Orange Invades: All Change for London’s New Overground Lines

1. “A more frequent service”
   Is going to be a real problem in some areas …
   HOW are you going to fit more trains in up & down Bethnal Green bank, actually?
   Or in to or ouit of Waterloo & the ex SER?LCDR stations, or Victoria, without major track reconstructions & building (Such as CR2?)

   The “wins” so far have been esy, on services that were neglected & semi-abandoned (as in fact the Euston_Watford service still is …. )
   Now, it’s going to just a little bit more challenging, methinks.

2. Any idea as to why the line all the way to the Hertford East terminus was not converted to Overground? Another ToC runs that service perhaps?

3. I apologise for responding in a grumpy fashion but I’m not very impressed so far. Even allowing for it being early days and not expecting any miracles I certainly didn’t expect mass cancellations yesterday. I managed to just avoid them but only by waiting until I knew a train would turn up having repeatedly checked on line! Not a “turn up and go” service at all and I didn’t dare go “roaming” to the wilds of Enfield or Cheshunt given gaps of up to an hour between trains. I asked why there were problems via Twitter – not one response. Station staff had no idea trains were cancelled because the passenger info system had been “amended” to remove some trains so they wouldn’t show as cancelled. That’s not very “transparent” or democratically engaged. I was even given the old “it’ll all be wonderful” PR line by a staff member which was wholly inappropriate when the train service is in a mess. When I’m concerned about being able to get a train home I don’t want to know about improvements due in 2-3 years. It took hours for TfL to provide an accurate status update which is not good enough. Even then it contradicted an earlier message I heard at Liverpool St although it transpires that message was wrong and the status update was right (shortage of train drivers due to Sunday working issues – reported by the BBC and a local newspaper).

   Today there have been train breakdowns, delays and short formations but no acknowledgement of any of this despite it being clear from various websites what is going on. As I say I didn’t expect new trains or even refurbed ones or sparkling refurbed stations on the first or second day. I did expect the trains to run and the staff / social media feeds to be “on the ball”. One small positive was seeing cleaning staff on several stations keeping things neat and tidy. I am sure we will get what has been promised by TfL but this is a poor start to the train service compared to the takeover from Silverlink. The attention to detail on the train service then was rather better. I understand MTR have done slightly better on the Shenfield line but there were signalling and passenger incident issues in the AM peak (probably little different from usual on that route). As I said – sorry for the grumpy reply but we need the trains to work properly rather than being feed promises of a brighter tomorrow even if that’ll be a nice thing to have when it arrives.

4. To be honest, from memory, the SilverLink takeover wasn’t exactly the smoothest either.

   I do think what both Greg and your own comments highlight is that this’ll be a different challenge for TfL. There won’t be as big a step-change as quickly here, and that’ll mean a lot of careful message, service and expectations management.

5. I attended the launch of the extended Overground this morning, which took place at Enfield Town. This was an appropriate location as Enfield Council is a strong supporter of ‘Overgroundising’ all the borough’s National Rail lines. A fully refurbished and rebranded Class 315 train was on display. The station had been extensively rebranded.

   The determination to continue with expanding the Overground, and to implant its qualities and its branding further across London, were evident from the speakers. London Mayor Boris Johnson said: “I will be urging Government colleagues to look at how the Southeastern services could operate when the franchise ends in 2018”.

   At a subsequent TfL and LOROL event, Jon Fox and Gareth Powell from TfL, and Peter Austin from LOROL also described the Overground’s strong potential. The emphasis would be on a quality, people-led railway. Hackney Interchange will soon open, said Jon Fox, and that will be another milestone.

   The Evening Standard ran an editorial in support today: http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-the-met-must-be-more-careful-with-tasers-10289331.html (ignore the detail in the link, it’s just the first comment title!). There was also an article on page 4 of the early editions.

   Several events are foreseen in the next month and a half among the London Assembly and other external stakeholders. Here are three examples:
   * The London Assembly Transport Committee is holding scrutiny hearings on 9 June: http://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=173&MId=5689 (see particularly item 9)
   * The London Assembly is also calling for evidence into devolution of London’s suburban railways, and has asked for submissions by 1 July: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/investigations/how-would-you-run-your-own-railway
   * Centre for London is hosting a rail devolution discussion on 14 July, see the attached link for information: http://centreforlondon.org/event/how-can-rail-services-be-improved-to-accommodate-londons-growth/

6. More photos from today: https://plus.google.com/+BrianButterworth/posts/P6SG7Go1Thr

   Interesting the route maps have skills orange lines in the station but outline on all the paper maps.

7. Small amend needed under the “Station Ambience” sub heading. The reference to London Underground branding should read London Overground branding.

8. @Long Branch Mike
   Believe it’s earmarked for Crossrail 2 – another one for TfL Rail, perhaps?

9. @Long Branch Mike (Welcome Nicole!)

   “Any idea as to why the line all the way to the Hertford East terminus was not converted to Overground? Another ToC runs that service perhaps?”

   The issue is that the Overground only goes outside the GLA area when necessary for the operation of a line. The take of three non-London stations is the minimum operational take.

   Hereford East isn’t London, and outside the remit of TFL in any legal definition.

10. A few of questions for debate over a beer or two:-
    1) Is it democratic for TfL to be running services beyond the Mayor’s and the London Assembly’s electoral boundary?
    2) Should the London boundary be moved out to (say) the M25 from its current position set in 1965 with some minor changes since?
    3) Are concessions better than franchises?
    4) Does TfL have the advantage of running relatively low-frequency overground services with simple service patterns compared to the much more complex operations of South Eastern and Southern?
    5) Should the London franchise be split into “inner” and “outer” services with the inner services becoming TfL concessions (as per the 2011 NERA map)?
    6) Should the service patterns be changed on the inner services to simplify operations post handover? For example the Victoria – Denmark Hill – London Bridge service changed into Clapham Jn – Denmark Hill – Highbury & Islington thus freeing up capacity in both termini.
    7) Would Snow Hill tunnel be better used for TfL services than Thameslink?

11. @Richie – and how many beers is that?

12. @Richie, Briantist, Alfie

    The map entitled

    “Northeast London routes proposed in the Mayor’s Rail vision for devolution to the Mayor of London and TfL. The routes to Chingford, Cheshunt and Enfield have now joined London Overground (Greater London Authority, 2012)”

    shows in yellow line the “Mayor’s Wider London boundary”, which has me confused. Is this “Wider London boundary” a legal and actual demarcation, or merely the Mayor’s aspirational encroachment on and possible annexation of the suburbs?

13. How big will overground get before it needs multiple colours?

14. TfL’s approach to its new network is quite different to when it launched the Overground. Then it made clear that no old stock would receive the new livery. Stations received Overground branded signs but they were marked as temporary. The tube-style enamel signs with station name in the crossbar of the roundel only appeared once the station had been brought up to an acceptable standard – often this meant refurbishment and remodelling, unsightly cables tidied up, screens replaced, signs repositioned etc. I wonder if there’s the money to do that this time around.

    Does anyone know if Overground has put posters up inside trains informing customers that they will be replaced soon-ish?

15. I started off feeling a bit sceptical about this article. It all seemed so terribly positive. However, there are some really nice touches that we are not used to here on LR, that is some almost ‘real-time’ photos showing front-line staff putting in the effort to ensure that the transformation happens in a reasonably slick manner. An intro to the new(?) author would be nice.

    WW’s experience shows that the lesson must be learnt that, during disruptions, passengers always need real information to help them NOW. The ‘better times are on the way’ message smacks entirely of politician-speak (I have been deeply annoyed by two examples on radio 4 in the last few days), and the PR gurus need to understand immediately that the reason politicians are held in contempt is that they almost never answer a question about a current problem and go on and on about unsubstantiated ‘jam tomorrow’. Train staff must never fall into that trap. Just help the passenger in front of you get to where he/she wants to go with your best efforts.

    Pedantry alert: after the ‘Station Ambiance’ heading there is mention of ‘London Underground branding’. (should this be ‘Overground’?).

16. Richie

    (1) councils often cooperate over borders. It’s as democratic as we seem to want in England at this time!

    (2) No. The M25 is a buteched together Ringway 3 and Ringway 4 and isn’t an ideal border.

    (3) seems so;

    (4) not really. Look at the Sub Surface Lines on the underground and they’re not really “easy to do”

    (5) what franchise are you meaning?

    (6) makes no sense if you want to go to a terminus!

    (7) no.

17. It’s disappointing that as of yet TfL have given no indication of reinstating ‘the curve’ linking the new Overground lines; from Chingford and joining the Stratford/Cheshunt line at Clapton Marshes. The embankment remains, but the rails were removed many years ago. This would provide a direct link from NE London to E London, Crossrail, National Rail into Essex, and Stratford International, without the need to travel via Liverpool Street. Additional services could be added to the Chingford timetable, effectively doubling the current timetable, by using the quiet Lea Bridge line, which the congested Clapton to London line will not allow.

18. @LBM – the transfer of services beyond theGLA boundary is simply a piece of pragmatism to avoid “Passport to Pimlico”problems, rather than something of legal significance. TfL’s powers derive from the LRT Act 1984 which sets out the duty of LRT, as it then was:

    “(1)It shall be the general duty of London Regional Transport, in accordance with principles from time to time approved by the Secretary of State and [F1(if and to the extent that the Railways Board continues to be under a duty by virtue of section 3 of the M1Transport Act 1962 to provide railway services in Greater London)] in conjunction with the Railways Board, to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services for Greater London.”

    Ignoring the references to BR, the wording of the statute gives LRT and then TfL licence to provide services on any geographical basis they choose, provided they are *for* London (and so,not merely *in* London).Thus, the Scottish sleepers would be fair game, but it would be difficult to find a legal basis for TfL intervention in, say, the Heart of Wales line.

    To answer Richie’s first and second points, Ministers took the view in 1984 that LRT had a legitimate interest in services that brought people into the capital for work and leisure and it’s difficult to disagree with that.Although there is a case for London annexing the continuous adjoining parts of the conurbation such as Staines and Epsom, that would not get rid of the problem of cross-boundary services; it would merely move the problem further out… [These days,with commuting from Grantham and Newark on a daily basis, there is a case may be for moving the TfL boundary out to York and Bristol but as Richie rightly implies, but doesn’t say, whether London ratepayers would be content to see their funds used in that way is another kettle of aardvarks altogether,as those of us who spent their time trying to persuade Essex to contribute to the Central Line and bus routes 20 and 254 ,knew].

19. @Anonymous 1 June 2015 at 21:00
    “It’s disappointing that as of yet TfL have given no indication of reinstating ‘the curve’ linking the new Overground lines;”

    I thought that had: the answer is “no”. It is an interesting historical item but wasn’t in the London 2050 Plans and didn’t fit with Crossrail 2 or any other scheme. It not planned in the recent long-term review of the routes in the National Rail either.

    Basically, it’s gone.

20. Taking things in reverse order
    @Anon
    “reinstating ‘the curve’ linking the new Overground lines; from Chingford and joining the Stratford/Cheshunt line at Clapton Marshes.”
    Not the highest priority – capacity at Stratford is limited anyway and connections between the Chingford line and Stratford are soon going to be available at Hackney. If there was capacity on The Chingford line it might be better used improving frequency into Lpool St

    @leon
    “How big will overground get before it needs multiple colours?”
    Many of us think it is already well past that point

    @Richie
    “A few of questions for debate over a beer or two:-
    1) Is it democratic for TfL to be running services beyond the Mayor’s and the London Assembly’s electoral boundary?
    No less democratic than the Dutch Railways who were running it before! It’s practical. Similarly there are stations in England such as Leominster, served by trains paid for by the Welsh Assembly TfL, and London Transport before it, have always run beyond the GL boundary
    2) Should the London boundary be moved out to (say) the M25 from its current position set in 1965 with some minor changes since?
    Maybe, but not a priority and politically difficult – the areas near TfL stations and/or the M25 tend to have the highest rateable values!
    3) Are concessions better than franchises?
    Yes
    4) Does TfL have the advantage of running relatively low-frequency overground services with simple service patterns compared to the much more complex operations of South Eastern and Southern?
    The ELL section is quite complicated
    5) Should the London franchise be split into “inner” and “outer” services with the inner services becoming TfL concessions (as per the 2011 NERA map)?
    What London franchise?
    7) Would Snow Hill tunnel be better used for TfL services than Thameslink?”
    Shouldn’t matter – but it should be on the TfL map

    @Briantist
    “Hereford East isn’t London”
    Hereford is more likely to see an Arriva Trains Wales train than a TfL one – but I think you meant Hertford!

21. Whilst I think it is all a good step in the right direction, apologies if I am missing something really obvious but am I right in thinking that you can’t get a direct train from say Cambridge Heath to Chingford? If so, is the line diagram somewhat misleading and are there any other examples on the TfL network that show a single coloured line linking two stations but there is no direct service?

22. @Anonymous 1 June 2015 at 21:40
    ” are there any other examples on the TfL network that show a single coloured line linking two stations but there is no direct service?”

    Metropolitan line has non-stopping services not shown on the big map.

23. Sorry – typo in my question (6) – should have been:-
    Should the (current) London franchises (e.g. South Eastern, Southern, SWT etc) be split into “inner” and “outer” services with the inner services becoming TfL concessions (as per the 2011 NERA map)? For example, Vauxhall would have 4 tracks for SWT and 4 for TfL services.

24. “1) Is it democratic for TfL to be running services beyond the Mayor’s and the London Assembly’s electoral boundary?”

    Fair question, but TfL already provides services beyond that electoral boundary. Chigwell, Loughton, Epping, Watford Junction, Watford (Met), Rickmansworth, Chesham and Amersham all lie outside Greater London.

25. I changed my way home today so I could take in Stratford to Romford and then made a rare trip on Romford to Upminster line a (I usually travel from Upminster to Romford by bus .) and service was provided by a 4 carriage class 317 with orange grab poles and by chance I had more staff than passengers in carriage. They seemed amazed when on arrival at Emerson Park it had new orange name board on platform and even photographed it !

    While at Upminster I saw how Romford train uses only platform at station without lift access which I guess is because service was not expected to last much longer when lifts were installed ? Hopefully this will be rectified given how impotent an interchange line this little route really is….!

    As for expansion of Overground beyond London well if those ” up north” can have Rail North then perhaps Chris Green image of Network Southeast as waiting for re-birth could be realised with perhaps a board consisting of London Mayor and representatives of Home Counties thus dealing with the Hertford East/ North problem.

    As for expansion of Overground well so far TFL has inherited routes that either nobody wanted or had been neglected but what of regions like South West Trains where investment has been made ?

    When interviewed today Boris was asked how he justified reversing privatisation and replied that while TFL control the lines they are run by private operator LOROL as a concession . So could the solution be to let TFL award rail concessions in place of DFT franchises for London so SWT would become a TFL Concession which Stagecoach could still run ?

    Wonder how many shades Orange comes in ?

26. @ Anon 2140 – correct. There are no direct trains from Chingford to Cambridge Heath. You change at Hackney Downs and have a 14 minute connection! The map design, even on line car diagrams, is poor given TfL have the long established precedent of showing fast and stopping services as separate lines on line car diagrams (e.g, Met Line). Hopefully TfL will be wise enough to amend these Overground diagrams in time. They have said there is no prospect of making Chingford trains stop at Cambridge Heath or London Fields because there isn’t the track capacity. Also it’s clear from Twitter comments last week that Chingford Line users won’t like a slower journey with extra stops.

    @ JB – well I have no illusions about the task TfL face in turning round West Anglia nor in fostering and maintaining excellent relationships with Network Rail and Abellio Greater Anglia. The latter will be essential during times of disruption as well as for delivering an excellent service day in, day out. I agree that expectations need to be managed but based on reactions on Twitter today (even with the all the health warnings about that) there were people clearly expecting something different with Overground and TfL Rail. They feel they haven’t got it so the hopes of some are already dashed. Not the best of starts despite the care taken not to oversell things.

    @ Fandroid – I think you have “hit the nail on the head” with your PR guru remark. Going back to my discussion with the member of staff yesterday they were very pleasant and clearly keen to help. However they didn’t “get” the fundamental issue which was that the service was borked. I don’t know if they were brand new to the job but it felt like they’d swallowed the training course material but were not informed about the train service. After a couple of minutes of getting nowhere in terms of clear answers I confess I was getting rather irritated – and it’s very like your remark about politicians not answering the question. It felt like the staff member didn’t have the answers but was afraid to say “sorry I don’t know” even though that is valid reply when coupled with “but I will find out for you”.

    @ J Roberts – I am already writing my submission to the Transport Committee’s investigation into commuter rail services in London. 😉

    @ Briantist / LBM – there is definitely a role for the Mayor in transport services which cross the Greater London boundary. As mentioned in another reply there is a “wider area” defined in which the Mayor can make increments or decrements to franchised rail services. I believe that is a legally defined right that the Mayor holds. It is mentioned in the Mayor’s Rail Vision dated 2012.

27. Richie, LBM, et al – the “Mayor’s Wider London Boundary” was an attempted land-grab by Boris a while back to claim that ‘London’ should include much of the home counties.

    Now you and I might think that – in transport terms – this would be no bad thing. The relevant shire councils however felt otherwise and made it clear they weren’t having any of it!

    Daft might get involved at some later date though *iff* this latest expansion is successful at delivering on the promises made. Given it is a whole level of difficulty above previous LO transfers though this is not an easy call. CR2 will also create questions at some point (and beg a re-inspection of how TL should be operated)

28. We really need some new colours; or perhaps we could re-use some existing ones. The sub-surface lines are confusing enough for tourists and new Londoners, but the single orange monochrome really takes the biscuit.

29. So how much more is it costing TfL than Abellio to provide these services with greater staffing costs and lower fares? And is the cost increase paid for by the Treasury or by London ratepayers alone?

30. Re: request for information about the author.

    See, for example: https://lsecities.net/about/whos-who/centre-staff/
    and ‘find in page’.

    I look forward to more contributions.

31. Oh well here goes – with only a cup of coffee to hand.

    1) Is it democratic for TfL to be running services beyond the Mayor’s and the London Assembly’s electoral boundary?

    Doesn’t really matter given LT / TfL have operated bus and rail services across administrative boundaries for decades and continue to do so. I don’t see many moans from people in Staines or Epsom about TfL buses – the buses are usually packed full. Ditto for the tube to Epping or Amersham. While Herts CC may have their nose out of joint about TfL taking over construction of the Croxley Link they weren’t going to “die in a ditch” over that issue because they want a new tube line!

    2) Should the London boundary be moved out to (say) the M25 from its current position set in 1965 with some minor changes since?

    Not an important issue really. You always have to draw a line somewhere and there will always be arguments and issues about it.

    3) Are concessions better than franchises?

    To date concessions seem more appropriate for London area suburban rail services. This is largely because their use has been linked to a high quality specification and committed investment. I think the “better” aspect stretches well beyond a form of contract. If TfL were to be come impoverised then it’s plausible that the quality might be unaffordable and the investment would stop. We have been here before in LT days albeit with a smaller scope of responsibility for services. Ditto with BR which was starved of funding over many years.

    4) Does TfL have the advantage of running relatively low-frequency overground services with simple service patterns compared to the much more complex operations of South Eastern and Southern?

    TfL aren’t running the services. A separate rail operator does. TfL are constrained by funding, Network Rail, track access agreements etc. TfL spend money where they have the most control. We can see that life can become extremely difficult when other operators share the tracks (e.g . Goblin electrification and who pays for / benefits from the electrification). TfL does what it can on NR but it’s not in ultimate control as it is with DLR and Underground.

    5) Should the London franchise be split into “inner” and “outer” services with the inner services becoming TfL concessions (as per the 2011 NERA map)?

    I think you run in to definitional problems on some lines. In all seriousness what is there for TfL to take over on Chiltern? Yes people moan about the poor service through Wembley, Sudbury and the Ruislips but are TfL really going to fork out tens of millions on extra tracks and signalling just to run a half hourly stopping service at best given the constraints at Marylebone? I simply don’t see the case for this. I also think there are real issues with separating out Thameslink services between “locals” and “longer distance” services. I’m also not convinced that C2C needs hacking about either given their generally good performance levels and plans for an intensive metro style service. The obvious franchises to look at are the ones TfL aspire to take over – bits of South Eastern, TSGN and SWT. I think that’s fair enough but the politics needs sorting.

    6) Should the service patterns be changed on the inner services to simplify operations post handover? For example the Victoria – Denmark Hill – London Bridge service changed into Clapham Jn – Denmark Hill – Highbury & Islington thus freeing up capacity in both termini.

    I’m not knowledgeable enough about the detail to start hacking services about. What does seem evident from the many hundreds of comments here over the months is that you can’t simplify service patterns if you don’t do something very radical about stations, interchanges, frequencies, train capacities and passenger information / disruption management. They are all big issues in and of themselves never mind in combination. Also beware the “upset the commuter” issue – people hate having *their* train mucked about with. You’ll have that issue in spades south of the Thames.

    7) Would Snow Hill tunnel be better used for TfL services than Thameslink?

    No idea. I would much prefer that all the project works reach a satisfactory completion on time and to specification, the new trains get into service and TSGN are given a decent chance to run the service. I am fearful that we have massive issues to get through to achieve the transformation of Thameslink services and much could go wrong between now and then. If TSGN are unable to demonstrate competence in running the expanded Thameslink service then perhaps that will be the time to consider other options. However I think the DfT would strongly resist dilution of the Thameslink element of the franchise given it is profitable so why would they hand over a big slice of revenue to TfL and reduce the potential for premium payments?

    I really think the devolution issue should be framed by practicalities and informed by railway geography rather than being viewed as some sort of new “religion” that must be believed in. Passengers should get the solution that gives them the best service overall and defining that is extremely difficult.

    The TfL approach to rail operation is not without its issues and disbenefits. One example is the way the existence of a “national network” or even adjacent operators is denied and then wiped away as part of the rebranding. I’ve never understood that logic given Overground is part of the National Rail network not that you’d ever know! All the “anglia” maps were covered over / removed from the trains I used yesterday into Liverpool Street with no replacement maps in place. Has the railway now moved into another time / spatial dimension?

32. The concept of the “mayor’s wider London boundary” seems to have originated with the 2006 proposal to give the mayor statutory PTE-like powers over inner suburban services – see the consultation paper here:
    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2006/cpmplb/ultationonproposalsforth1261.pdf

    This obviously required defining what inner suburban services were – note that Cheshunt was listed as preferred boundary, with Hertford East as an option only.

    I think the full proposals were filed in the too hard basket but the current takeover of West Anglia inners is an outcome of the same process.

    Doesn’t the M25 already form the London-Herts boundary in this area anyway?

33. @ Man of Kent: TfL receives revenue from the farepayer and general taxation. Others will know better than me whether the GLA precept, levied on Londoners, funds TfL and if so to what extent.

    I suspect it will be non-trivial to disentangle accurate answers to your questions from the published financial accounts of TfL, GLA and the former franchisee. I seem to hear echoes of the London Borough of Bromley’s challenge to the radical reform of London Transport fares in the early 1980’s in your questions for some reason.

    Perhaps you can remind us what the rest of the UK contributed to HS1 and the “Javelin” train service between Kent and London?

34. @ Man of Kent – the transfer of West Anglia is done on the basis of no financial support from the DfT (not explicity referred to in the paper below but I’m sure I’ve read it somewhere). Transfer details were set out in a TfL Board Paper.

    https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/board-20141210-part-1-item09-west-anglia-transfer.pdf

    It also states that TfL bear any extra costs as a result of higher service standards. It also covers DfT and AGA’s costs associated with devolution up to May 2015 (see section 7 of the above paper). The detailed costs have not been disclosed.

35. And are former GA drivers now required to drive very slowly and have enormous dwell times at every stop even if nobody is getting on or off as on the trains from the East London Line do? Yours slightly facetiously.

36. @ Anon 2337. The GLA precept is £6m per annum and has been unchanged for years. It hardly funds anything.

    TfL publish the Funding Letters they receive from Government. The two most relevant ones are from 2010 (Spending Review) and 2013 (changes to funding sources). If you want a laugh (or perhaps a cry) read the list of deliverables in the 2010 letter and see when the prototype Bakerloo Line replacement train was due!

    https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/spending-review-2010-funding-agreement-letter.pdf
    https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/letter-from-government-in-relation-to-gla-transport-grant-april-2013.pdf

    There will be a spending review this year and TfL’s general grant settlement has to be updated from next year. Capital grant is fixed through to 2020. The General Grant settlement will be crucial and the next Mayor may find themselves hobbled by whatever is bequeathed them under that settlement as they will have no say over its setting. We have to hope Boris fights a good fight to get a good settlement despite him leaving office next May.

37. “With the takeover of the West Anglia franchise”

    A small part of surely?

    Shame there’s no map of the routes actually taken over. Reading the text and viewing the early route map (the one with all the purple lines), you’d possibly think LO were running all the trains to Cheshunt, but of course they aren’t, as AGA still operate through Tottenham Hale…

38. Re Leon and Timbeau
    How much orange???

    “How big will overground get before it needs multiple colours?” & “Many of us think it is already well past that point”

    The maximum contrast sensitivity of the human eye is in the orange hue around 570nm* which makes orange the ideal colour to start playing with patterns (like the black and white tube maps) https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/bw-large-print-map.pdf
    About half those patterns would be workable with orange as would lots of others.

    * Hence BR’s choice of orange hi-vis and orange indicators on cars etc.

39. There are some simple lessons LOROL/MTR and TfL can learn from adding these commuter lines.

    A simple thing of adding train cancellations to the London Overground and TfL Rail Twitter accounts will go a long way to providing the same level of service on Twitter that AGA provided to those customers until Saturday.

    Those passengers unlike those on the ELL and to a slightly lesser extent on the NLL/WLL don’t have nowhere as near the same type of turn-up and go service. so still use the traditional train timetable to go by when planning their journey.

    It of course won’t resolve the issues around driver walkouts on Sunday or the infrastructure, yet if the customers feel they’re at least being listened to, it’l go a long way in selling the TfL model to the general public on those mainline commuter routes.

40. The MIP lifts at Upminster made use of the old goods lift shafts put in when the station was rebuilt by the LMS c1932. When the LTSR line was electrified 30 years later a new platform 6 for the diesel Romford shuttle trains was provided. As the parcels service was well in decline by then no goods lift was included.

41. I didn’t see any Overground, but I did notice “TfL Rail” services being announced as I passed through Liverpool Street yesterday evening.

    > are there any other examples on the TfL network that show a single coloured line linking two stations but there is no direct service?

    Yes, this is quite common on the DLR.

42. A rather odd piece that almost reads like a TfL press release and doesn’t have the usual measured tone of a LR article.

    One noticeable step backwards already has been Twitter – TfL are refusing to provide train specific alerts (cancellations/short forms etc), which even the hapless Greater Anglia were able to do. Same story on TfL Rail.

43. Interesting point about efficient use of Snow Hill tunnel. I regularly use TL to get right across London from KGX/STP (I live on the GN) to to the south (most often the Brighton Main Line) because it’s more pleasant the the Victoria Line. However few others seem to do it, and the National Rail Pannner seems to favour the tube. The peak workings almost empty out by the time they reach Blackfriars (will Crossrail siphon even more off at Farringdon?). A fair few get in at LBG but they could just as easily use a terminating working. Interestingly the Sutton loop services carry a higher loading through the core, and they are much more akin to LOROL services. Food for thought!

44. A search on LinkedIn threw up:

    Nicole Badstuber
    Researcher on LSE Cities’ New Urban Governance project & Research Officer on the Future of Cities Foresight
    https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9820882

    With a some rail related references. Seems a good fit?

    Am I right Nicole?

45. 1) Is it democratic for TfL to be running services beyond the Mayor’s and the London Assembly’s electoral boundary?

    2) Should the London boundary be moved out to (say) the M25 from its current position set in 1965 with some minor changes since?

    Actually the current Greater London boundary is pretty close to the M25 and, indeed, extends beyond it in one or two places. What’s more important is that the current Greater London boundary broadly aligns with green belt (pace Watford and Epsom) and green belt does mark a very significant change in development patterns. Inside greenbelt is continuously built up area while outside is distinct settlements. It’s no coincidence, therefore, that the inner suburban services broadly (again pace one or two exceptions) terminate at green belt. Watford, Slough, Dartford, Hampton Court and Caterham are all good examples.

    It is logical that the continuously built up area merits quite different types of rail service from the more commuter driven radial services which will dominate areas beyond. Therefore this does make a good boundary. The NERA map, to my mind, goes too far by including Windsor, Woking and Guildford.

46. LBM
    Because DfT refused to let TfL have it, even though Tfl Wanted & still want that service.

    WW
    Yes, well – it’s the old immediate post-Privatisation problem reviving itself, in fact: THAT is someone else’s railway, guv, so not our problem & we don’t care”.
    You were not the only one – the Boss was seriously in a bad mood by the time she got home!

    JR
    The London Assembly’s hearing on Devolution or London’s Railways will be interesting.
    Do you think Bromley & Kent will boycott the meeting? ( /snark? )

    Richie
    Q1) So TfL should be forced to divest anything beyond Moor Park on the Met, & Woodford on the Central lines – according to your logic, if I’m interpreting you correctly?
    I think not.
    Also, please remember or look up the LPTB (etc) in former years, & the legal arrangements that underpin the current arrangements.
    Q2) Don’t go there!
    Q3) YES ( On the available evidence, anyway. )
    Q4) NO. I suggest you look at the pattern of services through The Thames Tunnel!
    Q5) No. Why make it more complicated? ( Ever heard of “KISS” ? )
    Q6) Been discussed here many times. Probably not, but ….
    Q7) Maybe, but too late now.
    [ See also Braintist’s & timbeau’s & WW’s answers ]

    Leon
    Right now!

    Isambard
    That’s because of the oft-commented ( & moaned about ) deliberate omission of Kentish Town – Elephant & Castle from the “tube” map, even though Oyster is fully valid there.
    Someone else’s railway” – again.

47. Re Overground Commuter & Malc,

    Twitter – they are probably worried about automated twitter statistics gathering and it being used against them and in some ways are copying the Southern playbook where they stopped trying to announce issues* with services (coincided with the merger of the TSGN and SN twitter team). The degradation in standard of twitter service appears about as popular with new LO users as it was with SN. It will be interesting to see if TfL and LOROL change on this especially as passengers will have lost the use of journey check (SN don’t have it either hence they attract more ire on twitter because of their change in policy).

    http://www.journeycheck.com/greateranglia

    * Overground saying a good service is operating when lots services are delayed at ppm levels / cancelled etc. is a very good way to write off credibility and this could take along time (and lots of money) to rebuild.

48. @Anonymous 1 June 2015 at 22:13
    “TfL already provides services beyond that electoral boundary. Chigwell, Loughton, Epping, Watford Junction, Watford (Met), Rickmansworth, Chesham and Amersham all lie outside Greater London.”

    Not just them, but Grange Hill, Chigwell, Roding Valley, Buckhurst Hill, Loughton, Debden and Theydon Bois, Epping on the Central Line as well as everything from Moor Park on the Met, Carpenders Park on the Overground and now Brentwood and Shenfield on TFL-Rail too.

49. Isambard,

    That is the correct Nicole Badstuber. I suspect that someone with a French forename and a Germanic last name writing an article on London’s rail services is unlikely to have a problem of being mistaken for someone else of the same name.

    Malc,

    Subject to trying to write an even-handed article, we try to allow a writer’s one personality to shine through. Some of us may write in a sceptical tone but it is not a requirement to follow this. We also aim to have a broad spectrum ranging from the whimsical to the detailed in depth analysis of Jonathan Roberts.

    In this case it was an appropriate piece with plenty of photos to cover the first weekday service of the London Overground to and from Liverpool Street. If you want the in depth analysis on London Overground then John Bull has already written plenty on that. The piece appears to be largely based on her academic work in the past. Just because it repeats stuff that TfL spews out doesn’t mean it isn’t true!

    I for one welcome articles such as these. If nothing else it means I don’t feel so guilty when writing a heavy-going article without pictures by way of a contrast. I also hope it would encourage people to realise that a basic factual topical article with pictures and a few diagrams would be welcomed from anyone. You don’t have to get bogged down with loads of analysis if you don’t want to. You don’t even have to write that much. You would be surprised by how much bigger it gets (and more consistent with our style) by the time the editor has finished with it.

50. Re Isambard,

    Efficient use of Snow Hill tunnel – I suspect TL loadings through the core will change radically in 2018…
    The East Croydon – Blackfriars journey time will also drop by about 10 mins (quicker route via London Bridge again) and there will be direct services or improved connectivity (instead of change at KGX and long walk) to the GN network so the journey planner results will change.
    Like crossrail I think a single operator thought the TL core is essential to make to work correctly.

    Further LO takeovers:
    Some TOC passengers are happier about their services than others and some infrastructure has more low hanging fruit to allow capacity or service level improvements. In my view passengers would see a far bigger improvement with an SE metro take over than an SWT metro take over. (Lots of new or additional stock on SE metro and the Waterloo platform rebuilds in the next few years which will increase capacity etc.) So SWT Metro might only happen (SWML Metro only?) when CR2 comes around.

    NERA boundaries – fairly sensible as they are linked to actual infrastructure on the ground and established services / passenger flows. For Example cutting back to Weybridge instead of Woking doesn’t make sense from user point of view.

51. I’m interested to see what happens on the via Seven Sisters line when planned/emergency closures affect the West Anglia mainline between Hackney and Cheshunt (which are frequent). Previously, AGA would cancel most stopping services via SS and then route the Stansted Express that way, preventing the airport from being cut off. Will TfL allow the same practice? This would also be an issue on other routes TfL aspire to take over, such as the Hertford loop. Londoners benefit from Overgroundisation, but does it not reduce the flexibility of the wider rail network?

52. How big (and when) will LO/TfL be, before it becomes Network South East (which showed Exeter on its network maps) reincarnated?

53. @ngh I doubt there’s anything you could scrape from Twitter that isn’t already freely and publicly available through NR Open Data, except possibly short-forms. For example http://www.recenttraintimes.co.uk has comprehensive statistics on delays.

    As for Twitter analysis, have you seen http://www.commutelondon.com?

    TfL need to realise that the requirements for live information ona 4tph raik service are very different from a 30tph tube line. It’s simply not good enough to say “we don’t do live Twitter updates because the staff at the station can help you” when a cancellation means waiting at the station for half an hour.

54. Re: Twitter announcements – my experience of the Thameslink Twitter feed is that cancellation/service updates were next to useless. It might speak more about the bad times on Thameslink ~18 months ago, but scrolling through hundreds and hundreds of repeated messages about trains I had no interest in was incredibly annoying. I unfollowed fairly swiftly.

    (Thankfully the new Thameslink App is moderately good, although the trains themselves have a horrible habit of being on time when I leave work and then many minutes late by the time I reach the station.)

    The TfL Twitter feeds were a bit better, mainly due to their restraint. However I still find checking the Status Update on the TfL website suits my information gathering needs the best.

55. Given that Enfield Town gets 4 trains an hour during Mon-Fri peak hours, what was the barrier to doing that daily from 31st May 2015?

    With all the re-branding, why not take the opportunity to differentiate between the two Bethnal Green stations?

56. @Isambard – I wasn’t going to (further) pollute this article with TL discussions, but I’m intrigued as to how you’ve managed to get a TL train through from Blackfriars to London Bridge any time in the last 5 months 🙂

    So, having done so – @WW: “I am fearful that we have massive issues to get through to achieve the transformation of Thameslink services” – couldn’t agree more. 24tph is going to be very hard to achieve through the core. ATO/ETCS integration hasn’t been done before, and must work to deliver that throughput. Platform dwell times are incredibly challenging.

57. @ MikeP – LOL no via Tulse Hill for last few months! Let’s wait & see…I can only say what I have repeatedly witnessed!

58. Re Anon,

    Yes I have seen those (and more) – short forms and the enviable level of complaints about any cancellation leading to negative sentiment in tweet perception was the kind of stat I was thinking about rather than ppm.

    Very much agreed on the 4 vs 30tph issue. ”
    when a cancellation means waiting at the station for half an hour.” and then missing the connection by a few minutes…

    More info on Journey Check which is used by many TOCs here:
    http://www.nexusalpha.co.uk/index.php?location=3

59. Is it just myself, but with more additions, and extensions into foreign territories, might one be justified in suspecting a bit of empire building going on? This (LO) is soon going to be a very big pond to be the king fish within.

60. @Quinlet/WW/Castlebar and others – the GLC/GLA/TfL boundary was supposed to be based on travel to work patterns and a number of interesting maps appeared as part of the Royal Commission’s report showing this (and lay behind the thinking to exclude Grays and Watford and Waltham Cross). Removing Staines was, however, a decision by Mr Gerry Mander.

    That said, that was in 1963, and travel patterns have changed out of all recognition. In 1963, arrivals in the CAZ were split roughly equally between rail, tube and trunk bus routes (and within rail, far more people commuted from within what is now the GLA boundary). Since then, we have seen the collapse of trunk bus routes as a commuting mode, the tube is maxing out, and more travel by rail from beyond the conurbation boundary. (I suspect that the balance is again on the move with the rise of LOROL).

    There’s no legal reason why there shouldn’t be a Home Counties ITA, but the scale of the thing would make it well nigh unmanageable, not least politically (inner boroughs versus outers writ large).

61. On topic and perfectly timed in relation to the LO devolution…

    DfT have announced the long list for the next Anglia Franchise:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/shortlist-for-east-anglia-franchise-announced

    The train companies shortlisted to transform rail services in East Anglia have been announced today (2 June 2015) by the government.

    Three companies are in the running for the next East Anglia rail franchise, having successfully passed the pre-qualification stage. They will work with the government to develop their proposals before receiving the invitation to tender in August.

    Bidders will be asked to show how they will improve the region’s railways, including providing reduced journey times to London, more reliable services, and better connections. They will also be expected to show how they could achieve the recommendations of the Great Eastern Main Line Taskforce, which includes reducing London to Norwich journey times to 90 minutes.

    The 3 shortlisted bidders are:

    Abellio East Anglia Limited (a joint venture between Abellio and Stagecoach*)
    First East Anglia Limited
    National Express East Anglia Trains Limited

    Rail minister Claire Perry said:

    We have ambitious plans for East Anglia’s rail network, and the successful bidder will be central to making these plans a reality. We want to find a partner who will help us meet the increasing demand for transport in the region by providing faster, more reliable journeys and better connections across the region and beyond.

    We are investing record amounts in building a world-class railway as part of our long-term economic plan, and I am determined that passengers in East Anglia will benefit.

    The new operator is due to take over the franchise in October 2016. The East Anglia franchise, which is currently operated by Abellio Greater Anglia, carries 354,000 passengers a day on 5 routes across the region.

    A public consultation on the future of rail services in East Anglia closed in March and the responses will be taken into account as the franchise proposals are developed further.

    *60% Abelio 40% stagecoach

62. @ ngh

    Yes, I’m slow, but yes, Claire Perry is the new Rail Minister

    She is MP for …..DEVIZES!!!

    I don’t think her constituency has any railways, let alone stations. (Yet)

    Now what are the odds on Crossrail etc pushing westwards?? I think the odds are now rather shorter than before.

63. Ms Perry’s appointment is one that has spanned the last Parliament and this one. She foolishly solicited comments on twitter when announcing the SouthEastern franchise extension. I’m sure you can imagine the response. Especially when the first day of the extension involved a pretty major melt-down.

64. @Castlebar
    “I don’t think her constituency has any railways, let alone stations. ”
    Pewsey and Bedwyn stations are in the constituency

    @Melvyn
    ” So could the solution be to let TFL award rail concessions in place of DFT franchises for London so SWT would become a TFL Concession which Stagecoach could still run ?”
    Only part of SWT’s operation is in London – many trains from Waterloo don’t stop until they are deep into Hampshire. And having Boris or his successors call the shots on the services in East Devon would seem less than properly accountable.
    Something on the lines of Centro’s funding of the relevant parts of London Midland’s services might work.

    @Anonymous 1 June 2015 at 21:40
    ” are there any other examples on the TfL network that show a single coloured line linking two stations but there is no direct service?”
    You’ll wait an awfully long time at West Kensington for a direct train to Notting Hill Gate!

65. The setting of the GLC boundary in 1962 was a massive exercise in geographical and political negotiation. I live 2 miles beyond it in Zone 6 and benefit from TFL quality and frequency bus/rail services without paying a halfpenny in extra council tax. Essex make a token contribution only to these services.
    The disbenefit is no freedom pass! Another benefit is no Boris…

66. Look what I found at Chingford Station.

    https://plus.google.com/+BrianButterworth/posts/9oYFM7xSdED

    The newly painted London Overground train!

67. ngh
    ARRRGGGHHH!
    I do hope neither National Express nor “First” get East Anglia, judging by previous & present performance by those companies.

68. @Paul 0040 – the TfL Board paper about the transfer correctly (IMO) refers to West Anglia Inner services. The services that have transferred are those that serve almost all of the “inside Greater London” stations on West Anglia. The clear gap is on the line via T Hale but given it’s apparently impossible to run an all stations service due to capacity constraints it would have been fairly pointless for TfL to take over services that largely run to Hertford East, Cambridge and Bishops Stortford. Until the T Hale route is 4 tracked there is little prospect of effective and frequent stopping services and we might well be talking about Crossrail 2 by then.

    @ Greg – I did wonder if the Tingey household had suffered travel woes. Seems it did. Yesterday’s PM peak looked bad due to a conked out train leaving a 48 min gap on the Chingford Line. I dread to think how ovecrowded it was.

    @ Castlebar – amazed you didn’t know about Claire Perry. As Mike P said she stupidly offered to answer tweets about the new SE Direct Award. As there was some interesting ticketing stuff in the plans I sent her a couple of tweets asking about it. I am still waiting for an acknowledgement or reply. The questions were polite and genuine because I wanted some more detail. Politicians should not make daft promises to reply to all questions via Twitter if they have no intention of so doing. She smiles very sweetly for the cameras but she’s not very popular with me because she lied.

    [Moderator’s interjection: We would like contributors to be careful about using the verb “lie” (as in telling fibs). A lie is something you know to be untrue. A promise which is not subsequently kept may be a lie, but only if you know for sure (at the time of promising) that you won’t do it. We cannot usually see into people’s minds. A rash and/or unkept promise is still bad, of course. I have left WW’s words unchanged, but would request him and others to use different wording in future. Malcolm]

    I don’t like people who tell lies, especially politicians. By contrast I will give Mr Stubbs of TfL, who does their Overground Twitter sessions, 10 out of 10 for being decent enough to answer questions and come back after the sessions and close out anything unanswered. He’s the only senior person in TfL who does this in my experience. I won’t say who else hasn’t met their published promise to respond to all Twitter questions but his compatriots could learn from his good practice. If you aren’t going to answer every question don’t make the promise!

    I think your fevered brow needs mopping about Crossrail or other trains to Devizes or thereabout. Can’t see it ever happening regardless of who is Rail Minister or which local constituency they represent.

69. @ W W, well I didn’t know about her because I take little interest in her ilk. However, in an earlier posting, GH mentioned Mr Gerry Mander in conjunction with Staines. I suspect Mr G.Mander has left Staines and moved further west along the A4/M4.

    I could say more but would be yellow carded, but the LibDems have got to find a way back into Wessex somehow, or become as extinct as the Whigs. “Promising” new stations and undeliverable rail extensions is easy

70. Re Greg,

    The flavour of the new TOC will be very much shifted to focus on longer distance and regional services and it looks certain from the draft Anglia & Interchange route studies and consultations that the philosophy is improvements rather continue as is this time. The Abellio + Stagecoach pairing might suggest that a bigger balance sheet might be required for a longer franchise (higher risk) with more investment required. (Also Stagecoach’s experience with new stock and refurbishment programmes should help).

71. @Castlebar – Whigs extinct? It’s just that we keep a lower profile these days.

72. @ Malcolm – message received and understood re posting intervention above.

73. @ W W

    Totally accept what you say re reasons for “brow mopping”

    But not only are such “promises” easy to make, (feasibility studies are even easier) but in the world of vested interests and politics, they even become useful when you can blame someone (particularly when of another political party) else for the subsequent non-delivery. Especially in those parts of the world where the 1845 Enclosures Act is fondly remembered

74. Update – via ‘phone conversation from Liverpool Street.
    It would appear that there has been a communications failure or failures plural, regarding the new services or lack of them, to say the least.
    The Boss has just reported that the Chingford & other services are all badly askew, again this evening, but, more relevant/importantly:
    1] There are announcements over the PA system regarding AGA trains, but Overgound ones “don’t exist”. Not one single announcement.
    2] Although Liverpool St is a NR-managed station, there were & still are Abellio staff visible there. As for London Overgound staff? What are they? Didn’t TfL/Overgound promise that there would be some of their staff at all stations served by their trains, during public hours?

    It would seem, at fist glance & on incomplete information that at least one of the following has occurred:
    a) The details of the hand-over & all the ramifications have not been thought out/worked through &/or written down carefully, for station ( & operating?) staff to follow.
    b) There is a low-level “turf war” in progress between the three supposedly responsible bodies (TfL/NR/AGA) as to what is or is not provided … with the passengers coming well last in the contest.
    “Someone else’s railway” maybe …..
    Oh dear.

75. @ Timbeau I accept your point re Mayor controlling say Isle of Wight line so perhaps we need to look at a Hybrid Francession whereby long distance and services outside London would operate under normal Franchise rules. But London only or those services which terminate just outside London would be under concession rules with control of Mayor and TFL re station management , fares etc with both parts provided by the same company .

    [Further off-topic discussion snipped. Malcolm]
    

76. I meant to say, when I went to Hackney Downs today, both Northbound Overground services went from Platform 4. This meant that the slow all-stops people could, after all, change to go to platform by using a train 1 minute behind.

77. @ Greg – plastic sheets wrapped round the wires at Angel Road has caused the initial problem with a tree down somewhere on the Cambridge Line. Obviously both LO and AGA services will be affected by this. On Sunday there wasn’t an apparent “turf war” at L St but obviously that’s different from a weekday peak. Not being at L St I can’t comment further about what’s happening but I can’t believe there wasn’t joint work to make sure appropriate customer care and passenger information provided to everyone who needs it. I imagine there is a lot of review work going on to ensure lessons are being learnt from each day’s service performance and customer feedback. From what you and others say there clearly is scope for improvement. This particular bit of devolution has to work for TfL so there will be immense pressure from the top down to fix problems.

78. If there wasn’t a mayoral election next year I wonder if TFL might have been better to have used the TFL Rail brand until the new stock came online and stations were refurbished. Yes the former Great Eastern and West Anglia services would be operationally different but the brand would serve as a stopgap. As for the Twitter issues: again it demonstrates the problem of one line name on a vast metro system. The Overground could have several lines with different colours and individual Twitter accounts just as the Jubilee, Central, District etc do. Sure other franchises are larger but if you follow, say Southern, and there are problems at Victoria you know it’s going to affect a large number of services on the Southern network. Issues at Liverpool St have little bearing on Richmond or West Croydon or Euston other than perhaps busier services from Stratford.

79. @Anon5

    i wonder why people want to use Twitter to find out such informatio. when the various APIs means you can get exact information from apps such as National Rail’s or the live informatuon that is integreated into Google mapping.

    i used both today and it knew about the abovementioned Platform 4 at 1050 today.

    Guving the lines complicated names won’t really help, getting people to use apps and websites with live info will.

    I love Twitter but it’s not best suited to locationn spepcific live data feeds.

80. 
    I’ve said before, and I shall repeat again now, that IMHO the simplest solution to the multiple services under the Overground is the introduction of letter codes for the different services, a la the New York Subway.

    In terms of station or onboard announcements think: “This is London Overground Service D to West Croydon”.

    Then you can keep the orange everywhere on the map and just add letters accordingly, possibly just at the termini.

    Now, I’m not familiar enough with the West Anglia routes to know whether this now scales to the recent additions, but on the surface I don’t see why not.

81. I thought that I would give London Overground to Walthamstow a try tonight.On arrival at Liverpool Street I found that the next train at 1903 was not yet showing a platform number.
    We were kept informed and told that it would soon be on its way.Suddenly we were advised of a platform change to no 7.Only problem was that it was a 4 coach train instead of an 8 coach train but we all managed to get on if a little squashed!Departure about 7 minutes late.Not bad considering the problems this evening.
    Others not so fortunate with Cambridge trains being cancelled.

82. Briantist says “Giving the lines complicated names won’t really help”

    The parts of the Overground already have complicated names. What is suggested is to give them simple ones. This is bound to help the comprehension of disruption information, whether that is distributed by Twitter or any other apps and websites.

83. @ Anon 5 – I expect / hope that TfL will amend their approach to delay and disruption reporting on the newly transferred routes. If you have problems with services that run half hourly then there is no real concept of “minor delays” if trains are cancelled. You are into enormous delays for the poor souls travelling. I also don’t understand why they seemingly won’t report on specific departures. Looking at Twitter this evening you can see people are very disappointed and are asking for the return of Greater Anglia! Worse Greater Anglia are responding to tweets better than TfL are (when both operators have been copied in). That’s poor as is the TfL person saying they have no info on specific train departures. Now it’s early days but I think there are some simple changes that could be made that might ease the problems of managing passenger information needs. The lesson needs learning now given we know that there is not much prospect of some bits of the TfL run rail network ever improving over half hourly frequencies, including Crossrail to Reading. People will time some journeys on Crossrail by advertised departure times even if you have a 24 tph service in the core. I can’t see people at Twyford comprehending “minor delays” when they waiting for the 0827 to Abbey Wood and it hasn’t turned up nor the 1728 from Tottenham Court Road to Reading being delayed but only minor delays being reported. It’s a challenge but it’s not insurmountable.

84. @ Briantist – the problem is that the TfL sources of info don’t give live running information. The facility existed with Greater Anglia but has been abandoned. I was using Real Time Trains, an independent system using NR’s data, on Sunday to make sure there was a train due at Walthamstow. I just took a chance on the return as I didn’t have a phone with me. I had intended to use Thameslink from Blackfriars South Side (where I’d been to) up to Farringdon and then across the Liverpool St but despite dashing to the station for an imminent train I got through the gates to then be greeted with a 22 minute delay. How that happens literally 2 mins before the scheduled departure I know not. Surely NR’s systems know well in advance that a train is off its allocated path and is running late? I then had to go and take a bus instead after the nice man on the gateline tried blaming the train driver for making the train 22 minutes late. 🙁 I was not exactly impressed.

    You are clearly very adept with technology but many people aren’t or can’t be bothered to faff around and prefer to rely on the systems provided at stations by the railway. Those systems have to work together with the staff whose job it is to assist the public. However the basic issue remains and that’s that the service has to be run properly and reliably so there’s no need to be forever checking if the train’s running – you just know you can rely on it so you turn up at the due time. That has long been my experience with the Chingford Line but now I’m not so confident any more and that’s the last thing I expected after TfL took over. I actually feel disappointed to even be saying that given that I trust LOROL’s performance on the rest of the Overground network.

85. It’s surely been suggested before, but the NW corner of the Overground map could helpfully be known as the You-What? line.

86. All people on asking on Twitter are simple questions such as “where is the departure 0830 from Romford?” Up until Sunday, they would have got a direct answer from the Greater Anglia twitter feed. Now they don’t. It’s not hard to see why they’re angry.

87. @Walthamstow Writer
    “the problem is that the TfL sources of info don’t give live running information. The facility existed with Greater Anglia but has been abandoned”

    I’ve looked on Google Map (works on my phone as well as a web browser) and it shows the same live status data as before (look the 0736 is cancelled!)

    http://cdn.ukfree.tv/styles/images/2015/GoogleMaps.jpg

    And here’s the National Rail app showing the same live trains running right now and the same 0736 to Cheshunt via Seven Sisters that’s cancelled

    http://cdn.ukfree.tv/styles/images/2015/national_rail_app.jpg

    I’m always using this app to find out if it’s worth going to Blackhorse Road to catch the Barking Train if I miss my direct Stratford train at Tottenham Hale.

    So, again, I’m wondering why people are even thinking of using Twitter when you can view every single Overground train live and their upcoming schedule for hours.

88. @Walthamstow Writer

    All of the “live departure boards” still work too. Here is a selection that captures the whole of the London Overground network:

    Edmonton Green [EDR]
    http://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/service/ldbboard/dep/EDR

    Others are available for Walthamstow Central [WHC], Walthamstow Queens Road [WMW], Hackney Central [HKC], Wembley Central [WMB], West Brompton [WBP] and Surrey Quays [SQE]

    [Your point about national rail information services being still available has been spelled out clearly and at length. Please leave some space for others to illustrate different aspects of a complex situation. Malcolm]
    

89. Ah well, we’ll see.
    I’m cruelly obliged to meet some people in “The Pembury” @ Hackney Downs this evening, so the service had better be running …..

90. @Graham H
    Yes a Home Counties ITA would be possible, if you could get over the political accountability issues, but even then it would distrot consideration of transport in favour of much longer distance journeys.

    TfL has recognised that the overwhelming majority of all main line rail journeys with one terminus inside London have the other inside London, too. Previously, the focus was unbalanced in favour of the longer distance journeys. These do, indeed, produce higher gross revenues through higher fares payments but they are less economic (peak hour trains can only do one trip in the peak, heavily tidal flows, etc) and, moreover, they represent a minority of the rail travellers in London.

    Longer distance rail commuting journeys to London also only represent a tiny fragment of the overall journey patterns in the Home Counties. A Home Counties ITA to address the needs of a minority of rail passengers seems to be very much the tail wagging the dog.

91. Hmmm yes! On those lines with less than 4tph ( I’m being generous) TfL need to realise that customer care has to be operated differently. Copying what the best London TOCs do would be a no-brainer. They will have to overcome the hubris attached to London Overground’s record though (it’s there for all to see in the article!)

92. Re Briantist,

    The passenger / commuter expectation appears to be for a first party run (push based ) information system with a simple summary of delays, cancellations and short forms i.e. they know the what the regular service is. If a service is running ok the passengers don’t want to know, they only want know if something isn’t happening as expected. For Tfl this may be an alien concept as it would not contain any good / positive information only negative.

    Very few passengers want to have to go looking at multiple 3rd party systems to get the information to then to crystal ball gaze when some TOCs in Greater London are capable of doing what they want and they used to have this option available to them on the route.

    NR’s mobile app is useful but doesn’t have the short form information (needs TOC for this) and isn’t filtered (or filterable) for degraded service only.

93. @Quinlet – to unnderscore your point, I was on a trip out to a meeting at a hotel on the Bath Road yesterday, and did the journey via Padders and Hayes & Harlington. I was amazed how many people were doing the 1 stop from Southall to H&H, on the poor little 2-car DMU.

94. @Quinlet – don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t necessarily advocating a Home Counties ITA, although I’m not sure you are right to say that longer distance rail passengers are a minority of all rail users – unless you include the tube in that. On the mainline network, commuting traffic is numerically dominant over intercity traffic.

    An ITA would, of course, be concerned with all modes,however, and whilst amongst public transport users in the SE, rail of all sorts is important, one tends to forget the sheer volume of suburban bus journeys made in London (and the trivial contribution of bus services outside the GLA area)- that is probably where the real imbalance would occur .

95. @ MikeP

    Is a single 2 car unit normal for that service, or were they having a bad hair day?

    Even in the very worst days of BR(W) that was always at least a 3 car, usually more and in the far off days of steam, even then it was 6 or 8 carriages. If a 2 car is ‘the norm’ for that service now, questions ought to be asked.

96. @Greg T
    Watch out! Hackney Downs’ Pembury (aka ‘Overground Ale’ rather than Overground Rail) was having its kitchen refurbished this Monday lunchtime when I checked it out after the Enfield event, so their superb pizzas weren’t available then!

97. @ Fandroid: Copying what the best London TOCs do would be a no-brainer.

    Are you implying there is a good one?

98. For a useful expounding of the issue of changed availability of online information, see the second part of today’s Diamond Geezer post.

99. @Quinelt
    “TfL has recognised that the overwhelming majority of all main line rail journeys with one terminus inside London have the other inside London, too.”
    Really? If by “main line” you mean NR (excluding LUL) I find that hard to believe. On most routes into London there are two pairs of tracks. The trains on the “fast” lines rarely stop between the GLA boundary and the terminus – first stop Shenfield, or Woking, or Reading, or Doncaster, so no-one on board is making an intra-London journey. Of course most trains on the slow lines make many calls within London, but most* of them (even two Overground routes!) penetrate the GLA boundary so are carrying at least a few out-of-towners. Given that the fast trains are often both longer and more frequent (the dwell time of stopping services putting a limit on frequency) there must, surely be more London-Home Counties travellers than intra-London ones on the NR routes.

    *Someone is going to list the exceptions, so it might as well be me: for example the Wimbledon, Hounslow, Kingston and Sidcup/Woolwich loops, the Orpington stoppers, the Chessington, Beckenham Junction, Bromley North and Castlebar branches.

100. @Southern height
     “Are you implying there is a good [London TOC]”

     Mine is not very good at running a decent service, but are very good at reporting problems – on-line if not always on-platform. Which is just as well, as they get a lot of practice.

101. Is it really the case that the “Stoke Newington” sign photographed here is permanent? Diamond Geezer reports that Enfield Town has already got its new enamel roundels, and shows a photo of vinyl stickers being used to put new station names on the old BR-style “planks”. It looks to me like Stokey has had the vinyl treatment and the roundel fairy will pay a visit at some point in the future. (ELL experience suggests that could be a year or more away though.)

     The one LO station I know that never got roundeled is Crystal Palace, where new permanent enamel BR planks were provided for reasons unknown, except for a couple of roundels where platforms were extended. Does anyone know why it was singled out in this way?

102. @Timbeau
     You quote Quinelt
     “TfL has recognised that the overwhelming majority of all main line rail journeys with one terminus inside London have the other inside London, too.”
     He refers to main line rail JOURNEYS.
     You refer to SERVICES.
     There is no chance of you agreeing that apples = oranges.

103. In regards to twitter updates, please remember that unfortunately, TfL think that it’s ok to have a single team covering all TfL tube and rail lines. They have to rely on information from control, which is why you get the typical “There is a good service…” “Really? I’ve been stuck on a train for 20 minutes” scenarios.

     Now that all Overground Control teams are based in Swiss Cottage, (ELL moved from NXG in March), I think it would be a lot more suitable for Overground to have their own team based in Swiss Cottage, who can just turn their head and ask someone “why is the 0729 late?”.

104. Surely all that is needed is for a person in LO towers to monitor Realtimetrains and report on any delays. Appalling that TfL think that this vague information is acceptable.

105. @RayK /timbeau/Quinlet – the facts of the matter are that in 1963, only just over 100 000 BR commuters into London came from beyond what became the GLC boundary, and about 250 000 travelled on BR from within that boundary. By the early ’90s, the total had become something in excess of 500 000 , with the majority of that 1/2 million coming from beyond the old GLC area, coupled with a decline in inner traffic volumes (and a noticeable intercity commuting market – perhaps 10-20 000 at that time). The evidence of recent franchise specs suggests that that trend has, if anything accelerated, fuelled, no doubt, by the surge in London house prices. I would expect LOROL to have halted and, ifanything, reversed the decline of the inners, although how much existing LOROL traffic (until Monday!) was commuting,let alone commuting into the CAZ, is unclear.

106. @RayK

     You quote Quinelt. He refers to main line rail JOURNEYS.
     You refer to SERVICES.
     There is no chance of you agreeing that apples = oranges”

     Indeed – but I was describing the journeys that use those services.

     All journeys made on services which don’t cross the border are necessarily within Greater London, but there are relatively few of these.
     On stopping services which do cross the border, there is a mix of journeys which cross the border and those that don’t. Many will be intra-London. However, this group includes not only trains which only just get out of London, such as the Shepperton or Epsom Downs line, but trains whose only outer London stop is Bromley South or East Croydon. The majority of passengers on the latter have come from further afield.
     Finally there are journeys made on services which don’t stop until they have crossed the border, are necessarily out of town. Given both the greater frequency and greater length of outer suburban and long distance trains into most termini, these must be close to the majority of actual journeys made.

107. @ Briantist – note that I very carefully said that *TfL* had turned off live train reporting. I did not say every info source had been switched off. They no longer provide specific departure info if asked via Twitter – see the Diamond Geezer blog post referenced earlier. They also do not use Journey Check which most TOCs do use. This gives you an instant view of specific trains coupled with a reason as to why there is a divergence from the planned service. It can also be customised if you register with the TOC.

     I have just checked the TfL website for “Liverpool Street Rail Station”. This is shown separately under TfL Rail and again under London Overground. There is no departure information at all for TfL Rail services. Goodness knows why. For London Overground departures are shown for a range of platforms but only showing the minutes until departure not the scheduled departure time. Most bizarrely of all every train has a destination of Liverpool Street despite the fact that that is where they are / will be not where they are going / will go. Another failure I am afraid.

     This is not rocket science to get right given the underlying NR systems are very long established and will have defined interfaces to whatever box of tricks TfL IM uses. Bizarrely it seems TfL cannot cope with any train that terminates – at Euston the destination is shown as Euston rather than Watford Junction, at Gospel Oak the GOBLIN goes to Gospel Oak not Barking. Looks like there is a more systemic problem as every terminal station I’ve looked at gets the info wrong for NR services. Cambridge Heath’s data doesn’t distinguish by platform whereas London Fields does! The NR Live Departure Boards don’t have this issue. I think someone needs to “apply some pressure” to get a substantive fix sorted out – the current set up is not a professional way of presenting information.

     You referenced non TfL sites accessible via a smartphone – presumably because that is what you are comfortable with. That’s fine but I repeat my earlier point – you’re prepared to make the personal investment to dig out these other sources and can finance a smartphone. I would argue that you are not a typical rail passenger simply because you’re clearly interested in transport and work in IT. People’s expectation now is that TfL will provide appropriate information to them via a range of channels but primarily ones that TfL itself provides. What is clear is that the channels are different as is the philosophy behind the information provision.

     Others have eloquently made the point that running trains every half an hour is simply not the same as running the Victoria Line every 2-3 mins. Customer expectations during disruption will differ because the basic service offer is different. No one will ever convince me that you can treat the Enfield Line service in the same way as the Jubilee Line when it comes to reporting problems. If I use the Chingford Line I know the times it runs so I aim for a specific train. If I use the tube then I arrive on the platform with the expectation that my average wait time will be 90 seconds or less. Obviously I do not aim for a specific tube departure *unless* I am travelling very early when intervals can be much longer and I am making a connection to an airport or to catch a particular train to somewhere (where the frequency may only be hourly). In that sort of instance you need reassurance that you can comfortably make the connection and not have your plans ruined. You also need appropriate information if the service has problems. IME the station staff at my end of the Vic Line will advise how long it is until the next departure if there are delays – they will look at Trackernet and see where the next train is and give an estimate. I think the departure boards are also more capable these days because of the new signalling and control system. That wasn’t the case before the upgrade hence the announcements.

     I don’t think we are going to agree because our individual expectations are different. I think yours align rather better with TfL’s view of life while I’m a tedious old traditionalist who likes specific details when they’re appropriate. That’s why I hate TfL’s abandonment of traditional bus timetables as well as their refusal to show every scheduled departure on stop specific bus timetables. If the Dutch and Germans can do it why not London? Showing intervals is meaningless. Anyway time to stop before I blow a gasket. 😉

108. Re WW

     I’m a tedious old traditionalist who likes specific details when they’re appropriate. That’s why I hate TfL’s abandonment of traditional bus timetables as well as their refusal to show every scheduled departure on stop specific bus timetables. If the Dutch and Germans can do it why not London? Showing intervals is meaningless.

     Plenty of the young very Tech & IT literate generation agree with you even if we do use all of Briantist methods (and more) it doesn’t mean we should have to go to all that (extra) effort.

     Intervals – much easier not to be seen to not run on time that way;-)

109. ngh says “Intervals – much easier not to be seen to not run on time that way;-)”

     I note the wink. Of course, somewhere around 8 tph the concept of “on time” becomes pointless. A 5-min interval service (on a plain line with no short turning scheduled) running consistently 5 minutes late is indistinguishable (to the passenger) from one running to exact time. (Modulo some edge-effects, while the service is getting delayed or getting put back together to get the crews home).

     But agreed, when one or more of my brackets does not apply, “intervals” can be a way of covering up poor performance which may nonetheless matter to some passengers.

110. I see that, as usual, the tone of both article and comments is firmly if not entirely slanted on the idea that Overground should take over all the awful TOCs and make it better. Reminds me of that Adonis piece in the Standard a while ago, which I very nearly(!) actually bothered writing in response to, begging for TfL to turn the whole of the south london rail map orange.

     This baffles me slightly, if I want to go from Clapham Junction to Waterloo I have a train every 2 or 3 minutes. Furthermore it’s a train I can sit in a normal direction, and go at a reasonable speed. On the other hand if I want to go to Clapham High Street I have a train every 15, sitting sideways if at all, and it crawls at 10mph. I’ve “done the math” by doing the journey both ways (Overground, vs SWT to Vauxhall, Vic to Stockwell, Northern to Clap North), and basically, IF I am arriving at CLJ at exactly the right time it might be slightly quicker on the Overground, but generally it’s not. If there’s not one leaving for 10 minutes, well, by the time it leaves you’d be at Stockwell already. 4tph might be “turn up and go” in TfL’s book of definitions, but it’s certainly not in mine. In the other direction it’s even worse, because (due to conflicts with southern services into Vic, I think), it is always, ALWAYS late, meaning even if you do check that the time is such it’ll be quicker than the tube changes… oops… The xx:42 pulls in at xx:47, and now it’s not. The thought of SWT services being downgraded to Overground standards is not something I would welcome at all.

     I think the commenter(s) above who mentioned some management of expectations needed as future Overgroundifications will not see the rapid magic wand improvement as Silverlink, was spot on. Silverlink was awful, the only way was up, it seems a recieved wisdom that all TOCs are this bad but not in my experience. Of course SWT have their problems but most of the time these seems to be Network Rail issues or ‘passenger actions’, which TfL are no more magically able to deal with than any other TOC.

111. @stevekeiretsu

     That is the exact problem I have with the Overground. Travelling between Clapham High Street and Surrey Quays yesterday, I got the feeling TfL bit off more than they could chew with the Overground. At Clapham, after waiting 10 minuites, the train came standing. At Denmark Hill and Peckham yet more passengers joined. The problem was at Canada Water is there is so many people coming to and from the Jubilee Line the platforms turn into one massive crush. The Overground really needs to be 24tph per branch with 8 coach trains. However, this is of course either impossible or very difficult.

     The South London Line is my particular gripe. Whilst we’ve done the Brixton/Loughborough Junction interchanges to death, I was fustratred at the lack of seamless interchange between Clapham North and High Street, even if this was given a Balham style interchange of course yet more passengers would use the service. I only wish the Thameslink tunnel could be completely cleared of fast services and turned into a 30tph LO tunnel, to give the overcrowded ELL some breathing space.

112. There does seem to be a ‘let them eat cake’ attitude to passenger information, just because certain social groups have access to third party information sources via their smart phones, then the assumption seems to be that by default everyone else has the same access.

     Given all the staff + access to the same information sources, this is something that could be fixed fairly simply – but for whatever reason isn’t considered important.

113. @stevekeiretsu – to be fair travelling east from Clapham Junction into a London Terminal will nearly always give you a very high frequency service. I have not seen TfL say they aspire to that level of service on every Overground route. Surely the point is that if TfL can bolster frequencies to 4 tph or better on every branch they take over and this is better than current service levels then on a general level that is better? The other thing is reliability which seems to be wanting somewhat on the newly acquired routes. However this was always going to be a challenge but I expected a better start to things than we have had. I accept there are other qualitative aspects of London Overground services (like seating, train length) which some people detest and their minds won’t be changed on that. I’m not overly bothered by such things provided the service is reliable. I suspect I may not be alone in my view.

     The other aspect, at least for the present time, is that there has been a sustained programme of improvement and there is a continued desire for more improvement. Trains have been lengthened, stations have been / will be expanded to handle more people, extra train paths and trains are being sought. The usual approach on a franchise is a splurge of rebranding, possibly some new trains in 2-3 years and then nothing very much and no plans for further improvement. SWT have been a tiny bit different in that they seem prepared to independently invest in rolling stock reliability and new stock. However even that is the exception and not the rule. It’s obviously possible that a future London Mayor may have no positive policy towards Overground and Crossrail and that they’ll be left alone in a steady state with no expansion. However I doubt very much that that will happen because there will be too much at stake politically for the Mayor.

     @ Miles – 24 tph on every Overground branch *is* impossible and will remain so. I can’t think of a NR service anywhere that runs to that service level on one defined route. I am not referring here to bits of track where several services overlap on the approach to a terminal or main station. If, and it’s a big if, there is a valid business case for that intensity of service on non radial demand corridors then (IMO) you build a fully automatic tube line with large profile cars (rather than current tube profile stock). Of course no one is proposing such a plan because new tube lines or major extensions (avoiding NR tracks) are not on the political agenda. They *are* on the agenda in Paris but their rail planning has been ahead of London’s for about the last 60 years so that’s no shock. Overground isn’t perfect but it is better than what went before and that is why people have voted with their feet and use it. TfL now have to repeat the exercise on their newly acquired services but they also have to adapt their philosophy to meet the needs of their newly acquired customers rather than expecting everyone to bend to what TfL want. It’s supposed to be customer focused not production led.

114. Anonymous at 19:27

     It is difficult to reply to your comment, because it is not clear who you reckon is having the attitude, making the assumptions or considering something important.

     Commentors here may be part of your target, in which case I would draw your attention to the fact that we have a diverse range of knowledge, opinions, expertise, and time available. Our views differ, evidently.

     Maybe you are claiming that it is TfL as an organisation which has the attitude. I see no evidence that TfL assumes anything about access to third party information sources; certainly the TfL websites make no reference to them.

     And as for whether TfL could “fairly simply” fix the problems with their passenger information, I can only say that it does not look like a “simple” problem to my eyes. Presumably big teams of staff and great heaps of code, some of which does not work, not much clarity about requirements either. I’d guess any change at all would require enormous testing just to make sure you haven’t made it worse, before you can start improving it.

     Simple or not, I do agree that the TfL information provision does need improvement.

115. From my perspective, what I would want from Overgroundisation of my local TOC-operated line is better station facilities, a management accountable to my MLA, an end to being shunted aside to make way for the TOC’s more favoured long distance clients, lower fares (the TfL scale rather than the TOC scale) and the knowledge that 100%, not just 97%, of fare revenue is going back into the railway.
     As for improvements in frequency, I would be content if they simply ran the advertised service instead of cancelling perfectly serviceable trains in order to recover the schedule for the rest.

     The comparison between routes Clapham Junction to Clapham proper is a rather exceptional example. There are very few examples where a TOC has such a high frequency. Try that trick between New Cross Gate and Surrey Quays, via London Bridge: Stratford to H&I (via Liverpool Street/Moorgate), Clapham Junction to West Brompton (via Wimbledon) and I’m pretty sure the Overground, despite its 4tph, would win nine times out of ten.

116. stevekeiretsu @18.24
     IMO people couldn’t care less whether seats are longitudinal or transverse for relatively short urban journeys. The point here is how many people can you squeeze into a 378 carriage v an SWT 455 carriage…

     In respect of SWT, or any TOC for that matter, “investing”, it’s not really any such thing. They are completely risk averse and will only make any major financial commitment if it is underwritten by the DfT. After all, their only interest is making money. And why would they do otherwise? – SWT may lose the franchise a couple of years after the 707s have been delivered so they hardly see the new trains as a long -term investment. These new trains have nothing to do with SWT making an independent decision, but everything to do with DfT realizing that there were b*****-all plans to cater for growth into Waterloo over the next few years, so a quick fix was needed. As for reliability, yes, SWT are good at keeping their fleet running, but this is purely to avoid financial penalties. Interior cleaning, however, for which there is no performance regime, they don’t bother with.

     TfL, on the other hand, has a statutory duty to provide public transport within and to/from London. It plans decades ahead and invests based on social need, not how much money it can make. Let it have the rest of the London suburban network.

117. Timbeau’s comment about Everybody’s Favourite TOC (I think he’s another SouthEastern victim) “cancelling perfectly serviceable trains in order to recover the schedule for the rest” is interesting in the context of the earlier comments about the timetable not mattering to the passenger if the frequency is high enough. If only, despite SouthEastern’s claim that their Metro service is turn-up-and-go.

     It also highlights that PPM has suffered the fate of a measure being useless once it becomes a target. As if it was any use before that – e.g. if my train is always over 5 minutes late, a PPM of 93% is of absolutely no relevance to me – the performance figure I experience is 0%.

118. @Mike P
     “I think [Timbeau]’s another SouthEastern victim”

     Guess again!

     My TOC is obsessed with timekeeping, and are quite happy to cancel a train on a 2tph service if it will help keep the rest on time. Their favourite way of doing this is to reverse a service on my branch in a convenient bay platform two stops short of the main line, dumping its full-and-standing load of passengers to wait for the next train (which will be just as full, so good luck with getting everyone on) and of course making it impossible for passengers intending to use its return run from London to get to it.

119. I second Malc’s observation. IMO this is a very poor “BBC London” puff piece, that seems poorly researched. I think that TfL have had a easy ride on LO so far due to branding rather than actually comparing with other London TOCs on a day-to-day basis. Often I have had to tell punters on the platform with me about problems on the line because the staff either was not told or ran away from telling them. Alternative routes are not advertised. Even SE are far better at this basic stuff than LOROL. Poor service recovery, customer service and the blinkered view from TfL towers that only they run ANY service in London shows that they are not ready to take over anything more challenging than this at present. I hope the next generation of TfL bosses are more open to the nuances of running a railway rather than insular “tubification” ehich we have at present.

120. Lots of complaints on London Overground’s twitter feed this morning about short forms, cancellations and lack of information. All the negatives associated with the other TOCs. Meanwhile, TfL continue to refuse to provide the train-specific updates.

     LOROL’s bubble may be about to burst.

121. Re Timbeau,

     SWT / Kingston Loop?

122. Anonymous?

     How can you possibly describe this as article poorly researched? The problems we have seen reported have appeared after opening and after the article was written. I am sure they were not the sort of thing one can deduce would have happened – if you could I am equally sure LO would have either made sure they wouldn’t have happened or they would have done a much more low key takeover (no publicised Mayoral visit to Enfield Town for instance).

     The comment about SouthEastern does raise a point of concern that has been discussed by some people a long time ago. Basically TfL has very little experience running a very frequent service with multiple tracks funnelling into a multi-platform terminus – and having to run the trains to time on an intensive service rather than just have to provide a good service to the the customer who turns up a the station – which could mean all trains running late but so frequent and to so few destinations that none of the passengers care.

     It is early days yet. What will probably be more significant is how it tackles these problems and how quickly. Some improvement are going to have to be relatively long term (months not weeks) if they involve Network Rail and impact on other TOCs.

123. WW 1706, 3rd June
     Also, LOROL/TfL/Overground publicly state (leaflets etc) that all their services at Livepool St start/arrive at platforms 1-4.
     Total cobblers … the 17.48 for Chingford (for insatnce) departed from pf 7 last night, as usual.
     Given the signalling/scheduling/platform arrangements @ LST, it cannot be otherwise, I’m afraid.
     Also: That’s why I hate TfL’s abandonment of traditional bus timetables
     And rail – speciically “tube” timetables too … i.e. a “Proper” timetable, like the NR electronic one, or “Bradshaw”.

     stevekeiritsu
     sitting sideways if at all, and it crawls at 10mph Yes, well, we have already been through this. Some ou us hate all-longitudonal seating, for various aesthetic & valid medical reasons.

     Steve
     Err … no.
     Not unless & until they have comprehensively demonnstrated, with their newly-acquired routes, that they are a significan improvement on AGA.
     Which, in the past 3 days they have signally (!) failed to do.
     Information – lacking or false.
     Timekeeping – what’s that?

     Mike P
     There’s a piece on gaming the targets of the system with regard to PPM in the June “Modern Railways” – well worth a read.

     timbeau
     Which station with a bay platform is that pray?

     Malc
     Meanwhile, TfL continue to refuse to provide the train-specific updates.
     Yes. That really rankles, doesn’t it, & there is no excuse for it whatsoever, as we have noted in the discussion.

124. It appears that splitting to WA-Overground, TfL rail and Greater Anglia and hence the fleets has reduced the ability to cope (i.e. flexibility!) when there are faults on these older units leading to more short formed services. Have GA made sure TfL ended up with the known most unreliable units or have they minimised maintenance (spend) on units that were going to be transferred.

125. Have GA made sure TfL ended up with the known most unreliable units or have they minimised maintenance (spend) on units that were going to be transferred

     I did wonder about this – that’s essentially what happened with Silverlink on the NLL. But for that reason you’d expect TfL to have been wary of the eventuality.

     I do think that the lack of flexibility is hurting them. Also, that they’re discovering that taking over from a relatively competent TOC – i.e. one that was at least trying to do its job properly when it comes to comms etc. – is significantly harder than taking over from a basket case. Because you’re not getting what is effectively a blank slate to work with.

     As Pedantic says, this article was effectively about pre-launch and set up, although naturally the discussion has progressed from there as time has gone on.

     What’ll certainly be very interesting to write up (once we start to get reports) is going to be a breakdown of what actually happened. We won’t do that, of course, until those documents exist. Because from an LR perspective we’re in the business of writing “here’s what has happened.” We leave the “BREAKING: OMG OVERGROUND SUX TODAY” stuff to the Standard.

     As it stands – and as some of the comments here suggest – I think it’s going to be a fascinating piece on the differing needs of commuters in terms of communication style by rail frequency and mode, as much as a piece about logistics.

     Speaking personally as a Walthamstow person I’ve not had much issue so far – but then I’ve always tended to use the Vic in the morning and Overground in the evening on the way back (getting off at St James Street) because I’ve found that’s the most disruption free way of travelling, so I’m not really a fair sample.

     That said, I think the guy who’d fallen and sprained his ankle getting off the train at St James Street the other night when I was there has been probably the first real beneficiary of that station being properly staffed at night times again.

126. I wish people here would calm down. I can see ‘one’ train cancelled, on checking the National Rail site, which took me about 10 seconds!

127. @ Greg – I was a bit surprised that the new signs at Liv St pointed to platforms 1-4 for LOROL services. While they often run from there there is also a wider spread of platforms in use as you say. It seems odd that such a simple thing was not got right on day one given the working timetable arrangements as well as operating practice must both have been known about. No point in giving “simple” information if it is wrong.

     @ Ngh – I have seen a comment on another forum suggesting there is a backlog of faults on the 315s that has been partially hidden by them running in double formations. If those formations have been split apart then those faults may have made themselves more visible. There may also be an element of some components being touched for the first time in a long time and this causing faults to manifest themselves – the old “oh dear I touched a cable for the first time in 10 years and it failed” type thing. This is obviously speculation but something’s clearly happened to affect the availability / reliability of the units. I wonder if Ilford depot suddenly having three customers rather than one might also be a factor.

128. I wish people here would calm down. I can see ‘one’ train cancelled, on checking the National Rail site, which took me about 10 seconds!

     Except that goes back to the earlier point that one train matters when you’ve got services running at 15+ minute intervals – because people will have been aiming for that specific train.

     Indeed this is the reason for my Vic line morning commute – because on one too many occasions I had the specific train I’d aim for in the morning late, cancelled on me at ‘Stow Central, or short-formed. That then left me squeezing onto a later one (if possible) and at least 15 minutes late to the office.

     So I was faced with a choice:

     1) Always aim for an earlier train, which meant getting up 15mins earlier and wouldn’t remove the problem of still having that train late or cancelled.
     2) Get up 5mins earlier and use the Vic (which I can do because, luckily, my current commute can be done two ways with little time penalty).

     I opted for 2). Not everyone has that luxury. Which is why they get angry.

     That’s not to say I don’t agree with your underlying point, of course – it’s too early to declare the takeover a success or failure yet. I do understand, however, why they’re copping so much flack from a section of the regular commuter base.

129. Very interesting service email from TfL. Bolding mine:

     Dear Mr X,

     I apologise for the delays and disruptions to your services this week. Since we took over the route, the trains that we inherited have suffered a number of failures. This led to the cancellation of some services and some trains running with fewer carriages.

     We are working hard to resolve these issues. Additional train maintenance staff are now in place to allow us to deliver the standards we have committed to, and have achieved on other routes.

     Thank you for your patience while we continue to make improvements to your service.

     Either they got Silverlinked, or that’s the message they’ve decided to run with. Doesn’t excuse the comms side of things, but interesting nonetheless.

130. @John Bull – taking “value” out of a franchise before handing it over is a very common strategy for most owners. {It’s one reason why some groups refuse to bid for franchises when they see what has been going on…]

131. @GH

     Yep. First did the same before handing over to GTR on the Thameslink and GN lines.

132. @John Bull

     You must be reading more into the TfL email than I can see. It looks to me like a pretty standard apology for problems. The tone about right, but you’d expect that. Admitting that there have been delays and disruptions, but you’d expect that. A glancing mention of the fact that the trains are inherited (which we knew already) without overtly blaming the problems on the previous occupant. Mention of additional maintenance staff, but unclear as to whether these were pre-planned or brought in as a response to the problems.

     They may have got “silverlinked” as you put it, but I don’t read the email as giving any information about this one way or the other.

133. Re WW,

     They will also have a number out of action for refreshing into LO colours (&TfL rail as well) which will reduce the pool of available spares for quite a while (autumn). Presumably the useful spares from the relatively recently scrapped 508s will come in handy. Are the 317s that came out of storage proving a bit unreliable post hibernation?

     Re John Bull
     “Also, that they’re discovering that taking over from a relatively competent TOC – i.e. one that was at least trying to do its job properly when it comes to comms etc. – is significantly harder than taking over from a basket case. Because you’re not getting what is effectively a blank slate to work with.”

     Agreed – Passenger expectation of LO is higher standards all round not just pick and mix with the average quality perception going up overall. They certainly don’t expect a reduction in standards in certain areas ie no Journey check and uninformative twitter.

     I did comment quite a while ago that TfL taking over most WAML metro, GEML metro and SE metro in the same time frame would probably be too much of an ask as a separated SE metro would be bigger than the other 2 combined. SE users might be quite glad it didn’t happen at this point.

134. @John Bull, 10:41

     I have a similar situation where I can choose between Thameslink and the Jubilee/Victoria/bus line to get to work. Despite having to change and catch a bus at one end, the tube is very competitive to TL, so the choice is down to whether a TL train is coming in ~10 minutes. If anything is wrong on TL, or the gap in the service pattern is too big, it’s off to the tube where I know there will be a train in <3 minutes, almost no matter what. I consider myself pretty luck to have this choice, I know many don't.

     This fits with an earlier LR article about the frequency of Crossrail trains – once you get used to the Jub/Vic "it'll be there when I reach the station" mentality having to fit your travel plans around a timetable can seem positively archaic!

135. My comment about it being a simple fix is in terms of those of us who have access to information rich sources and those who don’t, it’s not a big technological fix for one of the many members of newly recruited staff to be given that same piece of technology and use it to tell the passengers who don’t have access to smart phones whats happening.

     Again with things like bus timetables, there are only the dumbed down versions available at the bus stop, so checking when a bus returns from your destination is no longer a simple matter of crossing the road and looking at the timetable on the opposite stop, although making information available to third parties is a good thing, it now means that if I want accurate information, then my first choice isn’t the TfL site, it’s now a third party site.

     The same is happening with changes to bus routes, if a route changes the first thing that should come up when you enter the route number is that the route has changed, but it doesn’t – generally its a map of showing the old routeing, the information is there on the TfL site, but requires three or four further clicks, now if I am unaware that a route has changed, why would I click beyond the the first page of information about the route that the TfL site provides me?, on the other hand the third party site tells that the route has changed when I look at the timetable.

     I could add out of station interchanges (OSIs) as an example of ‘information unfriending’ and many have already commentated on the lack of differentiation between Overground routes, which have now taken on the appearance of a squashed spider.

     TfL should be the first stop for accurate information, if third parties are doing a better job of presenting the same information that you have access to, then perhaps give them the job instead of your own in-house staff, or ask your in-house staff why they aren’t providing that information with the same clarity.

136. @ngh
     Indeed – they did it again this morning – service running eight minutes late, so it’s axed.
     @Greg
     “Which station with a bay platform is that pray?”
     This one http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/SME/html/NRE_KNG/images/photos/800/o2274-0100385.jpg

137. Why use the TfL website to travel by train? As I’ve pointed out before on this site, TfL treat London Overground as separate to other NR services, so the passenger has to click both boxes (“London Overground” and “National Rail”) to make sure to get all the info correctly displayed. As Barry Doe has pointed out? I wonder what the real long-term aim of TfL is (presenting their train services as separate to NR). In the short-term the removal of NR signage from stations is at best confusing. Why shouldn’t South Eastern etc now do this? I would argue that TfL are intentionally or not undermining the whole concept of a unified rail network – and in a way that no other TOC has previously done so.

138. Kingston in other words…

139. @Graham H
     I think you have correctly quoted the figures for commuters into the London terminii, but that is by definition only those travelling into the main London terminii during the morning peak/leaving the main London terminii during the evening peak. For longer distance services this is a reasonably fair measure (though not totally reliable) because the amount of counter commuting, journeys not including the main terminii and off-peak travel on these routes is relatively (emphasis on relatively) small.

     For the inner suburban services, however, these types of journey are relatively far greater – just look at the North/West/South London lines for example, and even the radial routes have far more off peak/counter commuting and journeys not involving the terminus.

     In the run up to the creation of TfL in the late 1990s, the figures I saw were that more than 2/3rds of all main line rail journeys (ie, not LUL/DLR/Tramlink) with one end of the journey in Greater London had the other end of the journey in Greater London too. While that will have changed over the last 15 -20 years, I doubt if the change has been simply in one direction.

140. @Quinlet: I agree, back in the late ’90’s I commuted out from Zone 1 on SWT. The trains were quiet and I had loads of space (4 seats and a table, usually) all to myself.

     Now I make a visit once a week, normally, to our other offices in Richmond. Getting on at Waterloo means I get a seat, but the leg from Clapham Junction to Richmond is normally more packed than the SE train I got off at Waterloo East.

     I must add though that many more people now get off the train at Lewisham as the Charing Cross trains no longer stop at London Bridge.

141. @Ngh – I thought the scope of the “refresh” had been designed to be relatively simply and quick to achieve? I have yet to see the Overgrounded 315 in the metal but a lot of the work like vinyling, adding roundels and putting in new seat covers surely shouldn’t take a huge amount of time. If they were stripping out in the interiors then I agree that would reduce any stock float for a longer period. Many of the trains, perhaps more for TfL Rail than Overground, had been attended to prior to handover with blue doors becoming more prevalent. That would just leave some stickering to do. I haven’t seen a LOROL 317 yet but then I only travelled at the weekend when I think they aren’t used.

142. @Quinlet – I think you need to be very careful with quoting any figures relating to passenger useage after the demise of BR. In NSE days, we counted the punters; subsequently, ORR attempted to estimate them on the basis of ticket sales. You may imagine the complications of that – and then multiply them by 10 to take account of Travelcard effects. There were many many rubbish estimates of station useage which were routinely disproved by local surveys undertaken by user groups, A further complication was (and still is) that every time a punter changes to a flow sponsored by a different TOC (LU is a TOC for this purpose), it counts as a new journey.

     There have -quite literally -been no reliable statistics for rail travel until very recently (when ORR finally saw the folly of their ways). Correction – TOCs sometimes made their own estimates, but those are commercially confidential.

     So – when I was last responsible for a decent count – in 1993 -of the 1.1m people entering central London during the morning peak, I repeat: about 100 000 came by car/bicycle; about 300 000 by tube, about 100 000 by bus, about 250 000 came from outside the GLC area by NSE trains, about 50 000 by IntercIty and about 200 000 were intra-metropolitan movements. The counts on the inners showed that the trains were fully loaded but the overcrowding was mainly on the outers; what was (untilMonday) the LOROL services were distinctly underused and it remained our ambition in NSE days to try and get out of at least the Eustons. South of the river, the 456s were justified on the grounds that someof the S/SEinners could manage with 2 cars off-peak.

     I am well aware of counterpeak movements – no one counts them however – but they should. Personal observation suggests that these would include some surprises; in particular, SWT inners are often full to standing inbound in the evening peak. This seems to be the clubbing traffic, to judge from the average age of the passengers.

143. @Graham H: Clapham Junction to Richmond is mostly tertiary education students. What is very surprising are the sheer numbers…. Every 8/10 coach train is full… It doesn’t seem to matter if they are slow or fast, people just pick the first one.

144. @Graham H

     Yes, indeed, ticket sales based estimates of numbers have been fatally flawed in London ever since travelcards were introduced in the early 1980s. There are, however, other surveys undertaken in London for other purposes which look at all movements not just the peak hour inbound figures you quote.

145. @ Southern Heights: “Clapham Junction to Richmond is mostly tertiary education students.”

     Can you provide evidence for this statement please?

146. @Southern heights
     “Clapham Junction to Richmond is mostly tertiary education students”
     My own local station sees a lot of incoming secondary students every morning as there are several very popular selective schools nearby with no catchment requirement. There is also a smaller flow in the other direction of those who didn’t get in to those schools.

147. “Clapham Junction to Richmond is mostly tertiary education students”

     Really???? I don’t think so.

     And where do they all go when they get to Richmond Station?

     For example, Richmond College is within walking distance of TWICKENHAM station.

148. @Dr Richards Beeching
     “For example, Richmond College is within walking distance of TWICKENHAM station. …..Where do they all go when they get to Richmond Station?”

     I would imagine if they’ve come from Clapham Junction they stay on the train for the extra two stops (or one if the train doesn’t call at St Megs). There’s no other way to get to that part of Twickenham from Richmond.

149. Without wishing to take this further into the realms of ‘OMG why are TfL ruining my basic but functional train service’, I’m currently in the midst of tonight’s delays and at the mercy of the slightly ropey level of information which others are grumbling about.

     At Bush Hill Park we have our shiny new station assistant currently strutting his stuff along the town-bound platform, evidently desperate to help people. But this is useless when his only source of information is what’s showing on the passenger information system – insisting to people ‘it’s fine, the 17.54 to Liverpool Street will run’ (the 18.09 was already cancelled) just because the screens say it will is no substitute for knowing that if the outbound working to Enfield didn’t run, there’s no way the return working will either. The poor chap seemed genuinely fascinated (and a little jealous) when I showed him on my phone that the outward working was still sat at London Fields) – he went off to discuss with his colleague in the ticket office.

     A few weeks work will give the new staff this kind of on-the-ground experience, but for now people are visibly unimpressed with the ‘big change’ of the Overground and from the way it’s been hyped I don’t suppose you blame them.

150. @Quinlet – yes, there are other surveys but they are by no means comprehensive or on a consistent basis. I any case,I thought the point at issue was the changing balance in commuting patterns between inners and outers in relation to CLE and what were or, now, are the dominant flows. Discussion about counterpeak is interesting but hardly relevant to that.

     On the latter point, besides education (and clubbing*, which probably has nothing to do with education…), there are notable conterpeak flows to places like Croydon and Reading. There is even a small counterflow on the Drain (it would be interesting to know where their final destination was). None of this is systematically surveyed,or if it is, none of the TOCs with whom I have discussed it are aware of the surveys,and some seemed quite surprised by it all – but then,they are not asked to deliver counterpeak capacity in their franchise agreements.

     *Which has some interesting characteristics, known mainly to the station staff who have to deal with it; there is, for example, a noteable traffic from central London to Guildford starting about 2000 and returning (mostly, ahem) on the last train. This is apparently fuelled by the cheaper booze in Guildford clubs. I suspect there’s alot of that sort of thing which happens below the horizon of the formal surveys.

151. @anonymous (12.40)

     The simple fact of the matter is that we *haven’t* had a unified rail network since the onset of privatisation in 1994.

     Therefore, if TfL want to make their own part of the NR network more unified with a consistent brand/livery/sign etc., then I find that infinitely preferable from the confusing, unsightly hodge-podge visible elsewhere on the network.

     For example, in the lines just taken over by TfL out of Liverpool Street, there were previously no less than *three* different designs for station nameplates visible at different stations (the current Abellio/National Express variant, the preceding ‘one railway’ design, and even in some places the old wagn blue and purple version!). This reflects that every time a franchise holder changes, the new operator changes the branding, with the resulting mess.

     The concession model used by TfL means that, whoever they award the operations to, the ‘Overground’ brand remains unchanged, resulting in more aesthetic consistency, less confusion and saving ££££ over time. So applying this as widely as possible, and getting rid of anything NR related from any station that’s not served by NR services as well seems consistent to me, and has my support. For the ELL in particular, the stations and infrastructure (uniquely for any NR line as far as I’m aware) is owned by TfL, due to its preceding history as an Underground sub-surface line. Therefore you’ll be hard pressed to find any evidence of the BR ‘double-arrow’ anywhere around there.

     I’d fully support an TfL/LO takeover of any remaining surburban services north of the river. In practice, this means the Great Northern Welwyn and Hertford commuters out of KX and Moorgate (the neglected Moorgate branch could especially do with a TfL takeover….visually speaking it is still stuck in a NSE time-warp!!!!). I don’t see any big jurisdiction problem with taking over commuter services into Hertfordshire, given the number that TfL already operate into that county! The other lines are either tied into Crossrail (Great Eastern and Western commuters), tied into Thameslink (BedPan services) or have parallel Underground services taking most of the surburban London traffic already (Chiltern and c2c lines). Others have already explained at length why the Tottenham Hale to Cheshunt line services have not been given to TfL.

     South of the river, whilst I can see the arguments for a LO/TfL takeover, logistically and politically I think this is going to end up in the ‘too hard’ box under the current rail franchising system. There are simply too many interdependent lines sharing both long-distance and London commuter services (e.g. the Dartford loop lines, which also carry traffic from Gravesend and the Medway Towns), and too many terminators outside of the London area, to allow a simple takeover without creating conflict with TOCs and commuters from outside London (who, rightly or wrongly, may feel their services are deprioritised or even threatened by a TfL takeover, something which Kent CC successfully exploited to keep TfL away from a Southeastern takeover).

     So in other words, just like with the Underground lines in the last century, us South Londoners will be shafted when it comes to public transport! =(

152. @ Graham H – a quick question about the TOCs “not realising” they have got emerging trends on contra peak / off peak usage. Do they not monitor revenue, gate stats, CCTV images or ask their staff what is happening on the railway? I appreciate some revenue will be pooled via Travelcards or Seasons but surely increased volumes of PAYG plus single / returns would be evident in their regular revenue reporting? Even something like particular trains being delayed because of high loadings / extended dwell times should surely be picked up through performance analysis? Am I being overly optimistic in my assumptions about the business analysis that TOCs undertake? TfL and LU did all this sort of stuff although obviously they have more overhead than a typical TOC would.

153. The split was always going to cost trains, TfL formally acknoweldged this. The mothballed 317/7s have been returned to traffic and Ilford has of late been struggling to get the fleet restored to working condition for the handover. That said AGA had some flexibility to cross cover within the fleets, pairs of 321s working Shenfield Metro services for example and almost anything working the Romford – Upminster shuttle. TfL got all of the 315 fleet for WA and Shenfield so that wasn’t a case of getting the worst of the bunch. That said thay’ve got all but one of the 317/7s which were the un-loved, low density, expensive to lease former Stansted Express units.

     Overall the whole GE EMU fleet is under stress, the 317s and 321s are well past their mid-life refurb and cancelleations on the mainline, WA and Southend Vic branch due to unit failure/shortages are commonplace. Sadly the 321s have gone from being one of the most reliable fleets a few years back to one of the worst. Add to this 321s having to stand in for Norwich sets regularily and the 360s going through a bad patch at the moment, the major failure of the 16:32 Ipswich last Friday at Chelmsford, blocking the mainline for about an hour and AGA Tweeting tonight that the cancellation of the 17:38 (12 car to Ipswich) was due to Siemens not handing the units back in time for evening peak shows just how the pips are squeaking.

     One hopes the next franchise contains major rolling stock investment commitments, though with today’s announcement about DfTs austerity budget we’ll have to wait and see!

154. @ Alfie 1014 – much of the “savings” from the DfT come from the sale of land at Kings Cross (£345m) plus £31m cut in TfL’s funding and some other funding cuts to regional air link support, tram train project (source – Guardian). There is nothing to suggest that the franchise budget has been chopped. There is considerable political pressure on the Govt from East Anglia constituencies, Stansted Airport and the LEP for Norfolk for massive investment in railways in East Anglia. Obviously we shall see how things pan out but I suspect the government will want to trumpet a decent level of investment given all the talk about 4 tracks in the Lea Valley and Norwich in 90.

155. @WW – I fear the answer is “no” to most of those possibilities; in particular,for the outers,only a minority of stations are gated. And as for asking the staff- I can assure you that the commercial departments remain in the Fuhrerbunker – my remarks about the Guildford market, for example, were well known to the station management but no oneabove that level cared to ask. It’s a partly problem with TOCs that are dominated by season ticket revenue (why would they bother ?),combined with franchise loading targets that are entirely focussed on the peak. Few incentives to fine tune the stats provided the money keeps rolling in -thus SWTbid team,for example.

156. SWT are aware of evening counterpeak flows – they use them as an excuse for not announcing trains at Waterloo until the last minute “so that incoming passengers can clear the platform quickly”. (What actually happens is that there is a head on scrum at the barrier line)

157. @timbeau -being “aware” of incoming punters is definitely not the same as counting them…

158. Various thoughts come to mind:

     While there is an infrastructure and operator split, any operator, including TFL, is going to be limited as to what they can achieve. Overground trains have to use the same tracks and signals as Greater Anglia and this always be a major factor in frequency, recovery from problems, later trains etc.

     Also in terms of information provision, it strikes me from my own experience of the front line that the necessary information must be there, but there is currently no mechanism for collecting and disseminating it as required – ie to drivers, guards, platform, gate line staff etc. Also more problematically there does not seem to me to a franchise specification to do this so it doesn’t get done! Sounds daft but if no one is sitting down and working out that train x is arriving late and thus its crew can’t then work train y then it can be impossible to say whether train y will run until the unit and the crew are standing on the concourse waiting for orders. I imagine Overground is no different despite its supposed emphasis on customer service.

     The change of emphasis in how a franchise is let can make some differences. If the franchise holder is not under pressure to make cuts everywhere to guarantee even a tiny profit, then they can make decisions with service in mind. So, more drivers to run more frequent services and enable more spares for times of disruption, staff on platforms, new trains etc. This has definitely been one of Overground’s strengths.

     A consistent approach has also been attractive – regular service pattern all day every day. Whereas for some reason the Southern timetable changes massively in the evenings, on Sundays etc. I don’t see it as a problem if some trains don’t stop at every station, as long as they stick to a consistent pattern. Much is also said of the strong Overground branding; but in fact I see an awful lot of punters getting on my trains to London Bridge then suddenly leaping though the closing doors as the PIS makes them realise they are not heading for Shoreditch!

     Given that Overground trains have to share tracks with Southern trains now, i don’t see this as a barrier to them taking metro services over South of the river. Not even the Charing Cross to Gillingham and Sevenoaks semi fasts. Dorking/Horsham is a tricky one; the former is definitely a metro service but the hourly extension to Horsham is much more rural in turn. Maybe that would be the moment to permanently speed up the Dorkings and make both part of a fast line service group a la Grinstead and Uckfield.

159. @WW 1949 – Going back a few years to when I worked for SWT we couldn’t figure out why one particular up train was picking was picking up several minutes delay at Brentford in the PM peak. The perception at the time was that outside the usual peak flows the Hounslow loop was an almost passenger free wilderness. A manager was despatched to Brentford to monitor the train for a week and we were shocked to find that the delay was caused purely by the volume of passengers. In this case thanks to all the new office development along the A4 corridor. I believe this led to the trains concerned being strengthened from 4 to 8 coaches. Sometimes you can’t beat getting down on the ground to see what is going on.

     I suspect a lot of things only come to light when something happens to draw attention to them, in this case delay minutes which were costing money.

160. @Anonymous – just so – I did some work for a firm with an office by the south gate of Gunnersbury Park a few years ago and was utterly astonished by the way the trains filled up inbound in the late afternoon; at Kew Bridge, the train was full and standing. (As noted earlier, the age/attire of many of the punters suggested going to Town for a night out as well as commuters).

     Your tale sort of underlines my point that TOCs don’t know what’s happening on their patch unless they have to. Hewett junior’s spell as a station manager at Guildford showed only too clearly that there was absolutely no mechanism for staff on the ground reporting what they saw in terms of business and no interest in their views.

161. TOCs do have (automated) ways of counting passengers: newer stock have devices that record the weight of the train which gives a proxy for number of passengers, and I think one model of Desiros has infared sensors on the doors that can sense when people are boarding and alighting.

     Then there’s models like MOIRA which will model the number passengers on every train run by the TOC.

162. @James – but self- weighing trains tell you zilch about journey patterns (and there are very real difficulties about interpreting the data because some flows – eg schoolchildren, airport travellers – will have very different weight characteristics compared with others); in any case, there’s only a few of them(maybe only a couple). Sensing whether punters are blocking the doorway is not the same as counting them. And MOIRA is a model, not a counting device. It depends on counting to calibrate it.

163. @ Graham H, WW
     TOC gate data is extensively used for calculating the cost of Freedom Pass, for example, along with some quite extensive sample surveys. Gate data has its limitations in that the majority of trips only go through one gate (unlike on LUL where almost all go through 2).

     @GTR driver
     so long as you accept Overground trains sharing the same tracks as other TOCs, it’s not that difficult to find a coherent boundary for the south London services to be taken over by TfL. I would say Dartford, Sevenoaks (via Orpington and Otford), Caterham. Tattenham Corner, Epsom, Chessington, Hampton Court, Shepperton, Hounslow loop.

164. WW
     No point in giving “simple” information if it is wrong.
     Precisely – it completely undermines trust from day one – not a good move.

     Last night, apparently, they did it again … the 17.48 for Chingford was axed, apparently sitting, quite happily in platform 7 (!) Late announcement… “due to signaling failure” … except trains were seen to be using platforms 6 & 8 quite normally, which makes one wonder.
     Credibility is being lost at a huge rate, & TfL/LOROL don’t seem to have noticed, or to care, either. ( Please note the “seem”, there )

     JB
     Doesn’t excuse the comms side of things… Yes, well, that’s the point isn’t it?
     Also, from the p.o.v. of the “Normal” user, & I don’t mean the Boss here, I mean the standard commuter who just gets on a train on full-automatic … the service was working reasonably well on the Friday, but on Mon, Tues, Thrus, at least parts of it have fallen down in a heap, with no information & what is the ONLY change between Friday & Monday?
     The operator.
     Oh dear.

     Anon
     The same is happening with changes to bus routes Worse still is the removal of “Intermediate calling points” on the bus destination blinds.
     A truly retrograde step, deliberately removing useful passenger-information from view. Why?

     Timbeau
     Ah – Kingston.

     Anon
     I wonder what the real long-term aim of TfL is..
     Assumption: That there is a “long-term aim” ??

     Grahn H & others re counting …
     I used to do this ( I may re-start this autumn, I may not )
     Counter-peak movements are counted – Ealing Bdy being a prime example – but, of course the counting firm’s client is usually either the TOC or DafT & the figures are confidential. On-train is also done – GOBLIN is a good example of this – that’s how we know you can get over 186 people into a 60-seat coach (!) in the AM peak.

     LVL
     You too?

     James & Graham H
     “Self-weighing” trains are all very well, but they have to be calibrated.
     Usually by getting someone who specializes in doing counts to … err … do a count or two, usually once a year.
     This hopefully equalizes out the jogger, the cyclist the mum-&-two-small-kids+pushcair, the businessman+”Pilots bag” & t your “Normal standard passengers ….

165. @Quinlet – Indeed, that’s a major problem with partial gating (and gates left open, too). The problem is exacerbated because the no gate/open gate situation tends to affect the outers disproportionately. (And in particular, to come back to the question of reverse commuting, it is almost inevitable that only the main destination station, such as Reading or Guildford, will be gated. It is noticable that SWT provides free (first class) travel from the next station out from Guildford, such as Farncombe, to any other country SWT station of choice. Just buy a Guildford-Farncombe ticket and pay up/scarper in the unlikely event that a TTI/guard appears. This makes a nonsense of the stats, alas).

166. Quinlet – Logical points – except that for example the vast majority of trains from both Victoria and Waterloo out to Epsom continue beyond Epsom (to Guildford, Dorking or Horsham) rather than terminating at Epsom. And the Epsom layout couldn’t cope during the peak with reversing more than it does. And then it becomes much less obvious that TfL could take over services to Epsom.

167. @Greg T – a propos self-weighing trains, I’m with you on that one. At best, they will give you a snapshot but even then, you need to know things like whether the set did a diagram that was used mainly by school kids, whether the set was clean/wet/covered in snow. whther it operated in areas of known high obesity (I won’t speculate further on that… ) and so on. And as for long term trend monitoring, you get into serious problems with the tendency of all punters to have expanded since the war, as evidenced by the easing of seat pitch in cinemas, planes (not EasyJet, of course) and cars. When the idea was first mooted to me by NSE engineers in the ’90s. I fear I sent them away with a flea in their ear – I really didn’t face arguing with the Treasury as to whether the punters on TLK were fatter than those elsewhere…

168. Current technology in passenger counting is infra red and optical devices mounted above measuring points, which may include doorways at gangways and interior partitions as well as external doors. Systems’ claims (and users’ requirements) are for 95+% accuracy. Real (or near real) time transmission of data for analysis off-train is not technically challenging.

     The concept of the train that measures the numbers of passengers in each carriage enabling station information systems to advise where to stand for the best chance of getting a seat has been about for a few years; we’re not there yet but it may not be that long.

169. @Quinlet – half the services via Hounslow continue via Staines to Weybridge, and as mentioned very few services actually terminate at Epsom. Past proposals have included the stopping services to Guildford via Cobham as well as via Epsom, as they use the same pool of rolling stock.
     TfL already operates a service to Dorking of course,
     https://www.tfl.gov.uk/bus/route/465/
     although using it is difficult as the only Oyster top-up facility in the town is in the library. (When it’s closed, the nearest top up is a newsagent in Leatherhead!)

170. @Caspar Lucas – yes, I reviewed that technology for the Brussels airport rail link’s bankers. The highest accuracy was from those systems which looked down at people as columns of heat, rather than those which clocked when a punter broke an horizontal ray (mainly, I suspect, because luggage also broke the ray, especially at airports…) . We trialled some against manual counts and, if anything, achieved a greater level of accuracy than you imply. The only snags were (a) that the punters had to be reasonably consistently in line (not a problem there as we installed the equipment on escalators) and (b) it was quite bulky and required a portal to support it – not sure how much room there would be in train doorways, but it may have got smaller in the last few years.

171. I think a walk around Railtex last month would have shown that the technology has moved on to allow in-train fitment, but it was naturally the case that the early development was better suited to off-train applications.

172. @Graham H 1000 I suspect the number of people buying a ticket to the next station is a bigger problem than realised. Working on stations it was quite blatant with passengers often asking for a ticket to ‘next stop’. While some TOC’s do carry out revenue operations it seems on the whole to be in the too difficult/too expensive box. Your Guildford example is probably a prime case where huge revenue is being lost which could be recovered with a little effort and local knowledge.

173. Counterpeak flow on Waterloo and City – my guess is people who work in the South Bank or Charing Cross area going home to Essex on the Central Line or Liverpool Street rail services. Going via the Circle from Embankment to Liverpool Street can be a gamble on whether there is a long gap between anticlockwise Circle Line services and/or a lengthy wait to “regulate the service” in the platform at Aldgate.

174. Living in the Windsor lines area of SWT I dread the idea of TFL taking over. Despite their faults, especially in station cleaning and maintenance, they are actually pretty good.

     As already covered above any TFL franchise will mean splitting the service artificially somewhere. As an operator this will always give you less flexibility with trains and crew in disruption. For example I was at Waterloo recently when an 8 car unit was split during the day with 4 going off to Windsor and 4 round the Hounslow loop because an incoming train was delayed. The average passenger won’t even realise that has happened, if it had been two operators one of those trains would almost certainly be cancelled.

     Several years ago the DfT was persuing a one terminal, one operator policy from London for exactly those reasons. This was partly what lead to the creation of the National Express ‘One’ franchise from Liverpool Street as the existing three franchises were seen as unworkable. It seems we may be doomed to repeat the lessons of history on the railway!

     The only possible way I can see round this would be for franchises to incorporate a Tfl sponsored element. So inner stations and service levels would be run to a Tfl specified standard but as part of the same franchise. Of course a version of this was attempted with the ‘Overground Network’ a few years ago but wasn’t a great success, probably because there wasn’t much funding beyond a little bit of new signage.

175. @ GH & Anonymous

     It’s been going on for years. I remember at Ealing Broadway they sold many tickets to Ealing Common, which was a much easier, cheaper and more frequent journey on the 207 bus

176. I’ve had a few hours to do some PHP work, and here’s a new Twitter robot process that reports delays and cancellations LIVE on the London Overground

     https://twitter.com/OvergroundBot

     It takes the data from the National Rail “Darwin” API system that shows the live departure boards.

     Let me know if this is what people actually want.

     Brian

177. Counterpeak flow on Waterloo and City, I’ve just remembered (prompted by Philip) that I used to do this when I had a holiday job at County Hall. Walking to Broad Street for a train home to North London, rather than Liverpool Street, but it’s the same principle (except it tends to give away my age a bit). It actually took a few minutes longer than Northern Line and bus, but it was twenty times as much fun. (Can’t remember how the costs worked out, but it must have been closeish, what with me being a student).

     (This was when I wasn’t given a lift by a friend in his car, which he parked in Hercules Road – I think – for £0.0s.0d per day).

178. @Anonymous – I fear that the “one terminus, one operator (one manager?!)” has a more discreditable origin than the one you suggest. The then Franchising Director believed that the answer to terminal capacity problems was the Ein Volk policy – hence he started with Paddington by amalgamating the Thames and GW franchises, then repeated it for LST. Nothing to do with avoiding or managing splitting and joining – that didn’t happen on GW and only very rarely on Thames.. The policy merely demonstrated the guy’s profound ignorance (and unwillingness to inquire) on how the London termini were actually managed, despite being told how things worked by the few managers who dared put their heads above the parapet..

     @Anonymous of 1640 – I regret to say that the practice and sloppy checking of short travel goes back to BR days. I recall having to upbraid (those were the days when I could!) the then manager of SWT for abandoning even the simplest of exit checks at Guildford for much of the day, with the revenue simply walking out on to the street. He did something about it for all of six weeks…

     @Malcolm – but then you would have had the pleasure in travelling in the Art deco 1940 stock!

179. @Anon (17.00) re TfL ‘sponsored’ services…don’t the PTEs in the rest of the country (TfM in Greater Manchester, Centro in the West Midlands etc.) do something similar? If so, is there any reason why TfL can’t do the same for non LO/Crossrail services within London?

180. @ Anon 1700 – TfL have already done the “increment” and “decrement” policy on TOC franchises at the Mayor’s instruction. The Mayor holds the power to do this and it relates to the “wider area” we were talking about the other day which recognises the outer areas that suburban trains serve beyond the Greater London area. TfL incremented the old Southern franchise so that there were enhanced evening services and better station staffing and, I think, more gated stations. The decrement facility was used to remove the proposed Bellingham to Victoria off peak service in return for funding for the Overground service from Surrey Quays to Clapham Junction receiving funding from the DfT.

     I think the policy agenda has changed at Mayoral level with the policy now being one of taking over services rather than throwing money at franchisees for increments. The only sensible time you can increment is during a franchise retendering anyway as it allows a more competitive price to be sought for the option and improvements can be tied in to the overall package for a new franchise. The difficulty with that is that it requires a guess for 7-10 years to be made. Taking over services gives TfL and the Mayor more scope to keep improving matters or to do more than might be possible under a franchise. The basic issues in all the concerns expressed about devolution are will the trains still work / be reliable / run at broadly the times and speed that people want / be reasonably affordable. In other words “I don’t want my fares and journeys mucked about with”. Clearly this week’s experience at Liverpool Street shows it can go wrong. I noticed at Walthamstow tonight that there was an apology poster from Mike Stubbs saying sorry for the problems and promising improvement. No firm date was set for the improvement though and it appears that the Chingford Line is getting the short straw rather than Enfield and Cheshunt services.

181. @Graham H 1939 – My point was more that it was sold at the time as a way of avoiding the possible inefficiencies and duplication of multiple operators. I’ve possibly given too much credit to the thinking of those responsible! Mentioning splitting & joining was more by way of an example of the kind of operating efficiencies which can be lost when you have several different companies involved.

     I think it was always less of an issue for the likes of Paddington and Liverpool Street where you have a clearer split between ‘local’ and ‘InterCity’, although One did substitute Stansted units to Norwich in a way which wouldn’t have happened with Anglia Railways.

     South of the Thames it seems to me that any split between ‘Tfl Rail’ and ‘Home Counties’ will inevitably have to be drawn along much more arbitrary boundaries and would cause a lot of flexibility to be lost as fleet and staffing would be split. Probably perfectly fine when things are running OK but less so when there are problems unless you build in a lot more contingency. Even back in BR days the nominal InterCity services in LSE were run as a branding exercise, and of course eventually abandoned in favour of Network Express, rather than being a separate business unit.

182. @Anonymous – well,I was merely quoting what OPRAF said publicly about the rationale for single operator termini. Since they applied this doctrine to Paddington and LST only, where there are neither splitting nor joining and where the stations are laid out so that each of the previous operators had to keep themselves largely to themselves,the basis of the whole policy was operationally nonsense. By way of contrast, at one of the relatively few large single operator termini – Waterloo- the station is – and has to be – run as 3 separate termini, but that doesn’t mean that, even within those limitations there is any flexibility of stock or crew to swap between inners and outers. No one would have sent a 455 to the Solent, for example, or run a 12 car VEP round the Kingston loop.

     BTW – I seem to have missed the Network Express era and these nominal InterCity services. Tell me more.

183. GH, Anon: Does the reference to “nominal IC” services concern the appearance of principal Southern Region routes on BR’s Inter-City map in pre-sectorisation days? I recall that one of those maps survived post-privatisation on a wall in the lift shop at Selhurst.

     “Network Express” doesn’t ring much of a bell though, although I’m sure that the Class 365s (alongside wrecking the class number scheme for AC EMUs by attempting to match the completely different system for the SR DC ones) were dubbed “Networker Express” at one time.

184. @Caspar Lucas – yes, that’s my recollection also. The “principal” SR routes were never, ever, part of the post-1982 IC sector, nor branded as such.* Indeed, the whole point of sectorisation was to keep the sectors apart. As far as I know, the only time the word “Express” actually appeared on the post-sectorisation L&SE/NSE rolling stock was when a few of the few Jaffa cake livery sets were marked “Essex Express” – something that didn’t survive the Chris Green rebranding.

     *IC colleagues were very jealous of the “quality” and “brand value” of the IC brand and correspondingly snooty about “that tramway” in the London area….

185. Graham H
     “3 separate termini” @ LST?
     Maybe, but you can get to 8 (or even 10 in emergency) from the up suburban, the up main will get you to anywhere between 5 & 14 & the up electric 13 to 18 ( & across to 5 in emergency) And that’s without using the ladders half-way up Bethnal Green Bank.
     And, yes, I have seen a Norwich in 5 upon an occasion (Point-failure in the middle).

186. @Caspar Lucas -I ought to add that the cl322 units for Stansted may have had the words “Stansted Express” as part of the dedicated livery, during their brief use. That service was always part of NSE, although there was some short-lived discussion within DTp before the service opened as to whether it should be transferred to IC, which the hawks liked to describe as IC and Airports (to cover Gatwick) but even the most hawkish found it difficult to justify a subsector as small as 5 sets without a dedicated depot. However, unless Anonymous is a cover name for Philip Wood or Alan Nichols, he or she would have had no inkling of that.

187. “Gatwick Express”??

188. @Castlebar – an Intercity operation and branded as such. Sure, “Gatwick Express” has appeared on former NSE rolling stock, but not during the time that NSE existed.

     IC was essentially a money grab/cherry picking organisation. Anything that looked profitable was passed to them and the rest left with NSE/RR to receive subsidy. Thus the Norwichs were understood to be profitable and given to IC, but the Salisbury/Exeters were not. The main debate within DTp raged over what is now Transpennine, which was though to be only marginally profitable (under the sectorisation rules of the day) and its transfer would therefore have diluted the IC P&L.

     It’s interesting but fruitless, to speculate what might have happened had BR not been privatised – I suspect that, with the growth seen since 1994, TPE and perhaps some of the emerging RR Alphaline services might have been considered for transfer, although the amount of infrastructure associated with the latter would probably have been a big turn off.

189. A little off topic though relevant in terms of where to draw TFL boundaries, if we have to have a private railway, what is the best model? Big four vertically integrated makes Thameslink, the Overground outer circle tricky but removes the track/train separation. Sectors seemed to be BR’s most successful era, but then who runs the infrastructure? With a South East Sector individual managers can run each part of the whole better eg a split of SE Metro and SE Kent without caring too much about where the Greater London border is AND allowing crew or stock to go where needed. In Regional Railways terms the community railways are akin to the old NSE sectors maybe?

190. If I recall correctly (I was in full-time education at the time) the final iteration of sectorisation dispensed with the central infrastructure provision and allocated specific routes (and, I believe, parallel lines where it made sense) to the sectors. I am not sure whether it lasted long enough to be deemed a success or otherwise, and it would seem to have introduced a structural brake on, for example, the introduction of passenger services on hitherto freight-only lines. Perhaps GH can provide some more information?

191. @Caspar Lucas- yes, we “undid the matrix” of regions (aka infrastructure) and sectors the week before Railtrack went live…. For many of us – policy makers, regulators, and managers alike, that final step in the BR reorganisation (known as OfQ* – you can imagine the alternative pronunciations) was probably the ideal way to structure an integrated railway. Alas, it ran for too short a time to say whether it would have been successful. The basis on which responsibility for infrastructure was allocated was what was known as “prime user”. Thus the sector whose needs determined the character of the assets took responsibility (thus if IC required 140 mph running on a pair of lines, it took them over). Where there was a choice or the matter was indeterminate, there was a hierarchy of responsibility between the sectors, with the profitable ones at the top.

     @GTR Driver – how much time do you have? The basic objections to the disintegrated railway are (a) that it transfers the risks to those who cannot manage them – hence all the blood spilt on performance management, and (b) it prevents anyone taking a rational view of investment – everyone operates in their little silos without any incentive to even consider whether there are cheaper alternatives. Oh, and (c) it breaks the links between infrastructure and the end- user (ie passenger, freight forwarder) – you have only to see the amount of tosh produced by NR in the first round of the RUS to see that they had no idea at all as to what the passengers were doing or might wish to do in the future.

     *Organising For Quality (ho, ho!)

192. One of the first Questions raised: Is it democratic for services beyond Greater London to be under TFL?
     I am in favour of all inner and outer ‘suburban’ services to devolved however those which do involve other counties should be run as by a transport authority that is accountable to all local authorities while all services which stay within London should be run by London Overground.
     The former would include Crossrail 1&2, Thameslink and the Airport Expresses.

193. As well as GEx, weren’t there a handful of SR Intercity trains (mainly during the summer) running from the north via the WLL/Olympia direct to Brighton and the Channel Ports? The Brighton services managed to survive for a while post-privatisation as part of the Cross Country franchise until Virgin pulled them.

     If NSE still existed (even in private form), cooperation with TfL with regards to suburban rail would have been much easier to achieve. But hey-ho, we’re stuck with what we’ve got, and LO north of the river is probably the best method we have for achieving this.

     As I’ve explained above however, south of the river is going to end up in the ‘too difficult’ box. And the comments since then have only reinforced my argument.

194. @Anonymous (if different from the 28 other anonymuses who seem to have struck up here in the last day or so!) . No, not SR (maybe Southern Railway – but that’s a very long time ago…) services and never NSE services.

195. Yes, to pick up on Graham’s point, can I remind everyone that you can stay anonymous (i.e. no-one will know who you are, which can be important for job-retaining or other reasons) without necessarily using the default name Anonymous. Just pick a name. This would be particularly helpful if you think or hope that others might be sufficiently interested in what you say to respond to it in some way!

196. I’ve got a “final version” of the http://twitter.com/OvergroundBot running now.

     [This is an interesting initiative. Comments about the extent to which it addresses the perceived deficiencies of LO’s information supply would be welcome. But London Reconnections cannot, of course, function as a support site for users of this bot, so no detailed queries here please. Malcolm]

     Any train that is Cancelled or is more than 6 minutes late is reported. I’ve divided the lines up into sections of eight, so you can get an idea of trains in your area.

     Using a “cron job” (a process that runs periodically) the system polls, every five minutes to live departure boards for: Barking, Gospel Oak, Chingford, Liverpool Street, Enfield Town, Cheshunt, Highbury & Islington, New Cross, Clapham Junction, Watford Junction, Willesden Junction, Euston, Richmond, West Croydon, Crystal Palace, Harrow & Wealdstone, Stratford, Dalston Junction, Canada Water and Seven Sisters.

     First the system filters for services that are marked with the “LO” operator mark. All other trains are disregarded.

     If it sees a service that shows as Cancelled (or Delayed without data) or is running more than 6 minutes late, the service is flagged. All flagged services are then tweeted. Any later changes to status are not reported.

     Each tweet is “geocoded” with the location of the starting station.

     If a train is cancelled it will generate more than one message for each section where it won’t appear.

     The link in the tweet goes to a domain called overground.info – this allows it to have direct access from the Twitter site and (in particular) the Android and Apple apps so you can see the live depature board without knowing the ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/service/ldbboard/dep/…. link. So, http://overground.info/LST/SVS shows the Liverpool Street to Seven Sisters trains.

     When the bot has been running for a while I will add the @LDNOverground name to the Tweets.

     The cron job doesn’t work between 3am and 5am. Instead it deletes all the data from the system and cleans up the database.

     I don’t know why London Overground couldn’t manage this themselves, it’s not very hard to do.

197. What is the plural form of “Anonymous”? (We have them here)

     Anonymice? Anonymii?

     Can I plead for sanity?

     Can the Anonymii (various) be Anonymous 1, Anonymous 2, Anonymous 3, etc, and stick with it, so that we know we’re addressing the same (anonymous) person?

198. I have a name! If the Hayes line becomes part of the Bakerloo line extension, that’s one under TfL already. The other stopping services would be ideal for Overgroundisation but you’d have to figure out where to terminate them.

     Already the tracks between H&I and Surrey Quays are overcrowded. There needs to be an alternative route to allow more trains along those routes. London Bridge end platform?

199. @Castlebar – anonymones?

200. @An anonymous who asked about “Southern” Cross-Country services. My 1938 Bradshaw shows a joint GW/SR service from Birkenhead and Wolverhampton (possibly two separate trains) to Brighton, Eastbourne and Hastings, via Reading and – err – Earlswood* (so could have run either via the N Downs or Acton Wells and CJ). I have not been able to track down the carriage circuit diagrams, but since the service took up most of the day, it is highly likely to have comprised an SR set and a GW set. Loco change at Reading presumably.

     The post-war and post – privatisation version was focussed on Gatwick and eventually retreated to just Guildford – (?) Manchester, in which form the timings were useless, with a departure from Guildford at around 0600 and from the north in the late morning. Quite who was supposed to use it was unclear. It was worked by a Voyager. Four hours of thrum to get to Manchester – no thanks. [It wasn’t supposed to be like that: the Chris Green vision for West Coast had a much more frequent service to Gatwick in the plans].

201. Sorry: the * footnote to be added: I haven’t found an intermediate stop between Reading and Earlswood (yet) but Earlswood is difficult to explain…

202. @ GH

     Not sure the GW/LSWR link was there at Reading pre-war. I look forward to being corrected, Also, my scanty info source suggests loco change was at Oxford, south of where Southern had running rights.

     But I cannot confirm either at this time.

203. This map from 1934 seems to show an underpass GW/LWSR connection at Reading, though it looks a bit goods-oriented.

204. Briantist
     I don’t know why London Overground couldn’t manage this themselves, it’s not very hard to do.
     [Snarky answer snipped. Malcolm]

     Malcom/Castlebar
     Yes … it existeduntil quite late, ( 1971 or ’72? ), but was principally for goods workings.
     But, like the Crew diveunders, it could be used (& occasionally was used) by passenger services.

205. @Graham H
     ” No one would have sent a 455 to the Solent, for example, or run a 12 car VEP round the Kingston loop.”
     455s often get to Reading – and 8VEPs and their class 450 successors have been occasional visitors to the Kingston Loop. I even heard of a 74+8TC running in service on the loop once, using the path to get it the right way round.

206. @timbeau – these are not the standard recovery measures (and I deliberately said Solent, not Reading, which is regarded as an inner). The point remains that for all purposes except the very occasional swap, the service groups are kept separate. Operationally,not doing so leaves the crew and stock out of place, and in many cases the exchanges would be technically infeasible because of platform lengths or, in some instances, suspension types.

207. Graham H
     These are the services that Anonymous referred to:
     http://www.1s76.com/1S76%201980.htm
     ….at least from a Brighthelmstonian perspective.Another service ran,I think,to Folkestone? Dover?…Both services were interesting as they used parts of the WLL usually without a regular passenger service…now,with Overground,old hat,of course.

208. Will adding a -ly suffix do?

     When I said SR, I meant (ex-) BR Southern Region, not Southern Railway….sorry! That’ll teach me for being a lazy typer. Since Intercity didn’t exist before the 70s, I thought my question made sense in that context, but perhaps not….

209. @Anomalous….thank you for that. That reassures me that they weren’t just a figment of my childhood imagination ;).

210. @Anomalous – (welcome in your new guise?) – thanks for the link. These would appear to have been Midland services rather than Southern,or perhaps by 1981, more accurately, Cross-Country. Between 1945 and 1976, LMS/SR joint operations? (One would need to see the carriage circuit diagrams to be sure; does anyone recall seeing Southern green in Manchester?). The pre-war GW-SR services don’t seem to have left a trace by then – perhaps not surprising, given the demise of Birkenhead as a GW destination.

211. @ GH and all Anonymati

     I feel we may be missing something

     Let’s go back to the timetable in question. It was 1938

     Those were the days of split trains with attachments/detachments and slip coaches. It was also the time when the GWR ran most southbound services from Birkenhead and Wolverhampton via the NNML through Wycombe and Greenford. Then North Acton Junction was available to run on to the WLL via Wood Lane and North Pole Junction. Now, is it possible this train was split, with one part running to “Earlswood” via this option, and another part running to Oxford and Reading via a detachment at Snow Hill? The actual times in that 1938 timetable might suggest that all the journey wasn’t completed by the same carriages throughout the journey. I do know that “The Sunny South Express” ran from Eastbourne via Haywards Heath and Clap Junc, but in 1938 the WLL and NNML were available via Wood Lane which tends to be forgotten now

212. Graham H…
     Drat,rumbled so easily.
     Now I have to work out how you knew.

213. @Anomalous – (with apologies for the double post). I have now retrieved my 1950 LMS timetable. This shows a M-F service from Birkenhead (Woodside) via Guildford* to Redhill ,where the train divided into Brighton/Hastings and Deal portions, with the Deal portion further dividing at Ashford. (Saturdays from Brum only). The operation was clearly regarded as joint – footnote K warns punters from Reading to Brighton to book at Reading South (ie the Southern station).

     Manchester was offered a service to Brighton and Hastings on Friday nights (not clear how this was routed), and Leicester an afternoon service similarly.

     * a clue to these movements may be in the North Camp call off the Birkenhead trains – at the time of national service, an important purpose may have been to get servicemen back to base.

214. @Graham H
     “The pre-war GW-SR services don’t seem to have left a trace by then ”
     In their latter days the cross country services were diverted south of Birmingham to run via Reading and the GWML to the WLL, instead of via the WCML. It was their demise that led to the infamous Wandsworth road – Olympia “Parliamentary” trains, and the even more infamous Ealing – Wandsworth “ghost bus”, both reference in the 1S76 link above

     It also led to sights like this:
     http://www.leightonlogs.org/19069955022.jpg
     Third rail, headcode indicative of Scottish destination, and a few other incongruities!

215. @Graham H 0833 – Point taken, now in my new guise and no longer Spartacus. Many employers in the rail business take a dim view of any ‘off message’ opinions being expressed, hence a certain paranoia when posting online!

     Pre sectorisation the use of the InterCity name was very haphazard. Search “Bournemouth Inter City” on Google images for a rather nice advert with a picture of a third rail EMU and reference to ‘Southern Inter-City’. There wasn’t really any focus on a minimum standard of service passengers could expect in terms of environment, catering etc and they were operated as an integrated part of whichever region, hence my description of them being nominal.

     Network Express was another slightly half hearted attempt from the late 80’s into the 90’s. So for example Paddington to Newbury fasts, Waterloo to Exeter and the like were designated as Network Express on the timetable and on departure boards. I don’t believe it was ever used as part of a train livery. I think that catering and possibly air conditioning were at least an aspiration on board.

     @Casper Lucas 0914 – Yes, just to confuse things even more I believe Networker Express was used as a description for that stock type. However I don’t think the class 166 was ever described as that despite being the diesel equivalent!

216. What parliamentary trains are still running?

217. @Hedgehog – quite a few.

     On the Overground, there is the Barking – Willesden Junction (low level bay platform) that picks up two curves (bypassing Gospel Oak, and linking NLL and Watford DC lines) and the more famous Battersea Park – SLL route.

     I guess, if they were still running, the Croxley Green – Watford taxis would be Overground.

     The New Overground routes probably have a few relating to the chords either side of South Tottenham (and did the Graham Road curve ever close officially?).

218. Another example of possible unintended consequences of splitting operator from SWT land:

     If the south west main line is blocked east of Weybridge services can be diverted via Chertsey and Staines. It’s the best solution for the railway as a whole but generally relies on using pilots beyond Woking and also causes knock on delays to the Windsor lines. It’s hard to imagine that a separate suburban operator would be happy for either of those two things to happen

219. I imagine the Romford-Upminster service will be more resilient now. It always seemed to be the first to be canned if there was a staff or train shortage.

     Questions for the assembled wisdom. As I understand it then, LOROL are now the operator. Were the train staff TUPEd over? And the trains? Presumably AGA still have them on lease, so are they being sub-let?
     I ponder these things after reading the tales of 455s and 4VEPs exploring the South Western. With more and more fragmentation of operation, I can’t see any incentive for the operators to train drivers on routes and traction outside of their own little area. Were AGA drivers generally passed on the Lee Valley lines and GEML? Will they continue to be? LOROL are probably going to need as many spare driver rosters as AGA needed to run both services.

220. @RichardH – Staff are always TUPEd over. Not sure about units in this case. It would be very rare on any large operator for anyone to sign all lines due to the complication and cost from a rostering perspective of keeping line knowledge up to date. For example on SWT a typical Strawberry Hill based driver might sign to Reading, Windsor, Shepperton and the main line as far as Woking. Of course this does still given flexibility to move stock between routes or use pilots if a driver doesn’t sign for a particular route. It’s likely that splitting an operator into smaller chunks will lose some operational flexibility but not always to the extent you might think and will vary from route to route.

221. @ Richard H – there have been three days of train failures affecting the Romford – Upminster service in the last week. I take your point but the trains are in a poor state and I’m not convinced there are enough drivers given the scale of cancellations. It will be interesting to see what service we get on Sunday 7 June on the routes out of Liverpool St. I note the 0048 to Chingford was cancelled a little while ago – thankfully not the last train but even so a half hour wait at this time of night is no fun.

222. timbeau
     That Deltic looks as though it’s running “wrong line” to me. Uh?

     Anon
     The two curves either side of S Tottenham have at least one a day, for route-learning & rail-polishing (Squeal!)
     For full information on this you need the Branch Line Society’s annual publication “PSUL” ( Public Services over Unusual Lines )

223. @starlight – Yes, retirement gives you the luxury of not having to truckle to any one any more… You are right about the limitations on drivers signing, which is a significant constraint on flexibility but not worth the cost of dealing with; there was a particularly good/bad case on SWT a couple of years ago, where the signallers set the wrong path for a train that should have gone down the main but was sent down the Guildford New line instead. Unfortunately, the driver hadn’t signed for that and it was some time before the train could be rescued, meanwhile…

     To go back to the point that started this off – about flexibility in managing termini when the service goes down – I can’t recall (m)any cases where, for example, at Waterloo,services were moved around between the platform groups. The beau ideal in the case of disruption was to reset the clock and arrange for every platform to have the right train at a particular specified hour.

     @timbeau – yes, I was thinking of Birkenhead when I wrote (possibly not a good thing to do); it was the regional boundaries that moved rather than the train routeing, but Birkenhead seems to have vanished as a cross-country destination well beforeInterCity appeared on the scene..

224. Going back up the thread a bit, there was never a GWR/LSWR connection at Reading. The nearest that LSWR infrastructure got to Reading was Wokingham, thence by running powers over the SER. As I understand it, through running has always been possible between the GW and SE lines, either through the subway or directly.

225. Anonymous of 0100 this morning

     An irregular service doesn’t necessarily mean it is ‘parliamentary’. The current usage is generally to describe a service that runs because it is easier to carry on than undertake closure procedures. But I believe the service that extends the Barking – Gospel Oak through to Willesden is a recent addition made by TfL, achieved by using what would have been empty stock (returning to Willesden depot after the peak) to add the calls west of Gospel Oak, previously it would have been running empty.

     Footnote A in the Mon-Sat westbound timetable, before the change it ran as per footnote B:
     https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/gospel-oak-to-barking-timetable-may-2015.pdf
     I suggest that service can be withdrawn any time, for instance if they were to extend the peak frequency during the day.

226. Not that many years ago there was a service from East Anglia calling at Brentford using a curve barely used since the Feltham freights ceased, and I cannot remember when the previous passenger use was.

227. Old Kew Junction to Kew East Junction on the Anglian Railways “London Crosslink”, running non stop Brentford to West Hampstead

228. @Paul -the legal test as to whether a closure case is required or not is “is it a service on which people had come to rely”. The further legal advice was that this definition excluded dated services but not the infrequent but regular services. So,a once a week service would require a closure case if it ran every week but not if it ran only on specific dates.

229. One particular operating constraint of the Romford – Upminster line is that it is only accessible from the Up Main line. So if the one and only unit on the branch fails it is difficult (if not impossible in the peaks) to exchange or swap over. Being out on a limb from the other Overground operations probably doesn’t help either not sure whether the nearest drivers are at Ilford or Liverpool St.

     I would imagine that the unit leases were transferred upon the takeover, as the lease expiry dates for the origianal Greater Anglia franchise could have had a suitable break point added to them as part of the franchise extension negotiations.

230. Re Briantist,

     Overground Twitter bot – Superb!

     “I don’t know why London Overground couldn’t manage this themselves, it’s not very hard to do.”
     err – because they don’t want to…

231. @Greg
     ” That Deltic looks as though it’s running “wrong line” to me. Uh?”
     Margate has four platforms – there are two more tracks over to the left.

     ” The two curves either side of S Tottenham have at least one a day, for route-learning & rail-polishing (Squeal!)
     For full information on this you need the Branch Line Society’s annual publication “PSUL” ( Public Services over Unusual Lines )”
     PSUL has just the one train a week in passenger service – the 0531 SO LST to Enfield Town”

232. @timbeau

     QUOTE For full information on this you need the Branch Line Society’s annual publication “PSUL” ( Public Services over Unusual Lines )” UNQUOTE

     Whilst I get the copy from Ian Allan, it is available `free` plus all previous editions from:
     http://www.psul4all.free-online.co.uk/2015.htm

233. ngh
     Monday morning update
     LO have cancelled two succesive Up Chingfords in the AM rush – so a 3/4 hour gap in the service …
     And on the TfL website… ?
     “Overground” – good service + ” There are currently no major line disruptions reported on the network”

     Credibility now gone for a long time, I suspect.
     Oh dear.

234. Now (09:06) it is “Minor Delays between Chingford and Clapton only, while we help a person ill on a train at Chingford”

     Quite possibly the delays are now minor. But …

235. It’s not unknown for an outgoing, or displaced, franchisee to ‘poison the well’ by neglect or deliberate inaction, even if not by design. It would not be the first time issues such as staff shortages have manifested themselves immediately after a takeover.

236. @NorthDevonian -often quite deliberate, I fear – some operators actually do the maths to establish how much they can take out of the businessbefore the penalties kick in. The Stagecoach bid team breathed a sigh of relief at losing TLK on these very grounds…

     The thing that puzzles me is why the politicians (or more particularly, the consultants advising them) didn’t understand this would happen; even within transport, the lessons of the early private horse tramways were not learned.

237. Re Greg T,

     TfL rainbow status updates chart is showing “minor delays” on Chingford route at the moment. I suspect the chart will need altering to include multiple oranges LO – Chingford, LO – ELL etc.

     I suspect TfL have been reading “Nudge*” and not taken away one of the key underlying tenets that you have to be telling what is observably true.

     The 1984 Apple advert comes to mind and Briantist has just thrown the hammer… TfL aren’t in control of the information any more
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I

     *Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness by Thaler & Sunstein

238. ngh, Greg

     Hindsight is wonderful. And it seems to me that it is possible (though of course not certain, given last week) that TfL’s internet displays may have been the best possible information for people not yet on the platform. If Chingford was waiting for a rush-hour ambulance to arrive and do its stuff, then this would have been known to cause a 5 to 35 minute delay, but which end of that interval would remain unknown until it happened. (And 35 would maybe become 45, given the need to slot into paths).

     Of course this is all highly speculative. But a display saying “major delays”, followed immediately by the person waking up and walking away and the train setting off 5 minutes late would also have been embarrassing. Perhaps a button is required which causes the rainbows to say “A possible delay, but maybe not…”

239. @Graham H
     ’twas ever thus – why spend money on an asset which is going to be someone else’s soon, unless you are actually trying to sell it? Gaming the system, whether by moving your best staff into the unit which is to stay, or ensuring that a locomotive (or horse, back in the day) loaned to another depot is one you would be glad not to get back if you think a re-allocation of stock might be in the offing.

240. @timbeau – absolutely – set up a game for money and people play it… My only surprise is at observers’ – and DfT’s – surprise. (One is reminded of the clapped out cavalcade of ambulances that departed for Staines (not on Thames in those days) when the GLC was set up.)

241. Similarly, in the early seventies the newly-formed London Country bus services should not have been surprised that they were experiencing noticeably poorer reliability from the Routemasters they had inherited than London Transport was getting from its own fleet. Funny that some of the very worst ones, despite their mechanical condition, seemed to have been recently painted! (Green, of course).

242. With regard to all this “let the opposition have the rubbish” stuff, am I being hopelessly naïve to think that some management might have a bit of what used to be called integrity? Yes, I suppose I am. 🙁

243. Re Malcolm,

     The Roscos will probably be happy as all the stock will be in far better condition by the time TfL have finished with it!

244. @Malcolm – alas. life in a state of nature is nasty, brutish, and short…. (Hobbes also mentioned being solitary, but that doesn’t seem to apply here!)

245. @ Malcolm > Yes

     When managers get “given” a few shares, with options to buy more at a discount, altruism seems to be able to evaporate quite quickly.

246. @ngh
     “all the stock will be in far better condition by the time TfL have finished with it!”
     What condition did Southern find the 313s in when they inherited them from TfL, or the 150s that went to Great Western?

247. Re Timbeau,

     TfL are actually doing some work to them this time (not just applying small vinyls to the exterior*) repaint, internal refresh, new seat covers and a few other modifications as they need to get 2-3 years out of all the stock (LO and TfL Rail) which carry far larger numbers of people than the ex-silverlink routes.

     *for example this photo (not mine):
     https://www.flickr.com/photos/dwbphotos/6803276716/

248. Mike (two days ago) said “The nearest that LSWR infrastructure got to Reading was Wokingham, thence by running powers over the SER”.

     True, except for any real pedant who carefully inspects this map, to observe a tiny bit of LWSR track forming part of the link we were talking about. Sorry about this.

249. @Malcolm – -;) You’re getting good at this game… BTW it’s odd how Reading and Bere Alston came to be on the same map,given the number of other locations where there were complex interfaces that lie between them!

250. Malcolm, that actually IS the link I was talking about. One of my books shows it as a “wartime connection”, and I do know it was used for Winston Churchill’s funeral train from Waterloo to Oxfordshire

251. Ever since the derailment at Camden Road I’ve found National Rail information on how the North London Line is running to be better, so no change then?

252. Looks like the Overground arrangement is proving a success. There were years of transitional problems on the North London Line after TFL took over, but the transformation from the third-world-standard Silverlink service to today’s operation is undeniable. Privatisation through franchising is a proven disaster and Major’s government have much to apologise for. At least this TFL concession system returns our services to a publicly controlled service with consistent standards and information design, whilst retaining the private enterprise element demanded by modern ideology. A shame we have to get the Hong Kong Chinese to run it for us – looks like British companies are no longer capable of it!

253. DK
     Agree re Mr Major etc, but to return to the actual subject under discussion … err … no.
     LOROL have been “in charge” of the ex-GE inners since the last day of May.
     In the 7 weekday working-days since then, the Chingford line has been working well (as it was under AGA) ONCE.
     Yes, it was screwed again this AM – a very annoyed “Boss” phoned me to tell me that her normal train was over 10 down on a 15-minute interval & arrived in the AM peak as a 4-car – & passengers weren’t told by p.a. until a few seconds before it arrived – she could not get on, so had to wait for another one.
     We are now, at my suggestion, compling a log of the sucessive failures of this non-service, compared to the previous operator.
     I must admit I have no idea how well or badly the Enfield/Cheshunt line is currently doing.

254. Does anyone know why from wood street Z4 to brondesbury Z2 is £1.90 avoiding zone 1 on tfl site? Should it not be £1.50

255. There seem to be two separate scales, depending on whether you are using “old” Overground or “new” Overground – plus of course the further (higher) scales still used for national rail services south of the river, and the even higher scale for through journeys from such services onto the Tube or Overground.

256. @ Anon 1003 – blame the DfT who have required that this bit of devolution does not “water down” fares levels where there are other operators running in the area. This has meant the creation of a separate fare “TfL, DLR and Overground” scale as Timbeau has said. If you want to read the detail then see the papers in the Mayoral Decision on these fares. The TfL Fares Advice paper gives the most explanation.

     https://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/mayor/mayoral-decisions/MD1485

     It’s all rather disappointing and not what I expected within the zonal area. On another forum someone astutely noticed a quote from the Mayor in a TfL press release about bringing one overall fare scale into place across Greater London.

     “Today’s announcement demonstrates the potential benefits for passengers of integrating London’s fares and the Mayor is again calling on the Government to enable a single set of fares for London, regardless of train operator. The current situation where fares from neighbouring stations can differ significantly must change with the different fare scales collapsed into one so all passengers are charged at the lower level set by the Mayor.”

     I am not holding my breath about a single fare scale being achieved as, at current TfL levels, it would breach the DfT’s policy at or across the zonal boundary. The alternative is, of course, that all cheap fares have to rise to remove the risk of a “step change” at the boundary. That’ll go down like a lead balloon for anyone who benefits from the current TfL fare scale. And just to upset Greg you also have to ask what happens with TOC only seasons and Travelcards with a unified fare scale given the relationship between single fares, daily caps / tickets and the season pricing and multipliers. The aim is admirable but the issue is extremely complex with big potential impacts on people’s pockets as well as franchise finances.

257. Greg’s comment yesterday seriously underestimated how bad the service on the Chingford line in the morning peak was. No southbound trains passed through Highams Park from 0815 when I arrived to 0900 when I got the bus to Woodford. Very limited information on the station itself but we were told that there was a person ill on a train at Chingford and that when the train finally left it broke down between there and Highams Park (due to overloading maybe?). Additionally a down train was held at the signal immediately north of Highams Park platform for a very long time, which seemingly caused the level crossing barriers to stay down for almost ten minutes until somebody apparently noticed and over-rode it. Which of course meant that the buses to Woodford for the Central Line were caught in stationary traffic on Hale End Road until the barriers lifted.

     It did not improve people’s mood to get into Woodford station at 0915 or so and immediately hear an automated announcement describing “good service on all Overground lines”.

258. Seems that the Overground Twitter account are now informing people of short formed train departures from Liverpool St. A small step in the right direction to restoring discarded former information channels.

259. The London Assembly Transport Committee had a session today on rail devolution. There were two parts to the debate – first half with TOC reps from SWT and South Eastern, people from Network Rail and the chair of London Travelwatch. Second half was with TfL, ATOC and reps from Kent CC and Surrey CC. The webcast is available at https://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/webcasts

     The webcast is 2hrs 40mins long with the split between sessions around 1 hr 35 mins.

     A few bullet points from each session.

     – Committee still concerned about London Bridge issues. Network Rail made a reasonable stab at explaining what they’ve done and what went wrong. However it wasn’t a scintilating performance.
     – Committee not enthused about the performance of South Eastern or SWT. Richard Tracey was particularly scathing about slow progress on capacity expansion on SWT suburban services. Tim Shoveller (MD) was reasonably lucid and candid about what had happened about the timing of remodelling at Waterloo which had pushed back other work.
     – Quite a lot of emphasis about how West Anglia devolution is a much bigger challenge for TfL than the takeover of Silverlink Metro was. Lack of large scale investment is the key factor. London Travelwatch are clearly keeping a keen eye on what is going on although they were clear they support devolution.
     – The TOC MDs were being as pragmatic as they could be in front of a committee of politicians and not digging in to defend franchising but you could see they really prefer not being subject to a TfL style concession.

     In the second half there was perhaps more of interest.

     – TfL (Geoff Hobbs) was his usual lucid and pragmatic self. Very clear that the London commuter market is different from elsewhere and tends to monopoly provision so “on rail” competition is illusory as is trying to chase revenue through advance tickets etc. He was very clear about wanting to pay specifically for defined areas of quality rather than assuming a broad incentive was the way to deliver improvement (the antithesis of a revenue chasing franchise). He also said using “average” measures was not appropriate given these can hide all sorts of issues and can prevent passenger concerns being properly dealt with.
     – ATOC Chief Executive was trying to appear as flexible and accommodating as possible but my sense was that he’s wedded to franchises and not terribly keen on TfL’s approach. I got no sense of enthusiasm from his comments.
     – The very interesting bit was that both Kent CC and Surrey CC were pragmatic and sensible in wanting to protect the interests of their residents. Kent had 3 “red lines” – no negative impact on fares, no “theft” of train paths by TfL and peak train capacity improvements by TfL should concentrate on train lengthening.
     – Kent admitted that they killed off South Eastern devolution because of the Estuary Airport proposals. In short they didn’t want the airport so the Mayor didn’t get as much train set as he wanted.
     – Kent and Surrey very happy to work with TfL on more devolution proposals. Kent were very keen about Oyster being extended to Dartford, Sevenoaks and possibly as far as Gravesend. Some caution was noted by TfL about the ability to offer cheaper fares (given what’s happened with West Anglia and TfL Rail). Interestingly the counties weren’t keen on suddenly having a “cheap” station which could skew commuting patterns and create unwanted congestion and parking problems compared to the current situation.
     – Both counties wanted to work in partnership with TfL on devolution / Crossrail 2 and not be presented with a fait accompli.
     – Both counties were watching West Anglia’s progress with interest as they felt that was the closest model to their areas.
     – TfL said they were more than happy to go through the relevant issues with the Counties.
     – Reliability problems on West Anglia were raised. Mr Hobbs was clear that daily action was being taken to get service quality to where it should be. The 317s that LOROL have taken on were not put through as much “pre transfer” running as expected to shake out faults. These trains have been “off lease” so not in as good shape as expected. Although the word “embarrassment” was not used it was clear that TfL aren’t happy. Mr Hobbs said the issues should be solved within a month (I suspect it’ll be faster than that).

     Overall a much more pragmatic session about future prospects for devolution provided the next Mayor wants it and can work with the government to get it. Oh and if there is no estuary airport proposed for Kent or Surrey.

260. Kent CC objected to TfL takeover because of the pie-in-the-sky, was-never-going-to-happen Estuary Airport??? Really??? Somehow, I find that hard to believe.

     Based on your encouraging report however, I have removed TfL takeover from the ‘Too Difficult’ box and have placed it in the ‘Very Hard But Not Impossible’ box.

261. @ Anonymously – well you can watch the webcast for yourself to see what was said. I might be naive but I doubt a councillor from Kent CC would tell a blatant lie to the Transport Committee. I can’t see any upside for them in doing so. Now it might be the *main* issue amongst others but there clearly was a lot of local dissent in Kent (and Essex) to the Estuary Airport plan. We all know the attitude the Mayor (and his key advisors) have displayed with respect to the Estuary Airport proposal and I expect it will all get raked over yet again in a few weeks time when the Airports Commission reports and the agony of making a decision lands with Mr McLoughlin and Mr Cameron. The apparent sense from the Mayor that his plan was full of virtue and lacking in any drawbacks would inevitably upset those who’d end up with the airport on their doorsteps. Politicians aren’t averse to a bit of “tit for tat” regardless of the likelihood of any given proposal succeeding – it’s all about who can do what to whom in terms of power and impact. Kent were obviously able to exert more influence than the Mayor where it mattered. I still think that TfL can present a more cogent argument and probably need to spell out in fine detail how they would cope with the “red line” issues. I also think it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility to do things with off peak services that would be beneficial to Kent residents without upsetting peak time commuters.

262. TfL paper on procurement of new trains for London Overground.

     https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/fpc-20150617-item16-part-1-lotrain.pdf

     Not read it yet but I understand it has interesting things in it about future options.

263. @WW

     Interesting document. Clause 3.3 I found of interest, and assuming I have read it correctly, namely:

     (c) four tph Euston – Watford, five tph Gospel Oak – Barking.

     I don`t recollect reading this anywhere else, even as a `kite-flying` exercise.

264. Re Steven Taylor,

     I read it the same way also

     Useful re-confirmation of the cascade plan as well:
     Watford DC stock replaced and cascaded to give
     8tph to 10tph on NLL services and
     6 trains (4car) to ELL

     Aren’t all 57x 378s being lengthened so that bit doesn’t make sense…

     The potential add on order is a massive 249 cars split between extra units and lengthening units to 5 car

     Extra units listed for
     (a) Barking Riverside
     (b) Stratford – Angel Road
     (c) four tph Euston – Watford, five tph Gospel Oak – Barking.

     So back of the envelope
     31 West Anglia (+Rominister) Units to 5 car =31 cars
     8 initial Goblin units to 5 car =8 cars
     6 initial Watford DC units to 5 car = 6 cars
     tph increases in part (c):
     Watford DC +2 units = 10 cars
     Goblin +2 units = 10 cars
     Barking Riverside 1 may be 2 units = 5/10 cars
     Which comes to 70/75 cars

     And leaves about 35 5 car units for St – AR ?!?

265. @ Ngh – I agree the wording isn’t precise but perhaps it means a total potential order of 249 cars rather than 249 *extra* cars? The base order is 180 cars so the increment of 69 extras would broadly fit in with your calculation of the extras although the numbers don’t quite work.

     Para 3.6 does make it clear that 5 car 378s would move off the Watford DC route for deployment elsewhere so the 4 car reference you highlight is the 6 *new* four car units that will be bought for the Watford line. In the future it’s probable that any extra units for a 4 tph Watford service would be 4 cars too which pulls down the extra cars total a little bit. I think the view is that 5 car EMUs on the Watford Line is overkill hence the willingness to buy 4 car units as a replacement.

     On this basis I think the incremental options may vary slightly but it does depend on the sequence of upgrade decisions.

266. Are they still in denial about the Greenford branch as to what to do with it and what is going to run on it? This really is going to end up as an isolated diesel operated Cinderella that will never turn into a swan.

     A 3 car unit MIGHT be able to use the Greenford bay, S. Greenford & Castlebar COULD be lengthened, but I doubt you could fit a 3 car platform in at Drayton Green. And would the expense be worth it?

267. @ Castlebar – Government have decreed the Greenford line is part of FGW so it’s down to them to sort it out. Given not all of the GW branch lines are being electrified anyway the diesel island is not going to be as small as originally envisaged. I agree it’s probably not ideal but there’s obviously no appetite to do anything substantial otherwise it would be happening. I suspect TfL don’t want the distraction of another small line that doesn’t fit with Crossrail and the DfT are pre-occupied with the full GWML upgrade / electrification. I think that’s all pushed any prospects for the Greenford line a long way down the “to do” list. Maybe in the next fully retendered GW franchise or when TfL are much clearer about Overground and Crossrail’s ongoing performance and strategy?

268. Didn’t one of TfL’s long range forecasts (2050 IIRC) have the West Ealing – Greenford shuttle extended up the Chiltern line somewhere? That will probably have to be considered eventually – presumably post HS2 building up the Ruislip corridor?

     On the face of it transfer to Chiltern seems a reasonable fit, allowing he West Ealing connection into Crossrail to soak up some of the High Wycombe line’s passenger growth. Extra services aren’t going to be fitted into Marylebone very easily.

269. Yet more problems tonight on the West Anglia line. Judging by what’s being said on Twitter tonight, customer patience with LO and TfL is wearing very thin. On the plus side, looks like some train-specific information is now being made available.

270. ‘Paul
     “allowing the West Ealing connection into Crossrail to soak up some of the High Wycombe line’s passenger growth.”

     Given the constraints on platform lengths at Drayton Green etc, I can’t see the route offering much extra capacity. And given the time needed to make those stops, I can’t see it being a very attractive proposition compared with the non-stop run to Marylebone and a quick hop to Paddington or Bond Street (using that convenient Jubilee Line station round the corner from Marylebone) to pick up Crossrail there.

271. Well I wasn’t trying to justify it, just mentioning in passing that TfL must have considered it.

272. If you extend the Greenford branch up the Chiltern, you will either have to re-build Greenford station beyond recognition, or, re-open the old GWR station for those services, thus having two stations, on different levels, conjoined by a pedestrian tunnel

273. @ Anon 1811 – as I suspect you’ve already done, a twitter search on “chingford line” throws up a huge number of negative tweets about the rail service. I particularly liked the comparison of TfL being “about as much use as an underwater hairdryer”. There are other choice remarks. I note now the local paper is on the case, there is an online petition demanding a change of TOC and Walthamstow’s MP is being copied in. By way of contrast there is a very interesting post on uk rail forums from a driver who explains what has been going on and how massive the accumulated maintenance backlog was. Interestingly he says that those trains which LOROL have had repaired are like new so there is some hope of improvement.

274. Walthamstow Writer: was this the article?

     http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/13321801.Frustated_commuters_hit_out_over_ongoing_disruption_to_commuter_line_taken_over_by_TfL/?cmpid=cmt

275. @WW
     “By way of contrast there is a very interesting post on uk rail forums from a driver who explains what has been going on and how massive the accumulated maintenance backlog was. ”
     As discussed a couple of days ago, any company compulsorily taking over assets from another should not expect them to have had much recent TLC.

276. That article also has a picture of a 317 in the new colours (captioned as “new”!)

277. how massive the accumulated maintenance backlog was.

     All rolling stock is leased. If a company leases a car it is required to maintain the vehicle (or contract care in an approved manner) and pay the lease company on return of the vehicle if it does not come up to agreed standard. Why does this not appear to be the case for trains and franchised TOCs?

278. @Kit Green – the short,non-technical answer is that there is a delay between stopping maintenance and the effects of doing that becoming apparent. Your gamesman TOC therefore spends a lot of effort to identify the optimum moment to stop before anyone notices. Yes, of course, the next lessee could try and mount a claim against their predecessors, but (a) it would be very difficult to prove legally, and (b) the thieves hang together.

279. @ Timbeau – well yes I know and it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone inside the industry. I doubt your regular commuter has any idea of what has gone on though. I confess to being surprised at what seems to have been going on given the apparent long standing nature of the faults. I wonder what on earth they’d think if they knew they were travelling round in trains riddled with faults (even if they’re non safety critical ones). Obviously some faults / lack of maintenance are obvious to the travelling public but many are not.

     @ Kit Green – I wonder quite what may be going on in the background in terms of inter company discussions and what the ROSCO has to say. I don’t know if the leases have transferred to LOROL or whether there is a sub lease from AGA to LOROL. Either way round I suspect there’s a commercial dispute brewing. TfL must be hating the brewing reputational damage.

280. They may be hating the reputational damage but they’re doing nothing to mitigate it at present. The public relations strategy appears to be ignore the press, ignore Twitter and claim there’s a good service when there clearly isn’t. This is the kind of situation which needs apology and explanation right from the top along with a clear idea what’s being done to rectify the problems. It’s hard to imagine even the worst of the conventional TOC’s handling that side of things so badly.

281. At the appropriate time I would welcome an LR article, similar to those on the London Bridge and Finsbury Park/Kings Cross delays, analysing the reasons behind the situation re performance since LOROL takeover on the Chingford, Cheshunt and Enfield lines.

282. Graham H
     ( On maintenance “holidays” ) …
     However, the AGA-run services were running very well. In fact there has been a steady improvement in reliability ( & internal cleanliness ) of the inner-suburban ex-GER services over the past 10 years. AGA were doing a good job.
     On the last day of May, TfL/LOROL take over, the next day is the first day of “normal” services, a Monday … & the whole thing immediately falls over in a big smelly heap & has, apprently, failed at some point on every weekday since then.
     Which tends to indicate that TfL/LOROL have screwed-up, big-time.

     WW
     I confess to being surprised at what seems to have been going on given the apparent long standing nature of the faults.
     I’m not buying that – see my comments immediately above, regarding steady improvement under AGA. Either someone is telling porkies, or someone is seriously deluding themselves, & I’m inclined to the latter opinion.
     TfL must be hating the brewing reputational damage. Except that they appear to be doing nothing about it, at all, do they?
     I will admit to being pleased that the local press & representatives are already “on the case” ( & we will be adding our 2d-worth to the heap ) yet TfL seem blinded by their own propaganda & blaming everyone else, as Starlight correctly notes.

     1956
     IF we can actually find out what happened, that is.

283. Re Greg,

     If you split a large fleet (315s+317s) which could be moved around as needed if there were problems into 3 separate ones (i. Greater Anglia to Greater Anglia, TfL Rail, London Overground) you lose lots of flexibility and resilience when things go wrong to reallocate stock. The stored (some /all?) former Stansted Express 317s have been returned to service as splitting the fleets up reduced the effectiveness of diagramming which has resulted in needing more units to run the same services when they are split up in 3 ways.
     The Anglia franchises have also been known to be very lean on units hence it taking a long time to do refurb programmes compared to other big commuter TOCs and TfL might have reduced their resilience too much by trying to refresh too many units too quickly?

284. One factor has already been touched on – some faults, such as faulty TPWS, headlights, wipers, drivers seats etc, can be lived with provided you always marshal the cab in question in the middle of a two-unit (i.e eight car) train. You lose some flexibility but can keep the service going. If AGA were careful to make sure that all the units they kept had two fully-functioning cabs, (possibly even by moving components from one unit to another) the proportion of faulty ones with TfL and LO would inevitably be much higher (i.e they would have fewer double-enders) and some flexibility would inevitably be lost.
     That the conversion of the former Silverlink lines did not exhibit such a marked loss of reliability may be down to a number of factors:
     firstly, when you’re at rock bottom, the only way is up.
     Secondly, LO took over Silverlink’s entire fleet of 313s – there was no opportunity for the incumbent to hoard the best ones.
     Thirdly – the incumbent had no interest in favouring one half of the split over the other: Silverlink was operated by National Express, but when its Metro and County operations parted company, both went to new operators, LO and Govia respectively.

285. Re Timbeau,

     Agreed it looks like someone hasn’t appreciated the maths when taking over.
     The units seem to have been split fairly logically (i.e. no apparently randomised allocations) with GA retaining all the 2nd later batch of the 317s. The pragmatic method of fault resolution appears to have been in existence since before Abellio’s or Nat Ex’s tenures so it shouldn’t have been a surprise.

     315+317 fleet split
     GA have 45x 317s (including the demo upgrade 722)
     TfL Rail have 44x 315s (818-861)
     LO have 32 units:
     17x 315s (801-817)
     & 15x 317s (including 8 of the formerly stored off lease ex Stansted Express units (317/7) -stored during NatEx’s tenure, GA brought 2 back into use to allow greater resilience / maintenance (and 379013 battery trial cover) and the other 6 have allegedly come back for LO to provide more units as the fleet can’t be used as effectively now it is split up.

286. Yet more problems this morning.

     Four words I never expected to see on Twitter are now turning up fairly regularly

     “Bring Back Greater Anglia”

287. I’m sure the reason for the problems are as outlined above. However this change of operator wasn’t overnight, these are problems which should have been planned for and mitigated against. There’s a suggestion that the lack of maintenance was almost malicious however it’s inevitable given how the franchise system is structured that spending is loaded towards the front. It’s also well known that you tend to get teething problems with stock which has come out of storage. It’s been the case with the ex SWT 442’s Southern took over for Gatwick Express and the ex Gatwick Express 458’s on SWT. As Greg notes above there seems to be an arrogance at Tfl that just because they’re running it then it’s automatically better. I know it’s easy to sit and snipe from the sidelines but I really don’t remember any franchise change or any stock cascade that’s ever gone quite this badly before.

288. @Starlight
     “There’s a suggestion that the lack of maintenance was almost malicious ”
     Not malicious or spiteful – just pragmatic: we spend our money on assets we are keeping, not those we are disposing of (willingly or otherwise).

     The ex-Gatwick 460s were not used by SWT in the form they were received, but immediately went into the rebuilding programme for conversion to 458s. It does seem that this was a bigger task than they had bargained for. The ex-Southern 456 conversion programme is going slower than expected though – again, they were rather tatty when they arrived.

     @Starlight
     “I really don’t remember any franchise change or any stock cascade that’s ever gone quite this badly before.”
     There have certainly been stock and/or staff shortages after franchises have taken over – although the worst ones were when the first franchises took over from BR – I recall the staff shortages in the early days on SWT.
     There were also chronic stock shortages when First Great Western took over the local services from Wessex Trains, although I don’t think an actual cascade was involved in that case.

289. Re Starlight,

     Given that It all the same people on the ground it does suggest that management procedure /processes might have big part to play. Those are necessarily that easy to rewrite on the fly under pressure especially if key assumptions of the operating model don’t hold.

     TfL/LO have previously only operated single unit services so all cabs had to be functional (so the local practices might have been a slight surprise) and couplers well who needs then any way. Now they have to have couplers (inc. the electronics connections side) functional on most units. Or be able to turn units so the faulty couplers are at the end of an 8 car and the “dead” cabs at the centre (and swapping parts so both of those occur at opposite ends of a unit) and guessing that those processes are documented and planned for at LO-WA at the moment?

290. @ Timbeau – the issues about doubled up units masking faults has certainly been mentioned. I think it’s also the case that units that ran on the Shenfield route have ended up with LOROL and others have gone the other way. TfL Rail seem to have far fewer train faults but that’s possibly because they run more double units and can cope in the short term with units with faults. That’s not really the same for LOROL where there is more mixing and splitting. Having seen comments from a driver of the trains I am inclined to accept what they say about what’s been going on whereas Greg doesn’t seem so disposed. I don’t see that people (drivers or TfL officials) are going to lie outright because doing that is usually “found out” in due course. It would be doubly stupid to do so when so much is at stake in terms of the future and during a Transport Committee investigation.

     Looking at Twitter this morning it seems to have been another torrid AM peak with multiple train faults, cancellations and knock on delays.

     Trying to be pragmatic I think it’s fair to say things are not good at all but TfL are aware despite appearances. I’ve certainly seen an apology poster from Mike Stubbs and I don’t use the route that often nor pass through Walthamstow Central daily. I’m not sure what can be said that will satisfy people who are rightly fed up. If you provide a date for things getting better and it’s judged to be too far away you simply attract more criticism. If you give long boring explanations as to what’s gone wrong then people switch off and aren’t interested. The key is simply to get the service working and to give regular, pertinent updates on progress. Hopefully TfL will do these things.

291. @timbeau

     “I recall the staff shortages in the early days on SWT.”

     Happy days, my introduction to the sharp end of working on the railway. I recall us being sent a list of planned cancellations each day. Of course being pre widespread internet it could only really be disseminated via posters and informing as many customers as you could on their outward journey.

     Ahh, Wessex, another ex NEG operator who had a rather make do and mend policy toward train maintenance.

     @ngh

     “TfL/LO have previously only operated single unit services so all cabs had to be functional (so the local practices might have been a slight surprise)”

     I’m sure you’re right but it demonstrates the importance of proper planning, getting the right people on side and often listening to things you may not want to hear. If your automatic assumption is that you’re better than the people currently doing something so you don’t need that due diligence it’s not always going to end well.

292. Another throught for the mix – did LO draw the short straw with their fleet split between 2 ROSCOs?
     315 belong to Porterbrook
     317 belong to Angel

293. Starlight / WW
     I find the “dead cabs” argument fascinating & must admit I hadn’t thought of that one.
     OTOH, a supposedly professional operator like LOROL should have, shouldn’t they?
     But, for example, when you get an “explanation” that says “signal failure” @ Liverpool St ( in pf 7 ) & the trains are running in & out of both 6 & 8 quite normally, one begins to wonder a little …..

294. GT 13.38: I’ll start by nominating the overspeed TPWS grids as platform-specific components of the signalling system.

     ngh 13.31: One out of two’s not bad! (Sorry, couldn’t resist; in any case your argument still holds, although multi-RoSCo fleets are far from unknown.

     timbeau 10.40: Of course, AGA lost all the 315s (split between XR and LO) so arguably analogous to the Silverlink 313s, but that does still leave the 317s, of which a high proportion were previously off lease.

295. @Greg

     “But, for example, when you get an “explanation” that says “signal failure” @ Liverpool St ( in pf 7 ) & the trains are running in & out of both 6 & 8 quite normally, one begins to wonder a little …..”

     Not impossible that one route can fail to set. Don’t know Liverpool St workings well enough but most terminals operate with little spare capacity so one small failure can have a knock on effect and cause delays and cancellations.

     In coming up for 20 years on the railway I’ve never known a deliberate lie regarding a failure. Economy with the truth, miscommunication and even two explanations because one thing has led to another but that’s not quite the same.

296. @ Greg – I don’t think the “supposedly professional” swipe at LOROL is particularly fair. Neither you nor I know the skills, competence and experience of their management team. As already said the existing operation has not had to deal with splitting and joining in service. It was not a feature of the ex Silverlink Metro operation nor does it feature in the modernised NLL/WLL/ELL/SLL etc setup. MTR were new to the UK market when they teamed with Chiltern / Arriva / DB. To the best of my knowledge their Hong Kong operation does not require “in service” splitting and joining in their Metro operation and I rather suspect their asset management policies don’t involve not maintaining rolling stock, hiding faults through train reformation or not fixing reported faults. Reputationally they’d be “dead” in Hong Kong if a failure was found to be down to those sorts of causes.

     Clearly Chiltern do split and join trains but I doubt they go round not maintaining trains either nor have they yet been through the end of a franchise so won’t have indulged in the “spend no money” type of regime. Therefore I can see that the risk they’ve now been landed with might not have registered with them in planning the transition. No one has perfect knowledge – we all learn new stuff all the time.

     I agree with Starlight’s remark – there is no merit in lying. It only takes someone to request the requisite performance and fault cause data via Network Rail or TfL (both subject to FOI) to see what has transpired. Someone, somewhere will be tracking what is happening and it’ll get raised formally at some point.

297. For those at present in the dark, are the new Overground trains dividing/joining en route?

298. @ Hedgehog – AFAIK trains do not split / join while making in service journeys. I believe what happens is that a 8 car train may arrive at a terminal and having disgorged its passengers it will split into two 4 car units in a shunting move. 1 unit remains at the terminal off peak while the other, furthest from the buffer stops, returns in service and keeps running off peak. When you get to the PM peak then an incoming 4 car unit will join to the one that’s been parked up and then go back as an 8 car. There’s no guarantee that the units that split at the end of the AM peak are the same as those that join together for the PM peak. There may also be other moves at places like Chingford, which has sidings, that brings units out of sidings to form longer peak workings. There are also empty stock workings from Chingford – I saw one the other day which, unfortunately, was showing as a public service on the info displays.

     I am not sure what transpires on the TfL Rail service to Shenfield with regard to splitting / joining as I rarely use the line. I know there are extra peak trains that run from Ilford and Gidea Park.

     I am sure those who are more knowledgeable will correct the above as necessary.

299. @WW
     “split into two 4 car units in a shunting move. 1 unit remains at the terminal off peak while the other, furthest from the buffer stops, returns in service and keeps running off peak.”
     More likely both 4-car sets remain in service, on different rosters, allowing another 8-car to go to the depot for maintenance.

300. Caspar Lacas
     For a departure, with the stock already sitting in the platform?

     Starlight
     I’m sorry to say that I have – @ Seven Sisters, for certain.
     Other places, maybe not, but it does happen.
     – on the same subject, re “WW” – of course there is “no merit in lying”, but it doesn’t stop either stupid, or over-clever people from trying it on, far too often – the latter group includes, of course, most politicians, but I think we won’t go there, right now! [Please do not repeat this accusation too frequently. Malcolm]

     timbeau
     Correct.
     Certainly used to happen @ LST every day – but I haven’t watched the new egime there, since the changeover.

301. @WalthamstowWriter The fact that the WA lines use splitting and joining for a few trains is no excuse for the poor service. London Overground had plenty of time to acquaint themselves with the operational quirks of the line and make sure they could cope with them before the handover. Why should the commuters of Enfield and Chingford have to be the victims of LOROL and TfL’s lack of preparation?

302. @ Anon 1024 – Sorry but I don’t see where I said that splitting / joining was an excuse. It’s one factor one amongst many. I completely understand why people are fed up. It’s unacceptable and things have clearly gone wrong or not been considered as fully as they should have been. I happen to think Abellio and the ROSCOs are not exactly blameless in all this either based on the limited information that has emerged. However we are not able to turn back the clock so the only answer is for LOROL to get the trains fixed and to iron out whatever operational “wobbles” are going on. I’m just commenting and trying to be “fair” having been on wrong end of disruption problems in the past. I know there are not instant answers to remove the cause of disruptions even though the passengers want an instant solution. I don’t really need to be treated as if I am a TfL apologist. People’s ire should be directed to those in charge.

303. GT 08.48: Well, if you had said that the train was already in the platform and awaiting departure… Fair enough, the facts have changed and so I change my mind. I withdraw my nomination and transfer my support to Starlight (17.08 yesterday) – or maybe to any other possible explanation.

304. Walthamstow Writer @ 11 June 2015 at 22:02

     “I am not sure what transpires on the TfL Rail service to Shenfield with regard to splitting / joining as I rarely use the line. I know there are extra peak trains that run from Ilford and Gidea Park.”

     The number of trains entering service from Ilford in the morning peak has been reduced from 17 May 2015.
     4-car trains used to run on Saturdays and Sundays, but that stopped a while ago.

305. One does wonder if this staffing problem is simply a re-play of what happened when BR was split up and suddenly drivers qualified to drive Freight , local and long distance services and free to move between depots suddenly found they were allocated to say Freight trains and so could not be used for Sunday passenger services thus creating a driver shortage ?

     Perhaps TFL should have set up TFL Rail as more of a shell operation whereby signs at stations would say TFL Rail but trains and drivers of WA Overground and TFL Rail would remain as one unit for at 6-12 months with split occurring just before new Crossrail Trains are introduced.

     As for the remaining route which remains part of WA I noticed that a number of services terminate at Broxbourne just outside London so perhaps these services are candidate for transfer to Overground together with London Stations on this route bringing simplification of fare structure to remaining route .

306. @ Melvyn – not sure there have been any allegations or statements about staffing problems other than the driver shortage on the first Sunday. Whatever that problem was appears to have been resolved very quickly. A look at today’s services show no gaps or cancellations that I can see from a quick glance.

     Given there isn’t a driver shortage affecting TfL Rail or Overground there’s no point in having a pooled operation and anyway people can’t have a muddle of employers. You work for one company which then aligns with all the controls over driver training, route learning, competencies and health and safety. The original plan catered for the possibility of the West Anglia routes being run by the Crossrail TOC. That was in the original press release which TfL later edited. However Railway Gazette don’t go back and re-edit things and I have a long memory!

     http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/passenger/single-view/view/tfl-seeks-crossrail-operator.html

     TfL later decided to change their procurement approach and negotiated a variation to the existing Overground concession contract to add West Anglia for the remaining 15 months with LOROL. It all gets wrapped up in the new concession contract due from November 2016. I should just say that Oyster PAYG extends to Broxbourne anyway so there is nothing to be gained from fiddling at the edges with the Overground concession to try to extend it. Why people can’t leave things alone and let them settle down I really don’t know!

307. @Melvyn – in fact,even in BR days,TOCs and FOCs traded drivers, indeed,we were all sent on training courses to ensure that this happened…

308. @WW

     Yes, I believe the basic problem zone is now the unreliability of the 317/7 and 317/8 trains which were re-hired by LOROL to top up the WA fleet. Do we have any previous reliability data for these?

     Given they were the first to the ‘spare’ heap back in 2012, when Abellio cast them off, possibly they already were less than perfect. Lack of TLC in the following 3 years at Eastleigh sidings won’t have helped. This would seems obvious, therefore the risk of requiring lots of remediation should have been considered by LOROL, and IMHO probably it was. However the underlying story appears to be that whatever remediation was done hasn’t proved to be enough, so far.

     Along I assume with other TfL message subscribers, I received a statement this last Friday from Mike Brown – so matters are recognisably being taken on board at high levels within TfL:

     “Dear …,

     “I apologise for the disruption to your London Overground service in and out of Liverpool Street this week, and that we have not met the standards you expect.

     “A number of trains have run shorter than intended, due to mechanical problems with some of the carriages that we inherited. We are working hard to resolve this. In the medium term, we will be overhauling these trains, and in 2018, replacing them with new ones. I hope to tell you more about that soon.

     “We are also improving the stations on this route so that they are clean, well-presented and more accessible. They are now staffed from first train until last, and in many cases, journeys will cost less with contactless payment or Oyster.

     “I want to assure you that we are responding to these initial challenges and will not stop working until we deliver the levels of service you expect.

     Yours sincerely,
     Mike Brown
     Managing Director London Underground & London Rail
     Transport for London”

309. Re Milton

     The apparent reason the 8x 317/7s were stored for several years was that the leasing costs were substancially higher than the other 317s because these units had been heavily refurbished and fitted with aircon for Stansted Express usage. Putting them in to storage was an obvious cost saving manoeuvre, not sure if the reliability was worse than the other units.
     [379s had taken over the Airport duties at the end of NatEX tenure as TOC and were financiered by Lloyds new ROSCO venture (now Macquaire) and they might have been more willing to increase the number of 379s they would finance as a new entrant rather than a big 3 incumbent worried about canabalisation of existing leasing income streams???]

310. @MC – at the T’port Cttee last week TfL said they had aimed to get some mileage accumulation prior to transfer on the “off lease” units but had not achieved what they wanted to do. What was not explained was how this was being done and whether it relied on Abellio to release train crew or run trains on their network or if the work was scheduled away from West Anglia metals using other drivers.

     I didn’t get the E Mail but I’m not surprised it was sent out. I know TfL won’t want to create a hostage to fortune but it’s a slight shame there is not a clearer timescale or target date that TfL are aiming for. It might provide some reassurance to commuters.

311. Melvyn
     The “Broxbournes” are a relatively recent introduction, to allievate the appalling overcrowding on the AM peak Hertford E trains ….

     WW
     [Transverse seating (again) snipped. Malcolm]
     

312. Humble apols if this has been mentioned before but I was in darkest/lightest Derbyshire all last week and broadband ‘speed’ was absent, and I don’t have time to read all the latest comments. Moderators feel free to blast this away if it’s a repeat.

     In the latest Rail magazine it is stated that the ‘LO stations always staffed while trains are running’ promise will be implemented for Emerson Park by having a staff member travelling on the train, equipped with a ramp to aid those in need. Although said person is to alight at Emerson Park, and wait for the train to return, that means that there is no-one at the station at the same time as passengers who are waiting for the train that said staff member is arriving on. That seems to partly ignore the ‘feeling safe’ aspect of staffing stations. How can the LO customer care mantra be maintained when it’s not actually 100% true?

313. @Fandroid:

     Emerson Park station was originally opened as a halt and has a canopy, but no other station buildings. There are regulations regarding staff accommodation at stations, so until the situation is rectified, LOROL’s hands are tied.

314. This Emerson Park story from Rail Magazine as reported does not make a lot of sense to me; I suspect there has been some misunderstanding somewhere.

     Calls at Emerson Park are at present 17 and 43 minutes apart. Whichever of those intervals is filled by the staff member, the other interval will be left unstaffed. If the law really does require accommodation, then a hired “comfort van” could be left parked outside the station. Or staff could be relieved at intervals (hourly, two-hourly or whatever is required). But alternate staffing and unstaffing strikes me as neither meeting the “always staffed” promise nor being good use of time and money.

315. Re Malcolm,

     Staffed every other half hour is better than nothing.

     or are there 2 staff, 1 on the train 1 at the station and they swap but it has been explained poorly?

316. Not ideal, but having the station staffed for (presumably) 43 minutes in every hour is a big improvement on “not at all” and it would be very hard to justify paying a second person to cover the other 17 minutes.

317. Working on the principle that the press often misinterprets things, it would help to know where Rail got its info from concerning Emerson Park staffing. The TfL press releases give nothing away. The LO Timetable leaflet for Romford to Upminster says:

     Accessibility
     We have staff at all our stations during operating hours and staff
     are trained and happy to help anyone who needs it, including with
     boarding and alighting from trains. We have a turn up and go
     service for customers requiring assistance.

     I know it doesn’t say: We have staff at all our stations during ALL operating hours, but I suspect that the wording is the same for all LO timetables, and so implies that there are staff there all the time between first and last trains, as the passengers have come to expect on the original parts of the LO system.

318. one could, of course, pay a visit to Emerson Park to see what happens.

     But not on Sunday
     http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/the-emerson-air-line.html

     (I’m tempted to go myself, but at 30 miles away, it’s about as far away as possible from me as it’s possible to be and still be in Greater London.

319. The Rail report (Rail 776 p10) says that the staff member shuttles between Romford and Emerson Park. That means that the station is staffed between xx.15 and xx.28 and between xx.45 and xx.58, that is a total of 26 minutes out of each hour, with just about no cover for eastbound passengers. It might be said that a lot more people travel westbound* from Emerson Park than travel eastbound, but that misses the point. In the dark on a lonely platform, I would rather be with other passengers than on my own. So although the function of assisting passengers on and off trains is covered 100%, the other function of providing a feeling of safety, is being missed in a big way.

     *I am guessing here

320. The staffing position of Emerson Park Station sounds like a good question for Mayors Question Time and promise to staff all stations during all opening hours !

     I used this route just after the transfer but the train I used seemed to have more rail staff than passengers .

     The reason given for a 2nd member of staff on the train is in case someone needs wheelchair access but surely a person located at the station could provide this service and provide cover during all open hours . Whether TFL eventually dies this like at Upper Holloway Station we will need to wait and see .

321. It seems most likely that LO will eventually plonk a staff facilities Portakabin at Emerson Park,as they did at many of the Goblin stations.This will enable someone to be there during all traffic hours.

322. @Melvyn
     “surely a person located at the station could provide this service and provide cover during all open hours ”

     They could, but see Anomnibus’ comment on June 15th – until the facilities are improved there is a maximum time that a member of staff may work there without relief.

323. Apologies in advance for the following grumpy post. As a regular user of the Enfield Town to Liverpool Street line (as well as the nearby Gordon Hill to Moorgate line), the recent ‘Overgroundisation’ of the Enfield Town line has so far been a complete joke. But not a funny one I’m afraid.

     First of all, the ‘tarting up’ of Enfield Town station. No thought has been given to the practicalities of multi-swing doors at the entrance to the station. This now results in huge inconvenience at peak times, interrupting the flow of entry and exit to the station, and is a nightmare. It is ‘window dressing’ on a massive scale, and would be utterly laughable if it were not so inconvenient.

     Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the service intervals. When the trains are actually running, and not cancelled, these are the same as before: four trains per hour in the peak, two trains per hour at all other times. This is utterly unacceptable. Conditions are very crowded, also exacerbated at times by running shorter trains than before. When will TfL introduce a more frequent service on this line?

     I have met in the past with Nick de Bois, the former Conservative MP for Enfield North, who before the election was very excited about the line joining the Overground network. I must admit many of us were very hopeful with its introduction. I am sorry to say that so far this move has been a complete failure. Indeed, it represents a massive retrogression in service levels and comfort since its introduction. As a regular user, the project has been so extremely disappointing, I now tend to use the Gordon Hill/Moorgate service more often than before. Although this service isn’t exactly ‘bullet-proof’, at least I can enter Gordon Hill station with relative ease. I am also saved from looking at the Orange livery, which quite frankly looks cheap, nasty, and just instigates a headache just by looking at it.

     Again, apologies for the ‘negative’ post. But I am just a bit annoyed about the way this how project has been delivered by TfL. The whole project has been utterly crass, and in my view, a complete disaster.

324. @Golfingmad
     taking over responsibility for the route was only going to be the first stage of the process – look at the dire state of the North London Line and particularly the Goblin around the time TfL took them over. It is unrealistic to expect TfL to have had a whole fleet of brand new trains waiting (where?) to run an enhanced service from Day 1. Indeed, the extra trains that were brought out of store (to make up for the lost economies of scale by splitting AGA’s fleet into three) seem to have been more trouble than they are worth.

     You have got lower point to point fares now, and higher staffing levels, which is a start.

325. @timbeau

     It is a start, but in some respects, a start in the wrong direction.

     At the end of the day, the purpose of a railway is to travel from one point to another. I do believe that there are some who forget this. Issues such as staffing levels are secondary. Even the issue of cost is secondary: I can assure you that many people would prefer to pay a higher fares if the service frequency is significantly improved.

     Admittedly, there are always issues when taking over an existing service, and I would agree that time and patience is needed. However, the focus from the start should be on improving service frequency levels. Four trains per hour in the peak and two trains per hour at all other times is not acceptable. Train cancellations appear to be more frequent than before. There is no point painting everything ‘orange’ and having more staff when you don’t have a train to travel on, or you can’t get on the train because it is overcrowded.

326. @Golfingmad
     You can’t improve service frequencies until you have more trains and paths to run them. They are deep cleaning the trains which is an improvement.

     It will be the same service until December when there will be a few tweaks.

     One improvement I did hear about this week is that Romford-Upminster gets a Sunday service from then.

     Sorry but it is jam tomorrow.

327. @Golfing mad
     “At the end of the day, the purpose of a railway is to travel from one point to another. ………..Four trains per hour in the peak and two trains per hour at all other times is not acceptable.”

     As I understand it, that is no worse than you had before. (I appreciate that some of the trains are now shorter……..)

     And there are plenty of lines in Greater London which have such a service, or worse. Chessington, Strawberry Hill, Hampton, the Wimbledon loop, Epsom Downs, Caterham.

328. @timbeau, @golfingmad (GM)
     Some sympathy here with GM’s comments, the sales pitch and anticipation has exceeded the early delivery, and LOROL has also fallen short of what it planned in reliability etc.

     Stations WILL be improved, trains upgraded, new trains from 2018, and hopefully passenger comms will improve rapidly from their current nadir. LOROL know they have to deliver. However it’s not where we are.

     I recall Geoff Mee’s comments when dealing with the troubled Connex franchise – get some tangible improvements going on out there, passengers and staff will then start to believe. He’s right.

     In this case the immediate negatives have outweighed the early positives. Unfortunately for GM, on the West Anglia routes the hardest change to make is to its services, because of the interlocking nature of the network, worse still over flat not grade-separated junctions, and with the 4-track approach from Hackney curtailed to 2-tracks by Bethnal Green!

     In terms of service levels, a total recast of any peak timetable on a complex WA network will take over a year to achieve, and that’s assuming all parties agree to start with.

     Network Rail has so far refused to allow any other trains into Liverpool Street in peak times, the 2-track approach is currently limited to 22 tph. TfL is still trying to make the timetable for the current peak service level (4 Enfield, 2 Cheshunt) be accepted also as operable during the weekday offpeak. A business case is required for that, and agreement by NR and the other TOCs (primarily Abellio).

     Removal of most TfL Rail trains from Liverpool Street into Crossrail tunnels in 2019 doesn’t necessarily help, as the GE route is prioritised for the released capacity, not the WA route.

     So for peaks to be enhanced, requires different thinking on where and how services might run. Investment in the suggested 2007 Greater Anglia RUS extra peak shuttles from Enfield/Cheshunt – principally the latter – to terminate at Seven Sisters, does not appear to be on anyone’s agenda. The December 2011 introduction of peak Hertford East via Seven Sisters to Liverpool Street trains has probably hindered rather than helped, for that stratagem.

     Other thoughts might be welcome, but they’d need to be soundly based on practical operability!

329. @Chris L

     Indeed, “jam tomorrow”.

     As a frequent user of the Enfield Town line for the past 45 years, I can assure I am very familiar with this incipient recipe.

330. @Milton Clevedon

     Thank you for your comments and contribution. As I have said, there was considerable anticipation in Enfield with the introduction of this service. It was given a very high profile by the former Conservative MP Nick de Bois, and of course it had the full support of Enfield Borough Council. The level of service post-launch has been disappointing. It is not only me who is disappointed – many are talking about it here in Enfield, including Enfield Borough councillors.

     Perhaps expectations were too high? But I can assure you that many here in Enfield are so far very disappointed.

331. @Milton Clevedon,

     Moving forward, I was aware of the restricted two-track approach, but I wasn’t aware that NR have a restriction of 22tph! I will need to dig out the old train timetables, but I am sure that Enfield Town enjoyed 8tph in the peak in the early 1980s, with fast and semi-fast services (there was one fast service that called Seven Sisters, Stoke Newington and Bethnal Green only). Many of the peak services were nine coaches long. This was of course in the days of BR, when everything was dreadful….

332. @golfingmad
     The outer suburbans and Stansted Expresses have come to dominate since then. There’s a GE ‘Chenford’ November 1960 electrification launch timetable on sale on Ebay currently, link here if you are interested: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/British-Railways-Great-Eastern-Line-New-Electrification-Timetable-1960-/181774538227? It is particularly interesting as it includes an 8 page special electrification update with 12 black & white photos and a facts page. [I have one already, so know it is nice to have!]

     Simply now, 2015, in the high peak there are 4 tph Cambridge (2 fast, 2 slow), 4 tph Stansted, 2 tph Hertford East-London (now via SS), 2 Broxbourne-London via TH, 4 Chingford, 4 Enfield, 2 Cheshunt via SS = 22.

     I am a little surprised that 24 or 26 tph isn’t deemed possible by NR, but this may be as much down to the dwell and occupation times on the Liverpool Street throat as anything else. Charing X accommodates (I’m sure someone will correct me) about 28 tph. There the 2-tracking is just at Borough Market for a short distance, and there is 4-tracking to allow more flex, on the remaining 1 mile into/out of Charing X including the Waterloo East section. Bethnal Green-Liverpool Street doesn’t have that luxury.

     There IS Network Rail safeguarding for 8-tracking between Bethnal Green and into Liverpool Street, so it might be possible to expand the approach tracks if not the volume of terminal platforms. That would then be more comparable to the Borough Market-Charing X section. In which case I would have thought that 26 tph might be safely feasible at Liverpool Street. However, even if I were right (not guaranteed!), then that’s a 5+ year project, plus someone needing to define a business case and funding (sounds like CP6 to me).

333. @MC

     Thank you indeed for the link to the ebay sale! Hmmm, that would be a very interesting purchase. How nice to see the arms at top right of the old County of Middlesex!

     So as you say other priorities and the restriction of 22tph have put constraints on the peak services from Enfield Town. Longer trains may be part of the solution in the medium term. In the shorter term I do hope they win the case of 4tph in the off peak. 2tph off peak is hardly turn up and go……

334. Cartometro has now been updated to include the overground changes and Crossrail (TfL) rail also has a new colour scheme (was feint dashed grey and is now dashed purple), not all the Crossrail detail is correct though (Abbey Wood).
     This makes it easier for those less familiar to area to see what Milton et al are discussing.

     http://carto.metro.free.fr/cartes/metro-tram-london/

     In the Anglia Route Study the preferred method for capacity enhancement on the West Anglia routes is lengthening to 12 car (18 stations stated as needing lengthening work) rather than any work on the approaches to Liverpool Street

335. @ Golfingmad – I rather feel Mr DeBois got over excited if he was telling locals that they would get an instantly more frequent train service. TfL never said that was going to happen so where did he get that impression from? It’s perfectly clear if you’re a dullard like me who listens to webcasts and reads TfL Board papers and strategy documents that nothing is planned to improve peak hour frequencies into Liverpool Street. MC has kindly explained the issues and the safeguarding for extra tracks but that’s it and it’s not in TfL’s gift to unilaterally make any of that happen. All TfL can do is try to bolster the off peak service which it is trying to negotiate through the usual rail industry process. Geoff Hobbs from TfL said as much last week at the Transport Committee. The new trains for Overground, due to be ordered in the next fortnight, may bring some extra capacity but probably at the expense of seats. We shall have to see what TfL have decided to buy.

     On the wider point about the train service quality then I agree that it’s been a poor start. It seems to be getting a wee bit better now but PM peaks still seem to be vexed with train failures and short formations. Joanne McCartney, the Assembly Member covering Enfield, used Mayor’s Question Time this morning to raise the issues about reliability with the Mayor. Boris said he was acutely aware of the issues and said “we are on it” in terms of getting the train service to the performance level it must be at. I take that as “polite speak” for “TfL know they’re got a problem. I know I’ve got a problem over this and my office is making sure that TfL and LOROL are doing everything they can to get it right.” I suspect any phone calls between City Hall, Windsor House, Palestra and LOROL HQ might involve somewhat more robust language than I’ve used. I expect the train service performance is subject to hour by hour checks at the moment with efforts concentrated on debugging the inherited stock and ensuring there are enough trains to run the full service. The Mayor also said he would reply to Ms McCartney’s question about whether the trains had not been fully inspected at the point of transfer.

     So, in short, it’s “dig yourself out of a hole” time for TfL in terms of the train service, then it’s make sure it works properly all day, every day and then the more substantive works on stations and refurbing trains can begin. I’d forget about substantive frequency improvements in the peaks for at least 10 years, probably longer. That’s a huge piece of work with huge costs and issues over who funds what. To the best of my knowledge it’s not on anyone’s priority list to resignal West Anglia and increase the paths in the peaks. You might be lucky to see more off peak trains this December or possibly next May. You’ve got 3 years to wait for the new trains.

     I live on the Chingford Line and I’ve no expectation of miracles whatsoever. We’re lucky we have a x15 min service daily and I don’t expect that to improve at all as efforts will be expended elsewhere to increase frequencies. We will simply see some modest improvements to stations and the general “feel” of the system. I’m not too bothered about new trains – they’ll arrive when they arrive. I’d just like whatever seats they have to be reasonably comfortable and ideally without crippling metal armrests / seat dividers.

     There’s a near month long closure of the Vic Line in August so TfL have to get the West Anglia trains right by then or else there will be a complete melt down [1] in their reputation in this part of London. They’ve also got to keep your line and Cheshunt services working at full whack while presumably running strengthened trains on the Chingford Line. That looks like a bit of challenge given where we are today.

     [1] rather than the partial meltdown that’s already happened.

336. @WW
     “I rather feel Mr DeBois got over excited if he was telling locals that they would get an instantly more frequent train service…………where did he get that impression from?”

     Wasn’t there an election coming up?
     Claiming the credit for something that came to fruition on your watch is something politicians always do, and if that change is not due to happen until just after the election you can hype it up even more, since people won’t realise the reality doesn’t match the promise until it’s too late.

337. @timbeau @WW

     To be fair to Nick de Bois, he was one of the original champions for the absorption of these West Anglian services into TfL, in order to (hopefully) improve these services in and out of Liverpool Street. Given that, I’m not sure (given the various points raised) how anyone can expect these services be improved, even in the medium term, with all the constricting factors in place? Perhaps there was an element of ‘electioneering’, but as far as I could see Nick de Bois was being sincere in his efforts. He still lost his seat though – perhaps the electors of Enfield North didn’t believe all the razzmatazz after all, and knew what they were getting.

     Which is not a lot. Except lots of orange.

338. And the same squash!

339. @WW

     I am very concerned about the closure of the Vic line in August. That month is still extremely busy, not only for commuters but with tourists added into the mix. It’s going to be a meltdown, whether they get the teething issues sorted or not.

340. @MC

     Yes lots of squash. Squashed oranges, squashed commuters, everything squashed. I am convinced I am now a squashed banana……

341. @ Timbeau / Golfingmad – well, yes, of course there was an election coming up but the few times I’ve seen Mr DeBois on the telly he didn’t strike me as being clueless. He would have had reasonable access to Boris and to TfL to understand what was going to be done in respect of the Overground takeover so why paint such an inaccurate picture? I know MPs like to claim credit for anything positive in their constituencies but even so. It’s a straightforward proposition on West Anglia and TfL have been careful not to overpromise. I suppose people look at what happened with the former Silverlink Metro and expect the same miracle. Well you only get miracles if you spend £1.6bn and that’s certainly not happening on West Anglia.

     I rather suspect the Overground was not a factor in his defeat. Voters have long memories and the failure to save Chase Farm A&E will have been the significant local issue that “did for” Mr DeBois. Plenty of precedent in London for NHS issues to prove fatal or enhancing (depending on the issue and stance taken) to political survival.

     One thing that is surprising (to me, anyway) is the apparent enthusiasm of so many Conservative politicians for the takeover of London rail services by TfL. I wonder if they would be so enthusiastic if we didn’t have a Tory Mayor. Mr R Tracey (AM) was extolling the virtues of more devolution, including South Eastern, at this morning’s Mayor’s Question Time. He also mentioned Kent CC’s apparent change of heart which has apparently pleased the Mayor. No mention of Estuary Airports though by Mr T!!

342. @WW

     Completely agree with regard to Nick de Bois. With regard to Chase Farm Hospital, it was finally agreed in March of this year that the hospital would not be closed, but completely redeveloped with modern facilities. The budget for this I believe is £240 million, part funded by sale of land on site (the site covers 37 acres). Nick de Bois was one of the main drivers behind this. However, I don’t think the news filtered through to the electors of Enfield North – or if it did, it wasn’t enough to save him. There is also the burning issue of the lost A&E services, which has not been recovered in the redevelopment plans. This I still believe is a very bad mistake, and may have been a major factor.

     Sorry to go off topic.

343. @golfingmad
     Count yourself lucky – us poor sods on the turkey street branch only ever get 2tph.

344. @Golfingmad Its only the Seven Sisters – Walthamstow C section that’s closing, so August seems like the perfect time of year to be doing this. How many tourists are going to be visiting Blackhorse Road?

345. @ Milton Clevedon
     Just to further expand on what MC has said, the approach to Liverpool Street is also constrained by the track layout. Platforms 1-4 are accessed exclusively off of the Suburban (WA) lines, though access to platforms 5-10 are shared with the Main Lines. Under normal operation 1-7 are used for WA services and 8-15 for services off the GE Main Line. The layout does however allow some for parallel moves; e.g. in the morning peak there are simultaneous arrivals in 7 from the USL and 8 from the UML. Low approach speeds dont help either. So as others have said dont expect any significant epansion of frequencies without major infrastructure works.

346. Chris L
     You can’t improve service frequencies until you have more trains and paths to run them.
     Which [SNIP] is not going to happen.
     Unless you can magically find paths up & down Bethnal Green bank, in between the Hertford, sacred-Stansted & Cambridge trains ….
     See also MC’s descriptions of the “facts on the ground”

     MC
     new trains from 2018
     Which, we think, will have all-longitudinal seating, … ( SCREAM )
     AND – WW …
     may bring some extra capacity but probably at the expense of seats Precisely – how can you have extra capacity with fewer seats, seriously?
     Maybe go over to 2+2 rather than 2+3 seating, with wider aisles, but, IIRC that is not what is going to be forced on to us we are being given.
     Yes, the August closure will be “interesting” won’t it?

     James
     How many tourists are going to be visiting Blackhorse Road?
     None.
     However, a surprising number come to Walthamstow Central
     Fans of William Morris & people coming to “the Village” – it’s weird, walking round streets where you have lived your entire life, & suddenly, there are TOURISTS, with MAPS & asking for directions …..

347. Greg asks “how can you have extra capacity with fewer seats?”

     In this situation (no more trains possible, train lengthening impossible, at least in the short term), fewer seats (with extra standing room instead) is the only way you can have extra capacity.

348. Tourists on the far northern reaches of the Victoria Line

     ……don’t forget the tourists coming in from Stansted who are expecting to change at Tottenham Hale.

349. @James Yes I thought for a moment the closure was more widespread than that, so hopefully it won’t be too bad.

350. @ Malcolm – point taken, but the population (including me) is ageing, and standing for long periods is not an option for many of us. “Disabled provision” on public transport seems only to mean making space for people who have brought their own seat.

351. timbeau

     I was only pointing out the near-inevitability, in certain cases, of more standing. I wasn’t suggesting that anyone should like it.

     One of the problems about people who find standing difficult (as contrasted with impossible) is that it is very difficult to quantify. Almost everyone can stand for short distances occasionally, but clearly standing for 45 minutes twice on every working day is going to be very unpleasant, if not impossible, for a substantial proportion of the population. How do you turn that into a number?

352. I have spinal damage due to a car accident. I am not joining any argument about longitudinal seating, but I would rather stand “facing the engine” as they used to say, or with my back to it, rather than sit in one of those seats. That is my personal choice because of an accident. I am sure I am not alone.

353. @Malcolm – and yet it is already happening, alas. At my local station – 52 minutes from Waterloo – the trains before 0700 are the last up peaks on which second class passengers can get a seat. Lord Ashfield once famously said that the limit to the growth of London was the patience of the straphanger – something which he put at 45 minutes apparently.

     BTW, the 20 minute standing rule – so dishonoured in the breach these days – was part of a package of load factors introduced in the ’70s to ensure that trains loaded up, at a time of declining demand. It became embarrassing when it flipped into demands for more capacity….

354. @ Greg – If you can get more people into a train, even if they have to stand, then you carry more people. That’s self evident surely? I know *some* won’t like fewer seats but the evidence from the NLL is that people prefer to be able to board the first train even if they do have to stand. It’s unlikely to be a huge issue on the Chingford Line as journey times are pretty low. I can imagine a bit more concern on the Enfield / Cheshunt route as journeys take a bit longer. Anyway before we run away with ourselves we do not *know* what the layout will be and people have certainly told TfL via the Overground twitter sessions that they want a mix of seats. I had expected an announcement on the rolling stock order given the Finance and Policy Committee was yesterday and it had authority to agree the requisite authorities for the finance and placement of the train order.

     In terms of tourists then the William Morris Gallery is another draw and it will cause a few tourists to use Blackhorse Road and the 123 bus but most will go via the Central. When the W11 bus ran past the Gallery there were regular tourists on the bus – nearly always saw some on a Sunday morning when I used to use it regularly.

355. Carnage again tonight at LST. Train on p5 announced as 1752 to Cheshunt. Then changed to chingford. Then changed again to Cheshunt. Chingford train had by the look of it 1000 people going for it.

     Stock problems they can’t do anything about. Telling people the correct platforms they can

356. When TfL took over the ghastly Silverlink services it took time for London Overground to become a more civilised experience. There remains much to be done – try travelling on the GOBLIN in peak. Access agenda must get to all stations. Further progress needs to be made on the immediate station public realm in many places. Many interchanges need (more) development (and better map visibility). Continued success will eventually need yet another lengthening program [8-car : strategy expects (some) shorter]. Personally things are far better than a decade ago.

     I welcome AGA’s Chingford and Seven Sister’s services transferring across. These are generally in a better condition than Silverlink were. Visible staff and safe environment rightly are TfL early priorities. The promise of continuing station improvements and new trains should be the commitment to change.

     As a long term goal the minimum 4tph service level ambition should be raised to 10mins (6tph) offpeak, 8tph peak + PIXC for LO [LUL and DLR] at all stations. With “Core” area frequencies higher. For some locations eg Clapton this is challenging and may not be possible. With the interaction of freight, signalling headways and regulation points will need to see significant investment for LO to deliver.

     Once the initial LO timetables have bedded in. My priorities would be
     1) Making Upminster platform 6 accessible asap (not much space to work with). Then 2tph taking 9 mins to do 3 miles is pitiful (max 30mph line speed or less). With the right will should be able to get 3tph single 4-car vehicle working [5min journey, 5min turnaround], (possibly 4tph 4min journey, 4min turnarounds in peak). Hopefully this will be enough to become a useful link when Crossrail opens.

     2) For next timetable change I would like to see Enfield Town’s peak 4tph pattern run ALLDAY. Southbury loop deserves an increase from 2tph to 4tph allday, but I fear this requires longer term capacity spend. In combination these significantly improve the whole lines offer.

     3) Chingford unlikely to see much service change unless Hall Farm Curve and Stratford 11&12 capacity finds a sponsor.

357. Re Overground disruption today I heard and saw notices on screens for this at Southend Central today but while this meant simple original network last month it can now mean original network or West Anglia routes as simple message is now as meaningful as ” disruption on tube” without saying which line .

     While still awaiting announcement of builder for new Overground trains I read on another site that TFL plans include new 4 carriage trains for Euston to Watford line and transfer of existing 5 carriage trains to North and East London lines a proposal that would not be popular in normal times let alone time Bakerloo Line trains will be reduced for remedial work as discussed on another thread.

     The above plans no doubt stem from Bombardier saying they won’t be offering any more of the existing trains if it is successful while another builder like Hitachi will be offering different trains like its AT100 .

358. @Saintsman

     Tend to agree with your analysis.

     Though I’ve never visited Rominster, it is clearly a high cost low use asset currently. Anything more should be better VfM. You have suggested one strategy there, eg, a 20 minute ‘cycle’ may be feasible [must be careful in case Sustrans were to get excited].

     Alternatively bung in a loop where there used to be one (so 4 tph), and then also put in intermediate stops at Brentwood Road (for LTS/DR*/Thames-side access) and Wingletye Lane (Romford/Crossrail/GE access), as these are beyond the standard TfL 960m/12 minute walking distances from existing stations.
     *DR = District Railway, still used as an internal phraseology within LUL, Met doesn’t need the R!

     I’ve already covered, in commentary above, the current TfL desire to migrate Enfield/Cheshunt peak frequency also to weekday offpeak, Suspect this is more a question of tackling old Network Rail habits than anything else. (And NR are now more generally in the firing line, why else would DfT tell the SWT/NR alliance to get unjoined this week? Also then anticipate SWT to become a 2017 full re-franchise target, not 2019…)

     Clapton is constrained, very much agree with you there, though the current peak extras off Lea Valley that way round COULD with the existing timetable margins be scheduled to call there and make it 6tph peaks.

     So Chingford then is the permanent ‘littlest pig’, going ‘wee wee wee’ all the way home on never more than 4 tph, or ‘snark snip cough’ if Greg T were allowed in charge of that winged flock!

     This points to the need for a major article on the capacity for Tottenham Hale-Stratford to be all t(h)ingeys to all people – ? can we please reroute faster Stansteds that way round? can we please have more Chingfords, via Stratford if need be? can we please have more 4-tracking pre-Cropssrail 2’s this way round? oh can we we please have more freight capacity as well?

     Sounds as though the desires from various parties are already starting to exceed deliverability / capacity / affordability.

359. @ Saintsman – to be honest I don’t recall the Silverlink services getting worse after TfL took over. My memory may be failing me but I though things started on an upward trend pretty quickly even with the older trains. Regrettably this hasn’t happened on West Anglia. I think most of today’s woes are the responsibility of Network Rail (signal failures) and a passenger incident. Clearly LOROL have the task of getting the service back on track ASAP and don’t yet seem to have a clear strategy. I’ve seen cancellations, some stops missed out and in one example every stop missed other than Chingford and Liv St (for obvious reasons). Why run an express from Chingford to Liv St? You’ve effectively cancelled the train for everyone else anyway.

     I’d like to see what you consider as “long term” because the things you’re considering must be 20 years away at least. Wasn’t West Anglia resignalled not so many years ago so you haven’t got asset age as a factor? The only issue is capacity and if extra tracks are added then clearly there will be signalling modifications in the Lower Lea Valley but they do nothing for the Liverpool St pinchpoint. I also can’t see much justification for Chingford to have 6 tph into Liverpool St. I also don’t see it’ll ever be feasible. I also struggle to see how you justify 6 tph from either Cheshunt or Enfield. 4 tph is a reasonable basis to aim for quickly but I’m not confident that the train order for West Anglia can accommodate 4 tph from Cheshunt given it only gets its peak 4 tph courtesy of Abellio run some trains via that route. I suppose TfL might be able to squeeze out a more frequent off peak service if it works the train fleet hard but it will mean some deft management to join trains to form longer peak services – assuming off peak is run with 4 car units. I haven’t done any sums as to what that would mean in terms of tph into Liverpool St.

360. I would like to re-emphasise the fact that the current services on the Enfield Town line are significantly worse today than I have ever experienced on this line – experience that stretches over 40 years. And I am not talking about tph. I am talking about cancellations, short trains, and the impression of general mayhem. I was there at Liverpool St this evening, and it was mayhem.

     It’s all very interesting to discuss long-term issues as platform lengthening, new trains, pinch points at Liverpool Street, and whatever else is in the timeframe, whether long or short. Truth is the current situation is terrible, verging on the embarrassing.

361. @ Milton Clevedon “why else would DfT tell the SWT/NR alliance to get unjoined”

     Where is the evidence for that and why? I cannot find any recent statements from DfT about this but if true it is significant as it was previously being hailed as the future model.

362. Golfingmad:

     You are quite right to point out that the various longer term improvements, to which the discussion has moved, are not relevant to the present crisis.

     However, I suspect that the main reason for the discussion moving on is simply that nobody here can think of anything more to say about the short term issue. That is not much consolation to the people who are suffering from it, of course. But there is a limit to how many times people can usefully say “I feel your pain”, or “Somebody must pull their finger out”. Moving on to consider longer term improvements is probably a displacement activity for those of us who are interested (and sympathetic) but feel we have no more (short term) bright ideas to offer.

363. @Malcolm

     Indeed. I did try to “move on” in a previous post. Thinking positively, it can only get better.

364. @RichardB
     I thought it was very recently on the SEMG website but comms limits are now hindering my re-search on the web! It wasn’t something invented – precisely your point, this was (to have been) the future… If it isn’t, this is important.

365. Richard B / MC – definitely correct that the Alliance has ended and NR are appointing a separate route director. Financial separation was cited as a main reason which is reasonable given the possibility for nonsenses given NR are now effectively an offshoot of the DfT and subject to the rigours of HMG financial oversight.

     http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/news/europe/single-view/view/south-west-trains-network-rail-deep-alliance-to-end.html

     The Scottish Alliance will remain in place.

366. @WW I have read the article, and it seems to me to be full of spokesman talk with very little substantial content. Clearly something has happened, but it needs the skills of experienced readers-between-the-lines (such as your goodself) to deduce exactly what, and whether it matters, and if it does, whether it is good or bad news for passengers and/or taxpayers.

367. @ Malcolm – I think the key test will be whether SWT, NR and DfT can keep the flow of projects and investment going despite the franchise extension still being negotiated and then the full retendering following in 2019. Ironically Mr Shoveller appeared in front of the Transport Committee 1 day before the press release and was full of praise for the Alliance with nary a hint of its imminent termination. There is obviously a great deal planned on SWT in coming years and passengers will judge whether there is “no impact” on whether what is planned actually turns into reality.

     I’ve already read one remark suggesting SWT will not have its franchise extended and will be retendered in 2017. I’ve no basis to judge if there’s any truth in that remark but it would create a bit of a task for TfL in respect of devolution if the franchise were to go to market in 2017. I’m not sure how much work TfL have done to define what devolution means on the SWT network. I’d suggest it isn’t terribly easy in one or two places. Of course bringing SWT forward would also cause issues for the DfT and their franchising team.

     One other aspect is that abandoning the Alliance makes it easier for devolution in the future. I can’t see how an Alliance concept could ever work on a very intensive network with more than one operator facing Network Rail. Scotland differs slightly in that Virgin WC, Virgin EC, Caledonian Sleeper and XC do run over Scottish metals but Abellio Scotrail are the majority operator and probably the main party that defines what NR does (other than the Scottish government).

368. Richard B / MC / WW
     I find DfT’s order that the SWT/NR “deep alliance” be ended forthwith most interesting, especially given the “puff” it has been given in recent issues of “Modern Railways” as a potential way around the on-going inevitable conflicts that have arisen from the fragmentation of the railways’ structures resulting from the so-called “botched privatisation” of the 90’s …
     
     [Acronym spelling corrected, and too provocative text snipped. LBM]

     WW
     but Abellio Scotrail are the majority operator
     Are they between Berwick & Waverley, or Carlisle & Glaskie Central/Waverley?
     I would not be too sure about that!
     [Careful, veering off into the off-topic long grass…LBM]

369. On the ex-GER inner-suburban services …
     For the Chingford line, 6 tph, alternating Stratford-termination via Hall Farm (for CR1 & docklands) & LST-direct (for everything else + CR1) would be very nice.
     BUT
     Nothing wrong with the present 4tph … PROVIDED … the line actualy gets 4tph, reliably, consistently & with appropraite train-lengths for the time/day.
     Which we have had for the past 4-5 years, & has fallen to bits in the past 3 weeks.
     I suspect similar could be said for Enfield/Cheshunt?

370. @WW – the end of the deep alliance is, as Greg says,most interesting. The reason stated is because of different “internal” objectives – which of course, has been the problem with vertical dis-integration from the outset, and which has been such a difficulty in a rational approach to industry investment. Even more interesting, is that (as you perhaps imply) SWT management had little inkling this was coming – they were still filling “Alliance” posts until, err, this week…

     Next out of the door, the RDG? (and about time,many would say…)

371. @ Malcolm
     I judge that Network Rail overall is being lined up for some severe re-assessment, as it is failing with its targets for investment and maintenance.

     CP5 plans are starting to look rather hollow, and, as an example, informed talk now doubts that Midland Main line will be electrified by 2020, which leads to other rolling stock cascade issues. In parallel, the likelihood of a digital railway by 2029 also appears to be receding (if you ever believed it in the first place), with capacity for network-wide resignalling doubtful. Meanwhile there has also been a deterioration in PPM, largely down to infrastructure maintenance.

     ORR is already warmed up on the subject, and because Network Rail is now directly in the firing line from DfT and Treasury as a re-nationalised industry, I would expect NAO and PAC to start taking a close interest in matters.
     [NAO = National Audit Office, PAC = Public Accounts Committee]

     I am wondering if there is a case for merging CP5 and CP6, if CP5 proves unrealistic and gets in the way of CP6 planning and delivery. A combined double regulatory period might enable reorganisation of projects and delivery, and make the whole process more credible and coherent. However along the way, whether from current causes or from future cash limits or project capacity shortage, I shouldn’t expect all the CP6 ambitions to be prioritised and funded. DfT’s oversight of all this will be critical, as well as a political judgment on priorities to address.

     Finally, let’s remember that it was the requirement for a second review of the 5-year regulatory agreement, because of the West Coast modernisation fiasco, that contributed largely to Railtrack’s demise. At present, we may be heading for CP5 review no.1.

372. @ Walthamstow Writer
     Absolutely agree that asset life must be a key consideration when choosing to replace. I don’t think anyone was forecasting the passenger growth seen on the former Silverlink lines nor the true impact of London Gateway when TfL took over. Which is why I mention an aspiration to both raise tph 8:6 min and eventual 8-car (Shadwell to Canada Water will constrain) + sufficient Freight. By the “long term” I mean when it is economically rationale to do so. For the Lea Valley Anglian services taken over a don’t see a dramatic change in peak frequency – if this can be achieved tactically then Southbury should be first. TfL should concentrate on the “experience”, staff, stations, better stock, comms! etc
     What TfL really need to demonstrate is that the can run these services with a higher customer satisfaction than former TOCs.

373. MC
     Are you coded-speak saying that the “Minstry of Roads is about to re-appear, with (say) Midland Main line “sparks” being cancelled?
     After all, wasn’t there an attempt to stop the Manchester/Brum electrification, halfway through in the ’60s ???
     It certainly looks worrying.
     However & OTOH, why is NR work so expensive, apprently, when compared to similar works elsewhere ( i.e. outside Britain)?

374. Bombardier have won the contract for new EMUs for GOBLIN / West Anglia / Watford DC.

     http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/urban/single-view/view/bombardier-wins-london-overground-emu-contract.html

     Cue to howls of protest about “high density, wide gangway” design!

375. Re Milton et al. – CP5.

     Most projects are on time / budget including a number of the big projects (Thameslink etc) however the are significant minority that aren’t.
     There seem to be a number of different categories for delays & cost escalation.

     Planning – See Oxford – Bicester & Ordsall Chord – Public Inquiries dragging on not a lot that can be done there

     Staff shortage – Shortage of staff with key skills either in NR or contractors / consultants for example signalling and electrification, the only significant way to change this would be to agree to a 15 year block of work to encourage larger numbers of people to re-skill and re-train. Also don’t go on an efficiency drive (McNulty) when you are about to massively expand work programmes.

     Optimism bias in project/programme planning – Not enough time spent on planning especially thinking nasty thoughts (for example GWML electrification what happens if the signal cable aren’t where they are meant to be burried…). A lot of projects seen to have gone back for more design /planning work because not enough was done up front, this appears to be responsible for lots of 6-9month delays. New staff, process or equipment all have learning rate issues that mean it can take quite a while to reach peak efficiency and that this isn’t necessarily being planned /budgeted for.

     Every day (i.e. bread and butter type overnight or weekend engineering works) maintenance is slipping – a consequence of McNulty implementation and the most useful personnel being focussed on the bigger projects?

     Basic accounting – some of the maintenance renewal work is actually undertaken as part of big projects (for example 48km of plain line renewals in CP5 as part of Thameslink London Bridge works, GWML Crossrail similarly) but this isn’t accounted for accurately in the renewals data and so progress looks worse than it actually is.

     Shortage of key equipment (often not aligning with areas where there are shortage of key personnel types?) making it difficult to schedule jobs and have them proceed as planned. The special points & crossings transport wagons and Kirow Cranes might be examples. Just too many constraints in reality for planning purposes?

     Asset performance tracking (or not) lots of failure appear to be with older equipment that is nearing the end of life and is already scheduled for replacement – does more checking and maintenance need to be done on these items?

376. @Walthamstow Writer 19 June 2015 at 10:16

     No mention of internal seating layouts though. Isn’t the S8’s interior also described as high density wide gangwayed? (not all hope is lost)

377. Re WW,

     Interesting quote in the RG article
     “TfL is to spend £2m on refurbishment of the existing West Anglia fleet until the new trains arrive.”

     Hmmm £16k per carriage on a refurb refresh isn’t going to go far…

     A thought on Goblin – just 4 EMUs would allow all the trains to go 4car i.e. 4x 4car EMU and 4x Doubled up 2car DMU.

     The price for the contract with Bombardier is £260m which works out at £1.44m/car which is very similar to the recent 377/6 & 7 and 387/1 &/2 order prices despit it being Aventra rather than Electrostar based.

378. As a medium term ambition how about reopening Carterhatch Lane [halfway approx 1.2km between Southbury and Turkey Street]. Having a nose around, a site to the north of the bridge looks possible. You would need to persuade a few local flat dwellers to relocate 3 garage blocks + parking spaces, then move some play equipment to get the southbound platform in. If line ever went 12-car, you need to go as far as Lytchet Way and take a few more car spaces; some sort of protection would be sufficient for such an extension is enough. Passenger numbers won’t be earth shattering with 400k at the neighbouring station, and with CR2 Brimsdown becomes increasingly attractive. However, this could be a useful addition to the network.

379. @ngh
     “A thought on Goblin – just 4 EMUs would allow all the trains to go 4car i.e. 4x 4car EMU and 4x Doubled up 2car DMU.”

     It would, but
     – timekeeping would be difficult with two very different train types, with different acceleration profiles, working the service.
     – many other parts of the country are crying out for more diesels, and emissions regulations makes it increasingly difficult to get new ones built.
     – it would be politically difficult to justify running diesels under the wires: noisier, slower and less spacious (if only because of the two extra cabs in a 4-car train and the lack of walk-through gangways between the cars) : it will be bad enough explaining the year gap between the wires going up (scheduled for 2017) and the trains appearing (2018 at the earliest, even if the Goblin gets first dibs, which seems unlikely given the age of the 315s on the WA lines)

380. Re Timbeau,

     I was thinking for upto 6 months during which time the EMUs on Goblin would be running to DMU timings till the change over was complete /next timetable change – the big issue is peak capacity. The DMUs are 23m rather than 20 so would still have more space even with the extra cabs.
     Watford will obviously be last in the queue but there will be lots of pressure for the new EMUs on both Goblin and WA – Overground hence the thought of quick wins on Goblin capacity. The alternative would be to cascade the 315 as released to Goblin (would TfL Rail 315s potentially be available earlier as the first 345 is meant to be starting construction in August)?

381. @ Ngh / Timbeau – although nothing has been said about the phasing / prioritisation of deliveries I’d be amazed if GOBLIN wasn’t at the front of the queue. As mentioned the political fall out of having live wires but no trains is already happening with questions to the Mayor. It will only get worse as the Network Rail works complete and people don’t see new / longer trains. I can already predict who will pouring copious volume of oil on the political flames.

     The use of TfL Rail 315s is a clever bit of lateral thinking and could certainly provide a stop gap provided they can fit on the line – especially the terminal platforms. The timing would broadly work as the new Crossrail trains come into service in 2017 and should release 315s.

382. @Greg
     “Are [Abellio Scotrail the majority operator] between Berwick & Waverley, or Carlisle & Glaskie Central/Waverley?”
     For the record, and to answer the question,
     All domestic, as opposed to cross-border, services in Scotland are run by Scotrail. The same is true for Wales.
     The only Scotrail trains to cross the border are on the Glasgow-Dumfries-Carlisle route, and they only get to Carlisle – those extended to Newcastle are run by Northern

     Dunbar is the only station in Scotland not managed by Scotrail or Network Rail (it’s managed by East Coast* (or whatever it’s called this week) , but it does see a handful of Scotrail domestic services. These do not go on to Berwick.

     Lockerbie station, although managed by Scotrail, is the only station in Scotland not served by any Scotrail services.

     *Indeed, Dunbar is the first station from which you are actually likely to be able to see the east coast: the east coast of England is actually very poorly served by the so-called East Coast franchise!

383. @Saintsman

     A Carterhatch station is advocated in a recent Enfield Council response to the draft Anglia Route Study consultation. See this link, page 16: http://www.jrc.org.uk/PDFs/Enfield%20Council%20response%20to%20Anglia%20Route%20Study%20-%20JRC%20Report%20-%20Final.pdf

     A station location for Carterhatch – essentially the same general location as yours – is also shown (along with a possible 4-tracking station at Picketts Lock on the Lea Valley main line) on page 4 of Enfield’s response to Network Rail’s Improving Connectivity consultation: http://www.jrc.org.uk/PDFs/Enfield%20Council%20response%20to%20Improving%20Connectivity%20-%20Final.pdf

     That paper also advocates a direct Seven Sisters-South Tottenham interchange (see page 5) to make suburban and orbital travel easier by rail.

     Finally, Enfield has specified some desired outputs for the new East Anglia franchise within the Greater London area, when that takes over operations in October 2016. Link: http://www.jrc.org.uk/PDFs/Enfield%20Council%20East%20Anglia%20Franchise%20Consultation%20-%20Final.pdf

     You shouldn’t be so gloomy about station usage. The annual West Anglia Route Group station usage surveys, undertaken in the autumn, showed that (2013) Turkey Street has an annual usage of about 870,000 entry+exit, not the 550,000 in ORR 2013-14 info. Theobalds Grove was among those surveyed in 2014, and numbers there were 690,000 annually, not the 310,000 in ORR 2013-14. In the latter case, local views are that Theobalds Grove was also being used by some passengers who diverted when Cheshunt got gated…

     Brimsdown is 1,120,000 (2011) compared to ORR 510,000 then. And so on. So, whatever number you rely on from ORR in this area, adding 60-100% wouldn’t be a bad guess about the real volume.

384. @ Greg / Timbeau – I tried, but clearly failed, to post about Scotrail in such a way that we avoided a micro analysis of who runs what and where. I should know better. 😉

385. LBM: Greg T’s post 00:15 certainly drew a few comments and warnings from you- but nothing about his provocative ‘Glaskie’??

     [Apologies, I was not aware that ‘Glaskie’ was pejorative or provocative.

     We therefore ask that all commentators please refrain from using language that may be construed as offensive, derogatory, or off-putting. LBM]

386. Re WW,

     If the 315s can’t fit then they might have big issues with the new stock too!

387. The recent woes of London Overground have caused something to happen that we usually associate with the likes of Southeastern and Southern: a Twitter parody account

     https://twitter.com/TfLChingford

388. Timbeau

     Alnmouth station gives a fine view of the coast!

389. From TfL press release:

     The Gospel Oak to Barking route, which is already part of London Overground, is being electrified by Network Rail and due to be completed in 2017. The new four carriage electric trains will run on the route after electrification has been completed, replacing all of the three-carriage Class 172 diesel trains, and will provide improved journey times and more capacity.

     3 car class 172’s on GOBLIN? Shurely shome mistake…

390. Does anyone know how 4 car trains will fit into Gospel Oak and South Tottenham?

391. @Nameless
     SDO?

392. I notice that TfL’s press release about ordering new trains from Bombardier claims that all London Overground stations are staffed at all times. I wonder how that fits in with the discussion above about Emerson Park?

393. Re Quinlet,

     They very carefully only make the staffing claim for the 24 West Anglia Stations…

394. Simple: Overground stations are staffed only when the station is open. Emerson Park’s opening hours are therefore, by definition, from xx15 to xx28 and from xx45 to xx58 every hour.

     The fact you can get on and off the platform at other hours is irrelevant. Many stations are physically accessible outside their official opening hours.

395. @Timbeau: I think the problem Nameless was hinting at is that the bay at Gospel Oak may not be long enough for a 4-car train, whereas a 4-car calling at South Tottenham will probably straddle the junctions at either end.

396. @ngh
     It states:
     “TfL’s 24 stations on the West Anglia routes are now, as with the rest of London Overground, staffed at all times”
     Either Emerson Park is within the “24 stations on the West Anglia route” or within “the rest of London Overground”.

     I know TfL are very clever with words but I can’t see how they can weasel their way out of that one!

397. Emerson Park

     From the TfL press release:

     TfL’s 24 stations on the West Anglia routes are now, as with the rest of London Overground, staffed at all times and are undergoing an extensive programme of cleaning and other improvements to bring the service up to the high standards experienced elsewhere on the network.

     https://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/thousands-of-london-overground-customers-set-for-new-trains

     Note no claim made about Emerson Park or Rominister route staffing!

398. Re Quinlet,

     Our posts must have crossed but as there are 24 stations on West Anglia routes out of Liverpool street served by LO so Emerson Park isn’t included in that number.

     Part of TfL rail operated by (but not part of) LO?

399. @ngh: What Quinlet has already tried to point out is that Emerson Park is either part of those 24 stations or part of the rest of London Overground, which should already be staffed…

400. @WW
     ” I’m not sure how much work TfL have done to define what devolution means on the SWT network. ”

     Or even which services would be involved. For historical reasons, Surrey extends much further into the built up area than Herts and Essex do. Boroughs like Banstead, Elmbridge and Spelthorne are very much suburbia, but managed to stay out of Greater London when it was created fifty years ago. It is therefore much harder to identify a coherent group of services that are entirely, or even mainly, in Greater London. Given that Hertford was a step too far for the West Anglia group, and so was the Lea Valley route because the majority of its trains go deep into Herts and Essex) , which services in SWT-land could you actually transfer?

     Only three SWT services operate entirely within the GLA area – the Hounslow Loop, the Kingston Loop, and the Chessington line – and only seven stations (Mortlake, North Sheen, St Margarets and the four on the Chessington branch) are exclusively served by those services (to which might be added Strawberry Hill if you overlook the rare peak-hour Shepperton services). Apart from the Chessington branch and the eastern sides of the Whitton and Strawberry Hill triangles, all the track is shared with other services. (In particular, the presence of the Windsor and Reading services on the “common core” of the two loops is very analogous to the Cambridge and Stansted services on the Lea Valley line).
     If you include all services which stay within the limits of Oysterdom, that only adds the Hampton Court service, and (from September, when Oyster gets there) the peak hour services to Epsom (but not the majority of services via Epsom, which continue to Guildford or Dorking: Even if you went all the way to Guildford and Dorking you wouldn’t have exclusive control of the Epsom line, because between Epsom and Dorking you are sharing with Southern.
     Extension to the little exclave of non-Oysterdom that is the tail end of the Shepperton branch would be logical, and would allow the addition of another eleven stations to TfL-dom (all the Kingston Loop stations as well as those on the branch). But unless you are going to take over the Chertsey loop as well, half the stopping service via Brentford would be TfL and the other half SWT.

401. We will find out in due course but I thought Gospel Oak’s bay could be tweaked to accommodate a 4 car EMU. My guess is that South Tottenham’s platforms will be extended at both ends. They can be extended slightly to the east and I expect the new bridge installed a few months back has been designed to have platforms added to it. Trains already stop on top of the crossover from east to west to allow access to the curve to Seven Sisters. I can’t see platform extensions being so long that they reach that curve and its associated junction. I took a couple of photos looking east and west at S Tottenham just before the bridge was replaced.

     https://www.flickr.com/photos/24759744@N02/15901986549/ (looking east)
     https://www.flickr.com/photos/24759744@N02/16086164191/ (looking west)

402. @WW: Looking at the picture below I don’t think that is the case with South Tottenham:

     https://www.flickr.com/photos/sludgeulper/15945413867/

403. For those who aren’t following the Overground Twitter feed, they posted an apology earlier this afternoon on their Twitter stream. Admitted that their performance since take over hasn’t been good enough. No real detail, but then they only have 140 characters.

404. Just found this:

     http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/londonnews/13344032.Developer_found_to_improve_trains_on_Enfield_Town_line/?ref=rss

     A bit garbled by the reporter and / or sub-editor, but the last paragraph is the one that counts:

     Assembly Member for Enfield Joanne McCartney, who spoke out against the early problems on the line, said: “……………

     “I’m pleased that TfL plan to fulfil their promise to put new trains on the West Anglia lines, but in the meantime I’ll be keeping a close eye on the situation to make sure paying passengers get the quality service they deserve.”

405. @ Straphan – Not quite sure what point you’re making re the photo link as your comment is just a tad brief. Looking at other shots in that photostream it looks to me as if the bridge can certainly have further structures added to it – if that was the point you were making.

406. Given that many trains on WA Overground Network already operate as 8 carriage trains the announcement of 4 carriage trains is surprising given how new walk through trains can come in lengths beyond 4 carriage . Or will TFL simply couple together 2 x 4 carriage walk through trains ?

     Gospel Oak also has two through lines which are currently only used by freight trains but could have platforms added although eastbound through platform would need an additional lift and stair access . While electrification of GOBLIN would allow extension of service to say Willesden Junction low level ahead of plans for Old Oak Common development . ( Depending on line capacity ).

     The suggestion of moving any surplus class 315s to GOBLIN ahead of new trains arriving would at least provide the extra capacity users want and would release precious nearly new DMUs !

407. @Melvyn
     “Given that many trains on WA Overground Network already operate as 8 carriage trains the announcement of 4 carriage trains is surprising given how new walk through trains can come in lengths beyond 4 carriage . Or will TFL simply couple together 2 x 4 carriage walk through trains ?”
     Yes they will. and remember that:
     1. LO’s walk through trains started as 3-car sets.
     2. The Goblin and the Emerson line cannot take anything longer than 4-car trains.
     3. The new trains will also work on the Watford line, as 4-car trains.

     Full width cabs (without end doors) can’t be used on the East London Line, because of the need for an emergency egress capability in the single-track tunnel, but they are allowed on all other London Overground lines.

408. @ Melvyn – err only a limited number of peak services run as 8 cars on West Anglia unless something has changed enormously in the WTT in the last fortnight. The standard formation for most of the week is a 4 car unit. That might change in time but not yet. It’s no surprise that 4 car EMUs were ordered – TfL confirmed that months ago and there’s no reason for them to divert from that intention. We can see from the options laid out in the authority paper that TfL can be flexible about how to bolster capacity if they need to.

     It is quite clear from TfL’s stated plans about the NLL peak service that there is no intention to run through from the GOBLIN to the NLL. I know it’s been a possible plan in the past but things change. I also have my doubts that Gospel Oak will see a radical remodelling because the possession there only lasts 3 months and I simply can’t see new platforms being built and commissioned in that time period. I also can’t foresee a situation where having trains parked for 40+ mins every hour on a through track could ever work with the freight flows over the GOBLIN to / from the NLL. The passenger trains use a bay for a reason!

409. @ Anonymous

     The Twitter parody account “TfL Chingford” now seems to be down. Now doubt TfL have complained and asked for it to be removed.

410. Ohh…

     http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2197250&postcount=468

411. Fascinating Anonymous. Good Find.

     Even stranger is the similar case of SouthEastern. Read page 11 of this document.

     In this case there isn’t even a change of train company – just a change of attitude.

     [Original posting modified for excess sarcasm. PoP]

412. Regarding the comment in the link from Anonymous about poor juggling of units when short of stock. I can understand LOROL not being good at this because they haven’t had to juggle with different train lengths on the same route before – apart from the trivial case of extending 4-car trains to 5-car. Some TOCs, notably Chiltern, are very good at this. If TfL get SouthEastern Metro services then they will need an operator who is adept at this.

413. If GA have deceived LOROL, TfL, DafT and various other acronyms, will anything come of it?

414. @Hedgehog – so far as DFt is concerned, I doubt it – they don’t undertake the sort of technical audit described as needed so eloquently in the driver’s post flagged by Anonymous at 16.19. (It’s even more telling that it’s the same fitters who now do the work so well for LOROL as those who were held back by GA…)

415. @ PoP – I did allude to that railforums posting much earlier in the thread of replies. I decided not to link directly to it but the info contained in it seems perfectly plausible to me. I’ve seen what happens when contractors don’t fix things properly and skirt round their obligations. It can be murderous trying to get them to do the right thing. This situation is different as the context is one of handover from one party to another but with direct operational impacts. We don’t really know who has failed to do what in the run up to and at the point of transfer. The one encouraging thing is that once the trains have been attended to then they seem to be in good condition but there’s still the issue of getting the ex store class 317s used to regular service again given they’ve been parked up for months.

     I think the controllers are slowly get used to the service but the sorry story is that you only learn how to reform services if they’ve fallen to bits in the first place! I think they’ve probably had quite a steep learning curve over the last 3 weeks. I must admit that it hadn’t dawned on me that there would be new controllers in place but I guess it wasn’t possible to carve people out of the Greater Anglia team given there’s been a three way split at Liverpool Street.

416. Walthamstow Writer,

     I think the controllers are slowly get used to the service but the sorry story is that you only learn how to reform services if they’ve fallen to bits in the first place!

     I mentioned Chiltern. The service can be running fine but events (dear boy, events) such as a football match at Wembley or loaning stock to other TOCs or maybe even just school holidays or an unplanned faulty unit seems to cause them to launch some complicated plan whereby a few selected trains run with one carriage fewer in order to release one or more 2-car or 3-car units either for service or maintenance.

     I must admit that it hadn’t dawned on me that there would be new controllers in place

     I don’t know if they were new or not but I suppose in this case, as you say, they won’t get much experience unless the service falls to bits in the first place. What we don’t know is if there are currently any contingency plans in the event of an inadequate supply of stock or whether controllers are expected to make up a plan on the spot.

417. PoP refers to Chiltern’s “[events] seem[ing] to cause them to launch some complicated plan whereby a few selected trains run with one carriage fewer in order to release one or more 2-car or 3-car units either for service or maintenance”

     It occurs to me that this plan can also be looked at the other way up. Interchange the roles of “normal” and “exceptional”, and you get a basic stock allocation, which runs all trains and leaves a couple of units spare. Instead of these spare units sitting in the depot when not needed for “events”, they are attached to trains (via the inverse of the complicated plan) making some journeys more comfortable. Either way round, it’s clever stuff.

418. Didn’t LOROL do a proper “Due Diligence” exercise on their “new” stock, then?
     It would seem from that amazingly informative driver’s post, that they didn’t ….
     Oops, as they say.

419. That document from Southeastern is a far better way to be open with your customers than the uncommunicative approach taken by London Overground so far.

420. So if trains have run as 8 carriage trains to hide faults then if TFL come along and fix these faults and trains are then able to run as 4 carriage trains I can imagine complaints of cuts to capacity overriding technicalities of badly maintained trains !

     This story of badly maintained trains begs the question as to why this train operator is allowed to be considered for another franchise ?

     It also begs the question of what ROSCOs are for if they don’t properly maintain trains they own ?

421. @Melvyn
     I don’t think WA were running 8-car trains simply to conceal faults. But with a single fleet, instead of two small ones, it was easier to ensure a unit with a faulty cab was rostered to a duty that is not scheduled to be split during the day. These duties, I gather, were mainly on the Shenfield line, which runs 8-car trains all day.

     The 315 fleet was not split up with this factor in mind, so as a result more faulty units are turning up on LO routes (where it matters) and fewer on TfL Rail (where it wouldn’t matter if they did).

     A quick and dirty solution, unlikely to please the accountants but perfectly practical since TfL are taking over the whole fleet (as TfL Rail and as LOROL) would have been to ensure the units with faulty cabs went to TfL Rail – or even to swap equipment out off the TfL Rail units to make sure the LOROL fleet was intact.

     It is quite common practice to put faulty cabs, or cabs with equipment robbed to keep others going, in the middle of trains rather than are fix them. look at the middle cars of 1972 Tube stock. Or the ex-1972 stock that used to work on the Victoria Line – never fitted with ATO, so they could only work in the middle of a train. The infamous unit 5555 on the Circle Line. Indeed, some units were built with only basic shunting controls at one end – the 3-car sets of 1972 stock for example.

422. Sorry to be cynical, but I don’t believe that SouthEastern document reflects a substantive change of attitude. It came out at the start of the month, and is what they committed to in response to the London Bridge problems. It reads as if different departments were asked to contribute their bit and then they were just pasted together, rather than being brought together to produce a coherent document.
     Nothing in there is not either already in place or, even worse, part of what SouthEastern signed up to anyway in the franchise extension.
     And look at the expected PPM this winter…..

423. @timbeau
     Did you mean 3 car sets of 1973 stock?

424. @Nameless – the 1973 stock do indeed have UNDMs, but I was referring to the 1972 stock, which is formed M-T-T-M+UNDM-T-M. The trailer cars of C stock (and indeed the cabless ends of any stock from 1949 stock onwards) have basic shunting controls.

425. @WW: Regarding South Tottenham: yes, I believe there is no passive provision for a platform extension to be built on top of the bridge, judging by the photos of the new bridge. Then again I am not a structural engineer, so am happy to be corrected by someone who knows better.

     Regarding the overall issue of information provision: who is responsible for the provision of information to customers on London Overground: is it TfL themselves or is it the concessionaire?

426. @ Straphan – Given that I see the same names introducing themselves across various TfL Twitter accounts I would conclude that TfL control the dissemination of information on social media. The two chaps this morning were doing TfL Rail, London Overground, Victoria Line and “Ways to Pay”. Quite what info feeds into TfL “Twitter HQ” and from whom / where / what systems I honestly don’t know.

     IIRC there was a C4 progamme about Customer Service and TfL featured on that with some of their social media team also talking about what they do. ISTR that there was an angry woman in Manor Park who tweeted / complained every few minutes every rush hour about the W19 bus – this despite the fact that she was metres away from where the 25 and 86 run about 60 seconds into Ilford in the rush hour! Not sure I could sit and read that stuff and not respond rather rudely!! Given how some people use social media to “vent” at officialdom you must need the patience of a saint to work on an official Twitter desk.

427. @WW: …of course if your ultimate plan is to go into stand-up comedy, I think that would be one of the best entry jobs into that industry…

     Given what you’ve just said, does the problem with customer information on West Anglia not stem from the disjoint between those doing the informing and those actually running the railway and making decisions on how to combat perturbation?

428. I believe the Tfl Twitter people are probably based centrally at the Tfl Network Operations Centre. By contrast the TOC’s tend to base their social media teams within their control rooms so they know what’s going on. On SWT they’re often first with information before it filters down to staff on the ground, which of course creates its own set of problems!

     It’s certainly a hard job to do right and a look round the different TOC’s is instructive to see how they approach it. Chiltern are generally pretty good. If you follow the Met line feed you can see the same lack of information being given, and the anger it generates among customers. The difference there is that passengers appear never to have had accurate service information, unlike on West Anglia where it has in effect actually been taken away! In my opinion Tfl need to do decide to do Twitter properly or not at all. The current situation where they tweet ‘Good Service’ when it isn’t and are unable to answer simple questions simply inflames people and creates reputational damage.

429. @ Straphan – I suspect I’d be doing “stand up boredom” or “stand up death by booing” rather than stand up comedy. I don’t know what’s happening with West Anglia twitter – I think the practice is evolving given there’s more effort being put into the running and formation of individual trains. However there have been moments when information has been corrected subsequently which suggests the Twitter team are remote from the control room and must therefore respond to whatever is said by phone or via a system.

     @ Starlight – I agree there is variation amongst the TOCs. Some are very adept and almost have “fan clubs” for some of the twitter team members. One of London Midland’s team has used toys and toy trains to simulate certain accidents like a bridge strike and has taken photos and then puts those in the timeline if an incident occurs. Not only is it humorous but it conveys the nature of the problem very effectively. It’s also a nice bit of lateral thinking by the employee. London Midlands’s marketing manager also takes turns on the Twitter desk so he knows what happens handling routine queries or answering disruption questions. I think that has helped hone what has been an award winner for that company’s passenger comms. It just shows that it can be made to work if you do it properly although some people will always moan – especially if the service has gone very badly wrong.

430. That SE document is interesting in that they make a virtue of all the excess padding they’ve put in since January to improve stats.

     “We now give you longer to board at stations” aka we sit at Lewisham for 5 minutes at times as your new, slower journer, allows us to.

     Having said that I do think they’ve got better. Though the networkers are still really in need of a full refurb. They are not nice inside. The doc states they will go off for work again soon – hardly ideal with the lack of stock they have. I would have liked to know what TfL would have done with them. Even if they get SE in 2018 the networkers have up to 20 years left and no where else to go, so will stay on existing routes. With a good refurb they will be great trains again. It’s a shame a proper job wasn’t done in the last franchise up to 2014 and London Bridge rebuilding.

431. @ PoP – just had a look at page 11 of the SE document. Pardon my cynicism but surely it’s just an admission that they weren’t looking after their trains properly? All the alleged improvement is just good practice that any train company should be doing. If they aren’t making sure faults are found quickly and staff aren’t trained to the latest standards and properly equipped you can only draw the conclusion that they’re “winging it” in terms of reliability etc. Obviously as we’ve discussed before it boils down to money and clever people making judgements about how to minimise maintenance spend and not get undone via the performance regime (delays, breakdowns etc). I also wonder how much of things like the improved remote monitoring or train overhauls are a South Eastern business decision (i.e they fund it because it pays back) or are a DfT funded direct award obligation. It’s all presented as part of South Eastern’s largesse when I doubt much of it is solely down to their own business initiative. They’re obviously not alone in doing this “self promotion” stuff but I always find myself reading between the lines to suss out what’s really happening or hasn’t previously happened.

432. Only a modest comment in the Commissioner’s Report about the West Anglia takeover. The first sentence might cause some commuters to choke on their morning espressos.

     Early signs indicate we will continue to bring improved reliability and better customer service to these lines, as we have demonstrated with our management of the rest of LO network, although the trains we have inherited are unreliable and much effort is being expended to improve their performance and reduce cancellations.

433. @ Graham H 19/6 0737 – a little step back to the abandonment of the SWT / NR Alliance. The new Stagecoach Group financial results have a couple of interesting remarks (1 relating to the Direct Award discussions).

     Alliance – South West Trains and Network Rail have pioneered over the past three years the first deep alliance on the UK rail network, which has sought to deliver greater integration between train operations and infrastructure management. The close working relationship between the two parties has enabled an improved, more customer-focused railway as well as some efficiency savings. Based on what both parties have learned over this period, South West Trains and Network Rail are now re-shaping their relationship. The objective is to continue to work closely and collaboratively in the areas that most benefit the railway and its customers, while discontinuing aspects of the current Alliance where the benefits are less clear. The existing formal Alliance governance structures, including the Alliance Governance Board and the single joint management team, will shortly be replaced with new arrangements in the specific areas which we and Network Rail believe will continue to deliver the most benefits. Under the previous financial arrangements, variances relative to agreed financial baselines were shared between the parties. Moving forward, new appropriate commercial arrangements will be put in place to reflect the reshaped relationship. The new arrangements reflect the current regulatory framework that applies to UK railways and the different operating models of the two parties.

     We are confident that these changes will prioritise the right areas, reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and allow South West Trains and Network Rail to focus on working together on the matters that are most likely to offer the greatest benefits to customers.

     Direct Award – The current South West Trains franchise is due to end in February 2017 and as long ago as March 2013, the Department for Transport announced its plans for the direct award of a new franchise to April 2019. Progress in agreeing that direct award has been disappointingly slow. We are still not close to concluding an agreement and indeed, there is no certainty that an agreement will be reached.

434. – Walthamstow Writer, 09:29

     Faults are found as quick as they can be, staff are absolutely trained to the latest standards and properly equipped. The page is about making sure that’s improved. It’s a bit offensive to the many many skilled and trained engineers at depots I know to say they’re winging it.

     As for your remote conditioning gripe, I can assure you this is initiative – Southeastern were the leaders in developing and testing wireless remote conditioning to improve fleet reliability. 20 units had it installed back in 2012 (way before DfT DA) and following a successful trial it was rolled out across all 375s and 376s in 2013. It provides huge amounts of data about vibrations and faults in the bearings and wheelsets of units. It certainly sees a quick return on investment and following Southeastern’s trial it was ordered by 20 train companies around the world and many more since. The train overhauls would have been needed fairly soon anyway, irrespective of Direct award/Franchise award/Nationalisation or whatever.

435. @ Anonylon – Well you may think I was being offensive but that was not the intention. I have worked the client side relationship of attribution and fault management and resolution and have seen plenty of interesting behaviours. Call me “battle hardened” if you wish but in the light of what is alleged with the transferred class 315 trains and what I’ve dealt with in the past I know that faults sometimes aren’t found or even if they are are then patched / botched rather than having a permanent effective but possibly expensive repair. Somewhere along the line decisions are taken, not necessarily by engineers, that creates this situation. Having to deal with the same problem time and again is no fun for anyone.

     And I wasn’t griping about the remote conditioning. I was simply wondering whether it was a company funded initiative or something insisted on by others. You’ve kindly explained and that’s fine – it’s been done in the right way for the right reasons. My expectation, and again having been involved first hand, is that we should see best practice and good targeted investment being done by TOCs because it aids efficiency, reduces costs and gives a good service to passengers. In other words a virtuous cycle rather than the opposite which we sometimes see.

     Up to you whether you accept what I say but the South Eastern document would have been much better written without all of the fripperies and with some nice solid explanations. Those of us who have read endless documents like this from suppliers and others just read between the lines.

436. @WW – the key sentences in the Stagecoach report appear to be “Under the previous financial arrangements, variances relative to agreed financial baselines were shared between the parties. Moving forward, new appropriate commercial arrangements will be put in place to reflect the reshaped relationship.” I am told this is code for saying that Stagecoach’s and NR’s differing financial objectives led to an irreconcilable breakdown in marital relations… (My cycnical mind suggests that it is not coincidence that this occurred shortly after the re-nationalisation of NR).

437. – Walthamstow Writer

     Oh, absolutely, I get what you are saying. I guess I read your post as a personal attack on people I know and read it as you just automatically assuming they were doing bad, so my apologies there. I completely accept there are ‘interesting’ resolutions at many different companies.

     There’s plenty of initiatives and investment by Southeastern, which I can’t publicly mention at the moment. And to the surprise of most, it is actually SE asking the DfT to do it, not SE just doing the bare minimum they’re told to do.

     I agree the document could do with more detail and explanation, but I guess there’s a fine balance to be struck between keeping it simple for the average passenger and putting too much detail.

438. @Graham H

     The report seems to me to be saying that it has been found impossible to allow a Stagecoach manager to make a decision which costs Network Rail money, or vice-versa.
     Thought about like that, the wonder is not that the Alliance is ended, it’s more remarkable that it was ever started.

     As for nationalisation, I don’t see how that makes any difference. Both with and without nationalisation, the two entities had different financial goals (one being required to keep Stagecoach shareholders in the standard of living to which they have become accustomed, the other having no such obligation).

439. @ Graham H – I tend to agree with your view that the move of NR back to full public sector finance rules and accountability is what has killed off the Alliance. There is clearly no desire to have “public” and “private” money being mixed up and the spend not being completely clear as to its purpose.

     The twittersphere is predicting some sort of announcement by the SoS on 25/6 with regard to Network Rail. Originally expected to be about the Chairman but there are suggestions more may be said. It was interesting in PMQs that a Welsh MP sought reassurance from the PM that electrification to Swansea will still happen. Pity no one thought to ask about MML electrification which is rumoured to be on its death bed and let’s not even ask about Transpennine wiring.

440. @Malcolm – odd though it may seem to those who find that NR hides behind Group Standards and processes,NR had much more financial flexibility before it was renationalised. Remember, it had no shareholders to appease and bankers worried about ratios. Now that it’s subject to FIS and the normal range of Whitehall investment controls(and with the prospect of NAO investigations looming in the background), the wriggle room will have shrunk significantly. At first, NR senior management were in a state of denial about this and went round telling middle and junior management that nothing had changed. Then the penny dropped…

441. If only SouthEastern’s remote train management included train heating control. That would do so much to improve passengers’ view of their competence, at a stroke 🙂

442. Malcom
     The report seems to me to be saying that it has been found impossible to allow a Stagecoach manager to make a decision which costs Network Rail money, or vice-versa.
     Thought about like that, the wonder is not that the Alliance is ended, it’s more remarkable that it was ever started.
     All together now: “Fragmentation is GOOD FOR YOU!”
     DfT are “merely” doing what the targets/apparent view of legislation tell them to.
     Whather this is actually a useful or productive course to follow is another matter.
     The phrase “perverse incentives” comes to mind.

     WW
     However, it appears that the problems with getting masts in place, quickly, effectively & more cheaply – which has been a major problem & responsible for a lot of the delays & cost-over-runs may/has been sorted – see July “Modern Railways”, which is just out.
     We shall see.

443. RE WW,

     What are the apparent problems with the MML wiring project? The civils engineering works seem to be going fairly well or is it the fear that there won’t be any equipment (staff) available for the actual OHLE work?

     With both the GWML and NW projects the rail mounted piling rigs seem to be unreliable, underpowered and under performing (the 3 are probably linked?!?) to parody a Jaws quote “You’re going to need a bigger piling rig”?

444. Ngh ” Your going to need a bigger piling rig..” Surely that’s what The Factory Train is going to provide with its ability to dig piles, erect overhead and install wiring working as its name implies as a factory along a railway .

445. Well the SoS is speaking now (1210 25/6) about Network Rail. The actions are as follows.

     1. No bonuses for NR Exec directors for the last year.
     2. Sir Peter Hendy becomes Network Rail Chairman. He is tasked with a full review of how to improve efficiency. No word about whether Sir Peter moves from TfL or not.
     3. Richard Brown appointed as a special NR Director reporting directly to the SoS.
     4. Public Members being abolished from the NR Board.
     5. Specialist economist being appointed to review Investment processes. Report due October.
     6. MML electrification works to be paused. Concentrating on line speed improvements instead. No date for resumption of electrification works although intent to electrify restated.
     7. TPE electrification works to be paused. New diesel trains will come in the new franchise. Whole scope of works for the Transpennine route to be reviewed.
     8. Various restatements about possible investments on other routes including Anglia, North West and South West. No real specifics though.

     The Shadow SoS is now ranting on about bad the government has been and dire the railways are.

446. Re Melvyn,

     That is apparently part of the problem…
     It appears that the piling rigs on the HOOPS factory train and the similar Balfour Beatty electrification equipment in the north west (upon which it is modelled) aren’t powerful enough or reliable enough (the 2 points may be linked is are they breaking because of operation at or above design limits more than anticipated?).

447. Oh well, at least I was reasonably prescient on 19th June!
     https://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/orange-invades-all-change-for-londons-new-overground-lines/#comment-248459

     Need time to read full statement and consider implications. However, looks possible that NR should only proceed without delay with cost-certain schemes or cost-plus-available-resource-probable schemes or system-will-otherwise-fall-apart schemes, rest might be subject to severe review.

     Efficiency also is possible coded language for ‘retire most of NR Board, get in new competent players’, alongside fundamental review of why costs and project management and timescales have in too many cases gone in the wrong direction. [Does that point to the next management tiers as well?] And – should NR be broken up? Could TfL might do a better job in London area on inner lines, etc etc.

     Also, has ORR been doing its own job adequately, will ORR competence be one question maybe not on the shopping list – why did things have to reach this point?…

448. – MikeP 08:24

     It’s not remote train management, it’s remote condition monitoring. Slightly different words, but mean different things.

     Think of it like putting a heart rate or blood pressure monitor on a patient, letting them go down to the hospital cafe for a big fry up and then broadcasting the data to a doctor in a hospital 100 miles away – except with trains. The data about the ‘health’ of a unit is transmitted back to engineers, in a one way process (i.e nothing can be controlled, managed, influenced or changed on the train in the other direction). Maintenance can be changed, for example, as a result.

     In the past (and the present at other train companies), maintenance was largely on a mileage basis (it still is to an extent, but less so). After X number of miles, the unit came in and had various parts, like bearings, automatically replaced whether they needed replacing or not. Now, the data can be reviewed and if something looks healthy then it doesn’t necessarily get replaced, saving perfectly good parts being replaced. Furthermore, the data is very good at flagging up faults early and indicating something needs replacing.

     On the point about heating, this is a big issue on many trains, not quite sure how it’s a Southeastern incompetence thing. Installing heating control, in the form of a thermostat in the cab like you have in your home would be lovely. But it isn’t going to happen, and I suspect it’d actually be quite difficult to retrospectively install on Metro units. For now, I think a good fix has been settled on though, as you’ll be aware! There’s the occasional driver who forgets the heating should be off from 0700 to 2000, but I think that’s somewhat inevitable when so many trains are running.

449. Re Milton and WW,

     SoS statement here:
     https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/network-rails-performance

     The SoS gave a few reasons in his statement the full list in time will be an interesting read:

     The UK supply chain for the complex signalling works needs to be stronger.

     Construction rates have been slow.

     It has taken longer to obtain planning consents from some local authorities than expected.

     All 3 featured in my comments on 19th June too:
     https://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/orange-invades-all-change-for-londons-new-overground-lines/#comment-248471

     TP electrification I though they realised about 2 years ago that with traffic growth rates they were going to have to do far more platform lengthening and more 4 tracking / passing loops to meet demand on the route as well which then means more to electrify…

     As MML and TP (8th Northern electrification project with 2 completed so far) seemingly relied on some resources from delay projects this is probably the easy justification for the pause.

     Is MML line speed improvement a coded word for doing as much work on the civils and signalling work as possible in anticipation?

     At least SE passengers should be happy as it will put an end to rumours for a while about Corby EMU stocks being sourced from there.

     With the MML electrification how much civils work could easily be cancelled give a reasonable amount of Bedford Corby is already underway?

450. @WW: “Only a modest comment in the Commissioner’s Report about the West Anglia takeover. The first sentence might cause some commuters to choke on their morning espressos”.

     Duly choked and choked again. If I was not directly affected, I would find that mildly hilarious…..

451. @ngh: I think they will want to progress with 4-tracking the MML regardless – the slow progress is caused by electrification and resignalling for which there are not enough resources available.*

     To be honest the announcement does not surprise me in the least. I’ve been wondering since the HLOS2 announcement how on Earth they expect to squeeze all that work into a 5 year period…

     *Sure – the 4-tracking does require some resignalling but not as much as a wholesale electrification job would.

452. @Straphan “I’ve been wondering since the HLOS2 announcement how on Earth they expect to squeeze all that work into a 5 year period…” I couldn’t agree more. It would appear that Network rail have got themselves into a similar pickle with electrification as DafT did with franchising – trying to do too much at the same time with insufficient resource. And like franchising the solution is to take a step back, put a hold on things and reschedule. In the case of electrification it also improves cashflow by pushing expenditure back.

     It is a lot easier (and cheaper) to postpone something that hasn’t started yet than pause something that is already happening – hence GWML goes ahead. I wouldn’t be surprised if, after doing the sums, Bedford-Corby continues as it is already in progress, with the rest of MML postponed.

453. What stock will they use on the newly electrified Midland Mainline? Class 390s?

454. Please find below a link to DFT site which has announcement of Sir Peter Hendy as new NR Chair and link to speech by SOS giving details of today’s announcements –

     https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-chair-of-network-rail-announced

     I would have thought electrification of MML to Corby could have continued with possible extension of Thameslink to Corby ?

     Perhaps it’s time to re-consider adding extra coach with a pantograph to MML non HST trains in order that they can use electrification to Bedford and then further north as wires spread north ?

455. @ Ngh – I watched the rest of the session where the SoS took questions. There was a lot of concern from Tory MPs in the Midlands about what “pause” meant. As far as he could the SoS sought to emphasise that MML electrification will happen but he refused to set a date as that is dependent on Sir Peter’s review. We had yet another question about GWML wiring reaching Swansea – the PM said “yes” yesterday but the SoS had to repeat the “yes” yet again today.

     There wasn’t too much noise from Northern MPs but I suspect they were sceptical anyway because of the emerging news on TPE delays in recent weeks. For Labour Michael Dugher, Louise Ellman and Graham Stringer (latter 2 were members of T/port Select Cttee) all asked some very pertinent questions about cost overruns, past information not being acted on etc. Naturally enough none of those questions got answered but I expect they will have to be soon enough. We were instead treated to a lambast of what the last Labour government did or did not do. Hardly very relevant given the current fall out relates very much to more recent policy.

     Interestingly there were whinges from Southern Tory MPs about compensation, poor performance and London Bridge reared its ugly head again. Bob Neill (MP for Bromley and Chislehurst) even managed to mention Napoleon in his moans about South Eastern! Seems it is compulsory to ask moany questions about the railways while, if you are a Tory, you also say nice crawly things about the SoS. Quite clearly the “mess” at NR was quietly shovelled under the carpet during the election campaign but has now had to emerge into the light.

     It is perhaps reassuring that electrification of Barking – Gospel Oak was not mentioned in the pause list but clearly some people will be nervous about what may happen despite all the recent reassuring noises plus Network Rail booking the possessions for next year.

     For London there are risks that delays to schemes may affect other major works. Network Rail have a massive job to do on the Great Western so it is ready for Crossrail in terms of electrification and resignalling. Ditto on the surface sections where a lot of work is needed and has now to be co-ordinated with TfL funded works at stations.

     It will be interesting to see what view is taken of the London Bridge works and whether anyone, Sir Peter included, is prepared to tamper with the programme. Broadly the construction programme *seems* to be working well – it’s the management of the operational consequences which have been “not optimal” (to be polite and not insult anyone reading!). Fun times ahead.

456. @ WW A date for your diary is 30th June 2017 which according to Rail Minister Claire Perry ( in July Modern Railways) is when GOBLIN will get electric services ..! With £115 million allocated for the project with £90 million coming from DFT .

457. @ Lazarus – is it really Network Rail who have got themselves into a pickle? Taking a step back we need to consider that it is Government who set out the HLOS and provide the SOFA (statement of funds available). Government have then gone “infrastructure crazy” and every Budget and Autumn Statement has included yet more work on the railways to be delivered within a ridiculous timescale. That extra work is additional to the HLOS and SOFA and there’s a massive backlog at ORR to assess that work and its projected costs to see if it can be added to NR’s work programmes.

     While I applaud more investment in the railways it is not sensible to keep piling on the work when there is plenty of evidence that the core programmes of work are going wrong and there are serious problems with the supply chain / engineering skills.

     Here’s hoping some sanity can be restored but it’s going to take some political back tracking by Government to get us to a sensible programme of investment programmes and supply of rolling stock. I suspect the political fall out / lobbying for everyone’s favourite scheme to be preserved in the eventual NR programme will only intensify as we head towards the Autumn Statement.

458. @ Melvyn – I hate to tell Ms Perry (waves – any chance of replying to my tweets please?) that her dates are wrong. The Mayor said electric trains won’t start running until early 2018 in a response to a Question to him by Caroline Pidgeon.

     Caroline Pidgeon

     In view of Transport Minister Claire Perry’s confirmation of Government investment of £90m in this scheme on 5 June, can you confirm that TfL will have electric trains to operate on the Barking – Gospel Oak service when Network Rail hand over the new overhead electric line infrastructure for use in June 2017?

     The Mayor

     As has always been intended, the new electric trains will be introduced on the Gospel Oak to Barking line shortly afterwards, in early 2018. This is part of a larger order including new trains to replace the 30 year old West Anglia trains, and to increase train frequency on other parts of London Overground.

     Furthermore the authority paper for the new trains says the first new train isn’t due until December 2017. Given it’ll take time to get the trains into service we can forget about any new electric trains running from June 2017.

459. WW / ngh /MC
     I note that a lot of the “New Brooms” are railway & transport professionals with lots of relevant experience.
     It looks as though guvmint is hoping that they will take the whole caboodle by the scruff of the enck, give it a good shake & are hoping that the re-modernisation/electrification etc programme can then be made to work, probably over a longer timescale, too.
     We will see – see also new article?

460. @ Greg – yes you are right to point out that some much needed transport expertise is being put into Network Rail. However NR is part of government with all that entails. I note also that the SoS has had to effectively install his own “spy” in the shape of Richard Brown. There is also the appointment of an economist, Dame Colette Bowe, to review NR’s investment stategy. To get a way forward the Chairman has to make sure these new appointees are “on side” plus the rest of NR’s top brass. Whatever is developed as a way forward will also have to pass muster with ORR, DfT, Treasury and no doubt others in government. That’s a tall order in a short timescale that can align with the Spending Review and Autumn Statement. It will be all too easy for DfT to be in the firing line for even bigger spending cuts given the government have effectively scaled back their shopping list.

     Beyond that there is the task of reshaping the organisation and getting rid of things that are a distraction while ensuring performance stabilises and then improves for day to day operation, project delivery and value for money from procurement. There are some horrible issues like signalling knowledge which may take decades to fix because you really need to start training future generations of engineers now. TfL have realised this but it still took years to get the volume of applicants for apprenticeships and graduate entry up and to get meaningful development programmes in place. Not a criticism btw – just an observation that it takes time.

     It’ll be interesting to see how the share prices of groups like Go Ahead, First and Stagecoach react tomorrow once the news has been absorbed by the stock market and they’ve decided what the prospects for rail and future franchises are.

461. I can’t speak for SE but GTR Drivers are told explicitly NOT to touch the train heating.

462. Surely Sir Peter must have had an inkling that this was in the pipeline when he used such colourful language (publicly) to describe SouthEastern’s performance ??

463. @Anonylon – sorry, my humour just doesn’t come across in the written word. I (being an electronics injuneer by training) do realise the difference between a monitoring system and a control system. Clearly what’s been installed is an excellent system and I’m sure its use is reflected in improved unit availability, or soon will be.
     And I was very careful to call it the passengers’ view of SE’s competence, not pass a judgement on competence.

464. @GTR Driver: I’m sure the switches are marked the wrong way around on the Networkers…. 😉

465. @ WW The Mayor is talking about ” new trains” but given capacity crunch on GOBLIN perhaps electric services might begin with Class 315 trains if new Crossrail trains become available for service on TFL Rail ?

     While possibly Class 319 trains could become available to allow short term changes to WA Overground to free up class 315s . Although it seems South Eastern trains wants to get its hands on some of these !

466. @ Melvyn – the 315 idea originated in an earlier post and was discussed then. We have a long way to go to get the GOBLIN electrified and I suspect there may be a few “bumps” along the way because the backdrop with Network Rail has become more volatile. Also worth bearing in mind that for half of 2016 there won’t be any trains running on half the route and none at all for three months [1]. People will have to adjust their travel patterns and it will take a little while after services resume for previous patronage levels to be achieved. We shall simply have to wait and see if anything is done about short term rolling stock moves – they don’t come for free even with old trains.

     [1] source – Rules of the Route 2016, Network Rail

467. Re WW and Melvyn,

     Another possibility is that 317s from TSGN might be surplus by that point as the initial class 700 introduction and running will be on the GN routes and LO would already have drivers trained on 317s and experience running them.

468. @ngh
     Wrong drivers – different depots & no route knowledge

469. @ngh/Chris L

     Quite possibly wrong units as well. TSGN runs 317/1s – LO runs 317/7 and 317/8. Not sure whether the modifications are significant from a driving perspective.

470. From the Passenger Transport Twitter feed.

     Four bidders shortlisted for London Overground: Arriva, LoKeGo (a joint venture between Keolis and Go-Ahead), Metroline and MTR

     Interesting to see Arriva and MTR have parted company so no more LOROL and that Metroline have decided to bid despite no UK rail experience. Comfort Delgro (their parent) run some MRT lines in Singapore through SBS Transit. The new concession starts in November 2016.

471. @WW: Arriva and MTR were an alliance formed by chance, when Laing Rail was sold off to Deutsche Bahn in 2008, with Arriva bought by DB later on. Aside from Chiltern and LOROL I doubt they will want to work together on projects in the future.

     What is interesting is LoKeGo – Keolis and Go-Ahead already have a joint company called Govia. Why the new name? Is it because this one will have different levels of engagement from each of the partners?

     (For reference: Govia is 65% Go-Ahead, 35% Keolis)

472. @WW – not entirely surprised about ComfortDelgro – about 10 years ago, I identified them for my then employers as a possible consultancy target if they were interested in entering the UK rail market generally. When I went to see them (in Harrow, as I recall), thew UK management was clearly quite keen, but they thought that their owners were likely to be cautious, as proved to be the case.

473. strapan: Keolis and Go-Ahead are in a non-Govia partnership for the current TransPennine bid too.

474. Walthamstow Writer 29 June 2015 at 17:00

     “Comfort Delgro” Who she?

475. @ Alan G – Comfort Delgro is a Singapore based transport company. They own SBS Transit which runs the majority of Singapore’s bus services and some of the MRT Metro lines. They also have extensive interests in taxi services in Singapore. The London link is that they own Metroline buses, Westbus coaches [1] and have a share in Scottish Citylink. Double checking their website shows they also have interests in China, Malaysia, Ireland, Australia and Vietnam. Unknown to me they also have interests in car leasing, driving schools, vehicle insurance, vehicle inspection and testing and outdoor advertising. A broader portfolio than I realised.

     [1] they own the Australian parent Westbus company but there are UK operations too.

476. Romminster and Bethnal Green enthusiasts might like the map here:

     http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/static/documents/maps/BethnalGreen.pdf

     You didn’t know, did you, that there was through route from Tilbury to Romford? And quite how the map is supposed to help you avoid BG is left to the imagination…

477. Has anyone noticed an increase in patronage with the change and publicity? Or maybe even the trains are quieter at certain times as extra staff put off some freeloaders?

478. @Graham H
     “And quite how the map is supposed to help you avoid BG is left to the imagination…”
     via Stratford perhaps – or even Hitchin if you are coming from Cambridge.

     But the purpose of that map is to aid understanding of where the problem is, so that users can see at a glance whether their journey is affected at all. (not all rail users are blessed with the encyclopedic knowledge of the rail network that the regulars on LR have: would someone from Saxmundham or Newmarket (or, in particular, Stansted) necessarily know where Bethnal Green is?)
     Usually a more detailed map is also provided showing diversionary routes for those who are affected.

479. Oh dear.
     Yestereve, the hottest day of the year, LOROL cancelled two successive Chingford trains, thus ensuring at least 45-minute gap in a 15-minute service & supposedly triggering “delay repay”

     OK, I’ll let you try this, as it was a total fiasco.
     I was given wrong & misleading information several times, which would have totally bamboozled someone not familiar with the system.
     I have sent the moderators a detailed account, but I do think that being referred to “Mersyrail” was a good ploy!

480. @ Graham H your link to map on 30 June seems to no longer work !

481. @Melvyn – it’s a post-modern ironic comment on NR… Fixing it is beyond my technical skills, I fear

482. @ Greg – the Chingford service failed last night because of a points / signal failure at Chingford. That is what the National Rail website said. Before you disagree with me I am well aware that the situation, as depicted via Twitter, was confusing and not very well handled. I felt sorry for anyone who was stuck in what looked like a very poor performance. Trains to Enfield / Cheshunt were also affected by other issues.

     I did say that infrastructure issues would be problematic for LOROL on West Anglia although to add some balance I don’t know if the extreme heat was a contributory factor to yesterday’s events.

     On another point TfL have today confirmed that the contract for the new trains has been signed with Bombardier as the contract standstill period has ended. No technical info from TfL in their press release and nothing yet from Bombardier.

483. WW
     Thank you.
     Fat lot of use to “the boss” @ LST, expecting to get the 17.48, though.
     Also TfL’s delay-repay does not seem to be able to handle paper annual point-to-point seasons – one has to email “Contact Us” – who then don’t bother to reply until well after the 14-day limit for claims has expired – um, err ….
     [ Or give you irrelevant boilerplate answers that don’t actually address one’s original questions. ]

484. Is it not time for the DfT to define precisely what London Overground is or should be?
     If LOROL is now running services into Euston and Liverpool Street then should not the London services from other termini be included?.
     I would include ALL suburban services which remain in the London boundaries, or at least the M25 area. Thus an exception could be Waterloo – Shepperton. Others have already been mentioned. Hertford East might well be a step too far.

     The Sutton loop should be handed over to Overground. This would be [I’m going to stop you there. There may be some useful ideas in your comment (which continued for several long paragraphs). But free-flowing speculation of the kind displayed is not by any stretch of the imagination an on-topic comment on this article (or on any other). Malcolm]

485. Orange – the colour of crayonism throughout the ages….

     [Moderator’s note: this was a comment on Transtraxman’s comment above, now truncated]

486. Mike Stubbs of TfL is putting himself in the Twitter firing line today (3/7) at 1300 to answer questions about West Anglia services ( hashtag #askoverground). Just sent in a few (ahem) questions but I expect there will be a mass of angry questions come 1300. It will be interesting to see what the answers are and just how furious people are.

487. [Moderator’s note: This comment addresses many of the items in Transtraxman’s recent comment. Now that the latter has been truncated, it may be less clear to readers what timbeau is referring to. However, timbeau’s observations make good sense regardless, and may help readers to appreciate some of the problems with some of Trantraxman’s ideas. Malcolm]

     The Munich S-bahn is not a very good model for managing London’s suburban network for several reasons. Firstly, it is much simpler. All services run through a common core, so it is more like Crossrail, or Thameslink, or the north side of the Circle Line. Interchange between any route can be made at any station in the core. This is not even remotely true of the existing Overground network which, particularly in NE London, already resembles a mass of spaghetti in tomato sauce in which it is not immediately obvious, without line tracing, which stations have direct services between them. (Try Haggerston to Clapton, for example)
     The Paris RER is probably a better model.
     And even a simple system like the the S-bahn uses different colours for different routes
     http://bilder.pafnet.de/?http://www.nietenzaehler.de/zwischenablage/pafnet/fahrplan2010/s-bahnplan.jpg
     (link is to a map showing the S-bahn only – more recent maps all include the Ubahn)

     “I would include ALL suburban services which remain in the London boundaries, or at least the M25 area. Thus an exception could be Waterloo – Shepperton”. Shepperton is within the M25, although the last three stations on the branch are outside the GLA. Given that you have advocated the Kingston loop as part of the Overground, and Shepperton has no other rail connection, it would seem odd to exclude it. (It is a curious oddity that it is not Oysterised, unlike other branches terminating in Surrey whose only connection to the rail network is via the GLA area (Hampton Court, Epsom Downs, Caterham, Tattenham Corner*)

     “These could eventually be joined by going underground from Waterloo to London Bridge thus freeing up platforms at both termini.”
     Since both those termini are on viaducts, and there are several Tube lines in the way at both stations if you were to burrow between them, I think this belongs in the same category as Drain extensions. The most practical (or least impractical?) way to connect the two termini would be to reopen the linkspan across Waterloo Road, closed 100 years ago, although that would require splitting Waterloo’s concourse in two, and might not go down well with users of Charing Cross, who are unlikely to consider Teddington and Hounslow suitable alternatives!

     You include Bromley North, but not the local CX-Orpington service which is its only connection to London or indeed anywhere else. The Catford loop and the services through Epsom are difficult – they undoubtedly provide the local services within significant parts of the GLA area, but also extend deep into Kent (Sevenoaks), Surrey (Dorking, Guildford), and even Sussex (Horsham)

     * and the Oxted Line, but I suspect that having the Overground run to East Grinstead and Uckfield is going a bit over the top! (Nor is BML2 a sensible answer to resolving the anomaly)

488. S bahn link didn’t work: try this
     http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o263/Daneelo/Occasional%20Train%20Blogging/LocalRail/SBahn_Munichmap.png

     http://www.mvv-muenchen.de/fileadmin/media/Dateien/plaene/pdf/Netz_2015_mit_Regionalzugnetz.PDF

     As can be seen, all S-bahn trains run through a common core between Ostbahn hof, Marienplatz, Hauptbahnhof and Donnerbergerbrucke

489. timbeau @10.53
     Yes, I know how the S-Bahn works in Munich. I also realise all your objections to what I said but I think you are being rigid in your thinking.

     In the proposals for Crossrail 2 the line to Shepperton would form part of C2 as would an exztension from Kingston to Twickenham (where it would terminate). at no stage has a proposal been made to eliminate the SWtrains which run along the same tracks. Also C2 trains would have to share tracks with SWT to Wimbledon (if not further).

     What I am thinking about is that Overground shares tracks with outer suburban trains while not running to Uckfield thus there is some sort of competition on parts of some routes.
     We all know that capacity is not only the number of trains per hour that can be run but also the end of the line. How long does a train need to dwell at a platform before returning? Reducing the number of trains that run into termini would increase capacity.
     I could well be quite wrong in some of the things I propose but I firmly believe that some “out of the box” thinking is needed to get to feasible solutions. This seems to be lacking in TfL thinking.
     yours repectfully.

490. I would just like to add that I think the above conversation goes well beyond what we are about. Given that it will be 2018 at the very earliest before we possibly see London Overground taking over [part of] Southeastern it is probably very premature. More to the point it is meaningless armchair speculation. There is an awful lot going on behind the scenes looking into the issues and practicality (including political practicality) of extending London Overground. Within the article itself is a link to a report on such a subject.

     If someone were in a position to report on the current discussions going on behind the scenes it would be of far more value. Of course we have is the usual problem that the people who are in the know are generally not in a position to make an informed comment and the people who are not in the know can only speculate or advocate their preferred scenario. Speculation without facts is of little value – we can all do that. There are plenty of websites available for those who want to advocate their own ideas.

491. @Transtraxman
     “In the proposals for Crossrail 2 the line to Shepperton would form part of C2 as would an exztension from Kingston to Twickenham (where it would terminate). at no stage has a proposal been made to eliminate the SWtrains which run along the same tracks. ”
     It may not have been trumpeted from the roof tops, but that is surely the idea. How else would XR2 create space at Waterloo? (its raison d’etre).
     It may not be the Kingston line which gets Crossrail, of course, it might be Chessington, or Guildford, or even the St Helier line. But whichever it is, expect protests when people on that line who currently use Waterloo realise that Crossrail is to be instead, not as well as Waterloo.
     For myself, it is academic – by the time XR2 is built, the only service from Waterloo likely to be of any use to me is this one, which last ran in 1941.
     https://hauntedpalaceblog.wordpress.com/tag/london-necropolis-railway/

     “Also C2 trains would have to share tracks with SWT to Wimbledon ”
     These are full already – a further clue that existing services will be diverted into, not supplemented by, Crossrail.
     Look at XR1 – local all stations services into the termini at Paddington and Liverpool Street are to be diverted into Crossrail – if there are any remaining all-stations services to the termini, they will be much reduced in number.

492. @timbeau
     “But whichever it is, expect protests when people on that line who currently use Waterloo realise that Crossrail is to be instead of, not as well as, Waterloo

     I’m not sure. The only people who would really suffer are those whose final destination is within 2 or 3 minutes walk of Waterloo. Others may well find it easier. Don’t just look at Crossrail 1 (no protests) but also HS1 where trains were moved to a completely different part of central London. Albeit, trains to Charing Cross/Waterloo E/Cannon Street were retained, but much slower. Still, no protest

493. “HS1 where trains were moved to a completely different part of central London. Albeit, trains to Charing Cross/Waterloo E/Cannon Street were retained, but much slower. Still, no protest”
     I seem to recall quite a lot of complaints that fast services to the West End and City had been slowed down, with HS1 being no quicker to those areas (and requiring not only a higher fare to St Pancras but a Zone 1 Tube fare on top) See e.g http://www.kentnews.co.uk/news/review_launched_into_hs1_impact_on_regular_rail_services_1_971259

     “Don’t just look at Crossrail 1 (no protests)”
     Crossrail 1 will still serve both Paddington and Liverpool Street. Doubtless there would be complaints if GEML passengers found they were now expected to go to Kings Cross or London Bridge.

     ” The only people who would really suffer are those whose final destination is within 2 or 3 minutes walk of Waterloo”
     Two issues here: many people walk considerably further from that from Waterloo to the City – with XR2 coming no closer than the Angel that is not really an option, so they will have to change to XR1, (or the Northern Line at Tooting)
     : on the return journey, there is an advantage to starting at a terminus – Waterloo’s concourse will always be a more pleasant environment than some cave under the west end, and at a terminus those travelling furthest, who most need a seat, get to board first (because when the train is ready for boarding shorter-distance passengers will still be going for trains to other branches that will depart earlier).

494. @quinlet – much will depend on the ability and ease of CR2 passengers to change onto LU lines to reach their final destinations, and whether that is easier and more comfortable than what they have to do now. In particular, I would draw attention to the removal of interchange with the Bakerloo combined with the omission of the proposed Piccadilly stop. So far, like all great showmen, TfL has remained silent on the question.

495. Details of the trains ordered from Bombardier for WA Overground are in link below –

     http://www.bombardier.com/en/media-centre/newsList/details.bt-2015070315-bombardier-signs-major-rolling-stock-and-maintenan.bombardiercom.html

     The order consists of AVENTRA trains of 4 carriage length.

496. Melvyn
     No mention of the very important proposed seating layout.
     ( Nor its comfort – see Ian Walmsley on that one – either. )

497. @ Greg – TfL said on Twitter this week in a special session on West Anglia that the new trains will have a mix of longitudinal and transverse seating. I asked that question so the never ending conspiracy theories could be put to rest. I doubt they’ll stop because people will go “I won’t believe TfL’s words until I see a real train” but I at least tried.

     For those who may be interested the Transport Committee are having a further session on the wider issues on rail devolution this coming week. Features PoP’s favourite fast talking, not breathing woman – Isabel Dedring. 🙂

     http://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s47945/National%20Rail%20Services.pdf

     They also covering taxi and private hire issues too.

     http://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s47946/Taxi%20and%20Private%20Hire%20Services.pdf

498. Re WW,

     Southeasterns submission:
     https://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s47935/Appendix%201%20-%20Letter%20from%20Southeastern.pdf

     The key bits for Southeastern passengers (could fit in with discussions on a number of articles recently):

     We made a number of changes to our timetable in March to ease crowding on our busiest services, however despite having more units in traffic than ever before, as you are aware,
     capacity remains a major issue for our passengers and stakeholders.
     Passenger numbers have increased by around 30% since Southeastern took over in 2006 and we have had no new rolling stock on our network since 2009. (Those introduced in 2009 are the high speed trains serving St. Pancras from Kent and we appreciate that these do not directly benefit commuters in the Greater London area).

     I’m not sure if you are aware of this but we have the second highest number of passengers standing into London.
     Aside from those of our trains in maintenance, (which is now the fewest it has ever been), all trains are currently deployed in passenger service and the only way any individual train can be lengthened is by taking units off a more lightly used service; an avenue which we have now exhausted.

     As explained, we submitted a report to DfT in February which showed the severity of the current overcrowding problem, and how this will get progressively worse, such that by the end of the current Franchise this will undoubtedly be the defining issue for Southeastern.
     Analysis has shown that the only possible short term solution is for the redeployment of Class 319 trains as they are released off contract from GTR as part of the overall Thameslink Programme.
     We are working closely with both GTR and DfT to present a costed proposal to DfT that would allow a decision to be made in terms of funding and timescales. We also remain convinced of the necessity, in addition to the 319s described above, for DfT to exercise the Priced Option present in our Franchise Agreement which would see a further 25 Class 377 units for use by Southeastern sub-leased from GTR, albeit to commence service in late 2017.
     The timescales required for enhancements to stabling facilities for these initiatives mean that decisions on these issues will need to be made soon so as not to import delays where units are potentially spare, but not able to operate in traffic as there is nowhere to place them when not in service.
     We would welcome any support you are able to provide in securing much – needed additional capacity for our passengers, and representations to the Rail Minister would be welcome and we would be happy to take you through the issues should you wish.

499. @ngh – interesting -how many times can the 319 fleet be promised as the panacea to the country’s rolling stock needs? (Maybe the NR electrification delays are a short term blessing in disguise).

     BTW, is there any detail on where the enhanced stabling might be sited?

500. Re Graham,

     No mention on stabling options. 319s would likely be deployed on metro services out of Victoria as they are already cleared on the routes and it would be easier to segregate them on these services. Stewarts Lane (TSGN) strikes me as having some capacity at moment even if for the short term…

     319s & Northern electrification delays – Indeed a possible blessing in disguise but even if electrification had gone to plan some 319s would have been surplus for several years from TSGN before they could get used again by Northern or TPE.

501. The class 319 fleet is quite big (86 units) so it is quite likely they will end up split between several operators. Northern are to get twenty. I would be surprised if FGW could use all the rest (They currently operate their Thames Valley local services with 57 class 165s and 166s, (total 151 cars), and some of these routes will not be electrified in the foreseeable future (Greenford, Marlow, Gatwick, Worcester).

502. Re TImbeau,

     The FGW rolling stock plan is 387s and 365s but no 319s. DfT’s recent thinking on 319s appears to be that they would all head up North.

     London Midland (Govia) have agreed to take a few 319s for a couple of years though. So SouthEastern (Govia) might be following the same plan?

     Northern have 20x 319s until the next phase of electrification is completed when they get some more. I think there are another 4 phases of Northern electrification before the “paused” transpennine work so they will need plenty more stock.

503. @ngh
     Strange – I thought some 319s were earmarked to go west – maybe it was the Valley lines?

     Northern’s entire diesel fleet is 272 units (about 550 cars). Much of the network will remain unelectrified for the foreseeable future.

504. Why did Southern get rid of the 319s anyway? Will they not have a use for them again? I miss the Connex South Central Brighton Express services..

505. The 319s on Southern were returned to Thameslink, for which they were built (and for which until very recently were the only units which could work the line) to meet the demand for their use on that route. Southern now uses newer 377s for almost all its services. Mixed fleets cause operating problems, not only in coupling and interoperability, but in different acceleration characteristics, maintenance regimes etc.

506. Re Timbeau,

     They were many years ago but then the 387s got ordered as a stop gap measure for Thameslink but with 110mph capability as required for capacity reasons on the GWML (Oxfords etc). The writing was on the wall at that stage there was a change.
     There wouldn’t have been enough 319s for both GW and Northern electrification but is was used as the base specification rolling stock for both.

     Valleys (South Wales) electrification was based on reusing 315s (surplus from what is now TfL rail or West Anglia Overground).

     The new FGW franchise announcement several months ago contained the rolling stock plans in detail.

     Most 319 run services with Northern have replaced a 2 car service and have released DMUs to add capacity on other services too, so there is a large increase in capacity occurring, it isn’t a like for like replacement. 120 of the DMUs will be heading for the scrapyard in 2020 though. There is also the Transpennine franchise to consider.

     DfT’s position since realising that Northern isn’t a zero growth franchise in reality is that it will need more stock than the thinking of several years ago.

     Again we hit issues with growth rates discussed on several other threads.
     The SE franchise growth rate has been 3.0% since they took over – below the London and South East average.

     Re Miles,
     Because they were needed for capacity on Thameslink.

507. @timbeau
     “Strange – I thought some 319s were earmarked to go west – maybe it was the Valley lines?”
     They were earmarked to go west to the Thames Valley. However, that plan is now out of date (see this months Modern Railways)

508. @ngh @Graham H @timbeau @Miles @ Dan

     I wonder if someone could please put together a quick “Top Trumps” for the all the above mentioned train class numbers?

     As a lover of the permanent way, but never been a train spotter, I find it hard to comprehend all the numeric codes.

     Any chance someone could put together a cheat sheet for each class so the likes of me can follow the conversation?

     [Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_locomotive_and_multiple_unit_numbering_and_classification which appears to be comprehensive, but I have no idea how accurate it is. There are also enthusiast websites with more details and histories.
     HOWEVER please do not comment on train class numbers here on LR, unless it is directly relevant to the topic. LBM]

509. Even with the Transpennine electrification project now shelved, there is still scope for a large number of Class 319 units to find gainful employment up North. Having said that, the number of electric diagrams required will be much lower than originally envisaged and it is therefore right that other uses are found for the fleet at least for the time being.

     The Cardiff Valleys electrification was indeed based on 3-car Class 315s, but I do wonder to what extent that project is confirmed in its current state.

510. @LBM
     That link is a bit broad brush, covering all traction types ever used on British railways since 1948. This one is spewcific to emus, and lists the various types
     https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_Rail_electric_multiple_unit_classes

     In view of LBM’s strictures, I will just say that most discussion on this thread has been about :
     Class 313 – BR’s first dual voltage stock, built in the 1970s for the Moorgate – Welwyn/Hertford electrification but also used on what became the original Overground network until TfL replaced them.
     Class 315 – ac only variant of 313 used on the TfL Rail and West Anglia lines (along with a few 317s)
     Class 319 – dual voltage stock similar to the 317, built in the 1980s for Thameslink, but also used for a while on Southern: some now being transferred to Northern Rail as 377s, 387s and, in future, 700s take over on Thameslink
     Class 345 – Aventra stock on order for Crossrail
     Class 378 – “Capitalstars” used on the original Overground Network.
     No class registered yet – future West Anglia/Goblin “Aventra” stock

     [Thank you! LBM]

511. I am aware of 319 movements, but can’t say too much. Following is public.

     Northern have, at the moment, taken 20.
     London Midland have taken 4 (can’t say routes yet).
     Southeastern are in the process of costing up prices for lease, agreeing funding and sorting the big logistical issue – stabling and maintenance (Victoria and Orpington should be okay for stabling, maintenance is the issue – although Tonbridge was being looked at I believe).

     Any 319s on Southeastern would be for Victoria to Orpington metro route only. They are heavily restricted on all routes to Dartford and route to Hayes, and I personally can’t see Network Rail being willing to sort out the gauging issues. Victoria to Orpington, with a 15 minute interval, and a 1 hour 45 minute round trip and with 8 car running in the peaks, you’d need around 14 units (plus 1/2 for maintenance cover). That number of 319s probably won’t be freed up until 2017 I reckon.

512. Time for TfL to get their lobbying skates on! Discussions on a direct award franchise extension for SWT have ended meaning the SWT franchise will be retendered in 2017.

     http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/passenger/single-view/view/south-west-trains-to-be-refranchised.html

     That’s rather a surprise but clearly something has changed in SWT land given the ending of the Alliance and now the failure to secure a Direct Award – first time I think this has happened. If TfL want devolution of the inner area services then the timing of this retendering probably falls right across the Mayoral Election in May 2016 in terms of key strategic decisions needing to be made by TfL and the Mayor so the scope of the franchise for SWT and any concession for TfL is clear and signed off by the DfT.

513. Re WW,

     With the recent break up of the deep alliance etc it may not be a big surprise.

     I suspect a relatively short direct award may not look that great from the franchisee’s view, DfT & SWT are intending to go for the 6 month extension which may be more generous than a direct award for SWT especially if the direct award is generous enough to cover changes they would have to make (for example class 707 fleet introduction where SWT may have radically different expectations over expected costs, with lots of TOCs recruiting and trying to retain extra drivers has it become more expensive?). There could be plenty of practical reasons why a few simple changes in DfT thinking could actually be very expensive to implement.

     [FGW went down the other route and didn’t go for the extension as it assumed IEP introduction on the original schedule several years before they will actually run]

     I doubt TfL would want to go for SWT metro at this stage as they won’t be able to do much more than SWT would apart from a few more oystered stations and better evening and Sunday services.

514. timbeau
     Also directly relevant is Class 172 – as used on GOBLIN …

     WW
     Maybe that is why it’s been done that way – so that TfL cannot bid?

515. @ngh: My understanding was that the biggest constraint on Sundays for SWT was the need for maintenance and inspections at Waterloo, which essentially closes either the Windsor Side or Mainline Side each Sunday. I understand this issue will only go away after the Waterloo throat is rebuilt.

     @Anonylon: I’m surprised there are gauging issues with regard to 319s to Dartford… I thought the Networkers are larger than the 319s in pretty much all dimesions…

516. ngh
     “I doubt TfL would want to go for SWT metro at this stage as they won’t be able to do much more than SWT would apart from a few more oystered stations and better evening and Sunday services.”
     That would be hugely popular though – a decent Sunday service to the major shopping venue at Kinsgton would get a lot of cars off the roads, if nothing else.
     All SWT stations within Greater London are already Oystered, but extension to Shepperton would make a lot of sense.
     (Windsor is probably too far. Weybridge-via-Hounslow too, although that would leave the Brentford/Hounslow served half and half. Dorking (nothwithstanding the parallel 465 bus) is probably too far out as well.
     There is certainly room for improvement in station facilities.
     And is it significant that one of the front-runners for mayor is currently the MP for a large chunk of SWT-land?

517. Re Anonylon,

     Thanks for the info!
     It wouldn’t need full replacement of the networkers on VIC – Orpington metros to make difference though, even 4 units might be enough to get more of the trains back to full length (many short formed at the moment to provide extra carriages for longer Cannon Street services because of the London Bridge works).

     With the 319s released this year already effectively spoken for (29 with 20 Northern, 4LM and 6? indirectly loaned to SE on ta daily basis) nothing will happen soon.
     In 2016 very few would get released min 8 max 15 units with Northern needing some more again but 25-32 units released in 2017 sounds realistic for SE to get some.

     Delays on GW electrification could be useful as FGW might not want to take the 387s or 365s as early as planned.

518. Re Staphan,

     Sundays indeed for the time being but I was also thinking about 8 cars rather than 4 cars with 40 standing per car as part of the better Sunday service but the Siemens units are expensive to clock up excess mileage on.

     Re TImbeau,

     Shepperton branch and individual stations like Staines were what I had in mind.

     Splitting or sharing the stabling and maintenance facilities might prove tricky.

519. Just following on from the train class discussion, DfT have just release their rolling stock perspective. Whilst this also gives fleet allocations the Ministers introductory statement contains 2 interesting comments.

     1st: DfT believe the rolling stock market is now a mature market working well to minimise tax payer risk/expense. Presumably this means that if new trains are needed to provide additional capacity like that on SouthEastern, the operators themselves will have to plan/finance this without it affecting their premiums.
     2nd: Double decker trains would still be considered provided they can fit within existing infrastructure.

     Assuming this is to provide relief on busy corridors (i.e. London commuter), is any one aware of a manufacturer investigating this or is this a DfT/Rail Delivery Group aspiration considering the numerous problems (i.e. expense) that every other double decker report/comments posted here have noted.

520. @ Ngh – if the Budget leaks about more relaxed Sunday trading rules are correct then that is going to have some interesting impacts on public and private transport usage. If businesses take advantage of the more relaxed rules then the traditional “don’t run very much / run no service on a Sunday” approach on local transport networks is not going to work. If shop workers have to get to work earlier than at present then this has implications for bus, tube and rail services in London and services elsewhere. Sunday service levels in London are already relatively poor when set against demand (the Tube is the possible exception to this). Looks like a classic example of a policy initiative which will have much wider implications than anyone has probably considered. I suspect Sunday congestion levels will be even worse than they already are once the retailers respond to their new flexibility. There are also implications for the long established practice of Sunday engineering works and Sunday morning blockades for track inspection, track fettling etc.

521. @ngh
     ” individual stations like Staines were what I had in mind.”
     Staines isn’t in Greater London, and except at the beginning and end of the traffic day very few trains terminate there – most go on to Windsor, Reading, or Weybridge.
     The two “rounders” and Chessington are the only SWT services entirely in London.

     Hampton Court is fully Oysterised (the palace is in Greater London, but the station is across the river in Elmbridge),

     The few peak-hour Epsom pixc busters will be fully in Oysterland later this year when Epsom gets its readers (but, like Staines, most services go a lot further). All stations on the Epsom line beyond the junction with the Chessington line are outside the GLA boundary – (Worcester Park being, literally, a borderline case)

     By analogy with which services were taken over from AGA, I would be surprised if anything other than these were on the GLA shopping list, although the strange position of Shepperton might be resolved.

522. Re WW,

     We’ll see what happens on Sunday trading as there are lots of rumours between a total relaxation (locally decided) or a possible 10-6 and both would have very different effects.

     With the lengths of rail franchises it could take more than a decade to get better Sunday services in some areas.

     Greater bus usage on Sundays could be tricky for TfL as so many of the bus lanes are full of (legally) parked cars and the traffic can often be worse than during the week.

     Changing Sunday parking could be one of the easiest adaptations but there would be plenty of vocal opposition.

523. @Snowy, I wonder if the ‘Double decker trains would still be considered provided they can fit within existing infrastructure’ is simply a fig leaf that saves innumerable hours of time in various public and private meetings and consultations, when the question, ‘why aren’t you investigating double decker trains?’ is asked. Much easier to move on from the issue by saying something along the lines of ‘it’s constantly under evaluation, but doesn’t make economic sense at this moment in time’.

524. Re JA and Snowy,

     Page 12:

     It’s important not to discount approaches such as double-decker trains which could unlock capacity if they can be made to work on our infrastructure and with associated dwell times in the peak – which is a challenge for industry to consider.

     tree full of fig leaves provided…

525. @Snowy – yes the rolling stock market is mature , but that doesn’t mean it works – and DfT jolly well know that. It’s a rigged market (they do the rigging) and lacks any sort of liquidity. It’s only a market in the same sense as GosPlan provide a market for consumer goods… But then DfT don’t actually have a rolling stock strategy; they only pretend to do so and it keeps SB happy…

     TOCs will never buy stock unless they have its residual value underwritten by DfT; their tenure is too short for ant sort of payback. In the cases where they have done so, it’s either because they do have tenure (Chiltern) or they are acting as DfT’s procurement agents (this is a legal fix or scam to avoid having to go through EU procurement procedures – the TOCs are are not classified as public sector, and therefore exempt).

     Double deck trains are a hoary old chestnut that the innocent (sc Ministers) believe is a panacea. Engineers and operators have been cracking their heads on this for the last 70 years without finding an answer, with good reason. JA’s suggested line to take is the right one. [BTW, the capacity gain from double deck trains is a lot less than the innocents suspect – even in places with the full European loading gauge, it’s no more than about 30% length for length because of the need to accommodate stairs and large vestibules].

526. Walthamstow Writer,

     Sunday service levels in London are already relatively poor when set against demand (the Tube is the possible exception to this).

     I wouldn’t say possible. I would say is. A train every 135 seconds on the Victoria Line and every three minutes throughout the Northern Line (except Mill Hill East). The Central Line is rumoured to have an improved Sunday service from September onwards (currently a measly train every 2¾ minutes in the central area).

     You are also forgetting trams which, for the most part, operate the same frequency during Sunday shopping hours as peak hours Mon-Fri. And, being north of the river, you have probably forgotten London Overground [hey, very nearly on topic] south of the river which operates an identical service (except for hours of operation) 7 days a week.

527. Isn’t the poor Sunday service in London mostly a (heavy) rail and bus issue? My personal bugbear is a franchise that runs through the centre of London, connecting two busy airports and a seaside resort. Yet instead of the 12 or 8 car trains that it normally operates, it runs four car trains on peak summer Sundays. Grrrrr.

528. @IslandDweller – fear not, the new stock comes in fixed formations, so Sunday trains should be the same as the rest of the week. (Admittedly, these are of the long and short variety but there is no incentive* – and almost certainly insufficient numbers – to run with just the short fleet on Sundays).

     * The short fleet will, of course, use less power, but if, as is likely, TLK are signed up for the same sort of maintenance deal as SWT, they’ll not want to accumulate too much mileage on one particular type.

529. Straphan – from a quick glance at my latest sectional appendix, 319s are restricted to 45mph on a large proportion of the routes to Dartford, and restricted to 10mph through platforms/on approach to many stations.

     Ngh – GW electrification will have an effect on the units, but I can’t say what (partly because it’s not public, and partly because plans aren’t even finalised yet!)

530. Many of the Vic-Orpington trains are overcrowded outside of the peaks these days, a victim of the attractive 4tph frequency I suspect. I’d like to see a 319 only service on the route with more 8 car trains, allowing its Networkers to be used on the 10/12 car routes elsewhere.

     No room at Stewart’s Lane for them these days – Southern’s 455s go there for maintenance now.

     Sunday service on the railways is largely due to money saving working practices inherited from BR which no TOC is in a hurry to change. Fewer trains and shorter service window on Sundays means fewer drivers needed. Most TOCs treat Sundays as overtime – so they only need to bring in the minimum number, ie pay only for what they want to run. Whereas on Saturdays although it is a reduced service (no peak extras) the same number of drivers are needed but they do less. Overground do things differently though I don’t know the details. It is a curious business; the TOCs certainly don’t want to change this as it saves them money; many drivers don’t want to change it as they enjoy that one guaranteed day with their family in the week; but travelling patterns are certainly leaning towards a more prolific Sunday service.

531. @ PoP – I was thinking rather more about when services ramp up / down on Sundays and the effect on shift patterns. Unless I am mistaken the ELL, especially south of the Thames, is pretty poor frequency wise on Sundays until about midday when things ramp up – assuming there isn’t engineering work which seems to shut down the lines to West Croydon and Crystal Palace every weekend. Ditto elsewhere where we have later starts etc. The point is that if shops open earlier / close later then there will be a shifting of demand into the “edges” of what is called “Sunday Shopping Hours” where frequencies build up / ramp down. I think mornings will be more difficult than evenings and you start to lose the scheduling efficiency of the current shopping period being close to a shift length so if you need extra buses or trams then they’re relatively simple to schedule and resource. Once the period of higher service levels becomes longer then it gets more troublesome and costly for what will probably be lowish extra revenue. Economically it is unlikely to be advantageous for transport operators and I doubt anyone in Government has even thought about it. They’ll be in “wavy hand somebody else’s problem” or “surely everyone uses a car to go to the shops?” mode. If you couple this initiative with pressure for more NHS facilities to be available at weekends then you will get a shift / change in public transport demand.

     Trying to start services earlier or to run more trains earlier will almost certainly impinge on NR’s assumed possession times and that’s likely to be intractible meaning the passengers have worse travelling conditions. On the tube I see there is little difference between Sats and Sundays now. However there must be a question about whether that scale of service is economically sustainable (I’m ignoring social benefits). A cost cutting Mayor may take the view that weekend service levels can be trimmed back even if it means people having longer waits and more crowded travelling conditions. If there is more demand on Sundays in the future then this all adds to the impacts on assets and the need for higher availability. You might get this at little cost in the short term but certainly not forever – at some point you will incur extra costs because everything’s being worked harder.

     I try not to use public transport very much on Sundays because it’s often horribly overcrowded in my part of town and by late afternoon the bus service has collapsed under the strain of appalling traffic conditions and too many people travelling. Who wants to travel in conditions that are worse than the weekday peak on a Sunday afternoon? Now imagine it getting *even* worse?! It will be interesting to see if there is any sort of official recognition of these emerging policy impacts on the provision of public transport services.

532. Walthamstow Writer,

     On the tube I see there is little difference between Sats and Sundays now. However there must be a question about whether that scale of service is economically sustainable (I’m ignoring social benefits).

     But weekends are busy. As Sir Peter Hendy would say (to misquote), we don’t run frequent tube services for fun – we run them because people are using them. And practically as busy as during the week. The Piccadilly Line really is a busy-all-day, busy-all-week sort of line. So if things are not economically sustainable on Saturday and Sunday they, presumably, are equally economically unsustainable on other days of the week too.

533. Or some real PH quotes form this recent article:

     http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/03/ex-london-transport-chief-completes-move-national-rail

     Network Rail’s fundamental issues are similar to London’s, he says: “It’s high intensity, we no longer have an off-peak. When I started 40 years ago, if your bus service was up the creek at half past nine you’d spend the rest of the morning putting it right so it would be OK in the evening – you don’t get that luxury now.

     &

     By 2019, Hendy says, London will be operating public transport without any kind of subsidy.

534. @ PoP – there was an element of “devil’s advocate” in my questioning of weekend service levels. Yes the Picc is nightmarish for well understood reasons. However is the Met Line or the Circle Line as busy at weekends as at 0845 on a weekday? Don’t think so. Would anyone really notice if services were thinned by 1 or 2 tph on the more intensive services? I doubt it. After all TfL have been doing precisely that on the bus network for the last 4 years. Cutting M-F peak services would bring derision from many quarters for obvious reasons but I doubt there is the same support for the intensive level of weekend tube services. I suspect it’s social benefits that tip the balance in terms of justifying weekend service levels plus a desire to avoid the worst congestion at some Central area stations.

     After all there has been next to no attempt to equalise Sunday bus services with those of Saturdays or to actually create a “weekend” service level which balances Saturday and Sunday service levels where this would be beneficial. What’s so special about the tube given buses carry twice as many people on an average day? Why is it acceptable for people to be left behind for up to 30 minutes on a Sunday because buses are jammed full but we can justify massively frequent tube services? Lost count of the numbers of young parents with children in buggies who can’t get on Sunday buses nor can they fold the buggy and stand because there’s no space. That’s not an attractive option for people.

     I don’t expect you to answer all my questions but I’d hope someone somewhere is thinking about these issues.

535. Walthamstow Writer,

     I take your point but suspect it is far easier to play around with a bus service than a tube service.

     In the case of the Circle Line there is only a train every 10 minutes regardless of time of day or day of week. I think that is the absolute minimum that would be acceptable given that it links up most London termini.

     The Metropolitan might appear frequent but remember it serves loads of destinations so on Sunday morning, as at other off-peak times, it is 2tph to Amersham, 2tph to Chesham and 4tph to Watford. You could hardly reduce that further. You might be able to cut out some of the 8tph Uxbridge trains but 4tph seems too harsh and reducing to 6tph seems hardly worth bothering about in the overall scheme of things. Also 6tph doesn’t nicely slot in with the other trains.

     You could probably cut back some Metropolitan Line trains to Baker Street on Sunday morning but is it worth it for all the grief it would cause?

     I am not sure what impact Night Tube would have on all this but it would seem strange to go to a great amount of trouble in order to augment the service by provide a limited sort of service on some lines at some stupidly early hour and then reduce the service on other lines at not so silly an hour in the morning.

536. @ Ngh – I fear I have news for Mr Hendy. My local route regularly shows signs of post rush hour collapse and reformation sometimes lasting hours before the service is back to what passes for normal. It certainly isn’t alone in displaying these issues.

     I understand exactly the point he makes about high levels of demand across the day but many routes have seen high levels of patronage growth but zero improvements in terms of better frequencies or targeted extra resource to relieve the worst overcrowding. Some routes will have had space to absorb the growth but many are past that point now and urgent action is needed. Reliability is also declining if you look at TfL’s own stats.

     As for his second comment I can’t imagine how you take £400m-£500m of funding out of the bus network and still have something that functions. I assume fares will have to rise faster outside Zone 1 in order to get the ex Silverlink Metro network to “pay its way” given it receives about £17m pa in direct DfT support. I imagine TfL lose that support when the concession is retendered. Higher fares would also improve revenue on the DLR too this getting that to break even or a surplus. We know West Anglia transferred as a “break even” network and LU already earns an operating surplus. I don’t know about the Shenfield Line but clearly the numbers for Crossrail assume it earns a large surplus post full opening in 2019. The implications for the bus network of Mr Hendy’s statement are terrifying in terms of fares and service levels.

537. WW says ” Why is it acceptable for people to be left behind for up to 30 minutes on a Sunday because buses are jammed full but we can justify massively frequent tube services?. Lost count of the numbers of young parents with children in buggies who can’t get on Sunday buses nor can they fold the buggy and stand because there’s no space.”

     It is difficult to find a response to this which does not verge on the political. But I can’t help wondering if one factor might be the differing socio-political status of the average tube user and the average bus user. Oddly (or maybe not) it is only the tube (and perhaps the overground) who get the near-satisfactory Sunday service; bus users and denizens of the areas where the trains used to be green and still lack antlers, get fobbed off with the 30 minute waits.

538. @WW

     Were there any routes that you were particularly thinking of with a capacity problem on Sundays?

     [Careful now…. Malcolm]

539. GH: “it keeps SB happy” – who?

540. Just heard about the prospect of 319s on SE metro routes out of Victoria. The sooner the better! When do 700s start, and how long after will 319s be able to move over? I’m guessing August 2016 is too soon, when Cannon St trains stop calling at London Bridge and the timetable changes? The proposed timetables looks a bit nasty for some areas – big gaps at rush hour.

     Just 5 8-car 319 services would free up 40 networker carriages, meaning 20 SE metro services running with networkers having 2 extra carriages, thus many running with 12. Justifying all those extended platforms and power upgrades the past few years which are barely used.

     As for fares going up on buses, LO etc. Bloody hell – London already has the highest transport fares of just about any major developed city I can think of. Certainly just about all in Europe. I know many in society and politics think everyone in London is on big money, and/or the poor get top-ups etc. That’s really isn’t the case.

541. @Ed: As for fares going up on buses, LO etc. Bloody hell – London already has the highest transport fares of just about any major developed city I can think of.

     True, but in just about any major developed city*, there is no difference between bus and train fares. London is unusual in, in effect, giving a discount to bus-only passengers.* How long will this last?

     Tricky questions for any prospective mayoral candidates.

     * Not counting non-London UK cities where the deregulated mess isn’t really anything to emulate.

542. Re Ed,

     First 700 is delivered to the UK in August the last I heard and planned entry into service in early 2016.

     But:
     The previous plan was that lots of 700s were introduced (or otherwise rotated through) on GN services and based at Hornsey (for signalling tests on Hertford loop?), so liberating 365s 317s or 321s there rather than 319s. Some would initially operate on TL services and 10x 387s would need to be released for GWML services first (by end 2016) but if there are electrification delays so some but not enough 319s for SE might be available slightly earlier instead.

     More units available isn’t going to do anything for the proposed SE August 2016 timetable apart form some services being longer.

543. @ Ian J / Ed – obviously it’s just me musing about what Mr Hendy said in his interview. He will know what the general policy direction is from government and so far it’s been to cut and cut and cut the operating grant. The other implication is that if a future Mayor cuts fares then income comes down and is further eroded by inflation. You might get some trip generation but if the system is full all you do is worsen overcrowding which no one wants. The reduced income then reduces the scope to fund some investment which means some things will not be done.

     I cannot see the government changing course and increasing operating grant for TfL. That makes life very hard for any future Mayor that might campaign on delivering fares cuts. I think some politicians just think TfL has a secret piggy bank full of money that can be used to fund fares cuts forever. While there is money stored away it’s because capital grant or Crossrail grant is paid at given times regardless of whether it is needed at that precise time. I think there is also a need for a level of reserve just for good financial / accounting / credit rating purposes.

     I take the point about affordability but having a £1.50 off peak PAYG fare that can take you from Epping to Harrow & Wealdstone when a bus fare to travel 1 stop costs the same looks like a bargain. It probably wouldn’t be an issue if the Overground trains were empty but they’re not. It just seems a very obvious target to me for future fare increases.

544. @ngh
     “The previous plan was that lots of 700s were introduced (or otherwise rotated through) on GN services so liberating 365s 317s or 321s there rather than 319s. Some would initially operate on TL services ……. so some but not enough 319s for SE might be available slightly earlier instead.”
     319s are quite different to the 465s which form the bulk of the SE inner suburban fleet, but are closely related to the 317s and 321s. However, the 365s are very similar to the 465s, and are dual voltage-capable: indeed many of the 365s started out on the SE lines. If the 700s are to start work on the GN lines, would it not make more sense to transfer displaced 365s back to SE, rather than to the Thameslink route which is already having to cope with an incompatible mix of 319s and 377/387s, without adding 365s to the mix? (317s and 321s are ac only so can’t work on Thameslink).

545. evergreenadam
     Possibly the 97?
     I’ve seen over 50 people left behind @ Stratford on a Sunday afternoon on said service!
     It’s the usual oft-discussed nightmare of getting to/from Stratford by road ..
     Hopefully to be short-circuited in part by the new/re-opened Hackney connection?

546. I would imagine the plan for the introduction of the 700s would be related to the length of the trains. Platforms at many stations on the ECML are only 8-car (and I doubt SDO-ing 4 carriages out of a 12-car train at those stations would be acceptable). The MML by contrast is already a 12-car railway, and any replacement of an 8-car 319 train with a 12-car 700 train would no doubt be perceived as a good thing.

547. @straphan:
     More than half the class 700s will be 8-car, although I gather that of those built to date, most are the 12-car version.

548. Some very quick points from the London Assembly Transport Committee this morning on rail devolution.

     – Mike Brown has been talking to DfT to try to protect upcoming London schemes that might be affected by the Network Rail scheme review. STAR and GOBLIN electrification were mentioned in this context. Big emphasis on housing development being retarded / delayed if these schemes were delayed. Nice way to “apply pressure”.

     – TfL seem to be reacting to the political context in moving away from “devolution” as an aim in itself. A switch to concentrating on outcomes for passengers and on infrastructure improvement and much less on “control for control’s sake” is the new emphasis. This may mean that the increment / decrement power is used on franchises rather than demanding franchises are carved up. Although not mentioned specifically I think there has been some “meaningful discussion” with DfT and Treasury about the post May 2015 world.

     – TfL are producing a new document setting out their desired outcomes for National Rail services across London. Strong emphasis on dragging NR services up to a level of metro style service to help relieve the tube. Isabel Dedring said Tube nearing its natural capacity limit.

     – Acknoweldgement of reputational damage risks when taking over new franchises. Problems with West Anglia were cited. Mike Brown very clear about recovery plan existing and being implemented to fix the trains. He also very strongly praised MTR Crossrail’s focus on performance and engagement with Network Rail. Looks like the incentives in the contract are working!

     – Big emphasis on infrastructure constraints being a concern and contrast between NLL investment and the lack of the same on West Anglia. You’d almost think TfL have been reading this blog. 😉 Emphasis on “outcomes” suggests that plans for infrastructure investment will follow. Recognition that unlocking South London’s rail services needs significant investment at key pinchpoints. No locations named but we all know what they are!

     – Mike Brown / Isabel Dedring unaware of DfT announcement about SWT refranchising now in 2017 not 2019. Acknowledgement they will have to move very fast if they want to gain the inner suburban services there. Strong political support from the Tory AMs for SW London to see the back of Stagecoach!

     – TfL and Ms Dedring welcomed the soothing noises from Kent / Surrey / Sevenoaks politicians about cross boundary take over of rail services. Very unlikely that Sevenoaks commuters will see fare cuts or a move to Zone 6 that they want. Ms Dedring played down zonal changes very strongly.

     – Transport in East London being reviewed separately because of the scale of growth being experienced / planned. A link covering SE London – Docklands – East London and lots more river crossings (rail and road) are being considered. Please do not release the crayons about this – we’ve done it all before.

     – TfL are apparently discussing again the future operation of West Ealing to Greenford. No final decisions yet but very interesting it is being looked at again. No timescale set for a response on this. Castlebar can start hyperventilating now. 🙂

     Overall an interesting discussion this morning and the changed emphasis on the “D word” is noteworthy. Interesting times ahead I think.

549. Re Timbeau @1020,

     Circa half the 365s are going to FGW and no where near thameslink.

     319s are cleared on the route and have run on the joint SE/TL services from 2009 when the Blackfriars station rebuild started (with Orpington drivers).

     319s used to be stabled overnight in Victoria (often P4).

     319 can couple with 465s/466s in emergency.

     SE have technically leased 319 217/220/373/421/436/451 from Porterbrook but have subleased them back to TSGN for the loan on a rotating basis of 6 377s instead.

     TfL taking over SE would be a very big task but taking over in phases an already semi-seperated VIC – Orpington as a first step makes quite a lot of sense to me and spreads any potential TfL investment out a bit. i.e. the rest of SE metro 18months later?

     Re Timbeau @1104 and staphan,

     700s those build to date have mostly been 12 car but the plan is apparently to switch building mostly 8 car during the middle of the build run then back to mostly 12 car at the end. This would fit with the original cascade plan running 12car on TL to release some 387 for GW and then some 8 cars on GN to release the 365s.

     I think the 700s build rate is circa 2 cars a day so they can get more new units in service sooner if they are 8 car and replace 2x 4car (which might go else where immediately or be used to strengthen an 8 car.

     Re WW,

     Outcomes based increments have worked rather well on Southern Metro (since 2009?) with better evening and Sunday services (thank you TfL!).

550. @ngh and timbeau: Exactly what I was looking to point out. Once the 700s start entering service, you will have 12-car 700s substituting 8-car 319s, which in turn will add capacity to Southeastern.

551. @ngh
     ” an already semi-seperated VIC – Orpington”
     It always struck me as a missed opportunity for the advocates of privatisation that, although the ex-LCDR and ex-SER networks are each still very much self-contained, even still having separate stations in many places (e.g City, West End, Beckenham, Bromley, Canterbury, Catford, Maidstone*), they have always been operated as part of the same franchise. If TSGN is to take over the Catford /Sevenoaks route, it seems to make some sense to transfer all former LCDR routes to TSGN.

     (Victoria – Dartford is a rare anomaly, but could either give LCDR/TSGN a foothold in that part of London or the question would not arise if intra-GLA services come under mayoral control.

     *rationalisation has taken place in the Medway Towns, Thanet and Dover, but even there the two railways’ separate approaches survive in each case.

552. A few other things from the Transport Committee session this morning.

     – Big emphasis from Mike Brown and Isabel Dedring about TfL being the “strategic planning authority” for all rail / transport investment in London. Although not set out as a “land grab” clearly there is a lot of ambition that sits behind that statement and it has implications for Network Rail and TOC plans.

     – Brief mention by Mike Brown of a possible “Crossrail 3” running from SE London north westwards. The Committee instantly grabbed hold of that comment saying “you heard it here first” and which point Mike Brown groaned and said “I’m going to regret saying that aren’t I?”

     – TfL thinking about taking over London terminals where they become the majority operator so that a seamless customer experience could be provided. Liverpool Street was specifically mentioned post Crossrail opening. Apparently the TfL staff at Liverpool St have formed an informal “single team” covering LU, Overground and TfL Rail.

     – Big emphasis in the consultation responses on Bakerloo Line extension plans about serving East London / Docklands. Ms Dedring said there was some reluctance about upsetting SE Londoners by taking the Bakerloo Line via Canary Wharf but the Jubilee Line is now full in both directions at Canary Wharf. Quite telling that the view is one of inadequate capacity even with CR1 serving Canary Wharf and also serving a corner of SE London. We’ve debated this N-S link to death before so no need to resuscitate the crayons and felt tips. 😉

553. “some reluctance about upsetting SE Londoners by taking the Bakerloo Line via Canary Wharf ”
     I don’t recall any suggestion of this before. Where would it leave the proposed Hayes alignment? Before Lewisham?
     (no crayons, please – I’m interested in official proposals)

554. @timbeau
     You might need to look little further than the options in my reports, as covered by LR in its article on Bakerloo Extension: report to Lewisham Council: https://www.londonreconnections.com/2010/bakerloo-extension-a-report-to-lewisham-council/, where a Bakerloo extension to Canary Wharf link is one of those discussed.

     There is also the recent LR article on Death, Taxes and Lewisham: https://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/haykerloo-bakerlewisham/, where the potential for a Crossrail 3 is discussed and my proposition for an Old Kent Road cross-platform interchange between CR3 and a Bakerloo is set out.

     For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not saying that TfL have adopted my ideas lock, stock and barrel – that would be rather unlikely! – but it is likely that similar network strategic options are emerging. If the Bakerloo were not to be extended to Lewisham, then it is inevitable that CR3 would serve Lewisham, and self-evidently would need to start E and/or SE of Lewisham in order to de-clutter the Lewisham bottleneck.

555. @ Timbeau – no further detail was given in the session. Clearly TfL are doing a lot of planning / reviews / reassessing what the rail network needs to do to cater for growth and development.

556. Crossrail 3 is hardly new they were busy crayoning in 1946:

     http://alondoninheritance.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Map-3.jpg

     See routes 1,2,3,4,5 from Railway (London Plan) Committee map

557. ngh 13.32

     Is it just me or does it strike anyone else as bonkers that the 365s are not being sent to Thameslink, for which they were specifically intended in the first place …

558. @Ronnie MB
     “365s to Thameslink, for which they were specifically intended in the first place ”

     Were they? The main reason for building them was to keep York Works in business during the pre-privatation order famine and the cancellation of the plans for the new generation emus (371 for Thameslink 2000, 381 for various suburban lines including GN, LTS, and SE, 471 for Kent Coast expresses), but I have never seen any suggestion that the 365s (basically an upgraded 465) were specifically intended for Thameslink rather than the lines they actually operated on. More a case of build it first and then find a use for it.

559. straphan
     A lot of Lon-Peterboro’ stations now have extended to “12” platforms.
     I went to Biggleswade yesterday, & recently to Knebworth & both can now take “12”

     WW
     Apparently the TfL staff at Liverpool St have formed an informal “single team” covering LU, Overground and TfL Rail.
     
     [Snipadeedoodah, Snipadeeday. PoP]

     ngh
     Thanks for that link
     That’s the reference I’ve mentioned in the past, without being able to find an on-line version.

560. @Ronnie MB: Some Class 365s are no longer dual-voltage capable, whereas others never have been dual-voltage capable. This precludes their use on Thameslink.

561. Surely once the Crossrail tunnels open most of the TFL Rail services will transfer out of Liverpool Street Station making space for more longer distance non TFL services. Thus the over representative of TFL at Liverpool Street Station is just a temporary position .

     As for comment re Crossrail 3 well put Abercrombie plans to remove [Crayonist lines drawn on a map removed. LBM]

562. @Melvyn
     “Surely once the Crossrail tunnels open most of the TFL Rail services will transfer out of Liverpool Street Station. Thus the representative of TFL at Liverpool Street Station is just a temporary position .”
     I think you have misunderstood. Technically TfL Rail will cease to exist when Crossrail takes over, but if the “single team” includes LU representation it will certainly include Crossrail.
     @WW
     “Apparently the TfL staff at Liverpool St have formed an informal “single team” covering LU, Overground and TfL Rail.”

563. @Straphan?RonnieMB
     “Some Class 365s are no longer dual-voltage capable, whereas others never have been dual-voltage capable. This precludes their use on Thameslink.”

     There is a difference between “capable” and “fitted”.
     Class 365, like many modern emu types, are built to be dual-voltage capable, but the ac and dc are not both actually fitted unless they are to be used on both systems. Only one 365 was ever fitted with both at the same time, for evaluation purposes, and all those originally fitted for dc only have now had their shoes removed and pantographs and transformers fitted. But there is no reason the shoes can’t be put back again: just as they were fitted to some 350s when LM briefly ran the Watford-Croydon service during a stock shortage on Southern.
     The 313s on Southern have lost their pantographs.
     http://www.philt.org.uk/UKModernRail/2012/i-LQXP6cx/0/L/313216aa-L.jpg
     And I’ve completely lost track of which of Southern’s 377s now have pantographs and which don’t!
     Likewise, as the 319s, 377s and 387s currently working Thameslink end up on Northern, Southern and Western respectively, they will lose pantographs, transformers or shoes as required, but the process is reversible.

564. @ Melvyn – re Liv St. Timbeau is correct. Mike Brown was careful to include Crossrail in the mix and made the point that wherever you stepped off a train at that location you should get a common level of information, signage, customer support etc. Providing the “common level” is of a high standard that covers all service types there shouldn’t be any great issue. The issue was prompted by an Assembly Member saying that he felt that Chiltern did a far better job of running their terminal, Marylebone, than Network Rail do at other terminals. He then asked if TfL aspired to run terminals and go a better job than NR.

     It should be remembered that Network Rail are not the Transport Committee’s best friend because of the London Bridge issues and the sense that NR haven’t been open and honest. Listen to the Radio 4 broadcast “File on 4” from Tuesday 7/7/15 and you’ll hear Val Shawcross being not very happy plus a litany of other woes from Roger Ford and Tony Miles. I certainly learnt some things from that programme which are enough to make you weep if you have a reasonable understanding of rail issues. To be fair some of the issues originate with DfT but not all of them.

565. Common signage is so important.

     Southeastern have created a new station called Stratford Regional on their signs. Some of the CSAs on the DLR have also started describing Stratford as this in their announcements.

     TfL sign from Stratford International to National Rail rather than HS1.

566. @timbeau: Last time I heard all the equipment required for DC operation (not just the shoegear) has been removed from the 365s and it would be a fairly large job to reinsert it back – I doubt it would be financially viable if the 365s were to operate only for a short period of time on 3rd rail territory.

     The London Midland 350s – by contrast – only have their shoegear removed, with the remainder of the equipment serviceable.

567. Thanks to those who have improved my 365 knowledge and understanding.

568. Southern class 377/2 and 377/7 have pantographs and shoes. Mostly used on Milton Keynes but they do find their way on to other routes. Class 377/1, 377/3, 377/4 and 377/6 have shoes only.

569. If 365s become spare it would make more sense to transfer them to lines with AC electrification as has been mentioned re GWR electrification with possibility of services between Hayes and Harlington and Paddington switching to electric train given route is already electrified thus releasing some DMUs .

     While it seems South Eastern is looking at trying to acquire some class 319s to boost capacity .

     (P.S on BBC London news Boris seemed to not know the night tube was scheduled to start on 12 September !)

570. @Melvyn
     “re GWR electrification with possibility of services between Hayes and Harlington and Paddington switching to electric train given route is already electrified ”

     Apart from Heathrow Connect, which are already electric, which ones have you in mind? As far as I am aware all other trains to H&H continue at least as far as Slough, which isn’t (yet) electric. There are trains already earmarked for that route when the wires are up.

571. WW
     Listened to that “File on 4” programme that you mentioned …
     Very interesting that neither NR, nor DfT nor “guvmint” were prepared to answer any questions.
     My judgement on the programme (Which as you say didn’t tell most of us anything new) was that “blame” was distributed – in the short-term, mostly to NR for not getting a grip, but long-term & fundamentally-underlying to successive guvmints & DfT for not dealing with a problem that is, after all, their responsibility.
     Handing the problem over to “Railtrack” & then NR & claiming that “It isn’t our problem” is beginning not to wash, even with the general public, I Hope.
     One thing I did note was the programme’s reminder that train travel is continuing to increase & is popular & that it is guvmint’s responsibility.
     Yet again, oops.

     Direct link HERE:
     http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b060zvnd

572. @timbeau
     There is a platform at Hayes & Harlington where Connect services can reverse if Heathrow is blocked.

573. Chris L 9 July 2015 at 13:47

     “Southeastern have created a new station called Stratford Regional”

     “Stratford regional station” is a description that was in use when the curvy building was planned for Jubilee Line terminus and other funding was required to build and open the eastern side of it as the new station entrance at the same time.

     I don’t think it was ever intended to become a name. By the time Water Lane bridge was replaced and platform 10a extended, that phrase had disappeared.

574. In the Great Western Direct award announcement, it was stated that from March 2016, FGW (or whatever it is called then)) will receive its first 387/365 units. These will then operate a 2 tph Paddington to H&H service (using platform 5 at H&H), in place of the Paddington to Greenford service that will become a West Ealing to Greenford service using the new bay platform at West Ealing, which is in the process of being built.

575. H & H has been used for timetabled short turns before now. In the late 1970s there was even one daily all stations short to H&H just from Ealing Bdy for the afternoon school traffic

576. I’ll be glad to see the back of the 365s from the Cambridge route….their lack of AC, ‘ear-popping’ windows (thanks to the 9 tunnels on the ECML between KX and Hitchin!) and poor ride quality (they really do feel like a turbocharged 465, which I grew up travelling on from Orpington….imagine one of those going at 100 mph and you get the idea!) are an absolute pain. I hope something is done to them to rectify these issues before they are unleashed on GWML passengers (although I guess they’ll still be an improvement over the 165s/166s they replace).

577. Re Anonymously 11 July 2015 at 04:20

     365s – You’ll still be seeing about half of them on the GN network they aren’t all going.

578. Anonymously,

     Well if they go to Great Western London suburban services (not to Heathrow) the problem of ear-popping in the tunnels will instantly disappear.

579. @ POP The experience of ear popping tunnels may disappear an something I and a friend experienced yesterday on a day trip to Cambridge (although trains in both directions had no stops en route !) but a similar experience is had when fast trains pass on adjacent lines !

     I got my first ride over Hitchin flyover and it seems to be way above ECML alas we got caught behind a freight train on outward journey given line to Cambridge has no multiple tracks .

     Ironic that some people still want trains with opening windows and yet fail to realise the problems they create on an ever faster busier network !

     Thanks to Chris L for information on reversing platform at H& H .

580. @Melvyn….I think the trend now is to fit all new trains with AC and remove opening windows. Would it be asking too much for AC to be retrofitted to the 365? It would improve them massively.

581. @ngr….I thought the plan was under the new TSGN franchise was to replace at least the King’s Lynn/Cambridge express services with 387 Electrostars, and use the remaining 365s on the non-Thameslink Cambridge slows and Peterborough services?

582. As far as I recall the ‘GN’ portion of ‘TSGN’ is to be run using:

     – Class 700s for services going through London (semi-fasts to Peterborough, Cambridge, slows to Cambridge)
     – As-yet-unspecified 6-car trains which will replace Class 313s on the inner services to Moorgate and KX
     – Class 377 or 387 4-car units on the Cambridge fast/King’s Lynn services (typically running in pairs to Cambridge, then 4-car to King’s Lynn)
     – Class 365 on peak non-Thameslink workings to Cambridge and Peterborough.

583. Anonymously – 465s could also badly do with AC too. Miserable conditions the past few weeks. As both 365s and 465s have 20+ years life in them surely worth looking into doing? No doubt some will shake their head, hands on hips like a plumber looking at a new job, and say it’ll be very tough/expensive, but didn’t they say the same things about 365/465’s diesel sisters and yet Chiltern added it 10 years ago for not very much at all?

     Are the 365s as grotty inside as the 465s now are?

584. Round trip to Cambridge last week on 365s both ways, using the flyover on the way there and non-stop on the way back. I can’t see anything to complain about these units. Better ambience than, say a 455 or an Inter City 225 (my usual fare).

585. @Ed….No, the 365s are generally in better shape than the much more intensively used 465s (which were plagued for many years by window etching graffiti and other minor vandalism). However, the most recent refurbishment has made the interior far less plush, with vinyl flooring replacing the carpets! Infuriatingly, the opportunity wasn’t used to retrofit AC as well!!!

     @Timbeau…..comparing 365s to 455s or IC225s is a poor comparison, IMHO. My point of reference is to compare them to other fast regional EMUs that I’ve travelled on (Electrostars and Desiros), against which the 365s don’t fare very well, for the reasons I described earlier. The only good thing about them is their low density 2×2 seating, which means they at least don’t feel as claustrophobic as some of the newer EMUs with their higher-density seating (I’m looking at you, Desiros!). And even that was a late change in the final spec (I remember reading a NSE newsletter anout the prototype 365 with 3×2 seating, and how this was changed in response to passenger feedback).

586. @Straphan
     “As far as I recall the ‘GN’ portion of ‘TSGN’ is to be run using:

     – Class 377 or 387 4-car units on the Cambridge fast/King’s Lynn services (typically running in pairs to Cambridge, then 4-car to King’s Lynn)
     ”

     I seem to recall reading that class 800s were proposed for the Cambridge flyers. (Which is why I though of comparing 365s with IC225s, which will also be replaced by 800s).

     A 365/465 comparison seems unfair as 465s are used on more semi-fast duties than the 45 minute non-stop dash that the 365s do, such semi-fast duties are similar to the Cobham line services, which are operated by 455s.

587. @Timbeau…..yeah, I’ve heard that rumour about the 800s for the Cambridge expresses. For that to happen though, I think those services would need to be transferred to Virgin East Coast (I can’t see TSGN wanting to operate a handful of 800s just for these), and ideally for the line to be upgraded north of Cambridge to allow 100mph running, so that their capabilities are not under-utilised (the curves on the Hitchin to Cambridge line would hamper an easy upgrade past 90 mph, which is the current limit on the straight sections).

     My comment about the 365 and 465 wasn’t about directly comparing them……it was just to highlight the origin of the 365 as a direct descendant of the 465 (which is why I consider them to be unsuited to regional express routes…..they would be acceptable though for long-distance commuters, such as the Peterborough/Cambridge semi-fasts).

588. The concept of operating the London to Cambridge expresses with IEP stock * is neither a rumour** nor in prospect***.

     *Presumably Class 801 (all electric but with one auxiliary power pack per unit).
     ** i.e. it was seriously proposed.
     *** i.e. it is no longer seriously proposed, the DfT having excluded it from franchise specifications and GTR having put forward Class 377s cascaded from the Thameslink route as their solution for this service.

589. @Caspar
     Indeed 801 – I got the straight electric and electro-diesel variants confused. Class 800 would be suited to services to the neglected city at the other end of the fens (although wiring up sixteen miles of track would be cheaper)

590. @Timbeau…Why would it be cheaper, when the 800s are already paid for? Presumably you’re referring to Lincoln?

591. @timbeau: That was a long, long time ago before the DfT woke up and realised how expensive the IEPs would be and how desperately inadequate they would be for commuting duties.

592. Lugging a dirty great diesel generator around for 120 miles of the 136 costs money, not to mention the cost of the fuel when not under the wires. Over the projected lifetime of the units that’s a lot of money (assuming there will actually be any diesel oil left by 2060)

     If it’s worth electrifying the 45 miles from Cambridge to Kings Lynn (pop 43000) and running a direct train to London every hour (soon to be 2tph) surely it’s worth electrifying 16 miles to serve a city three times as big, and/or running more than one direct train a day?

593. IEP to Cambridge services had the same level of detail as WCML(S) IEP services back in the 2009 ITT:

     1.3.1 IEP Procurement
     This ITT is for the procurement of IE Services on the Core Routes namely:
     East Coast Main Line,
     Great Western Main Line (Phase 1)

     Other Routes being Priced Options for other service groups over which IE Services are expected to be deployed, subject to price and consequent confirmation of value for money namely:
     West Coast Main Line (South): London – Northampton – Stoke – Manchester; and
     East Coast (Phase 2): Kings Cross – Cambridge – Ely – Kings Lynn…

     Both overtaken by later decisions, but as said earlier they were pukka official proposals, i.e. priced options, not rumours.

594. I think the Fen Line to King’s Lynn was a beneficiary of NSE’s enthusiasm for in-fill electrification during the early 90s, aided by it relatively low cost (thanks to the flat-as-pancake Fens, I don’t think much bridge modification work was required). It was still done on a shoestring though, which is why I think the line can only accept 4-car trains north of Ely. It also helped to maintain King’s Lynn’s direct trains to London, which could no longer go to Liverpool Street after the train paths it used on the WAML were given to Stanstead Express.

     As you said, the return service between London and Lincoln is only once a day. Unless this was to be considerably increased (and without HS2, where’s the capacity on the ECML for that?), I don’t think the economics of electrifying would stack up versus the cost of fuel for that short distance. Perhaps if the wires are extended past Nottingham (whenever they eventually reach there!), it could be done then as part of a wider regional scheme to electrify the lines from Lincoln to the rest of the East Midlands, but I have no idea if that has (or will ever) have a good enough BCR.

     Like you, in an ideal world I want to see much more electrification of lines and far fewer diesel trains with more direct services, but let’s get GWML/MML/Northern electrification out of the way first please, before the politicos take fright at the cost and pull the plug on any new wiring projects.

595. @Anon
     I appreciate we are going a little off topic but to set the record straight:

     “(thanks to the flat-as-pancake Fens, I don’t think much bridge modification work was required). ”
     There are four bridges over the line from Newark to Lincoln (soon to be augmented by a couple of footbridges in the city centre). All were built post-war (the oldest is the 1960 Newark bypass), and are thus to modern electrification clearance standards.

     “It also helped to maintain King’s Lynn’s direct trains to London”
     Lincoln used to have four a day – no effort seems to have been made to maintain those.

     “[unless] the return service between London and Lincoln ……..was to be considerably increased (and where’s the capacity on the ECML for that?)”
     The capacity on the ECML is there – as witnessed by the two-hourly (diesel) services from KX that currently terminate at Newark.

     Of course if TSGN were to have a fleet of Class 800s it could extend some KX-Peterborough services to Stamford, and others to Lincoln via Spalding. Or maybe the “Joint line” should be electrified – primarily for the benefit of freight, of course!. This would reduce the amount of cross-London freight traffic and leave more room for the Overground – and hey presto we’re back on topic.

596. @timbeau – let me say how much I agree with you about the greater use of the Joint Line*. Maybe slower but not that much slower than going via Newark – and yes, using it to get freight off the ECML north of Peterborough makes perfect sense. Will it happen? No, because it undermines the case for HS2 (Better stop there as I hear the sound of approaching scissors).

     *And to think this was one of the Board’s proposed bus substitution cases.

597. @Graham H
     “using it to get freight off the ECML north of Peterborough makes perfect sense.”
     It would do if the Lincoln bypass line hadn’t been closed in the 1980s. Talking of scissors, the city is frequently cut in two by freight trains blocking the level crossing across the High Street.

598. Yes, I know about those LXs -how many extra freights are we actually talking about? 2 tph? [Those scissorsseem awfully close….]

599. Yes, the scissors over overground-relevance are poised at the latitude of Watford (and I don’t mean the one near Crick). Excursions further north than that should please be avoided.

600. @Graham H
     Not many, but long and slow. Gates currently closed on average 23 minutes in the hour, Planned increase in freight traffic will raise that to 40.

601. @ GH, Malcolm, timbeau etc,

     Without straying off piste, the discussion, already encompassing level crossings, allows me to ask one question:

     Are gates now closed for longer than they once were due to changes in H & S rules? At some crossings, delays seem longer than they once were before a train turns up.

     [This is not just off piste, it’s off the whole b— mountain. If anyone has firm information in reply, it may be given. On the other hand, further speculation, mumbling, personal anecdotes about trolleybuses, or diversion onto the St Erth to St Ives branch line will be removed without notice or apology. Malcolm]

602. So… Two on-topic questions from the West Midlands:

     1. Has the service on the new Overground improved from the passenger’s viewpoint since the last complaint posted here?

     2. Is it interesting to observe that all complaints seemed to concern the Overground services and none appeared to be about the TfL Rail service (rolling stock from the same fleet, maintained at same depot, etc.)?

603. 
     Caspar L
     1: Just about, but only minimally. Cancellations fewer, but far too many 4-car workings in peak, instead (!)
     [NOTE]
     2: Yes, interesting that – but the TfLRail service is a “simple” out-&-back to/from Shenfield, isn’t it?

     Note: And, if they have not got their act together by 8th August, there will be trouble.
     4-car trains &/or cancellations on the Chingford line 8/8/15 to end of month doesn’t actually bear thinking about.

     [For those who might not have grasped what Greg is talking about, the 8th August is the first day of the 23 day blockade of the Victoria Line between Seven Sisters and Walthamstow. Obviously, a lot of people from Walthamstow are expected to transfer to the Chingford services. PoP]

604. @ Casper L – my sense of things is that the West Anglia service has calmed down somewhat but it’s not there yet. I agree with Greg that the balance seems to have shifted slightly from cancellations *and* short forms to largely short formations in the peak. However yesterday they had a driver go sick which knocked out journeys for a couple of hours. Ever so slightly surprised that there wasn’t at least one rostered spare driver who could take over. Mike Brown made clear to the Transport Committee that a recovery plan is in place and being implemented / tracked for West Anglia. I could tell from his tone of voice and use of words that he’s clearly “not happy” with what’s happened and is determined that it’s put right. I don’t think that reaction was “put on” for the sake of the audience he was speaking to. I know Mike well enough from years past that he means what he said.

     I think TfL Rail don’t have the same train splitting issues that LOROL face. That’s one factor as to why they’re more reliable. I think they also have that tougher performance regime which has been discussed here before. That may have brought a different focus. TfL Rail also don’t have the issue of the “long dormant” class 317s. Mike Brown said he was very impressed with the way MTR had started and the way they were working with Network Rail to understand performance / resolve issues. Hopefully that’s a good sign for the future.

     I had a little ride to Enfield the other day. Bush Hill Park has now gained roundels and TfL signage so the upgrade work is starting to have some impact. Enfield Town station looked smart enough but it wasn’t exactly heaving with people. On arrival at Bruce Grove I and my fellow alighting passengers were greeted by several revenue inspectors and BTP Police. I wasn’t unduly surprised given it’s an ungated open station and not far from (gated) Seven Sisters so the temptation to dodge payment is there and there’s probably years of established behaviour to “correct”. All the staff were being kept busy.

605. @Ww
     ” However yesterday they had a driver go sick which knocked out journeys for a couple of hours. Ever so slightly surprised that there wasn’t at least one rostered spare driver who could take over.”
     If the driver went sick whilst on duty it may have taken a while to get the relief driver to where he was needed.

606. Has there been much external changes to stations? Not heavy duty work but simple & relatively cheap things like far more visible signage and roundels? In many cases across the whole NR network that simple thing is absent, yet can make a big difference to awareness from the general public.

607. @ Ed – AFAIK Enfield Town is the only place with a comprehensive “makeover” with TfL signs, roundels, orange handrails, TfL bench seats etc. Bush Hill Park has roundels and new enamel wayfinding signs. I suspect it’s a work in progress atm. The other places I’ve seen only have stickers over the station name plates and maybe the odd bolted on Overground roundel in place of the NR symbol. What does seem to have happened is that there’s been a bit of tidy up, there are cleaners actually tidying up litter (seen this several times) and yesterday there was a chap with weedkiller making sure Bruce Grove’s platforms weren’t full of weeds. It is still early days so there is still evidence of old “One”, NXEA and Abellio signs around the place coupled with acres of grey paint over long boarding up windows and doors on station buildings. Hopefully the revised station lease structure for these routes might see these long abandoned buildings brought back into some sort of use as shops, cafes or covered waiting areas away from the wind (many stations are on embankments).

     I haven’t travelled very much on the newly inherited routes but there is a slight sense of a bit more “ownership” because people are visible and doing things (customer care or simply cleaning). Can’t recall the last time I saw station lamp post stanchions being cleaned and polished other than during a recent ride on TfL Rail out to Brentwood where I did see it! I did do a double take.

608. @WW: My subjective impression is that stations on the routes out of Liverpool Street are the most run-down in London – a combination of frequent franchisee/branding changes, the socio-economic characteristics of the areas the rail services run through, and neglect of the franchisees.

     The derelict buildings will no doubt come to life owing to the fact, that TfL will aim to have each station staffed and – layout permitting – gated. This means staff will at the very least need a staff room and basic facilities.

609. @ WW I was at Walthamstow Central yesterday and noticed an orange painted glass enclosed box with a door entrance having just been unloaded from a lorry and guess it might be for cycle storage ?

610. One easy win would be a big London Overground pole and sign at Cambridge Heath. Have a look at this google streetview below – from a very busy junction you’d have NO idea there’s a station there. Signage is small and hidden behind a tree: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.532586,-0.057046,3a,75y,206.67h,88.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHm9EG6qZoA4KHC5nLi44HQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

     Such basic things previous TOCs never did!

611. @ Melvyn – you may be right but it is worth considering that a worksite has to be established at WWCS for the crossover replacement works during August. Deliveries may be connected to that but I am guessing having not seen the object you referred to.

612. Vinyl signage additions on platforms but no external roundel at Stoke Newington.

     As WW says, cleaning is very evident – three people washing the outside of the station building last week, something I’ve never seen in 15 years of using or passing the station daily.

     The station also generally “feels” cleaner and much less grubby (and to be frank, doesn’t reek of urine anymore).

613. WW, unfortunately in the commercial climate, spare drivers are unproductive expensive luxuries that TOCS wish to minimise. All the spares may have been used up, especially as it’s summer leave season.

614. @ Straphan – I suspect the stations on lines out of Liv St have never been seen as important because “everyone uses the tube” north of the Thames. Clearly that’s a nonsense when you see the crowds pouring off trains at Liv St in the rush hour but perception can be very strong. Clearly the Shenfield line is immensely busy and will be transformed over the next 4 years. I think West Anglia is a harder job and especially the stations in Hackney. The key will be extra frequency and that’s going to be tough / impossible in the peaks for reasons much debated already. Off peak there are murmurings of extra services at some point and that’ll be a help. However I feel it’s going to be a bit of a slog to really add large volumes of extra passengers. I have changed my view on this somewhat as the poor state to services will have created a further negative perception that has to be got rid of by TfL and LOROL delivering months of very good service performance.

615. @WW: I don’t think this is due to the ‘everybody travels by tube’ perception. Stations on the ECML/Hertford Loop, Midland Mainline or Great Western are a world away in terms of cleanliness, signage and general upkeep.

     In terms of extra frequency, unless extra infrastructure is built on the West Anglia route, I doubt much can be done.

616. As Malcolm has allowed a reply to Castlebar’s off topic question about level crossings, I will attempt to clarify the situation regarding timings.

     Firstly the railway operates a policy of always giving train drivers green signals as much as possible. This is one of the tools available to help prevent SPADS (if the signal isn’t at danger you cannot pass it when you shouldn’t. The other reason is to prevent drivers getting into the habit of cancelling the AWS (google the term for a description of how it works) due to ‘autopilot syndrome’ (i.e. driver says to themselves ‘signal XX is always at yellow so automatically cancels the AWS when in actual fact the signal is at red (AWS behaves in the same way for both yellow and red aspects)

     As such the policy with signals that protect manually controlled crossings (be that by the Mk1 eyeball, CCTV or Obstacle Detection) is to have the barriers down and railway signals cleared in sufficient time that the driver of an approaching train will always see a green aspect. In areas fitted with 4 aspect signalling this means the barriers should be down while the train is still 4 signals back from the crossing.

     Also relevant to this is the fact that current train driving polices are built around the ‘defensive driving’ policy and the OORs requirement that TOCs use OTMDR data to actively verify compliance. So where as drivers in the past may not have been quite so quick to begin braking if their local knowledge suggested that even though they passed a certain signal at double yellow, by the time they reached the next one the signaller would have set the relevant route / closed the crossing ahead and it would probably be showing a green.

     The second thing influencing crossing down time is that of road users. Over recent decades it has been noticeable that more and more motorists / pedestrians seem to think that the flashing wig wags and box junction markings don’t apply to them. As such the time taken for the signaller to complete the closing sequence has been getting progressively longer. As such signallers are having to put the barriers down earlier if they wish to comply with the principle of giving drivers green signals plus it makes them more wary of raising them should two trains in opposite directions look as though they will arrive at the crossing within a few minutes of each other.

     Ultimately of course it is down to the individual signaller exactly how they operate each crossing – and they will usually take into account a number of factors into account when deciding when to close the barriers. Local knowledge is important, but so is the ‘best practice’ guidelines when it comes to safe operation of the railways and the policy at any particular crossing is therefore a blend of the two. The type of signalling, linespeed, etc are of course other factors that feed into the mix when it comes to crossing downtimes all of which means there is not, and never has been a nationally stated crossing downtime – contrary to what some people claim.

     Signallers are also humans of course and just as readers / contributors to this forum have ‘bad days’ from time to time, the same holds true for signallers and equally some signallers may be more, how shall I put it, more productive than others – again something hardly unusual amongst our species regardless of what we do.

617. anonymous at 18:23 says “there is not, and never has been a nationally stated crossing downtime”

     That much is clear, thanks. But is there a standard downtime at any particular crossing? And if there is, is it written down somewhere, or just passed by word of mouth from experienced signallers to less experienced ones?

     I can also see that a trend among road users towards rasher behaviour at crossings would, over time, tend to increase downtime. But does this happen through any formal mechanism, or is it just a conjectured drift in signallers’ average behaviour?

618. @ Straphan – how odd. I’ve always felt all NR stations on the routes you mention were dumps just like those on West Anglia. Places like Mill Hill Broadway, Alexandra Palace, Hornsey etc are all equally awful. Hayes and Harlington is the only FGW station I’ve used and that’s a pokey mess. We clearly see things differently.

619. No Malcolm there isn’t a specific time per box – which is logical if you think about it. Road traffic / Pedestrian volumes, and indeed train times vary on a minute to minute basis throughout the day- e.g. a sudden rain shower may result in more cars for an hour while a train may be a couple of minute or two late meaning trains do not cross where they should and extending the crossing closure time slightly as a consequence.

     This is why signalers have to undergo months of training to ‘learn’ each individual workstation, control panel or lever frame they work, so as to get an appreciation of local railway conditions – which includes any level crossings. Over time, as they become more tuned to working their patch of railway they become quicker at doing things spotting problems plus reacting to events. Thus over time signalers will become better at sensing the ideal opportunity to put the barriers down while minimizing the delay to road users but not checking the speed of approaching trains (which then ultimately extends the downtime of course).

     User behavior at crossings is not in the ability of the signaler to control and as such it is obvious when you see things like motorists stopping with the front their car under the barrier but well clear of the tracks, thus holding up the lowering sequence, is going to have an effect on the signaler. While it is hard to make direct comparisons, things like the continued increase in the number of vehicles on the road, an increase in the number of trains, plus eyewitness testimony suggests that this ‘drift’ to barriers being closed earlier and for longer is real.

     IF we could trust people to behave properly, (have a look at what happened to the TRAIN at Ufton Nevet when it hit a car for a worst case scenario when they don’t), then the obvious solution is automatic crossings which have very short downtimes. However is plenty of footage out there showing users level crossing behavior getting worse year on year, rather than crossings going automatic the very opposite is likely to be true.

     Thus not for the first time I find myself saying to complainers – “You, the British public have no-none else to blame than yourselves as it is your (collective) stupidity that causes the fundamental problem in the first place”

620. [Complaint will be addressed off-line. LBM]

621. Another factor is that with higher line speeds the time take for a train to be able to stop is longer – which means more down time if the train is to see a green, And the higher line speed also means a bigger speed differential between the fast trains and the slow trains – so gates will lowered ahead of a slow train earlier than they would in days gone by.

622. Perhaps British Rail and the numerous TOCs that followed actively tried to dissuade people from using the inner-London stations and crowding the train services outside of Liverpool Street by keep maintenance to a minimum. I remember the long-fought campaign for a frequent service at London Fields.

623. Anon5,

     It is well established that travel from inner London stations was not encouraged. Beeching openly pointed out how they were not helping the balance sheet and wanted to target long distance journeys. TOCs of course had even more incentive than BR to take this approach. You had to provide the trains etc. but got very little revenue and longer journey times for customers paying much more. Because TfL think differently with different priorities and different ways of calculating benefits (and have no long distance services they are responsible for) there is total change of attitude towards these stations.

624. Anonymous
     Level Crossings & procedure
     Which can’t be done along the Lea Valley.
     If you stand on the right platform(s) you can see the sequence of several signals, & often a “Stansted” or a Cambridge willl come through on a green & you can see the next double-yellow/yellow & sometimes red sequence, clearing as the crossings are passed for a train.
     There are too many of the damned things.
     I strongly suspect that, if those crossings were all replaced with bridges, you could take several minutes off the timings between Tottie Hale & Harlow…..
     Both because the allowance I’m sure is in the schedules for crossing-clearing would go, but you could also probably raise the line-speed between Angel Rd or Northumberland Pk & Broxbourne, as it is virtually a straight line.

     [This one is OK, but would contributors please avoid adding too many issues about specific level crossings, to what is already a digression from a digression. Malcolm]

625. Some TOCs seem to have doubts about whether to encourage short distance traffic or not. The run-down state of Queenstown Road (and Battersea Park), and the complete absence of any mention of them in connection with the Nine Elms development, suggests it is to be discouraged. But SWT have modified their inner suburban units by removing seats, to the disbenefit of their Zone 5/6 passengers who now have to stand for longer than the PIXC limit of 25 minutes, for the benefit of short haul passengers from Wimbledon and Earlsfield.

626. @PoP-just so -not only were the financials of serving the inner ring of stations seen as very poor, but there was a general feeling amongst planners that, as most main line termini fall short of the very great majority of passengers’ultimate destinations, generalised journey times would be quicker using other modes – buses especially. Useage statistics appeared to bear that out. A further issue has been that many inner stations were sited in places unattractive to the likes of City employees – think South Bermondsey. Some of these factors have changed in recent years, particularly the last, as even quite tatty property in run down neighbourhoods has begun to come up in the world.

627. timbeau,

     I can’t speak for Queenstown Road but don’t think of Battersea Park as an inner London station that people use to get to central London (e.g. Victoria). I get the strong impression that most users come from or go to the south (i.e. Clapham Junction and beyond).

     The issue therefore is that some revenue is lost because passengers only travel as far as zone 2 rather than zone 1. There is, of course, an obvious remedy to this of putting Battersea Park in zone 1 – which could possibly happen if Battersea (Northern Line) gets put in zone 1.

     In a similar manner New Cross, St Johns and Lewisham are probably welcomed by the TOC more than you might think as there are a lot of people alighting in the morning as well as boarding. New Cross for the East London Line, St Johns for the colleges and Lewisham because the town centre itself and the nearby hospital creates a large passenger traffic demand.

628. @timbeau
     Also the fact that all trains on the slow lines stop at Earlsfield when they didn’t use to shows that SWT is prioritising inner London station over commuters from Surrey (not necessarily a bad thing in principal I might add but I feel a train coming all the way from Woking or Guildford really doesn’t need to stop at Earlsfield).

629. If London -wide trams still existed, then you could probably make the case that many inner London rail stations (Zone 2-ish) are no longer necessary. Indeed, many of these stations closed in the 20th century as a direct result of competition from trams, some of which are now sorely needed (e.g. Camberwell).

     Unless you were to reinstate trams or create new parallel Tube lines to serve those areas, I think it would now be very difficult to justify reducing or withdrawing services from these stations.

630. One possible contributory reason why Overground services in the NE of London have fallen down in a big heap was revealed to me today …
     I went on an offical visit to both Upminster IECC & Romford ROC ( Regional Operations Centre) At Romford, there is very little other than what used ot be called “control” [ detailed signalling is stil handled from the bouncy castle & Cambridge & Colchester, etc … however … ]
     It is intended to migrate all E Anglian signalling to Romford &, already there are “AGA” staff working there, in co-operation with NR people in the same room. MTR people (for Tfl Rail/Crossrail will be coming along early in 2016, but there are no current plans to integrate with LOROL, who are islolated at Swiss Cottage.
     By the time something has gorn worng & been commucated to “control” (Romford ROC) & then onward to Swiss Cottage & back again, it is too late & the train or trains have been cancelled …
     I’m told that moves are bieing pushed forward to try to persuade LOROL to integrate – we shall see.

631. @ Greg – is the observation you make really a *cause* of disruption? It may contribute to service recovery not being very good but surely it is other asset failures or staff shortage / illness that are the causes? That may sound like pedantry on my part but clarity around cause and effect is important. With barely 15 months left on the concession term and LOROL ceasing to exist after Nov 2016 there must be a question mark as to whether LOROL would make a change to its operational philosophy. TfL may decide to make that investment but I suspect they will want to make sure the recovery plan on the rolling stock has worked before contemplating further measures. Let’s be honest the current separation of facilities between Romford and other signal centres is the result of a Network Rail initiated change. If the intention is full integration then I’d expect the next Overground operator to factor a move into their plans and for it be funded. I get a sense things are calming down somewhat but it’s still not where it should be.

632. WW
     Your pedantry is correct – however, the point is that recovery & information-confusion would be much faster & lower, respectively, if the control/signalling functions were better integrated.
     Extra: Apparently a lot of the problems with the ex-stored “317” class units was that the doors were utter crap & a major replacement programme is under way ( Internal corrosion rather than actuating mechanisms, apparently) Finding a 317 on the Rom-Minster/Up-Ford shuttle was interesting, too.

633. Bethnal Green has had some work done: the waiting room (north bound) now has windows and new seats (orange) and had had a lick of paint.

634. I cycled past Bethnal Green yesterday and noticed 3D Overground roundels, a new station name board and possibly a new ticket machine.

635. http://www.thameslinkrailway.com/about-us/improvements/
     Is full of no news. It does however confirm that they plan to run
     ‘newer, air-conditioned Class 377 trains on the Cambridge and Kings Lynn route by 2017.’ as per the earlier discussion above.

636. No news?

     1,140 new Siemens Class 700 12-car trains operating on the route by 2018

     That’s news to me. We are going to have an absolutely fantastic service on Thameslink. That must amount to roughly a train every minute and all of them 12-cars long too!

637. Not quite so absolutely fantastic (but you knew that):

     “115 new Siemens Class 700 trains (1,140 carriages in total) for Thameslink routes between 2016 and 2018, many will be 12 carriages long”

638. From
     Factsheet 4
     Southern Metro, Wimbledon Loop and West London Line
     Service improvements
     • It is planned to withdraw the Purley to Tattenham Corner
     shuttle train from December 2015

     ????????

639. John U.K.

     – because there’ll be a through service from Cambridge?

640. Re Anonymous,

     “– because there’ll be a through service from Cambridge?”

     in 2018…

     This sounds like they are going to do another re-jig of the London Bridge CAT & TAT services that were giving problems in January when they have chance to look at the whole timetable in a more planned way.

641. ngh beat me to it…. December 2018.

642. Re. Level crossings…

     Just curious, but have there been any experiments in installing “Next train in…” timers at level crossings? Not just at the crossing either, but on signage in surrounding roads, so drivers can make an informed choice as to whether to take the (possibly shorter) level crossing route, or drive on to the nearest bridge instead.

643. Currently, off peak, there are half hourly trains from Tattenham Corner to London Bridge. Plus, there is a third train per hour shuttling between just Tattenham Corner and Purley. Which few people use (because they want to go beyond Purley). It is this third train per hour they are withdrawing.

     And then in 2018 the half hourly Tattenham Corner to London Bridge trains are absorbed into the half hourly Thameslink Tattenham Corner to Cambridge (slow) trains.

644. At present there are 2tph from Tattenham Corner to London Bridge (xx20 xx50 off Tattenham) plus a 1tph shuttle to Purley (xx33 off Tattenham), running . The shuttle – so I’ve heard – carts around more fresh air than Southern would have liked and will therefore be removed.

645. Good to hear Bethnal Green now has more inviting and visible signage outside. Next up, with TfL now running the area, is probably them leaning on NR to sort out the messy station environments. It seems a bunch of scrap dealers that could exist elsewhere. Site like those, directly next to a station, are ripe for housing. Well, some at least.

     On the subject of inner London stations – in my neck of the woods (SE London) Deptford was a bit like that. I think its value is now realised though. Buses are no alternative. I tried a couple of times to London Bridge or the City. Absolutely awful. An hour to do a trip that takes 6 minutes on a train? No chance.

646. @Ed “Next up, with TfL now running the area, is probably them leaning on NR to sort out the messy station environments. It seems a bunch of scrap dealers that could exist elsewhere. Site like those, directly next to a station, are ripe for housing.”

     The arches and yards around Bethnal Green station are host to quite a cluster of businesses associated with black cabs (garages, bodywork specialists, rental companies, meter repairers, insurers etc), I doubt TfL wants to open up yet another battlefront with the licensed trade! Besides which I expect some of the land is safeguarded for 8 tracking into Liverpool Street.

647. Can somebody please tell me >

     1/ How many level crossings are there now just on the London Overground system?

     2/ Are there any plans to eliminate them?

     Thanks

648. @Castlebar:

     To the best of my knowledge there are 6 level crossings:

     – Bollo Lane (Acton) – no plans for removal
     – Churchfield Road (Acton) – no plans for removal
     – Capital Waste Services (Mitre Bridge Jn) – user worked crossing, no plans for removal
     – Hale End Road (Highams Park Stn) – no plans for removal
     – Lincoln Road (Enfield) – no plans for removal
     – Park Lane (Waltham Cross) – user worked crossing, no plans for removal

649. Thank you Straphan

650. @ straphan & @ castlebar

     Lincoln Road level crossing was closed to road vehicles in December 2012 after a gate was damaged.

     In 2013, Network Rail and the London Borough of Enfield agreed that the crossing would permanently remain closed to vehicular traffic.

     I believe that it is still open at certain hours as a manned crossing for pedestrians, pending installation of a suitable footbridge or unmanned pedestrian crossing.

651. Have a feeling there’s one on the Southbury loop as well?

652. @Nameless: Thanks, didn’t see that on Google Earth.

     StreetView shows signs at the location stating “Crossing closed to motor traffic 6pm-6am and all day Sunday, Good Friday and Christmas Day”.

653. Three pedestrian-only board crossings on the Ro-minster/Up-ford branch.
     Lots on the Lea Valley, but that isn’t “overground” (yet)

654. @Jonathan Roberts

     Apart from the Park Lane one? (Near Theobalds Grove)

655. Ronnie MB,

     1,140 new Siemens Class 700 12-car trains operating on the route by 2018

     http://www.thameslinkrailway.com/about-us/improvements/routes

     Fifth bullet point.

656. http://www.thameslinkrailway.com/about-us/improvements/#new-trains

     •115 new Siemens Class 700 trains (1,140 carriages in total) for Thameslink routes between 2016 and 2018, many will be 12 carriages long

     Elsewhere on the website and more plausible

657. @timbeau
     Thanks, you’re right, think I was confusing it with the similar crossing at Trinity Lane nearby on the main line.

658. The Tatty-Purley shuttle is the last vestige of Coulsdon North…when that closed it was replaced with the Smitham terminators…when they went they were replaced with the current shuttle. Maybe someone playing a long game to get rid of a service someone didn’t want to run?

659. And back on topic Bombardier have released the first image of the new West Anglia Overground stock:

     http://www.globalrailnews.com/2015/07/20/first-look-at-the-newest-addition-to-london-overgrounds-fleet/

     And back on the current topic for the day it includes another oops moment on the new stock:
     “The new 20-metre long trains…”

660. GTR Driver,

     It is true that a promise was made to have at least 4tph from Smitham (as was, Coulsdon Town today) for a period of not less that 10 years from the closure of Coulsdon North. This was more than honoured as the 4tph lasted much longer. In fairness, once the slow and fast lines were swapped around it wasn’t really practical to have a service to Coulsdon North and it seemed like a reasonable compromise as well as saving a lot of money in resignalling costs.

     I think the 4tph to Smitham was withdrawn, not so much because “they” didn’t want to run it, because the slots were needed for other services. I think this meant the South/East Croydon – Watford Junction (and beyond) services.

     I also think the shuttle was an honest attempt at a further compromise but the branch felt as is it has 2tph plus a funny hourly shuttle rather than 4tph. The shuttle does actually quite conveniently connect into fast London trains. In the up direction this means the train from Tonbridge which itself is only hourly off-peak. However it was little used, especially further out. The withdrawl of 2 car electric units from Southern, meaning 4 car units had to be used, made the economics of the situation even worse. It was unfortunate that timings precluded a 2tph Purley – Coulsdon Town shuttle instead which would have probably been a better use of the driver and rolling stock. Also if Reedham had its direct entrance off the Brighton Road, as mooted a long time ago, that station would be busier and a 2tph Purley – Coulsdon Town shuttle, if possible, may have had sufficient patronage to justify the marginal costs involved in running it.

     I really don’t think anyone was playing the long game as such. It was just how things worked out.

661. My God those are the most ugliest trains I’ve seen in my life. Just when I thought Britain’s trains can’t look any more horrendous it outdoes itself.

662. They look ok to me, although nothing special – a bit like a Voyager, https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4034/4489809010_35bd23d611_b.jpg

     Now this is ugly!
     http://www.pacerpreservationsociety.co.uk/uploads/1/0/5/2/10525174/3172826.jpg?506
     http://s374444733.websitehome.co.uk/class-70/70006-1.jpg

663. I really do wonder whether it would not have been more prudent overall to order new 5-car sets for NLL and ELL with 3 doors per side and cascade what were then 4-car 378s across to East Anglia (at least the dual-voltage ones).

664. @Anomnibus……Countdown timers at level crossings would be a *bad* idea. People would be tempted to try crossing in whatever amount of time they have before the train comes!

665. @straphan

     It would probably have been a good idea – but I think the WA takeover was only agreed in July 2013, after the order for fifth cars for the 378s had been placed (February 2013)

666. Looking at the artist’s impression there seems to be an awfully large area that isn’t passenger accommodation at the front of the train, certainly in comparison to a class 378. I would have thought maximising passenger carrying capacity would have been a key aim, and a raked front seems rather over the top for a suburban metro train that won’t be reaching significant speeds in service. Perhaps this is the ever more stringent crashworthiness requirements at work again.

667. I think the view of the Adventra is like the mutant offspring of a Voyager and class 378. It is still just an impression though so I suspect the reality will be rather more restrained and practical. The whole cab side window, cab door and carriage end / window arrangements looks daft for urban rolling stock as JA suggests. I can’t see people wanting to see in an area where there are just solid walls and no windows. The 378s don’t have this feature. The worrying point is that Siemens class 700s and the Crossrail 345s all do seem to feature a windowless area between cab and the first window / door suggesting this may be the result of some external requirement (like crash resistance).

668. JA – the Bombardier Aventra is a series of trains that has been designed for 125mph operation, and to quote “The Engineer”

     “Aventra, unlike the flat-fronted Electrostar, complies with new European regulations on train crashworthiness, which take effect from June 2017. ‘Visually, the trains have a pointier nose, which is actually a crumple zone in front of the driver, although it also has some aerodynamic aspects,’ said Paonessa. ‘That’ll have an effect on a lot of British operators, because we have a lot of flat-fronted trains in the UK, and operators also like trains with a gangway door at the front, because it makes it easier to join two units together. That’s a lot harder with a crash-cab, because of the sloped front.’”

669. @Edgepedia
     “operators also like trains with a gangway door at the front, because it makes it easier to join two units together”

     It actually makes it harder to couple them together (this was the downfall of the 458s in their original configuration) but slightly easier to operate once you’ve done it. Unless one unit has something the other lacks, such as a buffet counter, gangways are not really worth it just on the off-chance that a guard (assuming the train has one) needs to get from one unit to the other whilst the train is in motion.

670. @JA 21 July 2015 at 12:46
     Ah yes, just like the 1935 experimental tube stock…
     On the other hand, that was supposed to minimise air resistance in tube tunnels, as well as looking speedy – the design was originally called the high-speed tube stock.
     Practicalities led to the rather blunter but still air-smoothed 1938 production stock, with connecting emergency/staff doors. Not much crash resistance, though.

671. What about when passengers from longer trains have to alight at short platforms? Without walk-through gangways between units, you’ll always run the risk (however many announcements are made beforehand) of passengers unable to alight because they’re stuck in the wrong part of the train! Their absence also makes it more difficult for trolley buffets (a nice little revenue earner for TOCs) to be used.

672. Anonymously,

     Without walk-through gangways between units, you’ll always run the risk (however many announcements are made beforehand) of passengers unable to alight because they’re stuck in the wrong part of the train!

     No you don’t because such a train would never be permitted to operate in normal service at stations where it was not possible for passengers to alight. In an emergency situation one can always arrange for the train to pull forward.

     This can potentially create quite serious problems. A good example is the proposal to operate 5 x 2 car units to Uckfield without a connection between the units. It can be done but you have to be careful to lock out certain units for part of the journey.

     P.S. It turned out my example of the Uckfield branch was a spectacularly bad example as yesterday (Monday) there was a press release announcing platforms would be lengthened.

673. @Anonymously
     “What about when passengers from longer trains have to alight at short platforms? ”
     Unless you are planning to run two-unit trains on the Emerson branch I can’t see this being likely to happen on any of the routes for which these trains are planned. You only need to get one car from each unit next to a platform anyway.

     “Their absence also makes it more difficult for trolley buffets ”
     On the London Overground? You’ll be reinstating Mayflower and Galatea on the Metropolitan line next!

     Gangway ends also make for draughty cabs.

     Although inter-unit gangway ends seem to go in and out of fashion, there are several types that have had them removed during their service life (classes 126, 318, 455) and none I can think of that have had them retrofitted. Inter-car gangways (within a unit) have been retrofitted – e.g to classes 116, 310, usually to allow access to toilets.

674. @timbeau Retrofitting inter-unit gangway ends would be very expensive, particularly if the possibility was not envisaged and planned for at design time. So even though (as far as I know) it has never been done, that does not mean it has never been desired.

     As for the draughty cabs, that is far from inevitable. Even if all such cabs have hitherto been draughty, there is surely nothing inevitable about draughts. (The cabs also appear, to me as a passer-by, to be pretty cramped, and that might be harder to design away).

675. @timbeau: I believe the Class 460s had their gangways introduced during the process of morphing into 458s?

     @Anonymously: I believe the rules stipulate that if there is a short platform, trains with selective door opening that call at it must be fully walk-through.

     @Edgepedia: Is that quote therefore suggesting that the Aventra for London Overground has a waste-of-space pointy nose purely because it is a design shared with 125mph stock from the same family?

676. Re Staphan
     Correct and the rest of the 458s are having the cab replaced to make the units easier to join and also partially interoperable with the Siemens units (450s) in emergency.

     The front of this variant of the Aventra looks a little flatter and less bulky than some previous illustrations so may be there are 2 non gangway fronts a 100mph and a 125mph variant?

     I’m fairly certain that the “missing” windows aren’t there for structural reasons especially as the cabs can be stand alone structural units that can be replaced/swapped as whole unit so the end of the end coaches need to be more stiff and rigid than you might expect.

677. It seems insane to me to not have gangways on multiple units. On long distance service it makes it tricky for on board staff. On metro services it just makes it easier for fare dodgers who I see hanging out of doorways to see if the RPOs are in their unit. It has implications for fire regulations if a door in the end coach of a unit fails, reducing the capacity of the train somewhat. And since they’re often on DOO routes the driver may be required to get an adjacent line block to investigate something in the rear unit because the only way into it is on to the line which will never be less than disruptive in these crowded times. As for draughty cabs, well, that’s just one small problem amongst many in the driver’s office, most of which probably stem from not asking any drivers about how to design them.

678. I had forgotten the 458/460s – despite having tried, and failed, to board one at Richmond this morning! (too full to get on).

     Yes indeed, although given that they were rebuilding the cabs on the ex-458s to get the gangways to work at all, it made sense to fit them to the ex-460 cars as well in the interests of standardisation. The alternative would have been to have ten units with a gangway at one end only, rather like the class 126s.
     http://railphotoprints.zenfolio.com/img/s8/v74/p1741357134-3.jpg
     (both types of cab seen here, the nearer one having once had a gangway, and the further having a full width cab – the idea was that in normal operation the trains would run as six-car with a full width cab at each end, and access to the buffet car from all six cars, but it could be split into two three-car sets when required, with a rather less convenient cab layout at the gangway end)

679. @GTR driver
     “It seems insane to me to not have gangways on multiple units. ”
     It all comes down to money – they will only be fitted if the person paying for them thinks the benefits you listed outweigh the cost of fitting and maintaining them.

680. Some bits and bobs from recent Mayor’s Answers that are of relevance to Overground issues. Warning – this may be a long post or posts.

     London Overground services (3)
     Question No:2015/2375

     Navin Shah

     Why does your initial new train order not provide for five trains per hour from the start on the Gospel Oak-to-Barking line? Will six trains per hour ever be possible? Will the new trains there, and on the West Anglia lines, provide some transverse seating, and dedicated separate cycle storage?

     The Mayor

     Train paths are a matter for Network Rail and TfL has ongoing discussions with them about this.

     The introduction of four car trains from 2018, once electrification is complete, will almost double the capacity of the existing service. Increasing the frequency of trains on the line is possible and TfL has options to procure rolling stock. TfL has been discussing these matters with Network Rail. In order to achieve six trains per hour, infrastructure works, such as provision for additional platforms at either Gospel Oak or Barking, must be addressed first.

     The draft Anglia Route study, which has been produced by Network Rail, suggests that six trains per hour will be required in the longer term (Network Rail uses a reference date of 2043) and TfL agrees with that conclusion.

     The Gospel Oak to Barking line trains will have Tube-style seating, similar to London Overground trains on the East and North London lines. West Anglia trains will have some transverse seating. Both train types will include wheelchair spaces and multi-use areas which can be used by cycles.

     West Anglia reliability – no real surprises but this is the official line!

     London Overground services (2)
     Question No: 2015/2374
     Navin Shah

     Has train unit availability declined since taking over the West Anglia lines, and if so, why?

     The Mayor

     Written answer from the Mayor

     Some of the trains which TfL has taken over are not in a good condition and there have been mechanical failures, mainly with the doors, which have caused some trains to run in short formation and some to be cancelled altogether.

     TfL inherited a number of trains from Abellio Greater Anglia (AGA) and then leased an
     additional six trains as insufficient trains were available from AGA; all of these trains are over 30 years old. TfL is now implementing an enhanced programme of urgent maintenance works and further operational measures to improve reliability tot he standard that customers rightly expect.

     Bombardier Transportation has been awarded the contract to build 31 new trains for the West Anglia and Romford to Upminster routes. These will replace the current Class 315 and 317 trains.

     Enhanced off peak services to Enfield Town.

     Enfield Town Overground
     Question No:2015/2214

     Victoria Borwick

     Could the Mayor confirm when the London Liverpool Street to Enfield Town, London
     Overground train line will have a 4 train an hour service from 6.00am to Midnight?

     The Mayor

     Written answer from the Mayor

     London Overground operates a four train per hour peak service between Liverpool Street and Enfield Town. During the rest of the day a two train per hour service is maintained.

     It is TfL’s aspiration to extend a four train per hour service to more of the day. Increases in service frequency are dependent on obtaining track access on the southern end of the route into Liverpool Street. TfL is currently working with Network Rail to seek these additional train paths.

681. And now a load of stuff about the Euston – Watford route which may, or may not, put some issues to bed for at least 5 minutes. 🙂

     Euston London Overground service (1)
     Question No:2015/2370

     Navin Shah

     Do you have an aspiration for Watford Junction LO trains continuing to run indefinitely into Euston station, rather than being diverted at Primrose Hill (and / or Willesden Junction) onto the North London Line?

     Would any Primrose Hill diversion likely require a financial contribution towards four-tracking the short section of two-track North London Line west of Camden Road station?

     The Mayor

     There is no current proposal for London Overground services originating at Watford to be diverted from Euston towards Stratford.
     Analysis by TfL suggests that there is greater demand for journeys towards Euston than Stratford. Those who wish to travel towards Stratford can do so with a straightforward interchange at Willesden Junction.

     Euston London Overground service (2)
     Question No:2015/2371

     Navin Shah

     Will you reinstate three trains per hour in the late evenings?

     If not, will you change Sunday train times to weekday times, so that the last train is ten minutes later? Since that would introduce a greater gap after 10pm, what other options are there?

     The Mayor

     The new London Overground concession begins in November 2016 and TfL expects it to include a three trains per hour service on the Watford to Euston line until the current last service.

     Euston London Overground service (3)
     Question No:2015/2372

     Navin Shah

     Are the power supplies on the Euston-to-Watford Junction line sufficient for the promised new LO trains? Does that include both five-car trains, and increasing the service frequency to four trains per hour?

     Why does your initial new train order not provide both of those upgrades from the start? Which upgrade has the higher priority? Will the new trains provide some transverse seating, and dedicated separate cycle storage?

     The Mayor

     The Watford to Euston line requires a power upgrade to extend the existing trains to five cars. Network Rail will undertake this upgrade by the end of the year and TfL has funded part of this. In the meantime, TfL is working with Bombardier, which manufactures the trains, to see if they can be introduced earlier by temporarily limiting the power they draw.This proposal is also currently being considered by Network Rail to ensure such a proposition is feasible and would not damage the current power supply system.

     In the longer term, when the power upgrade is complete, the plan is to increase the frequency on the Euston to Watford line to a four trains per hour service using the brand new four car trains that have just been ordered. This will provide a net increase in capacity of 16 cars per hour (instead of 15) as well as reduced waiting times. This capacity increase is in line with demand, however, the contract for new trains includes an option to extend to five cars, should future demand warrant it.

     The new trains on this line are planned to have the same seating layout as the current trains, including wheelchair spaces and multi-use areas which can be used by cycles.

682. @WW
     So it seems there will be two subclasses of the Aventras, with the Goblin/Wat Eus variant having all-longitudinal seating. A quick calculation suggests that the number of seats in a 4-car Aventra on the Goblin will be the same as in the 2-car 172s they are to replace!

683. timbeau
     All-longitudonal seating in the 4-car “goblins” seems a very retrograde move to me …
     Meantime, does anyone have any solid information on the intra-Hackney link? [distasteful metaphor snipped]

684. Tomorrow, I understand, if all fingers and toes are crossed in the approved Health & Safety way!

685. Given what the crowding situation is like on the GOBLIN AND given how many new homes are to be built in East and North East London in the coming years I think the decision to stick with longitudinal seating was correct.

686. @ Greg – I am beginning to tire of reading about “how dreadful longitudinal seating is” from rail enthusiasts. Putting to one side the previous comments we have had from those with medical issues there’s a simple issue here. Does the ordinary commuter want a seat and will wait hours to get one or do they simply want the train to arrive with sufficient space to be able to board even if they have to stand? I would contend that the majority want to get on the first train and they will tolerate standing if demand is such that they have to. What no one wants is for each train to be so full that people can’t travel. You know better than I do that that’s where we are at, at the moment, on the GOBLIN. We are talking about relatively short journey times on the GOBLIN where standing is not an undue hardship for the majority. I like having a seat as much as the next person but I understand that it’s unlikely during the rush hour in London.

687. @Walthamstow Writer: Quite. I’ve recently ‘experienced’ the GOBLIN westbound in the AM peak and am glad I won’t have to again. I had to wait for the second train, which isn’t ideal when they’re only every 15 minutes. With all platform seating taken, I had to stand for longer than I would have done on my journey.

688. @WW
     “I am beginning to tire of reading about “how dreadful longitudinal seating is” from rail enthusiasts. …..Does the ordinary commuter want a seat ”

     As an ordinary commuter, and having long ago lost any enthusiasm I might once have had for the daily trek, I will say I do want a seat, and have been known to wait for a second train if there are no seats on the first, or even take an earlier train (with a less popular destination) from the terminus and change further down the line for my branch.
     In particular I want a seat with support for my back in the direction of acceleration/deceleration. It is noticeable that the first seats to be occupied on my line tend to be the face to face ones, then the face to back ones (aisle seats first, as no-one likes being hemmed in against the window or wall) and only then the longitudinal ones.

689. @ Timbeau – I was very careful to exclude those people with medical concerns from my generalised remarks. I also said “majority” which therefore allows for those who do want a seat and who will wait for one. Let’s not get into “splitting hairs” when I didn’t make a grand, all encompassing sweeping statement in the first place!

     Despite the years of pointless Evening Standard “every commuter must have a seat” campaigns we are nowhere nearer to people always having a seat and we will never ever achieve it unless there is a mass adandonment of rail for commuting journeys. I can’t foresee that ever happening in normal circumstances. The only direction we are headed in is one where rail commuting conditions resemble those of huge Asian cities like Tokyo, Beijing and Hong Kong with massive overcrowding and crush loading. I am waiting for someone to conclude that we need to move from 12 car long trains to 14 or 16 cars on certain commuting routes. I know that has massive implications across the rail network but in the absence of new line / relief line construction on a large scale it’s the next obvious way to cater for peak demand unless you run trains with no seats whatsoever!

690. @WW
     “I am beginning to tire of reading about “how dreadful longitudinal seating is”.

     Agreed. This discussion currently has no resolution; all the points have been put forth numerous times on various threads. Physical requirements for many travelers have been acknowledged, and the discussion has been played out.

     Unless there are new facts or developments, any further discussion on the dreadfulness of longitudinal seating will be snipped without notice.

     LBM & the Mods

691. I really don’t want to prolong the debate about transverse vs longitudinal seating, but I do wonder what has inspired TfL to break the Overground mould (with the exception of the current Goblin DMUs) and go for ‘some transverse seating’ on the West Anglia routes. Those routes are ones where real uni-directional peak flows occur, compared with long chunks of the North London Line and the Goblin where there is a fair amount of hopping on and off throughout the journey. An outside observer would have thought that, for the West Anglia routes, a layout which emphasised standing (ie longitudinal) would be better suited than one which, even partially, favoured seating.

     Interesting also to get confirmation that there is hope in the near future for 4tph on the Watford-Euston line. I suspect that might increase passenger numbers outside the peaks, as it becomes a more useful feeder to the NLL from both directions.

692. @Fandroid
     “Those routes are ones where real uni-directional peak flows occur, compared with long chunks of the North London Line and the Goblin where there is a fair amount of hopping on and off throughout the journey. ”
     That’s why – there are a higher portion of end-to-end travellers so less “on-and-off”. I would imagine the Chingfordians and Enfeilders would be highly dischuffed if they found they had to stand all the way to Liverpool Street every day.

693. @ J Roberts 1014 – apparently the Hackney link’s opening is confirmed for tomorrow (22/7) via a tweet from London Overground.

694. @WW
     It would be interesting to know the relative economics of either:
     – extending from 12 to 14/16 car trains
     – increasing the structure gauge to allow for sensible double deck rolling or stock; or
     – enhancing the signalling to allow for greater frequencies

     Some of this will depend on the line in question, but either one of these must happen or there will be no alternative to crush loading at some stage in the future.

695. quinlet
     AND
     ADDING new tracks &/or routes.
     In this context 8 tracks up/down Bethanl Green Bank is relevant.

696. It’s my understanding that changing gauge to allow double decker stock is a non starter unless we are prepared to demolish vast tracts of housing, some of it brand new, to allow space to do so, likewise easing curves or widening over bridges to allow space for increased speeds and the sideways movement that has to be limited now. The increased capacity of double deck trains is also offset by the increased dwell time needed for them, so it is not necessarily much use on many of our metro routes where there is limited scope for more trains to be fitted in. Which leads us to signalling – again I’m led to believe that there is not much extra capacity to be gained on many lines by in cab signalling – there’s not much point having more trains if they have to follow each other closely, that’s enough of a problem in the peaks now. Not to say there aren’t better systems, it’s just that the nature of many routes mitigates against it. Likewise extra lines where space doesn’t exist to reinstate it or create them. As for platform extensions, again, space can be a problem, but from experience I know that it’s already quite difficult to despatch a ten car, even now I feel that a phased door closure would be better because it’s hard to keep an eye on ten sets of doors at once, let alone twelve. A gloomy response but when on a daily basis you are faced with lines that are becoming valleys of housing, having to negotiate tight curves and slow crossovers and already trailing one or two trains in quite short signal sections, the prospect for expansion looks rather gloomy.

697. @GTR Driver
     “It’s my understanding that changing gauge to allow double decker stock is a non starter unless we are prepared to demolish vast tracts of housing, some of it brand new, to allow space to do so,”
     I would be surprised if enlarging the loading gauge would require much demolition outside railway land, but as I understand it the main problem is that the UK’s preference for high platforms (and the presence of other lineside structures at low level such as bridge girders) would make it difficult to provide adequate width within the loading gauge for a lower deck (which has to be slung between the bogies) to give enough room for an upper deck.

698. From my experience on using double decker trains in the NYC area is that they don’t actually appear to add that much capacity to the trains for passengers – either standing or sitting.

     To me huge chunks of the carriages were taken up with space for the stairs – both up to the upper level as well as down from the door area down to the lower level and the lobby area – let alone any sort of consideration for passengers using wheelchairs or who has other mobility issues.

699. @Chris C – and not just in NYC. The general experience of double deck trains on mainland Europe is that they add about 30% max to useable capacity, for the reasons stated elsewhere (big vestibules,need to accommodate stairs and so on) and even that comes at a price because of the need to load through a pair of end doors over the bogies. The time taken for people to move through the coach to reach the doors at each stop means that standing passengers further add to the dwell times. DD stock is the sort of knee jerk simplicisticism that politicians love.

     @quinlet – even if money were no object, the things you mention are constrained by physics. For example, there is a technical limit to what can be safely and reliably run on a multi branch system, however good the signalling, and it is probably around 32 tph (NR would say 24 tph) – anything more and junction management and station dwell time become the blockers. So, too, with 16 car trains – dwell times get extended as passengers search for seats and junctions take longer to clear and signalling to reset than for shorter trains, even if every station could be extended to suit – and clearly that is another problem.

     So, yes,you can squeeze a bit more out of the present system – at a cost – but that may not buy you much more than a decade’s worth of growth,if you are very lucky and have a bottomless purse. But no, the longer term prospects are either for new lines or Indian style overcrowding. From what I see at Earlsfield from the comfort of a passing fast,we seem to have already reached the latter state anyway.

700. Well without a wider loading gauge we hit the same problem as the SR double decker slam door – a somewhat cramped environment. It runs the risk of no overall gain if you couple together the dwell time plus a worse travelling experience. As a traveller on the Orpington-Vic stoppers, time and time again I see people who are going all the way to Vic refusing to move away from the doors, making it harder for people getting off at intermediate stops, even though it would be logical for them to move into the coach (seat or no seat!). Now imagine them refusing to go upstairs and imagine the effect on dwell times.

     Signalling wise on the routes I am familiar with there are a few examples of double blocking (two sections instead of one clear between trains) and approach controlled route clearing (signal does not clear until you are almost at a stop, designed to ensure the train is going at a low enough speed to cross the junction) which definitely reduce overall capacity – if these could be reworked safely but without delaying the train so much it would be a help but generally the density of service points to little gain from resignalling.

     In the medium term there are gains to be had from more grade separation, potentially some crossovers could be faster, and simplifying the service to cut conflicts ie one terminus per route with a raised frequency of longer trains. But in the longer term I don’t see much alternative to new lines – either putting fast services in tunnels to avoid most of the built up area, complete new routes underground or otherwise, or more Crossrail type lines to remove terminus bottlenecks.

701. The 30% increase in carrying capacity is not to be sneezed at, especially if the alternative is extension of dozens of platforms. The balance between longer section clearance times for longer trains, versus longer dwell times with double deckers, is also to be considered.

     The issues discussed above suggest that double decking becomes more appropriate the longer the distance covered, as dwell times become a smaller fraction of the total journey time. The bilevel TGVs are a good example of this. The prodigious people-swallowing rates of bendybuses compared with double deckers are also worth noting – with suitable reservations about their “section occupancy times” of course.

702. Ah here we go with that ol’ chestnut. What is the ‘next big thing’ in terms of adding capacity?

     I’ve said this enough times, but:
     – double-decking: cost of gauge enlargement will never justify uplift in capacity
     – train lengthening: you will find that if you want to extend platforms to 16 cars a large number of the ‘more important’ stations will be in the ‘too difficult’ category (think many London termini, Clapham Jn, East Croydon, Herne Hill and Tulse Hill, etc.)
     – signal enhancements: could ease things a bit, but on many routes even with conventional signalling headways are becoming constrained by dwell times at major stations en route (again: think Clapham Jn, East Croydon, etc.). Even if you resolve that, you will still have the issue of the number of platforms available at the London termini

     There are of course a few bottlenecks at the ‘country end’ that you could resolve to squeeze a few more paths into London (Windmill Bridge Jn, Lewisham, some flat junctions on the Kent route), but that won’t give you much more capacity – if anything these interventions will improve performance rather than capacity. The key constraint on most routes is the number of platforms available at London termini. Now – any rules changes (headways, turnround times, junction margins) will only serve to decrease performance (unless you can convince drivers to enter platforms at Victoria at 40mph rather than 10mph that they do today – good luck with that!). Adding platforms is a non-starter given space constraints and the listed status that many stations enjoy.

     We are therefore left with one last option: more crossrails.

703. Is grade separation always possible though, for example at Gloucester Road Junction is there enough space under the bridge or at Balham Junction is there enough space ? Somewhere like the junctions around Stretham could be removed or not used normally in passenger services if the services were simplified with an interchange station between the Brighton mainline andthe Mole Valley line.

704. Straphan,

     The key constraint on most routes is the number of platforms available at London termini

     Significant, yes, but quite often not the key constraint. Both Victoria Southeastern and platforms 13-19 could handle a lot more trains than at present. 2tph on platforms 12 and 13 (Gatwick Express) is not exactly optimal use. It is the approaches and critical junctions that prevent better use. London Bridge low-level should be able to handle 24tph in future. The problem is not at London Bridge and although the approach from all the way from New Cross Gate is a major restriction now, it will only be a short section limited to 3 tracks in future.

     Whenever this is brought up I remind people of Cannon St. Seven platforms and an absolute current maximum of 25tph. That ought to take 28tph easily and it is things external to the station itself that prevents this. Clearly so because “in the old days” its (then) eight platforms handled 30tph or more. Which ever way you look at it Cannon Street ought to be able to handle more trains than Charing Cross.

     Your comment about Crossrails is very apposite but it is notable that once Crossrail 1 opens Paddington will not be a key constraint yet advantage cannot be taken of the situation to run more than a 10tph Crossrail service on the Great Western Mainline. Similarly one would have thought that Crossrail would have released 12tph train paths into Liverpool Street but it will do nothing like that. King’s Cross, despite its extra platform 0, is probably a key constraint but probably won’t be by the time Thameslink sends trains down the Canal tunnel.

     Fenchurch Street is actually more constrained by the approaches and restrictive signalling. Blackfriars – well we don’t need to repeat arguments about the unnecessary constraints that prevent this being used to best effect. So that leaves Charing Cross, the Midland Main Line platforms at St Pancras (SouthEastern have sufficient for the current and foreseeable service), Waterloo and Euston. Even at Euston we have the issue with the sleeper taking up a valuable platform so it is hardly the case that the best use is made of what there is.

     You don’t need train drivers to approach termini at 40mph. What you need is something a bit better than the crude but very safe TPWS so that you can progressively slow down in a safe manner. If London Underground can do this in the open air at dead end terminals (e.g. High Barnet) Network Rail and TOCS should be able to do it at a covered stations where there is little or no danger of wet rails.

     In summary, there is still an awful lot that can be done without building a new Crossrails. This is not to argue against new Crossrails, just to say it isn’t the only thing that can be done.

705. @pop
     “covered stations where there is little or no danger of wet rails”

     Except that the trains don’t wipe their feet before coming indoors out of the rain, and get the rails in the station all wet.

706. Being a C2C user I have often used 12 carriage trains but if one boards one at Fenchurch Street at the end of the train then I end up with a long open walk at the other end something no very nice on cold, wet, dark nights or even worse in snowy weather !

     C2C use guards and these usually work in driving cab of 9th carriage on 12 carriage trains meaning they are located at similar point as on 8 carriage trains with the sound of railway morse code to instruct drivers when to depart !

     As for longer trains on other routes SWT has extended many platforms to take 10 carriage trains which are formed of 2×5 carriage trains and it seems they prefer placing a member of staff on both sections while Boris has removed Overground guards encouraging beggars and bad musicians onto walk through overground trains!

     The original Thameslink showed one way to increase capacity and that’s more through running which also has the benefit of creating more direct journeys on the same train . So linking some lines together is one option .

     Capacity can also be improved by better stations with more escalators and lifts from platforms to street thus increasing throughput of passengers something the new London Bridge Station will create when complete.

707. @Melvyn
     “As for longer trains on other routes SWT has extended many platforms to take 10 carriage trains which are formed of 2×5 carriage trains and it seems they prefer placing a member of staff on both sections ”
     It has always been the practice for the guard on a train formed of two or more units to ride in a unit other than the one the driver is in, and as near the middle of the train as possible, so in the fifth car of a 2×4-car formation (or, on the old slam door CIG/VEP stock, with a guards van in one of the middle cars of a 4-car unit, on the 6th or 7th car). Inevitably, with a train formed of more than two units, (such as the 4+2+2 formations – or, rarely, 4+4+2 – now appearing on SWT) you can’t have a member of staff on each unit as a full crew is only two people.

708. Re PoP,

     ATO (Carne’s digital “vision”) will certainly help squeeze more out of a lot of the current infrastructure in a number of places (including your Cannon Street example) but will that be enough to meet probable demand? You then get into the game of lots of small to medium infrastructure interventions such as grade separation which will help a bit more in places but there is a danger that you reach the Transpennine Electrification pause issue – that what is proposed won’t meet the expected demand so you have to go back to the drawing board with another Crossrail.

     Say you implement ATO into Victoria on Southern Metro Services and do some some small infrastructure interventions (take over platform 8 at Victoria etc) you are still going to be limited to a few more tph because of dwell time at Clapham Jn will that few tph more (and going to all 12 car metro services) provide enough capacity?

     The last RUS suggested 10car metro Southern services into Victoria would be enough, the new draft Sussex route study is suggesting that 12car will be needed and that passengers will still get left behind at Streatham Hill.
     Is it possibly more sensible to start thinking about having Crossrail n portal in the Balham/Streatham area (or the alternative fast tunnel proposals with CR portal closer to the terminus).

     It would be very interesting to see TfL VfM methodology applied to proposed NR schemes inside the M25.

709. Re timbeau,

     “Except that the trains don’t wipe their feet before coming indoors out of the rain, and get the rails in the station all wet.”
     Some of the wheelsets on the Thameslink 700s will have tread brakes which might help them to do that though!

710. In Europe, where generally the loading gauge allows room for double-deck trains, they are steadily expanding as the high-density train of choice. Dwell times do suffer, but wide doors allow loading and unloading to occur simultaneously. That might sound mad, but I have seen it often enough (and got on myself while others are still alighting) to know that it works in reality. The gauge conversion issue here makes it extremely unlikely to happen, except possibly on the HS1 into St Pancras if that ever gets enough loadings.

     SWT outer-suburban trains on the main line are often formed of 4+4+4 class 450s (taking up roughly the same platform length as 5+5 class 444s), so the same issue occurs of having a unit that is not staffed at a station stop. It works OK, even when picking up in the down direction at Clapham Junction, high loadings, curved platforms and all that.

     In-cab signalling might not increase capacity on routes that are already heavily used, but automated control might. After all, that’s what LU relies on to increase its tph on the busiest lines. To get really high tph, there must be a need to emulate the Tube, and to simplify service patterns. That might only be possible by investing in much better interchange stations, but that could possibly be cheaper than more entirely new lines.

711. ngh (and others),

     I am not suggesting that other interventions should take the place of future Crossrails. But we haven’t even got the first Crossrail open and the second one is at drawing board stage. Whilst I would be the first to emphasise long term solutions there is also the opportunity to squeeze a bit more out of the system in a shorter timeframe with enhancements that will still be of value when we have more Crossrail tunnels.

     Of course, wheels will transfer some water to the rails but it is not easy to get something metal very wet by bringing it into contact with something else also made of metal. Also, as my chemistry teacher was wont to say, water isn’t actually a very good wetting agent.

712. @PoP: Most of the solutions you offer are of the smaller impact variety – squeezing a couple of paths per hour per line. Tunnels on the other hand bring about improvements in the order of 10 or more paths per hour. While you rightly point out that this is not achievable everywhere (Paddington and Great Western), it is definitely achievable elsewhere. Liverpool Street currently has 23tph on the Main lines from the Stratford direction – once Bow Jn is remodelled NR claims this could be even 33tph. Add 4tph Crossrail ‘residual’ trains and you get far more than 10tph.

     With regard to Cannon Street and the past capacities of London termini, I appreciate there used to be an almost mythical time when there were more trains that used to run more punctually at lower fares. Those days are now definitively gone, and any reduction in minimum turnround time values will negatively affect performance which is already below par according to most. Cannon Street is set to become yet more constrained upon completion of the Thameslink programme, when the Met Curve is set to be severed.

     With regard to Victoria, the key constraint on the high-numbered platforms is that stock in the peak cannot be feasibly sent anywhere to stable once it arrives. From what I can tell, London Bridge suffers from a similar ailment at present. Although I have not studied other termini in detail, I believe they experience similar issues. A tunnel with a few central terminating sidings at small stations on the other side resolves this.

     I absolutely agree with you, though, that there should be some work done around re-routing freight away from London, which will be of most benefit to orbital routes served by Overground.

713. @ Straphan – so when Mike Brown told the Transport Committee that he didn’t want to see SWT trains occupying Waterloo platforms for 14 minutes in the peak but felt that much more rapid turnrounds like LU achieve was the way to go he was wrong was he? I appreciate there are issues all over the network but it cannot be beyond the wit of railway engineers, planners and operators to devise strategies and viable plans to squeeze more capacity out of the network. I know some changes are potentially very expensive and conventional appraisal may give a poor result but we’re either facing a capacity crisis or we aren’t. I think we will get to a point after CR2 where the sheer depth you have to tunnel to will mean that more Crossrails become impractical in some parts of Central London. You simply can’t dig that far down at reasonable cost nor can you get people out fast enough from immensely deep stations if there is a fire or an emergency.

     Clearly some more Crossrails will be feasible on some corridors but getting under the Oxford Street corridor is going to get very difficult indeed. There’s simply too much under street level. Given the need to typically serve City and West End in order to give maximum potential patronage / good capacity relief you start to run out of viable corridors that can carry the very significant cost burden of a Crossrail style line.

     I am sorry you are sceptical about things like longer trains but if the Japanese can run them and can get trains in and out of terminal platforms in short order then I think we’re duty bound to at least think about how that might work in the UK. I expect a whole load of standards and operating practices will need to be challenged but a properly managed railway should be pushing the bounds anyway if it is to have a viable way of expanding the service it offers. That seems to be what LU is doing but then it controls operations, engineering, projects and asset management so can take a cohesive approach. TOCs and Network Rail struggle to do the same thing. I know you deal with constraints and challenges of rail capacity day in, day out but surely you accept that there is scope for improvement and challenge?

714. straphan,

     I don’t quite understand. I challenged your proposition about terminals being the key constraint and then you back up your case by talking about remodelling Bow Junction – which is entirely my point. It often isn’t the actual terminals that are the key constraint. With Victoria you talk about the fact that stock cannot sensibly be sent anywhere when it arrives so again you seem to be agreeing the terminal itself sometimes isn’t the key constraint. I am going further and saying the sort of things you describe are actually quite often the key constraint and there is extra capacity. In some cases only a tiny amount but in other cases quite a lot.

     By the way, unless you know something we don’t, the Met curve is most certainly not set to be severed at the end of the Thameslink Programme.

715. @Ww
     “he didn’t want to see SWT trains occupying Waterloo platforms for 14 minutes in the peak”

     Given how long it takes for a platform to clear when a 12 car train comes in, and the length of time it takes to walk the length of the platform (unless you really want everyone to cram in the rearmost cars?) turnrounds are inevitably going to get longer.

     It would be good if Waterloo announced the platforms a bit sooner, so there isn’t a mad dash for the train two minutes before the right away.

     It would also be good if the forthcoming platform extensions included a new entrance at the country end (could it be that some influential Waterloo passengers might actually find an exit nearer Westminster quite convenient?)

716. @PoP: Hang on. If you remodelled Bow Junction NOW you would not be able to squeeze a single additional path into Liverpool Street as the Electric lines would still be full of Class 315s. Once you take these out of the equation it THEN makes sense to remodel Bow Jn to take advantage of the spare capacity on the Electric lines and the higher numbered platforms at Liverpool Street. Bow Jn is – to my understanding – not a constraint given the present structure of the service.

     Re. Victoria: this depends on how you define the ‘terminal’. I think of the constraints posed by the terminal as opposed to a tunnel through to somewhere on the other side of London. In this scenario there are no conflicts at the station throat, and there is no issue with finding somewhere for the extra peak units to be stabled in such a way that they do not have to go back and across the Fast lines and onto the Slow lines in the process.

     Re. Met Curve: sorry, that was a mental shortcut. Once Thameslink is complete the Met Curve will connect to the Thameslink running lines (Snow Hill Lines) with 16tph running over them in each direction. This means there will no longer be any capacity for empty stock from Cannon Street to run to Blackfriars, reverse, and then run down via Elephant & Castle to wherever it needs to be stabled (Grove Park, Victoria, Grosvenor, etc.). The connection will physically be there, but the intensity of service on the Snow Hill lines will render it useless – at least in the peaks.

717. straphan,

     So we can agree that operational issues at and around the terminals are indeed a major issue preventing more trains running but, being pedantic, it is not actually necessarily the number of platforms available at London termini that is the key constraint.

     I know I may appear to be a bit argumentative in challenging the precise details but I think it is important that people do not get the idea that the problem is simply a lack of platforms and conclude that if more platforms were available you could necessarily run more trains.

718. @WW 1459 – Agreeing thoroughly with what you and the new Commissioner are saying, but once we’ve got people to the terminal, we still have to get a significant number of them on to where they actually want to go.

     Increasing capacity into terminals is no good if we can’t also increase the distribution from the terminals.

     As you say, boring details like emergency evacuation timings (and just standard exit timings) limit the practical depth a station can be. It can’t lie in the too difficult pile forever!

719. It is not just subterranean stations that would benefit from double-ending. It has been done at Fenchurch Street (long ago) , was included from the start at City TL, and more recently Paddington, Blackfrairs, and Waterloo East (sort of). Country end concourses at Waterloo and Victoria would improve circulation around the station, and distribution of passengers around trains, and make the station more convenient for a wider catchment – note how close the platform ends at Victoria are to the coach station, or at Waterloo to Westminster Bridge (and Lambeth North tube station), and for that matter at Euston to Mornington Crescent station or at Liverpool Street to Shoreditch HS.

720. @timbeau – and has the footbridge exit from CX re-opened yet? (I thought not – no one could ever explain satisfactorily to NSE senior management why this was in the too difficult basket).

     BTW _ Mornington Crescent ? Presumably this thread should lock at that point?

721. @straphan…you mention convincing drivers to enter Victoria at 40 rather than the 10 at present. I am a regular user of Victoria SE and the approach speed and indeed the exit speed right up to the carriage sheds is funereal – in the case of the latter, why? Is it because the complexity of the trackwork in won’t allow progressive acceleration? Indeed, progressive acceleration is severely lacking even when the stock operating a service is clearly capable. The journey time to Herne Hill in the 70s was 2 mins faster than now. Most Southern Metro routes are very lacklustre, but geography plays a part I suppose and the performance of the 455s.

     On the Vic/Orpington route, the stoppers clear Shortlands by a hair’s breadth in practice with the following fast often on a single yellow passing Beckenham Junction. If more use was made of the accelerative powers of the Networkers the issue wouldn’t arise (under normal conditions of course). But, as we know, there are so many more trains on the infrastructure nowadays that compromises have to be made.

     If SE manages to increase capacity by dint of acquiring 319s, these will have to run on carefully chosen routes as they won’t be able to keep to Metro timings (eg pulling away from West Dulwich on wet rails).

722. @PoP: I never said the issue is a lack of platforms at termini. It is the fact, that a stub terminus will always generate conflicting moves between inbound and outbound trains at the station throat. This in turn will reduce frequency, and necessitate the co-ordination of the timetable in both directions on a given route. All of these are constraints a tunnel and a ‘double-ended’ railway route would alleviate.

     @Philip Wylie: The issue lies within the ‘professional driving standards’ adopted by train drivers. These ‘standards’ are in most cases more restrictive than rules, and whilst they are ostensibly there to ‘improve safety’, their main purpose is to reduce the risk of a driver ever getting punished for an infraction. Many in the industry argue these standards are unnecessarily tight, and contribute to a reduction in capacity and reliability of service.

     Two examples of these standards are:
     – At through stations drivers used to stop the train at the correct spot using the braking curve of the train, provided the aspect at the next signal is not red. The standards now dictate they should slow down to about 20mph or so before the front of the train is alongside the platform. You can infer for yourself how long it then takes for a 12-car train to perform a stopping manoeuvre at each station.
     – At termini, drivers are instructed by the standards to drive along the platform at a much lower speed than that stipulated by Network Rail. At most termini the speed limit from the start of the station throat to the end of the platform is 20mph. At Victoria – from what I have heard – standards instruct drivers to slow to 10mph from the moment they see the red lights at the buffer stops. This – in many cases – is quite a long way before the front of the train is alongside the platform.

     A complete overview of speed limits on Network Rail infrastructure can be found in the Network Rail Sectional Appendix diagrams, downloadable from here:
     http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/10563.aspx

     As I said before, you can argue either way: that the standards improve safety and reduce the number of dangerous incidents caused by drivers; or that they unnecessarily reduce capacity, and that the railway can only be 100% safe and incident-free when the speed of all trains is 0mph. Whichever way you look at it, you can imagine that forcing drivers to relax these standards given the current state of industrial relations in the rail industry would be difficult to say the least.

723. Actually Straphan it isn’t quite as simple as that.

     On through stations we still brake using our route knowledge and judgement of the prevailing conditions, unless there is a red at the end of the platform. Danger signals frequently have TPWS grids on their approach and we only find out what the trigger speed is when someone sets them off. Hence we stick to an advised maximum of 20mph.

     At termini, there are TPWS grids on the approach to the stops, generally it is rumoured that these are set at 10mph, and we are advised to do 6mph to ensure we don’t set them off. Incidentally Network Rail control these grids, with that trigger speed, regardless of them setting a permanent speed limit of 20mph.

     Since triggering a TPWS grid is a safety of the line incident reportable to Network Rail and the DfT and a blight on a driver’s career, we prefer to stick to the advised speeds. Nothing to do with industrial relations. If we were told we could do 10 on the approach to the stops, we would do 10. It’s no fun trying to keep a machine with that much momentum at 6mph. Personally I don’t have a problem with trying to reduce the risk of a buffer stop collision. It’s not a race.

724. @GTR driver
     “Personally I don’t have a problem with trying to reduce the risk of a buffer stop collision. It’s not a race.”

     No, it’s not a race, except that the TOCs do have punctuality targets, and presumably you have to answer to management if you are consistently slower than your colleagues. Trains running more slowly also affect the number of trains that can be run. (See the aftermath of Hatfield for an extreme example of this)But, obviously, a buffer stop collision is not going to help either!

725. No. It is drummed into drivers that safety is their first concern, not punctuality. There is no concept of putting your foot down to make up time on the railway. If one continually goes at 4mph coming up to stops, no one will be bothered, if one comes in at 9mph, then you will be answering to management.

726. @ GTR Driver / Timbeau – I understand it is the same with buses. Based on a number of posts and comments on another forum TfL bus drivers are never told to “go fast” to make up time. They are told that safety comes first and if they end up late then it’s down to the controllers to deal with the aftermath by managing the service. On my local route there are a few “slow” drivers but I am reliably informed they’d never ever be “told off” for driving as they do even though it’s a tad annoying when a 5 minute wait becomes a 9 minute wait because a “slow” driver is at the wheel. Obviously drivers can put themselves under pressure and there are speedy bus drivers but the consequences are not quite as bad as it might be for a train driver. Doubtful that DfT get reports on rule breaches by bus drivers. However bus drivers are probably in the more hazardous and certainly more unpredictable working / driving environment that train drivers are. One thing where technology has caught up is that what a bus driver does is now as recorded as for a train driver (black boxes, train data, signalling data etc). Buses now have driving style recorders, I-Bus, CCTV recording forward and rear views and in cab, on vehicle data systems, CCTV traffic cameras etc. Loads of data to analyse in the event of a problem.

727. @WW Interesting comments about “slow” and other bus drivers. Good to hear that a driver is never told to “go fast”. I suspect that the difference between “slow” drivers and others is not about top speed, nor acceleration, but rather about risks. A light going amber just at the point where it would be valid to either stop or not. Approaching a green light, and either slackening off the loud pedal slightly in case it changes at the last minute, or else keeping at 30 in the hope that it doesn’t. A narrow traffic gap to squeeze through, perhaps at 4 mph, or perhaps at 8 mph. That sort of thing.

728. In all probability you would have to drive seriously slowly to have a real impact on the timetable. You see this in practice when you first qualify and are naturally more cautious. New drivers do not generally chalk up a disproportionate level of delays. Of course drivers may react differently to conditions – some are more likely to go for a consistently lower speed in response to cautionary signalling to avoid the danger signal, others might prefer to bring their train to a halt at the danger signal in the hope that it will clear whilst in their sights, so to speak. How much difference this makes I am not sure.

     As for hazards I would wager that bus and train drivers have to face just as many as each other – just different ones. The one common factor is the public – I look forward to them having a black box!

729. As an afterthought a good example of slow driving having an impact is when authorised to pass a defective signal at danger. One must proceed at caution to the next signal which in practice means, given all the conditions (braking capability, gradient, curvature, weather) at a speed at which the train can be halted in the distance that can be seen. If the usual speed is 60 and you have proceeded at 15-20 then it will clearly have an impact. But even the most cautious driver would be unlikely to do less than about 50 in normal conditions to give them a wider comfort zone. It tends to be events that slow trains down rather than deliberate slow driving per se. Of course, the timetable has to take account of defensive driving policies too!

730. @WW “unless you run trains with no seats whatsoever!”
     — You jest, but I have been on just such a train, at least the carriage I boarded had no seats at all — a suburban DMU in Buenos Aires.

731. timbeau – “It has always been the practice for the guard on a train formed of two or more units to ride in a unit other than the one the driver is in, and as near the middle of the train as possible.” Not so on either count, at least on the SR. In the mid sixties it moved its guards in multi-unit sets from the rear van of the rear unit (as far from the middle of the train as possible!) to the rear van of the front unit, leaving the rear unit unstaffed – I imagine that this lasted until the end of dual-vanned units.

     In those compartmented ungangwayed days it probably didn’t make a whole lot of difference for passengers, but in the interests of accuracy….

732. @ PZT – I wasn’t really jesting. I know there are trains in Tokyo where some carriages have seats that fold up in the peaks meaning they are standee only carriages at those times. I’m not surprised that other places have “no seat” carriages. I am actually surprised that we haven’t had an experiment with such carriages in London – either on the tube or on a very busy rail line.

733. straphan,

     I am struggling to reconcile your statement

     The key constraint on most routes is the number of platforms available at London termini

     which is made in this comment with

     @PoP: I never said the issue is a lack of platforms at termini.

     which is stated in this comment.

734. @Mike
     “it moved its guards ……………to the rear van of the front unit,”

     Strange – I thought I always saw the guard in the front van of the rear unit if there were two, and the rear van of the middle unit if there were three.

735. timbeau – I clearly remember discussions at the time of the removal of staff from the rear units of Central Division 8SUBs. Perhaps the SW Division had a different policy?

736. I passed Cambridge Heath at ground level today. No sign of a 3D roundel but there is a large flag-style Overground sign, large Overground name board above the entrance and a branded ticket machine outside.

737. @PoP: You are right, I did sound rather contradictory. Let me rephrase and clarify:

     My main issue with dead-end termini is that their nature causes conflicts at the throat, where outbound trains have to cross the paths of inbound trains on the flat. Aside from the obvious constraint on capacity this also requires a degree of synchronisation between the timetables in either direction.

     Secondly, terminals have a limited amount of space for trains to terminate in them, as the trains have to be timetabled to sit for some time in the platforms to maintain service performance, and to allow drivers to walk to the other end (in some cases).

     For some London termini, the key constraint will be the issue of throat conflicts. For others it will be a lack of platforms, or a combination of both. Fewer still will have their primary constraints located somewhere outside Central London.

     We did discuss the merit of incremental changes to capacity, but – as ngh rightly pointed out – the design process for these schemes is too slow to keep pace with demand. Hence my suggestion to skip this and move on straight to tunnelling.

738. @GTR Driver: First of all, I appreciate safety should come first and that nobody wants to end up in a situation like the Amagasaki disaster:

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amagasaki_rail_crash

     Having said that, though, I fear that through the process of lowering risk of accidents through driver error we may have passed the ‘RP’ point in ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable). The way you describe your interactions with TPWS it sounds like some sort of guessing game, where the system expects you to slow down but doesn’t tell you by how much. That – to me – is a sorry state of affairs. TPWS should be there to help you drive safely, and not be a threat to your career.

     Sadly, drivers’ reactions to the system unnecessarily reduce capacity – simply by making trains occupy each signalling block for longer than necessary from a safety point of view. Japanese ATP systems, for example, constantly tell the driver which speed they should try to stick to, notifying the driver of the max speed in advance, and with their TPWS-equivalent tuned to kick in a few km/h above the limit. If UK ATP systems had a similar philosophy the railway would be just as punctual and have just as much capacity…

739. An example for Staphan’s last paragraph from the comment at 1556:

     NR is publicly using 100% growth in passengers at Waterloo since privatisation (equivalent to compound growth of 3.7%pa) in its PR material for the forth coming works to the ex international platforms and lengthening P1-4 for 10 car.
     Assuming 10 car on all SWT metro services gives an 25% extra capacity (i.e. all 8car to all 10 car which won’t actually happen but less seating and more standing will make up the difference…).
     25% extra capacity @3.7%pa growth is used up in just 6 years and it will be 10+ years since it started to be planned in earnest (start of CP4 planning) to completion of the works at Waterloo and the delivery of the 707s.

     The problem is 3.7% now is twice what 3.7% was in 1996…

740. ngh, straphan

     ngh’s comment superbly illustrates the problem. At Waterloo the saviour of tunnels to help out will not happen until 2030 – if Crossrail 2 is built to the current schedule. And that is for a scheme that is already on the drawing board. However we can’t just wait for that, let alone its successors, so trains on lines serving Waterloo are being lengthened where possible and practical and the former international platforms are being brought back into use to do something in the meantime. What is done now will still be of benefit if/when Crossrail 2 does eventually open.

     On the subject of TPWS you have to bear in mind it was introduced as a relatively crude interim solution because of the delay in introducing some form of Automatic Train Protection. Accidents at Southall and Ladbroke Grove concentrated minds somewhat and showed that the old AWS on its own was not good enough. It wasn’t designed with operating efficiently in mind. Whilst unsatisfactory in many ways it worked better than anyone expected (and TPWS+ which was an improved version was better still) as far as safety was involved. TPWS does at least provide valuable breathing space so as to develop a proper working ERTMS without being under enormous pressure to produce something quickly – we all know how that usually ends up.

741. Re PoP,

     But where are the plans for incremental capacity increase from 10 car to 12car SWT Metro (Main and Windsors) to bridge the capacity gap to CR2 then!
     At current planing and execution rates planning would need to well underway already…

742. Waterloo is a subject (several, probably) all of its own, just like all the other London termini. It’s just happens to be the busiest, so is extra difficult to deal with. When the good bigwigs of the London and South Western planned that really snaky extension route from Nine Elms to Waterloo Bridge, I expect they thought they were really being clever!

743. @PoP

     I fully endorse your comments regarding TPWS. The lack of any major collision incidents and consequent fatalities in recent years at a time when traffic has become denser and trains more crowded can be put down largely to the presence of TPWS. UK’s mainline network was decidedly behind the times by European standardss in not having any form of simple overspeed and trainstop system, present in Germany since before WWII (Indusi) and from the 1980s in France (KVB). Whether TPWS was the right technical solution is another matter, but the system in use today was already under development before Ladbroke Grove, and whilst the national project was massive in scale, the solution was technically very simple for each site on the infrastructure and also for rolling stock fitment, on new trains as well as old. ATP pilot schemes of the early 1990s might have set a different standard, but the systems were several times the price of TPWS and were complex and time-consuming to engineer for the trackside and the onboard systems were very difficult to apply to older traction. The various proprietary solutions were also already fast becoming eclipsed by the promise of the future ETCS standard for the track to train interface. Given the realities of the time, TPWS was the only realistic solution and the right solution. No other system could have been installed so widely, so cheaply and so quickly. Undoubtedly, it has saved a great many lives and injuries, and has helped to restore rail’s fully justified reputation as a safe mode of transport in the minds of the public.

744. @PeeZedTee, WW: I wondered if the train PeeZedTee went on in Buenos Aires was in fact one of the retired Tokyo trains that went second-hand to Brazil, then I realised that that would be an EMU not a DMU.

     Maybe the reason we haven’t seen completely seat-less trains tried on, say, the Waterloo and City is because the space under the seats is needed for equipment in tube stock, given the very restricted loading gauge?

     The comments about TPWS and the unknown trigger speed are interesting. Is it a deliberate policy by Network Rail not to reveal the trigger speeds (to encourage drivers to err on the side of caution), or is it just another example of poor communication in the vertically dis-integrated railway?

     @Mark Townend: Indeed, the Pennsylvania Railroad had cab signalling and speed control back in the 1920s, using the pulse code idea later adopted for the Victoria Line. But the Tube was always more receptive to American practice than the mainline railways.

     @PoP: TPWS does at least provide valuable breathing space so as to develop a proper working ERTMS without being under enormous pressure to produce something quickly

     I agree, and in principle with ERTMS you can also piggyback off development work done by other countries too. We had better hope Railtrack/Network Rail used the time they bought widely, as they are about to come under enormous pressure to get ERTMS working on Crossrail (west) and Thameslink – probably the biggest risk to both projects.

745. Ian J – possibly more fundamentally, roughly twice the space used for equipment under the seats of a tube train is needed for the wheels! And at a little over six feet tall I can think of another reason for not expecting too many people to stand hard up against the bodysides of a tube profile car…

746. Re: TPWS trigger speeds, I gather that C2C told their drivers what they were to avoid unnecessary slowdowns. So it’s either a case of other TOCs wanting to be more cautious or what I have noticed to be a prevalent problem – if it is not explicitly specified by rule book or franchise spec then it is not on the radar!

747. @GTR Driver: I would have thought every driver should have been told this during their training, with TPWS trigger speeds shown on signs.

     Also, I understand the platform reoccupation times at London Victoria have been changed in the current timetable planning rules from 3 to 4 minutes precisely because of 12-car trains crawling through the points at the throat at half the speed limit. This means the train service is likely to worsen in the peak. This to me is a clear example where defensive driving has eaten significantly into capacity.

     @PoP: Given a dearth of planning and engineering resources within the rail industry, as well as a shortage of funds, I think strategic decisions need to be made about what to focus on. As I mentioned before, I do not think the rates of demand growth around London make it possible to carry on focusing on the short-term incremental schemes.

748. straphan,

     I suspect that the platform reoccupation times you describe is precisely the sort of thing TfL would focus on if they were in charge and do everything possible to reduce re-occupation times without compromising safety.

     I can see we are never going to agree regarding short term measures but I think the past few years with Crossrails I and II suggest that big businesses and the city (and even to some extent the treasury) will set aside large sums if they feel they getting something worthwhile for it. I don’t think money is as big an issue as you make out.

     On the subject engineering resources then surely this would not be a major problem with clashing with short term measures since initially the main effort goes into building the tunnels. The people doing this will probably be those currently involved with the Thames Tideway storm relief project and there will not be a further stretch of rail resources.

     Furthermore, by concentrating on both short and long term projects, you provide a stable career for people like future signal engineers who will want to be part of a thriving expanding industry.

     Of course, once you get to the point where railway expertise and manpower is required in large quantities after the tunnels have been built then that must take priority. But, as Crossrail has shown, this is a relatively short period of three or four years. You cannot bring railway development to a halt just for a three or four year period that may happen in the future – and if you do you will lose all the expertise anyway.

749. We should not get the effect defensive driving has out of proportion. The line speed into terminal platforms is usually only 15-20 mph max anyway; even an 8 car train probably won’t need to slow substantially before the buffer stop grids loom; so on a 12 car platform only the last couple of coaches on the longest train will be slowed notably as they enter the platform. And regardless of grids and sanctions to slow drivers down, it seems counter intuitive to approach the buffers at more than 10 anyway.

     Slowdowns in platform re occupation have other causes also. Timetables have not necessarily been updated to take account of longer trains taking longer to clear junctions and crossovers which would have always been the case regardless of speed. Also there are all manner of delay causing events that only make sense when one is at the sharp end. There are minimum times required to empty and reload trains. Drivers can’t always reach the cab due to the mass of passengers. Drivers need the loo or a drink, especially in the event of a heavy delay coming in or a scorching hot day, and such human concerns aren’t taken into account. Trains are advertised late. Faults need to be checked. Things at the moment seem to be based on zero contingency and this will continue to have consequences.

     If TfL roster their crews to allow for the above; always ensure trains are advertised with plenty of time; keep their staff properly informed so they can find their train early and tell passengers where they are; allow time for problems; keep engineers in strategic places etc etc we could see things improved. Interestingly if the jungle drums are to be believed their drivers are the most defensive of all, hitting every platform at 15-20 and dwelling for 30 seconds I believe even if no one gets on or off with a timetable to allow for this.

750. @GTR Driver
     “There are minimum times required to empty and reload trains. ”
     And at termini, trains length also affects this factor as platforms take longer to clear, and to train to be re-filled, unless you want the front cars to be empty – especially given the propensity of the first arrivals on the platform to board nearest the barrier, leaving the late arrivals to have to walk further to find space.

     Several termini should, and relatively easily could, have a second concourse at their “country” end.

751. @PoP: Looking at:

     – how all ‘unprotected’ departments have been asked to come up with savings of up to 40% for the upcoming spending review
     – how ‘well’ Network Rail is coping with their CP5 workload
     – how maintaining certain parts of the railway is becoming impossible alongside the implementation of major projects (I have seen issues appearing with accommodating Crossrail on the Great Western, and HS2 on the WCML) due to the lack of time available to take major possessions, as well as a lack of resources available (look at last Christmas when there were no freight drivers available anywhere in the country to help out with the King’s Cross overrun)

     …I think we will indeed have to agree to disagree on the issue of whether both incremental and ‘big bang’ infrastructure schemes can indeed be accommodated alongside each other in the near future.

     @GTR Driver: I have been informed that Southern drivers’ policy is to slow to 10mph the moment they can see the red lights at the buffer stops. That – to me – is excessive.

     Let’s look at the physics for a second. 20mph is just shy of 9m/s. A typical rate of service braking for a train is in the order of 0.5 to 0.75 m/s^2*. I’ve done two quick runs of my train run model (assuming a 4-car 357 timing load), which shows braking distances of between 59 and 86 metres. This would suggest that even if you were doing 20mph at the end of the platform you would still be able to brake comfortably in any weather conditions.

     I absolutely agree with you that there are inconsistencies within the operational rules, and that especially the dwell times at major stations are insufficient (South of the Thames anyway). But I still think defensive driving has a lot to do with how much capacity is lost on the railway today.

752. The big problem with TPWS generally is that it either trips to emergency brake on overspeed or not at all, and in the latter case it has no subsequent ‘state memory’ of having passed the loops. A driver could in theory apply hard acceleration immediately after the successfully passing through an overspeed loop then arrive at the following trainstop loop at such a speed as to have insufficient braking distance available to stop within the safe overrun. This behaviour is less advanced than older continental systems like Indusi in Germany which ‘remembers’ the restriction for a set distance or time and continues to hold the train to it. With TPWS, on approach to a signal the ‘set speed’ for overspeed detection is adjusted very finely according to position of the loops relative to the signal and other factors. There is a desire to keep the system ‘invisible’ to drivers in order that they are not encouraged in any way to reaccelerate after passing the loops, but of course there are differences in braking performance between trains types, and that generally manifests in a more cautious approach than absolutely necessary for the most modern trains with the best brakes. There is some compensation for braking performance for freight trains with a slightly different timer setting onboard, and some locomotives can switch between freight and passenger modes. Whilst there’s little likelyhood of overspeed trigger speeds for signals or bufferstops ever being signposted at the trackside, the industry looks like it is actively considering better guidance for TPWS associated with permanent speed restrictions. Here is a research brief from RSSB on the subject:

     http://www.rssb.co.uk/library/research-development-and-innovation/research-brief-T1014.pdf

     The findings report is here for anyone registered with RSSB and SPARK:

     http://www.rssb.co.uk/pages/research-catalogue/t1014.aspx

     And here it is in the public domain courtesy of ASLEF and found by Google:

     http://www.aslef.org.uk/files/140906/FileName/RSSBspeedrestrictionsreport.pdf

     The London Underground network has always had a trainstop system and has cleverly adapted it over the years for many purposes including speed and bufferstop controls. LU trains are typically of the same type, the same length, and have the same braking performance as others on the same line and in many places they are not subject to the varying adhesion levels generally experienced on the surface main lines due to weather. They have traditionally employed a more aggressive driving style approaching danger signals, knowing they have a full emergency braking distance overlap protecting them beyond the signal. All that tends to keep platform reoccupation time down to a minimum.

753. Mark Townend,

     And LU also tend to have a further area beyond the final stop light to give yet further protection. This used to be a sand drag though I understand if left unmaintained the sand drag could have the consistency of solid concrete so passively forcefully stopping the train is done differently now.

754. Straphan, I quite agree, that is excessive. But that isn’t what the policy says! We are asked to enter terminal platforms at 15mph then progressively reduce the speed taking TPWS grids into account. It’s known that buffer stop grids are set at 10mph so we are asked to do 6mph over them. The train is stopping anyway, it isn’t going to make that much difference at a terminal. It’s on the open lines that TPWS grids can cause unnecessary crawling. Coming into Clapham Junction on the up Brighton slow one is often faced by a danger signal round a corner followed by an overspeed grid for a 20mph limit followed by the limit. Having slowed for the stop grid for the danger signal, not to mention giving yourself enough time to stop at it(!), there isn’t time to get much of a speed up if starting from a halt, and even if it clears, there isn’t much point accelerating ahead of a similarly low speed limit only to stop at the platform a few seconds later.

755. @Pedantic of Purley, 28 July 2015 at 17:23

     Many overrun tunnels at terminals on the more modern tube lines extend at least a full overlap distance beyond the platform end. In an emergency such a tunnel can often be used to stable a crippled train out of the way, but then the signalling will enforce a highly restricted ‘warning’ approach for any following trains arriving in that platform, At least it can be used albeit at the cost of reduced capacity. On main lines, run-off spurs at the end of sidings use friction buffer stops today instead of sand drags for the reason you describe. Bufferstops are more expensive but they remain fully effective as an arresting device with minimal maintenance.

756. @GTR Driver

     Your comments re Up Brighton slow at Clapham Junction interested me as I travelled daily to school from CJ to Balham from 1963 to 1969, and often do the journey today.

     From passenger comfort prospective, especially when standing, I appreciate the slower speeds. I remember the old SUB units, famously with no speedometer, were often driven fast on occasions. I do remember when the train would `hit` Falcon Junction at 35 to 40 mph, slam on the brakes, and the train would lurch alarmingly at the first reverse curve in Platform 14.

757. London, although not the Overground, is the NR bay platform at Greenford Central Line station something that couldn’t happen today if it were not already in situ? Does this mean the clock is ticking for it?

758. @ Castlebar Well given that Greenford also has two through tracks although without platforms and with semaphore signals and on which I have only seen freight trains then a diversion/ extension of Greenford service may become an option. As to whether it would use trains, light rail or even tram trains will depend on plans to upgrade rail services in west London .

759. @straphang: I think we will indeed have to agree to disagree on the issue of whether both incremental and ‘big bang’ infrastructure schemes can indeed be accommodated alongside each other in the near future.

     The problem with that reasoning is that if it really isn’t possible to do both incremental and big bang projects, the only viable option is to abandon the big bang projects in favour of the incremental ones, since the big bang projects have no hope of being ready in time.

     But is the question “can Network Rail do both” (demonstrably not), or “does the UK have the ability to do both” – and if not, can the resources be obtained from elsewhere? Tunnellers are an internationally mobile workforce. International pension funds are crying out for infrastructure schemes to invest in. Signalling and rolling stock are provided by multinational companies and cheaper if don’t try to make them country-specific. And TfL seem to have been able to construct Crossrail at the same time as upgrading various tube lines.

760. @GTR Driver: Fair enough. That – still – is 5mph below the actual speed limit. I do not have the sim model on me to check whether that has a material impact, but I suspect with a 12-car train it may tip the platform reoccupation times to 4 minutes instead of 3.

     Otherwise I absolutely agree with you that there is a serious disconnect between timetable planners and drivers and signalling staff that is tasked with operating that timetable. This disconnect is unlikely to be resolved any time soon given operational planning sits within NR, whereas train drivers are in completely different organisations.

     Altogether I get the impression that there is still much to be done to improve the timetable production process that would improve both reliability and capacity. Timetable simulation processes, for example, do not take into account defensive driving policies at all. There are also plenty of places where the operational rules do not reflect the situation on the ground. Also, as I understand it, the timetable information provided to drivers does not take into account any information on allowances which have become more and more commonplace as the railway fills up. Finally, politics does not help – on the one hand the franchise specification does not take into account the possibility of tightening operational rules (e.g. if headway changes make it impossible to run certain services the DfT does not care and still holds the franchisee to account); on the other hand nobody is interested in making obvious but unpopular changes to the rules (e.g. extending peak dwells at East Croydon) for fear of public pressure forcing politicians to invest in the infrastructure to resolve these issues.

     A veritable viper’s nest indeed, this timetabling business…

     @Ian J: TfL may indeed ‘seem’ to be able to do both Crossrail and the tube upgrade programme at once, but I’m not sure this is just about them being better organised. This is also about them having a higher profile and therefore more political clout – I really do wonder whether delays to the GW electrification project are not in part due to pressure put on by Crossrail to complete its work.

     Furthermore, the pool of people who are signalling or electrification experts is currently too small, and takes a good few years to develop – which I think is the key reason behind current ‘pauses’ in the investment programme. I don’t think there is enough time to develop enough of these skills to cater for both short- and longer- term projects.

761. @straphan: This disconnect is unlikely to be resolved any time soon given operational planning sits within NR, whereas train drivers are in completely different organisations.

     Government funding for Network Rail will soon be routed through the train drivers’ employers, which might concentrate minds a bit.

     This is also about them having a higher profile and therefore more political clout

     I’m not sure this is true – a national organisation like Network Rail will always have more political clout in Westminster than a regional one like TfL – hence all the “Northern Powerhouse” rhetoric. Just look at how much more quickly approval was given to electrification to South Wales and the Electric Spine over GOBLIN.

     I really do wonder whether delays to the GW electrification project are not in part due to pressure put on by Crossrail to complete its work.

     If it wasn’t for the head start on electrification on the GWML due to Crossrail then Network Rail would be in even more strife that it is.

     the pool of people who are signalling or electrification experts is currently too small, and takes a good few years to develop – which I think is the key reason behind current ‘pauses’ in the investment programme.

     Then why didn’t Network Rail recognise it as an issue when planning the Control Period 5 work and take steps to address it? Crossrail built their own tunnelling academy to get the workforce they needed.

     Is part of the problem that Network Rail thought that the productivity of the electrification workforce would be much higher than it actually has been, so they underestimated the number of people needed? Certainly the much-vaunted factory trains don’t seem to have worked as well as Network Rail assumed they would.

762. @Ian J:

     – The re-routing of NR funding through TOCs is just an accounting trick. NR has been re-located to the public sector because the ONS decided most of its income was coming from the Treasury. Now that this money will be routed through private TOCs, the ONS will be minded to put NR (plus its £38bn of debt) back into the private sector. That – to my mind – is the only purpose of that announcement.

     – How much input has Network Rail had into the ‘Northern Powerhouse’ rhetoric? All that has happened is that the Government has dumped more work in the North than Network Rail could handle, and all NR did was salute, shout ‘Yes, Sir!’ and pretend to get on with it. It has no political clout whatsoever. The only reason approvals were given for the Electric Spine or Wales electrification was that the DfT were the sole funding body, so there was no squabbling over who forks out what.

     – Regarding GW electrification: bear in mind Crossrail was due to terminate at Maidenhead not so long ago. Shifting the scope and deadlines so late into the game must have definitely had an impact on the delay, although I understand that in the Great Western case the issue lies more with NR overestimating the productivity of its equipment rather than the time it needed in terms of possessions as you rightly state.

     NR did take on more projects than it could handle at the beginning of CP5 as the mentality prevalent around that time was ‘If there is all this money thrown at us, we’ll take it, we won’t have a bonanza like this ever again!’. As nobody thought of the deliverability implications, we are now where we are. And Crossrail and other major projects complicate things in that they often require possessions that make regular maintenance or other smaller enhancements impossible. And not just on the Great Western – bear in mind that larger weekend closures have to be co-ordinated across routes. Hence additional engineering access requirements on the Western mean that maintenance suffers on the Chiltern (if Marylebone is shut Paddington is the alternative). Again, because of NR’s lack of political clout their needs are trumped by ‘the largest engineering project in Europe’ whose delivery is far more politically sensitive than tamping a few kms of track, renewing some footbridges, or putting in a few electricity poles somewhere out near Swindon.

763. @straphan – I suspect you are right about the reason for the NR income trick; the main problem will be that DfT seems to have acquired a taste for controlling NR and has altered its constitution to ensure that it does. So there will be a power struggle on the subject. Even more problematic – but not for the sort of time horizon that our politicians use – is that the problem of NR’s perenially growing debt mountain will re-appear because it, if in the private sector,has to finance itself as if it were a solvent business whereas in the public sector, it is remunerated – as was BR – with Treasury IOUs. The private sector looming bankruptcy can – and probably will – be dealt with by splitting up NR and creating a liability/debt holding entity (in the manner of JNR), so leaving the mini-NRs debt free – for a time… All this requires legislation,however, and I can’t see that as an urgent priority forHMG.

764. @Ian J
     “Government funding for Network Rail will soon be routed through the train drivers’ employers, which might concentrate minds a bit.”
     The only recent example where the TOCs (the train drivers’ employers) and Network Rail were already working in partnership was the SWT Alliance: that didn’t turn out well.

765. @Graham H: You are quite right about the debt. Given it has now grown to about half of a Greek bailout tranche I do wonder when HMC will sit up and take notice. Either way – the longer the issue is ignored (or kicked out of the public sector) the worse the eventual fallout.

766. @timbeau – I don’t think anyone’s considering the routing of funding for rail infrastructure through the TOCs to leas to improved partnership working. Possibly, perhaps, maybe, giving them some clout, and spotting areas for improvement that they now have some control over.

     As I understood it, the SWT “strategic partnership”, “deep integration”, or whatever, was nothing of the sort, and NR was firmly in the lead.

767. @MikeP – “NR was firmly in the lead.” Oddly enough, my spy in SWT – who had a lot to do with the partnership, didn’t get the impression that Stagecoach would agree with you. The partners parted brass rags – if you read the press notices carefully – was because of differing financial objectives. It was no coincidence that the divorce took place following the nationalisation of NR…

768. @ Straphan – I’m going to quibble a little with your comment about “NR grabbing all the project cash”. It can’t actually grab anything unless ORR considers a scheme to be costed at an efficient level and that it is deliverable. IIRC Roger Ford of Modern Railways has highlighted this in the past and said there was a considerable queue of projects in CP5 and on the Government’s shopping list of extra work that had not got through ORR’s evaluation process. They’re therefore not really committed schemes at all. Clearly Government went “mad” in forever adding schemes in every Budget or Autumn Statement. If you were being particularly “conspiratorial” you might even ponder if it was deliberate – pile on the pressure until the organisation breaks under the strain thus opening pandora’s box of “restructuring options”. You also create a political clamour across parties for “rail investment” that will make any subsequent “poison pill” of NR reorganisation rather more palatable if it means MPs get “their” scheme earlier than might otherwise have the case.

     I am slightly surprised that the DfT and Treasure have seemingly agreed to (re)create a massive “money go round” through the TOCs. I’ve long understood that HMT really dislikes “money go rounds” because it can create undesired effects. I note also that Mr Ford is deeply sceptical that the TOCs will be minded to upset what is just now another offshoot of the government. As he said “do you really go out to annoy your ulitmate paymaster?”. I think the answer to that is “no”.

     I don’t envy Sir Peter Hendy in trying to work through the morass of issues that must be flying round Network Rail and in the wider political arena. I also get a slight sense that DfT is being sidelined in some aspects of transport policy. We now have two examples of “Bus devolution” being announced by departments other than the DfT. That doesn’t bode well for wider coherence in transport policy decision making.

769. @Graham H
     “parted brass rags”? Please explain.

770. @Nameless – to part company disagreeing violently.

     @WW – hadn’t you noticed? We only have one department of state these days – the organisations formerly known as ministries are simply its executive arms (aka fall guys). Although this has been looming for many decades, the transition finally took place during the Blair era,when the PM was content to leave domestic policy to Brown whilst he spent his time more usefully abroad…

771. @Graham H ….. I recognise the sentiment about Brown/Blair, but would disagree that Blair spent his time more usefully abroad. Make sense however if “more usefully” is deleted. Then again you were probably being ironic!

772. @130
     useful to Anthony Lyndon Blair, by making a name for himself as an international statesman, and therefore accruing a lot of moolah potential on the lecture circuit.

773. Just to note that the speculation on the political legacy of a Prime Minister is not relevant to this topic nor LR in general, so we shall be ending it forthwith.

774. straphan
     The re-routing of NR funding through TOCs is just an accounting trick
     Indeed see Mr Ford in Modern Railways this month & justifyably sarcastic remarks about “Wooden Dollars” etc ….
     
     [snip PoP]

775. @straphan/GT – _ I”forgot” to add how all this will play out. Once NR (or the little NRs) have been separated from their debt and their liabilities, that debt can be sold (think student loans, but in this case a triple A bet because it’s remunerated by the TOCs and although they may individually go bust, no one would let the industry go bust as a whole, would they… ?) . So, from the Treasury’s point of view,that’s not merely £38bn off the public debt, but another £38bn of cash income to boot. £76bn is in theur view, a prize to be fought for. Mentioning Ponzi schemes at this point is vulgar – Britain has risen to greatness on Ponzi schemes.

     Even “better”, the little nr- s are now debt free and so can lower access charges (remember that more than a quarter of NR’s costs are absorbed by finance and debt service). This means that TOC subsidy can be reduced accordingly. (Please be patient here; of course, the nr-s will accumulate debt once more, but the Treasury will expect them not to because they will be so much more efficient). So the nr-s will be profitable, too,won’t they?And can be sold to — err, the TOCs – I did tell you this was a Ponzi scheme. McNulty redevivus.

     The final cherry on the cake. Remember Colin Powell’s remarks about Saddam Hussein: “The best way to kill a snake is to cut it’s head off”. BR was just such a snake – always devising ever more expensive investment projects. Get rid of NR and leave the mini-nr-s as merely system management . Major schemes – of which there could be none – will be handled by specific companies such as HS2 Ltd, or some Austrian-style major projects company firmly under the control of the the state. Without these giant loss makers such as HS2, the industry is supposed to be profitable, right?

     Simples. You didn’t actually want a better service did you? Or any sort of service?

776. @ Graham H – and then there are a couple of fatal train crashes that can be traced back to the “efficient and profit chasing” behaviours of the “mini NRs” and the whole edifice collapses in a monstrous heap. Ever the optimist – me! 🙂 🙂

777. @WW – Did I say it would end well? No, we shall have another crisis of the sort you describe, or a financial one (eg LOROL/TLK services terminated indefinitely because of the bankruptcy of “Rail South”). The cost of sorting it out will be large and equally short term… Cynic moi? [What really annoys me is that the Treasury are like the Bourbons – they forget nothing and learn nothing.]

778. @GH
     So why not short circuit some of the unlovely future history and hand some of the London suburban elements to TfL to manage that infrastructure, especially where there are primarily suburban service characteristics on at least 2 tracks? Chiltern for example use the LUL infrastructure Amersham-Harrow. Crossrail 1 might make a case out to Shenfield? As for SWT and the failed Alliance, over to you to comment!

779. @MC – Indeed. My policy has always been to save something from the wreck (as with the W&C) . As to the failed alliance,I had read – probably mistakenly- between the linesof the accompanying press notice, that the real cause was irreconcilable differences in financial objectives – and putting two and two together and making the usual sum -I believe it is no coincidence that this took place so soon after DfT took steps to complete its control of NR.

780. @ MC – in London we have a lot of unavoidable “boundaries” between the various rail systems. Having had to manage up to and sometimes across those boundaries it’s no fun slogging through the vast layers of organisational treacle to find someone who can actually help fix a problem. While all organisations have their internal politics and power plays it can become ludicrous when multiplied umpteen fold between organisations trying to run a service. I’d argue that the last thing we want to be doing is creating even more boundary lines and certainly not on adjacent tracks if we look at Crossrail on the Great Eastern Main Line. Inevitably there will be boundaries between the TfL owned tunnel bits and NR on Crossrail and it remains to be seen if systems can be integrated successfully across them.

     Railways are cohesive systems and should ideally be managed as such. That the Treasury doesn’t understand this comes as no great shock. I think it is dangerous to postulate about TfL taking over bits of NR given we really have no idea of TfL’s direction and priorities post 2016 nor do we know what funding it will have. It is bad enough that national rail policy can be subject to 5 yearly swings but TfL’s is subject to 4 year swings although no Mayor has yet just served a single term. I’m not sure it’s sensible to shift bits of the NR network into 4 year policy switch windows as that cuts across the current the Control Period timespans. If someone was to rewrite the entire industry structure and funding and do it on a national basis then there *might* be an opportunity to tidy things in and around London but I’m not convinced you’d get a necessarily better result in terms of long term planning and secure long term funding that would support proper asset management practices and rational investment planning. I doubt anyone in Whitehall is remotely bothered about the two key practices in the preceding sentence – they’re only concerned about reducing funding.

781. @WW
     That’s a nice set of arguments for the status quo. However, London’s suburban lines have to come up to the mark with semi mass transit capability and competence, to achieve an 80% growth in capacity. Is there any evidence that Network Rail is equal to the task? Other commenters than me, have already noted that Thameslink will struggle to achieve a reliable 24 trains per hour through the central area, when something nearer 30 may be required in not too many years. The TfL proposition for higher frequencies in South London may sit awkwardly with a Network Rail position that at the margin favours longer not more frequent trains. And so on. We generally accept that we have a foreseen capacity crisis, where commonly aligned sets of interventions will be required to address the position robustly. Hence it is not unreasonable to consider whether changes in infrastructure management could be part of the solution.

782. @MC/WW – in a sense, you are both right – if you take a sufficiently pragmatic view. In many cases where there are four tracks (even more so with six), a pair could be handed over to TfL although you will nearly always have problems at termini where the platforming is (partially) pooled. I agree with WW that multiplication of interfaces is thoroughly undesirable, but even in pre-privatisation days LU used BR infrastructure quite extensively. Outside of London, freight is a problem but again, inter-running agrements have been around for many decades (there is a bigger problem with freight access charges if NR is split up but that is off-piste here, I imagine). What I think is a mistake is to approach the problem with a set of fixed principles; this has bedevilled the procurement of public services ever since the days of Reith – eg, if it’s a train service provided at the taxpayer’s expense, it had to be provided by BR, if it’s a bus service for a public purpose, it had to be provided by a public bus company, and so on. That doesn’t imply dismantling a national network,nor does itimply privatisation – one looks enviously at Switzerland to see what can be done with a mixed economy approach.

783. @ MC – not so much the status quo as trying to ensure we don’t lose the plot if change is required. I suspect the bigger challenge in NR is actually a cultural one. My sense, as an outsider, is that NR doesn’t know what it wants to be or needs to be. The frequent changes in leadership in recent years have pushed the organisation hither and thither. My view is that NR is really three organisations in one – an operational business that ensures trains move safely across the country and stations are safe and clean for passengers and staff; an asset management business charged with efficient delivery of maintenance renewals and enhancements and finally a property company. I am not advocating a three way split as that way lies madness. What does have to happen is that an appropriate balance between these three main activities is struck that then allows proper resource allocation and management effort and oversight. If what ORR says is in any way correct then all three areas face a real struggle but they have to be sorted out.

     In terms of London commuting pressures I just think there needs to be a robust challenge to long standing culture in NR as to what is feasible. It should not be beyond NR’s capability to change what it does and how it does it to allow a more intensive service to run. It may cost a significant sum of money but it cannot be beyond NR’s competence. If we start accepting that NR is somehow an incompetent organisation beyond saving then we are setting ourselves up for a lost decade while we thrash through yet more structural change and distraction with all of the negative consequences that flow from that. Economically we simply can’t afford to have that happen. I don’t object to measured and controlled change that is led by professional railway people. We don’t need change imposed by overrumerated policy wonks who wouldn’t know a railway if it fell on their heads. I’ve had discussions with those sorts of undoubtedly very clever, very smooth and well connected people but still walked away thinking they don’t understand the day to day practicalities of how much of the world works.

784. @Graham H
     ” if you take a sufficiently pragmatic view. In many cases where there are four tracks (even more so with six), a pair could be handed over to TfL”

     If only it were that easy. It has been done in places – Bow to Upminster and Queens Park to Watford Junction are probably the best examples – but in most places the “slow” lines are used by trains passing far beyond any reasonable remit of a London-based authority. Take the South Western – the “slow” lines are used by trains going as far as Guildford and Dorking (and, beyond Epsom, the Dorking trains share tracks with trains to Horsham). On the “Windsor” side, the double track through Richmond is used by all services, some of them going as far as Reading. Similarly on the “Chatham” lines, the Orpington locals share tracks as far as Shortlands with the expresses to Dover and Ramsgate.
     If you extend the coverage further in order for the Home Counties to have their say, into a resurrected Network South East, we open a new can of worms – do we stop at Basingstoke? (the semi fasts share tracks with the longer distance stuff as far as Surbiton) Or do we go even further, (then starting to share tracks with Cross Country services)?

785. @timbeau – I was careful not to offer this as a panacea. I do think, however, that unless TfL is prepared to take on more infrastructure in the future, it will find itself in hock to the outcomes of the next round of rail industry reorganisation. I realise this forum is not really the place for us individually to press our favourite candidates – “Transferism” perhaps ( a heresy of the first magnitude?) – but I think the price for more extensive transfers will turn out to be well worthwhile in management terms. Do I hear complaints about the 1993 transfer package?

786. @straphan: the ONS will be minded to put NR (plus its £38bn of debt) back into the private sector

     Be careful what you wish for – if NR has to pay market rates for its debt, it will go bankrupt. If it has a state guarantee for its debt, it will count as national debt under the EU’s post-Greece accounting rules.

     Far from being just an “accounting trick”, I think the point of routing money through the TOCs to Network Rail, as Graham H has also suggested, is to make it a lot easier to replace Network Rail, be it through making mini-NRs, handing infrastructure responsibilities to the TOCs themselves (or TfL and other regional authorities), or outright privatisation. Or failing this, the threat of one or more of these options to keep NR’s new management on their toes.

     All that has happened is that the Government has dumped more work in the North than Network Rail could handle, and all NR did was salute, shout ‘Yes, Sir!’ and pretend to get on with it…nobody thought of the deliverability implications

     That is the problem, of course: Network Rail has over-promised to Government and under-delivered.

     bear in mind Crossrail was due to terminate at Maidenhead not so long ago. Shifting the scope and deadlines so late into the game must have definitely had an impact on the delay

     But Crossrail was only extended to Reading after it was decided to electrify to Oxford, which was due to be completed by 2016, several years before Crossrail services were due to start – in fact Network Rail’s website still has that date and a proud claim that the whole scheme is “on time”! So Crossrail itself had no impact on the deadlines and scope of the GWML electrification (except making it slightly easier by removing the need for various changes at Maidenhead).

     @WW: Railways are cohesive systems and should ideally be managed as such

     I couldn’t agree more. But the biggest cause of a lack of cohesion on the National Rail network is that above-rail operations are separated from below-rail operations. Handing infrastructure and enhancement responsibilities to the TOCs would remove the biggest single operational divide on the railways, at the cost of some geographic fragmentation. But that fragmentation seems inevitable to me anyway given the devolution of power over transport to local authorities like the GLA, and London has the TfL/NR divide already (indeed Crossrail services will interface with three infrastructure providers – TfL, NR and Heathrow Airport ).

     The most obvious candidates for handover from Network Rail to TfL would be the lines this thread is about – the Overground. Yes, you would need to put in place access agreements for freight and the other National Rail services, but does it really make sense for, say, the track on the East London Line to be run by a different organisation to the one running the trains?

     @timbeau:
     Queens Park to Watford Junction

     Actually this is a good example of a handover that could be made but hasn’t been – the DC lines carry only TfL services but are run by Network Rail – which itself adds another layer of risk into the Croxley Link project.

787. Ian J,

     but does it really make sense for, say, the track on the East London Line to be run by a different organisation to the one running the trains?

     I don’t understand this comment. The East London Line from Dalston Junction to New Cross/New Cross Gate is owned lock, stock and barrel by TfL. They chose to have Network Rail resignal and maintain it for them. So, unless you are criticising TfL’s management of this, the answer presumably has to be “yes”.

788. So how long before a few TOCs in the South-East are merged along with TfL’s heavy-rail operations and poof!! after 30 or so years Network SouthEast reappears ??

789. @Ian J
     “Handing infrastructure and enhancement responsibilities to the TOCs would remove the biggest single operational divide on the railways”

     So which TOC would be responsible for, for example, the East Coast Main Line south of Peterborough? Would the fast and slow lines have separate power supplies? What about tracks that are shared, such as the fast lines south of Hitchin (used by the Cambridge fasts).
     It is not difficult to find routes over which half a dozen TOCs operate – Cambridge – Ely, or the approaches to Manchester Piccadilly, or Edinburgh – Carstairs

790. @timbeau – these things are easily managed; many regulators and policy makers who have wrestled with the problems of managing shared infrastructure believe that OfQ was probably as good an essay at sorting the problem as is likely to be devised – no need for separate assets such as power supply.

791. @Graham H
     Indeed OfQ would be a good model if you do go down that road (a “prime user” responsbile for it, and renting space to other operators, who pay for any work specific to their needs (e.g freight operators paying for work needed to accomodate heavier axle loads, ohle if the prime user is diesel only, etc). But it would simply be slicing it another way – you would still need contracts, inter-company negotiation, etc.

792. @ PoP / Ian J – isn’t it the case that the ELL’s signalling is run by NR in terms of day to day operation? However the maintenance of the line’s assets was subcontracted by TfL to Carillion in a 7 year deal which lasts until 2016.

     http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/02/09/carillion-contract-idUSL958678220090209

     I am not wholly convinced that transferring infrastructure maintenance responsibilities to the TOCs necessarily solves anything. I’m not particularly convinced that splitting NR into umpteen “mini NRs” does very much either unless you’re a MD of the new organisation who can rake off lots of money until the next reorganisation happens. The “snouts in the trough” syndrome will be even worse if any of the mini NRs were to be shoved into the private sector. The “pro competition” loonies will love it all but it won’t do much to ensure trains run on time and safety is properly maintained.

793. Walthamstow Writer,

     I stand corrected. I didn’t realise TfL sub-contracted directly to a third party. I am not sure if that reinforces or undermines the points made.

794. @timbeau – indeed, but the need to allocate costs to activities is unavoidable in any business, whether integrated or disintegrated. The essential differences between OfQ and the privatised railway were that what were administrative codes in BR were legal contracts in the private sector, and the BR edifice was presided over by a directing mind which prioritised activity and resolved disputes. whereas in the private version, that has been lost or dispersed. [Of course, there were more private contracts than there were administrative agreements, but that reflected in part the creation of many more players and partly, our better understanding of the activities concerned].

795. The Japanese rail system seems like a good model to emulate. One umbrella organisation (lets just call it BR) split into several large divisions with complete ownership of track and train, and the shared ownership of one large freight company. I would suggest going back to the pre-1995 sectorisation , as much as I would love to see class 390s in the old Swallow livery, but I have a feeling one large “Regional Railways” company will do nothing to aid development in the North.
     To have a Japanese style system will however be stopped by EU legislation which I believe, prohibits the simultaneous ownership of track and train. If not, a series of BR Great Western BR West Coast and BR East Coasts may be the best way forward.

     P.s As a side note, I’m fond of how the Japanese railway companies have various other methods of generating income from other business ventures. Such as having a tourism arm, owning local bus routes to feed into stations and residential property near train stations.

796. @ Miles – I don’t believe ownership is prohibited. If it was then LU would be breaking the rules as would RATP given it runs mainline RER services on infrastructure it owns. Eurotunnel would also be in breach given it owns tunnels, terminals and runs trains. AIUI the requirement is separation of accounting and ensuring transparent, non discriminatory access to infrastructure is ensured. Most countries have opted to go for separation of operation and infrastructure and to create different legal organisations to meet those requirements.

     The deep irony about your last comment is that, of course, the old pre-BR railway companies did own bus companies, ships and hotels and actively promoted holiday travel. Not sure if they also owned shops. All the Japanese have done is been able to take an old model of integrated businesses and bring it into the 21st century. However beware easy comparisons between business practices that are permitted in Japan and what is allowed here. Several of the TOCs are owned by bus groups but the extent of their rail businesses waxes and wanes and we now have a lot of foreign rail ownership of UK rail than bus businesses. There seems to be a greater tolerance of wide corporate ownership in Japan and I’d guess those businesses have great sway over the political hierarchy in Japan thus ensuring such tolerance continues. Here is not the place to further that debate in terms of rights or wrongs.

797. @WW – Just so – there have been a number of leading cases, notably between the Commission and DB, about the precise degree of separation. The result of these various challenges appears to be that (a) a common infrastructure and ops holding company is permissible, provided (b) that the allocation of paths and their pricing is independent.

     @Miles – the Japanese model involved an enormous write-off of liabilities: besides the operating companies, there was an additional subsidiary whose role might usefully and accurately have been described as “the employer of unemployed JNR staff”. This has been a fairly common trick with UK privatisations, too, bundling up liabilities with a clutch of assets – typically property – to finance them after sale. Of course, this trick doesn’t address the root cause of the liabilities (which may not have gone away) nor does it give much transparency or taxpayer value.

     In the late ’80s, some of my civil service colleagues tried to interest ministers in this form of privatisation but I suspect that ministers – like me, I must confess – couldn’t see the point. [Cutting the cake differently neither improves its flavour, nor makes it bigger…]

798. timbeau
     [Edited for politeness. LBM]
     A railway company outright owned track, or a joint company or organisation did (usually a subsidiary board, with the parent owning companies operating different “bits” of the joint enterprise.)
     If another company wanted to run trains over others’ track, they had to obtain “running powers” & pay a levy to the owning company – a bit like today’s “track access charges”.
     All of this was monitored & mediated by … “The Railway Clearing House” whose track diagrams are so beloved of many of us.

     A return to “proper” companies, with no track/train split would, in fact be a return to (probably) 1922.

     Miles
     EU legislation which I believe, prohibits the simultaneous ownership of track and train.
     A common misconception – often deliberately “pushed” by both Railtrack & back in the 1990’s doctrinaire tories.
     Ain’t true though.
     What is required is that the track & trains be separately accounted for – not the same thing at all.

799. @greg
     I was aware of the RCH system: my point was that I don’t think it would be any less complex to administer than what we have now. Cut the cake a different way and it tastes the same and feeds just as many people (contract lawyers mainly………).

800. @timbeau – “I don’t think it would be any less complex to administer than what we have now” – not really. Just to take stations as an example: every station on the network requires a lease and a license, whether operations are shared or not; every additional operator, including freight, then requires a station access agreement. If extra access, other than merely stopping, then further agreements are needed – for example to access crew rest rooms, provide fitter cover, and so on. Depots have equally similar complexities, whether shared or not. Then there is the awkward problem that if the underlying documentation shifts for the base player, all the others may have to change, too. As you may imagine, where there are several operators, such as York, this can become time consuming to change. In the “old” railway, pre-1948, it is highly likely that inter-company agreements concentrated on a relatively few aspects of operations.

     The sum total of all the agreements that I had to put in place to populate the contractual matrix was of the order of 30, 000, all, of course, in triplicate and many with multiple signatories (almost always myself wearing a different hat – the record was I think one document to which there were 27 parties, with yours truly representing all of them, each copy of which – and each party required three signed copies – required six of my signatures; not quite 500 signatures in all. Now, it took me 7 seconds to sign with rollerball on cream laid paper and 2 seconds for my staff to place and remove the document, so about an hour and a quarter to produce one document – a good use of time…

     I am glad the cake parable found f(l)avour.

801. OfQ is Organising for Quality, British Rail’s initiative to streamline its organisation and decentralise on business lines. In 1990 profit centre teams were given six months to devise new organisational structures. The concept of”trading” was important to OfQ and denoted the ability of profit centres to do business with each other.

     Graham H describes OfQ structure and functionality in his post of 2015/06/06 at 12:27 in this thread.

802. @GH
     Lucky those documents didn’t require your various signatures to be independently witnessed…

803. @Graham H

     “7 seconds to sign with rollerball on cream laid paper and 2 seconds for my staff to place and remove the document”

     I daresay a 9 second dwell time is excellent!

804. @Graham H
     “many with multiple signatories (almost always myself wearing a different hat”
     I sympathise: as I am responsible for maintaining the list of authorised signatories in my company up to date, I often get involved in assignments of ownership from one subsidiary to another – I do always try to get different signatures for the two parties, even if the other person has to be authorised (by me) to be the other party to the contract! But a 27-way agreement would drive me mad – the most I ever had was five!

805. @Nameless – No, although some required the Board’s seal to be applied -a complex manual operation involving a cross between a printing press and an old-fashioned mangle (my secretary who specialised in this had well-developed arms…) and others the seal ofthe companies that were parties to the agreements (much simpler punch affairs). We wouldnormally set up a production line using five paralegals: one to open the boxes of documents check them and stack them, ready for …the next one,who opened the documents and placed them in front of… myself for signing, who passed them to … one who applied my officialstamps, who in turn passed them to another who checked the documents had been signed and re-boxed them.

     I could sign once every 7 seconds on good cream laid paper using a roller ball, as noted, but if the documents were prepared on heavy weave parchment-style paper, that slowed to 12 seconds (using fountain pen doubled all these times). This mattered – a typical TOC with a couple of hundred stations could easily require 4 thousand signatures – so the wrong paper could easily add several hours to the task.

806. @timbeau – with the Board broken up into 160 subsidiaries all of which traded with each other, it was very quickly decided to make me a director and company secretary of the lot – the alternative being to fill the Albert hall every time we need to execute anything. Even this wasn’t fast enough, because various things needed the approval of each of the subsidiaries’ boards, and this grew increasingly difficult to arrangeas the pace of the sales accelerated. So on one memorable day we decided to give me the full powers of each subsidiary board; this was done by the four group MDs sitting successively in state in the Board room and every two minutes, the directors of each of the subsidiaries trooped in, held a board meeting at which they surrendered their powers to me,and left. The whole process took the best part of a working day….

807. @Graham
     Which shows that the law is a hass, and a himbecile, as Mr Bumble has it.
     What do all those signatures prove? you obviously had to take on trust that the documents said the right thing – even if you drafted them yourself, you had no time to check that the document was complete, or indeed what the paralegal told you it was!

     And as a contract has to be between two parties, is it actually possible for one party to take another to court if they are both over the terms of the contract if the same person signed for both parties.

     But it goes back a long way – I’m sure I read somewhere that a peace treaty somewhere has a blank page in one of the originals because someone put the carbon paper in the wrong way round – but it was signed anyway.

808. @GH
     320 hats – Awesome! Who signed all the minutes? You, I expect.
     I trust that, as respective company secretary, you ensured that each application of the company seal was entered in the appropriate subsidiary’s register of sealings.
     I would also observe that I was once present at a company reorganisation where a number of companies were renamed just prior to the issue of new shares. The names were effectively swapped around between the various group members. However, the seals applied were never formally adopted by the companies now bearing the relevant names…..

809. @ Graham H – just think of the fun you could have had if you had turned into a railway megalomanic determined on the return of BR when you were suddenly “in charge” of 160 former BR companies. 🙂

810. @timbeau – I did, one night, about 0300, as an experiment, sign the station lease for Ipswich as the “Duke of Wellington” to see whether anyone would notice; if they did, they were too meek to complain. one error was noticed, however, and gave rise to my nickname in the Board – during the weary process of executing the dozens and dozens of GW leases, I inadvertantly signed with the station name,not my own – ever afterwards,I discovered I was referred to as Lord Dawlish – I’m vain enough to quite like it as a title…

     Yes, we had to takeit on trust that the lawyers did their job properly, as did everyone else – well, nearly everyone else. The first DG of ATOC was one who didn’t. He and I sat down before the usual couple of meeting rooms full of paper and I started signing (and with so many TOCs, there was a lot to be done); I had reached the end of the first box and leaned across to see how James Gordon was doing. He was still reading the first document:
     – What’s the problem?
     – I haven’t read what I’m signing yet. I don’t understand what a “side letter to a memorandum of Understanding ancillary to a Principal Agreement is.
     -Neither do I but if you read them all, you will still be here next week, and I shall be doing something else entirely
     Being a military man who took orders well, he got on with the biz, although I noticed him lingering over some of the more obscure stuff wistfully…

     @nameless -yes, we had proper sealing registers, and yes, we had to change the names of the companies sometimes just at the time of handover. Not allthe whimsical names I devised were popular; in particular,the purchasers of BR Telecoms objected to their latest acquisition being Autumn Calls.

     @WW – Yes, you put the trusties in charge of the prison library

811. That’s done it, I’m afraid.
     You are hereby promoted, permananetly, in these pages, to:
     “Lord Dawlish”

     [ I agree it’s a lovely title. ]

812. http://buyingatitle.com/2011/07/becoming-lord-of-dawlish/

     I wonder if the Duke of Wellington knows he owns Ipswich station? Or is it the other way round, and Viscount Ipswich owns Wellington station (as well as being the Earl of Euston!)
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Grafton

813. P.S.
     “Railways Archive” have a lot of papers & documents on railways available on-line.
     WOuld any of your many documaents be “Int there” do you think?
     As a start. what should I search for, to narrow the field a little?
     ( Or any other interested party, for that matter )

814. timbeau says “And as a contract has to be between two parties, is it actually possible for one party to take another to court if they are both over the terms of the contract if the same person signed for both parties?

     The contract in question is between the two companies, each a legal person in its own right. The person who signs is not personally a party to the contract, just carrying out the company’s wishes. It is quite possible for the same person to carry out the wishes of two different companies.

     I am ready to be put right by anyone, especially if they happen to be one of the many legally qualified people here.

815. @Malcolm
     That is my understanding too, but I try and avoid the situation arising. Apart from anything else, if two different people are signing, it increases the chance of spotting any errors, and ensures that, even if not a legal requirement, there was actually a witness to each signature.
     Similarly, as treasurer of a charity, if I need money paid to me for expenses I have incurred myself, I have to get the other two signatories to sign the cheque. Although not specifically required, we extend that principle to any business conducted with members of the signatories’ respective families.

     But I appreciate that in the madness of the Balkanisation of British Rail, co-ordinating all the different bits of paper and making sure the right people signed the right bits would have been a nightmare. And I’m sure that, if one person was to be all those “right” people, Graham H was the right choice to be the right person!

816. @ Timbeau – I expect it was very much a case of “needs must” that gave Mr H such apparent unbridled but temporary power. Getting companies “transferred” in due time often requires such strange exercises to take place and at odd hours of the day or days of the week.

817. Milord D
     Perhaps your shield was described thus:
     On the waves of the sea azure a swan sable by a wall broken down in some places argent over a pair of arrows broken points sinister and dexter surmounted by many hats between two pens. Motto: Valete Via Britannica ferri. (sorry for fractured Latin – it was abandoned at the same time as the GC main line).

     Seriously, it’s frightening how a priceless national asset was ruthlessly hacked apart on a whim.

818. I don’t know, you go away for a day and come back to find you’re in the house of Lords and have acquired an armorial achievement.

     @WW – One of the many irritating bankers’ habits is to start dealing with business transactions after the markets have closed for the day, so we frequently had to work through the night* , with board meetings at ungodly hours. One particular problem was finding enough signatories for those documents which required multiple directors to sign at that time of night. LT&S, second time around was one such, where we needed a second witnessed BR signature for something, and the only qualified person left was John Nelson, who lived in York, to which he had gone home the preceding Friday night. There was little choice but to ring him about 07.00 on the Saturday to say “Don’t go the match until you’ve signed off the paperwork”; we put a paralegal on the first train out of the Cross (06.30); by 08.40, she was outside John’s house, by 08.45 she had departed again and by 09.00 was headed south, where she had a tiresome argument with the ticket inspector, who could couldn’t believe that she was using the return half of a day return ticket so early in the morning…

     @Nameless – surely “One a field of rail blue semee of bowler hats sable, a sea defence proper between two roller balls azure, for supporters, two paralegals rampant armed and langued gules” The motto would be “Per ardua ad nihil”? ( I have already bored readers with anecdotes about my occasions with the College of Arms in relation to privatisation, so will shut up at this point).

     @Greg T – now I regret telling the story. Lord Dawlish as a title has always struck me as having distinctly Wodehousian overtones.

     *But we could turn that against them: I always made sure my side of the negotiations were well provided with bars of chocolate and snacks – used to speed up the deals remarkably if you surreptitiously but visibly consumed a Twix whilst the other side of the table looked on enviously at 02.30hrs.

819. @Graham H: Fascinating reading. You should publish your memoirs – at least when you get to an age when you don’t care either way about being tried for treason…

820. @Graham H
     “LT&S, second time around ”
     which, given why there was a second time around, was probably particularly sensitive…..

821. @Lord Dawlish
     so the wrong paper could easily add several hours to the task.

     So we now have ‘wrong kind of paper’ to join ‘wrong kind of snow’ in the book of railway fairy tales.

     Super stories, Graham. It’s a privilege to be here when they hit the internet courtesy of LR

822. In amongst this extraordinary set of comments and memoirs, someone mentioned the vagaries of 4 year plans, 5 year control periods and the like. It’s worth mentioning that in London over nearly four mayoral terms there have been incumbents that have been almost as far apart in the political spectrum as it is possible to conceive. Yet their public transport policies and strategies were almost identical. (I take things like NBfL, bendy buses and the cable car as tactics and the PPP as unfortunate! )

     This has led to strategies that drive customer benefit from which infrastructure changes take place. This is the key difference between TfL and Network Rail. TfL is the strategic guiding mind behind what is wanted and it then commissions others to do its bidding (or does it itself) but always with a clear distinction between ‘client’ and ‘supplier’. Network Rail, in spite of its size, is almost always the supplier. The big problem in the ‘main line’ railway is the lack of that guiding mind.

823. @100andthirty. I would put it slightly differently. TfL has a certain amount of money, and its mission is to spend that money in the best interests of the London travelling public. There is no equivalent organisation outside London with such a mission. (With the possible exception of other PTE-type bodies). Network Rail’s mission is essentially to do what train operators want, and the mission of just about every other organisation is to make as much money for shareholders (and their own bosses) as possible. Probably over-simplified, and I may have missed something.

     (Obviously there are plenty of individuals in these organisations who strive to do their best for their passengers or freight-customers, sometimes at the expense of profits. But they do this in spite of their organisation, rather than because of it).

824. @ Malcolm – I’m going to quibble slightly. A key role for Network Rail is to be an effective and efficient steward of the railway system’s assets. It simply can’t just do “what train operators want” because even if they are paying their “wants” may well be impractical or in conflict with other obligations. It also has a load of interesting obligations in its licence conditions.

825. @Malcolm -although NR is now a nationalised industry, it is not a statutory body and has no duties set out in legislation; its only obligations are those set out in its licence and in the more general obligations of companies relating to avoidance of asset impairment and so on. The problem for the industry as a whole is, as 130 says, that it has no directing mind -but then that was one of the two strategic Treasury objectives; as I may have remarked before, Colin Powell said apropos Saddam Hussain’s Iraq “The best way to kill a snake is to cut its head off” – the Treasury have long taken that view with the rail sector.

826. I would happily agree with Malcolm’s reinterpretation of my words as further amended by WW.

     Whilst I expect that Graham H is correct, I can’t understand why the treasury should be so keen on lack of leadership which is, as we see daily, a recipe for wasting money.

827. @Onehundredand 30 – Indeed, but in the Treasury world view, it was the BR directing mind that kept bringing it all those terrible plans to invest public money in new schemes. If no one has any duty to devise schemes /provide/modernise assets, then the the problem will go away. (We all know that is nonsense because filling the resulting vacuum is (a) still inevitable and (b) in the absence of a single “directing mind” becomes a riot of inefficient players all struggling to grasp the steering wheel). Combine that with the Treasury belief that things are always ALWAYS done more efficiently in the private sector and rail privatisation became a no-brainer.

     Treasury views on nationalised industry leadership weren’tconfined to BR, of course,; the principal reason in their mind for selling off the Coal board was to get rid of NCB management – HMTmade no secret of that. [And I have to admit that we in DTp sometimes took a similar view of our client industries – the late and wholly unlamented National Bus Co, for example – an organisation which appeared to have no purpose whatsoever except to subvert government decisions on public expenditure. How glad we were to see the back of it.]

828. @Malcolm: Network Rail’s mission is essentially to do what train operators want

     You have to reach page 47 of Network Rail’s articles of association before you get a statement of what the purpose of the company is, but when you get there you reach the statement:

     Either itself or through any subsidiary or undertaking to carry on the business of acquiring, owning, managing, providing, operating and developing railway network services and station services in all their aspects

     with a long list of engineering, property management, and financial tasks this entails.

     Notably, this long list doesn’t seem to contain any reference to carrying out the wishes of train operating companies, let alone to any kind of broader public benefit or furthering the transport of passengers or goods.

     Compare the London Regional Transport Act 1984 which gives TfL the duty:
     
     to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services for Greater London… In carrying out that duty London Regional Transport shall have due regard to— the transport needs for the time being of Greater London; and efficiency, economy and safety of operation.
     

829. @Ian J
     Perhaps the interpretation of the NR articles depends at this point on what is meant by ‘Services’. Who or what is to be served? It seems so often to be the whims of some politician or party (Not necessarily an officially elected or constituted one).

830. @Ian J – spot on! NR has no duty to do anything; the list of things that it might do is optional. “Services” has nothing to do with train services , it simply means “activities that might or might not be related to other activities listed more specifically” . When forming the new BR subsidiaries, all of them had references to “services”, even the shell companies I set up for, err, tax avoidance (this at HMT’s insistence – “better sales value, don’t you know).

     [I have already described the internal debates with Ministers as to whether LRTA)’s duty should have included a reference to “meeting” the needs of London – and the actual wording agreed which was in terms of the very much weaker “having regard to” needs, so I won’t bore with repetition.]

831. @ Ian J

     Thank you for posting that.

     “……………and developing railway network services……….” is a particularly interesting clause which I was not aware of until now.

832. To bring it up to date, the GLA Act 1999 includes a “general transport duty”:

     The Mayor shall develop and implement policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within Greater London [these] include facilities and services for pedestrians and are (a) those required to meet the needs of persons living or working in, or visiting, Greater London, and (b) those required for the transportation of freight

     So a duty to “meet the needs” of London did eventually happen – not a duty governments were willing to take on themselves, but one they were willing to impose on the Mayor…

     I think this Act was the first time pedestrians and freight got a mention, too.

833. @Ian J – and not a duty imposed on TfL, you will note. This raises the interesting question as to whether the mayor’s office is adequately equipped for this role. (It could be argued that he relies on TfL for such advice but clearly doesn’t, and nor is the provision of such policy advice within TfL’s range of powers*). It would also be interesting to consider whether the mayor has addressed the “to and from” aspect of all this – a policy for an airport and a view on HS2 seems to fall short of a comprehensive view on the matter.

     One other consideration here is that the mayor is a part of local government and as such has a common law duty to provide services (of all sorts) on as geographically equitable basis as possible, but TfL isn’t part of local government, although it is now controlled by something that is, and has no such common law duty. (As the Opposition reminded Ridley at the time of the passage of the LRT Act, LRT/TfL could discharge their statutory obligations by providing just one service, or even none – not that that fazed the SoS, who saw LT as simply another snake awaiting decapitation avant la lettre. )

     *These remain as in the LRT Act and are essentially managerial.

834. “Severe delays” on the “Overground” this morning! A broken down train at Bush Hill Park. TfL really do need to give the media a simple way of distinguishing between the different parts of the Overground.

835. Talking of service – or complete lack of it.
     I wonder what compensation arrangements are in place (If any at all) for season-ticket holders @ St James St & Clapton?
     Particularly if, as is common in this area they are “point-to-point” seasons to/from “originating station” & LST ??

836. And then the ‘Stow got the Theobolds[sic] Grove treatmemt…

837. @Graham H
     I understood that TfL was, in part, a part of local government, with only TTL (which owns the Underground, DLR and the other operational parts – apart from streets) as a ‘commercial’ undertaking. Certainly TfL is covered by the general application of local government legislation.

838. @quinlet – it may be so now, but LRT, which is one of the sources of TfL’s powers and duties, was emphatically not.

839. @ Quinlet – It is certainly my understanding that TfL is a local authority body and subject to the same strictures and oversight. I won’t claim to know all the nuances as to what this means in practice and I can understand why Graham H is deliberately drawing fine distinctions as to quite where the legal duties lie.

     One wonders if those bidding to be Mayor come 2016 have any real appreciation of what could be hung round their necks given so many of them are making outrageous statements that are impossible to deliver (e.g. “I will reduce fares on day 1 of my Mayoralty” – err don’t think you will actually. You need to have a TfL Board in place first off and decide if you want to chair it. Then you ask TfL to pull together some options for you, then you faint with shock at the ramifications and how much those lovely TOCs want by way of revenue compensation payments and how much capital investment you have to axe. Then you call lovely Mr McLoughlin at the DfT who then transfers you to Mr Hands at the Treasury. 🙂 )

840. @WW – Indeed!

     On the question of “What is TfL”, I have to say that under the 1999 Act, it is a very curious body. S 155 tells us very clearly what it is not (not a Crown body) and describes its constitution and oversight. It has no duties (other than in relation to its own organisation)and no powers unless delegated to it by the mayor. The mayor cannot delegate his duties – as one would expect. [Once again, I must emphasize the difference between a power to do something and the duty to do it]. So, on that test alone, it has no powers of its own on which the normal “equitable spread of activity” principle would bite; that principle applies to the mayor and the mayor alone.

     On the other hand, LRT’s powers and functions are transferred (but not all at once) into TfL and LRT wound up (I didn’t track this process in detail at the time, but I assume that it was completed in short order). So – TfL has eventually acquired powers of its own, ex-LRT, and so stopped being merely an executive arm of the mayor’s powers and duties. But then again, LRT was never a manifestation of local government and not subject to lg oversight and financing.

     On the money point – which is what gives rise to the equitable spread of services to those who pay for it – the powers lie with the GLA, so once again, TfL itself escapes the obligation, just as LRT did (the precept for LRT was paid to the SoS not LRT). As I say, TfL is a very odd body.

     BTW, the requirement for it to operate through TTL (or in fact, any subsidiary company of its choosing) is interesting but nothing to do with its status -I suspect that was there to prevent buses re-appearing with “London Transport” on the side….

841. @Graham H:
     
     and not a duty imposed on TfL, you will note
     
     Well yes, but in the Act:

     Transport for London shall exercise its functions—
     (a)in accordance with such guidance or directions as may be issued to it by the Mayor under section 155(1) below,
     (b)for the purpose of facilitating the discharge by the Authority of the duties [in Section 142 as already quoted]

     So there is a fairly tight connection between the Mayor’s obligations, and TfL’s obligations to the Mayor.

     LRT’s powers and functions are transferred (but not all at once) into TfL and LRT wound up (I didn’t track this process in detail at the time, but I assume that it was completed in short order

     I’m not sure that it was – there was quite a long period when TfL and LRT coexisted because TfL weren’t allowed to take over the Tube until PPP was a done deal. Robert Kiley was head of both until the government sacked him from LRT for opposing PPP, and there was even legal action between LRT and TfL and the Mayor over PPP:

     http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1491.html

842. @Ian J – I agree with what you say; my point was that TfL doesn’t have any duties of its own – the wording of the 1999 Act is very careful on that. TfL may have “functions” delegated to it, but not “duties”. This may seem a trivial distinction, but it isn’t. If duties could be delegated, then every tinpot SoS could get out of his duty by simply forming a company, giving it his “duty” and then flogging it.* (Thank you for the reminder about the timescales of the handover – I was living in Estonia at the time and news of TfL travelled only slowly there…).

     To go back to the original point that sparked this discussion, any common law obligation to treat the whole London area “equitably” will fall on the mayor, who has all the duties and not on TfL who have merely functions – the executive manifestation of someone else’s duty. There is then the interesting question of whether the mayor is the local authority for this purpose;given that the precepting powers lie with the GLA, it’s at least arguable that it is they who have to account to the taxpayers, even though their control over the mayor-as-executive is pretty limited. As I say,the whole structure is – no doubt deliberately – designed to avoid transparency.

     *This is neither the time nor the place to mention the NHS, so I won’t.

843. I hope that TFL soon upgrade the trains on these new routes the current ones really aren’t that good hopefully the service again becomes more frequent and better run

844. It is a big complement to the Overground that the Belgian rail operator is trying to imitate it in Brussels. The plan, until now referred to as the “RER” like in Paris, involves renovating and adding capacity to underused mainline railways and stations running through the city, and crucially also making such stations in the city more visible, and giving a new fresh upgraded identity to the good ones. That identity is going to be a big blue “S” made of double lines like rail tracks, on a yellow background.
     See (in French): http://www.lalibre.be/economie/libre-entreprise/l-offre-suburbaine-rer-en-vigueur-des-2015-55f6f16f3570b0f19ea039c5
     And this video (also in FR):
     http://www.lalibre.be/s/vid/55f70e933570b0f19ea0c3e8
     When I first read this, I thought immediately of the Overground.

845. @lg -I’m afraid SNCB thought of this development well before anyone had conceived of the Overground – Indeed, it’s been in planning for the best part of 20 years.

846. @Graham H, yes the RER has been in the planning for 20 years, but not the Overground style rebranding elements.

847. @lg – au contraire – I was attending internal presentations by SNCB as long ago as 2006 at which they envisaged rebranding the Brussels network, and I had had discussions with the then Chef de Cabinet of the Minster of Transport a couple of years before that which encompassed a public presentation of the Brussels RER (named as such) to regional politicians. The driver for all this was the prospective opening of the new airport link; absolutely no consideration was given to overseas branding precedents. the Belgians thought of this all by themselves – rebranding integrated urban rail networks is a fairly normal thing to do throughout Europe.]

848. btw, just noted in the caption to the second map “The routes to Chingford, Chesthunt and Enfield have now joined London Overground”.

     “Cheshunt”

     [Fixed, thanks. LBM]

849. I had thought that the Bruxelles use of the ‘S’ was more related to the German ‘S-Bahn’, which has now got wider use for urban/suburban trains.

850. @quinlet – absolutely – the early diagrammatic plans showed the network as an “RER”, so the change is probably significant (although anyone who can explain Belgian linguistic politics is a rare beast indeed).

851. @Graham H, quinlet

     My brief attempt to explain Belgian linguistic politics with respect to transport. Belgium’s two main linguistic groups, the Flemish speaking Dutch (59%), and the French speaking Walloons (41%) have centuries of contentious history, as French was the language of government and the upper classes due to Walloon dominance. Dutch-only speakers were effectively second-class citizens. RER is abbreviation of the French term ‘Réseau Express Régional’, meaning ‘regional express rail’. However I suspect the Dutch translation for this term did not abbreviate to RER. Hence to avoid favouring one linguistic group over another and reigniting language battles, it is very conceivable that the Bruxelles transport authority wisely chose a neutral name for this rail network.

852. @LBM I suspect that by “the Flemish speaking Dutch” you actually meant “the Dutch-speaking Flemish”. Contentious in English, no doubt, but I think that “Dutch” is nowadays the normally-recommended English name for the language, but not a recommended name for the people. (Historically Flemish and Dutch were two different names for (almost) the same language, like Bosnian and Croatian still are). But on the other hand, perhaps such matters are best explained only by Belgians themselves, as no-one from anywhere else can get it right! And any spelling of the capital of Belgium is sure to annoy somebody. You have also omitted mention of speakers of the other official language of Belgium, which is German.

853. @Malcolm

     Yes, thank you for correcting this, and for providing further explanation.

854. @LBM: However I suspect the Dutch translation for this term did not abbreviate to RER

     It is GEN – used interchangeably with RER, just as SNCB is also NMBS, depending what language you speak.

     The (S) network seems to be applied to all suburban trains, not just the routes covered by the RER project – so it is the kind of all-encompassing suburban rail brand that London doesn’t have (Overground plus Crossrail plus Thameslink plus the suburban TOCs), rather than just a renaming of the RER. The S seems to stand for “suburbain”, so I don’t think it is particularly language-neutral (although obviously it fits with S-Bahn, S-Tog etc elsewhere): compare with the (c) logo RENFE originally introduced for their suburban services, which they had to rotate to make it look less like a C, because it upset people in Barcelona, Bilbao etc that they were using the Spanish word “cercanias”.

     Brussels is largely French-speaking but officially bilingual, unlike the rest of Belgium (where generally only one language is officially used in any given area*), so is more like neutral ground in the language wars. NMBS/SNCB also uses a (B) as its logo, so the (S) also goes with that, plus the M for Metro, T for Tram etc. in Brussels.

     In this sense London is looking more and more like an outlier as letter (indicating mode) plus number (indicating route) is a very common system internationally. Maybe one day people will find themselves catching the U4 Piccadilly Line…

     *except the outskirts of Brussels but you really don’t want to get into that.

855. @Ian J -I agree entirely about route numbering but have been usually dismissed as bureaucratic in these columns for saying so…. I’d seen the S symbol as a neutral sign nodding at the many non-Belgian precedents you quote and avoiding the problems of RER or GEN. One problem that it doesn’t/can’t easily side step is that the nature of the Belgian railway system and the country’s size means that the great majority of the train services are suburban or, as we might call them here, outer-suburban ; distinguishing – functionally – between them and “intercity” services is often tricky.

     @Malcolm – if you believe that the Flemish Belgians speak Dutch then you need to have dinner with my many Belgian Flemish friends . I can’t tell the difference between Dutch Dutch and Belgian Dutch but they can and would be mortified if you told them it was the same (possibly even more mortified than if you spoke to them in French…). And as for Croat and Bosnian – I can tell you from having worked in both places that that is the sort of remark that gets people killed – nearly as tactless as asking people there what they did 20 years ago. The weather or the state of the traffic is always a much safer topic in the Balkans…

856. I had always thought that route numbering was particularly useful where the alternative used was simply identification by terminus station – and especially so where complex urban networks led to multiple routes to the same terminus. London’s alternative for the underground (which could well be equally good) is to give distinctive names and colours to each line. However, neither the Overground nor other suburban rail services have adopted either approach. It may be that people are scarred (or do I mean scared?) by the experience with Southern number codes which were fiendishly complex – you might know your own route but it was next to impossible to work out any other. This does leave a very odd mixture of identification of Overground/suburban lines. Sometimes signs on the Underground just point to ‘trains’. If you are at Moorgate or Old Street, they point to ‘trains to Stevenage’ (leaving aside the fact that most of the trains from Moorgate and Old Street don’t go to Stevenage), and there are many other odd and inconsistent (not to say unhelpful) uses. A coherent approach either to route numbering or naming for the Overground/suburban rail network is well overdue.

857. Graham, you are probably mostly right with your objections to my language remarks. Rather than amplifying, qualifying or otherwise mucking-about with them, I think I will withdraw from the topic, which after all has very little to do with the Orange Invasion!

858. I thought that Dutch-speaking people in both countries referred to their language as “Nederlandse”?

     And it has always amused me that the “S” in “S-Bahn” has never had any official meaning, although there are two common candidates.

859. @Malcolm – of course, Orange has particular resonance in the Netherlands… [How’s that for one of the world’s lousiest links?]

     @Philip – indeed, although my Belgian friends (passim) claim that their version of Nederlandse is, naturally, the better one. (They seem the same to me, but my knowledge of Dutch is mainly confined to reading it).

860. @Malcolm
     “I suspect that by “the Flemish speaking Dutch” [LBM] actually meant “the Dutch-speaking Flemish”. ”
     Or possibly “the Flemish, speaking Dutch”

861. So far, the transition to London Overground has been great. But one thing that isn’t really highlighted is the stupid way the timetable currently operates.

     Firstly, and to be frank, the trains are too infrequent.

     Secondly, their timing at the moment – particularly on rush hour – is hopeless. My station, Rectory Road, can see several trains all within half a hour of each other and they’re not spaced out sufficiently.

     The main problem appears to be the bottleneck which is Liverpool St station; how are they going to get more trains in and out of there, with less breakdowns and signal failures?

862. It is a mistake to expect instant tube frequencies the minute Transport for London take over the services. The infrastructure limitations are still there. Crossrail may free up some space in Liverpool Street, possibly by allowing Lea valley trains to be routed via Stratford to make some space on the west side of the station. But if you already have “several” trains within half an hour you already have a relatively high frequency (even though, as I read the timetable the intervals vary from 4 minutes to 15, which is not ideal). LO’s initial aspiration is to get as many of its routes as possible up to at least the 4tph you already have off peak.
     The one thing which is almost certain to improve is the breakdown rate – LO inherited some rolling stock which had been allowed to get badly run down by its previous owner and this has affected reliability. I understand LO are now getting on top of this. The trains are quite elderly though (about 35 years old), but new trains are already on order to replace them.

863. However, as we know from the London and SE RUS the released capacity at Liverpool St is already earmarked for more GEML fast services, and they have also explained therein that with more of those fast services there’s no way peak trains can run to/from the lea Valley via Stratford…

864. @paul
     have to wait for Crossrail 2 then – don’t hold your breath!..

865. @Graham H: The language is Nederlands (minus the ‘e’) and Flemish is Dutch, there is a joint body between the Dutch and Flemish governments that decides on the standard.

     The differences are mainly in pronounciation and word usage. So there are some French words in use in the Netherlands which are not used in Belgium but then there are plenty of others which are used! Even with Dutch words the Flemish will sometimes use a different word, that has fallen into dis-use over the border…

     I thought they were calling the GEN/RER CityRail these days?

866. @Southern Heights – thank you for that – I wasn’t aware of the joint board. As you say, the differences appear to be in useage and pronunciation – all this doesn’t stop your average snobby Fleming thinking that their version is better, of course.

     I haven’t been to Blogland for a couple of years, so I’m not sighted on the “CityRail” – presumably the usual linguistic compromise – if in doubt find an English variant. [There are times when I firmly believe that Belgium could save itself a lot of trouble by adopting English as their national language – but I’ll be accused of being chauvinistic].

867. @Graham H: I think the Flemish variant is better too and I’m Dutch… It’s much softer and more rhythmic than the Dutch variant (I’m talking about north of the rivers here, it tends towards Flemish south of them). The Dutch normally think I’m Belgian as I adopted the dialect when living there. 😉

     I normally see a train or two with that splashed on the side when passing through Brussels.

     [Hopefully this doesn’t incite a language war here on LR… LBM]

868. @Southern Heights – well, at least CityRail IS English unlike some of the really distressing Franglais – “le self” – and Gerlish – “Das Freshuplook*” – confections…

     *Something that apparently happens to rolling stock after about 15-20 years.

869. Not sure if this is the correct thread, but:
     Update on “works & events” @ Walthamstow & TfL staff …

     Apparently, this AM, TfL have “members of staff” behaving in what some regard as an inappropriate manner.
     I quote, from “the boss” who has just been bothered by one of these individuals…
     “TfL are harassing everyone to touch in & bullying them, even if they have a paper ( i.e. Annual gold-card ) ticket, or a “freedom pass”
     She had words with this, err, person, apparently to very little effect, since “I was only following orders” seems to be the excuse given.

870. @Greg re Walthamstow.
     I was there there or four weeks ago and a woman member of staff on the down platform had been instructed (she told me) to reprimand people who strayed over the yellow line. I hadn’t realised that slam-door trains still called at Walthamstow, but they must do since the yellow line has been painted a slam-door’s width back from the edge. She told me she would “get into trouble” if she didn’t keep shooing people back (a variation on “it’s more than my jobs worth”).

871. @RayL: There are two different issues here:

     1) Is it still appropriate for passengers to all be behind the yellow line (except when there is a train present with doors open)?
     2) If it is, how best to Encourage/Enforce this (and which E-word fits better?).

     If I were a driver, I would be pushing for a resounding YES on question 1. As a student of human behaviour, my answer to question 2 would be the perennial “More research is required”.

872. RayL, if people stand too far over the yellow line they are more likely to be sideswiped by the slipstream of a passing train, or killed as they bend over to pick something up – very common to see this as the train comes in. It’s also a sensible precaution to keep back when we live in an age of idiots on skateboards and bicycles on the platform, unsupervised kids on scooters, frequent drunkeness and people walking on the edge with their backs to the train and their headphones in permanently or not concentrating while they use their phone. On a practical level the yellow line represents a clear line along the train for despatch purposes. Personally I’m not prepared to close the doors or move off if that area is being used in such a way that blocks my view. Never mind not worth my job, it’s not worth my liberty.

873. Different stations have different distances between the yellow line and the edge. At some stations there is no yellow line at all (or it has been worn away). There is no consistency.

     All stock is sliding-door these days and many yellow-line distances on railway stations follow the Underground in being much closer to the edge. On stations that still have the slam-door distance, do the painting teams just follow the old line? Or is there a formula that ties the yellow line distance to the overall width of the platform? I realise that there will be a minimum, caused by the widths of the kerbstone and the tactile strip.

874. RayL & Malcom
     The ” dreaded yellow line” is there for a reason.
     It is SUPPOSED to be the safe, or semi-safe distance, behind which anyone at all (Staff included) should be standing or walking when a train is approaching, leaving, or passing through a platform.
     The formal definitions are to be found, somewhere in Railway Group Standards.
     However, if there is no train in sight, or there is a stationary train in the platform, then the yellow line is irrelevant.[ This didn’t stop an arrogant jopbsworth screaming at me at Reading a couple of years back, when an HST was stopped, with all its doors open, but that’s a n other story … ]

     See also GTR Driver’s equally valid comment, though.
     Oh & where trains pass through at higher speeds, the Y-line should be further back.

875. Not quite true to say there are no slam door trains left. However, they all have central locking now so it should be impossible to get swiped by one on an incoming train.

     Standing behind the line is a sensible precaution if a train is passing through at speed because of the dangers of slipstreaming. One should also be wary of tripping or accidental shoving even if a train is approaching at dead slow speed.

     But it is inevitable that people will stand close to the edge, as that puts them in pole position for getting on the train and/or getting a seat when the doors open. So the solution to people standing too close to the edge is to provide more seats – whether by running more trains, longer trains, or providing more seats per carriage.

     Of course, things have fallen off platforms from positions well behind the yellow line – somewhere on youtube is CCTV footage of a pushchair ending up on the track after being sucked out of a cross passage at Goodge Street by the slipstream of a departing train. Only yesterday they had to shut the power off on the Windsor side of Waterloo station to retrieve a wheelie bin that had rolled off a platform. And, as I discovered some years back, if you are running fast enough, a trip ten feet away from the platform edge can result in you ending up on the track.

876. @timbeau: Of course more seats are highly desirable. (And expensive to provide). But I fear that providing enough seats in rush hours to make all passengers feel that they do not need to get into “pole position” is a rather remote goal at present, when there are many lines on which passengers cannot get on the train at all, let alone get a seat. Still, I suppose we can dream!

877. @Malcolm
     “when there are many lines on which passengers cannot get on the train at all”
     Another reason for wanting to be in pole position of course.

     And I never said that providing enough space to stop people wanting to be first on was achievable – people will still want to be first even if there are seats for all, in order to get their preferred window/corner/shady side/whatever!

878. If you think we are in any sense vaguely strict, in Germany (Hamburg Hochbahn for example) trains are not allowed to depart until everyone is clear of the yellow line.

     Surely, as an absolute minimum, one should have enough extra space so that if taken off balance by an accidental or deliberate push then there is space to put a foot down to restore ones balance. Then this minimum should be enforced at all times to make sure it is adhered to. In any case, if the platform is not busy then there is no need to stand over the yellow line.

     This is not just an issue for the individual. If they do meet with an accident it is not just them involved. Many thousands of people will be delayed as a result. I would say, far from deploring staff who attempt to enforce it, staff should be applauded for trying to maintain a safe environment.

     Interesting is platforms 3 at the far (country) end at Charing Cross – extended for those non-existent 12-car trains. Passengers must not pass a particular point and cannot access the end of the platform to board trains. However there is no restriction on alighting. Presumably the logic is that if you alight and the train is terminating there then there is no danger even though the platform is very narrow.

879. PoP says “This [avoiding falling under a train] is not just an issue for the individual”.

     Indeed not. Over and above the thousands delayed, the driver involved is also owed a bit (or rather a lot) of sympathy.

     Of course staff must try to enforce yellow lines. But general experience with things like hard hats on building sites is that the best “enforcer” is peer pressure. I look forward to the days (maybe it already happens in Hamburg?) when fellow-passengers are the ones doing the haranguing. I have been embarrassed, in Germany, by fellow pedestrians stopping me from crossing the road in the face of a red man and zero traffic. And in Sweden by a fellow-driver on a near-empty road, for pulling a caravan at 85 kph, the limit being 80.

880. GTR Driver – You’ve omitted the group of people creating incidents *everywhere* – not only on station platforms but also at bus stops and on the street – those who are concentrating on their mobile phones to the exclusion of everything else. Whilst it is, I suppose, possible that they are checking service times I tend to doubt it.

881. The situation you describe at Charing Cross (alighting allowed where boarding isn’t) :
     1. it is much harder to fall onto the track if there is a train standing on it, and you are certainly not going to get run over. (although you could fall off the other side).
     2. alighting people don’t hang around
     3. without SDO it would be difficult to stop them anyway

     A problem at some terminal stations is that the platform is so cluttered near the barrier line that once a few people have congregated there, the only clear space left to walk further down the platform is the space between the platform edge and the yellow line.
     http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/SME/html/NRE_WAT/images/photos/800/o3322-0011313.jpg
     (Waterloo platform 2, taken from the barrier line)

     (and how it used to be)
     http://www.oldstratforduponavon.com/sitebuilder/images/waterloo32-620×413.jpg

882. @timbeau: London Bridge platform 2 in the evening rush hour is another prime example….

     @PoP: IIRC there are dirty great big signs saying: “Do not alight here. Please pass down the train =>” @ CHX…

883. Southern Heights,

     You may have recalled correctly and there may once have been but currently there isn’t a dirty great big sign saying that. It says this.

884. At Richmond, the platforms were recently extended westwards for the 10-coach trains, but the extensions are narrow enough to mean that the yellow line is in the middle of the platform, leaving a space one side to stand and a space the other side to pass other people – which side is which is down to the standing people and it is not consistent. Trying to put signs telling people not to alight at these points is a bit pointless when tannoy messages tell people to use all available doors. If they had used LU style lines, a few inches from the egde then it would work, but it doesn’t really matter as passengers and staff all ignore the lines anyway, particularly as the lines on the older parts of the platforms have nearly worn away.

     I once got told off at Reading after walking down platform 7 beside a stopped train with all the doors open. This was because part of the platform was coned off for work and a group of platform staff had decided to stand at that point to chat, causing an obstruction which everyone was trying to squeeze past, so I went the other side. When I pointed out that they were causing the obstruction and the train was stopped anyway, the member of staff just looked confused and said it was for my own safety.

     At Bristol Temple Meads, during the evening rush, people were being told every 15 seconds or so to stand behind the yellow line as crossing it could “cause injury upto and including death” !! When the train the arrived and stopped, people moved forward, to be told “the doors will not be unlocked until everyone is back behind the yellow lines” – there is health and safety, and then there is treating your “customers” as naughty children.

     Yellow lines obviously provide an important safety function, but only if they are consistently applied and enforced. If they are maintained and set at a suitable distance from the edge, and if they enforced in a sensible manner by staff who are properly trained in risk management, then they serve a very useful function. As it is, they appear just to be a tool to avoid corporate responsibility for any accidents.

885. @poP/Southern heights
     I seem to recall the country ends of platforms 5 and 6 at CX used to have signs telling people to walk through the train to get out. At the time I think only eleven cars of a twelve car train would fit the platform (although the whole train would fit inside the fouling point).

886. @Jim Cobb…Unfortunately, some human beings really are their own worst enemy. When you hear stories of people climbing down onto the tracks to recover their mobile phones etc, its hardly surprising that platform staff become a little paranoid about these things. After all, if anything nasty happens, it’s usually them who end up on the firing line….

887. @timbeau: I think that’s still the case… It will be interesting to see how they do it next year after the August B/H. At present only coast trains are that long, after that bank holiday they might need to get suburban 12 coachers into those platforms as IIRC, 1-3 are only 10 coaches long? Or were they lengthened in 2012?

888. Southern Heights

     Platforms 1-3 are 12 coaches long and can take a 12-car Networker but they have to be 3×4-car. 2×4-car+2×2-car will not be permitted as a 12-car formation as it will be too long – clearances are that tight.

     12-car Networkers will not be permitted in platforms 4-6 as they are too long – clearances are that tight. One of the issues was to convince ORR that a satisfactory way had been established of preventing 12-car Networkers using platforms 4-6. I do not know how that was resolved.

889. @poP
     Hopefully not the only precaution, but there are signs at various places saying “no networkers / ac traction/ whatever” beyond this point. (Presumably a driver should not pass that point even if the signals have cleared – rather like a District taking a “wrong stock” at Hangar Lane Junction)
     At the last point at which a 12-car Networker can be routed to platform 3 or platform 4 would there be such a sign to remind them not to take the latter route?

890. Or, Jim Cobb, for people like me to protect myself against corporate irresponsibility, as they certainly won’t be standing up for me if something does happen.

891. GTR driver
     Yes – the disgraceful Liverpool case …
     But, as I said before, yellow lines apply to MOVING trains, not stationary ones.
     The Bristol example is very silly, because not opening the doors means that the train will be late, caused by staff actions – delay attribution minutes etc …..

892. Greg (and others),

     We will not have a revival of a discussion of the Liverpool case (guard giving right away whilst drunk person leaning against train).

     I will, however, use my privilege as a moderator to have the last word and point out that if we had adopted the rules applicable in Germany (no dispatching until everyone on the platform is behind the yellow line) it would have been highly unlikely that this incident would have happened and someone who is dead would have probably have been alive today.

     Furthermore if it did happen it would have been in even clearer breach of the rules and regulations and the prosecution for manslaughter (presumably reckless act manslaughter) would have been even more indefensible.

893. I see the Mayor and the DfT have published proposals today to transfer all inner suburban services to TfL as part of a partnership arrangement for running rail services in the South East. The timing, as expected, is as franchises come up for renewal and is expected to start with SouthEastern in 2018 and TSGN in 2021. The 2017 start for the new South Western franchise is too soon to come into this new regime at that point, but there’s a possibility of a break clause being built into that franchise.

894. The proposals:

     https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/493754/dft-tfl-rail-prospectus.pdf

895. @quinlet
     “The 2017 start for the new South Western franchise is too soon to come into this new regime at that point”

     Disappointing, and does make you wonder whether the franchise is a done deal – despite the consultation on the SW franchise still having nearly three weeks to run.
     https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/south-western-rail-franchise

     Interesting that of the nine roadshow events taking place, eight were at what they call “train stations” actually served by SWT – or less than 100m away in the case of Ryde – but the only one within the London suburban area was on the Isle of Dogs. It’s almost as if they don’t care what inner suburban commuters’ think……..

     The map on page 17 of the mayor/DfT proposal document showing lines with 10 minute frequencies appears to have an omission. Once again the Northern City Line has been overlooked.
     It is also noticeable that most of the Overground doesn’t qualify – nor indeed will most Crossrail 2 branches- and that south London would look even emptier if Tramlink were not included.

     Maybe that’s the answer – convert the branches to frequent trams, feeding in to a core high-frequency local service on the SWML

896. The SWT break clause could be enacted in 2019 according to press reports. (Sorry haven’t had a chance to read full document.)

     If TfL takes over Southeastern in 2018 how soon could it increase off-peak frequencies? I’m thinking of the woefully inadequate half-hourly evening frequencies on the Victoria to Orpington line. I assume if an agreement is in place TfL could order more stock in advance to cover services but you’d still need to train drivers. I’m sure TfL has learnt from the problems it encountered when it took over West Anglia services but still will it risk damaging the Overground brand from day one?

     Also, will one operator run the whole Overground network for TfL or will each ‘area’ be tendered individually? In effect you could still have GoVia running Overground’s southeastern metro, albeit to TfL’s specifications.

897. Anon 5, the whole point of the TFL takeover is that the usual franchise model tends to set things in stone, as it requires the holder to pay the DFT a premium or receive a subsidy from them. Both tend to lead to limits on resources or cost cutting. So no more than is agreed at the start without extra negotiations and it’s hard for it to do what it needs to do to adapt to growing demand or changing circumstances. TFL has the freedom to let its own franchises on a concession basis. It takes the risk and dictates what it wants from the holder, offering a proportion of revenue in return. So it can say, new trains, higher frequencies,, more staff, better revenue checking etc, and we’ll underwrite it while you run it to our specification. And the more revenue you collect, the more you get back.

898. I understand those points but my questions are (hypothetically I guess) unless TfL can show improvements from day one might it use an interim brand eg TfL Rail until it’s got house in order. Secondly would one operator run the whole network to TfL’s specification or will it be tendered area by area. Eg stagecoach might still end up running southwest Overground, GoVia southeastern overground etc albeit to TfL’s specs and without any of their corporate branding, just as the average commuter is probably unaware of Arriva’s (I think) involvement in Lorol – because neither Arriva nor Lorol is public facing on the route.

899. Apart form new trains (if necessary) the leases for the stations pass to TfL’s operator and much needed improvements can be made. The also means they regular maintenance which has not happened for many years.

900. timbeau,

     The map on page 17 of the mayor/DfT proposal document showing lines with 10 minute frequencies appears to have an omission. Once again the Northern City Line has been overlooked.

     This is almost certainly down to the classic case of a new publication containing old maps or diagrams that haven’t been updated. This one has been around for some while and dates from when there was only a Mon-Fri service.

     It is also noticeable that most of the Overground doesn’t qualify …

     Fair comment but there are plans to ensure that London Overground in South London does qualify in future whereas on the lines TfL is targeting there are no such plans.

901. @Chris L
     “much needed improvements can be made”
     An issue SWT seem determined to stick their head in the sand over is that the longer trains they are planning to introduce inevitably mean more people on each one, but improvements to stations to cater for them seem to be limited to the extension of platforms. Platforms 1 and 2 at Waterloo are chronically congested at the concourse end – not only the narrow squeeze past the buffer stops of platforms 2/3, but also the grandiose staircase leading up to the “raft”, and then the stairs leading down to the subway (which face away from the main part of the platform.
     SWT management have shown no interest in this problem. I doubt they even know it exists, (or would care – if not everyone has time to get on, that reduces dwell times down the line – result!).
     The platform extensions really should include a new concourse at the Westminster end (compare Fenchurch Street or Paddington or Blackfriars). It would certainly be popular with SW London MPs!

     Wimbledon could also do with better access to and between the platforms – a footbridge at the London end should be a quick fix, much sooner than the subterranean concourse that XR2 might deliver.

902. All well and good discussing trains and stations.
     Key to improved services is investment to relieve bottlenecks; not cheap and not quick.

903. tembeau,

     SWT management have shown no interest in this problem. I doubt they even know it exists, (or would care – if not everyone has time to get on, that reduces dwell times down the line – result!).

     This is simply not true and I would caution against people making sweeping unsupported statements like this or scissors will come out.

     I have been to a talk by a very senior member of SWT management who talked about how they would like to alter Waterloo station because of issues like this – proposals which they appear to regard as a desirable part of the package for introducing 10-car trains. I thought they seemed very good. Whether the DfT and Network Rail will go along with them is another matter.

904. @timbeau – I think you will find that Waterloo is both owned and managed by NR; SWT merely have the right to use the station, and that for the limited period of a franchise – so why address your anger to them? (It would be difficult to think of any major station that has been redeveloped by a TOC. It is yet another perennial delight of the present industry structure that TOCs have no significant material interest in any stations for sufficiently long to enable them to remunerate a rebuild, with Chiltern being the long term franchisee that proves the rule…).

905. @poP
     “I would caution against people making sweeping unsupported statements. I have been to a talk by a very senior member of SWT management who talked about how they would like to alter Waterloo station because of issues like this ”

     I speak as I find. despite repeated badgering at webchats and face to face fora, I have never got anyone at SWT to even acknowledge the existence of the problem. You have evidently been more fortunate and it is encouraging to know that someone in SWT is on the case.

906. @Graham H
     “why address your anger to SWT?”

     1. My contract is with SWT. NR are a subcontractor.
     2. When NR are represented at SWT’s increasingly rare “meet the manager” sessions at Waterloo I have raised the issue with them too.
     3. As far as I am aware, Wimbledon is managed by SWT.

     Roll on accountability.

907. timbeau,

     I know you speak as you find and clearly you have a lot of frustration with SWT. However, this website isn’t the place to vent your frustration and to make unfounded accusations especially on an issue that, as Graham says, is largely not of their making nor is it one they can unilaterally solve. If you have specific issues relevant to the topic in hand then of course they can be commented on.

908. The Northern City line has 15min frequencies in evenings and weekends, thus its exclusion from the map is correct. Of course, I forgive those who didn’t realise this as it is indeed wasteful for this valuable infrastructure to be so under-utilised.

909. As a user of C2C its ovious this report must have been written before the timetable change in December which meant one if the best TOCs became one of the worst with shortened 4 carriage trains and trains stopping at West Ham, Barking and Upminster which attracted users from District Line meaning passengers from outside London could hardly get on trains let alone find seats !

     All they needed to do was extend Laindon terminators to Leigh On Sea but instead we got trains that don’t even stop at Benfleet one of the busiest stations on the line.

     As for these plans then surely transfer of all stations except long distance ones to TFL would allow stations to be maintained and upgraded even if trains that stop at them are not provided by TFL . It’s infrastructure upgrades and better or even new interchanges where lines cross like at Brockley what are needed .

     We have already seen how when TFL take over lines they first clean up and redecorate stations and then look at more major upgrades like better access later .

     One problem is the maps of the Overground are already becoming difficult to understand and so if the network expands a better way of showing lines , routes etc. is needed perhaps we are looking at ” 50 shades of orange ?”.

910. I too wondered about the uncritical praise of c2c in the report. Not that I have personal evidence of how good they might or might not be, but it did strike me as somewhat over the top. And somewhat counter-productive, because it was bound to encourage anyone with a negative impression of this operator to broadcast it – as Melvyn has done here, and there may be others, here and/or elsewhere.

911. Could we please not go any further with discussing c2c? There will be an opportunity to do so in the near future. Needless to say, Melvyn’s comment about all that was necessary was highly simplistic and doesn’t take into account a host of other factors.

     And yes I too thought that the comments on c2c had totally failed to take into account the situation after the timetable change.

912. WAGN @ 21 January 2016 at 16:14

     A quick check on National Rail Enquiries shows that between Moorgate and Alexandra Palace, trains run every 10 minutes in the evening, Monday to Friday (that’s every 20 minutes north of Alexandra Palace). At the weekend, it’s every 15 (30) minutes.

913. But I think the service from Moorgate to Alexandra Palace has only been every 10 minutes in the evening since the December 2015 timetable change – so not surprising this change wasn’t picked up

914. There is no mention of the Ealing-Greenford line.

915. @ PoP – a bit like a rather prominent photo in the joint consultation document completely fails to show a 5 car class 378 despite all the train lengthening works having been completed. A small point I admit but shows a lack of attention to detail when it comes to presenting an accurate and up to date picture. I was also surprised that the shot of Lewisham junction appears to portray somewhere in the sticks with a 4 car EMU – couldn’t they find a peak time shot with longer trains and two or three of them in view?

     I’ve read the document in full but will await the appearance of the pending article before commenting further.

916. Why would anyone want to bid for the new South Western franchise when they now know that they’ll only get two or four years? If they improved things dramatically or whether they let things get even worse, it will make no difference to their future, so there’ll be zero investment during those years as there’ll be no possibility of getting a return.

     Easier, surely, to extend the existing franchise by direct award for two years and then pull it into TfL’s orangewash?

917. @ Alison W – it is already rumoured in the transport press that Stagecoach may only have only have competitor for the SWT franchise. This is because of the bidding cost pressure on potential bidders from the stream of franchises coming up for renewal. The groups can only afford to throw away so many £15m-£20ms on bidding without winning. That was before today’s announcement. The DfT tried to negotiate a 2 year extension but Stagecoach wanted an unacceptable (to the DfT) profit margin for the longer term so no deal was done. It is clear that things like extra new trains that are on order will continue. I expect works to lengthen platforms at Waterloo will also continue and SWT will have to cooperate with that work. This is because they are obliged to do so and DfT, not Stagecoach, is funding the work.

     Where there might be a question mark, unless contracts are signed, is whether Stagecoach would want to fork out its own money to retraction the class 455 EMUs. That was a marginal project but Stagecoach decided they wanted to do it. If you’re likely to lose all those trains early in the next franchise you won’t get any payback and why would Stagecoach want to fund improvements for TfL and / or another contractor? That’s where I think your concerns could be valid but it depends on what is written into the franchise as a commitment. If the contract has been varied to include the retractioning then Stagecoach may be lumbered but that’s never stopped them reaching for the lawyers in the past!! Fun times ahead. 😉

918. WW. I doubt that SWT are taking more than some availability and reliabiljty risk in doing the retraction of the class 455. Yes the job costs £m’s, but it is the normal way of things that the ROSCO pays and the TOC then pays higher rental costs for the remainder of the lease.

919. The break clause would only affect SWT’s inner suburban services – whether the franchise would be more attractive without them, or less so, is an interesting question – I would guess that the longer distance services include more optional travel and therefore more opportunities – and more risks! What would change is that the franchisee would no longer be master if all it surveyed on the SWML, and you may find that LOROL and SWT are less willing to make space for each other when something sits down – so a problem on the fast lines can’t be so easily diluted by thinning out services on the slows, or vice versa, as is the practice at the moment. Whether such cross-contamination is seen as a good thing or not depends on whether yours is the TOC on which the original cause of the disruption occurred!

     Any franchisee spending money in the run-up to a re-letting runs the risk of its successor reaping the benefit. On the other hand, it can be seen as investment in the bid – if the decision makers see lots of dilapidated stations and poor reliability they may think it is time the current incumbent should be eased out. As for the re-tractioning, isn’t it being funded by the ROSCO? http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2013/04/15-porterbook-announces-40m-fleet-upgrade.html

     Even if SWT is contributing to the cost, I think they are financially astute enough to have some sort of break clause in there to recoup some of the improvement cost should they no longer need to lease the units. In any case, the project is way behind time, with only two units converted and as far as I am aware neither yet in traffic.

920. WW
     Never mind the large amount of green vegetation showing in, between & around the tracks in that picture!

921. Oops, I forgot
     Somewhat inaccurate/badly-written report concerning possible/probable several-month-long closure of the “GOBLIN” for electrification works.
     If even partly true, look forward to (even worse?) really serious overcrowding Stratford – Willesden (ish)

922. @GT: Or the wonkey track that really looks more like an almost abandoned railway.

923. Graham Feakins, Walthamstow Writer,

     Surely the whole point of the photo was to show the current state of the railway and the fact that this busy important junction had a single four car train on it? The message is that it would be a whole lot better if run by London Overground.

     Of course, the state of the junction is, I suspect, largely down to a “it works, don’t touch it” mentality. It is well known it needs comprehensive replacing at the first opportunity but with some much other work going on in the London Bridge area it looks like the first opportunity will not be for some time. I can’t see how London Overground running the service will change that.

924. @ PoP 1018 – I assume you’re responding to my comments about the photos? I can’t see a post from Graham F on that subject unless it’s subsequently been deleted or it’s “pending” and you can see it. If you’re right about the Lewisham photo then perhaps there needs to be a 5 car train as that’s the longest formation you see off peak on any LOROL run service at present? Anyway as it seems we’ve reached completely different conclusions as to what that photo is supposed to signify / portray shows it hasn’t worked.

     [Sorry. Yes I meant your comment on Lewisham Junction. PoP]

     @ 100 and Thirty and others – thanks for clarifying about the SWT rolling stock works. Makes perfect sense and I’m sure SWT will have made the appropriate commercial provisions.

925. Now that JB has taken the trouble to rush out an article on the TfL report, can I suggest comments on that report be made there, and this one left for discussion what is happening on the already Overgroundised lines?

     (Is it editorially possible to actually transfer comments from one article to another?)

926. What timbeau said. (It is possible for a moderator to transfer a comment to another article, but the process is fiddly and error-prone, so we do not normally do it).

927. Arrrggh!
     Newspaper reporting
     Now, how many solid facts are there either represented or lis-represented here?
     “Eight Months” – do they mean that or 6 or 9?
     And when is this supposed to happen?
     Does anyone have some more solid facts, please?

928. @ Greg – it’s simple enough. I checked NR’s possession information on their website yesterday. Broadly it’s June 16 to February 17 for works on the GOBLIN. Barking – S Tottenham is closed for that entire period. S Tottenham – Gospel Oak is closed from early October 16 to Feb 17. There are weekend closures between S Tott – G Oak every weekend from June to early October so it’s only a 5 day a week service on the western end of the route. That is what is in the 2016 and 2017 possession info for Anglia region.

     There is currently nothing showing, other than the weekend closures, on the TfL closures look ahead document. I expect that will change at the point at which TfL formally launch its campaign to advertise replacement services. Network Rail’s documents say clearly that there will be bus replacement services for every GOBLIN closure. I assume this will be the usual two section service because double deckers can’t get under the bridge at Gospel Oak.

     The one thing that struck me as odd in the ES article was Mr Stubbs’ remark which suggested the whole thing was somehow tentative when the dates have been in place for months and months so far as NR are concerned. Obviously it would be nice to finish the work earlier but if I was NR I would not be wanting to concede a single day from the duration at this point in time. You can imagine how they would be pilloried if the work overran.

929. Greg at 09:58

     I agree with the thrust of your concern; but I believe that the Evening Standard is no longer a newspaper as you and I understand the term. Graham H made a mildly cutting observation on the subject of people who believe what they read elsewhere.

     I have retained the following from my recent reading:

     Costs have been estimated at 40 to 100 mn in the last five or six years; there has been uncertainty (excess politeness alert) about whether electrification should be paid for by TfL or DfT (bald men fighting over a comb comes to mind for some strange reason).

     A 56.9 mn contract was let to J Murphy in September. More here:

     http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/j-murphy-sons-to-carry-out-electrification-of-gospel-oak-barking-route

930. Re WW and Greg,

     Given the number of interface points with other existing electrified routes (MML, ECML, NLL, Lea Valley (Seven Sisters), WAML, GEML and LTS) where connections are to be made or revised given the proposed feed arrangements (i.e. co-located with Crossrail/GEML?) there will be plenty of neutral sections on all the links and chords and closures required on all those adjoining routes hence I can see those moving with most probably scheduled near the end of the works period so won’t move earlier if things go well.

     There are a lot of knackered bridges and structures to sort which is probably most of the work time wise hence the longer closure Barking – S Tottenham which is where most of the problems structures are.

931. …hence I can’t see…

     Re Old Buccaneer,

     The Murphy contact just looks like civils and track work rather than electrification itself and tells you the amount of legacy civils work needing doing on a oft neglected route.

932. ngh: AIUI J Murphy is primarily a civils firm but 49pc of the contract value is to be subbed according to the link in the Rail Technology article.

     I can imagine spending ~40mn on OHLE and installation at current prices, to get to the upper end of my original range. But, however you cut it, it’s an *awful* lot of fares at 240p. … (ignoring operating costs, obv).

933. ngh
     Part of the viaduct/bridge over the original Lea & the canal is still subject to a 20mph limit – that has got to go. The Blackhorse Rd “new” station really needs a complete rebuild with significantly wider platforms, & some of the overbridges between there & the site of the old Queens Rd coal & goods yard need quite a bit of attention.
     I can see quite readily, how a solid 6-9 month blockade is the easy & cheaper way to go. Platform re-extensions, mostly re-surfacings, too, as well as fun & games @ S Tottenham, I expect.

934. I was amongst the ‘shocked at HOW LONG??’ group when the news came out this week. But notwithstanding that I occasionally use the passenger service I was more concerned with where will all the freight go?

     And if it can go somewhere else while GOBlin is closed, could it not continue going there forever after?

     I’m pretty sure the answer is no to the latter, but what happens in the interregnum will be interesting …

935. @ Alison W – the NR possession info says freight runs via the NLL when the GOBLIN is fully shut. When the G Oak – S Tott section is open then some freight may run via S Tott, Lea Bridge and Stratford.

     The answer as to how that’s possible is that there are spare / unused paths on the NLL because of historic access rights. TfL have been trying to get hold of some of these and it seems they may have been successful given plans to boost frequencies. However you’re never going to take freight off the GOBLIN entirely because of the need to divert freight off the GEML to allow Crossrail to run. Also part of the justification for electrification was to convert some freight workings to electric traction. Even then not all of it will or can go from the GEML (if I’ve been paying attention!). If anything there will be pressure for more freight train paths because of the development of the new port at Thameside. Quite how you get to a future x12 headway on the GOBLIN (a TfL aspiration) and more freight I’m not quite sure although hopefully the EMUs will be more spritely than the Class 172s thus making it easier for freight to slot in between passenger workings and keep moving. The bigger risk is if passenger loadings surge upwards meaning dwell times get longer despite bigger, roomier trains.

936. @WW- is the solution a freight tunnel under the NLL adjacent to the CTRL?

937. Tiger Tanaka,

     You can pretty much forget underground freight tunnels as the answer to anything in this country. In Switzerland (different circumstances) it is different.

     For starters, rail freight runs on incredibly tight costs to compete in markets where it can. You will never keep the flows if you increase track access charges to pay a contribution to the construction of the tunnels. The only hope is to justify the cost of diverting freight is to charge it to the passenger business to get the freight out the way. I don’t think Goblin will ever pay for that!

     Also, there is freight that, for safety reasons, probably would never be allowed in tunnels – or at least not allowed unless some very expensive additional precautions were added. Adding extra vents/emergency access complete with safe exclusion zone or additional service tunnel, Channel Tunnel style, in a built-up area where land is expensive would create further exorbitant costs.

938. @tiger tanaka – and there’s no special magic in having the freight tunnel slavishly follow the NLL. Standing back from the narrow focus for a moment, that freight is coming from the likes of Thamesport and generally going to the W Midlands and other destinations well away from London (there are relatively few freight yards left in London these days); it just happens to use the NLL and GOBLIN because there is no alternative. You could equally complete a freight diversionary route using East-West and the line through Bury at a lot less cost than a tunnel but it would mean freight having to travel further by exiting from Thamesport to the east, and as WW has pointed out that would blow their waferthin margins – track access charges would have to be skewed to permit it.

939. If it is the aspiration for an increased passenger service which is driving the need for extra capacity, surely that is who should pay, whether the extra capacity that is built is used by the passenger trains or by the freight displaced from the existing lines.
     In the same way, if the Battersea – Herne Hill tunnel is built for non-stop Kent services in order to allow more services to call at Brixton and Herne Hill, that is for TfL’s benefit, not the Chathamites and Thanetters who would actually use the tunnel (it would not have much effect on capacity on the long distance services, as the constraints through Beckenham Junction and beyond would still be there)
     And again, if part of the justification for XR2 is to keep those pesky suburbanites off the SWML and make more room for fast trains from Surrey and Hampshire, then the operators of those fast trains should contribute to the cost.

940. Re Graham H,

     It might not help London Gateway (Thamesport is actually on the Medway and a little quite these days) but would help with the freight from Felixstowe but then so would sorting Ely etc. which get perennially delayed and far cheaper than any tunnel scheme.

941. @ Graham/ Pedantic

     While trying not to go too far down “that” road, but am I correct in thinking that if the structure of the railways was a horizontally owned private/public company, then track access charges would not exist and freight tunnels may be slightly more viable?

942. @ngh – sorry, yes, I meant the industry on the north bank of the Thames (and certainly meant Felixstowe), You are, right, sorting Ely seems very much cheaper than any other way of relieving the NLL.

     @tiger tanaka – did you mean *vertically* integrated? (As in BR days) Certainly you wouldn’t need the circulation of wooden dollars, but I doubt that it would make tunnelling much cheaper. The costs of doing whatever is needed for infrastructure would be the same whoever owns it and would still form part of the cost base of the industry to be recovered in some way or other. Like I say, you don’t need freight tunnels at all; there is no special magic in following the route of the NLL. The freight is moving between origins and destinations which have nothing to do with London and if you drew a straight line between them, it would pass far away from the metropolis.

943. Graham H & others
     ( my earlier comment vanished, but I think it was electronic) …
     If you want to remove freight from London, to free up passenger paths etc, then you need [ CRAYON alert ] to build approx Pitsea – GEML & probably an extra track (or 2) on to Colchester.
     Expensive.
     Agree re Ely & Soham, though.

944. @Greg T -not sure about the need for quadrupling, but Pitsea-GEML is*much* cheaper than digging tunnels.

945. Graham H @ 28 January 2016 at 22:40

     “The costs of doing whatever is needed for infrastructure would be the same whoever owns it”

     I’m astonished that someone of your experience could write that. Are you really of the opinion that there are no costs to different forms of ownership, contract or poor working relationships?

     I write as one who has ridden on a tram in Edinburgh.

946. @Alan Griffiths
     I think the operative word in Graham H’s comment was “needed”.

     Agreed that a poor contractual arrangement, or industrial relations, or financing provisions (PFI anyone?), may indeed add unnecessary costs.

947. @Alan griffiths /timbeau – Indeed. My basic point was that it costs what it costs to pick up a shovel. Where the differing ownership structures make a hell of a difference is in transactional and new interface costs. There was a good reason why BR’s £3.5bn turnover became overnight twice that on privatisation. To take just two interesting examples: TOCs charge each other commission for selling each other’s tickets (not a cost inside a unified railway); the Board was self-insured (apart from disaster events), but now every part of the industry has to carry its own insurance (an additional figure of 5% of t/o is sometimes mentioned ) – worse, what used to be a simple repair job if, say, a train ran hard into the buffers, is now a set of conflicting insurance claims with all that that implies in terms of asset sequestration and extra management time.* The examples of these costs which add no value to the end product but affect the Pand L could be multiplied many times over, alas.

     It is true that engineering costs have escalated out of all reason since privatisation (not the place to discuss in detail here) but not because of changed ownership (except – and in the case of Railtrack, a big exception – where management culture has changed.)

     *As the rail manager for Aeon put it to me so eloquently at the time: “The insurance industry views trains as two walls of money moving towards each other”. ‘Nuff said…

948. The trouble with “sorting Ely etc.”is that

     a) the “etc.” bit is rather significant, Ely being by far the easiest bit
     b) of the c100 daily freight paths on the NLL, around half could not sensibly be diverted via Ely anyway

949. @SFD – getting rid of even half of them would be good..

950. What exactly needs sorting at Ely? Container trains seemed to be running smoothly through it when I was there.

951. @timbeau: This Network Rail page about a proposed Ely-Soham doubling gives some information, although it unfortunately refers to studies “this year” – presumably meaning 2015, but who knows? There seems to have been some complicated stop-starting in recent years on this scheme and its predecessors: too much gory detail would probably be off-topic.

952. Graham H says “TOCs charge each other commission for selling each other’s tickets (not a cost inside a unified railway)”

     The actual commission is not a cost in a disunified railway either, since the net sum of all inter-TOC commissions is automatically zero. However, the admin costs of calculating and billing all these commissions are indeed an additional pointless cost.

     Privatisation enthusiasts would claim that all these additional frictional costs will be outweighed by the wonderful savings created by innovation and competition. I understand such claims, but view them with voluminous scepticism.

953. @Malcolm -possibly a bit more complicated than that because each selling TOC has its income inflated and therefore the basis on which its profit (or payment to owning group) is calculated is inflated also. Similarly, those who pay the commission have an additional cost that is then subject to the general squeeze on costs (eg McNulty’s 30% off!). Sometimes, the wooden dollars develop a life of their own…

     Of course, the savings from privatisation were truly wonderful, as you say: the railways which had cost the taxpayer £1bn in 1994, cost them about £4bn by 1998 – a truly awesome saving. But then, thanks to the externalisation of internal trading, what had been a £3.5bn industry in 1994 suddenly became a £7.5bn one the next year. No netting off to achieve a zero sum game there. [I have already related how ONS passed up the opportunity to correct this, and won’t repeat; the end effect of ONS stupidity (?) was to increase the GDP by about 0.5% – the whole of the growth in the economy that year.]

954. @ Malcolm

     Ely-Soham doubling currently paused due to the engineering studies discovering that the cost of track reinstatement was more than had been allocated by the DFT investment fund framework. Thus the scheme was stopped whilst still possible (unlike the Metropolitan line extension..)

955. Timbeau: the question is “what is required to run more freight from the Suffolk ports to the Midlands and north via Ely”. This is what has been suggested in various route studies / freight studies:

     Haughley Junction redoubling

     Haughley Jn to Soham additional signalling sections to improve headways

     At Ely: remodelling Ely North junction and closing some level crossings (including the busy one next to the station)

     Ely – Soham doubling (also includes some level crossing works)

     Ely – Peterborough resignalling (plus, guess what, more level crossings)

     New flyover on ECML at Werrington Junction

     Peterborough – Leicester probable resignalling (and yes, more level crossings)

     Leicester area: additional tracks plus a flyover at Syston Junction

     Plus: a firm commitment from (instruction to?) the freight companies to use that route, which takes longer and requires diesel haulage, and thus is more expensive than currently, thus making the rail freight trip slightly less competitive compared to road.

956. “At Ely: remodelling Ely North junction and closing some level crossings (including the busy one next to the station)”
     Ah, so most of thew work isn’t actually at Ely – that wo0uld explain it.

     The “busy” level crossing on the A142 is only required for vehicles between 9’0 and 16’6″ high. Lower ones can use the underpass, higher ones cannot pass under the wires. There is a similar arrangement on the A137 at Manningtree (both level crossings have four tracks, by the way)

957. The Ely LC is the only sensible route for HGVs from the huge Turners depot at Soham to a swathe of agricultural land in north Cambs and NW Norfolk. With the crossing often down 10 minutes at a time or more it doesn’t take long for the queue of HGVs to block back on to the main road and block that too. Hence the proposal for the Ely Southern bypass.

     Manningtree has 3 and a bit tracks, as it spans part of the junction to the Harwich line.

958. SFD
     ….thus making the rail freight trip slightly less competitive compared to road.
     Only because of the huge hidden subsidy that HGV’s get from the DfT in terms of environmental damage, cost of road-construction & maintenance etc ….
     Which I think is a subject for a separate discussion, actually. [Agreed. Which we are not having here. Malcolm]

959. TfL have published a paper on the pending award of the new Overground concession contract. It sets out some key aspects of the new performance regime – very similar to that used for Crossrail. There are also a number of pre-priced options for TfL to select if they wish on longer hours of operation, Boxing Day / NYD services, night services on the core ELL route, extra frequencies etc. TfL are also taking the opportunity to shuffle some activities between TfL and the operator as has happened with the DLR and Crossrail concessions. Obviously no hint as to who the likely winning bidder is but we can expect a decision at the TfL Board later in March and presumably announcement before purdah kicks in.

     In the Project approvals list there is also a paper for design funding GOBLIN platform extensions, extra canopies on platforms and extra gating at three (unnamed) stations. Total expected cost overall is just short of £17m. This follows the precedent on the 5 car projects where TfL procured the platform works leaving NR to the major works on the tracks and signals.

960. TWAO for Barking Riverside extension now formally applied for.
     The link is the entry-page for a whole raft of relevant documentation & information from TfL….

961. I hope you’ll forgive me dropping in (for the first time) and remarking on a wonderful piece of serendipity. As a result of Graham H’s moment of rebellion (recounted in his glorious post of 07:38 4 August 2015 above), Arthur Charles Valerian Wellesley, amongst his many titles, is Prince of Waterloo, Duke of Victoria, and Signatory to the Lease of Ipswich station….

     Sublime.

962. @Reggie – glad to please! Just for further amusement, I suspect that the record for the document that I signed wearing the most number of hats (from my collection of c 160 or so) was the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement, which effectively transferred the management of the ticket sales to the TOCs and ATOC. It had 30 parties (27 TOCs ,the Board, LRT, and ATOC) of which I represented 28. Each copy required 2 signatures and was executed in triplicate; each document existed in 30 variants depending on the party concerned and each party needed its own set of every other party’s variant. So, 6×30 x30 signatures of which about 5000 were mine perforce. @7 seconds a signature, that was a 12 hour day (with PNBs) spent on a single document. Caught the last train home. [Recognised at the time as the historic moment the Board gave away the crown jewels, there was a steady stream of visitors, including Board members,to see how matters were going -not much to see, though, just yours truly sitting at a giant meeting table that was about 1 metre deep in piles of paper. Rumpelstiltskin came to mind]

963. This was a missed opportunity. The Mayor did overplay his hand: TfL/London Overground would not be utopia. But London Overground has provided radical evolution and it has been the influence of TfL/LT that drove the momentum for London suburban rail to improve particularly on station care and staffing (very critical in both the North London and South London Lines).

     The democratic deficit cited by the Secretary of State is contrived at best. Do commuters in Kent or Surrey currently get a say in their rail services? No – the specification is laid down by the DfT. So if there is this sudden attack of democratic accountability in the DfT then surely there should be devolution of most rail services to the Home Counties? Or conversely the Central Line should terminate at Woodford and the Metropolitan at Rickmansworth?

     It is true that suburban rail, because trains share paths with regional and long distance services cannot have that neat segregation as exists with the Tube. Indeed long-term if you wanted this then you have to convert suburban rail into a Crossrail type operation with dedicated tracks going underground – in fact this is pretty much what happened in the 1920/1930s with the Northern Line.

     But equally the exclusion of suburban rail from London Transport simply condemned London commuters to a phantom network that often neglected – in some cases appallingly so – with dismal map information, unstaffed stations and run-down low frequency trains. Compared to the Tube it really was a ‘tale of two systems’. What Chris Grayling should have argued – if he feels TfL should not take over London suburban rail – is why it would be BETTER for suburban rail to stay under the direction of the DfT.

     I think TfL need to move the advocacy beyond stating future suburban rail would be a continuity of London Overground and instead start envisaging dedicated suburban rail networks under a London Metrorail brand for all services within or just terminating outside Greater London (eg Victoria-Dartford). For some services that are regional but which are used a lot by Londoners TfL should links with Home Counties councils and call for a joint-devolution under a London Country Rail brand with a joint-governance board. Hence rather than the situation of TfL lobbying for services which go deep into the Home Counties, TfL is lobbying for devolution to the Home Counties, so bringing them on board. So you could have two elements to London and South East rail services: suburban rail under London Metrorail (a TfL concession) and London Country Rail for some metro/regional services run by TfL and the Home Counties with dedicated branding. Oyster would be extended throughout both networks and beyond – to Shoeburyness and Aylesbury.

     Doing nothing has never been to discredited

964. I wonder if Grayling is aware that his constituency has some of the best bus services in Surrey, courtesy entirely of TfL.

965. @ Nick B – a couple of problems. Mr Grayling is ideologically opposed to the entire idea of surrendering DfT control to anyone in the political spectrum. Why would he entertain the idea of devolution to the Home Counties and TfL? I suspect that if he had the chance Mr G would have wrenched Crossrail out of TfL’s hands and also scrapped Rail North as well. However I suspect things are too far forward for that to happen without major problems emerging that would be directly linked to Mr G. The DfT have refused to release their assessment of the Mayor’s Business Case for devolution. To my mind that suggests one glaringly obvious conclusion – that it was broadly a good idea but failed the SoS’s personal political test. The other problem is that Mr Grayling is the one with the power as Secretary of State. Therefore he doesn’t actually have to “bend his knee” to anyone and certainly not to the Mayor.

     I don’t think a “rebranding” exercise serves any purpose nor does some convoluted form of pretend devolution. The counties that would have been served by devolved TfL rail services were all broadly content after many months of effort and discussion to get to an agreed position with TfL and with “red lines” in place on key policy areas. What else needs to change? Nothing much. There are two TfL Board members which have responsibility for rail services beyond the Greater London boundary. They are the direct contact points for stakeholders, passengers, whoever if there are concerns about TfL’s operation. People broadly understand what TfL stewardship of their rail service and the “Overground” means. Why undo what is a broadly popular concept? That’s just to throw away nearly a decade’s worth of work.

     The whole argument about “accountability” is pretty spurious – I can no more influence who is the Secretary of State than I can the Mayor. I have one vote in a General or Mayoral election. I have a slighter shorter “reach” in being able to contact the Mayor or Assembly Members than I do in having to contact my MP who then has to do battle with House of Commons protocol to possibly ask the SoS a question which will then get some sort of “pat answer” and not be taken seriously. Exactly the same can happen with questioning the Mayor if the Mayor and his officials don’t take your question seriously. I speak with direct experience of the process. Therefore the idea that there is any real accountability to the public is just pretty ridiculous if those in power don’t respect what the public ask of them.

     I don’t see any benefit in TfL taking on long distance services to places like Southend. The whole “shared tracks doesn’t work efficiently” argument is also daft. It is perfectly possible for multiple companies to efficiently share track. I suggest Mr Grayling visits Japan to see how proper through working between networks and different operators works efficiently and to the public’s advantage.

966. @WW -given Grayling’s views on competition, it’s difficult to reconcile them with his views on shared tracks…

967. @ Nick B

     I heard that TfL had done most of what you suggest. They worked with Kent to write an agreement on serving trains starting at Dartford without that station suffering in any way. TfL then used this agreement with all? the other counties that would be affected by the full devolution aimed for, with them all on board.

     I can’t read how the Oyster area is growing, other than just whatever is the project of the year (ie Gatwick, Reading). The ticket barriers in some stations can read the smart cards of the franchise, I’d like to see them return the favour (but maybe there’s down sides to that like all the unmanned stations).

968. @Toby
     “all? the other counties that would be affected by the full devolution aimed for, with them all on board.”
     If it was to be done at county level, devolution of SE services would only involve Kent County Council and Medway Unitary Authority. SE does serve East Sussex as well, on the Hastings line, so they might be interested in ensuring longer distance services are not adversely affected.

     The Southern would involve Surrey, West Sussex if services as far as Gatwick or Horsham were to be involved, and East Sussex if you include the Uckfield line.

     Hampshire might have an interest in protecting the longer-distance services.
     SWT would be Surrey and at least two of the Berkshire unitaries (for the Windsor line) – five if the Reading line is involved. Hants, Dorset, Wilts, Somerset and Devon would all have an interest in protecting its longer distance services.

     The Great Northern Inners only get into Hertfordshire, but any proposal for increases in services on the ECML could have knock-on effects on services as far away as Inverness!

969. @timbeau- and that is the problem in a nutshell: there are no clean breaks in the definition of rail services (or even long distance coach services) to London. (Something recognised indeed in the statutory definition of TfL’s remit). And in particular, the operational boundaries between inner and outer rail services, if they exist at all (Chiltern, anyone?), are no respecters of politically drawn boundaries. Every time, I have seen the issue debated (which is very frequently), two and only two variants arise – roughly what we have now (could be tweaked in places, but not a bad alignment between inners and outers), or a SE England “PTE” with all the problems of accountability and the span of local control/service provision that implies. No doubt,if we had had some form of regional devolution, rail would have followed that – a long standing ambition of DTp/DfT -but that would almost certainly have caused a split in planning between buses and trains.

970. If you look in the appendices of TfL’s business case for SE Metro takeover, there’s some letters from Kent, Medway(?), Surrey and Herts to May / Grayling (and cced to the Mayor/TfL), upon the change of whose in charge at Whitehall, asking for a status update re:the deal that was reached with Boris.

     The county councils (well, maybe not Herts if the Met Line Extension creates a mess) are still up for Boris’ solution, if TfL offers it and the DfT allows it (which would need a change in minister).

971. @Si
     Not sure why Herts or Surrey would be interested in a TfL takeover of SE Metro, but in fact the letters cover the principle of devolution of the GN inners and some Southern services as well.
     http://content.tfl.gov.uk/rail-devolution-business-case-narrative.pdf
     Sevenoaks District Council also wrote in support, but I couldn’t find a letter from Surrey or Medway councils – the latter would be served if TfL SE services ran as far as Strood, which I don’t think was in the plan, as services beyond Gravesend were not included. However, improvements in the Metro services might have impacted on both the North Kent and Chatham routes to the Medway Towns.

     South Eastern got most emphasis as it is the one for which refranchising will soon be started.
     The services proposed that extend outside London were:
     – SE to Gravesend and Sevenoaks (both Kent)
     – Southern to Epsom Downs and Epsom (both Surrey). It is noticeable that it does not include anything through East Croydon – not even the Cat/Tatts. Another curious omission is Dorking – possibly because Southern’s services continue to Horsham.
     – SWT to Shepperton, Hampton Court, Dorking (all Surrey)
     – GN to Welwyn Garden City and Stevenage via Hertford (Herts)

     No involvement of Berkshire or Sussex

972. Walthamstow Writer: I’m not against London Overground as a concept but TfL have been thinking about network and line branding were suburban rail to dramatically grow.

     Re: London Country Rail – the point is that there would be devolution to the Home Counties and TfL with a separate joint-governance, rather than a TfL/City Hall ‘take over’.

     I don’t think it is ‘daft’ to see there is clearly competition between long distance and suburban and regional trains for paths and slots at the big termini: perhaps elaborate why you think otherwise?

973. @ Timbeau – we know that Kent and Surrey CCs are supportive of devolution because their officials sat in front of the Assembly Transport Cttee (old one prior to May 2016) and said they were. They explained their “red lines” and said they had reached agreement with TfL on these matters.

     I expect the “omissions” with respect to Southern are down to the fact that TfL ignored the changes set out in the ongoing Southern / Thameslink consultation when compiling the latest business case submission. The ideas in that inevitably cause a number of issues for resolution for a devolved operation. Sir Peter Hendy (when at TfL) had, IIRC, specifically ruled out TfL seeking to take on Thameslink services because of all of the implications that could cause. That meant Caterham and Tattenham Cnr services were ruled out under the previous structure of Thameslink services planned for post 2018. Anyway it’s all academic now unless Mr Grayling is removed from his post.

974. @Nick B
     “I don’t think it is ‘daft’ to see there is clearly competition between long distance and suburban and regional trains for paths and slots at the big termini”

     That’s not what WW said. What he said was daft was “The whole “shared tracks doesn’t work efficiently” argument”. You can share tracks (or any other resource, such as landing slots at airports, bandwidth, etc) however fiercely the users of those resources are competing – provided the resource is under the control of a disinterested (i.e impartial) party.

975. Ok – my bad.

     On branding actually I was at a meeting with TfL a few years ago when we were informally discussing how TfL could expand the network (ie through transfer of rail networks) and one of the stakeholder officers challenged me to set out line and network branding.

     If and when the Department for Transport finally gets round to publishing the responses and analysis of the consultation it did earlier this year on devolution I set out the ideas. I think that if devolution does come TfL might well be quite bold on branding and not necessarily use London Overground as the ‘umbrella brand’ for rail services.

     I suspect that there will be a reshuffle in the next eighteen months including the DfT and a fresh pair of eyes to look at this again.

976. @WW
     Mr Grayling is Transport Secretary.
     As such, it is probably more appropriate to say “until” rather than “unless” when referring to his removal.

977. Cross-Party group of London MP’s have written to the prime minister (according to a TfL press release) urging her to review Transport Secretary Chris Grayling’s decision.

978. @WW/Nameless

     “Unless” he is removed from his post in time for the plans to be put back on course. We have already missed the boat for SWT, and the franchise renewal timetable for SET is looming (June 2018). The timescale in TfL’s original proposal had a Partnership Board scheduled to be set up by now, and a “Disaggregation Report” written. (see page 33 of the consultation document)

979. @ Nick B – Well if TfL were considering a different branding concept they don’t need to any more. I now understand your point now you’ve expanded it but I don’t really want to comment further as any discussion of how rail services are “presented” to the public inevitably generates 1,000 opinions and no consistent view.

     @ Timbeau – thanks for replying on my behalf. As I know you comprehend the whole point is that tracks can be shared and are shared across the country. As you say there is a third party responsible for train path allocation and TfL have committed to not “stealing” paths used for longer distance trains. To suggest you couldn’t cope with two operators on SE metals into London is ludicrous. If we take Mr G’s argument even a few steps forward then why are Thameslink trains being introduced to new tracks on SE metals? Furthermore I look forward to the DfT demanding that only one operators runs into Birmingham New St or York or Newcastle or Bristol TM. The “arguments” from the SoS don’t survive even slight examination against the reality of rail operation here or elsewhere in the world. This is all a load of horrible and illogical party politics and nothing to do with reality. I can’t wait to see all the extra capacity the DfT are going to squeeze out of the SE network given the remarks about how TfL’s proposal didn’t add any peak capacity.

980. @WW -one is reminded of the similar assertion by the late (in office) and thoroughly forgettable Bowker R, who insisted that each London terminus needed but a single operator to avoid the – ahem – wasteful competition for platform capacity, thus demonstrating at a single blow his complete ignorance of hiow the railways actually ran.

981. @Graham H
     Even in pre-Grouping days (and to a lesser extent after Grouping) some London termini were shared – Fenchurch Street, Moorgate, and Broad Street for example. And outside London, major interchanges like Birmingham New Street, Manchester London Road, and York. That seemed to work without too much regulatory oversight.

982. @timbeau – quite so (and for those London termini with shared facilities post privatisation, it was usually the case that the different TOCs used different groups of platforms, often exclusively. ) Just occasionally,conflicting claims between sectors arose in BR days over track access or platforming but the combatants were invariably told off by JKW to sort themselves out or he would do it for them – with unpleasant consequences for all…

983. Apologies if I have missed it, but has there been any indication (officially or leaked) about the cost of devolving London’s railways to TfL ? Ignoring the not insignificant transition cost, is SK expecting to be able to run the devolved railways from within existing TfL finances, or is he expecting the DfT to partially or fully fund these services ?

984. Jim Cobb & GH
     SK? JKW?
     This is worse than station designations which are easy to look up.
     O.K. I can mange SK as he is, after all, current. But JKW is history which is not my study.

985. @ Graham H – Mr B was one of my former bosses at LU. While I understand your comment he was, IME, a very bright and intelligent chap.

     @ J Cobb – the Business Case document that TfL sent to Mr Grayling sets out the costs and a range of other assumptions. I was looking at it earlier on and the numbers show an approximate core cost of £23m per annum to run the SE inners service. In earlier years this rose to around £80m or so – presumably to cover the costs of immediate improvements that TfL would implement. I only skimmed bits of the document so there may well be other numbers on assumed revenue etc. The commentary on costs said the costs could be borne with relative ease in the TfL budget.

     http://content.tfl.gov.uk/rail-devolution-business-case-narrative.pdf

     There is also a letter from C Grayling in the package. It sets the “test” as being one of improvements for *all* passengers. Of course, this is a ridiculous test given TfL were only proposing to take over *some* services. They can’t possibly be accountable for *improvements* on long distance services. All they can do is ensure their proposals and operation do not make matters *worse* for those longer distance trains. You have to wonder if TfL twigged they’d been set such a ridiculous test and that whatever they said they were doomed to fail.

986. WW
     It is to be hoped that CG’s entirely fact-free universe comes back to bite him!
     His statement was not, IIRC to the House, was it? Which is most unfortunate, as if it had been, he could be (effectively) be thrown out of office for misleading said House …
     Maybe more pressure will build up, given the X-party movement I alluded to earlier?

987. Re Jim Cobb,

     TfL business case: Just under £280m till April 2021 from TfL funds assuming roll over of existing DfT subsidy for SE continues, then £23m p.a. (real terms) in subsequent years. The cost included extra units to cover SE metro and SE Long distance split (see LR article on West Anglia Overgroundisation for discussion on extra unit requirements that occurred when WA overground and TfL were split from Anglia) but not extra units to run longer peak services or any funding mechanism for infrastructure improvements need to meet their medium and long term aspirations.

     The initial devolution agreement was holier that a piece of Emmental /Jarlsberg / Gouda so TfL’s actual plans would have had effects on long distance SE services.

     The plan was completely suspiciously light on how much extra revenue TfL through they would get in, though the £23m p.a. ongoing cost would only have needed about 5% extra fare collection on SE metro services to cover the annual cost which suggests it would be profitable for TfL on a steady state basis after the initial investment. Lots of the proposed investment was focused on increasing levels of fares collected (e.g. gating / station staffing /station fencing & security).

     Under the current direct award and previous extensions / SE franchises since Connex the cost of additional revenue collection measures has been with SE but the extra revenue effectively going to DfT hence there is no incentive for SE to invest in greater revenue collection. But DfT thinking has changed on new franchises elsewhere which combined with a longer franchise term (SE has been on 2, 3, 4 and 6 year terms in the preceding 15 years by the end with the 6 year term including introduction of SE services and the start of Thameslink Programme (KO0) at Blackfriars so investment priorities were mandated to be elsewhere).

     DfT not just Grayling weren’t amused at TfL’s actual proposal so expect DfT’s ITT to include measures that will actually be better for more passengers and see any financially benefit to better and greater revenue collection stay with the franchisee and DfT rather than going to TfL.

     As DfT said yesterday to the BBC:
     “the mayor’s business plan for taking over Southeastern routes provided no extra capacity in peak hours, and there was no funding identified for improvements to infrastructure. We can deliver service improvements through partnership, without the need for a massive reorganisation,”

988. FYI — The link in Greg’s comment at 8:05 results in a 404 error.

     [Now fixed by Malcolm to point to a page which may have been the one Greg intended.]

989. @RayK – JKW = JK Welsby, the last CEO (and eventually also, Chairman) of BR.

     @WW – I’d forgotten that Bowker had come via LU (he was an investment manager there, if I recall?). I met him only a few times and didn’t quite seem to realise his exposed position politically – for example, in response to a question from me about the recently introduced revised closure tests for railways,which invite PTEs and TOCs to bring forward closure cases, he publicly declared that he thought they would be eager to do this,and,no,he didn’t see any problems if he had to do this himself in the course of a franchise negotiation – life was probably simpler in LU. Ex-BR colleagues who worked with him in OPRAF/SRA also found that he was an excessively trusting sort of cove…

990. Thank you to ngh’s comment (30 December 2016 at 18:16) for bringing some hard facts and insight as to why the DfT are heading the way they are.

991. Given fare evasion is rife on SE and population growth in Metro areas is so great then TfL would likely have made a fair bit more than their conservative income.

     Will DfT, hit but big budget cuts, award a franchise that specifies any real improvement? Very unlikely.

992. “The plan was completely suspiciously light on how much extra revenue TfL through they would get in, though the £23m p.a. ongoing cost would only have needed about 5% extra fare collection on SE metro services to cover the annual cost which suggests it would be profitable for TfL on a steady state basis after the initial investment. Lots of the proposed investment was focused on increasing levels of fares collected (e.g. gating / station staffing /station fencing & security).”

     Badly needed but who will do what is needed – DfT or TfL? TfL only needed 5% to be profitable. Levels round 30% are likely according to staff. I REALLY doubt the DfT will demand what is needed in the ITT.

     “As DfT said yesterday to the BBC:
     “the mayor’s business plan for taking over Southeastern routes provided no extra capacity in peak hours, and there was no funding identified for improvements to infrastructure. We can deliver service improvements through partnership, without the need for a massive reorganisation,”

     So we can guarantee the DfT will ensure more peak capacity eh? Pigs might fly. No faith given their record. A 12-car railway with no 12-carriage services as they block more stock for years on end. And do nothing to ensure internal refurbs to increase capacity. TfL would do that on day 1 onwards.

     No Massive re-organistation. Just a guinea pig for Graylings bright idea…

     Which will probably take any cash for improvements, and I doubt they’ll even be any for that.

     Grayling is a disaster for the area.

993. re WW,

     Apologies I started typing my previous comment then got pulled away only to return later so we somewhat duplicated comments…

     TfL’s plans would have impacted SE Long distance the problem is that probably don’t realise quite how integrated thing are so if you change something in St Johns there can be unexpected side effects far far away in Ashford or beyond (e.g. a small timetable tweak in London potential destroys a path further out in Kent unless investment is made in Kent, end of the 20/22minute peak timetable cycle through London Bridge), which could increase the SE Long distance requirement for rolling stock, drivers (guards), ability to stop at come quieter stations, sidings* / depot space*. Probable requirement for SE to supply trained drivers to take certain SE metro units to heavy maintenance centres of expertise so 376 Bombardier stock to Ramsgate and 465/0 & 1’s retrofitted with Hitachi traction electrics to Hitachi at Ashford.

     As I been saying since Jan ’16 DfT have set TfL an exam to see how well they understand the operational and financial issues. The result after almost year is that TfL appear to have missed many items from DfT’s marking scheme for the exam and haven’t reached the pass mark.

     * Hint – there isn’t the room for the extra units required during a split so big investment required to increase number of units. The extra units SE are getting from Southern as part of the Cascade due to new Thameslink Stock and TL route take overs from Southern are using up more than the available space (hence Selhurst and Stewart’s Lane (Battersea) as temporary home for some units when they transfer.)

     Which links to TfL’s answer in the business case of increasing the quantity of stock beyond the separation minimum for longer trains was along the lines of ‘we can lease more like the rest of the industry does and worry about it when we need too.’ missing the point about how you store and maintain them. TfL have had plenty of fun sorting extra sidings for the original overground (ELL/NLL/WLL).

994. Re Eddie,

     Should have phrased it better as TfL more than covers it additional annual costs, hence making a “profit”… DfT still has to pour in the same amount of subsidy as currently, now if DfT would like to reduce the subsidy instead of TfL making a profit by getting a TOC to invest in generating the additional revenue with the majority flowing back to DfT.

     If the evasion levels are as high as 30% then TfL would recover the initial non ongoing expenditure in around 6 operating years (e.g. by end 2024) with no passenger growth from 2015-16 levels and very low inflation.

     Internal refurbs to increase capacity – removing more than a small number of seats on networkers so there is more standing room and better passenger flow would require major suspension modifications to take the additional maximum load so not a simple day 1 onwards activity.

995. @ Ngh – so I take it you are not a fan of devolution to TfL? I understand the points you make but have TfL been given full access to the inner workings of South Eastern and all of their detailed schedules, vehicle exams, cascades etc etc? If they have not then it’s a bit unfair to “slag” TfL for not being au fait with all of the minutiae.

     The simple point here is that the DfT may well feel as you suggest. However they have refused to publish their critique so what are we supposed to conclude? All we have “on the record” is a politically biased view from the Secretary of State which is not a safe or appropriate basis on which to take a decision. DfT also have a massive credibility issue – they sit in judgement but do nothing obvious to positive manage the TOCs to ensure the best service for the public.

     We all know DfT don’t give a damn about suburban services – they’ve been left to rot or stagnate for decades. Why should we believe that has been a sudden change of policy at DfT? TfL at least have a track record of delivering improvement. South Eastern certainly do not and the mess on TSGN is an indictment of years of mismanagement by DfT and the TOCs based on all the detail that has been provided on this blog.

     I respect the fact that you provide a great deal of important and detailed information across a range of subjects. However you’ll never convince me that the DfT have been / are / will be a good steward of London suburban services. They should be publicly controlled under the Mayor via Transport for London.

996. WW
     To which, may I add, with a very slight modification of your own words:
     ” However you’ll never convince me that the DfT have been / are / will be a good steward of any passenger rail services.”

997. @Greg

     Whether DfT have been a good steward of long distance or non-London local services is not really relevant to whether tfL would do a better job with the suburban services, but they do seem to concentrate on improving longer distance optional travel, at least at franchise renewal time.

998. Re WW,

     TfL only realised they didn’t really know relatively late on with the army of consultants arriving just weeks before the document being submitted, when it was arguably too late.

     I would be in favour of devolution if TfL recognised the issues they needed to address, #1 is peak capacity which Eddie has summarised the requirements nicely – Longer trains and higher capacity train interiors. The first being a partial hang over from the rolling stock order reductions during the early 1990’s.

     You don’t score highly if you miss the elephant in the room!

999. So, basically, people appear to want better overall management of the services in this part of the country. To improve the network effect of decent timetabling. In the South East.

     A network … hmmmn, I wonder what would happen.

     Happy New Year :-p

1000. IIRC the previous rail minister publicly ‘promised’ a two stage increase in capacity to South Eastern, the first of which was for late 2016/early 2017 and the second in 2019. I understood this to refer to cascaded 319s. Events have intervened and the minister resigned.
      The point is that DfT have been aware of the need for additional capacity for some time. Interesting if this was not communicated to TfL.

1001. @ Ngh – I am puzzled by your “army of consultants only recently arriving” remark. This rather suggests that nothing to any great level detail has been done by TfL for the last 2-3 years despite the aspiration to gain control of South Eastern having been evident for many, many years if we believe what the last Mayor had as policy for 8 years. This strikes me as an extraordinary state of affairs. There are multiple possible explanations for this and I’d suggest most of those involve either a lack of will from City Hall to force access to the requisite detail, obstruction by the DfT or a “strange” approach by TfL. There may also have a bit of “it’ll all be alright on the night” attitude from Mssrs Johnson and McLoughlin about the outcome of the 2016 Mayoral Election so no need to do the detail beforehand. Any way round what a mess we’re now in.

1002. Re WW,

      TfL have done plenty of work over the years but at some point they would have to bite the bullet and go to an extra level of detail (start from a bottom up build) which costs a huge amount in specialist staff time (i.e. outside consultants / contractors which SK also wants to clamp down on the usage of…) to see what is and isn’t feasible on the ground. At which point any previous assumptions (from top down approaches) may be shown not to hold or cost significantly more than estimated.

      “SE metro” is a 4 central terminal concept with significant sections of shared use track (with Long distance SE services and Thameslink) with about 35 times more shared (e.g. slow & fast) track usage than West Anglia Overground (1 central terminal).

      Also worth noting in the business plan that TfL seem confused over taking over Blackfriars SE metro services e.g. 2 tph Blackfriars – Orpington/Beckenham Jn stoppers (which return to Southeastern running in 2018 after 9 years being operated by Thameslink during the Blackfriars and London bridge rebuilds) as they only include Victoria, Charing Cross and Cannon Street as their termini but include Blackfriars terminating services (both fast and stopping) on their service pattern map (page 57 of pdf) in Thameslink Purple line colour but without the metro references so presumably they expect SE to retain all the future the peak only Blackfriars services (fast and stopping). Which might be at odds with DfT thinking e.g. TfL take all the stopping services including Blackfriars Peak only which is a cost (in every sense) transfer to TfL. TfL also don’t seem to have understood how SE fast and Thameslink services will operate via Catford Loop and Herne Hill routes post 2018.

      from page 37 of the Business Plan

      “Specifically, TfL has identified the following groups of suburban services that
      would be suitable for transfer to TfL. All of these services are part of current DfT managed franchises that will end between 2017 and 2021:
      – To/from Charing Cross, Cannon Street and Victoria serving southeast London
      to Dartford, Gravesend, Hayes, Orpington, Bromley North and Sevenoaks
      …

1003. @ Ngh – Well it would be fair to say that the whole issue of “what peak only services, covered by Thameslink, go where” was a mess in the Thameslink consultation. If GTR (owned by Govia who own South Eastern) don’t know or can’t write it down in a consultation what chance does anyone else have? You must surely accept, even grudgingly, that trying to make a pitch for a takeover against a moving backdrop is not exactly easy.

      I take your point about “whole level of extra detail” but you need to be clear “in principle” about a takeover happening before you commit large scale and expensive resources. Surely the whole point here is that the principle that was in place has been ripped up by Mr Grayling? His letter to Boris makes it crystal clear that TfL were *never* going to be allowed more control if he had anything to do with it and now he does have *everything* to do with it as Secretary of State. Logic, business cases, detailed worked up numbers are all out of the window when set against Mr Grayling’s objection. I would be a tiny bit less cross if the DfT published a detailed rebuttal that accurately rubbished TfL’s approach as it would show where the problems were and would force TfL and the Mayor to say something. Where we are now is wholly unsatisfactory even if the Mayor has said some really stupid things about “crack teams” ready to take over Southern etc. There are clearly issues with what the Mayor appears to understand but that’s not exactly a new issue with people who have been Mayor of London.

1004. Re WW,

      The peak only Holborn Viaduct Blackfriars – Orpington via Herne Hill were never intended to stay with Thameslink post 2018 but revert to Southeastern (as pre 2009) and effectively weren’t in the consultation so it shouldn’t have been a surprise to TfL that they are heading back to Southeastern and DfT would be expecting them to be included in an SE metro operation.
      TfL had forgotten about those services when they were looking at their “Southern” Metro proposal in Turning South London Orange just this time last year when I enquired (I wasn’t the only one either), the the de-scoped Southern ambitions in the October business plan are a result of the discovery that the capacity they had their eye on didn’t exist in practice…

      If you look carefully at diagram 3, 4 Page 56 (the southern focused diagrams e.g. SE and SWT areas in grey) they have the “correct” (as per timetable and future plans) SE (&TL on the loop) fast and semi-fast peak frequencies on the Victoria via Herne Hill and Catford Loop now if you look at the SE focused diagrams 5 and 6 on page 57 there is one “missing” Fast/ Semifast service from the total via the Catford Loop/ Herne Hill. If this is indicative of the loss of fast service then they would fail the golden rule of devolution.

      They also have the wrong routing of the current semi fasts via Dartford.

      Which is worrying if they are submitting higher level plans with those inaccuracies for the current as is state the information is all easily publicly accessible and they managed to get it right on some diagrams and in some places.

1005. @ Ngh – well if nothing else you’ve justified my many months of moaning (elsewhere) about the lack of proof reading and checking in TfL documents. I am sure some will accuse me of the worst pedantry but I simply was not allowed to put forward poor quality papers and documents to senior level managers or meetings, never mind anything for public consumption, when I worked for LU. The need for quality and accuracy was drummed into my head. Quite why there has been such a slip in standards is something of a mystery to me.

1006. @Ngh, WW The colours refer to routes rather than operators, so TfL may have been aware they were expected to pick up the 2 Beckenham Junction – Herne Hill – Blackfriars. Would have helped to mention it though. I’m not sure if you’ve seen the proposed 2018 timetable to confirm if these 2 are planned to start from Orpington. Currently one is Orpington and one starts from Beckenham Junction. It all gets quite complicated as Orpington gets an additional train via Catford, then the extra Sevenoaks starter and Bromley South terminator(s) aren’t confirmed to be run post 2018 or if they do where they would start and call at. TfL put them as existing and starting from Bellingham in their future diagram and not in the ‘current’ one.

      Putting peak numbers on the diagrams is a little difficult. The morning and evening peak hours don’t match up that well, some stretches get a reduced morning peak service (e.g. SE Orpington to Bromley South isn’t always 4tph) and there are several services which have a unique route. Counting myself with a view of what the peak was got slightly different numbers to those on the diagrams.

      It looks like on page 57 the ‘current’ Southeastern diagram is more the proposed 2018 service pattern taking into account the GTR consultation (Orpington to Blackfriars via Catford, new Thameslink services and metro Lewisham-Charlton replacing the previous long distance service). The ‘current’ Southern diagram the page before doesn’t though which makes comparisons awkward, for example the proposed extra Wimbledon Loop – Blackfriars 2tph in the GTR consultation appears on the Southeastern ‘current’ digram, but not the Southern.

      That said the numbers frequently look dodgy. The ‘current’ Southeastern diagram has only 10tph at Bromley South as pointed out; plus one of them also gets lost and never makes it Victoria. I think Victoria has only 5tph fast off-peak in total not 7tph and those on Bromley North branch can only wish for 4tph off peak. There are 2 services in the morning peak (one Sole Street and another Dover Priory) which in the current timetable end up at Blackfriars which aren’t shown as such on the diagram either, it also would make the bays have 10tph which could be cosy given the timetabling constraints. Also the Core metro numbers should be 6 (8) and bays 2 (4) as the Sevenoaks services weren’t down as going through the core off-peak.

      Even if you avoid the numbers the Southeastern diagrams look a bit odd. The ‘current’ one probably shouldn’t have trains terminating at Slade Green or Barnehurst off peak as there aren’t any easy reversal facilities. Mostly trains just change headcodes at these locations and then continue their way round, only in peak do some terminate to go into depots. This doesn’t work in the ‘current’ Southeastern diagram as 2 does not equal 3. The future diagram either has the same problem at Crayford or they need to modify the infrastructure.

      Not everywhere benefits from all those extra trains running (both peak and off-peak) including pathing another 11tph off-peak through Lewisham. The Hayes line which TfL was saying could be improved with higher frequencies and better connectivity to Lewisham in the Bakerloo extension document gets exactly the same service in their future diagram as today (or as some years ago as they are now all to Charing Cross off-peak). While I wasn’t expecting a perfect solution, someone from Elmers End wanting to get to Lewisham (2tph off-peak) shouldn’t make their future vision look inadequate.

      I’d agree with ngh the document TfL put forward wasn’t all that impressive on many fronts. Others have commented about it not mentioning how to improve peak capacity short term which is probably the most important thing. It would have been interesting to see how they would have approached the challenges of taking the services over.

1007. Southeastern Passenger,

      and those on Bromley North branch can only wish for 4tph off peak

      Actually, no, they get 4tph off-peak – for a short period of the day. Trains leave Bromley North at 0936, 0950, 1005, 1020, 1035.

      I think this is new but am prepared to be corrected. My optimistic suspicion is that this is a “toe-in-the-water” approach to see if a 15 minute service can be sustained.

      I also see that one or two contra-peak trains don’t stop at Sundridge Park which saves a minute off the public timetable. So there is some scope to make up time by omitting a southbound Sundridge Park stop if running slightly late. It would surely be no big deal off-peak. I can’t imagine many people catch the train from Sundridge Park to Bromley North (around half a mile on foot) and if alighting then staying on the train the journey would only be five minutes longer – six minutes extra less the one minute saved by not stopping southbound.

1008. Re WW,

      The document is littered with errata, which is ones of the reasons I have lost faith in TfL devotion, it is difficult to trust TfL if their high level plan is that riddled and appears not to have been subject to internal quality assurance. It was also submitted a day after the DfT deadline and then resubmitted with more letters of support the next week (most of the additional letters having been received by TfL well before the deadline.) I suspect there is still a difference between what goes on in LU and TfL surface rail.

1009. NGH
      I suspect there is still a difference between what goes on in LU and TfL surface rail.
      From a regular passenger’s p.o.v. I would concur for various reasons, some mentioned repeatedly in these pages!
      As a passenger only ( please note the qualifier) I prefer the surface operations.

1010. Not sure if this has been reported here yet or if this report here is caused by some kinds of issue on the lines out to the shires, but it would appear that SE is getting a six month extension…

1011. Re SH(LR),

      Interestingly there was always the option for a 5-6 month extension with the SE Direct Award and it certainly makes sense with all the other changes going on not least the Lewisham and Grove Park area resignalling and the go live of Integrated Traffic Management in those areas just weeks before previous hand over date. It will also help align route swaps etc with GTR through out 2018. Some common sense emanating from DfT once in while.

      The main down side thrown up is less time available for the 2020 accessibility modifications to get done to some of the 465s and the 466s made by GEC /Metro Cammell that belong to Angel (work in progress on Eversholt owned units (the BR/ABB/Brush manufactured ones retro fitted with the Hitachi traction electronics)).

      One bidder (already has multiple UK franchises) was pricing up binning all the Networkers so that problem could be academic… (It would help improve reliability and reduce the depot time per unit thus making it easier to expand the fleet)

      The GEC /MetCam Networker units are rumoured to need extensive rectification to fix manufacturing defects (welds and corrosion) so this could be a wise move given the timescales involved in complete refurbs of EMUs lately.

      So with DfT organising a combined SE franchise, SE Metro could get mostly new stock where as TfL were assuming using mostly existing and topping up via the ROSCO route as needed.

1012. @ Ngh – surely there will be significant issues for a new franchisee to handle if a new franchise starts in Dec 2018? I agree it potentially severs things nicely at a timetable change date and / or a financial period but that brings its own pile of risks too. I am assuming there will have to be some sort of timetable recast to cope with the impacts of the full Thameslink service which kicks in then. I don’t expect you to reveal the identity but your “possible new trains, multi franchise holder” sounds a bit like Arriva to me.

      The updated Rail Franchise Schedule (Dec 16) shows that DfT are assuming an extra 6 months being added to S Eastern franchise.

1013. Re WW,

      Agree that there is no perfect moment
      Programme related timetable recasts Aug & Dec ’17, Jan, May & Dec ’18 so possibly best if one SE operator is there for the complete lot so DfT pays less for the risk in the next franchise too?

      Potential bidder: try another of 3rd rail franchise holders

1014. On the subject of attention to detail, I was struck by Sadiq’s piece in the Evening Standard last night about why he should get control of all suburban rail services because the fares on other operators are a rip off. He gave three examples of these rip off fares. The first two were “A season ticket from Wood Street in Walthamstow to Liverpool Street is now £1,276 — up by £276 since 2010. A season ticket from Stoke Newington to London Zones 1 to 2 is now £1,320 — up by £288 since 2010.”

      As we all know these are routes controlled by, um, TfL.

      There are about 300 non-TfL stations in London Sadiq’s ghostwriter could have chosen. Were they trying to undermine him for some reason, or did they simply not know what TfL does?

1015. Anon
      Difference between Zonal & point-to-point fares?
      P2P is cheaper – by about £550 for WHC (Walthamstow Central … )

1016. @ngh: The number of different types of rolling stock in use has always struck me as verging on the insane. And the Networkers (465/466’s) being an SE only train is particularly stupid+. One would hope that if all Southern (SE, SC and SW) suburban franchises were brought under one operator, then this would allow for the construction of a single very large fleet of rolling stock in the same way as the S stock has been brought in for Sub-Surface lines and the 378’s for the Orbital Overground.

      With a single large fleet there should* always be a spare unit available on the network in case of failures, not too mention the reduced cost of construction, the reduction in the training costs and so on…

      However, what I’m seeing is more fragmented stock purchases (CR, TL, SW….). While I realise that identical stock isn’t always possible (e.g. Merseyrail), but this can be minimised by using the same base stock (hello Mk.1’s!) and the same mechanicals/electricals. But why oh why is this not being done? Has someone been burning the history books?

      Rant over….

      + Yes, I know about the 165’s and 365’s…
      * Subject to the DfT buying enough of them of course 😉

1017. Southern Heights,

      But, surely in a way, something is being done? We have very few manufacturers. Arguably, this is needed for competition. Each manufacture now seems to have a customisable product. So a South West Trains class 707 will be remarkably similar to a Thameslink train. Expect to see many Crossrail-like trains in the future. Even the ‘S’ stock is based on a conventional train rather than being a completely new design.

      Note that often trains can look very similar (e.g. two types of Networker, class 378 and class 387) yet appear very different to an engineer or fitter. The converse is also true.

      I suppose you could produce a case for restricting variants except when genuinely necessary. This applies particularly to couplings.

1018. @SHLR/PoP -something is being done *now*, but the damage was done in the quarter century or so during which DfT denied that they needed a rolling stock strategy and the market would do all the necessary.

1019. @PoP: My whole beef is that a 378 and a 387 look very different to an engineer or fitter. This will add to the costs of maintenance and spare parts.

      What we should have is a very large class of interoperable subarban rolling stock, that can be driven by any driver, fit on any route and be maintained by one group of people with interchangeable parts.

      I think that LUL will be reaping the benefits of having reduced the number of types of trains from 3 to 2, where the differences seem to be limited to the number of carriages and the internal seating layout. Similarly they seem to be heading in the same direction with the New Tube for London.

      I hope this is the general direction we are heading in, but I just don’t see it…. I hope to be proved wrong…

1020. PoP “Even the ‘S’ stock is based on a conventional train rather than being a completely new design.”

      Which train did you have in mind? S stock is described as a Movia by the marketing folk but……….the body construction methodology is similar to Electrostar but no components are interchangeable. The bogie design is similar to the Victoria line design but made largely from castings rather than fabricated from steel plate, the interior materials are different as there were different standards to comply to (fire safety in tunnels). The traction package is to Bombardier’s standard Mitrac design sized for the duty ( so not quite the same as the Victoria line), the electronic brain was the latest Bombardier product (as of 2009) only used at the time in one other, non-UK, application. I’d say ‘based on the Bombardier parts bin’, not, ‘a conventional train’.

      The real challenge to achieve standardisation and interchangeability is to fix the procurement process. In other European countries, someone sets up a large frame work contract (I contract to buy up to “a large number” of trains and here’s the order for the first 10). This satisfies EU/public procurement rules, then folk can call off from this framework. Others will identify the flaws….who is “someone” and how are “folk” incentivised to go for the framework rather than invent something for themselves. Indeed, with this approach, how do we innovate? After, all, Southern Region of BR achieved lots in terms of standardisation and interchangeability, but arguably were still building slam door trains for far longer than was sensible.

1021. Re SH(LR), PoP & Graham H,

      The issues is that you possibly don’t want to replace an entire fleet within the production life of particular train product (typically 5-12years currently and occasionally longer with 20years for electrostar being the extreme outlier) so it makes sense if also looking for growth without adding micro fleets to have split but compatible if possible fleets with TOCs to allow the fleet size to be increased as needed over the years. having a standard product makes it very difficult to have technological improvement (e.g. SDO, CDSE, train side cameras)

      See 710s replacing some 378s to allow strengthening of other overground services in the future.

      Couplings in former NSE land are now largely standardised on Dellner for anything post privatisation (last 20 years). The issue is differences in on board electrical equipment meant train can run together but just not in service for example 378s have analogue PA but 387s moved on to digital PA so the connection pins/pads in the box under the physical coupler are the same but the signal on pins is different. 387 have Ethernet connections through the couplers but older Electrostars don’t. 345s, 360s, 375s*, 376s, 377s, 378s, 379s, 387s, 444s, 450s 458s*, 700s, 707s and 710s all being able to pull dead units of the other classes out of the way.
      The outliers are the older ex BR units most of which are incompatible and C2C 357s though they may well get changed at some point when new stock is delivered.

      *Dellner couplers retrofitted.

      With the need for 5/8/10/12 max length on a larger potential overground network I can’t see there being a standard product.

      EMU Networkers are a very bad example of standardisation as they were made by 2 firms/consortia and are very different underneath (the 378 and 387s are far closer!). The 465/0, 465/1, 365 were made by BREL/ABB (later to become Bombardier where the IP also resides) and Brush with the 465/0, 465/1 getting new Hitachi traction equipment retrofitted later. They can almost be though of as Electrostar Mk0 and there is excellent support from the relevant manufacturers including Unipart for the standard BR bits. The 465/ 2 (some later to become /9) and 466 were built by GEC Metro Cammell and were non standard (different bogies, traction motors, traction electronics, body shells made in different factory and less use of the BR standard parts bin.) Hence combined with manufacturing quality issues there is some question as to what it will take to get them to normally expected lifespan.

1022. 100andthirty,

      I was thinking of the class 378 and to some extent I was taken in by the marketing spin. But the point I was trying to make was that it was based on something. They didn’t start with a fresh drawing board.

      Admittedly it is a bit like having a class of 737 aeroplanes. All notionally the same model but absolutely staggering differences within over the years that on its own have been at least partly responsible for accidents due to misunderstandings and inconsistent controls.

      ngh,

      There is always the option, not always possible or economically viable, of retrofitting older models to the standards of the new one.

      Yes, the dual class 465 issue is so bad they don’t even have compatible windscreen wipers.

1023. Re Southeastern Passeneger,

      @Ngh, WW The colours refer to routes rather than operators, so TfL may have been aware they were expected to pick up the 2 Beckenham Junction – Herne Hill – Blackfriars. Would have helped to mention it though.

      But the colours refer to combination of routes AND operators.
      As per the diagram key; The 3 blue colours (“Victoria, Cannon Street, Charing Cross”) are all proposed TfL “SE metro” operation e.g Blue is the TfL colour. The solid purple just refers to “Blackfriars services” note no mention of metro or TfL, of which 4 will be operated by Thameslink (TL8 & TL9 in the consultation) and 2 residual fast by SE, which just leaves the 2 sets of 2 tph peak only services (hatched purple) with the question of who will operate them and TfL not owning up to doing this in writing in the document as they aren’t suggesting taking over any Blackfriars services just Victoria, Cannon Street, Charing Cross ones. hence Purple suggests other non TfL operator metro service???

      I’m not sure if you’ve seen the proposed 2018 timetable to confirm if these 2 are planned to start from Orpington. Currently one is Orpington and one starts from Beckenham Junction.

      All to do with the current rolling stock shortages that they don’t do it at the moment

      It all gets quite complicated as Orpington gets an additional train via Catford, then the extra Sevenoaks starter and Bromley South terminator(s) aren’t confirmed to be run post 2018 or if they do where they would start and call at. TfL put them as existing and starting from Bellingham in their future diagram and not in the ‘current’ one.

      Not enough capacity via Bromley South in the future with the other proposed extras to have them South of Bellingham especially as there is an effective transfer to Thameslink on the loop anyway so very messy to explain on a diagram. Nice of TfL to attempt to claim credit for the “improvement” though!

      That said the numbers frequently look dodgy. The ‘current’ Southeastern diagram has only 10tph at Bromley South as pointed out; plus one of them also gets lost and never makes it Victoria.

      Given that there are actually 11 (currently e.g. this morning!) only putting 10 on the chart and losing one of those at the other end is “interesting” should be entertaining to see how they cope with their proposal with the 11 in reality 😉

      Dartford lines and CST – CST loop services:
      I haven’t had a good look at that side yet but having grown up using EPBs in NSE days on those routes my nostrils are already flagging up multiple yellow, amber and red warnings in advance…

1024. @ngh
      “EMU Networkers are a very bad example of standardisation as they were made by 2 firms/consortia and are very different underneath ”
      The Networkers (Classes 465,466) were built by two manufacturers at a time when “dual sourcing” was the fashion. Hence two types of “23-metre Sprinter” (155, 156 – most of the former now converted to single car 153s), and two types of Pacer (142, 143 – later added to by class 144 which is a chimera of a 143 body on a 142 chassis, the builders of the 143 chassis having declined to bid for the repeat order). All interoperable despite the different builders.

      @SH(LR)
      “What we should have is a very large class of interoperable subarban rolling stock, that can be driven by any driver, fit on any route and be maintained by one group of people with interchangeable parts.”
      The problem with that approach is that you have to have a feature set in stone for the entire time it takes to replace the fleet. The entire Southern Electric fleet was inter-operable until 1950, when it finally bit the bullet and went over from air brakes to electro-pneumatic brakes, resulting in two incompatible fleets until the last 4 SUBs went in 1983 (by which time sliding door stock had started to appear anyway).
      Interoperability is also why the Southern was still building new slam-door stock as late as 1974 (the last 4REPs).

      You could of course replace the entire fleet at once, but few manufacturers could survive the resulting glut-and-famine cycle of orders that would result. Even then, remember that the S stock is still being delivered, and first entered service nearly seven years ago, so there has been a mixed fleet for all that time – nearly one sixth of its design life. Assuming a similar lead time when it comes to replacement, that means that a single uniform fleet could be a reality for as little as two-thirds of their operational lives.

1025. Of course the two types of Networker are a bad example of standardisation – they aren’t standardised! As timbeau points out, they were deliberately dual-sourced by BR in accordance with its policy of maintaining competition in the market.

      Having the same class number does not indicate that they should be physically identical; it is a result of rigid application of the (now long-dead) Southern Region classification system, under which the second digit of the class number represents the “generation” of stock and the third digit the type – in this case, Class 46X indicates a Networker variant, and Class 4X5 a four-car inner suburban unit. So the two builds had to be the same class, no matter how different they were.

      Regarding total standardisation, that brings with it risks of technological fossilisation, feast-and-famine procurement and lack of competition in the rolling stock supply market. The optimal situation is somewhere in between: large classes of stock operating out of dedicated depots on their own (but overlapping) routes. Not unlike the emerging general situation, in fact.

1026. timbeau,

      Well technically the S stock delivery is complete as trumpeted by TfL a few months ago. What we are seeing now is the entire fleet being returned to the manufacturer for upgrading to ATO and then being delivered for a second time.

1027. @poP
      “S stock delivery is complete”
      Indeed, but there is still a mixed fleet as a few D stocks are still out and about.

1028. @Balthazar: “Regarding total standardisation, that brings with it risks of technological fossilisation, “.

      That very much depends on how it is done, as the technology industry shows, it is very much possible to have good technological innovation based on standards. The GSM standard is a very good example, before that the mobile phone industry was evolving only slowly. Instead I see the status quo as limiting innovation as a train company is “locked in” to using a particular kind of rolling stock once they have purchased a batch of them. Enabling interoperability should improve innovation, of course it doesn’t really do much for the maintenance aspect! I see a wonderful standard already out there in 1435mm gauge track!

      @timbeau: The 10 (?) D stock trains are covering for the S stock being modified for ATO. I believe that on a normal day 4 are in operation (from what I saw over on District Dave).

1029. Standards are obviously a requirement when interoperability is a requirement. This includes things like GSM, but also Standard Gauge, and 3-pin mains plugs.

      What is much more tricky is when interoperability is kind of optional. As it is with train types. No-one doubts that it can be handy to have trains of type A able to work in multiple with trains of type B, even if they are not expected to do so very often. But this “very handy” thing is not quantified, so designers are able to dispense with it to get new features, or the same features at less cost. The PA would be a case in point – the new trains could have been required to have analogue PA systems, if interworking had been expected, but this would have cost more and/or performed worse. Everything (including interoperability) comes at a price.

1030. Re: SH(LR) – that wasn’t what I meant by the word standardisation, though, as you must be aware since it was you who proposed that the entire south east rail network should have one operationally identical type of train for no obvious advantage.

      Technological fossilisation would be bred by the inertia inherent in this concept: if all trains “have” to be operationally identical, then how could you make the switch from, say, slam-door to power-door stock (since by definition the former would not have the door control interfaces necessary to introduce the latter)?

      There are plenty of standards on the railway (see rgsonline.co.uk for evidence) so I am not quite sure what your argument is.

1031. @baltahzar
      ” how could you make the switch from, say, slam-door to power-door stock”
      Exactly the problem BR faced in the sixties and seventies, with a large fleet of slam door stock on the Southern with features carried over, Trigger’s Broom style, from the steam age. Although pre-war LMS and LNER designs with sliding doors could be found in East Manchester, the Shenfield line, and the Liverpool area, new build for those regions followed the same standard design – look at the close resemblance between ac units of the period such as class 302 and contemporary SR EPBs).
      An exception was the low level route through Glasgow Queen Street where sliding doors were deemed essential (the “Blue Trains”).
      It was only in the late 1970s, with the transfer of the Northern City Line to BR, the opening of Glasgow’s second subterranean cross-city line (the Argyle Line), and the need to replace the LMS sliding door stock for the Merseyside “Loop and Link” underground scheme and through the Mersey Tunnel, that BR finally adopted sliding doors as standard (classes 313, 314, and 507/8). Even then, BR was still building slam door stock for the GN inter-city and outer suburban services! (Classes 254,312)

1032. @Timbeau – the very late move to power doors was a reflexion of the way the railways were organised until sectorisation. The choice was a regional decision. The Midland and Scottish Regions were greatly in favour of a “Modern” approach – it was the LMS that introduced sliding doors on the Southport electrics, but the long-serving Southern GM (Lance Ibbotson, I recall) was personally extremely sceptical about abandoning slam doors, which he believed greatly speeded alighting at key non-terminal stations. And so …

1033. Balthazar,

      There are plenty of standards on the railway.

      Indeed. And, as is commonly said in the software industry, “the wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from”.

      timbeau,

      I remember a fairly unrestrained Chris Green, of Network SouthEast fame, giving a not-too-polite opinion on the person who ordered class 312 with slam doors – thus, amongst other things, making DOO impossible without scrapping them. He clearly felt absolutely lumbered with this relatively new rolling stock that he wished did not exist.

1034. @GH
      “The choice was a regional decision. The Midland …..Region[s] were greatly in favour of a “Modern” approach”
      I’m surprised at that as, with the exception of the repeat order for LMS-design Wirral units (class 503) and the LNER-design Glossop units (class 506), the LMR had no new sliding door trains until the late 1970s. They did have slam-door trains to essentially SR design in classes 304, 310, 312/2, 501 and 504.

      Likewise the North Eastern inherited LNER- and even NER- built sliding door trains for Tyneside (with manually operated doors!), and the Eastern inherited LNER-design units for the Shenfield line (class 306), but both regions had exclusively slam door stock built for them throughout the fifties, sixties and seventies (later known as classes 302, 305, 307, 308, 309, 312 and 416)

1035. Well the Networkers were supposed to be the standard design for much of NSE, with follow on orders for Kent Coast, LTS and possibly even Crossrail. But stop start funding reduced follow on builds to just the 41 x 365s and the big ticket replacement was parked until funded post privatisation.

      Another problem with the single go build for all the big three south of the river TOCs is funding such builds, even splitting it into inner and outer versions you need best part of 5000 vehicles. Has any single procurement anywhere in the world approached such a size? It would also be a hell of a lot of eggs in one basket!

1036. @timbeau – perhaps, to be more precise, the choice of stock spec was very much in the gift of the regional GMs. [I don’t think handoperated doors count as “power” doors BTW].

      @Alfie – The NSE Business Plan that I wrote for Chris certainly didn’t envisage a single order for 5000 vehicles; they were to be batched according to the underlying growth/ replacement programme. It was certainly the case that we wanted to achieve as far as possible a steady programme in volume terms, but none of us cared to look forward in detail more than 10 years. What stock would have followed on from the Networker was left open.

1037. @130
      Unfortunately framework contracts don’t give you economies of scale. As the volumes, apart from the initial order, are not guaranteed – indeed are largely speculative – pricing must be done on the basis that the first order is the total order. All the fixed costs are then covered by the first order. Unless the contract gives a reduced price for all the follow on, call-off orders, the manufacturer gets a nice, extremely healthy profit on the follow on orders. If a reduction in price is offered, then no-one will want to be the customer for the first initial order because everyone else will get the same product at a discounted price.

1038. re Alfie1014,

      “Has any single procurement anywhere in the world approached such a size?”
      (Excluding China but they tend to split anyway)

      No about 4 times bigger than a single order placed with a single manufacturer, the bigger single ones that that were frameworks with nationalised operators decades ago.

      But it is about the size of the German ICE4 contract which has a 15year delivery window (2015-2030) and is keeping 5 Siemens and Bombardier factories in Germany and Poland busy. (Joint bid as neither was big enough)

1039. quinlet says “Unless the contract gives a reduced price for all the follow on, call-off orders…”

      But surely, the contract will be written to include some sort of discount (on follow-ups) to the organisation which placed the initial order. At least, it will if “market forces” are working correctly (not always a valid assumption, I concede). This discount will be part of the consideration which helps to persuade that organisation to place the framework order in the first place.

      It is also not necessarily the case that the supplier will load all the fixed costs onto the first order. It is open to a supplier to fund part of this themselves, as a speculative investment towards getting the “nice healthy profit” in the future. (Though I concede that manufacturers are at liberty to refrain from making such an investment, or to make it a very small one, but the wonders of competition should then ensure that a competitor competes by making a bigger investment).

1040. @Malcolm -“It is also not necessarily the case that the supplier will load all the fixed costs onto the first order. It is open to a supplier to fund part of this themselves” Whilst the first part of that is true, I haven’t yet come across a manufacturer who won’t endeavour to recover development costs at some stage. As to recovering fixed costs, inmy experience, the fixed nature of those costs turns out to be remarkably slippery,and the boundary between fixed and variable is fairly porous,with some allegedly fixed setup and development costs turning up in the maintenance elements of any DBOM/PFI contract… {I still cherish the story of a colleague who had been in charge of procuring works contracts in California who had let a build and maintain contract to a firm that had loaded the fixed element of the first onto the second element, with all the advantages of discounting forward spend; there were tears when decision was taken to bring maintenance inhouse.)

1041. Ngh – “there isn’t the room for the extra units required during a split so big investment required to increase number of units. The extra units SE are getting from Southern as part of the Cascade due to new Thameslink Stock and TL route take overs from Southern are using up more than the available space (hence Selhurst and Stewart’s Lane (Battersea) as temporary home for some units when they transfer.)”

      Split or not expansion has to happen of sidings so why hasn’t this been addressed over the past decade is a mystery. DfT failings. There’s much scope to increase Slade Green but under DfT control it didn’t happen. TfL did expand their facilities at New Cross etc.

      The London Plan for Housing going back 10 years clearly shows the planned increases in housing and population for areas served by SE Metro currently and over the next two decades – which are some of the highest throughout the entire SE of England.

      TfL are much better now at capturing value with related housing plans. They would likely expand Slade Green with NR and possibly tack on some housing to help fund. The DfT just don’t think like that.

1042. @Eddie
      Slade Green isn’t an easy site to expand, as the land to the east is all protected green space, according to the Bexley Local Plan. The large bund would also suggest that it is on the edge of the floodplain.
      That leaves a southern expansion into the land currently used mainly for materials recycling, but I wouldn’t rate the chances of finding another local site for such a ‘dirty’ activity to be re-located.
      As for housing, there doesn’t seem to be anything that can be developed nearby, unless someone sticks a tower block in the middle of the triangle…

1043. Hither Green has space for at least one 12 coach road, if not two as a road has recently been disconnected on the freight side (points visibly removed when viewed from the North side).

      Tonbridge West yard could possibly also be redeveloped, squeezing in some extra tracks there. But I’m less sure about that, not been through there in years!

1044. “Slade Green isn’t an easy site to expand, as the land to the east is all protected green space, according to the Bexley Local Plan. The large bund would also suggest that it is on the edge of the floodplain.”

      Planning permission was approved by the Planning Inspector for a large freight terminal on the green belt about 5 years ago to the east of Slade Green sidings (which leaves a strip of NR owned land between). Given that precedent NR would very likely now permission now for that strip to expand into. Even if refused they could buy out the freight plans and build on that plot given permission.

      As for housing, build above any site near Oak Road end. It’s 2 mins walk to Slade Green station, so less than 20 mins to Canary Wharf or 30 to the City from 2018. It’ll be noisy but triple glaze the homes and insulate well. With population growth so rapid the city needs to get creative with housing as other cities have done. Could be a nice earner for NR.

1045. Maxwell Roberts has just published in his January 2017 newsletter a revised Overground line diagram suitable for use in the Class 378 trains, which shows the complex network more clearly in relation to fare zone geography. Link here to MR’s Tube Map Central series: http://www.tubemapcentral.com

1046. @Eddie
      Sorry, I’d forgotten about that planning appeal, which was granted because of (in the words of the planning inspector) ‘very special circumstances’ for developing at this Green Belt location. As far as I can find, it is effectively dead, as nothing in the outline application (made 2004) was implemented within five years of consent from the Secretary of State.

      However, a new application was submitted at the end of 2015 and is currently machinating its way through the planning process at both Bexley and Dartford councils, as one of the access roads straddles the boundary.

      The applicants state that it has Network Rail’s support, as it enables some improvements to Slade Green depot, but TfL is concerned about the impact on passenger services, and wants to see freight trains restricted to 2300-0600.

      Intriguingly a parameters plan submitted with the application shows a strip of land to the east of the depot safeguarded for Network Rail/Crossrail.

Comments are closed.