London Reconnections: Recent Episodes
None
- The Caledonian Sleeper is not running under the Channel | Jon Worth
- Self-driving taxis cleared for London later this summer | Guardian
- 'Failure' to listen to accessibility demands: Railways Bill | Disability News
- Empowering autistic travel w/ support & information |Rail Engineer
- You Are Here: Transit Cartography & Spatial Identity | David Rumsey Map Center
- New Zealand's 1st battery-hybrid train: Video |On Tracks Aus
- Wherefore art thou Nightstar? The Nightstar Renaissance | London Reconnections
LR Pub Night is this Tuesday 11 August in the City, all are welcome to cavort & discuss transport, & related matters. We are a friendly bunch.
Help support running the servers distributing our work to readers around the world by joining our LR Patreon.
GB Railfreight (GBRf), UK’s largest rail freight operator, has introduced the first commercial service operated by the Class 99 hybrid freight locomotive, marking a major milestone in the modernisation and decarbonisation of Britain’s rail freight network.
...
The new Class 99 hybrid locomotives, built by Stadler, are designed to reduce emissions by more than half on a typical journey and represent a significant step towards a cleaner and more sustainable rail freight sector. The UK rail freight industry contributes around £2.5 billion (€2.9 billion) to the national economy and forms part of government plans to increase rail freight volumes by 75% by 2050.
Hybrid technology combines electric power and renewable fuels
The Class 99 locomotive can operate using electric power on electrified sections of the railway network and continue running on non-electrified routes using renewable fuels.
Continue reading:
GBRf launches UK’s first Class 99 hybrid freight locomotive into commercial serviceGBRf introduced the Stadler-built Class 99 hybrid freight locomotive into commercial service -UK’s first hybrid freight locomotiveRailway PROpamela
Our next pub meeting in 2026 is on Tuesday 11th August 2026 at The Crosse Keys pub located at 9 Gracechurch Street at 7.00 p.m. Maybe a beer will go down well in the hot weather.
We generally try to meet in one of the two rooms at the back and usually have a sheet of paper with 'London Reconnections' on the table to identify ourselves.
You can read more details here.
- Fare dodging loophole crackdown by major train operator |CILT
- Caledonian Sleeper European links being explored | Modern Railways
- Visiting New Okehampton Interchange station: Video |Transupa
- Will Dorset Finally Get a Metro? | Edward Teather
- Royal Mail begun deploying electric cargo cycles |Micromobility
- Transpennine Route Upgrade reaches Batley & Dewsbury | Philip Haigh
- Auckland City Rail Link will enable through running: Video |Railways Explained
Check out our Industry Reads posts published every weekday.
Help support running the servers distributing our work to readers around the world by joining our LR Patreon.
NEXRAIL has placed an order with Stadler for up to 200 EURO9000 panto-battery hybrid locomotives, marking a major step towards zero-emission rail transport across Europe.
The EURO9000 combines up to 9MW of pantograph power with 1.2MW of high-performance battery power, making it the first mainline corridor locomotive capable of delivering terminal-to-terminal zero-emission operations. Its smart battery module offers advanced features such as brake energy storage, peak shaving, and energy trading, reducing costs and improving efficiency.
Built on Stadler Valencia’s proven six-axle Co’Co’ platform, the EURO9000’s multi-system architecture ensures seamless cross-border operation between Germany, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Italy. First deliveries are expected in 2029, with Hamburger Rail Service GmbH & Co. KG (HRS) as the launch customer.
Continue reading
That many of Europe’s networks are facing a growing capacity shortfall is not news. Across the continent, every path on the principal corridors is now a precious resource. Slots are being duelled over as competing players emerge and seek to shape how access rights are prioritised.
The most high-profile arguments have centred on the rise of new entrants seeking to grow the market as much as taking share from the incumbents. Italo’s struggle to enter the German long-distance segment is but the latest example. A determination by the federal networks agency Bundesnetzagentur proposing changes to DB InfraGO’s train path allocation rules for 2028 allowed Italo to place its order with Siemens Mobility for a fleet of 26 Velaro high speed trains on July 20.
But there are also signs that the battle for capacity is becoming far more complex. Czech national passenger operator České Dráhy explored this conundrum last month, when Head of International Affairs Jan Ilík explained that new entrants and incumbents alike were facing a shifting set of pressures. ‘While everybody agrees that we need more trains, freight trains, passenger trains, night trains, regional and suburban too, it is not easy to manage so many trains on the network’, he pointed out.
Continue reading
I didn’t count HS1 as one of those eight new river crossings, because it doesn’t actually connect the north and south banks of the river, even though it crosses the river. The nearest stations are at Ebbsfleet, where it serves a giant car park, and at Stratford, where it misses the largest rail interchange in East London.
Transport schemes are designed by transport people for transport objectives (typically capacity or journey times) as opposed to for human objectives.
We invest about £20 to 30 billion each year in new transport schemes.
If you asked people in their local areas what they would like, they’ll tell you they want their kids to be able to play out, to be able to walk to the local shops, and to be able to get back from the pub without having to get a lift. But our schemes to increase capacity have simply enabled more of us to go faster on existing routes.
If we’d invested £1 trillion (roughly how much we’ve spent in my lifetime, in today’s money) on meeting peoples’ actual needs, we’d have ended up with very different environments.
Continue reading
- Norse by Northwest: Blast a cheap tunnel under the Pennines | Michael Dnes
- Trams test driven wrong way through Croydon centre | Ian Visits
- When the Watford DC Line ran into the East End: Video | SomeNorthLondoner
- Rant on British transport from 400 years ago: Video | Upstart Crow
- Inside Melbourne’s new G-class trams |Daniel Bowen
- Scenes from Canada’s First Indigenous-Owned Railway | The Walrus
The other day, someone who I respect greatly posted something that has started a bit of a debate (as much as debate can be had on social media, anyway). Omer Bor posted his views about the planned change in the bus fare cap in England to £2. His views in short are there are probably better uses for half a billion pounds than a simple nationwide flat fare, which caused a bit of discussion in the comments section of that and one subsequent post - including from yours truly.
Rather than rehash the debate again but in longer form, I thought what would be more useful ns looking at the different pricing mechanisms, and their relative strengths and weaknesses from the perspective of modal shift, equity, and economic efficiency. Each of which is usually contained in the vision and objectives of the transport strategies that such fares are meant to help deliver1.
I also do this partly as I find that people weirdly get really protective about their own chosen method of pricing public transport. Seeing panellists at a conference get quite angry that someone disagrees that free public transport might actually not be a good thing is quite something, I assure you. But hopefully here you may be able to learn something about the value of each method of pricing.
Continue reading
- Underground riders need to know about toxic dust risk | Guardian
- Scotland is doing much better at electrifying its railways |Michael Hill
- Nottingham Victoria Station's history & sad demise |Atlas Obscura
- Inside Network Rail's Archive: Video |Transport Matters
- Obeying speed limit'd save 57k tons of carbon a day |Anthropocene
- Kolkata Tramway initiative from new government? |Urban Transport
- Turning bus & train data into music | KQED
Check out our Industry Reads posts published every weekday.
Help support running the servers distributing our work to readers around the world by joining our LR Patreon.
While recent research suggests autonomous robotaxis may be safer than the average human driver, a new study suggests these driverless vehicles could spike congestion in New York City while bringing only “limited safety benefits.”
That’s because in a city like New York, robotaxis would actually be replacing yellow cab, Uber, and Lyft drivers. These professional for-hire drivers are already about 14 times safer than the city’s average driver, according to a July 20 report from the Sam Schwartz Transportation Research Program at Hunter College, published with advocacy group Open Plans.
While the autonomous vehicle company Waymo has recently boasted a lower crash rate than human drivers, citing a new analysis by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, researchers suggest New York City needs its own data before autonomous vehicles arrive at scale.
Continue reading
New York City’s congestion pricing scheme did not trigger the feared surge in parking demand outside Manhattan’s congestion relief zone, according to a new Department of Transportation study that challenges one of the programme’s biggest criticisms.
The report found little evidence that motorists were avoiding the toll by parking outside the zone and completing their journeys by public transport. Instead, it concludes that longstanding pressure on kerbside parking, particularly free on-street spaces, remains the primary cause of parking shortages across the city.
The Department of Transportation analysed parking activity at 4,319 block faces before and after the Central Business District Tolling Program was introduced. The assessment covered six neighbourhoods within the congestion relief zone, the border area north of 60th Street, and locations surrounding 16 transit stations across Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens.
Continue reading:
Study finds no parking surge from New York congestion pricing - Cities TodayA New York City study finds congestion pricing has not caused a surge in parking outside Manhattan’s congestion relief zone, challenging one of the programme’s biggest criticisms.Cities TodayJonathan Andrews
GB Railfreight (GBRf), the UK’s leading rail freight operator, yesterday operated the first commercial service of the Class 99 hybrid freight locomotive, marking a major milestone in the modernisation and decarbonisation of Britain’s rail freight network.
Yesterday, 99001, the first commercial Class 99 service for Maritime Transport departed DP World London Gateway carrying intermodal freight – goods moved in the same container by multiple modes of transport, such as rail and road – bound for Maritime’s Hams Hall Rail Freight Terminal in the West Midlands.
The new Class 99 locomotives – set to reduce emissions by more than half on a typical journey – are key to unlocking green growth across the rail freight sector, which is worth £2.5b to the national economy and will help meet the Government’s target to grow the sector 75% by 2050. Combining electric operation with the ability to run on non-electrified routes using renewable fuels, the new locomotives are designed to cut carbon emissions without compromising access to any part of the national rail network.
Continue reading
Engineers from Heriot-Watt University, working alongside colleagues at the University of Leeds and partners across Europe, have unveiled a new self-levelling railway sleeper designed to tackle one of the rail sector’s most persistent infrastructure challenges: transition zones.
The innovation has the potential to significantly reduce maintenance requirements, cut operational costs, improve passenger comfort and deliver a more sustainable approach to track construction, thanks in part to its use of recycled plastic materials.
Tackling a long-standing infrastructure issue
Transition zones—where track stiffness changes abruptly, such as at the interface between embankments and bridges or tunnels—have long been problematic for rail operators. These areas are prone to higher degradation rates and increased maintenance costs.
Continue reading
Bonn aims for plan approval 2026The cable car project in the federal city of Bonn is moving forward. The line in Bonn – running from Venusberg on the left bank of the Rhine across the river to Beuel on the right bank – would be the first urban cable car in Germany integrated into public transport that can be used with a standard local ticket, such as the “Deutschlandticket“.
The project is managed jointly by the City of Bonn and the Bonn Public Utilities (Stadtwerke Bonn). The city administration continues to work intensively on the project and is sticking to its goal of submitting the application for plan approval to the Cologne regional government in 2026.
Continue reading:
Germany: Where are urban cable cars being planned? - Seilbahnen InternationalUrban cable cars seem to be a perennial media topic, particularly in Germany: ideas pop up in many places, only to disappear shortly thereafter. However, there are projects that are being pursued with increasing seriousness. An overview.Seilbahnen InternationalThomas Surrer
• I was sent to cover the Moorgate train disaster. I had no idea it had killed my father (The Guardian)
• A Million Cars Disappeared: NYC after a Month of Congestion Relief Pricing (Fast Company)
• Updating the London Underground Concentric Circles & Spokes Map (Maxwell Roberts)
• Stellantis Introduces Pop-Up Ads in Vehicles, Sparking Outrage Among Owners (TechStory)
• The rail planning tool we need in Europe (Jon Worth)
• Building More Beautiful Bus Stops and Stations Can Pay Off (CityLab)
• Tired of diesel fumes, these moms are pushing for electric school buses (Canadian Press)
• ‘The Lost Subways of North America’ Book Review (Railway Age)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 14 February 2025 appeared first on London Reconnections.
In The Lost Art of Passenger Comfort & Good Design – Railway Interiors Part 1, we looked at individual components and functionalities of train interiors – from seats, layout, information displays, and storage spaces, down to power sockets and USB connectors. Now in Part 2, we now look at a number of North American, and a UK, train operators that are implementing some of these ideas to develop their next generation long distance and high speed train interior concepts and designs.
Interior design for train companies has always been a balance between comfort and capacity. And now accommodating multiple uses and demographics also has to be factored in. Designing contemporary train interiors is about problem solving and putting individual changes and improvements together in a coherent total comprehensive design for a better passenger and traveled experience.
The rail market has been changing, and the pandemic accelerated the changes. We also saw in Part 1 that train carriage interiors need to accommodate a greater range of uses, storage needs, and passenger expectations, whilst maintaining flexibility for different demographics, age groups and uses. It is important to note that most western countries have an aging demographic, as well as a growing leisure market, plus the rise of a plethora of personal light electric vehicles (from mobility scooters to e-scooters). As well as wanting to encourage the increase in active transport such as cycling, e-bikes, hiking etc.
Great British Railways rail passenger revenueGreat British Railways’ rail passenger revenue by journey purposes in a quarter of 2024 show leisure sector receipts of £1,538m, larger than the combined business and commuter receipts of £1,286m. All these sectors’ figures are larger than first quarter 2023.
New North American Night Train InteriorsJim Mathews, President & CEO of the National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP) was the Master of Ceremonies of the conference. NARP represents over 40 million American train passengers, so he was an ideal advocate for improved passenger train interior amenities.
He also presented Amtrak’s plans for specifying, and funding, their new long distance fleet. The recent US Federal $66B Infrastructure and Recovery Act is a massive investment in many modes of public transport, including intercity rail. But due to Buy American legislation, this funding would require US built trains. Mathews noted that such domestic production will cost three times more than European carriages, due to having to set up a US train carriage manufactory. Unfortunately, there is no long term plan to support the US railway industry, so once these funds are spent, there is no commercial stability to entice investors.
Amtrak is looking to expand their sleeping options in its new long distance train procurement. In addition to sleeper cabins and bunks, they are also looking into specifying stacked single person sleeping capsules, as seen in the recent NightJet, Chinese, and Japanese sleeper trains. Mathews’ cousin is a US submarine officer. After having been shown a photo of the NightJet sleeping capsules, the undersea officer said that they appeared very similar to enlisted sailor’s submarine bunks…
Whilst open bunks were a popular sleeper train option in the past, the trend now is that individual and pairs of travellers prefer the privacy of secure cabins or capsules. Slightly larger compartments with a seat and folding table, and more storage space are also offered, often designed to connect to another by the opening of a partition. Effective and controllable ventilation, heating, and air conditioning is also expected by modern travellers.
Persons with reduced mobility (PRM) will have larger cabins with space to rotate mobility devices. The Amtrak accessible double decker sleeper carriages will actually have two lifts – although keeping them operational on a swaying, vibrating train will be a large maintenance challenge.
Amtrak is also considering making bike storage spaces safe to store e-bikes. Some routes serve skiing areas, so having configurable space for seasonal sporting equipment, storing bikes in warm months, and skis in winter, would be ideal.
Another speaker noted a booming North American travel trend for eco-chic holidays – for instance, sustainable transport like long distance trains, as well as canal travel and sailing ships. Both Amtrak and Canada’s national passenger train carrier VIA Rail are already tapping into both of these markets, as they are quite lucrative. And both railways have been following the renaissance of the sleeper train market in Europe with great interest. Austria’s Nightjet operates 20 sleeper train routes across Europe, with fully booked cabins most of the time, and has ordered another 33 sleeper carriages.
But both railways still provide basic intercity service, for many cities and towns without other intercity public transport. Hence the need for their new fleets to offer a wide range of sleeping accommodation, as well as reclining seats for economy passengers.
VIA Rail’s New Long Distance Fleet Requirement Definition ProcessVIA Rail also presented its new long distance fleet procurement process. Whilst superficially similar to Amtrak’s fleet requirements, there could be important differences that preclude a concurrent VIA Rail long distance fleet order that could help share the supply chain and purchase costs. VIA Rail has three long distance sleeper train routes services, as befits the world’s second largest country, with the potential for a fourth if sufficient sleeper carriages were available. VIA also operates remote routes to regions without road access. For instance, VIA’s Hudson’s Bay train endures extreme climatic conditions in providing essential transport to remote communities to the sub-Arctic on Hudson’s Bay and in Northern Quebec.
As a result, VIA Rail will likely specify an operating temperature requirement of -50C to 45C for their long distance fleet. This may well require near military grade electronics with multiple decade robustness. Furthermore, Amtrak currently operates double decker Superliners, and is considering ordering new bilevel carriages for some of its routes. However, low clearances at the major hubs at Montréal and Winnipeg stations preclude double decker VIA Rail trains. Hence it is unlikely that Amtrak and VIA will be able to make a large joint order.
1955 Budd Dome car on Ocean train. VIA RailVIA Rail’s dome carriages are well loved and well used. They feature in some preliminary renders of the proposed new long distance fleet released in December 2024:
VIA Long Distance Train dome car renderAs well as Economy class interior:
VIA Long Distance Train Resto car renderAnd the cafe car:
Long Distance Cafe Car Render giving Star Trek energy. VIA RailNational TrainsAs Amtrak and VIA Rail are national railway companies, their respective new train procurements are somewhat reflective of the national character. Whilst they service many small towns with no inter-city bus service, these trains are also prime tourist draws. Good design, large windows to see the vast landscapes, comfortable interiors for often multi-day journeys. And configurable for loading sporting activities equipment on board.
The UK currently has a fragmented railway network, but as in most countries, their high speed lines are their flagship railway service, and serve as a symbol of the country’s modernity and efficiency. The Train à Grande Vitesse, Shinkansen, Germany’s ICE, Spain’s AVE, &c are such examples.
California High Speed Railway Train InteriorsThe California High-Speed Rail Authority (CAHSR) is building a 220mph / 355 km/h electrified high speed line between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The authority has issued a RFP from the two shortlisted firms Alstom Transportation and Siemens Mobility.
Concurrently, the Authority is using the train interior design process, which it hopes will also generate buzz and positive awareness of the new line among its stakeholders and the general public. The goal is to create a wow factor for the interiors, similar to what Brightline has done.
Economy seat section render. California HSRWheelchair section design render. California HSRCAHSR built a full scale white mock-up of some proposed train interiors to provide a much more visceral and effective experience, for more accurate feedback from disability groups, seniors, families, student groups, etc. Their preliminary feedback has been:
- Comfortable Seating – Economy class with comfortable seats is a key requirement.
- Not a lot of families liked the high density 3+2 seating configuration, but it satisfies the need for larger families and groups to sit together.
- Cocoon Seating – innovative concept with fixed inclined seating and adjustable shades on window and doorway for sleeping or resting is well liked. This would also provide a calm space for the neuro-diverse to shut out light and noise nuisances.
- Premium Seating – First Class airliner-like pods (but not a full cocoon) are much welcome.
- Compartments – support for 1, 2, & 4 passengers, especially in Business Class, for privacy.
- Family Room – lots of support from families for this.
- Bike Storage carriage – CAHSR would like modest amount of bike storage with secure fastening, which will be popular in states with a large biking constituency:
Bike storage space design render. California HSRCAHSR refined their Design Vision Book, and Functional and Technical Requirements (FTR) documents based on the feedback, and will create a High Fidelity Mock-up to specify the look and feel of the refined carriage interior design. Concurrently, the agency has released the RFP for the train fleet, to select the manufacturer in 2025. The goal is to start revenue service in 2030.
UK HS2 Train InteriorsThese trains are being designed to be 15% lighter, by using lightweight, recycled content, and have 30% more seats than comparable European high speed trains. A key specification of HS2 has been for a flexible interior layout, with potential for reconfiguration during the design phase or later in the unit’s life.
The initial 2018 HS2 Train Technical Specification (TTS) defines the three interior layouts that the train must be configurable in:
- The One-Space Layout (1SL) provides a single class of travel, with 2+2 seating throughout.
- The Two-Space Layout (2SL) will also incorporate premium seating in a 2+1 formation, which is foreseen as being between 15% and 20% of total capacity.
- To provide maximum capacity option, a High Density Layout (HDL) configuration has also been specified.
One-Space Layout – 1SLThis layout originally envisioned a seat pitch of 895mm for seats in rows and 2,030mm for bay seats, with a minimum of two bays per carriage and 32 per train. All seats will be no more than 12m from an exterior door to minimise dwell times. The ‘pitch’ of windows is specified to be 1,790mm to align with double the seat pitch, ensuring exterior visibility for all seated passengers.
Toilets will include air-freshening devices (but no mention toilet ventilation which is odd, though likely – hopefully – included), a visual display, and a speaker for train messages. Toilets will be replaceable should a reconfigured layout be required.
Wheelchair spaces will be provided in the saloon, each with an electrical socket and fold-away table. This layout will provide four wheelchair spaces and eight toilets per consist, at least two of which to be accessible. There is provision to double the number of wheelchair spaces per train to eight. Gangways will be sufficiently wide to allow a passenger in a wheelchair to move between carriages when the train is on a straight track.
Each carriage will have luggage space for half the passengers to bring a small bag, and for a quarter of them to bring a large bag. Small bags can be stored under the seat in front or in the overhead racks. Large bags must be accommodated in luggage stacks, with a bulk luggage storage area able to accommodate two bicycles or up to two cubic metres of luggage, with the ability to be converted to seating.
We saw in Part 1 of this series how the UK’s Class 800 trains had problematic bike storage spaces. The HS2 spec defines a bicycle as having up to 740mm wheels, a 580mm frame, 1050mm wheelbase, and 460mm width handlebars. With electrically assisted bikes getting larger and more popular, will this space be large enough?
The spec also states that seats should be ‘comfortable for the user population’, although this appears to remain subjective. UK’s Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) has over the last few years researched this issue to produce a guidance note on the subject: GMGN2696 Iss 1 Assessment of Passenger Seat Comfort. It remains to be seen – rather experienced – its impact on the bottoms (and backs) of the train riding population.
In addition, the seats will recline to at least two different positions, whilst not affecting the space of the passenger behind. Standard seats will be 450mm wide, whilst premium seats will be wider at 500mm, covered with a leather-type fabric.
Each seat will have access to an electrical and a USB socket, visible to passengers at their seat, without having to reach across another passenger. Coat hooks, reading lights, and cup holders will be provided at all seats, along with storage for small items such as mobile phones. All seats will have a sensor to detect when it is occupied, and presumably able to detect the difference between a piece of luggage and a passenger, or even a small child.
Bay seats will have fixed tables able to accommodate a laptop for each passenger, whilst the fold down seat-back tables at the regular seats will be sufficiently large to accommodate a laptop.
Catering facilities will be included, as well as two trolley storage points.
Two-Space Layout – 2SLThis layout includes similar numbers of bay seats, although some may be ‘half bays’ – ie a table for two. And at least one of the four wheelchair spaces will be in the premium seating area.
The 2SL layout also replaces the catering trolleys with a café-shop in standard class, and a kiosk in one of the premium class carriages. The café-shop will include a bean grinding coffee machine, whilst the kiosk will provide self-serve hot and cold drinks, and snacks.
High Density Layout – HDLThe HDL specification was developed to provide for a future maximum capacity reconfiguration, to assess the maximum capacity and hence mass that the train could carry and hence should be designed for. Passengers will have a typical inter-city train seat, wherein the ergonomics will not be considered. They will still be in a 2+2 configuration, but there will only be a single four seat bay per carriage, with the rest of the seats in an airline layout. The abundant luggage stacks of the other options will be reduced to only two per carriage. The Wi-Fi provided throughout the rakes will be retained in this option.
The TTS does not specify how many seats are to be provided in the HDL option, but HS2’s preference is for at least 700 seats per train, with a total capacity (with standees) of 950 passengers.
Final HS2 Interior DesignThe detailed interior layout will be decided in the two and a half year design process currently underway by HS2 Ltd, DfT, and West Coast Partnership Development, the shadow operator for HS2. So all of the above specifications are subject to potential change.
The winning train design by Bombardier/Hitachi is based on the Zefiro V300 train, which was designed to be compatible with the non-high speed Italian network. As such it was smaller in height and especially width (and is structurally optimised for this). Thus this train is well suited to the HS2 tender. The toilet was also designed around narrower trains. In door and vestibule geometry terms, these are much more similar to the Mk 4s on the East Coast, Pendolinos on the West Coast, CAF Mk 5 sleeper coaches than the more recent IETs.
Alstom HS2 train interior mockup. HS2Alstom has built full-size mock-ups at its Derby factory, of the carriage interiors for user group testing. To date, this has resulted in slight changes in overhead racks and poles, as well as removing deep cup placeholders on tables to avoid time consuming cleaning, based on feedback from cleaning staff. There will almost certainly be self-service coffee machines in the non-passenger (crumple) zone at the front of the end vehicles to meet the refreshment requirements. The trains are planned to start construction in 2026.
High Speed SeatsAlstom is claiming that the HS2 trains will have “the best seats of any UK trains”, with cushioning a priority. This is important given the backlash against the “ironing board” seats in some recent trains.
The economy seats will have “best-in-class” 87cm pitch, although this is slightly (15mm) tighter than the originally envisioned 895mm seat pitch. Nonetheless, the designers believe that passengers will be able to recline without significantly impinging into the space of the passenger behind. The passenger space will also have a reading light with three brightness settings, easily accessible USB-C and two three-pin plug sockets, fold-down table, and a perch to hold electronic devices for viewing.
The designers were able to configure the train’s mechanical equipment to require less ceiling space than on existing trains, resulting in slightly more headroom. Each train will also have a bookable space for four bikes and spaces for unfolded pushchairs and buggies.
High Speed ToiletsAlstom HS2 toilet mockup interior. HS2Changing tables in every toilet, plus a pull-down seat to secure toddlers, and a pull-out rack to store bags just above the level of any suspiciously wet floor. An information screen beside the mirror will update passengers on upcoming train stops and other announcements.
Level Up BoardingThe new HS2 platforms have been designed to be the same height as the carriage floor, allowing wheelchairs, mobility devices, and wheeled luggage to roll on and off. Not only does this prevent accidents, it also makes boarding and alighting smoother and quicker. However the trains will also stop at some existing stations, so all carriages will have retractable steps to access the lower platforms.
Doors of SpecificationHS2 is currently seeking to vary their contract with Alstom/Hitachi to have more passenger doors designed in – likely 6 pairs per 8-carriage train. This was an issue identified by West Cost Partnerships in 2021 (in the Siemens vs HS2 Judicial Review) and will result in the loss of at least 24 seats per train. The advantage is that this will significantly speed up intermediate station dwell as well as terminus turnaround times.
RealityThe original technical specification may have been a bit aspirational, as it is designed to provide a level playing field for public procurement. But the requirements outlined in the calm, rational words may not survive HS2’s meandering fortunes. The muddle created by cancellation of the HS2 sections north of Handsacre Junction and the subsequent capacity issues created are much more serious than the details of different seat layouts.
UK Train Interiors in GeneralContrary to these new North American train specifications, UK rail passengers will not likely see seating layouts changed for seasonal or special events. The closest are the UK train tip-up seats so the area can be used as bike space, wheelchair space, and/or luggage space as needed.
In Europe, Scandinavian and Alps trains often have space for skis. In fact, residents and visitors to Oslo take the city’s Line 1 Metro to get to the top of the local ski hill to ski down.
UK Sleeper Train InteriorsThe rolling stock of the Caledonian sleeper is quite new, so there are no plans on rethinking their interiors for some decades yet. Nevertheless, sleeper trains are experiencing something of a renaissance on the Continent, notably NightJet.
After the 1978 Taunton fire, the fire and evacuation regulations for sleeper trains became more strict than for regular carriages. The one derogation they have is that chairs or stools do not need to be bolted to the floor in the bar.
We previously looked at the design and proposed operation of the Channel Tunnel Nightstar sleeper trains, however sleeper train operation has changed greatly since the 1980s. Offering trains with coaches destined for multiple destinations, requiring marshalling and servicing special train catering vehicles – passenger railways simply do not operate that way anymore. Airlines have faced much the same problems in trying to provide everywhere to everywhere flights, with the added complication of security. Hub and spoke networks have simpler, more reliable operations.
Furthermore, the traditional market for sleepers in Europe, with long trains wending their way north-south/west-east, with the trains being pulled apart and remarshalled several times, died because of cheaper air travel. This had relegated the NightStar sleeper fleet to irrelevance and led to its selling off. In addition, rising customer expectations of hotel standards (eg ensuite showers, not sharing compartments, toilets at the ends of corridors etc) were expensive to provide and operate by railway companies.
These external factors have continued to worsen, with high speed rail travel. Whereas railways have faced increasing demands from other investment priorities. This has left a very narrow commercial pathway for any UK or European company trying to maintain, let alone introduce a new sleeper service. With exception of OBB’s Nightjet, such new ventures have collapsed – Midnight Trains being the most recent.
Brightline Brightens up their SpacesThe Brightline private passenger railway in Florida is a great example of a design focused passenger experience, using station and train interior design to attract car drivers onto trains, which we looked at recently. Despite cars being the primary way of life in North America, the privately owned and operated Brightline service has been quite successful, and it is planning a second line, Brightline West, between Las Vegas and Los Angeles.
Party Car Seating Render. Brightline WestCafe/Bar Car Seating Render. Brightline WestDayniter Trains of the PastCanadian National’s (CN) Dayniter trains of the 1970s were a deluxe coach (for the period) with individually adjustable deeply reclining seats, padded leg rests, and lots of legroom. The multiply articulated seats were key to the concept, which provided somewhat comfortable sleeping. Unfortunately, the many articulations made it a non-contiguous and somewhat lumpy sleeping experience, so rest was sometimes less than ideal:
CN Dayniter seat brochureThe contemporary cabin designs provide travellers with some privacy and comfort, with seats that recline back to about 30 degrees from horizontal for sleeping or snoozing.
Deeply reclining seats aren’t a new idea, but does demonstrate that concepts can be found from the past and updated with modern materials.
Caledonian Sleeper’s Proposed Lie Flat Seats were QuashedLie flat seats were originally proposed for the Caledonian Sleeper Mk 5 Economy‘seated’ carriages, but were dismissed on safety grounds. One LR colleague recalls a conversation with a senior person in Transport Scotland who explained that this option had been dismissed on safety grounds. The issue may have been that lying down with the head in the direction of travel risked spinal injury in case of a collision or derailment. However, feet first was considered an acceptable risk. The operational problem would be to turn wagons around in depot to ensure feet first positioning. However the Caledonian also changes direction every night on the Highlander at Waverley. So the lie flat seats were dropped. And Economy passengers have to attempt sleep at only 10° of recline.
Analysis of PrivacySome of the above designs feature ‘private’ seats or rooms in Business Class interiors. However, some are merely noise reducing grouping of panels, sometimes only even half height, and/or with open doorways. Incomplete reflecting soundproofing provides only an illusion of privacy. Only a contiguous sealed space will truly isolate speech. Privacy also includes the visual – not having other passengers watch what you’re watching, or what document you are working on.
Senses Working OvertimeTrain interiors are one of the few things that train operating companies and transport authorities have direct control over. Crew behaviour can be variable, schedules can be affected by other trains’ delays, track conditions, or Acts of God. But a well designed interior that provides comfort, a relaxing atmosphere, passenger control of their area, as well as helpful technical functionality such as good Wi-Fi, effective but non-intrusive next stop and route progress displays.
As in car and airline interior design, all five senses are appealed to. Modern materials have improved lighting, ventilation, and sound insulation. Natural materials feel better to the touch, and are more pleasant than plastics or petroleum-based synthetic pleather seat coverings of previous train generations. These improvements bring train travel much closer to the comfortable car experience some travellers are used to. And the improvements highlight the salient advantages of rail over cramped airline travel.
Furthermore, the direct origin to destination of many rail journeys provides for more productive, or relaxing leisure, time than air travel. Travelling to and from out of denser city areas is typically fraught with the particularly unrelaxing dead time of being in traffic, queueing to go through security, and waiting around a half hour or more at a gate to board.
In most countries, the days of drab train interiors are fortunately coming to an end. As are the days of trains designed primarily for the able bodied majority. The coming generation of intercity trains is much better designed for an aging population, their mobility devices, as well as a growing cycle and active travel demographic. Cities’ public transport networks are similarly being increasingly improved for accessibility, so it is also necessary to upgrade intercity trains accordingly.
Thank you to Railway Interior Innovation Summit host Red Cabin for access to their 2024 North American conference.
The post Railway Interiors – Next Generation Fleets Part 2 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Did Lime switch to bike tyres ‘less suitable for London’s roads’? (London Centric)
• We Had A Bike Stolen And This Is What Happened Next: Video (GCN)
• The Passing of Donald Shoup, The High Price of Free Parking author (Streetsblog)
• The End Of Train Order Signals: Video (Distant Signal)
• How Disney Became One of the Largest Transit Agencies in the US (The Transit Guy)
• The History of Budd’s Stainless Steel Streamliners (Trains)
• Trieste’s partly funicular tramway reopens (Metro Report)
• Sorry, wrong number (Roads.org.uk)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 10 February 2025 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Why Bakerloo line trains occasionally call at Kilburn High Road station (IanVisits)
• The Victorian River Thames (London Archives)
• Why Taiwan Kaohsiung’s New Railway Station Revolutionizes Transit Hubs: Video (Herman Luk)
• Tourists in Kyoto cause chaos at railway crossing near Fushimi Inari Taisha (SoraNews24)
• Transport Investment: What Are the Paris Suburbs up to? (Freewheeling)
• Toyota is Attacking Sustainable Transportation even more Than You Think (Streetsblog)
• Emergency Braking Saves Lives: Automakers Want to Charge Extra for It (WIRED)
• Bike lanes & narrowed streets don’t slow emergency vehicles (Ars Technica)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 7 February 2025 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• This Cyclist has Gotten 1000s of Motorists Fined for Dangerous Driving: Video (Streetsblog)
• The Future of the NYC Second Ave Subway: Video (TransitTalk)
• Full size Brick Train sculpture in Darlington (Colossal)
• When Metro Stations look like Creatures (HélèneCook)
• Weird Urban Train Lines Around the World Pt 1: Video (JointTransitAssoc’n)
• Residential logistics: What Ever Happened to Laundry Chutes? (Dwell)
• Major Highway Footage in a Dizzying Animation: Video (VisualSuspect)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 3 February 2025 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• The early history of trams in Edinburgh (Threadinburgh)
• Aircraft Carrier Airships Went Horribly Wrong: Video (Mustard)
• Every Train in Every Wes Anderson Film: Video (Railway Mania)
• Heart for transplant delivered by Hyderabad metro (Metro Report)
• New life for US’s abandoned railway stations (BBC)
• EMR expands accessibility efforts with 5 TALK Wristbands (Rail UK)
• Manchester Mayfield & Piccadilly station undercroft (Branch Line Society)
• Hanoi Metro Line 3 elevated segment starts passenger service (Rail Advent)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 31 January 2025 appeared first on London Reconnections.
In November 2024 the Office of Road and Rail (ORR) published its annual count of passenger numbers at National Rail stations. These figures seem to be often treated as a one-day wonder but detailed analysis throughout the year reveals many trends and gives us some idea of how the railways are recovering (or not) in a post-Covid world. An excellent more general analysis of this year’s figures, beyond what the ORR itself provides, is available in a Diamond Geezer post.
Despite the Elizabeth line being treated as a separate entity by TfL, Crossrail IS part of National Rail so figures for Crossrail stations are included in the analysis. For those who don’t follow the quarterly figures from ORR on passenger numbers by Train Operating Company (TOC), the numbers must appear to be mindblowing. In this data-heavy article we look at the data in detail and its implications for the future.
The Usual CaveatsData and statistics always have to be treated with caution. We deliberately ignore the Covid years but we do look at pre-Covid figures. The Elizabeth line opened in May 2022 but the annual figures are from April until March the following year. So, the first year’s data really only represents around ten and a half months of the Elizabeth line being open. That said, 31 of the 41 stations were already served by a TfL Rail service prior to the opening of the Elizabeth line, so it is not as if they were advancing from a standing start.
There is always controversy over how the statistics are generated with claims of double-counting and other misleading errors. There are numerous different scenarios to be taken into account and anyone concerned can read the associated Quantity and Methodology report which is provided as Annex 1 of the ORR document linked above. As a broad guide, the actual numbers are not too important – it is the trends and comparative numbers that are significant. So long as the methodology does not change too much from year to year the figures are in some way meaningful.
The HeadlinesFigure 2.1 from the ORR reportThe headlines, repeated and consolidated from last year, state that the Elizabeth line has changed the dynamics of the busiest stations in Britain. It used to be largely the London termini that dominated the top of the list. Now it is the central London Elizabeth line stations – and one not so central station. Some of these stations are also termini (Paddington and Liverpool Street) and for these stations the main line and Crossrail stations are treated as one station. Stratford clearly has significant National Rail usage on Greater Anglia trains. Despite that, the fact is that these stations wouldn’t be so high in the list if Crossrail hadn’t been built.
So, of the ten busiest National Rail stations, five are consecutive stations on Crossrail with newly built underground platforms for the Elizabeth line. A sixth is Stratford, an existing station in just about all respects. In fairness it has to be pointed out that Stratford, post-Olympics, is a booming area anyway so it would not be possible to explain its dominant position in the table entirely on the basis of Crossrail.
Possibly of more interest still is Whitechapel which only missed the top ten by two positions. Moreover, it failed to make the top ten by less than a million passengers – not a huge amount when talking about Elizabeth line numbers. We will look at Whitechapel in more detail later.
The BranchesCrossrail has had a very obvious impact in central London which readers hardly need to be told about. Simply because it doesn’t hit the headlines, it could be more interesting to look at the figures on the various branches and the significant rise in numbers outside central London in contrast to the rest of the country where figures for the same period had been generally flat and still haven’t yet returned to pre-Covid levels.
As we have done before, we find it convenient to break down the Elizabeth line outside central London in five groups with common traits. These are:
- The Shenfield Branch
- The Abbey Wood Branch
- The West London Suburbs (Acton Main Line to West Drayton)
- The Airport Stations
- Stations outside London on the branch to Reading
On these branches we look at each station and, to highlight the trends, we suffix the station when first listed in bold with the percentage increase in entries and exits from the previous year in brackets.
The Shenfield BranchOverall, this branch has seen a steady rise in passenger numbers despite having already put in a solid performance in passenger usage for approximately the last hundred years. The disappearance of heavy industry in the vicinity of the line which is now being rapidly replaced by blocks of flats should mean this increase comes as no surprise. This, combined with the excellent rail service now available to central London, means that a significant uplift in passenger numbers was to be expected. Whether it was expected to rise to the level it has done is another matter.
| Station | 2019-2020 | 2022-2023 | 2023-2024 | % increase 23->24 | | Stratford | 41.912m | 44.137m | 56.571m | 28.2 | | Maryland | 1.331m | 2.788m | 4.714m | 69.1 | | Forest Gate | 3.355m | 4.884m | 7.177m | 47 | | Manor Park | 2.367m | 3.72m | 5.371m | 44.4 | | Ilford | 7.794m | 8.751m | 13.163m | 50 | | Seven Kings | 3.157m | 3.782m | 5.08m | 34.3 | | Goodmayes | 3.653m | 4.131m | 5.794m | 40.3 | | Chadwell Heath | 4.055m | 4.5m | 5.97m | 13.1 | | Romford | 9.382m | 11.603m | 14.82m | 27.8 | | Gidea Park | 2.872m | 2.805m | 3.61m | 28.7 | | Harold Wood | 3.064m | 3.269m | 4.224m | 29.2 | | Brentwood | 3.133m | 2.85m | 3.713m | 13.1 | | Shenfield | 4.171m | 5.106m | 6.519m | 27.7 |
Before looking at individual stations we must issue a caveat when it comes to this Crossrail branch. There is good evidence, looking at past and current years of station counts, to suggest that the eastern end of the Central line has had an exceptional drop in passenger numbers recently. Much of this can be attributed to the current poor reliability of the rolling stock and maybe those passengers will return once they are confident of a good Central line service. However, some of it must be attributed to some passengers now finding it more convenient to start their rail journey on the Elizabeth line rather than the Central line. To what extent this is true is hard to determine.
Working from the outer terminus towards central London (east to west) we can see that:
Shenfield (27.7% ridership increase 2023->2024) has seen a significant rise in passenger numbers. This may well not be a consequence of Crossrail as it is also served by fast Greater Anglia trains running non-stop (generally) between Stratford and Shenfield. Crossrail trains tend to be extremely lightly loaded at Shenfield suggesting the influence of Crossrail has largely fizzled out by the time we reach this station.
Brentwood (13.1% increase), like Shenfield is outside Greater London. It has taken longer than the Greater London stations along this branch to recover its numbers from Covid but it has finally seen a significant increase in passenger numbers over its pre-Covid figures. As it is only served by Crossrail, it is a notable Elizabeth line example outside the London boundary that has bucked the national post-Covid decline.
Harold Wood (29.2%), just inside Greater London, recovered its passenger numbers slightly earlier than Brentwood and now comfortably exceeds its pre-Covid passenger numbers.
Gidea Park (28.7%) has also comfortably exceeded its pre-Covid passenger numbers but is now the least used station on the Shenfield branch with 3.6 million passenger journeys annually – which says a lot about how busy the other stations are.
Romford (27.8%) is a busy station and has been so for the past century. It is the busiest one east of Stratford on the branch and has seen a notable rise in numbers from a high base. It is partly for this reasons that all scheduled trains on this branch are timetabled to travel east as least as far as Romford. Some would terminate there but there is no space to do so, therefore trains that don’t go all the way to Shenfield terminate at the next station along (Gidea Park).
According to an article in the Romford Recorder, Romford sees over 40,000 passengers per day. This is an incredible figure for a suburban station but not unique. However, other suburban stations that exceed this are generally major interchanges with trains stopping at multiple platforms. Whilst there is some limited interchange at Romford, the bulk of these passengers use the two platforms dedicated to Elizabeth line trains and it is hard to think of many suburban stations that have similar numbers – though Ilford, further down the line, manages to get to get close using just two platforms at all times.
Until fairly recently some peak hour trains missed some stops between Romford and London – partly to give Romford a better service. With the superior acceleration of Crossrail trains, the benefits of missing out individual stations are more limited. Now all Crossrail trains stop at every station on the Shenfield branch meaning that, in some respects, the service between Romford and London has deteriorated.
Greater Anglia trains also call at Romford in outside peak hours meaning there is a half-hourly fast service fast to Stratford outside peak hours. These leave from the platforms on the main lines but there is no spare capacity during peak hours to enable these trains to call at Romford. These trains (and the Romford-Upminster ones, recently renamed the Liberty line) mean that not all passengers who use Romford station are Crossrail passengers.
Rather than look to Crossrail to cater for the demand at Romford, it really seems that Romford deserves an all day fast service to Stratford and this would have to be provided by Greater Anglia services. However, even assuming a solution to provide capacity for trains on the main lines to stop in peak hours were found, there probably wouldn’t be any spare capacity on the trains themselves. Alternatively, the solution of running extra trains on the fast lines in peak hours wouldn’t work because there is a capacity restriction on the approaches to Liverpool Street station in the Bow area.
Chadwell Heath (13.1%), Goodmayes (40.3%), and Seven Kings (34.3%) have also shown significant rises in passenger numbers in the past year but not as spectacular as some stations. Quite why Goodmayes has seen such large growth is difficult to understand as is why Chadwell Heath is so low compared to adjacent stations.
Ilford (50%) has seen an even more significant rise in passenger numbers from a high base. This is the second busiest station on the branch. But even Ilford’s rise in numbers is not as dramatic as at some stations.
Probably, of all the Crossrail stations in East London likely to benefit from passengers transferring from using the Central line, Ilford would be expected to be at least one of the highest on the list. Ilford station is less than a mile and a half from Gants Hill Underground station and buses are scheduled to take 7-9 minutes and are roughly every 2-4 minutes. Gants Hill has seen the biggest post-Covid drop in passenger numbers of any Central line station with 30% fewer journeys than pre-Covid.
What is possibly exceptional, is that Ilford only has trains scheduled to call at two platforms. Are there any other surface-level (thus excluding Canary Wharf and Woolwich) stations in Britain that only has two platforms in daily use that has as many passengers as Ilford?
Manor Park (44.4%) and Forest Gate (47%) continue the trend of a significant rise in passenger numbers in the past year on this stretch of the Elizabeth line.
Maryland (69.1%), the next station towards London, shows really dramatic growth. In one sense it is the star performer on this branch but with relatively low passenger numbers (by Crossrail standards) it tends not to be singled out. This used to be the least-used station on the branch – not any more. As with its west London counterpart, this inner London station benefits hugely from Crossrail and it shows. Furthermore, it is showing signs of becoming a desirable place to live especially for the young people at whom the property market in this area seems to be aimed.
Stratford (28.2%), as already mentioned, has seen dramatic growth in the past decade and it would be hard to say how much is due to Crossrail. It would probably be true to say that the growth would have been throttled if Crossrail hadn’t been built to provide the necessary increase in capacity.
The Abbey Wood Branch
| Station | 2019-2020 | 2022-2023 | 2023-2024 | % increase 23->24 | | Canary Wharf | – | 9.925m | 14.787m | 49 | | Custom House | – | 5.272m | 9.238m | 75.2 | | Woolwich | – | 8.34m | 13.237m | 58.7 | | Abbey Wood | 3.825m | 7.119m | 10.655m | 49.8 |
Fairly unsurprisingly, the station at Abbey Wood (49%) has seen a dramatic increase in passenger numbers with the opening of the Crossrail platforms. Interchange passengers don’t count towards entrances and exits. Last year’s increase was impressive. Development is starting to appear in earnest in the vicinity of the station.
Woolwich (58.7%) was not in the original Crossrail plans and was only added due to strong lobbying by Greenwich council. The funding issue meant that an underground station with only a single exit was built so having over 13 million people enter or exit the station each year is becoming a bit of a problem. It certainly shows that the lobbying done by Greenwich during the passage of the Crossrail bill through parliament was justified.
Custom House (75.2%), the station for ExCeL, is another strong performer on this four-station branch line. Although it ‘only’ has just over 9 million entries and exits in the past year it needs to be borne in mind that serving an exhibition centre means it is more about handling a large number of passengers in a short time and this is something which the station is capable of doing. Any passengers changing here for the Beckton branch of the DLR would count as an entry or exit for Custom House Crossrail station. This not only helps swell the entry and exit figures, it also helps in providing a useful year-round base level of passengers.
Whilst Canary Wharf (49%) is certainly a busy station having nearly 14.8 million passengers, many people have expressed surprise this is not higher given that having a station at Canary Wharf was the entire impetus for having this branch.
What is becoming striking on this branch is that, despite only having four stations, it has roughly two-thirds of the number of passengers that the long established 13-station branch from Stratford to Shenfield has. Furthermore, on this branch passengers have generally travelled to or from central London whereas the Shenfield branch features a moderately large portion of inter-suburb journeys. As such, whilst the Shenfield branch continues to be busier, the two branches are roughly balanced in terms of passenger loading in inner London.
The West London SuburbsThe takeover of the majority of suburban services, initially by TfL Rail and subsequently by Crossrail, has provided quite a renaissance to this group of stations. This was undoubtedly also helped by the introduction of GWR electric services replacing the former diesel trains prior to Crossrail’s arrival. A dormant potential has been unleashed with improvements now constrained by the lack of train paths rather than any unwillingness to provide a decent service.
| Station | 2019-2020 | 2022-2023 | 2023-2024 | % increase 23->24 | | Acton Main Line | 0.351m | 1.1m | 2.235m | 103.1 | | Ealing Broadway | 6.91m | 8.237m | 13.7m | 66.3 | | West Ealing | 1.182m | 1.261m | 2.256m | 78.9 | | Hanwell | 0.46m | 0.922m | 1.468m | 59.2 | | Southall | 3.475m | 4.428m | 6.969m | 57.4 | | Hayes & Harlington | 4.405m | 5.446m | 7.765m | 42.6 | | West Drayton | 2.38m | 2.262m | 3.225m | 42.6 |
In this group we look at various sub-groups of stations rather than follow a strict ‘down the line’ order. Acton Main Line, Hanwell and West Ealing have traditionally been the ‘quiet’ stations.
Acton Main Line (103.1%) is now a popular station though its stellar growth does not nearly match its eastern counterpart of Maryland when looking at raw passenger numbers. A large construction site nearby probably helps. In the morning peak there are a couple of extra trains that stop there to cater for the demand. In the evening peak some trains to Heathrow are timed to depart a minute or two later than the regular clockface timings in the latest timetable but this is a considerable improvement when compared with the previous timetable which experienced uneven gaps of twenty minutes followed by ten minutes.
Hanwell (59.2%), a heritage station that has been sympathetically restored, now has 4 trains an hour. Maybe not ‘build it and they will come’ but certainly ‘improve it and they will come’.
West Ealing (78.9%) notionally has six trains an hour but their distribution means that this station effectively has a 4tph service. This modern station was clearly rebuilt in the expectation that many additional passenger numbers would be using the station and the decision to do so was undoubtably justified.
These three stations are getting to the point where an even-interval 6tph service is becoming justified, at least in peak hours, and all the indications are that TfL would like to see that happen. However, the service on the western arm of Crossrail is always going to be involved in a balancing act to best satisfy competing demands so a better service may continue to be just an aspiration. Furthermore, when it comes to investment to cater for current demand, as things currently are, the Shenfield branch will produce a better financial case for increased expenditure.
If the previous three stations are the ‘quiet’ stations, Ealing Broadway (66.3%), Southall (57.4%), and Hayes & Harlington (42.6%) are the ‘busy’ stations that are experiencing a massive growth in numbers of passengers. Like the Shenfield branch, replacement of nearby industrial areas with multiple high-rise tower blocks may be fuelling the growth.
Largely on its own is West Drayton (42.6%). It is busier than the ‘quiet’ stations but not by that much. However, it is the starting point for longer journeys into London and there is no real alternative nearby. TfL appears to be keen to increase its peak service beyond its current 6tph.
The Airport StationsSomething that may be quite hard to believe is that really the Heathrow Crossrail stations are not that busy. People assume the airport is a major rail traffic generator but statistics suggest otherwise. The perception of large airport traffic flows may be partly due to the unmissable nature of passengers with heavy luggage often appearing confused in their new surroundings.
| Station | 2019-2020 | 2022-2023 | 2023-2024 | % increase 23->24 | | Terminal 4 | 1.752m | 0.694m | 1.087m | 56.6 | | Terminal 5 | 1.461m | 2.62m | 4.106m | 56.7 | | Terminals 2 & 3 | 3.99m | 4.393m | 6.884m | 56.7 |
It also needs to be borne in mind that around half of passengers at Heathrow that arrive or depart by rail choose to use the Piccadilly line and not Crossrail or Heathrow Express.
Heathrow Terminal 4 (56.6%) rail station, exclusively served by Crossrail, is the least busy Crossrail station in the Greater London area. Terminal 5 (56.7%) is better but, currently, it can’t even match Maryland for passenger numbers. And that is counting both Crossrail and Heathrow Express trains.
The main rail station at Heathrow, Terminals 2 & 3 (56.7%), manages better than the other two stations but, even so, it does not generate as much passenger usage as Hayes & Harlington, the next station towards London.
Of course, station counts at Heathrow are distorted by Heathrow Express and, additionally, free journeys between terminals are almost certainly not counted. The latest ORR statistics for passenger rail usage show that Heathrow Express has around 4 million fare-paying passengers per year and this annual total is slowly falling. Heathrow Express numbers are significant but Crossrail is not just already the primary heavy rail mover at Heathrow, it already carries over twice as many passengers as Heathrow Express to and from the airport.
Beyond the London Boundary towards ReadingUntil now, the story has been one of growth beyond expectations – particularly given the long-term impact of Covid, work from home and reliability problems on parts of Crossrail. Westward beyond West Drayton it is a different story. Here growth is only marginal and generally hovering around the pre-Covid level despite, arguably, a far better service. There is no entirely consistent pattern and every station tells its own story.
| Station | 2019-2020 | 2022-2023 | 2023-2024 | % increase 23->24 | | Iver | 0.232m | 0.265m | 0.321m | 21.1 | | Langley | 0.908m | 0.769m | 1.042m | 35.5 | | Slough | 5.546m | 4.528m | 5.384m | 18.9 | | Burnham | 1.408m | 1.258m | 1.566m | 24.5 | | Taplow | 0.321m | 0.3m | 0.46m | 53.3 | | Maidenhead | 4.675m | 3.24m | 4.392m | 35.6 | | Twyford | 1.528m | 1.082m | 1.564m | 44.5 | | Reading | 17.081m | 12.401m | 13.49m | 8.8 |
Iver (21.1%) is an interesting case. Easily the least busy station on Crossrail, this station, just outside London, has finally started to show a rise in passenger numbers consistent with the rest of Crossrail. It is a station outside London that is showing London levels of growth – albeit from a very low baseline. Iver is one of two stations on Crossrail with only a half-hourly service (peak and off-peak) so it is hardly going to be the ‘go to’ station for people from beyond its immediately surrounding area – which is actually Richings Park not Iver.
Langley (35.5%), effectively a suburb of Slough, has passenger numbers that are only marginally above its pre-Covid level.
Passenger numbers at Slough (18.9%) are still down on pre-Covid figures. The portion using Crossrail will have risen because nowadays there is no GWR peak period service in the peak direction between Slough and Paddington. Mark Hopwood, General Manager of GWR, puts this down to the train paths not being available. This may well be true but one suspects that GWR are not too upset by this. When trains are busy, they would rather have longer distance ‘bums on seats’. Whether Slough passengers are just as happy about this is another matter and this may have affected station usage.
Burnham (24.5%) station, has passenger number slightly higher than pre-Covid.
Taplow (53.3%) has improved passenger figures that are hard to explain. The service is only half-hourly and, like Iver, hardly the obvious station to use if not from the immediate area.
Maidenhead (35.6%) has not recovered from its pre-Covid figures despite a half-hourly fast GWR service to Paddington (non-stop in the morning peak, calling at Slough at other times).
Passenger numbers at Twyford (44.5%) have shown a large rise in the past year but statistics do not disclose whether these are passengers to and from Reading or London or elsewhere (including the Henley-On-Thames branch). GWR offers a superior, faster service to London Paddington every half-hour so passengers preferring Crossrail will be limited.
Rather like Shenfield, not much can be read into passenger counts at Reading (8.8%) as far as Crossrail usage goes.
An Alternative Way of looking at the Reading Branch FiguresWhilst an initial look at figures suggests that Crossrail has made little impact on stations between Iver and Reading, a comparison with similar stations between Reading and Didcot Parkway suggests a very different story. Despite having an excellent half-hourly fast service to London, these stations have not recovered from pre-Covid numbers and are much more in line with national passenger rail statistics (excluding Crossrail). The obvious conclusion to draw is that, if it hadn’t been for Crossrail, numbers at most stations between Iver and Reading would have been significantly down rather than, on average, holding their own.
In the following table, note that, unlike previous tables, the final column shows percentage change between pre-Covid and the latest figures.
| Station | 2019-2020 | 2022-2023 | 2023-2024 | % change 20->24 | | Tilehurst | 0.572m | 0.32m | 0.357m | –37.6 | | Pangbourne | 0.482m | 0.321m | 0.355m | –26.3 | | Goring & Streatley | 0.437m | 0.288m | 0.322m | –26.3 | | Cholsey | 0.284m | 0.212m | 0.241m | –15.1 |
Honourable Non-Crossrail MentionsDiamond Geezer has compiled a list of the twenty stations with the largest passenger increases. The two stations with the largest increases are Meridian Water and Barking Riverside. It makes sense to ignore these as outliers. They are basically stations built in the middle of nowhere and are aspiring to be in the middle of somewhere for which a tenuous start has been made.
Of the remaining eighteen stations, sixteen are Crossrail stations. The other two are South Greenford (85.1%) and Castle Bar Park (52.3%) on the half-hourly Greenford – West Ealing shuttle service (Mondays-Saturdays only). Both stations could be regarded as lightly-used Crossrail feeder stations. The only other intermediate station on the line is Drayton Green which is so close to West Ealing it is understandable if few people use it. The journey time on the train is two minutes but this is made at slow speed on a tight bend and it would often be quicker to walk or take the local bus.
| Station | 2019-2020 | 2022-2023 | 2023-2024 | % increase 23->24 | | South Greenford | 28,382 | 20,706 | 38,330 | 85.1 | | Castle Bar Park | 81,088 | 66,670 | 101,564 | 52.3 | | Drayton Green | 31,610 | 16,082 | 20,198 | 25.6 |
The Future – Whitechapel to Reach the Top Ten?Whilst next year’s figures are generally hard to predict other than to say numbers will almost certainly rise, there is one prediction that seems likely that will really reinforce Crossrail’s position as the dominant player in the top ten positions of National Rail station usage.
In 2022-23 Crossrail leapt onto the scene taking five of the top ten places for busy stations. Actually, it managed five out of the top nine. This year it managed six out of the top ten. This was not a surprise as Bond Street station opened after the initial opening of the Elizabeth line and it was clear that by this year Bond Street would be in the top ten.
Details of passenger usage Paddington – StratfordWhat is a little surprising is how busy Whitechapel station is becoming especially given it is outside the central London area (at least the central London business district) and is not in an area of recognised regeneration. Whitechapel’s annual passenger usage figures are now within a million of Euston’s and are rising fast. In fact they are heading towards at least triple the pre-Covid figure. Furthermore, at the time these figures were produced, it was rising at a far higher rate than Euston which currently occupies the tenth position.
Based on the supplied figures, It seems highly likely that next year’s passenger statistics will show a run of seven adjacent Crossrail stations from Paddington to Stratford lying in the top ten stations for passenger usage. A note of caution must be exercised however as a later set of ORR statistics shows passenger numbers on Avanti West Coast and West Midlands Trains, the main train operating companies serving Euston, both rising at 12% whereas Elizabeth line passenger numbers over this later period are only rising at 10%.
The number of Elizabeth line stations in the top ten for passenger usage is is unlikely to increase further this decade but Old Oak Common may one day make the list which could mean that eight out of nine consecutive stations on Crossrail (Acton Main Line rather spoiling the sequence) are in eight out of the top ten National Rail stations by passenger usage. To do so would require HS2 not to be part of National Rail so that passengers transferring at Old Oak Common get classified as entries and exits.
The Future – More trains, Longer trains?One year’s passenger statistics do not reliably indicate a future trend just as one swallow doesn’t make a summer. It certainly looks as if the extra trains due to be in service on Crossrail by 2026/27 will be needed. As we have stated before, after that it becomes limited as to what you can do with extra trains. If further enhancement becomes necessary then longer trains may be the answer even if that option turns out to be an expensive one. Whether this is deemed desirable and whether the money can be found for this is another matter.
As we have pointed out before, these statistics do not distinguish between peak period and off-peak periods but the general impression when using Crossrail is that it could do with more off-peak trains and a 10tph service off-peak on the Abbey Wood and Shenfield branches (giving 20tph in the central section) seems to be something that these statistics suggest will inevitably come one day.
Whatever letdowns we have had in the past with budget overruns and opening delays as well as current issues with reliability on parts of the Crossrail network, the numbers suggest that the travelling public vote Crossrail a huge success – even if there is room for improvement.
The post Crossrail Numbers Rise Again appeared first on London Reconnections.
• TfL & Motts discuss West London Orbital Overground line, feasibility stage completed (New Civil Engineer)
• Renaming the Overground – 10 years ago (Diamond Geezer)
• School Dropoff Is Everything That Sucks About Car Culture (Romper)
• Manchester Railway Station & Hotel Architecture (Branch Line Society)
• Strange territory: Liverpool’s dockland ruins (Paul Dobraszczyk)
• The Dangerous Trend Taking Over Transit Construction: Public Private Partnerships (RM Transit)
• Nakano Depot Disease (KHKQ Beside Trains)
• Swede dreams: How Sweden is embracing its sleepy side w/ Sleep Tourism (BBC)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 27 January 2025 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Lime bike brake failures keep breaking Londoners’ legs (London Centric)
• Famously quirky Osterley Bookshop in old Tube station is closing down (Ian Visits)
• Hungerford Bridge Refurbishment Set to Begin (Railway-News)
• Bank Junction – The Historic Centre of London? (A London Inheritance)
• Northern warns sly vapers that they can delay trains (RailUK)
• A decade into Melbourne’s free trams experiment, has it been worth it? (The Guardian)
• NYC’s oldest subway cars are fixed in crumbling repair shops (Gothamist)
• Anne Shaw on the Transport Transformation of Birmingham: Podcast (Freewheeling)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 24 January 2025 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• TfL aims to use more AI to improve platform safety (BBC)
• UK’s 20mph speed limits ‘are cutting car insurance costs’ (The Guardian)
• Underfunded and Overwhelmed: The Struggle for Public Transit Funding in Canadian Cities (MIR)
• Art & infrastructure woven together in Naples’ new metro stations (Elle DECOR Italia)
• Cincinnati’s unused subway tunnels & concepts to repurpose them (The Enquirer)
• NYC subways still steered by 1930s tech, paper maps and a lot of hope (Gothamist)
• Riyadh metro Red and Green lines open to passengers, more to open within weeks (Metro Report)
• Art Off the Rails: interactive map of NYC MTA’s Subway permanent art collection (Stephanie Dang)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 20 January 2025 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• The secret plan to charge London’s drivers by the mile (London Centric)
• Extra tunnels included in £6bn East West Rail scheme (Construction Enquirer)
• New 3D maps give disabled passengers more independence at stations (Govia Thameslink)
• Prepare for New US Transportation Priorities (CityLab)
• Forget about EV Range & Focus on Safety Instead (Fast Company)
• Air Canada Expands its European Intermodal Strategy to Italy, Spain, & UK (Aeronews Global)
• Inside Naples Timber Roofed Underground Central Station (Wallpaper)
• Endless Fields of Detritus (Collssal)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 15 November 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• The Class 799 Hydrogen Train: Video (Geoff Marshall)
• Converting NYC Commuter Rail to Regional Rail; Plus Eliminating Crosstown Traffic on 14th St (Zach F Howe)
• New extension finally connects Barcelona’s tramway lines (Urban Transport Magazine)
• Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop go ahead after $1.7bn deal signed (The Guardian)
• Wood Lane Station: Third Time Lucky?: Video (Jago Hazzard)
• Airlines expand all the time. But European railways have lots of excess unused capacity (Jon Worth)
• Massive Saint-Denis Pleyel Station in Paris unveiled (Dezeen)
• Happy International Day of Danger and Death for Pedestrians (Lloyd Alter)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 11 November 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Discontinuous electrification selected for East West Rail (Rail Business UK)
• Infrastructure tsar warns of ‘real challenge’ for HS2 to reach Euston (Standard)
• Oxford’s Brand New Railway Project: A Look At The Cowley Branch Line: Video (SomeNorthLondoner)
• Consultation launched on new plans to transform Liverpool Street Station (Rail UK)
• Eurostar to run direct Amsterdam-London service from February (RailTech)
• All Aboard! TfL’s new style guide sets stage for branded kids’ products (Ian Visits)
• How & Why the Underground reached 56 miles outside of London for 50 years: Video (Paul Whitewick)
• Why San Francisco Fell in Love With the Ferry Building (Citylab)
• Why Miami’s Metromover People Mover Works: Video (Sensato)
• Build the Public Transit System of Your Dreams (MetroDreamin’)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 8 November 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
A perennial and fairly meaningless question that is often asked is ‘what are the origins of Crossrail?’ It inevitably depends on how far you want to go back in time but one contender could be the groundbreaking scheme developed in the 1930s to electrify the Great Eastern (GE) Main Line from Liverpool Street to Shenfield with the intention of providing an intensive electric service to many suburbs of East London.
The 1930s were in the middle of the era where the railways of Britain were in the hands of the ‘Big Four’ privately owned railway companies. In 1923 the Great Eastern main line became part of the LNER (London & North Eastern Railway). It was, and is, the main line to Chelmsford, Ipswich and Norwich.
Why Electrify as far as Shenfield?Shenfield was the logical choice for the eastern end of a suburban electrification scheme. The major centre of Romford would be included and beyond were the towns of Harold Wood and Brentwood. Shenfield was, and is, effectively a district within the urban sprawl of Brentwood. Beyond the outer boundary of Brentwood there was widespread countryside – too far from London to justify an intensive urban railway and also too distant to significantly alter the existing land use with a stopping service.
More to the point, the Great Eastern main line was already four-tracked as far as Shenfield with the lines beyond Shenfield being two-track. The branch to Southend Victoria turned off the main line just north of Shenfield, making Shenfield a notable railway junction and the location where passenger density reduced.
Part of Something BiggerShenfield Electrification was really part of a larger comprehensive scheme for East London involving main line electrification, resignalling, new rolling stock, a new railway depot and closing a short section of railway. The larger scheme also involved building new tube tunnels and transferring part of the existing network in North East London to the London Passenger Transport Board (LPTB) so that they could extend the Central London line into the North East suburbs of London (and beyond). This in turn meant that the Central London line required new rolling stock and new depots.
The Central London line Factor in the WestAdditionally, an extension of the Central London line to the west of London by means of a separate branch from Wood Lane to West Ruislip (later to Denham) was proposed as an integral part of the scheme.
London Transport poster in 1948The scheme’s purpose in West London was two-fold. One was to enable a large depot to be built at Ruislip, in order to supplement the proposed eastern tube depot at Hainault which could not, on its own, provide enough trains for the whole line. Clearly the existing Central London line depot located at Wood Lane would be totally inadequate to serve the considerable extensions. Furthermore, it was limited to 6-car trains rather than 8-car trains which would be provided as part of the Central London line enhancement.
A second reason for the western extension, which was to be built by the Great Western Railway, was to provide two balances:
- Operationally, so that trains from the east had somewhere else useful to run to on the west side of London, in order to provide a more balanced service over the whole line making better use of line and train capacities.
- Financially, to help develop new suburbs which were expected to generate more profitable off-peak travel than the eastern suburbs.
A Lengthened and Renamed Central London lineIf things went as planned the Central London line would be transformed from a relatively short simple Underground line between Ealing Broadway and Liverpool Street totalling just 11 miles into a major Underground line totalling approximately 57 route miles.
To give some idea of just how extensive the Central line would be we have shown in a map below the extent of the planned and authorised Central line. This includes a short section from West Ruislip to Denham which was never built. By comparison, the map also shows the extent of Crossrail at the time of it being authorised which is shown in purple and lime green. The originally authorised Crossrail scheme appears to be more extensive but not by any considerable extent. Maidenhead is further from Paddington in terms of route miles than Liverpool Street is from Ongar but by less than one mile. West Ruislip is just over 13½ miles from Lancaster Gate (close to Paddington) which is almost exactly two-thirds of the distance of Shenfield from Paddington.
It was clear that ‘Central London’ would become a complete misnomer for the name of this geographically spread railway. A consequence of all these plans was that during this period the name was simplified, to become the Central line.
A Tube to Bucks and EssexThe Central line would have two branches, both owned by the GWR, on the west side of London, with the existing line to Ealing Broadway, and the new route extending via the length of Middlesex into Buckinghamshire at Denham. On the eastern side, the main route would extend way beyond the London County Council border, and end at Ongar only 10 miles from the heart of Essex (Chelmsford). A large loop (the Fairlop/Hainault line), partially converted from an existing LNER line and partially in new tunnels under Eastern Avenue, would be wholly within the 1930s Essex.
The planned extension into 1930s Essex ultimately helped redefine where the outer edge of London lay and, once redefined, did much to determine where it would be for evermore.
A Complex and Many-Faceted SchemeThe outcome of these consolidated proposals meant that a scheme primarily designed and initiated in order to improve transport in East and North East London became dependent on developments many miles away.
As if all that wasn’t enough, due to the extra traffic and longer trains anticipated, existing Central London line platforms would be lengthened to take eight carriages and this involved lengthening the platforms at all 14 underground stations between Liverpool Street and Shepherds Bush. There was also to be an expansion of passenger-handling capacity at some stations, such as at Chancery Lane and St. Paul’s.
Nearly an early Crossrail equivalent?Under normal circumstances such extensive station works would be considered a major project, not just a small component in a much bigger project. So, the combination of extending and upgrading the Central London line, and the joint involvement of main line railways both west and east of London, was really a large-scale Crossrail-style project in its own right, albeit with tube-sized not main-line sized trains.
Revolutionary 1938 Stock, no space wasted on equipment above floor level. Copyright LT Museum.New space-efficient tube trains with under-floor equipment were trialled by LPTB in 1935. These meant that, for the first time in multiple-unit tube stock, passengers had access to all of the carriages with the exception of the driving cabs. These trains were originally intended for the Central London line. When the production version was introduced, it was regarded as a significant advance in tube train design and the latest thing in modernity. If these trains had been introduced on the Central line, the revitalised and hugely extended tube line would have exhibited remarkable parallels (literally and figuratively) with today’s Elizabeth line.
Standard Stock aka 1925 Stock w/ considerable space for electrical equipment behind driving cab. Copyright LT Museum.However, for various complex reasons, the plans changed, and the production version of the new tube trains (the 1938 tube stock) saw use in central London on all London Transport tube lines except for the Central line, which made do with ‘standard’ tube stock shuffled mainly from the Bakerloo and Morden-Edgware (subsequently renamed ‘Northern’) lines. The result may have been more beneficial for Londoners overall but the opportunity to present London with a modern-looking and extended tube line was missed.
The Level Crossings IssueA further element of the combined scheme was the requirement to close various highway level crossings on existing LNER tracks as it was deemed unacceptable to have level crossings with frequent tube services.
Apart from any policy considerations, it was clear that the potential intensive service level would make most level crossings unworkable for road traffic. Whilst this might sound a minor issue, it was actually a major challenge. Most of the crossings involved were located in suburbs of London which had already seen substantial 1930s development. It was also a task more appropriate for a highway authority to implement rather than one to be left to railway contractors as part of a bigger construction project. For this reason, at the time this was considered to be a third element of the scheme to complement Shenfield electrification and Central line extension.
The Scheme Almost without a NameMuch has been written about the Shenfield Electrification project. Much has also been written about the enhancement of the Central line in the 1940s including the newly built tunnels under Eastern Avenue being temporarily used as a factory for war output. However, rather less has been written about how absolutely interdependent these schemes were. One reason for that may be that the scheme never really had a commonly-used name encompassing all the features involved. The scheme did appear to have a formal name of the Central Line Extensions and Shenfield Electrification Scheme but this seems to have been rarely used. For convenience and brevity we will sometimes refer to the schemes as the ‘combined scheme’.
If the scheme gets mentioned by name at all, it tends to either get described by its component parts or by referring to it as part of the 1935-40 New Works Programme. The latter was an all-encompassing package of planned measures, most of which were implemented (although much was completed after World War II). In the case of the Northern Heights scheme within the New Works Programme, the less rewarding parts were abandoned post-war, even though parts of those had been close to completion pre-war.
Perceived ImportanceIt probably reflects on the potential benefits of the schemes (Central line extensions and Shenfield Electrification) that these were completed when other New Works Programme component schemes floundered. After World War II a shortage of steel, money and, possibly more important still, labour desperately needed to build new housing stock caused unfinished schemes to be delayed or abandoned. However, it is noticeable how considerable priority was given to completing both schemes although the post-war Labour Cabinet did debate on whether to stop Central line electrification at Loughton or at the new LCC housing estate at Debden.
The importance given to Shenfield Electrification and Central line works immediately after World War II is in marked contrast with, for example, the proposed extension of the Bakerloo line from Elephant & Castle to Camberwell which came to nothing despite a clear need at the time and previously. This latter scheme was considered important in order to increase capacity on the Bakerloo line by means of enabling more trains to be turned around at its southern end by providing a three-platform terminus.
The Contrasting Failure to Prioritise Bakerloo line ProblemsNowadays it is hard to believe that the Bakerloo line was the most overcrowded tube line but by 1940 it had two northern branches – one all the way from Baker Street to Watford Junction via Harrow & Wealdstone and one (a New Works Programme scheme) from Baker Street to Stanmore. The newly acquired Stanmore branch was found to have just too many passengers for the line to operate efficiently and give users a reasonably satisfactory journey.
Along with the proposed Bakerloo branch to Stanmore, there was a pre-war plan to extend existing Bakerloo line platforms to cater for 8-car trains. This turned out to be challenging due to the line gradients and curves in the vicinity of underground stations. This, combined with costs, meant that eventually platforms were only extended to accommodate one extra carriage. It was 1946 before they were utilised.
The failure to implement fully the scheme to increase capacity is one which created significant problems until 1979 when the first stage of the Jubilee line was opened and took over the Stanmore branch. However, use of 1938 stock with its higher passenger capacity than the previous ‘standard’ stock gave some relief to Bakerloo crowding.
The planners and the government of the day were probably not remiss when it came to abandoning the Bakerloo line extension which would have enabled a higher frequency of service and hence greater capacity due to the proposed three-platform terminus at Camberwell. Faced with practical issues involving shortage of many things, including money, something had to give. Schemes had to be prioritised and improvements in East London were considered an even higher priority.
Post-War Priorities Within the SchemeAfter the Second World War, with Cabinet support, authorisation was made for the combined scheme to proceed with all possible haste – shortages of labour and materials notwithstanding.
The eastern side of London appeared to be treated with more urgency than the western side. However, this may have been a simple case of construction priorities due to the considerable amount of work required in East London.
For example, just to remove the concrete floor from the recently-built Central line tunnels used as an armaments factory during the war was reported to have taken eight months, as the concrete was considerably harder than anticipated and only once that was done could the tunnels be fitted out to be used as a railway. Also, only when Central line trains reached Leytonstone (in May 1947) and enabled the through LNER service to be withdrawn, could the LNER get on with reconstruction and reorganisation of the main lines between Stratford and Liverpool Street.
Nevertheless, the western extension, now curtailed back to West Ruislip, could not be ignored because the rolling stock from the Ruislip depot would be vital for providing the extended service over the entire line. The depot had to be functioning and it had to be linked to the existing Central line. Whether a public service was initially provided on the new western extension or not was less critical.
In the event, both the eastern as far as Loughton and the western extension to Ruislip opened on the same date although staged progress had been made prior to then. However, many stations on the western extension were reported to have been in far from a finished state on their opening day.
The Steam Age Forerunner of Crossrail’s Shenfield BranchThe railway line out of Liverpool Street Station to Romford and beyond has been exceptionally busy for at least the past hundred years. Whilst built much earlier, it really started to become intensive around the beginning of the 20th century with housing developments in Forest Gate and Ilford. From then development moved outward from the centre of London along the route of The High Road (the former Roman Road) between London and Colchester and with that came more demand still for trains on the London-Shenfield route.
In steam days the service on the London-Shenfield line was reputed to be the most intensively run steam-operated service in the world. There are various accounts of the slick operation necessary to carry the number of passengers using it. In general, they report wonder at how such an intensive service could have been operated with carriages pulled by steam engines. Somewhat perversely, the LNER, judging it could not afford to electrify, seemed to have a policy of aiming to increase further the intensity of trains run – as if to show their critics what could be achieved without electrification.
The reality was that LNER was thinking too much with a view to making a steady, if small, profit rather than a visionary approach that could transform the company. It wanted to electrify but it was a company whose first obligation was to its shareholders and, however hard they looked at the figures, they could not show a predicted return of 5% early on, which at the time was the generally accepted requirement before one could rationally invest in a project – and raise finance from new share issues.
Failure to Attract Off-Peak TrafficOne of the fundamental problems with getting a good return on what seemed like an obviously good economic investment was the minimal off-peak traffic. And, worse still, the peak periods were heavily peaked. One cannot blame the LNER for not trying to attract off-peak traffic as the publicity below clearly shows that they did try. Despite the efforts that they made, they were clearly unsuccessful.
Publicity in LNER 1933 Liverpool Street & Fenchurch Street timetables highlights railway’s desire for ‘slack hours’ travel at half priceThe Problem of Financially Justifying ElectrificationThis was put very bluntly in a December 1933 report submitted to the Ministry of Transport using wording and sentiment that probably would not be so blatantly used today.
One result of the traffic being mainly working class in character is that it travels for business purposes only. This creates heavy traffic loads at the peak hours and far too light traffic loads at slack hours, as the population has neither the resources nor the aptitude to seek its pleasures and shopping other than locally. On the Upminster line some 40 per cent and on the Shenfield line some 35 per cent of the total daily traffic in either direction is carried within a single hour. Elsewhere on the Underground System of Railways the highest percentage of movement for a single hour is 26 per cent.
Extract from Report on The Traffic Problem in the North-East Sector of London 30/12/33
That paragraph probably needs analysing in some detail taking into account the language and social conditions of the day. “Business purposes” clearly meant ‘commuting’ but that term was not used in those days as it originated in America to describe someone with a season ticket (a ‘commuted’ fare) and the term was not in common use in Britain until the 1960s. An alternative way of describing the situation at the time would be to refer to the inhabitants as an ‘industrial population’.
The term “slack hours” was a common one in those days but is not much in use now. ‘Off-peak’ is now favoured as the ‘slack hours’ are often anything but slack.
35% of all traffic in either direction being in a single peak hour might not sound too bad but further analysis shows just how terribly peaked the traffic is. That means that the rest of the railway operating day accounts for the remaining 65% of traffic. The Liverpool Street lines then ran a 20 hour ‘traffic’ day – there were a few night services as well. That means that the passenger volume in an average ‘slack’ hour was only 3-4% of the daily passengers, and just one-tenth of the crowded peak hour.
The “business purposes” (commuting) importance of the NE London-North Woolwich corridor should be noted as should the radial routes from Liverpool Street. The former is highlighted by the design of the diagrammatic map displayed above (“Day Return Tickets at Single Fares”) showing a strategic travel corridor SE to the river. However, direct trains to the Docks and Thameside industries via Stratford also came from multiple suburban lines in North and North East London. Omitted from the LNER map also is a busy link via Stratford from Victoria Park interchange on North London railway owned by the London Midland and Scottish Railway (LMSR).
Without widespread electrification in NE London, it was probably not worth thinking of electrifying the Stratford-North Woolwich line as many local trains would remain steam-hauled. North Woolwich electrification wasn’t mentioned in LNER proposals of the period. Basically, if one were to electrify anywhere in East London then only Liverpool St-Shenfield made sense as an initial scheme.
Prudently, the official writing the earlier quoted paragraph did not mention either the situation at other railway companies nearby or the comparable South Eastern suburban lines of the Southern Railway (SR). The latter suburban lines had a similar peak demand, including Woolwich Arsenal as a destination, and limited travel during slack hours, yet were largely electrified in the mid-1920s. They also had a significant number of lines operated using colour-light signalling, which aided greater operating efficiency.
Lessons to be learnt from LTSR/District Southend Services?Outside peak times, the LNER had two main options to stimulate additional travel, other than the obvious ones of more frequent services or strong marketing. One was to offer through trains to key ‘attractor’ destinations,
the other was to offer easy interchange to frequent services on lines which reached those destinations. It is instructive to see what was happening on the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway (LTSR, today’s c2c).
Heading away from London on the LNER and LTSR/Midland corridors into Essex, a key destination opportunity was Southend, and both main line companies strove to grow that off-peak market, with occasional through trains to Southend Victoria (LNER) and Southend Central (LTSR) from their suburban lines in Middlesex, Essex, and North and North East London. Towards the capital, the key destination was the heart of Central London beyond the City termini, particularly the West End, and this was a large enough destination to justify considerable investment in through services or interchanges.
A pre-WW2 example of an alternative to providing a good interchange which may have been in the minds of decision-makers, could be the joint running of trains from 1910 between the LTSR and the District Railway across Central London. This was intended to take advantage of spare off-peak capacity with attractive destinations in each direction. This was a through service from Ealing Broadway via Central London to Southend, and vice-versa, hauled by District electric locos to Barking and then a change to steam to Southend.
Conceptually the Ealing Broadway – Southend service was a bit like today’s Crossrail. However the initial service was only three through trains daily, enough for a day journey to the seaside and a shopping expedition or an evening in London’s theatreland but not enough to stimulate a strong travel volume.
The Midland Railway (the LTSR owner from 1913) had a medium-term plan pre-WW1 to electrify to Southend, which would have provided strong stimulus for more through electric services. This never reached Southend under Midland ownership but, unlike the LNER, they did make significant progress when it came to electrification.
A Neighbour shows up the LNERIf early South Eastern electrification in the 1920s represented a comparable operator’s commentary on LNER’s shortcomings, it must have been even more galling for LNER’s own passengers to subsequently see the closely neighbouring, indeed parallel railway, the LMSR, investing in its own lines in the early 1930s.
When the London, Midland and Scottish Railway took over the Midland Railway in 1923 as one of the ‘big four’ companies, they declined to electrify the LTSR all the way, and instead focused on four-tracking and electrification of its stopping services east of Barking. This enabled the extension of UERL District Railway services to Upminster in 1933, to serve the new large-scale LCC Becontree housing estate and expanded industries along the north side of the River Thames.
However it was a LMSR-funded project, so pointedly showed up the LNER steam services, as one main line to another! A little later, the through Ealing-Southend trains were reduced (in 1938), and ceased in 1939.
The new Becontree LCC estates were also close to the LNER Shenfield services. On the LNER 1932 off-peak map on the back page of the Winter 1932-33 LNER suburban timetable, shown above (“Day Return Tickets at Single Fares”), Chadwell Heath station is labelled as ‘Chadwell Heath for Becontree’. This appears to be the only acknowledgement by the LNER of the existence of this massive new housing estate so, presentationally, it would puzzle residents and local councils why the LNER was not upgrading or investing in any significant improvements, even if not electrification.
Southern ContrastsBased on a comparison between LNER and progress made by near neighbours, it is difficult to understand just how remiss the LNER was in failing to electrify at least some of its suburban services by the time of the previously quoted report. Rather than continue to dwell on the failings of LNER in East London, a comparison with how Southern Railway progressed with electrification and its wider London commuting development in the years since its creation in 1923 perhaps illustrates a clearer picture of just how far behind LNER was with what could have been achieved.
The Southern Railway already had an excellent starting point with the pre-WW1 suburban electrifications authorised on the LSWR (London & South Western Railway) from Waterloo, and LBSCR (London Brighton & South Coast Railway) from Victoria and London Bridge. Their networks were well positioned for peak and off-peak travel, with access both to the West End and the City, by tube and the sub-surface lines. LBSCR’s ‘Elevated Electric’ had even been promoted on Underground maps and other marketing pre-WW1.
The South Eastern sector (formerly the South Eastern & Chatham Railway) had not been electrified and historically its parent company, LNER-like, had struggled to finance improvements. However the SR wasted no time from its inception in implementing a massive electrification programme, including conversion of the LBSCR overhead electrification system to a standardised third-rail scheme as already on the LSWR and also expanded to the SECR.
Meanwhile, LNER had no lines whatsoever in the London area that were electrified despite their suburban services being an obvious candidate for an electrification scheme. None of the lines from Liverpool Street had colour light signalling although a slow start was made in 1935 when some sections of suburban railway, not on the route to Shenfield, had semaphore signals replaced with colour light ones.
‘Southern Electric’By 1926 most of the SR’s three suburban networks were electrified and more schemes were under way. Electrification had reached beyond the suburban area to reach Dorking and Guildford. The rest of the decade was spent concentrating on filling in gaps in the existing suburban network. By 1930 the lines to Gravesend, Windsor and even the lightly used Wimbledon – West Croydon line had been electrified.
These maps show rapid progress with Southern Railway suburban electrification which reached into Berkshire and more of Kent & SurreyThe early 1930s saw Southern electrification efforts concentrated on extending ‘Southern Electric’ to Brighton, Worthing and much of the South Coast (to Portsmouth by 1937), and with outer suburban services established for the intervening communities. As the Southern Railway was not one for half-measures, this included resignalling with colour light signalling wherever appropriate – all the way from Purley to Brighton by 1933, where the first electric train in public service ran from London to Brighton on 1st January 1933.
There was large-scale promotion of new housing and living opportunities in the same style as ‘Metroland’, with similar ‘Southern Electric’ marketing books and brochures. The South Eastern network, comparable in travel habits to the former Great Eastern lines, had been electrified as far as Sevenoaks by 1935, and to Gillingham (Kent) and Maidstone by 1939.
Southern’s ‘Electroland’SR was keen to promote its investment and to stimulate more travel and more dormitory housing. There was an equivalent brochure to ‘Metroland’ – Country Homes (with various titles) – and visions of quality life on their improved railway network. Simultaneously the South Coast towns were promoted through marketing of longer distance electric services. Some examples are shown below.
Not entirely surprisingly, by way of contrast, LNER failed to produce any suburban marketing – although they might have felt they had too many passengers already for a steam age. We’re unsure what any ‘Live in Essex’ slogan might have stimulated.
A short-sighted LNER Board?The reasons for this variance between the LNER and other main line companies are numerous and complex, but we would suggest a simple comparison is made between the LNER’s concern for day-to-day finances versus the Southern Railway’s Sir Herbert Walker’s vision to maximise line capacity involving all means, and the SR’s better financial base.
Given the short-term thinking and lack of access to capital, it is no wonder LNER couldn’t show how an investment in electrification would make a decent profit. To them it would seem to be a much better financial strategy to make do with what one had knowing in particular that one’s peak-hour travellers had very little choice and were a captive market rather than pursue a large investment in equipment that, in the prevailing travel mood, was only sensibly utilised for a couple of hours for six days of the week.
Lack of Suburban Development in Early 20th CenturyWhen looking at suburban expansion in East London in early decades of the twentieth century, a slightly surprising contrast emerges. Heading more east than north, there was little development away from the route of The High Road and the railway to Romford. The line had no real rival nearby so much of East London was dependent on it. By 1932 the line was four tracked all the way to Shenfield leaving one pair of those tracks available for suburban use.
Eventually, the surrounding land which had been dominated by market gardening made way to urbanisation. What is surprising though is how the Fairlop loop (to become the Central line’s Hainault loop) failed to develop the expected population growth that the railway had relied on when extending to these parts. One possible reason for the failure to trigger a housing growth could be the desultory frequency which may have been accentuated by poor connections. To this day the Hainault loop is relatively lightly used and this cannot be entirely explained by the Green Belt.
The LNER’s failure to promote potential suburbs has to be one reason. Another might be the City of London’s 1930s interest in promoting a new City airport on Fairlop Plain – this was approved by a public inquiry in 1935 and was intended to open in 1942. That area subsequently became part of the Green Belt after a period as an RAF fighter station.
One area where there was considerable development was around Leyton and Leytonstone, which extended to a greater or lesser extent all the way to Loughton. This would have been centred around the railway line from Ongar, Epping and Loughton, whose trains went to the Fenchurch Street terminus as well as Liverpool Street.
Eastern Avenue in the 1930sEventually the pressures of the 1930s meant that housing spread further onto Essex fields. Much of this was centred around a 1920s-built arterial bypass road called Eastern Avenue, numbered the A106 in the 1920s (it’s now the A12). It mostly paralleled the existing built-up area based on The High Road and the Liverpool Street – Shenfield line, and created a new corridor from Leytonstone through Wanstead, Gants Hill, Newbury Park and Little Heath (north of Chadwell Heath). It then passed north and north east of Romford, to rejoin the A12 at the point where a new Southend Arterial Road began (the A127).
It wasn’t very far away (about a mile distant) from The High Road, meaning the effect was to bring additional passengers into the catchment area of the Shenfield line and increase intensity on the line rather than spread the load to other areas.
It is clear from what subsequently transpired that the developments around Eastern Avenue and their lack of direct rail services were of great interest to the Underground Group and then the newly-created LTPB who wasted no time in looking for potential solutions.
The Causes of the Demand for TravelAs mentioned earlier, travel in East London was mostly for work purposes. There were really two main areas with employment opportunities. One was central London. The other was the vicinity of the north bank of the Thames. A dominant source of employment was the Docks, while their close proximity to the Thames spawned numerous other industries.
The ability to unload raw materials made the surrounding area attractive to industry and warehousing. The Thames, being both a source of water and a place to dispose of it once used, also attracted manufacturing industry, for example sugar refining and syrup production. The combination of the two river features proved alluring to other businesses with a significant likelihood of causing effluents, which in turn made the locality less attractive for residential use. Hence a desire by some to live away from the area and possibly travel considerable distances to and from work.
The reality was that London as a whole was a major manufacturing centre, with extensive industries throughout inner London and along the length of the Thames and Lea riversides (and part of the Wandle), and with the Docks being a further stimulus for industries to locate nearby. Ford continued that heritage at Dagenham, while there was also intensive employment for East Londoners at the Royal Arsenal munitions factory at Woolwich and its offshoots (e.g. at Silvertown).
Central London based employment should not be thought of as just ‘the City’. The West End had become a large employment zone since 1900, while Westminster was the centre of Government.
Not relevant to Shenfield electrification but important when looking at the western extension of the Central line are locations such as Park Royal and Greenford that had sprung up as industrial centres during World War I. These locations, and others further down the GWR main line, were subsequently stimulated by rail and road access which had previously been missing or underdeveloped.
East London Travel in the 1930sBy changing at Stratford, Eastenders and East Londoners (i.e. those east of Bromley-by-Bow/Stratford) could make their way towards the Docks and other riverside industries. Their journey could continue from Stratford by either changing trains (some trains went within the PLA Docks area), or by using the then extensive East London tram network. Coborn Road, Leyton, Maryland and Manor Park were also rail/tram interchanges to reach various Dock gates and the local industries.
In many ways the comprehensive transport network that enabled workers to reach their places of employment would be considered exemplary. However, for many people, the bulk of the journey, distance-wise, largely relied on the intensively-worked, steam-operated trains that shuttled back-and-forth on the Liverpool St – Shenfield and Loughton routes.
A Railway Needing ChangeWhilst the focus here is on the line from Liverpool Street to Shenfield, this was only one service that called at Stratford station. The range of travel origins to the Docks and riverside industry zones has already been highlighted, with through trains from both Central London and North and North East London, and they partly used the same London commuter tracks which were also used by Ongar and Loughton line trains. Further operational complexity existed with the presence of direct commuter trains to Fenchurch Street from the Ongar and Loughton line, which crossed the entire group of main lines in and out of Liverpool Street! This was a railway network in need of major operational reorganisation and the benefits of such a reorganisation would be felt over a large area.
Proposals to Improve MattersThe government in the 1930s was well aware of the importance of providing a decent railway service in East London. This had been highlighted by two major public inquiries by the London & Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee in the mid-1920s, focused on East London and North-East London. Unfortunately, little had been done to address the basics, though there were plans which overlapped.
By now the LNER was one of the ‘big four’. They had proposed an electrification scheme at 1500V DC which would electrify much of the GE suburban network including to Shenfield, and the Ongar, Loughton and Fairlop Loop lines. A separate proposal was made by the Underground Group (still then a private company) to supposedly complement the LNER scheme and provide passenger relief to the LNER lines. In practice it competed with the LNER scheme.
Dec 1933 scheme with electrification proposed on some of the LNER steam-hauled network and a UERL scheme for separate competing tube to Little Heath (not implemented).In the above image, the base map shows urban development in 1923 which preceded the construction of Eastern Avenue. There are also 6, 9, 12 and 17 mile rings from Charing Cross and also M25 shown for modern-day comparison.
The Underground Group proposed a Central London line tube extension from Liverpool Street to Stratford Broadway (note: Broadway, not the main line station), which would then continue under Leytonstone High Street and along Eastern Avenue. The intended terminus was a small village called Little Heath which in those days was not yet part of the general urban sprawl.
Today, these plans were largely forgotten about. A critical weakness of them was their explicit competitiveness resulting in missed interchange opportunities and a poor commercial case. In fact, interchange opportunities were almost non-existent and even at Newbury Park it is not clear if there was any intention to provide interchange with the LNER station there (now part of the Central line).
OS map of around 1935 (w/ some later revisions included) showing Eastern Avenue, which is shown thicker than other roads, towards the top of the map. Little Heath is towards the top about two-thirds of the way across.The Original Plans are AbandonedA Central London line station located beneath Stratford Broadway wasn’t going to provide any interchange with the main line station at Stratford. Not only would there have been at least a 300m walk, there was the fact that exiting the underground platform in Broadway would necessitate not only reaching surface level but then climbing further stairs at the main line station to reach the elevated platforms.
The proposed Underground extension was comparable with the Piccadilly Line extension northwards from Finsbury Park, which had just opened under the roads to central Wood Green and into new development territory in outer North London, paralleling but not integrated with the LNER Great Northern network. The Piccadilly tube was an alternative railway (in areas where passengers had a choice of local stations), rather than a network offering good interchanges between operators. In the case of East London, Liverpool Street would have continued to handle all the transfer flows between the LNER and the Underground.
It is probable that neither the East nor North East London schemes could be justified by their partly duplicated demands on capital investment, in a part of London where off-peak travel was so discouraging, and where even the finally approved scheme needed other, more profitable schemes to go ahead, to provide sufficient assurance of an acceptable rate of return.
A Basis for a Realistic SchemeThe formation of the London Passenger Transport Board (LPTB, London Transport, LT) in 1933 and particularly the Standing Joint Committee of LT and the main line railways, was a means to force joint railway planning to take place, in return for which the Government would be willing to provide financial backing for an integrated set of railway development plans.
The Standing Joint Committee brought together the competitive proposals by the LNER and the Underground Group for schemes to relieve travelling conditions in East and North East London.
In actuality, the December 1933 report prepared the political ground for the works that were finally authorised for the 1935-40 New Works Programme. Subsequently, by putting heads together both the LPTB and LNER eventually saw ways to merge the different schemes and make a stronger combined proposal.
A Revision is NeededOne can see the problems with the original schemes. There was limited capacity at the London termini so there just would not be the enabled service expansion that would permit the LNER scheme to pay its way. From the LNER’s viewpoint, if it divested the Ongar, Loughton and Fairlop Loop lines to London Transport then its immediate capital costs would go down, yet there was a substantial probability of passenger numbers after electrification being around the same, or even higher, despite the loss of some passenger lines.
After 15 years, the amortised charges of the Central line’s eastern extensions would also would be loaded onto LNER shareholdings, in proportion to the share of LNER trackage operated over by the LPTB, but by then the passenger traffic should have grown enough to pay for the new works. Such a scheme must have appeared far more profitable to the LNER than the original one proposed.
The possibility also must have occurred to LNER that, if the Great Eastern Main Line were already electrified on the main lines (the former ‘through’ lines) as far as Gidea Park, as planned, there would be the opportunity to build on that in future and possibly extend towards Southend Victoria and Chelmsford. Both were beyond the London region’s shared revenue ‘Pool’, but not by far. Outer suburban electrification would be expected to be considerably cheaper than that in the urban areas on a cost per mile basis due to less need for bridge reconstruction and, furthermore, could take advantage of lines already electrified in the urban area.
One could argue that the fledgling London Transport (formally the LPTB, of course) was still finding its way as to its real purpose during this period. As a public corporation as well as a Pool member, its role should be one of finding the best transport solutions regardless of which company or public body implemented them. The previous competitive stance needed to be modified to enable co-operation to produce a better solution that could realistically be implemented.
Eventually, a revised scheme was developed in conjunction with London Transport to extend the Central London line into suburban development areas. This was expected to show adequate investment returns to the ‘London Passenger Transport Pool’ (the pooled income from LT and the four main line companies) from the resulting travel growth – here considering the LPTB and LNER revenues – once the eastern areas had been developed and balancing suburban areas had emerged in the west.
A consequence of the ‘Pool’ scheme was that companies would be less concerned with protecting ‘their’ revenue. Rather than fighting for their share of the cake the emphasis was on producing a bigger cake so everyone had a larger slice. This became significant at Stratford where easy interchange between the LNER and Central line was regarded as “essential”.
A Stratford interchange would make journeys to central London and beyond from the Ilford, Romford and Shenfield corridor more attractive and, it was hoped, more generally lead to the much-desired gains in off-peak travel, by offering a simple, high-quality cross-platform interchange with trains direct to the West End. So a Stratford Interchange scheme was included in the 1935-40 New Works Programme, which along with many other New Works was approved through Parliamentary Acts.
1935-40 New Works Programme (and subsequent Acts)As well as providing the railways (LPTB, LNER and the GWR) with a trajectory for growth, there were wider public policy reasons for this agreed programme. In order to stimulate the economy during a time of financial depression, and to provide employment opportunities, the Government in the 1930s was prepared to underwrite advance funding for railway improvements that benefitted the economy in general but weren’t immediately profitable on their own.
Map showing all rail New Works Schemes. From ‘Improving London’s Transport’ Railway Gazette 1946It raised £40m (now around £40 billion) in a government-backed shares offer, to fund the 1935-40 New Works, with the shares to be transferred to LPTB and the railway companies after a 15-year period of investment and consequential area development. This was hoped to be long enough for the shares to earn their long-term worth.
The above map shows the 1935-40 New Works Programme as finally approved and implemented. Existing lines to be electrified are shown in lime green and consists of:
- Liverpool St – Shenfield (1500V DC overhead)
- Most of the Fairlop loop (630V DC standard LT fourth rail)
- the Ongar line as far as Epping (most of it off the map, 630V DC standard LT fourth rail)
- Fenchurch St – Stratford (1500V DC overhead)
There is a flyover to swap the pairs of lines which is just visible to the west of Ilford which will be explained in a later article.
The new Central line tunnels are shown in red outline and consist of:
- New tunnels from Liverpool St (extending the existing Central line) to Stratford where they surface at Stratford station.
- New tunnels between Stratford station and Leyton station along a route which consists of an awkward ‘S’ bend to join these locations.
- New tunnels under Eastern Avenue from Leytonstone to Newbury Park featuring a substantial curve south of Newbury Park in order to change from an West-East alignment to a South-North one in order to take over services on the Fairlop (now the Hainault) loop.
More DetailThis article provides a background of the planning rationale for the Shenfield Electrification Scheme and related schemes that this electrification depended on. In the next article we will look at in detail as to what this actually meant on the ground, what was involved in implementing the scheme, and how close the eventual result matched the pre-war plans.
The post The Shenfield Electrification Scheme: Background appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Local businesses want all of Soho to be pedestrianised (TimeOut)
• Highland Mainline to run no trains between Inverness and Perth for 4 weekends (Inverness Courier)
• Less ‘crush and rush’? Euston changes bring air of calm but station still unloved (The Guardian)
• Birmingham’s New £60m Railway Project: A Look At The Camp Hill Line: Video (SomeNorthLondoner)
• London’s JR Shinkanzen Bullet Train Tōkai’s Series 0 Exhibit, & history (London Rail)
• Paris set to limit traffic in the city’s central core (Le Monde)
• Jaywalking is Legal now in NYC (AP News)
• A tram derails and plows into a shop in the Norwegian capital but only 4 are lightly injured (AP News)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 4 November 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• End of “Euston Rush” as train companies improve boarding announce times (Ian Visits)
• TfL seizes 1,400 vehicles from drivers who ignore Ulez fines (Guardian)
• Local businesses want all of Soho to be pedestrianised (TimeOut)
• Bow Goods Yard Freight & Logistics Masterplan Approved (Rail Technology)
• MTA looking to dig tunnel under Queens cemetery for IBX rail project (amNewYork)
• NYC’s Abandoned 9th Avenue Elevated Line: Video (Nathan NYC Transit Guy)
• More Details on Pre-WWII Zeppelin Spy Flights: Video (Caliban Rising)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 1 November 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Why is the Victoria line so loud? (BBC)
• It’s time, finally, to investing in public transport in the north (The Guardian)
• Study of 7 mid-sized cities shows 61% fewer traffic deaths with bike lanes (Streetsblog)
• Where Africa’s Rail & other Transportation Infrastructure Needs a Boost (Econlife)
• Cargo Bikes Are Freeing Cities From Polluting Vans (CityLab)
• De-electrification after a disaster (KHKQ Beside Trains)
• Active Exclusion: The inaccessible history of Roosevelt Island, named for a disabled president (Places)
• This Siberian Subway System Has Just One, Non-Functional Station (Atlas Obscura)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 28 October 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• East West Rail: First train tests on multi-billion pound route (BBC)
• Paddington tube station design error is finally righted after a century! (London Rail)
• Exploring Paris Métro Line 11’s eastern extension (Fabric of Paris)
• Ouigo, the impact of this low-cost, 3rd class, high-speed rail concept (Mediarail)
• Japan’s $40BN Airport is Sinking: Video (B1M)
• Transit-oriented development built without the transit (Transport for New Homes)
• Mass Transit on Orbital Boulevards (Pedestrian Observations)
• Northumberland is back on track: a new railway line is opening up one of England’s wildest counties (The Guardian)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 25 October 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
If you go to Paddington main line station and follow the signs to platform 14 you eventually end up at short curved platform located almost at the far end of the station. All of Paddington’s other platforms are long and, for the most part, straight. Moreover, they are easily directly accessible from the main concourse providing building work is not going on (which it currently is affecting platforms 11 and 12).
There is not much point in going to platform 14 because, as far as we can tell, no passenger train in service is ever scheduled to arrive or depart from this platform on a regular basis. Yet the rails aren’t rusty, the platform is maintained, it is signalled and it appears in the Timetable Planning Rules for ‘Wales and Western’ (warning: 3MB PDF). An entry in Timetable Planning Rules should be a reliable test to determine if a platform is still officially in use. So, why does it exist and why is it not apparently used?
To add to the mystery, the platform appears to be too short to be of much practical benefit for use by passenger trains. According to the aforementioned timetable planning rules, the entry for platform 14 at Paddington is:
| Length in Metres | Comments | | 147 | Length from the buffer stop to signal | | 144.2 | Length from the stop line to signal |
Relevant rows and columns from the Timetable Planning Rules entryThis would suggest that it is too short of any passenger train that uses Paddington other than a 5-car Class 80x GWR platform 14 InterCity Express Train.
At this point we have to remind you that we have recently had suspicions as to how correct the platform lengths quoted in the Timetable Planning Rules for ‘Wales and Western’ are. There are extremely good reasons to believe that platform 14 can actually accommodate a 163-metre-long train which is the length a GWR Class 387 EMU consisting of two units.
To find the length of a platform quoted to the nearest tenth of a metre is surprising. This does seem to be a measurement that is precise but probably not at all accurate.
Extract from Network Rail National Electronic Sectional Appendix
showing Paddington layout and platform lengthsHowever, salvation is at hand in another Network Rail document which can be considered the definitive source for details of the railway layout. This gives the length of platform 14 as 171 metres which is almost certainly the correct value.
History and The Answer to This ‘Unused’ PlatformTo understand how and why we are in the situation we are in now, we need to look at a surprising amount of railway history. For those who wish to skip this and get to the reason for why this short, awkwardly located platform still exists, you are going to be disappointed – we really don’t have a definite answer. However, we will look at how and why we got here and how, but for one or two probably showstopper issues, a platform 14 could serve a useful purpose.
We also discover if platform 13 ever existed and, if it did, what happened to it.
The Start of It AllThe story goes all the way back to the beginning of the Metropolitan Railway and the opening of the first underground railway in the world in 1863. Indeed, our story is as much about the Metropolitan Railway as it is about the original Great Western Railway and its modern-day namesake.
In 1863 the Metropolitan Railway opened between Bishop’s Road station and Farringdon Street. At this stage it is important to realise two things. Bishop’s Road station was a completely separate station to Paddington main line station with its only entrance in Bishop’s Road (today’s Bishop’s Bridge Road). And opening the railway between Bishop’s Road and Farringdon Street was not the plan.
Bishop’s Road StationBishop’s Road Station was the original two platform terminus of the Metropolitan Railway service running from there to Farringdon Street. However, it was not a terminal station and had through running lines, which were broad gauge, to join up with GWR just west of Paddington station. This connection was essential. In the first place, the connection was needed to remove spoil from the running tunnels being built. Subsequently, on opening, GWR provided the trains that formed the services on the Metropolitan Railway. The station was never intended to be the terminus hence why there were only two platforms and no run-round loop.
The description of how the original station was rather unsatisfactorily shoe-horned into the Paddington site cannot be described better than two sentences contained within its entry on the Heritage Gateway website – amusingly the entry has a category of “Post Medieval”.
Bishop’s Road occupied an awkward position between the main line station and the Great Western Railway coal depot alongside Paddington canal basin, further restricted by an approach road to the Great Western goods depot. Bishop’s Road bridge was partially demolished to make room for the station building, set back behind a forecourt for cabs and omnibuses.
Bishop’s Road Station page on the Heritage Gateway Website
The Intended Original Underground RailwayGWR features rather a lot in the part of our story concerning today’s Hammersmith & City line so it is not too much of a digression to have a close look at their involvement from the outset.
For a bit of the original history of what is today’s Hammersmith & City line west of Paddington one can do little better than read a previous article by guest author Rog entitled The Unknown Hammersmith & City Construction Calamity.
In essence, it was intended that the opening would be a line from Farringdon Street to a station at Hammersmith. Significantly, this involved running over three separate railway company’s lines
- The Metropolitan Railway to a location close to Bishop’s Road station
- GWR from its boundary with the Metropolitan Railway joining the Great Western Main line (GWML) on the north side of the GWML to a location at what today is Westbourne Park and leaving the GWML on the south side
- The Hammersmith, Paddington and City Junction Railway which, despite its name, would run from the GWML at Westbourne Park to a station at Hammersmith
As is common at the time, the Hammersmith, Paddington and City Junction Railway was basically set up by another railway, actually two railways in this case, the Metropolitan and GWR. The two companies behind it did not provide the investment but did provide the impetus behind it.
Subsequent Independence from the Great Western Main LineNot surprisingly, relying on running trains along the Great Western Main Line for the two miles between just west of Paddington and the approximate location of today’s Westbourne Park station was highly undesirable. GWR were persuaded to provide two tracks to the north of the GWML so that the Metropolitan service to Hammersmith was not so dependent on the GWML. These two tracks opened in 1871.
It seems a bit strange that the extra two tracks would be thought to improve matters as the trains still had to cross the entire GWML. Indeed, one could argue that an arrangement that enabled Metropolitan trains to ‘go with the flow’ was better than one where it crossed all the tracks on a flat crossing.
Not surprisingly, the Board of Trade (who in those days was the government department which oversaw railways) did not like this arrangement of a flat crossing and made strong objections. The result was a dive-under below the GWML opened in 1878 which is in use to this day.
By now the Metropolitan Railway was running over not only its own tracks but also over both GWR tracks and tracks belonging to the Hammersmith, Paddington and City Junction Railway which itself was now jointly owned by the Metropolitan Railway and GWR.
The Owners of Bishop’s Road StationNot made clear earlier is the fact that in 1863 GWR also actually owned Bishop’s Road station. In fact, they also owned 12 chains of track (just over 241 metres) to the east of the station. This may seem a bit ridiculous but, as explained, Bishop’s Road was never intended to be a terminus and also GWR owned the land on which the station was built.
More difficult to explain is why the GWR owned the underground section for 12 chains eastward of Bishop’s Road station. A partial explanation can be ascertained by the fact that it appears that he boundary between the two companies is the western location at which the railway is built under the public highway at a bend in South Wharf Road. In all probability GWR owned this land as well. They would not have been able to build the railway under the public highway as that right would have been conferred only on the Metropolitan Railway under the relevant act of parliament.
1874 mapAlthough there were occasional serious disputes, the Metropolitan and GWR worked closely together for many years and GWR had substantial running rights over the Metropolitan Railway. These were not restricted to passenger trains and included a limited number of freight trains.
The running rights of GWR were specified in the Metropolitan Railway Act of 1854. As this act was specific to the line from Bishop’s Road to Farringdon Street, the Metropolitan Railway argued that GWR rights only extended to Farringdon Street. In 1882 this interpretation was upheld in the courts on appeal.
In fact, getting ahead of ourselves, GWR trains continued to pass through Bishop’s Road station all the way to the City terminating beyond Farringdon Street until shortly after the outbreak of World War II. As soon as the Metropolitan Railway was electrified these trains were hauled on the Metropolitan Railway by Metropolitan electric locomotives.
Meanwhile at Paddington…As would be expected, alterations have been made to Paddington station over the years. Of some, but not much, significance to our story is the 1909-1915 alterations which included a footbridge spanning platforms 1-8 thereby linking 1-9 platforms at western (country) end of the station. The footbridge continued, rather awkwardly, beyond platform 8 by changing direction and continuing in the direction of Bishop’s Road station but there was no connection, for the public at least, between the two stations. This lack of a connection could be considered as a lost opportunity but it also appears to show that there was no desire to attempt to unify the two stations.
Map showing 1915 footbridgeThe 12 long platforms under the arched roof at Paddington were now much as they are today although they were slightly shorter and have been repositioned laterally from time to time. This, with the two platforms at Bishop’s Road, gave a total of 14 platforms.
Further Alterations at Paddington…A cigarette card from 1936 showing new ‘state of the art’ Paddington Arrivals signal box with the ‘panel’ for platforms 13-16 in the foreground. The loco spur can be clearly seen at the top and the reversing siding to the west of the station is fairly clear.More significant changes since then took place at Paddington in 1930-1933 when platforms 2-11 were lengthened at the country end and shortly afterwards the semaphore signalling throughout was replaced by colour light signalling. The changes enabled the concourse circulating area, which for various historical reasons of disputed origin is known as ‘the lawn’, to be extended pushing the buffer stops slightly to the west. To achieve this, the platforms needed to extend beyond the original arched Bishop’s Bridge (which carried Bishop’s Road over the main line railway tracks). This was now possible as the bridge had been rebuilt with iron girders in 1909. The rebuilt bridge also enabled a more flexible track layout to be commissioned. One consequence of these changes was that platform 12 became significantly shorter.
Highly significantly, the footbridge was replaced with a better wider one linking all the Paddington platforms as well as the Bishop’s Road platforms.
…And Bishop’s RoadThe 1930-1933 alterations also saw substantial changes to Bishop’s Road station including a name change. As owners, GWR had almost ‘carte blanche’ to do what they wanted provided they maintained the Metropolitan Railway’s running rights. In fact, the Metropolitan Railway was soon to become the Metropolitan line of London Transport which would inherit these rights.
GWR needed more platforms at Paddington. Their plan was to run their suburban services, of which there weren’t that many, to and from Bishop’s Road. Of course, they had the big advantage that they owned the surrounding land so extending the station was not a significant problem.
The work involved replacing the two side platforms at Bishop’s Road with two much longer island platforms of double the original length (630ft as opposed to 315ft). Because they were much longer and were extended eastward, the platforms were now closer to Paddington. Much more significantly, the platforms at the two stations were now linked.
Partly to cater for passengers from the main station at Paddington, a new booking office was opened at the same level as the footbridge above platform 8. There was still an entrance to Bishop’s Road station from Bishop’s Road but this ticket office had been replaced by a minimal ticket office of the ‘passimeter’ type indicating that GWR were not expecting many passengers to enter Bishop’s Road station from Bishop’s Road itself.
Map showing 1933 footbridgeThe entrance in Bishop’s Bridge Road became rather dilapidated and uninviting as can be seen in this 1950 photo below.
Bishop’s Bridge Road entrance (c) LT museumHowever, at least in 1950 the entrance off Bishop’s Bridge Road was well advertised. Contrast this with approximately same location today and note the minuscule low-level signs directing you to either the main station or Underground one.
A present day screenshot from Google Streetview of the modern replacement of the original entrancePlatforms 13 to 16As a result of the 1933 alterations, Bishop’s Road station now had four platforms and the station was better linked to the main Paddington station. It made sense to label these platforms as platforms 13-16 following on from platform 12, the highest number platform in the existing Paddington station. Furthermore, it was felt that ”Bishop’s Road” was now an inappropriate name for the station and it was renamed to ‘Paddington (Suburban)’.
At this time, the outer platforms (13 and 16) were used for Metropolitan Railway trains to and from Hammersmith and the inner platforms (14 and 15) were used to terminate GWR’s steam suburban services from places like such as Uxbridge and Slough.
Our understanding of the layout based on a small scale map of the time. and a contemporary signal diagram A more general overviewPlatforms 14 and 15 had London Transport’s fourth rail electrification installed. Any GWR engine runaround necessary supposedly utilised one of the three potentially available platform lines.
The diagram above shows an ‘loco spur’. In those accounts that mention this, it is described as an electric locomotive spur which makes a lot of sense. On arrival from the suburbs a through GWR train would have a loco detached at the front and ‘run around’ to go to either the turnback siding ready to take a fresh train back to the suburbs or would return to the engine shed via the Down engine and carriage line. Once it had run around a Metropolitan Railway locomotive, or subsequently a London Transport locomotive, leaves the ‘engine spur’ and attaches at the City end. The reverse process would take place in the other direction.
For GWR terminating trains at Paddington (Suburban) platforms 14 and 15 the process was much simpler with no electric loco involved.
War IntervenesSome of the substantial changes made to Bishop’s made in 1933 were made redundant only days after the outbreak of World War II when all GWR passenger services between Bishop’s Road and the Metropolitan line were withdrawn and never returned. The ‘engine spur’ would have probably been mothballed as it wasn’t currently being used and its future use was unknown.
Relations between the the Metropolitan Railway and GWR must have improved in the intervening years following the initial opening of the line because withdrawal of the through GWR trains (usually terminating at Moorgate) marked the ending of many years of unbroken service – probably to the relief of London Transport who may well have hoped it would forever stay that way.
October 1921 GWR timetable showing trains from Uxbridge (Vine St) and Staines to and from Liverpool StDespite running rights only extending to Farringdon Street, because at the time of the agreement that was the eastern terminus of the Metropolitan Railway, GWR trains terminated at Moorgate or Liverpool Street. At Liverpool Street Underground GWR trains would have terminated at platform 3 which was a side platform that no longer exists. There probably would have been substantial spare capacity here as it was normally only used by the infrequent service from Chesham.
Liverpool St on Carto MetroA few, very few, trains were extended even further to Aldgate as can be seen in the 1934 London Transport Metropolitan line extract below. A probable explanation for this is the unavailability of terminating slots at the previous stations.
The reason for some GWR trains being extended beyond Farringdon Street is unclear. Once the line was extended to Moorgate, Farringdon was probably no longer a practical option. Terminating some trains at Liverpool St could be down to operational difficulties terminating all trains at Moorgate or, more likely, was because the Metropolitan Railway and GWR had patched up whatever animosity there was in the past.
A Change in the Platform ArrangementUntil 1967 the above track arrangement for platforms 13 to 16 continued with only minor changes. Direct GWR trains to the City had long gone and GWR steam trains from the suburbs were replaced by British Rail DMUs. The ‘engine spur’ would have disappeared by now as it no longer served any purpose. Then an overdue change was made and platform 15 became the Westbound Metropolitan platform while platform 16 continued to be the Eastbound Metropolitan one.
Platforms 13 and 14 were very short by main line standards and really only suitable for suburban trains. By now these lines had buffer stops at the end of the platforms. In consequence, the Metropolitan line (nowadays the Hammersmith & City line at this location) was severed entirely from the British Rail network at Paddington. This meant that needlessly conflicting moves were eliminated. It also enabled today’s Hammersmith & City line to be independently signalled from British Rail.
The Direct Footbridge Link DisappearsThe direct link between the main line station and the Underground station was severed in 2009. It was still possible to access the Underground station via the footbridge but it now involved going outside to what most people would intuitively not regard as part of Paddington main line station and entering the Underground station via a new entrance.
The route to the Hammersmith & City platforms used to be straight aheadThe Taxi Rank is RelocatedAt the time, in preparation for Crossrail, substantial works were undertaken to move the location of the taxi rank to the north of the main station with an entrance and exit for taxis only off Bishop’s Bridge Road. As a small digression, the taxi new rank was really busy at around the time of its opening and for a few years afterwards with long queues forming for the plentiful taxis. In contrast, the taxi queues today remain but demand seems to have plummeted which we presume is down to Crossrail running to Heathrow direct from central London.
The Underground Station is RebuiltAlso in 2009, the Circle line’s reliability was by now so appalling that TfL decided to bring forward proposal to ‘Uncircle the Circle line’ prior to planned resignalling. This necessitated rebuilding of Paddington Underground station (Hammersmith & City line and now also the Circle line) to handle the considerable number of extra passengers. As a consequence of this rebuilding, passengers now have to exit the Underground station into the taxi rank area before entering the main line station either via the footbridge which now has an entrance in the taxi rank area or a new main line station entrance on the north side of the station.
One curiosity about the present day platforms 15 and 16 is that their assigned platform numbers have been retained despite being now completely independent from Paddington Main Line station once again. Also, the Hammersmith & City line trains arriving at Paddington (Hammersmith & City and Circle lines) are announced as ‘the train now arriving at platform 15 …’ (or 16 as appropriate).
Platform 13 Bites the DustAt platform level, things had remained stable in this part of the unified Paddington station for around 50 years but in 2016 significant changes came. The next issue was one common to many London termini – the trains were becoming too long for the existing platforms. It was the GWR Intercity Express Trains which replaced the old HSTs (High Speed Trains) which were causing the initial problems. This, coupled with a proposed more frequent service to Wales, would mean that a solution was necessary.
Platform 13 was extremely short by modern standards and there was no possibility of it being extended. This made it practically useless and platform 14 was potentially not much better. The situation was not helped by platform 12 at that time in the main train shed not being that much longer than platforms 13 or 14.
The solution to the short platforms in a restricted space was the time honoured one of sacrificing a short platform to make another of the platforms significantly longer. By sacrificing platform 13, platform 12 could be made sufficiently long for just about any train expected to terminate at Paddington. In the picture below there is an 8-car Class 387 EMU in platform 12. The platform is temporarily shortened at the buffer end by about two carriages due to rebuilding works and still the train looks to be a long way away.
The long platform 12 – or arguably the long merged platforms 12 and 13One could argue it would be more accurate to state that platforms 12 and 13 were merged. Certainly, at the country end of platform 12 you can see small buildings on the platform, clearly older than 2016 when the new platform 12 was created. These buildings were located on the original two-sided platform that was designated platform 13 on one side and platform 14 on the other.
Network Rail did an excellent job of combining the platforms and there is no obvious physical indication that there ever was a platform 13 other than the fact that 13 is missing in the numerical sequencing of platforms.
Platform 14 gets a Stay of ExecutionPlatform 14 could be extended a short distance by setting back the buffer stops enabling it to be used by an 8-car ‘Electrostar’ EMU train – as would subsequently appear at Paddington in the form of a Class 387 EMU. This is what was done at the same time platform 13 was eliminated and may be the origin of the discrepancy in the stated platform length.
There was also an element of longer term thinking in this change and this related to Crossrail. TfL Rail were taking over Heathrow Connect services and planning to run the replacement service at 4tph. They were also planning to take over GWR stopping services to Reading which would mean a further 4tph in the peak periods. These services would terminate at Paddington and it would be desirable to have adjacent dedicated platforms for these trains. Two platforms would have probably been minimally sufficient but three would be ideal.
When the time came to introduce Class 345 Crossrail trains, it was planned to introduce them as 7-car trains which would be roughly equivalent to a ‘normal’ 8-car EMU. Platforms 11, 12, and 14 seemed ideal platforms for Crossrail trains to primarily, although not necessary exclusively, use. This enabled the remainder of Paddington station continue in operation with relatively little disruption.
Subsequently, Crossrail trains were extended by two carriages and the 9-car, now Elizabeth line, trains could no longer use platform 14. Of course, usually Elizabeth line trains do not terminate at Paddington Main Line station but in the early morning, late night and at times of disruption these trains are routed there. With the lengthening of these trains, it seems that the last useful role for platform 14 had disappeared.
The Last Regular Use of Platform 14From what we can determine, the last use of platform 14 on a regular consistent basis was for the now-withdrawn Mondays to Fridays Chiltern Railways daily parliamentary train. Somehow, platform 14 seemed appropriate for this train. It ensured that its usage of Paddington was made as unobtrusive as possible as if it had to be run but the authorities did not want the general public to be aware of its existence. It also prevented the pride and joy of a station of GWR heritage from being sullied by a second ‘foreign operator’ although you could argue that nowadays Heathrow Express isn’t a foreign operator because GWR actually operates the service on behalf of Heathrow Express.
In a similar vein, prior to that, the Paddington-Greenford service used platform 14 prior to being cut back to West Ealing. Again it seemed somehow appropriate to use such an unobtrusive platform as the first generation DMU that served this route for many years was hardly the sort of train one wants to flaunt. It also would not make much sense to tie up one of the long platforms with a two-car DMU. For a while this was reduced to a single car Class 121 train (the ‘bubble car’). One can imagine that rail managers would be keen to avoid the incongruity of a bubble car arriving at one of the main platforms at Paddington.
Which Trains Do Use Platform 14?From what we can work out using the OpenTrainTimes website that has details of all trains (not just passenger ones in service) no trains are regularly scheduled to use platform 14. In any case, not that many trains could actually use it. Whilst none do so on a regular basis, it seems that many early morning trains to Paddington regularly use different platforms. We can only presume this is to keep driver knowledge on routes into all possible platforms up to date.
There appear to be four trains that occasionally terminate and restart their journey at platform 14:
1) The earliest and most surprising is a Heathrow Express train.
This departs from Reading Traincare Depot in the early hours of the morning. It runs out-of-service (empty coaching stock in railway parlance) to Paddington. Its next journey is to Heathrow Terminal 5 (also out-of-service) so it is in position to be one of the first two Heathrow Express trains from the airport. We believe it has to go via Paddington to drop off another driver or drivers to pick up the Heathrow Express trains normally stabled overnight at platforms 6 and 7.
A slight variation on the previous train is one that leaves West Ealing EMU Sidings to form the other Heathrow Express train that is also positioned at Terminal 5 station prior to the start of the day’s service.
2) The next possible train to use platform 14 is the Class 165 DMU that currently provides the train for the Greenford shuttle between Greenford and West Ealing.
This begins its day at Reading and travels to Paddington before travelling to Greenford prior to spending the day shuttling backward and forward on the branch. These journeys are all in service but the inward journey is likely to have very few passengers and the outward journey to Greenford probably has no passengers at all.
3) A one-of-a-kind Sunday Only GWR daytime service that runs on the up relief line and stops at most stations from Reading to Paddington arrives in Paddington at 0712 on Sunday morning.
There are three similar services that run through the night which usually use low numbered platforms but have been known to use platform 14. Like the inward journey of the Greenford shuttle train, these trains are unlikely to have many passengers.
It must be borne in mind that the only sensible reason we can see to run these services into platform 14 is to retain route knowledge. If the platform did not exist then the route knowledge would not need to be retained.
The only other trains known by us to use platform 14 are during engineering works affecting the main lines into Paddington forcing all trains to run on the relief lines.
On these fairly rare occasions, some trains, very few, do terminate at platform 14. But the limitation seems to be the capacity of the relief lines rather than the number of platforms available at Paddington. The feeling is ‘that is what the platform is there for so we better use it’ rather than it being used as a platform of last resort. In fact, it can be operationally more convenient to terminate some trains at platform 14 at such times. However, it is certainly not so convenient for passengers so the overall benefits of using platform 14 at these times is questionable.
Is There Really a Reason for Platform 14?We are struggling to find a genuine purpose for platform 14 and so do wonder why Network Rail and GWR keep it. A possible potential use is to stable overnight the Heathrow Express train that currently stables at West Ealing EMU sidings. However, we can understand that a train left overnight at platform 14, away from the main concourse area, would potentially be vulnerable to graffiti attacks. No train operating company likes to see its trains graffitied but Heathrow Express would probably be more upset than most companies.
Our best answer is that the platform is there, it is in good condition, it is signalled and has no obvious maintenance issues outstanding so why not keep it until such time as it becomes an expense liability? The fact that the construction of Old Oak Common station is going to lead to many weeks of engineering work until around 2030 adds impetus to the need to keep it, at least for the next few years.
So Nearly Potentially UsefulWhilst it is hard to see what really useful purpose platform 14 provides for GWR, first impressions suggest that TfL could make good use of it if they wish to. We have to be realistic and, even if TfL did potentially find the platform useful and it were offered to them, it has no money needed to make the necessary changes which would need to include providing an overbridge for passengers to reach platform 14 from the current Underground ticket hall. Unfortunately, there is also probably an insuperable problem which means the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
If TfL took over platform 14 then it could make it the primary, or only, Hammersmith bound platform taking over the role of today’s platform 15. This in turn would appear to make it possible for exiting passengers arriving from central London (the majority) to walk to the main line concourse via a shorter route utilising platform 12 without having to climb any stairs or use any lifts. It also would make it possible for the station to have an arrangement similar to Tower Hill with a central (platform 15) bi-directional through route which could be useful for terminating trains from either direction.
Unfortunately, the route along platform 12 appears to be just too narrow to handle a large passenger flow from the Underground station especially when there is a train arriving at platform 12. It would also be difficult to segregate the two platforms given the lack of width of the platform area. So, unless a more radical solution is available, it seems that this possibility is thwarted.
The FuturePlatform 14 really does seem to be the most pointless platform of any London terminus – and that includes platform 4 at Blackfriars which is, arguably, genuinely potentially useful even though it sees hardly any trains in passenger service at present. Platform 14 at Paddington will probably continue that way for at least the next few years. But, perhaps, one day it will have a purpose – just as it has done in the past. Or maybe, it will be abandoned when Network Rail encounters a situation whereby it has to spend serious money to enable it to continue to be in use.
The post The Curious Case of Platform 14 at Paddington appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Possible Scope of Sadiq Khan’s plans for Oxford Street (On London)
• TfL Invites Bids for New London Trams Fleet (Rail Technology)
• The Rise, Fall, & Rise Again of the Leeds Tram (Railway Technology)
• How NHS England is planning to decarbonise its transport & travel (FleetNews)
• Historic Swindon Railway Village Transformed ‘No-go Area’ to Heritage Neighbourhood (Good News Network)
• Eurostar, SkyTeam airlines pave way for joint air-rail ticket (Brussels Times)
• There Is No Technology Fix for Deadly Car Bloat (Slate)
• Swiss Railway Saga 2024, Part 1: In Chur, for sure (Trains)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 21 October 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• A first look at the new Piccadilly line trains being built in Yorkshire (IanVisits)
• A nightmare journey on GWR (BusAndTrainUser)
• US port strike ends as dockworkers near agreement (Quartz)
• Riding Transit While Female (Vital City)
• InnoTrans 2024 – The Overview (Urban Transport)
• Car use on Dublin quays plummets with new traffic plan (RTÉ)
• Barcelona Is Turning Subway Trains Into Power Stations (Reasons to be Cheerful)
• The Hell Holes – Woodhead Railway Tunnels & Station to Hadfield: Video (Trekking Exploration)
• The couple who own a piece of Oasis music history (The Guardian)
• Shinkansen zombie outbreak occurring for first-ever haunted bullet train event (SoraNews24)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 4 October 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• A cooler Underground: TfL eyes more stations for its new cooling technology (Ian Visits)
• Ashley Down Station – the first ever train: Video (JenOnTheMove)
• Germany faces major challenges for its trains (MediaRail)
• Europe’s answer to the Suez Canal breaks ground after 20-year delay (Euronews)
• Singapore East-West Line MRT disruption: Faulty train left a trail of destruction (Straits Times)
• Circle Line leads Lisboa metro expansion project (Metro Report)
• Buy America Feud Risks 200mph Rail between Vegas to LA (CityLab)
• The 2024 European Tram Driver Championships: Video (The Tim Traveller)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 30 September 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• The 1973 railway plan that paved the way for the London Overground (Ian Visits)
• The Long, Slow Failure of Ludgate Hill Station: Video (Jago Hazzard)
• Londoners will soon see drones ferrying blood between hospitals (TechCrunch)
• Network Rail’s Innovative Tactics Combat Cable Theft (Rail Technology)
• The Unique Railways of Brussels: Video (RMTransit)
• Why car companies might finally have to care about pedestrian safety (Fast Company)
• Copenhagen’s Metro – 5 New Artistic Stations Unveiled: Video (aimee rivers)
• Montreal has the Best Daylighting/Curb Extensions in North America: Video (Streetfilms)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 27 September 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
For some years, a known issue with the station at Old Oak Common currently being built has been that the trains on the Elizabeth line will call, or terminate, there yet there would be no level boarding. This is despite the fact that, to date, all newly-built stations for the Elizabeth line have level boarding.
HS2 will have level boarding at dedicated HS2 platforms. Central London stations on the Elizabeth line have level boarding. All the three current Elizabeth line Heathrow stations also have level boarding. This means a traveller from Birmingham or further north may start their journey at a level-boarding platform, alight at Old Oak Common station at a level-boarding platform and complete their journey to either Heathrow or central London at a level-boarding platform but be subjected to having to step up into their Crossrail train when boarding at Old Oak Common. This would be a bit of an irritant to those with heavy luggage but much more of a problem for those in a wheelchair, with visual impairment or mobility issues meaning that using steps – even just one – is a major challenge.
Such a problem has long been recognised as unfortunate but the generally perceived wisdom is that there are good reasons for having to have the Crossrail platforms at Old Oak Common station built to standard National Rail standards. We have recently looked at the many advantages of level boarding in an earlier article which can be found here.
The Reason for the ProblemIn simple terms, although the Crossrail platforms at Old Oak Common are intended to normally be for dedicated use for Crossrail, there will be occasions when other trains will need to pass through the Crossrail portion of the station so Crossrail platforms will need to be suitable for this. So, one might think this is a simple case of ‘nice idea – sorry, it can’t be done’ but the issue is not that simple and not so black & white.
Now or NeverAdapting an existing station for level boarding is very expensive. It might sound simple but usually it isn’t. Permanent Way engineers are loath to lower the track due to fear of creating ‘wet spots’ and other drainage issues and nowadays the accepted solution is to build up the platform. There are exceptions to this of course and platforms 6 and 7 at Paddington (Heathrow Express platforms where there is level boarding) are such an example. But at Paddington there is not much danger of ‘wet spots’ appearing!
Unfortunately, raising the platform level often generates knock-on issues such as ensuring that steps and lifts are flush with the platform, height clearances are sufficient and buildings on the platform are still step-free. Any coping stones at the edge of the platform will need to be relaid. Many platforms that could in theory be step-free for their entire length have a ‘Harrington Hump’ along a short length of the platform. Costs preclude the alternative of raising the level of the entire platform. So, level boarding throughout the platform length is usually something to get right from the outset or not bother doing.
Example of a Harrington Hump on the London OvergroundRecent PublicityThe Evening Standard, amongst others, in a short article has recently reported on this unsatisfactory situation to bring the issue to more public exposure. The article headline is “New HS2 station could be redesigned to allow level boarding for Elizabeth line services”.
To quote from the Evening Standard article:
Andy Lord, Transport for London (TfL) commissioner, said it would be an “absolute failing” if the HS2 station at Old Oak Common was not fully accessible for all passengers – adding that he was in “direct dialogue” with the Government about the issue.
Evening Standard 5th September 2024
Before looking at the statement in detail note that Andy Lord does not refer to Elizabeth line passengers. He refers to “all” passengers. However, the article (and its headline) places great emphasis on Elizabeth line passengers.
Encompassing “all” passengers aside, the statement is highly significant for a couple of reasons. The first is that Andy Lord is hardly going to use strong words like “absolute failing” if he wasn’t reasonably confident that a solution could be found. The TfL commissioner is going to be wise enough not to make reckless statements that could come back to haunt him. The second is the fact that he is in “direct dialogue” with the government suggests that the issue is being taken seriously at a high level. And don’t forget that failure to provide level boarding will look bad for the government.
It is worth looking at the background of Andy Lord. For a start he is an engineer. It is inconceivable he doesn’t fully understand the issues involved including the bigger picture. Second, prior to being the transport commissioner he was the head of London Underground which means he would be familiar with the issues (including engineering ones) regarding provision for level boarding. Finally, he came to TfL from outside the transport industry so won’t have preconceived notions and would also be more likely to challenge existing dogma.
Despite the reference to all passengers, we will look at the Elizabeth line first to see if level boarding is achievable at the Crossrail platforms.
The Trains Causing the IssueThere are basically four types of trains (apart from Crossrail trains) that may need to use the Crossrail platforms at Old Oak Common or pass through them. They are:
- Freight trains
- Engineering trains
- GWR or Heathrow Express trains that have had to be diverted onto the relief lines due to operational issues or planned engineering works making the platforms on the main lines unavailable
- Special trains operated by a train operating company other than GWR e.g. steam charter specials
To understand how it may be possible to mitigate against the issues of these trains we need to look at gauge issues on the railway.
The Kinematic EnvelopeClearly, trains bumping into tunnels, platforms or trains on adjacent lines is highly undesirable. At the same time, it is highly desirable to use all the space available to maximise either for passenger comfort or to maximise freight load. In the situation at Old Oak Common, only width needs to be considered.
A further major consideration is that railway carriages and freight wagons ‘sway’ as they travel. The amount may not be much but it is sufficient to mean that this needs to be considered. The important thing about this for our purposes is that the faster the speed travelled, the greater propensity for a carriage or wagon to sway.
Obviously, it is important that trains are not ‘out of gauge’. For this reason, routes on the railway are given a ‘Route Availability’ code for which there is a maximum kinematic envelope that rail vehicles on the route must not exceed. However, this can be looked at slightly differently and one can look at it from the perspective of the train and not the route. Given the shape of a cross-section of a rail vehicle, what must be done infrastructure-wise to accommodate it? The platforms will be straight so there would be no overhang issues due to curvature and, if a ‘foreign’ rail vehicle is to pass through the platform, the question may be whether or not there is a safe speed for the vehicle to pass through the station.
We look at the four types of train we have identified and what could be done to make level boarding on the Elizabeth line at Old Oak Common possible.
Freight trainsThere are very few freight trains that run east of Acton Yard (adjacent to Acton Main Line station) which is to the west of the future Old Oak Common station. They generally either terminate at the yard or continue to Acton Wells Junction on the North London line. The only freight sidings west of Acton on the Great Western Main Line are close to Paddington where Tarmac has a concrete plant at Paddington New Yard just north of Crossrail Westbourne Park sidings. The trains are infrequent – probably around one per day.
So various questions need answering:
- Would it be reasonable to not permit freight trains to and from the Tarmac sidings (or any other freight train) to use the relief lines through Old Oak Common. Instead, they would use the main lines?
- Would the locomotives and wagons used by Tarmac fit the Crossrail platforms at Old Oak Common even if at slow speed?
- Would it be realistically possible to relocate Tarmac’s sidings?
Engineering TrainsWe could perhaps look at the issue of engineering trains from a different, slightly philosophical, perspective and question whether it could be right that the operating railway needs to be designed around engineering vehicles rather than the engineering vehicles fit in with the gauge available?
Engineering trains fit into the Crossrail and Heathrow tunnels so couldn’t these be used, when necessary, at Old Oak Common? And, if ‘travelling through’, couldn’t an exception be made for them to use the main lines? From Old Oak Common (once open) to Paddington Network Rail are proposing a 50mph speed limit on all lines anyway so the disruption caused by using the main lines instead of the relief lines shouldn’t be that great.
The deep tube lines on the Underground with their 12-foot tunnels use engineering trains so there cannot be a fundamental problem. And with the opening of Old Oak Common station still a few years away there is plenty of time to plan ahead to ensure that engineering trains can use the tracks through the Crossrail platforms.
GWR trainsThere would appear to be three types of trains to consider:
- Class 387 electric multiple unit trains. These are used on Heathrow Express which shares level boarding platforms with the Elizabeth line at Heathrow Terminals 2&3 as well as Heathrow Terminal 5 station. So, at some speed, these must be OK to use Crossrail platforms. There is some suspicion that the Heathrow platforms do not offer quite as small a gap between the train and the platform as the central London Crossrail platforms but it is still minimal and perfectly acceptable.
- Class 80x Hitachi InterCity Express Trains (IET). This, we must admit, is a bit of an unknown. What we do know is that the coaches are an incredible 26 metres long and they must stay in gauge even on curves. Given this and the need to stay in gauge suggests that there shouldn’t be too much of a problem if the platforms are straight and they are only passing through and not stopping. It does appear that there is already a considerable gap between these trains and the platforms overcome only by the step provided.
- The Cornish Riviera Night Sleeper. This consists of a Class 57 locomotive and Mark 3 coaches. It probably wouldn’t fit into level boarding Crossrail platforms. The question is then is running this service with Crossrail level-boarding on the relief lines, which is the alternative routing in the event of the main line being closed, a risk that rail managers are prepared to take? What contingency plans could be in place in the event of unplanned disruption on the main line? In the event of planned engineering works could a track possession be ‘given up’ for this train? As an alternative, could it run in and out of Euston when affected by engineering works thus bypassing Old Oak Common completely?
The considerable gap between a Class 800 GWR train and a modern platformOf course, one cannot guarantee that these are the types of trains that GWR will be operating in future.
Trains Operated by a Different Train Operating CompanyWe have already stated the most likely scenario in this category is for a steam charter special train. However, conceivably, in the future open access could be granted to a train operator to run in and out of Paddington.
The issues here are the same. Basically, what would happen in the event of the main lines not being available? If the risk is not acceptable, would it be acceptable just to ban any train that cannot run on the relief lines should that be operationally necessary? If we are talking about the occasional steam charter train, would it be right for the need to run these to take priority over categories of people for whom level boarding is a critical issue?
London TravelWatch Have Their SayNot entirely surprisingly, London TravelWatch, who declare themselves as “ London’s independent transport watchdog” are reported as having an opinion on all this.
According to an article in New Civil Engineer (unfortunately, limited access depending on number of articles browsed) a London TravelWatch spokesperson said:
It would be scandalous if the new station at Old Oak Common isn’t fully accessible to all rail passengers, particularly given the billions of pounds being spent on HS2.
It’s vital that Old Oak Common and all new stations have step-free access and level boarding for all services that stop there.
Accessibility is a necessity, and needs to be built into schemes from the outset to make sure everyone can use these vital public transport services.
New Civil Engineer 12 September, 2024
So basically, London TravelWatch are also saying that just providing level boarding for Elizabeth line services is not good enough. It should apply to all services. In practice this means GWR and Heathrow Express. In a sense, we can ignore Heathrow Express because, even if they are still in existence by the time Old Oak Common is opened (which is far from certain), their trains are Class 387 operated for them by GWR. As GWR have their own Class 387 trains, if you fix it for GWR you automatically fix it for Heathrow Express.
While the aspiration to provide level boarding for all trains is desirable, it introduces a new level of complexity because the option of diverting trains from the problem level-boarding platform no longer exists.
Winners and Losers?Perhaps a further pertinent question could be ‘who loses out if we have level boarding?’ Possibly freight companies. Possibly heritage train operators. Maybe it adds some complexity to the logistics of railway engineering departments. The obvious beneficiary is passengers.
We would argue that Train Operating Companies are also beneficiaries of level boarding. There is the fairly obvious benefit of reduced risk to passengers when boarding or alighting which could be beneficial in reducing passenger claims and the possible distraction of being involved in a Rail Accidents Investigation Board (RAIB) investigation. Less obvious is faster boarding and alighting which means a more resilient timetable. More accurately, more predictable boarding and alighting times less affected by delay caused by the need to provide essential assistance to passengers for whom a step up or down may not be feasible.
Opening the Floodgates?Let us assume, hypothetically, that a solution is found for level access – at least for the Elizabeth line. It would be almost inevitable that after that London TravelWatch and others are going to look at existing stations and ask why could they not be level boarding as well. In most cases cost would rule out the practicality of changing platform heights. But supposing the platform height has to be changed anyway?
The Ealing Broadway IssueThere have been multiple highly-publicised serious incidents when boarding or alighting Crossrail trains at Ealing Broadway with the Mayor, Sadiq Khan, promising that something will be done about it. Network Rail, who are responsible for the station infrastructure say that the platforms comply with standards. This is a bit disingenuous. There are current standards and Ealing Broadway’s platforms most definitely do not comply and the step up is far too great which is what allegedly led to the serious incidents. Ealing Broadway’s platforms do in a sense comply with standards because they are subject to grandfather rights but basically this only amounts to being required not to scrape the sides of trains.
If, as is likely, some raising of the platform at Ealing Broadway is planned, what is to stop people arguing that since you need to change the platform height anyway you might as well provide level boarding and, because it is planned at Old Oak Common, two stops down the line, then it must be possible? And if Ealing Broadway, what next?
Wait and SeeWe will have to wait and see if the level boarding issue is resolved at Old Oak Common and which platforms would be beneficially affected. Old Oak Common is due to become the 42nd station on the Crossrail network. If level boarding does become possible at the Crossrail platforms at Old Oak Common station, then it would join 13 existing stations with level boarding making 1 in 3 Crossrail stations having level-boarding provision which, in some people’s eyes, would be quite impressive.
If, however, no solution is found then the railways and the politicians will probably be criticised for years to come, whether that criticism is justified or not.
The post Liz Line Level-Boarding at Old Oak Common? appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Old Paddington tube – final weekend! (London Rail)
• London tube map creator’s archive goes up for sale (The Guardian)
• Cannon Street Station 1866-1966 (The Railway Hub)
• Rail expert rubbishes Andy Burnham’s HS2 alternative plan (Bolton News)
• Study finds Health Benefits of Model Railroading – Take that Haters! (Trains)
• How Walkable Is Your Neighborhood? A New Map Tool Offers an Answer (MapLab)
• NY’s MTA Plans $65.4Bn in Upgrades to Subways, Rail Lines (CityLab)
• The Pyongyang Metro North Korea Guide (Young Pioneer)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 23 September 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Oxford Street just got a step closer to going completely car-free (Time Out)
• Cardiff Crossrail Tramway Proposal (TransportforWales)
• East West Rail Autumn 2024 Update: Video (Rail Focus)
• Railway stations on track to boost nature (Barnet Post)
• The Truth About Harry Beck review – the Tortuous Journey behind the Tube Map (Guardian)
• The plan to merge the CTA, Pace, & Metra (ChicagoReader)
• London saw a surprising benefit to fining high-polluting cars: More active kids (Grist)
• No Plane? No Problem (Tedium)
• GWR train service cancelled after two stowaway squirrels ‘refused to leave’ (ITV News Meridian)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 20 September 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Liverpool: Farewell tour marks end of the line for 1970s trains (BBC News)
• Transit App Now Provides Safety-First Bike Directions (Streetsblog)
• A little love for the Post Office and its new trucks (The Deleted Scenes)
• Riding New Zealand’s Northern Explorer: How to Run a Tourist Railroad (Lloyd Alter)
• Work commences ahead of schedule on a new Japan-funded rail line in Jakarta (Monocle)
• Squaring the Circle: Extending the G Train to Queens (Vanshnookenraggen)
• 6 Takeaways from the Recent Death of the St Paul’s Riverview Streetcar (Minnesota Post)
• 3 commuter train lines in greater Montreal might shut down in cost-savings plan (CBC)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 16 September 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• TfL cyber-attack: teenager from Walsall arrested in connection with data breach (The Guardian)
• London Gains Momentum in Electrifying Its 9,000-Strong Bus Fleet (Hyperdrive)
• Tender process for London’s new trams: 4 suppliers are pre-qualified (Urban Transport)
• Mayors’ Birmingham – Manchester rail link promises 85% of HS2 benefits (RailwayGazette)
• GWR trains diverting to Euston in rare route change during HS2 station build (IanVisits)
• These closures need closure (BusAndTrainUser)
• New App Aims to Make Tokyo Train Travel Easier (Unseen Japan)
• World’s Most Desperately Needed Airplane Is Back in Production (Bloomberg)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 13 September 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
Modern trains are expected to handle crush loads at times, rough use and vandalism, yet have pleasing interiors and comfortable seating that will last in good condition for 15-20 years or more. In addition, the trains need to be safe in case of collision or derailment, retard fire without harmful smoke. And the latest threat is e-scooter and e-bike lithium batteries catching fire.
With capacity, cost, signalling, and energy optimisation being standard design requirements for most train manufacturers, but often this is at the expense of passenger comfort.
Long Branch Mike and Heliomass travelled to the Railway Interior Innovation Summit North America in Montréal in April 2024. This conference was focused on North American trains and urban rail vehicles. Nevertheless, we shall contrast the findings and presentations of this conference with the current state of interiors of comparable UK trains.
Improving the Passenger ExperienceOften value engineered out of designs are the many ways that the passenger experience can be improved, such as comfortable seats, electrical sockets at every seat, good lighting, and fast, broadband Wi-Fi. Design details are crucial in passenger spaces.
Photo: Julia Fitzgerald, Jargon GroupInteriors – The Next Frontier of Train ImprovementsWith cars having increasingly high tech interior amenities, comfort, and finishes, railways need to up their game. Especially when the average vehicle lasts 7-10 years, whilst train interiors are redone every 20+ years (if the transport authority has the funds).
Unfortunately, many train operators focus solely on the hard numbers: capacity and cost. Comfortable seats are often not specified, pleasing interiors are value engineered to the cheapest materials they can get away with, and sometimes obsolete device charging jacks and Wi-Fi.
Some presenting companies spoke about a modular interiors approach – being able to change or remove some of the seating layout for seasonally or for special events. For instance, removing seats for bike storage, racks, or for skis in winter.
An increased understanding of the importance of the customer experience, are moving the rail trip experience forward.
Are You Sitting Comfortably? Then We’ll BeginSeats are the most important item in the interior – comfort, functionality such as variable geometry, ie reclining, fold up padded seat-arms, built-in power and USB-C outlets, plus nice to have features. And seats need to look inviting and comfortable too. If the seat looks like an ironing board, it will not be appealing. Furthermore, less vibration transmitted through the seat makes the trip more comfortable.
North American Intercity TrainsNorth American intercity trains compete directly with the cars, sumptuously laid out SUVs, and quick, frequent flights. So the trains are generally provided with reclining seats, greater seat pitch, carpeted floors, blinds or curtains, reading lights, configurable footrests, and higher quality seat coverings.
The interior of much of UK intercity rolling stock is in comparison much more basic – even on routes with a strong tourism and leisure demographic.
Personal safetyAnother personal safety issue rarely mentioned in seat design is making it impossible for pickpockets to steal items from the person in the seat in front. Similarly, high back seats make it more difficult to be restrained from behind. One of the design considerations of the original Routemaster was ensuring this would not be possible. Whilst modern buses are generally very good in this aspect, there are occasional lapses.
After the spate of accidents over 20 years ago where composite or plastic framed seats didn’t survive well, UK seat frames are specified to be of rigid metallic construction. This means the few reclining seats effectively rotate in the overall structural shell.
Seats themselves are starting to go high tech. Safran’s Euphony in-headrest speaker system has just been installed aboard Japan Airlines’ latest Airbus A350-1000 in Business Class. The concept is that passengers don’t have to wear headphones, but can still experience digital media as if they were at home. The reviewer found the speakers do what they say on the tin.
Seating LayoutIn the UK, the unfortunate definitions of capacity specified in franchise agreements were expressed as numbers of standing passengers in relation to seats. So, the more seats, the more passengers per coach. At a time when investment in extra train capacity was constrained (when isn’t it?), Greater Anglia and c2c are the only operators of post-2010 trains to specify 3+2 seating.
Thameslink Class 701, 720, and 730 Alstom Aventras have used space at car ends for extra seats to add capacity. In previous designs this space had been reserved for crash protection crumple zones and equipment cabinets were installed in the space. Careful assessment of the management of collisions on permanently coupled units showed that crumple zones were not necessary. Unfortunately, the seats partially block gangways at coach ends. Blocking the gangway is a small issue, with the lack of windows for these seats is the most common complaint.
All this at a time when passengers have become wider. Even where 2+2 seating is specified, Classes 730/1, 777 as examples, often the seats often lack spacers between each other and with the bodyside, meaning that the person on the aisle seat often overflows into the gangway. Thus the wider gangway afforded by such a seats layout this way is an illusion – it is a trade-off.
Matters are slightly different in Europe, where the more generous loading gauge makes life slightly easier, but even there 2+2 seating, not 3+2, has been appearing on most recent commuter stock. However, even 2000s-era New York City area commuter railroad cars still have 3+2 seating, as do Sydney, Australia’s commuter trains – but at least, these trains are wide enough to not squish the seats together.
SWR Class 455 thin seats. HeliomassThese days, seats align with windows only as a matter of chance – some luckless folk spend entire journeys sitting beside a blank wall. Many have the window surrounds blanking off the view. Given the growing importance of the leisure market in restoring railway fortunes, this is really unacceptable. The problem is lack of awareness of the importance of the passenger experience, as well as some laziness in vehicle design and procurement. In Network SouthEast days, British Rail found the trick was to present the vehicle designers with a seating layout, then ask them to position the windows around that. This usually worked.
Safety DanceThe Montréal Summit didn’t address safety standards in detail. But it is important to note that the UK’s Rail Safety Standards Board (RSSB)’s fear of people flying around, hitting seats, luggage racks, and other furnishings in the event of an accident has led to highback seats. Coupled with a fear of fire breaking out, and the mandatory use of resistant materials and seat fillings, has led to the creation of some loathsome seats, which can be a major turn off for train travel for some in the UK.
It is really as simple as cost. It’s perfectly possible to design comfortable seats that comply with all the relevant standards. Half the battle is getting the right shape, backrest angle, and more speculatively, a feeling of resilience (squashiness) when initially sitting down.
Travellers also like to have their luggage within sight. Recently, some trains have placed the luggage rack midway between the doors, to dissuade a luggage snatcher from stealing a bag just as the doors are about to close. This also means that a would-be thief risks walking past the owner of the luggage when leaving the train.
This is a Stand Up Train
Surprisingly, it’s a rail company, not a discount airline, that pioneered stand-up seats (perch seats in the UK) in long distance train service. Deutsche Bahn pioneered the stand-up seating experience; RegioJet starting operating CRRC Chinese EMUs in Czechia in February 2024 with high capacity seats:
Regiojet CRRC EMUs CzechiaSeat Backs still have a lot more PotentialSeveral speakers at this conference spoke about using more of the seat backs for useful purposes, and not just a blank plastic or fabric wall. Whilst fold down trays are widespread, a number of other small changes can make large improvements to the passenger experience:
- A phone/iPad ledge and holder to watch shows or movies from, or for Zoom / Facetime calls.
- A wireless device charger pocket – a flat wireless phone charger but with the device held in a vertical pocket. They are great as they don’t require a cord and connector, are connector agnostic, and don’t take any limited horizontal space.
- Device pocket needs to accommodate cell phones up to tablet sized.
- A drink holder, possibly pop out.
- Would be great to have a larger fold down table space, laptop size.
Some trains already have wireless charging on tables, which is an elegant solution, as long as it’s not at the centre of each person’s table space but at the side, out of the way.
SWR First Class table contactless charger circle. SWRHaving power outlets and USB ports on the seat back, under the seat in front, on the wall for window seat and table passengers, or somewhere on an armrest, is preferable to having it under the passenger’s seat itself, which requires much more contortions.
In Flight Entertainment (IFE) is the airline term for seat back screens. Most trains do not offer IFEs – the scenery, speaking with a companion, the space to be able to work, read, or watch something on the passenger’s own device – means IFE entertainment is not as necessary on trains. IFEs are also expensive and add a maintenance burden. However, they are sometimes an option on longer distance trains at higher price points. As it stands currently, passengers will be left to their own devices for the foreseeable future.
There are of course many factors to consider when designing such accoutrements – not impeding emergency egress, being sufficiently slender as to not impede regular entry into or egress from seats, not sticking out too much for a danger of breaking off.
Personal Space is a Big Avantage of Trains over PlanesUnlike in the UK, many North American intercity trains have reclining seats in Economy Class. Few UK train standard or coach class seats recline, these are usually reserved for Business and First Class, except for de-classified first class coaches of Class 350 trains on London Northwestern, and on Caledonian Sleeper seats.
Many travellers loathe airline seats that recline right back into the personal space of the person sitting behind them. Most North American intercity trains have sufficient leg space to allow some reclination that does not impinge on the personal space of the person behind. But as train economics are becoming tighter, operators will reduce the seat pitch to fit in more revenue-earning seats, and the airline seat problem will come to the rails. The UK rail network appears to have reached this tighter seat pitch layout phase.
Many trains offer facing seating for easier, more comfortable conversation, and interaction. Having reversible seats used to be more common on trains, allowing crews to turn them to face the direction of travel at a terminus.
Passenger comfort can be enhanced with wider aisles, touchless interior doors, large adjustable position tray tables, and reclining seats.
The Air We Breathe – OnboardAir filtration has become of high importance in the last four years. The need is to design in good ventilation, with effective virus and small particle filters. In addition, the dangers of diesel particulates are being increasingly discovered by scientists. As train carriages are not designed to be airtight, onboard air quality issues are from under-floor engines in DMUs – especially when diesel exhausts are too close to HVAC air intakes. This is unpleasant, and prolonged exposure can result in headaches and longer term respiratory issues.
Interior IlluminationBrightness and contrast are really important for people with limited visibility. Dimmable individual seat lighting would provide travellers with more control over the ambience of their space. An optional under-seat ambient lighting is useful for some passengers, to find dropped items, get something out of a bag on the floor, or to access an electrical socket and/or USB port, which are oftentimes black.
Lighting technology, even LEDs, can still rapidly change. And LEDs are not perfect – the light they emit degrades over time, so need to adjust replacement LEDs for colour and temperature decay so that they fit in. Furthermore, the long term maintainability of LEDs is an issue as the lights and the fixtures are often manufacturer specific. So a manufacturer dropping a product line, or going out of business, can impact operators requiring lighting consistency, yet needing to control costs.
Apparently, the new DLR trains can have their lights’ colour temperature changed, but it’s not yet explained when or why they would do this. Nonetheless, lighting is a quick and relatively cheap way to change the ambience and passenger experience.
Onboard Info at a Glance: On Time Status, Next Stop, AmenitiesMuch can be done to improve onboard information, as high-quality electronic ‘blinds’ and interior information screens are ‘are currently being installed and often have already been fitted to many urban heavy rail trains.
Providing a real time map of vehicle location, next stations and stops, connecting routes, disruptions and diversions, with audible option for visually impaired, would be most helpful for passengers. For scenic long distance trains, signage indicating upcoming sites and which side of the car would be appreciated.
Transit agencies have this data, they just don’t always make it available to passengers. Occasionally riders hear muffled, or overbearing, audio messages of delays, but these are brief, and are often not understood.
For regional, commuter, metro, or light rail trains, screens showing real time location, next station and countdown timer, trains status, pointing out major destinations, a digital network map showing any delays, would be much appreciated as well. Some display systems are sophisticated enough to show connections to other routes on their journey. Sadly in the UK, this doesn’t seem to extend to bus connections. Some also have a limitation in that they don’t take account of train direction. Audio announcements are often too loud, too soft, or garbled.
Different lighting levels at stations, time of day, final destination, emergencies, and automatic interior light adjustment when the train goes into a tunnel, with a slow increase (over 2-3 seconds) to avoid the eyes experiencing a sudden change in brightness are all examples of how the flexibility of LED lighting could benefit passengers
Crews aboard North American intercity trains typically turn the interior lights down in late evenings, and down more overnight, for a more restful cabin ambience. All UK trains, au contraire, use the same lighting level at all times, with the possible exception of the overnight seat carriages in the Caledonian Sleeper.
AccessibilityWe also recently covered rail platform train interface accessibility, but accessibility also obviously extends inside the trains. Latest figures reveal that 24% of the UK’s population has a disability of some kind. With the most populous Baby Boomer generation ageing, this percentage will grow.
To accommodate travellers with physical and mobility issues, as well as the expanding girth of the population, wider doorways and aisles are often now specified. Typically, designers provide space on board for two wheelchair users to travel together.
Accessible ToiletsAll washrooms should be sufficiently spacious to allow wheelchairs to turn around, which is also good for families with children. UK and European Technical Specification for Interoperability specifies this, using a standard wheelchair. But some mobility impaired passengers need wheelchairs that are customised, thus sometimes larger than standard size. Ideally, accessible toilets should be designed to be a little larger than the minimum specification.
Provision of a changing table also helps many. However such toilets require much space, and many commuter and short distance train operators choose to have some regular toilets. The UK is a good example, its trains typically have only one accessible toilet per 2, 3, or 4 carriage train, with two (or more) accessible toilets on longer trains.
Other Forms of AccessibilityAccessibility issues are not just physical, but include visual, audio, perception, and memory problems. Indicative signs for toilet availability, that can be seen by people with vision problems from the other end of the carriage. Visual and hearing challenged travellers need better and clearer indication of toilet occupied status. Indication of on-board amenities such as the cafe carriage location, open hours, brief food & drink options etc help all travellers. Bluetooth digital hearing systems also exist for people with hearing impairments.
Nonetheless, neuro-divergent travellers, which include conditions such as autism, Tourette’s, dyslexia, and ADHD, aren’t yet often included in the accessibility design process. Such individuals, which are estimated to comprise up to 30% of the population (this includes those all along the spectrum), do not feel comfortable in visually over-stimulated and noisy environments. For example, heavy curtains can trap unwanted light and noise. Sound insulation in carriage walls and doors can attenuate track and exterior noises.
Exterior LightingWhilst this conference was expressly for train interiors, a few speakers noted that exterior lighting can also improve safety and fly the flag to bring attention to the mode. Airliners light their tails even in flight. Passenger trains should light their carrier name and logo similarly. Exterior lights for design & decoration have the added bonus of calling attention to trains, and especially from drivers – Trains can and should be billboards.
This is quite different to the UK and European railway experience, with passenger trains to all cities and most towns. North American passenger and commuter railways are a much less part of everyday life for most of the population, as many large cities have little to no passenger train service at all.
Exterior lighting was suggested to light unimproved platforms for safety, and to indicate which doors are opening when door opening is selective, for wayfinding, ie for different classes. Even projecting the carriage number, letter, or class on the platform for easy identification from afar.
Whilst in the UK, the rule is simple: No station lighting means no stopping at the station. The current difficulties there regarding exterior lighting relate to the high minimum quality of station lighting for Driver Only Operation (DOO) – South Western Railway are having to do many upgrades for the introduction of the Class 701 trains. The platform lighting rules in Europe are well defined and strict, so airline brand lighting on trains is effectively a non-starter.
Level CrossingsExtending train exterior illumination, and safety, a bit, we take a brief look at level crossings. The enormous expanse of the North American continent and its much lower density means that there are thousands of level crossings, most with no gate arms, and many with no lights or bells at all. Most of these crossings are in rural areas, so anything that can be done to increase the visibility of trains is tried. Especially low cost reflective strip. Furthermore, reflective strips on train bodies are mandatory in the US and Canada – where level crossing accidents at them are a constant threat. Such strips can be integrated with livery design and exterior lighting for maximum visibility, and have been used for decades. They are in fact the opposite of twentieth century wartime ship ‘dazzle cam’, in that they are meant to alert drivers and crossers to the existence and speed of the coming train.
CN locomotive zebra stripe livery. Stephen Rees CC.Front zebra stripes on diesel locomotive. Caltrain.Level Crossings are highly regulated in the UK, with lights, a telephone to talk to the signaller, barriers, locked gates, and sometimes obstacle detectors mandated. There are strong pressures to reduce the number of level crossings (both foot and vehicle) in the UK and to make the ones that cannot be eliminated even safer. However, they still exist on the continent, as SNCB’s recent safety campaign attests. Only one recent non-user worked level crossing failure in the UK resulting in an accident (that was the signaller’s fault) – a reflective strip won’t have any impact here.
Illumination – Passenger Lighting DislikesThere are many things passengers don’t like about lighting. Harsh lighting, equivalent to daylight tone at all stops, in UK trains has attracted criticism, but is seen as aiding personal safety. Clearly technical improvement is possible, but there are few incentives for UK train operating companies (financial or legal) to do so.
InnovationThere is much commonality between the airliner and train interior design industries, a point made by numerous speakers. As airlines are a much larger, more competitive market than railways, they invest a lot more into interior design, especially for business and luxury classes. We will see in Part 2 the airliner cocoon concept being adopted by the next generation of US long distance trains.
One innovation is an origami-like folding privacy door, which expands from its seat side foldup to four times the size as a privacy screen. The beginning and end of this article show and describe it. Magnets secure it in place. Light weight and small storage space are primary considerations for aircraft, but can be easily be adopted for trains.
Fabrication – Material and Weightsaving OpportunitiesFibreglass is relatively heavy and difficult to recycle. Natural materials also have much more warmth than plastic or fibreglass, and tend to be more easily recycled or reused in some form. For instance, the latest Vienna metro trains used moulded plywood seats rather than plastic based upholstery. Overall, easy to clean, low maintenance finishes are required.
Colour Material Finish (CMF)CMF is the vehicle interior designer industry term for finishes. Most such companies create CMF Design tools:
- Platform catalogs
- Standardized colours and materials
- Material library vs box (supplier materials)
- Interior designers patterns easily enable design changes
Metals, fabrics, and glass materials can be up to 80% recyclable nowadays. Using natural materials minimises material processing and improves recyclability. Even polyester velvet is made from recycled plastic. But recycling is country dependent, based on the national standards. Design for recyclability is more than just material choices. For example, a composite cloth of three different materials bonded together is not easily recyclable… separating them would be quite difficult.
Design Mockups are Where It’s AtThere is sometimes little time or money for mock-ups, and CGI is cheap and relatively easy, but does not provide the same realism as a full size physical model. Nothing beats a physical mockup for passenger and employee usability design feedback gathering.
- Physical mock-ups for design, modular pieces, then could be possibly used later for service promotions.
- They would need to be made portable, or a portable template (by size), to use on different designs and trains.
In addition, Huddersfield University’s THOMoS full motion ride comfort simulator, could be used for interior design verification.
Railways are operations focused, but this is often at odds with passenger convenience. As an example – ie individual garbage/rubbish bins are labour intensive to empty, but greatly reduce making passengers walk to bin or recycle waste.
Refurbishment and Refreshing of Train InteriorsAirlines switch out interiors every 5-7 years, and airliners last 20-30 years on average. Car interiors are redesigned every 3-5 years in conjunction with exterior restyling (and functional component upgrades / improvements). Cars tend to last about 10-15 years on average.
However, North American train interiors are renewed, overhauled, refreshed only every 10-30 years on average. Train carriage bodies can last 40-50 years. This slower refresh schedule allows train manufacturers, railways, and interior design companies to monitor and benchmark airliner and auto design trends,
The interior lifespan specification determines the seats, wall finishes, luggage space, and crew space materials. The fabric chosen depends on the predicted time to replacement, for wearability and durability. Wool moquette, as used extensively on UK trains, has a typical life of about 9 years. Left longer than this and it starts to become threadbare. Flat cloth tends to have a shorter life.
Furthermore, upgradeability, modularity, and replaceability need to be designed in to surfaces and coverings. Amtrak’s older train interiors have been really difficult to upgrade, never having been designed to be replaced.
In the UK, trains are overhauled more often than 10-30 years, although some of these updates are more properly described as ‘refreshes’.
There is obviously a lot of similarities and overlap betweenairliner and train interior design, materials, and concepts. The aviation Maintenance, Repair, & Overhaul (MRO) industry could migrate to upgrade rail carriage interiors, for more cost-effective and more frequent interior refreshes. Nonetheless, airlines have a much stricter weight management regime than for trains, as well as much tighter pitch and seat width. Most rail passengers would not entertain the thought of sitting in an airline economy seat in a train.
North American train operators are planning on adding features as modules, new layouts, high capacity, possibly switching between uses – sleeper, long distance, dining, lounge and/or play space, commuter, high capacity. Flexibility of uses is foreseen as being more important going forward, as well as using recyclable and sustainable materials.
To enable easier train interior refreshes and flexibility of future designs, the initial design needs to have expandability and modularity built in.
Urban Rail Vehicle InteriorsThere are different challenges in designing for urban rail vehicle interiors. Shorter distances travelled mean seats do not to have to be as comfortable. And with an aging population in most countries, priority seating areas and free space on rail vehicles for wheelchairs, baby carriages, mobility devices, large luggage, bags, wheeled shopping baskets & trolleys will be increasingly needed. Some designs dedicate multipurpose spaces near each entrance for such mobility devices and bags.
Multi-function interior design is sometimes needed, fold-up seats to make space for standees, shopping, luggage, scooters, or bikes, as well as for circulation of passengers finding space or alighting. Wide as possible gangways are also desirable for increased passenger flow, not restricting passengers with luggage or mobility devices, and visibility for safety.
In the UK, train designers have to make the most of the width available. One advantage of the wider continental gauge is a wider carriage, which really gives a feeling of spaciousness. Continental gauge also more readily allows double deck trains, but such designs usually preclude overhead luggage racks.
OlfactoryYes you read that correctly. Montpellier’s public transport operator equipped 10 of its trams on Line 4 to spray a soft apple cinnamon perfume mist through the ventilation system during Christmas holidays. The aim was to cover up disagreeable odours. Informal feedback from passengers was that they appreciated it, if they noticed it at all. Now, an academic paper studied the trial here The effects of ambient scent on olfactory comfort and attitude toward its use in a tramway: an on-board study and determined it was a success. To quote the Abstract of the paper:
…the management of problematic ambient factors such as the odour in public transport systems is becoming a very important issue due to crowding that is constantly increasing. In this context, in order to contribute to public policies and to reduce olfactory nuisances, we evaluated the effects of ambient scent diffusers on the user experience and their attitude toward the use of such devices in public transport. We collected data among users of the tramway of Montpellier (France). They were questioned on-board about the ambient odour in two different situations. Users answered either in presence (70 users) or absence (97 users) of an ambient scent in the tramway carriage they were in. Our main results show that the presence of an ambient scent increased the pleasantness rating of the ambient odour and attenuated the perception of other odours inherent to public transport (perspiration, food, perfumes, etc.). Furthermore, the user attitude toward the presence of such a device in tramway carriages improved when the ambient scent was present. Thus, ambient scents might be a great tool in order to improve the olfactory comfort in public transport.
The effects of ambient scent on olfactory comfort and attitude toward its use in a tramway: an on-board study
HeatingFor train heating, electric heaters positioned under the seats restricts legroom and storage space. The alternative is to run heaters along the sides of the carriage, which can make it annoying at window seats, forcing passengers to twist slightly to put both feet on the floor. The solution is electric underfloor heating which eliminates taking up floor space, as on UK Classes 701 and 730, among others.
Air ConditioningLarger train windows are great, but produce a greenhouse effect in the sun. In addition to globally warming temperatures, this makes air conditioning systems even more desirable for traveller comfort. There are now environmentally friendly refrigerants that can moderate temperatures from -25°C to 45°C.
In the UK, fierce air conditioning on trains has garnered a lot of criticism – not just the cold temperatures, but also the noise can be comparable to a vacuum cleaner running next to your seat constantly.
Are there Modular UK Interiors?Regarding a modular interior concept, we can’t see it being popular in the UK precisely because of the constrained width of the trains, and the need to make the most of what is available. It is noticeable our carriage sides are slightly curved – more expensive and challenging to manufacture whereas on the continent they are generally straight. If the modular concept was to be taken seriously in the UK (a big if), ‘clearing the decks’ by moving heaters above floor level would have been highly desirable, if space can be found somewhere.
Onboard Cycle StorageAs bikes, scooters, and their electric versions are becoming increasingly popular, having the means of securing them, ideally out of the way, is increasingly important. Designers should note that most cyclists do not like bike hooks, as they can warp alloy wheels and put them out of alignment.
A combination of DfT not properly defining bicycle dimensions, and Hitachi not appearing to measure a range of bicycle sizes when designing the bike space on their Class 80x series. They only have sufficient space for medium to narrow handle bars, but no space for pannier racks, let alone panniers.
Furthermore, anything apart from a traditional low profile road bike tyre and rim will not fit between the hook and the ceiling. City and mountain bikes with chunky tyres will not fit. In addition, the floor to ceiling height won’t allow 700c wheels and real road bike frame lengths. So few bikes can actually use the cycle spaces.
It is possible that this might be a classic case of the Japanese designing for the Japanese market and not for their overseas customers – something the UK often seems to suffer from. Perhaps Japanese bikes have wheels smaller than 700c and a proportionally smaller frame. A more fundamental problem is that UK cyclists don’t like to be separated from their bikes, so keeping the bike at a tip-up seat is more popular for bike storage.
Bikes on trains can be a tricky problem in other ways. GWR are giving up on the bike reservations because it is causing many issues, leaving a free for all rush to get a bike aboard a train. As a result, on GWR in the summer there are heavily laden Americans boarding at commuting times then discovering the luggage racks (that appear empty on first sight) are already 100% full of Bromptons. Though it must be noted that the luggage racks are well designed for space efficient Brompton filling.
Convertible UK Train SpacesThe only flexible space UK trains are the Scotrail West Highland 1 carriage Class 153 DMU vehicles (which only run attached to 2 carriage Class 156s). They have 50% of seating replaced by a mix of bike racks, luggage racks, and some space that can be adapted for either. This class will almost certainly remain that way.
Safety Aspects of Interior DesignIn the UK, safety has been one of the two main drivers of train interior design, and of seating design in particular. We’ve already looked at seating design and its safety factors.
Passenger Capacity is the other Driver of UK Train Interior DesignThe other driver has been capacity standards, which have distorted train interior layouts because of the unintended consequences of the metrics adopted. (This is more of a UK problem than a continental one).
Capacity is looked at quite differently in North America as journey patterns are quite different for many routes.
ElectricalsOperators can improve the passenger experience by implementing sufficiently powerful device charging points and good, reliable, and fast Wi-Fi. These are becoming a basic expectation: passengers want and expect charging connections for the myriad of devices, and not everyone can afford roaming charges. Increasingly, Furthermore, the USB ports and electrical outlets need to be easy to see and plug into, not requiring contortions to reach under seats.
For Wi-Fi, often the bottleneck is the capability of the train-to-shore 4G/5G connection. In the UK, on-train WiFi is generally poor, partly because 4G/5G coverage along rail lines is spotty.
USB-C standard is still evolvingAll new phones, tablets, e-book readers, handheld games, game consoles, cameras, (and external speakers/headsets that work with the aforementioned) will have to use the USB-C connector and USB-PD (power deliver standards). Unfortunately, USB-C isn’t actually a fixed standard/set of standards yet, and is still evolving. As a result, few train operators are willing to invest in USB-C on existing trains until the standard solidifies.
For context, most of London’s electric buses have USB-A sockets, but its many hybrid buses don’t. However in TfL’s bus retrofits electrical A sockets are being installed. Few, if any UK trains have USB-C sockets, not even on those being rebuilt or constructed. One of the challenges is which USB sockets to provide. USB-A is currently ubiquitous, but increasingly phones have only USB-C connectors, and come with a charging cable with USB-C at both ends.
Passenger Power Demands are IncreasingThe ability to charge personal and mobility devices is expected by passengers. This typically results in a couple different electrical mains outlets installed on trains, at currents of 2A, 5A, 15A, or 20A. Lower current outlets, ie 2A, is sufficient for personal devices, whereas 15A or more are needed to recharge large mobility devices. Older trains and buses often do not have that much electrical power at their sockets. However, higher power electrical sockets are not yet an accessibility requirement for rail vehicles or buses, but should be, to provide full mobility. For charging personal devices, USB 5V sockets are typical, which does not significantly add to the train’s electrical load.
As laptops become faster and more powerful, now requiring more than 100W to charge, this was initially solved by the industry upping the current to 6.5A (for 130W), which then covered a whole lot more of the laptop market. Virtually every laptop that uses less than 130W has been USB-C for a while. Where 230V sockets are provided, laptop charging currents aren’t typically an issue. It can be a problem thought when passengers use their hair straighteners etc on board.
Dealing with higher power requires local switched mode supplies (within 4 metres of the device) and effectively Gallium Nitride (GaN) transistors power electronics, which are quite expensive.
Some manufacturers have developed a configurable current limiting socket, the objective being to allow train manufacturers to select the amperage and reduce the quantity and size of cables and transformers onboard trains.
E-Mobility Charging Station. TranstechAuto-Resettable Socket with USB ports. TranstechSome Micro-Mobility Devices could be an On-Board Fire MenaceE-scooters and eBikes are increasingly popular in cities, for short trips and for last mile transit connections. These devices and other permutations are collectively called micro-mobility devices, are increasingly being brought on board urban and regional trains public transport vehicles. However, inexpensive lithium-ion batteries have a tendency to catch fire, burning at temperatures much hotter than some vehicles are rated for.
TTC subway train e-bike battery fireA transit rider (https://lnkd.in/ducEhNkb) posted a short clip from a subway train fire at Sheppard-Yonge station in Toronto. It was allegedly caused by an e-bike transported on the train that caught fire. The e-bike owner was sent to hospital with non-life threatening injuries, and another person was injured.
TTC subway train e-bike battery fire aftermathThis case is informative for a few reasons, according to Professor Wojciech Węgrzyński of ITB, Director-at-Large at SFPE Europe, and Fire Researcher & Smoke Control Engineer:
- The smoke was managed by the smoke control systems in stations and tunnels.
- The train industry has been requiring high quality fire retardant materials which considerably slow the growth and spread of fire.
- As the Toronto subway line resumed operations quickly, it implies that the fire damage was mitigated. Fire safety engineering is a mostly unseen, yet vitally important, engineering discipline.
- Węgrzyński sets a minimum 1 MW design fire rating for any space in any part of the subway systems he designs.
E-scooter ban now also implemented at BVG Berlin
Other public-transport operators have gone a different direction, and have started to ban mobility devices that could contain lithium-ion batteries, to avoid the risk of such high temperature, smoke producing fires.
E-scooters have been banned on UK trains – but this is not surprising as user owned e-scooters are generally illegal on UK public roads and pavements. Nonetheless, there are commercial e-scooter trials in some UK cities, but these devices shouldn’t be taken on public transport anyway.
However, e-bikes are allowed onboard where and when normal bikes are, as their fire risk is very much less than e-scooters’. Mobility scooters are banned by the majority of UK rail operators for a different reason – the inability of many users of being able to manoeuvre them with precision and so not injure others, themselves, or cause damage.
Great Britain’s more limited loading gauge also means a lower floor height for potential level boarding, which reduces the floor area and central standing area between seats. Stadler trains with level boarding don’t seem to suffer narrower gangways but do have interior ramps and steps up to seats in places.
The Association of German Transport Companies (VDV) has banned small electric vehicles, such as e-scooters, from its member public transport associations’ vehicles and underground stations from 1 May 2024. Fire safety experts have criticised the insufficient safety standards for the lithium-ion batteries used in these vehicles. This ban does not affect e-bikes, motorised wheelchairs, or seniors’ e-mobility scooters, which satisfy significantly higher battery safety requirements. Other German cities have also banned e-scooters: Hamburg’s U-Bahn ban started August 2023, followed by Rheinbahn in Düsseldorf in March 2024 and Munich the following month.
Fires and explosions involving electric scooters in public transport vehicles occurred in London, Barcelona, and Madrid in recent years. In October 2023, the interior of a Madrid underground railway carriage was even completely destroyed by an explosion of the lithium-ion batteries of a scooter. Fortunately, no one was injured which happened in a tunnel.
There was an e-scooter fire on a London Underground train, then platform of Parsons Green station in November 2021, which was followed by a ban on taking such mobility devices on TfL trains, buses, trams, and in stations from December 2021.
There are currently no sufficiently specific norms and safety standards for the lithium-ion batteries used in electric trolleys, either at national or European level.
For potential fires in rail vehicles underground, it is not always possible for passengers to switch to an adjacent unaffected carriage if it is an older, non-walkthrough design. The rapid production of smoke within an enclosed space will lead to health problems for passengers, even within a short remaining journey time to the next stop. Hence allowing e-scooters in underground trains is not recommended. However, enforcement of such a ban is not always possible, especially with unmanned entrances.
Fire SuppressionThe onboard active fire suppression system needs to be able to extinguish Class A (ordinary combustibles), Class B (flammable liquids), and Class C (electrical) fires. And the fire fighting agent must be safe on people, and pose no long-term health or environmental risks.
Condensed aerosol is considered to be a good solution, safe for use around passengers and crew, as it does not displace oxygen. Furthermore, condensed aerosol units do not contribute to global warming or ozone depletion.
This is Not the EndWe have looked at many different individual components that comprise the passenger experience. In Part 2, we will look at some North American train operators who are planning their next generation of long distance and high speed trains. As well as looking at a recent North American private passenger railway company that has made design of their trains (and stations) a key selling point.
Thank you to Railway Interior Innovation Summit host Red Cabin for access to this conference.
The post The Lost Art of Passenger Comfort & Good Design – Railway Interiors Part 1 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Tube anniversary: 100 years of the Hampstead railway to Edgware (London Rail)
• TfL, DfT ‘in discussions’ over new Crossrail 2 safeguarding (Building)
• How Chiltern Railways built a new rail chord & station at Bicester Village On time & On Budget (Freewheeling)
• Mind the Gap’ delves into history behind the Overground Suffragette line: Podcast (TfL)
• Walking or cycling to school more likely in ULEZ, study suggests (BBC)
• London businesses urged to swap vans for increasingly popular cargo bikes (Standard)
• The Spaghetti Bowl of Railways in the Rhine-Ruhr: Video (RM Transit)
• Why Germany faces major challenges for its trains (Mediarail)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 9 September 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
A quick reminder to those interested that our next meeting of 2024 is on Tuesday 10th September at the Crosse Keys pub in the City of London which you will be pleased to know is air-conditioned. Normally at least a couple of us are there by 6.30 p.m. Join us anytime in the evening.
For more details click ‘Monthly Meetup – 2nd Tuesday Evening in the City‘ at the top of the home page.
If you wish to join our small cosy, select group then see you there!
The post Tuesday LR Meeting 10 September 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Network Rail’s accessibility programme ‘significantly underperformed’ in last 5 years (New Civil Engineer)
• TfL land near Cockfosters station housing development given green light (Property Wire)
• A new bus in London! (Emily Turner)
• Why does DC have so much abandoned railway electrification?: Video (Trains Are Awesome)
• India’s rail network is nearly 100% electrified. The US is at 1% (Fast Company)
• Denver’s Latest e-Bike Vouchers: Gone in 60 Seconds (Denverite)
• History of Tyne and Wear Metro: Video (Views of Tyneside)
• What a 160-year-old theory about coal predicts about a self-driving future (Verge)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 6 September 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Unusual London Overground trip via Primrose Hill is possible this coming weekend (Ian Visits)
• York’s original railway station to open to public for one Oct weekend only (The Railway Hub)
• Heathrow Rail Link withdrawn (Rail Magazine)
• Police use drones to catch teenagers who fired slingshots at Northern trains (Rail UK)
• What lies beneath Sheffield Station? Welcome to The Megatron: Video (AdventureMe)
• Starbucks’ new boss under fire for 1,000-mile commute (BBC)
• Chicago intercity bus station could close next month (Smart Cities Dive)
• Japan’s most charming train: Automated people mover includes facial recognition technology (SoraNews24)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 2 September 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Hatfield remembered, twenty years on (Rail Engineer)
• Congestion and curves – challenges in constructing HS2 in the Chilterns (Ian Visits)
• Learning to Drive a Train with GB Railfreight: Video (Jago Hazzard)
• Waiting for the Bus in New York City is Hot & Miserable. Here’s Why. (NASA / Transportation Alternatives)
• Japan to Restart Rare Hovercraft Ferry Service (Maritime Executive)
• Was This 393 Mile UK Railway An Antenna To Control Nuclear Submarines?: Video (Ringway Manchester)
• The Cross-Continental Public Transport Race has Started! (CityLab)
• The bizarre reason pneumatic tubes are coming back (BBC Science Focus)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 30 August 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
Guangzhou, perhaps more familiar by its anglicised name of Canton, is a port megacity in Southern China. It sits alongside Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and several other cities in the Asian economic powerhouse that is Pearl River Delta, its metropolitan population of 32 million making up over a third of the Delta’s 86 million inhabitants. An important hub for the movement of people and goods since at least the second century BCE, it’s only fitting that Guangzhou boasts a brand new railway station of truly monumental scale.
Pearl River Delta Rapid Transit Lines. Transport PoliticAs China continues to build new standard and high-speed railway infrastructure at rates far greater than other countries, it is now at the forefront of high capacity railway infrastructure and station design. Covering 453,000 square meters, two and a half times the size of Wembley Stadium, the massive Guangzhou Baiyun Railway Station has been built as the new passenger rail hub for the Guangdong region and beyond. It commenced operations on December 26, 2023 and has 21 tracks serving 21 passenger platforms.
It will also anchor one of Asia’s largest transit-oriented development (TOD) hubs. To accommodate the city’s and region’s massive population growth, as well as China’s rapidly expanding high speed railway network, this station as part of the coordinated citywide railway expansion program.
From Freight Hub to High Speed Rail HubBaiyun replaces the original Tangxia Railway Station, opened in 1916 during the Republic of China era. Twenty years later, it gained a connection to the Canton-Kowloon Railway, thus becoming a junction station with service to Hong Kong. By the 1950s the station was mostly used for freight and mail traffic, and with China’s manufacturing boom, Guangzhou as a manufacturing centre massively increased its freight capacity.
By the 2010s, rapid growth in China’s passenger railway travel meant the city’s two main railway stations, Guangzhou East and Guangzhou, were soon over capacity. In 2016, over 117 million intercity train passengers used Guangzhou railway stations. That same year, the government approved a transportation masterplan to massively increase the capacity of the intercity rail station network in the city. When Guangzhou Baiyun Railway Station is fully completed, all trains bound for Guangzhou East and Guangzhou Stations will be diverted there. Both of these stations will then be completely rebuilt into much higher capacity facilities to help handle the country’s booming inter-city passenger railway network.
Construction of the renamed Guangzhou Baiyun Station started in 2018 – Baiyun being the district in which the station is located, and 1.5 km north of the existing Tangxia Station.
China’s new Design Paradigm for Railway Station Environments I head north to weave through the urban villages surrounding the new station, where buildings are packed wall to wall on all four sides. The wholesale redevelopment of districts and erection of new large rail stations gives some of the flavour of similar changes that occurred in the UK’s large cities in the 19th century. Passing through alleys as I approach the station I see the station corner towers under construction.
Urban village surrounding the StationThe station rises in the background with road connections under construction, with airport style and capacity ramps for passenger drop off and pick up:
Station’s airport style & capacity rampsThe design of Guangzhou Baiyun Station is unique in China. Typically, railway stations there have a large square on both sides sandwiching what essentially is a giant mall over railway platforms. Guangzhou Baiyun Station, on the other hand, was designed as continuous integrated podium embedded in an elevated plaza, linking to newly constructed neighbouring buildings packed tightly around the station. This includes some office towers on each corner of the station complex. The station will host various high speed, intercity, regional, and local railway lines.
Arial render of Ghangzou Baiyan rail station.
CNBayAreaFootball stadium-like front plazaElevated plaza on other side with adjoining tower complexMetro Access is ImprovingTo bring in and disperse these railway passengers, the station is presently served by Guangzhou Metro line 8’s Shitan station via a long 700m tunnel walkway, and an out of station interchange with Julong station further south. The station boxes for Metro lines 12 and 24, and Express Metro Line 22 are under construction beneath the two east side corner towers, to integrate directly into the station complex.
The Long March from Line 8 Metro to Guangzhou Baiyun Railway StationThe lack of close connection is indicated by Guangzhou Baiyun Station floating above Shitan Station on the Line 8 strip map:
Julong station is planned to be an interchange with Line 12, with pre-built provision for interchange, like these placeholder stairwells for a transfer from Line 8 to Line 12 below:
Future Stairwell ‘kick-out panel’ muralA Cathedral to Train TravelInstead of being an inter-faith cathedral, it is an inter-modal one – hosting the aforementioned local, regional, and high speed trains, local and high speed metro lines, as well as buses.
Some platforms escalators are enclosed in a tubeTrainspotters are also able to see plentiful train action at the far end of the Departures Level plaza:
Departure level more spacious than airport lounges The extremely high ceiling is like a Brobdingnagian building that makes humans look Lilliputian:
Ant-like humans in this grand CathedralThe station consists of seven levels:
| 3F Level | Shops restaurants and business areas | | 2F Level | Departure Hall, ticket offices, Waiting Room, north and south entrances, taxi rank, and passenger drop-off | | 1F Level | Entrance/exits, ticket offices, high-speed train Departures and Arrivals train platforms | | B1 Level | Parking (!) | | B2 Level | Bus Station, transfer level | | B3 Level | Metro station entrance | | B4 Level | Metro line platforms |
Guangzhou Baiyun Station is reminscent of the similarly overscale Kyoto Railway Station complex in Japan:
Kyoto Railway Station mega-structureFootfall at Guangzhou Baiyun Railway Station will pick up as trains will temporarily shift there when Guangzhou and Guangzhou East railway stations close down for a bottom to top rebuild.
Prototype of a new large Railway Station Model?To put this station, and China’s high speed railway network, into context, Japan’s Shinkansen network is basically just a line up and down the country. Whereas the China’s high speed railway system is a vast continental network – many of the high speed lines have trains every 3-4 min, which requires massive stations to handle the volume of passengers.
Guangzhou Baiyun railway station could be the prototype of the country’s new railway station philosophy – embedding new and upgraded stations in dense office, retail, and residential complexes. It might also point to further station mega-structures, taking cues from airports for capacity, passenger flows, and amenities. We shall see which model is followed when the city’s Guangzhou and Guangzhou East railway stations are rebuilt. And how all three stations handle the crush of railway and Metro passengers in the coming decades.
All photos by JR Urbane Network unless otherwise noted.
The post Guangzhou’s Massive new Railway Station: A Stadium-sized Cathedral to Train Travel appeared first on London Reconnections.
• UK 20mph Zones & LTNs: Transport Minister Open to More Limits (CityLab)
• Discovery of Victorian network under city’s streets set new challenge for London Museum (The Guardian)
• Inside & Underneath the Class 700: Video (National Railway Museum)
• Tram Liège reaches the city centre for the first time (Urban Transport)
• India built 700 km of new metro lines in 10 years (Economic Times Infra)
• Singapore’s New Metro Line is Complicated Construction: Video (B1M)
• The Subway Token: On fare evasion & token sucking (Curiosity Cabinet)
• Trying the famous Train Street in Vietnam: Video (DownieLive)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 26 August 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• ScotRail peak fares to return as Scottish Government scraps pilot (STV News)
• Ministers approve London City Airport passenger expansion despite climate concerns (E+T)
• Union dispute shuts down Canadian freight rail amid fears for US trade (The Guardian)
• Governor Set on Watered-Down Manhattan Congestion Pricing (NY Magazine)
• New Sydney Metro Stations are Crossrailesque Architectural Icons (Architects’ Journal)
• California’s new electric train makes for a shockingly better trip (Fast Company)
• The 9th Ave Abandoned Lower Level Subway Station: Video (TheNYCTransitGuy)
• A cute, cheap death trap? Japanese Kei cars banned by yet another US state (Ars Technica)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 23 August 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Riding the rails: a visual guide to the latest stretch of the Sydney Metro (The Guardian)
• Thousands to be refunded after rail fare evasion convictions declared void (LBC)
• New developer funding found to build new Surrey Canal Road Overground station (Ian Visits)
• How to not fall foul of SNCF’s luggage rules (Jon Worth)
• See inside new Orient Express train, reimagined by Agatha Christie-loving architect (EuroNews)
• Waymo cars honk at 4AM every night in San Francisco lot, waking neighbours (Verge)
• The Flying Boat: When runways were waterways (Curiosity Cabinet)
• Train Lovers for Harris/Walz Brings Together NUMTOTs, Transit Fans, & Urbanists (CityLab)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 19 August 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• The long way round (Jonn Elledge)
• London Circles Tube Map updated (Tube Map Central)
• Train-Time Travel (Straphanger)
• Chicago’s Embattled Transit System Faces a High-Profile Test with Massive Convention (CityLab)
• Why Do We Still Have Semaphore Signals?: Video (Geoff Marshall)
• How London Bridge tested tech to track individuals inside the station (James O’Malley)
• No more Concordes? Aviation, industrial policy, & future of the British Nation, 1945-1980 (David Edgerton)
• The science of underwater tunneling: Video (Atomic Frontier)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 16 August 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Paris 2024 Olympic Games a Transit success, except in Accessibility (Slate)
• No-car Games: Los Angeles Olympic venues will only be accessible by public transportation (AP News)
• North End, London Underground’s Unfinished, Bomb-Proof Station: Video (Jago Hazzard)
• Travel by train (or bus): Denver’s renewed Union Station (Sean Marshall)
• The City That Might Be the US’s Transit Capital – it’s not New York: Video (RM Transit)
• 17-year-old sets unofficial record speedrunning Vancouver transit (Urbanized)
• Stopgap trains for Chuo Line (KHKQ Beside Trains)
• This man travelled from Canada to Mexico on only public transport (BBC)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 12 August 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• TfL to push forward with DLR Thamesmead extension after consultation (Rail Magazine)
• Elizabeth line: Toiletless trains blamed for forced door openings (BBC)
• Holborn’s Secret Platforms (BusAndTrainUser)
• Cockfosters station – an appraisal (London Rail)
• Inside the Blackheath railway tunnel: Battling water damage & the weather (IanVisits)
• America’s Most Exciting Transit Project (The Urban Condition)
• Survey deep dive: immigrants and public transit (Transit App)
• We Built a Giant Lego Tube Map With Working Trains: Video (Geoff Marshall)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 9 August 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
Any mention of overcrowding on the Elizabeth line tends to elicit either the suggestion that TfL should run more trains or that they lengthen the trains which are currently nine carriages long. If the latter, some people are quick to point out that the Crossrail platforms on the newly built central operating section (Paddington to Abbey Wood) were designed to be able to accommodate 11 carriage trains. Hypothetical 11-car trains would not currently be able to use the stations below ground level because the platform edge doors currently installed only cater for 9-car trains. Moreover, at some underground stations, a portion of the platform tunnel is not currently in passenger use and is blocked off. The blocked off portion has not been fitted out for passenger use and may even be used for something else.
The very wise policy invoked during the planning of Crossrail to provide for longer trains on the central operating section did not extent to the rest of the project. It was argued, with a lot of justification, that catering from the outset for longer trains over the whole network did not make financial sense because there was little or no ultimate cost savings to be made by doing so. It was claimed that ‘passive provision’ was made where this was practical but that didn’t necessarily mean there wouldn’t be challenges.
A question we would like to consider is whether lengthening trains likely to happen any time soon. We do not know the answer but attempt to provide as much background information as we can so that readers can have an informed idea as to whether this is something that will happen – or not.
More Trains v Longer TrainsThe issue of whether it is better to run more trains or longer trains to cater for an increase in demand is a complex one with no easy answer. It also depends on whether you ask Network Rail, TfL, or a train operating company.
As a very rough guideline, TfL’s policy is generally to run more trains when possible, rather than lengthen trains. This also tended to apply to TfL’s predecessors and has historically been largely down to the cost of retrospectively lengthening platforms at underground stations. An exception to this rough and ready guideline tends to be when introducing new rolling stock as this is the ideal time to consider extending the length of trains.
A good example of using the introduction of new stock to take advantage of the opportunity to make the trains longer is the introduction of ‘S’ stock on the sub-surfaces lines where, by means of maximising the length available for public access to platforms and using selective door operation (SDO), major tunnel reconstruction was avoided. Maximising the effective platform length was largely achieved by elimination of platform-based monitors used by the driver to check that it was safe to close the passenger doors.
Similarly, almost unnoticed by passengers, the replacement Victoria line stock was slightly longer than its predecessor. This was to take advantage of a situation where the platforms were built unusually long for 8-car trains because the technology available at the time of building the Victoria line could not accurately stop an automatically driven train in the platforms. Hence the platforms were slightly longer than they would otherwise needed to have been for a new equivalent length train.
In a situation more analogous to Crossrail, Jubilee line trains were extended from 6-cars to 7-cars in December 2005. Despite the obvious parallel, this is not a clear-cut example. An extra carriage was ordered for the 59 existing trains and, additionally, four new 7-car trains were ordered (so 28 additional carriages). Consequently, almost one-third of the order was actually for the new trains.
The Crossrail CaseWe have no idea of what costs are involved to lengthen trains on Crossrail but it should be borne in mind that one should also take into account the timescale of the benefit when considering lengthening trains. A newly-purchased (or leased) extra carriage typically lasts as long as the current rolling stock is in use. However, a lengthened platform is lengthened forever.
One way of looking at potential benefits of lengthening trains on Crossrail is to look at the ‘carriage benefit’ achieved. Each new train provides an extra nine carriages if the train length remains unchanged. Each new carriage on lengthened trains will provide a benefit of 80 carriages if one takes into account the 10 new trains on order as well as the existing 70 trains. Of course, a number of carriages will be out of use for maintenance but the portion should affect both figures roughly equally.
Eighty carriages are roughly the equivalent of nine 9-car trains. So, each extra carriage added provides the rough equivalent of nine new trains. A factor to be taken into account is that purchase of extra carriages does not involve purchase of carriages with driving cabs. Driving cabs nowadays tend to be much more expensive because of the onboard technology (including signalling technology) needed to support them – and each train has two driving cabs. Furthermore, trains require drivers. If you have longer trains, not more trains, you don’t need to worry about the costs and logistics of employing extra drivers.
A factor for preferring more trains in preference to longer trains is that off-peak services can be better tailored to requirements and extra carriages are not needlessly in service on trains. This is particularly true where the peak/off-peak split of passengers is reported to be around 56% / 44% on Crossrail rather than the 50% / 50% split more typical of Underground lines.
The option of increasing the number of trains is irrelevant if you are already running the maximum number of trains that can be realistically run. Longer trains achieved by increasing the train length by one carriage might then come out as more expensive but, in the case of Crossrail, one could look at it as providing an 11% increase of capacity to a railway that cost around £22b to build (excluding rolling stock) for a cost that should be a small fraction of that original infrastructure cost.
Running Out of OptionsIn many ways, it doesn’t matter what one’s preference is. When you have two options and have proceeded as far as you can with one option, then the other option is the only one left. The central operating section of Crossrail is signalled for 31tph and that is probably as far as modern technology can currently take us when running main line trains on what is basically a Tube service Underground. If Package East is fully implemented, as we expect it to be by the end of 2026, that will account for 28tph in the central operating section and there has to be some flexibility in the system in order to recover from delays.
Theoretically, 30tph is possible on the central operation section of Crossrail and has been talked about by TfL but it gives the operator precious little flexibility to recover from delays. Also, from a timetabling point of view, Crossrail runs on 15-minute cycles meaning a tph figure that is a multiple of four is desirable. Currently the peak service is 24tph and the off-peak service is 16tph with early Sunday morning and late Sunday evening being an 8tph service.
A further consideration that most train operators do not need to consider is that in the Crossrail tunnels there is a rule enforced by the signalling system that states that only a maximum of two trains can be in a ventilation section. Obviously, more trains put a strain on this restriction, but longer trains don’t.
There is a third option of reducing demand by building a new railway line to take pressure off the Elizabeth line. In an era where money is tight and even a relatively short extension of the Bakerloo line to Lewisham cannot be afforded, this does not seem a feasible option. Nor is it one that can be achieved in any reasonable timescale.
Finally, a potential fourth option is to suppress demand by using the fare structure to discourage passengers. Such a policy would be an anathema to the current mayor and probably any successors.
Going for 10-Car Trains rather than 11Although some provision has been made for 11-car trains on Crossrail, we would argue it makes sense to initially go for 10-car trains if one is to lengthen the trains at all. There are three main reasons for this – all of them largely financial.
With a railway carriage costing in the order of £2m these days, extending 80 trains by just one carriage would cost in the order of £160m just for the extra carriages which is a lot of money for a cash- strapped organisation. The finance people would probably not want money paid up front for an 11th carriage or the additional infrastructure consequences, until such time as one could see a return on investment in the form of bums on seats – or, more realistically in the case of the Elizabeth line, the extra carriage being comfortably busy with a high proportion of standing passengers.
The second financial reason is that, unlike building underground stations with longer platforms from the outset to cater for future growth, there is very little cost saving, if any, in building the above ground infrastructure in place for possible future use on an existing railway.
There is a third reason to go for 10-car trains rather than 11-car trains. At many locations, as we shall see, it looks quite easy to cater for 10-car trains but difficult, if not impossible, to cater for 11-car trains. So, it does seem to make sense to initially introduce 10-car trains and then, after this has been done, consider the implications of introducing 11-car trains should there be a demand to justify considering them.
A 9-car train is 205 metres long. A 10-car trains would be 227 metres long and an 11-car train would be 249 metres long. As there is no need for the rear of the train beyond the final door to be in the platform, the required platform length is slightly less. However, it appears that on the Shenfield branch, at any rate, platforms were generally extended to 211 metres where that was possible prior to Crossrail being introduced.
Can and Should it be Done?The rest of this article looks at what is involved in extending Elizabeth line trains to 10-cars. To some extent, when it comes to platform lengthening, we can only speculate but we will try and present to you enough information for you to form your own opinion.
We cannot give an opinion on whether lengthening trains is worth doing because we do not have the necessary financial information. We can only suggest that we think it is technically possible.
We will look at the issues we believe to be involved. The longest section looks at platform lengthening outside the central operating section but this doesn’t necessarily mean it is the most critical issue.
Extending the Depot for Longer TrainsWhen considering lengthening trains, it is often hard to know where to start but often the biggest issue is that of overnight storage at the depot. London Overground found it challenging when extending trains on the East London line from 4-cars to 5-cars. The stabling sidings at their only depot were a little over 12 carriages long so previously one siding could take three trains but with 5-car trains it could only accommodate two. Consequently, a site had to be found to accommodate one third of the fleet and it wasn’t easy to find one though Silwood sidings was eventually made available.
SouthEastern Railway has wanted to more run 12-car trains for many years but is prevented from doing so largely because of the lack of depot space for the longer trains and the impossibility of obtaining land to expand Slade Green depot for anything like a reasonable cost.
We mentioned earlier replacing the original Victoria line trains with new longer rolling stock. The trains could probably have been even slightly longer still if it wasn’t for the restricted space available at the Victoria line’s Northumberland Park depot.
The main depot for Crossrail is at Old Oak Common. This consists of a covered shed for nine sidings and uncovered sidings for around 34 trains. If the covered shed needs lengthening there looks as if there is space to do so though it might involve the diversion of a minor road. This might be one of few occasions where it could make sense to extend the covered depot to house 11-car trains from the outset. Extra covered space in a depot is generally welcome even if it is not initially needed for longer trains.
It looks as if most if the exposed sidings have enough space at the ‘throat’ end to accommodate a 10-car train. If needed, a road could be diverted at the buffer stop end to provide the necessary extra length of siding.
Ability to procure the Extra CarriagesProbably the next consideration is ensuring that the extra carriages can be supplied for the longer trains. This would not appear to be a problem. The Alstom factory in Derby (previously the Bombardier factory) still exists. Depending how complex an extra carriage needs to be, it may be possible for other manufacturers to supply them.
An important feature would be whether the bogies (wheelsets) need to be motored on the extra carriage. Currently eight of the nine carriages are motored. If the extra carriage could be a trailer (unmotored) car then this would make the carriage cheaper and easier to build. With an additional trailer car, the maximum draw on power would be only slightly increased but there might be a small reduction in rate of acceleration achievable by the train.
It is presumed that the extra carriages can be supplied at a reasonable cost.
An Adequate Power SupplyRegardless of whether extending trains or providing more of them, the ability to supply electricity to the overhead line (or rigid overhead power rail) or third rail can be a critical factor when considering a service improvement. Fortunately, in the case of Crossrail, over most of the route the power supply is either new, has been recently replaced, or is due for renewal. It would be very disappointing if there wasn’t a significant margin for growth built into the present power supply and the extra demand created by an extra carriage should be only minimal.
SignallingA big unknown is signalling. Presumably the automatic train operation (ATO) software in the central operating section will need to assume all trains are 10 carriages long. The stopping location at the nine through stations in the ATO area would need to be changed on one of the platforms at each of these nine stations.
There don’t appear to be any critical junctions or other places where a stationary 10-car would foul another route. On the Network Rail portion of the Elizabeth line, signalling generally caters for any length of train so, hopefully, there isn’t an issue there.
Platform Edge DoorsThere are platform edge doors at eight stations. Clearly extra doors will be needed for the extra carriage. Implementation would be an issue to investigate. It is probably impractical to implement a ‘big bang’ approach to converting 9-car trains to 10-car trains on a railway timetabled to require 80 trains (including trains undergoing maintenance). A means of phased implementation would be necessary. This means that there would have to be a fail-safe way of ensuring that platform edge doors did not open if there were not a carriage on the other side.
SidingsIt would be critical that any sidings would need be long enough to either take 10-car trains or be capable of extension to 10-car trains. An overhead view using Google Maps suggests sidings at Plumstead and Westbourne Park already long enough. It looks as if the little-used Chadwell Heath turnback siding and the sidings at Shenfield could be extended to accommodate the extra carriage.
The important depot at Gidea Park has sidings that can currently accommodate two trains each and it looks as if they could each accommodate two 10-car trains. It looks unlikely they would be able to accommodate two 11-car trains. The train wash at the country end of the sidings may not currently be long enough but it appears that it would be easy to extend this under the A127 Southend Arterial Road which is on a viaduct at this location. This may involve slight repositioning to avoid any critical support structures.
In the case of Maidenhead, it looks like use of a small plot of land that appears to currently be part of the station car park would be sufficient to extend these sidings.
Probably, the most challenging sidings are those at Ilford. This is a much-in-demand site used by Greater Anglia, London Overground and Crossrail as well as housing a depot run by Alstom, the train manufacturer, used for maintenance and refurbishment projects. The site was remodelled in 2016 in order to accommodate the class 345 train for Crossrail. It looks very much as if it was remodelled with 9-car Crossrail trains in mind.
It appears that all the Crossrail sidings at Ilford could be extended for the loss of one London Overground siding. It may just be possible to reconfigure the Crossrail portion of the site to squeeze in 10-car trains without resorting to losing space elsewhere. More probably, a rethink may be required as to the best way to cater for longer trains, should this happen. London Overground would probably welcome extra sidings there and, maybe, Greater Anglia could be persuaded to store more of its trains out in Essex. Alternatively or additionally, TfL could look for an extra site for sidings for Crossrail rather than continually attempting to squeeze more trains into the sites they already have.
StationsThe factor which most people seem to think is the main issue, but probably is the one of the least important issues, is the ability to extend station platforms to accommodate the longer trains. Of course, on Crossrail we have a huge advantage here because the critical and busy underground platforms in central London are already long enough. Indeed, at the three truly double-ended underground stations (Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road, and Liverpool Street) longer trains may actually assist passenger flow within the station.
In addition to the underground stations on the new part of the railway, both Custom House and Abbey Wood (Crossrail platforms) have been built to a full 11-car length. This makes sense as it is considerably cheaper to do this at the time of the station’s construction.
We cannot generalise on the problems involved with lengthening platforms, or choosing not to, so they really have to be considered individually. The newly-built underground stations are known to have long enough platforms for 11-car trains. Those at Heathrow which existed before there were plans to serve them with Crossrail trains are more of an issue.
Above ground, Google satellite view can be very helpful in determining how easy it would be to extend the platforms – especially if one can view a train in the station. Unfortunately, some of the satellite views are quite old so it is important to check that the train is a 9-car train and not a 7-car one. In the following text, when discussing future possible platform extensions, there are numerous links to the Google Satellite view so the user can have an indication of the practicality and issues involved in extending platforms at a particular station.
It should be possible to determine existing platform lengths because they are listed in documents known as the Timetable Planning Rules on the Network Rail website. Each document is a large PDF. The one for Anglia Region (AR) appears to be up-to-date but the one for Western and Wales (WW) is clearly hopelessly out-of-date in this respect and individual entries cannot be relied on.
Existing Short Platform IssuesBefore looking at potential short platform issues on the Elizabeth line, it makes sense to look at existing issues. Fortunately, a 2022 Freedom of Information (FOI) Request has a response which has details of all the current short platforms (except one) on the Elizabeth line and the reason for them. We have assumed all the information in this FOI is still as accurate as it was when published. This appears to be the case although there are minor discrepancies when compared to a current poster showing the restrictions and one station appears to have been omitted.
| STATION | SHORT PLATFORM | REAR DOORS LOCKED OUT | | Twyford | 4 | 4 | | Maidenhead | 1 | 4 | | Taplow | ALL | 3 | | Burnham | ALL | 3 | | Langley | 1 and 2 | 5 | | Iver | ALL | 4 | | Hayes & Harlington | 5 | 1 | | Hanwell | ALL | 8 | | Paddington (National Rail) | NONE | 6 (centre doors only due to curve) | | Maryland | ALL | 6 | | Forest Gate | ALL | 5 | | Seven Kings | ALL | 5 |
Summary of FOI table (no corrections applied and no omissions added)The GPS Issue with the SDO SystemPossibly the most significant part of the FOI response is the following sentence:
As the SDO system works off GPS, one short platform at a station means that the doors are locked out on all of the platforms at the station.
The statement could have been worded better. It would be more accurate to state that one short platform that Elizabeth line trains are capable of calling at … Fairly obviously, the short terminating platform at Slough for the shuttle train to Windsor & Eton Central is no reason to lock doors on Elizabeth line trains calling at Slough. And there is bound to be a short platform somewhere at Stratford station.
Of course, there wouldn’t be a problem if one could guarantee that Elizabeth line trains would never call at platforms other than the designated Elizabeth line platforms. However, there is always the rare occurrence of the need to divert to other platforms due to either ‘operating difficulties’ or planned engineering work. Consequently, any platform where there was any possibility of an Elizabeth line train stopping at needs to be taken into account.
This above sentence from the FOI response has significant consequences and not all are immediately obvious. The first major consequence of this is that at stations where it was known from the outset that one of the platforms could not be lengthened, the decision was taken not to lengthen any of the platforms. This means that platforms that could have easily have been lengthened (and undoubtably would otherwise have been) were not lengthened.
The above situation is even worse when it is considered that generally it was the London-bound platform that caused the need to have SDO. Having a platform not long enough for London-bound passengers isn’t that critical. You can’t board a train from a platform that isn’t there. However, on the return journey, passengers could find themselves sitting in a carriage which doesn’t open at the station. Apart from inconveniencing passengers and possibly causing mild panic, this potentially delays the train.
Another consequence of relying on GPS-dependent SDO is that where there are platforms on both fast (main) and slow lines you really need to ensure that all the platforms are extended to the required length – even those platforms on the fast lines will be rarely used.
On the line from Paddington to Reading (exclusive) all stations except Burnham, Hanwell, West Ealing, and Acton Main Line have at least four platforms. It appears that platforms west of West Drayton have not been lengthened as part of Crossrail construction except for the two Crossrail platforms at Slough where the platforms on the fast lines were already long enough.
East of Stratford a policy of extending all platforms, where necessary, was generally undertaken. However, if extension of one platform at a station proved problematic then none of the platforms were extended.
SDO being Needlessly GPS ConstrainedTo add to the frustration, this GPS issue would seem to be completely avoidable and doesn’t happen with other train operating companies. It seems incredible that a train with so much software running it cannot determine which platform it is at either from the signalling system or from having additional data fed into the Passenger Information System, which is used to update the passenger information displays present in every carriage.
The solution to achieving SDO down to individual platforms used by other train operating companies is to have a balise in the track that ‘strikes in’ each set of doors as the train enters the platform. On exiting the platform there is another balise that ‘strikes out’ each set of doors as it continues beyond the platform. That way only the correct doors are opened even if the train does not stop in exactly the correct position. Regardless of whether trains were to be made longer or not, it would appear to be a good solution to implement on the Elizabeth line which would enable more platforms to be able to fully accommodate existing Elizabeth line trains.
There is an obvious caveat to the seemingly simple solution of not having a totally GPS dependent SDO system. If it were that easy to do then, surely, wouldn’t TfL have implemented it by now? This seems to suggest that either there is a technical issue or its implementation would be much more costly than one would imagine.
For the purpose of the remainder of the article we will assume that this GPS issue will not be fixed and so the shortest platform at a station determines the number of doors that can be opened on all platforms. We will also presume that it is essential that all doors can be opened at the Heathrow underground stations.
At present there is the situation at Maidenhead where a short platform on the down main line (rarely used by any trains and normally only by Elizabeth trains in the event of engineering works) means that the rear four doors are locked out on the two platforms that Elizabeth line trains regularly use and also on the platform that these trains occasionally use (platform 5).
At Hayes & Harlington it is the terminating platform (platform 5) that has a restriction and the rear set of doors is unavailable due to the platform length restriction. This is presumably the rear set on arrival of a terminating train. It is baffling why the new platform isn’t quite long enough, given it could have been, and the consequences for all Elizabeth line trains using this station.
The new Platform 5 at Hayes & Harlington showing each end with a train in the platform(same train). Why is it needlessly slightly too short?It should be noted that in each situation where short platforms are present, it is the rear doors that are not opened. This is different from London Underground and DLR policy where, if appropriate, a combination of front and rear doors are locked out which reduces the distance passengers on the train may be required to walk to reach an opening door. Such a policy on Network Rail might be unpopular because it is the usual practice to site station starter signals at the end of the platform.
A Look at Stations with Existing Short PlatformsIt is instructive to see why there are currently short platforms on Crossrail. This list is taken from the Freedom of Information response previously referenced. The relevant stations are listed in west-to-east order.
Reading Branch
London end of the ‘up’ platform at Twyford constrained by a bridgeTwyford has a short platform on the up relief line. It cannot be extended at the London end due to a large arched brick road-over-rail bridge which would cost millions of pounds to replace. It cannot be extended at the country (Reading) end due to the points leading to the branch line being located there. The points could be replaced by a west facing connection to the branch line through the car park but it would cost a lot of money and it would be a tight curve. Passenger usage of Twyford is relatively light and many of those passengers would use a semi-fast GWR train which does fit in the platform.
Country end of platform at Twyford constrained by branch to Henley-on-ThamesAs already stated, Maidenhead has a restriction due to the limitations of the GPS aspect of the SDO system. This is confirmed by the declared lengths of platforms in the Timetable Planning Rules. However the Google satellite image, which is a few years old, appears to contradict this.
Taplow, Burnham, Langley and Iver are all lightly used stations on Crossrail which are outside London. There is space to extend the platforms but it seems that an economic decision was made not to do so. At Langley the FOI document claims that only platforms 1 and 2 are short platforms whereas both the timetable planning rules and Google satellite view suggest that they are all the same length.
Hayes & Harlington, as already stated, just seems to be due to an aberration when designing the station track layout leading to the dreaded GPS issue kicking in.
Hanwell is an unusual case. The station does not have operational platforms on the fast (main) lines. Originally the two operational platforms were going to be lengthened but, during the passage of the Crossrail bill through the House of Lords, local resident petitioned against the scheme because they feared passengers would look into their back gardens from the stations. At the time automatic failsafe SDO was in its infancy. Once Crossrail decided to adopt SDO they agreed to provide ‘Letters of Comfort’ to the residents assuring them that the platforms would not be extended so that the neighbours would drop their petition. One suspects that the saving in costs at what was then a very lightly used station may have been a factor in this.
Shenfield Branch
Maryland had been problematic from the outset. A road-over-rail bridge at each end of the platforms makes a platform extension impossible without major reconstruction involving at least one of these bridges.
Two carriages unable to fit in the platform at Maryland.
The station is extremely constrained.Earlier Crossrail schemes specifically excluded Maryland from Crossrail due to its short platforms which would be unable to accommodate the proposed Crossrail trains. It was supposedly largely down to the protests against Maryland not planned to be on Crossrail that the Crossrail team decided to adopt SDO in order to overcome this problem.
Forest Gate and Seven Kings appear to have an issue with the need to acquire land for platform lengthening in the London direction. As these stations were in the original Crossrail plans, it seems that once SDO was adopted it was decided to not to bother with obtaining the previously required land.
Also having short platforms, but omitted from the FOI list, is Manor Park where the up slow (‘electric’) platform could not have been extended due to lifts at the country end and a freight loop line behind the platform preventing extension of the platform at the London end. As well as that the FOI response states that at Forest Gate and Seven Kings the rear five doors will not open, whereas the more recent poster shows six rear doors not opening.
Lengthening The Platforms – Heathrow BranchIf there is one branch likely to be problematic when in comes to lengthening trains on Crossrail then it is the Heathrow one. Not only would platform extensions involve underground tunnelling, it would involve doing it under an airport – and airports get extremely sensitive about people tunnelling under runways.
Within Heathrow, the most potentially problematic station is Terminal 4. The Timetable Planning Rules show a usable length of the platforms of 195 metres which is sufficient for the current 9-car trains. Unfortunately, the line between Terminal 4 and Terminals 2&3 is a single tunnel with points located immediately at the London end of the two platforms at Terminal 4 station.
End of the line at Terminal 4 Station. But could it be extended?Fortunately, the buffer stops are quite a way beyond the end of the platform and the platform has been blocked off to give it its current usable length. So, it appears that by knocking down a wall and finishing off the extended platform to match the existing platform, an extra carriage could be accommodated. It appears doubtful if an 11th carriage could be accommodated so this is possibly the biggest reason why lengthening to 11 carriages may not be eventually possible.
On the bright side for the long-term possible future, it does appear from Carto Metro that the Terminal 4 station is well clear of any runway or taxiway above it so it may be possible to extend the platforms, if necessary, at the buffer end without too much protest from Heathrow Airport should that extension be desirable. Moreover, potentially this work could be carried out without interrupting passenger service.
Terminal 5 already has a recognised usable platform length of 217 metres which is sufficient for a 10-car Crossrail train. It looks as if the platform tunnel is sufficiently long for the platform to be extended further if equipment located there could be relocated elsewhere.
Terminals 2&3 station, like Terminal 4 station, has a usable length of 195 metres. Like Terminal 5 there does appear to be an opportunity to extend the platform if necessary. However, unlike the Terminal 4 station, SDO could be used if necessary if some non-GPS method were available to implement it.
Contrary to what many people think, Terminals 2&3 station is not that busy. For example, Slough is busier although there is the issue that alighting passengers at Heathrow tend to have a lot of luggage. Despite that, SDO should be able to easily cope at this station should it be needed.
Lengthening The Platforms – Reading BranchReading, a recently rebuilt station, has platforms that are more than ample length for Crossrail.
At Twyford, as already mentioned, there is no opportunity to length the London (up relief) platform. The Reading (down relief) platform could be extended if the GPS issue were fixed.
Maidenhead appears to have the space to extend the Crossrail platforms if the GPS issue were fixed. However, although busy by Reading branch standards, the station has only slightly higher entrance and exit figures than Maryland (the least used station on the Shenfield branch). It is probable that a large portion of users of this station catch a GWR train which is short enough to fit in the platform
At Maidenhead, one could question if platform lengthening would really need extending. Arguably, a better use of the money would be to raise platform heights where necessary to comply with current standards.
As Taplow, Burnham, Langley, and Iver are all lightly used stations which currently have short platforms. It could be argued that SDO is all that is necessary. Platform extensions should be easily possible if desired but these would not necessarily sufficient to cater for 10-car trains. An argument could be made that the situation shouldn’t be worse than the current situation so maybe the platforms should be extended by at least one carriage length for 10-car trains.
Of these four stations, Burnham is by far the busiest, which isn’t actually saying much. It also only has one island platform that could easily be extended at the country end so maybe a case could be made extending the platform here is as it would be relatively cheap and not problematic to do so.
Slough would probably need to have platform extensions on the Elizabeth line platforms. There is space to do this. The other through platforms (platforms 2 and 3) are already long enough.
At West Drayton platform extensions appear to be possible though it could get tricky if extending to 11 carriages.
Lengthening The Platforms – Suburban West LondonAt Hayes & Harlington platform 5 there needs to be a little more space in order to extend the platform Hayes & Harlington – The point at the London end of platforms 4 (London direction) and platform 5 (terminating platform) should ideally be moved slightly closer to London. This would provide space for the necessary platform extension to platform 5. There is space to move the point but a long little-used freight siding might need to be slightly shortened. Why this point wasn’t located fractionally further from the existing platforms in the first place when platform 5 was built as part of Crossrail is a mystery. Platforms on the fast line could be extended to take an extra carriage. Platform 4, surprisingly, is already long enough for 10-car trains.
Southall – There appears to be space for lengthened platforms on the relief (Elizabeth) lines. Platform 1 (down fast) is constrained because of a turnout leading to the sidings there.
Hanwell – Currently, eight pairs of doors are locked out at this station – the most on Crossrail. One suspects that the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) would be unsympathetic to a further three doors being locked out though worst examples exist elsewhere – even within London.
The previously mentioned ‘letters of comfort’ are not generally legally enforceable and are usually used in accountancy – not rail planning. A critical crossover on a freight route at the London end precludes extending in that direction. In principle the London platform at the country end could be lengthened but the railway is on an embankment at this location so it could be expensive. It should be possible to screen off the gardens of disgruntled residents. The foliage is quite tall and thick here so any visual screening should not be unduly intrusive. The Heathrow platform could also be extended at the country end.
London end of down platform at West EalingWest Ealing – a platform extension here should be easy to do at the country end. There is a crossover close to the west end of the down platform which doesn’t prevent the platform being extended but could cause signalling issues. Other options are to extend the down platform at the London end (although the platform would be of substandard width under the bridge), accept SDO at this location and or, as an extreme solution, rebuild the portion of the road bridge over the Crossrail (relief) lines.
Ealing Broadway – if a platform extension were needed, some railway signalling cabinets would need repositioning but there are no apparent major issues in extending at the London end. Google Satellite view appears to show a now withdrawn class 360 (Heathrow Connect) train at the station so the satellite view may not be up-to-date.
When GWR needs to divert trains away from Paddington such as during the construction of Old Oak Common, some GWR trains are expected to terminate there and others call there on their way to Euston via the relief lines and Acton Wells so one would expect the platforms here to be sufficiently long for all eventualities.
Acton Main Line – it appears that an overhead line mast would need moving on the London- bound line and that and extended down platform would be narrower than desirable but it does look feasible.
Old Oak Common (under construction) – one really hopes that the platform will be long enough. As the Elizabeth line platforms would be used for GWR trains during engineering works and possibly in times of disruption one could be fairly confident these will be sufficiently long for even 11-car trains.
Paddington (National Rail) – regular Elizabeth line usage at this station is generally confined to early morning, late evening and Sunday mornings until around 09.15. In addition, platforms 11 and 12 here are used on most days to curtail a late running train to Abbey Wood so that it can pick up its path in the return direction.
All platforms currently in use except platform 14 appear to be stated to be long enough for even 11-car trains but platforms 6 & 7 are contractually reserved for Heathrow Express and class 345 trains (Crossrail trains) are specifically banned from them. It is highly undesirable to use platform 1 as there are no ticket gates there and platform 14 appears to be infrequently used for passenger trains as it only long enough for conventional 8-car trains (7-car Crossrail trains which are no longer in use). There is no platform 13.
Platforms 11 and 12 are temporarily shorter – but still long enough for 9-car Crossrail trainsFor a long while, platforms 11 & 12 have been shortened at the buffer end to allow for repair work to the roof. This work must finish one day and so the platforms would easily be able to handle 10-car Crossrail trains. Use of the full platform would also mean more carriages at the buffer end would be on straight section of platform so obviating the need to close so many centre doors on carriages due to platform curvature.
Lengthening the Platforms – Shenfield BranchCurrent platform lengths on the Shenfield Branch
| Station | Platform 1 | Platform 2 | Platform 3 | Platform 4 | | Maryland | 168 | 169 | 168 | 167 | | Forest Gate | 173 | 178 | 190 | 198 | | Manor Park | 168 | 185 | 194 | 163 | | Ilford | 226 | 221 | 233 | 227 | | Seven Kings | 180 | 180 | 187 | 187 | | Goodmayes | 212 | 212 | 212 | 212 | | Chadwell Heath | 211 | 213 | 214 | 213 | | Romford | 211 | 211 | 211 | 211 | | Gidea Park | 211 | 211 | 227 | 228 | | Harold Wood | 209 | 211 | 209 | 211 | | Brentwood | 211 | 211 | 211 | 211* |
Bold numbers show Crossrail platforms. * Romford platforms 2-5To complete the picture, Liverpool Street (National Rail) platforms 16 and 17 are shown as being 205 metres long in the Train Planning Rules. Stratford platform 5 is 253 metres long and platform 8 is 250 metres long. At Shenfield where platforms 5 and 6 are used for Crossrail terminating trains platform 5 is 245 metres long and platform 6 just 209 metres long.
Liverpool Street (National Rail). This is used in a very similar way to Paddington (High Level). Originally there were four platforms (15 to 18) available to the former 7-car Crossrail trains. Platform 18 was sacrificed to enable platforms 15 to take full length trains up to 12 conventional length carriages long, and platforms 16 and 17 to take 9-car Crossrail trains.
The plan was always to make platform 15 available for Greater Anglia trains which currently are 236 metres long – just slightly short of a conventional 12-car train of 240 metres. Although currently only a few trains use platform 15 on a regular basis, it appears that nowadays Crossrail trains rarely do so.
Space is tight at the end of platforms 16 and 17 at Liverpool StreetTypically, Crossrail trains at Liverpool Street use platform 17 and one is positioned at platform 16 during the day as a ‘hot spare’. In principle the ‘hot spare’ could be positioned elsewhere with plenty of derelict railway land between Liverpool Street and the abandoned platforms at Bethnal Green station.
A view from the other directionIt seems that platforms 16 and 17 were rebuilt with 9-Car Crossrail trains specifically in mind. The platforms cannot be extended at the country end due to the width restrictions on the approach to Liverpool Street station constrained by retaining walls that probably support the offices built over the station.
It looks as if, with a slight curve in the platform, platform 17 could be extended into the concourse.However, it is probable that platforms 16 and 17 could be extended by one carriage length into the concourse, subject to what is located underneath the concourse, as the platforms in question are tucked away in a little used part of the main concourse.
Using the concourse would involve introducing a slight curve to the platform 17 in order to avoid critical supporting pillars. There would also need to be a pedestrian route created for rail staff who need access to the far side of platform 17 (the former platform 18).
Stratford station platforms 5 & 8 were built to take 12-car trains as part of the Shenfield Electrification/Central line eastward extension scheme that opened post World War II. All the platforms at Stratford that are capable of being used by Elizabeth line trains are sufficiently long to cater for future lengthened trains.
Maryland is a really trickly station when it comes to extending platforms. The station was built on a very constrained site in a cutting constrained by road-over-rail bridges at each end. Platforms are only long enough for conventional 8-car trains (7-car Crossrail trains) whereas today’s Crossrail trains are 9 carriages long.
The station has seen a dramatic rise in passenger numbers since Covid and, in all probability, that will continue making the station completely unfit for purpose. One of the roads constricting it is Maryland Point which is not that busy and has wide pavements with a small garden area that has seating.
It appears that the bridge could be rebuilt with a single span over all four railway tracks with space for platforms at the side but it would be an expensive job. If done in two halves traffic could be kept flowing. Additionally, a small amount of land would need to be compulsorily purchased from commercial premises to provide space for the London bound platform.
Although rebuilding a bridge just to lengthen the platforms may sound like an extreme solution it is certainly not without precedent. An example from just over a decade ago is Streatham Common station.
Forest Gate could have extended platforms but this would involve compulsory purchase of the rear of the premises of a church (not the church itself) plus the ends of the long gardens of two or three private gardens.
Manor Park platforms could be extended but this would probably require elimination of a freight loop located behind the London bound platform. The freight loop appears to be disused but is still regarded as operational. It sees limited use these days as nowadays freight on this route runs on the main lines not the ‘electric’ lines and, in any case, the freight trains can generally keep up with the passenger trains so a freight loop would serve little purpose. Under the original Crossrail proposals (before SDO was to be a feature of the plan) it was proposed to replace this loop with one between Goodmayes and Seven Kings, but despite groundwork being carried out, this was never implemented.
Ilford already has three platforms sufficiently long for 10-car Crossrail trains and one that may be long enough and, if not, is currently only short by a couple of metres or so.
Short platforms currently at Seven Kings is surprising. The only apparent reason SDO is currently used appears to be the need to acquire a small patch of land currently used as a car wash. Moreover, it only needs a small portion of the car wash site. The acquisition of the car wash site might not be enough to completely eliminate SDO with 10-car trains but it would reduce it to one or two sets of doors at most.
At Goodmayes there doesn’t appear to be an issue with extending the platforms at the country end.
At Chadwell Heath there doesn’t appear to be a problem with extending the platforms at the London end.
At Romford there doesn’t appear to be a problem with extending the platforms at the London end other than repositioning one or two supports for portal frame for the overhead line.
Currently Greater Anglia has a 2tph fast off-peak service calling at just Stratford and Liverpool Street so extending the platforms on all four through lines has an additional benefit as these trains are 236 metres long.
At Gidea Park, for some reason, the London end of the Crossrail platforms cannot be usedGidea Park is unusual in that the Crossrail platforms were lengthened at the country end as part of the Crossrail project even though they were already 9-cars long. It seems that for some reason the end of the platform at the London end is not to be used. It looks as if there is space to further lengthen all the platforms at the country end.
At Harold Wood there does not appear to be an issue at the country end on the Shenfield bound platform but it might be a bit tricky on the London bound platform due to restricted space between the up ‘electric’ line and the down main line.
At Brentwood there does not appear to be any issue with extending the platforms at the country end.
Shenfield may be a little problematic but probably won’t present a problem. Before Crossrail there were five platforms and all of them could take a conventional 12-car train – and still can. For Crossrail a sixth platform was built and currently this can only take 9-car Crossrail trains. It looks as if there is space to extend the platform by a single carriage at the London end. A probable worst-case scenario is a need to reposition the platform signal a carriage length nearer to London and use SDO for the final rear carriage when entering the platform.
On platform 6 It looks as if there is just enough space to add a carriage before the pointsIf there is still not quite enough space to clear the points then it may be possible to slightly extend the platform at the country end as the buffer stops are set back from the platform.
If more space is needed at platform 6 it may be possible to set the buffers back slightlyWill It Happen?In these uncertain times it is unlikely that rail schemes that cannot show sufficient financial benefit will be progressed. On the other hand, if lack of capacity was constraining patronage of the Elizabeth line and a solution produced a net financial benefit then it would be hard to understand why such a scheme would not go ahead when the time is right.
We can be fairly sure nothing will happen until TfL has introduced more trains and seen the effect of that. That would suggest, if such a scheme were to be approved it would not be before 2028 at the earliest. More realistically, little can be expected before HS2 to Old Oak Common has been open for a year to see what additional impact that has if any. This suggests that there will be no decision until around 2032.
On the other hand, if numbers on the Elizabeth line dramatically rose further with demand not satisfied by more trains then, just maybe, something may happen earlier.
Whilst, realistically, nothing will happen on the ground for a long time, the time to be thinking about such a scheme for the future and its feasibility is now. A rough estimate of costs would need to be made to give some idea if such a scheme is worth pursuing. If so then there should be planning to include it in some future budget.
Assuming it is feasible, small but critical portions of land ought to be safeguarded or bought on the open market if they become available at a reasonable price. This especially applies when there is a current benefit in extending platforms. Such actions would not be wasted if longer trains were never to happen.
We would regard TfL predictions for numbers on the Elizabeth line as somewhat cautious and don’t appear to take into account of considerable residential developments along the line of route. Adding an extra carriage to Elizabeth line trains could well be the best value for money TfL will have in the next few years. In this coming era of expected austerity it would be a pity if this potential opportunity were missed through lack of advanced planning.
The post Longer trains for Crossrail? appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Design Language Basics for TfL’s Digital Displays (TfL Blog)
• Making the Multi-Colour London Transport Museum roundel: Video (Hidden London Hangouts)
• So What’s the fare? A Short History of Cab Fares in London (SimanaitisSays)
• Paris’ Secret to Managing the Olympics on the Métro? Bad Directions (Slate)
• Building More Beautiful Bus Stops & Transit Stations Can Pay Off (CityLab)
• Bike lanes, traffic calming, & narrowed streets don’t slow emergency vehicles (ArsTechnica)
• Alaskan Way Viaduct: Seattle’s finest achievement, but Transit Lobby tore it down: Video (CitiesByDiana)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
Hat tip to
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 5 August 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Victoria line crowned hottest Tube line in 2023, surpassing Central line (IanVisits)
• TfL board celebrates ‘remarkable turnaround’ in finances (On London)
• Rome’s Historic, Wacky, and Modern Railways: Video (RMTransit)
• Edmonton Valley Line Southeast Opens (Railway Age)
• Pedestrian & Cyclist Safe Road Redesign could be the Future of City Travel: Video (Now This)
• Barcelona reports record number of sustainable trips (Cities Today)
• In the City of London, Radical Changes Encourage More Cyclists & Pedestrians (CityLab)
• ‘Contemporary Art Underground’ Celebrates NYC MTA Art & Design (Colossal)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 2 August 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• French rail network hit by arson attacks before Olympics opening ceremony (Guardian)
• 400% increase in GPS Spoofing; Workgroup established (OpsGroup)
• Germany, autobahn: Will there finally be speed limits? (Slate)
• Reflections of Buffalo Central Terminal (Trains)
• Spain outsmarts hasty drivers with anti-braking speed cameras (The Mayor EU)
• Metro Los Angeles’ Overlooked G & J BRT Lines: Video (Climate & Transit)
• History & Future of Prague Metro Network, incl Lost Metro Line: Video (Tramly)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 29 July 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Libraries in stations and in motion / on public transport vehicles (Straphanger)
• America’s Transit Exceptionalism: The US has pretty much given up building subways (BenjaminSchneider)
• The Truth About Harry Beck: The Play, starting in September (IanVisits)
• Grand Railway Hotels: The Castles of Canada: Video (Clear as Mud)
• What we get wrong about cycling in the suburbs: Video (About Here)
• What Congestion Pricing Signals: Less Car Culture (EconLife)
• Sorry, wrong number (Roads.org.uk)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 26 July 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• How GM’s little car kicked off the EV boom 30 years ago (Fast Company)
• What Paris Can Teach Other Cities About Removing Roads (Next City)
• Sydney Metro City Extension – How much quicker will it be? Video (Transport Vlog)
• New York-Style High Line Is Coming to Tokyo Converting an Elevated Expressway (CityLab)
• The Future of Small City Transit was in Morgantown, West Virginia: Video (Trains Are Awesome)
• Why Banning Left Turns (or Right Turns) Is A Good Idea (Econ Life)
• How Sweden Is eliminating car-crash deaths (BBC)
• The scourge of bad Tube poetry: Context & location are key (New Statesman)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 22 July 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• To Fill or Not to Fill: Infill Stations in NYC (Vanshnookenraggen)
• Why Traffic Congestion Grows Exponentially, Why It Matters, & What To Do About It: Video (CityNerd)
• Why Michigan Central Station matters (Trains)
• The Greatest Flying Boat That Never Was – The Saunders-Roe SR.45 Princess: Video (Ruairidh MacVeigh)
• Millions spent reopening mothballed Northland railway line (Radio New Zealand)
• Minnesota’s new highway projects will need to consider climate impacts in planning (Minn Post)
• James Brindley, Eighteenth century canal building pioneer (Engineer)
• Calculator for Vehicle Weight Damage of Roads (Road Damage Calculator)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 19 July 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• HS2’s Old Oak Common station box excavation complete: Video (HS2 Ltd)
• The Second Victoria Line: Video (Jago Hazzard)
• London’s Cold War tunnels get final approval to open to the public (IanVisits)
• The Forgotten Cross-London Railway Service: Video (The TfL Three)
• Extreme Heat Is Coming for Your Rail Commute (Mother Jones)
• Even Amtrak surprised by instant popularity of its new Chicago-Twin Cities route (Fast Company)
• The Forgotten History of North American Light Rail (Home Signal)
• The Oldest Named Trains of the World (Hot Rails)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 15 July 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Watch this space on rail devolution, says Khan (BBC)
• The 20 year-old 2016 tube map (Diamond Geezer)
• Tokyo’s oldest train line (The Guardian)
• Multimodal opportunities as Luxembourg tramway extension opens (Metro Report)
• Poorer New Yorkers Bear the Brunt of Online Delivery Boom (Streetsblog)
• The deceptive influence of anti-transit groups (San José Spotlight)
• The 2003 Broadmeadows Melbourne’s Runaway Train: Video (Taitset)
• Buses are stuck on 3rd gear in India. It’s time to privatise with London-style GCC model (ThePrint)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 12 July 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Evolution of Accessibility of Transport in London (Wikipedia-James Scantlebury)
• Building Transit Legacy Projects for Olympic Games – An Overview: Video (RMTransit)
• Japan introduces enormous humanoid robot to maintain train lines (The Guardian)
• Electric rickshaws are finally legal in Dhaka, Bangladesh (Rest of World)
• Is Turbulence Getting Worse?: Video (Mentour Now!)
• Buses are key to fuelling Indian women’s economic success (In Print)
• High-Speed Rail & the Construction of Space in 1960s Japan: Video (HighSpeedRailAlliance)
• It’s the uncertainty, not the delay, that gets you in the end (Tim Harford)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 8 July 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
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 TrainsFive 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 CommonBoth 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 OptionsThe 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 WestOur interpretation of the Package West OptionPackage 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 EastOur interpretation of the Package East optionPackage 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 FutureIt 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.
A quick reminder to those interested that our next meeting of 2024 is on Tuesday 9th July at the Crosse Keys pub in the City of London. Normally at least a couple of us are there by 6.30 p.m. Join us anytime in the evening.
For more details click ‘Monthly Meetup – 2nd Tuesday Evening in the City‘ at the top of the home page.
If you wish to join our small cosy, select group then see you there!
The post Tuesday LR Meetup 9th July appeared first on London Reconnections.
• 1st tunnelled section of Elizabeth line gets high speed 5G mobile coverage (Rail UK)
• London Overground begins trial of British Sign Language announcements (Rail Advent)
• Andy Byford interview on Elizabeth Line, New York MTA, Toronto transit & Amtrak: Video (Green Signals)
• LNR proposes new services between London and Manchester (Rail News)
• Great British Rail Replacement aims to bring a fresh approach during train service disruption (Railway Gazette International)
• Riding the 38 Stock: Video (Hidden London Hangouts)
• Mandatory speed limiters come to the EU and NI (The Guardian)
• Cheap, Easy, Good: Think Like Amazon to Decarbonize Transportation (Next City)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 5 July 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
For most of the history of public transport, integrated tickets and fare zones were largely unheard of. Passengers would generally pay the ticket clerk or conductor a distance-based fare for each leg of their journey, or in the case of some urban rail systems, drop a coin or token in a turnstile.
Towards the late twentieth century, the ascendance of the motor car meant that public transport needed to be more user-friendly to compete. Meanwhile, rising prosperity meant labour became more costly; this called for more streamlined, and less labour-intensive ticketing.
With complex travel patterns being the norm, especially with a post-pandemic reduction in commute trips and an increase in leisure trips, urban regions which lag behind on simplified, integrated ticketing are increasingly recognising the need to modernise their fare structures. In this series of articles, we will explore how various regions integrate ticketing between modes, or don’t.
Europe Introduces Integration of FaresIn Germany, the need to reconsider fares and funding in light of declining patronage gave rise to the Verkehrsverbünde: Public transport federations which coordinate services and distribute fare revenue among local transport operators: The urban and suburban tram, metro and/or bus companies, and the main line trains organised at the regional level. The first was founded in Hamburg in 1967; over the subsequent decades these became the norm for German Metropolitan areas.
Taking public transit in the Paris region by the 1970s could require purchase of up to five separate tickets for different modes and legs. However, in 1975 the Carte Orange system-wide transportation card was introduced to simplify the system considerably. Within six months of introduction there were almost a million Cartes Orange in use. Within five years bus ridership had risen by nearly 50%. The Carte Orange was phased out in the 21st century in favour of the Navigo card which allows public-transport use in all zones and on all modes.
We had recently looked at the history of the Day Travelcard and its simplification of fares, initially to expedite fare payment and reduce bottlenecks in passenger flow at stations and boarding buses. The Travelcard was improved throughout the 1980s, and was expanded to include British Rail’s Network SouthEast rail services by merging with BR’s One Day Travelcard in 1989. Although fare levels were adjusted and reduced during this decade, the public-transport passenger mileage increased from 2,640 million miles in 1980 to 3,738 million miles annually by 1990, a 42% jump. Or 4.2% per year.
Single fares, on the other hand, remain only partially integrated. Main line trains charge somewhat higher fares, plus a transfer fee for changing onto the Tube in Central London. Buses, meanwhile, charge entirely separate single fares. In 2019 free bus-to-bus Day Hopper transfers within 70 minutes were introduced, but passengers continue to pay twice in order to change between bus and rail. Whilst daily, weekly, and monthly fare capping add some flexibility, these period fares are expensive for passengers in the outer fare zones. This leaves London’s fare integration in a decidedly partial state.
Many European regions retain some form of distance based fare, and integrated fare systems often use zones to do so. Whilst cities like London and Paris have adopted concentric zones, in parts of Germany and Switzerland where local transport federations cover broad areas, a more complex polymorphic zone system applies.
Whilst inter-city transport is mostly excluded, Switzerland has a full national integrated transport system. Under a “One Journey, One Ticket” policy, beyond the boundaries of regional zone systems, passengers pay a distance-based fare and revenue is distributed between local operators in the back office. The country found that fare integration is key to the country’s high public transport ridership. Becoming a member of Alliance SwissPass, the national fare structure association, is a mandatory condition of receiving public funding. In other words, fare integration is not optional.
North America’s Partial Fare IntegrationWhilst fare zones are common in many large European cities, they are absent in almost all of North America. On one hand, this makes matters very simple. It is typical for a single municipal or metropolitan public transport agency to charge a flat fare regardless of distance or mode of transport. This will usually include at least one free transfer between routes. For example, the 50 miles from Malibu on the Pacific Coast to Azusa in the San Gabriel Mountains can be covered on Los Angeles Metro’s base fare of $1.75.
Flat fare policies do come with downsides. They present transit agencies with the choice of over-charging for short trips or under-charging for long trips. North American agencies pretty unanimously choose the latter, leading to a high reliance on government subsidy, and a struggle in many cities to fund service at decent frequencies.
Flat fares also create notable seams at their boundaries. When switching between different agencies, passengers often need to pay another fare, or navigate a complex system of discounted inter-agency transfers. Meanwhile commuter rail, as the main line rail services within metropolitan areas are known, tends to charge its own separate and much higher distance-based fares.
In the Los Angeles area example started above, the passenger heading to Covina, three miles south of Azusa but situated on LA’s Metrolink commuter railway (rather than on the Los Angeles Metro system), will need to fork out another $5.75 for the commuter train.
This lack of fare integration, almost ubiquitous in North America, creates many inequities and disincentives to taking transit. For most riders, urban and suburban public transport is inherently multimodal. As American public transport consultant Jarrett Walker puts it “Charging passengers extra for the inconvenience of connections is insanely self-destructive“. Yet this is the unfortunate reality for many North American passengers whose journeys involve multiple agencies and/or modes.
North America’s Commuter Rail MindsetThe cleavage between commuter rail and city transit is a North American tradition, dating back to the distinction between the main line railways and the electric tramways of prewar America.
At times these remain under separate operators; at other times it’s a cultural distinction that persists within a single public agency. MBTA operate both local transport around Boston and commuter trains across the surrounding region; their former General Manager Frank DePaola stated publicly in 2016 that:
“Commuter rail is commuter rail. It’s not transit. It’s designed to bring people into the city in the morning and take them home at night.”
Thanks to this widespread mindset, city transit (buses, streetcars/LRVs, and subways) and commuter rail often operate as separate, parallel networks, without timetable or fare integration. The former are slow but cheap, and the latter fast but expensive, aimed mostly at well-off commuters who drive to suburban rail stations with abundant free parking.
These attitudes about different modes of transport are difficult to change. Many large North American cities’ transit agencies have been around for a half to a full century, or even more, leading to long entrenched bureaucracies and attitudes. Organisational self-preservation behaviour tends to become stronger the longer an organisation exists. We look at agencies that have made, and are making, the transition.
*Beachheads of Commuter Rail Integration*As many North American cities are nowadays becoming denser, oftentimes with the construction of many condominium buildings, with large increases in-city population, transport agencies are struggling to move the corresponding increasing passengers. Just as increases in population comes a lot more private vehicles and and many rideshare services vehicles like Uber and Lyft. all contributing to lower average bus speeds. In addition, many cities are also experiencing post-Covid booms of city activities and transit use.
The USA has three commuter rail systems fully fare-integrated with local transit. Uncoincidentally, these exist within relatively small metropolitan areas, where main line railroads ceased to operate local service decades before its modern incarnation. This meant that agencies needed to build ridership from scratch, and they lacked the organisational inertia of a legacy railway with its own budgets and operations to protect. Starting from a blank slate made fare integration the obvious choice.
RTD in Denver, UTA in Salt Lake City, and TriMet in Portland, Oregon all offer flat fares with 2.5–3 hours of free transfers, including bus, light rail, and their respective commuter rail systems. RTA’s excellent network of four electrified regional rail lines, UTA’s robust diesel-hauled FrontRunner which runs North–South through downtown Salt Lake, and TriMet’s odd peak-only DMUs on a suburb-to-suburb route known as Westside Express – WES for short.
Denver Rail Map 2024. RTD Denver’s four electrified regional rail lines accept the same tickets as its six light rail lines and extensive bus network, with single fares offering three hours of free transfers. Until recently, Denver had three concentric fare zones, roughly corresponding with city, inner suburbs and outer suburbs respectively. The $3 base fare covered two zones, whilst $5.25 regional fare was required for three-zone trips, spanning nine miles or more. A separate premium fare was charged for airport trips. Fares were rationalised in 2024 to a flat $2.75.
Portland TriMet has a flat fare valid on all modes – five light rail lines, buses, one commuter rail line – for 2½ hours. The fare is capped at $5.60 daily, or $100 in a calendar month.
Salt Lake City Rail & BRT Map 2023. UTASalt Lake City charges a $2.50 flat fare which includes up to ten miles on the Frontrunner Line. Beyond that, an unusual system of a 60 cent increment per additional station applies.
Canada Pioneers North American Big City Fare IntegrationWhilst widespread in Europe, only in the last two years has intermodal fare integration made a North American beachhead in Canada’s three big cities.
Montréal (STM/REM/ARTM/exo)In late 2022, the region’s transit authority Agence régionale de transport a Montréal (ARTM) established a four zone system: Zone A for the Island of Montréal, B for the two neighbouring municipalities of Laval and Longueuil which make up the broader urbanised area, C for more distant suburbs, and Zone D for exurban regional buses. Fares for travel are the same within each zone no matter the mode: Métro, bus, and exo commuter trains. It even includes the city’s new Réseau express métropolitain (REM) automated light metro line which opened in 2023.
Plan Métropolitain de Montréal 2023 with Fare Zones. ARTMGiven that there are four public transport agencies planning and/or operating services, this fare zone structure has greatly simplified transport trip and fare information. It has attracted criticism, however, for the sharp fare increase when crossing a zone boundary: From CA$3.50 to CA$5.25, even for a one-stop journey across municipal borders. This pushback led the ARTM to temporarily reduce the two-zone fare. Whilst easy to understand, applying a small number of zones across a large area does cause the problem of over-charging for short trips across a boundary. A more granular system, like the eight zones previously used for regional trains around Montreal, can prevent this by making the base fare valid for two zones.
Toronto (TTC/GO)For over a decade, GO Transit passengers enjoyed free transfers to and from local buses in the municipalities surrounding Toronto, In February 2024, the province of Ontario and the city of Toronto implemented the OneFare program, which brought the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC)’s buses, streetcars, and subways into the fold. Passengers pay one fare instead of two when transferring between TTC services and GO transit, and/or suburban transit agencies.
TTC & GO Toronto Rail Transit Map. KdogPart of the impetus has been the ongoing upgrade of the GO train system from traditional commuter rail, focused on taking 9-5 workers downtown, to a regional network with frequent, all-day service on five of its seven lines. This greatly increases the public transport connectivity with the surrounding municipalities. Public transport advocates, anti-poverty campaigners, and environmentalists have all been pushing governments to remove the previous double fares for transfers between certain modes and agencies.
Unfortunately, it isn’t complete fare integration. GO retains its distance based fares, but passengers transferring to or from the TTC will pay only the relevant GO fare. These fares can be relatively steep. For example, the CA$6.50 for the ten miles from Agincourt in northeast Toronto to Union Station compared to CA$3.35 on TTC. Those with limited means are still left taking a longer trip by bus and subway instead.
What’s more, the integrated fares exclude one of Toronto’s most useful rail suburban lines. The Union-Pearson Express (UPX) is heavily used by locals at the two suburban stations between downtown and the airport. Even so, the OneFare program is a big step towards intermodal fare levelling, with room to improve in future.
Vancouver BC (TransLink/West Coast Express)Vancouver’s famous automated metro, SkyTrain, shares its three-zone system with TransLink’s buses, and the SeaBus ferry to North Vancouver. A one-zone fare is valid throughout the system on evenings and weekends. There is an additional fare to depart from the three Airport area stations.
West Coast Express (WCE) is an excruciatingly North American commuter train which runs five morning trains inbound and five evening trains outbound, and charges a premium fare for it. Transfers with other TransLink services are free, but three-zone trips cost $8.25, compared to $6.35 for other modes, and increase for the zones 4 and 5 that exist solely for longer WCE trips.
Vancouver Fast & Frequent Transit Network (only WCE stations shown). TransLinkNew York City’s Slow Uptake of Integrated FaresUp to 1997, New York City actually placed a 25 cent surcharge for transfers between bus and subway. With introduction of free bus-subway transfers for passengers using the MetroCard fare card that year, New York state’s Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) saw a weekday system ridership increase of over 1 million riders in the next twelve months.
The MTA was surprised that transit ridership increased, as they did not expect it to have an impact on ridership among those who rarely transfer between bus and subway, who were 91% of riders. MetroCard use increased to 74% of customers’ fares by the end of 1998, which greatly decreased cash sorting and handling costs.
The MTA’s 11 for 10 bonus ride program introduced in 1998 produced smaller ridership increases for both subway and bus than did free transfers. Free transfers were analysed in Lessons From MetroCard Fare Initiatives – the New York Transportation Journal and determined to be of key importance to riders – convenience, simplicity, and flexibility. They provide the flexibility to take transit spontaneously and allow riders to discover and explore new lines without financial penalty. And free transfers mean one less thing to worry about.
Correspondingly, subway and bus ridership rose 14% over the same period (although part of this was also due to fare discounts and a good economy). Most of the increase was in bus ridership, increasing 35% over the 2 year period. All these netted the MTA a $100 million surplus in its’ first fiscal year.
The MTA remains a particularly egregious example of commuter rail as a separate fiefdom. The agency operates the Metro-North and Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) commuter rail networks as well as New York City Transit. However, these three rail networks that the MTA operates are not fare integrated with each other. Whilst a combination LIRR and Metro-North ticketing exists, its implementation is confusing. There are restrictions on when passengers can buy it and use it, and the pricing of the combo ticket for using both systems is not much cheaper – in fact it is sometimes cheaper to buy a single ticket for each leg of the journey.
There are also PATH subway between New Jersey and Manhattan, and the JFK Air Train. But there are no plans to fare integrate these systems with MTA subway or bus, Metro-North, or LIRR services.
*Philadelphia: Squandering Good Infrastructure*Philadelphia is notable in North America for having an electrified regional rail network with a cross-city tunnel, allowing for a high quality train service that could be extremely useful to Philadelphians.
Unfortunately, the Regional Rail system has a system of separate and higher fares, leaving many passengers taking a longer bus-to-subway trip instead. Frequency of service is also poor, and these problems are interlinked: Trains are over-staffed with multiple conductors, partly so that conductors can sell these distance-based tickets.
With no current plan to solve these problems, the current bus network redesign is notable for doing little to feed bus routes into suburban railway stations, instead continuing to run a lot of overlapping service into subway terminals.
Grey Regional Rail Lines have different fares & zones. SEPTAPhiladelphia’s SEPTA transportation authority operates all of the networks in Philadelphia, except for PATCO, which also runs into New Jersey.
CityLab’s article on the commuting power of fast regional rail in London, Paris, and Seoul demonstrates the regional benefits of rapid, frequent, cross-city rail transport. But what it does not expand upon is the necessity of having a fare system integrated with other modes (such as metro/subway/Underground) for maximum passenger utility and mobility.
Fare Cards are Not Intermodal Fare IntegrationThere is also the important distinction of fare card/fare system integration, which enable payment for a number of different public transport modes, but that does not provide a free transfers between municipal and extra-municipal transport.
The fare payment system can be cash, tokens (albeit increasingly rare), a magnetic stripe or contactless payment card, and increasingly including credit and debit cards, mobile phones, and smart watches. As the sophistication of the payment platform increases, generally so does the ability to pay on a number of different transport systems. Many regional integrated fare systems operate without an electronic fare card, especially in Germany cities and other jurisdictions which prefer a proof-of-payment model with very inexpensive period passes.
However, having a regional farecard system does not mean that they enable free intermodal transfers or that connections between modes and agencies are seamless for passengers. This article from SPUR, the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association explains in more detail that a fare card used by different agencies is not necessarily fare integration. In particular, it enumerates the five problems that a multi-agency fare policy should solve:
- Disparate fares make using transit confusing.
- Separate fares for different agencies are [especially] a problem when one agency substitutes its service for another’s, as happens during disruptions.
- There isn’t a single pass that employers can purchase for their staffs [who typically live in different cities].
- The system penalizes trips that happen to require multiple operating agencies. Note that some US agencies still charge for connecting between services of the same agency [and includes the NYC MTA and Philadelphia examples above].
- The system makes it hard to do coherent discounting for low-income persons.
North American urban rail should consider moving to tap in, tap out fare payment for two reasons:
- It discourages opportunistic fare evasion, because sneaking in doesn’t guarantee that they’ll be able to sneak out.
- It allows mode-neutral fare zones, in place of flat fares + premium regional rail fares.
Social Justice IssuesImplementing fare integration will ideally eliminate the common North American effect of having wealthy people taking faster commuter trains. Price-sensitive riders are often forced to ride slower, less convenient, and often less reliable modes like buses instead, which impacts their quality of life and sometimes employment options.
Furthermore, many North American cities see the suburbanization of poverty, whereby older neighbourhoods close to downtown have become gentrified. This results in much higher rents and property prices, pushing the original lower income residents to cheaper housing, typically a long way from job nodes like downtown.
Hence, implementing mode-agnostic fare zones allows many making longer transit trips the option, where available, to take higher speed commuter trains and buses, with no financial penalty. In most cases, fare integration reduces barriers to transit for the most vulnerable residents.
Commuter railroads are aware of the travel changes brought on by the COVID pandemic, that more flexible work arrangements are now required. Some are implementing or expanding bi-directional all-day service to better serve travellers. Unfortunately, many of these agencies have not yet taken the next conceptual step of realising that this mid-day and weekend service is pushing more use of city public transport modes. As a result, Commuter rail agencies need to better integrate with other modes to facilitate and simplify travel.
Intermodal Integration Implementation IssuesThere are a few issues that have to be faced by every promoter of intermodal integration:
- Many economists, accountants, MBAs, and politicians argue that fares must reflect costs. As the cost of provision clearly differs between modes almost everywhere, this argument is levied against standard intermodal fares. The same argument applies, of course, to public transport generally where the marginal costs of the marginal passenger are low until the point where another train or bus is required.
- The pragmatic answer to this is that public transport services should be reorganised to avoid competing with each other, for example, with buses feeding into rail routes. But there are two issues here – one is the institutional silo mentality between modes, and the second is scale – medium sized and smaller conurbations should have less resistance to modal differentiation.
- Another force that has affected longer distance, intercity trains, and coaches is airline style “dynamic pricing”. Fortunately, local transport has resisted it to date. If anything, some cities increase mobility range or lower fares when there is excess capacity, such as weekday middays and weekends.
Organization before electronics before concreteThe German axiom Organisation vor Elektronik vor Beton literally ‘management before electronics before concrete’, encourages transport planners and operators to prioritise organisational changes like fare policy and schedule changes over infrastructure like new lines or stations. Implementing this principle can greatly improve rider mobility through fare changes, as a first order quick win.
Basically, there are two kinds of fare and service integration (FSI) structures, and resulting problems, in North America:
- Too many separate agencies (for instance, Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Area) that are partially funded and operated by Balkanised suburban municipalities and counties, often at odds with the regional public transport authority.
The 27 different transport agencies of the SFO Bay area. Seamless Bay Area* Some agencies that operate city rail and bus systems, as well as outer suburban commuter railways and bus networks, but that are needlessly siloed. Examples include Boston’s MBTA, New York City’s MTA, Chicago’s RTA which oversees CTA, Metra, and Pace), and Philadelphia’s SEPTA.
We shall look at public transport authority structures, the advantages and their disadvantages, in a future part of this new series on intermodal fare integration, as well as other fare issues.
Many thanks to Jack Tattersall, M.Sc. Candidate in the Transit Analytics Lab at the University of Toronto Mobility Network and Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering for his assistance and insight.
The post North American Cities Join the Fare Zone Club: Finally Integrating Intermodal Fares appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Beck’s Maps at 90 (Cartographic Journal)
• Nottinghamshire power station receives final coal delivery by rail (Rail Advent)
• World’s longest railway tunnel to reopen after a year (Rail Technology)
• The Paris RER Just Got Better: Video (RMTransit)
• Navigating between New York’s Grand Central ‘Terminal’ & ‘Madison’ Stations (Trains)
• New York City expands camera network to protect bus lanes (Cities Today)
• Montreal West Station’s Pavilion (ArchDaily)
• Kate Carr – Midsummer, London (The Quietus)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 1 July 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• ‘Technical issues’ further delay DLR’s new trains (Rail Mag)
• At Last. Trams reach Blackpool North station (BusAndTrainUser)
• No Isle of Wight trains on Ryde Pier for 8 months due to works (Isle of Wight County Press)
• Renovation of historic station among designs unveiled for California’s high-speed rail (Dezeen)
• Piccadilly Line Northfields to Earls Court Via Terminal 4 Loop: Video (Dale Charman Travels)
• Self-Driving Cars Only Safer When Driving In Straight Lines Under Perfect Conditions (Jalopnik)
• How traffic noise hurts children’s brains (BBC)
• I Ran the Entire Length of Stansted Express: Video (Matt Nelson)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 28 June 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• AI cameras used to detect train passengers’ emotions without them knowing (Independent)
• The Unbuilt Tube Line to London Lullingstone Airport: Video (Jago Hazzard)
• How The Channel Tunnel Works: Video (How The Channel Tunnel Works)
• Rethinking ULEZ for tariff by distance (Zag Daily)
• Austria to Curb Crashes by Selling Super-Speeders’ cars (CityLab)
• Hôpital Lyon Sud Metro Station’s cool design aesthetic (Archello)
• LA’s $9.5 Billion Metro Purple Line Extension Progress: Video (How Structure)
• Train Station Certificate: Japan’s PERTIS (KHKQ Beside Trains)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 24 June 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• TfL’s latest railway improvements: Trains, signalling, and station upgrades detailed (Ian Visits)
• Blackpool’s first new tram extension in 98 years opens (Mainspring)
• HS2: Progress on a grand scale (Rail Engineer)
• London Underground hosts tests for ‘quantum compass’ that could replace GPS (The Guardian)
• Work Paused On Second Avenue Subway Extension After Congestion Pricing Pause (Streetsblog)
• Baselines are Very Important for Evaluating Transit, esp for Media (Reece Martin)
• Hong Kong’s MTR is Enviable: Video (BuildingBeautifully)
• Cheap, Easy, Good: We Need to Think Like Amazon to Decarbonize Transportation (NextCity)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 21 June 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Seeing inside the derelict Bishopsgate Goodsyard arches (Ian Visits)
• Cars Are Slowing Down in European Cities (Reasons to be Cheerful)
• Once a symbol of Detroit’s downturn, iconic Michigan Central Station reopens (CBC)
• Track Record of the Long Island Railroad serving New York City (Urban Omnibus)
• What New Yorkers Can Learn From London’s Congestion Pricing (Jacobin)
• Sydney to Melbourne in four hours: proposal for high-speed rail for Australia (The Guardian)
• The longest distance you can walk underneath (Diamond Geezer)
• Business owners are still buying into the myth that most customers drive to them (Vox)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 17 June 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• TfL updates on London rail developments (Rail Technology)
• When the Bakerloo Line ran to Watford Junction: Video (Jago Hazzard)
• How I Learned to Stop Worrying & Love the Contraflow Transit Lanes (Marco Chitti)
• How this strange line revived Sydney’s tram network: Video (CityMoose)
• Good Move car restriction plan transforms Brussels’ city center (Politico)
• One simple trick’ Paris used to reduce its air pollution by 40% (Electrek)
• Marburg to pay residents up to €1250 for deregistering their car (polisMOBILITY)
• How Toronto transformed a highway underpass into a vibrant public space (Fast Company)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 14 June 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
Everyone knows the history of the Metropolitan Railway as the world’s first underground line on 10th January 1863 between Bishops Road and Farringdon – but that was not even how the line was going to be built. Long before they had even started building the line to Farringdon, extensions to the system were under consideration, with some already approved by Act of Parliament. The Hammersmith & City Railway opened to fanfare on 13th June 1864 – 160 years ago, with through trains running between Hammersmith and Farringdon. Yet this line should have been opened at the same time as the Metropolitan Railway. The later opening was however due to a forgotten disaster.
Viaduct alongside Bartle Road in Notting Hill. Author photo.The entire length of the railway alongside Bartle Road in Notting Hill, London W11, was the scene of a major disaster that befell the Capital’s burgeoning underground network.
A calamity that was so large….That calamity was so large and yet so under-reported perhaps because it was overshadowed by the new Metropolitan Railway to Farringdon. The world’s eyes descended upon the Farringdon line because it was a total novelty – and when things went very wrong as they did (on the Metropolitan Railway), the media dutifully reported it. There are numerous photographs, drawings, and sketches of the Metropolitan’s construction, thus historians have a rich trove of information on the world’s first underground railway.
The section to Hammersmith has received scarce attention even in modern history (Londonist gave a brief mention of the viaduct however). Much of the line was built on a viaduct from a point west of Notting Hill station (Ladbroke Grove) to a point north of Hammersmith. And what happened is the first section of that viaduct collapsed entirely .
It was the first major accident to hit London’s nascent underground railway system. And it took the best part of two years for the Hammersmith & City’s construction to get back on track.
Broad & narrow (standard) gauge track at Hammersmith. Locomotive, Railway Carriage and Wagon Review, 1923.Only the ‘narrow gauge’ was operating by the time this picture was taken in the mid 1860s. Hammersmith station had not yet been built thus trains stopped at a temporary station (where a train is seen out of view to the left) at what would later be Grove Road station on the Kensington and Richmond line.
Origin of the Hammersmith and City Railway…The Building News and Engineering Journal.The line was originally to be known as the Hammersmith, Paddington and City Junction Railway. The bill was passed on 22nd July 1861 and there was every intention that it would be built and opened concurrently with the Metropolitan Railway. The new line soon became known as the Hammersmith and City Railway, and later bills were made under that title.
The mixed gauge Hammersmith & City Railway opened from a junction with the Great Western Railway (GWR) at what is now Westbourne Park station, to Hammersmith on 13 June 1864. Built by the GWR and Metropolitan Railway, it was set up as a separate company and was worked by the GWR on the broad gauge until April 1865. In that month, the Metropolitan Railway took over working, and the GWR broad gauge trains just worked to and from Kensington, Addison Road until 1869, when the broad gauge rails were lifted. The line had become the joint property of the Great Western and Metropolitan companies on 1 July 1867.
A History of the Great Western Railway by Colin C. Maggs, 2013.
The first trains on the new railway were operated by the Great Western every half an hour, and that soon increased. By the time the Met’s stock took over from the GWR, the H&C frequency had become every ten minutes, then every five minutes. This combined with the Metropolitan Railway to operate 16 trains an hour – eight each way, or every 7.5 mins – for the main route to Farringdon and Moorgate Street.
This huge volume of train services forced the early construction of a dive under at Royal Oak to avoid services having to cross the GWR main line on the level between Bishops Road station and Green Lane junction. All trains, no matter whether the GWR’s or the Metropolitan’s, worked right through to Farringdon & Moorgate Street thus fulfilling the original aspirations of the railway which was to form a transport link between Hammersmith and the City of London.
Ladbroke Grove Station’s all steel bridge in 1938Construction of the Hammersmith and City at first progressed well from Green Lane junction (Westbourne Park) to Notting Hill station – and it did look as if the route would be completed well ahead of expectations.
Notting Hill H&C Railway segment in 1868In this map, practically the entire H&C route from Green Lane junction that was constructed by November 1861 is shown. It’s interesting that the cartographer of the time used a pink which closely resembles the H&C’s present pink/salmon line colour.
By the winter of 1861 the route had been built from Green Lane to the site of Latimer Road station, whilst the new connection from Kensington Junction (aka Latimer Road Junction) to the West London Railway was also under construction. However disaster struck this rapid progress…
An entire viaduct on the Hammersmith & City line collapses…On the night of November 6th 1861 practically the entire viaduct towards Latimer Road collapsed. Six construction workers were killed. What happened is still open to debate, but one thing is known, the ground wasn’t stable. A long spell of extremely wet weather exacerbated the problem. This was all but completely unknown to the line’s overseers who had deemed the lengthy viaduct section complete and could even be used by construction trains.
The Hammersmith line viaduct collapse news. The Dublin Builder 1862.The engineers of the line were Messers Fowler and Wilson, and this was in fact Sir John Fowler’s company. Fowler was of course the engineer responsible for designing the world famous Forth rail bridge. John Fowler (as he was at the time) was engineer for both the Metropolitan Railway and its extension to Hammersmith. The building contractors for the line were Rummins – however the viaduct was actually built by subcontractors John Holden. William Wilson was the resident engineer and the one who directed the viaduct be shored up urgently.
Arches 12 to 14 (right to left). Which of the original arches had been the culprit? Author photo.As has been mentioned, at the time it was thought the viaduct was finished and ready for use. But no sooner than the timbers supporting the viaduct and its arches were removed on or about 1st November 1861, something began to go wrong. All was fine for about a week, until the morning of 6th November 1861 when a crack appeared in one of the arches (either number 12, 13, or 14 about where the old ditch was). The arch in question soon took on a quite distorted appearance and alarm bells were set ringing among the site’s workers and supervisors.
The London Underground system consists of a considerable amount of lengthy viaduct in some cases stretching a number of miles. Whether it was the Hammersmith & City in the 1860s or the Piccadilly line extension viaduct arches under construction near Southgate in the early 1930s, as shown early in this link, the technique for construction remained basically the same (as would be for arched brick doorways, windows, or any other arch design), which is to use timbers to form the structure that is desired. Once the timbers are removed it is at that point a viaduct is considered to have been completed.
The line’s resident engineer William Wilson decided the problem arch, plus the three either side, should be shored up urgently. By nightfall things had gone from bad to worse and an army of frantic workers began shoring up more of the viaduct. Efforts to quell the distortion was to no avail. First the piers supporting the problematic arch collapsed, followed by four arches on the Hammersmith side. Three on the City side subsequently went down and so on until fourteen arches in all had fallen.
Location of the viaduct on the Hammersmith & City Railway, probably mid 1860s. National Library of Scotland.Note the lack of buildings around the site at the time, which was quite fortuitous. Notting Hill (the present Ladbroke Grove) station can be seen at the top.
As has been reported six workmen were killed. It has been said one of the workmen’s wife and daughter arrived with his supper just at that moment and it was claimed that they too were buried by the viaduct’s collapse. Since the inquiry does not mention extra fatalities, it can be assumed the wife and daughter were later found quite safe.
The Hammersmith line viaduct collapse. The Annual Register, Or a View of the History and Politics of the Year 1862The ages of the workers who died ranged from 19 years upwards, and the last of the bodies was not recovered until several days later. It must certainly have taken the railway’s contractors several months to clear the collapsed viaduct from the area, then ensure the ground was drained properly and fully solid before a second new viaduct could commence construction. No doubt the inquiry which followed took precedence and construction work on the railway was largely slowed down until the court’s investigations were concluded and a decision made on how the disaster unfurled.
S7 stock on the rebuilt section of H&C viaduct. Author photo.On the right can be seen the signal sited just west of Bartle Road, and on the left can be seen the signal by St Marks Road. Two sets of colour light signals can be seen but these signals are no longer in use because the line now runs on CBTC. However these mark the beginning and the end of the viaduct section which collapsed in 1861. The entire viaduct is on a gentle curve that turns the railway from an initial western alignment to a south western direction. Part of the parapet belonging to St Marks Road bridge can be seen – that is roughly 425m (or 1395 feet) from Latimer Road where this picture was taken.
How long is fourteen arches exactly? Author photo.Each section of the line’s viaducts are built in the same style and the section by the Westfield Centre has fourteen arches visible, which indicates the total length of viaduct that collapsed. Fourteen arches equates the full eight cars of a S8 stock train, however the H&C and Circle lines’ S7 stock equates twelve arches. It must be remembered there were nineteen arches in total and fourteen of those collapsed.
Outcome of the disasterOne outcome was a long delay in the line’s construction. Previously, good progress had been made on Section One of the contract as far as the site of Latimer Road. Work did not fully recommence until November 1862 and by April 1863, 69 arches had been completed to a point just west of Kensington Junction where Section Two of the contract commenced. By August 1863 construction had seen the viaduct completed as far as arch number 92 at Wood Lane.
There’s no doubt part of the collapsed viaduct had to be left intact for the ensuing enquiry which took more than a year. Also the time in lieu for the directors, contractors and workers to attend the inquiry and John Fowler himself had to attend it too. He gave a fair amount of evidence detailing that the viaduct had been built well and at no time was construction suspected to be below standard.
Somewhere in the vicinity of the length of 175 meters (575 feet) of brand new railway viaduct had collapsed. It is quite fortuitous that the present viaduct, the second such structure to be built along this section, was previously quite hidden but can be easily seen today – and one can walk alongside and imagine the scale of the disaster that befell the first viaduct built.
Church on Lancaster Road. Library Time Machine. In this photo the large church still exists. A transport depot can be seen next to the railway. The site of this is now Bartle Road. To the rear of the depot (and out of sight) was the notorious Rillington Place where the mass murderer John Christie lived.
Same viaduct location in May 2024. Author photo.All the area’s former industrial buildings have gone and the viaduct is more visible. Its full length can be walked from here to St Marks Road.
The inquiry and subsequent falloutWhen construction initially commenced in August 1861 on that very section, it had been a dry summer and it was therefore not possible to ascertain that the ground was essentially unsuited for the purpose it was being put to. The course of the old ditch wasn’t actually built upon as the piers stood either side of it. As the year drew on and autumn arrived things began to change and the ground became very waterlogged. No-one noticed however because the entire viaduct was kept rigid by the use of construction timbers which were of course essential in order to enable this (or any other viaduct) to retain its shape and form. Once the work had been deemed completed, these timbers were removed and contractors’ trains were even allowed to pass upon the viaduct. It was alleged at the inquiry the use of these trains had caused the viaduct to weaken.
The rebuilt viaduct stood up well in spite of this and there’s no doubt viaducts are very strong structures, when built on solid ground. As an example, see this photo of the Wood Lane viaduct from the LT Museum.
One would perhaps wonder why there’s little on the matter especially given the scale of the collapse. Evidently the world was focused upon the Metropolitan Railway’s Farringdon line, so the Hammersmith disaster was passed by. It wasn’t just that. The courts found no laws had been broken, thus no blame was ascribed for the calamity. The deaths of the workers were deemed to have arisen from accidental causes. There was outrage over that of course but since no culpability could be attributed, the fallout was dampened.
Once this open verdict had been given, there was no doubt a considerable amount of opinion and criticism upon the disaster – and some were in no doubt the lines’ engineers, contractors or the companies supplying materials had all been complicit in one way or another.
The Building News published a list of factors they suspected had contributed to the viaduct’s collapse in its publication on November 28th 1862. They had believed that with the correct materials and mixtures, the viaduct should have had no reason to collapse. ‘It is not right that human life should be endangered and sacrificed through buildings of this character being reared in a weak material…’ As the Building News cited, their concerns were because it had been noted other railways had been employing a false economy of using inferior or suspect materials.
The jury themselves cited their suspicions that the concrete used in the foundations near the said ditch was ‘not of a sound and proper kind.’ John Fowler basically proved the jury wrong. Besides the concrete, the quality of the mortar and lime was also blamed, as were the bricks used in construction. Companies suspected of having involvement of some sort like supplying inferior materials were anxious. One such company, Greaves and Kershaw of Paddington, went so far as to put out a statement citing that none of their lime had been used in the viaduct’s construction to clear their name of any hint of reputational damage:
Greaves and Kershaw’s statement in November 1862 issue of Building News and Architectural Review.The Jury’s Verdict in November 1862:
That the deceased persons were suffocated and bruised to death by the falling of certain arches of the viaduct on the Hammersmith and City Railway, and the jury say that the said arches fell on account of the slipping of one of the piers of the said viaduct; and the jury further say that the said deaths arose from accidental causes. The jury wish to add that they believe that sufficient attention was not paid to the character of the soil on which the foundations of the piers were laid, and that the concrete at the base of the pier was not of a sound and proper kind.
The disaster was ultimately ascribed to what was largely a series of unknown factors. Thus it seems blame couldn’t really be attributed no matter how hard the inquiry sought evidence of any negligence in the viaduct’s construction. John Fowler for example refuted the jury’s suspicion of inferior concrete being used by demonstrating the concrete samples brought over from the accident site and which the jury were looking at had in fact been disintegrated by the lateral movement of the piers.
Every engineer and every contractor that was examined were found to not be at fault, and where less than ideal materials had been suspected of being used in the viaduct’s construction, samples were brought to the inquiry and analysed and shown to be essentially without fault. Thus there was no option really other than to conclude there simply wasn’t anyone who could be blamed for the calamity. It didn’t end the rumours as to how or who was responsible for the disaster.
The matter no doubt faded into obscurity and has been almost totally overlooked by historians of both railways and the Underground.
SummaryThis calamity delayed construction of the H&C for a year. Two disasters befell the Metropolitan Railway, where direct and attributable causes were found (and could be easily and directly observed – the River Fleet sewer bursting and flash flooding. Nevertheless, both the Metropolitan and the Hammersmith & City railways overcame their construction challenges and initiated the urban railway revolution.
Guest Author Rog writes the London Rail Blog, which covers London railway and underground history, intertwined with the history of London itself. His site also features a series on the Morden-Edgware Line, as well as a number of foreign railway systems including those in Switzerland, the Milwaukee Road, the Alfred County Railway, and a lengthy series on the Tokaido Shinkansen. We have linked to some of his posts over the years in our Monday/Friday Reads.
The post The Unknown Hammersmith & City Construction Calamity appeared first on London Reconnections.
• What New York should learn from London’s Congestion Charge – & so should London (OnLondon)
• New curved pedestrian bridge is coming to east London (Timeout)
• The Other Kind of Bike Infrastructure Cities Need (CityLab)
• MTA loses an estimated $690 million due to fare, and toll, evasion (Mass Transit)
• Microtranist Is Taxpayer Funded Uber — And It’s a Threat to Real Transit (Streetsblog)
• The Rise of Rapid Regional Rail (Arpitrage)
• Sunken Railway Station in Jiaxing (Dezeen)
• I live on trains (The Guardian)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 10 June 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• ETCS comes to intercity mainline in UK rail first (Railway Technology Magazine)
• TfL offering unlimited 30-minute cycle rides every Sunday in June (Ian Visits)
• Proof of Payment Past and Present: Part 1 – Tickets and Transfers (Railway Age)
• Personal Rapid Transit: The “Future” of Transit: Video (Trains Are Awesome)
• Kyoto’s Sub-Standard Rail Transit (Koji’s Posts)
• Frogger: Walkable City game asks what a frog might do in a city free of cars (Polygon)
• Europe’s Cross Border Trains off the Rails: Video (VPRO)
• Everything you Wanted to know about the History & HS2 Future of Washwood Heath: Video (Permanent Way Inst)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 7 June 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• NY MTA Seeks Behavioral Expert to Combat Record Fare Evasion (CityLab)
• Good Move plan reducing traffic transforms Brussels’ city centre (Politico)
• Why Genuine Experiences Matter in Accessibility Assessment (Accessible Link)
• TfL FoI requests in May 2024 (Diamond Geezer)
• A Ride on the Dublin Metro (Straphanger)
• Will California Ever Go All-in on Intercity Rail? The Demand is There (Streetsblog)
• The legendary & luxurious private train of Yugoslav President Tito (Spomenik Database)
• A Short History of Railway Luggage (NRM)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 3 June 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• East West Rail stations near completion, systems testing underway (New Civil Engineer)
• Walk Britain by Rail (Railwalks)
• Inside the battle between Amtrak and the freight railroads (The Urban Condition)
• America’s Failed High Speed Train – Budd Metroliner: Video (Ruairidh MacVeigh)
• Court rejects residents’ bid to halt maglev train construction (The Japan Times)
• East Japan Railways phasing out magnetic paper tickets, seven other rail operators will too (SoraNews24)
• We drove a Japanese train through the countryside: Video (KuriKurinton)
• Bear travel infrastructure abuilding in the Rocky Mountains (BBC)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 31 May 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
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 ProblemsIt 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 trainsHaving 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 ProblemTo 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 SolutionWith, 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 CaseThe 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 IntervenesWith 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 QuestionThe 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 SolutionsFor 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 PaddingtonThere 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 peaksIf 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 DraytonFor 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 backgroundTo 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 5For 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 FactorsOur 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 gotThere 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 GameAt 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.
• Why journeys from the UK are about to become much trickier (The Guardian)
• c2c’s oldest trains to get major refurbishment (Ian Visits)
• What’s really going on with high-speed rail in the US? (Urban Condition)
• Install speed tables as fast as you can (Urbanism Speakeasy)
• TransPennine Express kicks off first intercity battery trial (The Engineer)
• Leasing group will add Regent’s Viceroy electric sea gliders to its portfolio (Aviation International)
• Right now’s the best time of year for a ride on Tokyo’s often-forgotten streetcar line (SoraNews24)
• Mind the map: a new design for the London Underground map (esri)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 27 May 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Turbulence on flights is getting worse because of climate change (New Scientist)
• What happens when councils take control of buses? (BBC)
• P&O Ferries Decarbonisation of its Fleet on Dover-Calais (Afloat)
• Sydney and the origins of ‘Becksploitation’ (Bryers & Bryers)
• Apple Rolls out Support for Paris Transit Passes in Wallet Just in Time for the Olympics (MacStories)
• Back to the Silverlink: London Overground’s shabby past in a new photo exhibition (Ian Visits)
• The Train Crash That Exposed Japan’s Toxic Work Culture: Video (Worlds In Motion)
• How Helsinki made transit work in the suburbs: Video (Urban Mobility Explained)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 24 May 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Midlands Rail Hub for Birmingham & Beyond, Explained: Video (Rail Focus)
• More than 10,000 London black-cab drivers launch £250m Uber lawsuit (The Guardian)
• City of London’s Radical Changes Encourage More Cyclists & Pedestrians (CityLab)
• Why drive-throughs are suddenly everywhere (Vox)
• New transit station in Japan significantly reduces cumulative health expenditures (Medical Xpress)
• How a Tunnel made SEPTA America’s Best Regional Rail: Video (Trains Are Awesome)
• Florence pays people to cycle rather than drive (TheMayor)
• Luddites’ put out cones to stop AVs (Wired)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 20 May 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• The Great Train Robbery – What Went Wrong?: Video (Paul Whitewick)
• Okehampton Interchange (The Dartmoor Line)
• What If Non-Drivers Helped Plan Our Transportation Systems? (Next City)
• The Incredible Stockwell Bus Garage: Video (Geoff Marshall)
• What Goes on at ‘Friends of Station’ Groups?: Video (Nick Badley)
• All the Funiculars (Joseph Brennan)
• Japan’s Railway Backbone (Koji’s Posts)
• The lost world of Belisha (Roads)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 17 May 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
We just looked at TfL’s efforts to expand step-free access on its network. Level access is definitively patchy on TfL’s network, and the same goes for the Network Rail. Whilst the London Underground is famous for reminding passengers to mind the gap, large vertical and horizontal gaps between the train and the platform are even more common on the main line railway.
This presents a risk for passengers on an otherwise very safe mode of transport. Platform Train Interface (PTI) incidents lead to around 13 fatalities each year in the UK, and comprise 48% of the passenger fatality risk on the mainline railway network, according to the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB).
For wheelchair users, and many other passengers with mobility impairments, a step of a few inches may as well be a ten-foot wall. With few exceptions, station or train staff need to deploy a manual ramp to provide level boarding. This assistance typically needs to be booked 24 hours in advance. As many wheelchair users will attest, booking this assistance is no guarantee that it will actually be provided. Sadly, mobility impaired passengers cannot simply ‘turn up and go’ on Britain’s mainline railway network.
Train operating company focus groups, even those about passenger information, regularly receive feedback on the need for step-free access. Parents with buggies, people with strollers, seniors with limited mobility, passengers with luggage, cyclists, and shoppers with large purchases all benefit from accessibility improvements. For people to become car-free, they need alternative mobility modes that are flexible and accessible. Accessibility is no longer seen as a nice-to-have, but rather the legal and ethical obligation of a public service.
Street To PlatformDiscussions about the platform train interface are moot if the stations themselves are not accessible. Whilst many passengers with reduced mobility can overcome a single step, a flight of stairs is another matter entirely. Approximately one in ten National Rail stations lacks step-free access from street to platform, with at least some platforms accessible only via stairs, subways, and footbridges.
Unfortunately, retrofitting a lift (usually two, one for each platform) is a costly business. The recent £6m step-free upgrade of Southeastern’s Bexleyheath station in South-East London included widening the London-bound platform to accommodate the new lift and footbridge. The lift will be able to carry up to 16 people and handle large wheelchairs, in compliance with current standards. The project was funded by the DfT’s Access for All programme.
Other recent station retrofit estimates, however, have come in at £15-20m for a pair of lifts and the associated footbridge, with costs depending on site conditions and the scale of work involved.
Even then, these works stop short of true step-free access whilst the platform-train interface problem remains largely unresolved.
Platform to TrainIdeally, the platform matches the floor height and width of the trains, with only a few millimetres of gap. This is exactly how it’s done on modern metro and tram systems worldwide, which operate a more-or-less uniform fleet of trains.
On the self-contained sections which comprise the majority of the Tyne and Wear Metro and Merseyside’s Northern and Wirral Lines, this strategy has made level boarding the norm.
On the main line railway, things get more complicated. Platforms must be set further back from the rail to accommodate the kinematic envelope of various types of trains cleared to pass through the station, potentially at speed. The width and lateral movement of freight trains is a particular constraint, especially on routes cleared for container traffic.
The difference is evident at Canonbury station in North London: The Mildmay Line (née North London) carries freight, hence the platforms are too low for level boarding onto the class 378 units. The Windrush Line tracks through the station (the East London Line extension) do not carry freight, so their platforms are flush with the floors of the same EMUs.
Great Britain has a nominal platform height standard of 915mm above the railhead, offset 730mm from the closest rail. This is, as they say, honoured more in the breach than in the observance. There are significant variances, and it has been known for freight trains to scrape platforms.
The typical approach in passenger train design for getting close to platforms, but not too close to scrape them at speed, has been a higher floor: Typically around 1,100mm above the railhead. This creates an approximately 200mm step up to board, but in so doing allows a fixed step to bridge the horizontal gap without fouling the platform.
Ramping UpAccessibility from platform to train is regulated by the Technical Specification for Interoperability for Persons of Reduced Mobility (TSIPRM), largely dating from the 1990s. Crucially, these documents do not require level boarding, only mandating the maximum step and gap dimensions beyond which a ‘boarding aid’ is required.
Hence the overwhelming majority of UK trains complied with the platform-train and on-board requirements by the 2019 mandate. Boarding by means of a manual ramp remains the norm, leaving wheelchair users dependent on staff assistance.
As for the majority of those with ambulatory disabilities who don’t use a wheelchair, including many older people, the steep angle and lack of grab rails can make a ramp more difficult than a step.
There was a somewhat infamous accessibility case of CrossCountry staff insisting an elderly lady with a walking stick use a ramp because assistance had been booked, even though she found this more difficult. All she wanted was a hand with her suitcase, as she only had one free hand. Here, good accessible design would have included grab rails and a more flexible approach to assistance.
The portable ramps provided on the new Welsh class 197 trains have introduced new lows in terms of usability, as described in detail in the February 2023 edition of Modern Railways. Many stations have a collection of portable ramps, one each for a different type of train, as there is no standardised method for securing them to trains. In some instances, some fleets need longer ramps than others to ensure they don’t exceed a slope of 1 in 20. There has been a recent Innovate UK/South Western Railway competition launched for the design of a better ramp.
The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC)’s independent report DPTAC reference frame: Working towards a fully accessible railway gives the context:
Disability affects around 14 million people in the UK. It includes physical and sensory impairments as well as non-visible disabilities, such as autism, dementia and anxiety.
For many disabled people their inability to use the rail network, because of physical or other barriers, or because of a lack of confidence, prevents them from being able to access employment, education and health care, as well as participating in leisure, social and commercial activities.
Although there has been worthwhile progress in improving the accessibility of the rail network in recent years (improvements to the accessibility of rolling stock for instance), evidence continues to suggest consistently that the network nevertheless remains substantially inaccessible for many disabled people…
Against this background, we have argued over the past 2 years that accessibility needs to be seen as a fundamental requirement of a successful railway, embedded into the core of what the railway does in the same way that safety already is.
The report gives the following state of accessibility of the main-line railway network:
- Only 20% of national rail stations have step-free access between street and platforms. A further 31% of stations have ‘reasonable’ step-free access, usable by many, but not all, disabled people.
- Less than 2% of stations have level access between train and platform – meaning for the other 98% a platform-train ramp is required, along with manual deployment by staff. At 33% of stations, there is a vertical or horizontal step or gap greater than 25cm.
Filling The GapThe railway industry has adopted two approaches to step-free access without the need for a ramp. The first is to raise platforms to match traditional floor heights on the self-contained segments of particular lines.
For example, Crossrail built the central section of the Elizabeth Line to a platform height of 1,100mm, matching the floor height of the class 345 trains. This has the deleterious effect of making level boarding impossible outside of the central section, where some freight and other passenger trains remain. Heathrow Express provides level boarding at 1,100mm throughout, as all of its platforms are either dedicated or shared with the Elizabeth Line.
The second is to procure lower-floor trains. Swiss manufacturer Stadler has taken this approach when supplying DMUs and EMUs from its FLIRT platform to Greater Anglia and Transport for Wales (TfW), and Class 398 tram-trains for TfW’s Valley Lines with a 960mm floor height. This approach results in a wider horizontal gap, requiring retractable gap-fillers which can either be carried on trains, or with intelligent platforms.
The lower-floor train plus gap filler approach is favoured by the Campaign for Level Boarding because it can be implemented network-wide given incremental platform rectification to the established 915mm standard above the railhead.
The extra moving part does introduce an extra failure mode, increasing the potential for operational failures in service and associated disruption. This is particularly true for smart platforms, failures on which could potentially make the line impassable. Further, small changes in height between train, gap filler and platform can also create trip hazards that potentially affect a far greater number of passengers. particularly blind or partially sighted individuals. Current building design and rail practice generally specifies minimum step heights; widespread implementation of gap fillers may require alternative mitigations.
Unfortunately, there is no national program to resolve the various National Rail platform heights, as we have discussed. Without that, widespread national standardisation of train floor heights cannot happen.
Does an Extra Crew Member help?In recent years, British transport policy has been moving towards leaner staffing on the railway. Whilst a national policy to close most ticket offices was abandoned, on a local level an increasing number of stations lack a ticket office or any staff at all for much of the day. This has been a concern for disabled passengers, who need to be able to find a member of staff in order to travel spontaneously, or if booked assistance fails to show up.
On board, meanwhile, new trains increasingly feature driver-controlled operation, wherein the driver, rather than the conductor, is responsible for opening and closing doors. Whilst this has raised fears about conductors being eliminated altogether on more routes, conductors will be able to devote more attention to their customer-facing roles such as assisting disabled passengers. Currently the biggest source of missed accessibility assistance requests is staff failing to read the message (eg ‘deploy ramp at Flimby’) in time, which driver-controlled operation may mitigate.
It is noticeable that the trade union messaging on Driver Only Operation has subtly shifted from ‘who closes the doors’ (although this remains a live issue) to ‘who helps people with mobility issues at unstaffed stations, and looks after passenger questions and issues’.
Some train operating companies arrange for staff to travel by road to meet trains where assistance has been pre-booked. This solution has obvious challenges, for example traffic delays, and peaks and troughs in demand for assistance.
HS2 AccessibilityHS2 train accessibility will be challenging on a technical level. It is believed that they have decided to have 1100 mm platform heights at all new stations, as well as a much larger than usual offset to accommodate the ‘captive sets’ originally planned to match wider European high speed rolling stock and operate exclusively on HS2 trackage. The trains being ordered for now will be to the normal UK loading gauge, so there will be a significant gap to fill at HS2 stations, whilst the usual ramps will be needed once the trains come off the HS2 network and onto the classic rails.
On new platforms, there will be level gap fillers on classic compatible stock along with angled gap fillers for existing platforms, most of which are on container freight routes. A number of companies are bidding to build HS2 trains, of which every European rolling stock manufacturer apart from Stadler and those from the former Warsaw Pact countries now has a conventional floor height (~1150mm) to 915mm gap filling solution.
Accessible Transport Legal Obligations Inquiry BeginsThe parliamentary Transport Select Committee launched a Call for Evidence public survey for its Legal Obligations Inquiry, to hear about the barriers that people with disabilities and accessibility needs experience when using public transport. This included buses, trains, taxis, planes, as well as using streets. The survey closed 20 March 2023.
There are a number of legal obligations to ensure accessibility applies to transport operators and local licensing authorities across different modes of transport, and the Committee wanted evidence about the following:
- How effective is the current legislation aimed at ensuring accessible transport for all?
- How can the current legislation be better enforced to make accessible transport a reality?
- How effective are the relevant regulators at enforcing accessibility in transport?
- Do the current legal obligations or guidance need to be strengthened?
- How effective is the Government’s Inclusive Transport Strategy?
- How well does Inclusive Transport Strategy influence decision-making across transport policy?
- How could the Inclusive Transport Strategy be improved?
We look forward to reading the recommendations of this Committee’s report once it is issued.
The Accessibility Requirement of Rail Replacement BusesNot mentioned so far is the challenge of carrying everyone when rail replacement buses need to operate. Traditionally, all sorts of vehicles were employed, typically including touring coaches operated by Britain’s many small coach firms, which were not required to have wheelchair access. People with mobility impairments were conveyed in taxis.
Following a 2019 legal challenge it was held that rail replacement buses were ‘scheduled services’ and therefore needed to have wheelchair accessible vehicles. This precluded the use of touring coaches, which companies couldn’t replace overnight. In any case, this issue is likely dwarfed by the general shortage of bus and coach drivers. In recent years some leading to some rail replacement services not being provided at all. At times, passengers have been told to book their own taxis and claim from the railway.
There many other Platform Safety IssuesThere was a fatality at Eden Park Station in 2021 at which a person with impaired vision fell onto the track. He had not noticed that he was near the platform edge, as there was no tactile surface indication there, so he fell and a train fatally struck him.
A recent incident has motivated the individual who fortunately survived a similar fall to sue Network Rail for the same lack of platform edge tactile edges. We await the outcome with interest.
Great Western Railway (GWR)’s Twyford station in Berkshire has had a number of incidents due to its platform sloping towards the tracks. In May 2022, a baby in a pram rolled onto the tracks. Fortunately, the baby was rescued unharmed after the mother and a fellow passenger lifted the pram to safety. However, the incident sparked a review of the station’s layout. New Civil Engineer magazine read the minutes from Network Rail’s board meeting about the incident and found that a similar incident occurred a month later, when an empty pram fell onto the tracks due to the turbulence caused by a passing freight train.
GWR’s investigation found that the platform was originally constructed in 1839 with a shallow, one-degree gradient towards the track to assist with drainage. Fortunately, the designs of new UK rail platforms no longer use this design, as the platform gradient now directs water run-off away from the tracks.
The Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) investigation concluded that the cause of the second pram accident was a freight train’s slipstream, combined with the ambient wind, which generated an aerodynamic force which overcame the brakes on the wheelchair. As a result, the RAIB made five recommendations:
- Inform the public of the potential hazards from train slipstreams and the need to apply brakes and keep a hold of wheelchairs and pushchairs when non-stopping trains pass through stations;
- Investigate measures to improve the safety of wheelchair and pushchair users at railway stations;
- Change the Railway Group Standard which specifies when a station operator must carry out a formal assessment of the risks from passing trains.
- Make two recommendations to Great Western Railway: to continue its current work to risk-assess the platforms for which it is responsible, and
- Ensure that warnings of passing trains provided to station users are timely and effective.
This sounds quite passive, and in all likelihood similar accidents will continue to occur—more signage does not make an area safe.
To go Up, or to go DownThere are two ways to bring platforms up to the standard height—either raise the platform or lower the track. Permanent way engineers really don’t like lowering the track as it leads to water accumulating, which can be notoriously difficult to resolve. Of course, it is sometimes necessary, such as to obtain extra clearance under a bridge.
Raising platforms can cause a problem too. East Croydon platforms 1 and 2 were quite low compared to the trains’ floor level, which had led to a number of problems. Network Rail did an excellent job of installing a lightweight top surface, which can be a good solution. However, it was expensive because nearly all the work had to be done at night to avoid closing the busy platforms, and the recently installed lifts needed a ramp up to the new platform level. This is unfortunate, as a slope entering or exiting a lift can create extra mobility challenges.
Clapham Junction is a notorious network pinch point, and one regular LR commenter has argued that dwell time could be substantially reduced if the currently substandard platforms were higher. This is probably a very good idea, but as at Croydon, this would add a slope down to the lifts. As for the steps down to the platforms, uneven step heights represent a safety hazard, so either the platforms would need to be raised by the full height of a step, or else a slope would be required to and from the stairs too.
In places, the problem is simply not bothering. For example, Maidenhead Crossrail station has a large drop from train to platform 3. This station had been modified with expensive lifts, yet at least one of the platforms used by Crossrail is not standard height.
Cost-Benefit AnalysisUnder current policies, station closures are triggered by major infrastructure costs that undermine the benefits. This can be an issue for lightly used stations, which comprise the majority of stations on the network, the costs of implementing accessibility are such that the station would close, with all passengers losing out.
Pragmatism is an art, and here this may take the form of finding economical ways to provide accessible service at minor stations.
For more detailed, engineering based, look at the UK mainline rail network’s status and improvements of level boarding, watch Gareth Dennis’ Rail Natter Level Boarding video.
It’s Generally Worse on The ContinentSo how are other European countries dealing with this issue? Train accessibility is actually one area where the UK is doing better than Europe, on the whole.
Despite the UK’s 24-hour delay from requesting to receiving accessibility assistance at main-line rail stations, continental Europe can be even worse, having an unholy myriad of platform heights. Passengers there sometimes need to climb up 3 steps or step down to the lower level of a train. As a result, ramps would have such a steep slope that they are impractical to use.
It is acceptable on the Continent to procure high floor trains, with one or two doorways at level access to typical platform height. It appears that this approach (the opposite of platform humps) is offered by all the main train manufacturers and could be adopted for UK operation. But no whiff of this to date.
Germany, that (supposed) Paragon of EfficiencyAs an example of difficulties on the continent, let us look at Germany, which is a well regarded marvel of engineering. Correspondent NCT took a tour of Germany’s many tram and railway lines a few months back, armed with an Interrail pass and a 9-Euro ticket, as follows:
The Rhine-Ruhr is a polycentric region with a lot of challenges – it suffered from heavy Allied bombing and everywhere has a slight Coventry look about it. The Rhine cities have traditionally been the country’s struggling cousins. The public transport networks of Dusseldorf, Cologne, and the Ruhr valley cities (Duisburg, Essen, Dortmund) are certainly extensive, and they offer valuable lessons for British regional cities, in both how to and how not to plan and build effective public transport.
All of the Rhine-Ruhr cities have Stadtbahn systems, sometimes supplemented by conventional trams. The former are usually high-floor trams that often dive underground in the city centres, whilst the conventional tram systems are usually, but not always, low floor.
However, these cities are still struggling to work out what to do about floor heights. Cologne (Köln) is probably the closest in terms of separating its high and low-floor systems. Its efforts have been frustrated by the second north-south tunnel’s collapse – but work is continuing slowly, with an estimated opening date of 2029.
German Urban Rail Networks’ Accessibility Dusseldorf mixes its high-floor and low-floor services in the suburbs, and it is not clear how they will make routes accessibility standard compliant without fundamentally changing the route structure. In Essen, the distinction between trams and Stadtbahn is even more fuzzy – one tram route shares the tunnelled route with the Stadtbahn and currently uses high-floor vehicles. The local authorities have flip-flopped whether to make it all high-floor or low-floor, and now going either way involves some substantial compromises or work.
A couple of Munich tram lines also have some stops in the centre of the road, requiring crossing the active carriageway to board and alight. No chance of level boarding there.
The infrastructure maintenance cost delta from going from tram stops to metro stations is major and should not be under-estimated. It is evident that even Germany struggles to find the money to maintain and properly upgrade its infrastructure.
Like the UK, most of Germany’s rail systems evolved before modern accessibility and health & safety standards, so they had built considerable infrastructure that would not be permitted to construct today. Generally, Germany adopts a pragmatic approach – if an improvement will cost a lot for small gains, they don’t proceed. Funding is tight there too.
Level Boarding in every Country is a Continual Work in ProgressUnfortunately, in the all too frequent times of austerity, UK platform-train interface upgrades are demoted in priority in the Treasury’s funding process. This is despite such upgrades benefiting all users, in the form of reduced accidents, quicker boarding and alighting (hence reduced dwell times), and station flow improvements.
There is no magic solution – often just plenty of compromises based on each line and station’s situation and context.
Thanks to the LR Towers Brain Trust for the detailed information for this post. Also thanks to NCT for his 2022 Euro Trip report on German platform-train interfaces. Lead photo is Vauxhall station. Network Rail
The post Much ado, or not to do, about Level Boarding on Network Rails: Part 2 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Government set to approve £1 billion tunnels for HS2-Euston link (IanVisits)
• TfL extends Woolwich ferry operating hours to every 15 minutes (Standard)
• Surrey Quays International Station: Video (Jago Hazzard)
• More People Movers (Reece Martin)
• Barcelona is connecting its 2 tram networks together (Sustainable Bus)
• New Orleans banning popular golf carts (Axios)
• Rural Americans are importing tiny Japanese pickup trucks (Economist – £)
• Why clubbers are raving about Germany’s cross-country Techno Train (The Guardian)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 13 May 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
A quick reminder to those interested that our next meeting of 2024 is on Tuesday 14th May at the Crosse Keys pub in the City of London. Normally at least a couple of us are there by 6.30 p.m. Join us anytime in the evening.
For more details click ‘Monthly Meetup – 2nd Tuesday Evening in the City‘ at the top of the home page.
If you wish to join our small cozy, select group then see you there!
The post Tuesday LR Pub Meetup 14th May appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Rail strikes restart as Aslef train drivers embark on new action (The Guardian)
• As Thames Barrier reaches 40, it will need adaptations for rising sea levels (E+T)
• Gatwick Express 40th anniversary – From British Rail to Supertrain (Ian Visits)
• Are Class 230s worth it? (BusAndTrainUser)
• Quebec City Is Amazing: It Deserves a Tramway (Straphanger)
• To Expand Transit on the Cheap, US Cities Explore Infill Stations (CityLab)
• Suburban backlash threatens biggest US transit systems (Politico)
• Underwater Tunnel Could Link Europe And Africa By 2030 (Timeout)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 10 May 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Touring the Rebuilding Old Street Station: Video (Hidden London Hangouts)
• The Streets with no Game – they bore & stress pedestrians (Aeon)
• Incorporating Art, Wayfinding, & Culture in Urban Rail Stations: Video (Transit Mapping Symposium)
• Van Hool: Swansong for a major bus manufacturer (Urban Transport Magazine)
• Cruise self-driving cars were suspended in California. It could affect the whole industry. (Slate)
• Pedestrian safety is not a two-way street (Carbon Upfront!)
• Going Deep on the Modern Art of the New York City Subway (CityLab)
• I Took a Cruise on The World’s LAST Ocean Liner: Video (Emma Cruises)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 6 May 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• ‘Nervous of its own boldness’: the (almost) radical rebirth of King’s Cross lands (The Guardian)
• This TfL AI experiment reveals how Tube station capacity could be increased – without building anything new (James O’Malley)
• Why the world is running out of sand for infrastructure (BBC)
• The World’s Most Recycled Material – Asphalt: Video (Practical Engineering)
• Haneda Airport Access Line to Open 3 New Express Routes Into Central Tokyo (Japan Station)
• Invest in Transit the Right Way (Vital City)
• How Toronto is winning the public transit pursuit (Economist Impact)
• Study Links Preference For Loud Cars to Anti-Social Personality Traits (ScienceAlert)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences – Updated 1 May
The post Friday Reads – 3 May 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Sound Transit launches Bellevue-Redmond Line 2 light rail service (Trains)
• Why Norway is rethinking its reliance on electric cars (Vox)
• Can car-loving LA sell riders a future on rails? (Bloomberg)
• “Hell on wheels”: the Edinburgh Trams Story (Yes and Grow)
• Liberté, Égalité, Accessibilité – Building new barriers to Accessibility is not the Way Forward (Accessible Link)
• Labour rail strategy: renationalise services, employ system thinking, empower experts (New Civil Engineer)
• Brightline West groundbreaking of high-speed rail line Vegas to LA in time for Olympics (Trains)
• My 37 Minutes with Honda’s Rideable Attaché Case (Heatmap – £)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 29 April 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• TfL running shorter DLR trains to keep the fleet running (IanVisits)
• Calls for answers after train on fire rolls through downtown London, Ont. (CBC)
• History of British Rail Symbols: Video (Jago Hazzard)
• When Thameslink Trains Went to Guildford: Video (Geoff Marshall)
• Kuala Lumpur: A big metro system with few riders? (Reece Martin)
• New private rooms on Tokaido Shinkansen change the way we travel from Tokyo to Kyoto (SoraNews24)
• The Architectural History of the BART System Exhibition (Archinect)
• How to Read Renaissance Maps (The Collector)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 26 April 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• ‘Uncomfortable, unpleasant, unsafe’: How London’s Euston Station became hell on earth (The Independent)
• New findings show trains are up to 80% cheaper than planes for domestic travel (Rail UK)
• The Unlikely New Bike Lanes Gracing the Scottish Capital (Bloomberg)
• Highbury & Islington North London Line Station – History of a north London icon: Video (Rebuild Highbury)
• How China’s buses shaped the world’s EV revolution (BBC)
• Car tires pollute, & regulators are finally doing something about it (Slate)
• US Seeks to Heal Community Scars from Interstate Highways, but it’s mostly Bandaids (governing.com)
• England’s railway stations: make them part of a rail renaissance (The Guardian)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 22 April 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Mexico City’s metro system is sinking fast, as are others: What to do? (Grist)
• Long Island Rail Road’s over 100 year Track Record (Urban Omnibus)
• Building Transit on a real, non-Political, Plan is Powerful (Reece Martin)
• An old rail track in Northern California could become a 300-mile hiking trail (LA Times)
• Rochester’s Inner Loop Project Shows What Happens After a Highway Dies (CityLab)
• These Cities Are Trying to Drive SUVs Off Their Streets (Next City)
• Kitchen on Rails – Ukraine’s Food Train Rides: Video (The Gaze)
• 11 transport fantasies that never got off the ground (The Guardian)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 19 April 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• ‘Russia trying to sabotage European railways,’ says Czech transport minister (Brussels Signal)
• Hammersmith Bridge to get a long-term cycle lane (Ian Visits)
• TPE launches initiative to help neurodiverse passengers build travel confidence (RailUK)
• Amtrak’s Profitable Auto Train is picking up more passengers (Axios)
• Brightline, End to End (Railway Age)
• MTA to spend $100M to revitalize 2 grimy, historic NYC subway stations (Gothamist)
• The Midwest’s other subway/light rail – St Louis: Video (Heartland Urbanist)
• Cream & railways: The rise and fall of the Devon split (Vittles)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 15 April 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• £100m plan to electrify London’s buses announced (E+T)
• New commuter-style map features all of London’s epic walking & cycling routes (Timeout)
• Echoes of the Blitz: Underground shelters in Ukraine & London (London Transport Museum)
• Eclipse Special Runs into a Cloud (Railway Age)
• What other cities can learn from Washington DC’s transit recovery (Vox)
• Mexico City’s Metro is Sinking Fast. Yours Could Be Next (WIRED)
• Guerilla Bus Benches are Spurring Berkeley to Step Up for Bus Riders (Next City)
• VIA Rail’s Ocean from Montreal to Halifax: Video (Miles in Transit)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 12 April 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
What may this mean.
That thou, dead corse, again, in complete steel,
Revisit’st thus the glimpses of the moon.Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 4
To Sleeper Train, Perchance to Dream of EuropeIn the late 1980s a sign appeared the planned Manchester service depot sported the sign « Le Eurostar habite ici » to advertise the coming Eurostar Regional and Nightstar trains. Similar signs appeared at Glasgow Central station. We last looked at sleepers in The (Caledonian) Sleeper Awakes; this time we investigate a bold wagon lit gambit that failed, and where and how the trains are operating now.
The UK entered Europe in 1973, and in the same year Parliament approved construction of the Channel Tunnel, so convenient one seat train trips to the Continent now appeared to be within reach. In preparation, British Rail (BR) and SNCF (Société nationale des chemins de fer français) had since 1971 been studying options for rail service through the tunnel, and the rail links to their respective capitals. They had determined that eight daytime trains would suffice between London and Paris, complemented by one overnight service daily. Our interest is in the development of the latter.
BR initially planned to use Victoria as the London terminus for Channel Tunnel rail services, as its long platforms could accommodate the envisaged 15 car sleeper trains. Victoria had long styled itself as the ‘Gateway to the Continent’. At the time it was the departure point for the Night Ferry, a nightly train with sleepers to Paris and Brussels, conveyed by ferry between Dover and Dunkirk.
BR’s 1974 Sleeper Train routes (excluding the Night Train)A separate 1973 study into cross-channel night trains additionally suggested overnight sleepers from Northern England, the Midlands, and London to over a dozen European cities, including Amsterdam, Bordeaux, Hamburg, Milan, Salzburg, and Toulouse. It further proposed winter ski services to Chur and Interlaken in the Swiss Alps.
However, high inflation and government budgetary problems ended the 1970s Channel Tunnel dream state indefinitely after just two years, much as they had for the plans to extend the Fleet Tube.
The Night Ferry train last ran on 31 October 1980, long before the Channel Tunnel opened. When the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) concept was born in 1984, the dream for direct night sleeper trains between Britain and the Continent re-awoke.
In anticipation of the Channel Tunnel Act in 1987, BR and SNCF had planned for the infrastructure for their expected rail services. Rolling stock specification and procurement was a joint effort by the UK, French, and Belgian railways. To complement the Eurostar, a parallel fleet of the Nightstar sleeper trains was devised for round the clock Channel Tunnel operation.
Proposed Sleeper DiagramsThe initial timetable proposed in 1989 had five trains a night departing from Waterloo International, by then the designated London terminal for continental trains, as follows:
- 20.00 to Turin arriving at 07.30 and Milan at 09.00.
- 21.00 to Narbonne arriving at 08.00 and Marseille at 07.00, and after a train split at Avignon, arriving in Nice at 09.30.
- 22.00 to Hanover arriving at 06.55 and Hamburg at 08.05, with train a split at Cologne, arriving in Stuttgart at 06.25 and in Munich at 08.15.
- 22.45 to Rotterdam arriving at 06.55 and Amsterdam arriving at 08.30.
- 23.00 to Cologne arriving at 06.35 and Frankfurt arriving at 08.55.
However, having determined that this Channel Tunnel sleeper proposal was too expensive, the Government disbanded the venture in 1990.
That November, European Passenger Services (EPS) was set up as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the British Rail Board, to develop and establish passenger services through the Chunnel by its planned opening date of 15 May 1993.
EPS conceived of the Nightstar sleeper train service as a complement to the daytime Eurostar services, able to serve longer trips between a wider range of British and continental cities, and to get business travelers to their destinations before the morning flights landed.
EPS planned an entirely different overnight network from BR and SNCF’s proposal, comprising six trains, of which two would include portions to both France and Belgium:
1a) Edinburgh to Paris
1b) Edinburgh to Brussels
2a) Glasgow to Paris
2b) Glasgow to Brussels
3) London to Amsterdam
4) London to Dortmund and Frankfurt, via Cologne
5) Plymouth to Brussels
6) Swansea to Paris
This was only meant as the initial service provision – trains to many other countries, such as Switzerland, Denmark, and Czechoslovakia (as was) were also foreseen.
Services from London would consist of sixteen vehicles, comprising two rakes of eight semi-permanently coupled carriages. Each rake would contain five sleepers, two reclining seat coaches, and a galley car.
The provincial Nightstar services, in contrast, would be formed of semi-permanently coupled seven car rakes, containing three sleepers, three coaches and a service car for a more affordable mix of accommodations. For instance, the Plymouth to Brussels service would be coupled with the Edinburgh to Brussels set to continue on to the Chunnel and thence Belgium. On the return, most subsets would be split at Olympia accordingly, however the London to Dortmund/Frankfurt sleeper would be split at Cologne in each direction.
EPS in turn established European Night Services Ltd (ENS) as the Nightstar operator in 1992, of which it would be the majority shareholder. Other interest in the company were held by SNCF, Deutsche Bahn (DB), and Nederlandse Spoorwegen (Netherlands Railways).
Renaissance of UK Overnight Travel Brochure. ENSThe contract for Overnight Stock (ONS) construction was signed in June 1992 with Metro-Cammell (having been bought in 1989 by Alsthom – as it was known, until 1998, when the ‘h’ was dropped) for 139 carriages for £120m. The order comprised 72 sleepers and 47 passenger coaches, with 20 service cars for catering, lounge, and train manager accommodation. Each sleeping car held ten sleeping compartments and twenty bunk beds, each with their own toilet and sink. Six of the compartments incorporated an en-suite shower.
Renaissance Sleeper Shower/Toilet. VIA RailThe consists from Waterloo International and Kensington Olympia would be hauled by a brand new fleet of electric locomotives, Class 92s, capable of running off 25kV overhead wires and 750V DC Southern Region third rail, as well as interfacing with the BR and Chunnel signalling systems. Of the 46 units ordered from Brush Traction for £138m, seven were dedicated to Nightstar operation, nine to SNCF, with the rest to BR’s Railfreight Distribution unit. But lacking the SNCF signalling system, the Class 92s would hand over the Nightstar consists to SNCF traction at Calais.
For Nightstar services running on the non-electrified lines, twelve Class 37 locomotives were completely overhauled, re-geared for higher speeds and upgraded to provide Electric Train Supply (ETS) for the passenger stock. However, ETS would not be sourced primarily from the locomotives, but instead be provided by a pool of generator vans dedicated to the Nightstar service. Five BR Mk 3 ex-sleeper cars were selected for such conversion.
Operational ComplicationsIn testing it became clear that actual operations would be considerably more complicated than foreseen. To allow Nightstar rakes to operate over the third rail Southern Region, Class 73 generator vans were planned based on converting redundant Mk3 sleeper cars. Belgium’s Société nationale des chemins de fer belges (SNCB) system required a locomotive that could both pull and provide ETS, from whence came the idea to modify British diesels and send them to the SNCB.
Another domestic traction exception was required for the later planned Manchester consist, which would be hauled by a Class 90. The same type of locomotive was required for the empty coach stock (ECS) journey from Glasgow Central to Polmadie Traction Depot, where trains would be serviced alongside Caledonian Sleeper sets.
To satisfy the requirement that all Chunnel trains have a locomotive at each end in case of breakdown, two Class 92s would haul the train between London and Calais Ville Yard, where both locomotives would be replaced by an SNCF electric locomotive to Bruxelles. There, SNCB electric traction would take over to pull the consist on to either Roosendaal (Netherlands) or Aachen.
The test engineers had spent many nights testing the initial Nightstar prototype carriage consists and locomotives between Washwood Heath Sidings and on to the Lichfield line. Some testing on the European side was also performed at Aachen. The chief locomotive engineer responsible for the locomotives believed that Nightstars would have been a nightmare operationally, given the logistics of keeping the correct traction and ETS vans at the appropriate locations for swapping in and out of the consists.
Internal Electrics were even more complicatedAs complex as the traction and ETS supply situation was, the Nightstar’s electrical load shedding system was even worse. It had five levels of operation, each shutting down additional electrical sub-systems as available power decreased. For example, load shed level 1 was to shut off half the lighting, and load shed level 2 would shut down the water pumps for the showers. Hence Nightstar passengers arriving into London during the morning peak might well have found their morning showers losing hot water without warning, as commuter trains competed for the limited third rail power available. The possibility of a “luxury sleeper” dumping passengers at Waterloo unwashed and unrinsed did not bode well for public relations.
As project management realised the magnitude of Nightstar locomotive and electrical problems, they proposed that the ONS reclining seat coaches be transferred to Eurostar to operate a daytime service from Waterloo to Amsterdam and Cologne. European Passenger Services did not accept this proposal, but did not publicly state the reason.
Regional Eurostar sets were also proposed to run from a number of regional UK cities. Glasgow, Manchester, and Leeds being seriously considered. At the time, it was thought possible to section off at least one platform at each of these stations for Customs purposes.
Bank financing was provided, from which ENS would then lease the stock – the same arrangement that was later adopted by privatised train operating companies. The goal was for the first Nightstar trains to start running in 1995, with the full network of day and night trains between the major regions of Britain and north west Europe rolling by the millennium.
Unfortunately, because of the resulting axle loadings, Nightstar trains would be unable to use many regional UK railway lines. This ended plans for through services from UK regions to the Continent, as well as on the LGV Nord line to Paris. Instead, Nightstar would have to be restricted to the slower, classic SNCF routes.
Reality BitesEPS should have worked out sooner or later that there was no sustainable market for six nights a week services between smaller cities like Swansea and Cardiff, and Paris and Brussels.
This Nightstar venture was all part of the political deal made to get the tunnel built, along with the Regional Eurostar. It was an idealistic political concept of an integrated train service to demonstrate European rail unity, but as designed it was unworkable in practice.
Nightstar car specsThe trains were designed to a five star hotel experience, with the upscale sleeper bedrooms all having an en-suite toilet and basinette, and about half of those also having an en-suite shower. Therefore the carriages needed to carry heavy water tanks. and the whole design was centred around a premium experience, at a corresponding premium fare. However this also increased the electricity load.
Nonetheless, there were deeply reclining seats for economy travelers in the coach cars.
Nightstar Construction, and Eurostar Daytime Operation StartsThe cars were based on Metro-Cammell/Alsthom Mk 4 shells, but modified as follows:
- without the tilt equipment,
- modified for long distance operation,
- updated to meet the safety standards of the several countries the trains were proposed to run in, and
- strengthened to meet the additional sleeper car weight requirements.
Nightstar carriage stock began construction in 1992 and proceeded slowly.
Meanwhile Eurostar daytime London to Paris/Brussels services started on 14 November 1994, and EPS received the first overhauled Class 37/6 locomotive for Nightstar on 31 January 1995.
Transition to PrivatisationAt BR privatisation in 1994, EPS was transferred to become a subsidiary of a holding company in the ownership of the Secretary of State (SoS). The state was still responsible for the Eurostar service, but the holding company lacked the financial stability and resources to fund what would have been a loss-making service like Nightstar.
Then on 11 November 1993 the Government announced its plans to privatise EPS by transferring it to the consortium which won the bidding process to build and operate the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) between Folkestone and London, thus forming part of the state’s financial contribution to this project. On 29th February 1996, it was formally announced that consortium London & Continental Railways (L&CR) was the preferred bidder to build and operate the CTRL – now known as HS1.
Platforms not cleared for CustomsLike the regional Eurostars, Nightstar services weredirectly affected by the security restrictions imposed by the UK government at the time of the Channel Tunnel opening, which had not signed the Schengen agreement.
Nightstar RealisationsLondon and Continental Railways (LCR) took over the CTRL project on 31st May 1996, Eurostar (UK). By early 1996, however, 18 months of Eurostar operation produced only a quarter of BR’s traffic projection of 15 million passengers per annum. Despite this, LCR was confident in their optimistic projections. But in 1997 it lost £140 million on a turnover of only £130 million. To attempt to alleviate cash shortfall, LCR scrapped Nightstar and postponed the Regional Eurostar train services. The company then advised the Government that it was unable to meet the terms of its “Development Agreement” Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract with them, who were left holding the bag to pay £109 million lease termination costs on the Nightstar carriages.
Design Problems ManifestingIn April 1997, the first Nightstar vehicles were tested on trial runs behind Class 92s on northern portions of the East and West Coast Mainlines (ECML and WCML). However the project was two years behind the original 1995 Nightstar service start date.
Operating trains from a number of stations in the UK to a number in Europe would have been an operational nightmare in any case, as splitting and joining Nightstar consists and different locomotives likely would have been unreliable across a number of countries.
Furthermore, the heavyweight cars ranged from 50 to 53.5 tonnes, were derived from the safety features required to operate in the Chunnel, and the on-board hotel services such as the en-suite showers. A fully loaded coach would come in at 60 tonnes, meaning a 16 coach train would weigh 900 tonnes – common for European trains, but very heavy for British rails.
This resulted in a train consist that would have drawn more current than could reasonably have been supplied by overhead power. The second locomotives or additional generator van required extra cost and logistical bother.
Despite being based on the Metro-Cammell Mk 4, the carriages had extensive changes which were effectively a new design, and as such were untested and unproven.
Eurostar TroublesAdding to the sleeper troubles was the fact that the first daytime Eurostar services were carrying a lot fewer passengers than originally predicted, which started to cast doubt on the Nightstar project.
It also became apparent that European railways were not keen on investing in secure passenger areas nor secure sidings at their busy principal stations, given that the sleeper market was expected to be relatively small compared to Eurostar traffic.
Hammer TimeIn the new transport market of low-cost airlines and the UK’s rejection of the Schengen agreement, the Nightstar trains suddenly found themselves to be over-specified – the wrong train and the wrong service, at the wrong time. As they would no longer be competitive, the UK government put the project on hold in May 1997. Ironically this was around the date that the Nightstar sets were initially scheduled to start service.
Having never turned a wheel in revenue service in the UK, the Nightstar fleet was now a major political embarrassment. Most of the Nightstar stock was stored away from public view at the Ministry of Defence base at Kineton, Warwickshire.Money down the toilet so far as the UK taxpayer was concerned, but possibly a decent and cost effective rail fleet addition for another country.
A Knightstar train?A London Reconnections commentator had led a team to review Royal Train operations in 1997-98. Palace officials were quite attracted to the idea of replacing at least some Royal sleeper car stock with Nightstar cars rather than a completely new build, as Nightstar carriages would have permitted travel through the Chunnel. The idea was to convert a number of ONS sleepers into part sleeping compartment and part drawing room.
This was the period when BR’s InterCity was going through its ‘hot orange’ phase of interior design. Accordingly, a new design for the Royal Train interior incorporating the colour du jour was submitted to the Palace, and was returned with the Monarchical Hand having drawn an arrow pointing to the curtains and written the words “V horrid”.
If Nightstar cars had been used for the Royal Train, additional electrical power would have been required for the hotel services at night and when traveling over non-electrified track. The engineers thought that this wouldn’t be a serious problem, however.
The high cost of security modifications to the trains was a problem – it was more than the available funding. The Nightstar stock would have been quite a good replacement, if expensive. Instead, as recommended by the commentator, a reduction of the Royal Train fleet was settled on, with refurbishment of the remaining stock, in more muted, and presumably regal, colours.
Breaking the Fare BarrierWhen the EU deregulated European air travel in 1997, it led to the immediate creation of budget airlines, offering unheard of £50 return flights to Europe. Increased competition moved some carriers to offer early morning flights. The overnight sleeper market via the Channel Tunnel just evaporated. Given Nightstar’s myriad operational problems, it was just a matter of time before the plug was pulled.
In February 1999, the UK Government took over a large share of the L&CR. Five months hence, on 9 July 1999, the Nightstar service was formally cancelled.
EPS was then part sold to SNCF. The SoS subsequently sold their remaining shares to SNCF around 2000. So EPS had existed as a live subsidiary of BR for only a few months.
As such, they did not go through the thorough new railcar design testing and examination process.
Of the 139 Nightstar vehicles, 64 carriages had been completed, and the rest were partially built but lacked interiors. Some of the completed cars had started testing in Europe and Morocco, totaling 400,000km of test runs.
The SaleThere was some interest in the Nightstar fleet from European train operators, but the heavy weight, high electricity demand, and UK gauge meant that the cars were less than ideal, so there were no takers. The UK government agreed to pay back Alstom upon sale of the fleet, but the company was resigned to the fact that if they could not sell the cars, they would all be scrapped.
A possible buyer emerged in the from of Canada’s national passenger train operator VIA Rail, who were looking to replace 1955-vintage sleeper cars. In June 2000, three carriages were shipped to Canada for evaluation on test runs between Ottawa and Montreal. That December, VIA Rail approved the purchase of the entire 139 vehicle fleet for a total of $130m (approximately £58.5m), funded by the Canadian Government. This represented a considerable discount from what was estimated by industry observers to be a fair market value of £185-220m.
VIA Rail and the Canadian government were both happy to get their hands on this apparent bargain. The smaller UK gauge could be compensated for by easily adding carriages from the large fleet, which was more than sufficient for current and planned operations.
Sub-surface warning?We now take a diversion under the sea, not under the English Channel, but somewhat deeper.
With the end of the Cold War and dealing with its own deficit issues, the British Ministry of Defence had decided to simplify naval operations by moving to an all-nuclear submarine fleet. It ended construction of its whisper quiet diesel-electric Type 2400 Upholder sub class, after four had been delivered and entered Royal Navy (RN) service. These submarines were mothballed and put up for sale in 1994.
At the time Canada was looking to replace their three obsolete ex-RN 1960s vintage Oberon class subs, which were expected to only last until 2000. With three coasts to protect, and other countries infringing on Canada’s Arctic sovereignty, acquiring a modern submarine fleet was made a priority.
The Upholders were considered be among the quietest boats in the world. In 1996, the Canadian government approved the acquisition of the four slightly used, state of the art submarines for only $750m CAD (approximately £307m). The Upholders had cost Britain more than double the sale amount to design and construct, so this purchase appeared at the time to be a bargain. The sale neatly satisfied all three partners as it allowed:
- the British government to recoup some of the submarines’ billion pound development and construction costs, or face the fury of the British media,
- the Canadian government to renew its submarine fleet much quicker and more cheaply than new build, to fulfil its sovereignty requirements and NATO commitments, and
- the Royal Canadian Navy to get submarine fleet upgrade without having to wait a decade or longer for new boats.
These were the only modern subs that were both affordable and available, a once in a generation opportunity.
In 1999 the reactivation process for the Upholder boats began. But it took longer than estimated to prepare the boats for safe diving, as the Royal Navy had stored the subs with sea water in the fuel tanks, which led to severe corrosion. The worst affected was the lead boat Upholder, which had sea water in the fuel tanks for nine years.
After these repairs, the boats were handed over to Canada and renamed:
- HMCS Victoria née Unseen SSK-876 in late 2000
- HMCS Windsor née Unicorn SSK-877 in August 2001
- HMCS Corner Brook née Ursula SSK-878 in February 2003
- HMCS Chicoutimi née Upholder SSK-879 in October 2004
Unfortunately, a day after setting sail from the UK, HMCS Chicoutimi suffered a serious fire which started when seawater contacted badly insulated wiring, killing one and injuring nine others. The submarine had to be lifted aboard a freighter to be delivered to Halifax. A serious blow to the start of the new submarine program.
It took the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) a decade of extensive and expensive repairs to make her operational. The tragic fire notwithstanding, there was a serious underestimation of the amount of work required to reactivate and modify the boats for Canadian operations, as they effectively needed a deep refit.
HMCS Corner Brook SSK878 on Arctic patrol. RCNIt took an estimate additional $1.5 billion (approximately £825m) to repair and make the four boats operational for the Royal Canadian Navy. Nonetheless, the subs have performed to expectations when at sea. But they are now aging and undergoing deep refits, so only one of the four Victoria-class submarines has been to sea since 2021.
Unfortunately the lessons of the unexpected delays and expensive modifications were conveniently forgotten when the same Canadian government approved the similar too-good-to-be-true Nightstar fleet purchase.
Fitting out the Nightstar Trains for CanadaBack on land, the Nightstar fleet wasshipped to Bombardier’s factory in Thunder Bay, Canada in 2003, where the 75 incomplete carriages were fitted out with interiors, and all carriages were modified as follows:
- Fold down steps at doorways to access Canadian low-level platforms.
- Enhanced air-conditioning.
- End carriages were fitted with North American standard knuckle type couplers.
Over three years, Bombardier updated and completed 106 cars, with 33 cars remaining in storage in Thunder Bay.
Original Nightstar logoOriginal Nightstar logo painted overWhilst these cars were designed to reach speeds of 200 km/h, they never come close to this speed in VIA service, as almost all VIA routes are on much slower freight railway trackage.
From Sea to Sea to SeaThe Nightstar cars were re-christened the Renaissance fleet, signifying rebirth, as they were the first new rolling stock for VIA Rail in twenty years. Once the completed cars entered service at the end of 2003, they expanded VIA’s rail fleet by one-third.
Renaissance Trains’ Canadian DebutThe new trains were first introduced on the new Enterprise business sleeper trains in summer 2002, which connected Canada’s two largest cities of Montreal and Toronto. In both directions, the service departed one city at 11.30 pm and arrived in the other at 8am. As daytime trains make this journey in five hours, the Enterprise trains pulled into a siding for two hours at the mid-way point of the trip.
A few months later Renaissance passenger coaches started operation on the regular, all-stations day trains between Montréal and Québec City. In 2003-04, the Renaissance sleeper consists debuted on the Ocean Maritimes route between Montréal and Halifax.
The Enterprise service was not as popular as predicted, facing competition from peak hour flights every 20 minutes between Montréal and Toronto, taking only an hour. This sleeper was discontinued in September 2005 due to low ridership, another victim of competition from the airlines.
Maritimes scenery from the Ocean train. Via RailIn April 2010, Renaissance passenger cars were also added to the daytime Ottawa-Toronto and Toronto-Niagara Falls runs.
Whilst the original Ocean service operated six days a week, the recent recession and declining VIA Rail ridership outside of the Quebec City – Windsor Corridor forced the national passenger railway to make cutbacks in 2012. One consequence was to reduce the Ocean to thrice weekly. But the Ocean route name still survives, keeping alive the name from whence the Ocean Limited started service on July 3, 1904, when it took over from the Intercolonial Railway.
Renaissance Coach (Voyageur cars)Each of the 33 cars in this class has 48 seats that recline deeply for sleeping, in a spacious 2 plus 1 configuration. The seats are on a slightly raised platform, which has space for luggage underneath. There is also a luggage rack above.
Renaissance Coach Diagram. VIA RailRenaissance Economy Car. VIA RailRenaissance Dining carsEach of these three cars has eight tables of four, and eight tables of two. These cars were originally designed as sleepers and were converted by VIA Rail.
Renaissance Lounge carsThe Nightstar purchase included 20 Renaissance service cars which contained the galley, a lounge, a take-out snack counter, and large luggage area. Originally there was small office for the service manager, and the accessible sleeping compartment hasn’t been used for that purpose for many years, as there were accessibility issues with it. Now these areas are just used for storage. Most of the galley equipment in these cars bore the original British Rail double arrow logo for many years before being replaced.
Renaissance British Rail era microwaveRenaissance Lounge Car Diagram. VIA RailRenaissance Sleeper carsThe two single beds fold up, and the lower becomes comfortable chesterfield seating.
Renaissance Sleeper Car Diagram. VIA RailOcean Renaissance Sleeper car narrow corridor. VIA RailRenaissance Baggage Transition carsThree Renaissance baggage cars were constructed to connect to the Park car at the rear because of the coupler connection issue. In case of accident, the baggage car also provides a buffer between the heavy stainless steel Park car and the lighter Renaissance cars.
These cars were modified to allow passengers to access the Park car and its 270° panoramic lounge at the rear of the train. As an empty carriage it sometimes is used as an informal yoga, meditation, or children’s play space.
Contrast of UK, Continental, & North American gaugeThe difference between North American and smaller UK gauge is noticeable here – the former look like they could swallow the British carriages.
Park Cars (non-Renaissance)These were originally built by the Budd Car Company and AMF in 1954 as train end units, with a rounded, tapered stern and an upper level observation dome. VIA Rail acquired 14 such cars in 1978 and named them after Canadian National Parks. Each contains a triple bed and 3 double bed compartments, 24 seats in the vista dome, washroom, the Mural Lounge with snacks and beverages, and a 12 seat panoramic ‘bullet’ shaped lounge at the rear.
VIA RailIn the summer peak season, a route guide narrates the towns and territory traversed, Celtic music is played, or a talk on wines from the Maritimes in the rear Park panorama car.
VIA RailVIA Rail is expert at keeping these old carriages in operation – one of the Park cars is placed at the end of the Ocean in summer months. However, Park cars were only connected to the Ocean until the beginning of 2020, when the pandemic halted service on this route for several months. VIA had lost access its turning loop at the Port of Halifax in late 2020, which required bidirectional trains, preventing Park cars from being used unfortunately.
HalifaxSince being established for the Royal Navy in 1749 due to its deep natural harbour, Halifax had been the capital of the Nova Scotia Colony. The Intercolonial Railway was opened in 1876 to link the area to the other British colonies of New Brunswick and Lower Canada (later renamed Québec).
MonctonThis town features tidal bores from the Bay of Fundy, and was planned as an alternative site for Britain’s Imperial Airship Service in the 1930s.
Problems soon SurfacedProblems soon appeared in the fleet, as the Renaissance cars were not designed for Canada’s cold, snowy winter – the doors and toilets often froze up. The original European winter test runs did not simulate Canadian weather conditions. Québec passengers quickly nicknamed the cars << Déplaisance >>, a made up French word for the displeasure that passengers found themselves experiencing.
Snow accumulation & NA/UK gauge difference at Montreal Gare Central. Tim HaymanAt the high platforms of Montréal’s Gare Centrale, the narrow British loading caused a considerable gap, requiring staff to deploy a ramp at every doorway before passengers could board and alight.
Renaissance cars were not Sufficiently AccessibleFurthermore, despite being designed to be accessible by persons with disabilities, a Canadian disability rights organisation launched a civil rights complaint, stating that there wasn’t sufficient space in many Renaissance car locations for wheelchair access due to turning restrictions.
After years of litigation, VIA Rail relented and modified 21 Renaissance cars to make them more accessible. Now one coach on every Renaissance train has a large washroom with curved sliding door (similar to those on Virgin Trains’ West Coast Pendolinos), and one sleeper per consist has a large accessible bedroom with a wider entrance and larger bathroom. Some of these accessible coaches were also added to some Corridor routes to provide persons with disabilities equal travel access.
Renaissance Service EvaluationAfter 20 years in Canadian service, the Renaissance cars have been far from reliable, despite having undergone numerous modifications, and they still require constant maintenance to keep them in service. The sleeper cars’ HVAC systems have already been replaced.
Renaissance sleeper sofa, bed folds down. VIA RailMoquette fans will appreciate the above photo, and might know if it is original.
Ocean mixed consist leaving Halifax in typical winter weather. Tim HaymanRoad salt is liberally used in Canada to melt the ubiquitous road ice and snow, which is caught up in the train bogies at the many level crossings. The Renaissance carriages were never designed for such conditions, so as a result the fleet has serious corrosion problems, with two thirds of the original fleet not having been upgraded and in storage, being cannibalised for spare parts.
Unused Renaissance cars in Thunder Bay. Google Street ViewThe original 29 incomplete Renaissance cars in the fleet were stored in Thunder Bay. However, the cost of upgrading them for Canadian winters was deemed not to be cost-effective, so they and cars removed from service were eventually sold for scrap.
As a result, Renaissance cars are thus the most expensive type for VIA to operate. Recently, VIA Rail has started putting a new fleet of Siemens Venture passenger cars for the Québec – Windsor Corridor, and to rebuild the long distance carriages yet again. Despite the Renaissance sleeper train fleet purchase, VIA Rail will soon be issuing a Request for Proposals for a brand new long distance fleet, including sleeper cars. They are communicating with the US passenger train railway, Amtrak, about a potential joint long distance fleet order to reduce costs.
Exception to the UK Import ExperienceScottish bus manufacturer Alexander Dennis has successfully exported double decker buses to Toronto, Victoria, British Columbia, and other Canadian cities, with few acclimatisation problems. The only factor restricting more such bus exports are the traditionally low North American bridge clearances in most cities.
Class 92s go Full CircleHaving never hauled a Nightstar sleeper train, the UK Class 92s have been an underused locomotive, mainly operating Intermodal Freight services in the UK and France. However since Serco secured a 15 year operating franchise for the Caledonian Sleeper in 2015, an agreement with GB Railfreight has seen these engines, following a refresh, hauling these sleeper services. They have been since replaced by CAF locomotives in 2018.
Lessons LearntThe root causes of the Renaissance fleet problems in Canada are that they were designed for quite a different operating environment. The lesson is that using equipment in a different context is almost always more complex than it initially appears. Not only does the equipment itself require a bedding in period, but supplier support, maintenance, and operations aspects are also crucial.
Thanks to Tim Hayman for the photos and the Renaissance car use updates.
The post Wherefore art thou Nightstar? Thou hast been a Ghost Train – The Nightstar Renaissance appeared first on London Reconnections.
• London’s abandoned underground tunnels are red-hot right now (Sydney Morning Herald)
• Line 4 automation complete on Paris metro (Int’l Railway Journal)
• Cairo Metro & Alexandria Tram network updates (Urban Transport Magazine)
• Why Harry Styles fans are on pilgrimage to a viaduct (The Guardian)
• Crosstown Linkline, Ancestor of the Overground: Video (Jago Hazzard)
• Indianapolis: The new US BRT gold standard (TheFox&TheCity)
• Survey Says: American Walking, & Walking Data, Is Getting Worse (Streetsblog)
• Bier Restaurant workig model railway, w/ sidings for every table! Video (Dj Den Kot)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 8 April 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Tube strikes called off after TfL and train drivers reach London Underground deal (MyLondon)
• Alstom ‘runs out of time’ as it confirms plans to mothball Derby site (Business Desk)
• London Overground’s Easter Sunday special into London Bridge (Ian Visits)
• The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of DC Metro’s Design & Wayfinding Evolution (CityLab)
• Not so fast! Japan’s super-high-speed maglev Shinkansen line opening has been officially delayed (SoraNews24)
• How a Diesel-Electric Locomotive Works: Video (Animagraffs)
• Japan’s incredible Dual-Mode Vehicle: Video (Superalbs Travels)
• Plane, train or automobiles? Who can get from Vancouver (Oregon) to Seattle the fastest (The Columbian)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 5 April 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
There has been a lot going on behind the scenes at LR Towers in the last few months. We have a new Friday / Monday Reads Editor, Daniel, who carries on the tradition. And we are adding Martha Lauren as a writer, she had written our look at London’s Super Loop bus Network last year. We are also lucky to have Martha join us, she has an amazingly breadth of knowledge of both UK and North American public transport system, as well as those in Europe. Her own transport blog is here.
A few years ago, we had invited some of our more senior commentators with industry experience to review draft articles, to include their expertise, experience, and knowledge. So whilst they provide fewer comments, their input often gives key insight into the thinking and other factors that affect the development of public transport. We are thankful for their input.
We also have quite a few articles just about ready to post, finalising some details and going through the review process. This includes a post on the final destination and disposition of the Nightstar sleeper car fleet, never operated in UK revenue service, and Part 2 on level boarding, looking at the state of platforms and trains in Europe. As well as a further look at the hype of hydrogen fuel cells, the new wave of intermodal fare integration, and the latest in London’s river buses. Rest assured these and other new posts are coming soon.
If you have an idea for an article you would like us to consider, or would like to help out with editing or other LR activities, do leave a comment or drop us a line at Mike at LondonReconnections.com. Photo posts are also welcome. We are attempting to write some shorter posts, so it need not be a long form opus, and we’ll do the editing for our house style.
LBM
The post LR Update April 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• New Stirling-London train service set for Summer 2025 (Daily Record)
• Why Vision Zero works in Europe & not in the US (CityLab)
• Monsters of the road: what should the UK do about SUVs? (The Guardian)
• The Toll of History: NYC MTA Approves $15 Congestion Pricing Fee (Streetsblog)
• The Berliner Ostbahn – a railway project with potential (Jon Worth)
• Hiroshima dumps proprietary PASPY transit card…for another proprietary transit card (AtaDistance)
• Cross City Line Driver’s Eye View: Video (Train Paul)
• The History, and Limited Future, of Maglev (E+T)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 1 April 2024 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Ticket office stealth closures: Train Cos reveal they stopped hiring new counter staff (Standard)
• 1st West End Tube stations receive 4G/5G coverage (RailUK)
• The NIMBY ‘tax’ on new UK & US transport: Objections & long reviews (FinancialTimes)
• Friendliness to bus drivers improves their job satisfaction, possibly retention (Independent)
• San Francisco: New study recommends battery trolleybus network expansion (UrbanTransport)
• Amtrak is bringing High Speed Rail to Texas?! The Texas Central Railway: Video (RMTransit)
• Kinetic Energy as a pathogen: Using public health approach to road safety (Governing)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 11 September 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
A quick reminder to this interested that our monthly meetup is on Tuesday 12th September. For more details click ‘Monthly Meetup – 2nd Tuesday Evening in the City‘ at the top of the home page.
The current heat spell should be over by then so we do not expect the air temperature or the beer to be unpleasantly warm.
All are welcome! We are friendly.
The post Tuesday Pub Meetup 12th September 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• UK rail industry deeply frustrated by Network Rail’s extensive domestic air travel (RailTech)
• Family Friendly Train operating companies Scorecard 2023 (FamilyFriendlyTrains)
• Reuse of Philly’s City Branch downtown tunnel & RoW for transit is unlikely (WHYY)
• Gotthard Base Tunnel preliminary report confirms crash details (RailwayTechnology)
• Ideas not just infrastructure: What the US could learn from the Munich S-Bahn (TrainsBusesPeople)
• New study shows streets safer with asphalt art (BloombergPhilanthropy)
• Living in a Mobility World: Music Video (MobilityMinute)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 8 September 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
“Florida has North America’s best passenger rail service.” That was my thought after riding Florida East Coast Railway’s Brightline passenger rail service which runs between Miami and West Palm Beach. Unfortunately, I also experienced what it’s like to be delayed when a Brightline train hits a trespasser, which is unfortunately a frequent occurrence.
Fort Lauderdale Station to Miami CentralFort Lauderdale is a small city about 35 minutes drive from downtown Miami (in good traffic). Brightline schedules this trip in 68 minutes. Brightline Fort Lauderdale station is located beside the Broward County Transit Center, the major bus terminal in Fort Lauderdale.
Ft lauderdale station frontage. authorHowever, reaching the rail station from the bus terminal is a bit of a chore on foot. It’s clear that Fort Lauderdale station was built with the idea that passengers will arrive primarily by car. Unfortunately this is to be expected in a state that embraces the car as much as Florida has. It took around 5 minutes to walk the one block from the bus terminal to the Brightline station.
spacious gates. authorThe station itself is large, bright, and airy in yellow and white tones. Passengers take an escalator to the upper level where there are a row of gates. To enter, you simply scan your ticket QR code, put your luggage through an x-ray scanner and that’s it. There is no personal security check, scanner, or pat down. Once past Security, there are many seats available, a bar serving drinks and snacks, and a cashless gift shop where you simply scan your credit card and grab what you want. I picked up a wooden Brightline train set.
premium class lounge. authorFor Premium tickets holders, a separate lounge is available. The lounge is stocked with alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks, a selection of meats, cheese, crackers, and shrimp. For $37 USD, you’re getting decent value for your money. Even the Smart Coach ticket price one way of $22 USD is good value.
As I was enjoying the lounge and taking full advantage of the good selection of beers, I heard an announcement that I didn’t want to hear:
“Due to a trespasser on the tracks, the 19:38 train to Miami is delayed.”
Gah! This was not good. Florida East Coast Railway (FEC)’s rail corridor runs through a densely populated area and has no fencing whatsoever. It is extremely easy for people to cross the track, and unfortunately trespassers are killed fairly regularly by Brightline trains.
It’s about Customer ServiceI was thinking “how long would I have to wait, or worse. How am I getting to Miami without using an expensive cab?”
Happily, this is where Brightline really shines. Their customer service is top notch. After the announcement, staff came around and let everyone know what was happening. The staff assured me that Brightline will get me to Miami, and my free ride to my hotel will be honoured with either a Uber or Lyft credit. I told the rep I don’t use Uber (the surprise on his face was priceless!), he assured me that they can order one for me regardless. After about 20 minutes waiting around and taking advantage of the lounge, we were told to go downstairs outside the station where a motor coach was waiting to take us to Miami Central. I was bit worried the trip might take a while due to Miami’s infamous traffic, but traffic on Highway I-95 was light and we arrived at Miami in 25 minutes. As promised, Brightline booked me a ride to my hotel. I was disappointed I wasn’t able to ride Brightline this time, but the customer service was top notch, and I had a week in Miami. So I booked a one way trip to West Palm Beach a couple of days later.
Miami to West Palm BeachI bought a one way ticket from Miami to West Palm Beach with plans to take the 18 station Tri-Rail commuter rail line back to Miami. I bought a Premium ticket, so I could take advantage of the free taxi service to Miami Central. This is a perk that justifies the fairly high Premium ticket cost . Taxis in Miami are not cheap, and it would’ve cost around $20 to reach Miami Central from my hotel.
miami intermodal connexions. authorMiami Central is a very large station that is part of an even larger real estate development. The station is hard to miss from a distance. Miami Central is an intermodal station linking the Metrorail elevated heavy rail line, the Metromover people mover, and future Tri-Rail commuter train service, but pedestrians will find it’s not very easy to find the entrances to the Metrorail station, and the future Tri-Rail entrance is four minute walk from the Brightline entrance. The area around the station is still car-oriented, which is typical for most American cities.
miami station. authorMiami Central Brightline station is similar to Fort Lauderdale, except larger. Passengers ascend to an upper level, scan their tickets, have bags x-rayed, and proceed to the waiting area. Likewise, there is a bar and waiting area for Select ticket holders, and Premium Ticket holders have access to a private lounge. I was taking a morning train, so breakfast was served, which consisted of cereal, yogurt, bagels, various meats, and non-alcoholic drinks. Even a Lavazza espresso/capuccino maker! The breakfast was good, again… Considering how expensive Miami is, a free taxi and breakfast make the Premium Ticket a good value.
business facilities at premium lounge. authorBoarding was called ten minutes before departure, and I went up another level to reach the platform. No need to line up and there is no ticket checking, unlike Amtrak and Canada’s VIA Rail. As I rode the escalator up, I heard the sound of the Siemens Charger. Woo! It was happening! No cancellations this time!
epic ascending to platforms. authorBrightline trains are four car Venture coach sets with a Siemens Charger locomotive on each end. The Smart coaches have 2×2 seating and seat 66, while the Premium coaches have 2×1 seating and seat 50. The Smart coach seats are 19 inches wide, while premium seats are 21 inches wide. I tried both and found both to be very comfortable to sit in for what is a somewhat short (80 minute) trip. The attendant came around to offer snacks and drinks a few times during the trip. That was impressive, considering the trip is fairly short, about 80 minutes.
premium class car. authorWe departed on time, the acceleration was smooth, so much so that I barely noticed we were moving. We picked up speed quickly and we soon traveling at 100km. Looking outside, I saw a couple of people casually walking close to the tracks – It’s astounding that people can be so careless around trains.
Final thoughts on Brightline’s Initial SegmentBrightline provides a great passenger experience and is a model Amtrak and VIA Rail can learn from. There was no requirement to line up 20 minutes before departure, as is the case at major Amtrak and VIA stations. Brightline customer service is top notch, we were continually updated about the situation involving the trespass incident. Its lounges are excellent, much better than the Business Class lounges that VIA and Amtrak offer. The onboard amenities were basic, but considering the longest trip on Brightline is currently 80 minutes, there isn’t a need to offer full service.
Comparison of Brightline Florida with UK First Class train travel is left as an exercise for the reader.
New Orlando Brightline stationBrightline formally unveiled its Orlando International Airport station in April, in advance of its summer extension of its Miami – West Palm Beach service. Brightline announced that one-way single fares between Miami and Orlando would start from $79 for Smart class and $149 for Premium, plus a Family Smart rate for up to four at $199.
This follows double-tracking of the existing Florida East Coast Railway between West Palm Beach and Cocoa for 125 km/h operation, and the completion of a 60 km line between Cocoa and Orlando International Airport for 200 km/h. This will allow Brightline to run a planned 16 trains each way per day, at a broadly hourly service. Non-stop trains will have an end-to-end trip time of 3h, while all stop services will take 3h 30min.
The theme parks (Walt Disney World, Seaworld) around Orlando are a 20 minute drive away. Public transit from Brightline Orlando station to downtown and the city’s theme parks is not the best, and might take over 1.5 hours by bus. Test running for this extension is in the final stages of certification and crew training. Brightline is already thinking further afield, with plans to extend close to Walt Disney World and the International Drive corridor, thence on to Tampa.
California Dreamingbrightline’s proposed california-nevada lineThe ubiquitous RMTransit looks at the Brightline rail lines as high speed railways, including their Los Angeles – Las Vegas line in design phase.
How did Brightline build it?Looking into the development of this railway, it is clear that the company had taken advantage of numerous government funds and incentives. Nought wrong with that. However, rail observer Johnny Renton investigated deeply into the history and activities of the company, including not building grade separated road crossings on the line. As a result, there have been dozens of collisions of Brightline trains with motorists ignoring or bypassing the gates at level crossings. As well as the aforementioned absolute lack of trackside fencing, which has lead to dozens crossing the line between neighbourhoods being killed by trains. No public train service in a developed country would be allowed to build or operate such a deadly railway line. This is a private railway with little regard for human life – something seen in third world countries.
This article was not written or assisted by AI.
The post Brightline Trip Review – The new US private passenger railway appeared first on London Reconnections.
• If the bus networks are poor, then so are we (TheTimes)
• Death of the front garden: Brits spending £27Bn turning front gardens into parking (DirectLine)
• Holloways, England’s mysterious sunken roads, extend longer than thought (BBC)
• Surprisingly beautiful Berlin U-Bahn stations (ExBerliner)
• Helsinki building car-free tram ‘Crown Bridges’ (Built)
• New study looks at horrible impact of frequent flyer points (LloydAlter)
• $2.4B investment in new Melbourne low-floor trams, accessible stops, & more service (RailwayPro)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 4 September 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• The London Underground Line Loo League Table (CarolineRussellAM)
• How a community bus service made a Perthshire village smile again (Guardian)
• Photos read by Lead Curator of UK National Railway Museum: Video (RailPhotoArt)
• Trams are finally returning to Liège (RandomRailways)
• CrossRail Chicago – Making American high speed rail possible: Video (HighSpeedRailAlliance)
• Automakers starting to admit drivers hate touch screens. Buttons are back Baby! (Slate)
• Russian sympathisers use a cheap radio hack to disrupt Poland’s rail network (Wired)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 1 September 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• DB Cargo UK retiring Class 90 electric locomotives in green blow (RailwayTechnology) • World of Sport: 1982 London double decker bus racing: Video (ElvisKline99) • The distorted geography of Paris bus maps (FabricofParis) • The myths & reality of public transit’s crime train trope (CityLab) • The fastest growing subway network in the world? …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 28 August 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Network Rail faces prosecution over fatal 2020 crash near Stonehaven (Guardian) • Let’s ride the Edinburgh Trams Extension: Video (GeoffMarshall) • AI cameras catch 297 drivers in 3 days in Cornwall (BBC) • Proposal to house pigeons above Underground stations to harvest their guano (IanVisits) • As cities become prosperous, people drive less if …
The post Friday Reads – 25 August 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
London and South East Region Line Nicknames Transport for London’s Lineage Organisation Brand Reports to Date Metropolitan, Great Northern, and Metropolitan East London Railways Metropolitan Railway shareholders 1863-1933 Underground Electric Railways Company of London (UERL)[financed and built Bakerloo and Piccadilly lines] UndergrounD Group Railway owners (Yerkes et al) 1902-1906 UERL [acquired Central London and City …
The post Reconnections’ Miscellany: Lord Dawlish speaks! – August 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• UK rail industry has grown used to failing everyday on accessibility, MPs hear (DisabilityNews) • The weird, colourful postmodern Berlin U-Bahn station architecture (ExBerliner) • The world’s first covered bike path could be made under Berlin’s U-Bahn Line 1 (Reset) • App to help visually impaired navigate chaotic NYC subway stations (Engadget) • SEPTA, …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 21 August 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• The future stations of HS2 (RailEngineer) • Brits use more water to wash their cars than UK’s major cities combined (MobilityMatters) • German government provides €12.5bn more for rail investment (IntlRailJ) • Chicago’s complex railroad problem (HomeSignal) • LA’s downtown pedway network was to be a people mover precursor (TransitingLA) • Self driving wheelchair …
The post Friday Reads – 18 August 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Euston HS2 TBMs to be buried under Old Oak Common until gov’t green light (NewCivilEng) • Fabulous Pathé BOAC Sunderland flying boat passenger flight: Video (AirlineRatings) • Willy Spiller’s book Hell on Wheels on NYC Subway’s 70s & 80s grime & decay (Colossal) • SFO trolleybuses with batteries Study finds them the best path …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 14 August 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Where have all of England’s buses gone? Their neglect is a national failure (Guardian) • 10 day closure of northeast DLR leg starts next Sat 19 August (IanVisits) • Warrensville to Westferry: Lessons in modern light rail (MarthaLauren) • The clean lines of Swiss integrated transport (BeautyOfTransport) • Seven projects to reclaim New York …
The post Friday Reads – 11 August 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Rows over ‘anti-motorist’ ULEZ & LTNs lose perspective: They save lives (Guardian) • What Underground Venetian Masts station roundels have to do with the Illuminati: Video (JagoHazzard) • Moving two A4 Pacific Mallard siblings to the UK for display: Video (HugeMoves) • 300 year history of data visualisation in the style of Ogilby’s Britannia …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 7 August 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• DfT mulls stripping HS2 Euston terminus to 7 platforms (NewCivilEng) • Great Train Robbery 2 sequel flops badly (RailwayTechnology) • Combatting the sound of the Underground in London (RailTech) • Paris to charge SUV drivers higher parking fees to tackle auto-besity (Guardian) • Everything you need to know about Switzerland’s new double-decker trains (TheLocal) …
The post Friday Reads – 3 August 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
Move over RER, Montréal’s new fully automated Réseau express métropolitain (REM)’s first segment has opened. Once fully completed, the REM line will link directly across Montréal Island north, south, and west. Essentially, a Regional Express Rail (RER) line, similar to those in Paris (but not as far reaching), and London’s Crossrail, but at a smaller …
The post How Montréal’s REM learnt from the Paris RER – Automatic for the People appeared first on London Reconnections.
• How low cost airline subsidies are hampering the great modal shift (RailwayTechnology) • History of Heathrow Express, from WW2 plans, to the future (IARO) • Ireland’s Strategic Rail Review makes 30 proposals to greatly improve railway (RailwayGazette) • Some transport systems hide the network: The map is the network (CityWayfinding) • Four cities that …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 31 July 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• £14m in fines levied on TfL & TOL for Croydon Tram crash (RailwayTechnology) • UK announces £680m for Turkish high speed electric railway, but no UK benefit (LondonEconomic) • Northern expanding using classical music to curb anti-social behaviours at stations (RailTechnology) • 3 extensions in 4 years: The Paris M14 Métro line (RailTech) • …
The post Friday Reads – 28 July 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Manchester, Yorkshire, & Liverpool Mayors initiate legal process against ticket office closures (RailAdvent) • Full Tube Map of human anatomy [safe for work] (VisualCapitalist) • The American car death cult [close registration request] (AmericanProspect) • Cars, planes, trains: Where do CO2 emissions from transport come from? (OurWorldInData) • The aviation sector benefits from unjustified …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 24 July 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• London buses are slowing down, slowing down, slowing down (OnLondon) • Gloucester Road: Forgotten spaces, historic features, & art installation: Video (HiddenLondonHangouts) • Fare Dodger Bingo: Which excuses have you heard? (RailUK) • Freight Expectations: The real impetus for the development of Britain’s railways (AgeOfInvention) • How to fight bad faith planning (RMTransit) • …
The post Friday Reads – 21 July 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Views under Waterloo Station on its 175th Anniversary (IanVisits) • Britain’s Railways All Change: oral history collection of the privatisation process (NatlRailwayMuseum) • The Carmont 2020 Railway disaster, Part One: Podcast (SignalsToDanger) • Montpellier drops order for 51 hydrogen buses as electric ones 6 times cheaper to run (RechargeNews) • You can ride this …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 17 July 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Unusual London Overground trips possible this weekend (IanVisits) • TfL announces 10 Underground stations to be upgraded to step-free access (IntelligentTransport) • Sister Rosetta Tharpe 1964 South Manchester Blues & Gospel Train show: Video (ReelinInTheYears) • How the disused Wilbraham Road station was picked for the Blues & Gospel Train show (BBC) • Hagstrom – …
The post Friday Reads – 14 July 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
Station and platform floors have traditionally been unadorned, and only recently has their potential as a blank canvas for relaying information to passengers been utilised. The floor is the stage on which the drama of the station unfolds, the coming and going of passengers, the choice of passageways, the occasional lost individual or group, the …
The post Floors – The Next Dimension in Safety and Wayfinding appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Is the UK’s rail network affordable? (RailEngineer) • NaviLens tech app trial to help blind & partially sighted navigate DLR stations (ITSInternational) • The underride crashes that the truck industry doesn’t want to prevent (ProPublica) • Mexico City opens trolleybus BRT network (SustainableBus) • Mumbai Metro network expansion in full swing (CitizenMatters) • Inside …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 10 July 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
Just a quick reminder to this interested that our monthly meetup is on Tuesday 11th July. For more details click ‘Monthly Meetup – 2nd Tuesday Evening in the City‘ at the top of the home page.
The post Tuesday Meetup 11th July appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Govt knows the value of London transport investment but withholds it anyway (OnLondon) • Behind the scenes of the National Railway Museum’s modernisation: Video (RailNatter) • Madrid launches its first bus rapid transit – BRT – service (CitiesToday) • The Sofia, Bulgaria Metro network (RandomRailways) • Before East Palestine rail fire: the more deadly …
The post Friday Reads – 7 July 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• That’s the end of the franchise era, then (RailNews) • Lambeth council latest to start emissions-based fees: paying double for parking (Guardian) • Global growth of light rail lines (UKTram) • Govt details how Fleetwood’s rail link will be restored using tram-trains (BlackpoolGazette) • Europe’s longest cycle tunnel, at 3km, opens to cut traffic …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 3 July 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Govt plans closure of most UK railway station ticket offices within weeks (Guardian) • Liverpool Edge Hill Station now Scheduled Monument: Video (Liverpool&ManchesterRyTrust) • The compleat list of Dr Who Underground scenes & sets (PsychicPaper) • How Europe is progressively replacing planes with trains: Video (Versed) • Fare capping: How it greatly simplify fares …
The post Friday Reads – 30 June 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Tube pickpocketing up as police report stats (Standard) • The problem w/ Rowan Atkinson’s take on electric cars, is too many electric cars (LloydAlter) • The work of Tube fluffers, now called track cleaning teams, has evolved (BBC) • North America’s first platform screen door subways & métros: Video (RMTransit) • The ups & …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 26 June 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• The dark underbelly of Thomas the Tank Engine: Podcast (99%Invisible) • European Sleeper starts Berlin-Amsterdam-Brussels service (Politico) • The Dutch bid farewell to their Royal Train (RailTech) • The benefits of, & the reasons for, really short metro lines: Video (RMTransit) • Soul Train: an eight year gallery of the New York Subway at …
The post Friday Reads – 23 June 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
Spy balloons over the US and Canada, with some being shot down, have been a major news story in recent months. But what is not in the mainstream news is the spotting of what appears to be the world’s largest airship hangars in China – with an airship taxiing. Chinese giant airship hangar and airship. …
The post Phoenix Rises – Return of the Airship appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Britain’s railway is without a paddle (IntlRailJ) • New Wales Metro tram-train now in testing (RailUK) • Feasibility Study for £890m Oxfordshire rail link released (NewCivilEng) • Irish railway project takes old Scottish Sleeper cars for accommodation (RailTech) • Philadelphia regional rail ridership up 12% after I-95 bridge collapse (Inquirer) • LA opens downtown …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 19 June 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• TfL puts larger transport infrastructure projects on hold amid funding uncertainty (NewCivilEng) • Peckham Rye station restoration finally complete (IanVisits) • Transport innovation, engineering, lobbying, & public relations in the age of steamboats (AntonHowes) • The Hague introduces €50 parking fee to deter drivers (CitiesToday) • Avellino trolleybus starts service after 23 years of …
The post Friday Reads – 16 June 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Inside the project bringing mobile phone coverage to the Underground (TheEngineer) • TfL on track for operating surplus, board told (OnLondon) • Wren by river tour, 1 Sept only (VisitGreenwich) • What every British train announcement sounds like: Video (GDiddlyDog) • How to improve transport connectivity in UK cities: Devolution, funding, urban form (CentreForCities) …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 12 June 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
Just a quick reminder to this interested that our monthly meetup is on Tuesday 13th June. For more details click ‘Monthly Meetup – 2nd Tuesday Evening in the City‘ at the top of the home page.
The post Tuesday Monthly Meetup 13th June appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Edinburgh tram extension to Newhaven carries first passengers (UrbanTransport) • Eurostar seeks solution to avoid suspension of Amsterdam – London services (RailwayGazette) • Boston bus stop digital library pilot (SmartCitiesDive) • Amtrak announces ultra-cheap fares for late night rides on popular routes (NBCNewYork) • Washington DC Union Station expansion to allow thru commuter trains, …
The post Friday Reads – 9 June 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
There’s an oddly shaped war memorial in Bethnal Green Gardens, the park next to my local tube station. It looks like an upside down staircase, made of what I’m assuming is wood but looks to be brick; inscribed on it are surnames. Aarons, Asser, Bailey, Baker. I’ve passed this structure a dozen times a week …
The post The Stairway to Heaven: the greatest disaster ever on London’s Tubes appeared first on London Reconnections.
• TfL to buy more Elizabeth line trains to serve Old Oak Common HS2 temp terminus (OnLondon)
• Former High Speed Rail College to close at the end of July (BBC)
• Public inquiry on inaccessible footbridge will be line in the sand say activists (DisabilityNews)
• What are the small, new yellow diamond stickers on London buses? (DiamondGeezer)
• Lyon to bring in parking charges linked to car’s weight (ConnexionFrance)
• Small cities with rail rapid transport (Straphanger)
• Why trolleybuses are vastly superior to battery electric buses: Video (ArmchairUrbanist)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 5 June 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• A train ride makes everything better, there are always people you can talk to: Video (GeoffMarshall)
• Why the revolutionary Rotodyne failed in city centre transport: Video (Mustard)
• The painful consequences of liking fake subway maps (LAReviewOfBooks)
• Iron people: Ukraine’s railway network in time of war photo essay (Guardian)
• You can’t have free transit without trade-offs (Slate)
• More investment in solar energy than oil for the first time (OilPrice)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 2 June 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Is renationalising more UK train services a viable strategy? (FutureRail)
• Politicians’ cries of ‘The War on Cars’ fails to move voters (NewStatesman)
• Brussels’ Good Move mobility plan cuts tram & bus delays by one to five minutes (CitiesToday)
• See the never used Mersey Tunnel tram level: Video (What’sUnderneath?)
• The world’s steepest railway: Video (RMTransit)
• Chicago spent $400m on the Block 37 airport express subway superstation to nowhere (NBCChicago)
• They just need a warm place: How public transit became America’s last safety net (ViceMotherboard)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 29 May 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• England rail passengers could lose WiFi access in DfT cost cuts (Guardian)
• How train WiFi works & why it’s under threat in England (Guardian)
• Effect of UK sustainable mobility policies on urban transport emissions & energy demand (Nature)
• Some of London’s derelict railways and trains (DerelictLondon)
• Abandoned train graveyard at collapsing maintenance depot: Video (Urbandoned)
• The mysterious history Britain’s road death toll (CityMonitor)
• Ascent diagrams that chart time & space travels of the first long distance flights (Chartography)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 26 May 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
With thanks to Jonathan Baggs MCIPR for this poem and allowing us to republish it on the anniversary of the final stage opening of the Elizabeth line 24 May 2022.
Twas the Night before Crossrail, and all through the town
The Platforms stood ready, some 100ft down.
Roundels, display screens, maps, set out with care
For thousands of passengers soon to be there.The new trains were nestled all snug in their sidings,
Ready to move out at five-minute timings;
Commuters and tourists were ready to master
Nine brand-new stations… and Bond Street soon after.It’s been a long wait: thirty years in the making,
But the passenger journey will now be breath-taking:
Bright stations, time savings, and better connections,
New possibilities in every location.Three years of tunnelling in deep London clay
To dig out the spoil for the new railway:
But 3 million tonnes would then guarantee
A nature reserve for the RSPBThen services start on the Elizabeth Line
The 6.30 from Paddington leaving on time:
The 200 metre-long nine-car formation
Gently accelerates out of the station.The West End, The City, and Eastwards it races
With WiFi and air-con and accessible spaces.
The passengers exit or interchange lines,
Making their journey in much shorter times.We glide to Abbey Wood on the Bexley border
Waiting for checks to see all is in order.
After many more journeys she goes out of sight
‘Merry Crossrail to all, and to all a good night’.Jonathan Baggs
To hear a few stanzas set to speech, click on the arrow in the image below – it will open a Twitter window, but a Twitter account is not necessary to view or listen (narration and images courtesy of BBC London):
The Elizabeth line will open to the public on Tuesday.
This poem from @Jonbaggs for those who are excited about the Crossrail project finally arriving.
More on Crossrail here: https://t.co/yx1kRpSABZ pic.twitter.com/dX72h5qp86— BBC London (@BBCLondonNews) May 23, 2022
The post Poem on the Opening of the Elizabeth line: First Anniversary appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Tuesday is last day to save Day Travelcards (Bus&TrainUser)
• Plans for Great British Railways have been watered down by No 10 (TheTimes)
• Crossrail tunnel detailed engineering cross-section explained: pg 5 (MottMacDonald)
• Of electric bikes and bionic duckweed (JonnEllege)
• Montreal borough implements parking rate by vehicle & engine size (Streetsblog)
• NYC MTA settlement to make 95% of 364 subway stations accessible by 2055 (SmartCitiesDive)
• What LA’s La Sombrita shade & light bus stop does & doesn’t do (Streetsblog)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 22 May 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Progress at HS2 Old Oak Common station site as 1st base slab poured (RailUK)
• Plans submitted for snaking Silvertown ped & cycle bridge (ConstructionEnq)
• France developing next generation, double decker TGVs (CNNTravel)
• Lisbon car ban limits downtown through traffic (CityLab)
• The future of mobility is smaller (McKinsey)
• More US cities losing air service as regional airlines struggle to survive (Forbes)
• Project Habbakuk: Britain’s secret iceberg aircraft carrier (99%Invisible)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 19 May 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
Much has already been written about the Elizabeth line 2023 timetable – the so called ‘final’ timetable signifying the completion of the Crossrail scheme with all the proposed services implemented and 24tph (trains per hour) running in the central operating section. Here we look to see whether the timetabling aims have been achieved and, now that we have seen through running implemented, what we can hope for and expect in the future.
The Big Surprise is No SurpriseThe first surprise, and it is quite impressive, is that just about everything that was promised would be achieved has been achieved. There are a couple of things that have not been included in the May timetable but these are minor in nature and we are confident they will be rectified in the next timetable revision. It seems that everything else, down to considerable detail in timings, stopping patterns and frequency at individual station has been timetabled as was promised years ago. Where not, it is only marginally different to the service promised.
As an indication of how things have gone as planned, although not in the intended timescale, below is a diagram based on one in an article we first published in August 2018 which shows the proposed ‘final’ peak period timetable. Most things that have changed since then are shown in red. Red lines and stations show services or stops now omitted. Omitted stops are present because it was desirable to omit them but timetabling previously did not make it possible.
Lilac squares show additional stops at Burnham which, we believe, have been added since 2018.
Where there is a change of the eastern branch serving Terminal 5 (Shenfield but originally Abbey Wood), this has been shown by rearranging the connections between western services west of Paddington, and the services in the central section by means of use of red and lilac lines west of Paddington station.
Direct Trains between Shenfield and Terminal 5It is believed that the intention in 2018 was that peak period trains to and from Terminal 5 would begin or end their journeys at Abbey Wood although we are not sure about this. This would be consistent with having the peak service from Heathrow serving Canary Wharf as intended. In the May 2023 timetable Terminal 5 trains start or end at Shenfield. We do not know if this is just how the timetable worked out, whether this was actually the plan from the outset or whether a conscious decision was made to change this.
Certainly, having a direct service to Heathrow on the Shenfield branch has met with general approval. It may only be half-hourly but even a half-hourly service will make a big difference. Many airport passengers with luggage often prefer longer overall journey times without having to change trains rather than taking the first train and changing where necessary – even if it is only a matter of alighting and boarding at the same platform. Whatever the reason, it appears to be a good move. If, in the future, TfL manages to increase the Crossrail service to Terminal 5 to 4tph then something west of Paddington has to continue to Shenfield anyway, as there will be 14tph west of Paddington but only 12tph on each eastern branch. Having Terminal 4 trains serving the Abbey Wood branch and Terminal 5 trains serving the Shenfield branch seems to be good forward planning.
Objective AchievedIt would be fair to say that the Crossrail team have achieved what they set out to achieve – just not in the timescale promised and not anywhere near within budget. This is despite the fact that the signalling system required in order to achieve the planned 24tph needed to push the boundaries of technology and simply did not exist while Crossrail was being built. Three different signalling systems are currently in use over different sections of the Crossrail infrastructure and in the central section it had to support the synchronised operation of platform edge doors.
It’s not just the timetable. The central stations look almost exactly as they appeared on the CGIs (Computer Generated Imagery) many years ago. In terms of the service provided, what was promised from the outset has, if anything, been exceeded as we have trains continuing west from Maidenhead to serve Twyford and Reading, and 2tph serving the existing Heathrow Terminal 5 station. The latter was not included as part of the plan until a very late stage of preparations to run the full service and, even then, it was intended to be something that would be added later, after the project was ‘complete’.
A Real AchievementTo see why we should not take this achievement for granted it is helpful to compare the outcome to Thameslink which was also a 24tph scheme. Five years on, Thameslink is still only timetabled to run at 20tph in the peaks and is unlikely ever to run at 24tph due, it is said, to conflicts at junctions in south London and a need to prevent its already poor reliability from getting even worse. This poor reliability is generally in the form of cancellations due to no driver being available and operating issues that lead to trains running late. Whilst a certain amount of late running can be accommodated without causing too many problems with a 20tph frequency, it would probably lead to severe knock-on delays if a 24tph frequency were attempted.
Furthermore, on Thameslink, although automatic train operation is functioning in the core, the majority of drivers still aren’t trained to use it meaning they couldn’t run 24tph if they wanted to as this relies on the core being fully automatically operated.
ImprovementsFrom May 2023 we will have a true sustainable 24tph Elizabeth line timetable in the peak period in both directions, This is not a high peak achievement for a single hour but a regular service of 24tph in the centre of London in both directions from around 0750 to 0920 in the morning and 1650 to 1850 in the evening. This is based on times at Paddington. 16tph will run outside the peak period for most of the day with an exception being on early Sunday morning and late on Sunday evening when the central section will only have 8tph. Whilst the early Sunday morning and late Sunday evening service might seem unduly sparse, travel is very light at these times, and it would be hard to justify running a frequent service of 200m trains when it really wasn’t needed.
The timetable includes through running from Shenfield beyond Paddington which seems to be regarded as the big thing missing from the current November 2022 timetable. It is only 2tph and the trains will serve Heathrow Terminal 5. One national newspaper has tried to make a big thing of the fact there won’t be any through services from Reading to Shenfield, but the reality is that the number of passengers wishing to travel between stations west of Hayes & Harlington and stations between Stratford and Shenfield will be very few indeed. In any case, at no time, other than in the very early days, when the original proposal was only for a service between Reading and Shenfield, was it ever suggested there would be these through trains.
Although much seems to be made of the new service between Shenfield and Heathrow Terminal 5 which replaces a service between Abbey Wood and Terminal 5, the real significance is that there will be 6tph Elizabeth line trains to Heathrow with 2tph terminating at Terminal 5 and 4tph (up from 2tph) terminating at Terminal 4. Whilst Terminal 4 services are all-stations services, trains to and from Terminal 5 will only call at Heathrow Terminals 2&3, Hayes & Harlington, West Ealing, and Ealing Broadway west of Paddington.
Another improvement, always intended, is the removal of the enforced delay for Elizabeth line trains on their inward journey to Paddington. This was initiated in order to implement through running westward beyond Paddington without having to wait for a National Rail timetable revision. The final major improvement is the introduction of an extra 2tph between Paddington and Maidenhead in peak hours. This gives both Maidenhead and Slough an impressive 8tph peak service if you include the 2tph GWR semi-fasts that serve these stations.
Towards being the primary rail operator to HeathrowMuch has been made of an earlier first service to Heathrow. Instead of departing Paddington at 0442 and arriving at Terminal 5 at 0514, it departs from platform 5 at Paddington at 0436 and arrives at Terminal 5 at 0504 – so four minutes quicker. After that at 0440, just four minutes later, a further train follows it from platform 4 at Paddington and continues to Terminal 4. The next two trains from Paddington to Heathrow are also Elizabeth line trains and only at 0510 does the first Heathrow Express train depart Paddington. For roughly the first half hour in the morning, it is only the Elizabeth line that serves Heathrow from Paddington.
For the first time, more Elizabeth line trains will serve Heathrow than Heathrow Express ones. Specifically, this is true of Terminals 2&3 station. With Terminal 4 only served by the Elizabeth line and not by Heathrow Express, Crossrail is starting to become the dominant service of trains between Heathrow and Paddington – at least in terms of numbers of trains.
What’s Missing?The first thing that stands out as missing from the timetable is the 20tph off peak timetable. In May 2023 it is almost unaltered from before at 16tph. This is not entirely a surprise as with the aftermath of Covid it may have been thought that 20tph could not be justified. However, senior people in TfL have often argued that the cost of running a frequent off-peak service is only marginally more than running a less-frequent off-peak service. It can usually be justified in terms of passenger benefit even if not quite covering its costs.
It also needs to be borne in mind was that one of the justifications for the 20tph off-peak services was that due operation of freight on the Shenfield branch and timings to critical junctions, it actually made more sense to have a 20tph timetable instead of a 16tph one as the freight would then ‘slot in’ to gaps between the Elizabeth line trains. This argument now no longer applies as, with further electrification elsewhere, the freight trains now take a different route and are not an impediment on the Elizabeth line.
It turns out, according to Modern Railways (April 2023), that there was concern in altering too much in one timetable change so the increased off-peak service was excluded from the May 2023 timetable. This concern applied not only to the timetable itself but also the need for more staff and a higher availability of trains in service. Sadly, it looks as though this will not be rectified until December 2023 when the timetable is next due to change.
Of particular concern to the reliability of the May 2023 timetable was the elimination of the temporary ‘pauses’ into Paddington from the west, which were added to the November 2022 timetable to avoid a recast of the timings west of Paddington with the enhanced Elizabeth line service from then. These had the beneficial side-effect of being a convenient way of recovering time when necessary.
Also canned in the May 2023 timetable was an increase of 2tph to 4tph of the ‘Gidea Park Shorts’ which we have covered in a separate article. This too is believed to have been decided on the basis of not wishing to change too much too soon.
Not mentioned but another factor could be the reliance of auto-reverse for terminating trains at Paddington. For reasons we don’t really understand, this is critical to offering a more frequent service even if fewer trains are terminating at Paddington. Auto-reverse will be critical to operating a 24tph service in the peaks but maybe recovery from a disrupted service would be challenging off-peak if a 20tph operation was in operation and auto-reverse was not functional. With no experience of the reliability of auto-reverse in daily operation when the cut-off date for a new timetable came, it is understandable if a prudent ‘wait and see’ policy was decided upon.
What’s Better?There are small things about the new timetable that appear to be slightly better than were originally promised. Elizabeth line trains to and from Terminal 5 now omit stops at Southall, Hanwell, and Acton Main Line. These stops were almost certainly originally put in simply because it would have been impossible to save time by omitting them due to the timings of the train ahead of it. The reason that this is now possible is almost certainly due to moving the GWR Didcot semi-fast trains onto the main (fast) lines as described in our article on the Great Western Main Line.
Similarly, at one stage the relatively quiet station of West Ealing was due to have 10tph. This is because, to avoid bunching of trains, you need nearly all trains to call there or hardly any. It seems that a few years ago they managed to arrange the timetable so now only Heathrow services (6tph from May) call at West Ealing.
In earlier plans, a ‘semi-fast’ service to Reading was proposed which would run non-stop between Maidenhead and Slough. In the May 2023 timetable this continues to call at Burnham. This may be due to being unable to take advantage of the trains not stopping there but is much more likely to be because it is felt that current demand justifies providing at 6tph service in peak hours.
Elizabeth line OdditiesThere do appear to be oddities in the timetable which are not necessarily new. There is a westbound train that appears to start from Whitechapel at 0539 to form the first westbound service through the central operating section. This was actually introduced last December. Earlier westbound services run on the Shenfield branch (but terminate at Liverpool Street National Rail station). The working timetable initially appears not to show the Whitechapel departure actually starting from elsewhere but careful looking in a different column shows it actually departs from Gidea Park Sidings at 0510 and runs empty to Whitechapel.
There also appears to be a number of empty services running in the early morning from Old Oak Common Depot to Maidenhead Reversing Sidings in order to position them for providing a service from Maidenhead. There are corresponding services in the evening. One would have thought the idea of Maidenhead storage sidings was to avoid the need for such trains. Indeed, giving that the construction of the storage sidings was a large and quite expensive undertaking one wonders what is going on.
At Shenfield the first two trains in the morning depart from platform 1 at 0444 and 0504 respectively on Tuesdays and Thursdays only, whereas normally Elizabeth line trains use platforms 5 and 6. On the Underground, stabling in different platforms on different days of the week is done in order to allow track litter-picking operations and general track maintenance and inspection, so it is presumed this is the reason this happens here. The apparent puzzle of how two trains can be stabled at the same platform is explained by the second of them being stabled in the up passenger loop overnight and reversing into platform 1 prior to departure. Having to have a train stabled there overnight does seem to be a somewhat awkward operational procedure.
Also at Shenfield, some morning peak trains start from platform 4 which is normally used for down departures to Southend Victoria. Having Elizabeth line trains occupying this platform appears to be extremely inconvenient operationally.
There seems to be no logical reason for using platform 4 and it doesn’t appear to be because the two regular Elizabeth line platforms cannot handle all the trains. 12tph is not unreasonable for two platforms as one can testify by looking at Abbey Wood. There is no regular pattern to this anomaly – which one would expect if it were simply a case of needing three platforms to terminate the trains. Furthermore, one train departs from platform 4 as late as 0933 yet the previous departure from platform 5 was at 0920 and the next one not due to depart until 0948 – plenty of time to fit in an additional departure at 0933. There is no indication in the working timetable that these trains are coming from the stabling sidings at Shenfield but we presume that they must be.
Another OddityNot an Elizabeth line anomaly but there is a slight oddity in that Romford continues to have one train an hour in each direction between the peaks terminating at or starting from Colchester Town. There are also a few trains in the evening and a regular hourly service on Saturdays. Whilst Saturdays is more understandable, it seems hardly worth providing the few inter-peak services amounting to just nine a day in each direction.
There is also one Great Anglia train a day that stops at Romford on a fast line platform in the late morning peak. It arrives at 0854 having originated from Southend Victoria. The timings suggest that this is specifically for a particular education establishment in Romford in order to avoid Elizabeth line trains getting overcrowded and avoiding a large crowd changing platforms at Shenfield.
It is notable that these trains take only 11 minutes between Romford and Stratford by running non-stop on the fast lines whereas all-stations Elizabeth line trains take 20 minutes. It is quite impressive that Elizabeth line services call at seven additional stations with time penalty of only nine minutes.
Changes in the Next YearIt is clear that this isn’t the end of Crossrail development so what lies ahead? Well the obvious next enhancements are to finally run a 20tph off-peak service which would give a respectable 3-minute interval between trains in the central section, and a 6-minute interval on both the Shenfield and Abbey Wood branches. Off-peak services west of Paddington would be unaffected other than by some minor consequential timing adjustments.
Equally obvious is the desire to increase the number of Gidea Park shorts from 2 to 4tph. Even 3tph would be a great improvement which would give a consistent train every 4 minutes on the Shenfield branch in the peak direction in the peak period.
After those two obvious enhancements, it is hard to conceive any further enhancements without doing something to increase the available fleet during peak hours. An remote possibility outside peak hours is the Night Elizabeth line on Friday and Saturday nights, but Covid appears to have put an end to talk of that. A further complication would be that through trains don’t currently operate on early Sunday mornings (before 0715) on the central section in order allow one night of extended engineering time which would be lost with a Night Elizabeth line service.
Let Wagons Roll (faster)Not so much an enhancement, initially at any rate, but an opportunity to provide a more regular timetable with better stopping arrangements west of Paddington is the expectation that, by December 2023, 45mph stone wagons will have become a thing of the past on the Great Western Main Line. With better-sprung wagons, an expectation of a permitted speed of a least 60mph would enable them to run between Elizabeth line trains without unduly delaying them. With the current Elizabeth line stock available it should, at the very least, enable more even timings and some possible minor speed-up of services. If more stock were available in the future then opportunities may exist to enable extra passenger trains to run.
Long Term EnhancementsIf passenger numbers on the Elizabeth line continue to increase then it would seem highly desirable to enhance the service further. There are many ways of doing this and many options available provided the money is forthcoming. To see how this could potentially be achieved means consideration of many possibilities and issues so we will leave that until a future article.
Thanks to Matt for improving the text in many places. Any outstanding issues are down to the author.
The post Crossrail – the May 2023 ‘final’ timetable appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Can nationalisation by stealth save Britain’s railways? (NewStatesman)
• 10 year perspective on what has been achieved with London’s cycling (OnLondon)
• Modern fare dodgers leave a trail of digital breadcrumbs says Digital Fraud Squad (RailUK)
• E-scooters are good, Britain should legalise them: Opinion (JamesO’Malley)
• People Mover inventor John Parry dies aged 85 (RailMag)
• Blocked crossings in US force kids to crawl under trains to get to school (ProPublica)
• You’re about to see electric ferries everywhere: Here’s what to know (Traveler)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 15 May 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• TransPennine Express to be brought under government control (RailUK)
• Meet the Tube moquette designer: Video (GeoffMarshall)
• Improving accessibility of public transport for people with sight loss (RNIB)
• Brunel’s Thames Tunnel south drum access shaft (RIBAJournal)
• The high costs of curbing fare evasion (CityLab)
• How Tokyo became an anti-car, pedestrian paradise (Heatmap)
• Thirty Seven of the most beautiful rail stations (ArchDigest)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Friday Reads – 12 May 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
The Covid pandemic has had a lasting impact on Britain’s railways. Undoubtedly the most significant impact has been on changing travel patterns in general and, in particular, a reduction in commuting and other business travel which is not expected to ever fully return. Possibly the second most significant long-term impact is an acceleration in changes to ticketing. This was something that was already happening but Covid has focused minds and speeded up a revolution that was already gathering pace. We look at significant changes that are happening and may happen in the future.
Abolition of much of First Class TravelFirst Class travel does not affect many people – and that is really the whole point. With the standard of comfort in Standard Class rising over the years, there is less that differentiates between the two classes of travel. Nowadays, First Class accommodation is sometimes officially declassified and often effectively declassified by others either deliberately flouting the rules or simply overlooking that the accommodation was only for passengers with First Class tickets. Its days on many routes may be numbered judging by the recent decline in services that still offer First Class travel.
Possibly one reason for retention in British Rail days was that First Class travel was a highly prized perk by all levels of management – the very people who would be responsible for its continuation or otherwise. This perk is now only available to relatively few people and is probably not treated with the protective instinct that it once was.
Since privatisation, Chiltern Railways probably started the ball rolling with only Standard Class from the outset, although for a while they did introduce a business zone on their few loco hauled trains. Likewise, c2c have never had First Class, and about five years ago Anglia culled it from all but their Norwich inter-city services.
The trend is clearly to remove First Class from commuter railways and save it for long distance quality travel. It is not the money-spinner it once was imagined to be, and today’s continuation may be more about not losing business altogether from passengers who would probably travel either First Class by rail or by other means of transport for their longer journeys.
It has to be borne in mind that a 25% reduction in seats by a typical First Class seat arrangement (1 + 2 seating) requires a 33% increase in revenue to raise the same fare income from Standard Class (2 + 2 seating), and that assumes that seat occupancy rate (as a percentage) is unaltered. With that generally not being the case, it is clear that providing First Class travel is both a money-loser and an ineffective way of using one’s assets.
Nowadays, in commuter stock, the seating arrangement is often the same for First Class as it is Standard Class, with possibly a little more legroom. It therefore can seem to the passenger that the fare is a third extra than Standard Class with no discounts available for the privilege of having an antimassacar on one’s headrest.
What probably brought the First Class issue to a head recently was SouthEastern’s discovery and revelation that post-Covid they only had 29 First Class season ticket holders. The decision to end First Class travel on their services was a no-brainer. This may have helped LNWR come to a late decision to abolish First Class from the May 2023 timetable. The new Class 730 trains for LNWR that aren’t already complete will be configured for Standard Class only, and ones that currently have First Class accommodation will be retrofitted to be Standard Class only before entry into service.
Expect South Western Railway and Govia Thameslink Railway to follow the trend towards abolishing First Class with keen interest. Govia would probably like to remove First Class from Thameslink trains, which can become quite full and have an awkward arrangement where some First Class seating is declassified south of Farringdon. This could be achieved at almost zero cost by simply declassifying the currently designated seats, or an arrangement with Siemens could be made to reconfigure the relevant carriages which might work out to be surprisingly expensive for what would appear to be a simple modification.
As stated at the start, First Class accommodation is probably not a significant change to many people but, in terms of being willing to make drastic changes to the ticketing regime on the railways, it does indicate that nothing is sacred. If First Class travel is becoming a thing of the past, what other significant ticketing policies will change?
The Demise of Season TicketsA feature of Covid, quickly felt, was the refund of almost all season tickets as they were no longer required. As the government was asking us (or telling us) not to travel except for essential reasons, they obviously felt obliged to refund unexpired season tickets without penalty. Only essential workers really had a reason to keep their season tickets.
Once the dependence on season tickets was broken it was going to be hard for commuters to return to the habit of using them. Unless they regularly went into the office for five days a week, it often made more sense to simply pay-as-you-go with an Oyster or a bank card. This would also increase flexibility at a time when one did not know if a new wave of Covid would come along and require full-time working from home to recommence.
A secondary effect of the demise of season tickets was that every day one went into the office cost real money in daily travelling costs. So, in some cases, this could swing a decision as to whether to go into work or not. In other cases, it was realised that minor modifications to working times could mean that an off-peak fare could be charged. Along with this was the consequential further reduction in income to the railway operating company – which is usually effectively bankrolled by the DfT these days. With Wi-Fi on trains, some people realised that they could adjust their working hours at the office and perform basic office tasks such as checking emails on their commute in order to qualify for off-peak fares.
Why have Season Tickets?The demise of season tickets reignites the issue of why have season tickets at all? They really don’t make much sense in an era of wave-and-pay.
The traditional advantage for the railways of getting money ‘up front’ no longer holds. They can nowadays borrow money much cheaper than the discounted rate for a season ticket. With few people nowadays actually walking up to a ticket office counter to buy a ticket, the removal of the burden of the ticket office having to sell a ticket on a daily basis to regular travellers no longer applies.
It will be interesting to see if there are any future moves to eliminate season tickets. One obvious stealth approach is to withdraw monthly season tickets and include a monthly cap on wave and pay, although this would probably be quite complex to introduce.
If season tickets were to continue it seems that the basis for charging them needs to be reconsidered. The number of days a week at a daily rate required to justify a season tickets is tapered depending on distance, but 3.6 is a typical figure for a commute entirely within the London fares zones. This really doesn’t make it worthwhile for a person commuting for four days a week, given there will be days off for holiday, sickness, and possible work activities that may require a different journey (and therefore the fare is claimable on expenses). One expects that the revenue analysts will be crunching a lot of entry and exit numbers trying to work out an optimal level to charge so as not to lose too much revenue, whilst also encouraging people to make a commuting journey for more days per week.
The Rise of Split TicketingSplit ticketing is the process of purchasing two tickets to cover a journey when this works out cheaper than buying a single through ticket. It has been around for decades but was little publicised. Its roots generally lie in scenarios where it was felt that a fast inter-city service would justify a premium over the slower and less-comfortable ‘slow’ service over the same line.
Split ticketing was often regarded in a similar manner to a legal tax dodge. Take advantage of it if you are in the know but keep quiet about it. The reason for keeping quiet was partly because it was seen as a legal way of cheating and therefore nothing to boast about. There was also the issue that, if it became too well known, measures would be taken to eliminate its use. In fact, a few years ago a restriction was put into place in the National Rail Conditions of Carriage requiring the train to actually stop at station where the split occurs but, other than that, it seems it would be hard to impose restrictions on its use.
With the rise of websites encouraging you to book your train tickets through them, split ticketing is openly seen as a selling point which enables cheaper fares to be offered. As well as the more straightforward split ticketing, the generally increased flexibility with travel arrangements and the savings that could be made has encouraged time-dependent split ticketing where avoiding peak hour fares can make a massive difference. For example, an expensive peak journey from East Croydon to Cardiff could be significantly cheaper if the Cardiff train departs from Paddington after 0930. Simply buy a ticket (or use contactless) from East Croydon to Paddington to cover the peak travel element and buy a separate ticket from Paddington to Cardiff.
This rise in split ticketing has reached the extent that businesses and other organisations (including government-supported charities) openly ask employees or volunteers to investigate whether their fare could be reduced by using split ticketing. We are led to believe split-ticketing now has a considerable impact on revenue and the DfT is concerned about the future consequences of this.
Closure of Ticket OfficesIt seems to be a widely held belief that the government (or at least the Department for Transport) has a strong desire to close ticket offices at all stations, other than those where they can be commercially justified. Ticket office usage is now extremely low, yet there is a considerable lag in closing offices.
It cannot make sense for stations like lightly-used Tattenham Corner to be open from early morning until late evening or for Coulsdon Town to be open for similar hours. In the latter case not only is it one of the ten least used National Rail stations in the Greater London area, but Coulsdon South station is fairly close nearby as an alternative and, despite Coulsdon South being much busier, the ticket office isn’t open for such long hours.
There seems to be little doubt that Covid has brought about a reduction in practice in the number of ticket offices open and the hours that they are open for. It is salient to note that there is little or no clamour to ensure that opening times pre-Covid are restored.
Ticket office closures are particularly stark on SouthEastern where, post-Covid, many stations appear to be totally unstaffed for most of the time. It is generally hard to find a ticket office that is open and even such major stations as Lewisham, Greenwich, or Woolwich Arsenal seem to lack ticket office (or even any other) staff at the station.
In the case of SouthEastern one feels these closures have gone too far with nothing done to provide alternative facilities for those inconvenienced. In other words, the problem seems to be made much worse by the fact that this appears to have been done in a haphazard disorganised manner rather than according to any plan that has been put into place. Given that most train operating companies are, to a less or greater extent, in a similar position it seems that such a plan needs to be conceived and implemented at a higher level.
The Add-on Ticketing problemThe haphazard closing of ticket offices highlights issues where passengers have a legitimate need to purchase a ticket other than from the originating station. Most ticket machines only sell tickets from the station they are located at. One can understand the reluctance of most train operating companies to provide facilities of purchasing tickets from any station to any other station. It could lead to massive fare evasion with, for example, someone walking to an unstaffed South London station and purchasing a local ticket from Preston Park (just north of Brighton) to Brighton in order to make an illegal low-cost journey and exiting through the ticket gates at Brighton.
Some railway companies encourage passengers to purchase tickets on their phone. This, obviously, is available between most stations and this may have the same risk of fraudulent travel as a from-anywhere-to-anywhere ticket machine. One can expect this method of travel purchase to be encouraged in future as more barriers become compatible with optical scanners being added to active ticket gates when presented with a valid 2D barcode displayed on a phone.
Caught in the crosswires, as it were, with add-on ticket issues are passengers with a legitimate need to purchase tickets not available from ticket machines. These passengers may also not be comfortable buying tickets with the phones – or simply may not be able to do so. Two categories of passengers stand out.
Season tickets and other zonal tickets can create a problem for when passengers wish to travel beyond the zones their ticket or Oystercard is valid in. These customers need an add-on card. Unlike split ticketing, in this situation there is no actual requirement for the train to stop at the boundary station. If they have a season ticket and the destination station has card readers then there isn’t an issue – they simply tap out. Otherwise, the only really practical way to purchase these tickets are at a ticket office or on a smart phone.
Passengers with 60+ concessionary cards or London Freedom Passes can quite often have a legitimate need for an add-on ticket. For some journeys, especially return ones, there can be valid reasons for requiring a ticket from the zone 6 border rather than a specific nominated station. These situations, in general, are just not adequately catered for.
And, dare one say it, in a similar vein it could be argued that the person wanting to make a split ticket journey, which is perfectly legal, also needs a ticket office to be open to purchase their tickets or, alternatively, an ability to use a smart phone.
Project OvalAt this point you might be thinking that what is needed is a comprehensive rethink of the way rail deals with ticketing. You might think that TfL has gone a long way to put something suitable in place but more needs to be done. And it needs to be implemented beyond London as well as within London. Welcome to Project Oval.
Project Oval is a DfT sponsored plan to encompass all travel using pay-as-you-go technology in the South-East of England. The initial plan is to cover more than 230 stations, but bear in mind that includes stations already covered by pay-as-you-go. Exact details are sketchy as to where will be initially covered but the first phase seems to be quite a significant expansion of the area covered by the London zones. Initially not all features will be implemented with, for instance, discounted travel still requiring paper tickets for the foreseeable future.
Undated project oval diagramWhat does seem fairly clear is the area ultimately intended to be covered by the current scheme as indicated on the map above. In fact the map is slightly out of date as, in advance of this, the Henley-on-Thames and and Marlow GWR branches already have contactless travel hardware installed and in use.
GWR POSTER SHOWING EXPANDED CONTACTLESS AREAAt present, the scheme is intended to be an expansion of TfL’s pay-as-you-go technology, administered by TfL on behalf of the DfT. Ultimately, it seems that the DfT is keen to tender the work out and remove TfL’s responsibility for administrating the scheme. Such an approach makes sense as the DfT don’t really want to be reliant on TfL. One also suspects that certain government ministers who do not like TfL and the current London Mayor for various reasons would not like TfL to have any leverage over the government.
TfL, for their part, would probably be happy, in principle, for this work to be taken off them so they can concentrate on providing a good passenger service rather than administering collecting the revenue. In practice and in the current economic climate they probably welcome the extra revenue (as a slice of the fare paid) enough to want to hold on to any future contract, so long as it is financially worthwhile to do so.
Friday is the New Hybrid DayFinally, post-Covid society has brought into sharp focus the way Friday is becoming less and less a staple part of the working week. For the most part, the railways have so far failed to respond although Avanti seem to be already treating Friday as an off-peak day.
An obvious benefit, to society as well as the railways, of making Friday an off-peak day is to encourage people to work in the office on a Friday instead of one of the busy mid-week days. Railway companies have not yet got to the point where they have a Monday-Thursday timetable and a Friday timetable, but some services are now made up of fewer carriages on Mondays and Fridays. Some London bus routes (e.g. route 133) already have a different timetable for Friday.
Off-Peak all day Friday fares have already been suggested as something TfL could introduce. This was immediately rejected by TfL and the Mayor due to the loss of revenue that would entail. Whilst that is a valid argument not to remove peak fares on Fridays now, it is not necessarily a good argument at the next fare revision. Simply put, ‘Off Peak Friday’ could be introduced in a revenue neutral way if other fares were adjusted to take this into account.
Further pressure could be brought to bear for the Mayor to reconsider the pre-9.00 a.m. ban on free travel for those with 60+ and Freedom Passes on Friday. Loss of revenue is cited for the now-permanent removal of the free journeys before 9.00 a.m., but one does wonder what the actual loss of revenue would be if this facility was reinstated on Fridays. Unlike peak journeys in the morning on Mondays-Thursdays, the cost of providing the facility would be truly marginal with the small potential loss of revenue being the only significant factor.
How Will the Future see these changes?One cannot predict how future railway historians will look at the current period of the railways in Britain when writing their history. For one thing, we don’t know how these changes will pan out. But one thing that is clear is the railways are currently in a period of rapid change. Unlike many other periods of change (e.g. nationalisation, privatisation) this was not a planned change but one forced upon it by a changing society.
Whatever happens, we are pretty sure that purchasing your rail travel in five or maybe ten years from now is going to be very different from how it was done in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Thanks, as usual, to ngh for supplying a lot of the background information
The post Rail Ticketing in a post-Covid World appeared first on London Reconnections.
• How London is trying to make public transport safer for women (CitiesToday)
• Timepiece design competition launched for Britain’s railways (DesignWeek)
• The glory of trams in Geneva & Armenia (LAReviewOfBooks)
• US Feds gives NYC MTA blessing to enact Manhattan congestion pricing (Streetsblog)
• In New York City you can now snitch on double parking offenders (Gothamist)
• Iron people: Ukraine’s railway network in time of war photo essay (Guardian)
• Low-fare, high-quality public transport serve riders better than free fares (TheConversation)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 8 May 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
Where and When
Our third Meetup at the Crosse Keys pub located at 9 Gracechurch Street in the City of London will be on Tuesday 9th May from 6.30 p.m. onwards. The second meeting went well which was helped by the pub being unusually quiet as it was the day after a statutory holiday. We hope this will be true for this Tuesday as well.
We now plan to be in a downstairs room on the ground floor at the back. There are two rooms so we will choose the less busy one.
As a reminder, the pub is an enormous Wetherspoons pub that is only about five minutes walk from Bank station and around ten minutes walk from Liverpool Street station. Is is easily walkable from London Bridge station although it might be worth catching a bus over the bridge and getting off at the first stop after the bridge if one happens to conveniently appear.
For those familiar with the area, the pub is just to the south of Leadenhall Market on the other side of the road.
DirectionsFrom Bank Underground station: If you exit at Bank Junction, where a lot of roadworks connected with pedestrianisation are taking place, we recommend you head for Lombard Street which is just to the left of St Mary Woolnoth Church. There is a short cut possible to the rear entrance of the pub but on the first occasion we recommend continuing to the end of the road and turning left at the traffic lights into Gracechurch Street.
Alternatively, use the new Cannon Street exit, turn left out the station and follow the main road. This is very slightly longer than from the Bank Junction exits but there is not a lot in it.
From Liverpool Street station you need to exit onto Bishopsgate and head south. Look out for Leadenhall Market on you left and the pub is shortly afterwards on your right.
Buses: The nearest bus stops are stops T and U on Gracechurch Street.Gracechurch St/Monument stop T which is for northbound buses and is served by buses 35, 47, 149, 344 and 388. Opposite stop T is stop U which is the southbound Fenchurch Street stop and is served by 35, 47, 149, 344 and 388. Please note that route 133 no longer serves Gracechurch Street so, if using bus 133 northbound, alight at Bank Station/King William Street.
Map and Route PlannerWe can’t do better than provide you with the link from the Wetherspoons website.
Food and DrinkWe cannot verify the food available but on the Wetherspoons app there appears to be an enormous choice. The app also lists the drinks available.
Finding Us Inside The PubThe plan this time is to meet at one of the downstairs rooms from 6.30 p.m. onward as it seems that the upstairs area is closed off on less busy days. We will try to have a large note on the table with ‘London Reconnections’ and/or a suitable railway book on display in case there are those who do not know us. We suggest you initially try downstairs at the back and if we are not obviously there then try upstairs.
Everyone is welcome! We look forward to seeing you there.
The post Tuesday Meetup 9th May appeared first on London Reconnections.
• A sneak peek inside the DLR’s new trains (IanVisits)
• Network Rail & TfL announce partnership to create 20,000 new London homes (RailUK)
• The hideous pedestrian tunnels marring access to the IMAX Roundabout (ALondonInheritance)
• Developing Stockholm’s Congestion zone pricing implementation strategy: video (Streetsblog)
• Extreme EV acceleration is the new traffic safety frontier (CityLab)
• US cities are falling out of love with the parking lot (Wired)
• Japan’s beloved slow-motion train (BBC)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
- Podcasts
And some of our most popular articles:
- Schrodinger’s Cab Firm: Uber’s Existential Crisis
- You Hacked – Cyber-security and the railways
The post Friday Reads – 10 February 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• The Chinese spy balloon shows the downsides of the technology (Wired)
• Fallout London upgrade features working Underground system (TheGamer)
• Transforming unused railway station spaces into community hubs (RailTechnology)
• Two Types – The (railway) typefaces of Britain: video (BBC)
• The Budd Rail Diesel Car (RDC), North American workhorse, in service & in art (EmilyMoser)
• Free, cheap, capped, or discounted public transport fares: depends on the goal (EnoTrans)
• Singapore’s Cross Island Line construction begins (MetroReport)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
- Podcasts
And some of our most popular articles:
- Schrodinger’s Cab Firm: Uber’s Existential Crisis
- You Hacked – Cyber-security and the railways
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 6 February 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
Our next monthly LR meetup is on at the usual pub, The Royal Oak in Borough, confirmed in the Upstairs room starting from 6:30pm on Thursday 9th February 2022.
There are no known relevant strikes or other transport issues this month.
As a bit of background information we intended to meet downstairs in January but it became apparent on arrival that the pub was extremely busy and crowded so the use of the upstairs room was justified. Barring unforeseen events, we expect to be upstairs every month except for December when we do not meet as the upstairs room will almost certainly be unavailable and the bar will be extremely crowded and noisy.
All are welcome, and conversation is often as much general as it is transport-specific.
Information on how to find the pub, and the provision of beer and food can be found below.
If we are upstairs, as we hope to be, then the way to the upstairs room (the John Harvey Room) can be a bit tricky. We suggest you either ask the bar staff or make your way towards the toilets then have an explore.
Where to find usThe Royal Oak on Tabard Street is easy to reach from a number of stations.
A map shown at the bottom of this post. Rather annoyingly, Borough Tube station may not appear on it. If not then try this as an alternative.
How to get to the pub from London Bridge stationThe pub is about 700m walk from London Bridge main line station down easy-to-find backstreets. The route is largely traffic-free. Exit the station from the lower concourse, turn right and cross St Thomas St by the westernmost of three pedestrian crossings at the foot of the Shard near the escalators leading up to the bus station. Continue straight on walking down the well-used pedestrian route to the side of Guy’s Hospital. The route is actually part of the hospital grounds hence the ‘no smoking’ notices everywhere. At the end after about 200m is a staggered junction. Cross the minor road at this junction and continue straight on down Crosby Road. At the end of Crosby Road you come to Long Lane. Use the pedestrian crossing to the left to deviate to cross the road and continue straight on down the narrow street of Southall Place which continues into Sterry St. At the end of this road look to your right and the pub should be clearly visible on a street corner opposite.
How to get from the pub from borough tube stationUpon exiting Borough Tube station, the most difficult thing to do is to orient yourself. Look around for the church of St George the Martyr (Little Dorrit’s church) on the opposite side of the main road from Borough station. You won’t miss it. Make your way to it. On one side is Tabard Street which is pedestrianised at this point. Follow Tabard St, cross Long Lane and continue along Tabard Street (now with traffic) to arrive at the Royal Oak.
Getting back to London Bridge stationIf returning to London Bridge station from the pub then walk to the southern end of Sterry St and then start walking along it. After the first bend, look up and you will see the Shard in the distance. Head for the Shard in a straight a line as you can.
London Bridge station via Tabard and Borough High StreetsAlternatively, walk along Tabard St to Borough High St. Either turn right along Borough High St and walk or cross Borough High St and catch a bus to London Bridge.
FoodThere is an excellent choice of food with a selection of more traditional pub grub and also some more gastronomic delights for those with a refined palate.
Contact detailsIf you’re new to the meetup, you can always email us (pedantic@londonreconnections.com) and we’ll try and give you a contact telephone number for the day.
The post February 9th Meetup appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Trainspotting unites my family: we share the pleasure of intricate details (Guardian)
• Speed cushions, traffic humps, chicanes: many ways to slow cars (TrafficChoices)
• Brussels-Amsterdam-Berlin night train March 2023 launch (RailwayGazette)
• Berlin tries to cut traffic & emissions with a mobility sharing app (CityLab)
• More trolleybus turntables (EuroGunzel)
• US Transport Sec funding making public transit more accessible (Planning)
• Electric vehicles are bringing out the worst in drivers (Atlantic)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
- Podcasts
And some of our most popular articles:
- Schrodinger’s Cab Firm: Uber’s Existential Crisis
- You Hacked – Cyber-security and the railways
The post Friday Reads – 3 February 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Lambeth strategy to make its kerbsides fairer, more accessible, & more climate resilient (LambethCouncil)
• The 1930s, the decade that schematic map diagrams matured (MaxwellRoberts)
• Amsterdam’s new underwater bike garage is next-level cycling infrastructure (CityLab)
• Washington DC Union Station Expansion Project CGI animated render: video (UnionStation)
• We may not actually need all that lithium if we improve public transport (Gizmodo)
• All aboard an adventurous home in a restored steam carriage (Guardian)
• Seoul Metro’s ugly war with disabled passengers enters its 3rd year (SYLee)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
- Podcasts
And some of our most popular articles:
- Schrodinger’s Cab Firm: Uber’s Existential Crisis
- You Hacked – Cyber-security and the railways
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 30 January 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Inside HS2’s new Old Oak Common railway station (IanVisits)
• Stanley Heaps: The other London Underground Chief Architect (ModernismInMetroland)
• A public transport system of epic proportions – the Paris RER: video (RMTransit)
• Europe’s attempt to increase international rail share: Treating trains like planes: video (Wendover)
• Germany’s 27-Year struggle to complete a rail project: video (B1M)
• Grand Central Madison opens: MTA’s East Side Access (Trains)
• Using howitzers to keep railways & highways clear (CanadianArmy)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
- Podcasts
And some of our most popular articles:
- Schrodinger’s Cab Firm: Uber’s Existential Crisis
- You Hacked – Cyber-security and the railways
The post Friday Reads – 27 January 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Low Traffic Neighbourhoods – LTNs – do not push traffic onto boundary roads: study (Guardian)
• Plans to open a disused railway as the Camden Highline are approved (IanVisits)
• Macron announces RER commuter train projects for 10 French cities, Strasbourg first (ConnexionFrance)
• Germany-wide rail ticket is coming in 2023 (UrbanTransport)
• Waiting for Godot’s Metro: Is Belgrade to finally get its Metro? (EmergingEurope)
• How the parking garage conquered US cities, & are now being camouflaged (CityLab)
• The future of flights to nowhere (CNNTravel)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
- Podcasts
And some of our most popular articles:
- Schrodinger’s Cab Firm: Uber’s Existential Crisis
- You Hacked – Cyber-security and the railways
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 23 January 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• New transport campaign encourages culture of active bystanders to deter harassment (RailUK)
• Improving wellbeing at stations with living walls (RailStaff)
• Getting bus priority right: Lessons from Bologna (ItalianUrbanLetters)
• Warszawa offers 60 metro cars to Kyiv as humanitarian aid (MetroReport)
• A century of New York Subway signaling history, & modern slowdowns (HomeSignal)
• A month by month guide to no-fly rail & sail travel ideas (Guardian)
• Historical trends show US high quality transit investment decline; uptick elsewhere (TransportPolitic)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
- Podcasts
And some of our most popular articles:
- Schrodinger’s Cab Firm: Uber’s Existential Crisis
- You Hacked – Cyber-security and the railways
The post Friday Reads – 20 January 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
Jakarta, the (current) capital of Indonesia and home to over 10 million inhabitants, has long been plagued by choking traffic and air pollution. It spent the previous decade developing integrated public transport to increase modal share, culminating in the winning of the 2021 Sustainable Transport Award. However, in this City Snapshot, Dr Chris Hale argues that the focus on moving the Indonesian capital, amongst other problems, is causing the city to fall back behind its competitors.On a recent trip around Southeast Asian cities, I was astounded by progress made in Bangkok, and heartened by the near-term future of Manila. Bangkok has seen massive ongoing expansion of its rail system. Street-level traffic was noticeably tamer. And the city just opened a huge new centrally-located urban park. For those with another inclination – property development is booming too. Manila is also seeing booming investment in property and beyond. Plans for upgraded public realm and housing are less clear. But a major rail investment program is underway.
My third stop on my city reconnaissance tour was Jakarta – the Southeast Asian city where I’ve spent most time over the years. In terms of wealth and scale, Jakarta is at another level compared to its Thai and Philippines counterpart cities. Jakarta impresses as a genuinely ‘Imperial’ capital – lording it over a country two or three times the size of Thailand or the Philippines. Some of Jakarta’s new commercial developments are truly staggering in scale. But Jakarta has also always been an interesting city, and just a good place to visit and spend time. High standard accommodation is generally more affordable than in other world cities. And while Jakarta tends toward sprawl, many of its neighbourhoods are green and characterful.
But unfortunately at this time, Jakarta shows the least clear forward trajectory from among the group of leading southeast Asian cities that also includes Manila and Bangkok. While Jakarta’s committed rail projects owe their thanks, in part, to current Indonesian President Jokowi’s 2012-14 stint as Jakarta’s Governor, the forward rail investment program is much less ambitious and much less clear than those seen among Asian competitor cities. Jakarta has always been very laissez-faire on transport, and that vibe seems to continue.
Jakarta rapid transit mapJakarta’s new Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) line (deep blue in the centre of the Urban Railway Network map above) offers some clear improvement – the first stage of two planned self-contained rail lines had opened in 2019, improving access along the central north-south orientation. The next stage, an extension further northward is due to open in 2028 and will further improve connectivity, whilst an additional extension and the second line, east-west orientated are due to be complete in the 2030s. The UK based, Swiss registered Centre for Public Impact gave a Good rating average for the MRT line, and my own user-experiences have been positive. The MRT is presenting a new, fresh, air-conditioned, and more professional face for public transport in Jakarta.
We also await the benefits of the imminent opening of the Greater Jakarta LRT (light rail transit, but really a light metro), more commonly known by the acronym Jabodebek LRT, This offering is labelled ‘light rail transit’, but is really a light metro in substance.The Jabodebek LRT line is in late phases of much-delayed construction, and due to begin operation in 2023. Another LRT line – “LRT Jakarta” – opened in 2019, overdue for its planned role in transporting Asian Games visitors. These two LRT lines, in tangential positioning relative to the city centre,, have been long in gestation, and partly replace a poorly conceived, partially constructed and ultimately cancelled monorail. Running approximately from the city centre to the south-east and east, additional extensions were planned to run to the north-west and south. However, funding issues and a lack of broader institutional commitment to a fast-paced mass transit delivery program has held back their full construction. The forward prognosis remains somewhat unclear.
greater Jakarta Jabodebek LRT to open shortlyThe Greater Jakarta LRT is not to be confused with the Jakarta LRT, the latter being a separate, isolated, yet short, true light rail system initially constructed for the 2018 Asian games, but which eventually opened late, in 2019. Whilst further extensions were initially planned, the delayed opening, cost over-runs, and falling ridership have paused any further work on linking it to the main rail network.
Note that the section of the MRT from Bundaran Hi to Kampung Bandan is currently under construction. Light Rapid Transit (confusingly also known as LRT) routes L1 and L2 form the Greater Jakarta (Jabodebek) LRT, whilst the LA LRT route (see map) is part of the separate Jakarta LRT.
Suburban rail lines for the massive conurbationGreater Jakarta’s seven over-worked ‘KAI’ suburban rail corridors also provide relatively frequent service for the massive conurbation, and suburban rail plays an important role in longer-distance people movement. But much-needed upgrades to this system have also been piecemeal and slow. Station facilities remain outdated, and many have questioned the quality of integration between suburban rail and other modes of public transport, particularly localised bus services, in outlying areas. An ‘integrated 21st century transit’ offering seems far away from the everyday experience of current Jakarta commuters. Transit access is being further improved by a rolling (but somewhat slow-paced) program of interchange station upgrades, encouraging integrated travel between commuter rail, MRT, and TransJakarta BRT (bus rapid transit) routes.
And bus rapid transit (BRT)Jakarta is embracing bus rapid transitJakarta’s use of feeder buses to support the Transjakarta BRT is also worth mentioning. As are the informal transit services such as the Angkot (angkutan kota or City Transport) shuttle buses and vans that ply the local communities and connect to major transit corridors. The bajaj (rickshaws) and ojek (motorcycle taxis) are also an important part of the service and all are seeing shifts from with connectivity technologies and electrification.
And a new high speed railway opening this yearThe Jakarta-Bandung high speed railway will open in mid-2023. The railway will have intermediate stations on the 142 km line, with the terminus at Jakarta’s Halim Perdana Kusuma airport at the southeast quadrant of the city. There it will connect to the L2 light rail line (the dashed line at lower right terminating at the airport symbol on the map above). As it reduce travel time between the capital and Bandung in West Java from 3 hours down to 36 minutes, the new railway promises to be popular. The HSR may be extended further into central Jakarta to Gambir, an existing C1 and C3 commuter rail station.
Numerous attempts to tame trafficPerhaps influenced by Singapore, as is often shyly the case in Indonesia, Jakarta has long mooted road pricing as a means of reducing its legendary traffic congestion. But this concept has made little progress. In the meantime, Jakarta has enacted several different congestion busting policies to mixed effect over the last few decades. Its long running peak hours minimum 3-person private vehicle occupancy policy was finally scrapped in 2016, deemed no longer effective. However, data showed an almost immediate deterioration in both average speed and journey times following its removal. This led to the implementation of an eccentric ‘odd-even’ number plate congestion reduction policy which is clearly having a genuine impact – although its impacts on overall mobility outcomes must be questioned, relative to the lack of viable, interconnected and comfortable public transit alternatives.
Among many other challenges, Jakarta’s mass transit must now do what other Asian cities have already successfully done – and bridge a major socio-economic and cultural divide. The urban poor and regular workers broadly tolerate third-rate but low cost bus-based transit. Whereas Jakarta’s less cost-conscious burgeoning middle-classes, professional classes, and a surprisingly large wealthy strata are all notoriously averse to public transport. This is not surprising given both the poor general mobility utility of the city’s transit offering, and its often appalling presentation standards in terms of station facilities, vehicles and the like.
The good news is that this transition to transit as a middle-class and office worker movement staple has been successfully bridged in Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and elsewhere. Jakarta simply remains 50 years behind in service conceptualisation and network offering, while being substantially larger than almost every Asian city outside a select group. Certainly, Jakarta’s peer cities in a population bracket that includes Tokyo, Shanghai, Beijing and a few others have long-since understood and delivered-on the need to make transit middle-class and mainstream.
Non-motorised transport no longer ignoredNon-motorised (pedestrian) transport in Jakarta has long been ignored, however this has begun to change slowly. The MRT program has upgraded sidewalks along its length, primarily to improve access and egress to and from MRT stations, and their invariably up-market surrounding precincts. Away from main thoroughfares, however – Jakarta’s traffic engineering is close to non-existent. Traffic signals bear all the hallmarks of having been installed at least 40 years back. Signal phasing and pedestrian crossing cycles are often defective. Crossing a non-arterial road in Jakarta feels like a life-threatening experience. And despite the obvious forbearance that drivers have for pedestrians, the danger factor must surely be translating into pedestrian crash impacts.
A COVID-induced modal shift led to an apparent explosion in bicycle usage, and the rapid roll out of protected cycle lanes following a successful pilot has had a great effect on road configurations in some locations. Although the bike lanes were quickly and predictably colonised by Jakarta’s massive Suzuki scooter throng. In any case, the opening of the next stage of MRT will add more pedestrian network upgrades along the new rail corridor’s northern expansion trajectory.
Traditional petrol-powered two-wheelers remain pretty much the transport mainstay of Jakarta. The bajaj (three-wheeler motor rickshaws) are also part of the mix of traditional transport service offerings. Ojek (usually app-hailed motorcycle taxis) have seen rapid recent growth, while reinforcing the ongoing tendency for every transport challenge to be answered with an ‘informal sector’ response, that is usually fundamentally unsafe to boot. Like many developing Asian mega-cities, Jakarta has both ignored its scooter mainstay and the informal sector in policy terms, while simultaneously remaining mobility-dependent on these offerings overall. The class divide remains the consistent explanation for this phenomenon. And while many middle-class or upwardly-mobile Jakartans are happy to see the end of their scooter days, and transition to four-wheeled private vehicle ownership, the transport policy dimensions of ‘social mobility car acquisition’ deserve more attention than they have received. Undoubtedly, as unfashionable as they may be among the middle classes and the global transport policy community, every Suzuki scooter in Jakarta needs to be seen as ‘one less car on the road’ – and a win from an environmental and infrastructure-provision point of view. A shift toward embracing and mainstreaming the role of motor scooters is both necessary and also a long way off from a socio-cultural point of view, with most Jakarta officials and decision-makers viewing the daily tide of Suzukis as something akin to a lower-class plague.
Ultimately, all of Jakarta’s transport problems would be mainly solvable within a dedicated 10-to-15-year mass transit-focused upgrade and investment program. But there’s little sign of one coming. As much as Jokowi has become something of a sainted figure in Indonesia and abroad, even his much-lauded Jakarta governorship was brief, and limited in its infrastructure wins. The Jakarta role seems to serve time and again as a revolving door for politicians to move on to ‘bigger things’ these days.
Add to these challenges those of housing quality, water management, and open space needs servicing a gigantic population – and one can view Jakarta’s urban challenges as having a global dimension and urgency, rather than being just a ‘local issue’. The tendency of Australians, Americans, Europeans and even some Asians to view Jakarta, very much incorrectly, as only a dysfunctional backwater city is in large part due to its low levels of outside visitation. Jakarta is simply not a city on the tourism radar. Although, despite its many problems, visitors can experience a truly great metropolis, with its own charms and atmosphere – still a city of large houses, self-contained neighbourhoods , good cheap food, and spreading tropical trees in many parts.
Ecological disaster threatensJakarta’s biggest risk however comes courtesy of ecological mismanagement. Poorly regulated and restricted ground water extraction is causing the city to sink by up to 15cm each year which coupled with climate change induced sea level rises, leaves the city at high risk of recurrent flooding. Despite construction of the Great Garuda, a 32km long outer sea wall creating an artificial lagoon to reduce flooding during the monsoon season, the Government took the decision in 2019 to move the capital to Nusantara, a newly constructed city. Whilst this process is likely to take decades at best (and if ever), with funding an ongoing issue, the shift in focus to a ‘new capital’ has led to worsening decision paralysis regarding the strategic direction of Jakarta’s transit planning and other urban needs.
Practitioners and experts alike have been reluctant to openly criticise Indonesia’s distractive “new capital relocation” agenda. But given Jakarta’s thriving population and society, Jakarta’s central role in the Indonesian economy, and the inherent solvability of many urban problems in Jakarta – the ‘new capital’ agenda may literally be one of the worst urban policies humans have ever conceived.
Dr Chris Hale is the founder and CEO’ of Hale Infra Strategy, which does infrastructure planning for East Coast Australian cities. This is one of a series of his City Snapshots of public transport networks on LR, slightly updated from his posts on LinkedIn, and represents his own personal opinion, not that of LR.
The post Jakarta’s Transport & Urban Planning – Progress? appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Adrian Shooter obituary, by Christian Wolmar (Guardian)
• Edinburgh’s Newhaven tram extension almost complete (RailEngineer)
• Public transport openings & construction starts planned for 2023 (TransportPolitic)
• Here & There: Art of public transport (PeterHarris)
• Cities can reduce highway congestion & pollution by supporting railroads (CityLab)
• Why EMD built North American tunnel motor locomotives (Trains)
• Exploring the labyrinth that is Tokyo Station: video (NHKWord)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
- Podcasts
And some of our most popular articles:
- Schrodinger’s Cab Firm: Uber’s Existential Crisis
- You Hacked – Cyber-security and the railways
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 16 January 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• The world’s most congested cities: London is #1 (CityLab)
• New European Sleeper train will start between London & Berlin from May (Seat61)
• New York’s plan to pedestrianise Fifth Avenue, w/ bus & cycling lanes (Gothamist)
• Twitter bans the official Washington DC Metrobus account with no explanation (NBC)
• San Francisco’s Central Subway officially opens, but it is too short (Streetsblog)
• Amtrak unveils new faster, fuel efficient intercity Airo trains (SmartCitiesDive)
• Mexico City metro drivers are using WhatsApp to schedule trains (RestOfWorld)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
- Podcasts
And some of our most popular articles:
- Schrodinger’s Cab Firm: Uber’s Existential Crisis
- You Hacked – Cyber-security and the railways
The post Friday Reads – 13 January 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• The smells of London: The aromatic Tube Map (Londonist)
• In search of perfection: Plato’s Double Arrow – Rail Symbol 2 (BeautyOfTransport)
• A new UK wine train to Bordeaux by 2026 is in the works (DrinksBusiness)
• Islamic schematic road maps that pre-date Beck by a millennium (RoubenGalichian)
• US addiction to road salt: some cities are trying to cut back (Time)
• The Missing Middle of Transit – learning from Guadalajara’s system: video (RMTransit)
• The HyperLoop Gadgetbahn mirage is finally dissipating (SmartCitiesDive)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
- Podcasts
And some of our most popular articles:
- Schrodinger’s Cab Firm: Uber’s Existential Crisis
- You Hacked – Cyber-security and the railways
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 9 January 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
After a Christmas break our next monthly LR meetup is on at the usual pub, The Royal Oak in Borough starting from 6:30pm on Thursday 12th January 2022. Because of, understandably, reduced numbers in the past few months we will have a couple of reserved tables DOWNSTAIRS instead of our usual upstairs room.
Most public transport services in London are running normally that day – whatever ‘normally’ currently means. However, according to the TfL website the central section of the Elizabeth line will not be running that day.
All are welcome, and conversation is often as much general as it is transport-specific.
Information on how to find the pub, and the provision of beer and food can be found below.
Where to find usThe Royal Oak on Tabard Street is easy to reach from a number of stations.
A map shown at the bottom of this post. Rather annoyingly, Borough Tube station may not appear on it. If not then try this as an alternative.
How to get to the pub from London Bridge stationThe pub is about 700m walk from London Bridge main line station down easy-to-find backstreets. The route is largely traffic-free. Exit the station from the lower concourse, turn right and cross St Thomas St by the westernmost of three pedestrian crossings at the foot of the Shard near the escalators leading up to the bus station. Continue straight on walking down the well-used pedestrian route to the side of Guy’s Hospital. The route is actually part of the hospital grounds hence the ‘no smoking’ notices everywhere. At the end after about 200m is a staggered junction. Cross the minor road at this junction and continue straight on down Crosby Road. At the end of Crosby Road you come to Long Lane. Use the pedestrian crossing to the left to deviate to cross the road and continue straight on down the narrow street of Southall Place which continues into Sterry St. At the end of this road look to your right and the pub should be clearly visible on a street corner opposite.
How to get from the pub from borough tube station(Remember Borough Tube station itself is closed due to a tube strike).
Upon exiting Borough Tube station, the most difficult thing to do is to orient yourself. Look around for the church of St George the Martyr (Little Dorrit’s church) on the opposite side of the main road from Borough station. You won’t miss it. Make your way to it. On one side is Tabard Street which is pedestrianised at this point. Follow Tabard St, cross Long Lane and continue along Tabard Street (now with traffic) to arrive at the Royal Oak.
Getting back to London Bridge stationIf returning to London Bridge station from the pub then walk to the southern end of Sterry St and then start walking along it. After the first bend, look up and you will see the Shard in the distance. Head for the Shard in a straight a line as you can.
London Bridge station via Tabard and Borough High StreetsAlternatively, walk along Tabard St to Borough High St. Either turn right along Borough High St and walk or cross Borough High St and catch a bus to London Bridge.
FoodThere is an excellent choice of food with a selection of more traditional pub grub and also some more gastronomic delights for those with a refined palate.
Contact detailsIf you’re new to the meetup, you can always email us (pedantic@londonreconnections.com) and we’ll try and give you a contact telephone number for the day.
The post January 12th Meetup appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Govt blocks release of CO2 road transport emission figures (Guardian)
• TransPennine Express launches British Sign Language departure boards (RailUK)
• ‘Lift & shift’ bridge installed at Shropshire rail crossing (BBC)
• Berlin tries to cut traffic & emissions with a mobility sharing app (CityLab)
• Barcelona first city to levy Amazon tax to empty streets of delivery vans (CitiesToday)
• That art on your street makes it safer: podcast (NextCity)
• Cities worldwide provide severely underpriced urban parking (CityMonitor)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
- Podcasts
And some of our most popular articles:
- Schrodinger’s Cab Firm: Uber’s Existential Crisis
- You Hacked – Cyber-security and the railways
The post Friday Reads – 6 January 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Secrets of Clapham South deep-level shelter: video (HiddenLondonHangouts)
• The Shakespeare Tube Map by TfL (Mapway)
• Cool contemporary Thameside sculpture (TidalThames)
• Andy Burnham calls for London-style public transport for Manchester (Standard)
• The lowly boxcar can make your city a better place to live (CityLab)
• Densely populated Dhaka, Bangladesh opens its first metro line (UrbanTransport)
• The use of audio to enhance public transport journeys: the final frontier (RobMayo)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
- Podcasts
And some of our most popular articles:
- Schrodinger’s Cab Firm: Uber’s Existential Crisis
- You Hacked – Cyber-security and the railways
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 2 January 2023 appeared first on London Reconnections.
Well, this year it is really a case of mark your own homework. However, the answers sent in were invaluable in providing alternative correct answers and giving a feel for which questions were actually found to be difficult. And, as always, there are questions which, in retrospect, could have been better worded – or even omitted.
Question 1This question was about inconsistencies in the 2022 Tube map that featured the Elizabeth line.
A. What we were looking for is that the River Thames is shown as south of the Elizabeth line at the western end whereas it is in fact north of the Elizabeth line west of Maidenhead. Perhaps the phrase ‘western end’ could have been more explicit. Many of you pointed out other inconsistencies including, but not limited to, topological inaccuracies around Ealing and Acton. In view of the lack of clarity posed by the question award yourself a point for any topological error west of Paddington.
B. Most of you realised that Belvedere and Erith stations were omitted from the tube map because they are only served by South-Eastern Trains and South-Eastern Trains does not appear on the tube map although Thameslink does.
This fact that Thameslink trains do not call at Belvedere or Erith would appear to be slightly illogical as Slade Green (next station along), with almost identical usage, is served by Thameslink. The reason for this may well be that Slade Green is a junction station with trains going eastward to either Dartford or Crayford.
Question 2The Elizabeth line announcements that were made up are numbers 1 and 6 – the first and the last one. Three of the announcements were witnessed by Diamond Geezer (see here) and I personally heard the announcement from “Farringdon TfL Rail control room” despite the fact that ‘TfL Rail’ never ran trains through Farringdon.
‘Mind the Gap’ is clearly unnecessary but has never been announced on stations with platform edge doors (unless you know otherwise). In general, “Mind The Gap” is restricted to platforms with a larger than usual gap so that overuse does not cause passengers to ‘filter out’ the message. Some of the announcements show the absurdity created when announcements are made throughout the station when clearly not applicable to various parts of the station.
The message about the need for some travellers to exit and re-enter the station was probably the one useful announcement that should have been made but TfL initially kept very quiet about this until finally installing intermediate validators many months later when they put up a suitable poster.
Question 3On the day of the Queen’s funeral the overhead wires came down west of Paddington meaning the Elizabeth line was suspended west of Paddington and therefore preventing many people from the West Country viewing the cortege in London and also preventing others from travelling west to Windsor to view it there.
Question 4This question asked milestone that was a significant advance in expanding TfL-run rail services took place on the same day as the Elizabeth line opening. It appears that only timbeau got the correct intended answer which was the first train reached Barking Riverside station. It was not in passenger service, obviously. This lack of correct answers was not entirely surprising as the news was rather overshadowed by the Elizabeth line opening and even the railway press seemed to overlook the event. None of the alternative answers offered really fitted the category of expanding TfL-run rail services.
Question 5This question was all about Vivarail’s trainsets which are rebuilt London Underground ‘D’ stock trains.
- On the Isle of Wight, Ryde Pier Head station is currently closed so no former Underground trains are currently serving this station.
- This is because the pier is being reconstructed.
- The line between Bedford and Bletchley has no trains running.
- The reason given for this is that Vivarail has gone into administration.
- Because of Vivarail going into administration it seems extremely unlikely that Vivarail’s proposed battery train will ever be trialled between West Ealing and Greenford.
It does seem very strange that rail services continue to run with Vivarail trains on the Isle of Wight yet have been discontinued between Bedford and Bletchley. An explanation given is that the Bedford-Bletchley trains (the Marston Vale line) trains were maintained by Vivarail whereas on the Isle of Wight the trains were maintained in-house. However, the collapse of Carillion the construction company and other bankruptcies have shown that arrangements can be made to keep vital staff employed if there is the willingness to do so. Cynics suggest that the DfT is using the opportunity to save money by replacing trains by buses though the savings would not be as great as may be expected as the line is still open for freight.
Question 6The picture, as most people guessed, knew or discovered, is of Erith Pier.
The second part of the question asking what (land) transport is featured here according to its title is one of those questions that should probably not have been asked.
The intended answer was ‘tramway’ as there were various online references to people catching the Erith Tramway in order to board the pleasure ships departing from the pier but, in retrospect, this appears to refer to the trams running through the town of Erith and not specifically onto the pier. So, the best answer that can be given to the question, identified by many, is coaling trucks. These were used to assist in unloading coal and bring it ashore.
The best online description of the history of this railway line that appears to be available is the third paragraph of this web page.
Question 7The question asked about the flaw in the floor. There were only a couple of correct answers. Ilford station on the Elizabeth line was being rebuilt when it was realised, rather late on during construction, that the existing substandard concrete floor of the ticket office needed to be addressed. As a consequence, Ilford station was the last station on the Elizabeth line to be upgraded and work was completed significantly later than any other station.
Question 8The mode of transport within Greater London that connects Three Bridges with Norwood is a canal. Specifically, the Grand Union Canal. Three Bridges (aka Windmill Bridge) is a location where Windmill Lane in West London passes over the Grand Union Canal which in turn passes over the Brentford branch (currently freight only). See (amongst others) a video about the Brentford branch by Geoff Marshall about one minute in or a similar video by Jago Hazzard 4:20 minutes in.
The intended answer to identify the misnomer was that it is in fact two bridges with a cutting below. However, several people pointed out that one of the ‘bridges’ is, in fact, a viaduct. So, either explanation will get you the point but no bonus point if you provided both answers.
Question 9There have been three Secretaries of State for Transport in 2022. You weren’t required to name them but some of you did. They were Grant Shapps (to 6 September), Anne-Marie Trevelyan (6 September – 25 October), and Mark Harper (from 25 October).
This is probably a record number in a single year, even though tenures of Transport Secretaries are particularly notorious for being of a short duration. It is often regarded as a thankless ministerial posting and it is believed that Grant Shapps was pleased to leave and subsequently be offered an alternative ministerial post only a few weeks later.
Question 10The new London Museum promises that Thameslink trains will be visible through a window in the wall in the new museum.
London MuseumAs reported by the Evening Standard.
Question 11In terms of badly set questions in a London Reconnections Christmas Quiz, this was probably the worst of all time. The question referred to a “Thames Bridge” but should have really referred to a bridge over or close to the River Thames. If this quiz was being seriously marked then we would have had to scrub this question.
The bridge in question is intended to span the South Dock in Docklands but could hardly be called a “Thames Bridge”. Apologies to all who were misled. Please regard it as an unfair question that will be disregarded.
As reported by Time Out.
Question 12The missing words were barrel, cabin, road and stepping. This gives biscuit barrel/escalator barrel, signal cabin/log cabin, bang road/ high road and stepping back/stepping stones. We were surprised how many people got all these terms.
Question 13It didn’t require much imagination to guess that the station in question was NOT a GWR station though probably was once upon a time when GWR referred to the original Great Western Railway. It is in fact Hanwell on the Elizabeth line and has been lovingly restored. Rather strangely, the supposedly disabled-friendly toilet is awkward to use due the proximity of the washbasin and being needlessly crammed in one corner. The rest of the room is enormous and just empty space.
Hanwell Station February 2021. crossrail ltdNot in any way relevant to the answer but there is a rather good Londonist Article explaining why the station was originally called Hanwell and Elthorne.
The post Christmas Quiz 2022 Answers appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Dicken’s Mr Micawber’s part in TfL’s new business plan (OnLondon)
• Sounds of the Night Riviera train: audio (RadioLento)
• Love the Rail Mail train ride? Here’s a Maginot Line ammo train ride: LOUD VIDEO (CE)
• France designing light trains to save local railway lines (MidnightTrains)
• How to tame dangerous stroads: it’s possible (CityLab)
• Forgotten rail yard under Chicago’s huge Merchandise Mart: video (It’sHistory)
• Mozambique Park Rangers using silent eBikes to catch poachers (Wired)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
- Podcasts
And some of our most popular articles:
- Schrodinger’s Cab Firm: Uber’s Existential Crisis
- You Hacked – Cyber-security and the railways
The post New Year’s Eve’s Eve Reads – 30 December 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Biggest UK government intervention ever to keep rail fares low (RailUK)
• The Caledonian Sleeper experience: video (GLovesTrains)
• Too much fine dust in Brussels – 50kmh speed limit & STIB free on Saturdays (BrusselsTimes)
• Barcelona first city to tax e-commerce deliveries (TheMayorEU)
• Grand Central Madison (ex-East Side Access) NYC explainer: video (RMTransit)
• Amtrak receives $4B to improve intercity passenger rail (SmartCitiesDive)
• San Francisco’s hottest holiday gift is this soldout BART sweater (MassTransit)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
- Podcasts
And some of our most popular articles:
- Schrodinger’s Cab Firm: Uber’s Existential Crisis
- You Hacked – Cyber-security and the railways
The post Boxing Day Reads – 26 December 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• More rail strikes announced for just after Christmas (IanVisits)
• London’s fix for air pollution: making drivers pay (CityLab)
• Where it’s at! A two track turntable and a railway station (EuroGunzel)
• NYC MTA to partially open Grand Central Madison in 2022, with full service for 2023 (MassTransit)
• California HSR heavily criticized, but more costly highway projects escape scrutiny (AlanFisher)
• LA removes crosswalks painted by secretive group, promises a traffic circle (NPR)
• Recreating Transit Travel Time Map from 1922 (Klumpentown)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
- Podcasts
And some of our most popular articles:
- Schrodinger’s Cab Firm: Uber’s Existential Crisis
- You Hacked – Cyber-security and the railways
The post Friday Reads – 23 December 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Lessons learnt from Crossrail’s development (NewCivilEng)
• Scotland according to ScotRail’s automated station announcements (JonnElledge)
• TfL’s 4 categories of Underground stations – not what you think: video (JagoHazzard)
• Experiencing the Caledonian Sleeper: video (GLovesTrains)
• The Death & Privatization of Japanese National Railways: Pt 1 1949-1982 (SeungLee)
• The enthusiasts fighting to save India’s last trams: video (SCMP)
• Winging it: Inside Amazon’s quest to seize the skies (Wired)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
- Podcasts
And some of our most popular articles:
- Schrodinger’s Cab Firm: Uber’s Existential Crisis
- You Hacked – Cyber-security and the railways
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 19 December 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Rail industry mourns the death of Adrian Shooter CBE (RailNews)
• How to analyse Marey time-distance, or stringline, route service charts (HomeSignal)
• Enormous scale of new Germany-Denmark immersed mega-tunnel: video (B1M)
• Five uses for cabooses, & why they then disappeared (Trains)
• Toronto’s curbside patios made 49 times more than the parking they replaced (StrongTowns)
• Removing roads & street parking improves traffic (ScientificAmerican)
• San Francisco streets in chaos due to self-driving cars & robotaxis (Slate)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
- Podcasts
And some of our most popular articles:
- Schrodinger’s Cab Firm: Uber’s Existential Crisis
- You Hacked – Cyber-security and the railways
The post Friday Reads – 16 December 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• A look at London’s recent railway upgrades (IanVisits)
• The strategic case for the West London Orbital (TfL)
• Progress & delay for East West Rail (RailEngineer)
• Mumbai metro project plans for depot in city’s only large ‘green lung’ park (CityLab)
• Singapore Thomson-East Coast Metro extension opens after engineering feats (GroundEngineering)
• Eliminating driver error by redesigning streets (Transport4america)
• Your smartphone can help determine if a bridge is damaged (Wired)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
- Podcasts
And some of our most popular articles:
- Schrodinger’s Cab Firm: Uber’s Existential Crisis
- You Hacked – Cyber-security and the railways
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 12 December 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• London Underground’s accessibility priorities (MetroReport)
• Princes Street, Edinburgh’s lost railway terminus: video (JagoHazzard)
• Is Crossrail enough to make London’s public transport better than Paris? (CentreForCities)
• Tyne & Wear Metro extension to Washington suburb business case developed (RailBusinessUK)
• Public Inquiry finds failures on private & city sides of Ottawa LRT project (RenewCanada)
• X-ray station area & subway platform maps (ProjectSubwayNYC)
• Madrid Metro Map evolution: video (MarkOvenden)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
- Podcasts
And some of our most popular articles:
- Schrodinger’s Cab Firm: Uber’s Existential Crisis
- You Hacked – Cyber-security and the railways
The post Friday Reads – 9 December 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
2022 sees a shorter quiz than usual primarily because your quizmaster has infrequently visited central London. Thank goodness for the opening of the Elizabeth line which has helped provide some of the questions. We hope you will find the questions stimulating.
Our aim is to provide you with a variety of questions that can be answered with a bit of transport knowledge and, possibly, some devious thinking. In many cases intelligent searching on the internet will help you on your way to providing an answer as well.
Regrettably, prizes continue to something we have failed to keep on top of. So please just enter for the fun of it and more in hope than expectation of getting a prize. You can send your answers to quiz-22@londonreconnections.com. We will attempt to supply the answers at 00:01 on January 1st.
Question 1The Tube Map doesn’t just show tube lines and it isn’t a map. It is a topological diagram. A topological diagram is one in which distance and direction are irrelevant. It is sometimes thought of as a distorted map on a infinitely stretchable rubber sheet. So, squares, triangles and circles are equivalent and a line running North-South is equivalent to a line running East-West. What you can’t do is distort where lines cross or change the order of locations on a line.
On this basis, what fairly major topological error is there on the Tube map at the western end of the Elizabeth line?
(Click this link to display the standard tube map as a PDF file).
At the other end of the line in the Abbey Wood area, there appears to be an obvious error in that the stations of Belvedere and Erith have been omitted from the Greenwich line to Dartford. Why is this not an error?
Question 2To some extent you will have to take this question on trust. Here is a list of announcements on the Elizabeth line all of which either took place at deep level stations in the central section or are made up by us.
-
- Mind the Gap
-
- Please stand well clear of the edge of Platform A
-
- This station is now served by the Elizabeth line
-
- Customers should take extra care on the wet floors
-
- This is the Farringdon TfL Rail control centre
-
- Pay-as-you-go customers at Farringdon transferring from the Elizabeth line to National Rail should exit the station and re-enter in order to pay the correct fare. We apologise for any inconvenience.
Four of these are genuine and two of these are made up. Can you guess which two have been made up?
Question 3On Monday 19th September 2022, the funeral took place of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. This was a day when, fittingly, the Elizabeth line should have provided a good service for mourners. What actually happened?
Question 4What milestone was reached on 24th May 2022 that was a significant advance in expanding TfL-run rail services – apart from the opening of the Elizabeth line?
Question 5As of the time of writing (first week of December)?
- Which station on a service run using former London Underground trains is currently closed on a line which (except for this station) is currently open?
- What is the reason for this?
- Which line run using former London Underground trains is currently closed?
- What is the alleged reason for this?
- What might not happen in London as a consequence of this alleged reason?
Question 6Where is this?
According to its title, the remnant of what type of (land) transport system is featured here?
Question 7What was delayed in 2022 as a result of a flaw in the floor?
Question 8What mode of transport within Greater London connects Three Bridges with Norwood?
Why is Three Bridges a misnomer?
Question 9How many Secretaries of State for Transport have there been in 2022 (so far)?
Question 10Very recently, the Museum of London finally closed its doors in its current location. As part of its display it had a window through which you could see part of London’s Roman City Wall. Obviously this cannot be replicated at its new location in Smithfield but what transport related item is proposed to be visible through a window in a wall at the new museum (rebranded as the London Museum)?
Question 11What new Thames Bridge intended for cyclists appeared to be approved before the pandemic but then got cancelled and now, finally, appears to have been given the go-ahead – but cycling over it will not be permitted?
Question 12The following are pairs of two-word phrases with a common word in each of the pair. The former is a term used in-house on the London Underground. The latter is a common expression.
For example: if the two-word phrases were:
Tube xxxxx / Bridal xxxxxx
then both would make sense if the second word was ‘train’
What words make appropriate two-word phrases?
a) Escalator xxxxxx / Biscuit xxxxxx
b) Signal xxxxxx / Log xxxxxx
c) Bang xxxxxx / High xxxxxx
d) xxxxxx back / xxxxxx stones
Question 13Past quizzes have had a bit of an obsession with toilets. Continuing this theme …
Where is this?
Okay. That was a bit hard. A picture of the waiting room outside may be a bit of a clue – or maybe not.
The post London Reconnections 2022 Christmas Quiz appeared first on London Reconnections.
• TfL vows to develop plans for Crossrail 2 & Bakerloo, DLR extensions (NewCivilEng)
• London Paramedic Cycle Response Unit arrives faster than ambulances (LondonAmbulanceNHS)
• GTR admits to breaching Equality Act on access for over a decade (DisabilityNews)
• Putting new order into a week of Underground, Overground, & DLR data (MappingLondon)
• Why we need a train network like France’s (NewStatesman)
• New interurban long range trolleybus line for Arnhem (UrbanTransport)
• The struggle to improve public transport’s appeal: $ is for new riders only (RMTransit)
Check out our other sections:
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
- Podcasts
And some of our most popular articles:
- Schrodinger’s Cab Firm: Uber’s Existential Crisis
- You Hacked – Cyber-security and the railways
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 5 December 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• TfL to slash another £600m from its annual budget by 2026 (IanVisits) • London Underground seeks passenger feedback on gap bridging device (MetroReport) • Thames-side murals, sculptures, & art (TidalThames) • A short history of the Dawlish Tunnels: video (Paul&RebeccaWhitewick) • Network Rail hoping to reclaim bridge strike damage costs (RailInsider) • City bus …
The post Friday Reads – 2 December 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• ULEZ charge to drive polluting cars expanded to London’s M25 (IanVisits) • TPE uses loophole so services cancelled a day ahead do not appear in stats (Guardian) • Paris targeting converting parking garages, other buildings to affordable homes (CityLab) • Tubular Belle: Køge Nord Station in Denmark (BeautyOfTransport) • How to drive a bus, …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 28 November 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• London bus cuts are themselves cut back as funding found (IanVisits) • London councils unite efforts to finally deliver Diamond Jubilee ped & cycle bridge (ArchitectsJ) • Bakerloo north segment, Watford DC Overground to close before Xmas (RailTechnology) • Cosmic rays uncover secrets of Victorian railway tunnel under Glasgow (RailUK) • Cardiff tram-train proposed …
The post Friday Reads – 25 November 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
We take a look at the hidden history of Blackpool's tram network, lurking in the sheds at Blackpool Transport.
The post In Pictures: Blackpool’s Historic Trams appeared first on London Reconnections.
• TfL publishes step-free access consultation results, trials new gap ramp (RailUK) • UK electric car owners to pay road tax from 2025: Autumn Statement (Guardian) • Germany’s €49/ public transport ticket FAQ (JonWorthEuroBlog) • US spending $1B on electric school buses (Grist) • DC’s new Silver Line Metro to Dulles Airport finally opens (CityLab) …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 21 November 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• TfL to renew bid to build affordable homes on Cockfosters station car park (OnLondon) • TfL planning new Overground station in Barking (IanVisits) • The great inter-war Art Streamline oceanliner race (OceanlinerDesigns) • Trams are returning to Kiel after 40 odd years (UrbanTransport) • US history of turning on red: The oil crisis, the …
The post Friday Reads – 18 November 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Crossrail’s lessons for future major infrastructure projects: video (NewCivilEng) • Istanbul’s million passenger a day MetroBus BRT line: video (BBCforUITP) • Istanbul’s million passenger a day MetroBus BRT line: video download (4 across, 3 down) for UK viewers (BBCforUITP) • We should steal more transit ideas: Vancouver edition (ReeceMartin) • Why the Baltimore Ravens …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 14 November 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Hammersmith Bridge pedestals strengthened using bespoke concrete (NewCivilEng) • German €9 rail pass successor will launch next year (RailTech) • Montreal’s new Pie IX bus rapid transit route opens (MtlBlog) • Using tech to make transit accessible for those without smartphones (NextCity) • Denver e-bike rebates’ stunning success offer lessons for other cities (CityLab) …
The post Friday Reads – 11 November 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
Our next monthly LR meetup is on at the usual pub, The Royal Oak in Borough, confirmed in the Upstairs room starting from 6:30pm on Thursday 10th November 2022. Be aware there is a tube strike that day although all National Rail (including the Elizabeth line and London Overground) should run normally. All are welcome, …
The post November 10th Meetup appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Inside North End (Bull & Bush) ghost Tube station & Cold War bunker: video (HiddenLondonHangouts) • How many metro lines does London have now then? Discuss (JonnElledge) • Traffic reduction trials made permanent in Richmond, Bushy, & Greenwich Parks (RoyalParks) • Railways, ticket price fluctuation, & yield management (MidnightTrains) • Washington DC 2nd US …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 7 November 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Fare warning: National rail fines quintupling to curb fare dodging (RailTechMag) • HS2’s 2nd tunnel boring machine sets off underneath London (RailUK) • Elizabeth line west to east cab ride: video (HiddenLondonHangouts) • To be, or not to be, a parkway station: Whether ’tis nobler to drive than ride… (BeautyOfTransport) • Where Gothenburg’s trams …
The post Friday Reads – 4 November 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
Melbourne City Snapshot While the rest of the public transport universe sees the world’s largest tram network in Melbourne as a public transport success, the reality is more complex. Having recently discussed the rebirth of trams in Sydney, Melbournian Dr Chris Hale looks at the underbelly of the tram network, what the city is doing …
The post Trouble in Tram Paradise by the Antipodean Light? appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Inside North End (Bull & Bush) ghost Tube station & Cold War bunker: video (HiddenLondonHangouts) • Spooky 300 year old buried chapel unearthed at Vienna U-Bahn station (EuroGunzel) • The Atlantis of ghost stations: Does NYC 76th Street Station exist at all? (AtlasObscura) • Keeping world’s longest railway tunnel safe from burning everything: video …
The post Moanday’s Frightday Reaps – 31 October 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Trains now more popular than planes between London & Edinburgh (IanVisits) • Illuminated River Thames walking tour map (MappingLondon) • Panel on present & ideal future of London’s bus service ft. Pedantic of Purley (OnLondon) • The Victoria line construction report films: video (BennettBrookRy) • Gothenburg tram segment swaps from right to left hand …
The post Friday Reads – 28 October 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Underground staff problems cause large rise in step-free suspensions (DisabilityNews) • The unbuilt Tube station at Mount Pleasant: video (JagoHazzard) • Inside the ghost pod metro of Paris: video (TimTraveller) • The NYC Subway & the disappearing art of maintenance (Noema) • Repurposing urban airports to neighbourhoods (CNNTravel) • Hassles of cross-border trains hamper …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 24 October 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Bond Street Elizabeth Line station now opening October 24 (RailwayTechnology) • Byford states driverless Tube trains ruled out by City Hall (EnfieldDispatch) • TfL to restart schemes to improve London active travel infrastructure (IntelligentTransport) • Net Zero: A very British problem, road transport: podcast (BBCRadio4) • New high speed train will cover Lisbon-Porto in …
The post Friday Reads – 21 October 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• London’s success in lowering air pollution (CityLab) • Paddington Elizabeth Line station architecture, featuring cross-sections (ArchDaily) • History & inside look at Britain’s Royal Train: video (MarkFelton) • Is Cambridgeshire’s new metro all it’s cracked up to be? (GarethDennis) • NYC MTA to put cameras everywhere in subway network to deter crime (Wired) • …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 17 October 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Hammersmith Bridge plans go for double decker structure (NewCivilEng) • City Valley Link proposal to use East Lancs Ry heritage line (RailwayTechnology) • Amsterdam trams’ Customer Service Counter (EuroGunzel) • Spain to extend free rail travel to end of 2023 (LeMonde) • Madrid tunnel unites Spain’s high speed rail networks (RailwayGazette) • Londoner reviews …
The post Friday Reads – 14 October 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
Shopping at IKEA is an ordeal, an expedition. And IKEA has just made it harder. Whilst IKEA is the McDonald’s of housewares, its approach is quite different. IKEA offers the same products and experience all over the world, at very competitive prices. How do they do it? Volume. Layout. And Psychology. Just as Winston Churchill …
The post IKEA’s Crimes Against Cartography appeared first on London Reconnections.
Our next monthly LR meetup is on at the usual pub, The Royal Oak in Borough, confirmed in the Upstairs room starting from 6:30pm on Thursday 13th October 2022. All are welcome, and conversation is often as much general as it is transport-specific. Information on how to find the pub, and the provision of beer …
The post October 13th Meetup appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Caledonian Sleeper contract ended after financial disagreement with Serco (Scotsman) • Borough Road: Southwark’s ghost station: video (JagoHazzard) • 260+ German cities demand 30km/h speed zones (TheMayorEU) • Spanish airline orders 10 Airlander airships from Hybrid Air Vehicles (BBC) • NYC Second Avenue Subway Phase 2: Case for Crosstown 125 St extension (Vanshnookenraggen) • …
The post Friday Reads – 7 October 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Who could succeed Andy Byford at the helm of TfL (NewCivilEng) • The Up & Down Club: The sleeper train commuters (Telegraph) • Europe’s kid friendly trains benefit all passengers (FamilyFriendlyTrains) • Karlsruhe tram-train farm produce delivery service (HofladenTram) • The largest urban rail system in the world – Tokyo’s urban railways: video (RMTransit) …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 3 October 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Bond Street Elizabeth line station opening Monday 24 Oct (IanVisits) • Great British Railways already dead: Rail industry at lowest ebb (Guardian) • Barking Riverside – The Inside Story: video (JagoHazzard) • ScotRail announcements set to ambient music: audio (MattEason) • The giant Metro expansion you’ve never heard of – Istanbul: video (RMTransit) • …
The post Friday Reads – 30 September 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• TfL cleaners, caterers, & security to get free London transport (Guardian) • London noise map (NoisyCities) • Lamplight design of the Thames Embankment (TheTidalThames) • Norway wants people to park their EVs & ride the bus (TheDrive) • Baltic States planning a high speed railway to uncouple from Russia (EuroNews) • Inside NYC Penn …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 26 September 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Queue Theory: How to design the perfect queue (Wired) • London’s Transport Commissioner Andy Byford to leave TfL, again (RailUK) • Free public transport in Europe: It hasn’t reduced traffic (EuroNews) • We have the technology that limits speeding (CityLab) • Planning, freight, & the creation of the US Northeast Corridor (HomeSignal) • The …
The post Friday Reads – 23 September 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
Telegraphs were the internet of the Victorian Age. News of political and business developments could be sent around the world in near real time. However, the mass of telegrams converging on the network hub in London was becoming a bandwidth problem, with messages lagging hours to cross London to be delivered to the appropriate department …
The post Get him on the Blower!: The origins of Pneumatic Railways appeared first on London Reconnections.
• London’s mainline railway stations to stay open overnight for the State Funeral (IanVisits) • Inside the Battersea Turbine Hall at end of the Northern Line Extension (Sounds&Visions) • NYC considering congestion charge, sales tax to fund MTA subway (CityLab) • Washington DC 11th Street Bridge Park to become cross-river High Line (TheDirt) • Brightline …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 19 September 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• The need to replace the Royal Train (ModernRailways) • TfL gardens opening on disused platforms & spaces (IanVisits) • Liège finally gets its tram line (UrbanTransport) • Battery equipped trolleybuses are a great, green bus solution (Guardian) • The better boarding method airlines won’t use: video (CGPGrey) • Cities hope bus-mounted cameras will make …
The post Friday Reads – 16 September 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• The Queen’s final journey should be by Royal Train: Wolmar (Spectator) • Busy rail travel expected for the Queen’s Lying in State (IanVisits) • Forgotten parts of Paris’ Petite Ceinture (PlacesJournal) • Void uncovered under Manchester shopping centre of ghost Tube station space (ManEveningNews) • Black engineer patented third rail system to power rail …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 12 September 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Grimshaw wins Waterloo Station masterplanning commission (ArchitectsJ) • Bond Street Elizabeth line station tour preview video (HiddenLondonHangouts) • Railway Guardian app reports transport harassment & violence to BTP (RailInsider) • Germany’s 27-year struggle to complete immense Stuttgart 21 rail project: video (B1M) • Uptown Underground New York moving cityscapes on subway ceilings (DesignBoom) • …
The post Friday Reads – 9 September 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
TfL fairly recently issued a press release announcing daily through running on the Elizabeth line from Sunday 6th November 2022. This was not a surprise as a combination of leaks and intelligent guesswork based on dates of planned engineering work means that it was expected – but perhaps no-one was expecting it to be announced …
The post The Crossrail November Timetable appeared first on London Reconnections.
Our next monthly LR meetup is on at the usual pub, The Royal Oak in Borough, confirmed in the Upstairs room starting from 6:30pm on Thursday 8th September 2022. It is no longer outrageously hot. Covid levels seem to have got so low that it is no longer in the news. Mind you there is …
The post September 8th Pub meetup appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Off-peak Heathrow Tube fares scrapped, but there’s a workaround (DiamondGeezer) • Amazon’s e-cargo bikes to replace 1,000s of London van deliveries (Guardian) • Work starts to finally connect Barcelona tram networks (Barcelona) • European 5 hour isochrone train journeys interactive map (ChronoTrainsEU) • Los Angeles enjoys its new bridge a little too much (NYTimes) …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 5 September 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• E-bikes to be added to Santander bike hire fleet in Sept (SouthLondonPress) • Germany’s €9 train ticket scheme saved 18m tons of CO2 emissions (Guardian) • The different philosophies of the French & German HS networks (PedestrianObvs) • Saint Petersburg retro tram design unveiled (T&UT) • Will LA join a ban on new gas …
The post Friday Reads – 2 September 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Liverpool’s 1st railway station listed as Scheduled Monument (Liverpool&McrRyTrust) • Boston subway train fire adds to troubled safety record at underfunded transit agency (CityLab) • Milan is taming cars & people love it (Forbes) • One man’s successful fight to make BART accessible for everyone (BART) • LA’s new Sixth Street Viaduct marks return …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 29 August 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• How TfL plans to build 20,000 new homes (Guardian) • Design, wellbeing, & the Elizabeth line: A joyful connection (Grimshaw) • Northern employees to be trained to ID & support vulnerable passengers (RailTechnologyMag) • France offers €4K ebike for car trade-in subsidy to counter climate change (Verge) • NYC is putting speed limiters on …
The post Friday Reads – 26 August 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
As passengers are returning to London’s transport, with some overcrowding, it’s time once again to turn our attention to the Thames’ role in expanding the region’s transport. The River was the capital’s original highway, and can increasingly play a part in the city’s transport mix. In this installment, we look at developments of the expanding …
The post We’re gonna need a bigger boat – London’s First Highway: Part 4 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Vintage Intercity train Co launches 1st class service alternative to Avanti West Coast (BusinessLive) • Construction of Germany’s deepest S-Bahn station (TunnelOnline) • Advocates sue Montréal transit agency for cutting ads criticizing high fares (JusticeCentre) • How the traditional (narrow) bikeway has become obsolete (ViewpointVancouver) • Boston’s Orange Line shutdown: shuttle buses, new bus …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 22 August 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• TfL could be nationalised (RailTech) • Secrets of the Elizabeth Line: video (GeoffMarshall) • These maps help you see & noise pollution in your city (FastCompany) • Vancouver, St Louis saw increased safety, decreased crime after installing fare gates (CBC) • When cities treated cars as dangerous intruders (MITPress) • Mobile furnaces & exhaust …
The post Friday Reads – 19 August 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.
• Edinburgh Festival visitors choosing to travel by rail (RailAdvent) • Ten great films set railway stations (BFI) • Vancouver, Stockholm, & the suburban metro model (PedestrianObvs) • NYC’s most forgotten train terminal (LiamO’Connell) • California may force Bay Area transit agencies to collab on fares (NextCity) • Trial runs on Delhi Regional Rapid Transit …
The post Monday’s Friday Reads – 15 August 2022 appeared first on London Reconnections.