Crossrail - Construction updates and progress towards opening (now expected 24 May 2022)

[Watershed]

I mean what are they going to do, declare it's time to "shut her down" because they need £150m more on an 18bn budget? Yeah, right. There should probably be an inquiry about the cost overruns but it's likely not going to hold up the project.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility that certain corners might be cut to get it delivered on budget - e.g. opening the Core but with some stations not yet open (apart from emergency evacuation).

There is considerable cost pressure and the Treasury won't take kindly to signing a blank cheque.

 

[kevin_roche]

The Ian Visits website has some nice pictures explaining the new opening plan with Stages 5b and 5c.

Crossrail changes its staged opening plans

Although the opening of Crossrail is the public deadline that keeps shifting, it is in fact only the 3rd stage of a 5-stage process, and how the final two stages will be carried out has been changed.

www.ianvisits.co.uk

Seems the Elizabeth line might open in the central tunnels in February 2022 at the earliest and June 2022 at the latest.

Crossrail reveals best and worst case scenarios for Elizabeth line opening date | New Civil Engineer

February 2022 is earmarked as the earliest possible opening date of the railway, with June 2022 recorded as the latest possible opening date. A third

www.newcivilengineer.com

 

[Chris125]

https://twitter.com/Crossrail/status/1415215738713952256

Passengers travelling from Paddington station can now benefit from improvements as part of the #Elizabethline with new seating, information screens and improved access into Paddington station platform 1 and to Eastbourne Terrace buses and taxis

 

[Taunton]

One of the annoying aspects of the constant drip-feed of increased costs is it is never discussed just what are the items which are increasing, and/or missed out of previous costs. There is a considerable staff engaged on cost management who should be really explaining where this continually comes from, and was this not the whole justification for Jacobs to oversee the financial spend to completion? Bearing in mind that we were less than 6 months from supposed opening in 2018, three years ago, although the work may not have been completed presumably contracts had been agreed for it all by then.

Regarding east end peak loadings, those are going to be assymetric. In mornings the main westbound flow will be from the Shenfield branch, whereas eastbound it is to Canary Wharf/Abbey Wood. The opposite in the evenings. This may impact on the peak loads to/from Liverpool Street mainline. I can envisage that from inner Shenfield line stations it may not be possible to even board a through Crossrail train, whereas the one to Liverpool Street, especially if it is closely following, would have lighter loads. Conceptually, it's a poor service plan which has a significant proportion of the capacity terminating at the first central station rather than all serving most of them. There's no justification at all really in the morning peak for outward services from Liverpool Street main line, which may as well run ecs on the fast lines back to Gidea Park for another load.

 

[Ianno87]

.

Regarding east end peak loadings, those are going to be assymetric. In mornings the main westbound flow will be from the Shenfield branch, whereas eastbound it is to Canary Wharf/Abbey Wood.

Will it?

I look at the number of people joining the Jubilee Line westbound at Canning Town every morning, who in future will be hoovered up by Crossrail. Plus all the various new developments in the area providing new passengers who don't exist today.

Plus probably alot of demand release from North Kent, who suddenly have a vastly improved connection at Abbey Wood towards Zone 1 (and probably a pretty hefty demand just as far as Canary Wharf)

On the Shenfield branch, Stratford itself will see some "Churn" along the way too.

 

[matt_world2004]

https://twitter.com/Crossrail/status/1415215738713952256

Does anyone know if the step free access to the bakerloo line through the crossrail link tunnels is now available

 

[stuu]

One of the annoying aspects of the constant drip-feed of increased costs is it is never discussed just what are the items which are increasing, and/or missed out of previous costs.

The enormous bulk is simply the cost of having to keep employing thousands of people for years longer than originally planned, and, probably, paying them extra to stay with project. That also applies to the actual companies and plant etc which may have been booked to move to new contracts but can't because of the delays, and presumably Crossrail is on the hook for any breaches of contract caused by those delays

Does anyone know if the step free access to the bakerloo line through the crossrail link tunnels is now available

It can't be until the Crossrail station is open, it doesn't go anywhere else (AFAIK)

 

[Bayum]

Would there ever be a scenario where Crossrail opens to the public with a few stations not open to public? Or would that be against some form of regulation with evacuation/safety infringements?

 

[reddragon]

In theory, there is no reason why the service could run with some stations closed. At the minimum though, Paddington must open and the other stations must be suitable fire / evacuation points.

 

[hwl]

Would there ever be a scenario where Crossrail opens to the public with a few stations not open to public? Or would that be against some form of regulation with evacuation/safety infringements?

Everything apart from Bond Street should be handed over to TfL before then end of school holidays.

Theoretically yes but as Bond Street is an evacuation point it needs to be finished to function at that level and functioning as an evacuation point then slows completion even further.

Bond Street should be broadly complete by October / November time with hand over a while after that.

 

[Yindee8191]

Would there ever be a scenario where Crossrail opens to the public with a few stations not open to public? Or would that be against some form of regulation with evacuation/safety infringements?

I believe the plan is to open initially without Bond Street whatever happens, so yes, it’s definitely possible. Evacuation via a closed station would still be possible.

 

[Snow1964]

I believe the plan is to open initially without Bond Street whatever happens, so yes, it’s definitely possible. Evacuation via a closed station would still be possible.

It also depends on the initial train frequency, a station like Bond Street has 2 exits, and clearly this is designed to handle a 24-30 train per hour service.

If starting with only 12 tph then you would have less than half the potential numbers to evacuate so maybe only one entrance open would be acceptable.

 

[Taunton]

I suspect the issue with needing all the stations open is that the procedures for emergency evacuation are developed and documented for rail staff, fire service, police, etc, and it's considered unacceptable to run the service when these procedures are invalid because some access points are unavailable. There's also the issue that fire systems need to be complete and checked. Sure, the Severn Tunnel is about as long as the Core with no access points, but that has different documented procedures. Remember, after Kings Cross the London Fire Service is extra-pernickity about underground stations.

It's certainly like this with major new buildings, you can't partially open them without a fire certificate, which you don't get if it's not all installed and working.

 

[Aictos]

One thing I don't understand and it does seem to be rather overkill but at Abbey Wood you've got the head shunt for the Elizabeth line in the direction of Dartford that looks long enough for a 9 car Class 345 train that is electrified enough to take a 9 car Class 345 however the bit that i don't understand the thinking between is the fact that it then carrries on as a unelectrified siding that looks long enough for a another 9 car Class 345 to be stabled there even maybe long enough for a 12 car train.

So why the excessive over run especially as it doesn't look connected to the North Kent line at the Dartford end, I'm sure there is a logical reason but to my untrained eye it does look like a waste of resources as it's not even fully electrified when they could have just cut it back enough to take a single 9 car Class 345 instead of a pair of said trains especially as there won't be any other type of train using the Elizabeth line Core except maintenance trains.

 

[Ianno87]

One thing I don't understand and it does seem to be rather overkill but at Abbey Wood you've got the head shunt for the Elizabeth line in the direction of Dartford that looks long enough for a 9 car Class 345 train that is electrified enough to take a 9 car Class 345 however the bit that i don't understand the thinking between is the fact that it then carrries on as a unelectrified siding that looks long enough for a another 9 car Class 345 to be stabled there even maybe long enough for a 12 car train.

So why the excessive over run especially as it doesn't look connected to the North Kent line at the Dartford end, I'm sure there is a logical reason but to my untrained eye it does look like a waste of resources as it's not even fully electrified when they could have just cut it back enough to take a single 9 car Class 345 instead of a pair of said trains especially as there won't be any other type of train using the Elizabeth line Core except maintenance trains.

I'd imagine the seemingly excessive distance is to keep full electrical separation between Crossrail (AC) and North Kent (DC) lines. Space-wise is hardly constrainted there.

 

[Horizon22]

One thing I don't understand and it does seem to be rather overkill but at Abbey Wood you've got the head shunt for the Elizabeth line in the direction of Dartford that looks long enough for a 9 car Class 345 train that is electrified enough to take a 9 car Class 345 however the bit that i don't understand the thinking between is the fact that it then carrries on as a unelectrified siding that looks long enough for a another 9 car Class 345 to be stabled there even maybe long enough for a 12 car train.

So why the excessive over run especially as it doesn't look connected to the North Kent line at the Dartford end, I'm sure there is a logical reason but to my untrained eye it does look like a waste of resources as it's not even fully electrified when they could have just cut it back enough to take a single 9 car Class 345 instead of a pair of said trains especially as there won't be any other type of train using the Elizabeth line Core except maintenance trains.

I think also because there's some scope to allow Crossrail to continue on towards Gravesend or even that new "theme park" they are supposedly building in the Ebbsfleet area, if required in the future. That would require some sort of DC conversion to 345s of course. Would allow additional trains to terminate at Abbey Wood when it is no longer a "terminus" perhaps?

 

[swt_passenger]

One thing I don't understand and it does seem to be rather overkill but at Abbey Wood you've got the head shunt for the Elizabeth line in the direction of Dartford that looks long enough for a 9 car Class 345 train that is electrified enough to take a 9 car Class 345 however the bit that i don't understand the thinking between is the fact that it then carrries on as a unelectrified siding that looks long enough for a another 9 car Class 345 to be stabled there even maybe long enough for a 12 car train.

So why the excessive over run especially as it doesn't look connected to the North Kent line at the Dartford end, I'm sure there is a logical reason but to my untrained eye it does look like a waste of resources as it's not even fully electrified when they could have just cut it back enough to take a single 9 car Class 345 instead of a pair of said trains especially as there won't be any other type of train using the Elizabeth line Core except maintenance trains.

It’s explained as a “bolthole berth“ followed by an “engineering road”, (of about 375m), in the sectional appendix, so I expect what you see is exactly what they intended. It actually is connected at the Dartford end, the relative lengths possibly allow for both functions at the same time?

 

[Ianno87]

It's one of those things where "if it looks odd, there's almost certainly a reason for it!"

 

[Shwam3]

So why the excessive over run especially as it doesn't look connected to the North Kent line at the Dartford end

There is a connection to the North Kent Lines at the end of the engineering road (Alsike Road Junction).
https://goo.gl/maps/1PXLKB9C69mFXNHp8

 

[ijmad]

I think also because there's some scope to allow Crossrail to continue on towards Gravesend or even that new "theme park" they are supposedly building in the Ebbsfleet area, if required in the future. That would require some sort of DC conversion to 345s of course. Would allow additional trains to terminate at Abbey Wood when it is no longer a "terminus" perhaps?

There are many classes in the Aventra family equipped for third rail, including the 701s and half the 710s. I'm sure they could be equipped with standard parts if needed. However the most recent proposals feature segregated track at least as far as Dartford, which might be under the wires for the Crossrail side?

Having a nice bit of overrun track does mean construction of an extension would require less closures though.

 

[matt_world2004]

There's already provision in the class ,345 specification to connect third rail shoegear it just has not been used.

 

[ijmad]

There's already provision in the class ,345 specification to connect third rail shoegear it just has not been used.

Thought I'd read that. Makes sense given it's from a family of trains and not a one-off.

 

[Horizon22]

There's already provision in the class ,345 specification to connect third rail shoegear it just has not been used.

Now you mention that I do remember seeing that in a 345 spec earlier last year.

 

[Swaine]

Bond Street always seems to appear as the last station that will be completed. What is the current problem? I know there were significant delays during the initial civil engineering/ construction. Is the current delay a hangover from that?

 

[Class 170101]

I think also because there's some scope to allow Crossrail to continue on towards Gravesend or even that new "theme park" they are supposedly building in the Ebbsfleet area, if required in the future. That would require some sort of DC conversion to 345s of course. Would allow additional trains to terminate at Abbey Wood when it is no longer a "terminus" perhaps?

Or just convert the line to be both 3rd Rail DC and 25KV ac overhead, yes I know there are issues with this but the NLL was (and still is) in parts using both systems together.

 

[Snow1964]

Or just convert the line to be both 3rd Rail DC and 25KV ac overhead, yes I know there are issues with this but the NLL was (and still is) in parts using both systems together.

Not that many over bridges (some may have sufficient clearance anyway), and doesn’t need to be a system designed for high speed.

Might be easier than clearing all the existing routes for shoe beam fitted trains. The cost of doing this would have to be incurred so could be put towards cost of stringing a few wires.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Will it?

I look at the number of people joining the Jubilee Line westbound at Canning Town every morning, who in future will be hoovered up by Crossrail. Plus all the various new developments in the area providing new passengers who don't exist today.

Plus probably alot of demand release from North Kent, who suddenly have a vastly improved connection at Abbey Wood towards Zone 1 (and probably a pretty hefty demand just as far as Canary Wharf)

On the Shenfield branch, Stratford itself will see some "Churn" along the way too.

You raise an interesting point as to how traffic flows will change along the North Kent Line and whether it will cause a change to current service levels.

 

[swt_passenger]

You raise an interesting point as to how traffic flows will change along the North Kent Line and whether it will cause a change to current service levels.

Network Rail are on the case, the Kent route study 2018 reckons 50% reduction in passenger numbers west of Abbey Wood, reducing to 35% by 2031. 25% increase east of Abbey Wood rising to 45% by 2031.

They’re obviously old figures, but can be found on P38 of this:

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/South-East-Kent-route-study-print-version.pdf

 

[Horizon22]

You raise an interesting point as to how traffic flows will change along the North Kent Line and whether it will cause a change to current service levels.

Oh this has been raised for a long time. There are a lot of SE commuters who want the more eastern parts of the city or central London who will disappear now they don't need to change at London Bridge or Cannon St (all Covid dependent on how many "commuters" there are of course!). Abbey Wood will become a considerable interchange for people from around the Dartford area. Journey time really matters in metro world.

 

[mr_jrt]

Oh this has been raised for a long time. There are a lot of SE commuters who want the more eastern parts of the city or central London who will disappear now they don't need to change at London Bridge or Cannon St (all Covid dependent on how many "commuters" there are of course!). Abbey Wood will become a considerable interchange for people from around the Dartford area. Journey time really matters in metro world.

Shame they didn't stick with plan A to have fully cross platform interchange at Abbey Wood then!