In an unexpected piece of potentially good news for London, it was reported last month that 10 new trains could be built for Crossrail. We look at the substance of the reports, catch up with what has been happening on Crossrail in the past year or so, as well as newly-introduced political complications, and speculate as to what improvements may be in the pipeline as a result of five of the trains being potentially unexpectedly available.
The Alstom and Old Oak Common Problems
It has been known for a while that the Alstom (formerly Bombardier) plant in Derby where the Crossrail trains were built was facing closure. This is an ongoing political story with seemingly no new orders in the pipeline. The lack of new orders was primarily down to the DfT not approving any new UK train orders in the past year or so despite there being a clear need, for example the Networkers on the South Eastern Railway are becoming problematic and need to be replaced.
In order to provide some work for the train manufacturer, there was talk of bringing forward an order of five trains for Crossrail to provide a peak 24tph to Old Oak Common in west London where HS2 is due to initially terminate. Until such time as approval and the subsequent construction is completed, the ultimate intended terminus at Euston has had its approval and construction delayed, so will not be available until several years after HS2 opens.
The need for five more Crossrail trains
Having the majority of Crossrail trains serving Old Oak Common was considered vital as otherwise there would be no suitable provision for HS2 passengers to continue their onward journey to Central London. TfL have long argued that this is a problem of the government’s making and so it should be the government that funds these five extra trains.
We have to admit at LR Towers that we had thought the plan all along was to have all Crossrail trains continue westward at least as far as Old Oak Common and our articles from a few years ago reflect this. Because we understood this was the intention, we had assumed that the revised order of 70 trains for the final stage of the original Crossrail plan was sufficient to accommodate this.
The reason for this confusion is not entirely clear but it seems that official press releases reference to 12tph continuing to Old Oak Common was misleading to us as the press releases must have been referring to trains already continuing past Old Oak Common that would in future stop at Old Oak Common station once built.
A Bigger Problem
To complicate matters further, Alstom made it clear that an absolute minimum of 10 orders was necessary to avoid closure of their factory. Once closed it would be almost impossible to reinstate it as the specialist team would be dispersed forever – possibly abroad. Already sub-contractors are initiating layoffs so we were already past the point of being able to have a decision in a timely manner.
The obvious problem, apart from getting the government to approve the order of five trains for Crossrail, was that absolutely no prospective orders were on the horizon until trains for HS2 were required and certainly nothing that could be relied upon to provide future work.
The Political Solution
With, amongst other things, disquiet from MPs in the Derby area, the government really needed a way out. The solution, similar to an early episode of Yes, Minister, appears to be to find a need for a facility by creating a demand for it, so that it is no longer an embarrassment. It seems that the government are offering 10 Crossrail trains to TfL providing they can make a business case for them. One suspects TfL will ultimately have to pay for at least some of the trains eventually, but without government support they would not be able to place the order.
The Business Case
The feeling amongst some that has been reported had been that providing a business case is almost a formality with a government of the day anxious to make the deal happen. Less optimistic views express the difficulty of ensuring a business case will satisfy the Treasury.
One must remember a business case calls for not only the capital or the leasing cost of the trains to be factored in. Also required to be factored in are any associated capital costs such as extra tooling required at the depot, any increase in the size of the inventory of spare parts, and construction of any extra sidings that may be required. Finally, it is necessary to take into account any running costs such as the extra staff involved.
A General Election Intervenes
With everyone quietly hoping for a smooth ride, it came as a bit of a shock when a general election was announced. As so often seems to be the case when railways are involved, political events intervene to cause plans (and even projects already being constructed) to be delayed or even cancelled.
There is little doubt that the election is going to delay decision-making by at least six weeks. If Labour takes control of the country there will almost certainly be a reassessment of the situation which could delay things further. On the other hand, it may be something Labour would be keen to authorise quickly as they would not want the demise of the plant at Derby to become an event that tarnishes their first days in office.
A further complication could be the relationship between the London Mayor and a future Labour government, if elected. From the perspective of those anxious to see the extra trains in service, this could be a quick win for the government and would certainly help support their party mayor in London.
The Big Question
The obvious question to raise, assuming these five trains materialise, is “How are TfL going to use five extra Crossrail trains?”. To be clear, there is no shortage of options. Given the success of Crossrail there are definitely sections of the Elizabeth line that would benefit from more capacity now. With a considerable amount of construction, mainly blocks of flats, continuing apace along most of the route of the Elizabeth line, it is almost inevitable that the extra capacity will be needed eventually.
To us there seem to be three obvious desirable improvements to the Crossrail service pattern. These would address the three issues that are already appearing:
One issue is the lack of peak period capacity in the central section.
A second issue is that there are only 2tph Crossrail trains to Heathrow Terminal 5.
A final issue is that of peak period overcrowding, especially in the morning peak, on trains serving suburban stations west of Paddington.
Finding Solutions
For two of these three issues there are obvious solutions. For one of them, it is easy to think up potential solutions which would not necessarily be the solution that TfL would implement if they were to address the issue themselves.
We look at the most likely options and also include one that initially looks promising but almost certainly will not happen for a number of years.
Option 1: Extending “Gidea Park Shorts” to Paddington
There is a 2tph peak-period-only service in the direction of the peak that runs between Gidea Park and Liverpool St main line to supplement basic Elizabeth line peak period service. The trains involved are colloquially referred to as the Gidea Park Shorts. They have always been unpopular with the Crossrail planners and, subsequently, with the TfL personnel who oversee the Elizabeth line. The original plan was to have 6tph on this peak service but that was reduced to 4tph and, presumably, the 70 trains ordered for Crossrail included provision for 4pth. Once Crossrail commenced full running through central London only 2tph was timetabled, with no indication that this number would ever be increased – quite the opposite in fact.
It was known, but not publicly stated, from the outset that these trains were regarded as unsatisfactory but introducing them was initially the only realistic way of catering for a slightly busier branch to Shenfield than the one to Abbey Wood.
More recently mention has been made at a TfL board subcommittee of an intention to extend these so they terminate at or start from Paddington. Presumably they would run in service on the return journey rather than in the peak direction only.
Coincidentally, TfL have predicted an eight percent rise in Crossrail passengers in the coming year which is almost the exact increase in capacity that running these 2tph trains through the central section will provide.
The original implication is that the timetable would need to be fudged to cater for 14tph to and from Stratford in the peaks, but only 12tph to and from Abbey Wood. This would not be ideal but by strategically losing a minute or so on some journeys, a reasonably even-interval timetable could be created. This implementation would go some way to provide extra capacity in central London in the peaks which would be very welcome even though the existing service can just about handle the current demand.
Of course, should such additional services be introduced, it would make sense to extend them to Old Oak Common in the future.
Likelihood: Given what has already been publicly stated, almost certain.
Estimated Extra trains required: 1.
Option 2: 14tph between Paddington and Abbey Wood in the peaks
If Option 1 were implemented and the trains were available, it would make a lot of sense to go one stage further and have 14tph on both eastern branches in the peaks in order to have an alternating service to both branches from central London as now. This would also mean 28tph in the central section as opposed to 24tph currently. The maximum designed frequency of the central section of Crossrail is 31tph so there would still be some flexibility in the timetable to recover from minor delays.
A benefit of Option 2 is that peak period trains between Whitechapel and Stratford in the peak direction would no longer have to have delays built into their schedule in order to ensure an even interval at Whitechapel (in the morning) or Stratford (in the evening). This in turn could reduce the extra number of trains required.
One possible issue is the ability to terminate 14tph at Abbey Wood in the two platforms available. Turnround time would be a little over seven minutes but it takes the three minutes for the driver to change ends and in that time a departing train needs to clear the first set of points before next train can enter. It is notable that the initial Paddington – Abbey Wood section was instigated at 12tph despite the plan being to run 15tph until the Shenfield branch joined the system. Nothing was officially stated but it was widely believed that terminating 15tph at Abbey Wood was too challenging and was either unachievable or simply an avoidable risk factor.
Whilst nothing has been said specifically about a desire to increase the peak services to Abbey Wood, Howard Smith, director of the Elizabeth line, in a board subcommittee meeting a few years ago expressed the desire to increase the frequency of the central section to 30tph to maximise revenue in these days when TfL is severely hampered by budgetary constraints.
As with Option 1, a timely extension to Old Oak Common would appear to make sense.
Also, similar to Option 1, Option 2 could provide capacity for a further year’s growth assuming that the expected increase in passengers per year continued at eight percent.
Likelihood: We think this is highly likely given desires to increase frequency on the central London section.
Estimated Extra trains required: 2.
Option 3: Additional 2tph all-stations peak service from West Drayton
For clarity, this is about extending 2tph services that currently terminate at Paddington to West Drayton. It would not increase the number of trains through central London.
Option 3 is rather different from other options for a number of reasons. Unlike other options proposed here, it is not based on any known aspiration of TfL. Instead, it is speculation by us as a solution to a known, if not generally acknowledged, problem. We have also been very specific in a solution to this problem whereas, if it were addressed, there could be other solutions available.
Whilst, to our knowledge, not part of TfL’s current thinking, originally this was part of the plan – at least in the peaks. What happened to this plan? Well, to oversimplify it, these proposed trains terminating at West Drayton were diverted to Terminal 5 once an opportunity arose to serve Terminal 5 instead. Unlike the original proposal, the present-day Terminal 5 service is not confined to the peak periods.
The problem that Option 3 is trying to solve, or at least ameliorate, is the somewhat unsatisfactory service that Crossrail provides in the west London suburbs. We are talking about West Drayton to Acton Main Line (inclusive).
As far as we are aware, the infrastructure is fully in place at West Drayton to terminate Crossrail trains from London, as was originally planned, although it is not currently used. Platforms 3, 4, and 5 are fully signed as Elizabeth line platforms although the track serving platform 5 is currently only used by passing freight trains.
The first and main issue is that, in the morning peak, passengers at some stations (most notably Acton Main Line) are struggling to board trains. The issue at Acton Main Line has been partially solved since November 2023 by stopping at Acton Main Line two limited-stop trains in the morning that originated from Reading. As these Crossrail trains replaced a semi-fast service GWR used to provide, one can understand passengers already on the train being a bit irritated by having their trains call at the nearest station to London which happens to be relatively lightly used – though usage is rising fast and is probably mainly constrained by the lack of train capacity.
Whilst not a problem as such, the fastest 2tph peak services in the peak direction to and from Reading make a call at West Drayton mainly, it seems, to provide 6tph to London to satisfy demand at this station. Conventional wisdom is that it doesn’t make sense for long distance trains to make stops in the suburbs to satisfy a local need, as the detriment to longer distance passengers is greater than the local benefit. Also, ideally, one would like the trains to be full of passengers long before approaching London.
The third problem with Crossrail services in the west London suburbs is the highly unsatisfactory clash in the morning peak between airport travellers and morning commuters. This evokes many complaints from both sides but primarily commuters who are upset at being unable to board trains with space available due to airline passengers with luggage blocking the vestibules and gangways. Putting it bluntly, in busy periods, airline passengers and rail commuters don’t mix well.
Option 3: The background
To understand the what Option 3 is trying to solve we need to look at the background starting with the passenger flows.
For most of the Elizabeth line, the peak passenger constitution of passengers could be described as ‘urban and suburban commuters’ and that is all you really need to know. In an ideal world one would probably have a sub-category of ‘outer suburban commuters’ for passengers travelling from or to stations from Romford to Shenfield inclusive but that is about it. As nowadays there is very little extra that can be done for such outer urban commuters (such as limited stop trains) due to operational constraints, they have to be treated the same as the urban commuter. Their highest priority is a frequent service. They would like it to be fast and, if possible, they would like a seat but are prepared to trade off standing for a speedier journey.
West of Paddington things are rather different. There are four distinctive traffic flows and each have different requirements. These flows are:
Commuters from outside London: Commuters living outside the GLA boundary are looking for a fast journey which is not too infrequent and carries them in a fair level of comfort.
Airline passengers: These passengers are looking for reassurance that they have the correct train and want to get between the airport and central London as speedily as possible and as conveniently as possible with their luggage.
London commuters: Primarily they want to be able to board a train when it arrives. Ideally, they would like a frequent service. The expectation from passengers joining at busier stations in the west (Hayes & Harlington, Southall, Ealing Broadway) is that some, at least, of the trains will not call at all stations. This is partly because this is what they have been historically used to.
Local airport workers: These are a large, easily forgotten group who need a service from their local suburban station to either Heathrow or West Drayton. The latter station is more convenient for outlying services such as airplane maintenance facilities and can also be conveniently used to bus staff to their place of work. They need a reliable service that they can board. They also tend to travel against the main flow of traffic.
As well as these main flows it is important not to overlook passengers (airline or airport workers) travelling from west of Hayes & Harlington who also need a convenient connection at Hayes & Harlington to reach Heathrow.
Also not explicitly mentioned are airline passengers who are commencing or finishing their journey in the London suburbs. Though probably not large in number, they still need to be catered for.
The three main current problems in the morning peak are:
Not enough commuting capacity especially at Hanwell and Acton Main Line, both of which have just a 4tph service (and two extra trains at Acton Main Line in the morning peak).
Airport passengers are mostly travelling on ‘all stations’ trains to and from the airport which makes the journey longer and less attractive.
The mixture of local commuters and airline travellers on busy trains does not work well. This applies especially on journeys from the airport.
Additionally, as already mentioned, it would be desirable to further improve the fastest services to and from Reading in the peaks.
Option 3: A possible solution
Solutions to the issues stated are largely constrained by two factors. One is the mixing of all-stations stopping trains, and trains that are skipping some stations. This leads to a loss of capacity due to the limited number of trains that can be run. The other is the issue of the need to cater for freight trains.
There are very few freight paths between West Drayton and Acton in the peaks and those that do exist are rarely used. They appear to be for exceptional use only. In any case they do not cause the constraint that they do for off-peak services.
Assuming the trains are available, it would appear to us to make sense to have a 2tph all-stations service from West Drayton to Paddington where the train would continue using an existing train path to either Abbey Wood or Shenfield. In the London direction in the morning peak this would act as a ‘sweeper’ to clear any outstanding passengers waiting on the platforms. In the West Drayton direction, the extra services would better distribute passengers wishing to alight at stations between Acton Main Line and Hayes & Harlington. The evening peak, being more spread out, is not so critical but one is unlikely to be able to make a good business case for extra trains that are only required in the morning peak.
We must emphasise this is just one possible solution to the problem of passengers unable to board in the peak period. The terminating platform at Hayes & Harlington could be used instead though that would be operationally more challenging. Also, an introduction of extra trains could require a complete timetable recast including changing stopping patterns.
Likelihood: A complete wildcard. We think it makes sense but there may be challenges we haven’t taken into account.
Estimated Extra trains required: 2.
Option 4: Additional 2tph all day service to Terminal 5
For clarity, this would extend 2tph trains from Shenfield that currently terminate at Paddington. It would not increase the number of trains through central London.
Option 4 may seem to many the most obvious option to implement if additional trains were available. One reason is that this has already been talked about and is almost certainly an aspiration of TfL. However, there are a number of factors that make this option highly unlikely to be implemented in the next few years. These are ones of timing, operation, and resilience.
Any potential new trains are unlikely to arrive before 2026. This is shortly before a major overview of the best use of services on the approach to Paddington including Heathrow Express. Heathrow Express is only guaranteed to continue until 2028. So, it makes sense to wait until that review has taken place before committing to extra trains to Heathrow.
Operation of an extra 2tph Crossrail trains to Terminal 5 is surprisingly awkward. Terminal 5 has two platforms, but one is dedicated to Heathrow Express. Crossrail trains from Terminal 5 in the June 2024 timetable depart 15 minutes after arriving meaning one can’t simply continue with the current service pattern, as terminal layover time needs to be reduced. Fitting in an extra 2tph off-peak into the mix that includes freight traffic would be quite problematic.
Because of multiple issues with infrastructure on the Great Western Main Line approaches to Paddington a lot of planned engineering work is talking place over the next two years. In additional to that, tracks will need to be diverted to serve the platforms at the new Old Oak Common station. What would absolutely not be wanted would be an extra 2tph all day, seven days a week adding to the complexity. Also, TfL tends to adopt a cautious approach to increasing services. It is likely that TfL has a strategy of ensuring the new infrastructure is reliably working before venturing to add additional services throughout the day.
Likelihood: Unlikely before 2028. Then dependent on a review of services into Paddington.
Estimated Extra trains required: 2.
The Unknown Factors
Our look at potential future options for Crossrail is quite speculative. We do not fully know what is in the minds of those that decide what Crossrail services are to run. The complexity of the timetable cannot be taken into account without a deep understanding of all the issues involved and how the timetable could be rewritten.
Other factors provide some possible flexibility that we have not taken into account. Estimates of the extra number of trains required for various enhancements are bound to be approximate and rounded to the nearest whole number. There are other factors that could be taken into account when considering the number of trains required:
A generous dwell time currently scheduled at central London stations. If more trains were to be run through the central section, one would imagine there would be a desire to cut this slightly which in turn leads to slightly better train utilisation.
‘Stepping back’, where a driver takes out a subsequent train could be introduced at Abbey Wood (and Shenfield). Stepping back is undesirable operationally but if needed it does improve train utilisation by reducing turnround time.
Fewer trains required for maintenance during the day (as a portion of the total fleet) can increase train availability.
We suspect there are currently 2-3 trains spare due to only 2tph Gidea Park Shorts being run instead of the originally planned 4tph.
A further consideration is: what if TfL could produce a good business case for more than 10 trains? Would the DfT and the Treasury agree to an increased order? And where are these additional trains going to be stabled?
Finding somewhere to stable any extra trains is almost a topic in itself. This seems already to be starting to be an issue with no obvious contenders (but many possible options). Any business case is going to have to cover the cost of any new stabling locations as well as the cost of the trains. We have been led to believe there is still some spare capacity at Old Oak Common but we do not know how much.
Making the most of what you have got
There is another way of looking where TfL should be investing money, and it basically involves the question “where could one most effectively spend what money one has or can make available?” Economists will normally tell you the answer is ‘agglomeration’. In simple words make the most of what you currently have. Or, more crudely, sweat your assets. The logic behind this is that in most cases it is usually a more effective use of money to build on what you already have rather than start again from scratch.
If you have a brand-new railway capable of supporting extra trains and you also have the demand for those extra trains then buying those trains them is almost certainly the most cost-effective thing you can do. Indeed, to many it doesn’t make sense to think about Crossrail 2 or the Bakerloo extension until you have made the best use of Crossrail 1.
The Waiting Game
At the moment we are waiting for a new government to be elected and for that government to make a final decision. In this day and age very little can be assumed before being confident it will go ahead, as HS2 stage 2 has shown – however much sense it makes to proceed. We live in hope.
The post Bonus Trains for Crossrail? appeared first on London Reconnections.