If you use Hayes station in the peak period, you will notice that the trains stop about two carriages short of the buffer stops. This means that you, and everyone else, have to walk two carriages further down the platform than necessary. If you are clued up, you will realise the reason for this – it is because the ten car train needs to stop short so that the rear of the train is lined up correctly for the platform monitors at the London end of the station.
A five car train stops short (the ten car marker, 40m short of the buffers, can be seen just ahead)
There are various sets of monitors carefully positioned along the platform at Hayes. They are lined up so that four, eight and twelve car formations can stop at the ideal point to minimise the amount of walking along the platform that the passengers need to do, and yet Hayes has no twelve car services – making the extra walk here, and on the down platform at Lewisham (where a similar situation exists) somewhat pointless.
The monitors at the London end of platform (with redundant markers)
This is not a new situation, indeed it is one that has been this way for approximately the past twenty years, although perhaps if it had been suspected at then that the situation would persist this long, then the monitors may have been more suitably located.
It is a typically British mess, but the original plan was actually relatively simple – replace the old trains with class 465 “Networker” stock, extend the platforms, then buy the additional rolling stock and you have a 20% increase in capacity at relatively low cost. Indeed something similar had been successfully carried out in the early 1950’s, when trains were extended from eight to ten carriages.
This time, however, the plan came undone. Most of the platform lengthening work had already been completed when a recession came along and the government of the day ordered that any further work on the scheme should be stopped. Everyone assumed that this was a temporary blip and that work on the scheme would continue once the economy picked up again, but this was followed by railway privatisation and a scheme that required the co-operation of Railtrack, train operating companies, Rolling Stock leasing companies and Whitehall started looking like a tall order indeed.
One of the main problems was that commercially orientated firms had no incentive to sort the problem out. As Charles Tyson Yerkes famously said “It is the strap-hangers that pay the dividends”. Another problem was that one of the main assumptions of railway privatisation was that rail travel would continue to decline, so the mechanisms to facilitate expansion were not really catered for in the framework of the new railway structure.
It is only in the past few years that the idea of resurrecting the twelve car scheme has really taken hold. The now defunct Strategic Rail Authority proposed it in 2002 and since then it has been featured in just about every report that has looked at the issue of capacity. For a long time, a date of 2012 has been talked about by Network Rail. The Olympics may have given impetus to this, and given the expected long delays at London Bridge during the Olympic fortnight a target date of May 2012 at the latest made sense.
Meanwhile the urgency of the situation grows. One commuter, fed up with the overcrowding, describes the situation on Youtube.
The video clip illustrates the problem and shows it is not just an issue for the railway-obsessed. Curiously, the film-maker is told by South Eastern that they can’t put longer trains on the line because the power supply needs upgrading. This is almost certainly true, and indeed is the reason given to Parliament, but it is somewhat disingenuous to suggest it is the only reason, let alone the greatest one as we will see shortly.
There is also a somewhat urgent need to finding an answer to it, due to the forthcoming disruption at London Bridge. London Bridge will be extensively rebuilt as part of the Thameslink Programme and here, even at this relatively late stage, much remains to be decided. If, however, it proves necessary to thin out services so that reconstruction can proceed, it would likely be highly desirable to ensure that the trains still running are formed of the maximum length possible.
So what is the situation now?
Over the past few years it all seemed to be going so well. Network Rail’s CP4 delivery plan published in 2009 had a date of October 2012 as the date for implementation for this “proposed strategy milestone”. It also stated…
The lengthening of Southeastern’s services to Charing Cross and Cannon Street needs to be completed prior to Thameslink construction works affecting the through platforms. This sequencing will maximise passenger capacity during the works”
…so that all seemed pretty definite. The Kent RUS published in January 2010 also referred to this commitment in the delivery plan and state that:
the suburban area will see platform lengthening to allow 12-car Class 465 Networkers to operate by October 2012 as far as Dartford (via all routes), to Hayes and to Sevenoaks (via Grove Park).
Curiously another Network Rail publication, Route plans, had in 2009, Route 1 Kent also giving a date of October 2012 but in the next year Route A Kent now gave a date of May 2012.
It was not until the draft London and South East RUS was published in December 2010 that problems seemed to emerge:
train lengthening on non-Thameslink services is anticipated as a result of the rolling stock cascade when the new trains are introduced, is described earlier. The RUS assumes that this will eventually lengthen all high-peak suburban trains to London Charing Cross and London Cannon Street to 12-car, Brighton Main Line trains to 12-car and suburban trains via Sydenham to 10-car. By 2031 it is emphasised that delivering the full extent of the capacity increase on the Kent suburban network potentially requires alternative rolling stock to that in use today, given that selective door operation would be necessary at Woolwich Dockyard and if certain platforms at London Charing Cross were used. Maintaining turnaround times at London Charing Cross would require additional drivers.
Here we see the realisation (or at least we see it openly admitted) that stepping back (where the driver doesn’t take out the train he came in on but he takes out the next train to depart after that or even the next train to arrive at the same platform) will be necessary. This is to prevent extended turnaround times at Charing Cross. We will look at this in detail in a later article, but it does not take a lot of imagination to realise that this is potentially a recipe for chaos if not handled well.
For the first time we also see the issue of the lack of rolling stock to extend the trains being mentioned. It is really not clear why this issue was not addressed before. More worryingly, earlier on in the document we start to get some idea of the true timescale:
The carriages to facilitate this are not committed at present, but are anticipated to be provided by the major rolling stock cascade that can be expected upon completion of the Thameslink Programme.
If that were to be taken literally then we would not expect the stock to be available until the end of 2018. Hopefully it is not as bad as that, as the new Thameslink stock will be progressively introduced before then. However some of the old stock is already earmarked for use on Paddington suburban services after electrification, so South Eastern may not get any of the first batch to be available.
You would think it could not get much worse between the draft and the final version of the RUS but no – here we are starting to see further problems emerge:
Whilst full 12-car suburban operations would provide significant extra capacity where most needed, there remain significant operational issues to resolve, including the 11-car length of platforms 4 – 6 at London Charing Cross, operational constraints in that area and around New Cross/Lewisham, platform lengths at Woolwich Dockyard and power supply constraints. The RUS advises that further work is needed to resolve these issues.
So now not only are there further issues but these are also unresolved. It is only now that the third main element of lengthening electric trains – the power supply – gets a mention. We know from recent experience with class 375 on Southern that a power supply upgrade is not a big technical challenge, but it does require money and it does require lead time. The money can probably be justified especially as the trains are capable of regenerative braking but the sub-stations are currently unable to take advantage of it.
One might be forgiven for wondering why, in these days of Selective Door Operation, there seems to be a major issue with platform lengths at Woolwich Dockyard and Charing Cross. More pertinently, if this wasn’t an issue 20 years ago then why is it a problem now?
The answer is relatively simple – before GPS and transponder beacons were so universal, it was acceptable for the driver to just manually cut out the end doors of a train at a short platform. Applying the H&S “As Low As Reasonably Practicable” principle this is not seen as a good approach to take today, and red boards with “Do Not Alight Here” and emergency catwalks are not adequate mitigation. State of the art SDO could, of course, be fitted to the Networker fleet, but it is not cheap and one can understand the reluctance to do so to a fleet that is already 20 years old especially when it may not be used until the end of the decade. So the hunt is on to find an acceptable solution that does not involve modifying the Networker fleet.
Our story would now be brought up to date but for a couple of curious twists. The first one has been brought about by the Olympics. If you look at South Eastern’s Olympic timetable for London to Dartford, Gravesend and the Medway Towns you will see that no trains will call at Woolwich Dockyard. Why is this?
The reason given is so that people don’t alight there by mistake, but the local MP, Nick Raynesford apparently believes that the reason is because the 12-car trains will be unable to stop there.
It is possible he knows something that the rest of us don’t or that South Eastern wish to keep their options open just in case it does become possible to run 12-car trains during the Olympic fortnight. It would be an extremely risky strategy to introduce such a service without thoroughly testing it out first though, and currently there are no signs of that. There is also the danger that people would see 12-car trains operating and say “You could managed to do it for the Olympics. Why can’t you do it now?”.Even if there were genuine reasons it would be very difficult to convince sceptical commuters of their validity.
The second twist is the recent unexpected turn of events brought about by the resignation of Liam Fox – leading to Philip Hammond departing from the Department of Transport and Justine Greening, MP for Putney, becoming the new transport minister. As both a local MP and one time shadow minister for London with responsibility for transport, she spent much time campaigning for better rail commuter services for her constituents. A lot of that time was spent supporting the case for longer trains. She will be familiar with the issues involved. Now the ultimate responsibility for providing longer trains rests firmly with her. Will she adopt a “can do” attitude or will we find that her response will simply be to provide the stock answers given to her by her civil servants as to why these scheme cannot go ahead at the moment?
Unfortunately it seems that answers to these questions will take time to emerge. 2012 will likely come and go without any new twelve car services, unless by some miracle they appear in Olympic fortnight. By 2015 something may start to happen. By then we will be in the phase of London Bridge station rebuilding when the thinning out of services may take place. We may also start to see the beginnings of trickle of other stock becoming available. It would not take many trains. One additional twelve car unit means six existing services can be formed of longer trains.
All in all though, the plan to lengthen the trains does seemed to have suffered from the effects of the fragmented railway and what seems to be a lack of detailed planning. Meanwhile commuters in south east London continue to suffer and wait each morning on their twelve car platform for their crowded ten car train to arrive.
I guess the chances of the 12 car issue being introduced by next weeks service alterations and pathing reductions are now very low at this late stage?
Not sure if anyone uses the Hayes line much but if so they can’t have missed the new homes being built at the moment right next to Catford and Catford Bridge stations. 415 homes in total will be built and people start moving in from spring 2015.
That’s typical across the metro routes. 12 cars need to get sorted quickly.
The capacity on the Greenwich line between 17:28 and 18:30 from 12th January 2015 is 8227, not 7680 as some have mentioned.
17:28 Cannon Street to Slade Green
2 x 376
1280
17:39 Cannon Street to Gravesend
2 x 465, 1 x 466
1153
17:50 Cannon Street to Dartford
2 x 376
1280
18:00 Cannon Street to Gravesend
2 x 465, 1 x 466
1153
18:12 Cannon Street to Slade Green
2 x 465, 1 x 466
1153
18:20 Cannon Street to Dartford
2 x 376
1280
18:30 Cannon Street to Gillingham
2 x 465
928
Seating capacity is 4622.
Has the 17:20 been lengthened? I sometimes get the 17:14 or 17:20 from London Bridge. The 17:14 changes to 17:12 – only a couple of minutes earlier but the 17:20 can be busy so even 2 more minutes of passengers streaming into London Bridge can make a difference at that time, as many are only just arriving after getting out of work.
17:12 London Bridge to Cannon Street (via Greenwich)
2 x 465
928
17:20 London Bridge to Barnehurst
2 x 376
1280
—
POST 18:30
18:37 Cannon Street to Cannon Street (via Greenwich)
2 x 376
1280
18:46 Cannon Street to Barnehurst
2 x 376
1280
Cheers. I can see this one being fun to board at London Bridge-
17:39 Cannon Street to Gravesend
2 x 465, 1 x 466
1153
Have checked and currently that’s a 10 car 376 which arrives at London Bridge at 17:43. From next week there’s less capacity as it becomes 465/466, and the train before it is currently a 10 car 376 (leaves CX at 17:29 and arrives L Bridge 17:37). That’s cut completely. Passengers from 2 trains comprising 10 car 376s potentially going into one 10 car 465/466. Of course many will use alternative means but it will still be crush loaded.
In this tweet SouthEastern tell us that the 08:01 from New Eltham (that’ll be 2D17, the 07:28 from Gravesend to Cannon Street) will be 12 coaches.
@ mikep
According to new SE timetable, the 08.01 at new eltham is the 08.15 at Lewisham platform 3. According to journey planner, if I want to travel to London Bridge or Cannon Street my route will be 7.43 Hayes train to Lewisham, change and cross to platform 3 and onto the ex-New Eltham train . I hope there will be room for us all.
MikeP – 2D17 is indeed planned to be 12 cars (3×465) in the workings. However, the current issues with 12 car Networkers supersede these plans, and I should imagine it’ll be 10 cars for now, with a couple of other workings juggled around to allow that. As and when 12 car Networkers are agreed with the driver unions, 2D17 will become 12 coaches.
That is, of course, unless the Twitter desk have more recent information than I do and 12 cars have miraculously been cleared, but I doubt that.
Apologies that they’ve Tweeted that. I should imagine they’ve looked at the workings, seen the plan for 12 and then replied – without thinking about the issues or maybe not being aware of them. My advice would be to Tweet the Manager on Thursday 8th 14:00-16:00, asking them how many coaches 2D17 will be. If the Manager says 12, clarify if that is the case.
Do you know the full list of what should become 12 car once approval is reached with union?
Ed – well, I know what’s on the current workings (which presumed 12 cars would be approved). The following…
0456 Gravesend to Cannon Street (SID)
0609 Cannon Street to Sevenoaks
0717 Sevenoaks to Cannon Street
0819 Cannon Street to Orpington
0543 Hither Green to Charing Cross
0636 Charing Cross to Sevenoaks
0737 Sevenoaks to Cannon Street
0836 Cannon Street to Barnehurst (GNW)
0938 Barnehurst to Cannon Street (BXH)
0728 Gravesend to Cannon Street (SID)
0844 Cannon Street to Cannon Street (GNW then SID)
1721 Cannon Street to Gravesend (SID)
1832 Gravesend to Cannon Street (SID)
So the Greenwich line DOES get some 12-coach services – just only in the counter-peak direction! I can see in the timetable that those services, exceptionally, skip Woolwich Dockyard.
Cheers. I didn’t expect many but only 3 diagrams? Seems so limited to make much difference at all. And none on the Hayes line.
@Anonylon – 2D17 was confirmed as 12-coach from Monday in today’s tweet the manager session.
Hmmm…
I may have missed the memo then, apologies. It may be that it’s been cleared on certain lines only. We shall see…
Interesting. Let’s see if it appears or not! Any word se_driver or anonylon?
This really is the crunch point, as of today, we have had notices left at each drivers correspondence points at all depots, saying that 12 car operation will commence monday despite NO clearance being officially given by ASLEF , i’ve not seen it myself as i’ve been off ill in the last few weeks, however I am back on Saturday afternoon.
I’m hoping my employer won’t make up twelve car formations for the monday rush hour, because those in the union like myself won’t take the train out, lop the back four coaches off and we will take it as an eight, if southeastern think they won’t get any resistance to this they are wrong, if you get these trains, be prepared for it to be cancelled or short formed.
Also, there are NO trains between New Cross & London Bridge, Cannon Street and Charing Cross this WHOLE weekend, some trains are diverted to Victoria or Blackfriars, some terminating at New Cross itself.
I’m guessing this work is taking place so that crossovers at North Kent East Junction and spa road will be removed completely. The work really begins now.
There is a huge amount going on this weekend. Think NEK JN and SPA are being removed this weekend or next. There’s also some con rail relaying, routine structures examinations, structure work, track maintenance, bridge maintenance, vegetation clearing and some other bits. There’s work going on along the whole line between CST/CHX and NWX. I count around 20 individual projects.
Thanks for the update Anonylon. Appreciate all the details of what’s happening.
Oh, and thanks to SE driver too! All this info is great. I guess the chances of ASLEF agreeing are remote so late in the day? If driver don’t agree what’s the chances of services cancelled or will they just go 8 car last minute?
Depends on the time the driver notices it is a 12 car and if there is time to split four coaches off, the decision will inevitably fall to the guys in control. Until we get it officially we won’t be taking 12 cars out/taking over a 12 car 465 train, I don’t know where the drivers who aren’t in a union stand on it…
also, when we are cleared for 12 car running, we must only take a 12 car formation made up of THREE four car units only, there will be NO two cars allowed to make up the twelve coaches at all. so no two fours and two twos to make it up. From what I know slade green depot have been briefed on that. so 8 vice 12 all the way.
Thanks SE Driver for your helpful approach to the problems thousands of us are going to face from Monday. Apart from the possibility of overrunning of the work going on at the weekend, and the confusion which is likely to occur once CX services ceases calling at LBG, plus the capacity issues on the Greenwic line, we now have the threat of drivers refusing to drive trains. Sod the customer. Thanks a bunch.
DVD, this debate regarding 12 car trains has already been aired. It is for SE to do something about it, not just push it through and hope everyone ignores the union’s guidelines – which are there to protect members AND public. As you may recall, we discussed valid safety concerns about 12 car DOO trains some months ago. Since the livelihood or liberty of the driver do not concern you, how about a passenger being maimed or killed because the driver doesn’t have a satisfactory view of the whole of the train – or is convenience more important than lives now?
I don’t know all the ins and outs of staff/management agreements, but recent court judgements where a train despatched, to the employee’s judgement, in line with H&S policy nevertheless led to them being found guilty of manslaughter will make employees’ representatives very cautious of changes in despatch arrangements – which train lengths in OPO operation will entail.
In my view there are similar risks in crush loading of trains which are too short for anticipated passenger flow. The risks in a longer train where passengers can more easily get on or off – simply because there is greater capacity -may be lower. But I share concerns about passenger safety and would not wish to risk any driver’s livelihood, and I expect that ASLEF is well intentioned.
I probably owe SE Driver an apology. You’ve been helpful in letting us know what’s going on and it was a heat of the moment comment. I still hope drivers won’t refuse to take out 12 cars trains next week, but we’ll see. I agree that most of the responsibility lies with the TOC and that Southeastern have had years to sort this out.
Dvd, no need to apologise, the bottom line is aslef are voicing their concerns of visibility of platforms via the monitor stacks to the management, if nothing is resolved, like gtr driver said, if there is a blind spot and we shut someone in the doors and move off because we couldn’t see, then us as drivers we get the blame for it.
Aslef act on behalf of drivers so we can all do our jobs safely.
@ dvd – on the basis of what has been said in a number of posts over the weeks I find it astonishing we’ve got to this point without a conclusion over 12 car operation. When I was at LU the platform / train interface was either first or second in the list of operational risks. That meant it was a serious issue that required ongoing attention given the risk could not be readily eliminated due to constraints in the physical infrastructure (things like platform heights, curved platforms etc). I’d expect it would have a similar risk profile at any TOC, especially a commuter one. Given the need for active and regular management and liaison with operational reps I’m really surprised an agreed position has not been achieved for SET given the long lead time for the London Bridge works. It should not be a case of drivers being presented with 12 car trains and then having to refuse to drive them. That just seems contrary to how these things are supposed to work within the framework of the governing safety legislation for railways. The incident where the guard was prosecuted over train dispatch just adds another dimension where you can see why staff side reps would not sanction any form of unauthorised / not agreed operation of trains by their members. No one wants cancelled trains but equally no one wants life threatening incidents causing massive disruption on a “fragile” network.
And the funny thing is even if it’s sorted there’s so few 12 car diagrams planned as SE lack sufficient rolling stock.
@SEDriver 1830
“we must only take a 12 car formation made up of THREE four car units only, there will be NO two cars allowed to make up the twelve coaches at all. ”
If SET have aspirations to go to an all 12-car railway (except the 5-car 376s) but 4-4-2-2 formations are not allowed, what will happen to the 2-car sets?
(By the way, I can remember 5x2HAP formations in the good old days)
Why are 4-4-2-2 formations not allowed, out of interest?
As a Woolwich Arsenal commuter, I love the occasional 2×376 trains I get. Most of my travel is on eight-car Networkers at best; my typical morning train in until this morning was a six-car (which became a five-car one morning this week, when one carriage was locked out of service). Oh for longer trains!
@Rich Thomas, I believe that a 12-car train using 466s is not allowed as 2×466’s are longer than a 465 set.
@Edgepedia
“2×466’s are longer than a 465 set.” The same reason as two double-ended D78 stock units are rarely see forming a train.
HOWEVER – both my Ian Allen stockbook (2001 edition) and Wikipedia give the length of a Class 466 driving trailer as 20.06m, the same as a Class 465 intermediate trailer. If this is the case, two 466s should be the same length as a 465. However, I would have expected the driving trailers to be the same length as the driving motored coaches, (20.89m for both class 465 and 466), in which case a pair of 466s would be 83.56m and a 465 would be 81.9m – a difference of 1.66m or about five feet. The two extra cabs also mean a reduction in passenger accomodation.
(Glossary – “driving” means the vehicle has a driving cab – “motored” means the vehicle is powered, and “trailer” means it is not powered, so a 4-car class 465 is made up DM-T-T-DM, and a 2-car class 466 is DM-DT).
My understanding was that a 4+4+2+2 combination was too long for some stations.
@timbeau
It’s not the length of the car that’s the issue, it’s the amount of space between them when coupled. Joining up 4 sets obviously requires an extra coupling compared to joining up 3 sets, making the complete train a foot or two longer.
@Moosealot
Surely twelve cars require eleven couplings however they are formed. However, within a unit the copuplings may be more compact than the more complex inter-unit couplers, but I doubt if that difference alone would be enough to make a significant difference. Surley the bulbous cab fronts of the Networker design make the driving cars longer than the intermediate trailers?
@timbeau
Of course all the cars are coupled together(!) but the more complex couplings between the sets are marginally-but-noticeably longer than the couplings between cars within a set – probably to keep the ‘bulbous cab fronts’ sufficiently far apart – having looked at photos I’d guess at there being between 1 and 2 feet difference between an inter-set coupling and an intra-set coupling but short of going out with a tape measure…
Is it only 12 car DOO that ASLEF are objecting to? Could these services be 12 car if they are operated by a driver and a guard?
The problem with 4+4+2+2 is that they cannot get the extra platform length – even though it is tiny – at Charing Cross. Already they have had to make exceptional rules for some platforms at Charing Cross. For example, although you will be permitted to alight from the final (country end) car on all platforms, on platform 3 you will not be permitted to board. This presumably is because there is no danger of falling onto the tracks if a train is in the station and also if people are only moving in one direction it doesn’t matter that the platform at this point is extremely narrow.
Apart from Woolwich Dockyard I don’t think there was any issue in being able to make the platform long enough for 4+4+2+2 or other combination. It is just that once this was restricted at Charing Cross there was no point in catering for it elsewhere.
@JA. There are no facilities on the class 465/466/376 rolling stock used by Southeastern metro services for door operation by a guard, unless the driving cab at the rear was used, which I doubt would be possible. Guards would need to be recruited. So it’s’s probably a non starter although perhaps more practical than extra platform dispatch staff.
@Timbeau
I’ve seen no evidence that Southeastern aspire to a 12 car railway, despite it being an obvious move to increase capacity. If they had such aspirations would they not have ordered extra rolling stock years ago ? Two extra cars for the Class 376 would be logical. If TFL can get extra cars from Bombardier for London Overground stock, why can’t Southeastern ? I expect the answer is that they are not TFL.
@DVD
I am not sure that the class 376 can be lengthened to six cars. My understanding is that 5 car units for this class of train is the maximum that can be produced for technical reasons.
From the website of a SE metro MP:
http://www.nickraynsford.org.uk/london-bridge-station-rebuild
@dvd,
In the past, the fact that one cannot add a sixth car to Electrostar based stock has been discussed many times. The units were designed to consist of a mimimum of 2 and a maximum of 5 cars. It is not a banned topic as such but any further comments are likely to be deleted on the grounds of repetition.
@ DVD – I know this will grate badly but this concept that South Eastern will do something independent of their franchise obligtions is simply wrong. They certainly will not contemplate new rolling stock without it being something the DfT tell them to do. It’s pretty clear to me that other than the necessary replacement of slam door stock plus the High Speed stock there has been zero government interest in raising capacity on the franchise. I think this also reflects in the poor off peak service offer and relatively poor loadings compared to some other franchises. The use of short formations creates a sense of overcrowding but in my albeit very limited off peak use of SE services I’ve not seen vast crowds of people waiting for trains. I think South Eastern is just viewed as a commuter railway with no great need for evening or weekend services. I know that is wrong within Greater London as there is almost certainly massive suppressed demand that would turn up if only something better ran.
The only hope, and I know this won’t make you or Ed feel better, is a more quality focused franchise scope come 2018 or partial devolution to TfL. It seems the new chap in charge of franchising, Peter Wilkinson, is happy to see genuine innovation and quality in bids be reflected via the evaluation and award criteria. Hence why TSGN has new rolling stock provision in it where people perhaps didn’t expect it.
@Walthamstow Writer,
What ironic timing. Your comment about “South Eastern is just viewed as a commuter railway with no great need for evening or weekend services” is made just prior to the weekend when the timetable changes and the evening service is dramatically improved.
See here for details. In the summary it states “Additional early morning and evening trains on most Metro routes”. In fact on many Metro services the evening frequency is dramatically improved – doubled in fact almost up until the last train in some cases.
To be fair I don’t think this has been done to encourage off-peak travel. What has happened is that, due to Charing Cross trains not stopping at London Bridge, the services have been doubled with half the trains going to Charing Cross and the other half going to Cannon Street (for London Bridge travellers). However, I can’t see how it will ever be possible to take these trains away once they are established.
SouthEastern even rather cheekily has stated that there is “Later service between Victoria & Dartford including all day Sunday”. What they don’t mention is that on Sunday you have to change at Lewisham to pick up a Victoria-Gillingham train running via Lewisham which has been diverted away from Charing Cross.
Note that this announcement is the first official confirmation that, during the period of the timetable due to commence, Charing Cross and Waterloo East will be closed on Sundays. Of course one could have deduced this from the timetables but they have kept very quiet about this.
@ PoP – may be ironic timing but as you say the publicity has hardly screamed it from the rooftops nor has the Sunday closure of Waterloo East and Charing Cross been made obvious. Even seasoned South Eastern commentators that I see via Twitter have not picked up on those nuances. I’ve had a quick skim of the timetables for the North Kent stopping services and you’ll have to excuse me if I’m not bowled over by 30 minute headways on many services. If that’s an improvement I dread to think what it was like before. Those of us who are near the tube are clearly spoilt rotten in comparison with this sort of “service” from the TOCs.
@Walthamstow Writer,
The North Kent stopping services via Greenwich can’t go to Charing Cross (CHX) so they are not duplicated – merely diverted to Cannon Street (CST). I didn’t say it was good. I said it was significantly better (2tph to CHX, 2 tph CST instead of 2 tph CHX) – but not on the North Kent Lines.
@PoP – I think you’ll find that WW has picked up on a point oft-discussed that Southern Railway train frequencies dissolve into a 2tph frequency on many routes a mere four miles or so from the London termini or even closer, as witness e.g. the 2tph to Dartford from Victoria with little in the way of parallel services to support it along its core from Victoria (an hourly ‘main line’ service will next week be added that stops only at Denmark Hill as a measure of compensation, following what seems like eons of pressure from all quarters concerned bar Southeastern).
4tph (not long ago was 6tph and 8tph peaks until the East Croydon/Smitham service was taken off) through Peckham Rye to North Dulwich and Tulse Hill is scarcely good enough and even worse when the line splits at Tulse Hill into 2tph each to West Croydon and Beckenham Junction (the latter to Crystal Palace only on Sundays).
It looks all terribly busy (in South London suburban terms) when one combines the individual routes and looks at bits of the route so that those can carry e.g. 8 or 10tph but the fact remains that most individual routes in South London have a 2tph service.
Of course, in the Tulse Hill examples I give, it’s even worse to London Bridge now (even before the latest ‘easement’ of traffic), since a good proportion of those London Bridge trains reverse at South Bermondsey with nothing to take passengers onto London Bridge or back, not even a bus service outside. No wonder those trains are running nearly empty! Nice new crossover installed there, though, just for the purpose (cf. London Bridge blockade article).
Why, we on the Southern Brambles tour had 23 minutes to spare to look around Crystal Palace station between a train from West Croydon to Victoria and the next (connecting…?) one to Peckham Rye on the London Bridge route. I’ll coin this term: “Taktless” to describe it; Swiss railway observers at least will know what I mean.
PoP
the first official confirmation that, during the period of the timetable due to commence, Charing Cross and Waterloo East will be closed on Sundays.
Now, although I have downloaded copies of the NR timetable here, I hadn’t spotted that, either.
Oops.
GF
As opposed to the already 4 tph basic service on the ex-GE lines up the Lea Valley f’rinstance?
Which we may get an opportunity to sample, come April-May, if I can organise my way out of a paper bag …..
Re: terminating at South Bermondsey. I believe the idea is that passengers change for the Overground at Peckham Rye and Queens Road, both of which are easier than negotiating the long and none too secure feeling steps and slopes down to the road at South Bermondsey where handling a replacement bus service could be tricky with the space available. In my experience the trains are empty because most want to go to London Bridge so have already got off.
@GTR driver
South Bermondsey is just a convenient place to reverse them, out of the way of LO services – as you say, passengers would be expected to change for the Overground at the previous station. It does, of course, also ensure that South Bermondsey itself still has a service
@ PoP – I have grasped the basics such as what does and does not reach Charing Cross after this weekend. While South Eastern may well have added a few trains here and there to give some choice or a few extra evening services it is hardly a revolutionary change even recognising the severe constraints that are now in place. I guess people who have to put up with the pitiful frequencies offered on many routes south of the Thames get used to the “service” offered. People in a few lucky places have decent enough frequencies but it’s not exactly as frequent as much of the tube is it? I’ll stop now as we’re in grave danger of repeating well rehearsed past discussions.
Has anyone “official” ever done a proper study of how to restructure services on the “Southern Region” to boost service frequencies? Sorry if you’ve covered that point before but just curious if there’s something lurking on the web I can read. I can’t recall past articles mentioning a radical redesign rather Network Rail plans to squeeze more capacity out of what’s there already.
I have read said leaflet, the 12 car trains will only be permitted between charing cross, cannon street to sevenoaks and all three lines to dartford and onto gravesend, They will not be permitted on any routes out of victoria or blackfriars.
Funnily enough there is NO mention of hayes at all, so no idea if 12 cars will be permitted or not.
The 12 car trains will only be allowed onto platforms 1,2 and 3 at charing cross. They have said platforms 4,5,6 cannot accomodate a 12, which isn’t true, so the networker SDO will not be used at all. In the event a 12 car 465 ends up on 4,5, or 6, we must let passengers out via the external handles…
Aslef have said that they will stand by any of their members, who are disciplined for refusing to take a 12 car out by the company.
Bring on monday!
Your friendly informant
SE Driver – there is no reason to refuse. AIUI all the work raised by the reps at the joint working group as being required to enable the safe operation of 12 car running has been done. I don’t know how well Southeastern or ASLEF have communicated that though.
@SE Driver
“They (12-cars) will not be permitted on any routes out of victoria or blackfriars.”
I’m not surprised: I’ve never seen more than eight cars on suburban services on the LCDR routes, and I doubt if stations like Herne Hill have platforms long enough even for ten
Well until the union makes an official statement saying it’s safe to drive 12 cars, then we must refuse on safety grounds, if the work has taken place like you say it won’t be long before official clearance will be given.
Funnily enough there is NO mention of hayes at all, so no idea if 12 cars will be permitted or not.
I can see very little logical reason for having 12 car trains on the Hayes branch at this stage. There is as general shortage of stock. The current aim must surely be to compensate for a reduction in service by running longer trains i.e. no overall increase in rolling stock required.
As far as I can tell, not a single train has been removed from the Hayes service. So, without a need to compensate for fewer trains, I would suspect that priority will not be given to running 12 car trains on the Hayes branch.
The only justification at this stage in the proceedings that I can see for having 12-car trains on the Hayes branch is that some of the stations are close to stations between Norwood Junction and New Cross Gate which have temporarily lost a service to Charing Cross (with a change at London Bridge). So, on that basis, one could argue that Hayes – Charing Cross trains should be strengthened in the morning peak. More tenuously one could argue that, with fewer peak hour Cannon St trains (1 diverted to Charing Cross) and only Cannon St trains calling at London Bridge now, there is a case for lengthening the Cannon St trains too.
What is so annoying that all this was completely foreseeable and yet it seems no-one at the DfT treated it as a priority to make sure that SouthEastern had sufficient rolling stock to run a significant number of 12-car trains during the reduction in capacity at London Bridge.
Similarly it is sad that we did not have a full fleet of 5-car trains by the start of 2015 – or, better still, August 2014. TfL/The Mayor could have taken the initiative much earlier. They knew about this because part of the justification of extending the London Overground to Clapham Junction earlier than originally planned was to provide relief during the Thameslink Programme.
Re PoP
It was announced this week that northern will take the rest of the available 319s released by the arrival of the 387s on TL services so no obvious source of stock till 700s arrive and potentially release other stock.
All the TOCs south of the Thames seem to be having availability issues as well, especially with leaf fall season falling later and later.
no obvious source of stock till 700s arrive
Also down to delays at the DfT.
SE Driver, can you explain what you mean by external handles. Are there locks on the body side of the Networkers, like the ones passengers might see drivers turning to get into their cab doors from the platform?
I’m guessing the Networkers don’t have the selective door operating system controlled by GPS technology that I think Electrostars have but can the driver not lock certain carriages remotely from the cab? I’m just thinking about the times carriages have been locked out of use for various reasons, has the driver (or perhaps someone in the depot?) had to manually lock them from the outside? Do the out of use signs come on as soon as the doors are locked?
And what about the inter-connecting doors, are they manually locked too? That said they’re not that reliable. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve seen passengers give up walking through the carriages because those (working) doors don’t open. The waving your hand at the magic eye above the door being a trick to open the doors only long-suffering commuters appear to know about!
These are known as external egress handles they open a set of doors in an emergency from the outside.
You are indeed correct, networkers don’t have sdo via GPS.
It will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow.
The interconnecting doors can be locked manually yes.
So, based on Anonylon’s information, the end result of millions of pounds worth of platform extensions is 13 twelve car services out of which only four are peak hour up services and just one down CST service in the evening peak. And little prospect of more (without short forming other services) until the franchise changes hands post 2018 ?
Re DVD
See my posts on this thread from just after the franchise re-award:
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2011/two-of-our-carriages-are-missing-bringing-twelve-car-services-to-hayes/#comment-222106
Include Quote from DfT Website;
and
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2011/two-of-our-carriages-are-missing-bringing-twelve-car-services-to-hayes/#comment-222119
“Each 4 car 377 would be circa 250 seats (varies between sub classes).
So 25 x 4car 377 (ex Southern) would be 6250 seats.
94000 (non HS) / 6250 = 15.04 journeys per unit per day, which is possible given a effective 18 hour operating day but not even service is likely to run full length off peak so adding in the ex GN 365 to get 40 units total would give an extra 10,000 seats /day which gives 9.4 journeys per unit per day which is a bit more realistic given shorter off-peak and cleaning + maintainence? “
The 377s from southern will become available in 2017 before the end of the franchise and interestingly none of the Dual Voltage 365s (1 to 16) have apparently yet been refurbed (as of last week), but half of the AC only ones (17-40) have, whether this is significant only time will tell.
@ ngh – The good news is the 95,000 seats are from the timetable change today rather than in 2017 (so not using the 377s). The bad news for commuters is that they are predominantly off-peak, not unexpected considering they have no new rolling stock to run the trains with.
While off peak extra seats are indeed an improvement it is equivalent (roughly by my calculations from Wiki and SE website) each non-HS unit running an extra time during the off-peak or every off-peak service having an additional car. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was a do minimum action to make the direct award sound better. In context of how many services they run it doesn’t sound like much and you wouldn’t be surprised if it was done in the cheapest way rather than where needed.
Overall it’s not great for Southeastern passengers even the tough performance targets promised are (somewhat understandably) lower than the targets for the same period last year. As mentioned by SE driver the promised 12 cars look unlikely either that or passengers everywhere have been fretting about the safety of 12 car trains.
Even if SE got some 365s they don’t have SDO do they to enable 12 car running on the Greenwich line?
Still, it would help other lines. I wonder how many peak services are still less than 10 car on the various lines from tomorrow?
With regards to the changes from tomorrow, leaflets were being put on every seat on units at the weekend – Ramsgate were doing a good job of it. Network maps inside units have also been replaced with new ones that show that services to Charing Cross no longer stop at London Bridge and explain the changes
Carriage numbers:
Arrivals at CST from 07:30 – 09:00
6 cars = 1
8 cars = 10
10 cars = 15
12 cars = 10
Arrivals at CHX from 07:30 – 09:00
6 cars = 1
8 cars = 12
10 cars = 15
11 cars = 3
12 cars = 2
It would seem all the 12 car trains ran as booked.
@Anonylon,
If we forget about the carriage numbers for the moment what is interesting is the total number of trains. In 90 minutes Cannon St handles 36 inward trains – 24tph – and that is pretty much the maximum capacity bearing in mind you have to get the trains out again (the difficult bit as only one line via London Bridge to do this in the morning).
The figure through Charing Cross is actually lower at 33 (22tph) as one would expect. Previously this would have been around 29tph so quite a reduction. It is surprising therefore that the only really significant peak hour change on the Hayes Line is to divert a Cannon St train to Charing Cross (0743 from Hayes). This is a bit unfortunate on a service that normally alternates between Charing Cross and Cannon St trains.
Clearly the effect of having to route all the trains via Greenwich into Cannon St has an impact and the out-of-sequence change in destination of the train from Hayes is one of the consequences. One wonders if this train from Hayes will ever have its Cannon St destination restored in the future or whether it would be like this forever.
Good that the 12 cars ran.
I see on southeastern there’s a lot of 4 cars for the rest of the day on routes serving Victoria instead of 8 cars. Shows they lack stock, and perhaps sensibly putting available trains to CHX and CST.
please don’t get too use to this.
it was a very unpleasant morning, one driver has been suspended for refusing to take a 12 car out and the rest were driven by driver managers, depending on the outcome of the suspension, the union won’t be happy either way.
our driver manager team won’t be doing this all the time.
@ SE driver
Just when you need maximum management coverage on the ground to help passengers with first-day problems at Charing Cross/Wloo East/London Bridge/ Lewisham, they’re all out driving trains instead.
With the safety issues raised by the unions unresolved (as I understand it) I’m sure we all hope that there will be no incidents prompting “I told you so” responses.
I think perhaps southeastern drivers would be wise to ask their reps precisely why they have not been advised to drive the 12 car networkers. (Note this is different to being advised not to drive them).
I think the reps response will be more or less what i’ve said on here already, which is angles of the cameras/monitors etc.
I don’t think this situation will last long.
SED
They sound a charming lot to work for!
Angles of the cameras / monitors were all sorted before Christmas. So ask them again.
Southeastern’s communications with their drivers seems as bad as with their passengers…
And now Thameslink passengers are getting to enjoy The Govia way.
And therein lies a general problem. My impression is that the ways of BR live on in the privatised industry – given that it’s still largely BR people running much of it that’s not surprising I suppose! That is, it still seems to be a technically led rather than passenger led railway, perhaps a legacy from even further back when freight was its main concern for a long time. Therefore people are secondary to service – as you quite rightly observe, if they cannot communicate to their staff, what hope for the public?
I believe that 12 car trains have started to appear, certainly the 07:33 Orpington to Cannon Street seems to have been lengthened (and is still heaving).
I also noticed blue signs at New Cross like this: “8 Car Stop T”, I guess this is for trains terminating there so the rear of the train is in the correct place for the monitors?
With regards to the Hayes branch, I know it wasn’t mentioned in the briefing (as you say SE driver), but they are not cleared. I’m told the issue is with monitors at Hayes itself, bringing the comments on this article full circle!
@Anonylon,
I have followed this saga for so many decades now that I would almost believe anything.
The problem at Hayes, if there is one, must be be an awkward combination of circumstances. There can be nothing basically wrong with the 12-car monitors because (as the second picture shows) they are the ones used day in day out for the 10 car trains. There can’t be a problem with the camera positioning to view the final two carriages because this is used day in day out for 4 and 8 car trains. So the only thing I think it could be is the monitor at the 12-car position for the final two cars is in some way unsatisfactory.
Now I could well believe that drivers are unhappy because of the surprisingly large gap between the train and the platform at platform 1 but this is at its worst towards the country end of the platform and the same for all trains that use this platform.
Err … if that is the case, then why don’t “they” install a couple of extra monitors?
It shouldn’t cost that much, surely?
No comprende senor …
Sadly we live in the era of gold plating and slowly turning wheels of industry to ensure no one can be blamed for anything.
Do drivers leave Hayes without a second member of staff being on the platform? I only ask because at Beckenham Junction a staff member despatches Southern trains from platform 1 on the single line stretch to Crystal Palace and Southeastern/Thameslink trains from platform 4 which mostly run across the down line and on to the up to Victoria. (I’m not sure if staff despatch empty workings or the one service a day that continues up the curve to New Beckenham.) I’ve never understood why, if there are platform monitors, Beckenham Junction requires dispatch particularly when there are far curvier platforms at say Clock House or Lewisham.
Would 12 cars be acceptable at Hayes if there was a staff member despatching the train, assuming they don’t already?
The only answer I can suggest is one that I have heard many times now; there is a right way, a wrong way, and a rail way. It covers every inconsistency known to man. Well railway man anyway.
@ Greg – I don’t know Hayes station at all but I could come up a myriad of possible reasons why extra CCTV monitors may not have appeared. I agree it seems straightforward but my experience of PTI issues is that they can be incredibly involved and sometimes difficult to resolve.
@ Anon5 – I am not very familiar with Beckenham Junction but it is not just platform curvature that may be an issue. It may be stepping heights or gaps that are an issue or possibly it may be a seasonal issue. Low winter sunshine can cause havoc with images from cameras, on monitors, on mirrors and can cast shadows making people in dark clothing hard to see. Most of the year there may be no issue but at other times the equipment can fall foul of the passing of the seasons and our weather. It may even be something as simple as Southern’s risk assessment for its PTI differs from South Eastern’s for the remainder of the station. A look on the NR website for BJ doesn’t show any obvious step heights / gap issues on the platforms.
Thanks WW, I’m pretty certain the despatches are used year round. What’s interesting is platform 1 is for Southern Trains (but uses SE staff to despatch) while platform 4 is for SE (including the joint services with FCC) and I’m guessing now Thameslink. However the longer middle through platforms 2 and 3 don’t require a despatch. I don’t recall any difference in platform height either as 1+2 and 3+4 are the same construction but perhaps the track beds are different.
It’s not unusual for the Southern services from London Bridge (or South Bermondsey now I guess) to turn back early at Birkbeck which is unstaffed.
Anon5
The only staff at Hayes is the Ticket Office Clerk. The Driver despatches her/himself
Thank you. If they were to employ someone to despatch the trains would that help the case for 12 carriages?
It is ALWAYS better for someone else to despatch the train, but particularly for longer trains. Two pairs of eyes are always better than one. It was the norm until automatic doors came along, implemented as a money saving measure, but unfortunately not being able to open the doors as the train is moving off does not prevent idiots trying, and of course there are all manner of other stunts they pull. The trains might be safer but the punters still need keeping an eye on.
@anon5 “It’s not unusual for the Southern services from London Bridge (or South Bermondsey now I guess) to turn back early at Birkbeck which is unstaffed.” this has got to epidemic proportions, and often Crystal Palace. Seeing how many people actually get off/on at BJct out of the peak probably suggests the line’s usefulness as somewhere simply to turn back trains. Could they go elsewhere and has the Crystal Palace/BJCt line got any kind of a bright future?
@Philip Wylie
“has the Crystal Palace/BJCt line got any kind of a bright future?”
There are well-developed plans to use it as a tram line, but we’ll need to wait for a mayor who likes trams
Well Christian Wolmar wants to stand and he’s said some things about trams…
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/christian-wolmar-london-mayor-boris-johnson-owes-his-success-ken-livingstone-1483023
Crystal Palace is indeed signalled for turn back. Birkbeck is signalled for turn back by virtue of being a bi-directional single line by then. Backtracking slightly, despatch is by staff at Beckenham Junction where there are no sighting issues that I am aware of; whereas there is a slight curve at unstaffed Birkbeck that can render the view of the back of an 8 car less than perfect!
Traffic is notably sparse beyond Palace; it is likely that a tram extension would lead to the Palace-Beckenham trains being withdrawn and diverted elsewhere. East Croydon is difficult for turn back availability; I favour Coulsdon Town. It’s a lot of wins – connections from Streatham Hill and South Bermondsey to Crystal Palace to East Croydon; extra trains all stations down to Coulsdon Town, it can use the path of the old Smitham service and new Tattenham shuttle, by running through East Croydon and Purley it’s not tying up capacity; it makes best use of the only 8 car intermediate stops on the Tattenham branch.
We had a letter through this morning from our aslef official, they had a meeting with higher up people again yesterday and after making some constructive changes, subject to regular risk assessments,, 12 cars are now cleared to run, however there are conditions…
For now 12 cars are NOT permitted to Hayes, (I asked), they are also not permitted beyond Gravesend and Sevenoaks at the moment.
They are also not allowed on the Bromley north branch, no explanation needed there.
So there we go, more 12 cars will follow, at least after a rocky start they will run from now onwards.
Se driver
Just out of interest, what are the issues on the Hayes line?
@GTR
“what are the issues on the Hayes line”
the more cynical might suggest that if you make the NR service too attractive, it makes the case for Hakerloo harder to sell.
@GTR
“what are the issues on the Hayes line”
Possibly the curved platforms at Hayes, with large gaps between train and platform, and not perfect sightlines.
Thanks for the update SE Driver. Now we just need to wait a few years for extra rolling stock. One step forward, two steps back.
I was just wondering how the 12 car services are going ? As a Sidcup line commuter (with an occasional foray onto the Bexleyheath line), I haven’t experienced any, but have there been any issues with platform monitors or has it run smoothly ?
dvd – Whilst I don’t look at every service, and Metro’s been off my radar recently, I see most reported short forms/disruptions and haven’t seen a single mentioned short formed 12 car Networker yet. There probably has been one or two, but I’ve probably missed them.
I hear there are reportedly discussions with the DfT over extra stock, but frustratingly, the people who can do something about it now (DfT) are reportedly saying “well, you’ve got to make the business case to us”. (note use of the word reportedly, because I can’t verify it myself and it could well be, er, not-platform-but-office wibble.). Skeptical myself.
How does presenting a business case to the DfT align with imminent population growth? Can’t SE point to the already strong10%+ population growth in SE London from 2011-2015 with more expected in the next 4 years?
Much of the 10% growth was in existing housing, but new-build plans and completions are increasing from 2015, so 15% population increases could well happen up to 2018/19. New build supply is continuing in some area such as around Lewisham & Greenwich stations (growing in Lewisham) along with Kidbrooke continuing and Catford rising sharply. There’s many more.
@Eddie -Quite simple to state (but difficult to produce in practice): a business case would take into account costs and revenues,but underpinning that would be extensive surveys and modelling. Simply waving a hand at some population growth forecasts doesn’t tell you much about likely use, unfortunately. Nor does it tell you what the cost of carrying any extra punters might be.
I wonder how models predict what method of transport future residents moving into Lewisham, for example, will use, and how many % of new residents they expect to be workers in central London hence they’d use the train, and what % will work in Canary Wharf, who will use the DLR.
I’d laugh if the models used predict high use of buses to get to work in central London as i can’t see that unless people are desperate and the trains beyond awful.
How much weight does modelling give to the cost of people not being able to get to work if trains are overcrowded and the effects on business, plus the cost of more using buses if they absolutely have to, or take to cars and resultant congestion?
I guess this is why TfL running SE metro would help instead of the DfT, as TfL would take a more cohesive approach and look at effects on other forms of transport nearby.
@Eddie -the models available to the likes of TfL are most certainly sophisticated enough to deal with the sort of issues that you describe, such as modal split, elasticity to journey time and trip quality, and the rate of trip generation (and destination).
Given the tight specification of franchises these days (look at the SouthEastern franchise extension contract – it even tells SouthEastern the gateline manning hours it should provide at stations managed by NR…) surely DfT should be producing the business case, not SouthEastern ??…
@MikeP – That would imply that DfT was the planning authority for London,which it clearly isn’t, or for the national rail network, a role which it refuses to take on. So far, DfT has hidden behind NR’s planning work – again,something for which NR is not very well suited as it has no relationship with the the enduser – as the previous round of RUS so clearly demonstrated. The sad fact is that no one is actually responsible for planning the rail system at a national level.
Yesterday’s announcement of fast tracked housing zones in SE London could adjust the business case. 3k + homes in the near future apparently. I expect though the authorities expect almost all new residents to use Crossrail. I have doubts the % will be as high as some expect, and that many coming from Kent heading to the City will switch at Abbey Wood instead of just continuing to Cannon Street, once the congestion is sorted at London Bridge in 2018.
Eddie – that is exactly the sort of thing that transport/land use models of the sort used by TfL are used to predict.
Cheers but isn’t it the DfT who would be doing the modelling not TfL as sadly SE metro was not given to TfL, and the DfT model future population & housing differently to TfL who look more widely at social effects as well as other forms of transport? Probably completely wrong there but I think I’ve read that on here previously.
@Eddie – DfT would only commission any modelling for some specific project that they were promoting. So far as I am aware, DfT do not do any land use modelling for themselves and never have done so. They rely on other departments of state. I must stress there is no such thing – and never has been – as a national transport plan. Where DfT specify new services as part of a franchise bid, it is on a case by case basis. DfT do not concern themselves with social effects unless told to do so.
It is many decades since central government concerned itself with strategic planning – last time was Harold Wilson’s national economic framework – only with selective interventions such as Docklands. The rest is left to local government -even the regional economic planning bodies have been abolished. Sorry,there is a howling waste out there which the GLA struggles to fill with models such as LTS (and its successors). Even in the ’90s, my campaign from a BR/NSE desk to set up at least a country cousin for LTS met with blank stares from the Department. (Had NSE survived, it would have been one of my priorities…)
@Graham H
LTS?
LTS London Transportation Survey
@LBM Reference please. Transportation, from London or elsewhere in Great Britain, ended in the 1800s; since then all colonists have been volunteers (or orphans, until the 1950s).
I suspect, on looking it up, that Graham H may have meant to type LTDS, the London Travel Demand Survey.
The usual (transport-related) interpretation of LTS is of course London Tilbury and Southend, but I agree that Graham’s context makes this interpretation unlikely.
I think in this case LTS refers to London Transportation Studies model.
@Anonymous – indeed, London Transportation Studies model (not having had much contact with it in recent years,it’s quite possible there is a new name/acronym)
Apologies to Mike, and thanks to Anonymous. For some reason which is not immediately obvious (to me), that is what the thing is called. However, the web page referred to seems to only use the word “Transportation” in its title (albeit repeated on every page footer); the text is written in British English. I suppose I had better follow my own advice given on another thread, and learn to put up with (if not actually speak) Worldish.
[Not a problem Malcolm. Thanks everyone for clarifying. The London Transportation Studies model https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/the-london-transportation-studies-model-lts.pdf link Anonymous provided is quite interesting as it explains TfL’s suite of 5 strategic planning models for a general audience. LBM]
The LTS-model is used or implemented by one or two private Transport Planning consultancies, some of whom work very closely with TfL.
I worked for one such for a three-year period.
Most intersting, I can tell you.
V grateful for the link. For Eddie’s purposes,he needs to note that whereas Greater London is represented by more than 4000 zones, the rest of the UK is at best a mere handful of zones -a major limitation on its use for longer distance commuting. There is no comparable model for the rest of the country.
Yeat another Local councillor doesn’t get it
I’ve put this here rather than on the “bakerloo” thread, as I think this is closer to where it should be.
Hate to say it but I disagree and and suspect extending the London Overground from New Cross is now becoming the subject of serious behind-the-scenes discussions.
I know London Overground reckoned a few years ago they could adapt New Cross to enable a suitable link to be made. The “slow” (Cannon Street) lines will be less of an issue, capacity wise, at New Cross in future due to so many trains heading off to Greenwich at North Kent Junction. Bromley North seems an obvious desirable destination though there is the issue of how one gets from the slow lines at Hither Green to the Bromley North branch without crossing the fast tracks on the level.
Probably the biggest sticking point is Lewisham. Lewisham Council will want trains to call at Lewisham station. Without this they probably wont give it their support. Bromley Council, on the other hand, probably either couldn’t care less or would welcome a fast service not calling at Lewisham. They certainly wouldn’t want the idea stalled because of the issues of calling at Lewisham.
As the article states “There is an on-going conversation with Transport for London” and, as we are not party to that discussion, I fail to see how we can dismiss the idea and state that a councillor, who is involved, “doesn’t get it”.
@PoP- interesting. Given the well known limitations on the ELL, it’s curious as to what people think can be achieved by the extension – other, of course, than a line on a map…*
*The cry of the crayonista throughout the ages.
Graham H,
Well a lot of it is of course is political. But it could genuinely achieve something in increasing capacity into London. People using the service wanting Cannon St could change at New Cross where a surprising number get off the main line trains in the morning for the East London Line – at least I presume this is true based on the fact that the reverse happens in the evenings.
Potentially 6tph with 6-car trains in the mid-2020s is not to be sniffed at and, given its historic past usage when it had direct trains, I am sure enough people would use Bromley North to make that worthwhile – and even provide a bit of relief to the Hayes Line.
@PoP:
New Cross station originally had a similar layout to New Cross Gate, including the main building being next to the A2 and straddling the tracks. The present station is a much more recent affair. (I remember it being remodelled substantially when the Tanners Hill Flydown was built, which dates the present station layout to the 1970s.)
It’s also worth noting that, unlike the BML via New Cross Gate, the tracks through New Cross are no longer paired by direction, but by speed. (The track layout originally mirrored that at New Cross Gate, albeit with only four tracks under the A2. The ELL’s original connection to these lines was north of the station.)
The ELL’s dive-under north of New Cross would need to be doubled if it is to effectively take over the Cannon Street lines to the south, but this might not be a big deal if capacity permits. It’s not as if we’re talking 4th-rail electrification and different signalling systems here, so both South Eastern and LOROL could share tracks without difficulty.
The biggest issue, then, is how you get from the ‘slow’ tracks to the Bromley North branch without crossing on the flat. I suspect the stabling sidings near Hither Green are being looked at with much stroking of chins and beards.
@Anomnibus
Doubling the diveunder is all very well, but you would end up with a flat junction where northbound ELL trains cross the path of trains on the down slow from London Bridge. Removing that conflict would require northbound ELL trains to start their dive under from the middle of the SER formation, which would mean shuffling the slow lines over to make room for this. This is starting to get expensive. And there is still the question of whether there is any spare capacity between New Cross and Lewisham. (If there were, would the Bakerloo extension be necessary?)
Timbeau,
I would argue there is spare capacity between New Cross and Lewisham Junction/Hither Green on the slow lines as previously described. What there isn’t is spare capacity between North Kent Junction and Cannon Street. Neither is there spare capacity at Lewisham station. So, unless you send trains up the East London Line, there is no way of exploiting this capacity.
The Bakerloo, as far as Lewisham, is about providing a tube for the regenerated Old Kent Road and providing a direct service from Lewisham and New Cross Gate to the West End. So, if anything were to come of either scheme at all, the schemes would be very complementary and service completely different areas in Central and East London.
As an LO extension southeast from New Cross effectively provides an alternative way of accessing the Docksland that doesn’t involve changing to the DLR at Lewisham, so not calling / passing at Lewisham for LO services isn’t the biggest issue. It also potential doesn’t load up Lewisham with even more pedestrian interchange.
LO interchange for Blackheath routes at St Johns instead with cross platform interchange.
Grove Park or Lee are probably easy reversal point initially without need to spend too much.
Lewisham will be the sticking point. Either the ELL – Bromley North trains will have to skip Lewisham, or something else will have to (Sidcup line? Orpington line?)
Squirting all the North Kent trains down the Greenwich line would mean that Woolwich, Abbey Wood, etc would lose all direct services not only to Lewisham but Charing Cross as well. If Dartford and beyond want still want Charing Cross services they would have to be routed via Bexleyheath or Sidcup.
However – if you reinstate the connection to the ELL from the FAST lines, the ELL trains could run from Lewisham via the Tanners Hill flydown. (Whether reinstatement of the up-fast line platform at New Cross is worthwhile is left for debate……). Alternatively they could run non-stop from Surrey Quays to Hither Green, which would delight the Bromleyites, although I suspect Lewisham would not be happy…………………
Re Timbeau,
You last paragraph – With 28tph on the fasts from Tanners Hill junction (to Charing Cross) already???
A thought has occurred to me, which is probably not a good sign…
Look at Hither Green station. See that chord that links the Sidcup line to the main line via Grove Park? It bypasses the nearby station entirely, but this might not be a bad thing. It’s also rarely used, except for stock logistics.
Now, look at the three Dartford lines. Note that all three have chords allowing services to loop back towards London, avoiding the problematic Dartford station entirely.
Given that any attempt to connect the Bromley North branch will require some kind of flyover or dive-under affair between Hither Green and Grove Park, let’s assume that’s a given.
That means we have a way to get trains from Bromley North to the Sidcup line. You can then loop back towards London via either of the other two routes—I suspect the one via Abbey Wood might be popular, but the Kidbrooke line would also benefit from a direct rail link with Bromley.
Now, granted, it’s not going to be the quickest journey, but compared to taking a slow bus via south London’s woeful road network, it’s still going to be pretty competitive.
Dartfordians and Graveshamites will want access to Crossrail too, but if we can give one of the Dartford lines to London Overground, that reduces the pressure on Dartford station and its approaches, and means Crossrail might be able to get there on the cheap, using dual-voltage trains. (I can’t imagine it could possibly be that easy, but it’s got to be worth a look.)
This round-the-houses route to Highbury & Islington via Slade Green and Lewisham is deliberate: it means the LO service becomes primarily seen as an orbital one, strengthening local links. It’ll be a local train, for local people. Which is exactly how Bromley likes it.
It also means it could be formed of 8-car stock that runs non-stop* through the ELL core tunnel, calling only at Surrey Quays (which may need some fettling, but there’s room for platform lengthening), and Whitechapel. This shifts some of the pressure away from the Jubilee to the Crossrail interchange.
The idea is to discourage ‘radial’ commuter use on this route, while improving links between Bromley and its neighbouring boroughs. The 8-car trains also provide a quick kludge for core ELL capacity. (The LO services could also be the only ones that call at Woolwich Dockyard, eliminating the need for SDO on 12-car trains. It’ll do nowt to speed up journey times, but you get what you pay for.)
Note that the above only requires tweaks to one station and the same flyover/dive-under for Grove Park that all the other options demand. Everything else—the chords, junctions, etc., already exist.
* (“Fast” would be an inaccurate description, as these trains will have to run between the stoppers.)
PoP
So, our disagreement relies on our own relative subjective judgements of whether there is line-capacity between New Cross & Grove Park & even more tightly, if a through-Lewisham routing is feasible.
Actually, “the answer” might be to use the track layout you have & have half the Hayes trains go via Ladywell to Charing Cross & the other half to the ELL via Lewisham, thus avoiding the problem of crossing on the flat between Lewisham & Grove Park.
[ I’m assuming that putting abck the old New Cross flyover in some form is do-able with relative ease. ]
But what would the local’s reactions to that be, I wonder?
timbeau
ONLY if all the ELL stations are extended to 8 or 10-car length – including those close to the river – which is, actually do-able, just very, horribly expensive.
Anomnibus
Err … the service frequency is such that all ELL trains will have to be all-stations, I’m afraid.
Greg,
Totally unfeasible – even ignoring local reaction. There is no way a 5 or 6 car ELL trains is suitable for the Hayes branch (or pretty much anywhere else that is a distance out) in peak hours – except, possibly, as additional trains. This is why Bromley North is probably the only possible sensible option and I must point out that the jury is still out on that one.
What New Cross flyover? If you mean the spur to the ELL from the fast Charing Cross up then there is absolutely no point in reinstating that because the is no space capacity on the fast (Charing Cross) lines though Lucas St (Tanners Hill) tunnels. The whole idea relies on the fact that there is presumed to be spare capacity on the slow (Cannon St) lines.
@Greg Tingey:
In that case, terminating at Surrey Quays may be the best interim option.
The station was clearly originally built with three tracks, and the southbound platform remains an island structure. The third platform face has long since been closed off, similarly to the disused bay at Liverpool Street’s Metropolitan Line station, (and, yes, the space has had some odds and ends built on it, but nothing that couldn’t be relocated). It seems that there’s still space to reinstate a track here, which would become the new through southbound line.
This means you can keep running short-formed trains through the core, while longer trains reverse here instead. This actively discourages use of the line for commuting, which, given its orbital intentions, is arguably a good thing and buys TfL some breathing room.
*
I feel the present ELL core may be better suited to trams, with the trains diverted through a new express tunnel instead. The heritage issues alone make it very difficult to extend the present stations, particularly at Rotherhithe and Wapping, but it’s also unlikely TfL would ever get permission to close them either. (Their proximity is also better suited to light rail.)
Tram conversion makes a lot of sense in light of this: the station platforms are more than long enough, and you’d only need to lift the trackbed to provide step-free access. The trolley wires should also be relatively easy to install in the tunnels.
This also means London proper gets its first tram nucleus. It’s a lot easier to advocate extending that into the City, then to the West End, than it is to suggest building out from Croydon, which is well over ten miles away.
@Greg Tingey (again):
The Lewisham – New Cross section has seen a lot of changes since the 1920s, including quadrupling, the Nunhead connection, the Tanners Hill Flydown (and its recent doubling), and major remodelling of both St. Johns and New Cross stations.
The tracks have been rearranged too, and that’s where your suggestion hits a brick wall…
When the ELL was originally connected to the ex-SE&CR lines at New Cross, the two junctions linked it with the latter’s slow lines, which were on the outside of the formation at the time—similar to the arrangement at New Cross Gate, except one of the latter’s junctions with the ELL was just south of the station.
Today, the lines are paired by direction, not speed—similar to the setup on the Great Western Main Line, so that ‘up’ connection is no longer an option as it would connect to the wrong set of tracks.
The present chord could be doubled, but that only gets you a flat junction at the New Cross end, which is hardly ideal, unless you hand over the Cannon Street tracks north of New Cross entirely to the Greenwich line. Which is one option.
The only other option I can see is remodelling of the junction, with the Cannon Street tracks slewed over onto a new viaduct stretching from just south of Rolt Street to Edward St. This would curve outwards (encroaching on the industrial estate), leaving plenty of room for a new ‘up’ chord to rise up between the Cannon St. and Charing X tracks.
But that’s a lot of money for just 4 x 5-car trains per hour. You really need to be able to justify spending that kind of cash, and before you can increase train frequencies, you need to do something about the ELL’s core tunnel section. That’s going to cost north of a billion pounds, not mere millions.
@anomnibus
“unless you hand over the Cannon Street tracks north of New Cross entirely to the Greenwich line. Which is one option”
An option which results in no service from St Johns and New Cross to London Bridge and beyond. All services between Lewisham and London Bridge would be non-stop, using the fast lines. And as we are told those fast lines are full, all trains currently using the slow lines would have to go to Surrey Quays, and be restricted to five (or, at best, eight) cars
@timbeau:
I’m well aware of that. Hence my grade-separation point at the end. The problem is that this starts to get into very silly money territory.
The thing is, even this still leaves the flat junction very close by for the Greenwich line. So an even better option would be to grade-separate *both* junctions… except that line to Greenwich dates back to 1836 and is Listed.
Drat! Foiled again! I’ll get you next time, Penelope Pitstop!
I’m so glad I don’t do this for a living. I suspect anyone at the DfT and TfL who might read my tripe is too.
*
I’m personally in favour of just handing the whole damned southeast London (and some of north Kent) rail network over to light rail projects and starting over with a brand new heavy rail network, which would be mostly buried neatly and tidily out of the way in tunnels.
I know I had several hundred billion quid lying around somewhere. Maybe it’s fallen down the back of this sofa…
In August when Cannon Street services become fast through London Bridge and Charing Cross services resume stopping at the new platforms, what proportion of CX services are likely to be 12 car ? Cannon Street rolling stock of perhaps 6 to 8 cars might suffice. This should release enough stock to boost many CX services to 12 car. Yes I know that Class 376’s fixed 10 car formations complicates matters, but given that LBG passengers will need to switch to CX services (unless they change en route ), and that presumably Southern passengers will welcome the chance once again be able to travel from LBG to CX, services will be heaving unless Southeastern maximises 12 car availability. Anyone know what Southeastern’s plans are ?
According to the 2013 TSGN Invitation to Tender pp. 75, 80 100 Class 377s cars (25 units) are to be sub-leased to Southeastern by December 2017, having been replaced by Class 700s.
I believe the idea is that these will replace Class 465/9s on routes out of Victoria, and these will have first class removed so they can operate suburban services.
What’s the availability of Class 465s?
Those transfers are in Dec 2017 though and the changeover in what can stop at London Bridge is Aug 2016. 16 month gap with added problems? Ideally all CHX peak services will be 12 throughout but unlikely.
The modelling will be interesting. When are the final timetables out? Or even more consultation? Round one was last summer but I thought more was planned.
dvd – I can’t see Cannon Street with 6 carriages being enough in the peaks if normally 10? 8 would probably be ok.
@ed
“I can’t see Cannon Street with 6 carriages being enough in the peaks if normally 10? 8 would probably be ok.”
Remember that the Cannon Street services are the only ones serving London Bridge at present. When the split between Zone 1 destinations is 1:3 instead of 2:2 as at present, a lot of the existing passengers will change allegiance. (Especially as many City passengers can use, or would even prefer, London Bridge anyway) .
Expect some adjustments in formations as the new arrangements bed-in in late August and actual travel patterns start to become apparent.
Latest draft of the August 2016 timetable should be available around May time.
Just thought I’d mention something in passing. (although I haven’t checked thoroughly to see if this has been posted elsewhere: apologies if so). I’ve been hearing recently that Southeastern are going to be acquiring 319 stock from Southern to improve their overall stock availability, and that they’ll be mainly committed to Victoria services.
I would add the caveat that the railway is an appalling rumour mill but, some drivers have already been assigned to 319 traction training courses….
Well there are a very large number of 319s going spare very soon and only around a third are spoken for, with some going to Northern and some to the Midlands. Still leaves around 40-50 units though?
Southeastern will never need that many as only good for Victoria services. I wonder what will happen to the rest? Greater Anglia?
But even if SE do get some (and they certainly need a boost) no one has really clarified a long term strategy for 12-cars on the metro network. Class 319s freeing up more networks isn’t much good without modern selective door operation on them, which they don’t have. So how does that help without London terminals and Woolwich Dockyard being altered? And it leaves 376s with SE.
Class 319s on Victoria routes will allow slightly more 12 cars than the VERY low number now running, but until SDO stock is running it will surely only enable a minority of services to utilise all the recent investment in platform extensions and power upgrades elsewhere on the network.
Also, can’t be long now until the August timetable is out. I expect most Charing Cross trains will be 12-car as now stopping at London Bridge? On the Woolwich line that must mean they will skip Woolwich Dockyard?
With less Bexleyheath and Sidcup trains stopping at Lewisham DLR I believe to allow Woolwich trains to divert through Lewisham to reach Charing Cross and London Bridge, it’ll be interesting to see effects there.
Ideally the class 319s would arrive by late August to help but no chance with 700s taking so long and still not introduced, with the cascade to Great Western of 387s being delayed due to it.
@ Ed – I suspect “Long term thinking” may now be falling between two stools because if the DfT do intend that TfL take over the inner suburbans in 2018 then it will be down to TfL to do the thinking. They can’t do much thinking at the moment as they are waiting for the outcome of the elections next week and whoever inhabits City Hall. I rather suspect the prospects of more trains rather depend on who the Mayor is and how big the piggy bank will be! The new Mayor will have to set out a new policy direction and also require TfL to draft a new Transport Strategy. That work, if there are substantial changes, may take up to 2 years.
Clearly work has to continue with the DfT in their “partnership” but fixing things like Woolwich Dockyard platforms may not be easy nor near the top of anyone’s shopping list. Looking at the franchise schedule for S Eastern shows the initial stages of the procurement process starting Autumn this year so clarification about the Mayor’s intentions is essential so TfL stand a chance of setting out a sensible set of requirements in the ITT.
@Another Southeastern Driver ….will the 319s have enough ‘grunt’ to adhere to the current timings on the Vic/Orp route as i don’t think they have the disributed power of the 465s. I’ve witnessed some units struggle to pull away from West Dulwich in wet weather and the climb from Vic up to Grosvenor Bridge may present probs. Also, the seating layout of the 319s is inferior to the 465s (IMO).
Surely the 319s will have an internal refurb? Others that are moving elsewhere have havn’t they? Northern ones certainly. All SE metro stock is grim inside. Even the 376s are now getting to the stage of needing work. As for the networkers – bloody hell will they ever get substantial work. Some are nasty in parts. Peeling paint, grimy seats, window seals falling off etc.
Walthamstow Writer – indeed and agree with your points. Whoever runs SE Metro post 2018 will need to act but I can see either party pleading poverty. I vaguely recall the same though before TfL took over GA routes and now they’ve ordered a fair few new trains alongside new stock for other routes. The 315s are older than the Networkers of course, but some are now looking very long in the tooth (not the 465/9s).
Re Phillip Wylie and Eddie,
319s should have enough grunt but remember there are power supply limitations in the West Dulwich – Sydenham Hill area (Notch 2 limits for more modern stock, the feed is from the substation near Hunts Slip Road bridge between the 2 stations.) so probably all stock performs equally badly as the train is not the limitation…
The big issue with 319s is the small vestibules impacting the boarding and alighting. Removing the 3rd seats of the 3+2 seating arrangement to become 2+2 would be good start and it would be even better if they enlarged the vestibules and replaced the existing seats in similar way to SWTs455/456s.
The 319s are all getting a minor refresh from the ROSCO anyway (repaint for corrosion issues and 2020 modifications door buttons and accessible toilets) but it does nothing about the main issues I mentioned.
I was on the 09:38 from Barnehurst (via Bexleyheath line) to Cannon Street today and noticed it was a 12 car Networker train.
Was this a one-off or is this SE’s gradual deployment of 12 cars on Metro services?
They’ve been running a very small number of 12-cars since January 2015. But they lack stock so it’s really a tiny number – a couple in the morning peak and just one in the evening IIRC.
@Eddie….Yes, the 465/466s have not aged well (although if you think they’re bad now you should have seen them during the Connex era before their last refurb!!!). Probably due to a combination of very intensive use and poor build quality (compared with subsequent Electrostar and Desiro DC stock). I suspect they won’t last much longer than the mid-2020s, at which point they’ll be scrapped (not dual-voltage so cannot be easily cascaded) and replaced. And then hopefully *someone* will have the foresight to order enough units to finally allow 12-car trains (although by that time even that might not be enough!).
@ngh….But wasn’t the line’s power supply upgraded for the Electrostars back in the 90s, when HS1 was still stuck in development hell?
Re Anonymously
Upgraded but not “Upgraded”* and it was for Eurostars not Electrostars in the 1990s. The current signage to remind drivers about notch 2 is also newer than HS1…
*Think of upgraded as being from economy to economy+ rather than business or first class upgrade!
The 12 car power supply upgrades are still ongoing on the not via Bromley South SE metro routes as the current specification is a greater % of 12 car services (the % makes a large difference to the spend as at some stage you effectively have to remove Track Paralleling (TP) Huts and replace with substations** and lower the traction current loop impedance of the whole system) and more hungry units than envisaged in the early 1990s.
**Dropping the loop impedance from a typical 80mOhm to 40mOhm via TP hut replacement with a substation can with a 12 car electrostar (with the existing train software current limits due to potential 3rd rail limitation (TP huts etc.!)) reduce the traction current losses from 40% to just 14%.
The marginal costs of 8–>10–>12 car length increases on traction current costs (inc. extra losses) looks v bad unless the power supply has been upgraded. E.g. with loses 8–>12car could use 2x the energy overall due to losses in some routes/areas.
Stagecoach did an OJEU rolling stock expressions of interest tender for costing future bids recently but SE included lots of 10 car working (5car EMUs) which of course keeps the option open to keep the 376s but the squeeze having been put onthe ROSCO.
Due to HS1 costs SE is subsidy basket case so it would need TfL involvement to do something really radical about the stock before it is structural or electrically life expired. The cheaper option will be to do a SWT or SN quality internal refurb. This being the first generation of 3 phase AC traction motor stock I might actually expect them to last longer than some previous EMUs stock.
SE is very short on stabling and maintenance space (which probably has knock on effects on being able to keep stuff clean) so any extra stock is liable to come with a big hidden price tag for new depot / stabling etc. with an 8 digit price tag!
@Anonymous: Both the 07:32 & 07:52 ORP to CST trains are twelve coaches.
ngh
Surely: reduce the traction current losses from 40% to just 14%. makes it worth doing asap?
Or is it because the money is coming out of a “different box” (Network Rail’s, not the TOC’s) ??
Re Greg,
Different boxes and it is 14% of bigger number.
Therefore the real (rather than %) loss in Watts is slightly larger on an 8car with SS-TPH-SS-TPH-SS feed compared to 12 car on upgraded SS-SS-SS feed you just happen to be doing a lot more useful work in the second case at the same time. Hence the upgrade justification outside of renewal of life expired equipment is really for longer trains as the cost of losses is included in the EC4T cost. The payback period to the TOC in theoretically paying for the upgrade (not at life expiry renewal) to recoup the saving in EC4T is longer than a franchise in 3rd rail land…
The quick solution for upgrades is often increasing the capacity of the substation but leaving TP Hut set up too so only a small upgrade.
ngh; please show your workings (not necessarily here)
To mis quote Mr Rotten:
“Never mind the boxes, here’s the real problem.”
London needs to move more human beings from further away, using infrastructure which is the product of a variety of technical and political decisions*”
*some of which were taken in the last century but one. (James Starts Forbes and Sir Edward Watkin, I’m looking at you. )
Perhaps we can learn from Bob Geldof KBE, who said this week (& I paraphrase):
‘If you want to make change, you’ve got to change the economics.”
@Old Buccaneer – well, we might learn if we knew whether he meant (a) the numbers need to change or (b) the economic theory needs to change. Maybe he didn’t know himself.
Graham H, I think he meant numbers and incentives rather than the fundamentals as currently understood. My impression is that his focus is on practice rather than theory.
Could the proposal to run Thameslink on the Greenwich line (with Woolwich Dockyard’s short platforms) be partly due to the 700s having SDO to allow at least 2 trains an hour which are 12-cars on the line?
Of course they could run semi-fast and not even stop.
I wonder how many metro trains will be 12-car after the August timetable change? Up from 3 in the morning and 1 in the evening at the moment? It will see more reductions in frequency along the Greenwich line, as well as big alterations to other Dartford lines. Hayes stays the same though?
Then in December another boost if more stock such as surplus 319s move over.
Re Eddie,
See the commentary already on the diveunder thread, the probability is that they will be 8 car units:
a) as the 12 car units were all on services for the remaining via East Croydon services so further reducing capacity LBG – ECR probably isn’t going to go down well as most are replacing 12 car Southern services.
b) That proposed service north of the core also has several 8 car only platforms so is very unlikely to be 12…
Hi All,
It has been about a year since I last posted, so I thought i’d join back in with the convo.
Basically the rumour mill has been working overtime regarding more 12 cars from August.
Southeastern will struggle at first with 12 cars for many reasons…
1.) Not enough of the network has the relevant TP huts and Power modules installed yet, @anothersoutheasterndriver will have noticed the bloody great one being installed at Blackheath at the Junction. Lots more of these have been installed, (notably near Lee & Hoo, and outside Dartford towards Stone) I suspect this will be completed soon.
2.) We don’t have the stock! unless some surplus 319s take over on the Orpy-Vic Services it won’t in turn free up some 465s, this is because the 700s are taking forever to be delivered and run, the 377s from Southern isn’t happening until next year so it won’t free up the 4659’s back to metroland.
3.) We don’t have the infrastructure, not everywhere can accommodate 12 car trains, sidings more so, all the 12 car trains will have to start from Orpington and Grove Park depots like they do at the moment, the stations have been sorted with regards to the DOO cameras, (BTW Hayes will follow for 12s so i’m told).
Slade Green east headshunt will be extended to hold 12 but involves work to the p-way.
4.) General Maintenance… we have had a LOT of faulty trains recently. Is this likely to get better? we shall we. I do agree the 465s take an absolute battering everyday and they are starting to show their age. (Personally some of the METCAM fleet are absolutely knackered, (esp the /2s, the 9/s do fair slightly better but overall I do agree they need heavy refurbishments in and out)
the 12 cars will happen, and it’ll probably be every train soon. But it will take time.
With the news that the Charing Cross to Gillingham will cease to exist (Luton-Rainham via Greenwich instead) what with that and Orpington Metro services going over to Thameslink. It will free up 465s from those routes. Just a matter of time.
Someone mentioned also that when GTR are finished with the 365s, all of them would come back to work with us. Either to work metro services or Tunbridge Wells/Gillingham via Longfield. Freeing up even more, time will tell if this will happen, it would involve putting the shoes back on. And Expenditure.
SE Driver
Hayes will see 12 car trains in the timetable change. They will limited to platform one ONLY due to issues with the monitor cameras.
Thanks SE driver. How many services will be 12 car now on with reduced paths on SE Metro? Say around 20%?
Sidcup had 2 in the morning peak didn’t it? And Orpington 2 which was about it. Oh, and 1 on the bexleyheath line.
Will there be more on those plus the Greenwich line?
Well it doesn’t look too promising. Despite big cuts in capacity from today on the Greenwich line from Deptford to Westcombe Park forcing more onto Lewisham trains via Charlton, the evening peak train running via Lewisham that avoid Woolwich Dockyard leaving CX at 18:10 but still call at Plumstead etc, which would logically be 12 car, are only 10. So why skip Woolwich Dockyard?
Tonight it’s actually 5 car only due to a train fault.
There are reports of class 319 units being stored at Long Marston. What has happened to the scheme to put them on the Victoria – Orpington service, thereby releasing Networkers for more 12-coach trains from Charing Cross and Cannon Street?
Long Marston is the home of the D-train. Could the 319s seen there be destined for the similar “Class319Flex” project?
https://www.porterbrook.co.uk/news/post.php?s=2016-12-22-porterbrook-and-northern-to-introduce-bi-mode-class-319-flex-trains
Re: timbeau – Porterbrook’s contractor for 319 Flex is Wabtec subsidiary Brush Traction in Loughborough. Long Marston has long been a repository of unused rolling stock. The fact that Vivarail has taken on workshop space there is coincidence arising from the obvious co-location of sidings and rail workshops at such places.
The Victoria-Orpington class 319 proposal was never fully agreed. I’m not sure if this was due to external events (e.g. other operators needing the units) or that the logistics to use them on Southeastern got too complicated. Either way I thought it was only proposed as a temporary measure, the class 319s being the unit that could be used quickest as it already runs on the route with Southeastern drivers. The class 700 introduction delays have had a knock on effect for anyone wanting to use the freed up units and changed plans quite frequently. Thameslink are down to 36 class 319 diagrams from Monday with around 41 units so it’s not a surprise there are some units currently unused.
However, the class 377 cascade to Southeastern has now ‘started’. At the moment the diagrams are the same as the 6 weekday ones borrowed from Thameslink so not much has appeared to change. I think the practice of swapping a pair over each weekday at Bellingham has stopped and Southeastern now permanently rent particular units from GTR with GTR responsible for maintaining them. Apparently Southeastern may not have the right units at the moment, but will be slowly swapped to the ones they’ve agreed to have (currently using the last ones that cycled onto the SE borrowed from TL class 377 diagrams). SE paths from Victoria to Selhurst/Stewarts Lane are now on your preferred Network Rail open data platform.
Over the coming months as more services change to class 700s Southeastern will receive more class 377s, but exact numbers have not been made public. This in turn should allow longer metro trains. There are many trains shorter than 10-cars with some peak time trains out of Cannon Street 6-cars so it’s likely the number of 12-cars will remain quite small.
Well, it looks like Southeastern are finally getting 68 extra carriages. According to their press release, the “68 carriages comprise of 60 carriages of 377/5s and 8 carriages of 377/1s” borrowed over from Thameslink and Southern services.
This is probably not the right forum but I am concerned that the the 0731 from Hayes to Charing Cross has now only 8 carriages whereas last year had 10. This has led to serious over crowding. Today for example, a small number of people at Catford Bridge and Ladywell couldn’t even get on the train. It was so hot that I almost fainted.
I am later on my journey to work today than usual. How delightful to arrive at Hayes to be greeted with a 12 car train station in platform 2! I have no idea if this is a regular thing that I usually don’t see, or just luck, but presumably this means that the 12 car problems have been solved on the Hayes Line and that stock is available for at least some of the day to run at that length.
Of course with this being the Easter holidays, and half an hour after the rush hour finished, there’s about 10 seats for each passenger even up to Catford Bridge!
MarkH,
Wonderful news. First confirmed sighting. Only six and a half years after I wrote that article.
This sounds like the much-talked-about working of a train that needs to be 12 cars to serve one of the Dartford lines in the morning peak and subsequently does a working to Hayes.
So next on the list is a 12-car train to or from Hayes that actually reduces overcrowding on the line. I fear it will not be until the timetable changes after the new franchise and Hayes trains serve Charing Cross and Victoria. The 12-car trains on the Charing Cross service will compensate for the 8 (possibly 9) car trains on the Victoria service. So still no overall improvement.
@PoP: 9 cars on SouthEastern? 3 x 3 coach 375’s?
Southern Heights (Light Railway)
I was thinking of completely new stock – more like 1 x 9 coach to minimise space wasted on driving cabs (3×3 has six when you only need two).
Nine-car on South Eastern – now that 375s have Dellner couplings, could a 4-car set couple to a (5-car) 376?
@Timbeau
Apparently yesterday’s empty stock movement from Slade Green to Ramsgate consisted of that very formation.