• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Crossrail opening delayed (opening date not yet known)

Status
Not open for further replies.

mrmartin

Member
Joined
17 Dec 2012
Messages
1,011
I disagree, I thought the whole point of the new opening window was that it was extremely thoroughly researched (it took months and months to put together), and IIRC was more of a 'worst case scenario'. I remember the new chief executive saying something like that. It's already slipping massively from that.

Looking at page 37 you can see what a mess things are. Bond street is totally unfinished, whitechapel not much better, other stations far off completion. Only custom house is anywhere close to finished. It's projecting basically a year delay to get the stations finished (not sure what the original date was meant to be for that in the programme).

Regardless, the stations weren't even considered to be the most at risk parts of the programme, dynamic testing and railway software/signalling was.

Consider that there is still no opening date for 345s to Heathrow which is by itself nearly 18 months late and I don't think that is looking too great either.

I'd strongly suspect it being at least 2022 for first operating date after reading that report.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

kevin_roche

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2019
Messages
930
Looking at page 37 you can see what a mess things are. Bond street is totally unfinished, whitechapel not much better, other stations far off completion. Only custom house is anywhere close to finished. It's projecting basically a year delay to get the stations finished (not sure what the original date was meant to be for that in the programme).

There used to be a sign outside Bond street with an end date in 2016. There is a close up of it on the Hyde Park Now Blog.
...
2016 Station completed
2017 Testing and commisioning of the railway
2018 Phased opening of crossrail services

They took it down last year.
 

Geogregor

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2016
Messages
198
Location
London
I wonder when the text of the report is being released. All Google will give me right now is an offer for Free Jacobs Mini Cheddars. Might have to take that to cheer me up.

Edit: I found it. It will take a while to read.

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/project-representative-periodic-reports-period-2-2019.pdf

Further Edit: The items of concern in the report are all on Page 35

For me the most worrying bit is this one:
Dynamic testing has been severely restricted during March, April and May 2019, awaiting the
outcome of CRL’s investigations into the significant signalling irregularities which occurred in
February and March 2019.
Ultimately, CRL was satisfied that sufficient progress had been made
in the follow-up to each of the investigations to support the case for the resumption of limited
multi-train testing (MTT) on the Central Section19. The subsequent achievement of RAB(C)
acceptance was not without difficulty and details are provided in Section 4.4.1 below.
 

kevin_roche

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2019
Messages
930
There are two new letters from Mark Wild on the TfL website.

The first is a response to the Jacobs Project Representative Report (dated 8th July) and the second is his monthly status report to the London Assembly Transport Committee (dated 12th July).

In the response to the Jacobs Report he argues that emerging risks they have included cannot be expected to have mitigations.
The CRL Risk team had some concerns about the risk statistics quoted in PRep's Period 2 report, as they were taken from ARM (our risk management system) without CRL involvement and appear to contain some errors (e.g. they include 'emerging' risks under development which by definition would not be expected to have mitigation actions).

From my first reading of the monthly status report I see that there has been a delay to handing over assets which seems to me to have been predicted by Jacobs.
As mentioned in my last update, it was our intention to handover Victoria Dock Portal, Pudding Mill Lane Portal and Mile End Shaft and to the Infrastructure Manager in July. However, due to additional complexities discovered in the countdown process, these milestones are now planned to be achieved in August.
 

Railwaysceptic

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2017
Messages
1,408
As an older person I think either there should be toilets on the train or at all stations on route
I am an immigrant to Essex, I used to live in Forest Gate, When I was a commuter in the 70s there was a nice 1930s station with toilets on both platforms. There was also a public toilet about 100yds from the station, did not need them then
Now all gone. When I go abroad to London I restrict my liquid intake !
Being a Londoner of roughly the same vintage as you, I know what you mean. The trick is to know where all the public lavatories are. Several stations, including London Underground stations, do still have them, particularly in the outer suburbs. On the street, the most reliable source of relief is the big supermarkets, but that means you also have to know where they are!
 

kevin_roche

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2019
Messages
930
For me the most worrying bit is this one: Dynamic testing has been severely restricted during March, April and May 2019...

I agree that is worrying. In his his monthly status report letter, Mark Wild seems to think that more recent success indicates that testing the trains is on track.

Of 100 test scenarios now understood to be capable of being executed on the CIF with this version of the software configuration, 98 have now been attempted, of which 56 have passed and 14 partially passed. 10 tests had to be abandoned due to errors in the test scripts and 18 tests have failed. These scripts are being updated to allow the tests to be repeated. This has provided us with a greater level of confidence in the quality of the software. As we are testing new functionally a pass rate of over 50% is better than we expected.Within the central section, regression testing of the new signalling software and corresponding train software has commenced.

This form of testing entails re-running tests to ensure that previously developed and tested software still performs after the new software drop. Of these tests undertaken so far, 18 test scenarios passed(including all 16 deemed essential to support dynamic testing), and 2 test scenarios relating to the interface to the platform screen doors failed.

However I remain concerned that there are a number of issues that are not being addressed in a timely fashion. In particular there is a mention in the Jacobs reports of the testing in the Heathrow tunnels of the ETCS signalling. Unfortunately parts of these comments are redacted so it is difficult to see exactly what the issues are but Mark Wild doesn't mention them in his report.

One other issue that I have recently become aware of is that there is a need to run more trains for more miles to get reach the targets set for approval of the use of the 345. Part of the reason for commencement running Passenger Services from Paddington to Reading in December 2019 is to build up mileage. This seems to me a bit like trying to pull yourself up by your shoelaces.
 

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
1,575
One other issue that I have recently become aware of is that there is a need to run more trains for more miles to get reach the targets set for approval of the use of the 345. Part of the reason for commencement running Passenger Services from Paddington to Reading in December 2019 is to build up mileage. This seems to me a bit like trying to pull yourself up by your shoelaces.
It is not unusual for there to be a lengthy period of in-service running (usually requiring an agreed MTBF to be achieved) before rolling stock is accepted by the purchaser.
 

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
1,575
As we are testing new functionally a pass rate of over 50% is better than we expected.
My first reaction, as a signal engineer reading that, was to think that they must have set the bar very low. If I had had a pass rate of anything like 50% for any of my production I would of hung my head in shame. But then I suppose it depends on how they measure it. If they have a particular test that is carried out multiple times, say it needs doing for every signal and 99 out of 100 signals pass, then I would consider that a 99% pass rate for that test. However, if they consider that test to have failed because of the one errant signal, then I suppose it could lead to a very low pass rate. "Lies, damn lies and statistics" as the saying goes: you can make the statistics work for you or against you depending on how you measure them.

We were often asked to give percentage completion rates for writing code. This was measured by comparing the number of lines actually written compared with the number of lines estimated to be needed (of course you didn't know how many lines would actually be needed until it was finished). Of course, some data writers racked up higher percentages than others, because they spread their code over more lines! I had to massage the figures to avoid reporting percentages of over 100%. And we were for ever having to explain why the percentage seemed to stall at 90% or so for several weeks, as the last 10% tended to be the most complex, and required the most thought.
 

jellybaby

Member
Joined
27 Dec 2012
Messages
329
The trick is to know where all the public lavatories are. Several stations, including London Underground stations, do still have them, particularly in the outer suburbs.
It's getting off topic for this thread but there is an Underground / TfL rail map which can help.

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/toilets-map.pdf

Crossrail should have toilets everywhere except Heathrow, Canary Wharf, Bond Street, Liverpool Street, Woolwich and Paddington. All of those have other facilities available (eg in the attached NR station).
 

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
One other issue that I have recently become aware of is that there is a need to run more trains for more miles to get reach the targets set for approval of the use of the 345. Part of the reason for commencement running Passenger Services from Paddington to Reading in December 2019 is to build up mileage. This seems to me a bit like trying to pull yourself up by your shoelaces.
I assume they have a target MTIN figure for the 345s to have reached before they start running core services with them, given the much higher frequency of those services. Presumably the 345s have yet to meet those figures. I also assume that 7-car reliability figures are not relevant to those tests. I wonder what figure they deem satisfactory.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
I assume they have a target MTIN figure for the 345s to have reached before they start running core services with them, given the much higher frequency of those services. Presumably the 345s have yet to meet those figures. I also assume that 7-car reliability figures are not relevant to those tests. I wonder what figure they deem satisfactory.
Reading between the lines the target would appear to be around 15k but only 9-10k for this December with 7.5k currently (new software drops may see steps in this). However only surface running with 5A from December (if NR get there on the DOO camera installation or mitigation) so no need to get the MTIN up to 15k immediately and running units in service from December will help find the issues that can then be sorted.
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
Reading between the lines the target would appear to be around 15k but only 9-10k for this December with 7.5k currently (new software drops may see steps in this). However only surface running with 5A from December (if NR get there on the DOO camera installation or mitigation) so no need to get the MTIN up to 15k immediately and running units in service from December will help find the issues that can then be sorted.
Plenty of spare units too
 

Roast Veg

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2016
Messages
2,200
My first reaction, as a signal engineer reading that, was to think that they must have set the bar very low. If I had had a pass rate of anything like 50% for any of my production I would of hung my head in shame. But then I suppose it depends on how they measure it. If they have a particular test that is carried out multiple times, say it needs doing for every signal and 99 out of 100 signals pass, then I would consider that a 99% pass rate for that test. However, if they consider that test to have failed because of the one errant signal, then I suppose it could lead to a very low pass rate. "Lies, damn lies and statistics" as the saying goes: you can make the statistics work for you or against you depending on how you measure them.

We were often asked to give percentage completion rates for writing code. This was measured by comparing the number of lines actually written compared with the number of lines estimated to be needed (of course you didn't know how many lines would actually be needed until it was finished). Of course, some data writers racked up higher percentages than others, because they spread their code over more lines! I had to massage the figures to avoid reporting percentages of over 100%. And we were for ever having to explain why the percentage seemed to stall at 90% or so for several weeks, as the last 10% tended to be the most complex, and required the most thought.
LOC is a pretty awful statistic for anything other than the age of a piece of software, and in a project manager role it wouldn't even cross my mind to report it - much better to work under Test Driven Development and accurately work to those. With regards to the 50% success rating on XC that's hardly surprising when working across interconnected hardware where any loose timing will make the whole thing fall apart, there will be niggles for a while until they can get the two very closely synchronised.
 

kevin_roche

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2019
Messages
930
Rather misleading headline, that article refers to the Heathrow branch only.

The current plan to to have the Heathrow Branch working a minimum of 6 months before the Central operating section.

The Jacobs report points at something related to the ETCS signaling being at fault. This could be either GSM-R signalling messages but the Jacobs also mentions an issue with train position. To determine position the train software needs to be sucessfully reading the Eurobalise in the Heathrow tunnels.

If this is general issue the same Eurobalise technology is used in the COS so the train software needs to be reading them either way.

Another mention in the report is that there is an issue with the platform screen doors. Alignment with the doors is also based on the train being able to read the Eurobalise correctly.

OK, I admit ithis is pure spectulation as the relavant bits of the report are redacted but it looks that way to me.
 

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
The current plan to to have the Heathrow Branch working a minimum of 6 months before the Central operating section.

The Jacobs report points at something related to the ETCS signaling being at fault. This could be either GSM-R signalling messages but the Jacobs also mentions an issue with train position. To determine position the train software needs to be sucessfully reading the Eurobalise in the Heathrow tunnels.

If this is general issue the same Eurobalise technology is used in the COS so the train software needs to be reading them either way.

Another mention in the report is that there is an issue with the platform screen doors. Alignment with the doors is also based on the train being able to read the Eurobalise correctly.

OK, I admit ithis is pure spectulation as the relavant bits of the report are redacted but it looks that way to me.
Sounds reasonable - I wonder if that has any relevance to the issues that prevented close-headway testing until recently?
 

USBT

Member
Joined
5 Nov 2017
Messages
121
Rather misleading headline, that article refers to the Heathrow branch only.

And the Heathrow branch issue (345s unable to coexist with the existing HEX trains in the tunnels due to GW-ATP vs ETCS signaling incompatibility) is very different to the core.

The solution is to replace the HEX stock with class 387s fitted with ETCS. If there’s a delay there that could be a delay in refurbishing/fitting ETCS to the 387s. Not that’s it’s not serious, just different. Indeed if the 387s aren’t ready by December the HEX stock won’t be able to vacate the Old Oak Common depot, which is scheduled for demolition.
 

kevin_roche

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2019
Messages
930
Today on the BBC News website details of a report from the Public Accounts Committee: London's Crossrail project will probably go even further over budget, according to a report by MPs.

MPs said they were "sceptical" about the Department for Transport's "ability to oversee major rail projects".

In response, the Department for Transport said it had acted "swiftly and effectively" when problems at Crossrail became clear.

The Public Accounts Committee also criticised the bonuses paid to bosses, even as the project faltered.

The chief executive at the time, Andrew Wolstenholme, was paid a bonus of £481,000 for the year to 2016 and £160,000 for the year to 2017.

The Department for Transport allowed itself few powers to curb bosses' pay following their failings, it said.

It seems to me that people in charge has a big incentive to hide the real state of the project so that they got their big bonus.
 

bastien

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2016
Messages
427
I wonder what the odds of Crossrail never opening - as currently advertised - are?

(I'm talking WCML Pendolinos never hitting 140mph type compromises here.)
 

Pshambro

Member
Joined
4 Oct 2015
Messages
49
Today on the BBC News website details of a report from the Public Accounts Committee: London's Crossrail project will probably go even further over budget, according to a report by MPs.





It seems to me that people in charge has a big incentive to hide the real state of the project so that they got their big bonus.
Do we know if the project was known to be behind schedule in the years they got their bonuses ? The videos I saw said "on time and on budget". Even if the schedule was deficient and unrealistic, unless this was known at the time, there is no reason to suspect foul play. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Especially on a project of this uniqueness and complexity.
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
9,993
Location
here to eternity
It seems to me that people in charge has a big incentive to hide the real state of the project so that they got their big bonus.

Surly the people awarding the bonus would have checked if their targets had been met? I disagree with bonuses for meeting targets anyway. Bonuses should only be awarded if targets are exceeded!
 

kevin_roche

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2019
Messages
930
Surly the people awarding the bonus would have checked if their targets had been met?

When you are in charge of the company you can cheat. For example it is alleged that they got a large bonus when the first train ran through the tunnels by a certain date so the tracks were laid in a temporary fashion with only every alternate sleeper installed. Later the whole track was taken up after the bonus was earned a put back again properly.
 
Last edited:

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
I wonder what the odds of Crossrail never opening - as currently advertised - are?

(I'm talking WCML Pendolinos never hitting 140mph type compromises here.)
It looks increasingly likely that what will open will be a diluted, reduced, and lacking version of Crossrail. In two or three years time, trains will run under London with far less fanfare as they would have done, and Londoners will be right to deplore the Farce they've had to endure to get there.
 

civ-eng-jim

Member
Joined
16 Jul 2011
Messages
396
Location
Derby
It looks increasingly likely that what will open will be a diluted, reduced, and lacking version of Crossrail. In two or three years time, trains will run under London with far less fanfare as they would have done, and Londoners will be right to deplore the Farce they've had to endure to get there.

Could you be any more vague?

What, specifically, will be different from the original proposal? What level of "fanfare" was envisaged for the running of trains when the project was conceived? (Out of interest, what are the SI units for fanfare?)
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
Most of the compromises to crossrails design happened before 2017 l. There have only been enhancements to the original proposal since then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top