Mark said in the Assembly Transport Committee last week that it would realistically be Feb 2021 at the earliest - so not new news but just some journalists who were off on half term catching up when TfL publish transcripts of the hearing.Crossrail won't be opening in 2020 owing to further delay's. It'll open as soon as "practically possible" in 2021
TfL Rail take over most GWR relief line services in December so they will be a lot more utilised in 5 weeks time.I watched something on BBC2 I believe last year that documented the construction of Crossrail, and part of it involved the journey of a few trainee drivers.
Are these drivers just twiddling their thumbs and doing nothing because of these delays? Or are they being used elsewhere on TfL?
Can someone update the title of the thread?
So if these TfL drivers take over work currently done by GWR drivers in December does that mean that GWR are going to find themselves with a driver surplus come next month?TfL Rail take over most GWR relief line services in December so they will be a lot more utilised in 5 weeks time.
Plenty of route learning (and knowledge retention) and running existing services to do not as much thumb twiddling as you might expect.
Also recruitment and training was behind plan so some bacon saved there by other delays...
There is no doubt that required multi-system integration is complex but I do get the impression that it's being a little overplayed in order to manage expectations. Transitioning from one signalling system to another is not new to the UK, Eurostars and Javelins have been doing it for years and I don't remember it taking this long to prove the concept.It tells the public how complex the task is, maybe preparing the way for more delay?
GWR are planning to run a lot of extra services after the start of the new timetable.So if these TfL drivers take over work currently done by GWR drivers in December does that mean that GWR are going to find themselves with a driver surplus come next month?
This may be an unfair assumption, but given the considerable delay to the 710 deployment specifically due to TMS software issues, I do find myself wondering if most of the software issues are not Trainguard, but getting Bombardier's TMS on the 345s to work with Trainguard. After all, they can't get the 345s working properly with ETCS on the GWR yet either, but the 387s seem happy enough with it don't they?
I just can't escape the feeling that this systems integration problem is a little one-sided. That might be totally untrue, but given past and indeed recent experience with Bombardier train software, it's hard not to point the finger at least a little in that direction.
Didn't TfL choose CBTC because they felt that ETCS hasn't demonstrated sufficient maturity? The system integration issue seems (IMHO) to be a bit of a red herring when one considers that the initial service through the tunnel section only operates between Abbey Wood and Paddington low level. Yes, I know there's the depot at OOC to access with ECS moves but surely that's a relatively low risk interface?This may be an unfair assumption, but given the considerable delay to the 710 deployment specifically due to TMS software issues, I do find myself wondering if most of the software issues are not Trainguard, but getting Bombardier's TMS on the 345s to work with Trainguard. After all, they can't get the 345s working properly with ETCS on the GWR yet either, but the 387s seem happy enough with it don't they?
I just can't escape the feeling that this systems integration problem is a little one-sided. That might be totally untrue, but given past and indeed recent experience with Bombardier train software, it's hard not to point the finger at least a little in that direction.
On the signalling /train interface - system Integration includes things like the platform edge door and CCTV system integration with the train and signallingDidn't TfL choose CBTC because they felt that ETCS hasn't demonstrated sufficient maturity? The system integration issue seems (IMHO) to be a bit of a red herring when one considers that the initial service through the tunnel section only operates between Abbey Wood and Paddington low level. Yes, I know there's the depot at OOC to access with ECS moves but surely that's a relatively low risk interface?
A little more honesty is needed here me thinks!
I would really like to see a block diagram showing all these interfaces. Does anyone have one?On the signalling /train interface - system Integration includes things like the platform edge door and CCTV system integration with the train and signalling
The system integration on the "building" side is also in a poor state e.g. multiple systems not integrated into SCADA. Ventilation system not integrated properly with fire alarm systems and existing LU stations etc. ...
I could conjure up a train and linked systems one if I get the timeI would really like to see a block diagram showing all these interfaces. Does anyone have one?
They are performing step back duties at Paddington and probably at Liverpool Street as well this week improves reliability as it ensures there's less likely to be disruption by a personal needs break
Fair enough, thanks for the detailed reply, there's a lot of stuff here I wasn't aware of, though I did suspect Trainguard (or this implementation of it) would be far from blameless.The 387s haven't used ETCS yet and one have had the equipment fitted.
There are big problems with Trainguard:
a) issues with code discovered that had been deployed in other Trainguard locations and only discovered in Crossrail testing that needed to be address globally in installations - very tough questions being asked as to how it got though testing elsewhere over the last decade.
b) Trainguard needs several additional functionally packages added for Crossrail.
c) Running with higher frequency /longer train combinations than elsewhere so performance is being pushed to the limit. (Notably shorter trains elsewhere)
d) it is taking an extra 2 software iterations to get to multi train service headway testing stage
e) Hong Kong are also having similar problems to London (trying to do similar things outcome wise in parallel)
f) first time Trainguard has had to co-exist with ETCS on board train equipment. The ETCS spec requires all other signalling systems to be subsidiary to it and this is the first time Traingaurd has been installed in this way on the rolling stock side i.e. interfacing through the EVC. (**a major change**)
g) following on from f) it also uses a lot of the same sensors as ETCS but gets the data from the EVC.
I'm wondering if they are beginning to wish they had just installed conventional signalling - you know the one that's tried and tested!
Would have constrained the line capacity and allowed no growth in services.I'm wondering if they are beginning to wish they had just installed conventional signalling - you know the one that's tried and tested!
Thales are having almost identical issues on the LU's SSR re-signalling (and Singapore). (LU has postponed any Northern line signalling upgrades to increase the frequency till the SSR is completed)Fair enough, thanks for the detailed reply, there's a lot of stuff here I wasn't aware of, though I did suspect Trainguard (or this implementation of it) would be far from blameless.
The phased opening, now set to occur in 2021, will mean initial Elizabeth Line services to Shenfield will start from Liverpool Street main line, and Reading and Heathrow services will start from the main line platforms at Paddington.
Only the outer London station at Abbey Wood will be served by trains running through the central London tunnels to Farringdon, Tottenham Court Road and Paddington
No, the 'opening date' of Crossrail still refers to the central operating section only, not when the existing routes are connected to it. Now that 2020 is off the agenda for the core opening, I think we can fairly safely say 2022 for the connections to the GE and GW, or maybe December 2021 for the former at the earliest.http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News
So not even a full service in 2021 according to this article.
True, however didn’t a similar idea allow the Jubilee line extension to open on time & operate reliably until the new signalling was perfected some years laterWould have constrained the line capacity and allowed no growth in services.
It did but that's a rather different scenario, extending a largely self-contained route a bit further, but remaining self-contained. Crossrail will rely on the improved performance new signalling provides in order to be able to integrate the routes it comprises. The systems either side of the core still aren't identical even if a legacy system (which would later have to be replaced with the new system probably causing downtime) was fitted in the core.True, however didn’t a similar idea allow the Jubilee line extension to open on time & operate reliably until the new signalling was perfected some years later
But my original point was that the Crossrail YouTube video seemed to be over overplaying TPWS/AWS/CBTC integration rather than focusing on the real issues which appear to be related to other systems integration within the core section.Fair enough, thanks for the detailed reply, there's a lot of stuff here I wasn't aware of, though I did suspect Trainguard (or this implementation of it) would be far from blameless.
iIt did but that's a rather different scenario, extending a largely self-contained route a bit further, but remaining self-contained. Crossrail will rely on the improved performance new signalling provides in order to be able to integrate the routes it comprises. The systems either side of the core still aren't identical even if a legacy system (which would later have to be replaced with the new system probably causing downtime) was fitted in the core.
That is also true and probably played a significant part.i
Very Interesting, Id often thought that as the Jubilee line was crucial to the launch of the Millennium Dome, considerable effort must’ve taken place throughout the whole project to ensure an on time opening that simply wasn’t deemed necessary on Crossrail