Elizabeth Line (CrossRail) opened 24th May 2022

ISTR there is a Learned Society technical paper on this subject somewhere that gives generic reasons why you now need either a 1100 mm floor train + 1100 mm platform OR train is fitted with retracting plates (like Merseyrail 777s for example).

But I can not remember where or which body that paper is from. It was about 3-5 years ago.

S stock was originally intended to have a floor at approximately the same height as D stock - circa 1100mm. On the basis that it was to use equipment and bogies that were basically the same size as the 2009 stock the question was asked, "could we have a lower floor" and thus avoid building humps at everyplatform for level access wor wheelchairs etc. Of courese we know the answer and a floor height of 980mm was the result with a flat floor throughout.

But.......it's a metro train, top speed 60 mph. The Greater Anglia Stadler trains have had to have many compromises to achieve the lower floor, including steps to access seats and many ramps to negotiate the passage ways between cars and equipment compartments adjacent to motor bogies. It is a very long passageway between cars 6 and 7 on a 12-car class 745. Even the Liverpool trains are not ramp free.

Another issue for Crossrail when making platform height/floor height decisions was the existance of 1100mm platforms at Heathrow.

This was a late decision. The S stock cabs were to have plug doors for staff comfort, which would conventionally open above the platform, but now with berthing beside the platform that could not happen. The alternative sliding door required a door pocket, and so a smaller non-standard window in the adjoining passenger accommodation, to be seen today. 

I wish I'd never noticed this. Once you see it you can never unsee it 

There were a couple of railtours across the sub-surface Lines using Gatwick Express mkII coaches but nothing surreptitious about them

The only thing I'm aware of is the Sub-Surface Railway and Railtrack study initiated by the Labour Government as part of the development of the PPP. About 1999, if I recall correctly. A senior ex-LU engineer worked ar Railtrack's representative. As I recall it, the idea was to be able to operate through trains across London as a sort of pauper's Crossrail. My over-riding recollection is that we all - both LU and Railtrack folk - took it incredibly seriously in public but in private thought it was barking mad (or even Barking mad!).

The real Crossrail has, of course, shown what's necessary to create real extra capacity.

And I've found a reference: hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/1999-07-30/debates/30ed17b7-e53c-484c-b923-96aa193ee29a/LondonUndergroundSub-SurfaceLinesRailtrackResponsibilities

I think it was in the Victorian era there was a plan for through trains between Manchester and Paris via the Great Central Railway, Metropolitan Railway*, South Eastern & Chatham Railway, Channel Tunnel.... and an unknown French railway.

*Quite possibly the Widened Lines via Farringdon.

This international Crossrail service was proposed by Sir Edward William Watkins - probably whilst he was chairman of nine different British railway companies - including the three I named above.

---------------

More recently a Royal Commission report in circa 1905 proposed the building of new Crossrail railway linking Fenchurch Street and Waterloo, so that fewer trains would terminate at the edge of London. The plans also included a four track express tramway (subterranean, I think) plus slum clearance.

What the Labour govt. was proposing almost happened (with respect of the Metropolitan Railway) during the 1920's grouping. Had it come to pass things may well have progressed very differently to what we have now (eg: no Stanmore branch) ... we will never know!

Not sure about all of this together, methinks there is a bit if 2 + 2 - but it did not make 4.


I am pretty sure there was something floated about at one time c.1994 about the LT surface lines being hived off under early main line privatisation plans. I /think/ the politicians scheme was for example bits of the District would get into what was then BR South Western and or BR Tilbury lines, and much fairyland talk of through working like Shepperton to Shoeburyness, but most likely it had more to do with the Tory politics of trying to dismantle London's control over London's infrastructure even after they abolished the GLC (1986) they were vindictive. Anyway, ISTR this idea was floated around about the time BR went from BR to shadow TOUs ahead of hiving off into TOCs. That makes it 1994-ish onwards. I think it was killed pretty quickly as none of this made it into the TOUs as offered and franchised as TOCs.


But MK.3 trials ? No. Unless anyone come come up with evidence. A Mk3 is 23 m long. They are too big for a lot of ex BR main lines never mind LU. Unless someone can come with evidence. As pointed out, some Mk2 did, on a railtour, but that was 1988 some 5-6 years before the rail privatisation details got to be political suggestions, and nothing to do with it.

Yes, it was mooted that Crossrail would include a branch to Aylesbury.

Also mooted was a southward link towards Kingston Upon Thames.

All this was scrapped as a cost cutting exercise!

I assume the addition is due to Canary Wharf?

This is an old map from the early 2000s showing the Kingston via Richmond branch:




There was massive opposition in West London to this as it would have surfaced at portals on Turnham Green to take over the Richmond branch of the District Line, which would have heavy effects on a much loved green space. A lot of Chiswick/Acton residents were upset about that, although I don't know how much of a factor that was in the final decision to axe it.

I boarded a train at Terminal 4 this evening with a departure 8 minutes away.

During that time the train filled with numerous people carrying/pulling large items of luggage. The doorways and aisles were blocked.

The lack of luggage racks on the 345s means they are unsuitable for long haul passengers to/from Terminal 4.

Something new to me. So was the original plan to have the core tunnel section normal platform height.

If that is true that is shocking. As I find the S-Stock acceleration to be slow. The fastest is the 09 stock on the Victoria Line and then the 345's on the Crossrail. The 345's move of faster than many other National Rail stock.

«rincew1nd: posts merged»

Yes, they are both quoted as 1.3 m/s/s or both as 1.27 m/s/s depending what you look at (and I believe it is possible 1.3 is a rounded up version of 1.27).

The rate of change of acceleration (a.k.a. 'jerk') is actually something you are more likely to notice than acceleration.

When one feels acceleration is not smooth, that is jerk. People are more likely to perceive this than a constant acceleration.

A constant acceleration rate pushes you back in you seat (or sideways on longitudinal seating) but holds you in one position; if you are pushed and pulled and at different rates, that is acceleration rate changing, not the acceleration itself.

Jerk is measured in m/s/s/s; acceleration is m/s/s. Or, ms^-3 and ms^-2 if the superscript font effect survives.


Digressing, I have been looking for the 700 Thameslink stock acceleration rate; at the back of my mind I think it is higher than a 345; ISTR seeing 1.33 m/s/s stated, but I can not locate that in any papers or files I have. It might have been in a slide at a lecture. Certainly if you have one in ATO mode in the core you notice it - but not every train in the core runs in ATO the is no requirement to do so nor is every driver trained on it.