We were surprised when on 14th June 2024 it was announced that agreement had been reach by TfL, the DfT and the train maker Alstom to provide 10 new trains for Crossrail. We were not surprised that agreement had been reached, we were surprised that it was announced.
During the run up to the general election there is normally a moratorium on new announcements to prevent a government (local or national) making announcements in the hope of influencing an election result. As far as we are aware, this cannot be imposed on private companies so when Alstom was going to announce the deal it made sense for the government to issue a press release with the minimum of details to confirm the deal. It was noticeable that, despite the information being available elsewhere, TfL did not issue a press release.
The Plan for the 10 New Trains
Five of the 10 trains were agreed upon in order for TfL to provide a service to central London from the future Old Oak Common station, where HS2 trains will terminate – at least until arrangements are made to reinstate the plan to terminate HS2 at Euston. For the order to be agreed it was necessary for TfL to show there was a business case for the other five trains.
Given that the order has been approved, it is obvious that there must be internal TfL documents about this. The big questions were when would such documents come to light and what were the actual proposed enhancements planned.
Those hoping for a definitive answer in the first of the documents to be released will be disappointed. TfL did not have to demonstrate how the trains would be used, they only had to demonstrate they could provide a business case for one or more scenarios. This is what TfL have done and they have produced two possible scenarios showing how the extra trains could be deployed whilst making the point that with only 10 new trains they cannot implement both proposals. The document, which is not easy to find, can be read here.
Extending Services to Old Oak Common
Both proposals, of necessity, extend trains terminating at Paddington to Old Oak Common station. This is supposed to require four new trains plus one maintenance spare. However, the need for five trains seems a bit surprising as the proposal is only for 18tph between Paddington and Old Oak Common. In the peak period there is already a 12tph service passing Old Oak Common station (currently being constructed). So, we are only talking about extending 6tph from Paddington to Old Oak Common. There appears to be something we have not grasped here – maybe it is intended to have a substantial turnaround time at Old Oak Common? Or possibly, for some reason, there is a desire to not use the Westbourne Park sidings to reverse trains that would still terminate at Paddington and for the trains to continue instead without passengers to the Crossrail depot at Old Oak Common.
A disappointment is that the proposal isn’t for all trains that currently terminate at Paddington from the east to terminate at Old Oak Common. This is what we were expecting as TfL had previously described this as highly desirable. One of the disadvantages of continuing to have trains from central London terminating at Paddington from is that they will continue to have to be checked to ensure all passengers have left the train before proceeding to Westbourne Park sidings.
At Old Oak Common station there will be four platforms for Crossrail trains including two platforms for terminating trains. Not only would it appear to be operationally simpler to terminate all trains there rather than at Paddington, it would make it easier for passengers changing at Old Oak Common for a GWR train to the west or HS2.
The proposal is to have an 18tph service between central London and Old Oak Common. It would seem to make sense for this to apply all day in order to handle passengers using HS2. One problem with that is that currently the off-peak service on the Elizabeth line is only 16tph. Either TfL will need to implement 20tph off-peak in the central section which was supposed to be the intention once the final phase of introducing Crossrail was implemented, or they will need to reduce the service to Old Oak Common to only 16tph outside the peak period.
The Two Options
The two options proposed are called Package West and Package East. For those who have read our previous speculative article as to what service would be provided, Package West is similar to Option 1 combined with Option 3 and Package East seems to be almost indistinguishable from Option 2.
Package West
Our interpretation of the Package West Option
Package West is primarily intended to address the problems of overcrowding between West Drayton and Paddington in peak hours whilst providing a modest increase in services in the central operating section by running an extra 2tph between Paddington to Stratford. Although not explicitly stated, we presume that the ‘Gidea Park Shorts’ which terminate at Liverpool Street Main Line station will be withdrawn.
One can see that increasing the service between Paddington and Gidea Park or Shenfield without increasing it between Paddington and Abbey Wood is going to be slightly unsatisfactory leading to consecutive trains to and from the Shenfield branch in the central section and a slightly uneven gap in trains to and from the Abbey Wood branch.
To provide 10tph to West Drayton would require an additional 4tph between West Drayton and Paddington. One wonders whether this is achievable. No indication is given of the intended stopping pattern but one strongly suspects that Acton Main Line, Hanwell and West Ealing will be provided with at least 6tph in the peak period but not necessarily by trains terminating at West Drayton.
We have made the presumption that terminating trains at West Drayton will only happen in the peak period as it is a peak period problem that is being addressed. Also, with only 12tph planned to serve Abbey Wood in the peak period in this scenario and 10tph of these trains already extended westwards beyond Paddington (or Old Oak Common eventually) it seems that the new West Drayton service will have to be a West Drayton to Shenfield service.
Package East
Our interpretation of the Package East option
Package East concentrates on increasing capacity in the central operating section by running an extra 4tph through central London, of which 2tph continue to or start from Gidea Park (or maybe Shenfield) and 2tph continue to or start from Abbey Wood.
Package East is the obvious enhancement to make and, like Package West, eliminates the Gidea Park Shorts (we presume). It provides 2tph extra on both of the two eastern branches giving 4tph extra between Whitechapel and Paddington. Not only that, it is the one predicted to provide for the greater number of additional passengers. 22m extra passenger journeys are predicted compared to 16m passenger journeys with Package West.
The Winning Option Will Be…
We are going to stick our neck out and suggest Package East is the more likely option. It would benefit the greater number of passengers and relieve overcrowding in the central operating section. This will probably, but not necessarily, mean it would be the more revenue positive option. It would also improve mobility in central London. It should also be easier to implement from an operational point of view even though it has a slightly more frequent service in the central operating section (as well as both the eastern branches).
Package East is also restricted to parts of Crossrail where TfL have complete control or, for practical purposes, almost complete control. It should therefore be easier to implement and more reliable to operate. Project West is dependent on reliability on shared Network Rail tracks (mainly with freight) and on a section of line known to be prone to disruption – though Network Rail are working on that.
Or Maybe Implement Both Options?
The obvious logical thought is why not implement both options if they are both so beneficial and both have a positive financial case? Intriguingly, the document refers to “a change to the existing contract to extend the backstop date allowing TfL to exercise further options up to 13 more class 345 trains”. It is not clear if this means 13 more trains in addition to the 10 already ordered, or that it includes the 10 already ordered so up to three more trains could be ordered in future. It seems that the latter is more likely. Funnily enough, a crude calculation suggests that implementing both options would require a total of 13 trains.
Another consideration in favour of the plan being to implement both options is that TfL have already mentioned making full use of the trains in advance of them being needed for services to Old Oak Common. Old Oak Common won’t open before 2028 at the earliest and is not due to be served by HS2 until 2030 at the earliest. If one were confident about obtaining three further extra trains prior to the opening of Old Oak Common, then one could probably implement the other features of both Project West and Project East with the 10 trains already acquired.
The Future
It is clear that TfL expects significant growth on the Elizabeth line in the next few years and is anxious to deal with any current overcrowding. The 10 new trains, bringing the fleet total to 80, are expected to be delivered by the second quarter of 2026. This may mean that these trains could be brought fully into service at the June timetable change although that is probably unlikely. It is possible that the necessary train paths will be put into the June 2026 working timetable so that TfL can embrace the enhanced service as soon as possible. This would be considerably easier if Project East were to be chosen as TfL have considerable autonomy in running the central section and eastern branches from their control centre in Romford, and so would not be so dependent on a fixed national timetable change date.
Other than implementing both Project West and Project East, beyond 2026 it is hard to see how the number of trains could be subsequently significantly increased in the peak period, except between Paddington and Old Oak Common. That leads to looking in future at what the expected demand will be on Crossrail in the 2030s and how to provide for it.
The post Bonus Trains for Crossrail – More Details appeared first on London Reconnections.