On the 9th October, at Kings Cross, TfL unveiled the latest concept for the New Tube for London (NTfL) – the rolling stock design that will serve the majority of the “Deep Tube” lines, beginning with the Piccadilly Line in 2022. For a good percentage of its life, across many lines, this train will have a driver.
The last part of that introductory paragraph may sound like a strange thing to say. It is a topic to which we will return later. First, however, let’s take a look at the design itself.
Taking a leaf from the design process for the New Bus for London, TfL have partnered with design consultancy PriestmanGoode to produce the new concept design, and whilst this means that one should not take it as read that the final product will exactly match the concept, TfL have indicated that they fully expect it to have the same general look, feel, and proportions.
Visually speaking, it is certainly a striking design – one that seems to meld the almost other-worldly concept design put together for TfL by Siemens some years back (when the NTfL concept was still being referred to as the “Evo”) with the colours and curves to be found in the newer rolling stock designs already to be found elsewhere on the network.
The external view of the cab
Concept image from the front
Pictured at a platform
Another angle from a platform
With open doors. Note the green door edges – the concept design features these changing from green to red as the doors are about to close.
Indeed when placed alongside the 2009 Stock (Victoria Line) and the S-Stock (The now-universal rolling stock for the Sub-Surface Lines) there is at least a sense of consistency and design evolution. A nice touch given that together these will form the combined Underground fleet for the next few decades at least.
As was previously confirmed, the NTfL will be future-proofed for full unmanned Automatic Train Operation (ATO) but not run with it out-of-the-box. In its most obvious dimension, this means that whilst it will feature a full drivers cab, the units will be designed in such a way as to allow this to be removed in future should they no longer be required. We will discuss just what automation means and when (if ever) it is likely to happen later.
Overall, carriages are shorter with two, wider door sets per side and walk through access. Inside it feels somehow both retro and futuristic – the result, perhaps, of the combination of curves, lines and grills clearly in part necessitated by the inclusion of air-cooling.
Looking down the train
Seating at the end of the carriages
Seating in the middle of the carriage. Note the air-cooling unit beneath the seats, and the wider window stanchions for air circulation.
A closer view of the air-cooling unit
Here it is perhaps important to pause and note briefly that air-cooling is different from air-conditioning. The latter allows for full temperature control whilst the former makes use of water and air humidity to allow temperatures to be lowered as long as the air itself can be vented regularly.
How air cooling would work, extracting warm air from the bottom and forcing it round and in from the top having been cooled.
The NTfL will be air-cooled, simply because full air-conditioning is not possible to implement on the Deep Tube lines. The difference is important to note as it will likely mean that whilst some element of temperature control will exist once the new trains are in service, those expecting a fully cooled experience in the hottest of temperatures (particularly on the Central Line) will be disappointed. Air-cooling should make things better, but sadly newspaper articles comparing Tube temperatures to acceptable livestock carriage conditions will likely remain an annual feature going forward.
In terms of timescales and train orders, the initial order will be for 250 trains – 100 each for the Piccadilly and Central Lines, 40 for the Bakerloo and 10 for the Waterloo & City. A formal Invitation to Tender is expected to be issued in early 2015 and the contract awarded in 2016, with what one might regard as “the usual suspects” shortlisted for bidding – Alstom, Siemens, Hitachi, CAF and Bombardier. The anticipated delivery dates by line can be found later in this article.
TfL have confirmed that the current schedule for deployment begins with the Piccadilly Line in 2022, to be finished by 2025. This is to be followed by the Bakerloo Line, completing in 2027 and the Central Line/Waterloo & City to be completed by 2032.
Why London Needs a New Train
The fact that new rolling stock was coming, of course, was not in itself news. The trains on the Deep Tube – most notably the Bakerloo and Piccadilly Lines – has been looking increasingly long in the tooth for some time, and despite their proficiency for it there is only so much asset-sweating that London Underground can do. Indeed by the time of its eventual retirement the venerable 1972 Stock that can be found in some form on both the Bakerloo and Piccadilly Lines will be well on its way to qualifying for a freedom pass. Meanwhile the Central Line’s 1992 Stock (also used by the Waterloo and City) has always had its share of issues, most notably with its DC motors, meaning it was never likely to reach the same service milestones as the ’72.
There has also always been the question of signalling and line upgrades. Both the Piccadilly and Bakerloo Lines are slated separately for full resignalling and/or extension soon (that’s soon in the kind of timescales transport planners think in at least – which is anything under 10 years), and neither of those activities is really possible without replacing the rolling stock. New signalling means new signalling kit, and retro-fitting that into old trains is something that any self-respecting transport authority tries to avoid. Even when it’s technically possible, it’s expensive to do and that’s money that generally carries no long term benefit if the rolling stock is shortly to be replaced.
Extending lines, meanwhile, means you need more trains to cover the longer distance they travel – else the gap between services increases and you lose much of the benefit of extending in the first place. Sometimes this can be achieved by “cascading” rolling stock freed up by putting newer rolling stock in place elsewhere and on the surface this may seem to be a valid option for the Bakerloo if the Piccadilly alone were to get new trains. Armchair planners (and Treasury officials) should be aware, however, that in this instance this actually wouldn’t be as simple as it sounds. Although both Lines share the same rolling stock designation, the curves on the Bakerloo are actually tighter than they are on the Piccadilly in a number of places, something current Bakerloo Line fleet is adapted to deal with. Adapting the Piccadilly Stock to run on the Bakerloo would in itself be an expensive activity, if indeed it were possible at all.
Ageing assets and line upgrades, then, mean that new stock is an imperative for all Deep Tube lines, excepting the Victoria (which already received new rolling stock in 2009) and both the Northern and Jubilee Lines, where the relatively sturdy 1995 Stock has already been adapted to the new signalling upgrades both lines have received. Indeed the Northern is actually a rare instance where, to meet the need for extra trains to service the planned Battersea Extension, it has been deemed financially viable to place a small order for what will effectively be replicas of the existing rolling stock.
Moving with the times
These are not the only reasons why new rolling stock is needed, of course, merely the key drivers behind what will be a huge project – one that will run to somewhere between £1 – 2.5bn, depending on how it is finally tendered. Other benefits to updating the rolling stock are also relatively easy to find and understand – engineering, materials and technology have come a long way since the beginning of the century, let alone before. Lighter weight materials and more efficient (and regenerative) drive and brake systems mean operating efficiency savings are there for the taking, and for a network as large as the Underground these could provide a substantial ongoing reduction in costs. Indeed TfL have confirmed that not only does regenerative braking capability remain a specification requirement for the NTfL, but that, as we previously suggested, the aim is to upgrade and configure the traction power supply network to allow the maximum recovery of braking energy for consumption by other trains. More, the goal is in fact to go even further and look at feeding back surplus regenerated power into the grid supply for use elsewhere on the network.
Meanwhile as the Underground has gotten busier and hotter (thanks to both increasing passenger and train numbers and a century or so of heat seeping out of the tunnels into the surrounding earth) the need to make it a more pleasant environment for travellers has also become more imperative. As indicated above, with air-cooling the redesigned rolling stock can help mitigate – although never entirely address – that need.
The (Presumably Driverless) Elephant in the Room
Of course if you were to base your knowledge of both the NTfL and, more importantly, why it was being built on the coverage in the press you could be forgiven for thinking that one of the primary drivers for building the NTfL was… well… something else – getting rid of train drivers.
Revealed: Inside the new ‘driverless’ Tube trains to be phased in on London Underground from 2022 proclaimed The Evening Standard about a train that will absolutely, with 100% certainty, have a driver in 2022. ‘Driverless’ Tube trains: See inside TfL’s new fleet for London Underground, said The Independent relying, like the Standard, on the magical powers of the single quotation mark to protect from the demands of factual reporting. The Telegraph took a similar line with New ‘driverless’ tube trains unveiled by TFL, but at least admitted that the train would indeed have a driver in the lede.
Potentially driverless tube trains unveiled as union suspends strike announced The Guardian who opted for accuracy over that fickle mistress, the single quotation mark, but then promptly undid all their good work by implicitly suggesting a link to a strike that is not about Tube drivers.
There were plenty more, but the point has perhaps been made – to state that coverage was skewed around one particular aspect of future-proofing contained within the design is not hard to see.
The trouble is that whilst it would be ludicrous to claim that the ability to run fully automatic – and potentially unmanned – isn’t part of the design specification, it would be equally ludicrous to claim that it is one of the primary objectives right now.
For despite the occasionally breathless coverage from the media and comments from politicians, the truth is that the NTfL does not signal a tolling bell for the job of Tube driver. Put simply if you are the parent of a child who yearns one day for the pull of the lever and the thrill of the door button, then fear not. We can state with near certainty that by the time they are old enough to enter the work force the Underground will have more, not fewer, Tube drivers than it has now. Indeed should you wish to start a Tube-driving dynasty, then you can be reasonably confident there will be driving jobs on the Underground for your grandchildren as well.
The needs of the modern Tube
Given the amount of hot air the subject garners you could be forgiven for being confused by the previous statement. From a practical perspective, however, it is simply the way things must be.
In the short term (and here, as before, we’re talking in transport planning terms) the number of services run across the majority of London’s Underground lines is going to increase. Meeting those extra service commitments needs extra drivers. The impending launch of the Night Tube also means more drivers will be required for similar reasons.
In an ideal world, introducing new signalling and rolling stock would mean an opportunity to step back and look at how the network operates – perhaps introducing greater levels of automation, where appropriate, at the same time. For an existing metro system like the Underground, however, adapting to fully automated operation (or more) requires extensive (and expensive) infrastructure work as well, something that TfL – an organistion whose business planning is essentially a process of financial triage – just cannot afford to prioritise. New signalling and new trains are critical to meet the needs of the network and thus any changes to operating practices must take a place at the back of the line. Indeed the importance of getting the NTfL in service as quickly as possible has, if anything, only increased in light of the current goal of extending the Bakerloo, for as we highlighted in our look at the Bakerloo Line Extension Consultation the project is effectively dependent on having the new rolling stock ready to go.
Under previous plans the Bakerloo was understood to be at the bottom of the pile when it came to replacement timescales, leading us to question TfL’s planned delivery dates for the Extension. As indicated above, however, the Bakerloo now ranks behind the Piccadilly in terms of the NTfL delivery timetable, underlying just how important to that project getting the new trains in to service will be.
A slippery term
For those only familiar with the “driverless” narrative as it manifests in the press, the idea that it requires more than just the right trains and the right signalling may come as a surprise. In part though this is because when the subject is discussed people rarely stop to define what they actually mean by “driverless” in the first place. Automatic Train Operation is already in place on several Underground Lines, yet ask the average Victoria Line user whether their train has a driver or not and they’ll give you a funny look. This is because the train is still manned by a Train Operator, whose job encompasses a number of key tasks even though the actual movement of the train is controlled elsewhere.
The truth is that all too often the term “driverless” is actually dog-whistle politics for something more extreme – full Unmanned Train Operation (UTO) – not least because for many on the political right it is the removal of the influence of the Unions that is seen as a key objective – and that means taking people out of the service pattern as completely as possible.
And therein lies the extra cost, for whilst controlling a train’s motion is easy to do remotely (whether it is a human being or a computer at the controls) guaranteeing passenger safety during boarding and alighting trains – both planned and unplanned – can be significantly tougher.
Your favourite metro system sucks
For a brand new metro line, with access to modern technology and transport network planning, the issue of safe boarding and alighting is one that is relatively easy to address. By fitting Platform Edge Doors (PEDs) to your nice, relatively straight station platforms you drastically reduce the risk of passengers having issues interfacing with the train. You can also build your tunnels wide enough to have clear, safe escape paths that allow both passengers stuck between stations to detrain to a safe space in an emergency and which allow station staff to reach them quickly and safely escort them out. Indeed you can also try and limit the chance of a train being caught between stations at all by having rolling stock that has batteries to allow them to reach the next station in the event of a complete power failure, one of the prime causes for tunnel detraining.
That last feature is notably something that TfL have confirmed they will be future-proofing the NTfL – it will feature emergency batteries. For an old, complex network like the Underground, however, the other safety elements are very tricky (and potentially expensive) challenges indeed.
Being PEDantic
Due to their obvious safety benefit, PEDs have become something of an implicit requirement for full UTO operation on modern metro systems. Indeed although TfL were (understandably) unwilling to provide absolute confirmation that they consider them to be a prerequisite for any move towards even full ATO, let alone UTO, they were happy to confirm that represents their current thinking at least.
Platform Edge Doors are considered the most suitable solution for managing safety at the platform train interface and a likely to feature in a system solution for fully automatic train operation on the deep Tube lines.
PEDs however, present problems on the Underground. This is a subject we tackled in more detail in our article on the Piccadilly Line upgrade at the end of last year, and those particularly interested in the details problems there are recommended to read that article. In short, however, there are two key problems.
Firstly, PEDs and sharply curved platforms don’t play nicely together. This is because train carriages are, obviously, rectangular and thus stick out over the platform, however slightly, as they pass round any major curve. That makes PEDs difficult to site, as it is imperative that any gap between the PEDs and the carriage doors is kept to a minimum (amongst other things to prevent people getting trapped between the layers) yet anyone who regularly uses the Tube should have no problem bringing to mind the name of at least one station they’re familiar with on the Deep Tube network where a seriously curved platform makes this a major issue.
There are solutions to this problem, certainly. The obvious one is to re-site or straighten the platforms, but that is far from cheap. Interestingly TfL’s concept design for the NTfL highlights one part of another potential solution – make your carriages shorter. Making the NTfL walkthrough is not just to follow current trends elsewhere on the network – such as the S Stock or the 378s running on the London Overground. It allows you to make your individual carriages shorter, giving them a tighter turning circle.
PEDs, however, can do nother about the Underground’s legendary “gap”, another potential risk particularly on curved platforms. We suggested last year that TfL had begun to explore the possibility of extendable, mechanical gap fillers on curved platforms and as part of this announcement they have confirmed that this is very much the case. The practicality of such a solution is being actively explored.
How PEDs might look with the NTfL on the Piccadilly Line
Secondly, and perhaps more critically, the installation of PEDs at a station means all of the trains that use a particular platform must have their doors in the same place. This is a simple, but oft overlooked, basic requirement for PEDs – because if your doors don’t open where the gap is then people obviously can’t board or alight.
For an enclosed network with universal rolling stock design this is obviously a no brainer. Unfortunately, the Underground is neither. Both the Piccadilly and Bakerloo Lines share track and platforms with other lines – indeed in the case of the Bakerloo that shared space is not even with the Underground, it is with National Rail. The simple fact is that as long as those shared interfaces exist it seems we will not see full ATO or UTO operation on either of those lines.
Again, those looking for particular details as to how TfL may address this issue for the Piccadilly Line are directed to our previous coverage of the subject. Bluntly, it is for this reason that Turnham Green services will pass to the Piccadilly, rather than any kind of successful local user campaign (no matter how both the Mayor and TfL themselves have painted it). It is also for this reason that we may actually see something rather radical – the transfer of the Ealing Broadway branch of the District Line to the Piccadilly Line in its entirety. Again, TfL have now confirmed that this is definitely an option, but indicate that a decision or consultation on the subject yet to be made.
On the Bakerloo, however, the options are less clear. For this reason TfL have confirmed that as long as the line shares track and stations with London Overground services between Queen’s Park and Harrow & Wealdstone automation is likely to be limited.
The Need for Realism
Both for those who have long fretted as to whether a more generalised deep tube stock would appear at all, and for the regular passenger at large, the announcement of the current plans for the NTfL is exciting news. Should the final product respect the concept designs on show then it’ll certainly be a striking piece of engineering – one that cleverly addresses many of the subtle difficulties that make the London Underground such a unique (and sadly often expensive) engineering challenge.
Those expecting in 2022 to board a “driverless” train – at least as they understand the term – will almost certainly be disappointed. It is true that the NTfL will be future-proofed for that purpose, but having trains that support full ATO, or indeed UTO, is just one of the many very real barriers to implementing that operational system in the Capital. On some, indeed perhaps on all, of the lines that form the Deep Tube those challenges can be negotiated. But doing so will not be cheap. It will likely require not just changes to the way the Underground is run, but to the way its platforms look and more. Indeed in some cases it may even require changes to where those Lines actually stop.
This is not to say that it won’t happen, simply that right now it is as much an aspiration as a clear cut objective – and very much a long term one at that.
It has become popular in both the media and particular political circles to pretend that the above isn’t the case, as if somehow having the right type of train and making a few changes will make a gigantic shift in the way the 150 year network is setup and operated happen almost overnight. It’s a sort of intellectual sleight-of-hand that does everyone, whether they are a reader or voter, a serious injustice.
Just as importantly, perhaps, the longer that narrative is perpetrated the greater the risk that a future decision as to whether to staff or not staff trains is made for political, not transport reasons. Or, worse, that such a decision is treated as a black-and-white one to be applied to all Underground lines regardless of fit.
All those involved in the debate on the future of London’s transport have a duty to avoid such a mistake at all costs. At the very least every statement about “driverless” trains should be matched with a demand by the listener, or reader, for an explanation of what that word actually means – ATO, full UTO or something else?
The Most Likely Future
Grave warnings, however, are never a good thing on which to finish. So setting mass-media hyperbole aside and looking at both what we knew already and the further information made available over the last week by TfL, what does the current strategy for future automation appear to be?
In fact on current evidence, the answer actually relatively straightforward. With the order in which the NTfL will be rolled out onto the lines changed to allow the Bakerloo Line to be completed second, it seems likely that the first major step towards full automation is likely be seen on the Central Line, if not from commissioning in 2032 then shortly after.
This is because, as is always worth remembering that, like the Victoria line, the Central Line is already fully ATO and has been since 2001. It also has the very obvious benefit of not sharing track with any other lines. With more time now to find a solution to the PED issue and both plan and cost it, and with the NTfL by that point having worked out any implementation kinks on the other two lines, a quick push to full automation might not be far outside the realms of possibility.
Conceptually how a control centre may look
Indeed the above situation is something that TfL themselves are quite happy to acknowledge:
The Central line is unconstrained by inter-working of other services and fully automatic operation is expected to be introduced on the line in the early 2030s.
Of course if the above is looking likely, then perhaps it will actually be the Waterloo & City line which would, officially at least, be the very first line to make the actual transition. Traditionally it has shared both management and staff with the Central Line and thanks to its nature as a short two-station-only design might make a more risk-free test bed for a full Central Line deployment.
Whatever the case, realistically speaking it seems relatively safe to say that when it comes to both the Underground and the NTfL, those looking for big official milestones in both further levels of ATO and in UTO operation should for now perhaps be marking 2032 in their diaries and no sooner.
Circumstances may change, of course, as even for transport planners 18 years is quite a long time. In the worlds of both politics and the media though, it is practically an eternity – and that’s something that those debating the subject in those particular spheres would do well to remember.
More information on the New Tube for London can be found on the TfL website here, as can a brief concept video.
@Greg Tingey
‘My classic example is the Hull, Paragon smash of 14/2/1927, where there was an unspottted “gap” in the mechanical safety-precautions of (approx 0.7 seconds) – ‘
I looked this up in Red for Danger, interesting enough, but what else do I see while there? LTC Rolt did his engineering apprenticeship at Kerr Stuart loco builders. California works.
@ Pedantic of Purley 29 December 2014 at 12:28 – I was just trying to make the point that there are no plans whatsoever for the Bakerloo to be GoA4 (unattended train operation).
Underground News January 2015 reports Bakerloo will be staffed north of Queen’s Park, and 27tph will not require full automation so no PEDs. The same is not true for the Picc although it is planned to continue to Uxbridge, presumably with a front cab attendant from South Harrow. But the London Infrastructure Plan 2050 had Bakerloo Upgrade 2 for Hayes demand up to 36tph with “full automation”. Why would this not be worked in the same way as the Picc, with a front cab attendant north of Queen’s Park? It will be a long run from Hayes, just as it is from Cockfosters.
@Taz,
I stand corrected. So there is now a plan for full automation if they run 36tph on an extended Bakerloo but not if they run 27tph.
We seem to have missed linking with the Feasibility Report which has a lot of NTfL detail: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/ntfl-feasibility-report.pdf
@Taz,
“We” didn’t but never got around to the article updating this story of which that document was one of the sources. Since you have mentioned it, have a look at page 51 which mentions “capable of fully-automatic operation” on all lines except the Bakerloo.
@POP – The Feasibility study was completed in 2013, tabled at the January Finance committee, and approved for public release at the February TfL Board meeting. It only appeared in conjunction with the October Kings Cross exhibition. A Bakerloo line extension is only mentioned in passing. The London Infrastructure Plan draft appeared at the end of July 2014 with the first mention of Bakerloo Upgrade 2 for Hayes demand up to 36tph with “full automation”. Then in October 2014 came consultation on the Hayes extension. The Feasibility report is already a year behind the fast moving Bakerloo proposals.
Further information on the new tube for london has been released on the Transport for All site .
See – http://www.transportforall.org.uk/news/access-on-the-new-tube-for-london
It seems the new trains will be better built to better fit platforms for the disabled but as as we know with S stock trains wheelchair spaces are not very useful if you can’t reach a platform !
News on Rail Magazinne site that the order for these trains has been delayed indefinitely see –
http://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2015/02/12/new-tube-for-london-delayed
Wonder if announcement will be by election – Mayoral one that is !
@Melvyn – many thanks for this spot. Can anyone translate “The delay relates to funding and scoping the project”. What is the link with the SSL Thales contract? With no competition, is that coming in well over budget and timescale, pushing the NTfL project back? Is signalling being taken out of the NTfL bundle, to be let separately? If the Thales system is used for both SSL and NTfL then LU will be close to returning to a single signalling system. NTfL contract was not due for signature until mid-2016 with a three-year design process, and the first train in 2023 anyway (Rail & Underground Panel November 2014).
The PPP resignalling plans for SSL and Picc had no reguard for interworking problems since they were with different Infracos. The second SSL resignalling plan included the Picc where both interworked, but the current Thales scheme will just provide conventional signalling for interworking trains including NR & Picc. This was probably the simplest to minimise further SSL delays, and with the NTfL plans for common resignalling soon approaching. However, operationally it would still be an advantage for the Picc to have the same signalling as the SSL, no matter what the Bloo and Central have. So perhaps it would be desirable for signalling to be taken out of the NTfL contract, and leave Thales with an incentive to do well on the SSL with the prospect of the Picc, and maybe the whole NTfL signalling contracts later. This would also reduce the NTfL contract price at face value.
Last week I watched a very interesting program on BBC4 about Indian railways, specifically the Maitree express which runs into Bangladesh (1).
Before PoP points out that this is a long way from London (it is), the point of interest was that *every* driver and guard on their railways must take a breathalyser test at the start of their shift (and, naturally, must be passed as fit to drive before taking out their service.) Because the testing is given to every driver and guard there is no implication that anyone in particular might be, um, ‘problematic’. No ‘pre-judgment’.
I bring this up because of the recent Northern line strikes over whether an operator was or was not intoxicated or such status was due to side-effects of being diabetic. So far as I am aware, this individual was _specifically_ tested, with all the hoohah that has resulted around questions of ‘fairness’ etc. And, separately, though someone will still be tested post-accident, there would be a way to show their status before they took the service out.
A blanket policy at the start of every diagram would seem to me to be a way of reducing problems all round. Comments?
(1) http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/dgztfk/indias-frontier-railways–series-1—1-the-maitree-express – repeated tomorrow, as it happens
As I understand it, the testees on LU are selected randomly. It would be possible to test everyone, but it would require an army of testing staff.
@ Alison W – LU’s safety record is very good and therefore you target resources and money at the highest risk events. After all the years of LU’s drug and alcohol policies I very much doubt that testing everyone would reduce risk very much or improve safety in a demonstrable fashion. I don’t know the comparative position on Indian Railways but I’d be surprised if their safety record was as good as LU although the operations are very different. As Timbeau rightly states D&A testing on LU is random plus post incident. It would be interesting to understand why Indian Railways have the processes they have. If I was to guess I’d say it was because alcohol related issues were very problematic and a causal factor in some past incidents with the result that an enforced zero tolerance procedure was mandated to fix a severe problem quickly rather than doing it via behavioural change over many years.
From 2011 – http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/15-loco-pilots-found-drunk-in-breathalyser-test/article1703834.ece
IR policy – http://www.indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/uploads/directorate/safety/pdf/2012/021112Drunkneness%20policy.pdf
Although I was never LU operational staff we were all effectively held to the same standard and therefore you had to be very careful about post work drinks, how you were in the morning and certainly no buying alcohol at lunchtime (e.g. bottle of wine for dinner) or bringing it back to the office. All no nos.
I would argue that you should be careful about mixing up H&S / legal requirements with the management of IR issues. I don’t know the real ins and outs with the specific Northern Line issue but it has all the hallmarks of being yet another “who really runs the tube” type arguments between the RMT and LU management. These sorts of “stand offs” have been going on for years and years. We also have the second major change to operations where LU has simply gone ahead and implemented the changes without having an agreement with the unions. None of this (IMO) makes for a good IR environment. I believe, but am happy to be corrected, that part of the driver dispute is about how the test was administered and *not* about the value / need for the test itself. Making testing compulsory on every shift would be likely to result in more arguments about the process and its application.
PS – I fell across that BBC4 programme by accident but found it very enjoyable. Not sure I want to experience the Bangladesh rush hour or holiday season though. That was overcrowding and a half. 🙂
I believe that WW means IR as industrial relations and not Indian Railways…
The ITT for the New Tube for London rolling stock has been issued to the shortlisted suppliers – Alstom, Siemens, Bombardier, CAF, Hitachi.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/urban/single-view/view/new-tube-for-london-invitations-to-tender-issued.html
Is the figure of 40 trains for the Bakerloo now out of date?
According to some news sources even the Piccadilly line stock is having problems.
Though that looks like an interlock-fail or “doors open” a second or so “too early” (Paris-style) to me.
Wither the Bakerloo’s rustbuckets, indeed?
I would think additional trains for Bakerloo would be covered by option for up to x extra trains in the cotract when issued
The item mentions that trains will be ” air cooled given tunnels mean there is no where for excess heat to go”.
Given the amount of these lines which is outside tube tunnels could a hybrid system be fitted whereby ” air cooled” is used in tube tunnels and full ” air conditioning ” is available for sections of routes not in tunnels ?
I notice that plans include 10 trains for Waterloo and City line which raises the question as to whether light rail vehicles ( maybe ex DLR stock ?) might provide a better service on a line which is relatively short and has only short peaks in peak hours during its operational days.
The recent problems on Piccadilly Line and age of Bakerloo Line stock makes one wonder if we can wait until 2020s for these new trains and whether a bigger order for new trains for Northern Line to allow at least some replacement of Bakerloo Line stock could be a better option.
Use of “ex-DLR” vehicles on a tube line: It is not clear to me why there should be any of these available. I also suspect that considerable modification, to the trains and to all the fixed equipment would be necessary – DLR tunnels have an emergency walkway at the side, among other difficulties.
But if such use is possible at all, then it entirely escapes me why a line being short, or having “short peaks” (whatever they are) should constitute any sort of good reason to try it.
@Melvyn – why would LRV vehicles give a better service on the W&C? The rolling stock constraint is total train length, not the nature of the vehicle. In any case, DLR stock is the wrong profile for the Drain – and whenever I use it, it’s pretty full o/p, too. And why keep a separate stock of spares just for the Drain?
I believe there has already been a pretty thorough discussion about Bakerloo replacement stock, the replacement options, and its relationship to the timing of the possible extension to Lewisham – if you look at that thread, you’ll see the answers to your points.
@Melvyn:
Air cooling is the only viable option for the Tube simply because it’s the simplest and least likely to go wrong. It’s also cheaper to run.
If you had a dual system that could also run in full air-con mode, there’s the risk of the air-con system not shutting off when the train enters the deep level tube tunnel sections. The heat pumped out of the train and into those tunnels would rise rapidly and could potentially even cause damage to the infrastructure if it isn’t suitably designed to cope with the (additional) excess heat. It would be deeply unpleasant for anyone standing on the platforms nearby.
If the air cooling system fails, all that happens is that we’re back to where we are now. Passengers would be sweating as they do today, but it’s not a showstopper and the train could continue in service until it can be withdrawn without disrupting the other trains.
‘Melvyn
“Waterloo and City line ……… light rail vehicles ( maybe ex DLR stock ?) might provide a better service”
If DLR vehicles could run on the Drain, the extensionisti arguments [Snip. Let’s not go there please. LBM]
@ Greg – that BBC article and video is not what happened with the 73 stock nor is it at the location of the incident. People on social media putting 2 and 2 together and getting 29. I understand the issue with the incident train has been identified, it is one train only, the LU Rolling Stock Chief Engineer has reassured the TUs on the issue and a revised maintenance check has been instituted. This is all entirely standard practice if such incidents occur – I’ve seen it happen more than once across different assets in LU. I’m just glad I was never faced with the onerous decision making that the Chief Engineers have to do. I don’t think anyone could disagree that the 73 stock is old but old doesn’t necessarily mean unsafe or dangerous.
“If you had a dual system that could also run in full air-con mode, there’s the risk of the air-con system not shutting off when the train enters the deep level tube tunnel sections. The heat pumped out of the train and into those tunnels would rise rapidly and could potentially even cause damage to the infrastructure if it isn’t suitably designed to cope with the (additional) excess heat.”
I’m doubtful the heat generated by a single HVAC unit (or even train’s worth) would generate an infrastructure safety risk.
Chillers to cool a coolant reserve in the open sections, then use it for in-tunnel cooling was investigated for the Central line. The story has always been cost did for it (rather than engineering grounds). Given how tight 92s are for space, it wouldn’t surprise me if it would have been necessary to move a lot of existing equipment (£££). I also seem to recall for some reason LED lighting was investigated at a similar time, may even be that that change was looked at to free up space in addition to the maintenance benefit (last longer, much easier to clean). Either way, cost did for it all.
@Londoner a system to cool deep level trains was proposed with gel cooler bags under the seats that would be chilled on the open sections and then do their bit in the tunnels.
Seemed simple but it was identified that the gel was flammable and that was the end of it.
A phase change material was identified as a suitable medium to provide a cold store. The coldness could be replenished in the open and used up in the tunnel. Something was required that ideally remains liquid whilst significant heat is removed from it. Conveniently, a highly siutable medium is water – possibly with a little antifreeze ! Much more challenging is to size the refrigeration equipment to cool the store in the open and a big enough cold store to keep the saloons cool in the tunnel without needing too much extra energy to carry it all around which could negate the benefit of the cool store! The ideal is to have central section tunnels with reasonable length open sections at either end. Sadly, this does not apply to the Bakerloo and, to a lesser extent, to the Piccadilly. As such, the cool store idea isn’t likely to see the light of day on these two lines.
@100andthirty…Out of curiosity, how long should the open sections at either end be for your system to work? Do they have to be a similar length to each other?
In its fully extended form (Harrow & Wealdstone to Hayes), would the open sections at either end be long enough for this to work (at least for through trains that didn’t terminate short at Queen’s Park/Lewisham etc.)?
100andthirty,
A lot of design work has gone into reducing the weight and hence energy consumption of the New Tube for London. I am sure the designers don’t want their work undone by carrying loads of water about. Water is heavy. I am talking about ordinary water not heavy water. And I can’t see the electrical engineers being overjoyed at the thought of all that water so close to their electrics.
PoP…….I wasn’t speculating.
Water is the medium that has been chosen. Even the gel mentioned above is aqueous. Plenty of electric trains carry significant quantities of water……water to clean the windscreen, water to use in the de-icing solution, and even water to cool electric motors and traction electronics. The weight challenge I wrote about is real and is a balancing act. Is it better to carry more weight to allow the energy consumed in tunnel to be reduced?
100andthirty 22 January 2016 at 17:11
” remains liquid whilst significant heat is removed from it. Conveniently, a highly suitable medium is water – possibly with a little antifreeze ”
as used at home for hot water. First gas bill after solar installation, less than £20.
@130
“Plenty of electric trains carry significant quantities of water”
Most of them seem to work in the rain too!
(Voyagers on the Dawlish sea wall are another matter)
@ timbeau………and in carriage washes: they are far more vicious that general rainfall.
It is reported that an order is soon to be placed with Hitachi (or their Ansaldo subsidiary) for driverless trains for the Glasgow Subway. These are projected to be in service by 2020.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/hitachi-on-track-to-win-200m-glasgow-subway-train-contract-1-4039081
It may be helpful to have some experience of operating driverless tube trains on this small (in all respects) system, before starting in London later in the 2020s.
The DLR has given London all the experience of driverless trains that it needs.
E’E – except that that the DLR trains are full size (or so), using large tunnels, while the Subway and its tunnels are of sub-tube dimensions, with all that implies for emergency evacuation, staff access etc (much debated on this site re tube trains, I recall).
I think this would be the first application of the Ansaldo driverless technology (as used in Copenhagen) to a pre-existing line, so if it is successful it would stand them in good stead for the New Tube for London contract.
Ian J,
‘ it would stand them in good stead’
Except that, unless the NTfL ends up much later than planned, they will have been ordered long before the Glasgow trains go into service.
This New Tube Is Coming Out In 2022 I’m So Happy..
From press reports, it would seem that Siemens have won their court-case over getting the train-build contract, and that the Goole factory & therefore the train construction, will now go ahead.
[ via Ian Visits ]
Re Greg,
Siemens aren’t directly part of the legal action. The legal action is between Bombardier /Hitachi and Tfl & Alstom and TfL.
This is only a stage 1 win for TfL (and therefore Siemens) in that the contract is being allowed to proceed. Stage 2 starts in January when Bombardier/Hitachi & Alstom go back to the court to claim damages due to issues with tender process (Bombardier were successful in claiming Merseytravel tender damages recently and there is high probability that TfL procurement process wasn’t complaint with the latest case law (including 2 of the 3 Bombardier vs Merseytravel court cases*) and that TfL hadn’t noticed that Rolling stock orders from public bodies have got very litigious world wide recently.
The more interesting of those 2 was requirement the “winning ” to hand over the full details of their bid to the challengers which really upset Stadler in the Merseytravel case as they love their closely held private Swiss company secrecy.
There is a lot of grey area on how to handle bids which are technically non fully compliant but offer a better solution with some parameters outside the tenders parameter envelope and whether other bidders should be informed so they could tender a better non fully compliant bid to else there is an apples and oranges comparison. The tender wasn’t like Bank Station with innovation outside the box being very explicit.
The procurement goal posts have probably moved since the last TfL new fleet design stock tender for Crossrail and TfL many not have fully noticed…
@ Ngh – Interesting. I had not appreciated that procurement rules have moved in the way you state. I’m also slightly shocked if TfL hadn’t noticed as it used to be the case that changes to procurement rules were drilled into the heads of those involved. Perhaps things have changed or organisational change / loss of personnel has created risks that haven’t been fully mitigated? I also hadn’t realised that Bombardier were successful in claiming damages on the Merseyrail bidding process. The last thing TfL needs now is to have to pay out millions in damages to unsuccessful bidders.
Seems a very odd requirement that the winning bidder has to release details of their bid to their competitors for a contract. That must create issues around innovation and intellectual property and make bidders more “conservative” in their approach.
Re WW,
“the winning bidder has to release details of their bid to their competitors for a contract.”
Only for limited court purposes if the award is challenged, as it would be very difficult to assess bid scoring without all the bids. Merseytravel were unable to explain why they made certain choices as they didn’t keep notes and also tweaked some of the financial numbers in the bids without asking the bidders concerned.
Refunding bidder costs (as DfT have done for franchises before when they have made mistakes) is also highly likely.
Part of the issues is that the long running aftermath of the Merseytravel cases was happening during the tube tender process so they may have been too focused on the tender and not keeping up on what was happening elsewhere. everyone in the Merseytravel cases was represented by medium sized Northern based legal firms so may not have been so readily visible to those in London?
Nth, WW…….the judgement following the hearing which caused the injunction to be lifted talks about a trial of the facts in November 2019 in order to allow a) each side properly to prepare, and b) to get space in the court calendar.
One would suspect that all of the participants will seek to avoid a trial, but that’s my uninformed speculation!
@ Ngh – I am shocked that Merseytravel didn’t keep full records of their decisions / reasoning and also faffed with the financials. I’m no procurement professional (haven’t done the CIPS formal qualification) but have been on two very large procurements where the process was pretty rigorous at all stages – esp bid evaluation. Keeping full and proper records was deemed essential.
@100&30 – so a full year until the next stage in court. Erk! – although the lawyers will be rubbing their hands with glee.
Finally …
It appears TfL have signed-off on the order for new (Picc) trains with Siemens.
Link HERE for more info.
Greg,
Note that wording that follow on orders are now only “expected” as TfL now have to be very careful what they say but no mention of the reason being the legal action from all losers which gets no mention at all from TfL…
So how big now is the question mark over whether this order will result in a British assembly plant being built?
TfL press release: “… the contract award is a significant step to progress plans to build a new factory in Goole, East Yorkshire, to manufacture and commission trains. The two companies will work together to maximise the number of Piccadilly line trains being built at this facility.”
Siemens press release: “TfL and Siemens Mobility will work closely together to consider options for local manufacture in the United Kingdom in partnership with Siemens Mobility’s global centre of excellence for metros in Vienna.”
“Sinificant step” … “work together” … “maximise the number” … “consider options” … “in patnership” … “Vienna”.
Hmm.