TfL Ref: FOI-0756-2425

Thank you for your request which we received on 4 June 2024.

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can confirm that we hold some of the information you require. You specifically asked:

• Which organisation is responsible for the half-completed job at Langley station, where only one out of the three broken dot matrix indicators has been replaced? 

   

The screens are Network Rail assets, and they are responsible for their repair and replacement. 

• Please provide copies of all correspondence between yourselves, Network Rail, MTR EL, GWR, and the supplier of the new screens, relating to the replacement of the existing, broken indicators, with new screens. 

   

We responded to a similar request recently, and our response is published here: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-2922-2324. No correspondence is held - these were discussed by the project engineering team contractors and recorded in the Defect and Snag lists, which are attached in the published response.

In accordance with section 21 of the FOI Act, we are not obliged to supply you with a copy of the requested information as it is already accessible to you elsewhere.

• I would also like to see a copy of the invoice received from the supplier of the screens, to include the name of the organisation who paid for the new screen. 

   

We don’t hold this information, please contact Network Rail. 

• On what date will the other two broken dot matrix indicators be replaced with new screens? 

   

We don’t hold this information, please contact Network Rail.

• Why were the existing screens not reconnected to the customer information system, after the construction of the new footbridge? Was any work to reconnect these screens attempted? 

   

The CIS screens and new lift/bridge are independent projects delivered by separate contractors and are not directly related. 

If so: 

• Please confirm which organisation was responsible for arranging for this work to be carried out, and why the work was not completed.  

   

Network Rail.

If not:

• Please identify the organisation that made the decision not to bring the screens back into service. 

These assets are Network Rail’s and have never been formally handed over to MTR/TfL. If you would like to contact Network Rail directly, please refer to the following link to their website via: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/who-we-are/transparency-and-ethics/freedom-of-information-foi/

6a. Which organisation is responsible for determining the frequency of trains to be run between Paddington and Heathrow / Reading, when there are engineering works blocking either the main or relief lines, anywhere between Paddington and Hayes & Harlington?

Capacity allocation is the responsibility of Network Rail. They are undertaking analysis to understand train performance and passenger loadings to inform their decisions (see Network Code, Part D, available on the Network Rail website).

6b. Since the introduction of through services between Abbey Wood and Reading / Heathrow Terminals, has this organisation ever had the courtesy to split the number of spare trains created by these engineering works in half, using half to run a shuttle service between Paddington and Abbey Wood, and the other half to run a shuttle service between Reading and West Drayton? 

During planned engineering work, Elizabeth line capacity is assessed and where possible enough services are provided to reflect demand, whilst protecting performance and reliability, which we know is important to our passengers. Every period of engineering work is slightly different, but we engage early with Network Rail and other train operators to determine the best possible service that can be provided. Access to stabling locations and diagramming of traincrew are other factors that need to be considered. The Elizabeth line does operate additional services between Paddington and Abbey Wood when there is engineering work west of Paddington. Due to limited space at Westbourne Park sidings, the Abbey Wood to Paddington service utilise Old Oak Depot for turning around these services. This increases the usage of traincrew, and units by this service group meaning there are limited excess resources for running additional services. The Elizabeth line work closely with GWR to determinate the appropriate service to operate between West Drayton and Reading, which reflects demand and protects performance.

7. Whenever a line block is put in place on the GWML between Paddington and Hayes, all trains between Abbey Wood and Maidenhead are revised to run between Abbey Wood and Paddington, and never between West Drayton (Platform 5) and Reading. Is this action outlined in the contingency plans, or is there another reason why MTR EL unnecessarily and consistently concentrate disruption on passengers travelling on the Reading branch, by amending the services in this way?

The capacity of the Elizabeth line on the GWML is determined by Network Rail. Due to limited paths on the Western route, they are split to ensure all stations on the Elizabeth line continue to be served. On the idea of using West Drayton platform 5, whilst this could be an option that platform is used frequently by freight paths as a key location for Colnbrook Cargo Centre which would prevent a consistent Elizabeth line service operating in that platform throughout the day.

The contingency plans for the Western route are built on the capacity of the network, customer requirements across the Western network and wider Elizabeth line, the ability to implement is based upon unplanned events, such signaller workload and resource management. 

When we enter into a reduced timetable due to a network fault we terminate trains at Paddington Elizabeth line station from Abbey Wood because we cannot enter the section that has the fault between Paddington and Hayes we have to terminate services at Paddington to keep the Abbey Wood branch of the central operating section with a train service especially due to the high quantum of passenger journeys at Canary Wharf and Custom House (Excel Event Centre). Contingency plans do not accommodate an additional shuttle between West Drayton and Reading due to Signaller workload – whilst the signaller will be in degraded working due to the fault, the signaller workload restricts the immediate ability to do this. Resource Management – depending on when the fault occurs, we have limited resource to be able to bring in additional shuttles between West Drayton and Reading; both units and drivers become displaced due to the disruption and we have to prioritise the management of this resource so that we can come out of a contingency plan effectively and efficiently to avoid prolonging the disruption to customers. If we are in extended periods of contingency plans, we do look to add shuttles/additional services based upon customer demand that we work through with our frontline and control teams to establish where best to apply this. 

8. Please confirm whether or not MTR EL has ever used platform 4 at Hayes & Harlington to reverse a train that has travelled eastbound into the platform, so that it can form a Westbound service back to Heathrow / Reading / Maidenhead.

The Elizabeth line has not used Hayes and Harlington to reverse in platform 4 at Hayes. As mentioned earlier, Hayes and Harlington station is often part of the section reduced for capacity by Network Rail so the allocation to the Elizabeth line would not allow a train to reverse within this section to form a Westbound service. 

We are likely to have used this move for a singular infrastructure or train fault, however this cannot be accommodated for anything more due to the network capacity using this move as part of a timetable, we have to factor in safety when managing the train service and the ability to run a timetable that provides the needs for our customers. 

If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable to access it for any reason, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed. 

Yours sincerely

Eva Hextall 

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London