Is Crossrail going to be a complete victim of its success?

[TRAX]

Once the 24 tph frequency is in full thrust you shouldn't have any problems, especially with ATO.



Here in Paris, RER line A (which is the busiest rail line in Europe) has a 28 tph frequency on the central section in the morning peak (with CBTC signalling), is a major east-west link with branches at each end and is a relief to metro line 1 which also is a major east-west link - it really is that similar to the Crossrail 1 case - but doesn't have major overcrowding issues, and certainly not dangerously (no platform screen doors). Sure, when a problem affecting line operations does occur, it can become quickly saturated, but during normal operations the overcrowding is not unbearable (the line will be 100 % double deck in 2017, and these trains are run in 2-multiple = 10 cars). The fact that each extremity of line A has a lesser-used branch also is a relief. Let's say that line A is basically at 80-90 % capacity.



Because of the points I have exposed above, I don't think I am wrong in comparing Crossrail 1 to RER A, and the similarities between the two lines and having used line A for practically twenty years make me think that with 24 tph you'll be alright.

 

[D365]

Crossrail is designed for up to 32tph and the Class 345s can be extended to eleven cars, platform length permitting.

 

[tbtc]

Interesting that the "what a waste of money" comments have died down, as the reality of Crossrail approaches and people realise that, yes, it will be necessary.

Probably for the best that Crossrail will be (only) a Reading/ Heathrow - Shenfield/ Abbey Wood line (temporary extension to Tring aside), rather than the "Bristol to Norwich"/ "Oxford to Cambridge"/ "special Airside services from Heathrow to Stansted services so that people don't need to go through passport control" services that I've seen suggested for it.

 

[TRAX]

Crossrail is designed for up to 32tph and the Class 345s can be extended to eleven cars, platform length permitting.

Well even better !

 

[D365]

Probably for the best that Crossrail will be (only) a Reading/ Heathrow - Shenfield/ Abbey Wood line (temporary extension to Tring aside), rather than the "Bristol to Norwich"/ "Oxford to Cambridge"/ "special Airside services from Heathrow to Stansted services so that people don't need to go through passport control" services that I've seen suggested for it.

I'm fairly sure that the Tring branch (though it's been cancelled for now) was to be a permanent extension. Though I agree with your comments, look at what people have said about the Class 700s.

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm fairly sure that the Tring branch (though it's been cancelled for now) was to be a permanent extension. Though I agree with your comments, look at what people have said about the Class 700s.

I agree. The London and SE RUS option K1 mentions inter alia the usefulness of such an extension for the period of HS1 construction, but it certainly doesn't imply a temporary role.

 

[Busaholic]

That's interesting, because I also went on the DLR in the first week of opening, on a weekday afternoon, and had a whole train to myself (aside from the train captain, and my dad).

And then I went on the new section of the ELL repeatedly in the two months after opening, peak and off peak, and never failed to get a seat.

It is safe to assume that patronage will build up over time.

I expect I exaggerated slightly in the 'from day one' description, but the ELL passenger figures were way beyond TfL's expectation in the first year: maybe they didn't factor in the disillusionment with Southern that probably began around the same time, in the Metro area at least.

On DLR, I think the Stratford branch took longer to get going. Stratford was a desperately untrendy place then; an acquaintance worked for Our Price Records and was given the manager's job there, and I can remember how unhappy he was about how the company must have perceived him!

 

[Class 170101]

They intentionally kept clear of Oxford Circus to avoid overwhelming the existing interchanges, but for anyone heading to destinations in the general areas isn't the double ended station at Bond St supposed to provide more options, from the Hanover Square entrance (about 150 yards from Oxford Circus)?

Oxford Circus wasn't in the plans because the Post Office Railway which was still in operation at the time the plans were first concieved. Don't forget the tunnel route for Crossrail has been safeguarded for many many years (at least 25 years).

I travelled on DLR on its first day, a Sunday, and had to wait for the fourth train in order to get on, and that was at the Island Gardens terminus! It was overloaded from day one and has remained that way, just like Overground over the East London Line and down into south London. Abbey Wood and Woolwich will see huge usage, not all of it abstracted from SouthEastern and DLR, although it may not happen from day one. I can't really imagine huge extra numbers from the Shenfield branch, although possibly the District might lose some from its eastern extremities.

I have to disagree with your comments about the Metro services. These are full and standing now from about 07:30 and through the morning peak. It should be noted that a higher frequency than very ten minutes carries on through to 19:30 because the evening peak has failed to tail off sufficiently to enable a 10 minute frequency to cope.

I would suggest that Shenfield branch will be full within 12 months of opening allowing for people to adjust their travel patterns once Crossrail opens ansd that additional people - suppressed demand as referred to in previous posts materialises, never mind additional house building throughout the route. The 4tph proposed for Liverpool Street High Level in the peak will be insufficient in my view and I think needs to be 6tph particularly as those people working in the city will walk to Liverpool Street and attempt to get on these trains which would give them a higher chance of getting a seat unlike those trains coming through Central London.

 

[swt_passenger]

Oxford Circus wasn't in the plans because the Post Office Railway which was still in operation at the time the plans were first concieved. Don't forget the tunnel route for Crossrail has been safeguarded for many many years (at least 25 years).

That's a genuine local engineering difficulty, but definitely not the primary reason. There is no interchange to avoid overwhelming the existing three line Victoria/Bakerloo/Central interchange which is already one of busiest in the central area.

When the Crossrail route was being designed they were even worried about Crossrail putting too many additional pedestrians directly onto the street at Oxford Circus.

 

[JW16]

The 4tph proposed for Liverpool Street High Level in the peak will be insufficient in my view and I think needs to be 6tph particularly as those people working in the city will walk to Liverpool Street and attempt to get on these trains which would give them a higher chance of getting a seat unlike those trains coming through Central London.

I totally agree with this point. I for one will aim to get the Liverpool St starters to get a seat, and certain a lot of others will too.

 

[J-2739]

Crossrail is designed for up to 32tph and the Class 345s can be extended to eleven cars, platform length permitting.

Well, they should have, but Bombardier gave Tfl a big middle finger last month or so:

Interesting point made in new Modern Railway this month







So the new stations were built with 11 car trains in mind but no-one thought to make sure the new fleet was ready to do that. Develop certainly sounds give us a lot of money to figure something out.

Also, wasn't 30tph the maximum?

Overall, I am very optimistic that Crossrail will be fine for years to come. Just a gauge clearance to UIC GB (as the tunnels were apparently built to that gauge) and wider/double deck stock should help out if things get a bit over the top.

 

[whoosh]

When it opens (the first stage), it will be Shenfield to Liverpool Street (high level) and Abbey Wood to Paddington.

Given that Abbey Wood to Paddington is only half the service (with Reading connected up to Shenfield about a year later), I would say packed out will indeed be the case. Unless they run double the service on the Paddington to Abbey Wood section to start with - leading to overcrowding when Canary Wharf has it's service reduced when the whole line opens?!

 

[mrmartin]

So what's the overall change on the Shenfield branch? Right now TfL rail is ~12tph in the peaks. It looks like there will now be 12tph through the core and an additional 4tph to Liv St?

So 16tph total through Stratford? That doesn't seem like a huge amount of new capacity to be honest.

 

[J-2739]

So what's the overall change on the Shenfield branch? Right now TfL rail is ~12tph in the peaks. It looks like there will now be 12tph through the core and an additional 4tph to Liv St?

So 16tph total through Stratford? That doesn't seem like a huge amount of new capacity to be honest.

Don't forget, the new 345s will have a higher passenger capacity and are longer.

 

[mrmartin]

Don't forget, the new 345s will have a higher passenger capacity and are longer.

I know that, but that could be done with just rolling stock replacement.

A 25% increase in paths isn't going to be enough in my eyes. Ok, there is going to be a lot more capacity in the core section, but it seems that it is just moving the bottleneck from central london to Zone2. Seems like continuing the tunnel/adding more surface track space further towards shenfield would have allowed a lot more trains to run.

You could have had the existing 12tph TfL to liverpool street PLUS 12tph through to the crossrail core, if that was done. Or is there actually more capacity available and they could run more than 4tph to liv st?

 

[Class 170101]

So what's the overall change on the Shenfield branch? Right now TfL rail is ~12tph in the peaks. It looks like there will now be 12tph through the core and an additional 4tph to Liv St?

So 16tph total through Stratford? That doesn't seem like a huge amount of new capacity to be honest.

12tph through the core to Shenfield plus 4tph to Liverpool Street High Level has been in the plan since the line began to be built (certainly a long time).

However it isn't exactly a lot of new capacity even with the Class 345s having an extra carriage worth of capacity (9v8). The High peak currently has 22tph (IIRC) the best that seems to be being offered is 16tph even with longer trains doesn't seem to allow a lot for future growth.

 

[Hophead]

However it isn't exactly a lot of new capacity even with the Class 345s having an extra carriage worth of capacity (9v8). The High peak currently has 22tph (IIRC) the best that seems to be being offered is 16tph even with longer trains doesn't seem to allow a lot for future growth.

It may be more helpful to think in terms of train length, rather than coaches, since the Crossrail units will be 205m whereas an 8-car 315 is 160m (and has 2 additional cabs as well)

 

[3141]

An issue that interests me is the effect of delays at either the Great Eastern or the Great Western end. Fortunately, Crossrail will be a relatively simple network compared with the new Thameslink. If I were planning Crossrail 2 I'd be waiting with some trepidation for the time when both Crossrail 1 and Thameslink are completed and fully operational, because if either of them isn't able to live up to expectations as a result of the effects of problems on the lines they connect, questions might have to be asked about the practicality of building further lines of a similar kind.

 

[J-2739]

You can also take a look at international examples, such as the RER Line A. Is disruption due to shared sides common?

 

[Busaholic]

12tph through the core to Shenfield plus 4tph to Liverpool Street High Level has been in the plan since the line began to be built (certainly a long time).

However it isn't exactly a lot of new capacity even with the Class 345s having an extra carriage worth of capacity (9v8). The High peak currently has 22tph (IIRC) the best that seems to be being offered is 16tph even with longer trains doesn't seem to allow a lot for future growth.

When frequencies were first announced wasn't the Shenfield service on 6tph for most of the day? Extra services from Romford and some from Ilford, but that was the basic as I remember it, so 12 tph right through central London seemed fantastic at the time.

 

[Class 170101]

The Original Crossrail had Gidea Park and Ilford as turning spots. These days Ilford has been replaced by Chadwell Heath as the turnback has gone due to Platform extensions.

6tph is what the off peak frequency is today. Peaks will clearly be more.

 

[rebmcr]

Just a gauge clearance to UIC GB (as the tunnels were apparently built to that gauge) and wider/double deck stock should help out if things get a bit over the top.

The tunnels were not built to UIC GB gauge, a train of that size could physically fit but you would not be able to run a service without any OHLE.

Rigid Conductor Bars do not offer any gauge advantage in tunnels, only maintenance benefits (in fact, the OHLE planned for the Crossrail tunnels is RCB).

 

[J-2739]

Ok, fair enough. There was a link to that document, but I'm on phone right now.

Still, they could use the width advantage?

 

[Ianno87]

I know that, but that could be done with just rolling stock replacement.

A 25% increase in paths isn't going to be enough in my eyes. Ok, there is going to be a lot more capacity in the core section, but it seems that it is just moving the bottleneck from central london to Zone2. Seems like continuing the tunnel/adding more surface track space further towards shenfield would have allowed a lot more trains to run.

You could have had the existing 12tph TfL to liverpool street PLUS 12tph through to the crossrail core, if that was done. Or is there actually more capacity available and they could run more than 4tph to liv st?

No it can't - Patforms 16-18 at Liverpool St can only take 160m trains, and to lengthen to 205m requires one platform to be lost, and so wouldn't support the current Electric Lines frequency.

Plus, taking trains out of Liverpool St has an indirect capacity benefit in freeing up a platform or two for GEML services.

I can see the argument for heading to Liverpool St High Levdl for passengers travelling to stations Romford<>Brentwood who work in the city to get a seat, but I reckon that passengers travelling to (say) Ilford would sacrifice a seat for the much better frequency "downstairs". And will depend how "memorable" the High Level departure times are (some people will time tge departure from their desks to meet them).

And West End passengers, once on a Crossrail train from (say) Bond St, will just stay in the train the whole way in either case.

 

[plcd1]

My view is that Crossrail will fill up very quickly but there will be all sorts of oddities along the way. This is largely because of the way the service builds up over the period of 1 year plus the impact of other rail network developments. Travel patterns will take the better part of 2-3 years to stabilise because of the changing service patterns and frequencies not only on Crossrail but on the Tube, DLR, Overground and Thameslink. The TfL Rail service has already seen 27% growth since TfL took over so if that sort of trend continues then there will be big pressures by the time 9 car trains can actually run. Remember it's 7 car Cl345 formations on Liv St - S'field from May next year until May 2019 when through services from the east into the tunnel can run. 9 car trains run on H'row Connect from May 2018 and on the Padd - Abbey Wood service come Dec 2018.

There will inevitably be big surges when the "curious" go and try the new services and see the stations for the first time. Also "curious commuters" who tweak their commutes to see if the new service is better. There will be lots of swapping back and forth as Crossrail fills up and other services are (temporarily) a bit quieter until their "spare" capacity is used up.

I've no doubt the service will be very crowded in the peaks for each of the service phases and beyond the end state in Dec 2019. Off peak will depend entirely on how reliable and dependable the service is. If it works pretty flawlessly then the punters will pile on quickly - this is very evident on the Victoria Line since we got the high frequency, all day every day timetable - trains are much much busier all the time. I also completely agree with the "induced demand" comments above - there is already a load of redevelopment going on in Central London and Stratford and this will accelerate. This will generate more and more trips and places like Stratford will generate new contra peak demand as offices / businesses / institutions relocate to the Olympic Park. Throw in property speculation and housing development in multiple locations and you have a heady mix of demand generators.

 

[mrmartin]

No it can't - Patforms 16-18 at Liverpool St can only take 160m trains, and to lengthen to 205m requires one platform to be lost, and so wouldn't support the current Electric Lines frequency.

Plus, taking trains out of Liverpool St has an indirect capacity benefit in freeing up a platform or two for GEML services.

I can see the argument for heading to Liverpool St High Levdl for passengers travelling to stations Romford<>Brentwood who work in the city to get a seat, but I reckon that passengers travelling to (say) Ilford would sacrifice a seat for the much better frequency "downstairs". And will depend how "memorable" the High Level departure times are (some people will time tge departure from their desks to meet them).

And West End passengers, once on a Crossrail train from (say) Bond St, will just stay in the train the whole way in either case.

They don't need to take 205m trains. Run 7 car trains 12tph and Crossrail at least doubles the current capacity, instead of a 25% frequency improvement plus whatever additional capacity the new (longer) trains offer.

I use TfL rail services from Stratford to LivSt most days and usage is really booming. I used to sometimes get a seat when everyone got off at Stratford, now it is rammed.

While I am sure the core capacity is very welcome, I do think this is going to become a total bottleneck.

It looks like Crossrail will offer something like a 40-50% improvement in capacity on the Shenfield branch. If TfL rail demand is growing as the other poster says at 27%pa it is (which looks to be correct in the TfL budget - they are predicting nearly 100% growth from 2014 to 2017 - then Crossrail is simply not going to provide anywhere near the amount of capacity that will be needed.

 

[Busaholic]

They don't need to take 205m trains. Run 7 car trains 12tph and Crossrail at least doubles the current capacity, instead of a 25% frequency improvement plus whatever additional capacity the new (longer) trains offer.

I use TfL rail services from Stratford to LivSt most days and usage is really booming. I used to sometimes get a seat when everyone got off at Stratford, now it is rammed.

While I am sure the core capacity is very welcome, I do think this is going to become a total bottleneck.

It looks like Crossrail will offer something like a 40-50% improvement in capacity on the Shenfield branch. If TfL rail demand is growing as the other poster says at 27%pa it is (which looks to be correct in the TfL budget - they are predicting nearly 100% growth from 2014 to 2017 - then Crossrail is simply not going to provide anywhere near the amount of capacity that will be needed.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, and I know track capacity constraints, etc, BUT, just suppose Reading trains were carrying significantly more passengers than Heathrow ones overall, or Shenfield than Abbey Wood (or vice versa) there is nothing set in stone that they must have the same frequencies throughout the day, is there? Actually, I've said on here before that I think there'll be public pressure to re-route some of the Heathrows to somewhere along the line to Reading, if not the whole way, but maybe something similar might occur on the eastern side? Track capacity is one thing, but also provision of extra trains might be needed because of longer distances on one branch as compared to another.

 

[reddragon]

The core of Crossrail has been designed for 11 car class 345s and and option exists to extend them to 11 cars, so add 23% capacity. Outer platforms can be extended.

24 tph can become 30 tph, another 25% added = 50% extra capacity.

I am sure that the pottering low capacity 2-car diesel trains on the GWR once replaced by fast frequent electric trains will fill up and one day the service will match other suburban networks. I personally know many people who are moving to be ready for that chance, as seen in booming house prices near the western section.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The TfL Rail service has already seen 27% growth since TfL took over so if that sort of trend continues then there will be big pressures by the time 9 car trains can actually run.

It looks like Crossrail will offer something like a 40-50% improvement in capacity on the Shenfield branch. If TfL rail demand is growing as the other poster says at 27%pa it is (which looks to be correct in the TfL budget - they are predicting nearly 100% growth from 2014 to 2017 - then Crossrail is simply not going to provide anywhere near the amount of capacity that will be needed.

Is that 100% growth an explicit prediction, or did you surmise it from 27%pa?

If the latter, it's worth pointing out that the 27% quoted was after TfL took over the services and so was presumably a one-off. I don't think any rail line in London is going to see 27% growth every year! (Although I don't doubt that the arrival of Crossrail will also cause a surge in demand on the Shenfield line).

 

[mrmartin]

Is that 100% growth an explicit prediction, or did you surmise it from 27%pa?

If the latter, it's worth pointing out that the 27% quoted was after TfL took over the services and so was presumably a one-off. I don't think any rail line in London is going to see 27% growth every year! (Although I don't doubt that the arrival of Crossrail will also cause a surge in demand on the Shenfield line).

See page 19 here - http://content.tfl.gov.uk/board-160317-item07-budget-2016-17.pdf

It's actually one year.

2015/16 budget: 26.6m pax
2015/16 forecast: 39.8m pax
2016/17 budget: 49m pax

Again, I am not saying that crossrail will not have fantastic achievements overall - and going from 2car DMU 4tph in the west to 9 car 12tph is going to be incredible.

What I am surprised at is how little extra capacity will be delivered on the Shenfield branch.

I don't think that the extra capacity will really 'touch the sides' on the shenfield branch. There is probably something like 60tph going towards liverpool street from stratford considering GA, TfL rail and Central line.

Is 4tph more and longer trains really even going to be noticeable? Yes there is possibility of more frequent trains and lengthening platforms etc. This will take time - and each year that goes past another load of demand gets added.

Look at Stratford Regional's passenger growth figures for example. Yes, there's been huge improvements to the service but you can see how much extra demand is getting added. It has doubled in 5 years and the real high density development is only really starting to show now post olympics.

I think one of the problems is that crossrail has been touted as a solution to central line overcapacity, but looking at the raw numbers I don't think it is going to deliver that at least past a year or two in the East. In the West and SE it will be completely transformational. But not in the East with all this suppressed demand.