Crossrail Elizabeth Line split during Strikes

[MasterYoda]

Why does Crossrail Elizabeth Line need to be split, Reading-Padd, Padd-Abbey Wood, Liverpool Street Shenfield when there are strikes on?
The drivers drive the whole route. Their union usually isn't on strike when others are. The route is centrally controlled from Romford I thought? The depots east and west are both under Elizabeth line/MTR/TfL control so are unlikely to be affected by strike action? Even if they were the trains can still drive fully East to West with no limits on where they operate?
I can't really see a good reason why they split the route unless it isn't as well integrated as we are lead to believe?

Will this always be the case whenever there are strikes, or are there plans to better fuse the route together?
What needs to change to make this happen? ETCS east and west of the core?

If there were knock on delays from a lack of signallers east or west, surely the usual turn back and delay procedures could cope without splitting the route up entirely?

 

[Class800]

For service reliability

 

[SuperLuke2334]

I think the signalling system in the core is controlled separately from Network Rail, so needs to be kept separate incase Network Rail boxes are closed and cause disruption etc.

 

[Barn]

Coming in from the Abbey Wood branch today, the train's onboard displays suggested I change at Whitechapel for a Reading train. Must be a bug.

 

[Domh245]

The route is centrally controlled from Romford I thought?

I think that isn't the case. The entire line is monitored & controlled (operationally) at Romford, but only the Core infrastructure is controlled (by Rail for London Infrastrucutre) at Romford. The East Side branch to Shenfield is controlled from the same building but by separate Network Rail staff. West Side infrastructure to Reading & Heathrow is controlled from (I believe) Didcot ROC/TVSC

 

[Stephen42]

Outside the central section the trains rely on Network Rail signallers including for Old Oak Depot. This is why the central section runs 12tph and then drops to 6tph as the trains that can't fit in Plumstead sidings/Abbey Wood have to reach Old Oak Depot before the contingency signaller finishes.

Splitting allows more tailored plans based on availability for each section, the central section service is slightly different depending whether first day of strike action, a subsequent day or day after strike.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Is the Westbourne Park reverser part of the core network, or part of the west side?
ie can core trains reverse at Westbourne Park without involving Didcot signalling control?

 

[Goldfish62]

Is the Westbourne Park reverser part of the core network, or part of the west side?
ie can core trains reverse at Westbourne Park without involving Didcot signalling control?

It's part of the CCOS (Crossrail Central Operating Section) ie the core.

 

[Sebastian O]

Coming in from the Abbey Wood branch today, the train's onboard displays suggested I change at Whitechapel for a Reading train. Must be a bug.

That’s the intention I believe generally to prevent overcrowding at Paddington, especially for Heathrow changes.

 

[Barn]

That’s the intention I believe generally to prevent overcrowding at Paddington, especially for Heathrow changes.

Ah. Gotcha, thanks. Doesn't work today, though, as all core trains terminate at Paddington.

 

[Bald Rick]

The route is centrally controlled from Romford I thought?

It is signalled from:
Romford (Abbey Wood / Pudding Mill Lane - Westbourne Park)
Liverpool Street (Sheffield - Pudding Mill Lane)
Thames Valley Signalling Centre, Didcot (Westbourne Park - Reading / Heathrow)

The Romford ‘signallers’ are employed by Rail for London Infrastructure, and are not in this dispute. They are in a different dispute though.

The Liverpool St and TVSC signallers are employed by Network Rail.

Splitting the service enables the core to operate for most of the operating day, subject to getting trains in and out of Old Oak Common, the routes to which are controlled by NR.

The depots east and west are both under Elizabeth line/MTR/TfL control so are unlikely to be affected by strike action?

As above, the routes into OOC are signalled by NR from TVSC.

I think that isn't the case. The entire line is monitored & controlled (operationally) at Romford, but only the Core infrastructure is controlled (by Rail for London Infrastrucutre) at Romford. The East Side branch to Shenfield is controlled from the same building but by separate Network Rail staff. West Side infrastructure to Reading & Heathrow is controlled from (I believe) Didcot ROC/TVSC

Close - see above.

 

[Steve Harris]

It is signalled from:
Romford (Abbey Wood / Pudding Mill Lane - Westbourne Park)
Liverpool Street (Sheffield - Pudding Mill Lane)
Thames Valley Signalling Centre, Didcot (Westbourne Park - Reading / Heathrow)

The Romford ‘signallers’ are employed by Rail for London Infrastructure, and are not in this dispute. They are in a different dispute though.

The Liverpool St and TVSC signallers are employed by Network Rail.

Splitting the service enables the core to operate for most of the operating day, subject to getting trains in and out of Old Oak Common, the routes to which are controlled by NR.





As above, the routes into OOC are signalled by NR from TVSC.



Close - see above.

I knew Liverpool Street was designed to control a big area, but no idea it controlled Sheffield, lol.

And yes, I know you really ment Shenfield. (Autocorrect doing it's best as usual ? lol).

 

[Mojo]

I knew Liverpool Street was designed to control a big area, but no idea it controlled Sheffield, lol.

And yes, I know you really ment Shenfield. (Autocorrect doing it's best as usual ? lol).

Unfortunately it’s almost impossible to type Shenfield on a mobile as it will always correct it to Sheffield.

 

[Bald Rick]

I knew Liverpool Street was designed to control a big area, but no idea it controlled Sheffield, lol.

And yes, I know you really ment Shenfield. (Autocorrect doing it's best as usual ? lol).

Oops. The new Anglia boss has grand ambition but I think that’s a step too far

 

[Taunton]

That’s the intention I believe generally to prevent overcrowding at Paddington, especially for Heathrow changes.

Indeed, has done, on Heathrow trains, since through running started. However it only mentions Reading for some reason, so does not help Heathrow traffic.

Nor situations like currently where the service is split. One aspect apparent is that for all the time and cost that went into information systems development, it doesn't seem able to handle quite straightforward and common variances from the timetable. The nonsense put out on all the screens over the New Year Shenfield shutdown I previously described was another example.

 

[Horizon22]

Once the Network Rail areas (Anglia and Western) close down post-1830, the service can continue to run between Paddington & Abbey Wood, however there is only limited stabling capacity at Plumstead, so it has to be a reduced service. The 12tph goes down to 6tph so the excess trains can "escape the central section" by heading to Old Oak Common, Ilford and Gidea Park.

Only 4tph are allowed on the Western and 2tph on the Anglia on a strike day, so that wouldn't be a meaningful service frequency through the central sections and would have to be supplemented with Paddington - Abbey Wood services otherwise overcrowding would be an issue. It is rather more complex to plan that out rather than use Paddington and Liverpool Street (High Level) and 12tph between Paddington - Abbey Wood. They are in effect self-contained when the signalling staff are working to different hours, so it is more reliable this way.

 

[mrmartin]

Indeed, has done, on Heathrow trains, since through running started. However it only mentions Reading for some reason, so does not help Heathrow traffic.

Nor situations like currently where the service is split. One aspect apparent is that for all the time and cost that went into information systems development, it doesn't seem able to handle quite straightforward and common variances from the timetable. The nonsense put out on all the screens over the New Year Shenfield shutdown I previously described was another example.

Yeah the information systems are extremely poor for a project of this size and the amount of tweaking that went on with train software and the ridiculous "first digital railway" hype. I've seen computer games with more advanced displays ingame!

The amount of obvious bugs is pretty impressive, and just generally isn't that good.

You'd think they'd have a simple button they could click to enable 'split' vs 'through running' announcments across the line.

 

[Horizon22]

Coming in from the Abbey Wood branch today, the train's onboard displays suggested I change at Whitechapel for a Reading train. Must be a bug.

Will be the core PIS information with the Whitechapel change listed as it would be outside of a strike day. Much like how you can't cut information off after it is no longer relevant at lots of locations on strike days, including other TfL services. Would require a lot of manipulation to be that micro-specific for a day-to-day basis I imagine.

Yeah the information systems are extremely poor for a project of this size and the amount of tweaking that went on with train software and the ridiculous "first digital railway" hype. I've seen computer games with more advanced displays ingame!

The amount of obvious bugs is pretty impressive, and just generally isn't that good.

You'd think they'd have a simple button they could click to enable 'split' vs 'through running' announcments across the line.

You'd think wouldn't you, yet no. The systems in the central section as opposed to the traditional infrastructure are wildly different and integration was cut down on due to costs earlier in the Crossrail project. Most of the information displays in the central section is drawn solely from the core timetable data, and can't be easily manipulated which is the polar opposite to how it works elsewhere. The "first digital railway" really refers to the signalling system more. Train software continues to be tweaked!

 

[bicbasher]

Maybe the signal box at New Cross Gate should've been managed by a TfL concession instead of Network Rail as that would have allowed London Overground to continue operating a service between New Cross Gate and Highbury & Islington with access to New Cross Gate depot on TfL metals.

 

[Horizon22]

Maybe the signal box at New Cross Gate should've been managed by a TfL concession instead of Network Rail as that would have allowed London Overground to continue operating a service between New Cross Gate and Highbury & Islington with access to New Cross Gate depot on TfL metals.

The infrastructure owner would still be Network Rail though. The whole operation (track, signalling, infrastructure and response staff etc.) is managed by Rail for London Infrastructure (RfLI) in the central section - with MTR as the train operators under an overall TfL concession - which is rather different than trying to arbitarily change ownership.

 

[Taunton]

Will be the core PIS information with the Whitechapel change listed as it would be outside of a strike day. Much like how you can't cut information off after it is no longer relevant at lots of locations on strike days, including other TfL services. Would require a lot of manipulation to be that micro-specific for a day-to-day basis I imagine.


You'd think wouldn't you, yet no. The systems in the central section as opposed to the traditional infrastructure are wildly different and integration was cut down on due to costs earlier in the Crossrail project. Most of the information displays in the central section is drawn solely from the core timetable data, and can't be easily manipulated which is the polar opposite to how it works elsewhere. The "first digital railway" really refers to the signalling system more. Train software continues to be tweaked!

Sorry Mr H, but I do this stuff for a living and the answer is Yes. The DLR has managed this sort of dynamic information spot on since their system change probably 25 years ago, at a cost which was an absolute shoestring compared to what Crossrail had available.

If you haven't seen my note on what was happening on the Elizabeth info systems on New Year's Eve, it's here:

Inaccuracies with Elizabeth line platform door screens

Has anyone else noticed the inaccuracies with the platform door screens of the Elizabeth line in the central section? Sometimes they don’t show that certain services aren’t calling at Acton Main Line and Hanwell (usually trains terminating at Maidenhead), and they say ‘Network Rail’ instead of...

www.railforums.co.uk

Who did the Elizabeth passenger information systems? Was it Bombardier in Montreal?

 

[Horizon22]

Sorry Mr H, but I do this stuff for a living and the answer is Yes. The DLR has managed this sort of dynamic information spot on since their system change probably 25 years ago, at a cost which was an absolute shoestring compared to what Crossrail had available.

If you haven't seen my note on what was happening on the Elizabeth info systems on New Year's Eve, it's here:


Who did the Elizabeth passenger information systems? Was it Bombardier in Montreal?

The NYE displays were an isolated and very specific - albeit rather serious and dramatic - issue.

It might well be possible on the DLR but it depends what the specification is and how much user control there is. In some ways Crossrail is over-specified and in other ways under-specified or to put it better, mis-specified; the wrong roles and users have control of things that don’t make logical sense in a real-world operation or vice versa but it isn’t easy to row back now.

The PIS (on-board) is a Bombardier / Alstom product, the information displays on the PSDs is a Siemens system.

 

[matt_world2004]

The infrastructure owner would still be Network Rail though. The whole operation (track, signalling, infrastructure and response staff etc.) is managed by Rail for London Infrastructure (RfLI) in the central section - with MTR as the train operators under an overall TfL concession - which is rather different than trying to arbitarily change ownership.

Tfl own the infrastructure used by london overground that was the formerly part of the east london line. I cant remember if the extension to highbury and islington is included in that ownership or if it stops at dalston junction.

 

[bicbasher]

Tfl own the infrastructure used by london overground that was the formerly part of the east london line. I cant remember if the extension to highbury and islington is included in that ownership or if it stops at dalston junction.

I believe it's as far as the western curve north of Dalston Junction where the tunnels are, but New Cross Gate signal box operates the signals from Highbury & Islington to New Cross Gate.

NXG Platform 1 is fully managed by that signal box while I believe Three Bridges operates the signals on Platform 5, but not sure if it's Three Bridges or New Cross who change the Up Slow to the ELL overbridge?