Crossrail opening delayed (opening date not yet known)

[hwl]

I suspect that the Reading services will be transferred in the Dec 19 timetable change as planned, even if they don't run through. So the prime funding source will still be there, though obviously won't reach its potential until connected to the core.

1. Is there enough room at Paddington for the full Crossrail timetable given there are only 12 platforms long enough for 9 car 345s?
2. Is there enough stock to run everything planned west of Paddington if it has to turn back from the west too?

Hence I suspect they will have to run a reduced GW timetable instead.

 

[DarloRich]

Have asked a colleague on the aviation side (to compare this with Class 345 and all other recent stock introduction).

He pointed to a recent Easyjet new Airbus airliner. Built at the Hamburg Factory, very advanced software. Very first flight at the factory on Friday 22 June. Fully tested, delivered over to Easyjet at their Luton airport HQ the following Tuesday, 26 June. Ran its first airline flight the NEXT DAY, Wednesday 27 June from Luton to Milan, so not even to a main base, from where it then operated about 6 flights a day ever since to and fro all around Europe, 6 am to midnight, without seemingly any major fault.

Surprised even me. 5 days from first test flight to passengers, including a weekend. Perhaps the Class 345 commissioning team would like to comment.

interesting - but that cant be first of class surely

 

[mrmartin]

Looking round Whitechapel station while changing trains yesterday it really is obvious how delayed the project is IMO, it still looks like there is structural work to do, nevermind cosmetic fit out!

I think it's a bit more of a blow because Crossrail was pretty much the only project that was on time & on budget until recently. I'm also not convinced the extra ~£500m will be enough if there is a year delay.

 

[30907]

Absolutely, Berlin-Brandenberg Airport was originally supposed to open in 2011. The latest of many opening dates is now 2020 with talk already of 2021 being more realistic so nine to ten years late. Naturally it's massively over budget as well.

Another example is the Leipzig-Erfurt-Nuremberg HSL - when I had regular visits to EF I looked forward to the new line opening in 2007. I have now travelled on it - it also opened 10 years late, though AFAIK that was primarily a funding issue.

 

[plcd1]

The Guardian article about the delay makes a couple of interesting claims, and I'm wondering what people her make of them:

Firstly, it quotes Lord Adonis as claiming that Crossrail won't actually open until 2020.

Secondly it suggests that the delay will hit TfL finances:

This latter claim puzzles me because I would have expected that most Crossrail revenue, especially during the first few years, would be from passengers swapping from other parallel routes, such as the Central line - that would be roughly revenue-neutral to TfL. Some would transfer from SouthEastern, which would presumably hit SouthEastern's revenue to the benefit of TfL, but I can't imagine that making a significant difference on the scale of TfL's budge.

With regard to Adonis droning on we need to know what he means by the terms "open" and "Crossrail". If he means the full scheme with the NR lines linked in then yes it won't be complete until 2020. I think we can take that as read purely because of the timetable recast implications. I expect we will get the core open in the second half of 2019 assuming pace can be maintained with contractors, we don't get a further round of the trades demanding bonus payments and the trains can work reliably with the signalling.

Everyone is jumping up and down on the financial point because it suits an emerging narrative with which to clobber Mayor Khan as we start the long run into the May 2020 election campaign. TfL themselves told the London Assembly that the increase in Liz Line revenues in 2018/19 is almost all transfers from other TfL services with negligible new ridership. Even when you link in the Shenfield line into the core you don't that much of an uplift as, of course, a lot of that money is now a TfL revenue from the TfL Rail service. The crucial point was going to be Dec 2019 and onwards where the full service is expected to be more generative as journey times fall on many trips and new journey options emerge. There is also the obvious gain of a large slice of GWR commuter revenues plus a slice of Heathrow / Reading flow revenues. The point most commentators miss is that the hike in operating costs for the Liz Line is also delayed so, in some respects, TfL are better off in the short term as they keep the revenue but postpone the increase in operating costs.

My reading of all of this is that almost the politicians are talking utter nonsense because it suits their party / personal narratives and they don't have the facts nor have they been honest about the published numbers re financial impacts. I have no doubt that TfL face a struggle but it is likely to hit in late 2019/20 financial year and into 2020/21. As things stand today TfL will be back in the land of (assumed) fare increases post May 2020 (I have this from them when I FOI'd some Business Plan numbers and assumptions). Clearly fares levels will be a matter for the next Mayor and I really can't see Khan committing to another 4 years of fares freeze. He will have to allow TfL to start raising fares or else the organisation will collapse as it simply cannot keep on absorbing inflation impacts on its costs year after year. I also suspect the DfT and Treasury might intervene at this point if they sense severe problems emerging. Therefore the ability to start increasing revenues will bring an element of relief to finances. All of this does, though, assume the economy remains stable. If it crashes then all games are off as to what TfL would have to do to survive including fares rises, service cuts across the board, more job losses and postponing / rephasing projects. The Liz Line could very well get caught up in that if circumstances were very bad.

 

[Taunton]

Looking round Whitechapel station while changing trains yesterday it really is obvious how delayed the project is IMO, it still looks like there is structural work to do, nevermind cosmetic fit out!

I think it's a bit more of a blow because Crossrail was pretty much the only project that was on time & on budget until recently.

I think your second point contradicts your first. The project was only being CLAIMED as on time and budget, whereas it is now revealed it was not.

These lies, for that is what they are, from the senior project team, need to be got to the bottom of. A number of the top management have now left, principally to join similar roles at HS2, at even higher salaries than Crossrail paid them. To ensure both a detailed understanding, and also to ensure they don't pull the same trick over there, they should be brought back and quizzed on how this all happened.

 

[infobleep]

Yep, the question was just how much, we now seemingly have CR's official answer.

Why wasn't there a big fuss ages ago when it was known? I was thinking no one had announced it would overun and until late on but your saying they did.

Whilst I'd prefer them not to overun, it shows that they were cl concealing the fact before now.

 

[infobleep]

Also trains in Germany are always on time, except when they really are not.....

Hyperbole isn't necessary and helps no one. Sacking people will help no one. This is not some massive cock up, it is progressive issues with various parts of the scheme combining. One of which is the planning of resources for construction nationwide!

Surely the government would say as they are private companies it is up to them to plan their own construction resources.

 

[infobleep]

That sounds reasonable - much better to announce a "nine month" delay now (compared to opening in December 2018) and then try to do it sooner - the worst thing in such projects is to announce a two/three month today, then a further two/three month delay in a few months time, then another short delay... losing confidence with everyone involved - much better to give everyone (including the people planning the parallel bus routes, not just the rail industry) breathing space - and a "season" rather than a "month" deadline is nice and nebulous.

Might not be bad to have a "soft launch" independent of the six monthly railway timetable changes too.



I do know that coming up with a budget and delivery schedule for such a mega-project seems to be a hostage to fortune - there's no simple benchmark for something of this size under central London (the Jubilee Line extension is the closest I guess, but that was mainly an extension outside of the centre, rather than mainly directly through the centre).

I don't know if there are penalty clauses - maybe there are - maybe not - but that's something to discuss internally - and often you find that firms "lawyer up" and it becomes incredibly expensive to reclaim money - you might sue them for a million, be awarded half that and find you've encountered hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal costs - so there's an element of it not being worth doing for the sake of maintaining relationships - especially as putting in big penalty clauses invites contractors to bump up their fees in the anticipation of having to pay out penalty clauses - it's not free money.

But, in our Scapegoat Society, I wouldn't be surprised if someone demands a pound of flesh from one of the contractors. It won't help, but it'll make us all feel better if we can get some "Fat Cat" to lose their job because the mob of angry people must be placated.



I'm going to report this post for a breach of Forum Rules (subsection ninety three - "thou shalt not criticise the perfect world of German/Swiss railways")!

Playing devils advocate here, the Government do at times go to court over matters that they then lose. They even then appeal a d lose those. To be fair it's sometimes the government taken to court. However in some cases they lose.

So what's the difference here?would this kind of court action cost more than some others the government goes to court over?

Sorry I can't remember previous court examples but I do know it's happened.

Of course the government aren't the only people to go to court when you wonder what's the point. Govia Thameslink Railway went to court over the rights of EU passengers not being able to get to Gatwick Airport during strikes. That seemed a pointless action wasting their companies money. They lost of course. At one stage they even talked of appealing. At least they didn't waste money doing that.

 

[matt_world2004]

Everyone is jumping up and down on the financial point because it suits an emerging narrative with which to clobber Mayor Khan as we start the long run into the May 2020 election campaign. TfL themselves told the London Assembly that the increase in Liz Line revenues in 2018/19 is almost all transfers from other TfL services with negligible new ridership. Even when you link in the Shenfield line into the core you don't that much of an uplift as, of course, a lot of that money is now a TfL revenue from the TfL Rail service. The crucial point was going to be Dec 2019 and onwards where the full service is expected to be more generative as journey times fall on many trips and new journey options emerge. There is also the obvious gain of a large slice of GWR commuter revenues plus a slice of Heathrow / Reading flow revenues. The point most commentators miss is that the hike in operating costs for the Liz Line is also delayed so, in some respects, TfL are better off in the short term as they keep the revenue but postpone the increase in operating costs.

Doesnt the nature of the concession agreement mean TfL will be paying MTR of the costs for operating the elizabeth line even though its now no longer running. Also I believe the rolling stock maintenance was a fixed price contract with bombardier. As the rolling stock is going to be now doing a lot less mileage. The savings on maintenance charges are going to be gained by bombardier. Not tfl. So TfL are not saving money due to this delay but the private companies paid to operate and maintain the service.

 

[plcd1]

Doesnt the nature of the concession agreement mean TfL will be paying MTR of the costs for operating the elizabeth line even though its now no longer running. Also I believe the rolling stock maintenance was a fixed price contract with bombardier. As the rolling stock is going to be now doing a lot less mileage. The savings on maintenance charges are going to be gained by bombardier. Not tfl. So TfL are not saving money due to this delay but the private companies paid to operate and maintain the service.

How can you operate something that is not handed over or open? There is a very substantial uplift in opex and while I take your point that both MTR and Bombardier will be incurring some costs and will require remuneration I would expect TfL to have served appropriate notice that milestone based payment changes will not be achieved and therefore enhanced levels of service / maintenance activity will not be required. This is all standard contract management stuff and should have been wholly foreseen in the contract terms. I would also expect TfL to delay the recruitment of additional staff for LU management stations and for MTR to delay taking on staff for the stations it will manage. Therefore costs will be saved - if nothing else TfL's finance people will *demand* the maximisation of cost savings as a result of the delay.

 

[londonbridge]

Can't remember the exact details but about a year ago there was a radio advert for a housing development which mentioned the connections to central London available from December 18.......bet they're happy as well.

 

[hwl]

How can you operate something that is not handed over or open? There is a very substantial uplift in opex and while I take your point that both MTR and Bombardier will be incurring some costs and will require remuneration I would expect TfL to have served appropriate notice that milestone based payment changes will not be achieved and therefore enhanced levels of service / maintenance activity will not be required. This is all standard contract management stuff and should have been wholly foreseen in the contract terms. I would also expect TfL to delay the recruitment of additional staff for LU management stations and for MTR to delay taking on staff for the stations it will manage. Therefore costs will be saved - if nothing else TfL's finance people will *demand* the maximisation of cost savings as a result of the delay.

MTR will still have been recruiting drivers and training them. With a delayed core opening there will be even less time for driver training if the time between later opening phases is compressed. They'll still end up operating GW inner services for December 2019.
Delivery of the 345s hasn't been delayed and is on /ahead of schedule sorting the issues is another matter but it looks like the focus is on 9 car rather than 7 car so Bombardier will still be incuring plenty of cost.

I would be surprised if the deals with MTR and BT were that generous to TfL in the event of delayed opening.

 

[matt_world2004]

How can you operate something that is not handed over or open? There is a very substantial uplift in opex and while I take your point that both MTR and Bombardier will be incurring some costs and will require remuneration I would expect TfL to have served appropriate notice that milestone based payment changes will not be achieved and therefore enhanced levels of service / maintenance activity will not be required. This is all standard contract management stuff and should have been wholly foreseen in the contract terms. I would also expect TfL to delay the recruitment of additional staff for LU management stations and for MTR to delay taking on staff for the stations it will manage. Therefore costs will be saved - if nothing else TfL's finance people will *demand* the maximisation of cost savings as a result of the delay.

Isnt it speculated on here that TfL recieved notice of the delay 101 days before launch. At that point the drivers have been paid for .I also thought part of the point of using concession contracts was to mitigate the operator against delays to infrastructure changes. What MTR will lose financially is the 10% ticket revenue share they would have got for the core and perhaps the 10% financial penalty for cancellations outside their control.

 

[strawbrick]

Reverting to "the reasons why?", back in the day I was involved with the Planning / Reporting function on the Jubilee Line Extension Project.

At Package Contract level, all of the packages, be it a specific Station or project-wide, were regularly (i.e. monthly or even weekly) producing project progress reports. For a number of key stations these were regularly showing a week or more slippage in the month. These reports were then sent up one level of management tree. This higher level would then instruct the Package Contract to re-programme to recover the lost time. Thus having taken longer to do things than the previous "ambitious" programme we would shorten the time required for the same sort of work in forthcoming work areas. The same shortening process would then take place on the next progress report showing a delay ...

This enabled the next level of the management tree to report up the we were "on programme" all the time, until of course it became impossible to cut any more time and we were suddenly in delay.

I never got to understand why this happened but I would suggest it was either as the result of an edict from the highest level "We will finish on time and do not dare to tell me otherwise", or some-one in the system decided not to be the bearer of bad tidings.

Then it got really bad when there was poor and or late preparation of the package Commissioning programmes and then the line-wide Commissioning programme.

I belive the apposite quotation may therefore be "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

 

[Clip]

Have asked a colleague on the aviation side (to compare this with Class 345 and all other recent stock introduction).

...

Surprised even me. 5 days from first test flight to passengers, including a weekend. Perhaps the Class 345 commissioning team would like to comment.

Thanks for the info. I take it these were brand new planes never taken flight before and were just off the production line and then into the air 5 days later?

 

[Class 170101]

I've not yet seen MR for September but Terry Morgan remains Crossrail Chairman and certainly hasn't been replaced. I believe Terry has taken on an additional role with HS2.

Andrew Wolstenholme, the former CEO, left a few months ago. Simon Wright replaced him.

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...drops-london-city-airport-job-to-focus-on-hs2

Terry Morgan is former Crossrail chairman according to the article - now Chairman at HS2.

Additionally I cannot see operators accepting a partial closure of Liverpool Street at any other time than school summer holidays 2019 (Christmas excepted) as commuter demand is reduced.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Surely the government would say as they are private companies it is up to them to plan their own construction resources.

How are private construction companies supposed to plan their resources when it is the government who is in charge of the workbank?

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

seems to me that with the Thameslink meltdown there's been some intense navel gazing at Crossrail over the last couple of months.... and they've come to the conclusion better to have an egg on face now rather than a whole omelette by trying to operate as planned... so it seems that lessons are already being learned from the Thameslink fiasco.

 

[Taunton]

I'm a bit lost as to the actual issues, given the problems being discussed above. All that was going to open this December was Abbey Wood to Paddington. A completely isolated section from the rest of the network. Not any part of the GEML or GWML, so nothing connected with those Network Rail rebuilds. Not to Heathrow so nothing to do with the signalling issues there. The various intermediate stations, even if some were not ready by December, could have been initially non-stopped, and just brought on line gradually as completed. There are already far more trains on hand now than required for this section. So what has stopped the opening of this particular core bit.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I'm a bit lost as to the actual issues, given the problems being discussed above. All that was going to open this December was Abbey Wood to Paddington. A completely isolated section from the rest of the network. Not any part of the GEML or GWML, so nothing connected with those Network Rail rebuilds. Not to Heathrow so nothing to do with the signalling issues there. The various intermediate stations, even if some were not ready by December, could have been initially non-stopped, and just brought on line gradually as completed. There are already far more trains on hand now than required for this section. So what has stopped the opening of this particular core bit.

Thameslink perchance?

 

[Taunton]

Thanks for the info. I take it these were brand new planes never taken flight before and were just off the production line and then into the air 5 days later?

Yes, brand new. And the 5 days was the time from first ever test flight at the factory after assembly, to intensive public passenger service.

 

[Dstock7080]

I'm a bit lost as to the actual issues, given the problems being discussed above. All that was going to open this December was Abbey Wood to Paddington. A completely isolated section from the rest of the network. Not any part of the GEML or GWML, so nothing connected with those Network Rail rebuilds. Not to Heathrow so nothing to do with the signalling issues there. The various intermediate stations, even if some were not ready by December, could have been initially non-stopped, and just brought on line gradually as completed. There are already far more trains on hand now than required for this section. So what has stopped the opening of this particular core bit.

New signalling on the core.

 

[matt_world2004]

Ive heard its to do with The public address and voice alarm cabling being installed incorrectly.

 

[Taunton]

Surely the new Core signalling for just Abbey Wood to Paddington is relatively straightforward stuff. No interfacing to other signalling systems, no changeover points, all brand new current design stations and trackwork, no need to work around possessions on a currently live railway, 24x7 testing window, no junctions, no sharing with older technology trains, etc - none of the stuff which typically trips up signalling.

 

[swt_passenger]

New signalling on the core.

Is that the LU style CBTC system they went for, because they didn’t want the technical risk of ERTMS with ATO not being ready in time?

 

[plcd1]

Surely the new Core signalling for just Abbey Wood to Paddington is relatively straightforward stuff. No interfacing to other signalling systems, no changeover points, all brand new current design stations and trackwork, no need to work around possessions on a currently live railway, 24x7 testing window, no junctions, no sharing with older technology trains, etc - none of the stuff which typically trips up signalling.

So where do the trains come from to reach the core? Oh yes Ilford and Old Oak Common which involves using existing tracks, passing over signalling system interfaces and needing to have train paths allocated alongside existing passenger and freight services. This notion that the core is somehow completely disconnected from the rest of the railway really isn't correct. I will accept it is not a huge issue in terms of the potential passenger service for this next phase BUT you still need to have full confidence you can get trains to and from depots effectively and smoothly and not stopping at signalling interface points or conking out on steep slopes at portals or whatever (my wild speculation there not real events that have occurred).

We must wait for more detail - TfL, the Mayor and Crossrail are all being dragged into the London Assembly Plenary session this coming Thursday at 1000 so we may get a bit more insight then.

It is quite clear that some stations are not yet physically complete which will delay system installation and commissioning. Many of these systems will be linked into control centres and systems that will require full testing of *everything* together to prove their capability. You can't get regulatory sign off if things are not complete as envisaged and why should the operators be pushed to "accept" assets and systems which are not proven or fully working to spec? We've all seen where that leads as project teams evaporate, knowledge disappears and some poor sap is left to try to get things finished to spec - 5 years later. I understand the progress of the CBTC signalling in the core is not where it should be meaning there was nowhere near enough time for a proper testing phase and operation of a shadow timetable. I believe the chief TfL operational chap has said "not good enough, not going to accept less testing time" so there we are. Shades of learning from the Thameslink debacle - someone has the b*lls to say "no" rather than take a delusional trip down the garden path going "it's all lovely, it's all going to work, tra la la la, aren't we all brilliant".

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, brand new. And the 5 days was the time from first ever test flight at the factory after assembly, to intensive public passenger service.

This is easyJet’s new A320s. A tried and tested design. Whilst 5 days is relatively quick, it is not unusual. The crew know it, the ground crew know it, and once it has completed its factory tests and is passed good for service, it can go into service straight away. Iberia’s 2nd A350 was 10 days from first test flight to being in service.

But, notably, airliners are subjected to a much more rigorous testing from maiden flight first to being in service. Almost all of the testing is with the craft itself, rather than its interaction with the infrastructure it relies on.

Perhaps a better railway example was the Class 66s - after the first few were tested, a good number of them were taken off the ship at Newport and on revenue trains within hours.

 

[700007]

I'm a bit lost as to the actual issues, given the problems being discussed above. All that was going to open this December was Abbey Wood to Paddington. A completely isolated section from the rest of the network. Not any part of the GEML or GWML, so nothing connected with those Network Rail rebuilds. Not to Heathrow so nothing to do with the signalling issues there. The various intermediate stations, even if some were not ready by December, could have been initially non-stopped, and just brought on line gradually as completed. There are already far more trains on hand now than required for this section. So what has stopped the opening of this particular core bit.

A number of stations are not ready to open yet in the core. Whilst yes they could have been non-stopped, one of the biggest issues was Paddington is not ready yet.

Paddington is a major interchange and if it isn't ready, half of the Central section cannot open. To say to open it as far as Bond Street, dumping passengers at Bond Street and running empty to Westbourne Park would add unnecessary pressure to the Jubilee and Bakerloo lines (as they try to go from Bond Street to Paddington) which are already struggling capacity wise. Buses in the local area are constantly being cut as well so it just adds a lot of hassle as well.

You could have opened Canary Wharf to Abbey Wood which give or take the stations are ready except for Woolwich, but having only 3 of the 10 Stations open, not even in Central London itself may have been too embarrassing for TfL not to mention the operational inconvenience of trying to run a service like that from Ilford / Old Oak depots.

I would not know the progress of the Plumstead sidings at the moment, but regardless trains would still need to go Ilford and Old Oak for regular maintenance.

 

[Clip]

Yes, brand new. And the 5 days was the time from first ever test flight at the factory after assembly, to intensive public passenger service.

So brand new design and build then and Easyjet were the first customers of this plane and they hadn't been tested at all before they got hold of them and they had to train up all the staff on them,including pilots and cabin crew, including those who work at airports doing the refuelling and whatever else they do all in 5 days?

Im stunned at how good they must be to do all that and more in just 5 days. Or are you fibbing?