There has been no specific exciting news recently about the Elizabeth line, but there are various snippets of updates which, put together, are worthy of a report.
Improved frequency on Saturdays
This has been largely unreported. In fact, it seems that only Murky Depths had spotted this. Confirmation can be now made because TfL have, surprisingly early, published the December 2025 timetable (PDF).
From the December timetable this year, on Saturdays from roughly 11:00 to 21:00 hours the Elizabeth line will have 10tph on both the Abbey Wood and Shenfield branches. This means that there will be 20tph between Paddington and Whitechapel – something that will be welcomed by many central London users.
Whilst this might not seem a big deal, it is long overdue and it means the ceiling of 8tph/16tph (eastern branches/central section) off-peak service will have finally been breached. This is particularly good news as it may pave the way for the same frequency between the peaks during the Monday to Friday service which would also be very welcome especially as rail passenger numbers in general are almost back to their pre-Covid level. It should be remembered that the intention before Covid came was that the 10tph off-peak service would be introduced on opening.
The Gidea Park anomaly
Two of the 10 trains per hour towards Shenfield on Saturdays will terminate at Gidea Park. This seems very strange. Whilst the running time between Gidea Park and Shenfield is not trivial (13 minutes), the benefit of terminating 2tph short seems very limited – all the more so when one considers it takes two minutes to continue to the reversing siding at Gidea Park. The benefit in terms of stock utilisation amounts to one fewer train in service at most. The disadvantage is the loss of an even interval timetable between Gidea Park and Shenfield.
In the westbound direction (towards London) there are two 12 minute gaps between trains per hour on a service that otherwise runs at six minute intervals. One can argue this is not not especially inconvenient as people often leave home aiming to catch a particular train. It does rather diminished the ‘turn up and go’ concept though.
In the eastbound direction (towards Shenfield) an attempt has been made to mitigate the effects of this 12 minute gap by delaying the previous train by two minutes which creates an eight minute gap followed by a four minute gap at stations as far east as Gidea Park and an eight minute gap followed by a ten minute gap for Harold Wood and Brentwood. Given that most passengers do not travel further east than Romford, it does seem questionable if this retarding the timings of a particular train by two minutes is generally of overall benefit given that only passengers alighting at Harold Wood and Brentwood would benefit from this arrangement – assuming the majority of Shenfield passengers would probably take a fast Greater Anglia service instead.
It is hard to find a logical explanation for this. If you are going to do this why not do it consistently and reduced the service to 5tph between Gidea Park and Shenfield? This would not be unduly inconvenient for the relatively few passengers between Gidea Park and Shenfield. A possible reason for the 2tph terminators is something to do with Gidea Park having a crew depot. It is also just possible that maintaining 10tph on the Gidea Park – Shenfield section for long periods is unsustainable for the power supply transformers as it won’t give the transformers a chance to cool down – but that seems unlikely.
A difficulty at platforms 5 and 8 at Stratford?
A further issue may occur with the ‘Crossrail’ platforms at Stratford which also serve 2tph c2c trains from Shoeburyness to Liverpool Street at weekends. The importance of c2c trains calling at Stratford at weekends has risen in recent years with the opening of Westfield at Stratford. A further benefit is that Liverpool Street is more inviting as a station than Fenchurch Street and has better connections with other services. c2c trains cannot terminate at Liverpool Street Mondays-Fridays due to lack of peak period platform capacity at Liverpool Street and, in any case, could not be platformed at Stratford during peak hours.
With a 10tph service, one would have to either ‘flex’ the Elizabeth line timetable to fit in the c2c services (which has not been done) or somehow fit a c2c train in between two Elizabeth line trains six minutes apart. Given the actual dwell time at these platforms can be one minute or longer, this would seem to be a tall order.
Whilst this could have easily been resolved by c2c trains using platforms 9 and 10 at Stratford, it would have meant a loss of convenient same-platform interchange with the Elizabeth line and cross-platform interchange with the Central line, and so this has not been done. It will be interesting to see if problems arise at platforms 5 and 8. During the working week in the peaks, these platforms handle 14tph but this is for a relatively short period and the users are seasoned commuters who generally travel light. Furthermore, trains are never scheduled at less than four minutes apart. It might be only 12tph on Saturdays (10tph Elizabeth line plus 2tph c2c) but many of the passengers will be less sure of what they are doing and are more likely to be wheeling along buggies or heavy suitcases. Not only that, there are two consecutive gaps between trains of only three minutes occurring twice per hour.
Stabling for the extra 10 trains
One of the issues we have commented on before is the lack of stabling space for the 10 extra Elizabeth line trains on order and now being built. A helpful article in Modern Railways August issue (TfL at 25) confirms there is space available for five trains at Old Oak Common Depot. To quote the article:
Options to the east of London have been looked at, but the most likely outcome is that agreement will be reached with the Great Western Railway on stabling Class 345s at Reading depot.
The comment about options east of London is interesting because it shows where TfL would like to put the extra stabling sidings if a suitable site were available. It also probably suggests that this would be the preferred option in future if ever there were a requirement for more or replacement stabling sidings.
Given the stated desire to have the new trains in service as soon as possible, TfL’s options for new stabling sidings were looking limited so perhaps we should not be surprised at the use of Reading. One advantage of using GWR’s Reading depot is that, should a suitable location subsequently be found at a more convenient location, it should be possible to terminate their agreement with GWR – especially once GWR becomes government owned (as is the plan for all train operating companies).
The fact that there is spare stabling space at Reading is down to the GWR Class 769s never entering service and returning to the lessor. It is quite likely that GWR will want the stabling space in future and it would be interesting to know the details of any agreement that is reached and any termination clauses present.
Stabling trains at Reading does raise the interesting possibility of improved services prior to the morning peak and late in the evening peak as trains come into service or go out of service. There is also the possibility of taking over the anomalous GWR night service on the relief lines between Reading and Paddington serving seven stations normally served by Elizabeth line trains.
Old Oak Common
HS2 serving Old Oak Common between 2029 and 2033 has been deemed “not achievable” by Mark Wild, Crossrail saviour, in a report endorsed by Lord Hendy, rail transport minister. As has been pointed out, most notably by our contributor Jonathan Roberts, the Elizabeth line is far more important for the development of the Old Oak Common area than HS2, so the delay to HS2 running doesn’t really impact much on the local area but not opening the station at all most certainly does. To what extent this matters is hard to determine with a lot of the current activity in the general area unlikely to lead to a substantial number of jobs e.g. data centres.
It seems that the opening of the station will be delayed but by how much has not yet been determined. This delay might be helpful in resolving the question of level boarding at Old Oak Common. This issue is reportedly “close to being resolved” but one suspects the solution will be a fudge solution and maybe the extra time will enable a better outcome be pursued.
What to do with the 10 extra trains?
The delay to Old Oak Common gives rise to a new issue. Five of the 10 trains on order were allocated to extending services from Paddington to Old Oak Common (four to operate the service, one as a maintenance spare) but TfL have also said they want all the trains to be used productively as soon as they are ready for service. It is not clear if having extra maintenance spares beyond the one already catered for in the new tranche of 10 trains counts as productive use.
We are getting to the point where it is becoming hard to see how all the 10 extra trains can be usefully deployed until Old Oak Common station opens. ‘Package East‘ (28tph) would appear to need just three extra trains – maybe four. Providing an extra 2tph to Terminal 5 might be possible with two extra trains, depending on the timetable and dwell times at the terminus, but three would seem to be a safer bet. One of the 10 trains will be needed as a maintenance spare which leaves at least two unallocated trains. An outside possibility is to ultimately go for 30tph in the central section but that would probably need more than two trains and would also make it difficult to recover from any delays with so little spare capacity remaining.
Assuming a useful role can be found for nearly all the trains, that begs the question of what happens when Old Oak Common is finally ready for Elizabeth line trains to call there including the ones extended from Paddington. It seems the only reasonable solution would be to order a further tranche of trains when this situation arises. One cannot keep ordering Class 345 trains forever. Some of the trains were constructed as long ago as 2015 – so already 10 years old.
By 2035 the first batch of Class 345 trains will be at least halfway through their expected service life. The obvious solution is to buy (or lease) similarly specified trains that can take advantage of the latest technology at the time. At this point, the decision to lease the existing trains, made years ago, may turn out to be advantageous as other trains could be handed back to the lessor and replaced with more modern ones. The lessor would not be too upset because the trains could be used elsewhere and reformed into shorter trains if necessary.
An extra extra 10 trains?
What appears to be surprising is there are rumours of a further 10 trains for Crossrail. It must be emphasised these are just unverified rumours and it could simply be a misunderstanding based on the original extra 10 trains. If true, then TfL would almost certainly have to look for substantial extra stabling siding space. It is also difficult to envisage just how the trains would be sensibly used unless, somehow, Elizabeth line capacity could be increased west of Paddington (including more trains to Old Oak Common). Even if this were possible, one wonders whether the demand would justify the extra trains.
An explanation has been suggested for the requirement for 10 extra extra trains. With HS2 delayed and the formation of Great British Railways inevitably slowing things down until things settle down, there is a dearth of new train orders for Alstom at Derby. So once again, it is said, there is a need to order more Elizabeth line trains where they can be usefully deployed. Probably TfL being receptive to the idea, or thought to be receptive, is a further factor.
Electrification of Acton Main Line to Acton Wells Junction
One of the most extraordinary long-standing cases of a non-electrified line not being electrified is the freight line between Acton Main Line, where there is a freight yard, and Acton Wells Junction – a distance of roughly 2km. Although there were a lot of benefits, it seems none of the benefits were great enough to provide a robust business case.
highlighted. Extract from Carto Metro reproduced with permission.
The Christmas closures on the Great Western Main Line required to build Old Oak Common station and the consequent need to diesel-haul Crossrail trains between Old Oak Common Depot and Ilford depot seemed to have finally tipped the balance to get this work approved according to some reports. Other reports and multiple Network Rail reliable sources suggest that the need for an alternative route for Class 345 trains to travel under their own power between east and west London was enough on its own to justify the electrification.
Regardless of the actual justification for the work, construction has been taking place for a long while now and, as can be seen of the left of the image featured at the start of the article, taken a while ago, the masts are already in place. In fact much more of the work is now complete and a rumoured energisation before the end of 2025 now seems quite possible.
If the work is complete by Christmas 2025 and approved for use in time for the Christmas holiday closure to progress work on Old Oak Common, this would benefit the Elizabeth line. Unfortunately, there is still a short section between the south west sidings (south west of Willesden) and the fast lines into Euston so GWR will not be able to run trains into Euston without having to switch to diesel traction at Ealing Broadway.
28tph in the peak in Central London
There has been no specific news on ‘Package East’ that we know of. All we can really say is that the ‘mood music’ seems to be that generally people talk about it as if it will happen. With passenger journey numbers frequently now reported as 800,000 per day it is hard to envisage this not happening once the trains are available.
Freight
As the Great Western Relief Lines west of Acton Main Line are shared with freight (along with the occasion freight train serving Tarmac’s concrete plant at Paddington New Yard), developments in freight affect what service can be provided on Crossrail west of Paddington. Fortunately, the 45mph aggregate wagons on the Great Western Main Line are now a thing of the past, and 60mph aggregate trains from the West Country can nicely slot in between Elizabeth line trains.
More recently, the general move in the freight world to more powerful locomotives may mean that fewer freight trains will be needed – although their extra length may be a handicap. Finally, the electrification of the line to Acton Wells, already mentioned, may attract some operators to switch to electric traction over this part of the route and so provide better acceleration for the freight trains enabling them to get out of the way quicker if halted at a red signal.
An extra 2tph to Heathrow
We have already reported on the desire for an extra 2tph Elizabeth line service to Heathrow. There isn’t much new to report but no objections to the plan, as far as we know, have been voiced. Again, the mood music seems to shifting towards believing it will happen. Modern Railways even reports a target date of early 2028.
Modern Railways also reports a desire for the extra T5 trains to terminate at Abbey Wood not Shenfield. This is not surprising given that one of the main objectives of Crossrail was to provide a direct service between Canary Wharf and Heathrow. Currently, there is still no direct service between Canary Wharf and Terminal 5 except for the first train of the day that departs from Abbey Wood.
A secondary advantage of the extra T5 trains going to Abbey Wood is that it is preferred that eastbound trains coming into service at Paddington (and therefore not already having passengers aboard) are destined for Shenfield as that is the busier eastern branch.
Drivers for more drivers
The recruitment rate for Elizabeth line drivers was increased a few months ago. There appears to be no one specific reason for this but factors probably are:
- A new train operating company taking over control of day-to-day running and the need for some fresh strategic decision-making.
- Many of the current drivers are former Heathrow Connect or Greater Anglia who were transferred across and are now reaching retirement age.
- Poaching by other train operating companies – a continual problem.
- Recognition of the need for extra drivers initially for the enhanced Saturday service and later for the extra trains as well as, almost certainly at some point in the future, for an enhanced off-peak service.
Sweating your assets
We have mentioned this before but having built something it makes far more economic sense to make use of what one already has before looking towards the next grand project. Crossrail has the capacity to provide a more frequent service and it makes good case financially, both to the railways and when looking at the wider economic picture, to maximise sensible use of it. We are starting to get close to maximum capacity without resorting to lengthening trains but we are not there yet so it makes sense to use that capacity so long as there is a demand for the extra services. This is clearly what TfL hopes to achieve in the next few years.
Thanks, as is often the case, to ngh for providing a substantial amount of additional information for this article.
Can someone remind me why Stratford is served by 2tph c2c trains from Shoeburyness to Liverpool Street at weekends.
Not mentioned is the order for 10 new trains came with an option for 3 more, I believe.
@Taz
Fenchurch Street is restricted to 4 trains per on a Sunday (from 6 on Saturdays), so C2C trains terminate at Liverpool Street and this is accessed via Stratford using the “freight” link east of Forest Gate via Barking West Junction and Woodgrange Park Junction to Forest Gate Junction.
Access to Westfield as a trip generator isn’t it?
Re Gidea Park / Shenfield:
I think that looking at the schedule for all trains between Shenfield and London might be a good idea. I haven’t had a look at the schedule but I wouldn’t be surprised if there are faster trains running at approximately where there are gaps in the Elizabeth line schedule. Sucks for Harold Wood and Brendwood but the faster services are likely better for those in Shenfield, especially if they have a nice transfer at Stratford.
General thing re peak / off-peak services:
I think it would be a good idea to do a study on running max capacity through the Elizabeth line core tunnel all day, every day, as long as there are any local/regional services that these trains then can run as outside the core tunnel. I.E. whenever Abbey Wood and Shenfield already have as many trains as they need then run some on the fast lines east of Stratford (if the Stratford country end crossovers have the capacity) and extend the trains for example all the way to Southend Victoria, or at least as far east as the amount of trains can accommodate if they run fast.
With the mainline railways being nationalized it would likely be easier to just decide that the trains that run through Shenfield or the GWR route (electric regional ones) be compatible with the Elizabeth line core tunnel. We could even include some of the southeastern trains that run to/from Abbey Wood, having them use Alsike Road Junction / Belvedre Junction.
Or in other words: Run Elizabeth line trains as far out as it takes to have them fill up with enough passengers to warrant running them, and have them replace services that would otherwise run to any of the London terminus stations (Liverpool Street, Paddington, London Bridge or whatnot).
This has two benefits. One is that the infrastructure that is already paid for would be better used. The other is that the general public outside the current Elizabeth Line catchment area, and in general outside Greater London, would both get a sense that they get more out of what’s built in London but their opinion would also swing more towards through running in general, which I think is a good thing.
(Elsewhere the possible future HS2 Euston station was discussed a while ago. It seems like the plans are kind of building a large undeground Taj Mahal terminus station. My strong opinion is that it’s most likely cheaper to build a smaller station with through running and just send the trains “anywhere”, I.E. preferably join them with some regional route east-/southwards, but just sending them to a yard out in the boonies would be cheaper than the suggested really large underground station. Domestic use of HS1 would be a good candidate to link the HS2 trains to, but other lines would be worthy candidates too.
Does any service (other than freight) normally share the tracks with Elizabeth line trains out to Shenfield?
My impression from occasional trips to the East, is that the Greater Anglia trains are on the fast lines and Elizabeth line trains on the slow lines.
In days gone by there were various “semi fasts” but my understanding is that they have generally been replaced with Shenfield, Stratford, Liverpool Street trains.
Running C2C to Stratford also reduces the pressure on the Jubilee between West Ham and Stratford, whether that was an explicit motivation or not.
Pre-Crossrail frequency at Brentwood and Harold Wood was 6tph, so any move to reduce service to 5tph would be politically very controversial, especially given that local politicians in Essex and LB Havering have already voiced dissatisfaction with TfL’s approach to outer London and over the border into the Home Counties (ULEZ covering parts of LB Havering with very little or no public transport, including an area that has no bus service at all since the demise of the 347; initial tranche of Superloop bus services not covering LB Havering at all, despite Superloop being marketed as serving “outer London”; Gallows Corner road closure for a long-overdue flyover replacement, a major road junction situated between Harold Wood and Gidea Park stations, set to overrun; slow and inefficient rail replacement buses on this part of the Elizabeth line during weekend closures that have been a feature of much of Q1 almost every year for the last decade). I am sure it is not a coincidence that the timetable around the Gidea Park terminators has been adjusted so that the service gap does not exceed 10 minutes (= the pre-Crossrail headway).
Leaving aside the political issues, I believe that Oyster/contactless fare revenue for journeys between Brentwood and central London is shared with Greater Anglia (it is not subject to all those fare freezes about which the Mayor of London boasts), because many passengers double-back to Shenfield and get a fast Greater Anglia train to cut a few minutes off the journey (depending on the exact timings, it is even recommended by the NRE journey planner)… presumably, a 12-minute gap would increase that phenomenon (especially among passengers who, ordinarily, cannot be bothered with the extra interchanges entailed by the Shenfield double-back), and result in Greater Anglia demanding a greater revenue share?
Finally, it should also be remarked that Shenfield is a major interchange for people travelling between the parts of the Elizabeth line in outer London and Essex & East Anglia (most Greater Anglia trains do *not* stop at Romford, probably because the platform is too short for 10-carriage trains — indeed, they changed the timetable recently so that both of the 2tph from Greater Anglia serving Romford go to Southend, rather than one to Southend and one to Colchester Town), so reducing the convenience of that interchange would be a very bad idea (it may well push more people to drive on the A12, which can do without any more congestion — ask anybody who drives on the A12 through LB Havering and LB Redbridge, or who has travelled on an Elizabeth Line replacement bus to Newbury Park, and they will tell you that the traffic is already a nightmare).
There have been some minor corrections and additions to the article.
It has been pointed out to me that GWR trains still wouldn’t be able to reach Euston under continuous electric traction due to a short gap in the wiring at Willesden. The wording has been corrected and the missing gap identified.
I failed to spot that, although my references to a 12 minute gap at Harold Wood and Brentwood were correct in the westbound direction, there is some mitigation in the eastbound direction and there is an 8 minute gap followed by a 10 minute gap. This has been explained in detail.
A highly plausible reason for the 10 ‘extra extra’ trains has been suggested and I have mentioned that.
Following a couple of comments, I have explained why having c2c trains at Stratford and Liverpool Street at weekends is so desirable.
Taz,
I think the option for three more trains was simply because there was an option for13 and an order was made for 10. The fact that with an extra three trains both ”Package West’ and ‘Package East’ could be implemented was probably just a happy coincidence. Anyway, this is irrelevant as the emphasis now is on serving Heathrow better.
Miam,
Normally I would pooh-pooh your suggestion but in this case there is at least the advantage that the fast lines out to Shenfield are laid out for 75mph running and Class 345 can run at 90mph. That said, there is little spare Crossrail capacity and it goes against the ethos (particularly held by Howard Smith, TfL head of Elizabeth line services) of keeping it simple. I also suspect users would be unhappy about the lack of seats on Class 345 (and very few traverse seats) and the lack of toilets.
There is also an operational desire to have even flows on both branches. Had the Abbey Wood branch not been built – and it didn’t exist in early Crossrail plans – I think there would be a good case for a fast service to Romford then all stations to Beaulieu Park station currently being built just north of Chelmsford. This would only work by removing existing Great Anglia fast trains to provide the necessary peak period paths. But we are where we are and I believe none of this is possible or desirable with the current setup.
Taz: it’s very simple- Stratford is a major leisure destination, and this gives the people of South Essex a direct or convenient cross platform interchange (at Barking, for the Tilbury line) service to and from there, which is much more convenient than the down up down change at West Ham, the double change at Upminster-Romford etc and almost certainly helps slightly lower the the number of people trying to drive from Basildon to Westfield. At the same time there’s rather less demand for Fenchurch Street.
Space to store stock & also getting the best out of the newly-available units ..
The *cough* obvious *cough* answer to that is extending Abbey Wood Dartford or Gravesend, I’m afraid (!)
Which runs right up against a “political” problem, that of not extending electrification, in England, as opposed to Scotland, where, per a report elsewhere today (“Modern Railways”) …
QUOTE: The Scottish Government is to fund an order for 69 new Battery-Electric Multiple Units as part of a £342 million investment programme which includes 140km of electrification.
Which is well outside the scope of this article, so it’s time to stop, now, I think.
[Greg, in this case I don’t think it is a political problem at all. It is partly a reliability problem as they don’t want to have a separate subfleet with batteries. I suspect the safety case for battery trains in a long tunnel would cause difficulties. More to the point, they have always worried about ‘performance pollution’ if extending to Dartford on existing track. And having that section 4-tracked (there is land for it) would be extremely poor value for money as well as having technical challenges, not insuperable, mixing 25kV ac with 750 dc. PoP]
So why does Fenchurch Street have a lower tph capacity on Sundays? Is it an issue with the number of station staff on duty?
As a long-time non-resident, I have a feeling that this started with all C2C route trains being diverted at weekends to allow Fenchurch St to be closed. It seems that the service now splits to serve both termini.
“it should be possible to terminate their agreement with GWR – especially once GWR becomes government owned (as is the plan for all train operating companies)” – I’m not sure why this would be easier under GWR’s new ownership, because the GWR and EL operators will continue to have no ownership in common since that “all” excludes TfL concessionaire TOCs.
<PoP says: well, for starters, you would have a Labour London Mayor negotiating with a Labour Transport Minister who just happened to be a London Deputy Mayor for Transport under said London Mayor.
@PoP:
Perhaps I should elaborate a bit more. First, everything I’m suggesting is about off-peak.
TfL and Greater London in general might want to do any of this off-peak:
A: Run fewer trains due to lower passenger demand, as a way to not run relatively empty trains.
B: Run a full peak hours frequency to keep a good service, and run full length trains as that might be what TfL have access to.
C: Run a full peak hours frequency to keep a good service, but run shorter trains to not need to run relatively empty trains.
(The schedule you show, with 20 tph on saturdays, shows that currently TfL does alternative A)
The home counties on the other hand would like a train service that is as good as possible, and my view of that includes reducing the need to change trains when possible without much extra operating cost. (Or rather, let’s pretend that they actually want a good train service and ignore the austerity enthusiasts).
If we combine what TfL and what the home counties desire, I see these ways to modify what TfL wants to also accommodate what the home counties want:
A: TfL runs fewer trains, and that leaves room in the Elizabeth core tunnel for additional trains to/from other home counties places.
B. TfL run a full peak hours frequency with full length trains, and as those trains have lots of space, during these off-peak times the line can be extended to take up passengers from outside the regular Elizabeth Line areas.
C. TfL wants to run a full peak hours frequency but with shorter trains. In this case just run full length trains like in B.
Of course this requires more trains that can run in the central core, but you can reduce the need of other trains by almost but not fully the same amount.
In other words, whenever new trains are needed for the lines that technically connect to the Elizabeth line, buy Elizabeth line core compatible trains. Be it with the same seating arrangement or seating arrangement more suitable for longer distances.
Whenever trains are needed elsewhere, shuffle them around so the current trains on routes to for example Southend is moved to elsewhere, and that route get new trains.
This way especially on the really off-off-off-off peak hours, like at 5AM or 11 PM on a Sunday, single seat rides would be available between Heathrow and Southend, to just take an example.
The extra cost to do this is possibly running peak-hours frequency even off-peak on the core, and also whatever the extra cost would be to have crossrail core compatible trains in places that currently have “other” trains.
I.E. use the expensive tunnel asset to its full potential.
@MiaM
How will you provide CBTC-compatible trains for this with their doors in place for the platform edge doors?
Which home counties do you mean? How would they connect to the Crossrail core without more “expensive tunnels”?
Perhaps the existing trains could continue the 15km Chelmsford? But then you would make the 21 minute trip there (from Stratford) a 39 minute stopping train.
@Miam, what you are suggesting sounds like another thameslink, with trains from multiple routes all diverging on the core tunnel. This is a terrible idea – thameslink is incredibly fragile and it would be a mistake to replicate this in the EL tunnel. The EL routes should be kept as simple as possible to prioritise reliability.
Typo: The Brentwood switcheroo sneaked in – “Harold Wood and Brentford”
[Belatedly corrected. PoP]
Pleased my analysis of the hourly traffic data proved useful to the planners. The direction flow on Saturdays is more balanced in both directions throughout the day so access to Shenfield as a country interchange is significant.
C2C access for Westfield and Stadium as a weekend destination but Stratford is also a more connected interchange for more of London on leisure trips with bonus cross-platform access to the WestEnd and Heathrow.
345 Lease break.
TfL purchased the units then arranged a financing lease akin to remortgaging. Sounds different to ToCs operational leases to fulfill a franchise.
There may not be a hand-back option as committed to a service life, however a transition to a renewed fleet could be negotiated like a trade-in value.
A slight nuance on the C2C to Stratford discussion. As well as general access to Westfield, there is a large supporter base for West Ham living along the C2C corridor. Now that they play at the former Olympic stadium, that’s another key reason for C2C to operate via Stratford.
Concerning the suggestion of moving the C2C services away from platforms 5/8 to 9/10 at Stratford, wouldn’t create additional operational conflict with traffic on the “fast” lines?
Miam,
I understand the “use the expensive tunnel asset to its full potential” idea but I think using it for its full sustainable potential is better. This is what I imagine ChrisMitch is trying to point out.
28tph in the central tunnels will be run not necessarily because it is desirable but because that level of frequency is needed to shift the expected passenger numbers. With Crossrail heading for a minimum of 20tph for most of the day six or seven days a week, I really don’t think there would be much appetite for slotting in extra trains with all that ‘performance pollution’ that would cause.
In a way, you almost have what you want with the c2c service at Stratford. It is true the trains don’t continue into the tunnels but you have same platform interchange which is almost as good and the wait for the next train for your journey is only two minutes (allowing for dwell time) when travelling into London. And you don’t want an infrequent service from central London to a destination because people will wait on the station platform in the underground section thus hindering free passenger movement.
If the new timetable works smoothly at Stratford, maybe c2c will push for more trains to Stratford and Liverpool Street at weekends.
@Brian:
I’m viewing this as a possible long term plan/goal.
In particular, how about just deciding that all new trains bought for the southeastern England should be compatible with running in the Crossrail tunnel?
I.E. decide that that is the network wide standard for any other future platform edge doors, and the signal system to use for any lines that need a higher frequency than ERTMS/ETCS or the older existing systems can provide? The only missing part that would make the trails truly “universal” would be dual overhead AC/third rail DC.
In cases where fewer doors per length of train is needed you could just skip some of the doors, and have the communication between train and station/platform just pretend that the missing doors are switched off (I assume that broken doors on the actual Elizabeth line trains tell the station to not open the platform doors towards a train that won’t open it’s doors?).
@ChrisMitch:
No, ThamesLink focuses on running regional services further out all day, including peak hours, through it’s core section. What I’m suggesting is to use spare off-peak capacity.
An added bonus of reducing the need to change trains off peak is that it incentivizes even more people to travel off peak.
@PoP:
Is the 20/28 tph divide due to 20 tph deemed enough off-peak, or is it due to 28 tph all day would risk increasing delays and whatnot?
Good point re not having an infrequent service out of London. A work around for that is to just announce all trains going to Shenfield when inside London, and from some point where overcrowded platforms wouldn’t be an issue (perhaps Stratford, or east of Stratford) actually announce where the trains go. Thus if you are going to Southend, just enter the first train to Shenfield and you’ll have say a one-in-six chance of not needing to change trains. The downside of this is the risk of too many figuring out how to tell which trains go where, resulting in crowding anyways.
In general re the risk of performance pollution, or fragility as ChrisMitch worded it:
The generic solution to delayed lower frequency trains from further out going into a shared higher frequency section is to just “insert” a train that uses the missed slot, and then the delayed train would run in the slot of a later train.
I don’t know how operations actually take place today, but I would say that it’s a good idea if trains from the OOC depot / Paddington stabling sidings are just inserted any time an eastbound train on the GWR route is delayed, and then the train on the GWR route just uses the next eastbound slot. For this to work the staff scheduling must be able to accommodate that train staff might end up at Shenfield rather than Abbey Wood and the other way around.
=========================
Another way to express what I’m suggesting is to replace the old process of:
A: decide what to build
B: build
C: use the result as planned
with something like:
A: decide what to build
B: build
C: decide how to best use the result, in a way that satisfies all interests as good as possible (including for example in the case of the Elizabeth Line absolutely run all the originally planned local services as the highest priority).
===========
this kind of also ties in to my suggestion of building the Euston HS2 station as a through running station. Off-peak those tunnels could be used for other services too.
I have to admit that as for Crossrail I don’t know which other services on the western side that could be joined with off-peak Crossrail services. On the eastern side Southend and possibly for example Dartford seems like good candidates. But still.
I still can’t see “Old Oak Common” station opening with that name.
Maybe I’m wrong, but my money is on it being called something like “London Brunel”, which would be a name connected to railway history in the area and appealing to both enthusiasts and the political right without generating too much upset from anyone else.
MiaM – re the western side I think it’s a great pity that the Tring stopping services weren’t linked into Crossrail (diverted from Euston) as had been suggested at one point, balancing the east and west much better. I’m sure someone here will explain the good reason why they weren’t though!…..
@Stephen – Tring, see https://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/coming-across-rail-turmoil from 8 August 2014
Re Mark H @ 5 September 2025 at 11:25
“Does any service (other than freight) normally share the tracks with Elizabeth line trains out to Shenfield?”
My impression from occasional trips to the East, is that the Greater Anglia trains are on the fast lines and Elizabeth line trains on the slow lines.”
No – Not even the freight does, the freights share the fast lines with the GA services.
However one of the bigger issues is that Maersk and Hapag Lloyd have shifted the vast majority of their Felixstowe container traffic to London Gateway so there is less freight on the fast lines but lots more traffic to/from the “c2c” Tilbury loop, while most will go via GOBlin to/from direct to WCML/GWML however there is no easy link to the ECML so they go via Goblin, Seven Sisters and Cambridge; the southern MML loading gauge clearance is pretty useless for containers so they go up the WCML till they reach Birmingham latitude. However they can go via Stratford for about 6 hours overnight when GOBlin may be closed so higher frequency very early or very late Elizabeth line won’t work.
“fast lines and Elizabeth line trains on the slow lines.”
Just for the avoidance of doubt, Network Rail’s sectional appendix EA1010 refers to the lines as UP ELECTRIC, DOWN ELECTRIC, UP MAIN, DOWN MAIN (with Up/Down Suburban to Bethnal Green and Up/Down Temple Mills at Stratford) all the way out to Shenfield from Liverpool Street.
Thanks @Brian Butterworth, but I can’t see (sorry if I missed it – perhaps it’s in the comments) the reason the Tring / Milton Keynes Central option was withdrawn.
Stephen Hosking,
Apart from whether or not the Tring option was ever a serious proposal, I think it predated Old Oak Common. Looking at CartoMetro, I cannot see any possible way it is now possible to link Crossrail to the WCML.
I suspect ngh would argue that having empty trains start at Paddington has actually turned out to be a good thing because you can make sure these are the busier Shenfield trains which helps balance loading in the central section and stops the Shenfield trains becoming even more overloaded.
@Stephen Hosking – yes the updates were in the comments! LR readers are a knowledgeable lot.
But as the hertsad says on 24th May 2022 “Network Rail suggested extending Crossrail to Watford and Tring in 2011, but the plan was shelved” but I can’t see any exact date for this.
The watfordobserver 22nd December 2023, adds “The Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government launched a study into the scheme in 2014, but the government dropped plans two years later because they represented “poor overall value for money”. which makes the drop date between 7 August 2014 and 7 May 2015.,
If getting Crossrail to the line to Watford were considered desirable, while not simple, turning to the right (heading out of London) a little after Sainsbury’s at Ladbrook Grove might be possible.
It would involve a tunnel under the canal and the cemetery and reacing the surface (probably) west of Willesdon Junction.
The approach to Paddington is a bit below the surrounding ground level there which might help a little.
STRIKE
Has anyone found good data on the Elizabeth performance and capacities during the crush loads?
@Aleks – the NRE Darwin system has full Liz Line Live loading data in it. You would need to capture it at the time as the “historical” system doesn’t (yet) contain it.
@BB We know the train loads were at max. My observation is that some of the normal ‘exit routes’ via the Underground were closed. Also that some destinations were acting as diversions for others plus unfamiliar user proportions during the peak were higher than designed.
With full trains from both directions disgorging unusual crowds every minute the demand upon escalators and barrier exits was exceeded.
I am considering that studies be made of open barriers with auxiliary readers or some coding to allow credit when return tapping. There are additional evacuation exits and how close did we get to using those?
@Aleks there’s a excellent TfL document online, “London Underground Station Design Idiom” on page 193 it says
“9.5 Emerging technologies
Ticketing With the introduction of Oyster cards and contactless payment, we are seeing a move away from the current system of ticketing which relies on exchanging our currency for that of the Underground. In future, we are likely to see this progressing into the use of mobile devices or apps that could remove the need for gatelines altogether, changing the way customers and staff move around ticket halls. ”
When I went to the presentation of this document, people tried to press how this might work and there was a level of confidence that it would work, but no details were provided.
Given the “one over r squared” power rule that prevents distant phone chargers being possible I am somewhat sceptical that a floor/ceiling based RFID would be possible, something like using biometric (cctv and photos) might be more doable: a fast version of those passport gates a UK airports.
Elizabeth line – FOI-2114-2526 – 17 September 2025 : “The Elizabeth line service will be running at 18 trains per hour once Old Oak Common Station opens, with the potential to increase to up to 24 trains per hour in future. We can advise that three turnback sidings will be provided at Old Oak Common Station.”
@BB ” use of mobile devices or apps that could remove the need for gatelines ”
That would not be nfc for card details, it would be linked to the phone account. Unlikely to be the GSM on it’s own although could be in conjunction with an entry tap, BT or Wi-Fi would work.
The passenger would need to opt in and have their handset activated and powered, failure would default to incomplete journey process.
Considering only problematic demand to speed evacuation in the core during the morning peak with open barriers you could have a Smart pass like an open express lane. For the others toll panels to tap out at the platform level could light up when the barriers are open to smooth flow.
@Stephen Hosking For prior consideration of OOC options see
Old Oak Common: Part 2 – Putting the Pieces Together On 25 September 2013
Crossrail will have two central platforms for reversing trains, with the outer lines continuing west on to the GWML Relief lines. This design allows for this central pair of lines to be extended westwards into two reversing roads. The aim is that passive provision will be made for these reversing roads to become the Crossrail WCML branch.
https://i0.wp.com/www.londonreconnections.com/wp-content/uploads/OOC-WCML-sm.jpg
@Taz
July 2015 SES and AP2 ES 3.2.1.4 Volume 2 | Community forum area report
CFA4 | Kilburn (Brent) to Old Oak Common
Table 4: Summary of amendments in CFA4 Description of the original scheme :
Permanent provision for two turnback sidings for Crossrail services on GWML at Old Oak Common Station.
Name of amendment AP2-004-004 Grade separated junction to provide three turnback sidings for the Crossrail service and passive provision for a West Coast Main Line (WCML) Crossrail Link
Description of the AP2 revised scheme :
Provision of infrastructure to enable up to 12 trains per hour to be turned back at Old Oak Common. This requires connections to GWML to the west of Old Oak Common Station, including three turnback sidings south of Wells House Road and a new flyover on the GWML up-relief line.
In the ten years since publication I have not seen the revised scheme drawn.
The 2013 drawing of the two reversing sidings is an extension of the two centre CrossRail turnback platforms. It crosses over Old Oak Common Lane where the NNML low bridge was demolished to make way for Double Decker buses to serve the new interchange.
Could the Crossrail west lines be splayed more to allow 3 sidings?
The terrace housing on the north side is Wells House Road alongside the path of the NNML. To reach it from the central platforms means crossing the UP Crossrail line, is that what is meant by “a new flyover on the GWML up-relief line”.
If that is still the plan then the OOC Lane bridge is being raised for Double Deckers and then the reversing lines in the same distance are being raised and raised again over that by Fly-over?
There was a mention of a £25m cost of a passive provision for access to the NNML which does have the required space for three sidings (or future reconnections).
2 or 3 research
The flyover on the realigned GWML up-relief line to provide a grade-separation
junction (refer to map CT-05-009a and CT-06-009a and visualisation LV-15-001
(SES and AP2 ES Volume 2, CFA4 Map Book)). The flyover would measure
approximately 900m long and rise to 18m above Old Oak Common Lane. Reassessment was considered to be required for landscape and visual assessment; sound, noise and
vibration.
Landscape – The infrastructure of the turnback sidings, flyover and the Network Rail substation will be new components in the landscape. The flyover will be substantially higher than all other existing structures in the area.
The visualisations and maps are not retrievable online (Ealing Council also reported this). The reconstruction of OOC Lane bridge underway on the HS2 site does not show any Fly-over.
So no evidence of the three siding amendment being progressed.
@Aleks
There is a document, from the Health and Safety Executive called “Managing crowds safely
A guide for organisers at events and venues” which I suspect deals with your crowds safely questions. It is also referred to as “HSE purple guide”.
It’s only 63 pages (the free online version). I’m not sure if TfL would be using it, even advisably.
Let me have a read and get back to you.
The arguments against westward extensions of Crossrail focus on the need to keep one leg on each side quarantined for reliability reasons, I get that. OK, let’s get out the crayons.
I reckon it would not be difficult, from an engineering perspective to extend from Old Oak Common to Park Royal and take over ALL services to Uxbridge. The Jubilee Line would be extended to Rayners Lane, and the District Line to Park Royal to cover broken direct links.
Serves a relatively populous part of London
Uses up wasted capacity turning Crossrail trains short at OOC
Improved reliability of Piccadilly Line, serving only Heathrow
No more compromise height platforms
Metropolitan Line focused on serving Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire
@Max – I suspect the starting problem would be 120m (District) to 134m (Met) long platforms for 200m long (and could be 240 meter long) trains.
Maryland which is a SDO station has 168m platforms.
Brian, looking at the satellite, the track bed looks generously wide for most of the route, and there are only a couple of places where the stations look sufficiently hemmed in to make platform extensions difficult. That’s one for cost-benefit analysis though.
OOC Reversing Sidings
Found a Network Rail track proposed layout dated 2023 that shows 3 now being squeezed in between the Relief Lines.
The diagram is included in a recent East West Rail proposal to run Northampton-MK-OOC. No detail on their terminus just at the end of the truncated NNML with connections to Old Oak Common Lane Station and North Acton Station.
“The case for Northampton-Milton Keynes-Aylesbury-High Wycombe-Old Oak Common rail corridor” by East West Main Line Partnership
Global Britain: Rail
@Max Of course the main reason for the Met going to Uxbridge is to provide enough trains at Harrow-on-the-Hill. If you remove the HOH to Uxbridge Met trains then they’re going to still need to pass though HOH. I would guess that moving the Jubilee line – with it’s long-established dive-under at Wembley Park from Bakerloo usage in September 1939 to have a northern branch would not be in the interests of good reliability.
My Railway atlas says that North Ealing to Rayners Lane Junction was a (Met) District (Railway) in 1903. The rest to Uxbridge by the Met in 1904 – the junction to link the two is 1910. From memory the Pic section gets a very few trains, perhaps 8tph of which only 4tph carry on to Uxbridge. It’s all on brick viaducts which may be good enough for the lighter tube trains that go up there, I wouldn’t be confident that 125-year-old bricks could carry a Liz Line train.
Given that most of these stations have platform height issues from the 1933 – District to Pic switch I lack confidence that they can easily accommodate extra passengers without at least – escalators being fitted.
Also given that there are THREE NR stations that score almost “0” for usage – Sudbury & Harrow Road and Sudbury Hill Harrow and Sudbury .
North to south current annual usages is – North Ealing: 0.8m, Park Royal : 2.0m, Alperton: 3.1m, Sudbury Town : 1.8m, Sudbury Hill : 1.9m, South Harrow : 2.2m, Rayners Lane 4.3m, Eastcote: 3.0m, Ruislip Manor : 2.0m, Ruislip : 2.0m, Ickenham 1.1m, Hillingdon 1.8m and Uxbridge : 8.4m (and West Harrow : 1.5m) for comparison Piccadilly Circus is 40.8m
This doesn’t suggest that switching these stations to the Liz Line would be able to exploit much demand.
The Gidea Park Anomaly, by Richard Osman.
Re: Crossrail to the WCML
From the 2011 ‘London and South East RUS’ ( https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/resources/london-and-south-east-rus-3 ), which proposed it:
Recommended for detailed investigation, for several reasons:
– to provide direct trains from this corridor to the West End, City of London and locations such as Canary Wharf, avoiding the need to change onto the London Underground system at London Euston
– to free up capacity on the London Underground system, both at Euston station and on the Northern and Victoria lines
– to improve access to Heathrow Airport, by providing the WCML corridor with access to Heathrow Airport with a single change at Old Oak Common
– to improve access to orbital routes from the WCML, with potential for a single change at Old Oak Common
– to enable full benefit to be made of the Central London Crossrail tunnels, with 24tph arriving from key corridors to the west and none needing to start at Old Oak Common/Westbourne Park.
The case for this option is strengthened by HS2 proceeding. The option would reduce the number of trains and passengers needing to
be accommodated at London Euston during HS2 construction works,
and in the longer term.
So it was west of OOC (there’s a section of this article https://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/old-oak-common-part-2/ that talks about proposed alignments) and the case was much strengthened with HS2 (as it removed passengers from the joining the tube at Euston, so HS2 passengers could do it. But it does the opposite on the Liz at OOC, putting more passengers on trains and leaving less room for HS2 passengers and yet that was seen as a benefit!), especially if the whole station was going to get a rebuild (as it removed the slow lines from the station).
To the point about demands at Old Oak Common despite the HS2 delay, is it technically possible for some Paddington terminators to be extended to Acton main line with minimal change? (extra points for example)
As I understand, the freight services that shared the slow line turned into the yard west of the station. I suppose that means there are spare capacity on the track east of the station?
Of course, that is only when the extra trains start arriving.
A few points…
(1) The Inhabitants of Reading, Twyford & Maidenhead absolutely detest Elizabeth line trains with their longitudinal seating and no toilets – and as such deliberately avoid using them in favour of the far superior (both in internal comfort as well as speed / quicker journey time to Paddington) GWR services. Consequently they are not going to consider the takeover of yet more GWR services by TfL as a good thing and will oppose it fiercely.
(2) To get to platforms 9 / 10 at Stratford from the C2C system at Barking requires capacity sapping moves across flat junctions on the GEML east of Stratford! Yes at weekends there may be slightly less trains about but that doesn’t mean its possible to easily find a path which doesn’t cause issues for GE or freight users! Once again it seems I have to remind folk that away from the tunnel portals at Royal Oak or Pudding Mill Lane its not TfLs railway and nor can they expect to boss other users around just because said railway infrastructure happens to sit inside the GLA area – weekends or not!
(4) Freight companies are 100% privately owned and must (as with all private businesses) focus on delivering profits to their shareholders. They operate in a tough environment with wafer thin profit margins and the road haulage lobby always ready to pounce and undercut them with cheaper transport options. Freight companies will therefore not go round doing things which increase business costs (e.g. operate expensive electric locos or engage in the business of swapping locos between diesel & electric at Newbury / Reading) however much TfL would like them to
(4) Far from switching to electric traction, UK freight operators have actually been DITCHING electrics over the past decade with huge quantities of freight along the WCML being hauled by diesels despite Overhead electrification being available throughout! The reason for this is that the electricity which powers electric trains has to be bought from a monopoly supplier (Network Rail) who are directed by that organisations overlords (the DfT) to charge full market rates for electricity. Unlike domestic consumers who have their energy prices capped, businesses have had no protection from sky high energy rates over the past several years.
Unlike electricity however, diesel fuel is available from a large number of competing suppliers – plus there is the opportunity to employ various financial tools like ‘hedging’ to lower the costs even further. Moreover while the ‘open access’ operators* of electric passenger trains usually don’t have much opportunity to swap them out for diesels the same is not true of Freight operators who have ready access to lots of diesel locomotives.
*(Note , formerly franchised train operators employing electric trains also pay sky high electricity prices and although former franchises also lack the ability to switch over to diesel they can at least be somewhat protected by an increase in subsidy from the DfT / HM Treasury)
Taking point 1 above as accurate, is there merit in reducing the Elizabeth line service beyond (say) Maidenhead (or possibly somewhere closer to the M25) and thus getting more of the running of the finite pool of Elizabeth line trains within the TFL area.
GWR can run more stoppers to Paddington (perhaps traded for ceasing the Heathrow Express) and interchange to the Elizabeth Line can be at Old Oak Common.
It’s a few years away, but the non-HS2 part of Old Oak Common provides some opportunities to consider future service patterns.
There is a lot of commuting from outer London to Reading. This traffic will be severly affected by any proposal to reduce the number of trains running all the way through to Reading. [And GWR can not run more stoppers due to lack of train paths, and they do not run the Heathrow Express either.]
And “disliking the trains” is something that trainspotters emphasis. There are actually quite a lot of forward facing seats on the Elizabeth line, more than enough for passengers to/from the stations near Reading. Most passengers quite like the Elizabeth line since it saves them changing trains at Paddington.
Perhaps I should have explained my thinking a little more.
GWR are not the brand under which the Heathrow Express trains run but FirstGroup’s “Great Western Railway”, have a management contract to run the trains until 2028.
If the Heathrow Express were to be replaced by Elizabeth Line trains (running through to the East) then the platforms at Paddington become free for trains from West of Heathrow.
Clearly there are no additional paths but (very simplistically) one could swap Elizabeth Line trains going to Reading for Elizabeth Line trains to Heathrow (replacing Heathrow Express trains) and there is potential to add Reading to Paddington trains.
I don’t travel from Reading to London often, but personally (having done the Elizabeth line for that journey once) I can see the merit of being on a GWR fast (or semifast) train instead.
The choice would sway further towards the GWR option if there is a same platform interchange at Old Oak Common available should I wish to continue onwards using the Elizabeth Line.
Phil,
To comment on your answers and in the main agreeing with you.
1) I suspect the inhabitants of Reading that use the Elizabeth line all the way to London are generally few and far between. As they have a decent fast service to London they are hardly being made to travel on the Elizabeth line and do so by choice. There has to be a comprise on basically what is basically an urban railway.
I don’t think the expectation ever was that most people from Twyford and Maidenhead use Elizabeth line trains. My observations, based on previous occasional work trips to Maidenhead, was that of being surprised at how many do given the alternative of an excellent (if infrequent) fast service to Paddington. Indeed, I myself have changed from the Elizabeth line at Paddington to catch a semi-fast train to Maidenhead because I found it the fastest and most comfortable option.
I don’t think there is any suggestion that the existing GWR services will be taken away from Twyford and Maidenhead. As they would be needed anyway to serve the lightly used stations between Reading and Didcot, there would be no advantage in removing them.
2) I take the point about being operationally inconvenient for c2c to use platforms 9 and 10. For what it is worth, I think the planned arrangement is the best solution. If trains are slightly delayed in the eastbound direction I suspect it hardly matters. In the westbound direction, the c2c trains are terminating at Liverpool Street anyway and there is so much padding in the Elizabeth line timetable I am sure they can recover quickly.
TfL can’t dictate what happens on Network Rail lines. But equally, they do have a legitimate input and have a say, as to all train operators, in what should be done.
No doubt analysis indicates it will work. If it doesn’t then no great harm done and they can assess the problem, if it turns out to be a problem, and decide what is best to do to fix it.
3) I know freight operators work on low margins in a tough environment. I wasn’t trying to suggest that they act altruistically. I was hoping that various changes would benefit them too or, as a last resort, they were compensated for non-optimal practices. I believe currently we have the absurd situation of heavy freight trains splitting at Langley sidings to continue their London journey because the cost of using these sidings is less than that of Acton Yard where making the split would make more sense. Great British Railways is not going to solve this as freight operators (and sidings) will still be privately owned. But it seems a daft situation to me that is needlessly eating up train paths on the approach to London.
4) When freight companies use diesel to haul trains on the electrified WCML then something is wrong somewhere. The government (DfT) really ought to ensure the charging regime is such that freight operators are incentivised to use electricity. There is also the wider issue of why cheaper electricity is not provided to freight operators at night but that enters into the complex world of electricity charging nationwide which also needs sorting out.
As a resident of Twyford I don’t recognise the claimed detestation of Lizzy line trains.
Both GWR services and Elizabeth line have their strengths. It’s a case of choosing the best for a specific journey.
After about 10.30pm it does become quite laborious to get home to Twyford and the infrequent GWR services are crammed full. So we would welcome having Elizabeth line trains stabled in Reading.