How likely will Farringdon become the bottleneck of the London railway network when Elizabeth Line opens?

[miklcct]

Farringdon is the centre of London railway network, located inside the ring of London Terminals. When Elizabeth Line opens, it and Thameslink will form a cross-shape cross-London network intersecting at Farringdon. As a result, I expect a lot of cross-London traffic will be done through Farringdon, as getting up and down the tube wastes a lot of time.

For example, most cross-London transfers using the tube at Paddington or Liverpool Street will be eliminated by transfer at Farringdon, and a Farringdon transfer can also be faster or more convenient than using the tube for some other line combinations.

How likely will the interchange be overloaded after the line opens?

 

[a_c_skinner]

They have built a much bigger bottle since I first went to a very seedy Farringdon years ago.

 

[Horizon22]

Part of the work at the station previously with its odd staircases and overhead walkways was to help alleviate this future congestion, not to mention the huge new concourse with the Elizabeth line / Crossrail which is easily accessible going Northbound and from the gateline above (albeit slightly more of a faff from the Southbound)

 

[cle]

They have built a much bigger bottle since I first went to a very seedy Farringdon years ago.

Chariots is long gone

 

[yorkie]

...How likely will the interchange be overloaded after the line opens?

When did you last visit Farringdon? It has been expanded massively and I would be surprised and disappointed if they had not taken future interchange opportunities into account when they did this.

I'll tag @hwl into this conversation as they may have some thoughts!

 

[stuu]

The Crossrail side and the new Thameslink bits are very much built with the interchange in mind, so shouldn't be an issue. The Thameslink platforms are a bit narrow though, but there isn't much that can be done with those

 

[dastocks]

I could see there being issue(s) with overcrowding on the narrower parts of the historic Thameslink and Underground platforms, especially if/when either of those services go tits-up. They may have to close parts of the station temporarily, but this must have been happening already pre-pandemic and will be part of the SOPs for the station.

 

[fgwrich]

I could see there being issue(s) with overcrowding on the narrower parts of the historic Thameslink and Underground platforms, especially if/when either of those services go tits-up. They may have to close parts of the station temporarily, but this must have been happening already pre-pandemic and will be part of the SOPs for the station.

I have to admit I'm surprised they didn't take the opportunity to rebuild both parts of the station during the CrossRail works, particularly by ironing out the kinks and some of the curves in the platform. But that would have no doubt have been highly disruptive to both Thameslink and the Sub Surface lines. I presume parts of the station are listed aswell?

 

[swt_passenger]

I have to admit I'm surprised they didn't take the opportunity to rebuild both parts of the station during the CrossRail works, particularly by ironing out the kinks and some of the curves in the platform. But that would have no doubt have been highly disruptive to both Thameslink and the Sub Surface lines. I presume parts of the station are listed aswell?

There’s no spare width alongside the LU and original Thameslink platforms, mainly due to a relatively modern building that didn't ever allow for the Thameslink northbound platform to be widened. Another problem is that because of the respective gradients off the platform ends the LU and TL shared island is at two different heights for much of its length. I think some of the older station entrance building and original canopy is listed, and although I am not sure about this I think the bridge that carries the old LU entrance wasn’t allowed to be altered for some reason, which is why theres a really narrow bit between old and new Thameslink areas.

 

[plugwash]

A related question is will journey planners be updated to better utilize thameslink/crossrail?

The way journey planners work today a "tube" fixed link always counts as one leg even if it requires a change between tube trains or the tube station is some distance from the mainline platforms. This leads to poor routing descisions, for example Letchworth to Salisbury, the planner will tell you to use the Tube from St Pancras or Blackfriers to Waterloo, even though this requires taking two tube trains and there is a direct tube service to Waterloo from London Bridge.

 

[londontransit]

Farringdon is the centre of London railway network, located inside the ring of London Terminals. When Elizabeth Line opens, it and Thameslink will form a cross-shape cross-London network intersecting at Farringdon. As a result, I expect a lot of cross-London traffic will be done through Farringdon, as getting up and down the tube wastes a lot of time.

For example, most cross-London transfers using the tube at Paddington or Liverpool Street will be eliminated by transfer at Farringdon, and a Farringdon transfer can also be faster or more convenient than using the tube for some other line combinations.

How likely will the interchange be overloaded after the line opens?

It depends what you mean. It'll be greatly used of course however in a number of cases especially for those with disabilities Farringdon wont even be the best interchange - Liverpool Street (eastbound) and Barbican (westbound) being the better alternatives and the tube (for example onward from Paddington) will still afford accessible journeys that cant be done via Farringdon.

Farringdon to Thameslink destinations will be good in most cases so I expect for example destinations such as West Hampstead will in future prefer to use the Elizabeth Line at Farringdon rather than use the Jubilee Line to Bond Street.

But again, if one looks at the detail, some of the new Crossrail stations involve such long walks that any time saved travelling on the new Elizabeth line is going to be negated and sticking to the tube will still be better. One can find instances where the Elizabeth Line isn't actually going to be any quicker than the tube. I suppose the saving grace however will be the larger main line sized trains and the vast and airy platforms - no surprise people will use the Elizabeth line anyway because it'll be more convivial.

There’s no spare width alongside the LU and original Thameslink platforms, mainly due to a relatively modern building that didn't ever allow for the Thameslink northbound platform to be widened. Another problem is that because of the respective gradients off the platform ends the LU and TL shared island is at two different heights for much of its length. I think some of the older station entrance building and original canopy is listed, and although I am not sure about this I think the bridge that carries the old LU entrance wasn’t allowed to be altered for some reason, which is why theres a really narrow bit between old and new Thameslink areas.

Yes these things have contributed to Farringdon being somewhat dubious in terms of its 'greatness' as a Elizabeth Line interchange point. Its a good station but has its downsides and the interchange between the sub surface lines and Thameslink is not really that great.

 

[Busaholic]

I suppose the saving grace however will be the larger main line sized trains and the vast and airy platforms - no surprise people will use the Elizabeth line anyway because it'll be more convivial.


Yes these things have contributed to Farringdon being somewhat dubious in terms of its 'greatness' as a Elizabeth Line interchange point. Its a good station but has its downsides and the interchange between the sub surface lines and Thameslink is not really that great.

Oh, it'll get tremendous usage no doubt but the problems with the capacity of the Thameslink platforms, particularly northbound, will receive adverse comments, with the Standard to the fore no doubt. Got to say, I can't personally imagine any platform with doors as anything other than claustrophobic no matter how much space there is, though I'm not arguing against platform doors per se.

 

[davetheguard]

Yes these things have contributed to Farringdon being somewhat dubious in terms of its 'greatness' as a Elizabeth Line interchange point. Its a good station but has its downsides and the interchange between the sub surface lines and Thameslink is not really that great.

I presume there has to be a direct sub-surface route between the Thameslink/Circle platforms and the new Crossrail ones?

If not, the only alternative would be to go up to street level, exit the barriers, cross the street itself, enter the new Crossrail entrance, through the barriers, & down to Crossrail platforms. Surely not, after all this investment.

However as others have said, until we've had a chance to ride the line, it's difficult to say what the most convenient interchanges will be. Coming into Paddington on a long distance train, it will still be quicker to change there rather than joining an Elizabeth Line stopping train at Reading. Presumably, the same will apply if coming into Liverpool Street from Norwich, unless the Inter City train stops at Stratford. Coming in from suburban stations on the GW & GE main lines, the opposite will apply: why change at a London terminus when you don't need to?

 

[swt_passenger]

I presume there has to be a direct sub-surface route between the Thameslink/Circle platforms and the new Crossrail ones?

If not, the only alternative would be to go up to street level, exit the barriers, cross the street itself, enter the new Crossrail entrance, through the barriers, & down to Crossrail platforms. Surely not, after all this investment.

All interchanges are definitely possible behind the barriers, but they vary in quality, with northbound Thameslink being by far the best and eastbound Circle/Met being by far the the worst, probably via the cross platform bridges in the LU station and the Thameslink platforms. The obvious problem with that is causing overcrowding on the Thameslink side.

However, I think that people on the eastbound Circle/Met wanting Crossrail would probably find it better to carry on and change at Moorgate which links to the west end of Crossrail Liverpool St. I suspect people will quickly discover the best interchange options by trial and error.

That possibly raises the question, do they actually need to suggest or recommend Farringdon as a Crossrail to Circle/Met interchange at all?

 

[Bald Rick]

The answer is.... no.

It will be busy, but it’s been built for 2018 + 30 years growth IIRC. Given that 2022 is somewhat behind 2018 passenger numbers, it won’t be an issue.

Also the % of traffic on the underground that is ‘cross London’ rail passengers, ie getting off a train at one terminus then tube to another, is really rather small.

 

[adamedwards]

Longer term the best interchange from GWR to Crossrail will be at Old Oak Common.
Farringdon benefits from a second exit from Crossrail near Barbican so I would hope lots of people will use that, reducing the impact on the main station.
At worst if it proves very popular the answer will be an extra tunnel up from Cross rail to City Thamslink as a third exit and as a possible better interchange with wider platforms.

 

[edwin_m]

All interchanges are definitely possible behind the barriers, but they vary in quality, with northbound Thameslink being by far the best and eastbound Circle/Met being by far the the worst, probably via the cross platform bridges in the LU station and the Thameslink platforms. The obvious problem with that is causing overcrowding on the Thameslink side.

However, I think that people on the eastbound Circle/Met wanting Crossrail would probably find it better to carry on and change at Moorgate which links to the west end of Crossrail Liverpool St. I suspect people will quickly discover the best interchange options by trial and error.

That possibly raises the question, do they actually need to suggest or recommend Farringdon as a Crossrail to Circle/Met interchange at all?

Anyone know if the signs on the Crossrail platforms direct sub-surface line passengers towards the Barbican end? Or if the ones inside the S stock will show the Elizabeth Line interchange at Barbican instead of Farringdon?

For passengers to/from Kings Cross St Pancras or beyond, Farringdon would in theory be quicker. But KXSP underground demonstrates that in the interests of avoiding overcrowding, people are sometimes directed by a longer route. Regulars (and readers of this forum!) will soon find out that the "unofficial" route is shorter, but will also find out if the crowding means it's slower at certain times of day, and it doesn't matter if some people use that route when things aren't too busy.

 

[stuu]

Anyone know if the signs on the Crossrail platforms direct sub-surface line passengers towards the Barbican end? Or if the ones inside the S stock will show the Elizabeth Line interchange at Barbican instead of Farringdon?

For passengers to/from Kings Cross St Pancras or beyond, Farringdon would in theory be quicker. But KXSP underground demonstrates that in the interests of avoiding overcrowding, people are sometimes directed by a longer route. Regulars (and readers of this forum!) will soon find out that the "unofficial" route is shorter, but will also find out if the crowding means it's slower at certain times of day, and it doesn't matter if some people use that route when things aren't too busy.

Didn't the link to Barbican get removed? Obviously the street entrance exists but there was going to be direct access to the platforms, I'm sure it was cancelled

 

[swt_passenger]

Anyone know if the signs on the Crossrail platforms direct sub-surface line passengers towards the Barbican end? Or if the ones inside the S stock will show the Elizabeth Line interchange at Barbican instead of Farringdon?

For passengers to/from Kings Cross St Pancras or beyond, Farringdon would in theory be quicker. But KXSP underground demonstrates that in the interests of avoiding overcrowding, people are sometimes directed by a longer route. Regulars (and readers of this forum!) will soon find out that the "unofficial" route is shorter, but will also find out if the crowding means it's slower at certain times of day, and it doesn't matter if some people use that route when things aren't too busy.

I don’t think the Barbican end of Farringdon CR is intended as a major interchange, it came up in one of the various earlier threads. But I wouldn’t know where to look for the detail. It might be another one where it’s much better in one direction than the other - at the existing SSR station end of the transfer anyway..

 

[londontransit]

Didn't the link to Barbican get removed? Obviously the street entrance exists but there was going to be direct access to the platforms, I'm sure it was cancelled

The entry to the Elizabeth Line definitely exists and it leads off the westbound platform to a lift down to the Elizabeth line.

The only thing that was removed from the plans at Barbican was direct access to the eastbound platform.

All interchanges are definitely possible behind the barriers, but they vary in quality, with northbound Thameslink being by far the best and eastbound Circle/Met being by far the the worst, probably via the cross platform bridges in the LU station and the Thameslink platforms. The obvious problem with that is causing overcrowding on the Thameslink side.

However, I think that people on the eastbound Circle/Met wanting Crossrail would probably find it better to carry on and change at Moorgate which links to the west end of Crossrail Liverpool St. I suspect people will quickly discover the best interchange options by trial and error.

That possibly raises the question, do they actually need to suggest or recommend Farringdon as a Crossrail to Circle/Met interchange at all?

Moorgate is a poor choice because of how lousy the connections are (its a convoluted route to gain access to the Elizabeth Line) which is why Liverpool Street's better - because the access there is at least direct off the sub surface platforms.

Essentially Liverpool Street (eastbound) and Barbican (westbound) offer better alternatives to the messy bits at Moorgate/Farringdon.

 

[swt_passenger]

The entry to the Elizabeth Line definitely exists and it leads off the westbound platform to a lift down to the Elizabeth line.

The only thing that was removed from the plans at Barbican was direct access to the eastbound platform.

Is it only the lift? What you’ve said does back up what I remembered though, that it is a reasonable interchange only to/from LU westbound?

 

[londontransit]

Is it only the lift? What you’ve said does back up what I remembered though, that it is a reasonable interchange only to/from LU westbound?

Its is only the lift. But its the best access to/from the eastbound end of the Farringdon Crossrail platforms and Barbican station LUL westbound.

 

[Nottingham59]

There will be a lot of journeys which will involve a change at Farringdon. Such as Cambrige - Reading, now possible with a single change. And Farringdon doesn't have the space that Kings Cross and Paddington have to absorb people with suitcases waiting 29 mins on the westbound platform for the next half-hourly service to Reading. So we will have to see how things work out: I hope the passenger flow modelling included proper provision for that sort of traffic.

 

[Horizon22]

There will be a lot of journeys which will involve a change at Farringdon. Such as Cambrige - Reading, now possible with a single change. And Farringdon doesn't have the space that Kings Cross and Paddington have to absorb people with suitcases waiting 29 mins on the westbound platform for the next half-hourly service to Reading. So we will have to see how things work out: I hope the passenger flow modelling included proper provision for that sort of traffic.

Highly unlikely anyone going Reading - Farringdon will stay on Crossrail all the way - another change at Paddington will be far quicker and less waiting.

 

[Bald Rick]

There will be a lot of journeys which will involve a change at Farringdon.

Correct.

Such as Cambrige - Reading, now possible with a single change

But the number of people making journeys such as these, ie outside London to outside London, changing at Farringdon, will be a tiny fraction of the total. And the number of those with more than a cabin bag will be smaller still.

By far the biggest flows of these nature will be to / from Heathrow.

 

[edwin_m]

Highly unlikely anyone going Reading - Farringdon will stay on Crossrail all the way - another change at Paddington will be far quicker and less waiting.

And if someone's coming from Cambridge they'd go for a faster train into Kings Cross, from where it will be quicker to get the Circle westbound to Paddington than double back via Farringdon. I think Farringdon interchanging journeys will mainly be to between stations closer to London.

 

[Nottingham59]

Highly unlikely anyone going Reading - Farringdon will stay on Crossrail all the way - another change at Paddington will be far quicker and less waiting.

Are you sure about that? Fast trains take 25 mins PAD-RDG. Slow trains take 46 or 60 minutes. Ten to fifteen minutes to reach the concourse and wait for the fast to depart, and it soon becomes not worth it. And what about all those travellers (slow, infirm, with luggage) who will choose an itinerary based on minimising changes?

By far the biggest flows of these nature will be to / from Heathrow.

Agree.

 

[Horizon22]

Are you sure about that? Fast trains take 25 mins PAD-RDG. Slow trains take 46 or 60 minutes. Ten to fifteen minutes to reach the concourse and wait for the fast to depart, and it soon becomes not worth it. And what about all those travellers (slow, infirm, with luggage) who will choose an itinerary based on minimising changes?

I'm very sure. Almost nobody boarding at Reading is getting on a TfL Rail / Crossrail service to Paddington, let alone all the way to Farringdon. When through running happens on Crossrail, it might be feasible to travel on a semi-fast GWR service ex-Didcot Parkway and change at Ealing Broadway for a same-platform change but it will still be slower. Fast trains to Paddington have more tph to London then TfL (2tph currently, 4tph in future off-peak) as well

Some may take an itenary requiring minimal changes, but it will have a very severe time penalty. Slow & infirm users cope OK with the Tube as it is, or they won't be contemplating the journey at all. Fully accessible at both ends of course at Paddington & Farringdon too. Heathrow (as @Bald Rick mentions) is more feasible.

And if someone's coming from Cambridge they'd go for a faster train into Kings Cross, from where it will be quicker to get the Circle westbound to Paddington than double back via Farringdon. I think Farringdon interchanging journeys will mainly be to between stations closer to London.

Agreed. Inner / Outer London journeys whilst those from further afield will pile out at Liverpool St & Paddington onto Crossrail Let's not forget that as well as improving connectivity, one of the aims of Crossrail was also to relieve chronic overcrowding on the Central line.

 

[Nottingham59]

Slow & infirm users cope OK with the Tube as it is, or they won't be contemplating the journey at all.

Sure. But we're talking about Farringdon here, so it's national rail all the way. Its not tube. And step free. I think you'll get ten times as many out-of-town interchangers at Farringdon than you would at say Oxford Circus. Whether that becomes a problem only time will tell. Can you book assistance at Farringdon? How well will that work?

 

[DerekC]

I have often thought that given the constraints of Farringdon, a better option in the 1980s (had the planning system been far sighted enough) would have been to build City Thameslink underneath the Smithfield Market (where the sidings are) and close the Thameslink platforms at Farringdon. It would have made the Thameslink stations more rationally spaced and provision for Crossrail interchange could have been built in. The gradient from Blackfriars down to City Thameslink might have been eased as well, although that would be more difficult given the need to get under Ludgate Hill. Also probably only possible if you demolish the market, which is probably listed! Oh well!!