Somewhat buried amongst a number of railway-related announcements from the DfT this month was final confirmation of something that Waltham Forest council have been pushing for some time – the reopening of Lea Bridge Station.
The station (as “Lea Bridge Road”) was one of the original stations on the Northern & Eastern Railway, which opened in 1840. At the time, Walthamstow was a relatively popular retreat for London’s businessmen and the station was in part intended for their use. In truth, however, the station never attracted significant footfall during its operating life, especially as newer, better, connections within Walthamstow itself began to emerge.
Lea Bridge Station, approx. 1897
Lea Bridge Station, approx 1907 from the John Alsop collection, via Disused Stations
A Sporting Peak
Lea Bridge experienced something of a revival in the 1920s, largely thanks to its proximity to the now-demolished Lea Bridge Stadium. “The Bridge,” as it was then known, was the home of a sport that was enormously popular in London at the time, but whose role in the city’s social history is now often overlooked – Speedway.
Phil Bishop & Roger Frogley in action at Lea Bridge stadium, with thanks and copyright to Defunct Speedway
The Bridge hosted speedway between 1929 and 1939, and was home to the Clapton Saints Speedway team, who competed in the National League from 1932 onwards. Speedway wasn’t the only sport that brought people (and thus passengers) to the area, however, for between 1930 and 1937 The Bridge was also home to Clapton Orient FC. Orient regularly pulled in gates of 7000 at the stadium, with the stadium’s record attendance being set in the 1936/37 season when Orient v Millwall attracted a crowd of over 20,000.
By 1937, however, Clapton Orient had become unhappy with their shared sporting home, and a move was engineered to Leyton where the club would soon adopt the name by which they are better known today – Leyton Orient.
Lea Bridge Stadium in 1933. Note the station platforms visible in front of the ground, and the goods depot to the bottom of the image.
Without the additional income football provided, the fortunes of the stadium – and its speedway team – declined, and it closed soon after. The station, however, limped on, although it would see no major investment for the rest of its operating life.
Decline and Fall
In 1970, British Rail decided to remove freight services from Lea Bridge, and the station’s fate was finally decided in 1984 when BR announced that direct services between Stratford and Tottenham Hale would cease in October that year. Following objections from the public, this change was deferred until July 1985 but Lea Bridge Station’s closure was now inevitable.
By the time it closed in 1985 it was a shadow of its former self. The small, but architecturally interesting, ticket office with which the station had first opened had long since disappeared. It was demolished by British Rail in 1976 and replaced by a simple, featureless shelter to allow staffless operation.
The station building in 1940, courtesy the Vestry House museum
Lea Bridge Station in 1984 by Nick Catford, via Disused Stations
Years of under-investment had also seen the station fall into disrepair at platform level, with most of its shelters and furniture long since removed.
Lea Bridge Station on its last day by Dave Brennand, via Disused Stations
The Station Today
Since its closure, the station has continued to detoriate. A “blink and you’ll miss it” feature on bus journeys up the Lea Bridge Road from Clapton to Walthamstow at the point where the road crosses the line to Stratford.
Where to find the station today
The station building, which for a time was hidden behind advertising hoardings and used by the homeless for shelter, ultimately succumbed to fire. Meanwhile at platform level track was ripped up and the platforms became increasingly overgrown.
The reopening of the section of Line on which Lea Bridge sits to allow services between Stratford and Stansted in 2005 has resulted in the greenery being somewhat better pruned, but as the photos below show, the station still remains desperately dilapidated and overgrown.
The station viewed from the road side
The remains of the station building, now fenced off
The remains of the 1970s ticket office
The old staircase down to the platform (to Tottenham Hale)
The remains of the stairs down to the Stratford platform
The remodelling that created Argall Way, and its adjacent open space, means that its now possible to get much closer to the old station and see its state at ground level, although the area is still relatively overgrown.
The station, abandoned trackbed, and the bordering space by Argall Way
Lea Bridge Station viewed from platform level
The station from afar
The platforms seem relatively intact, structurally speaking, but do show the amount of debris and damage that one might expect for a station that has been abandoned and overgrown for so long.
Lea Bridge Station platforms
Another view of the Lea Bridge Station platforms
A closer view of the platforms, taken last year
A Station Reborn
With the resumption of services along the line on which the station sits in 2005, Waltham Forest sniffed an opportunity to push the case for the station’s reopening. At first glance, the station may seem a poor candidate for regeneration, appearing to sit on the edge of a surprisingly large expanse of open space between Hackney and Waltham Forest. In truth, though, the case for reopening has only increased over time. The station sits on a busy road well connected to Walthamstow, Hackney and Leyton via local buses. Nearby Bakers Arms, an area of increasing population density, is also shorter on solid rail connections than one might think – the Central Line, Victoria Line, Overground and National Rail connections to Liverpool Street are all temptingly close but just out of reach. A reopened station at Lea Bridge would be only a five minute journey from Stratford, a location and station reinvigorated by the arrival of Westfield and the Olympics.
None of the above has been lost on Waltham Forest council (or indeed on both Network Rail and TfL). The council pushed heavily for the station to be rebuilt and reopened before the Olympics, and though their campaign was ultimately unsuccessful it did push the door to redevelopment ajar, with Network Rail indicating that they were open to suggestions in the future.
In March 2012, the Council began another push to see the station reopened, commissioning a feasibility study into options and costs, with the tacit backing of Network Rail and TfL (whose own interests in the future of the Lea Valley Line were by this point well known).
Finally, in January 2013, Waltham Forest Council confidently announced that they now had Network Rail’s support and were working together to secure the required funds.
Although it was a major step forward, there were still some issues to overcome. This month, however, the DfT finally confirmed that the station would be one of four to be given the green light for development. Lea Bridge station’s rebirth is now all but guaranteed.
Looking into the Future
So just what will this new station look like?
Although specific plans are yet to be made public, the amount given for the station cost (£6.5m) is pretty telling. This matches exactly the cost of the Council’s preferred option (Option E) in their 2012 feasibility study. This was also the option they indicated then that Network Rail felt was the most practical. From this, therefore, we can probably conclude with a considerable degree of confidence that the final station will be almost identical to the plan proposed in that study.
Option E from the Council’s feasibility study
The layout for this can be seen above. Essentially the platforms will be brought back into service, but station access will be moved from the previous location at the top of the bridge to an unmanned station building at ground level, with a new footbridge added to provide access to the Tottenham Hale platform.
The new Lea Bridge station
Moving access to the station to ground level may seem, at first glance, to be an odd decision, given that it means incurring the costs of building a new footbridge. Visiting the site in person, however, shows just how limited access from the current bridge is.
The narrow path access along the bridge to the existing station building
The open space now to be found by the Stratford platform by Argall Way is also too good a station development opportunity to miss. By using just a small section of that land it is possible to provide both bike and vehicle parking, as well as an unmanned ticket facility that can easily be upgraded to a manned station building if required in future.
Looking down, roughly, at the site of the new station building from the bridge
The new station building, viewed from a similar angle
Using the existing stairs as the primary means of accessing the platforms would also have meant trying to find an alternative way of making the platforms accessible to those with mobility problems. Under the current plan, lifts can be included in the new footbridge design, and the existing stairs potentially brought back into service at a later date if demand supports it.
A mocked up view from the footbridge of the Stratford platform and station building
Whatever the final design, the fact that the station is returning at all is ultimately good news both for Waltham Forest Council and the area in general. With construction due to start shortly, and an opening date before the end of 2014 being mooted, the sight of the old station sitting forgotten and unloved on the bridge is now finally drawing to an end.
Somewhere, in the graveyards of the East End, the ghosts of the Clapton Saints are looking affectionately once more towards Lea Bridge with a smile.
Many thanks to Bob – a police officer who, having watched your LR Editor repeatedly reboard buses over the bridge to take photos of the railway and station, and then crawl deep into bushes next to railway land to do the same, was happy to accept that there was a reasonable excuse for this behaviour – and then even helped hold back the worst of the shrubbery.
Looks like work may begin shortly if this report is correct :
http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/11726843.Work_could_begin_on___12m_station_re_opening/
Unfortuately not, the council meeting where it was supposed to be signed off was postponed with no new date currently given. I’m not sure of the reason why, any one any ideas of current delay?
Probably because of item 3 on that LBW document, which itself refers back to this:
Reasons Restricted
Translation, someone has something to hide…..
OTOH, the LBWF “cabinet” report suggest that they really want it to go ahead, if they can find the extra monies.
As long as it doesn’t take as long as it did to to re-open 150 metres of footpath between the two more central stations!
Perhaps asbestos found in the council chamber ? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-30893527
Unless LBWF have managed to negotiate a time extension then they are already too late to sign the agreement and progress the work. They are also at high risk of losing some of the funding contributions because of the deadlines. Every day that there is a delay increases the risk of funding loss and the council being lumbered with the bill. Hopefully someone has taken a really robust look at the project and come to the necessary conclusion even if it means cancelling it. I don’t want it cancelled but it’s already ludicrous that the cost is a shade under £12m and council taxpayers are funding half that.
Greg, I was at Walthamstow Central at the weekend and saw no sign of (or signs to) the new footpath to Walthamstow Queen’s Road. Where is it ?
dvd
That’s because there are no signs at all …
Come out on the up side of WHC (the original building) turn right under/by the block of flats in to the car park.
Proceed down the left (South) edge of the car park to the bottom (SW) corner, where there is a small gap in the fence & a footpath (Ray Dudley Way)
Go on down this, into the Edison CLose development & continue, as far as possible, straight on … you will find the steps/bridge/ramp down to WMW in front of you…..
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
On the main subject:
It is amazingly difficult to write about LBWF if you are a long-term resident of the area, since their overall competence leaves a lot to be desired, shall we say?
On the direct subject – if they have “missed the boat” & thus wasted another load of “ratepayers” money on a project that they & everyone else wanted – the re-opening of Lea Bridge Station, people are not going to be pleased!
Thanks Greg. I had read that it was off the car park but just expected to see a sign or too. I will explore.
I lived in Walthamstow for around 18 months in the early 1990s so have a soft spot for the area. My first flat was alongside the Gospel Oak – Barking line at the point where it has left the Queens Road cutting and is at ground level before rising on the viaduct to Leyton Midland Road. Used to wait at a largely deserted Queen’s Road for Sunday trips to Hampstead Heath, I seem to recall it was hourly on Sundays. Loved sitting behind the driver when he left the blinds down on the DMU (Class 115 ?) with a live driver’s eye view.
My second flat was near the Bakers Arms and I remenber taking the 48 bus occasionally and peering at the remains of the Lea Bridge platforms. I do hope the project goes ahead especially as Stratford is much more of an alluring destination now than it was 20 years ago.
@dvd
I don’t think 115s ever worked the Goblin. They were all based at Marylebone.
When I first knew it, (when the western terminus was Kentish Town) it seemed to be operated by Class 116s, or occasionally a 127, from Cricklewood (127s were essentially 115s with a hydraulic transmission, 116s had standard 150hp engines instead of the 238hp jobs in the 115/127). However, by the 1990s class 104s were the standard fare
https://www.flickr.com/photos/tonys-trainz/8602229179/
dvd
If you were on the East side of the line, then you were living in the old Queen’s Road Goods yard …..
Nice collection of pine trees & Japanese Knotweed along the edge, there ….
timbeau
That view @ Leyton Midland Rd reminds me … there’s now an urban farm just to the West of there now, & looking out from the train you can see … the Llamas of Leyton” (!)
( Except that they are actually Alpacas, I think )
Ok……I saw somewhere in the Walthamstow web site work on Lea Bridge Road was suppose to start in February, is there any update?
This is Lea Bridge Road Station I am referring to
timbeau
Between 1989 to 1999 the T&H Branch had various power twins of Classes 101, 104, 108, 115, 116, 117 & 119 allocated to it, some hybrids, all from Old Oak Common until around 1992-93 when Bletchley supplied the stock. Class 121s were also frequent visitors when ‘our’ trains were borrowed for services considered more worthy.
@ lorna Malcolm
According to the MPs newsletter, 3 freight operating companies raised objections which are still being worked through by Network Rail.
Glenn
Thanks for that – may I “lift” that ( or part of it ) as a quote, to be inserted into my pending & v long article on the NE London lines, as it is considerably more specific info than I had previously put in?
Freight companies (FOCs) almost always object to Network Rail’s proposals in Network Change Notices, (NCNs) usually for very minor operational reasons, and NR invariably adopt the Network Change after a few letters have gone back and forth.
I suspect the above MP is reading far to much into the normal NCN discussion, it would be highly unusual for a FOC to involve itself in the local authority’s planning process.
That’s interesting, Greg. I lived in Yunus Khan Road, rabbit hutch new build flats, I thought I knew the history of the line but did not realise there used to be a goods yard on the site. Ten years later my office moved out of central London to Archway Tower and I was a few minutes walk from Upper Holloway station and used to wander around the area of the former Junction Road station (another good candidate for reopening) during lunch hours. Now live in Sidcup although if Boris’ s R25 orbital rail plans ever come to fruition, perhaps the wheel will come full circle and I’ll end up livimg near the elongated line once again.
Greg,
Sorry for delay in replying, of course you can lift that for your article. Actually I wrote a far more detailed account but accidentally deleted it when trying to post it!
dvd
The Queen’s Road Goods Yard ran alongside the line to Boundary Road where I think the sign proclaimed it as Boundary Road Goods Yard. By the Yunus Khan Close access gates was the site of Queen’s Road signal box. If you look the old outside loo and coal bunker can still be seen while on the country side of the gates is a long abandoned concrete P. Way hut. I had an Aunt who lived off Boundary Road by the railway and I remember the yard surviving into the late 1960s – early 1970s, still housing coal merchants at the Queen’s Road end and a scrap yard at the Boundary Road end.
What this surely proves is this needs The Mayor of London and TFL to have control over new stations for London and not local boroughs ?
I reckon while Lea Bridge Road Station work is to begin some of the stations announced at the same time are already open !
Given this is a re-opening of a station and not a brand new station on a brand new site it should have been a much simpler job.
Another station on this line that needs to be re-opened is Tufnell Park giving easy interchange to the nearby Northern Line Station .
If London is to get the transport it needs then power has to be in the hands of TFL and London Mayor and not local councils some of which are dominated by the car lobby and thus have no interest in public transport. A job for the next government and Mayor to deal with.
@Melvyn you may be right about the re-opening desirability of Tufnell Park (NR). However the phrase “on this line” is a bit misplaced. Tufnell Park (NR) is on the North London line, currently running Overground trains. Lea Bridge is not.
@ Melvyn and Malcolm – I am a little puzzled. Tufnell Park is a London Undeground station on the Northern line. It is open. I think you may be thinking of a station which was close by (within walking distance) on the Gospel Oak to Barking line (aka the GOBLIN) which was closed in 1943. This was Junction Road station which was located between Upper Holloway and Gospel Oak stations. I believe the local borough council would like the station reinstated as it would be a very short walk between it and the existing Tufnell Park station and provide a valuable interchange.
I am not aware of any other station which bears or bore the name Tufnell Park but am happy to be corrected.
Minutes from the Lea Bridge ward community forum again seem to suggest the delay is due to freight operating company concerns, specifically for future freight paths. New (again) date for construction to start is April following Network Rail led arbitration. Would a TfL or Network Rail lead team have avoided this?
@Melvyn
This is called local democracy. It’s all very well saying that the Mayor and TfL should be able to stamp all over local democracy to get things done when the thing that’s getting done is what you want, but quite a different issue if you don’t want it. After all, it’s also the Mayor and TfL that have ambitions to build £40bn of new roads in London. Not even the borough that is most dominated by the car lobby (and I can’t actually think of one) has that sort of ambition.
@Richard B. Yes, I was thinking of Junction Road station, though if re-opened it would presumably be renamed Tufnell Park. And of course it is on the Goblin, not the NLL as I stupidly said. But Lea Bridge is on neither of these!
@Melvyn/Malcolm/RichardB
Junction Road was indeed on the Tottenham and Hampstead Junction (now unofficially known as the Goblin), not the North London Line. However, if it were to re-open Tufnell park would be a very logical name for it. Apart from anything else, it is more precise as Junction Road is about 1km long, stretching all the way from Tufnell Park to Archway.
@ Melvyn – TfL do not appear to have a policy of station reopenings. There is nothing to stop them promoting reopenings but I feel they have their eyes set on other matters. Even if they did have a positive policy there is no reason to override local planning controls. It is quite right that local councils retain control and that local people can have their say. There would be no activity about reopening stations if it wasn’t for local councils. The wider problem though is whether councils have the requisite expertise and knowledge to properly manage the reopening of stations. I fear Lea Bridge is not the best example of competence and that’s a general remark not me taking a swipe at Waltham Forest.
On Snowy’s point I do not believe the freight company objections could have been avoided. There are standard rail industry “change” processes which must be followed and any of the users of the network can raise concerns. You can’t get round this stage of the processes regardless of who leads it. I expect the freight companies are concerned that having passenger trains stop at Lea Bridge may reduce the number of freight paths on that line. It will be for Network Rail to demonstrate that there will no loss of freight paths as a result of two trains an hour stopping for a minute or so in each direction. I am very surprised by the remarks in the ward forum minutes which says only a bit of the stations’ funding is “at risk”. That’s at odds with what was in Council papers a few months ago but I guess there might have been agreement to roll the funding forward given the delays to the project. Something tells me a “green field” site might have been cheaper given there would be no need to demolish what’s already there nor all the faffing around trying to decide whether to have an entrance on Lea Bridge Road or on Argall Avenue.
Where things do get interesting is in the future if we ever get to the point of the STAR (Stratford – Angel Road) works proceeding. That would push train frequencies at Lea Bridge up to 4 tph each way and that might well affect capacity for freight paths. If the STAR project suddenly has to pick up extra resignalling costs then its funding will be blown wide open given it’s on record that funding allocations are fixed and there is no flex to increase them. Clearly there will be some signalling work needed to add an extra track and link that in to the existing infrastructure. However that work is supposed to be confined to the north of Lea Bridge station.
I wrote to the leader of WF council on April 14th2015. Mr Chris Robbins replied, as he must have done to all correspondents, earlier this week.
He wrote that he anticipates signing an agreement with network rail within the next two weeks, so that work can begin. This would be wonderful; has anyone else heard this?
@ Ruthie – not heard that but then I expect announcements like starting work on a new station are banned during the general election campaign. The “news in 2 weeks” message gives space for the election and subsequent bartering to form a government to happen.
Melvyn 23 February 2015 at 22:29
“What this surely proves is this needs The Mayor of London and TFL to have control over new stations for London and not local boroughs ?”
I think you’ll find that Waltham Forest’s share is coming from developer contributions from large developments.
@ WW if TFL want to take control of more and more of London mainline rail network then surely they will need to take on board a policy re station re- openings alongside brand new stations . Afterall , the London Mayor is meant to have a strategic role in London planning and if local councils don’t have the expertise in this area then TFL should offer its services ?
The re-opening of Lea Bridge Road Station was just one of several stations announced by DFT in same press release.
In order to show how progress at Lea Bridge Road is no as bad as it looks I have added a link below to news of Ilkeston Station which was on same DFT announced and how work on that station only began in March this year-
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/transport-secretary-sees-benefits-of-rail-investment-in-derbyshire
I wonder if the announcement in 2 weeks will be as discussed by this source.
Interestingly it confirms that it has been signalling the new station into the potential STAR project that the freight operators were concerned about.
More bizarre however, seems to be the 2 construction funding phases. An 80% initial construction phase by Network Rail then a seperate tender in September to extend the platforms & install the signalling. This seems a very strange model to go for considering the problems still being experienced with Croxley, however perhaps this is the only way to ensure the DFT funding remains.
@ Melvyn – TfL will only respond to Mayoral policy and direction. That’s their central purpose in strategic terms. If we want more stations or far better interchanges then it’s down to the voters to force the hand of the Mayoral candidates for the next Mayoral term. In the case of Lea Bridge I’d argue it was never going to be on City Hall’s radar – it was only ever going to be the local council who’d push the case for it. If there is a criticism to be laid at Waltham Forest’s approach it’s that they have been badly caught out by rail industry processes and timescales. It seems they made a classic error of employing consultants who were not as qualified or experienced as they appeared and this is why we seem to be forever tripping over risk after risk after risk. We’ve had japanese knotweed, industry processes, different station designs and I suspect we’ve got even more stuff to fall over yet.
@ Snowy – thanks for digging out that local paperwork. I agree the reference to STAR is slightly odd given (AFAIK) the go ahead for that scheme hasn’t happened and it will have its own industry consultation. Seems rather odd to delay one scheme by reference to another. I wasn’t aware that the 4 track section is proposed to reach Lea Bridge station anyway. I thought it reverted to two tracks just north of the station. If the freight industry is now saying there has to be a 4 track alignment through Lea Bridge and the station should be built to reflect that then the costs will have gone up again and there will be a need for a redesign.
I’m also bemused by the do 80% idea – you either get the station or you don’t. Can you imagine the nonsense of 8 car trains being unable to stop there in the peaks because the platforms haven’t been extended? I can also foresee the “we can’t stop trains at your station because the signals haven’t been altered” excuse coming forth. I can see why the politicians are desperate to see the work start because they don’t a failure hung round their necks. However this is clearly not a happy project.
From the Leader of Waltham Forest Council’s facebook page:
Christopher Robbins added 3 new photos.·
Work begins this week on restoring Lea Bridge Station.A grant was made to Waltham Forest after the Olympics for an infrastructure project.Myself and my Labour colleagues chose the station as the most important option for the Borough.There have been a number of ups and downs along the way but we are now on course for opening in 2016.My deputy, Clyde Loakes led a taskforce to get us started and already this project has create a huge amount of excitment and regeneration proposals.After 20 years of closure we can now look forward to major improvements to this part of Leyton.
i think they should build more stations and make a under grounded bit going under lea brige road and making many More connections
A small update from the local Waltham Forest newspaper.
http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/13216176.New_station_opening_date_set_following_delays/
Clearance work has started and opening set for March 2016. Looking at the Network Rail website the objections from the freight companies don’t yet appear to have been resolved or, at least, the paperwork saying so isn’t yet on the site. I shall have to have a wander with my camera.
While searching I see that the local Business Improvement District (BID) for Argall Avenue is very keen on the station and also wants the W19 bus extended past the station (currently stops about 5-6 mins walk away) and then down Orient Way to serve businesses there (ideally running on to Leyton ASDA or Olympic Park). It remains to be seen if TfL will do this or not but it would tie things together nicely.
@Walthamstow Writer
As I understand it – the objections from the freight companies have not yet been resolved. However, Waltham Forest BC resolved to release their part of the funds and proceed with 80% of the works in agreement with Network Rail – confident that the objections will be resolved soon. The thinking being that the risk is lower than the risk of losing the New Stations DfT funds, which would occur if work does not commence soon.
…would reinstating the extra pair of lines under the bridge to enable the freight to bypass stopped passengers services help alleviate their objections (i.e. an island platform on inside platform loops)?
@mr-jrt
Who would pay the £xx million involved? Certainly not the marginal cost freight operators. Revising the station project would also kill the station scheme – it’s on borrowed time already. More freight needs to run via F2N [Felixstowe to Nuneaton], not via Stratford.
@ Mr JRT – one of the freight cos has raised the issue about losing the ability to reinstate those tracks given the new station entrance / ticket hall will be built over the alignment. As there are no firm plans for such a reinstatement I just think this is “flag flying” for the sake of it. It’s rather late in the day to be raising that but the Network Change may be the first formal opportunity for operating companies to comment.
I’ve long felt the side design of the new station is wrong. It might be cheap but given the need for an overbridge, stairs and lifts anyway I fail to understand why the old entrance on Lea Bridge Road couldn’t have been used. We are only talking a very simple station that’s not even as complex as the simplest DLR stations.
@ JG – I was aware of the council’s decision to proceed to the construction phase without resolution of the objections. Let’s hope it’s the right decision!
One man’s convenience in having a new station, is many other men’s inconvenience in having their daily commute delayed each way by an additional station they will never use.
The decision becomes less easy,
TBH, I’d be happy enough if the new entrance was built as planned as long as it’s in the classic “temporary” fashion so it could easily be removed if those tracks were ever needed in the future, (or if restoring the old arrangement on the bridge became viable).
I just passed lea bridge station site and saw demolition work in progress. They were removing the stairs from the platform to the booking hall, the wall at the back of the booking hall and the platforms surface.
@ Anon – that explains why there’s no Stratford – Tottenham Hale service today.
@Anonymous @Walthamstow Writer
Was passing today so I took a few photos of them doing some work.
https://plus.google.com/+BrianButterworth/posts/4o9yP6LcTsy
Lea Bridge-gd to hear it is scheduled to re-open. I was there in 1985 (30 yrs ago) -esp for its very last day! So now what is the least used London NR Stn (I believe that in GB it is Teeside Airport….)
@ Dave Lally – Sudbury and Harrow Rd is apparently the least used NR station in Greater London. The usual caveats about the reliability of the ORR date apply. Diamond Geezer does an annual update on his blog.
http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/anorak-corner.html
The station is called Teesside Airport (note two ‘s’ as it is the side of the Tees not the side of the Tee)
No idea why some spell the station as Tees-side as nothing else on Teesside spells it that way.
The Airport is now called Durham Tees Valley.
[Warning; not just for Chris. Please keep digressions of this kind to a minimum. Yes, it’s good to spell things right, but at some point the off-topic scissors are going to get an outing… Malcolm]
The official* announcement of construction from the DfT press office. Presumably this is of the first phase (80%) as I’ve yet to find confirmation that the freight concerns have been resolved, although as the press release mentions spring 2016 as an opening they are clearly hopefuly (unless this means the station opens but trains actually stopping not yet guaranteed).
It also mentions 2018 as the year when frequency increases to 4tph could this be tying in with the STAR 3/4 tracking?
*well in the political sense at least.
£11.6 million? For that?
@Anomnibus
Unfortunately yes, that’s how allocated costs have moved.
It’s still worthwhile, the station is expected to be handling 1.2-1.3 million passengers pa by 2031, on a conventional analysis (so if unconventional, might be busier).
See this link for the comparative journey time, which is one of the core reasons for the station getting DfT funding: http://www.railfuture.org.uk/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=502
Where you see a 5 minute time, that excludes waiting time, which is what is included in the following slides. The bus time also excludes waiting time.
@Snowy
Yes. Dec 2017 or May 2018 are the likely STAR opening dates.
This is going to sound like a stupid question but I’ve seen nothing on the STAR line. How is it going to be operated? Will it be like another LO shuttle?
@ Hedgehog – very little has emerged about the operation of STAR. I had assumed it would be a variation to the Greater Anglia franchise given they already run on the route. The only thing that has raised a small question mark for me was the recent TfL approval paper for the new trains for the Overground. In the list of possible order options were trains for STAR. I can’t see why TfL would have a rolling stock order option if they were not going to be the operator (or appoint the operator) for the service. However if that is correct then it raises a further question given the reference to 4 tph in the press release. Will the service be
a) 4 tph run by entirely by a TfL appointed operator
b) 2 tph run by a TfL appointed operator and 2 tph run by Abellio Greater Anglia
c) 4 tph run by Abellio Greater Anglia
d) 4 tph run by a TfL operator with 2 tph on the route run by Abellio but not stopping at Lea Bridge once the STAR works are complete.
There’s an obvious risk with starting with a Greater Anglia service offering wider direct links up and down the Lea Valley and then removing it and mandating a change at Tottenham Hale once STAR starts. Nonetheless let’s hope STAR is actually built because the current half hourly service, despite being a tad slow [1], is well used. I’m certainly looking forward to having a regular and frequent service on that link.
[1] inserted to avoid the mandatory Greg T remark about the journey time.
@ Anomnibus – the costs have gone up and up. I think part of that is because there is an abandoned station there already which has to be part demolished, part rebuilt and pernicious plants like Japanese knotweed have to be removed. I also think there will be more surprises as the work progresses! I suspect that if it was a clear “green field” site that it would have been cheaper because you’d simply clear the site and then Network Rail could bring in their modular station bits and bolt it all together. The fact that Waltham Forest Council didn’t get the early stages of surveying and costing done properly hasn’t really helped matters at all. All that’s on record in council papers that have been linked to before.
@WW, Hedgehog
STAR stands for Stratford-Tottenham (Hale)-Angel Road. It is what emerged as an affordable and somewhat lower cost scheme than the additional tracking to Brimsdown that was discussed with various options in the 2011 London & South East Route Utilisation Strategy.
The infrastructure is a basic single track, diverging from the Stratford line just north of Lea Bridge station. This allows the extra service to avoid Coppermill Junction where the main line via Clapton joins, and also permits long freight trains to be bypassed if those are waiting for a path northwards at Coppermill coming from Felixstowe etc. A third platform and track will be provided at Tottenham Hale, Northumberland Park and at the new Meridian Water station south of the North Circular Road, which will be a substitute for the poorly located Angel Road stop.
There will be some active, not just passive, provision for 4-tracking and the eventual Crossrail 2, for example with overhead line masts and 3rd track located where they need to be if/when a 4th track and platforms are built.
As a single line limited to a single junction at its southern end, the 3rd track will be equipped for single train operation. A possible loop to allow a 15 minute service on the 3rd track was excluded for cost reasons, though there will be space to insert a loop if required in due course for more frequent shuttle services.
The running time between Lea Bridge and Angel Road and back will be about 25 minutes, so permits an extra 2 tph, adding to the present 2 tph Stratford-Hertfordshire service.
It is most efficient to operate the two services as a single entity, to minimise the number of additional trains required. Speeding up the turnround time at Stratford, which is often 20 minutes or longer to manage the train sequence on the Lea Valley main line, means that an arrival from Hertfordshire at Stratford will go to Meridian Water on its next journey leg, then bounce back to Stratford, then return towards Herts. Only one extra train is required for the full STAR+Herts service, providing it is operated by one franchise/concession. STAR will effectively offer 4 tph at intermediate stations, subject to some revision of the Stratford-Herts service to call at both stations north of Tottenham Hale. The requirement for a unified service may influence the choice of initial operator.
It is also hoped, but not yet certain, that a regular 2tph service, initially at Angel Road then transferred to Meridian Water, will be provided sooner than December 2017 or May 2018, for the start-up period for Meridian Water development. At present Angel Road is mainly open at peak times.
@jonathan Roberts
Thanks for that helpful summary.
Just a quibble about the phrase “active provision” for the fourth track. I would have interpreted that as actually building it; I understand “passive provision” as not doing anything which might have to be undone if/when the fourth track comes along. I don’t suppose the term matters much; you have spelled out what you mean anyway.
@ J Roberts – thanks for the update. I’m very disappointed though. I was aware of a range of track options but not the “do as little as possible” option you’ve described. Clearly the rail inflation gremlins have run riot on this particular scheme. I knew there were issues over funding and costs but not that we’ve ended up with this scheme. I thought Tottenham Hale was getting 4 tracks and 4 platforms to allow trains to pass each other on a separate STAR service. What you’ve described no doubt makes sense if you want to run the thing on an absolute rock bottom, minimum cost basis but it has little other merit. It means years of potential reworking and disruption at Tottenham Hale instead of one big hit to remodel tracks, platforms and the station itself. I know there would be works needed north of T Hale if 4 tracking is eventually approved but a one off go at a very busy spot like T Hale would surely be more sensible?
I note you mention a rejig of the West Anglia timetable being needed – that was where I’d got to given the poor stopping patterns that currently exist on this route. I know it’s all constrained and Stansted trains cause problems but we’re going to spend a fortune to get very little. If the new service is run to Greater Anglia’s current “do nothing” standards, especially at quieter stations, then this is going to compare badly with what TfL funds on the Overground. Perhaps LOROL can give Greater Anglia the troublesome class 317s back to run on STAR when the new Adventras arrive for TfL services allowing the release of old stock?
I’m with Anomnibus – “11.6 million for that?”
This is true boiling frogs syndrome. (Apologies to Roger Ford, but I am certain that he would agree.)
It would be expensive at half that price, Japanese Knotweed, existing structures and all. Whatever happened to the glorious McNulty? Someone out there is reaping zillions from the railway industries’ failure to really press down hard on costs. But I suppose it’s only us what are paying, either as Taxpayers or Farepayers, so who really cares?
Jonathan.
“Unfortunately yes, that’s how allocated costs have moved.
It’s still worthwhile, the station is expected to be handling 1.2-1.3 million passengers pa by 2031, on a conventional analysis (so if unconventional, might be busier).”
You are confusing what might look to be the price worth paying in terms of benefits gained with a realistic price that we should be paying for the work carried out. That way everyone pays top dollar and price inflation becomes the norm. A real privatised railway (American freight railroads for example), as opposed to the sham we now have, would never allow that sort of sloppy thinking to prevail. I suspect that British Rail would not have allowed it either!
@Fandroid
Yes, but a real hard-nosed attitude, when the amounts quoted by contractors kept creeping up, would have been to say “Forget it, we’re going to take our ball home, and nobody gets the money, or the benefits”. If I want an extension built to my house, and no builders are prepared to do it for the price I think it ought to cost, then I have to either pay up or go without.
Malcolm. Let me just write two words: ” Workington North”. A brand-new temporary station built in six days for a reputed £300,000 (according to the local press). Yes, it was a grotty (but perfectly safe) temporary structure, and if you added on the various overheads, it probably really cost double that. However, it proved one old engineering adage: ‘time costs money’. Even if the contractors at Workington were charging the earth for their labour, it was impossible to spend the sort of ludicrous Lea Bridge prices because they were being driven very hard to get it finished.
The problem at Lea Bridge is that only Waltham Forest LBC really care about it, but they have no expertise whatsoever in managing even modest railway projects (nor should they have). Network Rail don’t care, and are deeply steeped in the boiling frogs mentality. However, if they had any pride in their reputation, they would be utterly ashamed to be seen to be allowing an ‘innocent’ sponsor like WFLBC to be ripped off in this manner.
As I said, “where has McNulty crept off to?”
@Malcolm, WW, Fandroid
Malcolm: There is some active provision in the STAR project – for example the overhead line masts will span the full 4-track formation and be ready to be used when the 4th track comes along. The 3rd track will be aligned for fast running, even though 40-50 mph is all you need for the 3rd track service.
WW: The STAR costs are indeed greater than the original NR judgment which was in the £70-80m range. Making the funding, assembled from various sources, match the emerging costs has been an interesting challenge. To try to do more at this stage, such as more works all at once at Tottenham Hale, could have broken the piggy bank. As it is, NR is bearing the identified costs of active provision for 4-tracking.
@Fandroid: This link below refers back to the LB Waltham Forest report on Lea Bridge station costs, last autumn: https://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/lea-bridge-lives-again/#comment-221454 . I don’t know if there are boiling frogs which are also having to be rescued from the station site (!) along with the knotweed, but it does seem that the final list of unavoidable works is much larger than foreseen at first, and some of those with large numbers attached. As one example, Network Rail is charging £450,000 for DeltaRail’s work to change all the industry documentation and electronic referencing to include Lea Bridge station. Back in the 1980s, West Yorks PTE got entire stations built and opened for less than that. However, as Malcolm says, either you want the station or not (LBWF does want it), and Network Rail is something of a monopoly specifier and supplier.
A very parochial question here….Does all this mean that the level crossing at Northumberland Park will simply be closed without replacement? I’ve not heard anything either way about this on the local grapevine….
Jonathan. We are drifting off-topic here, but Lea Bridge does vividly illustrate the point. Why does Network Rail have systems that require contractor activity costing £450,000 to add just one new station? Generously (very), I would suggest that a decent system would require one engineer to work for 1 week to do the modifications. Say he’s an expensive engineer with charge-out rates of £100 per hour, then the cost should be around £40,000, one tenth of the quoted price. Many would say that the Network Rail’s original system is extremely poorly designed, and why are LBWF being asked to pay for its obvious shortcomings?
It makes me wonder whether there is a similar cost to remove a station from the systems. If there is, that may help to defeat some marginal closure cases! May not do much good of course, if you can achieve the same thing by cutting back the service to one train per week.
@Fandroid. If the arrangement was to charge LBWF for the system amendments at cost, then that would mean what it actually costs, not what it might have cost if various different decisions had been made five years ago. Going back to my builder, he’s not going to give me a discount because some other builder years ago did not make sensible provision for extension. The phrase “hard-nosed” comes to mind.
@Slugabed
I believe that most of the level crossings on the Lea Valley main line are ones that NR would wish to shut or replace with grade-separation. With Crossrail 2 it will become essential, if not well before then. They are one of the train speed limiting factors along the route. Widening the effective track width, with 3 and 4 tracks, while maintaining a vehicle crossing, is unlikely to be acceptable in terms of safety.
While undertaking station counts at Northumberland Park for the West Anglia Route Group, I have seen examples of dangerous use of the crossings just as the red lights have told traffic to stop and the barriers are initiated. White van man is not the only miscreant. At Enfield Lock schoolchildren have been seen to play ‘chicken’, after leaving school in the afternoon.
Drivers get frustrated, of course, since the barriers can be closed for long periods at peak times. The local highway authority at Northumberland Park will be LB Haringey, and they would be expected to have an input into the form of replacement. A footbridge / cycle facility will be important for local access to the Meridian Way industrial estates and the Lee Valley Regional Park.
With a 6 hour pedestrian and vehicle count at Northumberland Park in Autumn 2011, during the afternoon and then the evening peak, barriers including ‘red time’ were closed to traffic for 63% of the time, while ‘traffic open’ periods allowing more than 1 minute free flow were only 31% of the time, and for 2 minutes or longer were only 26% of the time. As many pedestrians and cyclists used the crossing, as road vehicles, in the peak period.
@ Fandroid – yes there are cost issues in Network Rail and there are well documented problems with asset strategies and procurement policies / decisions. However your point about “only the council cares” points to a wider issue. So much of the work that Network Rail has had piled on is politically driven. This adds a dimension that is poisonous to efficiency. The supply chain knows exactly what is going on and knows Network Rail is “under the cosh” on these schemes. Therefore they can (almost) charge what they like because the political deadline and “glad handing” opportunities are more important than cost. Does anyone imagine for one second that the supply chain possibly bidding to do the STAR works is unaware of the Enfield Council deadlines and link to commitments made to the housing developers at Meridian Water? It’s Millennium Dome syndrome all over again. Create immovable deadlines and you relinquish some / all of your negotiating position.
Hopefully Sir Peter Hendy can help instill some corporate discipline at Network Rail, give the politicians the hard truth about artificial unrealistic deadlines and then put in place a viable and efficient relationship with the supply chain even if a few “sacred cows” have to be slaughtered along the way. That’s a lot that needs doing but if control is not re-established quickly there’ll be nothing getting done because costs and project delays will have run out of control on too many schemes. Note I’m not saying *every* NR scheme is in a mess before any affronted people working on or near the London Bridge or Reading schemes pipe up and say “unfair”.
@WW
Many projects are subject to political and delivery deadline objectives, that’s inevitable. However not sure that the onwards supply chain is always the problem.
As an over-simplification, there has been a NR tendency to ‘put extra costs on the RAB credit card’ as the way out for a number of project issues, subject to ORR scrutiny about the overall project worth and homilies about efficiency.
Optimism Bias might also get used up fully rather than partially or even not at all. Indeed however well founded (or not) the OB process is, it has created headroom for cost inflation which might not be there otherwise.
The RAB option is no longer available, so some hard internal NR truths about focusing on accurate project design as well as asset management might be starting to come home to roost.
@ MC – Understood but TfL / LU took away project contingencies from sponsor and project manager control years ago. Any monies held are risk based and are held centrally and the sponsor must separately request the release of risk monies and / or contingency (if such was authorised when funding approval was granted). I’ve been a client under the old rules where you had “flex” available and it’s inevitable that you are more “relaxed” than you would be in a tighter, more controlled regime. Far more emphasis, as you point out, on getting the scope right then the design right and the procurement strategy right. This gives you a better chance of avoiding scope creep and the costs being at the right level. It’s not perfect but far better than it was.
@Jonathan Roberts
I’m finding this all very informative. One small point
“£450,000…Back in the 1980s, West Yorks PTE got entire stations built and opened for less than that. ”
That would be £1,293,640 at today’s prices.
As I used to live there at the time, I do recall Outwood (near my school!) and Sandal&Adbrig stations opening.
They weren’t much in the way of stations: they were basically bus stops. The ticket system used at the time (“Saverstrips”) were punched on the trains, which as I recall were Pacers, at most two cars long.
Given the local weather conditions, I think there might have been a bus shelter. This was before the days of CCTV too. From memory the access over the line was existing footbridges. Outwood stations was in a low-density “homes for heros” pebbledash council estate.
They certainly were not of the size or quality expected to boost 21st Century high density, high quality housing on a four-track railway.
Many of these high costs will be attributable to labour costs, because many of the people doing the work these days are contractors. I work for my own company and who supplies me to a contracting agency, who sub-contracts me to a construction company, who sub-contracts me to NR who then charges the customer. My rate is around double what I would get if I worked directly for the customer, but each level adds its own costs on. The benefit of contracting is that you only need to pay for staff when you need them, but my contract has been renewed 3 times and with currently planned workload, I am told it my contract is likely to continue as long as I want.
This is all nice for me, but I am not clear how this is beneficial to the tax-payer.
@ Briantist – no doubt some of the WYPTE financed stations were basic but they did something very important. They showed that there was merit / benefit in reversing the old policy of shutting down the railway. I certainly have no proof but I’ve long felt that West Yorkshire was pretty pivotal in reawakening interest in opening stations and in some cases lines. According to Wiki 21 stations have been reopened in WY since 1982 and two lines have regained passenger services. That’s a decent record and a look at the ORR stats (yes I know!) shows some decent levels of patronage at many of the stations. I doubt London can boast that scale of station (re)opening in the same period on the NR network. Clearly DLR and LU have added stations over the same period. Someone will now prove me wrong. 😉
Perhaps over a longer period but the London Borough of Hackney has rather a lot of re opened stations. Dalston Kingsland, Hackney Central, Homerton, Hackney Wick, Dalston Junction, Hoxton, Haggerston, London Fields. Not quite sure if Shoreditch High St is in Hackney, nor sure whether Cambridge Heath closed in the 1970s.
@ Robert B – fair comment about the borough of Hackney. Plenty of reopenings there. Shoreditch High St entrance is just inside Tower Hamlets by a matter of metres but the station structure western end straddles the boundary with Hackney. A bit like Farringdon Crossrail being in two different authority areas (Islington and City of London).
@Robert Butlin
Just for the historical record, Hackney Wick station is not a re-opening, as the 1980 station is the first one on the site.
Cambridge Heath closure was due to fire damage, but in the 1980s. Joe Brown has dates as 27/07/1984 to September 1984 (initial fire damage), and from 17/02/1986 to 16/03/1986 for re-building.
JR
and Network Rail is something of a monopoly specifier and supplier.
ISTR [I seem to recall] that once upon a day, Chiltern had this exact problem … so they just ignored Railtrack/NR & went ahead & built their station, anyway, much to the latter’s embarrasment.
Can someone else remember the details?
@ Greg – Chiltern have done this twice but in different ways. Warwick Parkway was entirely funded by Chiltern and cost £5.2m (source – Wikipedia). This was purely because Chiltern felt there was sufficient demand and development potential to support the station. The second example is Aylesbury Vale Parkway. However this did have government funding for track and signalling changes as it converted freight only tracks to passenger use. The station was funded by Laing Rail and Bucks CC and opened about 18 months earlier than expected. Again the station was put in place to support planned housing development nearby hence the CC and govt funding. Whether any of this has lessons for elsewhere remains to be seen given Chiltern have had such a long franchise and have been able to take commercial decisions not available to other TOCs.
Cambridge Heath station is in Tower Hamlets. The E2 postcode is a clue.
[Note from moderator to would-be commentors on this message. Please do not digress onto the general relationship between postcodes and local authority boundaries. Malcolm]
@Walthamstow Writer
” no doubt some of the WYPTE financed stations were basic but they did something very important. They showed that there was merit / benefit in reversing the old policy of shutting down the railway. I certainly have no proof but I’ve long felt that West Yorkshire was pretty pivotal in reawakening interest in opening stations and in some cases lines. According to Wiki 21 stations have been reopened in WY since 1982 and two lines have regained passenger services. ”
I’ve found – and I can’t actually believe it – but the WYPTE put out a little booklet in 1988, Public Transport in West Yorkshire: Ten Year Of Achievement, A personal history by Colin Speakman.. It does cover the rail stations in Chapter 4. It is rather jolly about what it calls “railbuses” so I guess that a pinch of salt needs to be taken.
IMHO, I think I have to agree about the excellent work forging ahead with reversing the evils done to the rail network by a certain Mr Beetching. However, I would venture that the same problems exists too: re-opening stations in places where they used to be, rather than taking the opportunity to put stations in where they are needed.
In both West Yorkshire and East London, the change from industry to residential and retail could put stations in many places where they are needed today or for tomorrow, rather than yesterday.
Greg,
This may be the reinstatement of a platform at Princes Risborough or possibly the construction of Warwick Parkway.
As usual, I think you have put a twist in the story which wasn’t quite as you describe.
Chiltern did not “ignore Railtrack”. I cannot remember but I am pretty sure this was all done with Railtrack’s co-operation and their must have been payment to Railtrack for at least some of the work involved. I don’t think Railtrack were embarrassed in any way. Firstly, why should they be? Secondly, in the early days it would have taken an awful lot to embarrass Railtrack.
I would say Chiltern put their money where their mouth was. Of course they were in a unique position to do this because they had a 20 year franchise. It is almost impossible to recoup such spending on a normal 7 year franchise and there is no guarantee that the next franchisee will purchase the station or platform off you. Of course if you can get the DfT to make this happen then things are different.
The situation is no different now. Network Rail won’t construct a new platform or new station unless someone else pays, it is operationally necessary or they believe they can more than recoup their costs in access payments. Just because someone wants it, as Chiltern did, is not a good enough reason.
@Anonymous of 21.34 – I couldn’t agree more about costs “hidden” further down the supply chain. A couple of examples:
– a little while ago, the audit side of the firm I then worked for was invited to cast an eye over the books of a firm that, amongst other things, specialised in electrical isolations with a view to the owner getting a bank loan to buy out his wife (he was having a midlife crisis with his HR director…). They had a monopoly in the rail sector. and employed people at £80k (!) for this work (BR having paid £16k or so), and having a monopoly, charged accordingly; this cost was then passed via their head contractor (firms like Balfours) to NR, to whom this outrageous element was invisible. I warned about the work being taken back in house and the loan was refused; don’t know what became of the HR director, tho’ my accounting colleagues thought she wasn’t good vfm.
In a similar vein, I undertook a study of Royal train costs for the Palace and discovered that the entire supply chain simply accumulated costs, added their percentage, and passed the cumulative total upwards to the monopoly supplier (EWS). No incentive to cut costs at all. [I then had a fascinating discussion with the Household about the possibility of tendering the work and if so, who might be invited to tender….]
@MC/Briantist – the rising cost of new stations has consistently puzzled old railway hands. Suspicion falls in part on increased safety requirements and also over specification. Remember the 2m platform lengthening at Portchester which cost a six figure sum). In NSE days (sorry to sound Eyeorish), we liked to compare the cost of a reasonable station with indoor facilities with, say, the cost of building a house.
@WW – Chiltern wearing their Laing hat, had it in mind to launch a cheap modular station concept, of which Warwick was supposed to be the prototype. In another part of the wood, my firm had been developing a self-financing station modernisation programme and we did talk to Chiltern about a possible JV. The concept was killed off by RT/NR’s property department who claimed that they had in place plans for re-developing and modernising every station in the country. We trooped out of the room muttering “Liar, Liar, Liar” and how right we were.
@Graham. More fascinating anecdotes.
The mention of the cost of building a house does, however, bring to mind (and not in a good way) the comparison mentioned here between extending platforms and building a garden patio!
@Malcolm – yes, patios were also mentioned at the time! (Perhaps less of a fair comparator, given the relative wear and tear rates).
Having calmed down a bit, I can add some thoughts as to why the frogs are boiling.
I suspect that some of these (astronomic) rising costs are due to the ‘main contractor’ syndrome. In my day, I was as guilty as anyone in commending this route for the construction of new assets. The public sector, in which I spent my formative years, was just about utterly useless in managing big projects. Handing the management over to organisations that knew what they were doing was the right move at the time. We got certainty over delivery, but at a price. The price was worth paying then because the costs of our previous mismanagement were even higher. But life doesn’t stand still. Those main contractors have got used to the easy life and pile overheads onto overheads, as described by both Anonymous and Graham H. These things go in cycles, like macroeconomics. Anyone who thinks that they have found the perfect way to procure projects, and so just have to keep on doing the same thing for evermore to get best value for money, has learnt nothing about life.
There is no escape from having to continuously apply strong and good management. A tiresome and demanding job that never allows for much relaxation, but it reaps dividends. NR seems to have drifted into a trap, relying far too much on contracting out its responsibilities. As the man said, they really need to get a grip!
Fandroid says “The public sector… was just about utterly useless in managing big projects.
This is often stated, and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that is was sometimes, perhaps even often, true. I can’t help thinking, however, that it must have always been a bit of an over-generalisation. When an industry was nationalised, it typically kept much of its management, and it seems improbable that they would all suddenly forget how to manage large projects.
I would agree with the conclusion, which you seem to be pointing at, that the “in house” and the “contracted out” ways of managing these things should both be in use, each to act as a check on the other.
@Malcolm. ‘Public Sector’ was possibly a bit of an over-generalisation. I was thinking of public utilities and public authorities (such as the NHS) rather than industries that got nationalised. A mix of strategies (in-house and contracted out) would seem to be a reasonably good way forward but it really does depend on hiring the right people for the in-house parts (both to run projects and to manage contractors). Any other way and the organisation loses control.
@ Malcolm / Fandroid – having done a bit of procurement and a bit of contract management in my time I agree that bland sweeping statements don’t help. There are undoubtedly very talented people in the public sector and there are also some dolts. Ditto in the private sector. I lost count of discussions with colleagues about rather dubious “commercial” judgement and decisions when the issues and motivations are often very clear and straightforward and a solution can be achieved without losing ground or wasting money. There are exceptions where “difficult discussions” are necessary but they’re rare (or should be).
Where the public sector can lose out is that it does get “stuck in its ways” and gets outwitted by the more “fleet of foot” profit seeking private sector. That’s why flexing its approach and developing its staff to be highly competent and commercially astute is important. Constraining “egos” also has to be done or else you can end up with rather massive commercial problems on your plate. The public sector also may not have the resources to be right up with the very best ways of doing things even if it does have to be very efficient and good stewards of public funds. The private sector can justify the investment in the most efficient practices and technology if it reduces costs / boosts profits. TfL has tried to fix some of these issues and it will be interesting to see what influence in these areas Sir Peter Hendy brings to bear in Network Rail.
Projects fail just as often in the private sector but rarely get as much publicity. The private sector can also be just as set in its ways and just as inefficient, even in the face of obvious savings. At the end of the day, it is just people – some are good at what they do, most are less so – the difference is that the private sector often rewards the good ones better.
Jim Cobb says “the difference is that the private sector often rewards the good ones better.”
and, it is often claimed, is more effective at “getting rid of” the less good ones. (I have often thought that is rather an offensive phrase to use about people, but that is by the way). This claimed difference between sectors is another one which undoubtedly has an element of truth, but may be less generally applicable than is often supposed.
@Malcolm – having worked in both the public and private sectors and been close to project delivery in both, I think you are right. Both can be hidebound by process and both can be driven by individuals with a clear view of how to deliver what is needed. The most common mistakes appear to be (a) not managing the client – leading to expensive interference in design, and (b) and obsession with process – “This is week 36; why aren’t you performing module 11.47? – when new circumstances have revealed that module 11.47 is not only redundant but positively harmful if performed.* Others may have different experiences , of course.
* This applies especially to soft projects such as reforms or financial reviews, which are usually subject to the unexpected: “You mean there’s no legislation defining a tramway!?” – a real example from a 2 months into a tramway project undertaken in Lithuania… Or – an Estonian example – ” How come your rail regulator hasn’t heard of the need to insure operators against third party claims?”
Graham H
that the entire supply chain simply accumulated costs, added their percentage, and passed the cumulative total upwards to the monopoly supplier
Yup, that’s the problem, all right. But, how to identify all these cost-enlarging scams (which is what they are, in practice) & weed them out?
Might be easier said than done?
Fandroid
Wasn’t the “main contractor / separate sub-contactors” problem encountered by Robt Stephenson on the London & Birmingham?
It seems, as you say that what goes around, comes around.
@Greg T – call me old-fashioned (Opposition cries of “No!”) but there’s no substitute for having informed customers who are able to drill down into what they are being told – and who are prepared to challenge it. Consultants and passing snakeoil salesmen don’t like that pragmatic answer.
LT used to proudly show off their “extended arm” approach to contracting; I wonder what colleagues who were there actually thought of it.
“Cambridge Heath station is in Tower Hamlets. The E2 postcode is a clue.”
Wary of the moderator’s strictures on generalising, I will be specific and merely observe that there are four stations in E2, but only three of them are in LB Tower Hamlets: Hoxton is in LB Hackney
Waltham Forest Council press release about construction work starting. Fits in alongside the DfT press release Snowy quoted earlier.
http://press.walthamforest.gov.uk/PressReleases/2015/July/10/4509
timbeau / moderators
A general point, worth remembering …
Postcode is no guide at all, as to which administrative area any location is actually in.
[and that is about as far as we can go with postcode discussion PoP]
I went past Lea Bridge today on a AGA train. Several interesting things spotted.
1. The site beside Argall Avenue is now hoarded off with a large “kink” where the station ticket hall / entrance will be constructed.
2. Platform surface areas cleared.
3. The former sb freight track that ran behind the sb platform has also been cleared behind the platform and for a long way south.
4. The old staircases from Lea Bridge Rd to the platforms have been demolished.
5. A site area and access road is being constructed off Orient Way right beside the top edge of Temple Mills sidings. This was the most surprising aspect of the scheme – I didn’t expect that’s where all the activity would be. I am wondering if it will later become the site office location for later STAR works.
Sorry no photos from the train – the window was too dirty but I might have a wander on foot and see what snaps I can get and put them in the Flickr LR group.
Strange how, now something is ACTUALLY happening (aledgedly), everyone has stopped writing about it.
This is not always the case – see how many posts there are in the various threads to do with Thameslink and the London Bridge works.
[Comment by Spottyfaceselfie / Don / Anonymous removed as inappropriate. Malcolm]
@ Spottyfaceselfie – yes in theory you can send trains all over the place. However there are no plans for that to happen because TfL is concentrating on sorting out existing service patterns, not creating new ones. Given TfL’s preferred standard is 4 trains per hour where they provide a service then there is much work to do to get that to apply to West Anglia. We also have 2 years of effort to electrify the GOBLIN and for half that time the service will be part or wholly suspended. To be frank there simply isn’t the track or terminal capacity for another 4 tph service along part of the GOBLIN or crossing over the T Hale route to reach Stratford. It seems to be a monumental struggle to put in a bit of track, build some platforms and do some resignalling to give us a rock bottom basic STAR service. Heck even Lea Bridge Station seems likely to cost 3 or 4 times the original estimate.
Sorry to sound gloomy but with the political storm that is enveloping Network Rail we will be doing extremely well to get Crossrail finished, wires strung up to the West Country and along the GOBLIN. I’m becoming not a little sceptical about STAR too even if there is London political support that doesn’t mean very much when the government is being hammered over its failure to “deliver”, even in the loosest of senses, the “Northern Powerhouse”. It now seems to have become the “Northern Powercut” and is a term of derision. That won’t be doing much for the Chancellor’s demeanour or his willingness to write cheques for more investment in London. Put the wild ideas to one side and just hope that we get the promised schemes actually delivered on time and without cost overruns. Then be prepared for an investment famine to hit TfL and London area TOCs come 2018/19.
@spottyfaceselfie
I’m not quite sure what you have in mind – diverting Enfield/Cheshunt/Chingford and Barking via South Tottenham and Lea Bridge to Stratford?
1. Barking would require reversal at South Tottenham
2. Chingford would require re-opening of the Hall Farm Curve
3. South Tottenham’s connections are single lead, and couldn’t possibly cope with the volume of traffic
4. South Tottenham’s platforms are too short for 8 car trains, (indeed, trains towards Seven Sisters can’t use the platforms at all, as the crossover is in the station) and would be even shorter if the junction were modified to double-lead
http://southtottenham.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/800px-South_Tottenham_stn_look_east.jpg
5. How would Clapton, Stamford Hill, Stoke Newington, Rectory Road, Hackney Downs, Cambridge Heath, London Fields, or Bethnal Green be served?
6 How would Chingford, Enfield etc passengers get to Liverpool Street? Certainly there isn’t room on the main line from Stratford – that’s why the direct line to Tottenham Hale via Hackney was built in the first place.
Am I being dim? I’m looking at Carto Metro and can’t figure out how to get a train from Chingford to Stratford without reversing it twice.
Also, what on earth is going on with STAR? Will it be another LO line? Will it extend the DLR upwards? I’ve seen nothing official.
@hedgehog – I think the proposal assumed reopening the Hall Farm Curve
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Upper+Clapton,+London+E5/@51.5725738,-0.0457332,746m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x48761c5ad17f4f15:0x76d9e2d1c60642c7
@timbeau Thank you. Carto Metro implied that it no longer existed.
At some point in the future, do you think it would be worth building intermediate stations between Stratford & Lea Bridge and Lea Bridge & Tottenham Hale?
@hedgehog
Carto Metro is right – it doesn’t. It closed in 1970, although it had seen no regular passenger services for at least twenty years before that.
The earthworks are still intact though.
Re WW,
As has long been expected Balfour Beatty (the northwest electrification contractor) walked away from the contract on Thursday (H1 financial results day) and another contractor is expected to be appointed on Monday (tomorrow).
This raises an issue that might not be immediately clear what the answer is – where the specialist plant a replacement contractor would use would come from?
Apart from BB both NR and Amey have traditional (non High output) electrification equipment or will BB loan/hire/sell the equipment to the new contractor as part of the deal to walk away? What happens could have an effect on smaller schemes like Goblin particularly if there is a need to ensure delivery in the revised time scales in the NW? Or is Goblin possible a good reason to invest in some of the new smaller plant items if there is going to be a continuing electrification programme especially with more infill schemes nationally?
Hedgehog
Stratford – Lea Bridge
Only place is the crossing of Ruckholt Rd & no – too close to Stratford.
Lea Bridge – Tottie Hale
No.
No tarmace’d through roads cross the railway between those points.
ngh
That is “interesting” as in “Interesting Times” …
What seems to be missing in all the agonising, “pausing” & other twists-&-turns over electrification costs (etc) is that good practice & lower-cost methods do exist.
See the current issue of Modern Railways regarding such a succesful method in Scotland.
“All” that needs to be done, surely, is for that best practice to become normal practice.
Or am I being too simplistic?
@ Ngh – oh dear, I didn’t know that BB had walked off the job. That’s quite telling really as they’ve been doing electrification work for decades. If I have a worry about the GOBLIN it’s simply the varying nature of the infrastructure which needs different approaches and has different risks. It’s also worth bearing in mind it’s a two stage project with wiring of freight / stock transfer links following later. If wider works get rejigged I wonder if phase 2 will ever happen? The other issue for the GOBLIN is the simple one that the time window to do it is fixed because of Crossrail. There is little room for any slippage from here on in. I’m still not clear that the scheme has actually got out of GRIP 3 to allow a confirmed scope, price and procurement options. If it hasn’t got out of GRIP 3 then I’d suggest we’re in trouble.
The more I read about NR’s electrification works the more I’m left wondering what on earth is going on. There are examples of wires having been strung with little problem – the rebuilt North London Line is one example where wiring was replaced and extended. TfL managed to requip the ELL and build extensions albeit with third rail with no great hassle. LU has managed to convert its current rails and supporting power infrastructure on upgraded lines with no apparent public disruption so expertise and competence for electrification work does exist in the UK.
WW: “expertise and competence for electrification work does exist in the UK.” Are you suggesting that there would be an improvement in progress were TfL to take over?
I suppose the move of Sir Peter is, in that case, a good start!
Re AlisonW,
I suspect not – there is a shortage of skilled people in all area of the OHLE at the moment due the the huge quantity of work being undertaken and planned so the main advantage TfL could bring might be the willingness to pay contractors more* (higher priority to TfL?) combined with a greater level of PM and oversight.
* which just then shifts the problem elsewhere.
There are plenty of problems with equipment and logistics too but they can’t be completely solved by a traditional “throw more manpower and money at it” type solution in this case as there isn’t the manpower.
We should have nice report form Sir Peter soon with very long list of what didn’t go as well as it could have.
One advantage that Goblin does have is plenty of time to be very accurately surveyed and have the prerequisite civil work done before any actually electrification work starts so fewer nasty surprises? (the civils work on the route has been going on for quite a while any way as some of the structures weren’t in the greatest shape)
@ Alison W – not suggesting a TfL takeover. Just commenting that some people, including Network Rail, have managed to do electrification work in recent times without all the woes that seem to be affecting current projects. However Ngh has remarked that a skill shortage is the key issue and that can’t be fixed quickly in the short term – unless you import resource and then you have problems about language, knowledge of the UK’s standards, assurance processes etc etc. I thought there had been also been problems with scope setting and the use of specialist plant too but perhaps the lack of skills sits behind those issues too. If you don’t have the requisite expertise and “challenge” in the organisation then you’re doomed to learn solely by making mistakes!
@WW
This reminds me of advice once received from an international chess master.
“Only the foolish learn by their own mistakes. The wise learn from the mistakes made by others.”
Re WW and Alison W,
There are certainly equipment, scope, planning logistics and access issues, but there are signs from the NorthWest that people and the people working productively has been a big issue. When Liverpool – Manchester started going wrong NR lent BB the WCML electrification maintenance equipment when it could to help make up time but this only made the situation less bad and put the cost through the roof and they still had the lack of people issue.
Doing short runs and leaving problem location till last didn’t help.
GWML (High Output) also signs of not being able to work efficiently Apparently if they have a problem with a pile (the piling rig often isn’t powerful enough) so they stop early on that individual job they don’t have plan B to put in another extra pile ahead of schedule elsewhere ditto if everything goes well so they end up ahead of schedule they can’t get ahead of schedule because the logistics have been set up planned and scheduled on a just-in-time basis with minimal flexibility. The staff have to contend with an extra constraint in addition to all the others and apparently ended up finishing early on many occasions initially. Apparently they have been making changes but if people are one of the limitations not getting the most you could get out of them is very unfortunate.
@ Ngh – oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. I know it’s easy to comment from an armchair but it does explain some of what I saw when I travelled on the GWML a few weeks ago. I was somewhat bemused to see random masts and spans and sometimes piles and then no piles and discarded materials and it just seemed bizarrely random. I did wonder quite what was going on as I had expected to see a steady progression of wiring infrastructure west of Airport junction.
The last overhead electrification I saw happen was the Tyne and Wear Metro years ago. There it was fairly straightforward but they used concrete piles which had to be created, allowed to set and then have masts installed then the span wires and catenary, contact wires etc. That was done in what looked to my teenage eyes a relatively straightforward manner and sequence. Obviously I don’t know if there were commercial issues or not. The wiring was something entirely new and installed on an old BR network and seemed to work OK. Just seems immensely strange that 35 plus years later we’ve lost so much knowledge for what is pretty much standard railway equipment and practice the world over.
Re WW,
Stockley Bridge Jn / Airport Jn to Maidenhead is Balfour Beatty by traditional means (as part of Crossrail), the rest is Amey with the High Output train as part of GWML. Might this explain some disjointedness?
But Road Rail Vehicle (RRV) piling rigs and more subcontractors have been brought in to supplement the High Output train based ones.
It think the problem is trying to do it better quality, quicker, cheaper* (hollow steel piles wherever possible instead of concrete and more automation in installation) however the productivity hasn’t been achieved.
*Headspans and other cheap bits aren’t being used because they cost more in unreliability over the lifecycle.
The ECML is being refitted in places with the new Series 1 high speed equipment** (4 track headspans replaced with gantry GWML style but reusing the existing masts) so may be the teams doing the ECML will also do Goblin (may be a testbed for the new series 2 fittings (for non high speed lines)?
**Required for 140mph single pantograph or 100?mph+ multi pantograph operation.
WW says “..we’ve lost so much knowledge..”
Based on what ngh has said, it’s not so much losing knowledge, as trying to improve things, and the improvements haven’t worked as well as planned. Maybe the electrification is still being done faster, more cheaply, more productively, or to a better standard than 35 years ago (or at least some of these) but, crucially, it’s being delivered late, which means very bad consequences may follow.
@WW -I do wonder if the culprits are (a)the method of paying contractors – presumably stage payments, and (b) oversimplistic project management- what %age of the work is complete?. I have seen the latter employed frequently even in alegedly sophisticated industries such as petrochemicals*. Put a and b together , and you are virtually begging your contractor to go for the quick hits.
*Sometimes with amusing/stupid results – writing a report on a piece of research for AGIP in relation to oil loading facilities, because the project plan described producing a report, none of the time spent doing the research showed up, so the work went from being zero per cent complete over three months to 100% complete in five days; AGIP really couldn’t get their mind round that.
WW
Just seems immensely strange that 35 plus years later we’ve lost so much knowledge for what is pretty much standard railway equipment and practice the world over.
That is entirely down to the politicians [let’s leave it there, shall we? Malcolm]
@Graham H:
Do you mean this Agip*, part of the Italian Eni group?
I’ve done a couple of translation jobs for them. You poor chap. Here, have a virtual beer.
* Italians tend to only capitalise the first letter of acronyms. Nobody seems to know why.
@Anomnibus -the very same. I was advising on the layout of some oil loading facilitiesfor rail in Kazakhstan (fortunately didn’t have to travel further than Brentford/Amsterdam). Their offices were noteable for the fact that where in a normal place, bundles of conventional periodicals, such as the Economist, would have been delivered for distribution to the management, in their case, it was bundles of pornographic magazines.
I will save your i-beer until I have dinner. Thank you.
I took a few snaps today of the station from a passing rail replacement bus. I have loaded them to the blog’s Flickr group for those who are interested.
Just found the STAR train service pattern for the 2018 timetable as part of the East Anglia franchise invitation to tender documentation.
4 trains per hour to stop at all STAR stations including Lea Bridge with a maximum service interval of 40mins (& one 50 minutes daily). Hopefully the timetable planners will be able to get an nearly even service interval rather than 2 (or even 3) within 20mins of each other. Also includes early & late train times (0600 – 2300 Mon to Friday in both directions).
@ Snowy – I saw that service specification and wasn’t terribly impressed by it. I appreciate the entire scheme is now being done on a minimalist basis and that the WAML is capacity constrained but having some sort of botched, poor headway service is not what is needed. I hate headways like 10 then 20 – you might as well not bother for half the trains. Just do it properly and provide even headways – makes life easy and convenient which is how it should be for the *passengers*.
WW
I appreciate the entire scheme is now being done on a minimalist basis
Presumably in the expectation that this sticking-plaster will do until the major surgery of CR2 saves the day ?????
Greg
A fair assumption….and a good one,I would say….that way,at least the good folk of Lea Bridge get “something” while the big boys (as it were) make their minds up.
What about the trains that already travel past the station from Bishop’s Stortford to Stratford? Won’t they be stopping as well?
@ Greg – more to do with the fact that the costs have gone up and up and the money has stayed fixed. There’s only one thing left to do – pare the scope back while hoping you’ve still got a workable scheme at the end.
@ Anonymously – the assumption, as I understand it, is 2 tph will be trains running from north of Angel Road and the balancing 2 tph will shuttle back and forth using the new single track and platforms added at (the new) Angel Rd, N Park and T Hale stations. Looks like the service will be entirely in the future Greater Anglia franchise with no TfL operation or branding (but I may be reading too much into that from seeing how the service is being procured by DfT and not TfL). I think the references to 40 or 50 minute gaps between trains is to give some flex to the future franchisee about pathing on the main line in the peaks. Stopping trains at Angel Road and N Park on the main line eats up capacity and given the demands for more frequent trains on the main line the pathing must be harder given there is no commitment to 4 tracking the line. I am sure others will wish to correct what I have said if it is an incorrect interpretation.
@WW….Thanks for that. I’ve been wondering for weeks now what all this ‘STAR’ talk on LR was all about!
There’s one part of your answer that puzzles me though…..is there really going to be three-tracking between Angel Road and Coppermill Junction? I had always assumed that any new services would be on the existing double-track line. I mean, if you’re bothering to go through the trouble, expense and disruption of triple tracking, why not make it four-track (or at least passively provide for it) for whenever it is possible to extend this all the way to Broxbourne?
Background information can be found on pages 117 onwards of the 2011 LSE RUS. Option C2b considers the changes for 4tph Stratford to Lea Valley, and recommends three tracks (four at Angel Road and Ponders End) and gives a cost of £280m (including power supply upgrades). Option C3 is for 6tph on the line, and recommends a three and four track railway (there’s Ferry Lane Bridge at T. Hale that limits the railway to 3 tracks without major reconstruction) at a cost of £368m.
Plans have probably moved on since then.
This comment from Jonathan Roberts (above) on 11 July gives more background.
As long as any 3-tracking & patchworking is so crafted that it does not impede any follow-on CR2 work – which WILL require 4 tracks as far as Broxbourne.
I think all of this is awaiting gorgeous George’s Autumn Statement, 25/11/2015.
IF he pushes the nominal (admin) start-button for CR2 (as seems entirely possible)
THEN we will see considerable works along the Lea valley, anyway
ELSE the “STAR” project will limp along as a sticking-plaster, probably
Hmm. I don’t see anything in the document saying it wouldn’t be run by TfL. It would make an ideal Overground shuttle, not dissimilar to the Romford-Upminster shuttle.
@ Iam Hedgehog – it’s part of the tender scope for the new Greater Anglia franchise. Surely that’s enough to say that TfL are *not* going to be procuring the service. TfL are not an operator in their right so they won’t be tendering for the service themselves.
Quite. As mentioned above, due to cutbacks the service can’t be operated solely on the new infrastructure – it will require some paths on the existing tracks, which means the only sane way to operate it will be as part of the wider GA franchise which will be the primary user of them.
A shame, but probably unavoidable if we are to get anything built at all. In time (and with the loop and/or more 4 tracking) I suspect a projection of LO from Stratford would make more sense than a shuttle, though. I get why the new LO platforms at Stratford were built as they were, but again it’s a shame, as it will be quite disruptive to convert them to what they need to be – a pair of directional island platforms so freight can pass passenger services in the platforms, be they terminating or continuing up the Lea Valley.
I went past Lea Bridge station today, and noticed that the new platforms are coming along well. They’ve installed the studded edges now.
Also at at Tottenham Hale, all the trees to the South of the station on the Eastern side have been felled. There is a very, very tall pile of sawdust.
Looks like the STAR line is underway?
Briantist 16:23
There are some references to STAR progress towards the end of the comments section of another thread here: https://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/east-of-enfield-north-of-stratford/#comment-257419
Sorry, that link is aimed a bit later than it should be, you’d need to jump back a few posts to where WW links to the Mayoral decision paper.
Lea Bridge Update :http://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2016/01/01/east-london-is-getting-a-new-train-station/
Thanks for the link from Ian visits. I went to Walthamstow on Saturday and on the way back on the 48, I looked down at ‘station’ as the bus crossed over the line. The only thing I could see was the platforms, but there is obviously significantly more developments.
I found this rather nice Thames News clip from the 80s which features Lea Bridge station complete with train arriving. Also Broad St’s closure plans – with added EMU at Dalston Junction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77FmGfqncj4
The March issue of Modern Railways includes news of progress re Lea Bridge Road Station with a photo showing lift shafts and stairs to both platforms and it seems the station works are on budget and are still on time for handover this May.
Local reporting is that services are due to start with the May timetable. There are plans for a major development of new flats by the station and a new secondary school and enlarged ice centre in Lea Bridge Road.
Lea Bridge Road itself is subject to a ‘Mini-Holland’ scheme to improve life for cyclists and pedestrians. So we have nice new cycle paths until the pinch point of the bridge over the railway. Such a shame the two sets of funding couldn’t have been used so that the new station footbridge could have also carried a through pedestrian walkway. The existing pavement/cycle route must be the narrowest in London. Joined-up writing? Not a chance.
@leytongabriel
“Local reporting is that services are due to start with the May timetable”
However, the national Rail website journey planner, which gives train times up to twelve weeks ahead, which is two weeks into the new timetable, shows trains running non-stop from Stratford to Tottenham Hale and refuses to recognise Lea Bridge as a station. Journey time, at 13 minutes, is unchanged from the timings for tomorrow, so there is no allowance for adding a stop later.
The station footbridge is presumably behind the barrier line, so would have needed double the width and strength to carry a public footpath as well.
timbeau 2301
I think the National Rail planner will inhibit display of an unopened station, but the calls and times do show up in realtimetrains from the 16th May onwards.
timbeau
There is no need whatsoever for an extended journey time Stratford – Tottie Hale.
Given that at present it is 13 minutes for 4.25 miles = 19.6 mph.
@Greg
Allowing ten minutes’ recovery time to ensure a right time arrival, that’s 85mph! 😉
Had a wander down to Lea Bridge station. Decent amount of progress from the last time I went past on a train. Platforms are 8 carriages long – a passing train confirmed this! They have nosing stones and lamp standards and shelters in place. I expect they will be surfaced shortly. The stairs, overbridge and lift towers are all built and certainly the bridge and stairs are usable. Hard to see what state the lifts are in but they look as if they are installed. The entrance is largely in place in terms of a long “Z” ramp for level access plus two shallow staircases. There isn’t much in terms of structure for the “ticket hall” yet but I dare say that will be one of the last bits. Didn’t have my camera so no snaps. The hoardings all have paintings and pictures done by local school children extolling the virtues of train travel and the new station.
timbeau
Lovely snark – it’s the usual though, in that an (ultra)slack schedule means slack working
How about re-connecting the former temporary connection South of Lea Bridge to the Eurostar Depot, and then via the existing link viaduct line to the domestic centre platforms at Stratford International, and thence rather quickly to St Pancras. Just right for every other Stansted Express service, and unloads Liverpool Street a little. Presuaby javein type stock or similar. The Airport would be delighted and might even pay something towards relaying tracks in the valley. That last was planned years and years and years ago, even a little work got done.
@ Anon – I think the Eurostar depot is effectively “quaranteened” from everything else so I can’t see them being content about local trains trundling through every hour. I also suspect HS1 may not be delighted with another service blocking up the London end of the link. Finally a small order of class 395s is not going to come cheap. The simple answer to decongesting Liverpool St is surely to run fewer Stansted Express trains? I know I’ll be taken off the Airport’s Christmas Card list but is there really sufficient demand to warrant a 15 minute headway that eats up capacity that could improve local connectivity?
@WW – indeed, the Eurostar depot is a fort within a fort in terms of security.
@WW…..I’m just impressed that they manage to fit a 4tph non-stop service along with semi-fast/stopping services on what is essentially a two-track railway! Now that the express trains have the odd ‘commuter’ stop added (Harlow Town, Bishops’ Stortfort and Stanstead Mountfitchet), reducing the frequency is likely to prove more widely unpopular than with just the airport owners.
And unless I’ve missed something bleedingly obvious, isn’t Crossrail meant to relieve Liverpool Street to some extent in the off-peak?
Shameless plug department – some photos of the new station taken this afternoon. It was a tad difficult to get really close because Waltham Forest have started digging up the w/b pavement to create what looks like an enormous cycle lane despite there already being one on the opposite side of the road! The workers doing the road works and the station works seemed very dubious about what I was doing with the camera.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/24759744@N02/albums/72157666160978041
Greenguage 21 proposed an East Coast High Speed railway from London to the Scottish border via the East Midlands and Stansted/Cambridge. I thought the plan was perfect, until I mapped the route in Google Earth using the fabled ruler tool and encountered a HUGE dogleg through much of Central England which they quietly did not show on any route maps.
Seems the first train to call at Lea Bridge on 15 May will start at Liverpool Street and run via Statford before heading for Lea Bridge and points north.
http://www.abelliogreateranglia.co.uk/f/135177/135177.pdf
WW
Just the ONE train on a Sunday, or is that a “Special” service?
And how did you get that tt ? As I just this minute looked on the “AGA” web-pages & cannot see any advance tt’s as yet – everything shows the existing tt’s only ….
@ Greg – just the one from Liv St and I got it wrong about being first. It’s beaten by 3 minutes by a train *to* Stratford. Ho Hum.
All I did was look at the AGA advance engineering work calendar, look at 15 May, look at the relevant “dot” for those works and click on the link to the timetable. Easy enough but let’s not have a debate about the ease or otherwise of website navigation.
@Greg/Ww
Engineering work that Sunday so no direct service over the line until 8pm.
National Rail website gives times up to mid June. On (Sunday) May 22nd it shows Lea Bridge having a half hourly service. The 2015 from Stratford does not start from Liverpool Street on that date.
For clarity – the NR website and the AGA special timetable for may 15th both show a half hourly service from 2015 until 2244.
It already shows up as a station on Google Maps…
The Anglia Route Study, now updated, has some options in this area. In particular, it suggests a third track from Ruckholt Road to Stratford station with an additional platform at Stratford. It more or less assumes that Crossrail 2, with four tracks from Tottenham to Broxbourne, is going ahead (though gives options for sticking plasters if it doesn’t) and as part of that there’s an assumption of Grade Separation at Coppermill junction. Between the the CR2 consultation documents and the Route Study it’s clear the plan/aspiration is that there will be 4tph each way off peak serving Lea Bridge, from Stratford up the Lea Valley at least as far as Broxbourne running on the Crossrail additional tracks serving all stations. The additional track to Stratford is required for this to avoid congestion with trains accessing Orient Way sidings
Presumably the station is going to be branded as an AGA station?
@ Anonymously – I believe that is correct as they will be running the services that stop there.
Going back to my suggestion of diverting some of the Stansted Expresses, the depot is and should be a fortress, but the viaduct going down to the Stratford International Domestic platforms isnt
and a junction onto this would be perfectly feasible entirely outside the depot area. And it would at last make some use of International quite apart from the usefulness there of such extensive interchange possibilities. I repeat its (almost) all there folks, why not make use of it. (Note to DfT: its extremely cheap and easy, get lots of brownie points)
Note to Anonymous:
Whenever someone suggests something is extremely cheap and easy and it has something to do with railways, it generally isn’t.
Further to the already-raised objections to Anonymous “cheap and easy”, one could mention that the ramp ends near the London end of Stratford Int station. While platforms could perhaps in principle be built onto the ramp, that would be extremely expensive and difficult, and new platforms on such a slope would not normally be allowed. Also air passengers to the airport would not welcome alternate trains going from different London termini, even if there was room (which there isn’t).
Malcolm, you can go further than that. New platforms are not allowed on gradients of that severity, nor for that matter on curves of that radius. Also it is a fairly long single line: it would take some heroic timetabling to weave such a service amongst the constraints of HS1 and the WAML
@Anonymous – re Stratford International with its “extensive interchange possibilities”. I seem to have missed these – could you perhaps expand a little?
Come on Graham, it’s obvious. Hordes of punters ex Stansted wanting to go on DLR for London City airport for a range of short haul European destinations.
@SFD – my mistake… (and I forgot those armies of people going from Herts and Essex to the Isle of Thanet, too)
Mea Culpa, I had not grasped that the ramp ended at the London end of the station, I had thought the Country end. That I fear is probably game set and match. Pity, it would otherwise might have been worth campaigning for. And it really would’nt have been that long a single tack section .. And if it at last got the four tracking in the Lea valley, well .. .. .. sigh
I remember going past it, When I used to work in North London.
British Rail ran it down, When it became an unstaffed Halt. No one would use it.
Even the drivers of the few trains that stop there, Bloody complained about it. But when the Palace Gates service from North Woolwich was taken off in 1963. Things began to get worse….
But I think it will be used this time.
When was the last time NR (as opposed to TfL) (re-)opened a station in London?
@timbeau, Mitcham Eastfields opened in 2008, so maybe not as long ago as you’d think.
@timbeau -the issue is not whether NR open new stations, but whether TOCs/DfT/TfL think it worthwhile to stop there. If the new site isn’t commercially viable (and which are?) then it’s up to TfL to decide to pay for it and bribe the TOC to stop, or up to DfT to write it into the franchise spec. The case of Cricklewood New springs to mind or- more clearly – Stratford Accidental.
If the new site isn’t commercially viable (and which are?)
Presumably Lea Bridge, since while serving it “if” it opens is a commitment in Abellio’s extended franchise agreement, no money changed hands either way in the event of an earlier or later opening, or if it didn’t open at all.
I don’t think Thameslink had to be bribed to stop at Mitcham Eastfields, or Southern to stop at Imperial Wharf or Shepherd’s Bush.
Stopping fast services is another matter.
@Ian J – indeed, no money may change hands at all if the opening (complete with timing uncertainties) is written in to a franchise spec. You and I can’t tell, as outside observers, what would have happened if the station hadn’t been spec’d.
There are basic commercial problems for any new station within the Travelcard area and they are firstly, the difficulty of estimating how much new revenue it generates, and secondly, how any TOC involved gets its hands on a commercially viable share of that extra. The mechanisms linking any extra revenue to the individual operator’s cash flow are very indirect and the whole thing is crucially dependent on being able to demonstrate beyond negotiable doubt the difference between “with” and “without” cases.
Lea Bridge (re)opened as planned after 8pm yesterday (15th May) due to planned engineering work elsewhere earlier in the day and the trains seem to be running reliably on it first full day in service so far today .
Indeed. Further information, pictures, and links to yet more pictures and reports, are to be seen on Diamond Geezer’s recommended blog. (Search within for Lea Bridge Station if you are reading this after today).
O mighty Lea
That silver runs like Mercure to the sea
Bridged o’er by steel and brick and stone
Today thou hast a new station of thine own
O mighty Lea
Where passengers like you and me
Can catch a service of Greater Anglia
To the City, finance’s cranial ganglia
O mighty Lea
Or else come home in time for tea
Aboard a puissant EMU
Painted a faded shade of blue
O mighty Lea
Rejoice, rejoice!
@answer=42: You are William McGonagall and I claim my five pounds. Let’s hope the bridge o’er the silvery Lea lasts a bit better…
@Graham H: The TOCs’ reluctance to pick up business handed to them on a platter without extorting further money from the government (see also: Oyster PAYG on NR services) is a perfect illustration of why (most) revenue risk should be assumed by the service specifier, as with TfL’s rail and bus concessions, and not with the operator, as with the barking mad national franchise system.
@IanJ – I might agree with you! (Though sometimes it’s not just the TOC who digs their heels in on revenue apportionment- TfL are quite capable of doing so if they think they, too, have a legitimate claim). The essential problem with stations like Lea Bridge (and the others you name) is whether the revenue pot is bigger with them being open. Where the revenue at the new station comes partly from diverting* existing revenue from other operators (including buses) then the fun starts.
*whether by providing an alternative for existing journeys or providing a subsitute (say to a different shopping centre)
BTW, I’d relate to you the sad story of Kenilworth but it’s out of area…
@Graham H: Yes, part of the advantage of having TfL specifying and operating all London’s rail services would be that there would be less need for negotiations with TfL over splitting Travelcard revenues etc. The money saved in lawyers and consultant could be as much as the revenue from the station itself! Diversion of revenue becomes irrelevant too.
And if passengers are voting with their feet to use a more convenient service then under TfL’s planning methodology that counts as a good thing anyway, even if it annoys TOCs who thought they “owned” the flows. It’s always amusing how self-described thrusting free-market entrepreneurs turn into entrenched defenders of their share of the pudding, while the hidebound uninnovative state does its best to grow it…
The aim for eventual passenger numbers (after 3 years?) equates to circa 13 passengers per train, any idea what actual numbers are looking like as the new opening tourism effect wares off?
ngh
I assume you mean 13 extra passengers per train – equating to 6 or 7 join/alighters per service?
Or so I interpret your meaning?
@answer=42
Unfortunately, if you correct it to “mighty Lea or Lee” it doesn’t scan so well.
@ Ngh – does your calculation factor in 4 tph with STAR services post 2018? ( we can but dream that the improved service starts then ).
Re WW,
No just current service level…
Re Greg,
Indeed 13 alighting or joining each service on average at Lea Bridge
NGH
NOT a big expectation, then.
I expect that will be taken up quite quickly, once the penny drops, especially amongst all the factories/works directly north of the station ….
Re Greg,
Exactly – set the bar as low as possible to justify then claim massive success later (especially post STAR as the numbers / train effectively halve to hit the target which is after STAR opening). It shouldn’t even need STAR though to hit targets.
My pics taken on Monday 16th.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=Search&search=Sunil060902+lea+bridge&uselang=en-gb&searchToken=1o5kp9v6aym2o6cbproa8ace8
@ngh
Abellio say they station opened on Monday on their website.
Abellio clearly work on the ecclesiastical day (which starts at sunset rather than midnight)!
Re Sunil,
If so how could this video could have been posted on Youtube on Sunday???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWgJhB5xyeA
What Abellio actually mean is the local MP and the Rail minister etc. wouldn’t turn up on Sunday which is slightly different 😉
@ngh There was also the risk that the engineering works would overrun, leading to the delay or cancellation of the first train on Sunday – a situation that would have been embarrassing for all concerned, had the official opening been scheduled then.
Went there on Tuesday and the dwell time timetabled is rather high, with the train (which arrived at Tottenham Hale a minute late) staying for about a minute, as did the northbound one that arrived a couple of minutes afterwards.
Si
Given the already-previously documented & commented upon appalling slowness & slackness of the timetable for this section, that is hardly surprising!
Now that the Lea Bridge Road station is open, what is the feasibility of creating a new station at Temple Mills with a bridge over connecting the Leyton tube station to the north end of the Olympic Park via Leyton Mills retail park? It would serve the velodrome, hockey & tennis centre as well the burgeoning residents of East Village and Chobham Manor and provide an alternative route for visitors to Stratford.
@ KG – while I broadly agree that a station in that area would have merit London has a very poor record in adding new stations to the National Rail network. TfL have added a couple because of the Overground / ELL extension and developers have added a couple more (no doubt forced via planning conditions) but otherwise the network is static despite so much dynamic activity going on around Greater London. Given it took an exceptionally long time to reopen Lea Bridge I would not hold out any hope for a Temple Mills station. The ideal opportunity was off the back of the Olympic Park development and clearly no one thought it important enough for that. You would need a monumental scale of new development in the area to possibly tip the balance and I don’t see where that will come unless Waltham Forest decide to demolish the retail park and build thousands and thousands of flats on the site. I can’t see the Spitalfields Market site being relinquished and we do have to have some level of industrial units / small business activity within London. It can’t all be demolished to make way for housing and poncy shops at street level. We do need essential, if somewhat boring, infrastructure like railway sidings, wholesale markets, fire stations, industrial estates etc for the City to function. I do sometimes wonder if this is forgotten by those [1] making “grand gestures” about “exciting” redevelopments.
[1] no one here just for the sake of clarity. Planners, developers, some politicians etc were more who I had in mind.
On District Dave I saw a suggestion of a new station between Turkey Styreet and Theobalds Grove.
As far as I recall the only new (as opposed to re-opened) station on an existing NR line in recent years was Mitcham Eastfields. I’m struggling to think of the previous one in the south east – possibly Watton-at-Stone or Arlesey (both in the Home Counties rather than Greater London)
Watton-at-Stone was opened in 1924, closed in 1939, and re-opened in 1982. Might City Thameslink (opened under a different name in 1990) qualify?
(Arlesey was also a re-opening on the original site, but arguably different as it had been completely demolished).
The Croxley Green Branch & re-opened/new stations?
And look how long that will have taken, when it re-opens ….
@Malcolm
City Thameslink is essentially Holborn Viaduct Low Level. I hadn’t realised that Arlesey and W@S were both reopenings of long-closed stations.
Winnersh Triangle? Milton Keynes Central?
Actually in Greater London, there is Eltham (arguable, as it replaced two other stations swept away by the Rochester Way Relief Road)
The basic point I clearly failed to make is that new stations are not something demanded by the public nor are they viewed as an electoral “plus” otherwise they’d be in Mayoral manifestos. We have debated several times on here how, if you apply cost / benefit analysis, you get overwhelming disbenefits because you slow down people already travelling on trains that would be required to stop at a new station. While that analysis may help inform a rounded argument I do feel that it’s used a “killer blow” by authorities who aren’t the slightest bit interested in having new stations to manage and maintain. There are plenty of examples where new stations could be beneficial but they are routinely dismissed as unnecessary or “too costly” (see CR2 endlessly).
We also seem to be “world champions” at building stations in locations so they deliberately don’t connect to stations bearing the same or similar names – Canary Wharf, Woolwich Crossrail. Yes there are lots of other integrated stops on Crossrail but also several gaps (all debated here before so don’t debate again) which shows we have a real problem in achieving / affording workable integrated solutions in all the places where there would be a benefit.
Yes, the trouble with this “new stations” discussion is the “need” to provide rigid criteria to decide whether an apparently new station does or doesn’t count as a re-incarnation of an earlier one – and also to determine exactly what “on an existing line” means (e.g. “having existed long ago”, versus “existing immediately before the station opening”).
Rather than making up rules -inevitably a bit arbitrary – on these matters, it is probably better to retreat into “it all depends”, and return to discussing other things.
@Malcolm – I would doubt that any appraisal of a completely new station takes into account whether something has previously existed on or near its site. “Moving” a station without break in service is something else, of course, although the legal advice I used to receive in relation to closures was that even a change in levels might trigger a closure – something we once considered in relation to the bay at Willesden Junc LL. Legally, of course, any previous existence is irrelevant. Closure means closure…
Graham: Closure means closure – unless it is intended to be temporary, surely? Thinking of GOBLIN electrification, among others.
But whether or not the earlier existence of a station counts legally or affects the plans for a new one, it is the kind of thing that seems deeply important to those of us (I include myself) who like to put things firmly in boxes, and who get discombobulated by fuzzy categories.
But, like it or not, the world does seem to be fuzzy.
Mitcham Eastfields was, I think, 19 months from the first pound spent on feasibility to opening. So it can be done. It did take some persuading of a few parties though.
@Malcolm – Fine: it’s very clear legally. Closure means formally closed under the 1962 Act as amended or closed at some point before that became law. If it’s not closed formally, then it remains “open” even if no trains call there , temporarily or otherwise, and the operator is obliged to provide a service (even if only an on-call taxi).
In terms of appraisal economics, it’s equally clear: the pre-existence of a station at or near the proposed site is wholly irrelevant.
So, the fact that there was once, long ago, a Lea Bridge Station is irrelevant. It closed. We appraise a possible replacement on the basis of today’s economics.
Thank you Walthamstow Writer for your informed comment.
I thought it would be an uphill struggle.
The sheer scale of development in the area is staggering, check out the link.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=132876374&postcount=1494
There is not going to much left of the Olympic Park when the East Wick and Sweetwater developments start. As for temple Mills retail park, I think its days are numbered as land prices skyrocket especially in close vicinity to the station. Look what happened to the Nissan garage on Ruckholt Road.
Billingate’s days are numbered and can’t last much longer once Crossrail opens one option mooted is to combine it with New Spitalfields Market.
Massive developments are being planned up and down the Lea Valley.
I understand that there is little incentive to build new stations. I was just enquiring if it is feasible to build a new station at Temple Mills, is there room if they take ove a bit of the bus depot do the tracks have the right alignment etc?
Adding to the London-&-nearby stations list:
Basildon – & that, too, took many years before it was built.
KG
“Right alignment” on the Lea Valley line?
First of all, something needs to be done about the (?) 20 mph (?) speed-restriction at the N end of what used to be Temple Mills Yards.
Of course the problem mentioned by WW ( “new stations slow the trains down” ) would not apply between Stratford & Tottie Hale, since the service is so desperately slow already …..
Greg,
It comes to something when I think your cynicism isn’t great enough.
Never underestimate the ability of the railway operators to make a desperately slow service even slower.
To be fair, I often find my train between Tott Hale and Stratford takes about 8 mins and *once* it did it in 6!
New NR station opening in the southeast previous to Mitcham Eastfields: Luton Airport Parkway? Not in the Home Counties (by a few hundred metres), but in the old LPTB area.
Luton Airport Parkway being another one of elephantine gestation…
Southend Airport?
Chafford Hundred? Braintree Freeport?
Does reinstating/reopening the LTS (high level) platforms at West Ham count?
@ K Gersen – I am happy to be corrected by those with the right knowledge but I thought it was contrary to modern standards to have curved platforms. Looking on Google Earth the most likely position for Temple Mills platform, to the south of the Ruckholt Rd bridge, is on a slight curve. You couldn’t build to the north without track alterations because there’s a track leading in to the Temple Mills sidings. There is some straight track further south beside the bus garage car park but that makes access from the Ruckholt End more circuitous than is perhaps ideal. Obviously you need to decide where you want the primary station access to serve – is it Ruckholt Road or is to the south and the Olympic Park? I’d suggest a simple ticket hall over the tracks adjacent to the Ruckholt Rd bridge and lifts and steps down would be the simplest arrangement but the mildly curved track is an issue if the aim is to achieve even step distances between platform and train.
I confess I was not aware of such large scale developments in the area but knew something would be happening with the confines of the Olympic Park.
@WW
Quite severely curved platforms feature at the new (resited) Rochester station, opened last December.
@WW: I typed the wording out from the Railway Group Standard (it is a locked PDF that doesn’t allow copy and paste) but my comment got swallowed. Basically platforms should be straight unless it isn’t ‘reasonably’ possible for them to be given the railway infrastructure at the location.
St Pancras International Low Level is both a) an example of a recently-built (2007) station with curved platforms, and b) perhaps the new NR station built most recently before Mitcham Eastfields (2008).
Thanks for your comments Wathamstow Writer.
I was just envisioning and station to the south end of the bus depot.
It would be a few minutes from Leyton tube and with a bridge over the station linking the platforms so both could serve the sporting facilities nearby. i now this is never likely to happen.
I take the 308 to and from work so regularly pass by. Many evenings I see teams of hockey players trudging up to Ruckholt Road bridge to get to Leyton.
The residents in East Village would like a footbridge to get to the retail park and Leyton.
With the success of Lea Bridge Road station, I was just wondering how feasible my musings were?
On a second note after reading the old ‘Horizons’ thread where there was some discussion on extending the Jubilee line, of course, a new tunnel under Stratford station would be prohibitively
expensive.
But couldn’t DLR platforms be built behind Stratford bus station or just terminate DLR trains at Stratford High Street? Jubilee line trains could then use the existing tunnel with just some track realignment.
Do I hear the soft rattle of a tin of Faeber-Castell’S finest?
Thanks for the answers re straight / curved platforms. So not out of the question to build a new station with slightly curved platforms.
@ K Gersen – Have we actually seen any data that confirms Lea Bridge station is a “success”? I haven’t seen anything that says how many people use it a day or how that relates to W Forest Council’s expectations. I imagine it has a fair number of peak time users but I’m a tad sceptical about off peak with only a half hourly service. There are well over 20 buses per hour on Lea Bridge Rd which can get you into town or to an alternative rail head with a more frequent service. When STAR commences with hopefully 4 tph then I can see Lea Bridge being a far more attractive option with a relatively easy link to Crossrail at Stratford.
The hockey players are trudging because TfL refuse to provide a bus from the Olympic Park round into the retail park / Ruckholt Rd. It’d be so easy to fix but they won’t do it. If people want footbridge links then I think that’s a different issue to building a station and potentially a bit easier to achieve. I think some clarity on what the objectives are and the problems to be fixed would help frame possible solutions. From your remarks there are multiple issues with differing time frames and scales. Not sure we can fix them here.
Kirth Gersen 29 September 2016 at 07:01
” The residents in East Village would like a footbridge to get to the retail park and Leyton.”
What’s their problem with bus 97 from Celebration Avenue, or walking via Temple Mills Lane and Leyton High Road?
@timbeau……There’s also Moulsecoomb station, near Brighton (on the line to Falmer and Lewes). Opened in 1980, it was apparently the first new station in the Southern Region since the Beeching era.
I had cause to use the line from T Hale to Stratford earlier this week – it was a mid afternoon journey so not likely to be especially busy. I was quite surprised to see a decent volume of people boarding at Tottenham Hale. Probably 30+ people. On arrival at Lea Bridge 9 people boarded s/b. 1 person was waiting for the imminent n/b train. Again slightly surprised to see 9 people – I’d have expected 1 or 2 at that time of day. On arrival at Stratford there must have been around 100 or so alighting which I thought was not bad for a lowish frequency service. There were already people waiting at Stratford despite the fact trains stand there for 20+ minutes. Wonder what it will be like when we get the 15 minute service in a few years time?
The latest edition of our council newspaper (yep we still have one) says that about 1,500 journeys are being made to / from Lea Bridge on weekdays and around 1,000 on Saturdays. No number for Sundays was quoted but there’s been a fair amount of engineering works recently. These numbers are apparently ahead of forecast for the first year. I’ve noticed mums with buggies are using Lea Bridge to get to Stratford – possibly because both stns are fully accessible.
I used the 1600 train ex Stratford yesterday and around 20 people alighted at Lea Bridge which seemed a decent number to me. The train out of Stratford was well loaded with a constant stream of people arriving for it. There were people two deep at T Hale trying to get on – there had been some disruption to services because of a trespass incident although trains were only running a few mins late (according to Realtimetrains).
WW
If (as may not be the case) Lea Bridge gets the same service as Northumberland Park,two stops down the line,it will have no trains stopping on Sunday…
@ Slugabed – Lea Bridge is supposed to have a half hourly Sunday service. In recent weeks the engineering works have varied a lot – sometimes nothing via T Hale or nothing via Clapton or nothing via Hackney Downs (blocking the route via SS). When the usual route via Clapton is shut then we get 4 tph from T Hale to Stratford but only 2 stop at Lea Bridge. Unfortunately we have a great deal of engineering work in E London at the moment meaning it can be quite a task to get around at weekends. Not a criticism because the work has to be done, just a statement.
Interesting to see that 1st year patronage at Lea Bridge is expected to be nearly 30% higher than forecast.
http://www.21stcentury-rail.com/londons-newest-station-boasts-record-patronage-levels/
Note also the reference to the need for a further stop on the line at Ruckholt Road by 2021. That’s next to no time in planning terms so it will be interesting to see how that proceeds. With the introduction of the STAR service in late 2018 patronage could rocket on this stretch of line.
WW
Seems to be part of a pattern, then?
Like the portion of the reopened Waverley route, too ….
Don’t tell DfT, though, or they’ll imagine other ways of slowing development down …
*cough*
@WW
The patronage is 30% higher than forecast, but not for 2016, rather for 2031, at 2 trains per hour….!
Make of that what you will, but clearly (TfL) forecasts can also be underestimates.
See link here in 2012 to forecasting then by TfL.
http://www.railfuture.org.uk/CLUA-JRC+Report
I used the line today between the Hale and Stratford and noted first-class-antimacassers and all – was extraordinarily well patronised. ?
Shame the replacement stock will be all second class.