How much "new" capacity has the Elizabeth line actually gained?

[mrmartin]

Related from the discussions on passenger numbers...

It seems to me that there isn't actually a massive amount of new capacity into London on the EL. Obviously the core to abbey wood is all new capacity.

But on the GEML/GWML basically it's just replaced trains that stopped at paddington/liv st to continue onwards - not actual "new" capacity per se. I suspect in the next timetable change the 4 trains stopping at Liv St High level are indeed "new" capacity, and maybe the GEML/GWML slows have a more frequent service under EL vs previously (though not entirely sure of that).

I read some stat ages ago while it was getting built that it was increasing rail capacity into london by 10%, but I can't see that actually being the case, unless they are refering to the core -> abbey wood only? (which is really streching the defention of 'into london' IMO).

 

[JamesT]

Related from the discussions on passenger numbers...

It seems to me that there isn't actually a massive amount of new capacity into London on the EL. Obviously the core to abbey wood is all new capacity.

But on the GEML/GWML basically it's just replaced trains that stopped at paddington/liv st to continue onwards - not actual "new" capacity per se. I suspect in the next timetable change the 4 trains stopping at Liv St High level are indeed "new" capacity, and maybe the GEML/GWML slows have a more frequent service under EL vs previously (though not entirely sure of that).

I read some stat ages ago while it was getting built that it was increasing rail capacity into london by 10%, but I can't see that actually being the case, unless they are refering to the core -> abbey wood only? (which is really streching the defention of 'into london' IMO).

Is there not additional capacity by using the class 345s rather than 315s?

 

[mrmartin]

Yes but they could have upgraded the trains regardless (I'm sure they would have done, probably earlier by now had EL not went ahead).

Btw, I'm not anti the line whatsoever, I'm just thinking how much real capacity this unlocks.

 

[ijmad]

Several ways:

• The 345s are significantly longer than most of the trains they replaced
• 33% frequency uplift on the GEML once the service pattern is complete (12tph peak to 16tph peak including the rush hour services)
• 50% frequency uplift on the GWML (roughly 8tph peak service will go to 12tph)
• The 24tph between Paddington and Whitechapel, and the 12tph between Whitechapel and Abbey Wood should indeed be regarded as genuinely new capacity - 24tph is roughly equivalent in terms of carrying capacity to two deep level tube lines.
• Spreading out arriving passengers from the outer lines along many Central London interchanges significantly reduces pressure on Paddington, Liverpool St and Stratford which will have effects on other passenger flows, particularly the Central Line, Northern Circle and Jubilee Line.
• Journey time improvements through the core mean people spend less time on public transport which reduces crowding

These really do add up.

 

[swt_passenger]

Is there not additional capacity by using the class 345s rather than 315s?

And 345s rather than the 360s to Heathrow, and 6 tph intended to Heathrow in the final timetable, rather than 2tph. The 345s running further down on the GW reliefs are also larger capacity than the recent 387s, and the frequency on the reliefs is higher overall, although there are still changes to be made in May 23.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Has the frequency not gone up a bit? Maybe I'm mistaken, but didn't Shenfield-Liverpool Street used to run every 10 minutes, whereas now on the Elizabeth line it's every 8 minutes off-peak, and will presumably get more frequent once we have the full timetable.

 

[Tim_UK]

Related from the discussions on passenger numbers...

It seems to me that there isn't actually a massive amount of new capacity into London on the EL. Obviously the core to abbey wood is all new capacity.

But on the GEML/GWML basically it's just replaced trains that stopped at paddington/liv st to continue onwards - not actual "new" capacity per se. I suspect in the next timetable change the 4 trains stopping at Liv St High level are indeed "new" capacity, and maybe the GEML/GWML slows have a more frequent service under EL vs previously (though not entirely sure of that).

I read some stat ages ago while it was getting built that it was increasing rail capacity into london by 10%, but I can't see that actually being the case, unless they are refering to the core -> abbey wood only? (which is really streching the defention of 'into london' IMO).

You gain capacity by losing terminal stations. Stopping at a dead end means a pause to turn around. Just keep going and the trains can keep coming - and no conflicts as trains reverse.

And if people used to interchange, say onto the central line at Liverpool Street. If those people just go right into central London without a change. Well the spare capacity on the outer bits of the central line more useful for because aren’t going to get squashed when you get into central London.

Oh, and heavy rail massive trains right to Canary Wharf.

I guess what I’m getting at is that there is way more to it than ‘how many trains per our on the great eastern main line’

Even at 3pm yesterday the Elizabeth trains were full. No spare seats and some people standing. And people spreading the whole way down the platforms to get on.

 

[matt_world2004]

Related from the discussions on passenger numbers...

It seems to me that there isn't actually a massive amount of new capacity into London on the EL. Obviously the core to abbey wood is all new capacity.

But on the GEML/GWML basically it's just replaced trains that stopped at paddington/liv st to continue onwards - not actual "new" capacity per se. I suspect in the next timetable change the 4 trains stopping at Liv St High level are indeed "new" capacity, and maybe the GEML/GWML slows have a more frequent service under EL vs previously (though not entirely sure of that).

I read some stat ages ago while it was getting built that it was increasing rail capacity into london by 10%, but I can't see that actually being the case, unless they are refering to the core -> abbey wood only? (which is really streching the defention of 'into london' IMO).

Considering before the crossrail project started Hayes had an off-peak service of six trains per hour 2x Heathrow, 2x Reading and 2 Didcot , (6 Trains per hour) and when the crossrail project is finished it will recieved an off peak of 6x Heathrow, 4 x Reading /Maidenhead and 2x Didcot that seems an considerable capacity increase

Not forgetting that the service largely consisted of 5 car class 360s and 2 car class 165s and is now a consistent 8 car/9 car service.

 

[Horizon22]

Considering before the crossrail project started Hayes had an off-peak service of six trains per hour 2x Heathrow, 2x Reading and 2 Didcot , (6 Trains per hour) and when the crossrail project is finished it will recieved an off peak of 6x Heathrow, 4 x Reading /Maidenhead and 2x Didcot that seems an considerable capacity increase

Not forgetting that the service largely consisted of 5 car class 360s and 2 car class 165s and is now a consistent 8 car/9 car service.

Wouldn’t count on the 2x Didcot post May.

But you are right and people mustn’t forget that only 5 or so years ago local services were being run with turbos of just 2-3 cars and the Thames Valley branches used to have direct trains to Paddington also which reduced overall capacity.

As has been alluded too if other lines have an overall demand decline that might encourage people to use it that were previously put off. For example the Central line has been notorious for many years and will not be so nightmarish. On the parts that aren’t now duplicated / superseded (e.g to White City / Westfield / Shepherds Bush or SE services through Abbey Wood) people may see it is a better alternative if they are not so crowded. Lots of indirect impacts.

As for the OP’s question it is 10% in capacity for all of London. And so that will include everything including brand new capacity of course, not just what has happened on the GWML and GEML.

A recent report by the BBC London transport correspondent (twitter link) suggests that it isn’t drawing solely from the Tube either.

 

[mrmartin]

You gain capacity by losing terminal stations. Stopping at a dead end means a pause to turn around. Just keep going and the trains can keep coming - and no conflicts as trains reverse.

And if people used to interchange, say onto the central line at Liverpool Street. If those people just go right into central London without a change. Well the spare capacity on the outer bits of the central line more useful for because aren’t going to get squashed when you get into central London.

Oh, and heavy rail massive trains right to Canary Wharf.

I guess what I’m getting at is that there is way more to it than ‘how many trains per our on the great eastern main line’

Even at 3pm yesterday the Elizabeth trains were full. No spare seats and some people standing. And people spreading the whole way down the platforms to get on.

Yes, that's correct. I'm just a bit surprised at the lack of new 'real' capacity on the GEML, given the cost. It's a fairly minor frequency increase, and new trains (which could have been done with or without EL).

My main worry on this is crowding at Liv St. There are a lot of unhappy commuters now the service has been joined up - they used to be able to get a seat when the train started from high level, now it is already hard to get on at low level (I'm aware there are winners and losers with everything, but I think this is going to be a real problem going forward especially as commuting patterns change to the service and so much further housing is built along the GEML).

Hopefully significant capacity could be added over time to high level (along with low level) - given that many commuters on the GEML want to go to places from High level. I wonder if 8tph to high level and slighlty more into the core could be enabled over time in the peaks? This would be probably the ideal solution. Would the signalling on the relief lines be able to cope with 20tph?

 

[JonathanH]

Even at 3pm yesterday the Elizabeth trains were full. No spare seats and some people standing. And people spreading the whole way down the platforms to get on.

'Some people standing', with respect, is not full. When they are carrying 1500 passengers they will be full. A 9-car 345 has fewer seats and more standing capacity than a 8-car 315 formation.

Hopefully significant capacity could be added over time to high level (along with low level) - given that many commuters on the GEML want to go to places from High level. I wonder if 8tph to high level and slighlty more into the core could be enabled over time in the peaks? This would be probably the ideal solution. Would the signalling on the relief lines be able to cope with 20tph?

The original intention will have been to free up capacity at the high level station for more trains from further out than Shenfield (which are substantially more lucrative than inner suburban trains). If they are not required, I guess there could be capacity for more inner suburban trains but whether there are enough 345s is another matter.

 

[DC1989]

I previously read (But can't find the article anywhere now) that TFL was quite happy to cut the planned peak services from Gidea Park to Liverpool St (NR) from every 15 minutes to the current meagre 2 AM and 2 PM services (Remember it was promised 4 TPH peak times!) and ideally they didn't want to do that service at all

 

[Horizon22]

Yes, that's correct. I'm just a bit surprised at the lack of new 'real' capacity on the GEML, given the cost. It's a fairly minor frequency increase, and new trains (which could have been done with or without EL).

My main worry on this is crowding at Liv St. There are a lot of unhappy commuters now the service has been joined up - they used to be able to get a seat when the train started from high level, now it is already hard to get on at low level (I'm aware there are winners and losers with everything, but I think this is going to be a real problem going forward especially as commuting patterns change to the service and so much further housing is built along the GEML).

Hopefully significant capacity could be added over time to high level (along with low level) - given that many commuters on the GEML want to go to places from High level. I wonder if 8tph to high level and slighlty more into the core could be enabled over time in the peaks? This would be probably the ideal solution. Would the signalling on the relief lines be able to cope with 20tph?

For what you say about Liverpool Street is true, but I suppose what % of people were ultimately going further afield than just Liverpool St? Probably less than your average Paddington commuter, but will still be a substantial number.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A recent report by the BBC London transport correspondent (twitter link) suggests that it isn’t drawing solely from the Tube either.

Indeed - I myself am an example of that! I now regularly use the Elizabeth line for journeys between Abbey Wood and central London where I would previously have cycled - because the time saving offered by the Elizabeth Line now makes taking the train worth while compared to cycling. I suspect that's not the ideal modal shift that you'd want from an environmental perspective but it does illustrate how the EL can take journeys from other modes, not just the tube.

Considering how much busier Abbey Wood station is now compared to previously, I also wonder if the EL is also generating journeys that people simply would not have made otherwise - I can't really see much alternative explanation for the numbers of people who now seem to be using the station.

 

[TomG]

Related from the discussions on passenger numbers...

It seems to me that there isn't actually a massive amount of new capacity into London on the EL. Obviously the core to abbey wood is all new capacity.

But on the GEML/GWML basically it's just replaced trains that stopped at paddington/liv st to continue onwards - not actual "new" capacity per se. I suspect in the next timetable change the 4 trains stopping at Liv St High level are indeed "new" capacity, and maybe the GEML/GWML slows have a more frequent service under EL vs previously (though not entirely sure of that).

I read some stat ages ago while it was getting built that it was increasing rail capacity into london by 10%, but I can't see that actually being the case, unless they are refering to the core -> abbey wood only? (which is really streching the defention of 'into london' IMO).

In relation to the GEML until the Elizabeth Line started running originally it was every 10 mins. Now, typically, there are 8 to 10 stopping trains an hour between Shenfield and Paddington (excl trains from Abbey Wood). There are plans, I believe to increase the frequency on the Central section at least from 2023. And I think to run more trains as far as Reading. The problem Elizabeth line has on the GWML is pathing.
Once you take in all operators you end up with 'Too many trains, too little track!'

 

[Horizon22]

Indeed - I myself am an example of that! I now regularly use the Elizabeth line for journeys between Abbey Wood and central London where I would previously have cycled - because the time saving offered by the Elizabeth Line now makes taking the train worth while compared to cycling. I suspect that's not the ideal modal shift that you'd want from an environmental perspective but it does illustrate how the EL can take journeys from other modes, not just the tube.

Considering how much busier Abbey Wood station is now compared to previously, I also wonder if the EL is also generating journeys that people simply would not have made otherwise - I can't really see much alternative explanation for the numbers of people who now seem to be using the station.

Depends whether these are new journeys originating at the station (possible) or changing off SE/GTR services for a quicker journey into Zone 1 (more likely). In fact, this was expected and people had moved to the area in anticipation of a service 4 years later!

 

[Tangent]

There is a contrast to be drawn with the Central Line extension, which actually cut capacity on the old LNER stations beyond Leytonstone - a situation which would have been much worse had the suburban expansion of the 1930s bot been halted by WWIi and the Green Belt.

 

[Bald Rick]

Has the frequency not gone up a bit? Maybe I'm mistaken, but didn't Shenfield-Liverpool Street used to run every 10 minutes, whereas now on the Elizabeth line it's every 8 minutes off-peak, and will presumably get more frequent once we have the full timetable.

Yes, and off peak capacity is up by 33% in terms of train numbers, and roughly the same again in terms of train capacity. A very, very significant increase.

 

[Class 170101]

There is a contrast to be drawn with the Central Line extension, which actually cut capacity on the old LNER stations beyond Leytonstone - a situation which would have been much worse had the suburban expansion of the 1930s bot been halted by WWIi and the Green Belt.

Not sure I understand that. If The Central Line hadn't been extended to Hainault and Ongar then those services would have to feed into Liverpool Street High Level with fewer trains being able to go to Shenfield and Gidea Park as we can see today that would unwise.

Indeed there was a plan in more recent years to increase capacity towards either Epping or Hainault loop by transferring one of the branches away from the Central Line onto the Chelsea and Hackney Line instead of feeding into Stratford and Liverpool Street.

For what you say about Liverpool Street is true, but I suppose what % of people were ultimately going further afield than just Liverpool St? Probably less than your average Paddington commuter, but will still be a substantial number.

Before covid Liverpool Street had the highest walk to work ratio of any London Terminus so going to the Low Level Station and via Whitecahpel has added around 10 minutes to the former journey time.

The original intention will have been to free up capacity at the high level station for more trains from further out than Shenfield (which are substantially more lucrative than inner suburban trains). If they are not required, I guess there could be capacity for more inner suburban trains but whether there are enough 345s is another matter.

I think this was discussed previously but realistically Crossrail opening helps West Anglia rather than extra capacity towards Shenfield as that bit is still two ML tracks between Liverpool Street and Shenfield.

Hopefully significant capacity could be added over time to high level (along with low level) - given that many commuters on the GEML want to go to places from High level. I wonder if 8tph to high level and slighlty more into the core could be enabled over time in the peaks? This would be probably the ideal solution. Would the signalling on the relief lines be able to cope with 20tph?

Realistically to get more paths from Liverpool Street High Level would see more core services diverted to Abbey Wood. But I would guess that can only cope with 16tph at best leaving 8tph from the Core still needing to go towards Stratford. There is also only two platforms at Liverpool Street High Level so the best there is a 8tph service. so it is likely 14tph would be for Abbey Wood and 10tph for Shenfield from the core and 8tph from Liverpool Street High Level.

 

[Bald Rick]

Before covid Liverpool Street had the highest walk to work ratio of any London Terminus

No, it was Cannon St that had the highest walk to work ratio.

I think this was discussed previously but realistically Crossrail opening helps West Anglia rather than extra capacity towards Shenfield as that bit is still two ML tracks between Liverpool Street and Shenfield.

Crossrail doesn’t help West Anglia capacity at all. The constraint there is the two track section from Coppermill Jn to Broxbourne, combined with the mixed stopping patterns.

In theory it does help the GEML longer distance stuff, and particularly if works at Bow Junction were delivered to switch trains mains to electrics there, and into some of the now emptier high numbered platforms.

 

[Horizon22]

No, it was Cannon St that had the highest walk to work ratio.



Crossrail doesn’t help West Anglia capacity at all. The constraint there is the two track section from Coppermill Jn to Broxbourne, combined with the mixed stopping patterns.

In theory it does help the GEML longer distance stuff, and particularly if works at Bow Junction were delivered to switch trains mains to electrics there, and into some of the now emptier high numbered platforms.

This does happen a bit now. More GA trains in P15 and more GWR trains using P11 at Paddington already. Surely all just short-term plan stuff at the moment but it’s a glimpse of what is likely to come.

 

[Class 170101]

Crossrail doesn’t help West Anglia capacity at all. The constraint there is the two track section from Coppermill Jn to Broxbourne, combined with the mixed stopping patterns.

Alright then if you want to be specific, the ARL side of the West Anglia route.

 

[Bald Rick]

Alright then if you want to be specific, the ARL side of the West Anglia route.

You’re going to have to help me here. How is that helped?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Depends whether these are new journeys originating at the station (possible) or changing off SE/GTR services for a quicker journey into Zone 1 (more likely). In fact, this was expected and people had moved to the area in anticipation of a service 4 years later!

I would say it's both. It's only anecdotal from my personal observations when I've used the station so may well be inaccurate, but it seems to me that there are more people than before entering/exiting Abbey Wood station AND it also seems to me that SouthEastern/GTR trains are a bit busier than they used to be when leaving Abbey Wood towards Dartford. That suggests to me that there are new journeys happening both from Abbey Wood itself and from Belvedere/etc. into London via the Elizabeth Line.

 

[Sleepy]

You’re going to have to help me here. How is that helped?

More platform capacity at Liverpool St. West side as GE services won't need to use platforms 7-10 as much as before ?

 

[Bald Rick]

More platform capacity at Liverpool St. West side as GE services won't need to use platforms 7-10 as much as before ?

But there won’t be any more trains from the WA side, so platform capacity isn’t an issue.

 

[Horizon22]

But there won’t be any more trains from the WA side, so platform capacity isn’t an issue.

The only thing potentially would be all platforms "shifting up" so that WA services can use more platforms as GA can spread to the higher numbered platforms. So increased platform capacity, but as you say track constraints are a bigger problem.

 

[hkstudent]

Not sure I understand that. If The Central Line hadn't been extended to Hainault and Ongar then those services would have to feed into Liverpool Street High Level with fewer trains being able to go to Shenfield and Gidea Park as we can see today that would unwise.

Indeed there was a plan in more recent years to increase capacity towards either Epping or Hainault loop by transferring one of the branches away from the Central Line onto the Chelsea and Hackney Line instead of feeding into Stratford and Liverpool Street.


Before covid Liverpool Street had the highest walk to work ratio of any London Terminus so going to the Low Level Station and via Whitecahpel has added around 10 minutes to the former journey time.


I think this was discussed previously but realistically Crossrail opening helps West Anglia rather than extra capacity towards Shenfield as that bit is still two ML tracks between Liverpool Street and Shenfield.


Realistically to get more paths from Liverpool Street High Level would see more core services diverted to Abbey Wood. But I would guess that can only cope with 16tph at best leaving 8tph from the Core still needing to go towards Stratford. There is also only two platforms at Liverpool Street High Level so the best there is a 8tph service. so it is likely 14tph would be for Abbey Wood and 10tph for Shenfield from the core and 8tph from Liverpool Street High Level.

12tph is the max capacity for Abbey Wood as it has no turnback facilities, which means 12 tph for Shenfield.

 

[ScotGG]

Abbey Wood also set to see a boost when all the new homes being built see residents move in.

Has the DLR got a lot quieter from Woolwich Arsenal?

 

[Snow1964]

A lot depends if you are measuring seated capacity or no seat capacity.

Op is correct, back in 1980s the 315s were running in peak to Liverpool Street about every 5 minutes with 2 x 320 seats = 640 seats. Off peak was generally single units but still had 320 seats.

When the Thames turbos were operating GW mainline into Paddington generally had 250+ seats, but as formations varied with some 2car and 3car mixtures peak seating capacity was nearer 500

A 345 has 454 seats although lot longer, so there has not really been a massive increase in seated capacity, but the sort of capacity which in 1970s and 1980s would have been standing in luggage van, has jumped considerably, and now stand down the aisles instead.