TfL have released a press release officially confirming a number of elements of their latest settlement and the spending review statement by the Chancellor today. This is a rare press release that is worth quoting in its entirety:
Unprecedented 6 year capital & borrowing package for Transport for London secures long-term transport investment until the end of the decade;
- Secure capital funding of around a billion pounds a year, indexed linked, from 2015-2021;
- In addition guaranteed borrowing set at £600million+ annually from 2015-2021;
The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has welcomed a long-term funding settlement to support investment until the end of the decade into major transport infrastructure across the capital that will deliver economic growth, homes and jobs.
Responding to the Mayor’s call in his 2020 Vision for a secure and continuous investment in transport, the Chancellor today confirmed an unprecedented 6 year settlement for Transport for London from 2015-2021. The capital funding commitment begins with an investment grant of £925m in 2015/16 rising to £1,007m in 2020/21, alongside annual borrowing limits of £600m+ to finance capital investment into transport infrastructure.
This funding package will enable the continuation of Tube upgrades, investment into roads and cycling as well as improvements to bus, DLR, London Overground and Tramlink networks. It will also critically enable the delivery of a series of vital transport projects which the Mayor has called for to support regeneration and jobs as well as greater devolved rail powers.
In addition to the long-term revenue settlement the Mayor has secured the following commitments from the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Transport:
- West Anglia suburban rail services to be devolved to the Mayor and Transport for London;
- A £500m borrowing guarantee to support housing and transport infrastructure in Tottenham;
- A £90m commitment to carry out electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking overground line, as a first step towards the extension of the line to Barking Riverside, unlocking thousands of homes;
- An initial commitment from Government to Crossrail 2 of £2m for feasibility studies into the vital north south rail link.
The Mayor has welcomed the Chancellor’s commitment to examine the findings of the London Finance Commission which has outlined the case for greater revenue raising powers for the capital.
The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said: ‘Today’s announcement shows that the Government recognises the vital importance of continued investment into London, representing good news not just for Londoners, but for the wider UK economy, the capital’s being a key driver of growth across the country. As I have outlined in my 2020 Vision, to cope with expected population expansion, London needs sustained investment to keep the city moving and to build its economy. This settlement gives us a far greater level of financial certainty in line with measures we have lobbied for and to deliver vital infrastructure. I am pleased to also welcome specific commitments to a series of projects set to trigger significant development and regeneration in areas that need it most, helping to unleash the delivery of homes and jobs.
‘Transport for London will continue to drive its major programme of efficiencies and savings to demonstrate value for the taxpayer. We are confident that this can be achieved without compromising the priority projects London so urgently needs.’
The Mayor has already committed to Transport for London efficiencies totalling £9.8bn to 2017/18. Savings are being achieved through a variety of ways including more efficient ways of working, better maintenance practices, competitive tendering of the bus network, the re-let of the congestion charge contract, cuts in marketing spend and the disposal of property assets. Today’s confirmed Government grant settlement for 2015-16, when all funding streams for this period are taken into account, represents a reduction of support for Transport for London of 8.5 per cent. The Government reduction to TfL’s transport grant by £222m works out as 2.2 per cent less in TfL’s total capital and revenue budget based on 2013/14, and is the result of successful negotiation by the Mayor to protect the best possible transport settlement for Londoners in terms of value for money.
Today’s announcement will give the Mayor the ability to progress his ambitious regeneration plans in Tottenham with the aim of delivering around 10,000 new homes and 5,000 new jobs in the area. Working with Haringey Council, the Mayor will now develop proposals to bring forward an ambitious programme of housing delivery and regeneration, job creation initiatives, transport infrastructure and public realm projects amounting to investment in the region of £500m thanks to today’s ‘guarantee’. This would include improvements to train services and stations between Stansted, Liverpool Street and Stratford.
Andrew Adonis: The future of south London’s rail network has to be orange (in his opinion)
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/andrew-adonis-the-future-of-south-londons-rail-network-has-to-be-orange-9958169.html
Can’t argue with that. Just look at the success it has had everywhere. I have no doubt the same with happen after May with Anglia routes.
They do what is blindingly obvious. Promotion, good signage and welcoming stations. Better evening frequencies when stock is lying in sidings. Extra staffing to increase safety and prevent fare evasion which is very widespread on some lines. The extra revenue from staffing and gates funds improvements.
@ Ed – while I wish LOROL and MTR every success from May, when they take over much of the local service network from Liverpool St, I think they have a harder job on their hands than before. They are heavily reliant on good working with Greater Anglia and on Network Rail’s creaking infrastructure. I’ve lost count of the morning rush hours when there is a signal or track problem affecting AGA, especially the Shenfield route. If I was MTR I would be deeply concerned about the apparent lack of progress in reducing the instances of asset failure. Other than upgrades for Crossrail there is absolutely no obvious upgrade plan for the routes in question. The opposite applied in respect of the former Silverlink Metro where upgrade work began almost immediately and has carried on for a long while although the major work was done by 2012. That then gave a decent infrastructure for services to operate.
Turning to Lord Adonis’ conversion to the cause it is notable that he didn’t do very much to make devolution a reality when he was in a position of power. I also note somewhat perversely that he wants SWT’s services transferred first to bolster the case for his pet project XR2. He also seems to believe that the requisite investment cost for “going orange” would be met by creaming money off housing developers. This seems odd given that PWC concluded that the prospect for external funding from developers for XR2 was much reduced compared to XR1. Given this I don’t quite see where the money would flow from given there’s unlikely to be massive housing redevelopment in South London other than in one or two places. One of those places is already lined up to provide cash for the Bakerloo Line extension so I fear his plan is distinctly underfunded. Therefore we are back to public sector funding and there is no commitment at all from any party to fund the Overground-isation of SE Trains, Southern / TSGN and SWT. Nice idea but where’s the cash?
@WW
To be fair to Adonis, he had less than a year as Transport Secretary, albeit preceded by a period as junior minister. On arrival, he apparently made a decision on what could be achieved in the time before the election and what not. Transport devolution evidently did not make the cut – a reasonable judgement in my view.
Have to agree with you, however, about his stance on SWT.
Ed
NOT on the Enfield, Cheshunt & Chingford routes it won’t be.
Where, in time terms, are they going to fit the trains in?
Also, as far as Edmonton Green & Chingford, both routes already have 4 tph, anyway. And, unlike SE London (euw) the services continue to run at that frequency until quite late, or even the last train.
W
There seem to be semi-permanent problems with the signals/track-circuits just to the N of Hackney Downs, too, though not as bad in recent months as, say 2 years back ….
There appear to be no plans (even with 4-tracking up the Lea Valley) to do anything about the movement conflicts at Clapton & Copper Mills Jns, where a flyover could be fitted entirely within NR property, either.
@Greg
So better evening frequencies may not be possible on the WA lines (as they seem to be as good as LO already) But the other things suggested by Ed could be done.
Adonis’ suggestion that the SW lines should be transferred ahead of expiry of the franchise, in anticipation of XR2, is a bit odd: the franchise expires in 2019, surely at least a decade before XR2 could possibly be ready. And SWT are not going to give up their milch cows without a fuss.
@ Greg – while it does not constitute a plan the recent NR “Improving Connectivity” document (referred to on the 2050 Pt 4 thread) does contain the aspiration to build a flyover on the Marshes to reduce pathing conflict. It also proposes the construction of the Low Hall Farm curve too. What it does not explain is how running fast Stansted Expresses via Stratford works alongside the plan for the STAR local stopping service. I am also completely bamboozled by NR’s plan to run the Enfield Town service as a shuttle from Edmonton Green with no apparent improvement to service frequency above 4 tph from Cheshunt. I cannot imagine people in Enfield being remotely happy with that concept when put alongside the likely much higher CR2 frequency on the WAML route (assuming it is 4 tracked and CR2 is built). The approach is borderline ridiculous and certainly very inconsistent.
I know you and I disagree about frequencies that are achieveable on West Anglia but a look at the peak timetable shows that 4 tph from Enfield Town is certainly achieveable and I can’t see why a similar headway via Turkey St would not work given Hertford East semi fasts run that way in the peaks. Having a 8 tph stopping service off peak must be achieveable – the peak is much harder given the demand for more trains via the WAML and pathing into Liverpool St. Once TfL and LOROL have got things settled then I do expect that the next Overground tender scope will include improved off peak services.
@ Timbeau – completely agree with you that SWT would fight very hard to prevent the loss of the commuter lines. They objected to CR2 on that basis! Trying to wrench the services away earlier may not make much sense unless it was very clearly linked to franchise renewal. I can guarantee that all sorts of “performance risk” issues would be lobbed into the debate (and bids) if there was a move to two operators running in to Waterloo.
@WW. I was a bit mystified by that inclusion of the Hall Farm Curve in the Connectivity document. My reading was admittedly just a skim, but there wasn’t any obvious logic explaining it. Given that the document seems to have resulted from a trip to Switzerland with due reverence given to that nation’s Taktfahrplan, a curve designed to provide direct services seems to run against the Swiss concept of properly timed interchanges. Slick interchanges at Tottenham Hale (and Walthamstow Central for stations to Chingford) would seem to fit the concept better.
Whatever, my daughter would appreciate any better ‘connectivity’ between Walthamstow and Stratford.
fandroid
The advantage of a Hall Farm reopening any time after CR1 opens is that you can go to 6tph Chingford – St James’ St. preserve connectivity to central London & give a service to Stratford, because you 50:50 split the service @ Hall Farm Jn ….
Hi Greg. I am aware of the argument for a Hall Farm curve reinstatement. It just did not seem to fit in with any of the arguments in the Connectivity document text. Did you sneakily hack into NR’s IT system and place that mention there?
I noticed NR state two bridges on the Goblin were replaced on the festive period. Has this removed the long-standing speed restrictions?
@ Fandroid – I agree the proposal seems to be left “hanging in the air” without much context. However that is true of much of the commentary about west anglia suburban services and what will run after CR2 opens. Like you I’ve only skimmed the document but it seems that the aim is to run 4 tph on particular service groups with the emphasis being very strongly on the West Anglia Main Line. It seems the line via Edmonton Green will be left a 4 tph off peak with the Enfield line being a shuttle. Clapton would gain a 4 tph stopping service up the Lea Valley and all trains would stop at Hackney Downs. Chingford trains are retained at 4 tph into Liverpool St while the service to Stratford is unspecified. I can’t see it being better than 2 tph if the NR plan is to run 4 Stansted Expresses an hour through Lea Bridge plus 4 STAR trains an hour. Quite what happens at Stratford in terms of platforming up to 6 tph of terminating trains while allowing 4 Stansteds to stop and then run to Liv St is not specified. There isn’t a lot of space beside platforms 11 and 12 to put in two extra platforms. I suppose the local trains could be scheduled to have minimal dwell time at Statford and to simply run round the freight loop lines taking more substantive dwell time back at their other terminal – i.e. running as a circular / loop service.
If I was to guess about the Low Hall Farm curve I would say that it was proposed in order to link to Stratford as a hub. As Mr T has mentioned many times it’s a bit of a no brainer to put in a quick rail link given the millions of people using buses between Walthamstow and Stratford.
Having looked at the off peak service pattern I am left wondering whether the WAML really needs 4 tph all the way up it plus 4 tph semi fast to Cambridge / Stansted plus 4 tph Stansted Express. It seems bizarre to lay on this level of service and yet constrain the service in the London suburbs to 4 tph only when it could be 8 tph and, to be honest, really needs to be at that level to decongest parallel roads and bus services. I accept that’s a very London centric view but we already have heavily developed and populated areas that need better train services. These proposals don’t meet that current need based on the info that’s been published.
@ Mr JRT – not sure that the permanent speed restriction (PSR) has gone yet. Work has been going on for many months. What seems to have happened is that the weak bridges near the reservoirs have been encased in new concrete structures and new track has been laid. These were the smaller bridges. There are then a couple more metal bridges over the wider water channels – I think one of those was scheduled for attention at Christmas but I haven’t been past to see what’s been done. The other bridge was the one at South Tottenham and that has been replaced but again I haven’t been to see it yet. I’m keen to see whether the bridge structure is such that it could have platforms extended on to it – that would help with the electrification / longer trains project.
I asked Overground via a twitter session months ago whether the end result of the bridge works would be removal of the PSR and they said that would be the result / benefit.
@WW 1823
I agree that 4tph to Cambridge seems excessive and that 4tph LST-Edmonton Green does not seem enough especially given the cost of providing bus capacity on that corridor. I don’t agree with turning Enfield Town line into a shuttle, the change of trains required to make local journeys to Enfield town centre would deter people from using rail for local journeys. Some tweaking to be done to make the theory fit reality!
Interesting that 49% of Stansted Airport passengers from Central London arrive by coach, the proposed new rail link direct from Sawbridgeworth would certainly reduce the rail journey time considerably but the study seems to underestimate that in a price sensitive market the coaches would still have the advantage of being cheaper. Rail fares to Stansted seem particularly expensive compared to Gatwick for example.
@ Evergreenadam – I think your price point about Stansted is very pertinent. I confess I don’t really understand the anguish that spews forth from the airport authorities about the rail service. It strikes me that a 15 minute fast service is pretty decent really. The coaches have two advantages – a range of pick up points in London and the ability to reach Stratford, the City and the West End without people needing to change. The fact that the market manages to sustain three coach operators and multiple routes says something about spotting what the market wants and meeting it effectively. Even Easybus, using Transit minibuses, does well – they’re often full and sometimes duplicated at busy times. National Express and Terravision run bigger coaches and the former have just bought a brand new fleet of coaches showing there is clearly money to be made on the Stansted route.
I wonder about the extent to which Network Rail even think about fare levels – they’re just the infrastructure provider and have no say over fare levels. Clearly fares are an important determinant of demand levels but are outside of NR’s control / influence.
I think the all-important bridges over the canals East of S Tottenham have not been done yet – but the others, have ……
To operate an Enfield Town shuttle will require some extra pointwork & possibly a turnback siding. – as, currently, from Bury St Jn to just N of White Hart Lane is plain track, & the line is on embankment from N of Edmonton Green, until S of Silver St.
You might, just, get one (turnback) in immediately to the S of Edmonton Grn.
Cost? BCA?
On the subject of Stansted, last time I flew into there, Terravision had two representatives working their way along the queue for the gate at my departure airport selling tickets for the coach to London (A practice their business model clearly facilitates). The cabin crew on the flight were then selling tickets for another coach firm, possibly National Express, and there were further airline representatives (possibly cabin crew) selling coach tickets to disembarking passengers just as you stepped into the arrivals building. It’s not until you pass through border control that you see any Stansted Express ticket sellers at all, and there they are surrounded by further coach ticket sellers offering the transfer at around 35-50% of the price for an only slightly longer journey time to the same destination. The Stansted Express really is getting the last bite at the cherry/picking up the crumbs.
Given the low cost nature of much of the air traffic into Stansted it seems entirely logical that the majority of passengers would be more price sensitive for transfers than perhaps they are at Gatwick, and even more so Heathrow. For many potential passengers a ticket on the Stansted Express (£19.00 one way) can be directly comparable in price with the cost of their flight. But it’s presumably impossible for the Stansted Express to try and compete on price with the coach providers as it would undermine the pricing regime across West Anglia.
My personal experience is that the icing on the cake the for the undiscouraged rail traveller is that having made it past all those cheerful smiling people in the warm trying to sell you a coach ticket, you then may well have to queue up in the cold to talk to someone behind plexiglass, keeping one eye on the departure board and the next services stopping pattern, as to some destinations it can be cheaper to split your tickets. You really have to be quite determined to get the Stansted Express so it’s hardly surprising to find that it can be very lightly loaded.
Stansted. Another reason why the express coaches have a strong market share is that this is one of the few corridors into London where the road journey can be faster than rail. The coach to Stratford (£8 walk up fare last time I used it) is routinely only 40 minutes – anytime except rush hour. If your final destination is not in the immediate vicinity of L’pool St, then an express coach to Stratford then a tube is the fastest and cheapest option.
JA: That experience rather begs the question of whether arriving passengers are *aware* there is a direct rail service. If they’ve been subject to the hard sell of three coach operators and don’t know of the train option maybe that is why they are purchasing those tickets.
Many airports – especially the low-cost operator ones – are not part of mainline rail systems (eg. ‘Brussels (sic) Charleroi’)
If I wanted to fly from Stansted, then coming from Waterloo, I would find the coach link at Stratford very tempting. One direct tube with step free access, then a fast coach. Compare that with a forced interchange somewhere at an ancient station in order to get to a more expensive Liverpool St. service!
@Fandroid
“Compare that with a forced interchange somewhere at an ancient station ”
From SWT stations to Stansted the recoomnded route, if your train calls there, is via Vauxhall and Tottenham Hale. The steps at vauxhall are not fun with heavy luggage though
@ Timbeau – the NR station at Vauxhall has lifts from all platforms, there is a lift from the bus station down to the tube and then you have to deal with escalators. A lift is being installed at Vauxhall LU as part of the capacity works there. Tottenham Hale tube is also step free from street to train. There is then a ramp down to the Greater Anglia platform to Stansted. Not quite so good on the return as there are steps down from the NR footbridge to the gateline but there is an escalator up to the footbridge from the s/b platform. It’s relatively easy although I’d argue the step heights from trains at Vauxhall NR are the biggest problem – not sure I’d want to get a case off a train while also encumbered with a rucksack or similar.
Do the trains to Stansted run all night yet?
The last time I used Stansted airport (admittedly a few years ago), my plane landed late at night and there were no trains at all – I had no option but to get a coach, and it was one of the most irritating/depressing 2hrs of my life – the coach stopped everywhere (but nowhere useful for connections) before finally dumping us at Victoria coach station.
It seems TFL are coming round to the possibly making Norwood Junction step free . It seems the station was one of the first included in access for all but then withdrawn when NR said it was to difficult to do .
Please see press item which arose after announcement of funding of other stations In Croydon area but nothing about Norwood a Junction –
http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/TfL-pledges-address-lack-step-free-access-Norwood/story-25702250-detail/story.html
I D
6 miles to Tottenham Hale, 37 miles to Stansted Airport by train.
Timings? 12 & 45 minutes, respectively – 30 mph & 49 mph overall ( 56 mph for the second bit – which will include a stop @ either Harlow or Stortford) not really “exrpess” is it?
The route N of Broxbourne ain’t straight & the twiddles between Copper Mills Jn & Bethnal Green certainly don’t help, either ….
fandroid
No
Waterloo – Oxford circus (bakerloo) Victoria Line – Tottenham Hale
( Or: Vauxhall – Tottenham Hale direct, surely? )
Chris Mitch
Table 22 says:
first train dep LST 03.40, 04.10, 04.40 (first to call at Tottenham Hale …..) etc
last train dep LST 23.25
Big bags on escalators are heavily frowned on. I have seen the result of a bag topple on the short upper escalators at Waterloo Underground station. The same event on one of the longer escalators could result in serious injury. I suspect that Heathrow has had to deal with some bad incidents, as the escalators linking Terminal 1 to the HEx platforms have been almost totally hidden from sight for several years now.
News in the current issue of Rail Magazine (RAIL 769) that the new trains for goblin will not be Class 378s but a new design ( not specified).
Order will be placed later this year.
Orange seats going in at Enfield Town yesterday.
I guess Bombardier, if they win the contract, will be keen to update the technology. I think the Aventra is the successor to the Electrostar/Capitalstar and has been designed to suit different needs eg metro, commuter, regional etc. That’s not to say Siemens, Hitachi or another manufacture couldn’t get the order either.
@ Anon5 Hitachi have mentioned if they win contract then AT100 would be trains for Overground
I have read that work to electrify GOBLIN could begin at eastern end which is already part electrified from Barking with further isolated electrified section in Tottenham area. This may be more useful for freight trains .
Anonymous 22/5, 0801 – a ride on the Victoria line yesterday greeted me with the updated line map on the train which i was travelling on. Walthamstow Central and Seven Sisters now shown as Overground interchanges, with Seven Sisters also maintaining its National Rail logo. I’m intrigued to see how the tfl map will look with all that orange. Though i did see a mock up of one on the ‘IanVisits’ site a few months back so maybe it’ll be very similar (the same)!
Jeffy likes apples
Yes, indeed. I saw it too and got so excited I took a photo:
http://cdn.pseph.co.uk/styles/images/2015/IMG_20150501_122411.jpg
So, the answer to the question of new Overground Line Names is NO and the answer to the question about multiple line colours is also NO.
Will be interesting to see how Overground Map on trains changes given the existing maps look like a plate of orange spaghetti !
@Melvyn
It is normal (although not universal – see the Goblin) to show on line diagrams only the lines actually used by the trains on which the diagram is displayed. Recall that C and D stock only showed “their” parts of the District Line. So I would expect the 315s will only show the Anglia group and the 378s will not show those lines.
@Melvyn – yes, we have just had this discussion on this forum, in fact…
@ Briantist – you cannot conclude that there is no change to the naming convention for Overground routes. TfL said in a twitter session a few months ago that the naming convention was certainly under review. We have had no “blurb” from TfL because of the purdah period. I expect things will start to build up from mid May as TfL starts to build awareness of the change and more physical manifestation of signs etc happens. We must wait to 31 May itself to see how things are done “on the ground” and how the timetable booklets are printed. I understand on line versions of the new timetables are due next week because the timetable change occurs on 17 May even though LOROL takes over on the 31st.
Hackney Downs/Central interchange …
Lift tower under construction. covered passageway parallel to NLL partially-built, supports for elevated walkway parallel to ex_GER lines also going up.
No “hole in wall” at end of southbound platform yet, though.
TfL have launched a second stage of consultation on the proposed Barking Riverside extension of the GOBLIN.
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/rail/barking-riverside-extension/consult_view
Provides some extra details on route alignments and the prospect of a second station at Renwick Road. There are maps and factsheets giving more details about the project on the consultation home page.
Good! The sooner that area is connected, the better.
New timetables are up:
Liverpool Street services: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/liverpool-street-to-enfield-town-and-cheshunt-and-chingford-timetable-may-2015-large-print.pdf
Romford to Upminster: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/romford-to-upminster-timetable-may-2015.pdf
Interestingly the Romford to Upminster timetable shows interchange at Romford with ‘TfL Rail”
And while Romford-Upminster is coloured orange there’s no mention of London Overground in the title. (Compare with the other timetable.)
Mark 2044
TfL Rail has been widely discussed, it is the temporary branding for the Liverpool St to Shenfield service which is also transferring to TfL this month, the future NE leg of the Crossrail service.
PS for Mark at 2044
I should have linked to this article: https://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/call-blues-look-crossrails-launch-plan/
I arrived at Enfield Town Station today as final fitting work for new orange station entrance sign was being installed . The station also has orange handrails on the slopes to platforms.
While on the platforms I noticed the station name signs were of the large square type that TFL use but only showed Enfield Town in black against a white background . Unfortunately the train was about to depart and so I did not see whether signs were only a temporary fix with final Overground sign beneath.
I reckon Enfield Town Station will soon be getting a visit from Mayor and reappointed Transport Secretary to launch WA Overground.
I looked but found no work re upgrades to station signage etc on other stations while Hackney Downs has no work on Platform 1 re link to Hackney Central which is still a fair distance away .
News on TFL site re oOverground extension to Barking Riverside see –
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/new-transport-link-to-barking-riverside-a-step-closer
I note with interest that looking at the Overground new time stables that Cambridge Health and London Fields issue (they have daggers) that the timetable very cleverly has the Seven Sisters and Chingford trains one minute apart.
Thus, if you are at Cambridge Heath or London Fields, you take the first Overground North towards Seven Sisters and there is a ONE MINUTE change at Hackney Downs.
The same is true going South: if you come down from Chingford you can hop off at Hackney Downs and always have a ONE MINUTE wait to get to Cambridge Heath and London Fields!
This combines nicely with all Overground trains stopping at Bethnal Green to create a much clearer pattern.
I’m impressed. I’m guessing the old moans will be Enfield Town people who no longer have the semi-fasts…
Briantist
Assuming, of course, that the “up” ex-Chingford isn’t held for anywhere between 30 seconds & 10 minutes (on a 15-minute interval service) just to the E of Clapton Jn, to allow one or a procession of, late-running Lea Valley/Cambridge/Stansted (etc) train(s) to trundle past in front of you. Happens far too often, IMHO.
If stopped at that signal, you can’t even play “spot the Egret”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_egret
@Briantist
That one minute connection seems to be the case in the current (Dec 2014-May 2015) timetable. Has there actually been a significant change?
I don’t see any semifasts to Enfield on current Table 21 either.
So, no mention of the possibility of a river crossing from Barking Riverside in the new statement then ?
@timbeau
The 1822 and 1922 hours omit the odd station to Enfield. (I don`t know the line very well)
I couldn’t see mention regarding LO going under the river to Thamesmead. I guess the extra 45k people in 15k new homes there will all use the buses…
@timbeau
Not sure if it a great change, just thought it explains why the line map is shown as it is (daggers, rather than two lines).
I’m also noting that the Overground is now an outlined orange, not solid.
@Ed
The Barking Riverside to Abbey Wood link is part of the R25 proposal in the London 2050 documents.
@Ed The link on the TfL website is broken but you can go straight to consultations (dot) tfl (dot) gov (dot) uk instead. A possible further extension across the river is mentioned in the 2014 consultation response – they are constructing Barking Riverside in such a way that further extension is not ruled out. But really, extending with stations at Thamesmead peninsula and Abbey Wood would be a good link with Crossrail.
@Briantist (in theee, four, gee purgatory) > @timbeau
I must have missed something. Which map is that? The WA lines aren’t yet on the TfL Overground map.
@Anonymous
“I must have missed something. Which map is that? The WA lines aren’t yet on the TfL Overground map.”
I was referring to the new maps on the http://www.tfl.gov.uk/modes/london-overground/london-overground-timetables page.
If you compare the old
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/richmond-and-clapham-junction-to-stratford-timetable-december-2014.pdf
and new
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/richmond-and-clapham-junction-to-stratford-timetable-may-2015.pdf
maps, the Overground lines are now always outline orange, rather than solid. This is even the case where the services have a high tph such as Dalston Junction to Surrey Quays
The Hackney Downs Overground services map is at
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/liverpool-street-to-enfield-town-and-cheshunt-and-chingford-timetable-may-2015.pdf
Does anyone know the real official reason that there is no advertised link between Seven Sisters and South Tottenham? Have TfL said anything on the matter?
@Anon
Probably because for most journeys there are better interchanges elsewhere – Blackhorse Road for Vic/Goblin, Tottenham Hale for Vic/Anglia (to/from Liverpool St), Hackney for Anglia/NLL (towards Gospel Oak).
No interchange is shown between Chiswick Park and Gunnersbury, which is a similar distance.
Clapham North/HS is shown, but I doubt that it would be if the Overground called at Brixton.
@Anonymous
“Does anyone know the real official reason that there is no advertised link between Seven Sisters and South Tottenham? Have TfL said anything on the matter?”
It came up in the Crossrail 2 consultation: the walk between the two stations isn’t direct as it stands now, so it’s a Out Of Station exchange but not advertised.
It is possible that CR 2 will end up with one exit at South Tottenham and the other at Seven Sisters because the trains will be so long, and then there will be and in station link. Just 16 year away…
@Briantist
The Oyster and National Rail web site has a map of the Seven Sisters to South Tottenham OSI link. They send you the long way round. What’s not shown is the footpath between the southern end of Stonebridge Road and the High Road just north of the bridge. That brings you out very near the pedestrian crossing south of the bridge. Also, if you try to cross the High Road where shown, you can be knocked down by your choice of fast moving vehicle (there’s no pedestrian crossing).
@Anonymous
Yes, I know this. I walked it earlier this week. It’s not the safest “feeling” walk I’ve ever taken. No problem this time as there were loads of police cars…
@ Briantist 0925 14/5 – I am not sure I see the virtue of a 1 minute interchange time at Hackney Downs given the need to go downstairs, along and back up again. The National Rail website shows there are 34 steps down and back up for any of the platforms. I doubt Hussain Bolt could do that in 1 minute never mind a mere mortal even if alighting from a train right by the top of the staircase. In reality you have a 10-16 minute wait between trains which is rubbish and also assumes you want a station on the “shared” section up to Edmonton Green or to London Fields / Cambridge Heath. The wait could be far longer if you want Enfield Town or Cheshunt. It would be far, far better if there was a 7-8 minute connecting time between trains – that’s reasonably achieveable for most people.
As far as I can see the one-minute “connections” at Hackney Downs are not a new innovation: the times have not changed since the previous timetable.
@ Timbeau – you’re quite correct. There is no change to the basic timetable other than the Sunday level of service which matches the Saturday frequencies. The poor quality connections haven’t changed either – long been the case that trains draw in together at Hackney Downs making connections overly lengthy.
@WW
@timbeau
It’s been a while since I tired to use Hackney to do this kind of change. I guess I was assuming that they had sorted the platform issues out. Clearly this is bunk.
Given that there is a need to keep the track clear to run the Standsted Express trains as a priority, this bunching of the Overground service must be part of that.
Because doing a 7 minute shuffle with the otherwise segregated Chingford trains is rather obvious?
An interesting time with the handover imminent, do we get an article on this?
🙂
CapitalStar
Yes – IIRC, there may be three articles, assuming John Bull gets through a massive amount of copy-editing!
@ Capitalstar – can’t comment about an article but it seems that Enfield Town station is being treated to quite a “refresh” with strong rumours that it’ll be the “reveal” station. We know trains are already being prepped into TfL Rail livery for the Shenfield route.
Dark blue low down on the sides, with a narrow orange stripe towards the top.
Ok…
I’m looking at the timetable for the Lea Valley lines.
The Standsted Express is at :10, :25, :40, :55
Chingford is :03, :18, :33, :48
Enfield Town :00, :30
Cheshunt via Bruce Grove :15, :45
Hartford East via Tottenham Hale :12, :42
Cambridge :28, :58
Sorry hadn’t finished, so the parttern using the Bethnal Green viaduct is (at Liverpool Street):
00 Enfield Town (all stops)
03 Chingford (all but daggers at Cambridge Heath and London Fields)
10 Standsted Express (via Tottenham Hale only)
12 Hartford (stopper, not daggers)
15 Cheshunt via Seven Sisters
18 Chingford ( no daggers)
25 Standsted Express (TH only)
28 Cambridge (TH only)
Then repeat.
It looks like there is 10 minutes clearance for the all stoppers at Hackney Downs, so this is why the Chingfords are not where WW and Timbeau think they should be.
Braintist
You sure?
00 – Enfield Tn all stations
03 Chingford- not stopping Cambridge ‘Eaf (Heath) or Lunnon Fields
10 Stanstead “express” – first stop Totty Hale
12 Hertford – first stop Hackney Downs, then Totty Hale, then variable [ Poor old Angel Rd usually left out in the cold ]
15 Cheshunt via 7 Sisters/Edmonton Grn all stations
18 Chingford – not stopping as for the 03.
25 Stansted “express” as above – the outer stopping pattern of the Stansted’s switches around further out.
28 Cambridge
Rinse & repeat – the “58” Cambridge also has far fewer stops.
Or that what “Table 22” tells me, anyway.
Alan Griffiths 08:04
Is the ‘narrow orange stripe’ not common to all stock operating under OHLE?
Not seen on the Shenfield line stock until it arrived with the blue bottoms. My train on Sunday consisted of two 4-carraige units together, one with the blue & orange the other without.
six earlier liveries for Shenfield line 315s
http://abutcher.co.uk/images/2014061806.JPG
https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7421/12421685225_bb6dc21971_b.jpg
http://www.offshed.com/mainline/images/227-07-W.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_315#/media/File:19870823-LiverpoolStreet-Class315-F.jpg
All have the orange cantrail stripe
Another 315 livery, and a couple of 317s to boot
http://www.redrockrail.com/London/DSCN9474.jpg
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_317#/media/File:NXEA_317506_Liverpool_Street_AB1.JPG
http://www.colinduff.com/uk/ukemu/ac/317660+317nnn_lst0706lst-chn240512a.jpg
Note that the stripe used to be absent in dc-land
http://album.atomic-systems.com/showPic.php/30639/455%20colour
but not any more
http://www.docbrown.info/docspics/london/London2014/Img_6361.jpg
@ Briantist – it would be nice to have a more convenient timetable but I’m clear as to why we don’t have it. The trains have to be “flighted” out of / in to Liverpool Street so that stoppers don’t get in the way of the fast / semi fast trains. That’s the problem of trying to squeeze “premium” airport trains alongside inner and outer area commuter services on what is effectively a two track railway barring the bit through Hackney. It’s why we have the lunacy of 1 train a week offering a stopping connection between Clapton and Tottenham Hale. There are clearly no easy answers or else they’d have been done by now.
I’d love to be able to look back at a 1980s timetable, prior to Stansted Airport services, to see what service levels ran on these lines. I did use the trains back then but it was a rather different railway with loco hauled diesels to Cambridge / Kings Lynn and slam door stock in wide use.
@WW
There is an easy answer, though not any easy (or cheap) solution that is already moving forward: Crossrail 2. Route it via Hackney Downs/Central, add a station at Clapton below the surface and close the existing surface Station. This would allow all Liverpool Street bound trains through Seven Sisters to use dedicated lines until after Bethnal Green. All stopping serves through Tottenham Hale would have use of their own dedicated lines before running in to the Crossrail 2 tunnelled central section. Fast trains (including the Stansted Express) would not stop at Tottenham Hale but would stop at Hackney instead, for direct connections to stations on the Overground Lines, and to the West End and South West London on Crossrail 2. The service from Chingford would not stop at Clapton and share the fast lines from Hackney to Bethnal Green. You would then be left with the lunacy of no direct service from Clapton to St James Street as those passengers would have to struggle with a arduous journey involving a change at Hackney.
@Greg Tingey
I was using the National Rail official Android app, using weekday in June 2015.
@Walthamstow Writer
Yes, I agree. I think I was just trying to have some facts in my head, rather than the impressions that sometimes work their way in there.
I guess Clapton is now forever fixed onto the line to Chingford.
As you rightly say “There are clearly no easy answers or else they’d have been done by now.” The STAR line – will add another single track between Coppermill Junction and north of Angel Road. But that’s not going to help much with the two new Overground lines.
I guess when Crossrail 2 comes along and adds the four-track back in between Coppermill Junction and the M25 then the Stansted Expresses might have more room, but who’s going to care about that when you have a shiny new system to look at?
@Dan
AFAIK the current Crossrail 2 plans have two lines going Angel->Dalston Junction->Stoke Newington and then splitting to Seven Sisters (to new Southgate) and Totteham Hale (to Cheshunt).
Clapton is .. vaguely … in the direction the dotted line that goes towards Hackney Central. The one that’s “the future, perhaps”.
Basically: Clapton isn’t part of any Crossrail 2 plan.
@WW
Out of interest, May 87 timetable shows weekday off-peak from Liverpool St:
Table 20 – 00/30 Enfield Town, 15/45 slow Cheshunt
Table 20A – 22/52 Chingford
Table 21 – 05/35 fast Bishops Stortford (05 from table 22), 18/48 slow Hertford East
Table 22 – 05 slow Cambridge, 35 fast Cambridge/Kings Lynn odd hours
Dan
A surprising number of people get on/off @ W Central or St James’ St & get off/on @ Clapton. There is just no alternative route …
Timbeau
today, I did see that Orange stripe. Never noticed it before last week; assumed it was new due to the Overground colour.
@Briantist
Passing under Clapton was in the June 2014 Consultation. This extract can be found on tfl’s website.
Further work to reduce the overall cost of the scheme and to minimise environmental impacts during both construction and operation has resulted in a potential change to the proposal for Crossrail 2 in this area. Rather than the route splitting at Angel with one tunnel going via Dalston and the other via Hackney, a single route would continue as far as Stoke Newington or Clapton, at which point the line would split, with one branch towards Seven Sisters and New Southgate and the other towards Tottenham Hale and Hertford East. This is illustrated in the map above.
There’s also a figure showing the potential routes. Sorry but I don’t have the knowledge to paste the necessary links.
Dan
If that was implemented, then you could go W’stow C ( or further out) to Clapton via Totty Hale (Change to XR2) – but St James’ St would be left out in the cold – bus or walk to Blackhorse Rd, I suppose
The updated London Connections map has surfaced… http://www.citymetric.com/transport/new-map-shows-transport-londons-growing-control-city-rail-network-1053
@dan
Sorry, I was looking at the last set of conclusions from CR2, not the earlier work.
@WW
The thing that puzzles me about the timetable, and I’ve just been down the line and checked it to make sure, is that from the junction at Bethnal Green all the way to the split at Hackney Downs, there is two lots of four tracks.
It seems a really poor usage of these separated pairs of lines to have so few services. Yes, the Standsted express needs one pair, and this has to share with Ching ford.
But the Seven Sisters route seems poorly used. Given the amount of bus traffic following the route from Seven Sisters upward, there could IMHO be trains every five minutes and they would be well used.
Perhaps in the future they could slot in some extra trains that go from Bethnal Green to Enfield/Turkey Street? I wonder what this would take?
@Dan
Sorry, link https://www.gov.uk/government/news/updated-crossrail-2-route-protected-from-conflicting-development and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29804467
The problem is fitting all those trains down & up Bethnal Green bank on one pair of tracks ….
@Greg
Is there any reason some of them (the Stansted Express?) couldn’t be switched to the GE main line at Bethnal Green? The track is there to allow it. Does the GE main line make full use of its four tracks?
@Briantist
“is that from the junction at Bethnal Green all the way to the split at Hackney Downs, there is two lots of four tracks”
Last time I looked there were only two pairs of tracks (four tracks in total)
“Does the GE main line make full use of its four tracks?”
Probably. The problem is that at Bethnal Green you have two lots of four merging into only six. The absence of stations does mean that there is a little spare capacity compared with further out, where fast trains have to overtake stoppers.
Crossrail will also help, by effectively adding another two tracks between Stratford and LSt.
Re Mark
I see City Metric seem surprised that Brentwood is Zone 9. (The same as Shenfield) I expect this is to deter passengers who would normally head for Shenfield from converging on Brentwood.
@RayK
“Brentwood is Zone 9. (The same as Shenfield) ”
Actually the map shows Shenfield as out of the zones altogether – like Watford Junction and probably for the same reason – there are fast non-TfL services from there to London.
Meanwhile, TfL’s own website has got into a pickle
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/what-we-do/tfl-rail?intcmp=27407
“Of the stations transferring to TfL Rail on 31 May 2015, one of them – Shenfield in Essex – is located outside London. ”
So is Brentwood, and I suspect this is why the higher fares implicit in being in Zone 9.
I take it Putting these outer station in zones 7-9 won’t mean that passengers from say Southend ( Victoria) won’t be able to alight at these stations which their train passes through on its way to London if they have bought a zone 1-6 travel card ?
It’s easy for TFL to think of passengers travelling out of Central London but many travel in and would this now mean that a zone 9 ticket on Crossrail will also be valid on Metropolitan Line to zone 9 Watford Junction ?
Went to Chingford today but no sign of any upgrade work at Chingford Station or on stations back to Liverpool Street I only saw notices informing users that station will soon be a TFL station .
@timbeau:
Note that the stripe used to be absent in dc-land
http://album.atomic-systems.com/showPic.php/30639/455%20colour
but not any more
http://www.docbrown.info/docspics/london/London2014/Img_6361.jpg
Presumably now that the GWML is being electrified there is a chance any SWT third rail unit could end up close to or under the wires at Reading.
Has anyone yet linked to the new Tube map showing the Wangleground? (and TfL Rail to Shenfield):
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/maps/track/tube
Just on the scrollable version, not the PDF. And is it just me or has all the text shifted too far right?
Re Ian J
‘And is it just me or has all the text shifted too far right?’
The worst instance that I can see is that Fenchurch Street runs into Tower Gateway. As moving text left would produce just as many problems I suspect the font is too large. I am browsing using Google Chrome. I don’t know how it shows up in other browsers.
Melvyn
That is because some of the Chingford branch stations don’t need refurbs, being nice & clean (mostly) already.
Chingford, Higham’s Park, Walthamstow C & Clapton, f’rinstance.
I think Wood St & St James’ St could do with serious improvement, but that means new platform-level structures, & covered staircases, for a start.
( Oh & getting rid of the B!oo£^ pigeons from Walthamstow Cent AGAIN … )
I wonder if someone will actually get around to putting up proper direction signs, showing the correct through route between WHC & WMW ( “Central – Queens Rd” ) so that people don’t get lost?
Or is something so simple too much to hope for?
@Ian J/RayK
“has all the text shifted too far right? /The worst instance that I can see is that Fenchurch Street runs into Tower Gateway”
It can’t be all the text has moved right, or Tower Gateway would have moved right too. I think a slightly larger font has been used
@ timbeau 20 May 2015 at 16:28
“Crossrail will also help, by effectively adding another two tracks between Stratford and LSt.”
How so? Are you just saying that most CR trains will go though the core, and that will free up capacity into LST?
@Anon
“Are you just saying that most CR trains will go though the core, and that will free up capacity into LST?”
Quite so – the existing Shenfield local services will go down the hole, therefore won’t be running through Bethnal Green Junction. Just as the Central Line removed Loughton line trains from the approaches in the 1940s, the Northern Heights and Northern City projects removed inner suburban traffic from Kings Cross, CR2 would free up more capacity into LSt and Waterloo, and HS2 would free up capacity between Euston and Lichfield.
Re Timbeau,
Except aren’t only some of the Shenfield branch Crossrail services going down the hole, a small number will still go into the terminating platforms at Liverpool Street? So there will be some capacity released but not that much.
TfL have released a press release setting out the revised fare and pass arrangements for the transferring West Anglia and Great Eastern line services.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/fares
Within the press release are links to the new Tube Map pdf and also a fares document showing changes.
TfL and Greater Anglia have agreed that the TfL PAYG fare scale will apply for journeys via T Hale that are run by Greater Anglia. This equates the farescales between Cheshunt and Liverpool St via each route.
Key changes to fares are
– Brentwood moves to Zone 9 and TfL fares apply.
– TfL concessions and refund policies apply.
– No existing tickets are withdrawn so season tickets to Liv St remain.
– Looks like the Freedom Pass will be valid *on TfL operated services* to Cheshunt and Shenfield. This needs a firm clarification as I think the press release is a tiny bit vague.
– The “Zone 1 add on” fare is removed where TfL fares apply. This is why a number of fares will fall considerably.
– Greater Anglia continue to set fares from Shenfield to Zone 1 so no change at Shenfield for trips to Liv St and beyond. However TfL will set fares from Shenfield inwards to Zone 2.
@timbeau
Let’s hope that capacity is used to improve the new overground services. Two trains an hour to Enfield and Cheshunt isn’t up to usual Overground service levels.
Here’s the PDF of the new map: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/tube-map-may-2015.pdf
The London and SE RUS already dealt with the opportunities allowed by the Crossrail 1 diversions away from Liverpool St, and AFAICR had recommended allocating most of the capacity to the forecast 28 tph Anglia mainline services, with various remodellings west of Stratford at Bow Junction?
(That’s probably a vast oversimplification though.)
Three Crossrail bridges are in place over Marshgate Lane E15.
Two are Crossrail up & down and the third is the diverted up slow (or electric, for the railway in-crowd). I’ve sent my photo of Tuesday 19th to John Bull.
ngh
Out of the peak hours, all CR1 trains to/from Shenfield will go “dahn th’ole” by Pudding Mill Lane, so that’s 6tph slots reed up on the “electric” lines into LST.
In the peaks there will still be LST terminators.
WW
As I read that, then, there will be a freedom pass “gap” between Cheshunt & Enfield Lock – a curious anomaly. Also, if one gets on a skip-stop, AGA-operated service @ say 7 Sisters & gets off @ Cheshunt, are you “invalid” once you pass Southbury?
Um – needs clarification.
Anon @ 13.55
Maybe, but ….. as asked several times previously – where are you going to fit them in, once you get to Bethnal Green? On the same pair of tracks as the existing Chingford, Hertford E, Stansted & Cambridge services?
@WW
Freedom Passes have, by definition, the same availability (ie free travel at all times) on all TfL operated rail services. This includes Underground, Overground, TfL rail and will include Crossrail all the way out to Reading.
The news that TFL,fares will apply on the branch that remains with WA makes sense otherwise we could have seen passengers simply staying on buses etc. until they reach a new Overground Station thus increasing loading on those lines .
This news may lead to other London commuters to demand that they should only pay TFL fares where they pay more on their trains.
One possible example may be if passengers on new WA Overground pay less than those on Great Northern lines ?
With the devolution of Scottish services and now Northern Rail and TPE to the new Rail North it’s beginning to look like all London services should be controlled by TFL and The Mayor even if they are not part of Overground and still run by companies like TSGN and SWT .its a pity this issue was not part of recent TSGN franchise given close links between GN and WA networks with many people able to choose which one to use .
@timbeau
“Last time I looked there were only two pairs of tracks (four tracks in total)”
Yes, that’s what I meant to type!
The point being, and I think you’ve covered it, is the capacity squeeze is between Liverpool Street and Bethnal Green, which is disappointing for the Seven Sisters Overground Line.
@Melvyn
“Went to Chingford today but no sign of any upgrade work at Chingford Station or on stations back to Liverpool Street I only saw notices informing users that station will soon be a TFL station .”
But not a TfL-Rail station, of course, because it’s London Overground.
@Pincinator
“Here’s the PDF of the new map:”
I note that “Tufnell Park Station closed from Monday 8 June until mid-March 2016.”
@ngh
“Except aren’t only some of the Shenfield branch Crossrail services going down the hole, a small number will still go into the terminating platforms at Liverpool Street? So there will be some capacity released but not that much.”
Not sure how that wood work, given the need to go “down the hole” to get to Whitechapel? Also the frequency diagrams we’ve seen for Crossrail suggest that at the very least all services go to Paddington. There is a whole lot of work going on at Paddington to create the turnaround.
@Greg Tingey
“That is because some of the Chingford branch stations don’t need refurbs, being nice & clean (mostly) already.
Chingford, Higham’s Park, Walthamstow C & Clapton, f’rinstance.”
Except, of course, they have totally being doing Walthamstow Central, it’s got a whole row of ticket gates in an expanded station building on Selboune Road.
@ Quinlet – I apologise if I appear a little grumpy in what I say next but I am sceptical about Freedom Passes extending to Reading. I take your point about “by definition” but the definition is ultimately controlled by funding. As it is very likely there will be continued massive spending cuts imposed on local authorities and especially urban ones then I am distinctly sceptical that lavish extensions of availability to places like Maidenhead and Reading will be funded by London Boroughs. Heck I’m not even confident that access to Heathrow via Crossrail, given the premium fares, will be permitted on Crossrail. There must also come a point when neighbouring areas served by Crossrail but outside the scope of Freedom Passes start complaining that their older residents are not being treated on a fair basis. If you concede to that demand then where do the demands stop given how extensive the rail system is in SE England?
I am not even confident the 60+ Pass will survive an “austerity” regime at City Hall if certain persons were to be elected to City Hall. TfL’s spending will certainly be in the firing line and the hundreds of millions of funding directed to fare concessions must be a target, regardless of the political consequences.
If you have an inside line and know for certain that the concessions will survive to and beyond 2019 and will cover Crossrail in its entirety then that’s good news.
@ Melvyn – reading in another forum it seems to be the case that Hertford East passengers have had changes to their ticketing arrangements recently. The old “Hertford Stations” group seems to have gone with GN and GA fares now being separate for daily fares. Seasons appear to be unaffected. I think we need to be a bit careful about making sweeping “demands” for fare equalisation given we have different policies in place in respect of income, subsidy and who bears income risk. There aren’t equalised fares policies in PTE areas and it will take many years to achieve such in the North given the pressure for loads of investment and the DfT’s demand for reduced subsidy. There’s not a lot of point in having a Greater London wide single farescale if you have massive “cliff edge” fares effects at the boundary points for different TOCs. People will soon complain about that if it’s perceived to be unfair. The move over the years to market pricing and premiums for different service quality (not Standard vs 1st Class) has caused massive complication and confusion. It will require great bravery to create an alternative structure that is perceived to be fairer overall for the majority of passengers.
WW: I agree with oyu that the Freedom Pass situation is interesting for this initial expansion of TfL-branded routes. I noted some months’ back a comment by the London Government Assocation (or its oppo) to the effect that they wanted to keep expansion to a minimum so as to not increase costs too much, but that only referred to Enfield / Cheshunt. Shenfield is, to me, unexpected in that it does rather set a precedent in expectations for the full CR1 (and CRfuture) access.
Is there any actual _reason_ to visit Shenfield though?
Re AlisonW
21 May 2015 at 22:41
“Is there any actual _reason_ to visit Shenfield though?”
Save £4-5 if going to Norwich etc. if you change there?
@pincinator: Thanks. Note the reference to Night Tube services from 12 September – it will be interesting to see how/if they show more detail about these once they start. Or will there be a separate Night Tube map?
Incidentally, if you want to get a hint of how Crossrail might be shown on the Tube map, look at the background of the map on page 2 here – it seems to be an extract from a London Connections map showing Crossrail as a double line like the other non-tube services, but purple.
Re Briantist (in Gigabit internet heaven) 21 May 2015 at 18:58
Simple those not going down the hole don’t go anywhere near Whitechapel… (just like they have done since Liverpool street opened and they do today!)
12tph (peak) from the Shenfield Branch go down the hole, the other 12tph from Abbey Wood go thought the core to get 24tph.
The remaining services on the GEML slows continue to operate into Liverpool Street with the shorter 8 car platforms being lengthened and operated by TfL rail using Cl345s I can’t remember whether the remaining services on the slow will be branded as Crossrail or TfL rail post 2019 despite the same stock being used.
The last I heard was that until the platforms 16-18 are lengthened (losing 1 to lengthen?) the Cl345s will initially be run as 7 car units on testing /introduction.
If you don’t lose all the trains off the GEML slows then there isn’t lots of capacity released, the aim for the small amount released is apparently allowing a few more tph on the fasts rather than any West Anglia service improvements – that has to wait for CR2.
This is covered in one of the many LR Crossrail articles just not the first 20 I looked at trying to find it…
Braintist
Except, of course, they have totally being doing Walthamstow Central, it’s got a whole row of ticket gates in an expanded station building on Selboune Road.
To which my comment is SNARL – I will now explain.
[[Moderator’s note: You (Greg) have indicated your objections to gating what were previously ungated interchanges quite a number of times already on this site. I have left this one in, even though it is quite lengthy, because it contains some additional details. But future repetition of this theme will be snipped. Malcolm]]
This is nothing at all to do with Overground or the transfer – it is because of ( insert extremely rude & dismissive adjectives $HERE) interference by DfT ( & some previous lobbying by AGA – I think) demanding that there be “gates” to allocate revenue between the services.
I have been in correspondence with my MP & ORR concerning the safety (or lack of it) of these arangements.
If implemented fully, one will come out of the Victoria Line, go through a set of gates, exit the station – if in the down direction, going through an egress which I judged to be a dangerous pinch-point – they have now widened it fractionally & removed a couple of trip/snag hazards – and then re-ener the station through a second set of gates – to get on to another TfL-operated service. (!)
Or an equally roundabout perambulation in the opposite direction. …
What IMHO should have been done was to remove the gates at the top of the Vic-line escalators & put barriers at the station periphery – ie – new entrance to underpass on S side, old station entrance, station entrance on N side, all the way across, & at the bus station entrance to the subway.
But that’s too simple.
I do hope that I am wrong, & that the specified modifications on the down side mean that will not get a dangerous/injurious/fatal crowd-crush in the new “prison alleyway” exit between the tube & the down side of the station.
Long explanation, but it does need airing. [[But not too often. Malcolm]]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Alison W
Shenfield is not “that far” outside the GLA area – distance form Livp St = 20.25 miles
Going the other way, towards Reading ( = 36 miles), an approx eqivalent point might be: Slough @ 18.5 miles (?)
Note that Freedom Pass will get you to Dartford, but Oyster won’t (I think).
@ngh
But CR2 won’t increase capacity between LST & Bethnal Green. Nor between Hackney Downs and Tottenham Hale/St. James Street.
@Ian J
“Incidentally, if you want to get a hint of how Crossrail might be shown on the Tube map, look at the background of the map on page 2”
Apart from the colour, I doubt it will look much like that as
a – it’s a London Connections map, not a Tube map. The latest Tube map has been tweaked in such a way that XR should be able to run through the area in a straight line. (It would be nice if, as Beck proposed for the Vic), everything else is tweaked so the new line is straight all the way.)
b – I doesn’t show the new Overground routes out of Liv St – there is just the single grey-dashed “Anglia” line covering services to places like Southend and Stansted as well as Chingford and Enfield.
@anon
“But CR2 won’t increase capacity between LST & Bethnal Green. Nor between Hackney Downs and Tottenham Hale/St. James Street.”
Not increase: release. All the paths between Liv St and Tottenham Hale currently used by Lea Valley line trains can be used by something else if they go down the hole.
If anyone is interested in the Fares Changes for the TfL takeover of the West Anglia and Shenfield local services then a Mayoral Decision document and TfL Fares Advice paper have been published. I hadn’t appreciated that the fares on West Anglia are different to the standard TfL scale. This creates yet more complexity for people to cope with!
https://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/mayor/mayoral-decisions/MD1485
Any chance of wood st station moving to zone 3 like the rest of Walthamstow after the hand over to tfl?
Any particular reason why it should? I’m sure any Wood Street commuters to Highams Park or Chingford would object!
@ Anon – none that I’m aware of. Time to do it would be at a main fares revision so that’s Jan 2016 at the earliest but I can’t see why they would make a change there given there’s no local campaign for it and all the other campaigns elsewhere to rezone this place and that have come to nought. The next rezoning change is for Stratford stations to move to Z23 boundary and that’s due Jan 2016. If a change was to happen to Wood St it’s more likely it would move to Z34 so fares from Highams Park / Chingford wouldn’t increase.
Yeah zone 3/4 is what I should of said. It’s just a pain as I have a 1-3 travel card so cannot go that one extra stop to get to wood st when needed.
Even TfL seem to be getting confused about the transfer of Shenfield metro services, this link was contained in an e-mail sent out today
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/what-we-do/tfl-rail?intcmp=27407
It contains two errors, firstly that only Shenfield is outside London, (forgetting Brentwood is in Essex too) and secondly that TfL are taking over Shenfield station as not to do so would be impractical!
Malcom
Can we “bookmark” my comment @ 09.16: 22/05/2015 …
Like THIS ??
So that when this subject come up again, & it will … We can point to said answer, without a long-winded ( & agreed, can be tiresome) repetition?
[[Yes. Malcolm]]
Anonymous
What & miss a walk through the Village – & if it’s a Friday evening, or Saturday or Sunday, you can pass the brewery on the way ….
Alfie 1014
Turkey Street & Chesunt are outside London too – as is everything north of Woodford on the Central line, as well (!)
Turkey Street outside London? No, well within Enfield.
Anon
Oops, brain switched off – I got reversed …
Theobald’s Grove
@GT ‘Turkey Street & Chesunt are outside London too’
Did you mean Theobalds Grove which is in Waltham Cross, Herts. and between the two?
@Greg
Regarding distances, indeed.
It has been noted many times that since the intention for Crossrail was changed when TfL took the reins from BR/NR to become as a super-tube line, then Shenfield to Slough were the logical limits, with the lack of suitable terminal facilities at Slough (nor the inclination to build the grade separation required to get the relief lines to the Windsor branch) probably being the reason they gave in and pushed further out. I suspect Reading/Maidenhead was just a sop to deal with the pathing restrictions within the zones and possibly to get the buy-in for TfL to take overall control. TfL’s probably quite happy with terminating at Abbey Wood and Heathrow.
@ mr_jrt
I suspect there will be much “lively” “discussion” about the final termination points for Crossrail. There are, or will be once it gets going, so many calls for extending it ‘that bit further’ that I expect the goalposts to be moved regularly in future years. Although I won’t live long enough to see it, I would put money on different Crossrail termini in 2020, 2030, 2040 & 2050.
@timbeau: The latest Tube map has been tweaked in such a way that XR should be able to run through the area in a straight line. (It would be nice if, as Beck proposed for the Vic), everything else is tweaked so the new line is straight all the way.)
Like this, you mean? It looks like the latest Tube map includes the changes to the Central Line and the Aldgate area that would be needed for a straight-line Crossrail, but not yet the more radical rework of Paddington and the Bakerloo. Maybe in 2018 when TfL Rail takes over Heathrow Connect?
@Dr Richards beeching – -I fear you are right but I hope you are wrong! (Not least because by the time CR has become Bristol to Norwich and Ashford, we shall need a new line to relieve the inner area – crayonistas take your choice*)
*Not an invitation to indulge here…
Ray K
Yes.
Theobald’s Grove is the first out-of GLA station, which I go to very occasionally, & from very soon now, I shan’t have to pay for ….
Sorry if this is a silly question but why hasn’t the line via Angel Road not transferred to London Overground?
@ Ian J Latest tube map also fails to show West Anglia Overground, Step free access at Bond Street and TCR and a number of Overground Stations now completed let alone authorised and still has Thameslink going to Moorgate . And that’s before we get to tram and light rail schemes given even Crystak Palace extension of Tramlink has still to begin !
@ Mr Graham H
Yes, I know I am right based on the past history of Thameslink south of the Thames. I also know you are right as well. In 30 years time, if not before, they will be talking about the need for a new Crossrail relief line being a priority. By which time perhaps Kintbury will have replaced Ealing as ‘Queen of the suburbs’.
@ GH & Dr R B
I know you are both right too. Years ago, my Philosophy lecturer said “Change is Constant”. That change applies to railway maps, commuting routes and travel patters just as it applies to everything else.
In the 50’s, an hour on a mainline train to commute from (say) Brighton was not really the norm. Then people started commuting from Peterborough, – then Doncaster etc. The West and South West will want their share of this rail revolution, and many will see Crossrail as the means of implementation. MPs will be more aware of electors’ requirements rather than their aspirations. Interesting times are before us.
Anonymous 25 May 2015 at 09:59
“Sorry if this is a silly question but why hasn’t the line via Angel Road not transferred to London Overground”
The line has been left as is because
1 it is the line used for the Standsted express;
2 it is planned for use as Crossrail 2;
3 is is also planned for Stratford-Angel Road (StAR) services.
It is possible in the long run that the line will be four tracked and StAR be an extended London Overground train, but funding is though National Rail not TfL.
@Ian J
I can’t help noticing that http://chaos.zxdemo.org/tube/T2025_indicative_tfL_trnsprt.pdf is full of errors
Crossrail 2 goes up to Tottenham Hale not the central line as well as seven sisters.
Dagenham dock is an Overground connection and that’s planned to go under the river to abbey wood.
Etc etc etc
Proper map here –
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/london-2050-cartographical-interlude/#comments
@RB and Castlebar – luckily, I won’t be around to welcome TfHC* extending bus route 8862 from Great Bedwyn, Frog Meadow to Uffington, King William V.
*LBM to note (TfHC) Transport for the Home Counties replaced TfL in 2035 following the decision by Prime Minster for Life, Lord Johnson, abolishing the Green Belt and deciding to make a number of settlements, including Lambourn and Bicester, Metropolitan Boroughs. The New Forest was renamed the Thatcher Urban Park. At this point, the 72ts had yet to be replaced…
GH: > I detect a hint of cynicism hidden within your last posting.
Prophets are never welcome. Profits always are. There is always profit to be had in “improving” the countryside as was proven by the Land Enclosures Acts
Ha if only there was Transit for the Home counties. Hell there should be some sort of structure just for the bordering District councils. In effect Zones 9/10, they all border the M25 and are just as congested as the Outer London suburbs.
Even if they could not stomach direct TFL integration a series of neighbouring transit authorities that had the same pricing and quality of service as London buses would be most welcome.
It might not be possible to form one solid ring around London, But I could see 4 transit authorities built around the most urban borderlands.
For example South Essex, North West Kent, M25 Surrey plus Slough and South Bucks and Metro Hertfordshire. With the exception of Slough and South Bucks they’d all be in the same county, cutting out a lot of political bickering and most bus commuting in those areas is either confined to within those clusters or across the border into London.
@Rational Plan
No local chieftain likes to give up kingship of his own local fiefdom/dunghill. There are too many princelings controlling the extra-mural, (outer M25 doughnut), territories. They will not like their powers subsumed into GH’s “TfHC”
You are right of course. The London catchment area can only expand. The only question is “How far?”. That is why. in time, GH’s “Bristol to Norwich” comment re Crossrail is likely to prove more prophetic than fantastic.
@ GH. Can you confirm that Great Bedwyn, Frog Meadow, is now the “affordable homes” sector of the Greater Hungerford Metropolitan Area?
Which Is why I think smaller transit authorities confined to singular counties have a greater chance of success. They could have a statuary duty co-ordinate with TFL on cross border bus services for example and the authorities would need to accept an extra precept to pay for the increased level of bus service.
The real political difficulty is, I doubt they’d be willing to pay for the same level of free transport as London, with the lower densities, lower bus fares and more frequent service will be expensive enough.
Mr Osborne seems keen on devolution and managed fight the DFT over giving Manchester control over it’s buses. This fight was considered the hardest in Whitehall with the DFT ‘fighting on an almost theological level’ of opposition to regulation of buses outside London. Why not give some love to their political heartlands.
Castlebar
Enclosing some lands will get you in deep err … excrement.
As the then Minstry of Roads (now DafT) crossed swords with The Corporation over Epping Forest (M25) & got their head handed to them, how very sad.
Rational Plan
Yes, well, I think I’ve moaned on before about the ghastly (non) state of buses, 5mm outside the GLA boundary & especially between Waltham Cross/Abbey & Epping, haven’t I?
There’s the examples of Styal & Penkridge in another context too.
Integrated transport – what’s that?
@Rational Plan
Of course, with irony, Slough and South Bucks were/were in the same county until the boundary re-drawing crayonistas were let loose
Castlebar @ 25 May 2015 at 13:36
“Planck’s Constant”.
Graham H
@ 25 May 2015 at 16:02
About policy principles for urban expansion, I’m with you! Try this at page 130:(http://www.jrc.org.uk/PDFs/RSA-book-FinalPass-V10.3.pdf) – “The expansion of city region administrations from just London to the largest 15 regions over the 2010-2030 period greatly helped to assemble and channel funding towards public transport improvements. Once begun, this flow of funding could be continued for other sequential schemes with little public or private sector dissention, because the benefits were accepted as worth the initial financial pain—achieving additional capacity and economic growth along with lower carbon consumption.” [Well we are already seeing Osborne pressing for City Mayors elsewhere, and I only wrote the chapter in 2009!].
Also, see footnote in page 127, ” * The English Government Act of 2020 gave metropolitan city regions the responsibility for creating, either alone or with others, a safe and adequate public transport within a 50 km travel-to-work-area, a zone similar in size to that in the London Passenger Transport Board Act of 1931… This contributed to substantial growth in railway use. In 2054 3 billion passengers were carried in a year on Britain’s main lines for the first time ever.”
@ Alan Griffiths: ?
Max Planck was a physicist, (not a philosopher)
STANSTED!!!
It’s had this name since saxon times, so isn’t it just right and proper to spell the damn name correctly?
[Spelling mistakes or typos are not really worth getting angry about. Commentors’ attention is drawn to the request above the comment box to “keep comments polite and, importantly, on topic!”. Malcolm]
Briantist – the only errors on the map Ian J linked to are in crystal-ball gazing. It shows what in 2007 TfL thought would be the future, and it’s quite amazing how the future has changed in the last eight years!
Castlebar 25 May 2015 at 22:25
But if he’d been a visiting lecturer in a Scottish University?
@Jonathan Roberts – 🙂 (but you will be proved wrong in twenty years’ time – don’t know how yet, but ….) The main problem with urban expansion just now is that it has never (well, at least since 1936) been easier to build semi-rural housing estates and the changes with PPG 16 have tended to accelerate that process. The risk is that we see – as in Herts and Berks – formless,unfocussed, difficult to service urban sprawl reminiscent of what has happened in eastern Europe post-1991. That’s no friend to rail expansion (or indeed the bus network – ever tried visiting some of the not so remote suburbs of Sydney by public transport?).
Sorry, we’ve had this conversation before. There aren’t any principles of urban expansion in the UK – and there should be. Politicians would be afraid of them if there were.
Agreed that there aren’t any principles. There is an example:Milton Keynes. Not sprawl. Not unfocussed. It cost much public money, so unlikely to be closely followed today. As for difficult to serve by public transport: views differ. It was said to be so, but it seems to me that today’s bus users there are now rather more satisfied than those in most places outside TfL-land.
@ GH, JR, Rat Plan, Malcolm etc
GH is of course correct, but in the last 50 years there HAS been change. For example, builders are now looking at their land banks, and calling for better rail services to further enhance the book value of their holdings. Frome is a not unique example.
50 years ago, builders were looking at railway land to build ON, rather than build alongside. That is a major change.
We have had many such discussions on here before, and we must not become repetitive, but an example, Southwater in West Sussex is now in desperate need of a railway service. It would now make an excellent Thameslink destination/terminus after Horsham, but massive housebuilding projects after rail closure have made it impossible. What happened there 50 years ago wouldn’t be allowed today. That is a change.
I am sure the same thinking will be employed for future Goblin & Crossrail schemes. Builders now realise that rail access increases the saleability (thus price and profit) of their ‘developments’.
As I said, “Change is constant”
@Malcolm – I’m not sure MK is the archetypal example of what I meant. Having been involved with the development of MK at its early stages back in DoE days,there was certainly a master plan and good public transport was part of it*. The sort of formless sprawl I had in mind is perhaps best seen at the moment in West Berkshire, although there are incipient pockets nearly everywhere you look – West Sussex has a number of “orphan” housing estates miles from anywhere (by “anywhere”,I meant,workplaces, shopping, railway stations, schools).
* The original MK master plan was designed to allow for some form of fixed track public transport network – alas, being a child of its age, that form was supposed to be a m*******, and the plan was quickly abandoned (rearguard action from a conventional LRT network failed, even more alas).
Actually, MK nearly became the sort of unfocussed sprawl we are discussing here (sorry for thread drift). The Development Corporation had spotted that cuts were coming and that would mean the size of the town would be cut back accordingly, so they carefully prioritised the development of the most remote estates. Any cutback would have left these as sprawl-out-in-the-sticks which would have been anathema in 1972; luckily, the ploy was noticed and we told them to build from the centre outwards, as it were. Even so,the block with the town centre was left until very late inthe programme. [And to make an anti-PwC point, it’s a model case study of why you shouldn’t manage a public body solely by indicators.]
But, notwithstanding Malcolm’s observations, does the grid pattern not make MK inherently harder to serve by public transport than a radial pattern? And even more so with the trasnport technology of the 1960s / 70s?
@answer=42 – I suspect the answer to your question depends greatly on that particular distribution of differing land uses; I can imagine that in a polyfocal city, a grid may well be best (cf the Swiss approach to timetable design), but in settlements with an overwhelmingly dominant centre (London, Manchester etc) then radial seems unavoidable. I haven’t been to MK for years so I don’t know enough to be able to say which archetype it resembles.
Reflecting on this and the points made by Malcolm and others, I did wonder whether there isn’t a flip point at which an essentially radial system begins to develop genuine orbital routes(as opposed to routes which do a sweep of the suburbs and sometimes happen to connect). Maybe around the 400-500 000 population mark? (Eg Leeds has some long established circular routes but Nottingham doesn’t so far as i know)
I don’t think the grid per se makes MK harder to bus serve. But the resultant bimodal distribution of road types certainly does. All MK roads are either high speed hidden from the houses, or low speed twisty humpy disconnected things. Neither makes ideal bus routes. Initially buses ran only on the grid roads (the fast ones), but in spite of ample bus lay-bys with good footpath access from surrounding areas, nobody liked this. Buses which divert round the twisty bits are much more popular, even though this makes them slower (and costly to run).
The population density – deliberately low to achieve the green fresh-air quality of life – definitely does further hinder bus economics.
MK is only slightly polycentric, Bletchley, Wolverton and Stony Stratford (and Newport Pagnell, though this is technically outside MK) trying to rival the city centre, but not quite cutting it.
@WW, Alison W
Freedom Pass eligibility is defined by legislation and, as currently written, the same concession must be applied to all TfL rail services (of whatever colour). So, unless there is a change in primary legislation – and no legislators are that keen on opening up this particular can of worms – Freedom Passes will be eligible for travel through to Shenfield and Cheshunt (but not between Enfield Lock and Cheshunt) from the end of the month. And to Reading once TfL takes control of the crossrail services going there. The cost does not come into it, the boroughs have no choice over this but to pay up.
@Quinlet.
And Heathrow?
@ Graham, I hope you don’t mind me asking, but what exactly did you used to do? Your comments about your previous route planning in Network South East/ BR is always fascinating.
@Margret Thatcher – I fear my career (if it was a career) has been very odd (but perhaps less so in France…). I started work at a City merchant bank (in the days when such things existed), and moved to the Civil Service in 1971, where I was based in the Department of the Environment (subsequently Transport etc). Relevant bits of that included being involved in setting up the transport planning and grant system (TSG and TPPs) in the early ’70s, looking after the National Bus Company, managing the legislation for the renationalisation of LT, and looking after BR for the latter half of the ’80s. Faced with the prospect of another decade of Mrs T (sorry!) I left to become Director of Strategic Planning for NSE and with the abolition of NSE, I became the company secretary to the Board and executed the privatisation process from the Board’s perspective. When the Board went down, I became the inevitable consultant and spent my time explaining to foreign governments and the like how not to do privatisation and how wonderful PPP/PFI finance was (not|).
I can’t imagine anyone being able to follow that career in the future (tho’ young Hewett seems to be trying to do it backwards, which is probably the right approach…)
I should add that every single building in which I have worked (only two exceptions) has been demolished and every single organisation in which I have worked has either gone out of business or been reorganised out of recognition (sometimes on the day I left…)
@ GH
I thought your career started on Jacob’s Ladder, back in the ’50s
@ GH
I meant to conclude the above with “There is now a ‘I grew up in Hanwell” Facebook site, designed for those of us ‘of a certain age’
Some good photos of Castle Bar Park and West Ealing recently appeared there.
@Castlebar – “Jacobs Ladder” – just a longish hike up Coldershaw Road and a cut through M&S!
PS What is Facebook (thought it was something from c2005)? Everyone uses Instagram or whatever these days. don’t they?
No, it was Rowse’s
Old Hanwellians have only just discovered Facebook
@smitham43
Yes, and heathrow
With the new Tube Maps showing stations like Walthamstow Central interchange to nearby GOBLIN station the question might arise as to whether the still 2 carriages GOBLIN line will be able to cope with more passengers ahead of electrification as more users see interchange opportunities they did not know about?
Has TFL any spare capacity re DMUs if demand increases as a result of new interchanges shown on TFL map ?
@Melvyn, Briantist: As Mike has pointed out, you are mistaking what the map at http://chaos.zxdemo.org/tube/T2025_indicative_tfL_trnsprt.pdf is. It was put out by TfL some time before 2008 (note the Ken-era red “ON” of MAYOR OF LONDON). So it’s a version of the future that never happened (note East London Transit, West London Transit, the 1990s safeguarded version of Crossrail 2, etc).
I just posted it as evidence that TfL have had a long term plan for how to show Crossrail on the Tube map and that there are certain changes to the most recent map that only really make sense in the context of such a plan. Transport schemes come and go, but the Diagram is eternal!
(I should clarify I meant posted the link – I have no idea who put the map up on the internet)
Ian J etc – that map is dated 2007 in the bottom right-hand corner.
Ian J 28 May 2015 at 01:19
” Transport schemes come and go, but the Diagram is eternal! ”
I’m sure you’re right. Theories of atomic structure and chemical bonding come and go, but the periodic table of the elements is eternal.
Blessed are the draughtsmen, for they shall anticipate all possible futures.
@ Melvyn – short answer re DMUs is there aren’t any spare for London use. You rightly point out that some may see magical new connections on the tube map but anyone with a semblance of knowledge would know that you could travel via Blackhorse Rd to link between the GOBLIN and the Chingford Line. Cumbersome and a tad involved it certainly is but probably not much less involved that trekking through a housing estate and car park and having to fathom how to reach the Chingford bound platform at WWCS without any relevant signage!!
Despite the many demands from certain quarters I doubt we will see any more short term capacity on the GOBLIN prior to electrification. All that can be done is to take out seats in the 172s to allow more crush loading standing capacity. There is an Overground Twitter session today so we might get a little more insight – I’ve already sent in a few questions and just added some more prompted by this post!
@ Ian J I am referring to new tube map now starting to appear at stations which includes new WA Overground and TFL Rail line to Shenfield and any interchanges which even if they are a century old will still be new to many people in other parts of London. As was original Overground when it first appeared.
Isn’t it time for a new name for the ‘tube map’?
(As may have been said before…)
@Paul
Old names for the present “Tube Map” which could be used again are:
Diagram of Lines
Journey Planner
A new name would be something like “The Wombles” (Underground Overground…..)
As I stated above TfL held a twitter session about the Overground earlier today. Quite a lot was said. I asked a fair number of questions which Mr Stubbs replied to. I summarise below some of the key points made.
– newly refreshed West Anglia Overground train enters service on Monday. I assume this will be after Boris has grinned widely for the cameras at the “reveal” station.
– an announcement is due on new trains for Overground next month. We may get a hint in the papers for the Project and Finance Cttee meeting in mid June and then TfL Board on 1 July. I doubt the supplier will be named until after the Board meeting / decision.
– Hackney Central / Downs link should open in mid June so very slightly ahead of the July target date.
– announcement due in a few months about improved off peak services on West Anglia that will probably be introduced next year.
– looks like the Walthamstow Central gating scheme is being reassessed to remove interchange gating and a move to a perimeter scheme in conjunction with LU. This suggests there will be gates in the subway to the bus station and some of the recent work will have to be undone. Please note that I am speculating about what will be done. TfL just referred to an “integrated scheme” which I later questioned and they said the intent was to remove “interchange gating”. Greg can now calm down. 😉
– the next concession specification is looking at increased train frequencies, a partial weekend 24 hour service and more frequent late night trains. No more detail than that but nice that they gave me a hint about future ideas.
– Some confusion about quite when electrification will happpen when they replied to me. Other tweets referred to 2018 completion date. I wonder whether the delays on wiring schemes elsewhere in the UK are now having a ripple effect back into London?
– TfL will look again at a signing scheme for the Walthamstow Central – Queens Road interchange link. Quite why it needs looking at again I don’t know. It’s a no brainer to me.
– Contingency plans being developed by LOROL for the Vic Line closure in August but no further details given.
– No real update on the Blackhorse Road “Access for All” scheme to improve access to the Overground platforms. Odd that this scheme is struggling to achieve any great momentum.
– There is no scope to improve capacity on the GOBLIN prior to electrification.
– There are no plans to make Chingford services stop at London Fields or Cambridge Heath because there is no track capacity to permit this.
– Still considering whether to change the “naming convention” for LOROL routes. (e.g. North London Line vs Stratford to Richmond / Clapham Junction or some other name).
– Another Tweeter remarked that two Oyster readers are completely inadequate for the numbers using Clapham High Street station. TfL said they’d go and investigate. Certainly opened my eyes as to how busy the place must now be. It was practically deserted the last time I used it (just before the Overground service started).
Hope that provides an interesting glimpse as to where we are / might be soon.
A few interesting things from today’s #AskOverground session on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/askoverground?src=hash&vertical=default&f=tweets
Of note to my comments above
Paul Corfield @Cogbat
@LDNOverground Any prospect of better off peak frequencies to Enfield and Cheshunt within the next 2 years or so? #AskOverground
London Overground @LDNOverground
@Cogbat Hi, no info at this stage, but we’re working with Network Rail to finalise plans which we’ll be announced this year. #AskOverground
@WW
Enfield Town has received a significant refresh and ‘orangeisation’ (some of the investment is covered in white vinyl at present, eg Overground-style platform boards). There is a hint that being there on late Monday morning might prove worthwhile…
@ MC – yes I have seen a comment elsewhere that late Monday morning might afford an opportunity to see a certain City leader doing his stuff to camera in the Enfield area. The “Overgrounded” West Anglia EMU should also be there.
WW
Hackney Central / Downs link should open in mid June so very slightly ahead of the July target date.
As of yesterday, most of the “pipe” – the walkway between the two stations is already in place + the lift tower. But, the stairs parallel to said tower are not yet constructed, nor the entrance/exit on p/f_1 @ Hackney Downs. It looks as though the latter is going to be seriously obstructed by the poles for the camera & monitors used for 8-car up trains (!)
[ SNIP ]Greg can now calm down.
I sincerely hope so.
IF it is as you suggest, it looks as though sense has broken out, given that the entire complex is going to be under one operator. [¸Then Snip as is the same old moan about gating. LBM]
Certainly there have been no moves to implement the gating & the connection from the narrow passage to inside the gated area has been left open.
Re GOBLIN, see the user-groups pages, please.
They are not happy bunnies at present & I don’t blame them.
We shall see.
@ Greg – Walthamstow will not be under one operator – it will have two but they have broadly the same “parent” but perhaps not the same business objectives and targets. Hopefully sense will prevail but I am still astonished we’ve got to where we have. It will still take three organisations to work together to get a workable resolution and even that may stumble because of the way non rail passengers use the subways to cross from one bit of Walthamstow to another rather than go round via Hoe St (as I was reminded on Twitter this evening!). I can see it getting political if people complain even though it’s not a right of way. We’re then in uncharted waters in terms of a resolution.
I don’t need to read the user group pages. They retweet a lot of my tweets and I see some of theirs so I’m aware they are not happy. Here is not the place for a wider debate so I shall shut up.
WW
The remark re “GOBLIN” was for other readers , as I assumed you were already informed.
However, I take your point about two (three? – buses?) operators … consider Blackhorse Road & the proposed platform-rebuild(s) there & proper integration of the station.
Um.
@ Greg – at WWCS you will have LU, LOROL and Network Rail as the key parties. Buses are unlikely to be involved as I can’t see gates being put in the bus station! Clearly if someone (bizarrely) thinks they should be then London Buses will certainly have a view and would become involved.
Gates in the entrance to the underpass ???
We shall have to wait & see.
I went past Enfield Town station yesterday and this evening.
On 31 March, the main station sign was mostly white with “ENFIELD TOWN” in black at the right hand end. There was a rather faded double arrow flag type sign on the pavement outside.
Today the main sign now bears full orange OVERGROUND branding. The outside sign has been replaced and has a large orange roundel.
I presume that the inside of the station has also been “Tangoed” today.
Anon
Yes
See also Diamond Geezer’s post of today, though apparently Prof Stanley Unwin has paid a posthumous visit to Theobald’s Grove …..
@Anonymous – 31 May 2015 at 22:15
I went past Enfield Town station yesterday and this evening.
[SNIP]
I presume that the inside of the station has also been “Tangoed” today.
Yes. Diamond Geezer has the details:
http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.co.uk/
Just watched Boris at Enfield Town station on Tom Edward’s (BBCTomEdwards) on Periscope.
You can catch it again anytime.
the London Overground branding on each station from Cambridge Heath to Enfield Town:
https://plus.google.com/+BrianButterworth/posts/P6SG7Go1Thr
To which can be added Emerson Park on Romminster line which had orange sign which seemed to surprise some rail workers on my train who got off to photograph it !
Melvyn
Does the new orange sign read,as the old one did, “Emerson Park Halt”?
@Slugabed: Not according to photos over on Diamond Geezer today….
Shame.
Thanks for checking,Southern Heights.
Sorry, I couldn’t find the thread I was looking for, so I’m booting this one with this:
http://www.barkinganddagenhampost.co.uk/news/beam_park_set_for_2_000_new_homes_and_c2c_rail_station_1_4104792
No mention of the GOBLIN stopping there.
@ Stationless – given where Beam Park is there’s no prospect of the GOBLIN reaching there as it will turn off to Barking Riverside before. While C2C are a decent operator the train service on the Purfleet line is hardly frequent and there’s not much prospect of a better service given the intensity of service west of Barking. All very well building a shiny new station but it’s going to have about 1/4 to 1/3 of the service that the District Line provides a bit further north.
Not fantastic, but plenty of people will be happy to live within walking distance of a shiny new train station with an off peak service of 2 trains an hour into the City. Especially as it’s only a 20 minute trip.
Once that station is under construction, land values will rise and suddenly all these problematic sites along the A1306 will start to pay off redevelopment by private builders.
@Walthamstow Writer: My knowledge of the geography of Barking isn’t great. Isn’t Option B, here: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/rail/barking-riverside-extension
not the Beam Park station?
No – that station is on Renwick Road – Beam Park is three miles further east – between Dagenham Dock and Rainham
http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/24dash-media/image/2015/06/09/60914/580_Image_beam_park_rainham.jpg
https://goo.gl/maps/7HnNk
I look forward to the end of that consultation when, sensibly, the idea of a bridge crossing to Thamesmead and Abbey Wood is discussed. There is funding available and no real reason not to build ASAP.
TfL have published an update paper on the Barking Riverside extension proposal. It includes an option analysis and business case update.
https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/fpc-20150730-part-1-item11-barking-riverside.pdf
No mention of Thamesmead extension. The powers that be often give the impression that Abbey Wood Crossrail is sufficient, ignoring that it is on the exact site of Abbey Wood station now is and that has never done much for Thamesmead despite having frequent trains to zone 1 & central London in just over 20 minutes.
Why? Well, for most of Thamesmead, walking or cycling is just not possible to Abbey Wood as the road network and elevated southern outfall sewer cut it off. Getting to Woolwich isn’t much better. If they aren’t going to give any serious consideration to a crossing (and given 40 years of history then that wont happen) at least put on express buses from Thamesmead to Abbey Wood, Woolwich and north Greenwich, rather than the rubbish meandering buses now on offer.
@ Ed – the extension to Riverside is NOT the extension to Thamesmead. TfL has no funding to run across to Thamesmead and is not actively pursuing the extension in terms of design and powers. The extension to Thamesmead will be a separate project and any substantive progress will be an issue for the next Mayor. It ain’t going to happen on Boris’s watch.
The only glimmer of hope is the remark from Ms Dedring that TfL are specifically studying transport needs in East London. She said the view seemed to be emerging that *lots* of river crossing were needed – some road, some rail, some DLR – which suggests that TfL’s penchant for more road based crossing is considered inadequate. There also seems to be a view that there are significant issues for travel from SE London to Docklands / Stratford / further east. I think I read something the other days which said the seperate East London report would emerge sometime around October. That was more in the context of the CR2 Eastern branch which various AMs are lobbying for.
Here’s the Mayoral reply.
TfL is leading on a study to assess the current and future transport capacity in the East London sub-region. This work will take into account the predicted population and employment growth, and explore the scale of future demand growth, in order to recommend solutions appropriate to the transport capacity gap identified. A potential eastern spur of Crossrail2 is being considered as part of this wider sub-regional analysis work.
The work will produce its first outputs in October. TfL will then work with the sub-regional panel to review options. Should the outcome of this work indicate that an eastern branch of Crossrail 2 is feasible, a more comprehensive analysis will be undertaken.
The overall aim is to ensure that the right resources are targeted at the right mix of schemes and measures to unlock development across East London. The relevant boroughs are already closely involved in the development of this work, and wider stakeholder engagement and consultation will take place, prior to any decisions being finalised.
From the above you can see that whatever emerges in October is just a first step with much more work to follow to refine the proposals / recommendations. Given what’s been said in other threads about “wrong decisions and wasted money” you can perhaps understand that while we all think a GOBLIN tunnel under the Thames is brilliant and should happen tomorrow the planners have rather more on their plates and we don’t know what they’re juggling with.
Thanks for the reply. Lots of mention of East London there in the Mayors quote – none of South East London. Talk of a branch of Crossrail 2 just makes me think 20-30+ years away – in other words always some vague time in the future, which is what Thamesmead has been told for 40 years. The poor place, and much of SE London, can’t catch a break. It’s hard not to be extremely cynical given the history.
@ Ed – it was quite clear when Ms Dedring was speaking that “East London” is north *and* south of the Thames. I think there are big political pressures about ensuring people in SE London have access to growth areas north of the river. You also can’t build more houses in SE London and not provide the means to reach employment effectively. Therefore there is probably more scope for hope than you might think. Heck even BBC London, by sheer coincidence, did a feature tonight about river crossings between east and south east London.
Ed wishes for “ at least put on express buses from Thamesmead to Abbey Wood, Woolwich and north Greenwich, rather than the rubbish meandering buses now on offer
Well perhaps. But part of the problem is that Thamesmead itself is a bit sprawling. Part of what the meandering buses are doing is covering a useful selection of points in Thamesmead. Any given would-be passenger actually would like, reasonably enough, an express bus between Abbey Wood (etc) and their chosen origin/destination in Thamesmead. Not quite so easy!
@WW A more economical plan might be to try to ensure that both on the south and north sides of the river, employment opportunities are provided in proportion to homes. No special effort is made to provide transport to let people live in Bexley and work in Watford, say, it is just accepted that for most people, that is a commute too far. So the same attitude could be taken to living in Bexley and working in Dagenham, rather than feeling that we must provide oodles of costly bridges and tunnels, just because they look close on a map.
The Thamesmead peninsula contains two special regeneration zones. Some of the regeneration money can be put towards transport surely?
Walthamstow Writer – I find using the term east London to also cover SE London really pretty bizarre. No one in SE London would ever use that term. Being slightly facetious, I wonder if when orders have gone out in the past to study and improve ‘East London’ (when they also meant SE London), that underlings, understandably, put all energy and focus onto what the rest of the world calls East London – that is above the river!
I will look into that TV piece. Not sure I can really watch another piece though on crossings – it must be over 100 by now going back many years.
Thamesmead does have a few housing zones announced, and scope for more such as the vast Tripcock Point. There is talk of 10k+ plus homes, which is on the level of Barking Riverside. At Barking, no more can proceed under earlier planning decisions once more than 4k have been built. No such luck for Thamesmead.
Malcolm – Thamesmead is sprawling indeed. I worked there for a while around 5 years ago so know it well. It’s the epitome of rubbish post 70s design with endless cul-de-sacs in many areas. An express bus could run in addition to other routes which are needed eg B11, 229 etc. Stopping, say twice, and not deviating from the dual carriageways. Whatever happens the first housing zones will go ahead as funding is confirmed, and that’s a further 3k homes and 10k people planned. Total population is then around 70k+.
An LO extension is not just about local links though, but far wider connections for inner Kent and the greatly expanding Thames Gateway, so Dartford, Greenhithe etc for whom Ebbsfleet is not a great option, and Essex too.
@ Malcolm – you might be prepared to consider special transport measures if you were a Mayor who was in charge of post Olympic legacy and development and you were keen to ensure maximum access to employment opportuntities in and around the Olympic Park.
@ Ed – well please don’t “shoot the messenger” over geographic terminology. Go and have a chat with Ms Dedring and try your luck at putting her right. 🙂
@WW Yes, I see your point. And particularly so if there is money in a “transport” budget, which could be spent on a river crossing, but which could not be spent on building workplaces in Thamesmead or houses in Barking.
@Malcolm:
There is little point in building new housing in SE London and Kent if the people who will be living them can´t get to work. That´s why more cross-river (and, in general, more orbital) links are urgently needed.
SE London and Kent´s rail and road infrastructure was designed for getting workers and goods into the older centres of London, but that is no longer where the all the demand is. The DLR is struggling to cope with demand for transport across the river into the Docklands area today, and that barely even crosses the river.
According to the document, there will be a final consultation from 31st August to 11th October. Hopefully before then, the full results of the first consultation will be released, not just a financial overview document.
A river crossing of Barking Riverside – Thamesmead Reach – Thamesmead – Abbey Wood would do wonders for the peninsula. For one, the new housing would become a lot more valuable.
@hedgehog – “the new housing would become a lot more valuable.” Indeed, so what we need, perhaps, is a means of creaming off some of that added value through a property tax to fund the public expenditure on the link?
@Graham H I was under the impression that housing developers had to part with either a set amount of money or a set fraction of their profits to local government as part of the agreement to develop the land. Of course, that doesn’t cover added value to existing property.
@hedgehog -not so, alas. s106 payments, as they are known, are a matter for negotiation; there’s no fixed tariff. Still less is there any sort of guarantee that the local authority will spend its takings in the area affected – a matter of some bitterness in my village just now, where the s106 money from a redevelopment of a hospital site in the next village is being spent on two sets ofworks neither of which has anything to do with the extra traffic the redevelopment will generate (and some of which is being wasted on a vanity project with no conceivable value to either the new inhabitants of the site or existing locals…)
Hedgehog. Big housing developers run rings around local authorities and usually negotiate laughably small S106 payments.
And as WW says, there is no guarantee that if a payment us made, it’s spent on transport or spent wisely. Example – a couple of years Tower Hamlets used a S106 payment to fund a minibus service through parts of the Isle of Dogs to the local Asda. You needed to apply for a special permit (proving that you lived in E14) to use the minibus and it shadowed two tfl routes (the service buses run at less than 5 minute intervals most of the day). Result – minibuses carting fresh air and no people for a year until the madness was finally stopped.
Hedgehog 25 July @ 21.44. You are right as in addition to S.106 payments, developers have to make CIL payments (in London at least) to local authorities which are based on a fixed tariff depending on what they are developing, and these payments are non-negotiable.
@Anonymous – again, the CIL money doesn’t have to be spent in the affected areas or indeed on any project related to the development. In our local authority, which covers a very large area, any CIL money is taken by the LPA and spent a couple of towns away usually on vanity projects or, through the normal fungeability of funds, on a project that would have been financed from normal income.
TfL have announced the start of the third (and probably final) consultation on the Barking Riverside extension, closing 24th January 2016.
Announcement here, consultation page here, including a pdf showing a more detailed view of the proposed alignment.
Ooh thanks Anonymous.
Hmmm… They are still talking about a station on a viaduct…
Previously talked of maintaining option of cross river route, but no mention now and planned developments shown to block it.
Taz
So [Snip! LBM] Thamesmead is going to be left to rot, it seems …..
Meanwhile, I see BoJo is floating ideas about multiple river-crossings & he &/or others are talking ( There’s lots of “talking” ) about multi-modal bridges, carrying DLR / trams / trains “as well as roads”, across the River.
Talk, of course, is cheap.
Integrated, joined-up thinking seems, to me at least, to be in short supply.
Greg
TfL plan to serve Thamesmead via a DLR extension from Gallions Reach to possibly Abbey Wood and Barking
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/rivercrossings/b5c585b1/user_uploads/public-transport-connectivity.pdf
@ Greg – if you read or even just skim the document D Notice linked to you will see that a lot of thought has been put in to things. TfL haven’t sat with a pad and crayons – they have actually modelled and analysed a wide range of options. You have to start somewhere and you have to attempt to generate some viable options for people to consider.
Now I am a tad sceptical about the likelihood of DLR extensions or new tram lines in areas that are devoid of such links. I think it’s a nice way of trying to make what are road links somewhat more saleable. TfL and City Hall, regardless of the politics, have “form” for initially promoting rail based options and then ending up with basic bus links instead – North Greenwich, Woolwich Waterfront and Barking Reach are all examples of this. Ironic that we’re talking about broadly the same part of London yet again. I hope to be proved totally wrong but we are a long way from any of this coming to fruition and the Mayoral Election next year will be crucial in setting a policy direction. One thing we can’t have is another 8 years of “drift” but I fear that’s what we will get regardless of who wins.
In actual practice, the next Mayor will be either Zac Goldsmith or Sadiq Khan. Do we know if either of them has a grip on this question?
Network Rail have published the GOBLIN electrification works timetable:
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/vital-work-paves-the-way-for-cleaner-quieter-and-longer-trains-on-the-gospel-oak-to-barking-line
The key bits for LR readers (all compulsory PR guff removed):
Project Website and Twitter feed:
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/gobe
@NetworkRailGOBE
Track lowering locations at Walthamstow QR, 2 sites between Harringay Green Lanes and Upper Holloway and 1 site between Upper Holloway and Gospel Oak
NR’s Goblin electrification project video/animation highlighting some of the challenges:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUCUYK_dfEc
That is another really good video. However, I never manage to find them except via links kindly posted on LR. Am I wrong in expecting to find them on the NR web site? If this is the right place, where are they?
100andthirty 2 February 2016 at 08:52
In NR website, select the link labelled “Press” at the top, which goes to
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/
Should be straightforward from there. [This mesage slightly modificated by Malcolm, who at first read “Press” as a verb. Your instruction was fairly foolproof, but I am a higher grade of fool.]
Re 130/ Alan Griffiths,
Also see the NR media twitter feed:
https://twitter.com/networkrailpr
Ngh/Alan Griffiths. Many thanks
[Malcolm, who at first read “Press” as a verb. Your instruction was fairly foolproof, but I am a higher grade of fool.]
You may say that. I couldn’t possibly comment.
@Alan Griffiths
“who at first read “Press” as a verb”
cue Benny Hill sketch.
Another place to check on Network Rail site is –
News which is on same page as Press.
While some News is filed under regions
The original plans for the Thames Gateway Bridge mentioned later conversion of two way busway to either DLR or Tram .
However, one Anti lobby created impression that bridge would be a 6 lane motorway and this impression stuck when of course it was 2×2 lanes and a two way busway .
The plans also fell victim to the election of Boris .
So the next Mayor will need to decide whether to simply build a DLR extension on a narrower bridge or given the lack of crossings in east London a scheme based on original bridge but with DLR build on one side the best option as once the DLR gets across the river it will be able to expand in South East London alongside developments .
The River Crossing consultations.
I was impressed by the technical work about public transport options but also wonder what will become of the DLR and tram options as time goes on. The actual place to reply to the consultation is here
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/rivercrossings/east-of-silvertown
– which gives you an opportunity to say something positive about the DLR and tram options (especially in the “other comments” boxes.
And you can always write to the candidates for Mayor.
Timbeau and others, as a veteran member of the press (technology, not transport) I still get jokers at conferences looking at my badge saying PRESS and poking their index finger into it. After 42 years, it’s palled a bit.
Alan burkitt -Gray not as bad as the check out ladies with PAT but people do restain them selves fortuneately. I am sure the novelty wears off by the 1000th time.
Could be worse – you could be called Rob
timbeau
Time for the obligatory Pterry reference then?
( “the Wee Free Men” etc … )
[Err, no. Much though we all love Terry Pratchett and all his works, this thread has gone off the rails a bit. Sorry. Malcolm]
Could be worse – you could be called Roger
In amongst all the other “Orange” news lately and the pre-purdah rush Boris has approved the overground GOBLIN Extension to Barking riverside.
“Approved” in this case being at the stage of asking DfT for a TWAO.
4km “extension” from Barking to Barking Riverside diverging from the C2C Barking – Tilbury line onto a new 1.5km OHLE electrified branch at Renwick Road to the two-platform Riverside terminus.
The £263m extension is funded and the developers of the site, Barking Riverside Ltd providing £172m with the remaining £91m coming from TfL.
Construction is expected to begin in late 2017 subject to granting of TWAO and is due open in 2021, when London Overground’s Gospel Oak – Barking services will be extended to Barking Riverside.
@ Ngh – the “approval” is, as you suggest, more likely to be a Mayoral Decision. Aha here we are :-
https://www.london.gov.uk/decisions/md1625-london-overground-extension-barking-riverside
This follows the slightly delayed sign off of various papers and documents to establish the new jointly owned company to deliver the new housing at Barking Riverside. That new company will also channel a large share of funding to TfL to build the extension if powers are granted. TfL’s actual internal sign off was at a special Finance and Policy Cttee meeting at 16 Feb 2016 but even that was delayed by the housing related sign offs.
The new issue of Rail (Rail 800) this week includes a feature on GOBLIN which explains the need for prolonged closures of the line is to enable track lowering work at several points along the route. It also includes a photo with newly installed electrification masts .
I thought (what do I know?) that all the clearances had been sorted last time they closed the Goblin five years (or so) ago?
Went along it yesterday …
Quite a few bases & some posts up already on non-viaduct sections
@GT They were doing piling yesterday, from the sounds that were ringing out across Leytonstone all afternoon…
Re Greg and Marckee,
They had already completed more than 50% of the piling a fortnight ago. (76% of the masts will have piled foundations)
Re Slugabed,
Electrification and freight gauge (e.g. container) clearance are different things. The previous work was clearance to W10 to allow the increasingly common 9’6″ high containers to be transported on the GOBLin.
The work also includes platform lengthening and some structures renewal but with some further structures renewal post programme too (typically rail over road, see comments under other article recently.)
Slugabed. Where structures needed complete reconstruction to enable W10 gauge, they were indeed rebuilt for electrification clearances.
However, there were numerous structures that were good for W10 without reconstruction. But not clear for OLE.
SFD
Ah.Now that makes sense,thanks.
I wonder if the long promised lifts for Blackhorse Road Station will be installed during the closure .
It’s a pity that plans don’t seem to include extending lift access down to Victoria Line
Melvyn
IIRC, a more-or-less-complete rebuild of the “new” Blackhorse Rd station is in prospect,as:
The platforms are both too short & much too narrow & the footbridge is scary in the rush hour, as well as slippery & dangerous in rain or ice
@ Greg – I thought the plans for BHR were somewhat delayed and possibly won’t happen during the blockade. A load of Access for All schemes are delayed – see this quote from the March 2016 NR Enhancements Delivery Plan.
The CP5 fund value has been revised from £135m (including £32m rollover) to £87.1m in 12/13 prices, with the remainder of the original CP5 fund value now planned for CP6. Over the coming months the implications of the revision to the CP5 fund value will be evaluated through the governance arrangements described below.
No stations nor dates are listed because they are all subject to review. The A for A add on programme for CP5 is also delayed and under review. The published scope for the electrification scheme also doesn’t mention any station works. Seems the connection to the MML won’t be wired but the one to the ECML will be.
I’ve asked TfL in their last three Overground twitter sessions about the A for A scheme and I’ve had no reply at all. That rings the alarm bells for me that we won’t get the work done during the blockade. I hope I’m wrong but the signs aren’t good. I agree with your observations about congestion etc. Even off peak people with luggage, children and buggies struggle badly with the footbridge. In the peaks the lack of capacity means it can be impossible to get down to the platform to a waiting train if people have started coming up the stairs. I suspect something will be done to the platforms because they have to be modified.
WW
Seems the connection to the MML won’t be wired but the one to the ECML will be.
That’s utter madness – though admittedly we won’t be getting electric freights up the MML until (?) 2021 or so (?) – surely we are not going to have more 2-500 metre electrification gaps, like the one at Acton Wells – please?
This is so short-sighted & stupid.
The thing about any electrification gaps is that they can generally be filled in later, when circumstances permit. Typically that might cost a little more than doing it at the time one side of the “gap” is wired, but probably not earth-shatteringly more. And if it is really necessary to trim schemes to fit current spending restrictions, then leaving out a bit of wiring not immediately required seems “mostly harmless”, compared to leaving out something else.
Of course, whether the current spending restrictions are actually necessary is another question, but not one, I submit, to be addressed here.
Malcolm
I suspect the problem is political, as in our “fragmented railway”
The link to the MML comes purely under freight, so the money comes out of a “different box” (again) & may never get done.
Like I said about short-sighted …..
I can’t see there being much issue for freight with a gap between the MML to GOBLIN for quite a while (even when the MML is electrified much of the freight will still originate from or be going to non-electrified places so will need to be hauled by a locomotive with at least “last mile” off=the-wires ability), but an electrified connection from the MML to Hornsey depot (without having to reverse in St Pancras) could be useful for Thameslink.
I may have misremembered, but I had thought there was a plan several years ago to electrify the Goblin between the MML and the link to the ECML at Harringay to give an electrified route for empty Thameslink stock to get to and from the MML when the Core could not be used, either because it was closed or because the train in question was unable to operate on dc. As it is, the Farringdon-Bedford route remains an ac “island”, which will only become connected to the rest of the ac network when the Canal Tunnels are connected at “Wilberforce Junction”.
WW – “Seems the connection to the MML won’t be wired but the one to the ECML will be.”
Really? http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/j-murphy-sons-to-carry-out-electrification-of-gospel-oak-barking-route says that the electrification of Carlton Road Junction to Junction Road Junction is part of the contract.
@ Greg / Edmonton ‘eadcase – I was merely referencing the latest NR document which sets out the scope. I am assuming NR’s document is correct but who knows for certain? I certainly have no basis to say whether NR’s plan or the press release are correct as of now. The third bullet point on the scope list in the magazine article is definitely missing from the March update. The wiring of the freight only connections on the GOBLIN scheme has been like the “hokey cokey”. One year they’re in the scope, another year they’re out of scope (I’ve certainly seen an old NR document that split the work into 2 phases) and now one bit is in and the other isn’t.
I understand the wiring of Acton Wells is now back to CP6.
@ Timbeau – you are quite right that the Thameslink alternative connection was used as a justification for wiring both connections a few years back. I believe the thinking has moved on since then. I’m certain I’ve seen the idea being repudiated by NR since then. The delay to the wider MML electrification scheme has no doubt made a wired connection less urgent for freight as Ian J suggests.
It seems electrified GOBLIN may be ready before the new trains are ready for service which begs the question of whether using trains like class 319s at least for peak hour services could be possible to overcome crowding on 2 car dmus used at present ?
@Melvyn
This has been discussed before – sadly, the time and cost of training drivers and preparing a depot for a new type of unit which will only be used for a few months is simply not worth doing. 319s have never been based at any depot easily accessible to and from the Goblin (and Thameslink will need all the depot space it has for its own expanded operations), and no LO drivers have ever worked them.
I would expect the Goblin to get the new electric units first (with each new electric unit also freeing up a 172 to be paired with another to operate as a four-car train until there are enough electric units to operate the entire service)
Were 319s ever based at Cricklewood?
They must have been, at least when the “core” was closed. But there is no electrified link between mml and goblin.
@timbeau: yes, I remember that being a plan at one point too. In the very very early days of Thameslink 2000 planning there were vague suggestions of a Stansted-via-Golbin service too I think.
I think that the delay in ordering the Thameslink trains made the Hornsey link moot – at one point I think it was expected that the new trains might come into service before the Canal Tunnels were opened. The MML has been an AC island since 1984 as far as I know – does anyone know if the Canal Tunnel electrification is active yet?
Given Cricklewood is easily accessible, albeit for diesel trains, from the Goblin, are there any plans to electrify the link, particularly once the Midland Main Line is electrified north of Bedford?
It would be utterly Upney not to electrify that short link, especially once N-of-Bedford is “sparked”, but, because the monies always seem to “come out of different boxes” I’m afraid almost any insanity is possible.
I used GOBLIN today from Gospel Oak to Barking and could see how work to install bases for supports and even a few supports have been made.
However, it’s easy to see how difficult electrification of this line is given how many sections don’t. have nice flat land but instead viaducts or old structures as well as low bridges and is no doubt the reason wiring this line has taken so long .
I don’t know if this is the correct article to post, but this week Enfield Planning gave the go-ahead to the new station to replace Angel Road.
Also permitted the first 750 homes for the Meridian Water development.
[Note that LR is not the place to post comments on transport related developments – unless you also provide some insight or analysis.
There are many other rail forum (fora) for that purpose.
Status update comments may be deleted without warning. LBM]
Anonymous: https://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/queen-v-sos-dft/ and https://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/east-of-enfield-north-of-stratford/ discuss STAR and/or Angel Road/Meridian Water.
Re LBM, Anonymous and Briantist.
Briantist is right that the other thread would be more appropriate.
The insight here is that Enfield will have been expecting the Anglia Franchise to have been awarded before Parliament rose (considered bad form to do it in the Hols), but it hasn’t so then they probably decided they had to approve without knowing the franchsie outcome and hence STAR service level and whether they might be able to increment it etc. The question is how much of the later stages can follow with limited service improvements.
Wrist slap on previous post noted!
I had intended to add, for context, “consequently passenger numbers forecast to rise to 1.8 million in 2022- from 86,000 in 2013/14!
I’ve noticed orange army is beginning work at Barking with structures that look like floorboards upended being built at several points beside the goblin unnelectrified terminal track .
While at Blackhorse Road land is being cleared nearer to street side / underground station making it look like track might be moved over from present route.
@ Melvyn – I don’t think the track is being moved laterally at any location on the GOBLIN (happy to be corrected). Tracks are being lowered east of Blackhorse Road. If land is being cleared there then it will be for the “Access for All” scheme to add a ramp down to the eastbound platform and a lift tower for the westbound platform (assuming the design hasn’t changed). The platforms also need to be extended and I’d not be surprised if they are widened too – they get very congested in the peaks. I’d also expect the footbridge to be replaced too – again it gets very congested in the peaks and is not wide enough. I hope NR and TfL are doing some decent “future proofing” work at Blackhorse Rd as it is one of the busiest stops because of the interchange to the Tube. We shall find out in February when the route reopens.
Network Rail have announced the road bridge over Wightman Road will re-open after being rebuilt as part of GOBLIN closure –
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/wightman-road-bridge-replacement-set-to-reopen
WW – “I hope NR and TfL are doing some decent “future proofing” work at Blackhorse Rd as it is one of the busiest stops because of the interchange to the Tube. ”
I would certainly have expected it to be the busiest stop of all, busier even than the termini, but the data in Wikipedia suggests otherwise, as does another source. Here is a list of annual entry and exit for 2014-5 for all the stations from Upper Holloway to Woodgrange Park, with only the Overground station being counted at BHO. It suggests that BHO is a humdrum stop, in fact, with the exception of Walthamstow Queens Road and the termini, the usage of the stations could be the most uniform for any line in the country. I’m at a loss to know why.
UHL 1.166 million
CRH 0.832 million
HRY 1.293 million
STO 1.047 million
BHO 1.102 million
WMW 0.541 million
LEM 1.355 million
LER 1.002 million
WNP 0.846 million
WGR 0.751 million
I’d kind of like the Goblin to be split in two, with Barking – STO – Seven Sisters – Cheshunt being a 4tph service and Gospel Oak – STO – Angel Road being another 4tph, so that Enfield Town could then get the full Liverpool Street – Edmonton service instead of just half of it. But I cant work out if many people are using the Goblin to get from the eastern half to the western half.
Ed Ed: Apart from many other considerations, the curve between South Tottenham and Seven Sisters is too sharp for regular trains in service.
@Malcolm/Ed Ed
The curve is used by a very regular train service (it runs every 168 hours!) But it could not support the frequent service envisaged by EdEd, because of the flat junctions, single track, and most of al because trains using the curve cannot call at S Tottenham (the crossover is half way along the length of the platform) so any connections between the east and west end of the line would be broken.
It would be interesting to know how much of BHO’s usage is interchange – presumably that data can be measured as the Oyster readers will register an OSI. Two possible factors:
Much of BHO’s hinterland is the Lea valley reservoirs, which will reduce the amount of locally-generated traffic. The Goblin and the Victoria Line are approximately parallel for some distance, so people have the option of making their entire journey using one line or the other, rather than changing (e.g walking past Queens Road to get to Walthamstow Central, or past South Tottenham to get to and from Seven Sisters).
And east of Walthamstow, there are more direct ways of getting to central London than via South Tottenham.
Timbeau
My experience (for what it’s worth) is that GOBLIN at Black Horse Road is predominantly used by those interchanging from the Victoria Line,rather than wandering in off of the street.Something like 80%.
The main flow seems to be from the East (Leyton MR etc) on to the Town-bound Vic in the morning,and the opposite direction in the evening.
My hazy recall from fairly regular journeys from Gospel Oak to Walthamstow Queens Road around midday on Fridays is that passenger traffic builds up steadily as the train goes eastwards, so there was indeed a fair number travelling from west of South Tottenham to destinations like Blackhorse Road and beyond. At that time the train was always fairly full when I got off.
@Slugabed
…..which must mean that BHR gets less than half as much locally-originating traffic as the next quietest station on the line, and less than a quarter of the average, which is just under 1 million. This is probably explained by the proximity of the reservoirs, and that for most users of the station the Victoria Line is the more useful option. Few other stations on the line offers any choice, although as already discussed its immediate neighbours both have an alternative nearby.
@Edmonton ‘Eadcase
As a general reminder, please use full station names, as the three letter station codes are illegible to many readers. LBM
@Long Branch Mike the list of codes can be downloaded here: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations_destinations/48541.aspx
I suppose BHR & BHO are the different bits of Blackhorse Road 🙁
Sorry, my fault. I was simply abbreviating Black Horse Road to its initials, as I assumed it would be understood in the context of the ongoing discussion.
BHR is actually the official TLA for Builth Road, which is an unstaffed halt on the Central Wales line seeing 4 trains each way (that’s 4 per day)
@Old Buccaneer
As timbeau’s response indicates, use of station codes and abbreviations can be readily confused. As well, Underground and National Rail codes for the same station may differ.
Our goal is for all comments to be easily understandable to our wide readership.
Blackhorse is a single word in Blackhorse Road Station ….
Entries and exits at the station is likely to increase in the future given house land with industrial premises opposite is now being developed for flats thus increasing local population .
Goodness me what a load of old nonsense being spoken about the use of Blackhorse Road. Yes interchange to / from the Vic Line is the predominant flow but there are still decent numbers travelling locally. The GOBLIN provides a very convenient E-W link where the tube can be a pain and buses take *forever*. Walthamstow to Upper Holloway / Archway takes next to no time by GOBLIN, hours by bus.
The suggestion of breaking the full through service is one of the sillier things I’ve read on here. Plenty of people board at Gospel Oak (from NLL trains) and ride to B’Horse Rd or beyond. The numbers are very considerable in the peaks. It is worth saying that people who probably find the Central Line a nightmare are happy to take the GOBLIN from Leytonstone or Leyton and then take the Vic Line. The Vic Line’s vastly increased frequencies are a very considerable draw for people including us locals who, shock horror, can walk or take a bus to the station rather than drowning in the reservoirs. The idea that Blackhorse Rd somehow has no catchment area is another laughable concept. As Melvyn says there is and has been considerable housing development on Blackhorse Lane / Billet Road. The former Ferry Lane industrial estate is now largely flattened as are former factories off Blackhorse Lane. Hundreds of flats are in the process of being built. TfL are increasing the frequency of the 158 in a fortnight to cater for demand from this area to connect to Blackhorse Rd station.
My earlier comment was largely to do with the very large numbers of people having to squeeze up and down the stairs and across the footbridge. People wth buggies or luggage have a real struggle in amongst the crowds so providing accessibility will help hugely as will wider or extra stairs and a wider footbridge. There isn’t an OSI – interchange is within the main gateline although there are pink validators for those using PAYG / non Z1 T/Cards and wishing to avoid a non Z1 fare. Oh and one final point about the NR usage data – I think the general consensus on here is that it’s “dubious” at best and downright useless at worst.
@WW
Blackhorse Road station usage is set out in TfL data at various levels of detail and reliability. Comparing 2012 and 2015, as an example, the combined entry / exit volumes (excluding interchange) were around 6.49m in 2012, and 8.36m in 2015. This includes both the Victoria and Goblin passengers. Allowing for data rounding, a typical weekday the Goblin saw 4,400 passengers a day entry / exit in 2012, this declined to 4,000 in 2015. The Victoria Line weekday demand had meanwhile risen, from 18,900 entry / exit in 2012 to 22,600 in 2015.
For the interchange volume, weekday numbers were estimated by LUL as 1,700 from Goblin (both directions) to Victoria Line southbound, in 2012, and this had risen to 2,500 in 2012. Unsurprisingly, there was a trivial flow, about 100, towards the VL northbound. To the extent that Goblin is cubed out in peaks with only 2-car trains at present, this tells me that growth in interchange passenger volume has displaced some local Goblin travel. That situation should be cured in 2018.
If you proportion:
• the Goblin entry / exit numbers to allow for Saturdays and Sundays
• include the VL interchange flows (here doubled for return travel, although they are less in the TfL detailed figures) because those represent entry / exit in relation to the National Rail network
• proportion those interchange flows also for weekends
• apply 252 x weekdays, 52 x Sats and 59 x Suns & BHols (similar to LUL’s grossing basis)
then a very approximate Goblin yearly passenger value for Blackhorse Road station in 2015 would be about 2.9m passengers. That contrasts with the ORR estimate of 1.1m in 2014/15.
Even if the estimate that I have derived from TfL data is too high, a variation to reduce return interchange flows, and with notional passenger volumes also reduced by a third at weekends for line closures, would place Goblin’s National Rail volume at Blackhorse Road at around 2.4m. This is for a station which in 2006/07, pre-Overground, was estimated by ORR as handling only 169,000 passengers in a year.
Finally please note that the LUL annual station entry / exit figures here do include the Goblin entry / exit passenger volume as well, so you don’t need to rely on the ORR number. There are quite a few other Underground stations where some or all of the National Rail entry / exit is also included in the station usage total.
When the line reopens, with four car trains but no increase in frequency per hour, I wonder if the line will cope with all the extra passengers who have moved into all those newly-built identikit flats?
It’s likely, I’m guessing, that the overcrowding will be the same in the near future as it is/was now. Isn’t there a way to increase service frequency in the peaks and encourage freight movement towards whatever is the quietest hours of the day and do a 3 per hour service then? I know this is simplistic but there must be a way of optimising freight away from the busiest times. Freight journey planning seems to hold everything else to ransom!
Although it turns out I had imperfect recollection of the layout at Blackhorse Road, and interchange is not an OSI, the ORR figures are supposed to include interchange traffic there as they are entry/exit to NR services.
However, regardless of how much building work is going on within the station’s hinterland, half of it remains under water. The number of passengers using Blackhorse Road whose journeys begin/end on the far side of the reservoirs must be very small, as Tottenham Hale and South Tottenham stations are more convenient and between them cover all the destinations served by Blackhorse Road, and more.
In any case, current and future building work cannot explain historic entry/exit figures.
However, WW has probably identified the real reason the ORR’s entry/exit figures for Blackhorse Road are close to the average for the line (within 10% of the median value), despite being the only interchange. The ORR figures, particularly for interchanges, are notoriously unreliable. Jonathan Roberts’ estimate is probably much nearer the mark.
@Giovanni
On rail as on road, freight journey planning has its own constraints – notably drivers’ hours, scheduling of loading and unloading, timetabling constraints elsewhere on the journey (no good avoiding rush hour on the Goblin if the result is that the train hits the peak on the LTS, or the Windsor Lines, or wherever else is on its itinerary). As has been discussed on the Crossrail thread, it is preferable to keep a freight train moving as they do not have the same acceleration as a passenger train. They also need much longer loops to be parked in than a passenger train needs – passenger trains are rarely longer than twelve cars, freight trains rarely as short as that.
And freight pays its way. If the result of de-prioritising freight is to drive that custom away, not only will the railways lose that income, but there will be many more lorries on the roads, which is not good for anyone living on the route!
@timbeau – good point. Is there any future-proofing going on while the GOBLIN is being upgraded? Platforms are being extended – but to what length? It looks like only train length would solve future capacity issues.
@giovanni – there are a number of further complications not mentioned by timbeau in relation to freight – and freight on the GOBLIN route in particular
– although freight has specific paths in the WTT, all too often it doesn’t keep to them for a variety of reasons (not least the tendency of some signallers to let the freight come out of there’s nothing immediately behind it – something which may work on the less heavily trafficked routes where it originates, but a thorough nuisance elsewhere – one can but hope that the new integrated control centres, with their wider coverage will put a stop to that)
– there is nowhere useful to hold or loop a freight train between Barking and Willesden, so it has to keep going, however late it may be
– because of the freight users’ own business models which rely on just in time/just too late, and the constraints of ship loading and unloading/turnround, freight operators are in the hands of their customers when it comes to choosing delivery schedules. As an interesting article in this month’s Modern Railways by the former Head of Freight at ORR, points out, most freight operators run on wafer thin margins and are more or less on the ropes as to future traffic, with the collapse of coal and metals; FOCs cannot afford to apply much pressure to their customers.
– Contrary to popular belief, freight doesn’t actually pay its way, because of the structure of access charges; in many places it has grandfather rights and will fight like a cornered cat to keep them
@ Timbeau – I am sorry to continue my grouch but as you aren’t a local you are unlikely to appreciate the nuances in local travel patterns. Regardless of the existence of the tube for what look like local journeys to places like Tottenham plenty of people use the buses across Ferry Lane. Rail is not the only mode and it never will be. No one would argue that the majority of people travelling from Norbiton to Kingston only use SWT. They’ll walk or take the myriad of local buses depending on their end stop in Kingston town centre (or beyond). I would further point out that those vast expanses of water are being turned into a Lottery funded visitor attraction and therefore footfall to visit the reservoirs and the wildlife will likely increase vastly and some of that is going to be routed via Blackhorse Rd and the GOBLIN (esp from the east). South Tottenham will not, AFAIK, be a viable point for accessing the Wetlands.
@ JR – thank you for the numerical “juggling”. I wasn’t especially relying on any set of numbers. More on what I see when I use the line – an imperfect data source, of course. Nonetheless your suggested number is interesting in terms of its quantum and the historical number you quote.
@ Giovanni – I think all you can say about new housing is that there will be “some” impact on rail travel from Blackhorse Road but more than that is impossible to assess. We’ve no idea as to the numbers, demographics and employment status of the future residents and whether they will move from elsewhere in the borough, neighbouring areas or will be entirely new to the area. No doubt the Tube will see the greater impact. I don’t think the GOBLIN 4 car EMUs will be like sardine tins immediately. I think it will take a fair number of months for people to reassess their options and shift their journeys. There will certainly be an increase in patronage but the more important thing for Arriva / TfL / Network Rail is to get the new trains and upgraded infrastructure all working properly with few / no breakdowns and failures. Unreliability will be far more damaging than the initial disappointment of “why have we still got 2 car trains after 9 months of closures and work?” (no re-runs of old arguments about using displaced EMUs please!!!!!).
TfL do have plans to increase frequency to 5 tph – most likely when the Barking Reach extension opens. More trains will be needed at the point and TfL have contract options to cover this. I expect stations are only being extended to cater for 4 cars. Some could clearly cope with much longer trains as they used to do but Gospel Oak and South Tottenham will remain constraints even after current works.
@WW
“Regardless of the existence of the tube for what look like local journeys to places like Tottenham plenty of people use the buses across Ferry Lane. Rail is not the only mode and it never will be. ”
Of course – but I thought we were trying to make sense of the entry/exit figures for the NR (Overground) side of Blackhorse Road. Users of local buses will not show up in those stats unless their use of the bus is to get to/from the station. I doubt many people would travel by bus to/from the other side of the Lea Valley, past South Tottenham and Tottenham Hale, in order to use Blackhorse Road. (The analogy with Kingston / Norbiton is not perfect, because those two stations are in different zones and there can be a financial incentive to pass one station and catch the train at the next).
But I think we can agree the ORR figures are so unreliable that there is no mileage in trying to either explain them or draw any conclusions from them. (ORR figures suggest Kingston is busier than the combined footfall of Salisbury and both Portsmouth stations – a figure I find hard to believe)
@ timbeau – unfortunately there are people who do exactly what you suggest they don’t do. Plenty of people travel on buses (I’m most familiar with the 123) from T Hale or further west) and alight at Blackhorse Rd. Some change to rail services – you can see them run like heck if they spy the GOBLIN coming across the reservoirs. I do the reverse if I’m on the GOBLIN and see my bus coming! Others go round the corner to take the 158 in either direction. You seem to be assuming that people are always entirely logical and they simply aren’t. People have the weirdest journey patterns for all sorts of reasons. I think the thing I’m bristling about is your assertion that somehow Blackhorse Rd has no great catchment area just because there is some water in one direction. Having lived in the area for decades and used the station for the same period I simply know different – there is a very considerable catchment area and one which is growing in its density. Having been an “invisible” area for many decades Walthamstow is now the destination of (no doubt resented) choice [1] for those unable to afford the delights of Zone 1 and Zone 2. The increasing amount of beards, tattoos, flash bicycles and hessian bags extolling the virtues of organic fruit and veg are evidence of a demographic change of sorts. 😉
[1] along with Leyton and, double shock horror, Leytonstone. They’ll be discovering Maryland and Forest Gate next. 😛
@timbeau
Please don’t disbelieve the volumes within London!
I note your concern about Sal + 2xPortsmouth (=6.4m) vs 6.2m Kingston, but would expect ORR to have undercounted the London volumes for various reasons, so 6.2m at Kingston probably equals 6½m as a minimum. The volume of (from a national viewpoint) London local travel is hard to get the mind around, but is real and adds value in terms of benefits if not to the same scale in hard cash.
I expect GH might weigh in about London being truly dominant in passenger volume, if not in revenue.
Walthamstow Writer 26 August 2016 at 17:54
“[1] along with Leyton and, double shock horror, Leytonstone. They’ll be discovering Maryland and Forest Gate next”
They are. Some of my neighbours think that Green Party members from Hackney are responsible for rising house prices.
@JR – a few points about London volumes, none particularly acceptable hearing to the Northern powerhouse supporters:
– Greater London contains (or will shortly contain) as many people as all the PTE/ITAs in England combined
– add to this the fact that this population is compressed into a few hundred square miles and so inter-settlement journey distances are very short, compared with – to take timbeau’s comparator – say, Portsmouth – somewhere with the population of a medium London Borough 20-30 miles from anywhere else with a similar population. The tendency to travel is, if not in the square of proximity, something much more than a simple linear relationship. Agglomeration rules OK?
– chuck in the population of Roseland and regional comparators really are irrelevant
– NSE moved more punters (punters “lifted”) than the whole of the rest of BR put together – an unwelcome statistic for my IC colleagues
-NSE +LT lifted more punters than pretty well the whole of the rest of the English public transport system combined.
@Graham H “NSE +LT lifted more punters than pretty well the whole of the rest of the English public transport system combined.”
These days I don’t think you need to add former NSE to that statistic. London Underground + Overground beats the rest of the UK rail network, London Buses beats the rest of the UK’s buses, DLR + Tramlink beats the rest of the tram systems.
@Paul III 🙂 Yes, in particular the collapse of the non-London bus market since privatisation and competition has been especially dramatic. [Odd how we never hear of the “success” of bus privatisation…]
@Graham H: Don’t hear much about the “success” of rail privatisation anymore either…
With regards to the numbers, I was surprised to see Orpington ranked as a major station with 6.5m journeys, so Kingston sized. It seemed odd, until you look closely… Take Charing Cross as an example, look at it in off peak… It’s quite dead really! The sense of busy-ness you get is people gawking at the departure boards waiting for the platform to be announced. At suburban stations that doesn’t really happen because a) the platform isn’t up for discussion, b) there’s no massive concourse to wait on. So passengers just proceed to the platform. With 20 tph offpeak (6 CHX, 4 CST, 4 VIC, 2 Sevenoaks, 4 Tunbridge Wells & Hastings) people don’t stand around for very long either at Orpington! Hence it gets through a lot of passengers without it looking busy…
Just my 50p worth…
The figures I quoted came from the SW franchise consultation, so did not mention Orpington. (“Consultation” having been a bit of a figleaf, at least for the suburban area, as the only consultation venue in Greater London was near Fenchurch Street station, so not exactly handy for SW London commuters)
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/477307/south-western-stakeholder-consultation.pdf
Annex C handily lists the stations served by SWT in order of entries/exits (2013/14 figures)
Kingston was the eleventh busiest station operated by SWT and the 15th overall (the other four are Waterloo and three stations where SWT’s footfall is a small minority, compared with GWR’s) Several stations above it in the list are served by multiple operators, such as Clapham Junction and Wimbledon.
It does tend to highlight some of the more bizarre operating decisions – such as managing disruption by maintaining a service to Shepperton (419,000 ppa) by skipping Hampton (1.2m).
Graham H 27 August 2016 at 07:45 – “the collapse of the non-London bus market since privatisation and competition has been especially dramatic.”
However since the mid 1980’s we have seen a fundamental change in London’s economy with car usage falling dramatically as a result of congestion and in later years policies which tax car usage in central London. In addition state subsidies to London bus operators were maintained.
In the rest of the UK car usage continued to grow due to the relative lack of congestion and subsidies to bus operators (public and private) were reduced.
On this basis there is no surprise that the numbers of bus passengers outside London have fallen and in my view privatisation isn’t the reason.
@ Graham H
The very low car ownership levels in London, for the same levels of household income, compared to the rest of the country will make a massive difference to public transport usage. For example, Kensington & Chelsea has amongst the highest, if the not the highest household income in the country and amongst the lowest levels of household car ownership in the country.
@Anonymous -I’m naturally well aware of the post hoc propter hoc fallacy. However, the collapse of the regional bus system was sudden and swift. The main issue (and we are getting very far from GOBLIN here) was the removal of the cross-subsidy arrangements. The whole network outside London was teetering on the edge even before privatisation and competition – witness the NBC’s MAP programme.
Good Thing/Bad Thing much of the rural (and some of the urban) bus network depended on it. Those of us who, through our daytime job of looking after TSG and the late NBC, looked into the finances of the industry and could see what would happen. There was insufficent market base in the remaining profitable routes to support the existing network and the moment that competition broke out – as in Manchester and Glasgow -there was a brief period of intense service provision followed by rapid retrenchment.
Without privatisation, there would have been no competition. The NBC monopoly didn’t compete internally, and only very marginally with the municipals. The two things need to be considered together in assessing their impact outside London. [London had only the former in full force but competition only in the weaker “for the market” rather than “in the market” form’ although the issues relating to the decline and stabilisation of the London bus service are longer term and more diverse than perhaps you imply.]
I agree that there has been a secular increase in car ownership (until recently) but that has been a steady process whereas the ridership decline in buses outside London has been much faster. BTW, there is only an indirect relationship between car ownership and car useage; it’s the latter that is the real competition with buses (and trains). Cars that stay in the garage are no competition at all.
@ Anon 2040 – I think you have to be very careful in suggesting bus subsidies were maintained in London since the mid 1980s. I don’t have numbers for the 80s but in the late 1990s the London Bus Network broke even – no subsidy. The years either side of this landmark show very low susbidy levels as this was when LT was under direct government control and we had privatisation of the LBL subsidiaries and route tendering driving down costs and increasing efficiency. Even in 2000 the network made a surplus of £10m. In absolute terms there was subsidy but it was at very low levels and I wonder if anyone could honestly say what it “bought” in terms of fares levels, service volume or service quality.
Things changed hugely after 2000 with Ken Livingstone enacting a series of pledges to bolster the bus network, add services, reduce fares and move towards a flat fare for Oyster smartcard use. After 2008, with Boris as Mayor, the growth in subsidy reversed with TfL managing to lop a cumulative £200m off the subsidy bill. Clearly we were never going back to surpluses under Boris but we did get annual rises in bus fares (as happened under LRT control) and negligible service expansion thus creating a bow wave of capacity and reliability problems which TfL are now struggling to fix.
I agree completely that car usage, car ownership, parking costs and traffic problems are all factors that are “in the mix” for London but we do need to exercise care with subsidy. Yes London still has it but then so do many cities in the Metropolitan county areas plus they have core commercial networks which provide decent services (in many cases) albeit at higher fares than Londoners are accustomed to. What London is able to do is more broadly justify comprehensive services over long operating hours every day of the week. This is partly driven by the sheer scale of the economy and the fact that there are very diverse travel patterns across each day including overnight. And to round off (from this massive diversion from things GOBLIN-esque) we should recall that Peter Hendy once told the London Assembly that he could make the London bus network commercial overnight but they (the politicians) might not like what he did or what the fares would be.
The commencement of Night Tube services on the Victoria Line has led to routes 123 and 158 which serve Blackhorse Road Station to gain weekend night services and no doubt the night tube will lead to further growth in station usage .
In fact route 123 might attract enough users for it to become a daily 24 hour service given the links it provides . It worth remembering that many people prefer to ride on a single bus than chopping and changing between bus and tube and long routes like the 123 are attractive for this use and are far cheaper !
While route 158 also serves another major development on the site of the former Walthamstow Dog track and thus will feed more passengers to Blackhorse Road if they are travelling towards central London via Victoria Line .
While given Khans desire to develop public land for housing then Blackhorse Road Station could provide a suitable site for development with profits made used to make the station fully accessible with new escalators and tube lift .
@ Melvyn – I am deeply sceptical that TfL own enough land at Blackhorse Rd station to allow any substantive development. There will be severe limits as to what could be built over the station itself given the tunnels and escalator shaft. Network Rail will own the airspace over the GOBLIN tracks so not for TfL to develop as the old style station leases still apply on the former North London Railways network. TfL have more development rights on West Anglia and TfL Rail routes as they negotiated different long term leases.
There may be scope at the station car park but I can’t see anyone endorsing work that would almost certainly require the car park to close for a fairly long period to permit construction. Where would people park or even drop people off? The possibility of displaced parking in local streets would be deeply unpopular.
As a regular user of bus 123 I’d much prefer the day service was sorted out (over 3 years of a so called “temporary” timetable and the worst service level, for the level of annual patronage, in the whole of London) before people get excited about night buses. The 158 is getting a big frequency increase in about 10 days time because someone wound up some local councillors. Lucky route 158 users.
@Graham H
“The NBC monopoly didn’t compete internally, and only very marginally with the municipals.”
And were often forbidden from doing so. In my home town, the municipal did not go outside city limits and the NBC buses could not set down until they had left city limits or pick up after they had entered.
Indeed, on the road I lived on, there was a third operator which had the licence for the service to the first village out of town – NBC not being allowed to set down until the far end of the village, so it was possible to have three buses following each other in convoy out of town, where one could have done the job.
@timbeau – indeed,nearly every municipal that had originated in tram days had built up extensive protection in terms of minimum fares and stopping arrangements or had built up a “glacis” of surrounding areas in which revenue was shared between municipal and company operation – Brighton and Halifax come to mind And of course, there were a good many joint routes where operations were pooled* (revenue, too, sometimes). Even joint operations are,however, anthema to the CMA, whose long term campaign to prevent collaboration between operators (cf their similar view on interavailable banking) has fortunately been ignored by successive governments. (You’d think the CMA would have got the message by now, wouldn’t you?)
*VAT was beginning to eat away at such collaboration however, because of the implied “trading in kind” inherent in pooling resources, alas.
@ Graham H – the CMA, of course, haven’t got the message as they are *still* going on about multi operator tickets being the spawn of the devil and wittering on about rail franchises providing ineffective competition. Much better to have trains racing each other on the rails and presumably blocking platforms in order to grab the passengers.
Strangely in Tyne and Wear there are still one or two instances of limited pick up and set down provisions on longer distance services within the city / county area – presumably to avoid overcrowding. They’re the same restrictions that applied in the era of regulation but are obviously the operator’s choice.
@WW -nearer to GOBLINland, aren’t there also one or two similar cases in the TfL area (eg the M40/740 group to High Wycombe, as was)? And the Bakers Dolphin services (if they still run) from the West Country used to show intermediate timing points within the GLA in the timetables that TfL used to publish for their routes?
Limited set-down on the way out of town can clearly sometimes be to the operator’s benefit, because of the risk, at busy times, of longer-distance passengers unable to board (or not even trying) because the bus is full of shorter-distance travellers.
@Malcolm – that was certainly one motive behind regulated fares structures but usually one adopted for the reason you state and not by way of restricting competition – in the LT area, for example, GreenLine coach services charged substantially more for short hops than parallel ordinary bus services partly to dicourag journeys and partlyto preserve the status as a premium product. Far more common was the imposition by the Commissioners of a minimum short distance fare on country bus operators running parallel to a municipal route just to preserve the municipal’s revenue (and originally its investment in tram/trolleybus infrastructure) — the reverse of competition in fact.
Anecdotal evidence about patronage on recently introduced night bus services from those who have been out and about on the night bus network following introduction of first stage of night tube:
123 is doing ok
145 quiet
296 very quiet
238 packed
238 may need to be strengthened, although demand may reduce when Jubilee line starts running and Canning Town becomes a feeder for bus services to Plaistow, East Ham and Barking.
Introducing new night bus routes operating x30mins to connect with night tube Central Line branches only operating x20mins will make for awkward connections and therefore I can imagine that 145, 296 and E1 will struggle in terms of patronage. At least the 123 also serves Wood Green and Tottenham Hale stations where services will run every 10mins.
@ Evergreenadam – thanks for that little update. The 123 will serve 5 night tube stops when it’s all up and running plus it’s an “orbital” link connecting with lots of other night bus routes so no great shock that it’s doing OK. Slightly surprised about the 145 as it’s got a x10 tube headway at Leytonstone but obviously connections are more awkward as it heads east.
The 238 is, of course, nightly and was already doing well after only a few weeks running (as per TfL’s annual stats released in May). It had already carried more people in those few weeks than some night routes manage in a year. The 222 was also doing equally well – no shock given it touches the north edge of Heathrow. I agree the 238’s patronage may change once the Jubilee is up and running but I expect it will remain on an upward trajectory.
I know it’s not really TfL’s sort of thing but I do feel publishing that a little guide showing what night tube departures to catch from Central London to give a comfortable connection into weekend Night Bus services at key tube stations would help people plan or to have in their pocket. Sometimes a bit of paper is easier than typing into a smartphone (assuming it hasn’t run out of juice).
Update
From the “BOGORUG” user-group newsletter [See moderator’s note at end].
Work outstanding at the time of publication 6th February): Completion of platform extensions (except at Barking, Blackhorse Road and Gospel Oak) Completion of step-free access works at Blackhorse Road (completion date: April 2017) Completion of erection of overhead wires support masts Completion of fitting out each mast with support arms for the electric wires Installation of 25,000volts AC contact and support wires Repairs to damaged sewer in Walthamstow Raising the Crouch Hill road bridge
“Generally, the civil engineering aspects of the project have gone well, it is the work connected with installing the electrification infrastructure that is well behind.”
The original work plan set out by Network Rail back in February 2016 envisaged that all of the electrification infrastructure would be in place by this month, with diesel trains resuming and the period onwards to the end of June being used for testing and commissioning the overhead wires.
Other problems have been accidental breaches of sewers in Walthamstow by pile drivers and the discovery that there will be insufficient clearance for the overhead wires under the road bridge at Crouch Hill station. It is believed that Network Rail has received a temporary dispensation to run electric trains under the bridge pending a later closure to raise the height of the bridge.
“BGORUG expects an imminent joint announcement from Network Rail and Transport for London (TfL) confirming that train services will recommence from Monday 27th February on Mondays to Fridays only, with continuing closures during weekends and bank holidays. It is difficult to predict what form these later closures may take (some may be longer than a weekend) as there are impending Crossrail (Elizabeth Line) works due at Stratford that require freight trains to be diverted to the Barking – Gospel Oak Line.”
“At the moment, we are also unclear as to whether Blackhorse Road Overground platforms will be opened to passengers before April when the step-free access works are due for completion. ”
[Moderator’s note: Normally we would discourage second-hand reports of this kind of length being repeated on LR – we generally prefer a link, ideally with a sentence or two summarising the content. However, due to the known interest in this content, and the reputation of this group for accuracy, we have left this straight piece of copy-and-paste in place, italicising just in case. Malcolm]
the discovery that there will be insufficient clearance for the overhead wires under the road bridge at Crouch Hill station
Is this actually the discovery that the clearance ORR requires around overhead wires has significantly increased, for no very clear reason, since the project was first planned? The fact they have a temporary derogation would imply this.
The delay in actual wiring is almost fortuitous given electric trains aren’t available yet anyway.
Ian J: It could be the ORR business. But it could alternatively be that new measurements have shown that the amount of clearance – previously thought sufficient – will fall into the “grey area”, probably sufficient but having an non-negligible risk of accident arising from unlikely (but perhaps not unlikely enough) combinations of circumstances – such as a fault causing the wrong amount of pan pressure co-inciding with high winds, pouring sleet, a nut coming loose and a sharp rise in house prices [I made that last bit up].
Malcolm
Not quite a straight quote – I edited out a couple of irrelevant internal comments. And, normally I would have posted a link, if available, but it was a pdf-document, so I did the other thing – HTH?
And it may lead to a permanent speed restriction at the Crouch Hill bridge,perhaps as crippling as the 10 mph applied to the freight lines at a bridge at Willesden Junction on the eastern chord from the north London line to the wcml slow lines. Not a very positive benefit of modernisation.
I’ve just read the full pdf on the user group website. I had a wander around the eastern section yesterday on the rail replacement bus and took some snaps. Clearly there are a number of issues as the user group have set out. I was quite surprised that there were so few masts on the eastern end. There are metal fixings for masts at a number of bridges over roads but no masts yet. I was also quite surprised at the fairly lengthy spacing of masts on the viaduct section.
Walthamstow Queens Road’s platforms have been lowered and I assume extended but it was hard to be sure from a distance. Lots of work ongoing at Woodgrange Park to create new enclosures for ticket gates – that’ll delight the local fare dodgers! Also some work at Wanstead Park but hard to be sure what’s happening other than a partition separating the “concourse” from the footpath. For those unfamiliar with the station the steps down from the platforms finish on what looks like (is?) a public footpath under the bridge which carries the railway over the road. It’s very constrained – even locating a ticket machine wasn’t easy. I’ll be amazed if TfL are squashing in some gates!
I will not be very happy if access at Blackhorse Road is not available in 3 weeks time. I looked at the worksite from the nearest road bridge yesterday and there is a lot to do. The lift towers look complete and the footbridge sidewalls have had “extenders” added to raise its height. However the absence of the ramp into the ticket hall is worrying. Perhaps we need to call in the army who can construct bridges in a matter of hours? Thousands of people interchange to / from the tube / GOBLIN at Blackhorse Road and not restoring access as expected will make people very cross indeed. Yes you can walk from Queens Rd to WW Central and South Tott to Seven Sisters but neither is ideal, especially the latter as there are escalator works causing access issues. It’s all rather disappointing after so much promise.
@WW: Perhaps the people who did the estimates then went on to do the ones’ for the Croxley Rail Link?
Walthamstow Writer @
7 February 2017 at 13:57
“Also some work at Wanstead Park but hard to be sure what’s happening other than a partition separating the “concourse” from the footpath.”
I think its a site office. At one stage, they had the road half-closed and controlled by TTL to do work on the bridge.
@ SHLR – comments now emerging from reputable sources (BBC / Railway Gazette) on Twitter saying Network Rail have confirmed the line reopens to passenger services on 27 Feb 2017. However the electrification was “incorrectly designed” (!) and more closures needed.
Re WW,
Twin Track Cantilevers with the masts alternating sides so you only see around half the bases from one side of the viaduct.
Re Greg, Ian J et al.,
Crouch Hill – If memory serves this had been causing plenty of head scratching for many years before work actually started and the ORR issue may just have been the final nail in the coffin for an anything but bridge deck raising (and presumably replacement) at this stage.
ngh: The head scratching metaphor does rather bring the issue to life – one envisages planning engineers walking under a bridge and having their head gently scratched by (hopefully de-energised) low-slung wires!
@ Ngh – I think we’re at crossed purposes. Unless you are saying that only half the work has been done then I saw no cantilever masts except very close to Queens Road and Blackhorse Rd stations.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/24759744@N02/32711466486/in/dateposted-public/
I am referring to a structure consisting of a vertical mast – attached to each side of the viaduct on a newly built concrete base with a single horizontal mast connecting the tops of the two verticals (haven’t got a photo). These seemed to be spaced well apart with no sign of extra fixings or bases for other masts.
Now either the wires can be safely strung and tensioned over longer gaps with these three sided rectangular structures or a lot of work still has to be done to install a lot more masts. It was my understanding from the promotional NR video that cantilevers would be the main electrification structures on the GOBLIN viaducts at fairly short spacings. That is what I expected to see a lot of yesterday and I didn’t see them.
Yours, confused of E17.
Network Rail press release
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/london-overground-gospel-oak-to-barking-route-to-reopen-on-monday-27-february-but-further-work-is-required
Ouch! This cannot be doing NR’s reputation any good at all. There are obviously lots of questions that need answering but here isn’t the place to do it.
Yeah. I’ll definitely be doing a new post on it once more details appear.
I think there’s been a serious Thermocline of Truth problem, reading between the lines.
Re WW,
Ok on the section with portals – They probably come along with a road-rail vehicle crane and fit the horizontal beams a few each at night as they have done on other electrification programmes (as covered in one of my previous Goblin posts on the other thread). The equipment need is different to putting up the masts hence it is not happening at the same time. (The mast can be done with a Standard RRV excavator with the right grip.)
There are sections with alternating Twin Track Cantilevers along some of the viaducts but they needed stronger viaducts compared to portals.
@WW/ngh
I’m very confused by that photo. The horizontal struts appear to be cantilevered out from a single mast on one side, but there is a second mast on the opposite side not attached to the cantilever. What is that mast for?
If the horizontal strut were attached to a mast at each end it wouldn’t be a cantilever but a portal.
Having looked up “Thermocline of Truth” I would agree. Comments I’ve read elsewhere would support your view. I look forward to the new post in due course.
Re Timbeau/ WW,
I should have looked at the photo not just the words!
Those are indeed Twin track Cantilevers but the photo is taken at the end of the wire runs where the smaller section masts are used to terminate the wire runs with the TTCs at closer than normal spacings as some are there to fit the wire tensioners. Also possibly a neutral section.
Anyone else looking for the GOBLIN user group – its BGORUG not BOGORUG. http://www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk/documents/20170206_press_release.pdf has photos etc
The Crouch Hill thing is mentioned in the following: (Modern Railways September 2016 pp64-67)
http://www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk/documents/20160826_WiringTheGoblin.pdf
“Slab track will also be installed in Crouch Hill tunnel once the second part of the blockade begins. The tight bore of the tunnel limits the ability to lower the track, meaning fixity was also required here. The overhead wires in the tunnel will be hung from bridge arms – the conductor rail solution being used in the Severn Tunnel (p70, last month) will not be needed.”
Perhaps the ‘fixity’ and ‘value engineering’ was overdone?
Re Anon,
The issue is with the bridge at the station not the tunnel nearby.
@ Ngh – well that explains that particular density of masts and the different types. Thanks for that. I still suspect the portals stretch (e.g. Wanstead Park – Leyton Midland Rd) doesn’t have enough masts but we shall see. Looking back at the NR video the image for that section has lots of TTCs shown but they aren’t there in reality.
The video also says it takes 24 hours to wire 1 mile of track. The line is 14 miles long so to do both tracks will take at least 28 days. I expect there are additional complications on the route that would add to that duration. Therefore we’re looking at 14 full weekend blockades or a mix of weekends and a blockade if there is to be meaningful wiring work done in a reasonable time period. I can’t imagine much wiring work can be done in 4 or 5 hours of engineering hours assuming you can repath night time freight workings.
@WW
The video also says it takes 24 hours to wire 1 mile of track. The line is 14 miles long so to do both tracks will take at least 28 days.
Not if more than one wiring train is available.
Re Timbeau and WW,
That work rate* can and has been done in over overnight possessions with a single team with both wiring trains and RRV equipment. It reality several waves of work on “wiring” starting with fitting small part steel work, then feeder cables, then catenary wire, then droppers, then the contact wire followed by final adjustments. with most stages before the final contact wiring and final adjustments being ideal for piecemeal overnight work with low overrun risk.
*for final contact wire fitting.
It might better be expressed as 1 wire run (up to 1800-1900m) per night rather than per 24hrs.
THIS bridge ??
That one.
See these photos (not mine):
http://nick86235.smugmug.com/keyword/66621;goblin/i-X3njtXF/A
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jack-needham/8529749554/in/photolist-dZKcnu-7TeYQA-dmCksx-9xGkeo-eKhHGV-8f1RZA-GdaHp-mWS19-hr6c8Q-dmCe7K-9G7zkU-85aGd2-7uu1Wf-qJxz2f-h1CA5g-cFkUWL-8cGmqB-7uq7m2-5WSd7M-9xDnL2-7utAms-bpAAcw-4VPQJZ-nM6Erx-i7fdTb-dTEDgx-bZeejq-76EaDd-krPNV-nYNrZ4-9xDkmK-9xGjcL-dmCnkb-dmCfeN-7dyYgn-7fjk4k-dmCjKw-o172o5-bACQEG-dyQ7bc-d1ektU-asKMJZ-3i7v9d-e4eyLF-7TbHyv-cFkV73-i7f6iv-bufYpW-ivgQVm-9xGkCU
The “ORR” issues is essentially how you get the contact wire under the bridge and still 2.75m radius away from the platform edge (for protection of people on the platform in the event of waving golf umbrellas around).
If you look at the 2nd photo the top of the stone wagons is below the orange cantrail stripe on the front of the loco which suggest clearance is already tight given the bridge had already been raised by 4 bricks worth in the past.
@ngh: I can only see one photo… Clicking next, gives me a pile of graffiti…
However the loco is a class 59 and quite rare, with only 6 in existence…
@SH(LR)
There is a separate (i.e. not the graffiti set) link on top line that brings up a number of great pictures.
Caroline Pidgeon is questioning TfL’s alleged lack of knowledge of the situation. The question is how quickly TfL will try to bury the tweets where they were being sheepish about reopening on time for the last 3-4 months.
Given TfL were doing platform works at all the station (except Barking) one wonders if the postion of the platform edge changed since the OHLE designs were agreed?
I suspect the issue may only be as small as <2".
As the track was lowered with slab track for significant either side of Crouch Hill not doing anything at the station is a little surprising (admittedly different bridge /tunnel construction)
Re TwoPenny tube,
Should probably have left a blank line between the 2 links.
A few questions:
1) Regarding the bridge, I understand there is a waiver in place to run under the wires. Does anyone know at what speed?
2) Will the bridge be rebuilt (disruption to road) or the railway lowered (disruption to railway)?
3) The reason being suggested for the delay to the wiring is a lack of capability from an offshore design company. However, these delays (as ngh has explained) don’t necessarily cause a need for weekend blockades, and shouldn’t slow down the handover to freight traffic. However, any delay to the opening of Blackhorse Road will cause real inconvenience. Does anyone know what has gone wrong here?
4) Taking all of the above into consideration, why would there be a need for blockades? Are we talking about wiring trains all being resourced to Crossrail?
@ngh
“The “ORR” issues is essentially how you get the contact wire under the bridge and still 2.75m radius away from the platform edge ”
Could the end of the platform nearest the bridge not be closed, so that the platform starts further away from the bridge where the contact wire can be higher? I realise the platform might have to be extended at the other end.
As an added bonus, the station could be made “accessible” as the steep stairs would have to be replaced by a shallower ramp in order to reach the new end of the platform.
@Greg
Looking at that aerial view, vertical alignment seems to be the least of their problems!that
Re Ian S,
The original assumption when contracts were signed in Jan 16 was that there would be 3.5-4 months of weekend blocks to finish after reopening in Feb ’17 so nothing major changed on final wiring assumption. NR had wanted a longer main closure but TfL didn’t and TfL won as it was part funding. See the recent Transport Select Ctte report for more on TfL and LO vs NR on both maintenance or improvement works and perverse incentives reducing GOBlin closure time from NR’s desired window. TfL/LO won’t have the stock so they won’t mind if electrification switch on is delayed by 9months but NR and FOC’s will*.
Bridge will be raised as it is far far cheaper and less disruptive (and has been done before). Lowering the track would involve rebuilding the platforms and major drainage works so a long closure. *Freight diversion of NLL services on to T&H (GOBlin) is required for Crossrail works soon so the only real choice is to raise the bridge.
Blackhorse Road …
Platform widening delays?
The old ones are/were horribly narrow for the traffic appearing of recent years
Re Greg,
Platforms and general stations works were all in TfL rather the NR’s remit.
@ngh
Fair point that it’s TfL who haven’t delivered not NR, but presumably Blackhorse Road was meant to be delivered by the end of the blockade, not 5+ weeks later. Does anyone know what has gone wrong here?
The bridge in Greg’s picture is indeed hemmed in by services of some sort or another…Immediately to the West,on the South side of the track,hidden by the trees in the view linked,is a tall (10 foot?) brick pillar topped by what looks like a sluice-valve wheel.
A similar structure appears a few hundred yards West,on the other side of the track…does anyone have any idea what these are actually for?
@ngh: how you get the contact wire under the bridge and still 2.75m radius away from the platform edge (for protection of people on the platform in the event of waving golf umbrellas around…)
Bridge will be raised as it is far far cheaper and less disruptive (and has been done before)
Presumably if the wire is allowed to be energised without the bridge being raised, the issue is not with the contact wire itself being within 2.75m of the platform, but with part of trains’ pantographs (which are live) coming within the 2.75m zone. And if trains are allowed to run but at reduced speed, that implies that the pantographs are normally far enough away, but the dynamic movement of the pantograph at speed might in certain circumstances bring the pantograph within 2.75m of the platform. So someone with a golf umbrella on the very edge of the platform waving it at a passing electric non-stop train might contrive a set of circumstances where they are electrocuted (assuming they don’t just fall under the train in the process).
No construction work is itself without risk. It would be interesting to quantify the total risk involved in raising the bridge and compare that with the risk inherent in the golf umbrella scenario (with reference to historical data, which should be easy to come by since most of the existing electrified network is non-compliant).
And IanJ’s calculus could be done for entire 2.75m zone work on British railways. If the stats show no golf umbrella waver has been electrocuted ever, & one worker had been hurt during station bridge raising then this silly rule can be dumped. Incidentally the bridge that had a 10 mph permanent speed restriction slapped on every train,mostly diesel hauled,passing under it,is visible from Willesden Junction low level platform. It happened when the freight chord to the NLL was electrified & led to a 2 minute increase in freight train sectional timing. I hope a similar 10 mph limit is not slapped on Crouch Hill. Perhaps another calculus could be done with the number of passengers who might die if they miss their appointment at the royal free at Hampstead Heath or who are over stressed by the increased train journey time & ultimately have a stroke balanced against the zero deaths from possible tall umbrellas wavers.
Re Ian J,
I suspect Crouch Hill will be very complex in the ultimate reasoning with:
a) Train to contact wire distance
b) Bridge to contact wire distance
c) Platform Edge – Anything live over the tracks >2.75m radius exclusion zone
d) Platform to 3.5m above live exclusion zone directly above the platform.
all playing a part but d) being the actual killer.
With the older electrification system being used the insulators tend to be much near the mast than the contact wire (changed on the new F+F equipment) which then makes it very hard to create a rigid mounting system (fibreglass rods or other equivalent) for the contact wire under the bridge without a live component in either the 2.75m or 3.5m zones.
Edinburgh-Glasgow-Improvement-Programme (EGIP) electrification has got stung by this on a couple of bridges at platform ends too.
Detailed design of some electrification parts was contracted overseas and design work wasn’t completed on time hence delays to delivery of parts and when some don’t fit/comply and all the contingency has already gone.
With all the other programmes going on getting hold of the right RRVs and other equipment is part of the ongoing challenge.
PS – One wonders if the new Brecknell-Willis pantograph head design (probably fitted to 710s?) also causes some additional entertainment.
The NR video issued last year shows all cantilever masts. This is not what has happened on the ground (or viaduct). There are three types of OHLE masts being used.
On ground level/cuttings single track ‘I’ section masts (2x opposite each other) and 2xtrack lattice cantilevers. Portals are only used where there are more than two tracks.
On viaducts brackets are bolted onto the side of the viaduct for cantilevers and for portals the parapit wall is demolished and a concrete “beam” laid on both sides of the viaduct flush withe the edge and the portal uprights bolted to the “beam”.
I shall try to issue an update over the weekend, there can be a delay before things appear on our website. Diverted freights are supposed to using the line on Saturday and DMU road learners (freight drivers don’t seem to need refreshers!). This assumes that all the track & signalling is passed fit before the block is given up!
BGORUG Secretary
I was interested to see in a photo from the BGORUG pamphlet that the chord linking the ECML to the GOBLIN is also due to be electrified (there are masts in position beside the line). Given its rather awkward location in relation to the ECML (where it is only linked to the Down Slow on a paired-by-direction section of the line, making it rather tricky to access from the Up Slow!), does anyone here know how often it is used by freight trains or ECS?
@glenn Wallis
Might the freight drivers not also be in the route learning DMUs? There is much more room in a DMU. Indeed, some 1st generation units were kept on for many years for this purpose, as there was a view ahead from the passenger saloon as well as the cab itself.
@ Ngh – I think the issue of “TfL oversight” will be repeated over and over again in Mayor’s Questions and in T’port Cttee sessions. This issue is likely to prove very contentious because it provides a nice stick with which to bash the current Mayoral regime. I can’t see political opponents missing a chance to wield a stick. To be fair there are some serious questions that need asking given all the alleged “Lessons learnt” in LU / TfL and the generally well regarded controls on Crossrail. Now Crossrail is enormous and you wouldn’t impose the *same* controls for GOBLIN wiring but you could take the best and most appropriate bits surely?
@ Ian S 1203 8/2 – I don’t know the facts at Blackhorse Road. I can give you a rough guess. I think the scheme design has been changed from what was rumoured – 1 lift and a ramp. We are now getting two lifts. There were no obvious signs of activity for many months on site but I may be being unfair. The ramp to the ticket hall from the footbridge was removed in the Autumn IIRC and I have been expected the footbridge and steps to be removed and replaced with NR’s usual “Modular” components given they have a kit of parts for these sorts of works. However it’s clear now the footbridge and steps remain – a shame given they are far too narrow for the volumes using them. We now have two lift towers in place and “plant rooms” for whatever gubbins make the lift cars move.
I just think the work started late and proceeded two slowly. Now it may well be the case that a new ramp has been made and all the connections are there and someone just needs to crane it in and fasten it all up and hey presto no issue. Tellingly I have asked the GOBE twitter feed and another person if Blackhorse Road will reopen on 27 Feb 2017. No response so far. I would have expected a pretty fast answer to that if it was uncontentious. The lack of a response is making me very dubious indeed.
@ Greg – no platform widening happening at Blackhorse Road that I can see from the bridge on Blackhorse Road. No lengthening works either.
@ Timbeau 1223 8/2 – err I am very sceptical that you could close the western ends of the platforms at Crouch Hill. This is because this is where the steps to the exit to the street, on the bridge itself, are. Let’s hope the bridge can be rebuilt while allowing station and local pedestrian access to be maintained. Unless you built some sort of ridiculous screeening wall to separate the steps from the platform edge I can’t see what else (other than bridge raising) can be done to provide the theoretical “safe zone”. Even raising the bridge is going to be a tad problematic as the W7 bus uses it and that’s every 2-3 mins in the peaks. There is a “back way round” but the bridge is very narrow and effectively requires people to allow one vehicle on the bridge at a time. I can also see the locals getting very annoyed about buses down side roads, albeit fairly wide ones, for however long a bridge closure would take. On your other point the platforms at Crouch Hill are old and long so you could refurbish the disused bits to shift the waiting area eastwards if you wished to. I assume the works TfL are supposed to be doing now will be using some of that older platform area but probably not all of it.
It is also worth saying that the users of the W7 bus (and the W3 nearby) are not without the ability to make a great deal of political noise. We are talking about very busy and important bus routes serving a lot of people on corridors that should have been served by the abandoned Northern Line extensions. Whatever is done to the service during any works will be noticed and remarked upon.
WW
Thanks & yuck ..
No platform or footbridge-widening at BHR?
That sounds like a recipe for, if not disaster, some very unpleasant situations, at least.
Oops – pressed “send” too soon.
Picture of station
Platforms might just be long enough for a 4-car, with very exact positioning.
For people not familiar with the location, note the (lack of) width of both the platforms & exposed [ Dangerous / slippery in wet / icy conditions ] footbridge.
Picture is zoomable & rotatable for better views.
@ Greg – I guess you may be right that a 4 car might squeeze in at B’Horse Rd’s existing platforms. I do think it will be a very tight fit though. I’d have thought TfL might wish to avoid that if only to make braking for the station slightly easier and avoiding the need to crawl to a precise halt so the doors fit perfectly in the length available. Still there’s a year to go and we know it’s not a hugely difficult task in that location as there’s some space at each end before you hit a bridge over or under the tracks.
I expect NR may well spray / install anti slip surfaces if they feel it necessary.
Anon 10/02: Since the 2009 resignalling use of Harringay Curve by freight traffic has greatly increased. Also Class 180s to/from OOC for servicing/maintenance.
Timbeau: It seems that the need for freight drivers to learn the road was forgotten! A light loco was laid on at short notice for enough drivers to conduct the Saturday freight traffic.
WW & Greg: The GLC funded platforms at the 2nd Blackhorse Road were built to
5x20m car length. The Access for All scheme was first announced in 2011, was put on hold when electrification was announced in case of design implications, was then subject to the Hendy Review and finally authorised by the DfT in June 2016! BGORUG has been pressing TfL for wider platforms, footbridge and more passenger shelter for the last 2/3 years but all they have done is spend the DfT’s money on step-free access! Extra passenger shelters has been provided at several other stations. We will now be pressing TfL to do something when the next blockade (August or Xmas) takes place.
Crouch Hill: I don’t know why the planning application to LB Islington was only submitted in January this year, as it will hold up completion of the OHLE again the bridge lift of 300mm is expected in August or Christmas/New Year.
I’ve tweeted out photos of BHR with 172 006 on the first up test train this morning.
Apologies, I forgot to say that there is non step-free access now in place to the platforms at Blackhorse Road. Not sure if the lifts will be available from 27 February though.
@Ww
If you replaced the steps with ramps at a shallower gradient, the base of the ramp would be further from the bridge and you could close off the western end of the platforms. If the ramp had a roof and walls it would be screened from the ohle as well .
@Timbeau
You nearly got me there. Thinking you were referring to Black Horse Rd I was imagining that you had got your East and West confused and then I realised that closing off one end of the BHR platforms was not what is desired. Apart from that, the proposed solution would be apt for either station with the relevant orientation. The difference would be that BHR may need additions to the platform western ends.
Alternatively:- keep the gradient and issue mats. Wheeeeee!
Serious again. There is an access point just West of the BHR platform ends which also has quite a sizeable yard to its South. So if they are going to add to the length of the platforms it may be quite a quick job.
Walthamstow Writer @
7 February 2017 at 13:57
“Also some work at Wanstead Park but hard to be sure what’s happening other than a partition separating the “concourse” from the footpath.”
Had a closer look last week. There is indeed a partition, with both staircases inside it. There is a gateline. rather like those at less busy LU stations. It’ll be much more obvious when it opens.
@RayK
No, my comments were directed at Crouch Hill, and in particular how to provide sufficient separation between passengers and 25kv without raising the bridge
@ Alan G – Network Rail have issued a tweet from this weekend’s driver training including photos. It’s evident that some platforms have certainly been extended – Queens Rd, S Tottenham and Wanstead Park. The latter also has some new platform shelters.
https://twitter.com/NetworkRailGOBE/status/830852557660622848
So nice to see some of the planned stations works have been achieved within the main blockade period.
Crouch Hill bridge issues.
Plan A was to lower the track and platforms but this was conditional on being able to sort a sewer under the tracks the opposite side of the bridge to the station that is very close to the surface and in the end this wasn’t possible so they have had to go for plan B instead and raise the bridge (again) instead which should be a fairly quick jacking job.
re Crouch Hill:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Crouch+Hill/@51.5714962,-0.1168145,99m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48761b962245d363:0xf4d7f120d77214f7!8m2!3d51.5713792!4d-0.1171538
appears to show adequate space to extend platforms away from the bridge,
the access to the southern platform seems to be at a distance froom the bridge
The problem appears to be the steps on the northern platform
http://thumbs1.picclick.com/d/w1600/pict/262645797112_/Crouch-Hill-Railway-Station-Photo-Harringay-Park.jpg
Pace WW, a platform lengthening and a wall at the steps would seem less disruptive and possibly less expensive than raising the bridge?
Or replacing the northern access steps with a footbridge further down the platform?
Re John UK,
Except none of that solves the top of rail to bottom of bridge deck height issue (i.e. lack of). As in my previous post the original plan was to lower the track and platforms but that proved not to be possible so a change to raise the bridge deck instead. The safe zones problems are secondary issues where raising or lowering would also have removed/reduced. Note that the bridge hasn’t had the parapets extended to 1.8m yet so the need to raise has been know about for a while.
The issue with other identical (BR vintage) steps on both GOBlin and elsewhere in the UK recently (e.g. Liverpool – Manchester) has been solved with sheets of insulating material along side the stairs.
@ngh
fairly quick jacking job
A week? A fortnight? A month? Can the road be reopened after weekend closures, or is the road closed for the duration? As WW says, these aren’t your average London bus users, and may cause difficulties if there are disruptions during the week.
Re Ian S,
The lift and placing of new sills would be < a day as multi stage operation swaping jacks. The length of time is down to more traditional road works type issues. Preparation with utilities on the road side of things and some rail cabling to remove first. Afterwards the utilities would need to be reinstated and roads and pavement surface built up on the approaches. The stairs would have to be modified and moved more likely replaced as they would need another 2 steps to reach the higher pavement. The disruption is always greater for the road users in this scenario.
There should be some information from the last time the bridge was raised.
ngh: I’ve been involved with the T&H Line since 1989 and don’t recall any work on Crouch Hill bridge in all that time.
Greg: Absolutely no work has been done to widen the footbridge or platforms at Blackhorse Road and no additional cover for passengers provided either. BGORUG will be complaining about this, not that TfL takes any notice of anything we say!
@ngh
“Except none of that solves the top of rail to bottom of bridge deck height issue (i.e. lack of). ”
It does, if there is sufficient clearance to fit the contact wire in between the bridge deck and the trains passing underneath – as I understood it from earlier in the thread, the problem is that this would bring the wire too close to passengers on the platform and/or steps. The idea of moving the platform is to provide sufficient distance to allow the contact wire to rise from a low point under the bridge to a safe height alongside the platform
I’m no engineer but due to the steps down to the platform and the existing stopping marks for the 2-car DMUs, the platform areas close to the bridge are not used anyway. I don’t think there would be any problem on the down side except that a screen might need to be put next to the stairs. There is less space on the up side so may be a problem there. Certainly a ticket machine between the steps and the bridge would have to be moved so that area could be closed off.
Videos of test runs from Gospel Oak to Barking and back on 12.02.17 have been posted on Youtube. These are taken from the driver’s cab.
Well worth viewing.
OLE nowhere near complete, especially east of the Lee or Lea.
Re Timbeau,
And if there isn’t sufficient clearance to fit the contact wire in between the bridge deck and the trains passing underneath…
Given the initial choice of lowering the track and platforms then swapping to raising the bridge indicates the train – bridge gap is too small to get the current required clearance* from the contact wire to both at the same time. There are then secondary issues on the platform /stairs for safe zones but those are all soluble in other ways but most will disappear when the primary issue is sorted.
Even if the contact wire to the bridge deck and the train clearances weren’t an issue, moving the platforms doesn’t work because you just run into the similar issue at the next bridge in either direction as the bridges are too close and they would cost more to rebuild to fit platforms in.
*effectively min. 8cm greater than under the older rules which actually makes the safe zone issue easier as the min. wire height has to be higher anyway.
Nameless
Video HERE
Having watched those cab view videos more than once you can clearly see that the bridge at Crouch Hill has been raised by a few inches in the past. As already stated though there are the issues with station steps and other things that I hadn’t appreciated from memory. Will be interesting to see precisely how the bridge work is tackled and when.
I note the relevant pages on the TfL website have been quietly updated to reflect the 27th Feb restart date but little else has been said other than “work is complex, more closures will be needed, we’ll let you know when”. Clearly the lack of “oomph” from the TfL media machine is one way of demonstrating corporate displeasure.
I was pleased to see on those videos that the platform extension works are pretty much done which is encouraging. However the lack of masts on the eastern end is very disappointing – worse than I thought. I still do not understand how TfL were not aware – all they needed to do was ride their own rail replacement service or have a walk around the streets near the line. If they were checking on the progress of the work they directly contracted (station and platform works) surely *someone* noticed and reported back? Surely? I note that Ms Pidgeon is on the case with 7 GOBLIN related questions to the Mayor for next week’s MQT – exactly as predicted. 😉
@ngh
“And if there isn’t sufficient clearance to fit the contact wire in between the bridge deck and the trains passing underneath…”
If that’s the case than yes, either the bridge needs to be raised or the track bed lowered. But my understanding from higher up the thread was that there was sufficient clearance under the bridge, but safety margins at stations require the wire to be higher than the normal minimum clearance over a train, and there was insufficient distance between the bridge and the platform to transition between the two heights.
I understand that “Dead” sections can be used in some situations where clearances are tight, but this is obviously impractical on the immediate exit from a station, just where all trains need to draw power!)
Re Timbeau,
“But my understanding from higher up the thread was that there was sufficient clearance under the bridge” not according to the user group news letter or many of my comments the safe zone issues were commented on later.
The train/bridge wire clearance distances (in GL/RT/1210) and safe zone distances (in BS EN 50122) all increased separately recently which has turned previous calculations and assumption on it their head.
The net effect on clearances is that another 80mm is need around the wire/other live parts which effectively means Bridges need to be 160mm higher than before the change in the former.
clearance distances (in GL/RT/1210) and safe zone distances (in BS EN 50122) all increased
What lead to this change? Was there notice or was the change instant? Will existing installations have to be modified at renewal?
Why was none of this planned for before the line was closed for 6 months? It’s hardly unusual to have bridges over railways
It seems TFL have improved accessibility at Canonbury Station by adjusting the platform serving the East London Line to provide level access to trains from platform similar to what has been done on underground stations. The item mentions how this improvement can’t be adopted at stations served by different types of trains but given Crossrail, LO and Anglia have all ordered the new Aventura trains then perhaps this might be applied more widely?
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2017/february/new-raised-platforms-improve-accessible-travel
“The train/bridge wire clearance distances (in GL/RT/1210) and safe zone distances (in BS EN 50122) all increased separately recently which has turned previous calculations and assumption on it their head.”
Is this the same issue that has caused issues with the Scotrail Edinburgh-Glasgow project? In which case, does Uncle Roger’s analysis also apply here? That the rules haven’t changed at all – but that all that changed is that NR failed to renew an existing and perfectly workable derogation?
Re IslandDweller,
Yep except some might point the finger at ORR DFT RSSB etc when the discussions were going on. This doesn’t just effect rail but come from from a higher level effecting all new electrical installations across Europe.
Being one of those people who prefers figures to vague statements I watched the test video with pencil in hand. A rough (very rough) estimate of the GOBLIN electrification is that approximately one third of the route has no vertical supports erected. Approximately one third has only verticals or portals erected. Approximately one third has the small steelwork erected. There are lengths at each en which have wires erected. The major part of this looks to have existed before the current program at the Barking end.
Re Kit Green,
“What lead to this change? Was there notice or was the change instant? Will existing installations have to be modified at renewal?”
Changes to existing general electrical regulations at a European level which were the references for the rail standard.
Re ChrisMitch,
Plan A when the contract was let was track lowering which was later found not to be possible later at which point months of replanning for plan B is needed.
IMHO several Parliamentary Questions need to be sharply pointed at ORR (etc) for allowing the regulation-change regarding electrification clearances to go forward, without a derogation.
It’s a very expensive & entirely avoidable “error” ( to say the least )
Re Ray K and WW,
The rail borne logistics for the project were fed from the eastern end hence much harder to get stuff done while engineering trains are running! (1 track kept operational virtually all the time apart from short closures). The portals at the eastern end are an easy job for weekends without the need for rarer harder to obtain plant and equipment. (Ditto small part steel work on another 1/3rd.)
Re ngh – ‘Plan A when the contract was let was track lowering which was later found not to be possible later at which point months of replanning for plan B is needed’. I think you said upthread that the problem was an immovable sewer or water main? Did no one check that either there was no impediment to track lowering, or that if there was it could be moved without undue difficulty, before the contract was let? Current electrification (ouch, sorry for the unintentional pun) experience is that wherever you dig a hole there is likely to be something in the way.
Re WW,
“Having watched those cab view videos more than once you can clearly see that the bridge at Crouch Hill has been raised by a few inches in the past. As already stated though there are the issues with station steps and other things that I hadn’t appreciated from memory. Will be interesting to see precisely how the bridge work is tackled and when.”
By adding new concrete sills which even have a jacking ledge on them which is very convenient if they need raising again!
Re Littlejohn,
Lowering in other places along the route included sewer modifications and has been completed successfully, but this location obviously proved impossible in the end.
It may have been plan A to lower but the clearance rule changes meant that more lowering would be required than previously envisaged and this changed the sewer issue from yes to no on lowering after more detailed work. The thinking behind the strategy on electrification of the route goes back about 5 years (see when the £100m+ total cost emerged) but took a while to get approved so will have been done with the old rules in mind.
Rumour has it that the condition of the brickwork at the eastern end wasn’t was good as anticipated so involved more and greater replacement with concrete for bases than expected.
@ Ngh – the plan may well have been to provide logistical access from the east end but surely that was part of an *overall* plan that ensured the installations of masts as well? I think the “rumour” about the quality of the brickwork may well be true but why was the line closed for weekend after weekend *before the blockade* if it was not to allow a decent quality of visual and intrusive inspection on structures? I know a lot of other stuff was done like piling mast foundations. Something has clearly gone *badly* wrong on this project if somehow the passage of engineering trains possibly (being generous) impeded the installation of masts and their foundations / fixings. Ditto if all the preparatory inspections during closures haven’t contributed as effectively as they could to derisk later works. I accept I may be stretching a contention there but it is exasperating that we’ve had no service for 9 months and so much still needs to be done.
The test run videos appear to have been removed from Youtube. I wonder why? Perhaps too much sensitive unspun and potentially embarrassing information in the public realm. Oh dear!
And then published comments by people who look like they actually understand what they are discussing.
Sir Humphrey would have been apoplectic.
Re WW,
I’m less worried about masts not being up provided the foundations are complete as the masts can productively be put up overnight and at weekends. With circa 190-200 missing over the whole route it could be done by Easter if the foundation are ok.
The portals rather than TTCs in the original animations at the eastern end could well be a design change as the portals need significantly less good fixings than TTCs and that a fair number of the portals are therefore being delivered later as they were ordered later???
Given the T&H’s notoriously cheap build quality, portal by default on viaducts might have been a safer choice. Victorian brick work can be very hit and miss and it can be hard to predict how good structurally it is especially if the drainage isn’t that good.
@WW
I see a number of people in another place stating that it doesn’t really matter about the lack of delivery of the wiring in the blockade, or even that it wasn’t planned. Yet this doesn’t fit with NR wanting a solid plan to finish the work. It seems to me that you can determine the state of the brickwork during a blockade with one worker with a drill, and you can work out where the sewer is during a blockade with one worker with a spade once rails have been raised. I read comments about TfL not knowing that there were issues with the progress of the wiring, when this could easily have been determined by one of their management walking the line on a regular basis (or insisting on weekly progress reports from NR, or both – had I been responsible at TfL, I would have done both).
I’d also ask – and please note those of you are feeding AMs – whether proper due diligence was done on the offshore company doing the designs.
Surely heads must roll at both NR and TfL?
Re Ian S,
I’m not sure a witch hunt will be helpful or productive, a RAIB type learnings approach might be more constructive.
NR had wanted a longer blockade and arranged differently but TfL argued and also cut a deal on on reduced S4 payments worth a £4m, at this point the blockade got shorter and 3+months of weekend works closures including the actual wiring post blockade became part of the plan. Hence big questions need to be asked about TfL attitude (not just on this project) about trying to reduce closure lenghts having adverse effects, the contract structure TfL have with the LO operators past and present is noted in the recent transport select committee report as being unhelpful as it pressurises LO financially to push back on NR more than TOCs would.
Agree on big question being asked about off shoring – design quality (lack therof) and delivery time (consistently very late) suggests the firm bidding also may have failed to do due diligence on what they were bidding for.
Brick work – realistically it would have needed every site examining due to the potential for variance (especially how waterproof the structure is) so probably would have needed 6-8 people just drilling for 4 weekends worth of closures.
At this point 5 week days for every 2 closure days at weekend should allow the supply chain to catch up and allow efficient working during weekend closures.
Nameless
Indeed.
I wonder, did anyone save copies of those videos?
And, should “questions be asked” on that subject, when Assembly Q’s time comes around?
@ Ian S / Ngh – I don’t think a “hang em and flog em” review will achieve very much apart from some vicarious pleasure for those who like to see people lose their jobs. The problem with a vindictive review is that it tends to cause people to shut up and not be truthful because they don’t want the threat of dismissal landing at their desk. Any review needs people to be open and truthful. Also losing people with knowledge of the work and what worked / did not work is not sensible if you’re trying to get the work completed. The only exception to that is if someone really is incompetent and they need replacing to stop things getting even worse. We have no idea if that is applicable here or not.
I think what is emerging slowly, in my mind at least, is that
a) it was not made clear in public what the blockade was supposed to achieve. This makes it very difficult to manage expectations among stakeholders and the public.
b) it was not made clear in public that it is *always* the plan to have more weekend closures to finish the work even if the blockades worked perfectly. To me this is just moronic – give people the full picture and allow them to understand it as early as possible. The fashionable alternative of “telling people as little and as late as possible” is just daft (IMO, of course). Not everyone has the attention span of a gnat.
c) a number of things have gone wrong – some outside of the project’s direct control but not outside of its influence.
d) despite taking *forever* to grind its way through NR’s “GRIP” planning and appraisal process there were subsequent decisions to alter the blockade scope and plan. I suspect this will form a major part of any “blame game” between the key parties.
e) despite what I assume were good intentions some of the upfront planning and investigation work has not been as effective as possible (e.g. brickwork quality on viaducts and knowing where sewers were (at least 2 have been breached in E17). To be blunt NR should know about the quality and state of its assets. If it doesn’t on the T&H then this should have been a key risk on the project risk register with a range of measures in place to manage the risk. That is not exactly rocket science. Even a non project manager like me understands that.
I dare say a load of other things have happened too. The relevant parties need to find out what happened, why, how to avoid it in future and how to ensure there is a deliverable programme from now to “whenever” that gets us a fully compliant, electrified railway in time for the new trains to come into service broadly as planned. I worry that even that admirable final objective may well be proving extremely difficult to achieve because late works on the GOBLIN are going to knock on to other works and it’s a question of priorities and managing a massive set of constraints (e.g. keeping freight moving if the GEML is shut at weekends, Crossrail works near Stratford, the STAR rebuild, are scarce labour and plant resources available later in the year as required, etc etc).
I have seen another video of the line which shows what the electrified line should look like. It is quite telling that on the eastern end of the route the plan clearly was to have a limited number of portal spans (some are clearly installed as planned) but cantilevers for the rest. Having carefully watched the now removed Youtube cab ride videos I could not see any evidence of new / extra bases having been put in place or even identfied for portal spans in place of cantilevers. Therefore we must assume, at this stage, that the plan remains to get cantilevers installed. If not then NR have an amount of difficult work to do if they to channel out sections of brick work to create space for portal mast foundations. Where NR have managed to get masts installed then what is there matches up pretty much identically with what the video montage shows as the end state of the line. Therefore I can’t, at this stage, see much evidence of any redesign of the electrification installation having been done.
Re WW,
Pretty much agree with that high level summary but I add:
Moving goal posts on standards (and at different times for the 2 issues) needing design changes (along with unknown being thrown up when work starts necessitating a very large design function and acceptance of the fluid nature of the design and the knock on effects that might have on the rest of the project and timings.
In the bigger picture, all NR’s electrification projects, (with the possible exception of Heathrow-Reading), have gone over budget and over schedule, so why would GOBLIN be any different? In fact it is going less badly than electrification to Bristol, say.
@ Ian J – In my own little world of self delusion I had hoped that NR might have accumulated enough experience elsewhere to avoid the worst excesses of other schemes. I also hoped that a blockade and multiple weekends of advance closures would have facilitated a more robust approach to site works and effective co-ordination and a properly targeted approach to risk identification and good mitigation / removal strategies. I also hoped that given electrification (updating) work has been going on in support of Crossrail for many months on the GEML and inner sections of the GWML that that might have helped bump up the “corporate learning curve” a bit.
The thing we do have to worry about, even if you’re right about GOBLIN being in less of a mess than elsewhere, is where the commercial fall out lands. This isn’t good news for anyone given some of the things that have happened won’t be carried by fixed price contracts (assuming that’s how things were contracted). They’re external factors that have affected scope and design so down to the client(s) to cough up. I can’t imagine DfT (and HMT) will be exactly delighted as they’re the major funder of the work and we know what a nightmare it was to get this scheme eventually approved. I can picture “we told you so” discussions going on between HMT whizzo brains and the poor souls in DfT responsible for NR. The fact TfL are in the loop too means more ammo for the Grayling if he wishes to slap the Mayor round the chops with a wet fish. And then we’ll have ORR running its sliderule over things at some point. “Lovely” (not). It also does nothing to help the case for electrification generally although I suspect it’s dead in the water now anyway given the regime change at the DfT and the removal of Osborne from the Treasury.
@WW
Agree wholeheartedly. Although I have never worked in project management in civil engineering, the principles are the same as they are for IT: use metrics from what you know to calculate the cost, and use risk management around the things you don’t know. The three obvious risks to be managed are proximity of undocumented utilities at the western end, poor quality of brickwork at the western end, and the unproven quality of the offshore design company. It’s clear that the risk management was inadequate. What isn’t clear is whether what is now issue mitigation has taken place with regards to the remedial work. Has all the assessment of the brickwork now been completed? Do National Rail know where the utilities are for the masts which don’t have holes? Is the design now finalised for the small steelwork?
While the delay can be absorbed and always could, the associated cost will not have been budgeted for, and is a gift to Grayling.
WW
It also does nothing to help the case for electrification generally ….
At the same time as the whole country is trying to reduce diesel & other particulate/gaseous emissions.
Does the left-hand even know the right-hand exists at this point?
You are entirely correct that serious questions need to be asked, but at a higher level than “merely” DfT or even Treasury internal silos & ministers.
I can’t help noticing the “4D planning” was being used to project manage the electrification…
4D planning (3D+time) a first of its kind on this scale – YouTube
There’s short “4D” video here ..
4D planning, snapshot of track lowering activity – YouTube
Re Greg T, Ian S, WW,
Part of the issue is the pace of delivery (by a given date) that is wanted being devoid of what is logical on the ground. The MML electrification is proceeding much more smoothly because a far longer time span for project completion is envisaged and based around what is actually practical on the ground e.g. phased bridge works so only 1 bridge* locally is out of action to minimise traffic disruption (*max 1 in 3 bridges out of action in an area).
On Goblin much of the piling was actually done at weekends prior to the big blockade and much of the electrification work can be done overnight at weekends. The issues is that much of the civil / track /platform work also needed doesn’t lend it self to overnight /weekends (Including much the larger concrete foundations for masts on viaducts).
A classic project management adage is “Cost, Quality, Time, chose which 2”. NR seem to get this, TfL wanted all 3…
Quite a few days have passed since we learned of the problems here – I am still shaking my head in astonishment at the apparent total absence of basic project management disciples within Network Rail.
This is really basic stuff – it is not rocket science. Years ago I was employed at a big name investment bank in the City. I was part of a team employed by the bank, seconded to the construction project to install the IT kit in this new headquarters building. Part of my brief was to don a hard hat and boots and visit the construction site for a couple of hours every single working day. Note book and camera in hand. It sounds mundane but that’s how we got early warning of a water pipe being installed at chest height down a corridor. Learned that the telecom equipment rooms had been built a few cm narrower than the plan – the construction site manager thought it irrelevant because it was just a few cm, but it was catastrophic to our delivery as it meant that we could only fit four rows of equipment cabinets instead of five.
Every single week we had a formal status meeting and every week my manager filtered the key points upwards to the senior management.
Of course we hit problems – and being bearer of bad news in those meetings was unpleasant. But it was impressed on me that if I failed to alert management to problems and then they found out later, I would be in much deeper (career limiting) trouble.
It really does beggar belief that NR can get almost to the delivery date before announcing that things have not been delivered as planned. The change in standards for catenary clearance (the passenger jumping up and down with their golf umbrella scenario) has clearly caused major problems, but why weren’t the project team shouting far and wide about the impact of this as soon as it was known? Or were they shouting – and senior management had their hands over their eyes and ears?
Equally, if the project plan/timescale was never realistic in the first place, why did NR top brass ever sign up to it? If they thought it was undeliverable, they’d gain more credibility (after some huge rows no doubt) by sticking to their guns.
It makes me despair about ever persuading the Treasury to authorise further investment in rail.
ID
I strongly suspect that it goes back 20 years ( Great Ghu, is it that long? ) to privatisation, when Railtrack was deliberately set up as a “property management” company with the aim of selling-off as much railway property as possible, whilst “managing the decline” of the railways.
No Engineers anywhere in senior management & lots of the more junior/senior ones left ….
Now, the chickens have come home to roost.
Similar to the shortage of Signal Engineers – ask my friend Jim, who very occasionally pops up here …..
Greg: You are entitled to your suspicions (and occasional mentions of them). However, certain words in your description (“deliberately”, “decline”, etc) are opinions which may not be universally shared. However, this is not that place for that discussion.
We should also take note that Network Rail is the successor to Railtrack, with many differences, and does not necessarily suffer from any of Railtrack’s putative deficiencies. It can be criticised, and should be where it seems to be at fault, but that should really be based on present-day evidence rather than historical issues.
@ ID – While I understand your frustration – I’ve felt the same – I think you may be making statements that can’t be proved given what is in the public domain. We simply don’t know the precise detail and chronology of what happened and who was involved and what was decided. It may well be the case that the clearance issue was deemed “settled” long ago on the basis that a waiver would be sought and granted. It is not unknown for these things to unravel if regulators change their stance. It may also be the case that “troops on the ground” were accurately relaying information about progress but it was not reaching the upper echelons. It may also be the case that design and fabrication problems were understood but that the GOBLIN works do not and would not have priority over other electrification ongoing elsewhere in the country. The fact that electric trains are not due for another year must be a very significant issue that will have coloured opinion and decision making – probably at several different levels in the project / governance structure.
The one aspect I am really struggling with is the apparent lack of awareness of project progress within TfL. Even if there were “issues” in the comms process with NR there was the “observing by walking about” option always available to TfL. If they didn’t do this someone needs to be asking some obvious questions. I was a project client a *long* time ago and it was not “rocket science” to get out of the office and go and visit site in the daytime or in engineering hours to see what was happening for yourself. TfL have spent millions on improving project management skills and training and pulling together a single project framework (from the myriad of inherited processes) to ensure excellence. While TfL were not project managers for the main works they are certainly one of the clients and should have been informed clients.
@ Greg – I really think we are a very long way on from the worst deficiencies of Railtrack. The most obvious issue to me that affects NR is what LT / LRT used to suffer from. It is having a client (i.e. the DfT) that cannot provide a stable set of requirements. Every franchise throws up work that was not necessarily expected and which may unforeseen consequences. The Treasury, under Osborne, went on a binge of announcing rail scheme after rail scheme to keep grumbling MPs and voters quiet. The fact there was not the budget, the skills or the capacity to deliver what was set out was neither here nor there. It is the same as the capital budget “feast then famine” routine that afflicted LT. No one can plan and deliver effectively without proper long term planning, organisational stability and agreed funding. NR has not had much of this in recent years and it’s no wonder that there are issues. I am not saying that NR cannot do other things better – clearly it can but it is not in sole charge of its fortunes.
It seems to me that there is a recurring theme of various organisations saying that NR have got it wrong and then NR are proved to have been correct. I site ORR waving their theoretical sliderule and saying ‘you can do it for less’. Was it Southern who said they could run more trains into London Bridge than NR had calculated? And now we have TFL having said ‘We want it done in less time than you have said you can do.’ This is of course not the whole story. It is clearly a part of it. And its easy to pick points to fit a hypothesis.
@ngh
A classic project management adage is “Cost, Quality, Time, chose which 2”. NR seem to get this, TfL wanted all 3…
I can’t disagree, but there was a way for NR to deal with this by stating up front that the shorter total blockade will mean that there will be a need for nighttime and weekend blockades after the end of the weekend blockade. This they failed to do, and it’s a schoolboy error. But let’s also look at to what extent the three major risks are mitigated by a longer blockade:
1) Undocumented utilities at the western end. Given NR’s plan with the shorter blockade, with a few months to go we would be where we are now. The sewers which have been breached in E17 could have been repaired without the public scrutiny, but Crouch Hill would surely be in the same state as now. To me this is totally unacceptable.
2) Poor quality of brickwork at the eastern end. Again, NR would be likely to be where they are now, with many masts not erected. This might have been completed with a longer blockade.
3) The unproven quality of the offshore design company. Here, the late delivery would leave us where we are today, but the delay caused by the brickwork might mean you have the parts but nowhere to put them.
So would the wiring have been completed on time with a longer blockade? The consequences are worse if the answer is no, and I’m not convinced that the delivery would have been completed. The contingency should not be there to replace risk management.
In the IT sector where I work, the longest outage I have been allowed in 30 years is 3 days. You learn to break the work into chunks, and to manage your risks so your agreed down times don’t become outages. It seems to me that the railway industry might have a lesson it can learn here.
@RayK: various organisations saying that NR have got it wrong and then NR are proved to have been correct
I would say there is a theme of various organisations saying NR have got it wrong, and Network Rail or their defenders responding by claiming after the event that they knew all along it would go wrong. Since Network Rail never went on the public record about this before things went wrong, these claims are at best unverifiable, and at worse sound like an attempt at blame-shifting.
Note that the National Audit Office report on the Great Western electrification, while apportioning plenty of blame to DfT, also found big problems with Network Rail’s project management:
Network Rail’s 2014 cost estimate was unrealistic. It was too optimistic about the productivity of new technology. It underestimated how many bridges it would need to rebuild or modify and also the time and therefore costs needed to obtain planning permission and other consents for some works. Failings in Network Rail’s approach to planning and delivering the infrastructure programme further increased costs. It did not work out a ‘critical path’ – the minimum feasible schedule for the work, including dependencies between key stages – before starting to deliver electrification. It also did not conduct sufficiently detailed surveys of the locations for the structures, which meant that some design work had to be repeated.
Ian J
I find this phrase that you quoted:
It did not work out a ‘critical path’ … the most astonishing.
I thought that was project management 101?
re Ian S,
Eastern and Western Sections:
The current GOBlin service runs over 2 completely different railways in terms of construction timing and construction methods & quality.
The original Western section of the “Tottenham and Hampstead Junction Railway” (T&H in NR terms) was built to link the MML to WAML in both directions at both ends by the Great Eastern (main proponent) and Midland Railways opening in 1868. (The via Gospel Oak NNL link was added in 1888 and the ECML link was added very much later.)
The later Eastern section the “Tottenham and Forest Gate Railway” as built by the Midland and LTS to link the the T&H to the LTS (with which Midland had a partnership and would later take over in 1912).
Walthamstow is therefore in the Eastern section.
The Western section build quality is better than the Eastern section but the clearances were appalling.
The Eastern section was primarily built as a cheap freight railway to generate traffic as the western section was a commercial flop. The eastern section is best described as “cheap”.
On your points:
NR were open (but not shouting it loudly from the hills) that there would be another 3+months of evening /weekend closures. Wakipedia even has June as completion of NR works and the 3+ months of closures was even mentioned on LR (I suspect in one of the other threads as GOBLIN electrification comments have was been under at least 3 articles in the last years and I’m sure either JB or myself mentioned the closures on LR before the 5/8month blockade started maybe just not under this article (I’m sure I made the comment in relation to why it was pointless for TfL to try to hire in some EMUs to increase capacity temporarily as there wouldn’t be any juice to run them on for almost half of the time gap between the end of the blockade and arrival of 710s)
Given the delivery schedule for the 710s, electrification completion by October / November would still be on time. Hence there is the danger of making a mountain out of a large mole hill. There is an extremely high probability that the 710s will be running early in 2018 as planned. The key thing now is to minimise the cost overrun so efficient working.
1) The only real issue on the western end is Crouch Hill Bridge which longer blockade would have solved but this issue only arose after the blockade plan was agreed with TfL. Walthamstow sewers sits with the rest of the eastern end problems.
Extending the the current blockade would not have allowed efficient working to take place in the short term given the issues (running around just trying to do anything they can which would push up the total cost). Weekend and some evening working allows the design and logistics issues to catch up allowing efficient working to be done during the weekend blockades.
3. But if the late design work had also included design changes that were to take account of the poor brick work???
Re Greg /Ian J,
Critical path:
As soon as you get outside controlled environments* (e.g. planning constraints outside a TWA order) and with the number of variables /permutations (1800+ planning consents before you even get to worrying about any practical construction issues on the ground and multiple phased deadline and other projects in parallel (linked but not directly controlled e.g. Crossrail, Resignalling and IEP contracts in the GW electrification case) can means the concept of the Critical Paths is bit meaning less as you could easily have multiple pseudo critical paths swapping their status to become the critical path every few days (before the Rumsfelt Unknown Unknowns make an appearance). The lack of critical path in the most mathematical sense might also indicate the impossibility of completing before any of the deadlines (but then NR didn’t get to chose most of the deadlines originally) or that meeting one of the deadlines makes the other harder or impossible to meet.
*E.g. PRINCE – PRoject IN Controlled Environments.
Planning on the GW electrification has been a nightmare (compared to MML where it has been very smooth) and a good case study is Steventon (1 village west of Didcot where the GWML has just narrowed from 4tracks to 2 track west of Didcot) which also caused issues for 125mph HST introduction in the 1970s. The village has 2 level crossings and a grade 2 listed bridge in close proximity leading to issues of how to get the wires under the bridge and high enough over the level crossings (some similarity with Crouch Hill!).
After 3 years of discussions, NR, the Local and Parish councils and Historic England (was still part of English Heritage when the discussions started!) and all their surveyors agreed that the obvious solution is to replace the Grade II listed bridge as it is
life expiredstructurally knackered (official detailed definition is needs replacement with 5-10 years). The bridge is however the responsibility of the County Council who would have to pay for replacement (but don’t have the cash) if it is declared knackered rather than NR for electrification works** who don’t accept it is life expired but merely needing “extensive annual maintenance”*** (which they can afford and have budgeted for) are therefore fighting tooth and nail to avoid paying (especially as they might be on the hook for another 2 replacements between Didcot and Oxford).**Electrification budgets assumed that the relevant local authorities as responsible highways authorities would be pick up the bill for their knackered bridges (as they have come to a deal and contributed on the MML and North Western Electrification Projects). The issue of highways authorities having to crash proof
Great Heckproof lots of railway bridges has effectively brought many more (but not in this particular case) into the life expired category as many can’t be retrofitted with large vehicle proof parapet wall. (Wilts have been far more helpful than Oxon on GW for example)*** “extensive annual maintenance” = we are willing to pay more in the long term because we have don’t have the money in the required short term time frame). Extensive annual maintenance and bridges don’t mix well.
@ngh. I’m not really understanding your first point. I’ve worked on many large change programmes (different industry) and multiple critical paths would be considered normal. If the relevant project managers don’t understand their respective critical paths, and how each folds into the overall programme, you’re set to fail from the word go.
@ ID / Ngh – I’m afraid I have to agree with ID re critical paths. Clearly there is a great deal of complexity to handle and multiple pressures on many railway projects but no one should be surprised by any of that if the project was planned properly and had approriately robust governance in place. We’ll be arguing next that Crossrail or the London Bridge works haven’t faced such issues and yet, *so far*, the schemes are on time and on budget despite all the complexity, interractions, multiple “uncontrolled” parties etc. Yes London Bridge has seen some woes after some phased works have completed but generally there has not been a repeat and I get a sense lessons have been learnt. I am putting the particular woes of Southern and South Eastern’s operations to one side as the TOCs directly manage their service delivery subject to working infrastructure being available as agreed between the parties. Project teams don’t decide to put out short formation trains in the peaks!
I think Crossrail may well have hit a whole load of problems along the way but it is very adept at handling these and in managing the related public comms. Hopefully the carefully crafted facade will not collapse in the final 12-18 months when the hard bit of making assets and services work properly kicks in but we shall see.
The GOBLIN scheme is nowhere near as involved as these major schemes and has enjoyed the rare benefit of many months of a blockaded railway. I expect the Crossrail, GW electrification and Thameslink project teams would have killed to have had the same freedom for their most involved works. Instead they have to work round fairly limited windows of opportunity at holiday periods or, for GW, rare chances to close certain lines for very complex works. And to be a bit blunt and possibly unfair the GOBLIN asset condition and clearance issues *really* should have been understood a long time ago. The project was in GRIP gestation for years and then we had many weekends of closures for “preparatory” works which I assume included both visual and intrusive surveys. What were the people doing? Drinking tea all weekend?
@ngh, ww
So it appears good long term planning and relationship building occurred with authorities along the MML, but not so much on the GWML project. As to public communications, a local news headline alerted me to a NR notice for a small overbridge replacement between Wootton Bassett and Chippenham. The headline stated something like “26 mile detour for 6 months”, and indeed that came directly from the NR notice. A quick look at the map, however, soon revealed that was only the case for tall vehicles, while most private cars, vans and farm machinery would be able to make a much shorter diversion (under 2 miles) instead via a limited height underbridge nearby. There was also to be a temporary footbridge erected at the work site for the duration of the works. Fake news? They were quoting the official notice!
WW:”What were the people doing? Drinking tea all weekend?”
There was not exactly a hive of activity visible on the line when the test train ran in the now unavailable film referred to above.
One hopes that more recent videos become available again soon ……
Do we have any information as to why the ones we did have were removed?
Given that NR is a truly nationalised industry ( see discussion elsewhere) I would have thought that such a viewing should be possible under FoI rules ( ?? )
Re Island Dweller /WW,
GW electrification – Except it wasn’t a programme but a series of 5th priority projects*. The management was already busy with the other 4 higher priority streams of projects / programmes which got in there first in terms of staff, equipment and closures (which then couldn’t be re-prioritised), it is now a combined programme (post Hendy review) with electrification waiting till some of the others are completed to allow more efficient working to stop costs escalating even further. Failure at high level including at DfT over governance and how integrate electrification into all the other things they had already asked for and were underway.
Similarly with NR Anglia having Crossrail works as higher priority at the moment.
*1-4 in no particular order Crossrail, Resignalling (most of the area to be electrified and lots elsewhere in Western region), Reading rebuild and IEP (platform lengthening, extra platforms, extra track for more service in some places, structure clearance, new depots).
A lack of signalling engineers** in UK and indeed globally and the slowing down of GW resignalling (by upto 2 years for given locations) hence a huge knock on effect electrification difficulty.
** and specialist track equipment needed in parallel if installing lots of new S&C at the same time.
Crossrail and London Bridge are highest priority programmes hence getting high priority on resources. Crossrail has the advantage of mostly (by value of work done) not being on operational railway so it is easier to keep issues away from public view with good media management (especially with a stream of good news stories even it is plague related!) agree with WW that the “hard bit” is yet to be reached on Crossrail.
Re Mark T,
I had forgotten about that infamous news article (late 2014 / early 2015?) – how not to media manage or even local stageholder manage! That was around the point that the local NR team realised that you couldn’t close every bridge in an area simultaneously. All lessons learned that went into the how not to reminder guide for MML.
NR also seems to have a good relationship with Lancs on the NW scheme.
Re Twopenny tube,
They were told to remove all the works equipment for the test runs.
@ID
multiple critical paths would be considered normal
Indeed that’s true on a large programme and each project manager will have their own plan to manage, but this is a medium size project (£115m), and I would expect a programme manager to understand the details of every plan.
@ Twopenny Tube – I see ngh has beaten me to it but I’d expect the contractors were told to keep well out of the way especially as I think some freight was also working the line. Didn’t stop the workers at Woodgrange Park having a nice yellow ladder perched against the w/b platform edge when the test train was going to Barking! Needless to say it was well clear when the train returned.
@ Greg – Those videos will not reappear. I don’t know for certain and I haven’t asked the person I think was responsible but I suspect that they were “reminded” about their responsibilities and how not complying with them might affect their ability to keep earning a salary. BTDTGTTS but not with videos. Obviously there is some sensitivity about the project and unofficial videos stuck on Youtube would not exactly be in favour in that environment. The fact that people will see what’s been done (or not) for themselves in 7 days time when the line reopens is neither here nor there. FOI does not come in to play as the videos had nothing to do with Network Rail nor TfL (AIUI). There is no point in trying to create any sort of fuss about them and you having getting “cross” about it won’t help either.
BTDTGTTS Been There, Done That, Got The T-Shirt
As a gentle reminder, please explain acronyms, lest we the comments devolve into rail station code chess moves…
When I arrived at Barking Station this evening I noticed an Overground train in Platform 1 which left while I was having a very long wait for a C2C train and which left the station and was replaced shortly later by another train. I take this as a sign that trial running must be underway ahead of services resuming next week.
WW: Woodgrange Park station has never been closed long term to rail traffic as it is on the original LT&S line to Stratford and Liverpool Street. There are only weekend blocks if there is engineering work on the GEML at Forest Gate Junction.
Melvyn: Gospel Oak – Woodgrange Park Junction was open for freight and Arriva Rail London (ARL) test and subsequent driver road learners on 11 & 12 February. It was then blocked 04:30 13 Feb – 23:59 17 Feb. Since then it has been open to traffic except for Mon-Thurs nights and both ARL, Freightliner and DB Cargo road learners have run and a few freights including the Daventry – Purfleet and return “Tesco’s Express” operated by Direct Rail Services. Apart from the odd Saturday, there is not much scope for any weekend blocks until June. The remaining station works should be able to be completed while trains are running.
BGORUG has a very keen cycling photographer who supplies large quantities of photographs up and down the line. There are a fair number of OHLE brackets appearing on the viaduct sections so I’m doubtful that the state of the brickwork has anything to do with delays. It just seems the original OHLE design work seemed to assume, without much information on local conditions, that most structures would be double track lattice cantilevers on piled foundations or viaduct brackets. There have been at least two sewer breaches in Walthamstow with piled mast foundations (one was spilling sewage on the track on 21 Feb) and there is evidence in several areas in Walthamstow of piled foundations (sometimes complete with mast) being removed and replaced with an excavated and cast concrete mast foundation close by.
Melvyn @ 22 February 2017 at 23:46
” I take this as a sign that trial running must be underway ahead of services resuming next week.”
Saw a train heading westbound at Wanstead Park earlier this week.
@ Melvyn – I expect Arriva Rail London and Bombardier are keen to let the 172s have a bit of “exercise” before passenger services resume given the trains haven’t been very active for months and, IIRC, have also had mods and work done to them. That’s in addition to the vital need to refamiliarise drivers with the route and what’s new / changed.
I was surprised to learn that the Class 172s have not been back to Derby and have had no work done on them. They have just been shunted around Willesden TMD and worked the occassional VSTP passenger trips as a 08:27 Camden Road – Willesden Junction Low Level PIXC-buster or shuttles on the West London Line during Southern strikes.
I can only conclude that Angel Trains think it not worth spending money on them now when in just over a year’s time they will be preparing them for their next operator and possibly installing new seats and a toilet.
@Glenn
What are TMD and VSTP?
TMD = Traction Maintenance Depot ( What we used to call a Loco or Carriage shed + Workshop/maintenance facilities)
VSTP – I forget the actual acronym, but it a sort of special working, with or without fare-payers on-board, which also may include training.
Someone will be along shortly for a fully-correct version, I’m sure!
Apart from the tedious 30 mph speed limit on the long straight 2 mile section between South Tottenham & Crouch Hill,heavy freight trains & passengers have had to endure a 20 mph speed restriction on bridges at the bottom of the 45 mph incline down from South Tottenham eastwards to Blackhorse Road for at least 30 years. It is particularly costly to freight about to climb the gradient westwards to South Tottenham. Passing on the adjoining road from Blackhorse Road to Tottenham today I noticed the 20 mph limit sign still in place.
Network Rail spent months & millions two years ago renewing the arches leading to the river bridges, & during the current closure both bridges have been replaced. Are there going to be no benefits at all for the public & the operators on February 27 from the millions of pounds spent, & the loss of the line for months & months?
Re Greg and LBM,
VSTP = Very Short Term Planning – Effectively entered into the system less than 48hrs before running
[Thanks to you and Greg. LBM]
@ G Wallis – ah interesting. It was the plan though to send the 172s for some works / tweaks or am I imagining it? I did see one photo of a doubled up unit working that NLL congestion buster. Looked most odd given I’m only used to see single units.
Re: Glenn – I’m interested to know what works you think should have been done to the 172s at Derby, and what the business case would have been.
(It is possible that the LO 172s may be required for the new West Mids franchise, but that won’t be announced until June so nobody would invest on that basis, for example.)
I second Jim Elson’s question.
If it isn’t answered, very soon, I would urge anyone likely to use the re-opened line to write to/meet their MP’s & get them to ask as many really awkward questions as possible!
@rational plan
Rumours and heresay do not belong on LR.
Re LBM,
I wouldn’t say it is rumour or hearsay… 😉
I would not call half a dozen articles in the construction press, base rumour. Plenty of construction worker quotes, just silence from Crossrail and no comment given.
It just has not been picked up by the mainstream press. There maybe problems and maybe it is only a one construction site and mistakes have been caught early enough.
We just don’t know, but if it as bad as hinted at, it may hit the timetable, unless they can throw enough money at it.
Re LBM,
When the contractor concerned has said on the electrics:
= Something is very definitely up.
Part of the issue* has been electrician wage inflation since the station packages were tendered being far higher than expected so when the station contractors actually then went to out to tender for the electrical works several years later they didn’t like the quotes from the specialist subcontractors so decided to self manage and get in the labour instead, they are now discovering they didn’t have enough skilled “management” in house compared to the specialist subcontractors they though were too expensive. Paddington is also not the only problem station.
* They may also have not understood the spec properly when tendering so underpriced without realising.
@ J Elson / Greg T – before we take to the barricades with our elected representatives I have read somewhere, possibly a NR tweet, that the line speed will be reviewed on the section with the new bridges with the aim of raising the line speed. What I say next may be “nonsense”, as I’m not an engineer, but I wonder if there is a need for a period of “bedding in” of new track and the new bridges with trains running over them regularly. I have vague memories of being told there are occasions when you may wish to do this. As I say I may be talking rubbish about the engineering but NR do know about the line speed and will wish to increase it. I certainly want the 20 mph gone – a dreadful waste on that section.
LBM & Greg: STP = Short Term Planning: These go through ‘normal’ channels with 48hrs notice. VSTP = Very Short Term Planning are schedules created by Network Rail control offices for any unforeeen movements, sometimes created after the train in question has departed its originating point!
WW & Balthazar: 172 001 went back to Derby for rectification work to the saloon floors in 2012 and Chiltern supplied a 172/1 as cover. At what turned out to be BGORUG’s last meeting with LOROL in 2014, the Fleet Director told us that Angel Trains was screaming for the rest of the 172/0s to go back to Derby for the same work and LOROL had told them that they would not release any units since that would mean cancelling the PIXC-buster services. Electrification had been authorised the year previously and so LOROL said the units could go back when the line was closed for electrification. I can only assume Angel Trains now think they might as well wait until ARL finishes with units next year.
@rational plan
Most of us don’t read the construction press, so a link or two would have been helpful.
ngh correctly provided a source and some details. General statements without substantiation, especially when they seem speculative or blindly guess at the motivation of the party(s) involved, don’t make the cut.
@Glenn
And ARL is?
We appreciate your technical knowledge, but not all of us are aware of the acronyms/abbreviations. The first time it is mentioned please you use the full name, for example “Platform Train Interface (PTI)” in brackets afterwards, as is done in any other publication. Thereafter feel free to use the acronym as and when.
JE, Greg & WW: The 20mph PSR over the Lea Valley Viaduct was raised to 30mph for a while in 1988. In December while I was in signal school prior to taking up a position as Leytonstone signalman, 6L37, a loaded Stanlow – Thames Haven train carrying aviation fuel in 100 ton bogie tanks ‘disappeared’ in the early hours between South Tottenham and Woodgrange Park (Absolute Block, no track circuits and Leytonstone box switched out on nights). Two early turn relief signalman set out to look for it, one on foot and one by road. 6L37’s driver eventually frightened the Chingford signalman by coming on a signal post phone close to where the Chingford line crossed the T&H, telling him he was off the road by the waterworks! Of course this meant nothing to the Chingford signalman! The two T&H signalmen eventually found that the train was seriously off the road at the Lea Valley viaduct, tanks and bogies scattered in all directions. Only the quick thinking of staff in the Thames Water site stopped the contamination of the reservoirs. When a manager from Fenchurch Street finally arrived around lunchtime, he said, “This isn’t a derailment, it’s a disaster!” Needless to say when the mess was cleared up, the 20mph PSR was reimposed!
There have been several promises to raise the limit since, now that the viaduct has been largely infilled and the bridges over the River Lea and Lea Navigation have been replaced perhaps something might happen.
Re: GW – could the work have been done on the other units at Willesden Willesdenduring the blockade? It’s not unknown for only the first to go away for heavy works (e.g. a Midland Metro tram is back in Spain for battery fitment but the rest of the fleet will have the install at Wednesbury depot).
Obviously ARL may have taken a different view from LOROL, or as you say Angel may have changed its position (hopefully on the basis of better technical opinion), or TfL Rail may be holding the purse strings in the background. Whichever way, it would appear that the “screaming” has calmed down and one presumes there is justification for this change.
WW
I did say; “If it isn’t answered very soon” – i.e. not immediately …
However, you are entirely correct about “bedding-in” times for speed restrictions after major works. However, IIRC, we were specifically told that these speed restrictions would go as part of the rebuilding, & several reasons were given as to why this was a good idea ….
LBM: ARL = Arriva Rail London, the London Overground concessionaire, wholly owned by Arriva, which has recently taken over from London Overground Rail Operations Limited (LOROL), which was jointly owned by Arriva and MTR. Apologies for perpetuating the use of the unexplained abbreviation, although the widespread recognition of the acronym LOROL had suggested to me that its replacement would be known too – obviously not!
On the subject of changing electrification clearance standards (and consequent delays and cost increases*) there was an interesting article in Rail Engineer published today. It focuses on the EGIP [Edinburgh-Glasgow…] delays which slightly predate the Goblin issues, it is generally a good article on the subject while a little confused in a couple of places.
http://www.railengineer.uk/2017/02/24/egip-electrification-clearance-woes/
*£32m and 6 month in EGIP case
Annex G specified the minimum clearances under certain conditions which all increased but the increase would have been a non issue if the old 2.75m platform edge rule was retained (or even increased up to about 3.1 to 3.15m).
The economic consequences being a cost increase in 9 figures nationally.
Perhaps something for one of the RSSB Non Executive directors to dicuss with DfT at the end of all his other regular meetings/calls with DfT?
Safety wise zero recorded incidents in 15bn occurrences of passengers getting on or off trains under the old rules.
Having been near the GOBLIN route today in Tottenham / Walthamstow it seems someone has “encouraged” some progress. More masts are in place and many more masts now have the “arms” and hangers in place. Weights are also in place to tension wires at the end of wiring sections. So nice to see some more “obvious” bits of work in place.
A quick view over Blackhorse Road’s LO platforms shows the ramp in place but seemingly boarded off – may just be while works are ongoing. Will have to see if it is in full use on Monday or not. There is a photo on the LR Flickr group.
WW: When TfL confirmed last June that the Blackhorse Road Access for All scheme was going ahead (originally authorised by DfT in 2011!), the completion date quoted was April 2017. So I expect the lifts to be unavailable on Monday.
BGORUG’s latest Passenger Newsletter is now posted on the group’s website along with the 6 February press release which started all the latest excitement!
I used the full route today from Gospel Oak to Barking Station and it seems only Platform 1 at Barking Station has a decent stretch of overhead wires. The rest of the line has masts in various stages of installation.
As for stations most if not all have platform extension in place although boarded off from users . While both platforms at Blackhorse Road were in use although it looks like nobody has repainted the handrails on the stairs while Work was ongoing on the lifts which look close to completion.
I travelled early afternoon but it looks like it will take a while for usage to return to normal so enjoy getting a seat while you can.
I take it Network Rail will concentrate on installing masts and supports and then use a wiring train to electrify the route at a later date?
Most platforms look like they have been upgraded and it’s possible to see sections of slab track where bridges and short tunnels have required this.
While the train I used looked very clean and looked like it had undergone internal upgrade of seating during its spell out of service.
As to the future of Goblin DMUs then perhaps the shortened Greenford Branch might make a new home allowing larger GWR DMUs to be cascaded to its West Country branches . Whether Greenford Branch might be better as part of TFL Overground is an issue to be resolved.
@ Melvyn – there is nothing to be resolved about the Greenford NR line. It’s staying in the Great Western franchise. No need for any more debate – we’ve done it to death before!
@Melvyn – 1 March 2017 at 18:37
I used the full route today from Gospel Oak to Barking Station and it seems only Platform 1 at Barking Station has a decent stretch of overhead wires. The rest of the line has masts in various stages of installation.
Diamond Geezer had photograph today
http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.co.uk/
@ John U. k Thanks.
I travelled to Gospel Oak by changing trains between West Hampstead Stations today and can report that the structure that will become the new Overground Station entrance next year ( notice announced opening 2018) is in place . However, work to widen both platforms is still ongoing and there is no sign yet of any new stairs , lifts etc .
@ Melvyn – the latest TfL investment report says that contractors have encountered unexpected ground conditions at West Hampstead. This has meant some delay while solutions are considered.
I happened to interchange West Hampstead today, and noticed how the new blocks of flats are very tightly wedged between the Overground and Metropolitan/Jubilee/Chiltern tracks at the west end of the development. The furthest block has dual aspect flats with 6 tracks on one side and a busy LO / 24hr freight track on the other. Happy days for some, perhaps? Very few people indeed were using the re-opened line from Gospel Oak. One would think people would be eager to bounce back. Perhaps many have found it’s quicker to some destinations via Highbury & Islington and the Victoria line anyway.
I do hope there will be a useful increase in running speed after all is done. It’s always been a bit of a trundle in my experience. One thing that hasn’t helped until now is the timetabling between the different lines at Gospel Oak. People arriving ‘on time’ on most services are guaranteed to see the connection they want departing the opposite platform, and then have to wait the full interval until the next one. A more syncopated pattern would stop the annoyance factor.
@ Nick BXN – I complained to TfL / London Overground about those ridiculous “connections” at Gospel Oak. I clearly wrote the letter in Martian as they couldn’t understand the point I was making that a small shift in departure times for GOBLIN trains would remove those instances where doors slam in your face as you throw yourself a NLL train and hurtle up to the GOBLIN platform. As you say it is beyond frustrating to see a train depart as you step off another train. Worse you’ve then also missed the NLL train to get you to Highbury for the Vic Line which, as you suggest, is faster than waiting 15 mins and then a 20 min trip on the GOBLIN.
WW
Ah, the usual TfL response, I see!
Because they already know everything & no-one else can tell them anything.
See the saga of Bus stop M on Diamond Geezer (!)
The civils ( not electrification) work at WMW ( “Queens Rd” ) is clearly unfinished …
Platforms re-restricted to 2-car, with “temporary” fences/walls. Old, & now higher platform remains have had coping edges removed, but main platforms are still at old height.
Which means this will still have to be done between now & when the “leccy” units arrive.
I do question the competence & lack of forward planning that this exhibits.
TfL update paper on the Barking – Gospel Oak electrification project.
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/pic-20170628-item20-gospel-oak-barking.pdf
Much of the background we know already. TfL making an independent review of the proposed programme to completion. This is to be considered by the Programmes and Investment Cttee before TfL go back to NR. No cost liability to TfL in terms of its project contribution but it wants “compensation” for extra rail replacement bus services and lost revenue. Looks like there will be more closures during the Autumn.
The tone of the paper is, as might be expected, a tad on the “cross” side but probably doesn’t reflect the real sentiment and concern in TfL. There is no great certainty in the paper as to when the work might actually be finished nor when electric trains will run – partly because the programme review wasn’t finished at the time the paper was written and will be given to Cttee members just prior to next week’s meeting. Ho hum not good news.
WW
And, as you doubtless know, vast quantities of electrification”kit” dumped in car-parks & sites, all along the route, awaiting installation.
There is a common theme here – is it “NR” – GWR/GOBLIN/ maybe Croxley (??)
Real engineers are not being consulted, & you can’t get the trained staff …
Excuse me while I go away & have a breakdown ….
@ Greg – actually I don’t know as I haven’t been along the line by train in months. Not had the need or compulsion. Until some form of official report is published I don’t think we know for certain what went wrong and what the actual root causes are. We have a flavour from a few months ago when it all “blew up” in the media but I’d want to see a proper assessment and then you can know who is responsible. Given NR and its contractors seem able to string new wires, install new masts etc on the Great Eastern without apparent disasters someone, somewhere knows how to do it.
We now have an update on the closures required to complete GOBLIN electrification. Basically more weekend closures through to September then two more blockades with a month’s gap between them. The dates are subject to final confirmation.
https://tfl.gov.uk/status-updates/major-works-and-events/london-overground-closures-2017-8
https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/gospel-oak-to-barking-electrification-works-to-be-complete-in-time-for-arrival-of-new-double-length-electric-trains
Note the reference to a new NR team being in place to complete the work.
Chris Grayling has signed off the TWAO for the extension of the GOBLIN from Barking to Barking Riverside. Construction to start later this year with preliminary works and major works next year. Extra class 710s will also have to be ordered. So more orange railway line on the map come 2021.
http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/commuter-rail/go-ahead-for-london-overground-barking-riverside-extension.html?channel=00
Formal decision letter & inspectors report can be found here.
Probably not surprising seeing as the words ‘houses’, ‘jobs’ & ‘growth’ were planted everywhere possible, although I think the local planning authorities still need to approve the designs.
Unsurprisingly there were objections to the raised nature of the viaduct relating to potential future under-Thames extensions which would then require decomissioning of the infrastructure. These were rebutted by TfL who stated that development unlocked by building the extension now would more than counteract the £70m spent on the viaduct which may only last until the 2030’s if a potential extension was autherised.
Interestingly TfL had applied as part of the order to include future decomissioning of the viaduct, presumably to avoid having to apply for closure later but this has now been removed from the order.
What I found more interesting was the suggestion that TfL/NR now appear to be confident they will be able to run a passenger service of 6tph from Gospel Oak to Barking Riverside. Previously 5tph was stated as the maximum thought to be possible.
It is also implied that they can have a freight path between the passenger trains so 6 freight paths an hour on this line. This is good news if ever there was a demand for 12tph Elizabeth line services east of Stratford in the off-peak as freight from Ripple Lane yard or London Gateway could get to the West Coast Main Line via Gospel Oak – Barking and would not have to cross onto Great Eastern Main Line at Forest Gate Junction. This would also keep freight off the North London line.
According to the relevant page on the TfL website a decision was not expected until the Autumn. The page also suggested that work could start in late 2017 so maybe they will get on with this sooner rather than later.
@ PoP 1440 – is that tph info in the inspector’s report?
@ PoP 1522 – I expect that the “deadline” was set cautiously as so often with TfL deadlines. This would allow for any issues to be resolved if they arose. There is also a 42 day objection period for the Order so TfL can’t do anything during that period. There is also a shed load of planning approvals required from B&D Council as per the conditions to the order. While that is all pretty standard stuff it may well take a number of months so a substantive start this year may be a tad optimistic. I understand preparatory works will start this year.
@WW
tph info in section 7.22 of the inspectors report:
TfL accept that they have been considering increasing passenger services up to 6 trains per hour in each direction on the GOB, and that with an additional freight regulation point on the GOB, as well as that which would be created/enhanced through the BRE scheme at Ripple Lane, it may be possible to run 12 trains per hour along GOB in each direction during this period.
I don’t quite understand the comment in 5.10:
TfL planners are already considering diverting Enfield Town to Seven Sisters trains to Barking
Surely this isn’t via the screechy slow Seven Sisters curve? I assume this refers to an objectors belief that TfL are looking at this rather than TfL admitting that they are.
Walthamstow Writer,
I take your point about the 42 day statutory period but that should not stop some progress being made e.g. putting out tenders. I think you can even start utility diversion as I don’t think you actually need the TWAO consent for that.
It is true there is a lot of planning permission conditions but these should not affect early stages of the project as they are primarily concerned with outward appearance of structures. Crossrail was still sorting out planning permission consents years after they had started digging tunnels.
@ Snowy – I believe the 5.10 reference is to proposed extra peak trains from Enfield Town to Seven Sisters. As rolling stock will be compatible in future it is probably feasible that they could run down the curve and then on to Barking. As there are substantial loadings east of Blackhorse Road then I can see why it might be attractive to TfL to run trains on to Barking to provide enhanced capacity on an overloaded section of route. Platform 1 at Barking would be available once the usual 4 tph are extended to Riverside.
@WW I am confused. I thought that LO wanted to double the trains to Cheshunt via Seven Sisters, which would mean making the Enfield branch a shuttle? Would there be room on the tracks between the two termini given the extra trains likely to be running on the existing routes during peak hours?
Stationless
Yes – provided there is space for the turn-around at the southern end.
The track capacity Chesunt/Enfield Town – 7 Sisters, or even to Hackney Downs is adequate, but, it you want to terminate short of LST, then you are going to have to put in, or utilise a turnback siding ( or similar ) somewhere …
And that is what takes up lots of time & eats lots of timing/track capacity.
Hence the apparent desire to use the 7 Sisters – S Tottenham “squealer” – except that then means crossing two other busy lines on the flat, oh dear.
Unfortunately, note St Pancreas (spelt thus) in clause 17 of the decision letter!
@ Stationless – I think ideas have varied over the months. To be honest I’ve not heard about LO wishing to increase the Cheshunt service. I have heard that TfL want to increase the service out of Enfield Town but that in the peaks they can’t get south of Seven Sisters for the reasons Greg cites (no capacity). Sending the extra 2 tph round the corner to the GOBLIN and on to Barking is quite neat. In a year or so the stock will all be common so the one remaining issue, given no freight in the peaks, is turnround capacity at Barking. There may be other issues but I’ve not seen them spelt out anywhere.
The only other factor that may come into play is the longer term Greater Anglia franchise which I believe wants to send 3 tph in the peaks via Seven Sisters but not stopping at Edmonton Green (DfT removed the requirement in their train service spec). Quite how 3 GA trains per hour fits alongside a much more intensive LO operation I’m not sure. I’d also question how GA squashes more trains into Liverpool St when LO has been told it can’t do so. Looks like the track access applications are going to be fun!
In terms of your Enfield Town shuttle thing I think that harks back to a now removed and no longer discussed Network Rail “aspirational” plan for oodles of train services all over the Anglia region. It included sending the Stansted Express via Stratford and over a new flyover structure. Recently I’ve tried in vain to find that document online but I think it’s been quietly “put to sleep” by NR as something not to be spoken of again.
Trains can’t use that curve then use South Tottenham station, as the crossover is between the platforms. Would they skip the station or rebuild the A10 bridge to have the crossover before the station?
On the face of things, if there is capital available to facilitate this plan, it might be better spent providing a reversing facility somewhere south of Edmonton Green, if that is possible. Taking trains all the way to Barking just to turn them round seems over the top to me. And if more trains are anyway needed between South Tottenham and Barking, why are they not needed west of South Tottenham?
Malcolm
The load/unload figures @ Blackhorse Rd in the appropriate directions during the peaks are very silly, believe me …..
And the “ideal” place for a centre turnback road, operationally speaking, is immediately south of Hackney Downs, however space constraints immediately also suggest that: … “err … maybe not.=?”
@Toby
It would appear to be easier to close South Tottenham altogether and build GOBLIN platforms just west of the LO bridge. Perhaps the platforms could be linked directly to Seven Sisters station.
@Malcolm
The only place where there appears to be room to slew one of the running lines and interpose a central turnback siding is just north of White Hart Lane. The only significant landscaping would comprise removing trees from the disused trackbed. This would enable a shuttle between Enfield Town and Silver Street. Not exactly inspiring.
Without a central turnback, dwell time penalties would be incurred for detraining, end change and crossing over to the opposite line.
Continuing round the corner to Barking seems to be a very neat solution.
Would these services continue to the new Riverside station or could they terminate in the existing platform?
Seems a bit expensive to build a new station just for these few extra trains. The normal GOBLIN trains would still be able to stop at South Tottenham, and anyone for the Victoria line already has a choice of changes. It should be no big deal to skip this station.
I am not really convinced that passengers from Enfield Town would find the opportunity to go to Barking any more inspiring than Silver Street, when the place that the vast majority wish to get to is Liverpool Street. The sheer cost of the proposal in extra train purchases (let alone shifting stations, crossovers, greasing rails daily, etc) seems quite unnecessary. Sheer crayonism, in my view, by someone who has little understanding of the challenges of timetabling these trains through two single-lead junctions on two busy lines in mid rush-hour.
Malcolm
Maybe not Barking but certainly the Victoria line.
@Malcolm
“Sheer crayonism, in my view, by someone who has little understanding of the challenges of timetabling these trains through two single-lead junctions on two busy lines in mid rush-hour.”
It weren’t me, Guv’nor. Honest.
I just commented on the Inspector’s report paragraph 5.10:
“TfL planners are already considering diverting Enfield Town to Seven Sisters trains to Barking.”
Surely these TfL planners are the official keepers and users of the Mayor’s crayons.
I humbly submit that your reference to “rush hour” does not apply to the proposed off peak trains which are intended to increase the Enfield and Bush Hill Park LO service from 2tph to 4tph. If they don’t go to Barking, they are planned to turn back on the Chord.
Anyway, just because TfL is considering it doesn’t mean that this will go ahead.
So far as S. Tottenham is concerned, I was responding to Toby’s suggestion that it be adapted to accept trains using the Seven Sisters Chord. I do not believe that this is at all practical.
Moving the platforms to the west of the bridge would remove the current constraints caused by the Chord at one end and the junction for Stratford at the other. In the long run this seems to be the only way that the platforms can be extended should longer trains be needed.
I did not mean to accuse anyone here of crayonism – I should have made that clear. I seem to have also confused peak with off-peak proposals, which probably negates part or all of my comments. I will therefore shut up about it for a while.
@Chrismitch
Moving the S.Tottenham platforms to the west of the LO bridge still does not provide any facility for trains coming from the Chord to stop there. The Enfield – Barking trains are therefore irrelevant to my suggestion.
The present location of the platforms, sandwiched between the Chord at one end and the junction at the other means that they cannot be simply extended any further. If GOBLIN trains get an extra car, let alone a second unit, the station potentially has an existential problem.
@Malcolm
Thank you for your clarification.
There is another potential drawback to the proposal in that most GOBLIN platforms are only configured for single 4 car units. For much of the day, the Enfield sets run in 8 car pairs. Any 8 car train using the Chord would be restricted to Barking only.
@Nameless: Measured on Google Maps, it looks like there are around 130 meters between the High Road bridge to the points where the Tottenham South Curve diverges. That should be plenty for 5 cars even without extending the platform across the bridge.
@ Nameless – I thought all the LO West Anglia services inter-worked across Liverpool St. I am surprised that Arriva is running 8 car sets that would end up also working to Chingford and Cheshunt in the off peak. I didn’t think demand had gone up that quickly to make such trains lengths necessary. Obviously peaks are a different story.
@WW
I defer to your more up to date knowledge as I am a little out of date on this service. If there were 4tph off peak I would be more likely to resume use of this line.
However, the Barking sorties would tend to constrain any provision of longer off peak trains.
@ Malcolm – in terms of your lack of conviction about the likelihood of Enfield to Barking passengers then I’ll just state the obvious that it isn’t just about termini to termini trips. We are talking about people being able to make Edmonton to Leyton or Silver St to Wanstead Park or Walthamstow to Enfield trips on a single train. At present people face multiple changes of buses or between trains and tubes. Now we can argue about the attractiveness of a half hourly service in the peaks but the Clapham Junction – Stratford service runs half hourly most of the time and I and many others are content to use that specific through service. Heck even the 1 train a day Woodgrange Park to Willesden Junction through GOBLIN train apparently loads very heavily even across Gospel Oak. Yes there is an underlying demand flow via G Oak with interchange but I was surprised by reports that the peak extra train was well used beyond Blackhorse Rd. I expected it to be half empty.
There is a very strong passenger flow on the 34 bus from Walthamstow to Angel Corner with large numbers of people changing to N-S services. We don’t have a direct bus from Walthamstow (or Leyton) to Edmonton Green or Enfield Town despite these being obvious journey generators. I suspect a LO train trundling back and forth between Enfield and Barking would do rather nicely as people would like the convenience. Who wants to trudge up and down stairs, ramps and escalators if there’s an alternative?
I note there are genuine practical issues that people have raised. Not stopping at S Tottenham is hardly a hardship provided the train did stop at Seven Sisters. The two stns are minutes apart. However I’d argue the bigger issue is a strategic one – *if* TfL were ever to run such a service they would soon find themselves with a problem if they then found they ever needed to take it away. There is also the issue that TfL don’t especially like half hourly train services on urban routes but they have yet to fix that on the Enfield and Cheshunt routes.
WW: Absolutely. My scepticism was caused by inadequate thinking. I’ll try to do better next time.
In case anyone is interested then wires have actually been strung on the Barking – Gospel Oak line. They have now reached as far east as Blackhorse Road with wires on both tracks. I’ve not checked how much further they go heading east but encouraging to see demonstrable progress and all those metal masts now actually having a job to do.
On a related matter TfL are proposing to order 9 more Class 710 trains. There are 2 for the Barking Riverside extension and the remaining 7 are involved in a complex shuffle of units to move class 378s off the NLL/WLL and Watford routes to allow a 20 tph service on the East London Line. This paper sets out the details but it’s not totally clear in a couple of places given there’s reference to a class 315 being retained for the Romford – Upminster route and issues over the number of 710s being used on the Watford route.
https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/pic-20171013-agenda-item11.pdf
Apologies if I’ve stolen anyone’s thunder if they’re already writing an article on this.
@ WW Overhead wires visible at the point where the East Coast main line crosses over the GOBLIN just outside Finsbury Park. I look out most days on my commute and I’m pretty sure they were not there last week. Again, apologies if this is old news.
For those who may be interested a few small news snippets about the GOBLIN electrification.
– I understand the line is now energised throughout. I believe this was done in two stages (west on 10/12 and east 17/12). Warning signs are in place on masts in E17.
– Network Rail tweeted that they rewired / reconnected the Seven Sisters chord and south junction at South Tottenham last weekend.
– Network Rail replied that the Haringey curve will be wired up and energised on Boxing Day. I assume this is because of constraints in linking up to the ECML wired infrastructure only being feasible when there is no service running.
– Various tweets have emerged to say that works start on 3 Jan 2018 on the project to raise the bridge at Crouch Hill station.
Having been along Ferry Lane today the wiring certainly looks in a completed state to my untrained eye. Nice to see after such a long slog to get the project authorised and funded.
What I don’t know is if the line will see freight traffic between Christmas and New Year when the NLL route via Highbury is closed because the bridge replacement works at Highbury Corner / Holloway Road. I’m not aware of NR having tried to run any electric traction along the GOBLIN since the juice was switched on. If any of the above is wrong then happy to be corrected.
One way of checking the status of the route is through this site https://signalmaps.co.uk/#stratford which shows train movements across Anglia including the GOB. Not surprisingly the route is currently shown as shut/xxxx between Gospel Oak and Woodgrange Park. As an aside there’s little electrically hauled freight on to the LTS these days, just some car traffic to Dagenham. The intermodal traffic some of which was electrically hauled to/from Tilbury RCT is now diesel hauled to London Gateway since Frieghtliner moved their business to the new port. And since the wiring of the branch from Thames Haven Junction was dropped from the overall GOB scheme diesel traction will be necessary for the foreseeable future.
The “problem” Crouch Hill Bridge (metioned 14months ago on this thread) was successfully jacked up over the weekend and should be re-open to road traffic by the end of the April (after utilities reinstated and parapet works).
Pics from NR here:
https://twitter.com/NetworkRailGOBE/status/983337722990485504
@ Ngh – does this mean that all of the wiring and wired connections are all in place and “compliant”? I ask because comments in another place suggested the wires to West Anglia lines at S Tottenham hadn’t been reconnected and also that an apparent NR “sign off” for use of electrified GOBLIN was withdrawn before the bridge raising at the weekend. I appreciate these may be minor issues but AIUI electric passenger trains can’t use the line until an ORR sign off is achieved and I’d expect NR to have their own internal “assurance” processes to complete before seeking regulatory sign off. I know the 710s are still under test but we are heading towards “Summer” fairly quickly when various groups / stakeholders will be expecting to see electric trains in use.
Does anyone have any concrete information please on the timings for the introductions of the new 710 trains? Apologies in advance if I’ve missed this on another thread. This Barking and Dagenham Post article mentions November 2018. Clearly it’s nearly 5 months after the Crouch Hill bridge lift and – as far as I know – several months after the OLE was energised so I’m hoping it’s not much longer. Thanks indeed in advance
I had not realised that it was over a year since I last looked at this thread.
Seven Sisters – Tottenham South Jn. I’ve just tweeted some photos a member took at South Tottenham yesterday. The problems with running any regular service round Seven Sisters cuve is the single lead junctions and single line curve. The existing signalling is very restrictive. Even a 4-car set has to stop pretty close to the signal to avoid locking up the junctions in rear.
West of Gospel Oak. Ever since my first involvement with “the Branch” in 1989, at least 50% of our morning peak up traffic changed at Gospel Oak to go further west. That was why the erstwhile 07:59SX Woodgrange Park to Willesden Junction Low Level was so popular, with many pax building their whole journey to work around this train. Many were furious when it became the 08:11SX Barking to Willesden Junction from 20 May, complaining that it would make them late for work. Pax at Barking were just discovering they could get a through train to Willesden when it was pre-emptively withdrawn after 29 June, due to 172 002 being transferred to West Midlands Trains.
Class 710s. There are now six sets stored at the Bombardier managed Willesden TMD. When Network Rail issues type approval for the class to operate on NR tracks, Bombardier will be able to start mileage accumulation (2,000 fault free miles per unit) on the WCML/GEML/BML. It appears that ROG have got the contract for this. Then there be route clearance tests and driver training. BGORUG’s informed sources are fairly certain that if NR granted type approval today, it would be impossible to get enough Class 710s in service by 30 November when Arriva Rail London’s sublease on the seven remaining Class 172s expires and they transfer to West Midlands Trains. So another closure with partial bus replacement is in prospect. You know what to put in your letter to Santa this year!
The constant drip feed of announcements of new projects, usually repeated every time a politician wants to look good, seems to be counterproductive as it leads to disappointment (or anger) when, as is almost invariably the case, the promised date slips Tram-train, Bloomberg entrance, class 385, 769, Thameslink, and now Crossrail. Even without Crossrail, there are an unprecedented number of launches planned for the next few months – Transpennine’s Nova 3, new Caledonian sleepers, classes 195, 230, 331, 710, 717, East Coast IEPs, Halton Curve, so the potential for egg on faces is a certainly omelette.
In the olden days there was surely little fanfare until the service was ready to launch – was there as much advance publicity (with target dates specified years ahead) for the all-electric Brighton Belle, the A4 Pacifics, the Bulleid 4SUBs, the Northern Heights, the Victoria Line, HSTs, etc, etc?
I give you, as a counterexample, the APT.
@ Timbeau
No idea, but historically the official opening has usually been after, and sometimes a long time after, the actual practical opening. New lines often had a soft launch, even relatively recently. I can remember being surprised that I could use the DLR at Greenwich as it’s opening hadn’t been announced.
Also the internet must be a factor, when e.g. Victoria Line construction started, unless you kept a copy of the Evening Standard or whatever that you read it in, you are unlikely to have an accurate record of what politicians may have promised. Now it is all at anyone’s fingertips and there is nowhere to hide. You would think someone would point this out to them but they keep delivering these hostages to fortune
A major problem for the railway is when new stock isn’t replacing old stock (to be sent for scrap) but rather is replacing midlife stock which is needed elsewhere. If the 172s weren’t needed in the West Midlands, then the introduction of the 710s would be less critical. Now we face the 172s going, with no trains available to run the service, and a massive embarrassment for TfL and indeed the Mayor.
Great Western has these issues too, with many of the HSTs having to leave (so that they can be reformed and refurbished for use in Scotland) whether all their new IEPs are working or not
@Ronnie MB
On the contrary, BR was bullied into
a premature press launch by a government impatient for results and commitment to a schedule for project delivery..
Result? Lots of journalists cheesed off at having to turn up at Glasgow Central several hours before dawn on a cold December morning. (Why could the official launch not have been on the return run from Euston that afternoon?)
@Timbeau: But the eventual ATP launch itself followed a series of missed publically announced launch dates. At one point the promised launch date was getting further away in time as the months progressed.
@ Timbeau – I completely take your point about “too much fanfare” but I think Herned has it right in citing the internet and the associated thirst for knowledge / information. The other side of it is blogs like this and forums etc (well run or not) that allow people to discuss / speculate about all sorts of things. That creates all sorts of potential for “wrong” stories to gain traction and become a form of reality that then causes problems for the organisations trying to launch projects.
The problem is that the organisations can’t win – if they disclosed everything then they’d be criticised to death for any perceived or actual “failure” regardless of how material such failure was. If nothing is said then it becomes a “cover up”. I’m as guilty as anyone in having these mixed reactions to things despite trying to be reasonably fair and rational. Getting the balance of decent reporting without hubris and being able to keep the public and stakeholders “on side” is extremely difficult. Look how everyone is now criticising Crossrail’s PR despite the fact it’s had years and years of a good profile and next to no “banana skin” type incidents. As I said, you can’t win even if you do almost everything right.
Any further thoughts please on the date for the 710 introduction onto the GOBLIN? The Rail Magazine September article from 24th September https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/class-710-testing-due-to-move-to-the-main-line stated that the class 710 testing was due to move to the main line. Does anyone know if that happened? And please can I ask what additional steps please are required afterwards?
Thanks as ever in advance.
PS is there an idiot’s guide on the forum somewhere on how to insert links and photos?
District Dave has covered this in detail.
http://districtdavesforum.co.uk/thread/29536/class-710-delivery-entry-service?page=10
Here’s a video of one such test, about a month ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KzKzBIxN8
@ Mat – What seems to have happened is the 710 265 has been out and about on both the GOBLIN route and on the West Coast route. All this was overnight runs. After about a week this stopped and no one has seen a 710 out and about anywhere. A run on part of the West Anglia lines was scheduled but was cancelled. No one is clear as to why – I’ve read varying comments about testing NOT having stopped but others saying there are further software problems. I’ve even seen a recent remark that there may be an issue with one section of the new wiring on the GOBLIN but that is speculative and not confirmed.
The basic steps that I’ve seen outlined is that each unit has to achieve a level of fault free mileage before they can be handed over to Arriva Rail London. Once handed over then Arriva have to train their drivers and ensure they get “hands on” experience with the units on the line. I’ve seen it said that route clearance tests are also needed but I’m sceptical about that given a 710 has whizzed up and down the GOBLIN seemingly without incident. On the assumption that the units are “fault free”, handed over and there are enough trained drivers then the 710s should be able to enter service. The struggle has been getting Network Rail’s sign off (now granted) and seemingly getting the train to be reliable / fault free.
I’ve also seen something on social media that a further class 172 may be transferring to Ilford depot imminently – i.e. not available for passenger service. That means the GOBLIN would be without any operational spare to cope with breakdowns. The service has been fairly fragile of late when the 8th train went. However losing the 7th, if it happens, would be a really retrograde step and contrary to official statements from the Mayor, TfL and Arriva.
The lack of any official comment from anyone about the new trains is not helpful. It just leads to endless speculation and questioning. The 710s were supposed to be in service this month, November. That then slipped to December and I’d not be shocked to see it slip again. It is not a helpful situation for those who have to rely on the service – not me btw so that’s not a personal grouch. I’d just like the electrification project to fully complete and we can put this episode behind us.
WW
that there may be an issue with one section of the new wiring
Correct(ish) – most likely the train, rather then the OHLE.
710’s are presently barred from using Platform 1, the N-side bay, at Barking unless no Underground trains are running, & even then, prior LU permission is required – it appears to be a signalling interference fault of some sort .
I am no electrification expert (electricity and electrical interference is black magic to me).
But as a non expert, may I observe that National Rail electric trains (C2C) have happily operated side by side with LU at and around Barking for decades. I’m utterly baffled how / why this problem would occur on the newly wired platform.
It’s become a depressingly regular happening that actual testing on the line where the trains are going to run reveals some combination of electromagnetic interference, software and signalling to be a problem.
For example we’ve also seen
a) Hammersmith & City use of new signalling repeatedly delayed
b) Azumas unable to run on parts of east coast mainline
c) Class 345 into Heathrow
Looks like new projects would be wise to add six months or so into their schedules for compatibility testing and consequent updates/fixes – and re-testing.
Clearly there is something wrong with the totality of having a definition of the live environment and being able to design trains to run within it.
Someone has to own the process of defining what needs to be known and how it’s captured, recorded and made available: I fear we won’t get quickly to a seamless digital railway without that “guiding mind”.
(I’m thinking knowledge bases, software architectures , interface definitions and so on , I’m sure there all out there somewhere, but are they readily available to everyone in a fully consistent machine readable format )
Apropos EMC – it must be emphasised that some restrictions are due to real problems that have been experienced, but when dealing with neighbours (and class 710 on LU is a neighbour issue even though it’s all part of the same organisation), it might be that the party promoting the change hasn’t yet demonstrated the absence of any significant risk or there hasn’t been the opportunity to do the test.
Since the BR-era units were replaced all NR electric trains through Barking have been Electrostars classes 357 and 387 (and possibly the odd class 90 on freight workings). The Aventra is a new design, with different electrical characteristics. As Peter has said, it is not uncommon for new electric types to interfere with some existing signalling circuits.
I remember reading, a long time ago, an article in one of the railway magazines in which a reporter was impressed that the signalling engineers could identify what class of locomotive was on a train purely from the effect of its electrical “signature” on the track circuits.
It would appear that the 7th class 172 DMU has now gone to Ilford depot. The result – TfL advertising minor delays in the GOBLIN service. The line has no resilience against train failures. So that’s a Mayoral promise about not releasing further trains in the bin then. What happens when the 6th train has to leave? A reduced timetable? Bus replacement services? What a mess.
AFAIK whenever Class 710s ran to Barking, platform 1 was subject to possession so they reversed on the up connecting line at Upney Junction. The first Barking trip was 3 October, the last trip to Crewe was on 27 October, nothing since.
At the last Mayor’s Question Time, Caroline Pidgeon asked for the dates each remaining Class 172 (7 at the time) would come off sublease from West Midlands Trains. The answer was that commercial negotiations were still taking place. It is likely that some more questions will be asked at the next MQT.
172006 had been flagged up as going in mid-October, but suddenly that was put on hold. It finally left Willesden this morning. All day today one of the six T&H (GOBLIN) diagrams has not been covered. Passengers are not looking forward to Monday.
Mat,
PS is there an idiot’s guide on the forum somewhere on how to insert links and photos?
Well, to insert a link you have to type some html code namely:
<a href=”link name goes here“>Description here<a>
For those that know hmtl they will appreciate how challenging that is for me to write to that it displays properly.
However, there is nothing wrong with giving the full link. In some ways it is better because, if you make a mistake it is easy enough for us to correct (usually). The input processor sometimes eats up links if they are wrong so we get to see nothing.
Note that you need the full web link – generally best to copy it from the browser’s (web) address input window. If you miss out the http or https things don’t go well.
And TEST IT in the preview panel.
You can’t insert photos – only links to photos. This is because photos of text circumvents a lot of the checks we put in to stop unwanted comments. If there is a really good reason for a photo to be displayed in a comment then you can ask us very nicely ([email protected]).
Thank you all for the detailed updates . Hugely frustrating to see both the release of the 172 trains (and the possible impact on the service) and the apparently limited progress on the 170 introduction. Thanks also to Timbeau for the District Dave link; it makes dispiriting reading.
What’s do people think is the best way to express my frustration with the continued fiasco? Write to Caroline Pidgeon?
And Pedantic of Purley – thank you also for the HTML information, I have posted links previously but could never quite recall the syntax so having it here is hugely useful. And yes I’ll be sure to test all links whether shortened or not via the preview panel.
@ Mat W – I’ve written to my local Assembly Member with a series of questions about the GOBLIN issues. I suspect that several AMs will be raising issues in both the November and December Mayor’s Question time sessions. The protocol, I think, is that you write to the Assembly Member who represents you if you live in Assembly constituency. Mine is usually decent in dealing with any queries or questions. I’ve written to Caroline, who is a Londonwide member, in the past and she wasn’t interested in handling the questions which I found rather disappointing. The London.gov.uk website will have the relevant info on how to raise concerns.
Yesterday morning, BGORUG issued a bulletin, now posted on our website
http://barking-gospeloak.org.uk/documents/20181112_Newsletter.pdf
Among others, this bulletin was sent to Assembly Transport Committee Members and local AMs.
A few hours later, TfL responded and sent something very similar to all Assembly Members. Most is not worth repeating as it is the usual TfL spin/obfuscation and ‘out of date’ information. However, TfL did say that weekend services would be reduced to allow additional maintenance time for the remaining Class 172s and that details would follow later.
Yesterday was the closing date for the next Mayor’s Question Time. Caroline Pidgeon managed to submit four questions just before the deadline.
Thanks again all.
Somewhat serendipitously, today LinkedIn suggested a connection with a person who works for a rail systems management consultancy. In their words, this person is ‘currently managing the introduction of the new Bombardier class 710 onto the London Overground network on behalf of the TOC (Arriva Rail London)’.
I assume it’s poor form to post their details here? Equally, if the Mayor’s Question time sessions don’t bear fruit, it may be a plan B.
Mat W
“Chatham House Rules” – no attributed names without their direct permission, please. But “An authoritative source” is acceptable, then followed by publishable details.
Can be very informative …..
@Mat W
Yes not a good idea to post their details here. Furthermore I suspect their employer would not look kindly on their providing information outside of the tightly controlled communications channels.
Looking in the newly issued TfL Board Papers it seems that the GOBLIN issues have reached the TfL Board and Customer Services and Operations Cttee. Apparently a briefing will be provided at the upcoming Committee meeting. I assume this will be verbal given there is nothing in the issued papers.
The following is from the minutes of the TfL Board 19 Sept 2018. Given the date nothing astounding is said.
“A Member had been contacted by the chair of the Barking – Gospel Oak rail users group.
Gareth Powell confirmed that the new electric trains for the line were undergoing software certification and there was an active, collaborative and collective approach being taken to this between the manufacturer, TfL and Network Rail. In the interim, contracts had been negotiated for the existing stock but as they were due to be overhauled the service was one train down and reliability was below the standards TfL aspired to. The issue on better advertisement of replacement rail services would be addressed. An update on the service would be provided to the next meeting of the Customer Service and Operational Performance Panel.”
Ah! It seems our Chair’s lobbying of an old friend had an effect, then!
I’ve just learned via Twitter that TfL have posted details of a reduced service this weekend on their website quoting service intervals of “between 15 & 45 minutes”!
I’ve not yet has a chance to have a look for myself.
Re BGORUG SECRETARY,
And LO Driver Instructors heading north for training on the 710s from this week…
Apparently, Class 710s will *begin* to enter service in the second half of December, initially running PIXC-busting services in the peaks.
Meanwhile …
Forwarded from BGORUG:
… that train frequencies will vary between every 15 and every 30 minutes.
The irregular planned cancellations have been removed from the schedules, thus ensuring the cancelled trains will not appear on platform CIS screens & will not be recorded in London Overground’s PPM performance statistics
Somehow I don’t think this inspires much confidence in catching any specific service?
I just got this in an email from TfL about Weekend disruption…
London Overground
Due to a lack of available trains, there will be a reduced service between Gospel Oak and Barking. Trains will run every 15 to 30 minutes.
This is because of a delayed delivery of new electric trains from the manufacturer, Bombardier Transport, as part of our £300m investment to boost capacity on the busiest Overground lines. We continue to operate diesel trains on this line, but they are becoming increasingly unreliable and are now in need of additional maintenance.
The reduced weekend timetable will continue until the new electric trains are introduced. We will continue to run a full timetable on the busier weekday service.
Network Rail is carrying out work that will affect the following services:
• After 20:00 tonight, Thursday 15 November, there will be no service between Romford and Upminster after 20:00. Use local bus routes 165, 248 or 370 for travel between stations
• On Saturday 17 and Sunday 18 November, there will be no service between Romford and Upminster. Use local bus routes 165, 248 or 370 for travel between stations
• On Sunday 18 November, there will be no service between Gospel Oak and Stratford. A replacement bus service will run between Hampstead Heath / Gospel Oak and Stratford
• From Monday 19 until Thursday 22 November, there will be no service between Romford and Upminster after 20:00 each day. Use local bus routes 165, 248 or 370 for travel between stations
Just received TfL weekend travel information:
“Due to a lack of available trains, there will be a reduced service between Gospel Oak and Barking. Trains will run every 15 to 30 minutes.
This is because of a delayed delivery of new electric trains from the manufacturer, Bombardier Transport, as part of our £300m investment to boost capacity on the busiest Overground lines. We continue to operate diesel trains on this line, but they are becoming increasingly unreliable and are now in need of additional maintenance.
The reduced weekend timetable will continue until the new electric trains are introduced. We will continue to run a full timetable on the busier weekday service.”
So it looks like the bustitution the user group were talking up won’t happen after all.
Judging by the number of times I’ve seen cancelled Uckfield services recently, Southern are also having issues with 17X’s…
I have to admit that this is not a scientific sample, but the 16:37 to Uckfield is next to my usual train, the 16:37 to Tunbridge Wells so it is noticable!
@Ian J
Why would you take any TfL public statement at face value?
I’ve just learned that a supplementary weekend bus service between Walthamstow Central and Barking is starting tomorrow. It won’t have any passengers because they won’t know it is running!
All the remaining Class 172s go off sub lease after 31 December.
710 265 was allowed back onto Network Rail last night and ran some trips Gospel Oak – Barking. It may restart the Willesden – Crewe trips tonight. It has to start accumulating 2,000 fault free miles all over again.
The first of two groups of ARL driver instructors/driver managers should finish their 710 training at Old Dalby today. With luck 710 265 might be able to start a PICX-buster trip a week or two before Christmas but after 31 DEcember it may be alone or have at the most another 710 for company, certainly not enough to run a service.
Another message board reports TfL are organising replacement buses from 01 January, but that they will not announce it until they have to.
As input to my letter to my AM representative, is there a summary timetable anywhere of the multiple issues that have impacted GOBLIN electrification and the introduction of the new 710 trains?
I’m thinking of:
– The original line closure that had to be supplemented with another extended closure
– Multiple weekend closures following on from both closures (from memory)
– The Crouch Hill road closure for the bridge lift
– The 710 train introduction issues
– The existing 172 trains going off sub-lease
I wish I’d kept the NR lineside neighbour letters now but there were so many of them.
I’ll also re-read this thread and summarise some key themes. Regards, Mat
@bgorug secretary: Why would you take any TfL public statement at face value?
No more or less reliable than statements from the user group along the lines of The remaining seven diesel trains are due to be transferred to the West Midlands in December. If by then there are still no new electric trains to operate the Barking – Gospel Oak service, TfL will have to admit that things have gone wrong – big time!, or The contract runs out at the end of the month [September], in time for full bustitution to start.
The date given for the apparently imminent total bustitution of the service seems to have gone from the end of September to the end of November to the end of December. It is almost as if TfL just keep renewing the sublease on the diesel trains.
@MAT W
Network Rail ‘GOBE’ blockades were:
1) June 2016 Barking – South Tottenham, extended in September 2016 to Gospel Oak and given up in February 2017
2) September 2017 – October 2018
3) November 2017 – January 2018
The Crouch Hill job was a weekend in early April 2018.
@IAN J
As a rail user group, BGORUG does not believe in keeping ‘our’ passengers in ignorance of what is happening to their train service. As TfL, apart from occasional exceptions, will not engage with us, we work in an official information vacuum. So we have to rely on the railway press, questions to the Mayor and our informed sources. The latter have increased in number over the past year as the Class 710 fiasco has developed. Like a reporter we always try for two sources for corroboration. As two of our committee members are ex railway, we have a feel for if what we are told is right or doubtful. We are always careful of what public comments we make because we want to tell ‘our’ passengers what we believe is the truth.
We are not sure if the lease on eight Class 172s was held by ARL or TfL, but it expired on 30 June. The trains were then leased to West Midlands Trains. TfL/ARL negotiated a sublease with WMT and secured the 7xClass 172s still at Willesden. It was later stated in the railway press that the 7xClass 172s would stay with ARL until December, which we initially took to mean 30 November. It was also said that the 172s would progressively move to WMT as the Class 710s entered public service. Then we heard that a 172 would transfer to WMT after 15 October. In fact this did not happen until 3 November, when 172 006 transferred to Bombardier’s Ilford facility (videoed at Canonbury).
We now have reliable information that the 6xClass 172’s sublease expires in December and that WMT needs these units in January. They all need postponed C6 overhauls and universal toilets to be fitted before WMT can use them. TfL will only say that they are still in negotiations with WMT to extend the sublease.
There have been several hiccoughs in the Class 710 mileage accumulation trips, the latest being a few days ago. More STP trips have been posted on RTT for Monday 26 November but experience shows that does not mean a lot. 710 265/266/267 have been out on Network Rail tracks. ARL driver trainers have just completed their training on the units at Asfordby. When Bombardier can officially deliver a unit to ARL, gauging trips (with step-plates fitted) and driver training will begin.
To try and protect the weekday service, TfL have withdrawn 2x172s from weekend service for additional maintenance, cancelling their trains and providing half-hourly “supplementary bus services”. On Saturdays, out of 139 scheduled trains, there are 45 planned cancellations. On Sundays, out of 116 scheduled trains, there are 43 planned cancellations. TfL say they are negotiating with Network Rail to introduce a temporary weekend timetable with a regular 20-minute frequency, to replace the current irregular intervals in service. While the weekday service has performed better since these measures were introduced, with only a handful of cancellations on average, on Wednesday 21 November there were 18 unplanned cancellations out of 140 scheduled trains, all due a defective unit.
Last week, three Assembly Members submitted eleven questions to the Mayor who should answer within a week. Also last week, BGORUG obtained coverage in three local papers and participated in an ITV programme being made with Christian Wolmar.
On 21 November, a question about the service was asked at the TfL Board meeting. This was dealt with by Mike Brown (Commissioner) and G Powell (Director of Surface Transport). See the webcast on the London Assembly website (from 41 mins 50 secs.). Draw your own conclusions of the picture painted. An astonishing claim made that 10-year old trains (actually only 8-years old) are “very old”. None of the board members asked any questions to probe what they are being told. They don’t understand what even one cancellation means on a 15 mins. frequency service. It’s on the tube map, but it’s NOT the tube.
Within the papers of the same board meeting is the statement- “…rail income (to 15/09) is £5m above budget owing to London Overground receiving contractual payments from Bombardier for delayed delivery of trains.” See http://content.tfl.gov.uk/board-20181121-agenda-papers-public-web.pdf … – Page 110. BGORUG would claim that that some of that money should be used to compensate regular passengers for the last three years of almost continuous disruption.
BGORUG Sec
See the webcast on the London Assembly website (from 41 mins 50 secs.)
IF you can find it anywhere – linkie, please?
Because the most recent I can see is for the 24th October, after a suprisingly long search for what should be a clearly-visible item.
[ Which tends to support your comment about TfL operating “out of your sight” does it not? ]
BGORUG SECRETARY, Greg Tingey 08:46,
I can’t find it either. Sometimes the meeting in question is not a transport committee one.
Greg Tingey,
Details of past board meetings are slightly confusing. To view the webcast you need to look under mayoral webcasts on the London.gov.uk site. There are actually three webcasts.
See https://www.london.gov.uk/media-centre/mayoral
The board papers are published in advance (including minutes of the previous meeting). But I don’t know how to get hold of the minutes other than wait for the next meeting. Incidentally, that is one reason why I try and attend Programme & Investments committee meetings. It is all very well having the agenda but the only way to find out what was decided is to either attend or wait until the next meeting.
The particular webcast out of the three is https://www.london.gov.uk/tfl-board-refresh-2018-11-21.
I definitely got the impression that it was a read into record exercise, with all the members knowing what the message was before the meeting.
Anon 23
THANKS
PoP
Ah, you had exactly the same problems I got ….
AMON 23……. Having watched the webcast, I do think you’re being generous. At times I did wonder whether TfL had forgotten the sheer importance of the buses and underground in moving the mass of people around London. Indeed the latter seemed to be valued only as a cash cow to fund everything else.
100 & 30 – I only watched a small segment of that webcast. I was close to smashing things when listening to some of the questions from Board Members and some of the responses given. The response on the GOBLIN issues (being as polite as I can) was “disappointing” and “light on detail”. I got the distinct impression that the Mayor and TfL’s officials have basically got the Board “sussed” so they can (almost) say whatever they like knowing the risk of genuine challenge is low. I can only hope that more robust questioning from Board Members happens when the cameras aren’t switched on or in other meetings.
It seems to me that TfL is now more of a political organisation charged with fulfilling a wide range of Mayoral policy “tick boxes” with little relevance to actually moving people round the City in an efficient and comprehensive manner. There is also little being done in any concrete way to create a further network expansion either. Yes I know there are studies and consultations but little demonstrable progress and certainly no money. How long before Crossrail 2 is canned because of what has occurred with Crossrail? Grayling and the Treasury have the absolute perfect excuse to kill it now by lumbering it with massive optimism bias due to the risks now manifesting on Crossrail.
WW
Nothing has happened to change my view that no British politician will sign off on Crossrail 2 until two years of Crossrail 1-era passenger data are available. By this time, Grayling will have long swam off. The Treasury, of course, will still have eyebrows to raise on project risk.
Add to this the need to have a) The political stars in alignment; b) Knowledge of the level and likely trajectory of demand for transport in London post-B******t; and c) The availability of capital at reasonable cost (and the expectation that this will continue for some years).
In short, we will have cause merrily to discuss the possible start date of Crossrail 2 for years, if not decades, to come.
@answer=42/WW – I would go further and say that, politically, CR2 is linked to the fate of HS2, in the sense that cancellation of (part of) HS2 will leave CR2 very exposed to the customary arguments about balance, Since at least the Midlands part of HS 2 is fairly sickly these days and has few friends in any party, I wouldn’t place a lot of money on CR2 surviving a cull of major projects to balance the books, regardless of whether you think CR2 is any good or not.
Graham H
Indeed – back to the 1970’s & early 80’s in fact – not a good time for London or transport in London.
Status of the minor ones
“London mayor Sadiq Khan and housing developer London and Quadrant (L&Q) agreed a £500M cash boost for the whole of the east London regeneration project on 20 Feb 2018, with £172M going towards the new London Overground extension.
Transport for London (TfL) is funding the rest of the rail extension, which will cost £263M in total.
Design complications on the rail scheme have pushed the procurement process back by five months. Invitations to tender for the project are delayed from September last year.
Complications around traction power and topographical surveys have been blamed for the design delay, although TfL stressed the extension is still expected to open in 2021. ”
Programmes and Investment Committee 16 May 2018
“completion of the detailed design and having to remove Carillion plc (one of the pre-qualified bidders) from the process, once they entered into compulsory liquidation, caused the release of the Invitation to Tender (ITT) for the contract for the construction of the extension and station (Main Works Contract) to be delayed by seven months. The ITT was
released on 13 April 2018.
Main Works Contract Award Recommendation (PAM) Target August 2018”
Completion in 2020/2021 appears on the schedule of several rail projects, no contract placement has been publicised here. The developer funding is 172m with TfL paying the ‘rest’, a sum that appears to be rising.
@Graham H
I would go further and suggest that the longstanding narrative that London has seen masses more (ignoring that TfL has funded a lot of them) transport funding than the North, then the cancellation of HS2 is the cancellation of DfT money in London and area full stop – save perhaps freight networks (road and rail) and small schemes they can sneak through.
CR2 was already politically problematic outside the SE without HS3/NPR/massive investment in rail outside London, even under the assumption that HS2 would happen. It’s a very big ticket item and so is a lightning rod for people to oppose on grounds that aren’t related to the scheme’s value for money or transport objectives.
And we mustn’t forget that CR2’s own case tied itself to HS2 phase 2’s traffic arriving at/leaving from Euston (presumably because of the N-S issues and it then saying “we need this to distribute people coming from/going to the North” to make it a bit easier to sell the DfT giving it money to the people living outside the South of England), so even if the ‘customary arguments about balance’ were not there, it still would seriously struggle should HS2 phase 2 not happen.
Until Waterloo, Moorgate & Liverpool Street “fall over” simply because they can’t handle the volumes on offer ….
Which is the real reason for CR2, of course, same as the rationale for CR1.
Meanwhile Paris already has four RER lines plus line “E” due to be extended from Haussman St Lazare to La Defense real soon now ….
Pathetic, isn’t it?
Si – That’s certainly how I see it might play out but it is probably worse than that : we are supposed to be entering an Age of Gold in which public expenditure expands after an Age of Iron and austerity. I don’t believe a word of it – the squeeze will continue to be applied to capex projects that have yet to materialise and therefore whose cancellation won’t create many enemies; any gold around will go towards opex. Greg T is right to draw the comparison with the ’70s – at a time of a similar public expenditure constellation, all the available capital was eaten up by the Fleet/Jubilee project, which was too far advanced to be cancelled by then, at the cost of capex schemes in Manchester, Leeds and Bristol, whilst we couldn’t shovel the pelf for bus subsidies at the shires fast enough.
The key difference between then and now is that after 30 years of commercialisation, public transport needs ever less opex subsidies but the relative costs of capital schemes is much higher. Ergo lose HS2 and CR2 but gain change for sixpence in higher bus subsidies on a vastly diminished network.
I don’t get any feeling that money for opex is suddenly going to be available. The whole rationale of the Treasury and the Chancellor for the last 6 years has been capex good, opex bad.
@Quinlet. Yes it has been like that. I think the difficulty in the coming years is that there may or may not be an easing of constraints on opex (for example in the field of social services and health care) but the constraints on capex will be maintained or even tightened – unfortunately, public transport is not at all well placed to benefit from that. Matters have not been helped by the shortage of “good” capex projects outside London
@ Graham H
And yet there is £25bn in capex funding available for road building in 2020-2025, with not many obvious schemes ready to go either…
Re HS2, I can imagine the second phase being postponed, but if the the first segment is built then the pressure to build the second phase will be huge, so it will definitely happen IMHO, but the timescale will almost certainly slip to the right
@Herned – unfortunately for public transport, the annual DfT negotiations with the Treasury come in three parts – central government (ie HE roads ), nationalised industries (the railways). and local government (other roads, bus subsidies, TfL). The negotiations are quite separate and viring between the three categories is the subject of yet further negotiations albeit with the tradeoffs being between other things in the same category. In days of yore, it suited DfT to play this game because it protected the railways and LT from highways depredation; now, the problem for TfL is the other bad company it keeps.
You may be right about HS2 salami slicing, although the problem is that the bit in the middle is both controversial (the East Midlands don’t like the siting of their station), and the benefits are weak (again in the east midlands, for much of the population, the classic railway can offer better times door to door). Combine that with the Northern Powerhouse campaign to upgrade Transpennine and its easy to see the temptation to build just phase 1 and the NP segment. Manchester hasn’t been lobbying that hard for their leg, and the E Midlands not at all. I agree that whatever happens, timescales for everything will slip wildly – and there goes CR2 with it…
[Moderator’s note] This comment is way off topic. It has not been removed, as it contains information which readers may find interesting, but would no-one please comment on the detail. Passing references to HS2 are acceptable anywhere, but this is not the place to re-run the whole debate. Malcolm
HS2 was part of the EU 30k km by 2030 network with grant aid. The European Court of Auditors on 26 June 2018 reported eight of thirty projects were delayed by at least one year, while five of the ten lines audited had experienced delays of more than a decade.
A stretch of 267km of high-speed railway between Stuttgart and Munich, for example, was estimated at €1.8bn, but ended up costing at least €13.3bn – with the line not completed yet.
The estimated costs for the ‘Stuttgart 21’ railway station was at €4.5bn in 2003, €6.5bn in 2013, and €8.2bn in January 2018. The original plan said that the Stuttgart construction works would be done by 2008 – they are now estimated to be finished by 2025.
Countries have poorly assessed the need for high-speed rail, and the alternative solution of upgrading existing conventional lines is not often given due consideration, even though the savings achieved when this option is used can be significant.
It also found that high-speed rail is becoming more expensive, and many were not being utilised to their full potential with trains running at an average of 45% of the lines’ design speed.
Much of the high-speed rail investment for lines covered in the report was “based on political considerations” and in most cases they do not carry enough passengers to make them profitable.
A decision to cancel or proceed to construction will probably not be final until the transition exit phase has completed.
The CR2 debate is fundamentally about the extent to which it is needed:
(1) as an HS2 Phase 2B safety valve:-
That itself is not directly because of Phase 2B (which redirects only about 6 InterCity trains an hour to Euston instead of KXStP, in terms of additional train slots created), but because of refill of InterCity slots and train capacity back into St Pancras and Kings Cross with more ‘700-style’ high density outer commuter and ‘InterShire’ trains which themselves will refill the tubes and Circle!
So that SOME additional distribution capacity is needed within Central London or within the ‘sausage’ which amounts to OOC-Centre-Stratford/Canary, but it doesn’t amount to an entire line in its own right, just some (significant) extra train capacity and relevant station and interchange improvements.
(2) as a London housing supply relief valve:-
Especially with the NE part of London (Lea Valley corridor/West Anglia Main Line) being a favoured location for large scale high density housing schemes – for which WAML as it is, is not a solution, and 4-tracking (to where in Central London? what spare tracks or capacity reach there?) gravitates towards CR2 as a viable Central London distributor.
(3) as a congestion crowding and capacity relief for the SW suburbs/Waterloo lines/Surrey inner commuting zone:-
Where Waterloo is starting to fall over even after the latest 10-car upgrade (some would say because of that!), commuter patience is wearing thin, and practical capacity has been a constant topic (Thameslink service relief via Wimbledon? 5-tracking? CR2?) for some years now.
Also relevant is your choice of a depot location (basically, NE or SW).
With Government keen to get CR2 costs down to politically affordable levels (say £15-20bn not £30+bn), you then get to a basic choice for a Phase 1 between a SW-Centre-NE tunnel mouth scheme or a NE-Centre-SW tunnel mouth scheme, with possibly everything else discarded or made passive provision.
Are both equally workable? What are operating risks arise with either choice? What are the relative BCRs? Where are the most important political pressure points? Apparently we have to wait for the next Spending Review to see what the early CR2 destiny might be. (So already the CR2 timetable is moving to the right.)
But most of those issues are to do with intra-London matters including the relative importance of SW or NE London future commuting capacities, in whatever timescale you project. Basically, if you think London needs another RER, then CR2 is the one being developed, and it will be jolly useful even if imperfect. CR2 planning currently assumes 30 tph from the start unlike CR1 (24 tph), if built fully from the start.
HS2 is either a constant pressure in both main CR2 options, or, if cancelled, also a constant lack of pressure as to which Phasing choice to prioritise. It could mean the difference between 15, 18, 20 or 24 tph, rather than whether any CR2 at all is needed. (But again watch the timetable sliding to the right.)
Then we need to look at the relative scale of lobbying going on, in support. Dare we trust (?) that Britain does not become a ‘lockstep’ Belgium where every Euro spent in Flanders needs a balancing Euro spent, possibly with less NPV, in Wallonia, or v.v., while Brussels schemes lead to reflexive spending in both other sectors?
@ M Clevedon – I’ll be careful with this reply to avoid the moderator’s axe. I’m a HS2 / CR2 sceptic. In terms of potential demand for CR2 I am very doubtful that the DfT will be able to fund a lot of extra trains on paths freed up by shifting services to HS2. There are a lot of other measures, most likely cheaper than HS2, that could raise line capacity but they are not as “glamorous” as HS2 is for politicians. I would prefer that we did “boring” railway enhancements like longer platforms, longer trains and higher capacity track / signalling *provided* that we could be assured about Network Rail’s costs, efficiency and project delivery competence for such works.
In terms of CR2 I think it is fair to say that its timeline has been sliding to the right for the last three years. I remain of the view that it’s dead for as long as we have a Labour politician at City Hall and a Tory one at the DfT. The politics are all wrong for even a £20bn scheme never mind a £35bn one. If we can’t find a political and funding solution to buidling an albeit hideously expensive short rail line in SW Watford then forget about big tunnels under London. It won’t happen. The current problems with CR1 won’t be helping the funding / business case for a bigger and potentially more complex scheme.
Thinking ahead to 2020 I have a slight sense that the Conservative party won’t include a commitment to building CR2 in whatever manifesto they put forward for the Mayoral Elections. I think their focus will be on improving the financial efficiency and sustainability of TfL and that means fare rises and a reduction in services / investment but it won’t be presented in such stark terms. I expect they will commit to onging tube upgrades but little else of substance in terms of physical works starting in the 2020-24 Mayoral term. If Labour put forward a more expansionist agenda then they are deeply exposed, given TfL’s finances now and projected for 2020, as to how such an agenda could be funded. The outlook is really pretty dreadful.
CR2’s also the wrong scheme IMO but we’ve done that one before.
Milt Cleve, Greg,
You are assuming that demand for transport in London will continue increasing in the way that it has done since the early 90s, hence causing bottlenecks at Liverpool Street, Waterloo and all the usual runners and riders.
But there is increasing evidence that London employment growth has slowed, or at least that its composition has shifted away from likely commuters. London population growth shows similar trends, though this is a less good predictor of demand for transport.
And B******t has not even happened yet.
The nightmare scenario could occur if ridership and farebox fall for economic / political reasons while the interest payments on CR1 are still high. Just the possibility is enough to give government accountants sleepless nights (this is a bad thing, by the way).
To put it another way, Treasury types would challenge comments like yours by saying that ‘We think Waterloo will not fall over from congestion until 2045. Prove us wrong.’
@ Answer=42. I broadly agree with your comments. TfL and Network Rail have a significant problem on their hands with respect to modelling future revenues and costs. The changes in travel patterns / trip rates are not yet fully understood in statistical terms nor cause and there is insufficient evidence to date to confirm if there is an ongoing trend or merely a blip. The preview of the next Travel in London report in the most recent TfL Board papers touched on the trip rate issue. More info when the report itself is published soon.
Anything that softens commuter flows and associated revenues poses a real revenue problem in any business case for large scale projects. Changes to trip rates and reduced off peak travel are also very unhelpful if you’re trying to justify significant long term investment. The only real counterbalance to all this is to change your specification to provide less capacity and thus lower capital / whole life costs. Given the lack of certainty about demand trends this could either be very sensible or very stupid depending on how the future pans out. I don’t think designing CR2 (or the Bakerloo Line extension) as the Vic Line was designed and descoped in the 60s would be a great idea but you can imagine the debate in the DfT and Treasury!
You are also right to highlight the potential nightmare of reduced revenues coinciding with the need to start paying interest on Crossrail loans. There are also risks to TfL’s credit rating which will make future borrowing more expensive.
WW
The only rational CR2 de-scoping, one that does not have implications for a century to come, is to delay starting the project. The loss function is not symmetric: the costs from late availability are congestion costs, mostly non-monetised; those from completion before demand is sufficient, financial. Guess which side will win.
For once, the Sir Humphries have a point. And they can offer doubters the possibility of a project rethink.
Today’s TfL weekend travel information:
“On Saturday 1 December, there will be a reduced service between Gospel Oak and Barking. Trains will run every 15 to 30 minutes.
On Sunday 2 December until 12:30:
• There will be no service between South Tottenham and Barking. Use local buses or Victoria line services between Seven Sisters (for South Tottenham) and Walthamstow Central. Rail replacement buses will run between Walthamstow Central and Barking
• There will be a reduced service between Gospel Oak and South Tottenham
On Sunday after 12:30:
• There will be a reduced service between Gospel Oak and Barking. Trains will run every 15 to 45 minutes
Due to a lack of available diesel trains, a reduced weekend timetable will continue until the new electric trains are introduced. We will continue to run a full timetable on the busier weekday service.
Supplementary buses will run every 30 minutes between Gospel Oak and Seven Sisters (for South Tottenham) and also between Walthamstow Central and Barking. Please use the Victoria line to connect between the two supplementary bus services”
I guess that the Sunday partial service suspension will grow over the coming month to include more of the line and further days.
We’ll see.
Is there really no suitable rolling stock anywhere to tide the line over until the 710s are ready? I note that when Scotrail had to delay introduction of its 385s, a handful of 365s were able to deputise. This despite the fact that no class 365 (or indeed any similar units) had ever operated north of Peterborough before. So how much staff familiarisation was needed?
I understand that the Overground’s own redundant 315s do not have the equipment needed for DOO operation on the Goblin – presumably the same applies to the 317s.
In any case, I would expect drivers with route knowledge of the Goblin would only have traction knowledge of the 378s, but even if they had compatible DOO equipment, they are too long and there are none to spare anyway.
But the traincrew on the Goblin can also drive diesel units. Are there none of these to spare? Late delivery of 195s would probably preclude releasing any Pacers from Northern quite yet, (likewise the late delivery of Mark 5a stock to Transpennine) but some Pacers are being released on GWR as electrification gradually spreads westwards, and north of the border the 385s and the repurposed HSTs are releasing some diesel units as well – including 170s, which are very similar to the 172s.
If Scotrail can do it, why can’t the Goblin?
Timbeau
I think the answer lies in the word “ScotraiL”
AIUI, operations are much more integrated N of the border & there is much better coordination between the various parts of the railway, including at government level.
Also seen in their significantly lower electrification costs & more rapid progress, of course.
Here, it appears ( & I stress appears ) that the silo mentality & “Someone else’s problem” prevail, to everyone’s disadvantage.
I would love to be proved wrong on this, but ……
HST’s on the Goblin? 😉
@Greg
Indeed, Scotland is another country. But the hired-in 365s came from (a long way) south of the border, so it must have needed some co-ordination with the Sassenachs to achieve it.
I like the idea of HSTs on the Goblin! Dwell times might be an issue though, especially as it would have to be at most two carriages in between the power cars to fit the bay at Gospel Oak.
Hire in some first or second-generation DMU’s from the preserved/heritage railways?
NOT a problem from the p.o.v. of gauging & track acceptance, after all!(!)
Aren’t there are reasonable number of 315s lying about somewhere after the 345s were introduced to Shenfield? I seem to remember that the argument was that it was not worth training drivers on new/different trains for only a short period, but when the short period is of indeterminate length, maybe there is a tipping point?
Apologies to Timbeau, I should have read your post first….
@SH(LR): I would love to see HSTs on the GOBlin – but with stations on average, just 0.9 miles apart, they’d have to start breaking before they’d completed their acceleration!
Re: Stationless – did you mean “braking”? I fear however that your version might be more accurate if HSTs were put on that kind of service.
@STATIONLESS (NO LONGER)
Given that the power-to-weight ratio is about the same for all electric trains, all models from the DLR to a HST accelerate at 0.2m/s/s and brake at -0.1m/s/s.
This would mean that a stopping Gospel Oak to Barking service would mean that there wouldn’t be much difference in the actual top speed of any electric train: they would all have to not get to design speed because of the need to brake.
In reality the passenger line speed is limited by the freight slots.
Timbeau
There’s a chonic shortage of DMUs across the country and has been for years. Made worse at this time of year by leaf fall; 1/3 of TfWs DMUs are currently out of service, on Northern it’s 20-25%, nearer to home GA are cancelling or short forming diesel services on a daily basis. Until more electrification is completed and/or new fleets, (diesel, bi-mode and electric). are commisoned its not likely to get much better, this time next year possibly!
Though by then the operators will be queing outside the doors of Great Minster House asking for derogations for the fleets that wont be compliant from 01/01/20. All of which puts more pressure on Bombardier to get the trains ordered for the GOB in traffic ASAP!
@Alfie 1014
Oh, I am aware of the DMU shortage – another casualty of which has been the delayed opening of the Halton Curve in Cheshire. (Wasn’t the Todmorden Curve delayed for the same reason?). Classes 195, 230 and 769, and the Mark 5a hauled stock should all have been in service by now.
But new trains (classes 385 in Scotland and 387 and IEP on GWR) have come on stream in recent months and are displacing diesel units either directly or in a “cascade”. Where have they gone?
We are past the worst of the leaf fall season now, so availability should start to pick up
@ Nameless – I think you may be reading too much into the partial closure of the GOBLIN on Sunday. This is not (AFAIK) a consequence of the 172 maintenance issues. Network Rail have regular planned closures of the GOBLIN at weekends or on Sundays for regular maintenance and inspection activities. There is also a 7 day partial blockade either side of the Xmas hols. That makes me wonder if Network Rail are replacing some of the really worn out bridges that remain on the eastern section of the GOBLIN. It would be really good if they are.
I don’t expect to see a load of extra weekend closures on the GOBLIN because in 4 weeks time we are likely not to have a train service at all. It can then become a playground for freight trains and Bombardier trying to achieve fault free mileage targets on the 710s. (rolls eyes)
@Timbeau. Scotrail will use some of the cascaded diesel units to strengthen services on other non-electric routes. Aberdeen-Inverness and Glasgow-Oban are examples of routes that will have better services in 2019.
There’s even a proposal (just a proposal so far) to convert some units to become specialist bike/ski carrying units – to be coupled with existing West Highland services.
@Island Dweller
“Scotrail will use some of the cascaded diesel units to strengthen services on other non-electric routes”
Quite so, but wouldn’t it be better to defer the service strengthening for a while, if the alternative would be another line having no trains at all?
@Timbeau. I can see the sense in your point but
(1) We don’t seem to have any central guiding hand – after all, Mr Grayling seems very keen to tell us he doesn’t run the railways….
(2) The notion that improvements for Scottish rail services have to be deferred to cover for problems in London – That would play so badly in Scotland. The B****t word that cannot be mentioned has made relations with the Scottish government utterly toxic – a proposal such as this would be a political gift to Ms Sturgeon. (I’m not backing either side in that argument, just pointing out how it would be played by the SNP)
Scotland will be a bit short anyway with late EMUs and late HSTs.
Citymetric have picked up the story
https://www.citymetric.com/transport/london-s-gospel-oak-barking-line-might-be-about-lose-all-its-trains-birmingham-4375
contractually, the current trains now belong to West Midlands Railway, so only a government intervention could shift them
Aleks
TimeTable change this weekend
Will “Goblin” be getting its’ electic units, or no trains at all, or some combination fo the above?
Watch some space or other for actual information ….
@ Greg – the sub lease of the 172s ends on 9 December but TfL are trying to negotiate an extension (a Mayoral answer to Andrew Dismore states this). If no extension has been negotiated / agreed then West Midlands trains can take all the trains. There have been no public statements about this issue or whether TfL have secured an extension. If they haven’t then it’s buses from Sunday onwards. WM Trains would need DfT sign off to extend the sublease because they are part of a DfT required cascade of trains from WMT to East Midlands Trains with the 172s filling the gap. Now do we think Mr Grayling will do anything to help Mr Khan? Hmmm – difficult one that (not!).
Apparently there are now 7 class 710s at Willesden. It is again unclear as to what exactly is going on with them. Plenty of online comment about none of them having achieved fault free mileage under AC wires. None have been tested on DC yet. Network Rail have apparently restricted their WCML overnight runs to no further north than Milton Keynes because they don’t want one conked out on a two track stretch of railway. The driver instructors have apparently been to Old Dalby to “play” with a 710 there but no drivers have been trained. Given the repeated faults and hugely interrupted mileage accumulation process I think it’s the case that not a single train has been formally handed over. All the brave TfL and Mayoral statements about some trains being in service in December look decidely “wobbly” as of now.
I’ve just looked to see if TfL have answered the questions I asked my Assembly Member to submit. Four have been answered but there is little new info – just lots of apologies and statements that the Mayor has spoken to the big wigs at Bombardier. Sadly that doesn’t make the software suddenly stabilise so trains are fault free and can run in passenger service.
There is no service on the line after 23 December because of week long engineering works on the route. I honestly cannot see any sort of service on the line after 23 Dec for many weeks. Before that we may find the service has evaporated due to the trains being taken away. It beggars belief that we have ended up where we are now. I’ll stop now before I start using words that the mods won’t like!!
WW
Thanks for all of that. And I agree with your sentiments, though what nice Mr Wallace of the “BGORUG” users-group will say, either in public or private could be interesting.
P.S. As an irregular-but-regular user of that service (if you see what I mean), it’s damned annoying, but to the regular commuters, it must be as if the bad old days of “silverlink” have returned ….
Sorry, not had much spare time lately. BGORUG has finally agreed with TfL a summary of the meeting between them and BGORUG on 19 November. It is updated to 30 November. You can find it here
https://tinyurl.com/y9g7x9uk
Last night 710/2 testing started again after several days with nothing moving. One set went to Milton Keynes and 710265 ventured around the NLL to Liverpool Street and Enfield Town.
Our ‘informed sources’ think the earliest that driver training could start is mid January. It will take about eight weeks to train enough drivers to form a 710 link that could run the Barking – Gospel Oak service. It looks as if TfL is floating the idea with Bombardier to ‘hire/borrow’ units that have not been formally delivered/accepted in order to get driver training under way as soon as possible. TfL may even have to put such units into traffic if the whole mileage accumulation operation does not ramp up dramatically.
All TfL have managed to agree with WMT is that the six remaining 172s will progressively move to WMT during January – March. Since I can’t see how TfL can run a sub 4tph service on weekdays, unless it becomes a limited stop operation, the replacement buses might as well carry on after 1 January end of the engineering works.
Barking – Gospel Oak. To get this point out of the way, yes the primary fault lies with Bombardier.
But as the user group statement makes clear, tfl response has been inadequate and complacent. Given that Grayling is always looking for any ammunition to denegrade the competence of the Mayor and tfl, I’m baffled why tfl seem to be always on the back foot on this one.
‘primary fault lies with Bombardier’
How are cost liabilities assigned for non-available rolling stock?
TfL are focused on their budget so what options are there.
Agree that everyone is poor at communications with tax-payers. Seems to be part of the culture now.
@ Island Dweller – I’m not that baffled to be honest. It’s a fairly classic scenario – you place a contract with a competent supplier. The design and build process broadly runs to time, products emerge from the factory so you believe that your project is on time. Therefore you don’t believe there is any need to put complex back up arrangements in place. You then try to make the product work and find that it doesn’t. You’re then 100% reliant on your supplier to provide a working product. Apart from “jumping up and down” there is nothing you can do itself to help de-bug the product. This is precisely where TfL and ARL are with respect to the 710s. I wonder how much active challenge and audit there has been on this contract – especially re testing and software debugging.
Now clearly getting a new train into service is a complex process and there are additional risks. There is also reasonable evidence stretching back years that new train designs can be hard to get into service. Normally you would have an old train fleet which you could keep working if your new one doesn’t work. The GOBLIN is a rare-ish case where the existing trains aren’t old and are needed elsewhere so the usual fallback isn’t there. IMO these factors should have set alarm bells ringing a long while ago. Once it became clear that the testing process was taking far longer than expected more concrete steps should have been taken to allow the diesel trains to leave but other stock to be used. I recognise there is complexity and money involved in all of the options related to using other trains. I also recognise some options may be pretty unpalatable to TfL / ARL. However that should really be set alongside the ongoing disruption to passengers and the reputational damage to TfL and the Overground brand. TfL are entirely in Bombardier’s hands here and we have months and months of continued effort to get trains working, then making them reliable. I wonder how Gtr Anglia, WM Trains, SWR and others are feeling about having ordered Aventras given the woes TfL are going through?
@WW
” I wonder how Gtr Anglia, WM Trains, SWR and others are feeling about having ordered Aventras given the woes TfL are going through?”
Probably – “thank goodness someone else is the alpha-test guinea pig for the stock we’ve ordered”.
WW
They COULD have, even with some problems ( Door-viewing mirrors/CCTV) have re-used 315’s … but were determined not to, because “It was going to be all right on the night”
Too late now.
RE WW, Island Dweller,
Isn’t the recently electrified P1 at Barking still blocked to electric traction because EMC upsets the neighbouring eastbound District /H&C Line? There are bigger issues than just getting the 710 software sorted…
Re Timbeau,
Exactly!
@NGH
What is the difference between 25kV on P1 versus the existing 25kV on the LTS lines?
@Herned
Nothing, I imagine. It’s probably even fed from the same substation. The problem is likely to be in the return path through the running rails on platform 1
interfering with an over-sensitve track circuit on the adjacent track.
@ Timbeau
Oh right, thanks, that makes sense
A New Year Review of the Barking – Gospel Oak rolling stock crisis has been posted on the BGORUG website:
https://tinyurl.com/yb5q8ghe
This reviews the situation as the third Class 172 is about to be handed over to West Midlands Trains with the last going by the end od March.
According to RAIL’s deputy editor, TfL have no idea when the Class 710s will be ready for handover from Bombardier to ARL and will decide this coming week on whether to press on with the 4-car Class 378 idea or just give up trying to run the service.
I’m aware of the previous points that the spare 315 trains could not be used because the driver-only equipment was not quite right. However, TfL now have hundreds (literally) of staff all in position and ready for the start of Crossrail, now sitting on the payroll doing not a lot. there are surely enough to have a driver, and a guard, and a staff member, on every Goblin platform, or whatever combination the most zealous H&S inspector may require, until the new trains deign to work to spec.
Re Me Beckton,
Unfortunately TfL have the data to show that DOO is safer that guard operation (on the NLL when they went DOO and extended the trains from 3 to 4car) and the ORR know this so it is a non starter. LO is run by Arriva where as Crossrail is by MTR who are also trying to train up lots of their staff so not as thumb twiddle as you might think.
There are some issues with using shortened 378s that may take a long time to solve but the software issues with 710 may be resolved.
It is much safer to close down the GOBLIN service and put more buses on the road and probably a few extra cars too and increase overcrowding on other rail routes than to use 4-car EMUs with guards. It’s a funny old world!
More road traffic is less safe but in a generation-long OMO battle the DfT will not take a step back.
Aleks: Point taken, but as an aside, the appropriate abbreviation is DOO (driver only operation) as NGH used. The abbreviation which you used may have been current a generation ago, but there have been women train drivers in the UK for over 40 years now.
NGH: TfL has also, I suspect, a great deal of data that shows that travel by rail is much safer than travel by road, and ORR must know that too. So creating a situation that replaces trains with buses is knowingly making travel in London less safe.
I would have hoped that multi-modal TfL and bi-modal ORR would be able to see this and act accordingly, but, as BGORUG Secretary says, it is indeed a funny old world.
Re Betterbee,
But ORR is only the economic regulator for Highways England and various toll operators unlike rail where it also does some safety…
@NGH :
So the whole of SWR, and elsewhere, works with guards, no problem, but to run like that elsewhere is inherently dangerous?
Incidentally, I read elsewhere that the Crossrail trained staff are currently just being deployed quadruple-manning various posts.
Mr Beckton: If you read NGH’s comment carefully you will see that he said nothing of the kind. It is well established that the relative safety of different modes of operating is nothing like as simple as “guards good, DOO bad”. It depends on so many other variables, the details of the trains and the platforms, the number of passengers, the skills and training of the staff, the quality of the assisting hardware (cameras, displays), etc etc. The evaluations to which NGH referred were specific to that line and its actual conditions.
If there really are suitable trains going spare, and suitable staff, it is possible that steps could be taken to make their use as safe as the present arrangements, and to prove this safety. But this process, including all necessary training and evaluation, would probably take longer than sticking to the original plans. Fifty or a hundred years ago, the general manager could have just said “do it”, and it would happen. But we are not in that kind of world any more.
@BGORUG Secretary
“It is much safer to close down the GOBLIN service and put more buses on the road and probably a few extra cars too and increase overcrowding on other rail routes than to use 4-car EMUs with guards. It’s a funny old world!”
Yes indeed. Am reminded of a while back (1990s?) when the PA system was installed at Marylebone Bakerloo Line station. This Underground station had operated fine for the best part of a century without one, but now it was installed, and failed after a few weeks – the station had to be closed, on “safety” grounds.
So everyone arriving there had to walk along to Baker Street Underground. One of these people was run over and killed crossing Gloucester Place. But that was apparently “alright” because it was a road accident statistic. You can doubtless find the detail of it , although a while ago, somewhere on the web.
Re Mr Beckton,
Soon to be less than the whole of SWR when the new Aventras have all been delivered…
Another current example: the Heathrow Tunnels only have GW-ATP fitted and can’t be down graded to the less safe TPWS(+) as a solution to Crossrail problems and why the future for the Tunnels is ETCS.
@Mr Beckton: This Underground station had operated fine for the best part of a century without one, but now it was installed, and failed after a few weeks – the station had to be closed, on “safety” grounds.
Could it be that there had been some kind of incident, say in the late 1980s, which suddenly made London Transport more cautious about fire safety in underground stations, notwithstanding the century of supposedly safe operations?
@Betterbee: TfL has also, I suspect, a great deal of data that shows that travel by rail is much safer than travel by road
Is there in fact data that shows that travel by bus in London is significantly less safe than travel by train in a per-km basis? My recollection was that they were pretty similar.
@ian J
Travelling by bus may be no more or less safe than travelling by Tube, but more people are hit by buses than by trains.
The Gloucester Place incident referred to is a classic example of simply exporting the risk rather than reducing it. See also:
– making people queue in the street for security clearance for admission to an event, making the queue itself a sitting target.
– closing a foot crossing of the railway, enforcing a one-mile detour along country roads with blind corners and no footway
Timbeau
Yes, well, but …
How does one get this message across to MP’s (specifically) because the whole thing is a farrago of nonsense & needs to be stopped, by looking at the “Whole Risk” ( Integrated over the whole suite of processes ) rather than just the little risk in one’s own special silo.
As I have suggested it’s a regulatory matter, that should be addressed at the highest level
Greg Tingey,
No simple answer. One could write a whole article on the subject but a few general comments.
This is a well-known longstanding problem of concern both amongst professionals and many members of the public. It is not new and if there was a simple answer it would have been addressed by now. It is also an area where there is a serious danger of actually making matters worse if the wrong solution is proposed. So it maybe the case we already have the ‘least worst’ solution.
One looks to politicians but really politicians can only really act when presented with possible solutions. No-one has come up with a viable strategy to improve matters.
A further complication is that safety standards do not stand still so one is always expected to make things better (regardless of what was acceptable over the previous 100 years with the technology then available).
Another further complication is that there is a serious danger that you create a situation where parties ‘game’ the system. So Network Rail does something to improves safety but this relies on the council doing something – and they try and get out of their responsibilities by demanding Network Rail pays (thus reducing money in Network Rail for further improvements). Already there is some evidence that some councils put off bridge replacement in the hope that Network Rail will need it replaced (for electrification, platform extensions etc) and they will fund the whole amount – not just for the extra for the improvements then want.
Most important of all, the problem can be looked at in a different way. Take the example of the pedestrian knocked over walking to Baker St. The railway needs to strive to improve safety. They should not be diverted from this and high safety standards, strictly enforced, should be the norm. If someone is killed walking from Marylebone to Baker St then that street layout and traffic speeds there were clearly deficient as this should not have created danger. We don’t have to accept road deaths. In other words the danger was already there. London Underground didn’t create it by closing the Underground station. Similarly if country roads are too dangerous to walk along that danger is already there. If Network Rail’s action was legal and proper in closing the crossing and the risk increases then the council should reduce the transferred risk – which they can easily do. They could, for example, fund and build a footbridge over the railway!
@PoP
We don’t have to accept road deaths. In other words the danger was already there.
No, it wasn’t.
For a while Marylebone [MYB] – Farringdon was part of my commute. It’s quicker to walk from MYB to the sub-surface lines at Baker St than it is to use the Bakerloo, so I know that route fairly well. Now, the Mk 1 eyeball at MYB suggests that somewhere in the region of 60-70% of people arriving at MYB go down into the tube station and almost all the remainder exit through the main entrance, probably 75% of those exiting the main entrance turn left toward Baker St, so overall ~25% of the pax arriving at MYB in the morning peak. The footpaths along Melcombe Pl and Dorset Sq are sized just about right for that usage; they’re pretty-much full, I certainly wouldn’t want to try to walk west in the morning or east in the evening along there! The timings on the pelican crossing across Gloucester Pl (the A41, not some quiet side-street) are similarly fine for the amount of pedestrian traffic crossing, but there isn’t a whole lot of excess capacity.
What the walking route isn’t capable of is an sudden tripling of use. Pedestrians will end up walking in the road along Melcombe Pl/Dorset Sq/Melcombe St because there isn’t enough space on the footpath; there will be altercations between traffic on Gloucester Pl and pedestrians because the capacity at the crossing will be insufficient. This isn’t the fault of the people responsible for the highway: it is sized correctly for normal peak demand.
Before closing any station or route for safety reasons, the question should be “we normally carry x people, does the capacity exist to transport those people using other means more safely than we can in our degraded state?”
There is probably another metric to consider for permanent changes (e.g. closure of level crossings), but for temporary measures (i.e. where the cost of making alternative arrangements cannot be capitalised) this would appear to be a very sensible rule of thumb.
@poP
Councils don’t have a magic money tree. Why should the council fund the footbridge – which would have to be compliant with modern accessibility requirements, so needing long ramps and/or lifts – when it is the railway which increased the risk by closing the crossing in the first place?
Google { Long Rock Mexico Inn Crossing } for an example.
timbeau,
I knew you were referring to Mexico Inn. It has been mentioned quite a lot. I deliberately didn’t mention it so as not to focus on a particular example.
First. Do we know if the railway actually increased the risk or merely transferred the risk? Remember railway risk is hard to perceive (and that is one of the problems).
Second. The reason councils should fund it is because that is their responsibility. And (apparently) it is not Network Rail’s responsibility. So either someone has to rewrite the rules – but I would argue this is dangerous, clouds demarcation lines and achieves nothing – or the council should fund it as that is their obligation.
The fact that councils are hard up is irrelevant. If that is the real issue then it is that issue that needs sorting out. Sometimes a small issue on the ground is really the consequence of policy at the highest level. Either accept the issue on the ground according to current rules and resolve it in a pragmatic way or sort out the real cause of the problem at that top.
Re, TIMBEAU 10:17
“. . .the footbridge – which would have to be compliant with modern accessibility requirements . . .”
What percentage of the footbridges which NR provide to replace Crossings, are compliant with modern accessibility requirements?
Nr’s announcements trumpet loud and clear when they are compliant. I have noticed that many announcements are carefully silent on the issue when the structures are simple stepped affairs.
RayJayK,
What percentage of the footbridges which NR provide to replace Crossings, are compliant with modern accessibility requirements?
100, I presume.
I cannot think of a single newly installed footbridge in recent years that has hasn’t been compliant. Like-for-like replacements tend to remain just that. And that is why they are now enormous beasts with long passive access ramps. And there lies a further problem because that makes the footbridge all the more challenging. And underpasses are out of favour because of crime/perceived crime/flood risk.
But, if you are going to change the world for the better, you can’t willy-nilly allow derogations. They have to be justified. This may seem harsh but experience tells us that it is always better to provide (or at least provide passive provision) at the time than add it later.
@PoP
Here is an example of a footbridge which is
a) funded by Network Rail
b) has no lifts or ramps
https://thelincolnite.co.uk/2017/11/disputed-lincoln-brayford-footbridge-gets-final-approval-after-appeal/
It would appear that the absence of lifts in this case was allowed because by the time you would have negotiated both lifts the level crossing barriers would have been raised anyway. However, about 150 yards to the east there is another level crossing/footbridge combination which is provided with lifts.
@PoP: railway risk is hard to perceive
Station fire alarms would be a good example of this – before 1987 LT seems to have failed to correctly perceive the risk of fire in its underground stations – indeed the fact that fires happened quite often (without casualties) seems to have been taken as evidence that fire wasn’t a major risk, rather than as evidence that they had a serious problem.
In the case of the Goblin rolling stock, the obvious sensible outcome would be for the DfT to step in and allow the introduction of new trains in the West Midlands to be delayed, so there is no need to transfer the rolling stock until its’ replacement is ready. That is the only way to avoid an increase in overall risk and cost to the public. Have the user group been lobbying the Transport Minister?
@Timbeau
Also that this footbridge does not replace an otherwise accessible crossing but is an addition.
@IAN J
It is understood that the SoS for Transport greatly enjoys anything that causes difficulty for the Mayor and is therefore unlikely to do anything that might assist him.
A new Bulletin has been posted on the BGORUG website at https://tinyurl.com/y9keaqvj
Due to space limitations no mention is made of the modification to 4-car of 378 232, also it appears likely that TfL will decide this week to abandon the idea. Apparently, Class 710 is now on version 27 of the TMCS software, but mileage accumulation (now reduced to Willesden – Tring trips) has yet to restart.
@Ian J
TfL has been fortunate that the less-than-smooth Thameslink timetable change in May 2018 caused deferral from December 2018 to May 2019, along with many other planned service changes, of service increases planned for the West Midlands . This has meant that the move of the Goblin’s 172s could be deferred. However, they will be needed in May, and WM has no units going off-lease that can be given a stay of execution.
Re: BGORUG SECRETARY at 01:38 “It is understood that the SoS for Transport greatly enjoys anything that causes difficulty for the Mayor and is therefore unlikely to do anything that might assist him.”
On the other hand the SoS is vociferous in his insistence that passengers should be at the forefront of all transport considerations.
If I am not mistaken BGORUG is a passenger representative organisation.
The SoS may do for you what he would not do for TFL.
@ Ray Jay K – The SoS could have put a stop to the class 172 transfer by varying West Midlands Train’s franchise plans weeks or months ago. He has not done so and shows no sign of ever doing this. Sadly his utterances about passengers carry zero weight when he denies all responsibility for the rail network. The fact this makes him appear daft seems not to have any bearing on his thoughts.
Let’s face it the 172s are going, the 378 plan is stalled for weeks due to some difficult problems that can’t be instantly fixed and who knows where we really are with the 710s. Worse the problems afflicting the trial 4 car 378 could also affect the 710s in addition to their software and reliability issues. Chuck in no agreed driver training plan or programme for the 710s and we are well beyond the end of March. That means no train service on the GOBLIN which will really be an enormous stain on the record of London Overground. I leave it to others to conclude what it will say about TfL and the Mayor’s office.
@WW
I think that a certain London Assembly Member is just realising that the GOBLIN crisis is, in its own way, just as significant as the Crossrail delay with its own “What did the Mayor know and when did he know it?” issues with TfL burying its collective head in the sand and wishing that it would all just go away.
@WW: The SoS could have put a stop to the class 172 transfer by varying West Midlands Train’s franchise plans weeks or months ago. He has not done so and shows no sign of ever doing this.
But have the user group asked him too? If not, why not? The Goblin user group seem so fixated on the Mayor that they are neglecting to apply pressure on the only person with the power to actually keep their train services going.
@IAN J
BGORUG asked some local MPs (few have shown any interest) to place some written questions to ‘Failing Grayling’ several months ago, I am not aware that any answers were ever given. Has the SoS the power to keep GOBLIN trains running? As we see it, all the SoS could do is intervene to stop /postpone the transfer of 8xClass 153s from West Midlands Trains to East Midlands Trains. If he was to do so, he would cause another row across the Midlands for looking after London (Labour) passengers at the expense of those (more likely to be Tory) in the Midlands.
TfL’s latest ground breaking announcement is posted at tinyurl.com/y9lhgxhh
@ Ian J – why does the Line User group have to make the running on this? They don’t run the service. TfL contract it as you know. The Mayor chairs TfL. The same Mayor who, like his predecessors, keeps demanding more and more devolution of rail services from the DfT. Sadly this Mayor botched the approach with respect to South Eastern and then wound up the already antagonised SoS with his frankly ridiculous demands to “send in a crack management team” to fix Southern and Thameslink in a jiffy. Of course this was all “politics” but it doesn’t help when you might need some genuine help later on from the person who’ve antagonised even more. If you believe the Mayor he has been raising concerns with Bombardier’s top people for months as has the TfL Commissioner. However it hasn’t achieved very much has it? When push comes to shove the Mayor is accountable for London Overground. The SoS is NOT except in certain defined circumstances where he has a role in taking over in the event of default by a devolved authority.
No matter which way you set out the issues and problems with the GOBLIN’s upgrade it has not exactly been an exemplary case of how to look after a significant project and make sure it meets its objectives and delivers the expected benefits. I have no problem with accepting there are some difficult issues here (like getting a brand new design of train into service) BUT the interface with passengers has been appallingly handled and the lack of effective official comms is just unacceptable. The apparent lack of effective risk management and oversight around this upgrade is very worrying as to my mind it has some striking similarities, at high level, with other problems at TfL.
I tend to agree that the SoS would not be minded to undermine the delivery of improvements in the West Midlands given there is a Tory Mayor in the West Midlands with partial control / influence over the West Midlands Railways franchise. Perhaps London’s Mayor has concluded that an approach to the SoS for a delay in releasing the 172s would be a waste of time? If it’s anyone’s job to ask then it is his, not a user group.
And just for clarity I am not a member of nor do I have any influence over the Line User Group so this is just my opinion, not me giving a second voice to the Group.
Let’s start to list the current TfL project cockups which seem to have no definite resolution in sight.
– Goblin Electrification. After multiple closures still not up and running.
– Crossrail. Suddenly became a year late and needs a huge extra cash injection.
– Woolwich Ferry. Closed for 3 months to deliver new boats, still not restarted, closure now looking at 5 or more months.
– Subsurface Underground resignalling. Been going on for years, two false starts, most recent trial of changing over didn’t work.
Are TfL incapable of doing any project reasonably?
@MR BECKTON
[Possibly valid comment – but too political and too personalised – snipped. PoP]
Yes, most of us despair that TfL isn’t the well-funded well-staffed well-managed body of previous decades, but I would suggest that we need to be helpful friends and observers, rather than throw brickbats.
We really need to all stop taking the “political bait” set out for us and think about how best to stop fighting each other and get what we really want (new trains, Crossrail, less pollution).
Mr Beckton,
Not wishing to defend TfL as such but, looking at the much broader picture, it would be unfair to single out either TfL or transport projects. It is certainly not just the UK at the moment either. And it is not just public bodies.
So criticism is fine but lets not pretend that we can single out TfL.
@PoP/ Mr Beckton
Nor is late delivery of a project a new phenomenon – problems in construction of Box Tunnel delayed the opening of the Great Western Railway, and even when it did open, Brunel was less than satisfied with the reliability of the locomotives that had been built for it.
timbeau,
Indeed, go back further and locomotives were delivered very late on the London and Greenwich. Current rolling stock delays and farces don’t really compare with the early days of the Waterloo & City. If you want to see a project delivered really late all you have to do is look at Great Northern Electrics – well over 70 years from start of construction to completion.
@ Mr Beckton
All of those except Crossrail (and arguably that as well) are down to suppliers not delivering as per their contracts or in the case of the previous SSL resignalling contract, unable to provide the product they were contracted to provide. If you sign a contract for something then apart from enforcing any penalties there is very little you can do, especially with items which have such long lead times as trains or ferries.
Perhaps without the recent cuts TfL would have been able to keep a tighter watch on their suppliers, hard to tell really
Making things more quickly may be more expensive, or in some cases impossible. But what ought to be possible, and not too costly, is having a more accurate idea when placing the order or planning the project of how long it will take.
In many recent cases, a rule of thumb of 100% contingency time would (with hindsight) have seemed appropriate. The commisioning authority could have said “Right, you tell me we can have the thing in three years time. Go ahead then, but we’ll announce to the public that it will be ready in six”.
@ Malcolm – I understand the point you make but having to add 100% time contingency means you have expenditure over 6 years rather than 3 for the supply of a smallish fleet of new trains. Adding in such a ludicrous level of contingency just means projects would never ever be approved. No sane (or insane (depending on your opinion)) approval body would agree that level of contingency if the supply market’s normal time to deliver new trains is about 3 years. We are clearly in a mess at the moment on some contracts but I don’t think that means you rewrite the parameters of how you schedule and resource projects. Three years ago you could buy Electrostars “off the shelf” and get them into service with barely an issue. That’s because the design was mature and there was a lot of industry learnng and experience about the trains.
Yes we have a lot of project delays across multiple disciplines at the moment. I doubt there is one common root cause across all of them. Each will have its specific failings and risks from which lessons should be drawn. There are multiple lessons from the GOBLIN electrification and a likely book full from Crossrail. The reason why people are agitated about delays is partly because comments on this blog come from “enthusiasts” who will always want their “pet scheme” in service on time (or early) so they can experience it. However on the broader scale the other reason is that no one seems brave enough to face the public with bad news these days or to own to their own mistakes. This means you get no or very poor public communication and no honesty. Then you end up with a crisis and people understandably react badly and who can blame if their personal lives are affected because trains don’t run and their employment and other things are put at risk in consequence. I don’t blame anyone who’s had to endure the shambles on Southern then GTR, Northern, SWR, the GOBLIN or parts of TfL Rail for being furious about not being told what the real issues are, who is to blame and what people are doing to fix things permanently.
@ Pedantic of Purley 17 January 2019 at 12:46
Re: “Current rolling stock delays and farces don’t really compare with the early days of the Waterloo & City”
That is probably debatable. Realise that the W&C is a dodgy subject on this site, but hope this response is allowed.
The timescale for the original rolling stock was :-
1/3/1897 Tender issued, for 12 motor coaches & 10 trailers.
29/3/1897 Tenders received from 6 suppliers.
1/4/1897 Contract awarded to Jackson & Sharp of Wilmington, Delaware, USA. Second lowest price received, but the shortest delivery time (7 months).
28/10/1897 Five cars delivered to Eastleigh Works, remainder expected in November.
17/2/1898 Skeleton carriage run through tunnels to check clearances. Siemens progressing with electrical installations on the trains, under their separate contract.
28/4/1898 First four carriages delivered to Waterloo. Successful trial runs five weeks later.
8/8/1898 W&C opened to the public.
Admittedly in the first few years they had problems with wheel bearings and bogies fracturing – probably caused by the severe 5chain curves. But considering that these trains (and some more carriages supplied in 1900 and 1922 to the same basic design) lasted until 1940, then they must have got something right.
Even allowing for what was a very simple design by today’s standards, then that is a pretty good record, especially as electric traction was in it’s infancy. Would challenge anybody to meet a similar timescale today.
Ref: The Waterloo & City Rlwy; J Gillham; Oakwood, 2001
For those who say the issue is because of “cuts”.
I know this is the standard response at public authorities whenever there is criticism. But what shortage of money? The list of public transport projects in hand/delayed, listed above, is likely one of the most extensive there has been for more than a generation. The money currently authorised, ultimately by government, is vast. Crossrail just glibly says “another £2bn please” (or without the please).
Much of the issue seems to be the excitement of having the absolute latest technology, and the latest whizzy redesign, rather than something previously tried and tested. This seems to be the case with the Goblin trains, and apparently is even the case with the Woolwich ferries. Nothing nowadays seems to be chosen compatible with what has gone before. The TfL team as a client merrily embraces this, and the manufacturers, and especially their design teams, whoop along with it. Everything is a prototype. “Works out of the box” is forgotten.
@Mr Beckton: Technology moves on so much fast these days that 40 year old technology (e.g. for the Woolwich ferry) is no longer tried and tested, but completely redundant.
Every single piece of technology has changed, even the steel making up the hulls…
SHLR: Agreed. But it’s a bit more subtle than that. Things are interdependent, and have to work together. So replicas of the old ferries might work perfectly well if they could be built and maintained. But building is impossible if all the component suppliers have moved on and are no longer equipped to make the components. And maintaining is impossible if you “cannot get the parts”.
Those heroic folk building and operating brand new steam locos to designs from the 1950s might seem to disprove my claim. But one look at the price they are having to pay would indicate that sticking to old designs might be just about possible if you really really want to. But it cannot possibly be a viable approach for people trying to provide efficient and economical means of mass transport.
This is all very well, but let us not exaggerate by drawing comparisons back to reinventing steam locomotives, Roman chariots, or whatever. The Goblin could have had straightforward Class 378 units which worked “out of the box”. The last were built just a couple of years ago, and as I understand it there is nothing wrong with them, with spares still readily provided. Apparently the manufacturer said that, somehow, they were now no longer available, which is I believe an excuse for it being less convenient to them to make them than some new design. But it was surely down to TfL, in originally specifying them, to put in a clause to have options to reorder them for a considerable period ahead, if they wished. That is standard elsewhere, such as ordering airliners, to avoid being stitched up by the manufacturer on reorders, when they know you can’t get the same from elsewhere.
@Mr Beckton
TfL did specify options on the class 378. The original class 378 order was placed in 2006 for 152 cars with an option for up to 216. Subsequent orders were placed in 2007 and 2009. [I take all this from Wikipedia].
Should they have specified more options? Perhaps, but options cost money, and it would have bordered on the perverse in 2008 to specify an option to build class 378s for the Goblin, when electrification had that year been ruled out on cost grounds.
And query how long Bombardier would have agreed to keep the Electrostar line open? The first units were built in 1999, so it’s not surprising they wanted to move their product forward.
@Lawyerboy, Mr. Beckton: That production line will have been rebuilt into the production line for the 710’s. These things are a little bigger and heavier than those for cars so tend not to be left sitting idle (if they have room for that at all).
New body shells, with old electronics is also likely not to be an option….
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking / wilful ignorance appearing…
Standards change, this means your existing product may no longer comply and that there is no sensible way to modify the product so you have to launch new ones that do comply at which point it is a good opportunity to do a big refresh to cope with other issues on the horizon (e.g. ETCS fitment)
As simple non rail example is end of traditional tungsten filament argon filled light bulbs.
This applies to Bombardier with the Electrostar with the final issue (straw that broke the camels back) being the crash regs change. Siemens Desiro was also effected and they launched Desiro City. On the Continent Bombardier’s Talent 2 platform was replaced with Talent 3, Alstom, CAF, and Stadler also had to refresh equivalent EMU products with new models. This isn’t a single manufacturer issue…
During the recession of 2008-2010 a good number of Bombardier’s suppliers went bust mainly because they were multi-industry suppliers but newer way of doing things had crept into other industries (e.g. control electronics and wiring looms being one example) and Bombardier ended up buying lots of them but this wasn’t a sustainable long term solution on technology or cost. The cost of retaining the use of the older control electronics methodologies would make the products uncompetitive on price vs a new challenger. The final electrostars from 2010 onwards all had newer IP based control electronics.
Buyers (including TfL) also want improved performance in certain area over time for example overall energy efficiency* and performance, lower maintenance requirements which can’t be met with the older products.
*e.g. reducing power draw on Watford DC to reduce need for power supply upgrades
NST,
Not disputing any of that about the Waterloo & City. Unfortunately I don’t currently have easy access to my books (including Gillham’s fine tome) so cannot be definitive. I was actually thinking of the second batch of rolling stock in the early 1900s with the single car units (made by Dick, Kerr). Hence ‘early days’ rather than ‘inauguration’. Perhaps ‘early years’ would have been a bit better. This is from memory so could be wrong.
As you imply, the bringing of the latest technology together for the opening of the Waterloo & City was really a splendid achievement – all the more so when one compares it with the City & South London a few years earlier with its underpowered trains and inadequate power supply (not helped by putting the power station at the opposite end of the line to the steepest gradient). Much of the contribution to the success of the Waterloo & City was by a then-British company – Siemens.
The Waterloo & City is not a dodgy subject. It is a fine railway that achieves a specific purpose and all are welcome to flaunt it. What is a dodgy subject is any suggestion to extend it. A railway which is absolutely maxed out in the peak period, is almost impossible to extend at the northern end (all the more so since the Bloomberg entrance was built), has a southern end pointing south-east not south-west as people think, is not a realistic candidate for extension and crayonista nonsense by people who clearly do not know or understand the line very well is what we are strongly against.
@NGH/PoP – at the risk of sounding my usual Luddite self, surely the issue with the constant upgrade in technology is whether it is the extra cost? Especially the whole life cost. Yes, of course, some things are obviously cost savers and in many cases their successor technologies can be used to replace them in due course – mention has been made of new steels. But in many cases, this isn’t so and one is faced with the conclusion that the innovation has been made because “we can” -often on the grounds that maintenance is cheaper (but then whole life and “transferred|” costings seem to be overlooked), or , in the case of customer facing upgrades, because it looks good at the time.
An unamusing* but simple case in point is the change from mechanical keys to radio key fobs for cars. What has been gained here.? The first cost is higher, and the entire maintenance cost (batteries and their replacement – something that manufacturers insist you take to a dealers to replace and re-sync – all time and money)*is additional. The new version is not more secure and not more convenient. Cui bono? Now apply this to the individual components of a new train and you find that what you are being sold a package of newness with little scope for descoping as it were.
There are systems integration issues lurking behind this, but also a fundamental failure to ask what the product as a whole is supposed to deliver. Faults lie with specifiers as much as manufacturers, of course.
———————————————————————————————————————-
*For fellow commentators unamusement, Lady Dawlish found herself with a fob battery that failed unexpectedly in a car park 20 kilometres away, leaving self little alternative to taking a £40 cab ride with the spare (the bus service being so dire that it would have taken 5 hours to get there). Follow up trip to garage the next day …
Not to mention the electric handbrake that now seems to be pretty standard and benefits only the manufacturer and tow truck operators.
@ Graham H
I share your pain re key fobs needing resynching… although I would say they are generally useful rather than faffiing about in the dark scratching around the key hole.
Mr Beckton: The earlier 377s internal systems run on Windows 98. At some point Bombardier and other suppliers have to update such things, as they are dependent on their suppliers. IT products especially have a limited life span, I don’t see how that can be avoided, or why that would be a good thing.
That doesn’t, however, excuse Bombardier for not delivering to their contracted timescale, or from hiring the right development team to get the new product right, so I would hope there are enforceable penalty charges in the contract.
Ultimately though, the latest technology is what enables e.g. the Victoria line to run 36 tph, so there are clear demonstrable benefits to updating to contemporary products
@Herned – software systems are an excellent example of what I meant! In the case of rolling stock, the mechanical parts of the artefact have a design life of 30+ years (and often survive longer), but the software ceases to be supportable after as little as 5 years – soon Windows 98 programmers will become a craft trade as rare as thatchers – and a reequipment becomes unavoidable and expensive. Of course, no rolling stock builder wishes to announce any such thing when selling their products. A similar story can be told about the use of “modern” materials – Bakelite anyone? [A thought hat often occurs as one wanders round Tate Modern and reflects on the problems of restoring many of the ’60s exhibits].
I ought to add, lest this sound like an anti-technology rant, that my point is that the business cases for projects incorporating such technology rarely recognise the costs of upgrades in the evaluation and justification when the project is approved, and later, when the last Windows 98 programmer retires to the poolside, and a 15 year old train is binned as a result, the manufacturers simply shrug (or merge with someone else).
Graham H
Well. I was a passenger in a hired car on Thursday, with all the modern “conveniences” …
I am so glad mine has no electronics to screw with the driver’s head.
Roger B
“Electric handbrake” You what? Do tell!
Graham H……the thing about software is that it doesn’t degrade with age. The real problems you described only apply if the software needs to be changed. As an example, the 30 year old class 319 ex Thameslink trains have their traction equipment controlled by software that makes Windows 98 seem positively modern. It still functions, and will continue to do so until the hardware fails. That said, Porterbrook and Wabtec chose not to fiddle with it for the bi-mode diesel conversion, but I sensed that was a commercial issue more than a technical one.
I assume that both the manufacturer and the customer must have some idea how to deal with redundancy of things like software. Is it assumed that there will be a mid-life refurbishment including replacing the IT side? Perhaps this comes into the opex/capex conundrum… I’ve no idea, but I would hope someone has a plan
Contracts such as the IEP one, for manufacture and 30 years of maintenance must have some clauses/facility for that. Again, that is my hope and expectation anyway!
@Herned
I can speak only from experience of fairly recent builds (eg the TLK contract), where there was certainly provision for a midlife refurb of the mechanical parts after 15 years, but there was no assumption made about the need for, and impact of, software upgrades at much more frequent intervals, and certainly the manufacturers were quite happy to let the banks believe that their period of “sweet equity*” would be cost free. Possibly, the excuse would be that the manufacturers didn’t know now what software upgrades would be “needed” (and indeed admitting that upgrades would be necessary implied both that there was something wrong with what was under installation, and that the manufacturers had no intention of dealing with it now). A more cynical view would draw attention to the bloatware problem and the planned lack of support for existing software after a few years…
*Sweet equity being the last few (typically 10-15) years of any financing deal when the assets have worked off the costs of their initial finance and are throwing off a lot more cash.
@Graham H, in the spirit of being helpful: in my experience key fobs normally have some kind of “get you home” procedure. This can involve a “skinny” key concealed inside the fob, to open the driver’s door (and sometimes operate the ignition) mechanically, and/or holding the fob against the driver’s door lock, using the fob to push the “start” button, or placing the fob against a marked spot on the steering column or dashboard, sometimes under a plastic cover. Different procedures for different makes of car, unfortunately, but worth reading the manual to see what applies in your case. Some brands enable you to unlock from your smartphone (Audi MMI Connect, BMW Connected Drive, Nissan Connect, Jaguar InControl Remote, etc). I can’t say whether this would apply to Lady D’s Roller. Finally, sometimes no more than a coin or strong fingernail is needed to change the battery in the fob, and they tend to be the flat disc type as used in various other gadgets and hence readily available.
Electric car locks: the procedures and details are different not only for different makes, but for different models with the same badge. And batteries in fobs/smart-keys etc also vary; for one of our cars they are as you say – for the other the very act of changing one battery (superficially simple) seems to do a deliberate reset of everything in sight, so that immediately NONE of the keys work, and the car has to be re-mated to ALL the keys.
Maybe in a few years it will all settle down. Standards, anyone?
@JimR
Are you volunteering to explain all this to her Ladyship?
@NGH
An led light bulb can be fitted to an existing forty year old light fitting without any modifications.
You will however get problems if you are trying to fit it to a later fixture which has been specifically tailored to later compact fluorescents.
It seems that the major reason for the delays which have arisen in various areas is the failure to appreciate the impact of backwards compatibility issues at the specification and contract stages.
When I asked the dealers about changing the battery in my first smart key several years ago they told me to go to Tescos and get one!
@100&30: Windows is biodegradable, you install it and it decomposes of its own accord. The reason the 319’s are still running is that they were pre-‘98…
Of course if it was Windows ME, then the trains would have decomposed too…
I wonder what’s in a 465? I have been on the train several times and the driver has had to perform a train “reboot”…. WfW?
Graham H,
The reason you can’t see the point of remotely controlled key fobs is because you can’t see the bigger picture. Understandable when in a car park and can’t open the car door.
Sometimes a development is merely the pathway to something ‘better’. So the question that you need to ask is ‘how on earth is your car manufacturer going to implement remote parking by mobile phone (as can be done currently in the United States) if you have to physically get into the car with a physical key to get the engine moving?
A good analogy is the TV remote controller. When it came out there were just four analogue channels and there were duplicate buttons to press to change channel on the front of the TV. The remote control was originally seen as the ultimate in pointlessness and laziness. Nowadays a TV has so much functionality it would be almost impossible to implement without the foresight of getting us away from a control panel on the TV and onto a remote controller.
I am the first to concede you can go too far too quickly. As Sussex police found out when pursing a car in lane 3 on the motorway and wanting to use blues and woo-woos only to discover that they needed to bring the police car to a halt and reboot the computer to activate lights and sirens. Needless to say, certain vital features in the pursuit car were quickly reverted to the old analogue hardware variety.
@PoP – whilst I understand what you say, I really don’t believe that there is some long term vision here; talk to engineers and the plot is described backwards : “we had the key fobs, now what else can we do?” What is the long term and undisclosed “plot” that rolling stock engineers have in mind, and if it’s so good, why is not disclosed when asking for funds? Sorry, I still don’t see the business case being made.
@Malcolm
“building and operating brand new steam locos to designs from the 1950s ….look at the price they are having to pay”
Even restoring one generally costs far more in time and money than it took to build it in the first place.
@Roger B
“electric handbrake that now seems to be pretty standard and benefits only the manufacturer and tow truck operators”
My electric handbrake saved me an expensive and highly inconvenient tow last year. Having unnaccountably ground to a hold late at night in the Peak District, we called out a tow truck to take the car home to our local workshop (and dropping us off at our hotel where would have to arrange a hire car in the morning to complete the purpose of the visit). An hour later the tow truck driver arrived – having hooked up the car he asked for the key so he could turn the electrics on and release the handbrake so it could be winched onto the flatbed. Whereupon the engine started! Had it been a manual handbrake he could have released it without the key and we would have not realised the car had cured itself.
@JimR
” in my experience key fobs normally have some kind of “get you home” procedure. worth reading the manual to see what applies in your case.”
Not much help if you’re locked out – where’s the manual………?
@PoP
“The reason you can’t see the point of remotely controlled key fobs is because you can’t see the bigger picture. Understandable when in a car park and can’t open the car door.”
Remote key fob is very useful if you’re in a car park and can’t find your car.
@Nameless – it is not just technical equipment – humans’ backwards compatibility is limited: it is much easier to switch from a manual to an automatic (gearbox, handbrake, wipers, whatever) than adjust to a vehicle lacking such goodies once you are used to them. Even after just a week of driving a hire car with an automatic gearbox, adapting back to my one (manual) car took some time.
My old car had a keyless start (the “fob” stays in your pocket). In the new one, I keep forgetting to take it out of my pocket and put it in the hole in the dashboard. Worse, I keep forgetting to take it out again when I get out of the car (e.g to pay for petrol).
In another field, we have got so used to speed-dialling, that we can no longer remember phone numbers.
@Timbeau
“where’s the manual”… that’s easy, you can download it from the internet. Although inevitably your mobile will either have no signal, no battery, or be sitting snugly in the centre console of your locked car…
@ PoP
I’m with Graham H, I absolutely do not believe that remote central locking came about because it is a step on the road to car automation.
Electric handbrakes are the work of the devil, although I admit I may be influenced by having made the schoolboy error of once buying a Renault, which had many features which can only have seemed sensible after the 27th round of Pernod in the local bar-tabac.
Are there additional trains becoming spare this year under Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Non-Interoperable Rail System) Regulations 2010 (RVAR)?
Are the delays with introduction so universal that the capacity is still limited?
Will the DfT be routinely granting dispensation for continuation with non-compliant stock?
We’re very much off piste here I know…. Remote key fobs came common way before the features Malcolm mentioned (remote control parking) were even dreamed about. It was surely a marketing led initiative – it impresses punters in the showroom.
Ironically – it has made cars less secure – due to radio interceptions and cloning of the activation codes. A friend with a top specification Range Rover (six figure list price) now has to use a Krooklock any time he parks in the street – a requirement of his insurance policy.
@Timbeau and others: each time I change my car, I make sure I’m familiar with the spare wheel / jack / tyre repair kit / runflat capability (as applicable), and with the “unlock and start with flat fob battery” procedure. And yes, I do have the owners’ manual installed on my phone and yes, it does have a very clear “flat fob battery” procedure. But I accept that (a) I’m not typical, and (b) we used not to have to worry about some of these points.
@Nameless: I will leave to his Lordship the task of explanations to Lady Dawlish. If his spousal relationship is anything like mine, it will all be his fault anyway.
Graham H, Herned, Island Dweller
I don’t for a moment believe that key fobs were introduced specifically with remote-controlled parking in mind. I doubt if anyone really knew what it would lead to – if anything. I am sure it led to perceived increased security. The fact that it didn’t necessarily do so is down to bad implementation.
Sometimes things are introduced either with a specific purpose but with other benefits or simply because ‘it seems to be a good idea’. Or was a stupid idea at that time but led to benefits later. It is probably anathema to civil service thinking but is what happens in the real world.
So some simple examples:
ETCS was originally a political solution to a problem that wasn’t really that important to railways – the problem of running locomotives across many countries. Its benefits for other purposes were appreciated and is a long way to becoming an informal worldwide standard.
TfL made a lot of their data available via various APIs. Access was free. They had no idea how it would be used at the time but thought it would be a good thing that would lead to developments. City Mapper is an example of something that makes use of it.
On the 1973 stock (Piccadilly line) they introduced train diagnosis in the cab. They thought this was a good idea. In fact it led to problems as it gave the drivers too much information and they didn’t know what to take note of and act on and what to ignore. But its development has revolutionised train maintenance.
Words fail me, at the descriptions of the utterly pointless complications described above …..
[ When faced with a TV remote, I simply haven’t a clue, of course, since I haven’t had a TV since 1975 …. ]
P.S. Island Dweller
😡
@PoP – sorry to labour the point, which is not about technical innovation per se, but simply to remark that much technical innovation doesn’t seem to go through any sort of evaluation by the person who is paying (and who is often unaware of what is being done), and that therefore it becomes an area of future cost risk with uncertain benefits. Or even no benefits at all. And the more complex the item being bought (eg a class 707), the more difficult it becomes to track down and deconstruct the costs and benefits.
I may have remarked before on the cost creep from a 4 SUB (£52k when built) to its replacement 35 years later @ £4m. The four or fivefold increase in real prices has bought what? It’s really difficult to imagine that any savings in maintenance costs or improvement in availability could offset that price differential. What seems to have happened is that over a lifetime, many small changes – “better” alloys, less blacksmithery, fewer carpenters at work – have all accumulated but never been challenged in evaluation terms. [In self defence, I might add that the civil service is quite literally trained to always ask the “so what” question; ministers are, on the other hand, always attracted to shiny newness – they are not trained at all].
Are the GOBLIN units actually being regularly tested anywhere at the moment? I haven’t seen any pictures or mention of it for a while.
Whilst Bombardier may be having software problems with the units and be in the middle of software development at the moment, a key aspect of modern software development methodologies is an iterative process where you constantly update and test. If the units were close to being ready, I would expect there be a very active testing phase. If there isn’t such testing going on, the software development process is long way of being ready, which is worrying.
@ Jimbo – based on remarks on social media it seems one 710 has been doing night time runs on the WCML recently. So far no apparent failures given the train ran early on all of its trips. Obviously, though, that may not be the full picture as to how it is performing. Only Bombardier will know that from whatever diagnostics / data collection it’s employing during the runs.
It seems the most recent tests cover 180 miles or so so less than 10% of the 2,000 mile fault free total needed which means a lot more nights of test runs. If the software in this train proves to be stable and to have cured the known faults and the train gets to the 2,000 mile target then I’d imagine Bombardier would implement the required changes to other trains and get them in test mode as fast as possible.
It seems that no Willesden based driver instructors had been on a 710 even at Old Dalby. It also seems, from info on another forum, that there is not yet an agreed driver training programme as the content has not been finalised and agreed.
I have also seen a remark from part of the Rail magazine journalist team that a 710 is going to the Velim test track in the Czech Republic. This is apparently for “certification”. I confess I don’t understand this at all. That is not going to be a quick or simple endeavour in the midst of winter given recent snowfalls in Germany and Austria. If “certification” is needed before passenger operation can occur then we have yet another stage in the programme to get through. Hopefully someone in possession of more of a clue than me can clarify this point.
So, on the face of it, a tiny bit of positive news but the next class 172 leaves in under a week at which point there are not enough trains for the timetabled M-F service. The lack of news suggests TfL either don’t know what they’re doing or they will leave the news to the very last minute to minimise the negative reaction. I suspect we are headed for scheduled gaps in the timetable as the next step. Beyond that bus replacement services as I can’t see a 710 being in service for weeks and weeks given the need to get past fault free target, possibly achieve certification and then weeks of driver training plus PTI related issues that need fixing. Even time a bit of news emerges it just seems to push the likely introduction date back and back. We are now well over a year late with the class 710s.
@ Graham H
I wonder whether at least some of that cost change could be because of the difference of how costs are accounted. A new EMU from Bombardier or whoever will need to include the share of the cost of the factory it is built in, as well as any prototypes and development and acceptance testing and so on. Would the SR have included those external costs in the cost per carriage?
I would also expect that the workforce building them are paid significantly more in real terms than in the past. And that the tooling and machinery needed to build them is also a lot more expensive. A man with an oxyacetylene torch and a ruler is a lot cheaper than a plasma cutter for a start!
@WW – “The lack of news suggests TfL either don’t know what they’re doing…” The line users are effective at ensuring the news is published
https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/17369771.the-barking-gospel-oak-rail-user-group-campaigners-say-the-rail-service-is-on-brink-of-collapse/
On certification once the type achieves it’s target does each individual unit then have to repeat the full process?
@Graham H / Herned (Cost creep)
Another difference between the 4SUB and the 455 is that we now tend to go for a “big bang” all-new design, rather than the traditional evolution – many locomotives and carriages in the steam age were “Trigger’s Broom” rebuilds, with parts replaced as required, and if the new improved part didn’t work, the rest of the fleet would be rebuilt in a different way, if at all.
Many 4SUBs were built on secondhand underframes and electrical equipment, which had previously seen service in and under secondhand superstructures which had started life as steam-hauled stock (this alone would account for some of the difference in cost) And indeed 4SUB trailers later found themselves formed into 4EPBs, and some of their motors were reconditioned for service in 455s – now, continuing the Southern tradition, the 455s have been given a new lease of life with new traction packages.
But modern legislation rarely allows such recycling nowadays – you certainly wouldn’t be allowed to build a new 4SUB today – the braking system, crashworthiness, driver’s instruments (not even a speedometer!) and above all the doors, would all be in breach of current requirements.
@Herned – accounting conventions have certainly changed radically even in the last few decades – one thinks of the introduction of Modern Equivalent Asset thinking about 40 years ago. let alone the eventual change from Victorian standards which permitted the payment of dividends from capital (an especially besetting sin of railway promoters – bit I confess that I don’t know how manufacturers allocate their costs – as a general impression form the various court cases in Hungary and Poland at which the likes of Bombardier and Siemens have contested rival bids, a great deal turns on whether fixed costs are allocated – or not – to the maintenance tail of any contract. [A friend who used to deal with the procurement of whole life building contracts on behalf of the State of California told of contractors literally weeping in her office when the local courts severed the procurement of construction from maintenance].
@Aleks – these days, a typical rolling stock contract will specify a level of fault free running from the first vehicle/set, a somewhat higher level from the next, say, five, before acceptance, followed by a further step up for the rest of the fleet.
@timbeau – I agree there are a number of statutory “givens” which are rarely themselves appraised (LXs especially bad…) and which prevent the re-use of existing parts (see also comments on impact pf accounting changes), although that’s not quite the same thing as buying an unappraised innovative upgrade from a passing snake oil salesman.
What are the odds on the radical new tube trains for the Piccadilly line arriving as promised in 2023 when Siemens, a new train supplier to LU, also has to build a UK assembly plant.
Before anyone glibly accepts TfLs assessment that reverting some Class 378 units to 4 car is somehow “too difficult”, let us not forget that this is how they were all built and operated for years, and in fact the programme to insert an extra car was only completed a few years ago. Whatever can be the issue with removing it again and putting it back as they were. Quite why doing so should require extensive and doubtless costly trials, let alone culminating in a “we can’t do it”, strains credulity. A bit like the rest of this saga, really.
@Mr Beckton
They were actually built as three car units.
A 378 is a unit, not “car stock” like pre-1938 Tube stock or 1st generation dmus, in which individual cars could be swapped around almost at will.
Converting from four to five cars would have required some changes to software, which would need to be reversed if converting back to four car use (“uninstalling” the new software and quite possibly re-installing some of the earlier software). There may also have been updates made subsequent to conversion to five car, which would need a new version for use in a four car unit.
And it would need testing to ensure it would work. And as 378s have not worked the line before, they would need testing for gauge clearance, electrical interference etc.
Would nodding-donkeys be the screeching saviour here? I suspect there are a few spare examples on knocking around Southport sidings and the vicinity. Undoubtedly the worst trains I have ever suffered, but any port in a storm…
Re Timbeau and Mr Beckton,
A 378 unit has been successfully converted back to 4 car (covering all the issues Timbeau correctly raised), the problems lie with using the 378s on the Goblin route itself for example signal sighting (given the slight restricted 378 drivers view). Hence ARL / TfL and especially NR would have to sort these issues very quickly and they typically aren’t quick jobs to sort e.g. moving signals).
Re Alex McKenna,
Where are the DOO cameras on them?
I just read this continuing litany of excuses with despair. Where is the professionalism nowadays that ensures things on a single rail system work with one another. Are there no standards any more? However can, from a modern train, the driver not have an adequate view of modern signals, or there be a risk of them striking lineside structures. The railway has had nearly 200 years to get such standards understood and in place.
Re Mr Beckton,
Part of the problem is that there were very few true standards in Victorian times but lots of local ones for each railway and sometimes even each branch. The evacuation door on the end of the 378s restricts the view more than on some other units. Blame Brunel senior for not installing space for emergency walkways in the Thames Tunnel when designing it in 1823…
@Mr Beckton
“Are there no standards any more? ”
Were there ever?
The Underground was electrified on at least four different systems. Both trains on my journey to work this morning had to switch between different current collection systems en route. The Big Four didn’t even agree as to whether a signal should go up or down to signify “proceed”.
And risk of striking lineside structures is nothing new – the prototype Deltic is said to have dislodged a number of coping stones when it first visited King Cross, and note the bites taken out of the buffers of this former Western Region loco in order to fit on the London Midland.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/26690797@N02/8514502236
(very rare view of said loco after conversion from gas turbine to electric but before being renumbered)
@NGH: Pedestrian walkways on a pedestrian tunnel?
OK, I will concede that it was originally designed for horse & cart, but it ended up as pedestrian only…
Surely as the 378’s have SDO, can’t they just run as 5 coaches?
Re SHLR,
“Surely as the 378’s have SDO, can’t they just run as 5 coaches?”
You can only just squeeze (after recent modification) 4x 20m cars in the bay platform at Gospel Oak, so with 5car you block Goblin to freight and the driver is way beyond the starting signal at the platform end…
Could they run as 5-car by bypassing Gospel Oak and reversing further west? (on the spur connecting the NLL to Willesden Junction Low Level perhaps)
(Desperate times call for desperate measures)
A question – the 710s will also be operating on the Chingford/Enfield routes. Are those set up for DOO?
– if not, how will the 710s cope on those routes?
– if so, how do the 315s and 317s currently operating those lines manage?
Re timbeau,
The Section further west is capacity constrained already so not many trains could do that overall.
The LO West Anglia routes currently run original 1980’s DOO with mirrors and platform camera / monitors. (Same as 455s do on and Southern, 319s did on Thameslink and 465/466s do on SE)
710s have on board cameras and in cab monitors hence no station modifications for DOO.
Reversing elsewhere would be very sub-optimal as most passengers arriving at Gospel Oak need the interchanoge.
Re Malc0lm,
Timbeau is in essence referring to what the former Goblin PIxC buster sometimes did and turn back further west on the NLL providing an alternative change to Gospel Oak unfortunately that was on the old NLL timetable that changed last May…
@Malcolm/NGH
Indeed, as most people using Gospel Oak are interchange passengers it makes little difference to them if they have to change at Hampstead Heath instead.
Timbeau: Of course; my comment was based on the misunderstanding that the proposed reversal point was prior to reaching any other station. I now realise that that was not what you were suggesting (and close to impossible anyway).
The morning PIXC-buster 2J96 (07:59SX ex Woodgrange Park) ran all stations after Upper Holloway direct to Willesden Junction Low Level bay and so avoided calling at Gospel Oak. It then ran empty into Willesden TMD. Many passengers told BGORUG that they always took this train because it saved them having to change at Gospel Oak and certainly several said that had arranged their working times to fit the train. Most were furious when the train was retimed to run later (08:11 ex Barking) because it would make them late for work and those Barking passengers who had noticed a ‘secret, new’ LO train in No. 8 platform before the 08:18 went out of No. 1 were equally furious when after starting to use it was withdrawn without notice six weeks after it started.
Oh and also tonight’s Class 710 run on the WCML was cancelled.
I imagine most readers have seen TfL’s 25 January statement (posted on our website). BGORUG was impressed that ARL was able to get 378232 into service to replace 172003 coming off sublease. Two more 4-car 378s will replace the two Class 172s to go off sublease in February, but there are no more Class 378s available to replace the last three Class 172s that go off sublease on 15 March. The weekday service will therefore be reduced to half hourly. No decision has yet been made about the weekend service. The weekend supplementary buses were quietly withdrawn a few weeks ago.
Class 710 trips are continuing most week nights, with one on the WCML running as far as Milton Keynes and another running on the T&H or across to Liverpool Street, Enfield and Cheshunt if the T&H is blocked. As all eight units seem to taking turns on these trips it not possible to estimate each units individual mileage accumulation with the latest version 27 of the TCMS software.
BGORUG: “T&H”? In 7 years on LR I’ve not heard that one before…
Tottenham and Hampstead (Junctkon Raileay)?
@sh(LR)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tottenham_and_Hampstead_Junction_Railway#/media/File:Canonbury,_Highgate_Road,_Junction_Road,_South_Tottenham,_Tottenham_%26_Tufnell_Park_RJD_112.jpg
Great Eastern & Midland joint
Aleks & Ronnie MB
NOT to be confused with the other half, the T&FGJt ( Tottenham & Forest Gate ) which was LTS/Mid Joint – & built later.
The line from Barking to Gospel Oak was officially called the “Tottenham & Hampstead Line” by British Rail and as far as I know that designation still applies at Network Rail (Sectional Appendix, signalling diagrams etc.).
‘GOBLIN’ was invented by a now retired Waltham Forest Council transport planner during the short period the council had any interest in the line (1992 – 2000) and stood for “Gospel Oak Barking Improvement Now!” I think she is quite chuffed that the name stuck.
with an L for line ?
“Gospel Oak Barking LINE Improvement Now!”
Prizes for a new name once it has finally been improved, then…
I’ll have to stop calling it the “Diesel Overground”.
@ALEKS
You are correct! I am useless at proof reading my own stuff!
@NICKBXN
Well, its needed improving since the the 1980s and service improvements always just unleash more suppressed demand, so who knows when the job will be complete?
@BGOrug – sorry but GOBLIN was already in use – internally – when I joined NSE in 1990 and was understood as Gospel Oak -Barking – Line. I’m afraid your colleague’s self-satisfaction is not justified. (Clearly, we, as the operator, would not have wanted to include “NOW” in any acronym, as we had our priorities)
@Nickbxn
Get the GOT to Thames (Mead/River) Side
The term must have been coined after the western terminus was changed from Kentish Town in the early eighties, in connection with the Midland Main Line (“BedPan”) electrification, notwithstanding the use of the term in the first episode of “The Bletchley Circle”, set in 1952.
@timbeau – that may well be so, although I wasn’t aware of the term when I was in the department (possibly because there were no proposals that got as far as my desk at the time). NSE in the Green era was very keen on naming routes*; under his predecessor, much less so.
*Parodied internally when LTS was referred to as the Route of the White Socks…
@Graham H
“Parodied internally when LTS was referred to as the Route of the White Socks…”
Pray tell why.
@LBM – white socks are/were(?) a British Essex joke
@ LBM – the wearing of white socks is deemed by some to be irredeemably naff – especially if paired with jeans / chinos and loafer style shoes. This look was fashionable in the 1980s and was pretty prevalent in Essex. There has long been a “casuals” look – also seen in East London – in parts of Essex with jeans cut and trimmed at the bottom, white socks worn and football style track tops by Ellesse, Fila, Sergio Tachini, Lois, Adidas Farah. It was very noticeably different to my eyes when I moved to London in 1983. (Not that I was paying *that* much attention – ahem!) It’s faded from view these days with other clothing trends taking over.
And that ends tonight’s fashion feature and least expected comment ever by me on LR 😉
@WW, ChrisMitch
Cheers for the demographic explanations. I had attended a British style private (=UK public) school, replete with gowns for Masters, boarders, hymns &c, and the rule against white sox was strictly enforced. As it should have been. Fortunately there was allowance for regional dress – a boarder from Calgary was allowed to wear his cowboy hat…
Perhaps the good Lord Dawlish might be able to wrangle a BR Board inspired ‘regimental’ design for a Reconnections tie. I shall stop there lest I be moderated by my fellow moderators…
LBM: Not to modify but to quibble. The British English term “Public School” is not the equivalent of “Private School” as used in the rest of the Anglosphere. The translation of “Private School” into Br. Eng. is “Independent School”. An Independent School in the UK may be either a private school or a public school, depending on arcane criteria in the Public Schools Act of 1868.
The origin of the term “public school” in the British sense was that, as charity schools, they were open to anyone – as distinct from really posh people who would have had a private tutor.
Like the Ritz (and the Law), they are, of course, still open to anyone.
@timbeau – the analogy is with public houses perhaps – a term that always caused me great difficulty when I was a small child – especially as clearly the public (ie me) weren’t allowed anywhere near them.
@LBM – but did you have sock inspections to ensure that the socks were not embellished with subversive clocks and jacquard patterns? [Difficult to imagine how such inspections wouldn’t provoke a flurry of litigation these days].
Lord Dawlish writes I still have (but never wear these days) a very small stock of the silk BR corporate tie showing the lion holding the wheel, in gold, a design that looked so good on the AL1-6 classes. I commissioned these to replace its nasty acrylic predecessor which was embellished with a giant Z logo. Lord Botley (aka Dawlish fils) tends to wear the silk version when chairing NR meetings with local authorities; he says it gives him extra status (?). Dunno about socks*, though.
Just going back to the GOBLIN acronym for a moment – its origin was usually explained as being in the industry habit of naming each stretch of line in terms of its initials – thus “T&H” or “NLL” – but clearly GOB or GOBL would be unacceptable, so the move to GOBlin(e) was easy.
————————————————————————————————————–
* You mean people don’t order their socks from Gamarellis?
@GrahamH I suspect Waltham Forest Council were chufffed at adopting the line’s acronym for their publicity rather than the other way round.
* some do https://www.newyorker.com/culture/on-and-off-the-avenue/where-the-pope-gets-his-socks
[Non sequitur snipped. LBM]
@Lord Dawlish
“the lion holding the wheel, ”
aka the “ferret and dartboard”. Or was it the earlier “lion and unicycle”
@timbeau – the later one, not the bicycling lion (a sobriquet adopted by one of my former colleagues who became a freelance timetable designer)
@Graham H
Do you know why the crest was changed? (It was c 1957 I believe)
@timbeau – I don’t offhand. The bicycling lion was merely a trade mark, whereas the ferret and dartboard was, in fact, the crest from the Board’s achievement of arms*. Possibly, the change was prompted by the dissolution of the BTC and the emergence of the Board as a separate corporate entity – and therefore entitled to its own achievement of arms – although the timing doesn’t quite fit if the change took place as early as 1957. (As I recall, the change took place early enough to appear on the tenders of the Castles on the GW before dieselisation, but then Swindon had a reputation to keep up until nearly the end of steam).
*The College of Arms tended to be a bit sniffy – as I have related here before – about the use of crests: they preferred badges, which were supplied along with the grant of arms. The Board had several of these including a rather fine silhouette of a greyhound coursing against a wavy background – it made a splendid silver brooch for the Board’s range of ladies giftware (!) although never seemed to make it to the trains.
The version of the white socks story I heard – during my one year living in the Great Eastern part of Essex – was that these were a signal to the secondary school girls that the boy in question was a virgin.
Applied to the LT&S, could this have been a comment on the operational and managerial experience of its staff?
Graham H
Careful with a coursing greyhound – it’s the badge of the Queen’s Messengers
Here’s one from George IV’s reign
The August 1956 edition of Railway Magazine reported the introduction of the new emblem: the lion issuant from a heraldic crown of gold. It was approved by the College of Arms in England and by the Lyon Court in Scotland. The first locomotive to display this was 70016 “Ariel”, as seen in a photograph with the report.
@answer=42 – in those days, the Ops director of LTS was David Franks – possibly the best operator of his generation; it was only when privatisation loomed that the then manager (Chris Kinchin Smith) restructured his team in readiness, and David and many others left, to be replaced by people who, in the light of subsequent events, were lucky not to be doing time.
@Twopenny Tube – Excellent – thank you, so not a change prompted by incorporation. (I’d got as far as looking at photos of Shrewsbury – as a fairly representative location – and in June 1957about a quarter of the mainline locos had the lion issuant emblem and none of those was in ex-works condition, so I’d concluded that it had come in no later than early 1957, late 1956.} It’s interesting that the emblem was just that – another trade mark, in effect – presumably because the board was not a free standing entity at the time.
@Greg T – I will disperse any remaining stocks of the greyhound badge with care…
Official photographs of the first pilot scheme diesel (D8000) show the ferret and dartboard displayed. However, some shunting engines retained the old badging for quite a while, the last survivors probably being the two used for maintenance work on the Holyhead breakwater which retained their original black livery until withdrawal in 1981, long after most rolling stock had been rebadged a second time.
1979 http://www.6g.nwrail.org.uk/mh0002.jpg
So what is the significance ?
@timbeau – I’m sure you’re right that the last survivors of the bicycling lion would be on stuff built before 1957, everything else was either withdrawn or delivered with the lion issuant (or the z), even the VoR locos seem to have acquired the lion issuant and then the z pretty quickly, looking at holiday slides of the early’ 60s. That does rather limit you to 03s and 08/09s.
@Aleks
Not sure I understand your question, but as Graham H said, various pre-1957 shunting engines survived well into the 1970s without being repainted. The picture you linked to shows one of the two Holyhead breakwater locomotives with its TOPS number (so some time between renumbering in about 1974 and withdrawal in 1981).
By that time, everything else built pre-1957 had either been withdrawn, or repainted at least once. The green livery introduced in c 1957 for the pilot scheme locomotives also became extinct around the same time, swept away in a Rail Blue sea, except for the “celebrity” 40 106.
Although 01001 was also given its TOPS number, it is doubtful that it ever emerged from its shed sporting it until it was hauled out for scrapping. Certainly when I saw it, (c1978) it looked very sorry for itself, and had obviously already donated several components to keep its classmate running.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127282573@N03/34588281695/
@GRAHAM H
I go back further than David Franks, Ken Bird was Manager at Southend Central when I moved to the area from the Broxbourne area in late 1988. Then Barking – Gospel Oak was known as “The T&H” or simply “The branch”. Both managers tried everything to get rid of the T&H from their control and it was totally negelcted. There was no Manager at Barking for a year and the few remaining station staff rostered themselves and sorted out their own holiday cover.
Marketing was transferred to the Watford area and the ‘North London Lines’ badge appeared and then ‘Network North’ (at Watford) took over as part of Bob Reid II’s “Organising for Quality” in 1992.
I remember telephoning the girl in the staff office at Watford and she fell about laughing, “Leytonstone High Road? I’ve never heard of it.!”
Watford called the line “the GOB” (much to my personal annoyance). They may have said “the GOB line” but always as three separate words.
As far as I am concerned “GOBLIN” is the invention of Gina Harkell of the Waltham Forest Planning Department and regular line user.
@BGORUG Secretary – I worded my comment very carefully: David Franks was the Ops Director. the late Ken Bird was indeed the eventual Subsector/TOC Director when subsectorisation took place.
I’m sorry you don’t believe me – I merely report what I found in 1990. You weren’t in NSE HQ and you don’t know what we were doing and saying.
GOB or ‘The GOB’ is the primary internal/industry name for the line, followed by T&H. There is zero usage in text or speech of the full GOBLIN moniker.
@Anon – people used to be rebuked in NSE days for talking about the GOB, but perhaps things have gone backwards since privatisation.
@ Answer 42
Apologies for straying massively off-topic, but I’m puzzled by your suggestion re white socks. From my experience, primarily from having once been one, the very last thing a teenage boy would want to let anyone know was that he was a virgin!
So no truth in the story that the lion-on-unicycle was rejected by the Board because, after several years, they considered that it suggested a lack of, er, cojones on their respective, er, parts?
Pity.
@Balthazar – any change would hardly have benefited them anyway as Herald Painters are pretty discreet people.
Just to remind younger readers …
Here is the later crest as seen on carriages
and
here is the magnificent cast-Aluminium version as seen on the earlier AC electric locomotives
Oh yes .. The Unicycling Lion
@Herned
Without wishing to go any further off-piste, I think that the idea was that the sock colour choice was a subconscious reflection of the said status.
……..or that girls (even in Essex) wouldn’t go out with someone with such poor sartorial taste.
“Applied to the LT&S, could this have been a comment on the operational and managerial experience of its staff?”
Oh to have been a fly on the wall when it finally dawned on them that their Travelcard trick was a) rumbled and b) not the sort of “enterprise” the regulator approved of.
Other events to have witnessed include the moment when British Transport Police arrived at a certain construction site near Old Street to tell the builders where their lost drill bit had turned up, and the moment when Siemens and SWT realised that they had very different ideas about what constituted a quick coupling-up in regard to Class 458s.
Difficult to pinpoint a particular moment of realisation with the Goblin electrification, it sort of crept up slowly.
Re: GH – yes, but the original device pretty clearly showed the lion’s emasculation (as well as emaciation). Thanks for the third link, GT.
Re: Timbeau – Alstom, not Siemens. A distinctiin that is to remain, it would seem from recent news.
@Balthazar – Alsthom, of course – some of the last products to come out of Metro-Cammell’s factory at Washwood Heath).
SWT placed all its subsequent orders (444,450, 707) with Siemens.
That’s very recent news ! https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/european-commission-blocks-proposed-siemens/alstom-merger
@timbeau – I thought I had already written up here on the discovery of the LTS fraud, which was truly entertaining. (Haven’t time to do a repeat now, as just off to chair the local council planning meeting). [The Route of the White Socks jibe was based on the clientele rather than the management, which was, at that time, still Ken Bird’s steady handed regime]
@Balthazar – I noticed that on the lion issuant later device, the question was neatly masked by a tactful thistle . (Blimey! Ouch!)
Re: Timbeau – technically of course it was GEC Alsthom, at least at the point when the order was placed. (And no regular order either; one has to remember that *that* SWT franchise had no new trains planned and the 458s were a quid pro quo enabling Stagecoach to buy Porterbrook, which makes me suspect that neither SWT nor Alstom had their hearts in the reliability growth phase…)
Re: GH – well put!
@ Timbeau – for those of who are local to the GOBLIN I’m not sure it was a creeping realisation. The complete lack of comprehensive mast installation, the sudden disappearance of online “neighbourhood works newsletters” and the failure of the wiring train to appear at the planned time in the first blockade were all ominous warnings. I regularly went along Ferry Lane which the GOBLIN borders. The gaps in mast installation and no obvious pressure to rectify this were an obvious clue all was far from well. If a TfL project person had ever bothered to walk along there or simply ride 4 stops from Blackhorse Rd to T Hale on a bus they’d have seen enough to make them concerned. I am sure I commented to this effect (lack of visible progress) more than once on here and on other forums.
Right so T&H = GOBLIN. I think we should stick with the latter…
@WW
On the Goblin, it seems there was an ever-increasing pessimism that it could all come together in the end. As you say, there were obvious clues that all was far from well.
In the examples I cited, there must have been a moment of sudden realisation, with no prior warning that anything was amiss, such as the Old Street pile drivers, who were happily piling away right up until the moment Network Rail came round to ask if they’d like their auger bit back.
Re Balthazar,
Alstom engineered the Juniper and Cordia family products to price not quality in order to win the orders hence not much surprise that most will be going off lease soon. They are having an Alstom cleanse in RoI shortly too.
With the 458s they also seemed rather unaware that 750DC isn’t actually 750 or particularly DC (massive 600Hz ripple) or that (traction) electronics need immunising against 3rd rail arcing (at about 1MHz).
Re Timbeau and WW,
Ultimately a firm involved, who were doing the in the detailed design work “outsourced” it to their office in a “low cost country” so the engineers doing the design work never did site (or sight!) visits leaving a few senior engineers in the UK to attempt to pick up the pieces (and probably wonder why they were still working for said firm!).
Can’t we just call the line from Gospel Oak to Barking the name that Network Rail call it these days, which is “EA1370”?
@ NGH
Doesn’t begin with an A by any chance?
I believe the ‘A’ firm were also responsible for many of the problems on the GWML electrification.
Re Roger B
… and further NorthWest too.
That’s interesting, and not surprising. They used their offshore team to design a project local to me, which had to be expensively redesigned because the design didn’t take into account the constraints of the site. Luckily the lawyers are benefiting from their mistake, so it’s fine…
@ Herned
Talking of expensive redesigns, I came across a revised planning permission application for the Old Street site (actually at 99 East Road), Hackney Council application 2014/0003, which baldly states:
“Non material amendment to application 2011/0415 dated 29/03/12 to introduce a single storey basement beneath the approved development, in connection with an amended foundation design, due to proximity of underground tunnels beneath the site.”
So the necessity to build a raft over the tunnels, instead of piling through them, became an opportunity to add extra floor space.
Brian: We could. But it lacks a certain something!
@ Timbeau
Result!
I’m more shocked that was 6 years ago.. I would have sworn it was only a couple of years back
WW :
“If a TfL project person had ever bothered to walk along there or simply ride 4 stops from Blackhorse Rd to T Hale on a bus they’d have seen enough to make them concerned.”
There are alas an increasing number of major cases nowadays where the “overseer” of a project just doesn’t do any oversight any more, until some huge omission, error, wrong information or whatever is suddenly discovered. It used to be that they did actually go and look, and know what they are looking at (key aspect). Nowadays it is more popular to still take their percentage, but just stay in the office, and ask whoever is actually doing the work to prepare all the reports for them.
The City of London is a parallel example. There are prominent cases where figures are misreported and then suddenly it’s presented as a gross fraud. What were the very expensive oversight authorities doing? Very little, they had cottoned on to the fact that they could get the bank staff or whoever to do their work for them. Expensive auditors, again as recently prominent in the press, just accept what they are told rather than actually audit and check. The Crossrail project is yet another current situation.
@ Mr Becton
So true. Prior to retirement I worked for a major oil company in both the middle and far east. As part of my responsibilities I had to arrange ‘Management Site Visits’ at approximately monthly intervals to allow the senior management to visit worksites to verify, et.al., that the facts as reported to them were valid. This was a useful exercise and did help to ensure that upward reporting was mainly honest.
Oversight. Yes indeed. Sometimes called MBWA (Management By Walking Around). Depending on the detailed circumstances, though, the visits should not show too much of a regular pattern, otherwise the Tidy Up Before He Comes (TUBHC) syndrome tends to arise. (I invented the second FLA but not the first one).
Actually, most employees seem to welcome MBWA, rather than the “If you see the boss, get his name” (IYSTBGHN) syndrome. TUBHC has it uses – you can get results merely by spreading the rumour of your impending arrival. Of course, your visit should not comprise an arrival in the sede gestatoria – that gives the wrong impression altogether
@Graham H: Good senior management can have a good effect on local management too if MBWA is implemented properly. It puts the staff on the floor in direct contact with them and so can bypass a middle management who might not be passing messages up…
It’s amazing what a quick chat by the coffee machine can achieve if you’re talking to the head of “Worldwide” (and bypass 5 layers)
@SHLR – absolutely – in the rail industry, where it was and is very easy to rule from a remote desk, , front line staff made a clear and unfavourable distinction between those they never saw, and those who made the effort to get out and about. From the management point of view, it was a good opportunity to notice small but vital signals about such things as how staff interacted with each other, how they interacted with the public, and how the workplace was presented – especially in the parts you were merely passing by…
There is no substitute for Mk1 eyeball.
On some schemes NR heavily use carefully positioned CCTV so it is possible to keep an eye on things between visits without being seen as micromanaging vultures waiting to pounce all the time.
@NGH – I always feel sorry for the staff in the Beeb newsroom who form the background opening shots – no future for them if they spill a coffee, josh a colleague or have a coughing fit…
@ngh – “micromanaging vultures waiting to pounce all the time” – if that is a real attitude, then we have something very wrong with our management culture, but it does go a long way to explain how projects can get so delayed without anyone realising.
The job of managers is to manage, and if they are supposed to be managing people, then they need to manage people. Micro-management is a problem than can be trained out of managers, but not managing because you are afraid of doing too much is just dumb.
Re Jimbo,
The whole point is that there isn’t, they are aware it can exist and want to avoid the potential for that perception of micro management when lots of senior people are around to occur. The cameras also allow shorter reporting lines as everyone can get a partial live update on progress – fewer Silos and Thermoclines.
Mr Beckton and others,
Not only would people check up on site but most construction projects of any significance would have a permanent photographer. Not for PR shots but to record how work was or wasn’t progressing and to photograph critical aspects of construction to either defend a court case or alternatively to admit to it and rectify it at the earliest opportunity and save court costs in a case one would probably lose.
Management aren’t stupid and know that things get tidied up and repainted etc. if they announce their arrival. But that is fine. All you have to do is announce a visit and a lot of things get sorted out. Also, given that they knew of the impending visit, things that they get wrong are clearly institutionally wrong and not just an oversight. If something is wrong on a planned inspection it probably isn’t part of what they are aiming to achieve.
Pity the major centre that piled loads of stuff out the way on the roof because they were having a really important visit by a very senior person in the company. He arrived – by helicopter.
And so PoP inadvertently opens the possibility of discussion of the potential usefulness and problems of drones as an enhanced means of inspection of linear railway etc worksites. Even less excuse for not inspecting? Could we call this ‘Management by buzzing around?’
Mods: if you don’t want this discussion, please feel free to delete.
Re Answer=42,
NR have a Helicopter for exactly those purposes and regularly survey the entire network, the thermal imaging camera is particularly good for finding electrical faults and broken point heaters in winter.
@NGH
I was aware of the NR helicopter. Provided that sufficiently good visual / thermal images can be taken, moving to drones would permit far more frequent such inspections and/or cost savings.
Apparently the use of drones for inspecting North Sea etc oil/gas rigs has led to problems in the helicopter lease market.
@NGH
Perhaps more use of the time lapse NR video clips published on Youtube. If there isn’t sufficient progess to post online, a problem has been revealed.
@GH
Gestatoria?
Wasn’t that the big cinema in Finsbury Park?
It had little coloured lights to simulate a starry sky when the main lighting was turned down for the film.
@Nameless – Maybe – My cinema going days didn’t extend to FP, unfortunately. I like starry sky effect, tho’ – we never had anything so adventurous at the Odeon in Ealing. [What I had in mind was that chair on which the Pope is carried around, and which a certain type of manager* believes can be more widely used for their progresses around the business…].
*Including many ministers and not a few of the earlier chairmen of BR
@ Mr Beckton
“Expensive auditors” do spend lots of time going through all the data that the company being audited provides. I could, if were allowed, tell you exactly how long was spent and what they were doing on some of the high-profile recent examples. The problem is, if the numbers make sense, and the company’s assumptions about the future are reasonable, then the audit is signed off.
If a company either negligently or deliberately chooses to provide numbers which are feasible but incorrect then what can anyone do? Auditors don’t have the power to subpoena the servers holding the ‘real’ numbers. Equally, if a company’s future revenue estimates don’t actually materialise then again that is unknowable, and not the fault of the auditor either.
@Herned,
You’re probably right, in which case most ‘auditing’ is a waste of everyone’s time and money.
The solution would be to make Directors (and others lower down the line?) responsible for their actions. This would, of course, be very difficult (“at the time we thought we would be able to turn the business round…”) but current proposals to tighten Directors’ responsibility for pension funds, for example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47188445
suggests that some in Government might be thinking that it’s time to clamp down on irresponsible management.
@Herned: They obviously need to spend less on the Auditors…. 😉
The one’s I’ve encountered until now have always been excruciatingly anally retentive and will go apoplectic at a misplaced comma. However this was a non financial audit and senior management was fully behind it.
However if all you’ve got to choose from is three “Expensive Auditors” and the City insists you use one of them, then you do end up with a choice between Lada, Skoda and Dacia in the end…
Back in the day, us auditors used to learn much more in the pub and canteen at lunchtime, out and about on site or visiting branches than we ever gleaned from the financial records.
The worst auditors are shy ones.
I also recall that, when I was working in Wembley, the builders of the late running new stadium announced a revised opening date. Later that day, the Paddy Power branch nearest to the site experienced a very localised surge in bets against it opening by the newly announced date.
A way to breach the thermocline, perhaps?
@SH(LR)
Before the Big Four was whittled down to the big three, a millionaire asked his son what he wanted for his birthday.
“Can you get me a cowboy outfit, Dad?”
So the father went out and bought Arthur Andersen.
[Note to mods. That firm of accountants ceased to exist many years ago. They can’t sue for defamation]
Re Nameless,
It was actually 5 to 4 but the point still stands. PoP actually referenced the Enron silo issues that took out AA in the first of the 2 current crossrail articles.
Arthur Andersen wasn’t whittled down. It self-immolated on the fire that was Enron, the fraudulent energy-trading company.
@RogerB “The solution would be to make Directors (and others lower down the line?) responsible for their actions.”
The CEO and CFO, if not more, *are* legally responsible for the annual accounts.
That’s enough accounting discussion now to last us a few years. LBM
After a very long wait the first daylight driver training runs with a Class 710 EMU has taken place on the Barking – Gospel Oak line.
Here is 710 261 at Blackhorse Road station.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/24759744@N02/46514233974/in/dateposted-public/
Impressive. Why does TfL put the Underground roundel above the Overground one – is it a Wombling thing?
This was the first ARL operated Class 710 and was a trial driver training course for driver instructors and union reps. The train ran from Willesden TMD to Barking Upney Junction and back. An ROG rescue locomotive shadowed the train throughout! There should be a repeat tomorrow.
AFAIK no unit has been formally accepted by ARL. This is merely an attempt to expedite driver training. When driver training actually starts each driver needs a 4-day conversion course. Also, the ORR has yet to sign off the Class 710 for passenger service, It will be at least a couple of months before Class 710s can be in passenger service on the GOBLIN.
Meanwhile, the sublease on the remaining 3xClass 172s expires at the close of 15 March. 172 006 has been seen out driver training for West Midlands Trains, still in Overground livery minus roundels.
@ Aleks – I am sure there is a TfL signage guide somewhere that sets out the rules. I’ve looked at an old photo before Blackhorse Road was resigned and the LU roundel was above the old BR “two arrows” sign. Therefore the newer sign follows the same principle.
Ah here we go – from the LU signs manual
“Once the logos have been sized, they should be positioned together vertically or horizontally. The first logo to be displayed is determined by the ownership of the interchange.
At interchanges based on railway stations, this often means that either the National Rail logo or the London Underground logo will come first, followed by the other logos in order of customer usage.”
I have a photo of the roundel totem outside Barking Station. The NR symbol comes first, then LU, then Buses, then Overground.
ARL = Arriva Rail London. Overground TOC since Nov 2016, previously 50% partner.
“other logos in order of customer usage” based on ‘prior year’? So Lizzie comes last, must be a decade forward view otherwise they could be shifting around.
Looks like the class 710 driver training runs are now being stepped up on the GOBLIN. A train has run today (sat 2/3) with a doubling of test train paths showing on Monday 4th March. Looks to be a small but positive step.
I was surprised by the Saturday trips, my source did not appear to be aware they were running. Today’s trips didn’t run but I am now told that a driver managers’ course is happening this week, but nothing so far planned after that. All these trips have taken place with the units running in “degraded mode”, so it may be that full driver training will have to wait until the units are no longer “degraded”!
Today TfL went public with arrangements for weekdays from 18 March but still no info about weekends.
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/london-overground/gospel-oak-to-barking-improvements?cid=gospel-oak-barking-trains
ORR have conditionally authorised 710/2s for use in service.
Office of Rail and Road (ORR) have granted conditional approval for the use of class 710 EMUs on the London Overground network today. No idea what the conditions are at this stage – before anyone asks the obvious. Nice to see a small bit of progress in this long running saga. I wouldn’t expect to see passenger operation in the very near future but it does explain the increase in the use of the daytime training paths on the GOBLIN over the last week or so. I wonder if Arriva will step up the number of paths to increase driver training rates? – there is certainly scope to do so given the lower frequency of the passenger service.
NGH
So – how long now before they start appearing in service?
Glenn Wallis & the “BGORUG” people will be much relieved at that, I would think.
@ Greg – a complete guess on my part but a few more weeks. There are now training runs happening but a lot of drivers need to be trained. I suspect TfL will want to try to get 1 or 2 units into usuable state and may opt to run a couple of peak services to restore the 15 min headway at those times thus taking the pressure off at the busiest times. That would allow units to do training runs off peak but run in passenger service for 2 or 3 trips in the peak. I suspect the conditional approval will frame whatever happens next.
I suspect it will be “baby steps” in terms of getting the trains into service and restoring the timetable. I don’t see any sort of big bang for fear of some in service failure requiring a mass fleet withdrawal. That has happened once or possibly twice with the class 345s AFAIK but there was the fallback of the 315s to provide some level of service.
The ORR authorisation letter for use of class 710/2, with all the conditions, is here:
https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/40981/interoperability-authorisation-bombardier-class-710-2019-04-11.pdf
The conditions attached to the ORR approval seem to make it not worth the paper its written on. The restriction on coupling units (mechanical & only for rescue) seems to give Network Rail a headache regarding clearing the line quickly should a unit fail. Having each of six units followed by its own ‘Thunderbird’ locomotive does not seem likely.
AIUI ARL want several software issues resolved before they will consider passenger service and ASLEF want the same software issues and a cab problem sorted before they will agree to passenger service.
It should be pointed out that while drivers are being trained, at this stage none have been passed out on the class. All will have to go back to complete their training when the above issues are finally resolved.
We are not out of the woods yet.
The issue with the rescue is not the provision of traction unit to carry out said rescue* its rather that as the units cannot electrically couple, assistance must be provided from the front (thus involving working wrong line without signals) as opposed to assistance from the rear**.
*Given the use of autocouplers the preferred method if rescue is NOT to send out a loco (unless we are talking about OLE damage) but rather use another unit of the same class as there is no need to mess round with adapters.
** The dead unit would be towed with no brakes, etc under special arrangements back to the depot.
@PHIL
You have illustrated Network Rail’s problem. The chaos that would ensue from a unit failure on the T&H, with signalled crossovers only at Upper Holloway, South Tottenham and Woodgrange Park. Another unit would need to be detrained and sent in wrong road to attach and drag the failure as a “swinger” and this might involve running round the failure somewhere to tow it back to Willesden or perhaps just dump it in Upper Holloway Loop while the logistics of removal to Willesden are worked out. If lucky, a following unit could detrain and attach and run wrong road to a crossover, providing no other traffic behind.
The point about ‘Thunderbird’ locomotives is that these are ROG class 37s fitted with adapter couplings and one follows every 3ZXX trip that runs on the branch.
C2C have released brief info regarding changes to services between 20/7-4/8 for initial engineering work on the extension down to Barking Riverside
https://www.c2c-online.co.uk/media-centre/latest-news/restricted-tt-20-july-4-august/
https://www.c2c-online.co.uk/media-centre/latest-news/restricted-tt-questions/
Does anyone know if the plan that was mooted a year or so ago, of sending 2tph to Barking from Enfield via Seven Sisters still a possibility?
@ Hackneyite – according to posts on another forum and FOI links to TfL information there is no prospect of that service nor of the much hinted at extra Seven Sisters – Enfield Town trains. Apparently there is “no business case”. I suspect the reality is more that there is no money to fund these services. It is a classic thing that TfL do when they have no money – happened for almost 8 years with bus improvements under the Johnson Mayoralty.
Looks like the first class 710s will run in passenger service from Wednesday 22 May between Barking and Gospel Oak. Two units are showing as extra trips (train IDs 2Gxx) on the appropriate online train path sites. They run from roundly 0700 to 2200. As the GOBLIN requires 6 units for a 15 min headway there will still be some 30 min gaps between trains but there will still be a substantial improvement over the current timetable. It is not clear what happens at weekends yet.
I’ll state the obvious that things can still change, trains can fail in service etc etc but it looks hopeful after a long near 18 month extra slog to get this far.
Here’s a short video clip of shortened 378 units running on Goblin this month:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnlx2mhT4gE
Current plan is first 2 710s in service LATE tomorrow am to run a 4tph service some of the time.
The 710s will run as per WW notes but sometimes there may only be one unit in service as the second unit has only 1 driver for the day rather than 2.
Today’s (Wednesday) public Class 710 trips were cancelled late last night. It has been said this was due to expected ORR authorisation not being received.
TfL has just informed BGORUG that 2xClass 710s will enter passenger service tomorrow (Thursday) on additional trains. The first working shown on RTT is 2G34 10:48 ex Barking although so far there is no working shown to get the unit to Barking. TfL say that as experience is gained further Class 710s will be put into service. The breakthrough appears to have been software drop 33.1 which was trialled last week after drop 33 the week before.
We wait with baited breath to see if these additional trains actually run and continue to run.
It would appear that .. the “Goblin” service is fainally running as it was supposed to?
Paging Glenn Wallis ?
Re Greg,
More than appear, it is!
As the service has improved the information flow from the user group has decreased, an interesting inverse relationship!
The Islington Gazette article is incorrect however as this week marked the start of 6 units in daily service with 3x 378s and 3x710s up from 3/2 respectively previously.
A total of 5x 710s have been used in serviced so far and rotated to provide the 2/3x 710 units daily so far.
Yes, BGORUG was wrong footed a bit by the TfL announcement!
A full 15-minute interval service has yet to operate as some early trains are still cancelled and the trains in service reduce to 3×378 & 2x 710/2 soon after the end of the evening peak.
The v35 software drop is believed to have been successful in solving some more glitches and 6x 710/2s may be available for T&H service by the end of July, so at least one 378 will be needed as a spare. The other two could be reformed and moved to the DC line? Regular Class 710 test runs by Bombardier (operated by ROG) are now operating on the DC line.
@BGORUG SECRETARY
T&H service – Thames and Hudson the publisher?
Tottenham and Hampstead route.
Tottenham and Hampstead – the railway, I think (though I also think my sarcasm detector pinged)
LBM
“Tottenham & Hampstead Jpint Railway” ( T&H ) Joint between the Midland & the GE, opened 1868 … not to be confused with the Tottenham & Forest Gate Jt Railway opened 1894 [ “Mr Warner’s Railway” ] which was LT&SR / Midland Joint.
Appropriate Railway Junction diagrams …..
West & Central here
and
East end here
The GE had running powers over the Western half, & into St Pancras, the LTS as well, once the T&FG was opened & also Forest Gate Jn to Barking.
Operated as a single end-to-end line by the LTS after 1894 & the Midland after the LTS takeover. Trains also ran that way & along the “Widened Lines” … My maternal grandfather had a First-Class season, Walthamstow (Mid/LTS – now “Queens Rd”) to Farringdon
As stated.
The current “Goblin” is made up of two separate, built at quite different times, Joint lines, joined end-to-end at the junctionn at the E end of S Tottenham station, the other being the Tottenham & Forest Gate.
Bpth were half Midland, but the West one was joint with the GE & the East with the LTS, before the 1912 takeover of the LTS by the Mid…….
@Greg T – as immortalised in “The Diary of a Nobody” – maybe we should call at least the western half the Pooter Line? (A book that tells us much about the demographics of the Tottenham area 150 years ago … difficult to imagine the servant-keeping classes living there !)
Note also, on Greg’s West and Central map, the long-closed chord between the former North and West junctions just south of Tottenham Hale over which some trains ran from the Cambridge line to St Pancras until, I think, 1922. Direct trains between Cambridge and St Pancras have now, of course, become a reality again after a gap of nearly a century, but via the Great Northern rather than the Great Eastern line.
@Graham H : Pooter’s house, “The Laurels”, in “Diary of a Nobody”, published 1888, is generally felt to be one on the south side of Pemberton Gardens, to the west of Upper Holloway station, on the north side of the line but a fair bit away from Tottenham. The railway at the bottom of the garden gets a mention in the introduction to the house. Pooter however generally seemed to travel to The City by horse bus down Holloway Road, presumably because it gave the authors even more scope for arch comments about the travelling conditions.
@Mr Beckton – thank you for that – I’d not followed up the diary with a detailed street search! {Just as a point of interest, I’m not at all sure what name you would give to the area if it wasn’t the street name or the nearest historic settlement. Upper Holloway seems to have been something of a railway invention, like Sunnymeads in a later era; I’m not sure that a settlement of “Holloway” existed much before the eponymous road.]
Greaham H
An “Hollow-Way” of course has a separate meaning, esp in historical geography.
It refers, usually to a very ancient trackway that has worn down a gully or “cut” into the landscape, with hundreds, if not thousands of years of use, below the level of the surrounding land(s).
In your part of the world, there are many such along the edges of the Greensand ridges inside the N downs.
I know it’s nothing to do with the subject (apart for backing onto the line) but this is the simple line illustration of Pooter’s house in the book
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diary_of_a_Nobody#/media/File:Laurels-house.gif
and this, with 130 years of modifications, is the suspected house itself. It does wholly fit the description of layout and location.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5634311,-0.1311324,3a,75y,115.67h,101.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s48wN7tckFspr69_50HMF_g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
The “side entrance which Gowing and Cumming always used to avoid troubling the maid” can be seen.
@Mr Beckton – Yours for the thick end of £1m, I see, if it were still an undivided property. Mr Pooter would have been astonished.
Back to the line.
I did read that as “compensation” for the lengthy service meltdown there is going to be a “free month”, when no fares will be charged.
So how does that work. Much of the line is in Zone 3, and many journeys, by Oyster/Contactless, are via points like Blackhorse Road. So a journey from say Leyton Midland Road, changing there, to Zone 1 on the Underground, is the same fare whether you pay for the Goblin, or have it free and only pay for the Victoria Line part.
Isn’t it ironic that the well known transport consultant Alanis Morisette seems to have foreseen this problem?
“A free ride when you’ve already paid”
Graham H @ 1 July 2019 at 00:36
There are £1m houses in Silvertown
https://www.royalwharf.com/
@Alan Griffiths I long ago ceased to be astonished at the price of even houses of the “third and fourth sort” ever since the modest house where my great aunt who, socially, rose to the dizzy heights of “Lady’s companion”, had been brought up in Greyhound Road Fulham, went on the market for £1.5m – and that was 20 years ago.
ORR have today authorised the remainer of the 710 fleet and lifted most of the caveats on the earlier limited authorisation.
The main outstanding issue to address is reducing opportunities for train surfing (ORR’s pet topic at the moment).