the 2nd of the heavily delayed tranche of TFL Rail West stations to be opened to the public. Ealing Broadway is believed to be the next station in line to be commissioned. This is what West Ealing station looked like as it opened this afternoon:  I'd be really surprised if Ealing Broadway follows quickly behind Acton Main Line and West Ealing in opening. I've seen notices saying Ealing Broadway will open before the end of 2021 and I feel like even that is pushing it (just from the perspective of far from completion it looks by whats visible from outside). I hope I'm wrong and it follows quickly! |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,772
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 25, 2021 23:39:07 GMT
This is what West Ealing station looked like as it opened this afternoon:  [/quote] Your image is not showing. When I try and view it by copying the URL I'm getting an error saying I haven't got permission to view it. |
|
|
|
Post by itfcfan on Mar 26, 2021 14:25:20 GMT
Your image is not showing. When I try and view it by copying the URL I'm getting an error saying I haven't got permission to view it. I'm sorry about that. It turns out the URL I used had a time-limited token for access. I've copied this image to a different host now - it should be accessible to all now. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Mar 26, 2021 16:23:34 GMT
I've just seen new hoardings at Woolwich station. Big letters say opening in the first half of 2022.
Little letters say latest date from Crossrail.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Mar 28, 2021 9:30:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Mar 28, 2021 9:35:35 GMT
RfLI - Rail for London Infrastructure
ROGS - Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Apr 4, 2021 14:13:20 GMT
Photos of the platform rationalisation/extension works at Liverpool Street Mainline station getting underway. Click here if Tweet fails to load |
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 4, 2021 15:12:00 GMT
Photos of the platform rationalisation/extension works at Liverpool Street Mainline station getting underway. Click here if Tweet fails to load Interesting photos - it looks like platform 17 is being filled over with the tracks at platform 18 retained but with potential separate loading/unloading sides - like occasionally happens at Golders Green. Whilst to accommodate full length Elizabeth Line trains they have lost a platform at Liverpool Street, I guess they can partially offset that capacity impact by being able to reduce the turn-around dwell time significantly, simply by opening the doors on the narrower exit side platform shortly before opening the doors on the boarding side. The new platform widths suggests the much wider platform 17 will normally be used for boarding with platform 18 becoming the exit side, and presumably the favourite side for the driver to change ends quickly assuming they will not be stepping back. Also on the east side of Elizabethe line I see a planning application for a massively enlarged housing development at Romford have just been announced/ linkI suspect the developer hopes both the core and the new Liverpool Street platform are open and fully bedded in well before the "Urban Village" development actually opens for residents. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 5, 2021 1:23:50 GMT
Alas only step free to the platform. I'm still shocked, given how long this project has been coming, that Crossrail doesn't have level boarding throughout.
Level boarding is effectively impossible to achieve if you still want to run UK gauge freight trains or non stoppers on the same tracks due to clearance requirements from platform edges!
Yes clever design can lower the floor height of the train to some extent - but that won't help with the large gap which must be maintained between the two horizontally speaking and is just as much of an issue as vertical ones.
West of Acton and east of Stratford Crossrail is renting space off the National Rail network and must therefore comply with the requirements of NR - which includes the ability to allow the full range of rolling stock be used on all lines - be it intermodal container trains, lengthy stone trains, GWR express services, GA services, etc.
What happens in between occurs on TfL infrastructure, and as with the ELL, the infrastructure can be more closely designed to exclusively suit TfLs passenger operation.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Apr 5, 2021 7:36:26 GMT
Alas only step free to the platform. I'm still shocked, given how long this project has been coming, that Crossrail doesn't have level boarding throughout. Level boarding is effectively impossible to achieve if you still want to run UK gauge freight trains or non stoppers on the same tracks due to clearance requirements from platform edges! Merseyside has managed to achieve this, all platforms altered to standard height and offset - new trains purchased with matching floor height. Ok it's a smaller project than Crossrail, but the budget is similarly small. Crossrail made a choice to purchase trains with a different height floor to the national standard then changed their own platform heights to match what they'd bought. |
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Apr 5, 2021 13:26:20 GMT
Alas only step free to the platform. I'm still shocked, given how long this project has been coming, that Crossrail doesn't have level boarding throughout.
Level boarding is effectively impossible to achieve if you still want to run UK gauge freight trains or non stoppers on the same tracks due to clearance requirements from platform edges!
The fact that Stadler, a manufacturer with no prior footing in the UK market was able to outdo home grown rolling stock manufacturers with the introduction of new trains on NR Anglia (far from a self-contained network) shows it can be done. The trains are built to the 915mm platform height standard and gap fillers do the rest. It's not a universal solution, but its already made a big difference for PRM passengers. Crossrail is a multi-billion pound project. Every 'legacy' station on the route has had millions spent on lifts, platform extensions and general refurbishments. To then go and procure a fleet of high floored sub-100mph metro style trains and build a core section to non-standard platform heights can only be seen as a cop-out. Including the Overground, TFL now has over 800 Aventra vehicles with needless inaccessibility baked in for yet another generation. Ramps and Harrington Humps are more a sticking plaster than a definitive solution. True accessibility is giving PRM passengers the independance to travel as most of us are privileged to enjoy. |
|
|
|
Post by quex on Apr 5, 2021 13:41:05 GMT
I thought the platform height being specified to be higher was due to the already existing Heathrow Express platforms being built to 1,100 mm, as opposed to the UK standard of 915 mm - the rationale being that it's easier to alter a platform upwards than downwards.
Is anyone able to shed more light on why a higher platform height was chosen for the Core?
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Apr 5, 2021 13:50:18 GMT
Interesting photos - it looks like platform 17 is being filled over with the tracks at platform 18 retained but with potential separate loading/unloading sides - like occasionally happens at Golders Green. It's probably necessary if passenger numbers go back to pre-pandemic levels. I used to have to commute through Liverpool Street 'against the flow' and it was a challenge trying to board a train with a wall of passengers trying to get off the train and off the platform. It wasn't unusual to be forced to the edges of the platforms, and more than once I thought I was going to be pushed over the edge. |
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Apr 5, 2021 14:13:40 GMT
I thought the platform height being specified to be higher was due to the already existing Heathrow Express platforms being built to 1,100 mm, as opposed to the UK standard of 915 mm - the rationale being that it's easier to alter a platform upwards than downwards. Heathrow Rail stations have bespoke coping stones flared up to not quite 1100mm. This was to cater for the discrepancy with Class 332 trains having the tread plates bolted to just below the floor line not flush as is the case with Classes 387 or 345. The bulk of the platform area is at the standard 915mm with just the area past the yellow line flared up. |
|
