The topics of rail devolution and London Overground are closely entwined. Without devolution the former Silverlink services in North London would never have become TfL’s London Overground. The success of the Overground has, in turn, led to further devolution and calls for even more of it.
Those calls got even louder today with the publication of Devolving rail services to London, a report by the London Assembly’s Transport Committee, which advocates the devolution of huge swathes of South London rail to TfL.
That the Transport Committee are in favour of such a plan will come as a surprise to no-one familiar with their work. Nonetheless it is a report worth exploring in detail. Not just because of the evidence it lays out and the conclusions it draws, but also due to the wide level of support for such a plan that it contains – which includes several stakeholders who were previously hostile.
The problem
Before looking at the conclusions the report draws, however, it is worth looking in detail at the problem as it defines it.
As the report explains, the experience of the average traveller within London is far from satisfactory. As we’ve explored before, that dissatisfaction is also something that they have little ability to do anything about.
This is because the bulk of London’s suburban railways, especially in south London, are run under franchise by a number of Transport Operating Companies (TOCs). Often those franchises, let by the DfT, are comprised of a mix of suburban and long distance rail.
Whilst there are certain contractual expectations that need to be met, in theory the greatest incentive the TOCs have to meet the needs of their passengers is the ability of those passengers to “vote with their feet” where services are bad. Whilst this is true, broadly speaking, for long distance travel where the car or plane are viable alternatives it does not hold true on London rail, as the report explains:
Many of London’s rail passengers, particularly commuters, have no practical alternative transport options. They travel by train because they have to, rather than because they want to. Increases in usage have occurred despite evidence of consistently poor service performance in much of the city and rising ticket prices, as will be explored in this report. The trend is set to continue, with the Greater London Authority projecting that demand for rail services in London will increase 80 per cent by 2050.
As the report repeatedly hammers home, suppressed demand and a captive audience have helped to contribute to the fact that rail passengers in London and surrounding areas are less satisfied with their journeys than those in the rest of the country. Not only that, but satisfaction levels have fallen year-on-year for the last five years.
Of course with all arguments like this it is always worth exploring the numbers a bit more. This we can do because, handily, the report provides them.
What people want
What then, the report asks, would make London’s travellers more satisfied?
Turning to passenger surveys, the report argues, provides the answer. 53% of respondents believe that the cost of tickets is too high. 43% want less delays and cancellations. 30% want more capacity on trains. 30% want those trains to be more frequent.
At first glance those numbers might seem slightly odd, because they add up to considerably more than 100%. This is less a problem with the data, however, and more with the way it has been presented. Looking through the report’s appendices it becomes clear that the numbers are based on people identifying their top three priorities, and in that context the numbers are thus perfectly valid. Interestingly, users of existing London Overground services have also been excluded from those figures, meaning they aren’t skewed by issues with the Overground itself.
An ever increasing cost
That cost features so highly on the list of perceived problems is hardly surprising. One could perhaps argue that the issue of overcrowding was perhaps of greater concern (as frequency and capacity are both often manifestations of that) but even so the fact that over half of one’s customers identified price as a key issue would be damning in any industry, let alone rail.
The numbers, certainly, are bleak. Since 2004, the report points out, average ticket prices have increased by almost 62%. Strictly speaking that’s about 16% once inflation is taken into account but it is significant nonetheless.
Nor is it just up front cost that is the issue. Theoretically delays mean compensation for passengers, but few in London feel adequately served as customers by the complaint and refund mechanisms already in place:
In recent months, we have highlighted serious flaws in the passenger compensation regime. Most rail operators use the ‘Delay Repay’ scheme, under which passengers can receive refunds if their journey is delayed by 30 minutes or longer. This rule disadvantages London rail users, as a large number of journeys starting or ending in London last less than 30 minutes in total. For instance, a passenger’s 25-minute journey could be regularly doubled in length due to delays without that passenger being eligible for compensation.
All the consequences with none of the oversight
What makes these problems worse is that, as the report points out, they are all things over which London has no direct oversight. This is because there are currently three different models of franchise management in use in the UK:
- DfT managed franchises
- Jointly awarded franchises
- Concessions
We have explained in detail the differences between these models elsewhere. Broadly speaking though London currently has lots of the first type, none of the second and a few of the third (there is in fact a fourth – direct operation, as on the Underground, but this is not relevant here).
Starting back to front, Concessions operate on the Overground model – indeed the Overground pioneered it. Under this model, TfL set the requirements for railway (such as specific service levels) and appoint a company to run it. TfL also take the revenue risk, removing the need to plan for this from the operator.
In London this has proved a highly successful approach. It gives TfL direct control over the services that operate and the ability (within reason) to modify it. It also benefits the operator because they effectively make a known level of profit through delivering the services that TfL has demanded – whether passenger numbers match TfL’s forecasts or not.
Sadly, as the report points out, it is only the Overground (and TfL Rail, the proto-Crossrail concession) that currently operate on this model. The rest of London’s railways are pure franchises of the first type.
This is bad for London, the report highlights, because although TfL can suggest additions to rail franchise specifications to the DfT (known as “increments”) these are non-binding on the operator. TfL thus has no real power over the vast majority of London’s railways.
No oversight for TfL, of course, means no oversight for London’s political institutions either. London thus has no direct ability to influence the bulk of its own surface railway policy or operation.
As the report bluntly puts it:
There is currently no simple way for London’s rail users to hold someone to account for poor performance. In a devolved model, Londoners would directly elect the person ultimately responsible for the service, the Mayor of London. The London Assembly would scrutinise the performance of the service on behalf of Londoners.
What TfL want
One of the interesting things about this report is that it highlights just how open both TfL and the Mayor have become about their precise devolution desires. Their general desire for more control has not previously been a secret, of course. Indeed in Issue 1 of LR Magazine we looked at TfL’s current approach to devolution. This report, however, sees things get very explicit – South London is the target.
During this investigation, the Mayor’s Office and TfL have restated their ambition to secure the devolution of further rail franchises. Their focus remains South London, where the London Underground has relatively little coverage and Londoners are most reliant on rail services.
We even have a TfL-approved map.
The map makes the desires of both the Mayor and TfL as plain as they can be. They want parts of:
- South Eastern (Currently held by Govia. Expires 2018)
- South Western (Stagecoach. Expires 2017)
- Thameslink (Govia. 2021)
- Southern (Govia. 2021)
- Great Northern (Govia. 2021)
If these franchises are the target, then what specifically do TfL and the Mayor want from them?
Here the report is clear:
As with the Greater Anglia franchise, the Mayor’s specific proposal for the South Eastern franchise is for TfL to take over suburban services within London and the city’s immediate surroundings, rather than the entire franchise. This would mean routes as far as Dartford and Sevenoaks in Kent coming under the control of TfL, with longer-distance services and local Kent services being part of a separate franchise agreement. The routes devolved to TfL would become part of the London Overground network.
A proven track record
Given the heavy emphasis on a TfL takeover, one could be forgiven for assuming that this report was another one of their own rather than the London Assembly’s. The Transport Committee make it clear, however, why it’s not just the possibility of increased governance over franchises that makes them argue for TfL control.
They feel TfL control would deliver more benefits to travellers, the report argues, because TfL have a track record of already delivering those benefits on the Overground.
These benefits are based on the recent success of the London Overground network, which has demonstrated TfL’s strong will to improve services and its ability to manage operator performance. By and large, passengers on franchises overseen by the Department for Transport have not seen this happen on their services. TfL has also shown greater willingness to invest in services, for instance in extra train carriages and additional station staff, than DfT and the operators it has appointed.
It is here that we perhaps must suggest a little caution. Whilst it is demonstrably true that the Overground has been – and continues to be – a success, the recent takeover of West Anglia services demonstrated that they too can struggle when faced with more complex franchises. This the report does at least acknowledge, but it also, somewhat bizarrely, takes a rather rose-tinted view of passenger levels on Overground services.
The London Overground is unique among London and South East rail services in that, overall, it is the only operator whose services are not overcrowded. Furthermore, the Overground is the only operator to have reduced crowding in the past five years. While the average passengers in excess of capacity (PiXC) score for central London arrivals in the three-hour morning peak has nearly doubled from 2.9 per cent to 5.4 per cent, on the London Overground it has fallen from 2.7 per cent to zero. TfL has managed to achieve this while demand for services has increased by 136 per cent; the Overground carried 140 million passengers in 2014/15.
One suspects that passengers on the Gospel Oak – Barking and North London Lines in particular would take exception to the suggestion that their services aren’t hugely overcrowded. Nor can one imagine TfL particularly denying this to be the case – in fact they’ve done the exact opposite, publicly, on multiple occasions. Nonetheless the underlying point is true. No other TOC in London can claim to have increased capacity on its lines, relatively speaking, as much as TfL.
Keeping costs down
The report does admit that a TfL takeover in South London wouldn’t lead to an automatic cut in all fares. As it points out, however, what TfL do bring to the table is a much simpler fares system, as well as a variety of free travel concessions.
These aren’t the only potential savings that the report argues devolution could bring. Assuming TfL follow the same model of staffing stations and aggressively tackling fare evasion (primarily through more ticket barriers and a visible staff presence) then this too would yield income. The drastic levels of reduced evasion seen on the North London Line (13% pre-TfL, 2% today) are not likely to be seen again. Nonetheless £240m is currently estimated to be lost annually through fare evasion, and if further devolution occurred there can be no doubt that TfL would be looking to carve out a slice of that particular pie.
Staffing stations isn’t just about money, either. The report quotes Transport for All as highlighting that it is good for passengers with accessibility issues too.
Transport for All, which represents disabled transport users, said that it was strongly in favour of further devolution, citing London Overground’s station staffing, tactile paving and integrated customer information as key strengths of the service.
The barriers
If the report believes that devolution is so critical, then it as also happy to admit that barriers to this do exist. Indeed for those already familiar with the various issues and opinions about devolution, then this is perhaps one of the more interesting sections of the report.
In the past, it was certainly the case that the DfT themselves were decided lukewarm on the devolution concept. This report, however, makes it clear that this no longer seems to be the case:
We understand that there is no principled objection from the Department for Transport to devolving rail services: this has already happened in London to some extent with the Silverlink and Greater Anglia franchises.
It is not just the DfT, however, who have previously expressed reservations about devolution. As we have discussed before, various County Councils on the outskirts of London have traditionally opposed TfL taking control of London franchises as well.
The reasons for this are ultimately the same as those which have made TfL seek greater control over the network in the first place – local governance. TfL is accountable to London, not the counties, and there has traditionally been a fear that this would mean better services for Londoners to the detriment of the counties further out.
In the past, the most vocal of opposing counties was arguably Kent. Indeed it is generally accepted that Kent’s objections contributed to TfL’s failure to receive the South Eastern franchise when it was last let.
Interestingly, the report claims that this is no longer an issue:
Kent County Council now broadly supports rail devolution in principle. The Council told us it would be in favour of TfL taking over parts of the South Eastern franchise provided certain safeguards are in place to ensure Kent passengers are not disadvantaged
Rather handily, it also lays out what those safeguards are:
- Fares for rail passengers in Kent must not be higher as a result of devolution
- Existing rail paths for Kent’s mainline services must be protected.
- Extra capacity on peak metro services must only be provided through train lengthening.
Hertfordshire County Council also indicate their broad approval for devolution within the report, with their condition being representation of some kind at a senior level:
We would support the devolution of additional suburban rail services if… There would be a process to give Hertfordshire residents a say in the governance of any devolved services to balance the fact that these matters would fall under the jurisdiction of a Mayor democratically accountable to the London electorate.
Both statements represent a huge step forward on the path to devolution. Of all the problems, getting political buy-in from outside the capital had arguably become the greatest. If opposition has begun to subside, then TfL and (clearly, from this report) the London Assembly will be very pleased indeed.
Practical problems
This is not to say that all the problems with devolution are political. Splitting franchises inevitably brings with it some serious logistical challenges and these, the report admits, will need to be addressed. It provides the example of rolling stock and depots:
Many train operators for operational and staffing reasons are dependent on railway sidings, and use depots some distance from the London area to serve their London ‘metro’ operations, for example Southeastern has a large depot and sidings at Gillingham in Kent; Thameslink similarly at Bedford, Three Bridges and Brighton; Southern at Brighton; South West Trains at Fratton near Portsmouth. Often trains and drivers have rosters which include these facilities. There could be costs of relocating staff and stock to locations closer to or within London, and of acquiring additional stock, and recruiting extra staff to meet the constraints that a new devolved settlement and consequent operational separation would create.
There would also likely be other, unforeseen costs for TfL. One can sense the slight bitterness lurking between the lines of TfL’s account of some of their issues with West Anglia:
Devolution may create unforeseen additional costs for TfL, some of which became apparent when Greater Anglia services were devolved. On the new London Overground lines, train carriages inherited by TfL had to be taken out of service for urgent repair, which led to a temporary reduction in capacity. On the new TfL Rail service between Liverpool Street and Shenfield, stations inherited by TfL were also found to be in need of significant improvements, an unanticipated cost which TfL had to meet.
Old railway hands would point out that dumping dodgy assets on your successor is practically a railway tradition and TfL probably should have anticipated it. The underlying point, however, remains true – one must expect the unexpected, and also expect it to cost money.
Moving into infrastructure
If the report is generally vociferous in its calls for greater TfL control over South London’s railway, then there is perhaps one area on which it is more lukewarm – infrastructure management.
Here it suggests that TfL could bring to the table a level of centralised planning and oversight that Network rail often appear to be lacking. Nonetheless, the arguments for devolution here are far weaker (as the report itself is prepared to admit). In the end, the report is happy to recommend simply that TfL should perhaps play a greater role in a wider strategy group from which all infrastructure work in London would ultimately spring.
A new public push
What, then, are the conclusions that this new report draws?
Ultimately, they are pretty much the same ones that TfL and others have made before. Devolution would bring all round improvement on London’s railways, well beyond the scale of anything the current approach can deliver. It is also, the report argues, the only way to ensure that London’s continued growth is adequately supported. This is an assessment that Sir Peter Hendy, the previous London Transport Commissioner, concurred with during our recent interview.
In terms of specific objectives, the report is clear:
Based on the findings of this investigation, we will be urging the Department for Transport to devolve control over London’s suburban rail services to the Mayor and Transport for London, working in partnership with other local authorities, as existing franchise agreements conclude.
This should begin with the suburban routes of the South Eastern franchise in 2018, followed by the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise in 2021 and the South Western franchise at a date to be confirmed.
The long-term ambition for the Mayor and TfL should be to use these powers to establish a genuine metro-style rail service in South London and beyond, one that is comparable in its capacity and reliability to the London Underground.
A full incorporation of key South London railways into the Overground is the ultimately goal then. To achieve this, the Transport Committee suggests that TfL should begin planning and pushing even harder for more control. A variety of more specific objectives can be found in the text, but ultimately they boil down to the same thing – establish what’s worth fighting for, engage with local councils to make sure they’re on-side and demonstrate to the DfT and – more importantly – the general public, that these lines are managed by the wrong people.
That last point is perhaps the most pertinent one. For without further exposure and more public pressure further devolution is unlikely to happen. It is into public opinion that TfL need to make inroads.
In that regard TfL will most certainly welcome this report. It is one thing to call for more control yourself, but few can argue that having it come from London’s democratically elected governing body is even better.
Some thoughts:
It’s interesting that the map doesn’t include the Thameslink inner suburban services as targets for TfL control, even though the text of the report apparently does (is the report online yet?). The map also shows the Wimbledon loop as terminating at Blackfriars – a hint about what TfL would prefer if they did have control of Thameslink inners?
TfL taking over the Southwestern inners would seem to make a lot of sense if Crossrail 2 goes ahead (assuming Crossrail 2 is operated under a TfL concession).
Milton Keynes isn’t exactly inner suburban but I can see why it might be a good idea to have only one passenger operator on the West London Line.
Will Greenford – West Ealing and Heathrow Express be left as the only services wholly in Greater London not under TfL control?
Interesting article. One area which could also benefit from TfL’s intervention (probably by franchise increments) is the frequency of service operating at Chiltern’s suburban stations such as Sudbury Hill and Harrow.
The GN Inners seems odd. Within the lifetime of the current franchise they’ll be getting a new fleet and a minor shuffle of services. Currently some Moorgate services go to Letchworth; that’s ending (with more Cambridge Thameslink services). However, Moorgate services (and the fleet) will still go to Stevnage via Hertford North and to Welwyn. They can’t seriously be suggesting they take just the Moorgate-Hertford route? That would mean even more issues with splitting fleets and depots- something avoided by leaving Thameslink as a single operation
A good article
I am pleased to see that the Fulwell Chord is included on the map, as I had feared it would be ignored altogether. Encouraging.
“in the past five years. While the average passengers in excess of capacity (PiXC) score for central London arrivals in the three-hour morning peak ……………..on the London Overground it has fallen from 2.7 per cent to zero. ”
Until earlier this year the Overground only operated into one central London terminus, and the trains on that route have increased from three cars to four, despite PiXC having been only 2.7% to start with!
“Many train operators for operational and staffing reasons are dependent on railway sidings, and use depots some distance from the London area to serve their London ‘metro’ operations,”
SWT is an exception here, as its principal depot for suburban units is at Wimbledon.
“This should begin with the suburban routes of the South Eastern franchise in 2018, followed by the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise in 2021 and the South Western franchise at a date to be confirmed. ”
Why not when the existing franchise expires in 2017?
I learned from an unimpeachable source that the previous discussions around transfer of the SE metro to TfL were sailing along nicely. Until, that is, the SoS asked how much it would cost. When told the answer, he blanched visibly (the total being measured in significant fractions of a billion) and the rest is history.
Which is rather the point. The improved service levels, simpler fares, new trains, longer staffing etc etc all cost money. It could be done today (well, in a few months) with the existing franchisees if the contract was right and the cash was available. Look at the ‘subsidy’ profile of the LO network including infrastructure costs compared to any of the other SE TOCs, acknowledging that the traffic profile is different due to the lack of outer suburban season ticket holders. The people who run LO have mostly come from a TOC background and use similar systems and processes as a regular TOC. And they make a profit. But they are funded to do the right things.
Also, LO was a huge opportunity; poor frequency, poor staffing levels, appalling stations, a shiny new railway under construction, plenty of opportunity to add capacity. While it cost more (a LOT more) for LO to operate than its predecessor, the additional frequency and longer trains helped bridge the gap with additional farebox, and TfL come out smelling of roses. As we know, there is little opportunity for additional capacity in South London (at least until CR2 happens) and therefore transferring to TfL implies the additional cost without the additional revenue. Indeed with lots of freedom passes and ‘simpler’ (ie cheaper) fares revenue could conceivably fall. Doesn’t look so good from that viewpoint, at least not for whoever is paying.
A properly coordinated suburban rail system has to be the right thing to do, but as ever, who pays?
@John Bull – a very interesting article – thank you.
The sleeping gorilla which remains unmentioned is money. This at two levels: taking on (most of) the remaining inners will not be cheap, not just because of the desirable upgrades, but also there may well be diseconomies of scale where depots may have to be disaligned from their present routes+, but also because there is no present mechanism for getting the Roseland counties to pay for the services that TfL would provide. It’s arguable that they don’t pay now,of course; the taxpayer does, but (a) in future they would be slipstreaming behind TfL’s presumed general uplift in service quality, and (b) if they aren’t paying, why should they expect representation – not that logic will be aroundwhen the debate kicks off, alas.
@Ian J – I agree, the map is odd.. The most noteable curiosity is the lack of interest in the LT&S – the nearest thing on the mainline network to a metro operation,self-contained and no more remote in its reach than the MK services. I wondered if the map is simply a reflexion of what is coming up for franchising soon.
Blood and custard moment – back in the day, I had a long term bet with my staff that there would be a point at which (a) BR wouldfind they were losing serious money on the inners, and (b) the GLC (as was) would begin to take an active interest in acquiring them. The bet was when that would happen – we thought the mid to late ’90s. How we laughed; we’re still laughing now.
+ this would seem to be a particular issue around Wimbledon. Of course,multi-user depots are possible, but the practicalities of managing them are a nightmare.
It seems to add up to more subsidy for London internal train services and more pain and cost for commuters coming in from just outside London. I guess that’s the price for allowing a London Mayor too much power.
Although I agree the principle of what is proposed as its logical to split metro from suburban and longer distance services
Graham H,
The most noteable curiosity is the lack of interest in the LT&S
My understanding is that TfL have zero interest because they think it is already being well run and there is nothing much they can do to improve it. They don’t want to risk it being the first railway that was run better under franchising than London Overground. Besides, as you say, it isn’t entirely a metro operation. In fact it is only with the December 2015 timetable that it will start to look in any way like a metro service within London.
Looking at the quotes from the report “The London Overground is unique…..only operator whose services are not overcrowded” – whoever wrote that has not used the services or at least the ones I do from West Brompton to Clapham Junction where passengers fight to squeeze into trains
Depots for Southern Metro services are described as being in Brighton. What about Selhurst and Streatham Common where most metro services run from. Also the reference to Thameslink where few trains terminate in the London area having depots outside London the logical place.
Great article as usual
Initial Thoughts:
The map is also missing the 4tph Catford Loop Thameslink services so it looks like DfT may have said that is out of bounds.
SWT refranchising in 2017 is probably too soon for TfL to action anything especially as regards budget required (the upfront cash flow required that SWT
I suspect the travel cost question isn’t necessaririly that well understood by the Committee (without having seen the actual report). It may simply boil down to the old chestnut of North London “tube” commuters effectively having onwards zone 1 (or beyond cross-London) tube included where as South London “Rail” commuters have to pay extra for the tube. (Very simplified, I know it is more subtle and complicated in reality)
Whether TfL could afford to throw in free/cheap tube usage and whether the tube could cope with massed hoards of extra passengers are 2 particularly big questions they would like to duck.
Re Timbeau,
Agree the Overground numbers are a bit disengenous if they only look at Watford DC services don’t include Goblin, ELL, WLL which is where the PIXC issues really are!
Re T33,
They were talking about depot outside London that serve metro services rather than the ones inside London that serve Metro services.
(Streatham Hill rather than Common and also Stewarts Lane in Battersea for Southern)
I think Anonymous at 08:42 has put his/her finger on an important point. Significant improvement to London metro services will cost significant money. Whether the existing franchise holders could really do it “in a few months” is debateable, but sadly we are unlikely to find out by a practical experiment. Money may well be the key, but the control/devolution element is also important, partly because it is the only way, politically speaking, that significantly more money can be put into transport in London.
The answer to “who pays?” is of course the taxpayer. But the only way this can happen, given the history, is devolution.
Concessions operate on the Overground model – indeed the Overground pioneered it.
Are you sure that is correct?
I thought Mersyrail started this particular idea (?)
I note, as does Ian J, that “Fig 7”, the TfL wish-list map includes the tame Slink as a darker, thicker grey, without listing it directly.
Does this indicate a desire to take over: Wimbledon Loop + At Albans – Sevenoaks, maybe?
Meanwhile, what about the Lea Valley locals – Hertford East … or is that in the “CR2” box?
Ian J
GreenfEaling is probably an oversight, &
TheifrowHeathrow Express will end in 2023, anyway.timbeau
Why not when the existing franchise expires in 2017?
Probably because there isn’t enough time to get the paperwork & engineering preparations in place – unless DfT are prepared to “extend” the SWT suburbans, for say, 18 months – difficult.
Anonymous
( re. SWT) fares revenue could conceivably fall. Really? With fully-staffed stations & barriers?
I suspect that it wouldn’t be as good as SE or the N London line, but I think the amount of fraudulent travel would drop sharply.
T33
You aren’t a revanchist from Kent, perchance?
Seriously though, you seem to be making unjustified assumptions, based on very little evidence.
Oops pressed send on the original comment too soon before finishing the 2nd paragraph.
SWT refranchising in 2017 is probably too soon for TfL to action anything especially as regards budget required (the upfront cash flow required that SWT has effectively committed either it or Its successor to spending very early in the new franchise.
Re Malcolm,
Agreed, I suspect the exisiting franchise holders might actually be able to action more effective improvements as they will have a very good idea of what will make the biggest diffence initially based on years of experience.
Thanks to Anon for confirming some of what I (and we) all suspected.
There are 2 very big luminous elephants in the SE room:
1. The ammount of ticket less travel let (before we even get to “Stonegating”). SE have to pay the cost of more revenue collection measures but the effectively benefit goes to straight to DfT). Hence it is harder to justify service improvements based on the lower than actual passneger numbers.
2. HS1 “Javelin” services require huge amounts of subsidy the effective equivalent of the NR track access cost is 8-10 times what NR typically charge and would probably leave a new “Kent” Franchise looking like Northern in cost & subsidy terms as the metro services do a good job of disguising/ hidding the HS1 issue at the moment.
“Often those franchises, let by the DfT, are comprised of ”
s/b “let by the DfT, comprise”
At the Sevenoaks Rail Travellers Association AGM in October 2015 a senior TfL spokesperson stated that DfT had specified that it was essential that all trains through the Thameslink core should be the responsibility of a single TOC. TfL accept this since and have no wish/ambition to run trains to/from Brighton, Peterborough etc. Perhaps TfL, like many others, also regard 24tph as “challenging”?
Interesting to see the Tattenham/Caterham services left off the map. One the one hand, it’s understandable since the main target communities of the services are outside of Greater London. On the other, it seems ludicrous to not include services just outside the boundary (and inside Zone 6!) that run on the slow lines half the time. Surely there’d be an operational benefit to having the slow/fast lines segregated by TOC/concession? (But then you’re left with the Tattenham/Caterham services that *do* run fast to ECR)
I assume that Thameslink will be staying within a Thameslink franchise in order to minimise any core disruption. Giving full control to one TOC for core services is probably a good idea in order to maximise that 24tph not going to pot if one train is late.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the South Western franchise has somewhat higher passenger satisfaction levels than Southern/South Eastern, especially given the nature of the SW inners compared with Southern/South Eastern, which is why the get a “reprieve” in terms of keeping their services within SWT. I’d also suggest Crossrail 2 as a more logical time to take over SW Inners, because that will result in a step change in the service level.
Also, if this mass takeover of South London inner suburban services does occur, will they finally differentiate lines on the map?
Curiosity:
If TfL take over the GN inners, Thameslink take over most of the GN Outers, that does leave King’s Cross – Cambridge as a peculiar stub “Great Northern” franchise, or a Thameslink service that does not “link” to the “Thames”.
Re Anon,
“DfT had specified that it was essential that all trains through the Thameslink core should be the responsibility of a single TOC. TfL accept this since ”
Thanks, I suspect this might be the case.
Not sure Catford Loop users would be that happy but time to dust off the old SLL replacement VIC – Bellingham plans?
Re Chz,
Lots of CAT/TAT services will be operated by Thameslink in the future.
Maybe TFL also want to avoid having abnything to do with East Croydon.
Re glbotu,
Agreed I think the committee might have missed a few key subtleties in the service map or future service map which doesn’t instill confidence overall!
@Graham H and Pedantic – on the LT&S, also note that fares are already interavailable with the Underground as far as Upminster, so the reduction in fares experienced by TfL Rail customers on the Shenfield line wouldn’t happen.
Of which operation:
“On the new TfL Rail service between Liverpool Street and Shenfield, stations inherited by TfL were also found to be in need of significant improvements, an unanticipated cost which TfL had to meet.”
Unanticipated? It would barely take a day to go take a look at every station on the Shenfield line; why wasn’t that done?
An interesting article which makes me wonder about the London Assembly’s ambitions.
I understand that the size of Greater London was set by an act of 1963. The proposed devolution includes areas surrounding GL. Time for a re-run of The Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London (also known as the Herbert Commission)?
@Graham H
“The most noteable curiosity is the lack of interest in the LT&S – the nearest thing on the mainline network to a metro operation,self-contained and no more remote in its reach than the MK services”
I don’t find that odd at all – unlike the services which are now being considered, the bulk of LTS traffic is to out-of London destinations. Their inner suburban operations were handed over to TfL’s predecessors in 1932.
@Greg
“fares revenue could conceivably fall. Really? With fully-staffed stations & barriers?”
Yes really – within GLA most people use season tickets or Oyster, and the lower Oyster fares charged by TfL compared with TOCs – especially if travelling beyond Waterloo – would represent a loss of revenue which I suspect would not be outweighed by greater enforcement.
@ngh
“SWT refranchising in 2017 is probably too soon for TfL to action anything especially as regards budget required (the upfront cash flow required that SWT has effectively committed either it or Its successor to spending very early in the new franchise.”
What is this? NR (whose “Alliance” with SWT has now been dissolved) are committed to major work at Waterloo, but as far as I am aware SWT have no further commitments to major investment after 2017 – at least not on the suburban side. The 456s will have been re-equipped by then, and so will the ac traction package on the 455s. The 707s for the Windsor line (itself marginal as to whether it should be included in a TfL group) will be in service by then, and are primarily to allow 458s to be cascaded to longer-distance services rather than to enhance the suburban services. Indeed, they will in one important respect be a retrograde step for the Windsor line as, unlike the 458s, the 707s will not have toilets .
SWT has higher priorities than investing in the captive-market cash-cow plebs on the red trains: they’ve got to enhance the wifi on the Dorset line first.
“they will have a very good idea of what will make the biggest difference initially based on years of experience”
Stagecoach have had over twenty years experience of running the South West London suburban services. That is more than enough time to have made a difference already.
Martin Smith says “It would barely take a day to go take a look at every station on the Shenfield line; why wasn’t that done?”
I am speculating that that was exactly what was done. Someone, maybe not the right someone, spent a short time on the task, and as a result of their efforts a ball-park estimate was made of what would need to be done to the stations. After the takeover, further work, measured in person-months rather than person-days, has come up with a completely different price. What they probably should have said was something like “the costs for the required station improvements was significantly underestimated, requiring a significantly larger bill to be met.”
The phrase “optimism bias” may also have some bearing.
@glbotu
“I wouldn’t be surprised if the South Western franchise has somewhat higher passenger satisfaction levels than Southern/South Eastern, especially given the nature of the SW inners compared with Southern/South Eastern”
Please explain your reasoning for this extraordinary assertion. (Morning train was cancelled six times this week – including two consecutive ones on Wednesday)
@timbeau – whereas some of the other GLA ambitions such as MK are not “out-of London destinations”?
@Michael – In a rational world, reviewing the GLA boundaries is long overdue (not least to remedy the stupidities and gerrymandering that went on in the run up to the 1963 legislation). however, as it is, “light blue touch paper and retire to safe distance”.
I’m a little surprised that the South Western ambitions include Windsor & Eton and Weybridge. It would be quite straightforward to exclude these and limit the TfL services to the Hounslow and Kingston loops, Shepparton, Hampton Court and Chessington. Dorking is slightly odd as, again, it goes a long way beyond the boundaries of Greater London but I suspect it would be harder to make a break at Epsom or Leatherhead.
The other stretch that goes well, well, beyond London is the West London Line services to Milton Keynes. Does this suggest they may actually be cut back to Watford Junction?
As the Assembly report makes clear, TfL will also have to deal with the issues of Freedom Pass beyond London. The current legislation means that Freedom Pass holders have the right to free travel on any TfL rail service. This is already costing boroughs (who pay for Freedom Pass) more and the extension of Crossrail to Reading is estimated to cost an extra £20m a year from council tax payers. Add in extensions to Windsor, Weybridge, Dorking, Stevenage and Milton Keynes (let alone any others on the wish list) and the additional unavoidable cost could be significantly more at a time when local government funding is already squeezed too tight.
@Graham H
“whereas some of the other GLA ambitions such as MK are not “out-of London destinations”
As I understand it only the West London Line services to MK are in the frame. But you either have mixed working on the WLL or mixed working between Watford and MK..
@quinlet
“I’m a little surprised that the South Western ambitions include Windsor & Eton and Weybridge. It would be quite straightforward to exclude these and limit the TfL services to the Hounslow and Kingston loops…………….”
I agree W&W look anomalous, but if you don’t include Weybridge you exclude half the Hounslow Loop services. And if you do include Weybridge, Windsor would be left out on a limb as it branches off the main (Reading) line before the Weybridge line does.
I think the “do SWT later” recommendation is just a reflection of the fact that TfL simply have not got the time to conduct the procurement process for a separated inner suburban network. The decision to relet in 2017 has wrecked the previous smooth glide path of franchise take overs starting with South Eastern in 2018. I also suspect that 40% cuts to DfT budgets mean that they will be looking for an extremely handsome premium profile for the replacement SWT franchise. One wonders if Mr Souter (and his captive commuters – before Timbeau shouts at me!) is prepared to fork out many more billions in premiums to retain his train set south of the Thames? Still Govia could win it and then they could be in charge of all lines south of the Thames! Hark do I hear the tormented souls of Timbeau and Mr Hewett screaming at such a prospect? 🙂
I’m not surprised about the lack of interest in C2C. I only tend to use them within Greater London but the service is extremely good. For the first time I saw some peak hour C2C trains at Rainham and Barking this week and they were, shall we say, a bit busy. Huge numbers poured off the train at Rainham. Where C2C could be better is with their off peak frequencies to places like Rainham – half hour waits aren’t wonderful and it’s not as if there isn’t going to be huge development in that part of Greater London.
Having also witnessed some PM peak GOBLIN trains this week and nearly been knocked down by the flood of people alighting at Barking then to suggest (even tongue in cheek) that the Overground is not overcrowded is a cruel joke. The peak time ELL is no fun either having also seen that on my travels and as for the NLL going east from Highbury – eeeeeek! I like the Overground a lot but even with 5 car trains and possibly some slow down in growth rates compared to the past TfL has some very significant challenges *now* never mind in 5 years time. I am left wondering whether the scope of the new concession, as so far publicly stated, is perhaps a little lacking in ambition. Will a couple of extra peak tph really make that much long term difference in terms of capacity for people? It’s likely to be eaten up within months.
The report recommendations are not, as you state, any sort of surprise. There does seem to be more recognition of the risks involved in splitting up railway operations that have long operated as entire divisions / franchises. Clearly the early days of West Anglia have chastened people that it doesn’t take much to have a mess on your hands. MTR Crossrail seem to have had a smoother start but their inheritance was, perhaps, simpler. I agree, though, that money is the issue and we don’t know about that until late November when Mr Osborne makes his pronouncements in the Autumn Statement. I don’t expect any demonstrable progress on these recommendations until after May 2016 (other than what TfL is already doing in line with current City Hall policies). Any clues as to when the updated “City Hall Rail Vision” will emerge?
Re Timbeau,
“Stagecoach have had over twenty years experience of running the South West London suburban services. That is more than enough time to have made a difference already.”
But they have to get DfT to agree to spend more first in virtually all cases. The same with other franchises.
I’ll have look at the franchise variations that SWT signed upto in detail – the infrastucture work could be paid for (back) by higher track access charges wihci loads the cost back to the TOC and passeneger.
TfL probably not too interested in SWT metro as no cheap improvements after the next few years. (CR2 and / or 12 car neither cheap or particularly quick)
@quinlet – operationally, the Windsor and Weybridge services are part of the inners and pulling them out will lead to additional cost. [ In the run up to privatisation, with the Treasury in maximum competition mode, the Board was asked to consider whether SW should be broken up into about a dozen small franchises. My remit from the Chairman was to demonstrate that that was inefficient, and so it was, because of stock utilisation, depot management and crew working. The same would probably apply here, too – possibly even more so, as the maximum split envisaged for the inners was (1) the services north of the main line, (2) the services south of the main line, (3) the medium distance services such as Weybridge and Reading].
@ GH, who said: > “In a rational world, reviewing the GLA boundaries is long overdue (not least to remedy the stupidities and gerrymandering that went on in the run up to the 1963 legislation). however, as it is, “light blue touch paper and retire to safe distance”.
Not only because of the “Freedom Pass” which pensioners “Within the Pale” cherish, whereas those who live the wrong side of the wall have to pay for all train travel leading to anomalies. Chessington dwellers get benefits that those living nearer (Dittons, Molesey?) do not currently enjoy. The grey vote will not allow their existing benefits to be taken from them whilst the cost of say ‘pushing the line further out’ could cost £Squillions. So we have the Shepperton Branch currently with a few extra-mural stations at the end of the line, and other interesting situations that will not be an “easy fix”
@John Bull
A good and timely write up.
I note with interest that the Lea Valley line via Tottenham Hale seems to be missing from this plan, which seems a bit odd, given than the services end up in the same place as those that go via Seven Sisters.
This also means that the proposed “STAR” (STratford to Angel Road) service is also missing, which given that Lea Bridge station is reopening soon seems a bit of an oversight.
However, if the “sidings” issue can be attended to – and I’m sure it can – this seems like the start of a good plan.
Perhaps TfL, like many others, also regard 24tph as “challenging”?
NO
Count trains up/down Bethnal Green bank in the rush hours?
Or even 16 tph through the Thames Tunnel, which is constrained by the current (new) signalling system (!)
@ngh
“But they have to get DfT to agree to spend more first in virtually all cases. ”
SWT always claim to be “investing” in the system as if it was their own money. In nearly all cases it turns out to be DfT money. And even when it isn’t, they will be expecting a return on their investment (with dividend for their shareholders), which we will be paying for, either through the farebox or taxation.
@ Malcolm / M Smith – I think someone has got the wrong end of the stick about the Shenfield line stations. The context here is “Crossrail”. I am sure that people did survey the stations’ conditions. The fact that TfL have taken on a new form of long term lease on these stations (and for most of West Anglia) means they must have checked what they were taking on. What has emerged subsequently is simply that TfL have decided they want a common quality standard to apply to all Crossrail stations. Hence an authority paper came forward to supplement the “deep clean” work already specified for MTR Crossrail to do in their concession and upgrade the stations to a higher Crossrail spec. The preferred way of doing the work was to amend the concession contract so that MTR Crossrail procure and manage the work as a whole. They will also do this at sites west of Paddington which are not receiving major rebuilds as part of the Crossrail project scope.
We need to remember that Crossrail’s project scope was pushed downwards to make it affordable. This meant a lot of work at suburban stations was dropped. We then had the debacle about stations not being made accessible. Money was found for that and now more money has been found for the suburban stations. None of this is any great shock – we all know games are played with scope and “pots of money” to get projects across the start line in the full knowledge that there are residual issues that need sorting out later.
We can hardly be shocked to see politicians being a tad “flexible” in their interpretation of what actually happened if it helps reinforce the argument they are making. Not the first time Assembly members have done this and it won’t be the last either.
Reorganisation of London Boundaries? Never!
No one living outside of London would want to be subsumed by it.
As a general rule , most of the surrounding district councils are solidly Tory, so there’s no great incentive for Labour to support it. They have difficulty of thinking or people outside zone 3 as Londoners as it is.
In theory Tories should support the chance of turning London Blue, but for that to be a given you’d be talking about stripping nearly all the surrounding districts from their respective counties, not just a few that straddle the SW of the M25.
Not sure the surrounding councils would want to be subject to the Mayors precept and no doubt higher transport taxes to come.
Plus you never know with politics your blue little district could be subject to a Red overarching central authority and well that is a risk.
The Greenbelt holds in London and as long as that holds so will it’s political boundaries. Look how ridiculously underbounded London got before the finally created the GLC.
timbeau
I supect not.
A lot of Waterloo commuters are using point-to-point fares & walk forward, or uses buses on a separate Oyster.
Transferring to a Zones “n-1” season will cost more & bring in more revenue, as was spotted on the ex-GER lines.
WW
Still Govia could win it and then they could be in charge of all lines south of the Thames!
Paging the shade of Sir Herbert Walker, Sir H Walker to the Ouijja board, please …..
Castlebar
Well, the anomalies you point to regarding Freedom Pass use are consequences of the previously referred to Gerrymandering in that part of the world in 1963 etc ….
Much of it may be down to fleets. Weybridge and Windsor will be operated by SWT’s Class 707 fleet- it makes sense to absorb the entire operation that will be covered by that fleet. With new fleets especially being procured on contracts that include servicing to greater or lesser extents splitting up a fleet becomes much harder- this will be a major factor in keeping Thameslink “whole”.
Which is why I’m confused, from the map, by the GN Inners. As well as terminating Thameslink locals Welwyn is planned to retain GN Inners. Indeed, by the end of the franchise the GN will be three almost seperate operations (though they will presumably still share drivers): Thameslink for Peterborough and Cambridge (non-express) (all Class 700), GN Metro (with new 6-car fleet) and Cambridge (and Kings Lynn) Express, using 377/5 and 365s with peak-hours extras to Peterborough. Subject to staff it will (relatively!) easy to split it up.
But then the map is the Mayor & TfL, not The Assembly, so it becomes more confusing.
With the LTS: Although they’re moving to provide some more Metro type services, do remember that Upminster to Bromley-By-Bow is a four track railway, with the Metro operation in the hands of LU. Similarly Chiltern (also not slated for any sort of takeover) has the Metropolitan, Jubilee and Central lines providing the Metro, so it makes little sense for TfL to touch that.
Exactly what happens with the Lea Valley is down to what form Crossrail 2 eventually takes
@WW. Thanks for your fact-based explanation on the matter of the Shenfield line stations. Facts invariably win over speculation and I feel slightly embarrassed at having indulged in the latter. But explanations of the kind you give are, to me, one of the glories of this site.
@Rational Plan
Indeed, any boundary change proposals could backfire: I can think of some parts of Greater London which appear to regret not having been as forceful as their neighbours when the boundaries were being decided.
I suspect Bromley, Chislehurst and Orpington councils look very enviously at their neighbours in Banstead, Epsom and Ewell.
There are no natural boundaries which can be used to define Greater London, but there is a physical one: the M25. defining TfL to cover everything inside that would remove a lot of the anomalies. (See Dartford, Weybridge, Watford)
Hmm, in contrast to Tattenham/Caterham, the entire Chertsey branch seems to be on the devolution wishlist, despite (unless I’m mistaking something) being wholly outside Greater London.
@Al_S
“remember that Upminster to Bromley-By-Bow is a four track railway, with the Metro operation in the hands of LU. Similarly Chiltern (also not slated for any sort of takeover) has the Metropolitan, Jubilee and Central lines providing the Met”
Likewise Wat-Eus. Having the local services run by TfL/London Transport/LER is so ingrained on these routes that nobody notices any more. (not to mention the complete takeover of much of the LNER suburban network just after WW2)
Had electrification south of the river not proceeded beyond the suburban area quite so quickly the Southern’s suburban services might have followed a similar story to that of the Metropolitan Railway. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that the Southern’s first main line electrification opened just six months before London Transport was formed.
Re timbeau,
“Stagecoach does not currently expect the DoA to have a material impact on profit for the remaining period of the South West Trains franchise.”
i.e. it looks like the cost was actually loaded into the direct award extension and the next franchise.
Which might possibly explain some (no) direct award issues…
@timbeau – didn’t know that Chislehurst and Orpington has their own local authorities?
@RichardB “One area which could also benefit from TfL’s intervention (probably by franchise increments) is the frequency of service operating at Chiltern’s suburban stations such as Sudbury Hill and Harrow.”
This will take more than devolution since the constraint is capacity. Unless TfL fancy four-tracking the line at great expense, any suburban improvements would come at the expense of kiboshing the long distance services, provoking the ire of both Chiltern and the commuters and councils in Bucks and Oxon.
As it is, the current services in the peaks arrive into their termini barely a minute or two ahead of the next fast train.
@Grham H
“didn’t know that Chislehurst and Orpington has their own local authorities?”
They did until 1965. But I should have said “councillors” rather than “councils”
@timbeau
The better physical boundary for Greater London is the inner edge of greenbelt because greenbelt marks a quite distinct change in journey patterns with radials into central London and local journeys supporting being more pronounced outside London. Inside London although radials are still strong there is a much more diverse journey pattern which is harder to categorise.
I seem to recall that it was four track through at least some of the stations – see the curious layout at Sudbury & Harrow Road. However, the served by that line is not short of alternative services.
No, pretty much two track all the way although there’s room (I think) for 4 – some of the space that was going to be used for HS2 at one point. Three tracks just east of South Ruislip thanks to retention of the old Down line when the new one was built a couple of years ago.
This is a special case of a much wider issue – just devolving to TfL won’t solve a lot of the underlying issues overnight – like the complex web of lines and flat junctions all over South London – although it might provide a better framework for the right amount of long term infrastructure investment.
@timbeau 11:03
National Rail Passenger Survey – Spring 2015 – Overall satisfaction
South West Trains – Metro 80%
Southeastern – Metro 73%
Southern – Metro 67%
South West may not be great but they consistently outperform Southern and Southeastern.
Devolution report now published:
https://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/publications/transport/devolving-rail-services-to-london-towards-a-south-london-metro
6 downloadable documents on the page.
@timbeau at 11:03
I commute from SW London so share your feeling but apparently it’s not such an extraordinary assertion (at least according to National Rail Passenger Survey: http://bit.ly/1QA2Pka)
Overall satisfaction (p.13):
Southeastern: 75%
Southern: 72%
South West Trains: 80%
Overall satisfaction by route (from p.43):
Southeastern Metro: 73%
Southern Metro: 67%
South West Trains Metro: 80%
If devolution per se is so politically difficult, perhaps a devolution “by stealth” approach could be made by simply converting all these routes into Crossrails. Four routes in total would probably be needed, and it would also solve the issue tight capacity at termini and split assets between TFL and TOCs for example.
The other option of course, is a reverse Network SouthEast. Meaning instead London’s suburban railways becoming part of a greater South East England transport network, instead South East England’s transport network would become part of a greater London suburban network. TFL would then run *everything* between Brimingham and Ramsgate and Weymouth to Ipswich. The Making Tracks to the Future articles paints a picture that in the years up to 2050, the SE’s railways will depend on how much capacity can be made on the first 25 mile approach into London. This would of course, create a significant challenge for TFL when working with Network Rail in how to create high capacity inner London services, while simultaneously co-existing with high capacity regional services. My inverse Network SouthEast model will also be futureproofed against any larger regional devolution plans the government has for SE England. Notably the creation of these so called “City Regions”, encompassing not just the officially designated city but also much of the surrounding area. A similar devolution model for London would most likely include a huge chunk of SE and Eastern England and would need a transport authority wholly separate from Network Rail.
@Stewart
That was six months ago. Reliability has plummeted over recent months – my best-beloved got £80 worth of void days when she renewed her season ticket last week, and we all know how high the bar has to be before they declare a void day. A dead train parked in the bay at Kingston every morning this week.
If the next satisfaction figures are as good as 80% I will smell a very large and noisome rat.
The speed with which comments have been added is amazing. My contribution is about “TfL” or “greater London”!
Comment is made about cutting back S Croydon – Milton Keynes services to Watford Junction.
I think one of the issues focussed on in this article is to improve services to the customer. Ceasing to run a well used service just because responsibility for commissioning it has moved from one commissioning authority to another would be quite wrong. Equally, just because a service is with one operator today, it doesn’t have to remain so – look at how Silverlink/Central trains were carved up.
I forget how the MK – S Croydon service (originally to Gatwick – much more useful in my view) came about as I don’t think it was originally a franchising obligation, but it is now really well used. Indeed a colleague travelling from the Chelsea area to MK mentioned that an 8 car set was “rammed” (made the tube seem civilised were his words) all the way to Watford Junction and well filled thereafter. They have also moved from 4 car to 5 car trains recently.
And, I should add in view of anon 1347s comment, that reliability is patchy – that aforementioned bay is just too convenient to dump something in when “congestion” is occurring further towards London (whether the actual cause is at Wimbledon, Witley or Winchester! ), so it is always us who cop it. No thought given to how that train’s ex-passengers are expected to continue their journey when they are two stops short of the main line and the next train is 15 minutes away and already running well over PIXC limits. Nor, even more, how passengers travelling in the opposite direction from further back towards London are supposed to get to it when it takes up its path on the return leg .
@Miles. Everyone is entitled to a viewpoint. But discussion here would be better focused on some of the more realistic possibilities in the short and medium term. Neither four new crossrails, nor TfL control over more than half of England’s railways, is anywhere near the bounds of current feasibility. Similar flights of fancy from anyone may be subject to a cull.
I suspect some of the choices are down to logistics, such as depot locations.
For example, if Crossrail 2’s tunnel portals are to the west of Wimbledon station, then the nearby depot will be on the ‘wrong’ side, requiring an awkward reversal manoeuvre to access the tunnel. I suspect the depot there would therefore end up used for longer-distance trains, rather than for Crossrail 2 services. I’m not sure where the CR2 depot will be, but it would be logical to have at least some facilities for stabling trains during the off-peak hours at both ends of the core route.
I also suspect that TfL are more than happy to wait until after all the disruption caused by Crossrail 2’s construction is over. Wimbledon’s station and environs are going to be a very busy, and noisy, construction site for some time.
Re Stewart, Anon & Timbeau,
Southern and SE customer satisfaction & PPM will have been very poor in spring because of the problems at London Bridge (which have since improved).
@Malcolm
Point taken – but I remain unconvinced that, with the political will, the GLA couldn’t be given more of a say in how SWT operates its Metro services when the franchise is re-let.
It is interesting to note that both Labour and Conservative candidates for mayor are currently MPs for parts of SWT-land, (and presumably at least one of them will continue to be an MP after the election!)
@ Malcolm, who said “@Miles. Everyone is entitled to a viewpoint”
Yes
And I understand Miles’ viewpoint, looking at old NSE maps showing Exeter etc on it. You cannot have a service run by two different operators, one at each end. That is what I think Miles is getting at, and I can see the logic in his reasoning too. You are entitled to your opinion too, but as you are a moderator I would try and understand his, as I can, rather than threaten censorship because you don’t see it.
Where I do disagree with Miles is that he has used the word “simply”, which I do agree, diminishes the whole article somewhat. As far as I see Miles’ post, only “………….simply converting all these routes into Crossrails……….. is where it falls down. Try and look at the bigger picture of what Miles is saying, and it does make sense.
An interesting point on the Milton Keynes route – I gather Hertfordshire County council are considering support for extending this service to run directly to Gatwick Airport. I’m sorry I forget the source – I think it was a recent public consultation. anyway it suggests that this route may not be absorbed into TfL’s scheme if it to run a longer route.
“The drastic levels of reduced evasion seen on the North London Line (13% pre-TfL, 2% today) are not likely to be seen again”
Why not? It is rife on many Southestern routes. I’d say above 13% based on blockades and ticket checks I’ve seen.
@ngh @timbeau @anon
You’re right, that does look to affect the numbers somewhat. Though over the last 10 surveys, SW still better on average.
South West Trains – Metro
80% 80% 78% 77% 82% 89% 84% 88% 83% 87%
Average = 82.8%
Southeastern – Metro
73% 71% 72% 83% 75% 83% 80% 83% 83% 79%
Average = 78.2%
Southern – Metro
67% 74% 78% 75% 81% 79% 80% 84% 84% 81%
Average = 78.3%
timbeau and ngh – I agree with you both (and would expect to see Southeastern and Southern rise and SWT fall in the next wave) but just pointing out that the NRPS data pretty consistently shows SWT doing better than Southeastern or Southern.
SWT has been on a gradual decline from 87% in Autumn 2010 to 80% in Spring 2015.
Southeastern increased from 80% in Autumn 2010 to 84% in Autumn 2013 (higher than SWT) then has fallen off to 75% in Spring 2015.
Southern has fallen from 82% in Autumn 2010 to 72% in Spring 2015.
SWT Metro has also been on a gradual decline from 87% in Autumn 2010 to 80% in Spring 2015.
Southeastern Metro has been a bit more up and down – and was briefly above SWT again – but overall has decreased from 79% in Autumn 2010 to 73% in Spring 2015.
Southern Metro has fallen from 81% in Autumn 2010 to 67% in Spring 2015 (obviously driven by London Bridge).
Again, I agree with you – just pointing out what NRPS says…
@timbeau
National Rail Passenger Survey
SWT has 36% Satisfied or Good compared with 27% for both SE and Southern. That is a notable difference in satisfaction. I’m not saying the service is perfect (that would be silly), it’s just better than SE and Southern (especially without London Bridge reconstruction screwing everything up for them). Many of their London stations are gated and staffed already and generally up to scratch (it helps that they have a large portion of major interchanges – Clapham, Richmond, Vauxhall, Wimbledon etc). It’s largely chance, but the fact remains the South Western London area is in much better nick than either SE or Southern.
I would have thought that the MK service is included in the default assumption for the TfL takeover not because of either extremity but because in its current form it shares infrastructure with what is/would be intense TfL-sponsored services on both its most congested legs: East Croydon-Clapham Junction and Clapham Junction-Willesden. The default assumption presumably being that on those stretches it would be best to have a single (passenger) operator, which equally presumably is less of an issue on less intensively used bits of track.
NGH – “Southern and SE customer satisfaction & PPM will have been very poor in spring because of the problems at London Bridge (which have since improved).”
Southeastern actually wasn’t too bad. It’s PPM was ok and I believe passenger survey figures improved in the spring survey from previous years. Unfortunely over the summer and recent weeks it has slid back and PPM is now below targets and back to bad old levels. I suspect that any autumn survey will show a reduction for SE and rise for Southern.
As for sidings for Southeastern and the Gillingham depot – There should be scope for expansion of Plumstead’s existing sidings, which will be right beside Crossrail’s Plumstead depot. Space for 6 more tracks perhaps. The patch of land directly north is currently used by Crossrail but they should vacate by 2018 to their depot immediately east.
Also at Slade Green depot, after a long saga a rail freight company was given permission for sidings about 5 years ago. It doesn’t look like it will be taken up. It could be used for passenger trains.
Not sure about Hither Green potential? But anyway, there appears long term scope for many more trains to be stabled within zone 6 to ensure a consistent 12 car SE metro network in coming decades.
Castlebar,
I understand your point but it is hard to argue than Miles’ comment isn’t in the flight of fancy league – at least as regards the short term. I think, in the context of a GLA report, talking about recreating Network South East it is way off-topic. Whilst we might have tolerated it if the article had been up a couple of weeks and things had quietened down we do tend to make strong efforts to avoid going off-topic so shortly after publication. Everyone else has stuck to the subject being discussed which is good and we want to keep it that way.
Re Anon and Stewart,
I was bit unclear originally I always expected SWT to be better by just not the gap to be so large over the medium or long terms.
Southern Metro probably won’t recover to anywhere near former levels till early 2017 when the infrastrusture allows a restoration of some London Bridge services and 2018 when cascaded 377s (from long distance services taken over by TL services) allow more 10 car metro services.
Reconfiguring
removingsome seat would go a ong way to heelping crowding a dwell time issues.Interestingly the LA report doesn’t actually suggest any actions as regards the Southern Metro just SE and tiny bit on SWT, SE is the main target.
(only 1/3rd of SE stations are gated let alone the gates being used)
DfT are apparently close to agreeing terms with SET on extra rolling stock.
Growth rates – ORR’s data suggests 6% annual growth rate over the last 3 years…
@100andthirty – 16 October 2015 at 14:01
>SNIP<
I forget how the MK – S Croydon service (originally to Gatwick – much more useful in my view) came about as I don’t think it was originally a franchising obligation, but it is now really well used.
IIR correctly they are the remnant of a service Rugby/Northampton – Brighton.
ISTR pondering why they weren’t Birmingham-Brighton.
It’s always seemed a bit of an anomaly that so many stations in SE London were not only ungated, but pretty desolate – especially given some of the unsalubrious areas they are located in. More like some remote rural shack than part of an intensive metro system. Just bringing them up to the standard of a minor zone 5 tube station would be a huge improvement.
@timbeau 11.03
Having used both SWT and SE as an annual season ticket holder it appears to be the cost of SE mile per mile is more expensive that SWT. So even if the service level is the same, or alternatively same level of cancellation, the satisfaction rating may be higher for SWT than SE purely on cost. But then again, that would require you to know which franchise was more expensive. From a personal perspective, excluding HS1, the actual trains, seats, space etc (outer only) on SWT are better then on SE. Can’t really comment on inner London services.
In the hope of killing off rather than fuelling discussion …
Regardless of what happened in the past, the South Croydon – Milton Keynes trains must use the slow track all the way between South Croydon and Clapham Junction on order to be able to get onto the West London Line. If they were to use the fast tracks and switch to the slow between Balham and Wandsworth Common it would cause a lot of disruption on today’s crowded railway.
If the trains are on the slow track then they might as well call at the stations because they will get stuck behind a slow train anyway. The same argument applies on the West London Line which is not the sparsely used line it used to be. And the number of stations on it has gone up in recent years.
It wouldn’t make any sense to have a service from Gatwick to Northampton (or similar) that called at all stations from East Croydon to Shepherd’s Bush. As it is, today it is already faster to get from East Croydon to Milton Keynes by going via London.
Maybe you could build infrastucture to get over the problems mentioned but that is way outside the scope of what we are discussing.
Back (1 year ago and before) when I got the train from Thornton Heath to Gunnersbury, via Clapham Junction and Richmond, I got the overall impressions:
1) The Milton Keynes service is really useful for London.
2) Southern are better than South West Trains, but only marginally. A big issue was the massively full evening rush hour SW Trains from OUTSIDE London into London, normally you would expect this to be quieter, but oh no, trains full of hurrah henriettas coming from Ascot.
3) The line between Clapham Junction and Richmond sucks for trains, sucks for people dying on it, and sucks for rogue dogs stopping trains.
4) It seems to take SW Trains a bazillion years to get 10 carriage trains. Southern “just did it”.
London Bridge has screwed Southern’s ratings, they should be higher next time around (probably mainly issues with overcrowding/not enough services that Southern can’t do squat about until mid 2016).
TfL running the inner southern loops would be excellent. I wonder if they could refactor Clapham Junction for a true circular service (not that these are good ideas, so say Barking to Highbury and Islington via Willesden Junction, Clapham Junction and Crystal Palace).
@Sykobee
“It seems to take SW Trains a bazillion years to get 10 carriage trains.”
Now appearing on the Richmond line in some numbers (458/5s) but nothing will happen on the Wimbledon side until they extend platforms 1-4 at Waterloo, which depends on shunting everything four platforms over – which can’t happen until Eurostar vacate platforms 20-24 (yes, I know that happened eight years ago: they’re bound to notice soon)
“TfL running the inner southern loops would be excellent. Barking to Highbury and Islington via Willesden Junction, Clapham Junction and Crystal Palace
Interesting idea, but the people on the Crystal Palace line who currently go to Victoria will not be pleased. (and these are 10 coach trains, not dinky little 5-car Overground ones)
@Phil
“Having used both SWT and SE as an annual season ticket holder it appears to be the cost of SE mile per mile is more expensive that SWT”
Maybe so outside London, but twelve miles from Waterloo on SWT (Wimbledon lines) and you are in Zone 6, twelve miles from Waterloo East on SET (any branch) or the Windsor Lines and you are still in Zone 5. (SWT’s talent for prevarication on this anomaly is legendary.)
I presume there would be a London Bridge Victoria Overground service as well, and possibly 8/10 carriages to boot (probably rebranding the existing trains). WLL is supposed to be getting 8 carriage overground at some point.
RP
No one living outside of London would want to be subsumed by it.
As a general rule , most of the surrounding district councils are solidly Tory, so there’s no great incentive for Labour to support it.
Really?
That’s why house prices just outside the Chessington “finger” are lower, then? And older people, who can’t get Freedom Passes are so annoyed? And of course we have had a Labour admin in London for the past 20 years haven’t we – not ….
timbeau
So what’s causing the SWT reliability figures to plummet, then?
Is it in-house maintenance, Network Rail screw-ups, staff slacking off, or simply some of the trains getting old?
Caspar Lucas
Yes. That makes sense – it’s the same logic a making the tame Slink all a non-TfL operator, for the same reasons.
@Sykobee:
Neither SWT nor Southern own their own infrastructure. [SNIP]Ergo, extending station platforms for ten-coach trains, and ensuring the power supply is up to the job as well, is typically left to Network Rail.
The SWT franchise is the only one south of the river to be a proper, grown-up, hairy-chested “main line” railway [SNIP].
The key advantage of the South Western Main Line is, however, that its core was built [SNIP]by a single company, and it looks it, with some lovely flying junctions, and four-tracking all the way out to Woking.
South Eastern, on the other hand, have inherited a congealed mess of interconnected smaller networks [SNIP].
[Some fine-sounding, but off-topic prose snipped. Malcolm]
Another terrible evening for southeastern, who lack the stock to then mitigate the crowd build up. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are below Southern this autumn in passenger ratings.
Greenwich line has a half hour peak time gap. Most days see a 20 minute gap. Cutting peak hour trains to just 5 per hour (from about 8 before this year) always led the risk of massive overcrowding if one is delayed or cancelled. Even allowing for one or two longer trains, it’s not enough. if all had become 12 car it would have helped, but no long term planning to fix Woolwich Dockyard issue and secure more trains was made by the DfT. Would TfL have been so negligent?
And yes I know cutting frequency was necessary due to Thameslink work. Not making the remaining services 12-car by sourcing more trains after 99% of stations were altered to take them, and power upgraded, just smacks of poor planning from NR and DfT. DfT on the whole, who have say over rolling stock. NR need to do something about Woolwich Dockyard though.
Before this thread descends completely into either rampant crayonism or “Why I hate TOC xxx”, to be followed by the easy assumption that come TfL, all will be miraculously transformed, we ought to spend some time on what it is that TfL might be able to do short-, and medium-term. The Assembly paper doesn’t really consider this; in their minds a takeover is by definition a Good Thing.
On past evidence, they:
– increase frequency (sometimes – transfer to TfL doesn’t of itself generate more paths, whatever posters here hope)
– lengthen trains (sometimes – but this cannot always be done in a hurry for normal engineering reasons)
– run more reliable services (maybe – although recent transfers suggest that there are lessons to be learned – and in any case TfL is always in the hands of NR and so cannot directly tackle the delays resulting from NR activities)
– smarten stations – a quick hit if the money is there
– provide better information (not always done)
– buy new trains (sometimes but only if the money is there and the existing kit is ready for retirement)
– cheapen fares – maybe but not everyone has been a winner so far, and the likely future deals between the Mayor and the Chancellor may well limit the scope for this
If all these things can be done, all well and good, but there is a serious risk of same old same old with precious little TfL can do, however much the chorus of hate reaches a new pitch for sss (insert preferred bogeyman here). The GLA paper seems to overlook all this… Disappointment is hardwired into the future (that’s always true, of course, not just in relation to TfL)
Not many expect all those to occur, or even the majority. One or two would be welcome, which is far more likely with TfL than the DfT, if the past decade is any guide.
In terms of increased frequency – not in the peaks for SE, but off peak? Certainly. Despite some recent improvements, evening services can be further increased.
Lengthening trains – DfT have done nothing for SE Metro. I’d have more faith in TfL chasing those spare 319s available from next year to free up Networkers for longer services.
As for reliability – not really in SE or TfL hands, granted. Any operator should see big improvements post 2018.
Then stations – there’s the crucial issue of halting mass levels of ticketless travel. TfL will act. DfT don’t seem like they are even aware.
When it comes to fares it could make some sense initially to not allow freedom passes in the morning peak. Off-peak fares could be equalised with the rest of London. Less excuse for ticketless travel and it’ll take people off SE London inadequate road network.
Graham H: Thanks for that dose of cold-water on the “TfL will fix it” meme.
However, the article, and indeed the underlying papers from TfL, do not only talk about possible benefits of a takeover. They start with the notion of accountability. Put simply, an advantage is claimed for the operator being accountable to Londoners whether or not there are improvements. “Our mess is better than their mess.” Obviously there is a bit more to it than that, but an operator who (it is perceived) does care, but is prevented from fixing things by some remote villains or circumstances, is considered better than an operator who (it is perceived) does not care because their main focus is either remote other passengers, or even remoter shareholders.
@Malcolm – I couldn’t agree more about the accountability issue. The other area where TfL are on a totally different planet to DfT is in franchise specification and monitoring. No one knows (at least so the TOC bid teams feel) how or why DfT ask for what they do -the whim of one specific individual is usually mentioned – whereas with TfL there is, as there was with LT, an overarching appraisal system for benefits. TfL know what they want, and why. I am not able to comment on the detail of TfL monitoring although it seems very much more hands on than DfT’s sitting with feet on desk waiting forthe trailing indicators to flick into the red. These things matter,however, unsexy they seem to the punters. It’s the nearest we get to a directing mind for a significant part of the rail network.
There is also the question of trust. This appears to operate at two levels:
= LOROL is seen (despite being franchised,in fact) as a body that is here for”ever” and it is the public face of the network. Compare that with TOCs who come and go,rebrand, get taken over, live, love and move out of the district.
– TfL’s specification and procurement processes are reasonably transparent; nothing that DfT does is transparent.
The map includes a ‘Southern’ service that doesn’t exist at present. Does that link between Wimbledon and Streatham imply a new service? At present only Thameslink trains run between Wimbledon and the Streatham South junctions. If there were paths available, I would imagine that a no-changes service from Wimbledon to London Bridge (via Tulse Hill) would be popular.
RayL that service exists as a peak only one.
Re Ray L,
LBG – Wimbledon oh yes it does exist! It was a peak only service which has been cut back to just 5 trains a day due to the rebuilding work at LBG so it is easy to miss. (How do you think they cut the tph at LBG from 30 to 22tph with only 2 SLL shuttle to remove?)
The NR sussex report (i.e. cp6 investment choices plan) is suggesting turning it into an all day service if the single platform issues at Wimbledon can be resolved.
The plan is probably the short term solution for the Streatham over crowding problem.
Re Malcolm, at 19:38
“Graham H: Thanks for that dose of cold-water on the “TfL will fix it” meme.”
Had I not put enough ice in the water I was using? 😉
There are effectively no traditional potential Overgroundisation schemes left. Everything else is a much bigger, more expensive job to provide real (not just lick of paint) improvements.
On Kents preconditions:
– Fares for rail passengers in Kent must not be higher as a result of devolution
– Existing rail paths for Kent’s mainline services must be protected.
– Extra capacity on peak metro services must only be provided through train lengthening.
1. So if hypothetically ERTMS /ATO were introduced on the approaches to Cannon Street allowing an increase in the number of trains able to terminate only long distance Kent services could benefit if TFL agreed to that which isn’t exactly an incentive for TfL to encourage NR to do upgrades. ditto path released by Haykerloo, or service pattern simplification etc!
2. If you take the metro services out of SE, the amount of subsidy required for SE may be untenable to DfT and fares may have to rise.
@ngh: Your bucketfuls were of course also appreciated! As for Kent’s preconditions, I read them as an opening bid in a not-yet-concluded discussion. So I’d expect the third clause to be negotiated into something more like “Extra capacity on peak metro services must not be provided at the expense of Kent’s mainline paths.”. (Admittedly that makes it pretty close to the second clause, but hey, this is politics!).
The London Assembly survey was just an internet survey rather than an on the platform one so the results may be a bit interesting
Looking at the 3 biggest improvements by TOC:
[27% of survey responses were for SET passengers, 21% SWT and 17% Southern sample sizes for other TOC were too small to be statistically significant (paraphrasing the caveats in the spreadsheet) Southern only scraped above that threshold by 4 people. The minimum rail usage to be included was once a month]
SET:
1. Increase accessibility for mobility impaired
2. Better information
3. More staff on platforms
Longer trains / more frequent trains /more standing room came 6th, 8th and 9th. The survey results aren’t what you would hear if you were on the platform at Lewisham at 0730 M-F…
SWT:
1. More toilets
2.= Longer trains
more frequent trains
more standing room
Reduce cost of tickets
More like reality?
Southern
1. Increase Capacity of trains
2. Reduce delays
3. More Frequent trains
No surprises..
@sykobee
“I presume there would be a London Bridge Victoria Overground service as well, [as an extension of the Overground from CP to CJ]”
I doubt it – the slow lines through Balham are quite full.
Graham H
cold water appreciated – the points for me are
1. accountability: sorting out fare anomalies
2. accountability: separating the operators of the metro services from those of the “proper, grown-up, hairy-chested “main line” railway” (anomnibus) so they have a TOC whose priority is providing the metro services.
3. accountability: likewise, a dedicated metro operator won’t get sidetracked from serving its captive market by fripperies like wifi to cultivate the optional market
4. accountability: frequency is more important than on-schedule running – TfL recognise that intermediate stops are not just an operating nuisance and running a train non-stop from one end of the line to make up time may help DfT’s stats but does nothing for the paying customers travelling to or from the intermediate stations
@timbeau – your example of free wifi is exactly what I meant the other day when I referred to the perversion in the use of subsidy -often conceded by a TOC in the run up to negotiation close, the cost free wifi is therefore included in the subsidy demanded – a benefit whose value must surely be trivial compared with other transport benefits that could have been offered (take your pick – somewhat cheaper fares, more loos on trains, additional evening trains etc etc) No, it’s always By-your-Lady free wifi (and its not as if free wifi has a long shelf life as 4G spreads. [This is not the only difficult-to-justify transport benefit bought with subsidy by DfT but we will get too far off the road if not careful].
TfL’s appraisal systems would show free wifi for what it is, as well as attempting to put values on things that punters do value – things that the DfT systems are wholly incapable of handling. Station modernisation is the most striking of those (a small book could be written about that as the locus for a direct Whitehall clash between BR/PDFH appraisal and LT vfm methodology occasioned by the re-nationalisation of LT – the fault line is still with us, alas).
@Graham H
It’s not so much the promise of wifi I object to as the disproportionate amount of management time that seems to be spent on getting it to work and dealing with client queries about it whilst the metro services’ lack of actual trains, station facilities and basic information are given the “jam tomorrow” brush-off treatment.
And, is this how long we have to wait for Epsom to come into Zone 6. At times of day, the National Rail website shows services from Ewell East and Cheam to be quicker to get to Clapham Junction southbound via Epsom on SWT, than travel directly northbound on Southern… (and vice versa) But you can’t use Oyster or your travelcard because Epsom isn’t in Zone 6 – and the reasons for this have been explained by PoP.
Re Timbeau: “… 2. accountability: separating the operators of the metro services from those of the “proper, grown-up, hairy-chested “main line” railway” (anomnibus) so they have a TOC whose priority is providing the metro services. …”
Isn’t what you are suggesting what used to be the situation from at least 2 London termini (I am thinking of Thames Trains/Great Western and Great Eastern/West Anglia/Anglia) until it was decided that one operator per terminus was enough.
(I can see both sides and I appreciate entirely that fashions change and that flares came back into style too, rebranded as bootcut, in the same way that “Metro” operators might come back into fashion too, rebranded as Overground.)
@Ronnie MB – no, the fashion for amalgamating operators serving a single terminus was a whim of the then franchising director – a man who had no expertise in railway operations and who firmly believed that somehow a single operator would manage the platforming and pathing flexibly (he’d forgotten, or never knew, that such things were handled by Railtrack, as was, and in any case, most termini are physically constrained as to what you put where). He could have usefully spent a pleasant evening reading the Paddington platforming handbook and the Rules of the Plan, but I doubt if he did. If you want a good example of how a single operator is constrained by engineering, you need travel no further than Waterloo.
Like flares, we all hope that this piece of dogma will have died out…
@Graham – that’s very interesting. Could it also be the case that “one operator per London terminus” does sound superficially plausible, if you don’t look too closely. And not looking too closely might also suit those onlookers (or participants) who might have thought that, good or bad, amalgamating such operators would be one step towards the big national super-operator nirvana already almost achieved on the freight side. (Which might even rename itself as… you get the idea).
@ Ed – I am not sure that passengers on West Anglia would have agreed with your “TfL is much better at providing long trains” view over the late Spring and Summer. Even now, months on, we still get rolling stock failures. It’s calmed down from the daily nightmare but really LOROL should be on top of things by now. The other oddity I keep spotting is the level of repeated points and signalling failures at Chingford and Liverpool Street. Now it may well be that something has changed on the NR side of things but there was never the scale of these failures, so often coinciding with the PM peak, when Abellio were the sole operator. I may be making something out of nothing but it just doesn’t feel right to see repeated failures at two locations at similar times of day. Given the criticality of Liverpool St I’d expect Network Rail to be on top of that sort of issue immediately.
While Graham H has been wandering around with his buckets of water I would just add a couple of boring but noticeable differences with TfL in control. Having used original Overground, TfL Rail and West Anglia a fair bit recently it’s things like clean train interiors, a lack of litter, train windows that have been cleaned properly, the smell of air freshener in the trains, stations that look cared for, staff on platforms and tickets being checked that I have noticed. You could get romantic and say it’s back to the heyday of the railways with staff taking some care of the assets they look after but it is a change from what we had a few months ago and the railway seems better for it. I agree it takes a lot of effort to keep on top of these things but it seems TfL do make sure this stuff is done. I think MTR Crossrail, in particular, are very keen to impress and I notice they’ve been doing a range of “soft” customer facing actitivies like handing out chocolate bars / hot chocolate this week (Chocolate Week) or extra staff for the Rugby World Cup traffic to Stratford. Can’t imagine Abellio or WAGN ever doing that sort of thing. Clearly free chocolate does not make for a reliable railway but at least there is a “face” to the organisation that seems more approachable than in the past.
There was never going to be a response from Transport Committee that said “nah, devolution of services to the Mayor and TfL is rubbish”. However I tend to agree that the report misses some of the fundamental challenges for whoever operates surface rail services in London. It almost feels like this is a last go on this issue from the current Committee given many members leave in May 2016 and we’ve no idea what the new one will look like. It remains to be seen how keen or otherwise the various Mayoral candidates will be about this issue – Ms Pidgeon for the Lib Dems will be but as for the rest?
@WW. But the reason why LOROL and MTR do all those things like keep trains clean and fresh(er than they were before) have more staff, look after stations etc is that it is specified in their contract and they are paid more to do it as a result.
Chocolates are slightly different, although I still treasure the chocs FCC gave out one Valentine’s Day a couple of years ago. (Although Mrs Sad (Not) Fat Mum probably wouldn’t appreciate them now).
Ronnie MB
until it was decided that one operator per terminus was enough.
So, presumably, in the really “old days” … Carlisle, York, Leeds Central, Manchester London Road & Victoria etc were totally inoperable?
err ….
WW
Apparently, it all fell down in a smelly heap last night – “the boss” caught a first-stop Hackney Downs service that wasn’t in the official tt at all … (?!)
Except that NR seem to have lost the plot, again, after we thought they had FINALLY fixed the points/signalling at the N end of Hackney Downs, oh dear.
Last point, well – the new Mayoral “team” will ( unless the unthinkable happens & Ms Pidgeon wins ) not be concentrating on transport – until they are forced to, of course.
@Sad Fat Dad: Yes. So what we are looking at is not the difference between LOROL and (insert latest franchise operator name), let alone the difference between members of their staff or managements, but the difference between TfL directly operated services and DfT franchised services. Which is appropriate, given that the article is about a possible process where some of the latter might be replaced by some of the former. (And given certain suspicions that such a replacement might not have much of a positive impact in some cases).
It is also relevant because the staff actually managing and doing the things are drawn from the same pool. The same cleaner might skimp the job one year, as a result, ultimately, of the contract which the operator has, and the next year do it properly. Or, with the cold-water theory, continue to skimp it. So observations of actual outcomes are valuable.
I suspect that the culture change described by Walthamstow Writer is what TfL takeover of south London lines would achieve, at least initially. The committee should avoid over-emphasising other benefits that are constrained by funding and/or the practical realities of the railway. Strangely not mentioned by other commentors is the Tube-map effect, although we have discussed it to death here before. (Perhaps Malcolm has been waging total war on the subject?). Once branded as another ‘new’ part of London’s railway, the public will see it in a new light and respond accordingly (especially off-peak).
It is worth noting here the response of the Rail Deivery Group (that well-known but invisible running dog of DfT) to the GLA report: “Private train companies already work effectively with TfL, whether by operating London Overground or ensuring that passengers can use their tickets to travel across both TfL and national rail.” Which rather misses the point about better specification and monitoring by TfL, and totally ignores the idea that -Heaven forfend – TfL might actually plan its network. The poverty of the DfT’s outsourced response neatly encapsulates what is wrong with DfT control . (And yes,for timbeau’s benefit,I am surprised the RDG didn’t take the opportunity to talk about wifi…)
@ Sad Fat Dad – of course I understand that they do it because they are paid to. That’s fine – I’m just pointing out that it is noticeable compared to what went before. We have been fed the line for so many years that “private companies do the right thing because they want to attract customers blah blah blah”. Yes some do that when they face massive competition but even then they can upset their customers when they stop doing things / stocking products because there’s no profit in them. The commuter railway in and around London is largely a “distress purchase” at peak times and more “take it or leave it” off peak. There’s been no active effort by the TOCs to pull people in, make stations and trains genuninely more attractive to use in Greater London etc because of their private sector ownership. Longer routes to the coast etc then yes some effort has been put in there but we’re back to the “look after long distance, ignore commuter routes” point made forcefully by Sir Peter Hendy a couple of years ago. As I say no great shock in those attitudes if you take your daily dose of cynicism tablets as I do. 😉
@ Graham H – I found the Rail Delivery Group response somewhat laughable. “We don’t care who we work with provided we get our profits” is what it really means but has been toned down to reflect the views of the report authors. I suspect the real thought is “good grief not more politicians wanting those communists at TfL to play with OUR train set. Can’t we be left alone to screw lots of money out of our passengers? We much prefer dealing with Uncle Patrick and Auntie Claire because they make mistakes and we can take them to court and make even more money.” Now where did I put my *anti* cynicism tablets? 🙂 🙂
@WW: perhaps it’s the tablets, but you forgot to make the customary exceptions of C2C and Chiltern from your strictures. I have insufficient personal experience to say, but I have often read that these two TOCs have in fact made “active efforts to pull people in etc”.
@WW
“Longer routes to the coast etc then yes some effort has been put in there but we’re back to the “look after long distance, ignore commuter routes” point made forcefully by Sir Peter Hendy a couple of years ago. ”
Indeed – certainly on SWT it seems the longer the journey the higher priority it is given – so if TfL take over all the Metro services the Shepperton and Dorking lines will be top of the heap instead of somewhere below the middle! More to the point, if the operator of a Metro services is less likely to accept cancelling such a service is an acceptable way to help the long distance operation’s figures than would be the case if both services were in the same operator’s control.
The “putting Sidcup/Orpington/Sutton/Twickenham on the Tube map” argument may be relevant to businesses in those areas (particularly estate agents!) but is not of prime importance to existing commuters, who know perfectly well where the trains go already. The only map we need changed is this one
http://www.valshawcross.com/val/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/pay-as-you-go-tarrifs-national-rail-600×343.jpg
@ Malcolm – I think C2C are trying a bit harder now to encourage some off peak travel but they are still mostly a commuter railway and one that’s very busy. Chiltern doesn’t have an off peak service within Greater London to speak of so doesn’t push hard with that market. Clearly it has and continues to work hard to pull people on to its longer distance services. I travelled from Birmingham Moor St in the PM peak recently on a class 168 (no loco hauled s/b at that time of day – boo!) and that was certainly busy throughout. It did convey a lot of W Mids commuters as you’d expect but there were healthy volumes boarding and alighting at High Wycombe and a good load got off at Marylebone. It wasn’t as “whizz bang” as a Pendolino into Euston but perfectly acceptable and I can see why Chiltern have grown the market. When the new Oxford service starts I expect the push to get “bums on seats” will continue.
So what I take from all this then is that smoke and mirrors in a London railway context is really about wifi and chocolates…
@timbeau – whereas the financials favour carting a punter to Soton rather than Earlsfield every time, the margin between say, conveying someone to Dorking instead of Sutton is likely to be trivial, particularly given the zonal fares structure. So there may be much less of an incentive to favour such “long-distance” services such as Orpington or Weybridge.
BTW it would greatly help Ms Shawcross’ presentation if she could actually spell the key word.
@ Walthamstow Writer – RWC chocolates were very nice 🙂
@ Miles – I agree with the spirit of your “4 Crossrails” point, in the sense that simply moving from a franchise to a concession will only have limited benefit. Converting terminus stations to through stations should enable higher train frequency (ideally up to 30+tph as on the Victoria & Jubilee tube lines) and less passenger interchanging. Moving to TfL run Metro services should make it (politically) easier for lines either side of zone 1 to be joined up [crayons at the ready].
In the short term, as an alternative to TfL taking over franchises would be to extend the Overground services. For example, instead of terminating at West Croydon, services could extend to Sutton, Epsom Downs and Wimbledon and the Wimbledon loop of Thameslink could be changed to an Overground service.
In addition, the traditional service patterns could be re-examined. For example, Chessington South and Dorking services to Wimbledon could be routed via Streatham to London Bridge, Blackfriars or the ELL. [This may require use of a crayon between Wimbledon and Raynes Park]
@Richie
“Chessington South and Dorking services to Wimbledon could be routed via Streatham to London Bridge, Blackfriars or the ELL. [This may require use of a crayon between Wimbledon and Raynes Park]”
It can be done, but would eat up capacity because of the need to cross the SWML fast lines and down slow on the flat. The original routing of the Epsom branch trains, before the diveunder at Raynes Park was built, was indeed via Tooting – trains from Kingston also went that way – hence the space for two tracks in the diveunder at New Malden.
Having read the report, I was struck by Figure 8, which suggests that satisfaction with SWT is not as high as might be supposed from other data – SWT passengers were the keenest to have TfL take the services over.
Something about this that I find fascinating is how well as an organisation TfL is doing to gain so much respect as the more trustworthy authority / runner of things. I recall a time when – to the lay person’s point of view – old LT was way past its prime and not a byword for thrusting efficiency, followed by the travails of the deregulated period. It is a testament to the success of the GLA/TfL setup (and all the money that gets poured in to it) that this scheme can be seriously considered. Somewhere along the line, great credit is due people at GLA and TfL, because there was no guarantee that the opportunities of this structuring wouldn’t have been squandered, or lost in some other way. One does get the feeling that they are interested in the greater good for the passenger and city, and manage to ride through enough of the potentially disruptive comings and goings of our diverse and ‘characterful’ mayors, to actually be ‘getting somewhere’.
@ Richie – we’ve done the “extend the Overground” issue several times. The stock response from those who are more familiar with those services in S London is that it is pointless extending a service using 5 car trains with the net result that people in Zones 2 and 3 can’t board any peak trains. I saw some s/b peak workings on the ELL last week and they looked pretty scarily full and the PM peak is not as bad as the AM. On the basis of my tiny sample plus others’ comments the answer is not extending, it’s how do you run longer and more frequent trains on constrained infrastructure?
The Transport Cttee report is potentially only 1/3 of the answer. The other elements are “what train service do we need in South London?” and “what investment is needed to allow that train service to work?”. That’s why I was curious to know when City Hall might release their updated view on how to make the rail network south of the Thames work harder for Londoners *and* not upset the many people travelling longer distances into London for work and leisure. There are all sorts of potential answers as to how to run more trains with vastly differing impacts on existing service patterns, usage and the related operating and investment costs that go with them.
I think we really need to see some strong analysis and good underlying data about travel patterns, demand growth, development and how rail services fit into the picture. I am keen to see if TfL are tempted to go down the radical “high frequency, simpler network, more interchange” route or whether to splash the cash in a different way that supports the core service design we have now but with more infrastructure to allow higher, but not necessarily high, frequency services. The end picture may well involve a second, third or fourth Crossrail but these developments are so costly and take so long that we need more, smaller scale but effective interventions over the next few years to raise the effectiveness of the rail network until major interventions can be delivered. In an ideal world (hah!) the smaller scale works would support and aid the major projects so we don’t have scarce investment monies being wasted.
On the subject of chocolates …
Howard Smith (of Crossrail inc TfL Rail) made the rather obvious and basic point that it is a great thing to do but you can only do it once you are running a decent service. If looks like you are organising a chocolate feast when your train service is rubbish it doesn’t go down well.
So, with that proviso in mind, maybe the ultimate objective of a railway should be to be sufficiently confident in themselves and their product to hand out free chocolates.
@WW – Difficult to disagree. One point that proponents of a TfL takeover overlook is that a change of operator doesn’t automatically release more investment cash – it would all be easy and lovely if it did. For example (as you state) more Crossrails are probably for the nonce – at the present rate of construction, CR3 and CR 4 may, just may be complete some where around 2075…
@Richie – the ELL cannot cope with what it faces just now – sending more LOROL trains there is simply impossible. To judge from the campaign to retain it as part of Thameslink, I think you might find that transferring the Wimbledon TLK loop to Lorol would be – shall we say – less than acceptable to the punters (as, I dare say, would be the case for the other changes you suggest). BTW, the advantage of CrossRail-type schemes is not so much the elimination of terminals but the ease of penetration of the CAZ.
@Graham H, 17 October 2015 at 15:47
. . . the advantage of CrossRail-type schemes is not so much the elimination of terminals but the ease of penetration of the CAZ.
And the multiple interchanges with other routes they encounter within the CAZ and at major peripheral hubs either side such as Clapham Junction, Stratford and future Old Oak Common.
@timbeau16/10/2015-10:36
Windsor line without toilets. Crossrail 1 without toilets. I reckon all those tasked with the governance of the “outer-metro” services have failed badly here. And yes, I realise that Rickmansworth – Aldgate is a fairly long haul too, loo-less for decades, but these are ex-mainline routes having their toilets newly withdrawn in the name of progress. It is uncivilised.
Toilets take up too much valuable space in rush hour trains. No-one wants to be standing next to the door, and the train is too crowded for anyone to make their way there anyway. Get rid of all of ’em I say…
How would devolution work if your station was served by both TfL and a TOC? When I lived in Surbiton I’d catch the slows, semi-fasts and fasts from Waterloo depending on timing, and in Orpington I’d catch the slows in (fasts don’t stop in rush hour), and sometimes have a pint after work and catch a fast home.
If a ticket were interchangeable, and the cross-subsidy were behind the scenes, no problem. but I’d be outraged if I had to catch the same operator in and out.
Having Victoria – London Bridge loop services as part of London Overground would be a fine idea. As part as I can tell, there are two Southern loop services: one via Crystal Palace and New Cross Gate and a limited one via Tulse Hill and Peckham Rye.
There is also the infrastructure for a variation of the current ELL to serve these termini. From Wandsworth Road, go through Battersea Park and into Victoria at one end and, from Queen’s Road Peckham up to South Bermondsey and into London Bridge at the other. It would depend on the paths and platforms available but, if stations could be opened at Brixton and Loughborough Junction, extra trains on the current ELL would be useful for serving the extra stations.
@George, 17 October 2015 at 17:59
Wouldn’t be so bad if the major interchanges had adequate free toilets available at all operating times, but there’s no consistency and policy varies by operator. Clapham Junction was free when I was last there but is probably inadequately sized, Waterloo is more adequate, but a charge applies. Ever larger interconnected networks need either some services to retain onboard facilities or at least some of the stations need to provide these facilities during operating hours. Without that there is an increasing risk of people genuinely being caught short en-route and unavoidable antisocial behaviour resulting on platforms and even on the trains themselves.
I’m sure I read a PDF somewhere outlining what infrastructure improvements were needed to introduce a network 6tph stopping services across South and SE London (not sure about SW London). Basically it was some grade separation and some key interchange stations.
It all seemed quite affordable (as far as rail schemes go). Though it did not spell out any impacts on other services, but seemed to imply there would be none.
IamHedgehog,
Sorry, that link was severed a few years ago when they needed to extend the platforms at Battersea Park.
However, all is not lost because there is a direct route from Wandsworth Road to Victoria. Alternatively just terminate at Battersea Park.
I think you are describing the recently demised South London Line. It has featured in many London Connections articles.
Probably your two main problems are the sheer complexity of South London tracks making new services very difficult to fit in and the lack of platforms at Victoria and London Bridge. London Bridge is probably what would kill such an idea as, if you could find additional capacity, there are probably better things it could be used for.
I do wonder if, once the signalbox goes, you could fit in a short platform at the far end of platform 15 at London Bridge. Not ideal, certainly, but if it made the whole thing possible it could do. You might be able to get away with only needing to use it in peak hours.
@ Graham H – the issue, though, is that if you look at the evidence to date then “Overground” equals “money falling from the sky”. As you say one thing does not necessarily follow the other but the politicians clearly believe that TfL are more likely to splash some cash than the DfT or a franchised TOC. In advance of any takeover by TfL there have been a lot of very carefully crafted questions to the Mayor or to TfL in plenary / committee sessions to try to extract firm commitments about staffing, investment, new trains, more service volume etc so there is no wriggle room. Clearly TfL aren’t daft and have been very careful in what they have said when but to some extent the dye has been cast and it will be extremely difficult for TfL to pull back on its standards if it takes over further routes or procures a new contract for existing routes. At some point something will happen that will require service quality or volume to be cut and then life gets very difficult for everyone as trust starts to be undermined.
@ Nick BXN – be careful or the TfL press office will be chasing you for glowing quotes. While TfL has achieved a lot it is not all wonderful and there have been significant issues and problems throughout its life. What it is good at doing is hiding these more problematic issues from the general public or simply not responding to contentious questions. I’ve spent too long watching what goes on from both the inside and outside of TfL not to have spotted these rather clever tactics. They’re not alone in doing this – many businesses work hard not to declare their problems in public. The grumble I have with TfL is that it is a politically and publicly accountable organisation funded to a large extent by the taxpayer and ultimately guaranteed by the taxpayer. That puts it in a rather different category to John Lewis, Apple, BP, Sainsburys, Ford or General Electric. Things have slowly improved but only because the London Assembly and certain bloggers have had to “humiliate” parts of TfL to get them to release information and be more transparent. That really shouldn’t have been necessary.
@Mark Townend
“Waterloo is more adequate, but a charge applies. ”
no charge at Waterloo East though!
@John B
“How would devolution work if your station was served by both TfL and a TOC? ”
The same way it works at places like Upminster, Tottenham Hale, Harrow & Wealdstone, Amersham, and many other places where stopping services are provided by TfL and fast ones by a TOC. Tickets are interavailable, although certain staff passes may only cover one or t’other.
@George
“Windsor line without toilets………these are ex-mainline routes having their toilets newly withdrawn in the name of progress.”
Nothing new about crossed legs on the Windsor line – ever since the introduction of the NOLs (no prizes for guessing what the “L” stands for!) the Windsor line has been lavless – for most of the last thirty years it has run 455s. The current use of 458s on the line is a temporary aberration because the Reading line is not ready for them yet.
@Graham H
“To judge from the campaign to retain it as part of Thameslink, I think you might find that transferring the Wimbledon TLK loop to Lorol would be – shall we say – less than acceptable to the punters”.
That was a case of ill-informed politicians stirring up a hornets nest that the project managers were unprepared for. (If they had realised the choice was 4tph to Blackfriars or 2tph to St Albans, how many would still have campaigned for the latter?)
If you present it as “Putting the line on the Tube Map” and the idea might be quite popular. (Perhaps best not to over-emphasise that the frequency will be the same as on the Emerson line!)
@timbeau – indeed, the whole Wimbledon loop thing has been wholly irrational . {One of the disappointments of being even a very minor elected officeholder is that one’s colleagues are just as irrational as those who elect them – well,at least that makes them representative].
As to staff passes, the RSTL ones are likely to be wholly interavailable; it’s the LT ones that are more limited. For example, the RSTL ones are valid on some long -defunct “mainline” sections of the H&C and the Circle, or the Drain, to take a more recent transfer.
@ WW “to some extent the dye has been cast” – Orange dye perhaps?
Toilets: No brainer.
As the facilities must be compliant with all sorts of accessibility rules, take up about 20% of a carriage and cost hundreds (?) of thousands then having no facilities will be pushed for as much as possible. Tough on the majority.
Re. Matters lavatorial:
In the “Good Old Days(TM)”, on-board toilets were very basic affairs that simply dropped their contents onto the tracks below – hence the “Please don’t use the toilets when the train is at a station” notices. Trains aren’t allowed to do this, and haven’t been for some years: on-board toilets have holding tanks now, so when they’re full up, trains have to cross their axles and hold it all in until they can be emptied at a depot with suitable facilities.
This adds an additional complication when it comes to rolling stock logistics and diagramming: not only do you have to take crew rosters and the timetable itself into account, but you now have to find time and track capacity to allow the train’s tanks to be emptied regularly as well. Obviously, this adds costs as well.
In the past, service frequencies weren’t as high as they are today, so putting the toilets on the trains made sense (and they were pretty basic affairs anyway). But there comes a point when the number of trains needed to provide a high-frequency service tips the balance in favour of taking the toilets out of the trains and putting them in the stations.
There is doubtless a lot more that could be said about toilets. However, unless your need is very urgent, could you all please consider talking about something else now, something a little closer to the topic.
Surely this toilet issue provides an argument for separating the metro stock (and metro operations?) from the longer distance stock. Southern seem to use the same stock for both, whereas SWT have more of a distinction.
[Snip! LBM]
Re. Devolution:
I would expect TfL’s focus – assuming they get their way – to be on segregation of services, aiming for simplicity and improved interchanges to provide higher frequencies.
A number of problems arise from that: how do you handle the multiple termini used by the south London railways? Only the SWML has the simplicity of a single terminus at Waterloo; the Brighton, Chatham, and Tonbridge lines have their pick of Victoria, Charing Cross, Blackfriars, Cannon Street, and London Bridge. “Simplifying” routes will mean forcing passengers on specific lines to go to just the one terminus, instead of the present situation where they have a choice. And does south London really need four different routes between London Bridge and Dartford?
These aren’t just very complex engineering problems, but also massive political ones too. The Wimbledon Loop mess proves politics can result in suboptimal solutions that have knock-on effects on other lines as well. TfL will need to tread very carefully on this.
It may rankle with many, but part of me feels a “Reshaping of South London’s Railways” report may well be overdue, but I wouldn’t want to be the person whose name is printed under the title.
@Anomnibus
“And does south London really need four different routes between London Bridge and Dartford?”
Wrong question, I think. Do the three/four routes needed to cover that area of South East London all need to converge on Dartford?
There are similar pinchpoints elsewhere, notably Sutton.
timbeau, Anomnibus
Do the three/four routes needed to cover that area of South East London all need to converge on Dartford?
Actually they don’t. And they don’t always. So it is a bit of a false assumption in the first place. Trains can and do loop back to London without going to Dartford. From Slade Green they can return via Barnehurst and vice versa. From Crayford they can return via Barnehurst or Slade Green and vice versa. So this is probably entirely an issue of perception.
Dartford isn’t a pinchpoint as such. Its four platforms and three tracks towards London could easily cope with the number of through trains going beyond Dartford. If there is a desire for more services on “the Dartford lines” than Dartford itself can currently handle they can simply be looped round just short of Dartford without affecting passengers other than Dartford ones.
It seems that Dartford has 14 trains to London (including Victoria) between 07:30 and 08:30. How many does it need? I am sure if it was a pinchpoint they would have reduced this number.
Note that this is different from Sutton which genuinely is a pinchpoint.
I fear the sharpening of scissors, but feel an urgent need to correct Anomnibus @ 2231. All *new* trains have retention tank toilets, and have done for around 25 years. However anything built before that still very much dumps its effluent on the track, if you’ll pardon the appalling pun. Around 3/4 of the toilet equipped services into Liverpool Street still do this, as do all the HSTs into Paddington, Kings Cross and St Pancras. Walk down one of platforms 8-14 at Liv St and you will see the results on the adjacent track.
Now I really must go.
@ WW – TfL need to propose to go down the radical “high frequency, simpler network, more interchange” route.
@ Anomnibus – The “Reshaping of London’s Railways” report is precisely what is required. This should be as radical as the (railway section of the) 1943 Forshaw and Abercrombie County of London Plan and the reply from the “railways industry” – the 1946 report of the Railway (London Plan) Committee, which proposed twelve crossrail like lines and tube extensions.
All options should be considered:-
1) Non-Stop Crossrail like lines (like the 1980 BR proposal)
2) Stopping Crossrail like lines (like Crossrail 2 – really Route 9 from 1946)
3) New Tube lines (like the Victoria – originally route 8 from 1946)
4) A 4 track Thameslink line (routes 6 & 7 from 1946)
5) Extensions to tube lines on existing tracks (like north Bakerloo/LNWR, west Central/GWR, eastern Central/LNER, northern Northern/LNER, eastern District/LTSR)
6) Overground extensions (including train lengthening with variable door opening)
7) Changes to the current route operations in South London – which in many cases date back to when the 4 Victorian companies operated the lines with 2 terminus stations each to serve both London and Westminster – BSC (west Victoria, London Bridge); CD (Blackfriars, east Victoria), SE (Cannon St, Charing Cross), SW (Waterloo, Bank)
8) Conversion of flat junctions to grade separated
On their own some of these options (e.g. Overground extensions with 5 car trains) may be counter-productive, and others (such as replacing an infrequent 12-car full-size train with a frequent 7-car tube service) may not have a great impact on their own, but it’s their marginal impact on the overall network that is important.
Getting the politics right is key. The Wimbledon loop problem is a good example of getting it wrong. Re-building Blackfriars with the bays on the west may have been a good operational idea for Thameslink [although keeping 4 tracks to Holburn Viaduct would have been more sensible], but someone overlooked the possibility of the MP for Wimbledon being appointed as a transport minister.
@ WW – fully agree that “we really need to see some strong analysis and good underlying data about travel patterns, demand growth, development and how rail services fit into the picture”
Be careful what you wish for. Since TfL took control of the West Anglia suburban routes, the Enfield Liverpool Street service has markedly declined in terms of reliability, punctuality and provision of timely information. As remarkable as it may be, Abellio did a better job, even if the stations were not all attended as they are now.
They’ve had 6 months to get their act together.
The first day of TfL service (31st May) was marred by a severe lack of drivers and much of the Enfield service did not run that day. TfL’s web pages neatly avoided mentioning this for half the day and it was only the National Rail pages that gave a truthful account of what was going on on the ground. TfL seemed to get away with it as local journalists were persuaded that the takeover was not until the following day which coincided with the press launch.
On a broader note, the extension of the Overground brand to diverse and wholly separate routes, undermines clear communications about travel issues. One now has to pay attention to all Overground disruption announcements lest some relevant information is slipped in between talk of Clapham Junction or Gospel Oak.
Approach tracks and terminal platform capacity
I’m relatively positive to devolution there is no reason for tfl concession for c2c (well managed) or Thameslink (wide geography for core) – joint input to franchise should be enough.
When you get to the metro services I’d like to see most transferring to tfl if the approach and platforms can be segregated. So Victoria, Blackfriars and London Bridge bays, Moorgate etc. I worry about Charing Cross and Cannon Street
As for SWT surely the obvious decision point is Cr2 to remap. Personally if Waterloo international becomes exclusive Windsor line platforms. Then the residual services through Putney could be a separate franchise to mainline.
I do disagree with much of the foregoing -not just on cost grounds,where people seem to think that odd £200-300bn can be found down the back of the sofa – but on planning grounds. The point of any TFL takeover is a functional one: control of the railways that serve the London suburbs,however defined. It shouldn’t matter one whit whether these are presently well run or contrarywise – after, Abelli come,Abelli go. And although it’s very nice to control one’s own infrastructure, as Sir Peter used to remind us, in many London termini that would lead to a loss of flexibility and therefore a loss of capacity and resilience.
BernieEnfield’s last para makes a very important point that links back to a previous discussion (which doesn’t need to be revived again) about distinguishing between LOROL routes (and no doubt CrossRail routes idc).
@saintsman
“As for SWT surely the obvious decision point is Cr2 to remap.”
Talk about kicking the issue into the long grass. Many SWT commuters will have their own personal underground (cut and cover) facility by then. Local oversight of the operation is long overdue, whether or not there are any changes to infrastructure or routings. The current timetable, last revamped in 2004, is no longer robust enough to be fit form purpose, as evidenced by the all-too-frequent instant surprise cancellations “because of congestion” (whether this is because of changes in operating practices, infrastructure failures, or extended dwell times because of higher passenger numbers or simple incompetence has not been vouchsafed to us)
@Richie The problem with reshaping south London’s network is that each of the four original networks feed multiple branches into only one or two termini each, (far more so than in the north, where there were more main lines and fewer branches off each one – and more tube lines to take over those branches). It is not possible to run more services on one branch without reducing services on another. To take one example – you could run 4tph to Chessington if you ran a shuttle to Hampton Court, but even if that ran at 4tph, and even though many existing users of the branch already change at Surbiton to get a fast service to/from Waterloo, you can expect opposition – and accusations of political favouritism because, unlike the Chessington branch, both stations on the HCT branch are outside Greater London.
On the SE you could increase throughput marginally by eliminating all scissors movements at Lewisham, but the Haykerloo debate suggests Hayesites quite like their Cannon Street service and doubtless Bexleyheathens like the option of going to Charing Cross. However, maybe the elimination of all Greenwich-CX services is a straw in the wind?
Central is in the worst position because unlike the other three networks there is no single point like Bromley South, Waterloo or London Bridge through which all services run and where interchange could be made. This results in a plethora of routes with 4tph, but only 2tph from each terminus, and no interchange to allow access to the other two. Relocating Tulse Hill and Streatham stations further south, with platforms on the lines from Vic-Cryatal Palace and Thornton Heath would be a hugely expensive way of tidying up the route map. A cheap solution of running Victoria – Croydon via Thornton Heath local services via Streatham Hill, TulseHill (reverse) and Streatham would improve connectivity (allowing 4tph by that route and 4tph London Bridge – TH- CP would cover all existing connections just as well as the existing 2tph by each of the four permutations LB/Vic to CP/Thornton Heath) but extend journey times. Again at Croydon, the service is diluted to 2tph on each permutation of Norwood Junction or Selhurst to East or West Croydon, rather than 4tph on two of them with a proper interchange near Windmill Bridge to cover the other two.
@Graham H:
We both know nobody hands a giant fat cheque for the total sum over to the contractors at the start of such projects. It’s paid in instalments. £300 bn = £10 bn / year over 30 years. Given the sheer scale of the projects suggested, that time period is very conservative, but it should also be noted that there are business and political options that TfL and the GLA could take advantage of that aren’t an option for TOCs or Network Rail alone. Given that the GLA has managed to fund 2/3rds of Crossrail, I don’t think it’s quite the obstacle the up-front number suggests.
One major advantage of a TfL takeover of the capital’s rail network is that it allows for a much more joined-up approach to transport infrastructure planning. The “T” in “TfL” stands for “Transport”, not just “Trains”.
A project like (for example) regenerating the Battersea Park and Stewarts Lane areas could not only benefit local road users, but the opportunity could be taken by TfL to re-site Clapham Junction here, tidy up the mess of flyovers and dive unders, and generally free up acres of unneeded railway land while they’re at it. New housing and business development would defray many of the costs and, crucially, it brings in more money to the GLA’s tax pot. This is money all of London benefits from, whereas money going to the Treasury could end up funding something several hundred miles away.
This is as much about political engineering as the more well-known civil kind. Throw in the oft-floated “national infrastructure bank”, and Lord Adonis’ new pet project, and things could get very interesting indeed. Who knows? Maybe London may finally catch up to the 1940s!
Err
One major advantage of a TfL takeover of the capital’s rail network is that it allows for a much more joined-up approach to transport infrastructure planning.
The Dangleway, you mean?
Cough.
Or the cancellation of Cross-River Tram?
Or the “garden bridge”, oh dear.
The point from BernieEnfield about “The Overground” being treated as a single route for disruption reporting purposes has been made many times, and one has to believe that it will be corrected sooner rather than later. In that context, SouthEastern have just taken a retrograde step by closing down their email reporting service and telling everyone to use the NationalRail system instead. Which (as I understand it) requires journeys, rather than routes, to be specified, cannot be updated via mobile browsers, and gives no shortform information. Apparently this is better for passengers.
Re: the North Kent routes – as PoP says, some 50% of the services along the 3 lines do “rounders” rather than coming to Dartford, and moreover both Sidcup and Plumstead are available for turnround points. In terms of planning once TfL take over Metro services (note the hopeful assumption there), any changes in services will be challenging to negotiate/manage with the Gravesend and Gillingham services, the latter likely to be extended to Rainham, and both of those also sharing tracks with HS1 services.
Mind you, Gravesend people are already asking when they’ll get Oyster….
Will devolution to London do anything to increase the service levels on Sundays? The Hounslow loop has four trains an hour mon-sat, but one an hour on Sundays. Given that Sundays are little different to Saturdays now I would hope that the two days could be made more equal. I’d cope with a later start to the enhanced service, but enhanced it certainly should be.
Why is it that North Kent rounders seem to be a good idea but Wimbledon ones never are?
@Anomnibus – the same argument. of course, can be used the other way up – CR1 has cost us £16bn over what will be about 8 years – £2bn pa and even that number has strained the financing and political strength of TfL (and London generally). So, like for like, £300bn would take you 150 years to waste.
I would agree with you – and Dr Cable incidentally – about good investment/borrowing but unfortunately the world financial system runs on monetary aggregates and the UK will not be given a global optout.
@Mike P -and that’s why we old lags prefer to buy the printed timetable (or download the WTTs)
@Robert Butlin – who can say? Will the money stretch that far? What will the priorities be? [My general point that a general TfL takeover doesn’t mean Christmas all round].
Having looked through the report, I suspect a key element is the diagram showing the 3.4 pence per mile premium that SWT pays the DfT (and lesser ones from Southern & Thameslink) while others get subsidies. Overground expansion and CR2 would surely knock all of them back into major subsidy territory… so there is much ‘politics’ to go. Boris and Osbourne do seem to be receptive to juicy capital projects, but the subsequent cost of running the more sophisticated operations don’t appear to have been evaluated yet. Perhaps such concerns may get outpaced by sheer political will to do it, and we can work out how to afford to run them later. In the Overground case, it’s interesting that Underground-type staffing, as opposed TfL trying to promote the DLR model, is a critical factor for the the passenger service benefits.
I’m a North Londoner – lived first half of my life on the Euston line and since then on the (Barnet-side) Northern line with short periods in the centre of things. One thing this has caused me to note is that from Paddington around to Fenchurch St once you get outside the terminal throat then there are a ‘fast’ pair of lines and a ‘local’ pair, often with an ‘urban’ pair supplied by LU/LO too.
But south of the river it seems this doesn’t really happen. There may be more metals but they soon split into simple pairs heading out – exceptions being to Wimbledon and East Croydon. Surely it is this lack of being able to split multiple pairs of lines into ‘local’ and ‘distant’ which is the real problem for increasing the services ‘down there’?
Robert Butlin,
If we want a better service on Sundays it shouldn’t be necessary to turn a service over to TfL. That is sledgehammer to crack a nut mentality.
If the DfT specify it then it will be done. TfL also have the power to pay for it and have it introduced if it is possible.
Castlebar,
The difference is between the North Kent Rounders and The Wimbledon Loop is:
i) trains can wait at two or three minutes on the the North Kent rounders at a designated station in order to be fairly sure that they arrive on time on the return journey. This appears not to be possible on the Wimbledon loop due to the tight timing.
ii) North Kent trains are at least not dependent on external (other TOC) events over which the controllers have no control. In simple terms, if the SouthEastern rounders screw up then it is only Southeastern that is affected. The effects don’t potentially ripple over the whole of Great Britain.
iii) Having the North Kent rounders does not mean unnecessary crossing of tracks that could easily be avoided.
iv) North Kent rounders do not have a critical stretch where only one platform is available for both directions
v) if North Kent rounders are running late it may be possible to not stop at some stations to catch up time, this cannot easily be done on the Wimbledon loop because it is the only service there and is only half-hourly.
Having said all that, in many ways the North Kent rounders are less than perfect and I am surprised that they appear to be so popular with SouthEastern operators. Although they utilise rolling stock well they must be suspectable to ongoing perturbation ones they start running late. To make matters worse, at Charing Cross there is little opportunity to add some slack to the turnround time although I think most go to and from Cannon Street for this reason.
The longest Southeastern rounders are the HS1 services. This is done to utilise stock efficiently which is important as it is limited and not easy to procure more without putting a decent size order in but I do think it is not without disadvantages.
One curious thing about the rounders (and a way of identifying them) is that the destination on the front of the train, the Customer Information Services screens on the platform and the announcements in the carriages may all have different opinions as to where the train is going to. National Rail enquires then says something different still as it can only give the final destination – which is usually Cannon St.
PoP, re: your last point – there used to be a regular sarky comment from a random non-train-geek whenever SouthEastern announced disruption to a “Cannon Street to Cannon Street” service on Twitter. They don’t seem to use that description these days….
The Sidcup terminators used to be a regular source of knock-on delays in the evening rush-hour. Another interesting issue to handle if TfL take those over and delay the semi-fast Strood/Gillingham/wherever in the evening rush. They are a necessary service given the demand on the route, unless there are paths on to Dartford (which I doubt).
NickBXN,
In the Overground case, it’s interesting that Underground-type staffing, as opposed TfL trying to promote the DLR model, is a critical factor for the the passenger service benefits.
I believe that the TfL argument is that Underground and DLR fares are easy to comprehend (I know, I know) and anyway with Oyster you will get the appropriate fare. With London Overground there are lots of complexities such as point-to-point seasons and the ability to book to any UK station which means that having a ticket office is justified.
More difficult to fully rationalise will be Crossrail which , as I understand it, will follow the LU model within the centre (which I take to be Bond Street to Whitechapel + Custom House) and the LO model elsewhere. Of course, you could still buy tickets at the ticket office at most stations affected (e.g. Paddington) but it won’t be a Crossrail one as I understand it. Effectively only Bond Street and Tottenham Court Road will be completely devoid of a ticket office. So you will be able to buy a ticket from Tottenham Court Road to Penzance but you will have to do it from a machine.
@AlisonW:
This is pretty much what is meant by comments about the “lack of segregation” south of the river. The main line from Waterloo is very much an exception to the rule for south London’s network and is much closer in character to its counterparts to the north. However, it does show what the routes out of Kings Cross or Liverpool Street would look like today if the Tube hadn’t taken over their urban metro routes. Splitting those services away from the main lines allowed them to focus on the much more lucrative long-distance services.
I think one of the reasons the Tube rarely ventured south of the Thames is simply that London’s Central Activity Zone itself has never ventured south of the river either: it’s all in “North” London. Perhaps, then, it’s possible the future of south London’s transport infrastructure lies not just in trying to build ever more connections into north London and that CAZ, but in expanding said Central Activity Zone to the south as well, reducing the need to cross the river in the first place.
MikeP,
Not sure I fully understand your last point but yes the Gillingham/Rainham semi-fast will even more of an issue if TfL takes over. The thing is they will go beyond TfL’s area but in many ways are part of the metro service.
The real problem, as I see it, is if dwell times on the two-track Greenwich line increase sufficiently to cause these trains to need to make an additional stop – or alternatively just get caught behind a stopper – which would rather mess up the timetable plan. However this could be a problem regardless of whether TfL takes over or not. The danger, if I can call it that, is that TfL increases the off-peak frequency which will make it more difficult to operate these services reliably.
If Crossrail ever went to Dartford on separate tracks it would be interesting to see if those tracks would be for exclusive Crossrail use only or whether some SouthEastern services could use them for the semi-fast services to run fast from Abbey Wood to Dartford.
The basic problem is that although there are numerous routes to Dartford every one is two-track and full of all-stations trains.
@Pedantic of Purley:
The North Kent loops exist because the location of Slade Green depot meant suitable chords had to be built so trains using the two southern routes could get there without reversing at Dartford. The depot was a relatively late addition to the network; originally, the main depot for these lines was at Bricklayers Arms.
As enhancing capacity at Dartford is a very expensive proposition even today – if it wasn’t, Crossrail 1 would have terminated there, not at Abbey Wood – this is very much a corner-cutting fudge, in every sense of the term.
It’s hard to see how your fifth point (v) makes any sense either. There are no passing loops, all junctions are at-grade, and a failed train is a failed train regardless of whether it ping-pongs back and forth, or goes round and round in circles. Having made frequent use of services into London via all three lines – I lived near Gravesend for a little over a year – I can assure you that trains do not “catch up” or “make time” on any of these lines. In fact, it’s considered a good day when your “fast”[1] service isn’t slotted in behind a stopping service!
In other words: the Wimbledon Loop’s issues are primarily a political fudge. The North Kent loops, on the other hand, are an financial fudge. Dartford is difficult to enhance without major civil engineering. The Wimbledon Loop’s problems, on the other hand, could be solved by simply terminating at Blackfriars, as was originally intended.
[1] It’s rare for a “fast” service to skip more than one or two stations once west of Dartford. If they tried, they’d soon hit the back of the service in front.
It’s not worth it, chap(esse)s) – the public doesn’t get rebranding; cue today’s “heartwarming ” story in the Indie about an elderly pair from Hertfordshire who boarded the wrong return train and went to York instead; they were looked after very well -their comment was “It makes a change to praise British Rail,” . TfL (and TOCs) to note…
@anomnibus
“The “T” in “TfL” stands for “Transport”, not just “Trains”.
It’s the “L” I wonder about – shouldn’t it be an M for Middlesex?
“One major advantage of a TfL takeover of the capital’s rail network is that it allows for a much more joined-up approach to transport infrastructure planning…………A project to ……..re-site Clapham Junction here, tidy up the mess of flyovers and dive unders, and generally free up acres of unneeded railway land while they’re at it.”
That would require far more than anything envisaged here – TfL may sponsor, or even become, the operator but Network Rail will have to continue to own the infrastructure – unless you expect TfL to run all the services to Brighton, Southampton, Weymouth, Exeter, etc.
@MikeP / castlebar
North Kent “rounders” – I doubt that there is much ridership between the limbs of the loops – it is a surely simply a way of getting a high frequency on each line without having to overload Dartford.
I don’t think anyone has suggested that the Wimbledon Loop (by which I assume CB means the St Helier one, not the Kingston one) is a Bad Thing
Ignorant twitterers make similar fun of “Waterloo to Waterloo” services. A quirk of these is that they are advertised to one stop further than half way round – so the fastest way to Strawberry Hill is on a Teddington train, and the fastest way to Teddington is on a Strawberry Hill train.
@NickBXN SWT’s 3.4p/mile “premium”. Tribute or kickback are other possible terms for it, but it is essentially a tax. And of course the cost of that tax has to come out of their only source of revenue – the farebox.That’s a tax of about £200 a year that each of SWT’s Zone 6 commuter is paying for the privilege of going to work.
AlisonW
“But south of the river it seems this doesn’t really happen. There may be more metals but they soon split into simple pairs heading out – exceptions being to Wimbledon (sic) and East Croydon. ”
…………and Orpington:
Wimbledon isn’t very far – there are four tracks to Barnes as well – but the quadruple through Wimbledon continues all the way to Basingstoke and the one through East Croydon all the way to Three Bridges.
@ANOMNIBUS
“I think one of the reasons the Tube rarely ventured south of the Thames is simply that London’s Central Activity Zone itself has never ventured south of the river either: it’s all in “North” London.”
More specifically, the Southern (and Eastern) companies were allowed to build right into the City, whereas the Northern and Western ones were kept north of the Euston Road. The Southern companies also had the luxury of multiple termini, making onward travel by Tube less necessary (one reason the Met was always better off than the District)
Anomnibus,
The reason for the connections to make the roundabout service possible may well be the location of the depot but the reason for it is irrelevant.
I was not talking about failed trains. I was talking about a train being about five or ten minutes late that can make up time by missing stops. It won’t be held back by the train in front provided no other train has got in front in the meantime. I don’t know if it does happen but it could happen and is a fairly standard operating procedure elsewhere these days so it would not surprise me at all if it did and would if it didn’t.
[1] It’s rare for a “fast” service to skip more than one or two stations once west of Dartford. If they tried, they’d soon hit the back of the service in front.
I don’t know how you define “rare” but there are two trains an hour from Gillingham to Charing Cross that once west of Dartford call only at: Abbey Wood, Woolwich Arsenal, Charlton, Blackheath, Lewisham and Waterloo East. So between Dartford and Charlton they call at 2 of the 7 stations including three stations in a row that are not called at.
There are other similar trains in the morning peak starting at Gravesend or Strood that go via Greenwich and west of Dartford call only at Abbey Wood, Woolwich Arsenal, Charlton, Greenwich, London Bridge and Cannon Street.
@ PoP 2023 – I think Crossrail will not have ticket offices at any LU run station so that includes Whitechapel and Farringdon. As you say at Liv St and Paddington you can “pop upstairs” and find a ticket office run by the relevant TOC. I am sceptical about there being ticket offices at Custom House or Woolwich.
You may have had a secret briefing on Crossrail ticketing but I’d be astounded if LU has agreed to tie itself into retailing tickets as far as Penzance. There are simply far far too many complexities involved in NR ticket selling over that distance and LU has resisted all pressure to retail beyond the old “through ticketing” area which stretches a bit beyond Zones 1 to 6 but not very far. Crossrail is going to be extremely odd in terms of ticketing as MTR Crossrail will have to retain national ticketing at all the places it inherits whereas the new bits run by LU or possibly MTR Crossrail will have no such obligations (I’m prepared to be gobsmacked come 2018/9 but try finding a ticket office on any plan of a Zone 1 Crossrail station!). I know that machines are more capable these days than in the past but LU doesn’t offer “ticket on demand” ticket collection at its stations and I can’t see it doing it at Tottenham Court Road or Bond St. I also don’t believe LU can sell a ticket to Cambridge or Colchester never mind Exeter, Bristol or Swindon.
It’s noteworthy that LU has not stated even an indicative date by which it aspires to close ticket offices on the former Silverlink bits of railway that it inherited (Queens Park north and the Richmond branch). That’s because those are National Rail offices and need SoS approval for closure / amendment of operating hours. It will be startling if Uncle Patrick says no and LU is lumbered with ticket offices in random bits of West London having closed the rest!
Coming back to context there is an interesting prospect as to what happens to traditional ticket offices and nationwide retailing if TfL were to gain the majority of NR lines in London. There must come a crunch time when TfL would want to dump the cost of that retailing obligation and it sought approval from the DfT to withdraw from such obligations. Given Overground stations are not branded as National Rail it’s not too much of a stretch to see some radical changes being proposed at some point. It would be an important point of principle that would likely draw a great deal of criticism and comment from stakeholders and passenger representatives.
@Pedantic of Purley:
The “skip-stop” services are only “fast” in theory. In practice, there’s a good chance they’ll get stuck behind a slower train. (If memory serves, some of the “fast” services are flighted in behind a freight, or freight slot – the slots are kept free regardless of whether a freight train is using them. There are quite a few aggregates trains using the North Kent route to get at Angerstein Wharf, near Charlton.)
My point is that, having used some of these services – I used to live near Gravesend myself – I can assure you that they’re often not noticeably quicker than the stoppers. Indeed, they’re often stuck behind such services because, thanks to the problems with the (old) London Bridge layout, it didn’t make any noticeable difference to punctuality anyway. Either way, the train was going to get stuck in the queue outside London Bridge, waiting for its platform.
It is my sincere hope that this state of affairs will improve once the London Bridge rebuild is done, but as a Sahf Lundenner born an’ bred, I ain’t ‘oldin’ me breff.
I might as well jump in here and ask as no one else seems to have yet.
Given the constraints of not having megabucks to create new Crossrail tunnels, and given the complexity of the system in South London.
Why not convert the South London Metro lines lines to DLR-style operation?
Rather than using London Overground trains on National Rail lines – because the North London services share with freight lines or are using diesel trains – use the DLR infrastructure instead.
Assuming that you can create 100% separated lines for them, DLR-style trains can:
1. Achieve very high turnaround times at busy terminal stations with limited platform numbers;
2. Provide smaller but more frequent services easily for branch, loop and remote sections of line;
3. Have line fixes such as fixes for junctions done at much less cost due to being able to climb better than normal trains;
4. Provide an enhanced service without needing staff causing long-term cost benefits;
5. Maintain the multiple-destinations expected from South London stations.
During peak times the same number of passengers could be carried at the same speed – even if on more frequent but shorter trains – using technology with a long high-reliability and ultra-low accident rate.
I’m not saying “simply” here, but it could be very cost effective and flexible and re-use existing technology and knowledge.
@ timbeau 14:27
Agree that the branching of the lines south of the river is part of the problem, but the other problem is the (relatively) low frequency of use on the lines into the Terminus stations (compared to LU). Take Vauxhall as an example. The “downstairs” line has 30+tph on 2 tracks while the 8 tracks “upstairs” don’t have many more tph between them. Is this due to lack of stock, depot space, the inability to reverse trains at Waterloo at a higher frequency, or many other reasons [such as the missing track at Queenstown Road]?
RE Waterloo:
p20-24 will be significantly amended throughout 2016 and early 2017. Then will open for a short time to allow the closure of p1-9 to facilitate p1-4 extensions and track remodelling. Then 20-24 will close again to allow works to be completed. Following all the work, international station will be Windsor only and the Mainline will take a couple of Windsor platforms. Big CP6 scheme(s) in design stage to make Mainline out of Waterloo 28tph
Alison W
Surely it is this lack of being able to split multiple pairs of lines into ‘local’ and ‘distant’ which is the real problem for increasing the services ‘down there’?
Err, no.
Compare times London Bridge – Orpington & speed, 37.5 mph approx,
& Euston – Harrow: 57 mph, approx, & both for 11 – 11.5 miles, & the Eustons can’t speed up until after they have been through the Camden burrowing junctions & the Hampstead tunnels, either.
PoP
The longest Southeastern rounders are the HS1 services. Which are, temseleves, unbelievably slow more than 5 kms past Ashford or 5 mms past Gravesend ….
timbeau
More specifically, the Southern (and Eastern) companies were allowed to build right into the City,
Err, no.
The LBSCR termini were at LBG – sarf’o river, in Bermondsey & VIC, Norf’o river, but in Westminster ( pre-GLC-borough names, note. )
IIRC the only termini in “The City” were …
Liverpool St , Fenchurch St, Cannon St, Blackfriars, Holborn Viaduct &, of course, Moorgate. Which makes 3 each in terms of N & S companies stations & 2 companies trains from the S & 4 from the N ( GER, LTSR, SER, LCDR, MR & GNR – & not counting the “Met, either!
WW
Re. Ticketing from “Oyerground” stations.
Well, our local one, Walthamstow Central seems quite happy to continue selling NR destination tickets to anywhere & pick the revenue up, I’m very glad to say.
( Grantham, Lincoln, Lewes, Tun-Wells, Knebworth & Biggleswadex2 so far, since Midsummer’s day this year(!))
Richie – make that 6, or even 5 tracks upstairs, since normally, nothing uses the centre main pair to stop @ Vauxhall, & few use the northernmost trak. Then, trains are longer, much longer & hold more people, so dwell times will be greater.
I make it 26 tph in a non-rush hour, but I may have under-counted ….
And, yes, Waterloo’s capacity is strained/overloaded & we STILL have not got trains using the ex-Eurostar platforms yet.
Walthamstow Writer,
Surely the Thameslink ticket office will remain at Farringdon? Why should it go? It is nothing to do with LU as far as I am aware.
Howard Smith has specifically said to me that is what will happen. Why should it basically be any different to now? You can walk up to a machine on London Overground (e.g. West Croydon tramlink entrance) and buy a ticket to Penzance from that machine. You can even buy a ticket to Penzance from any other station. So what’s the big deal about having such machines at Tottenham Court Road?
I forgot Woolwich wasn’t the same as the National Rail station. I too don’t think you will see ticket offices at Canary Wharf or Custom House or Woolwich either.
Briantist,
The DLR is fine for short distance stuff but Dartford is around 15 miles away from central London. You can’t have it both ways. Either you have trains that can take tight corners or you can have trains that can run at a decent speed giving a comfortable ride on straight track (and on the DLR there is hardly any straight track at all).
A guy hanging out the doors is fine for a train 86 metres long, the platforms are straight and using Mark 1 eyeball. Not so good the train is 240 metres (one day) and at Lewisham with the tightly curved platform. I think the maxium length permitted without CCTV is around 120 metres. So the train operator needs to see the monitors. Best current practice (LU at any rate) is to put the monitors in the cab which means you probably have a cab. If you put them at fixed locations on the platform then the train operator has to be in the correct place – so you might as well give him a cab.
There are loads of other issues. Longer trains take longer to clear junctions. Interworking with longer distance stuff. SouthEastern’s complex timetable driven by lack of platforms at Charing Cross. ERTMS would do a lot to help (and this can be overlaid on the signalling now being installed as part of the London Bridge works) so it would make much more sense to do that as a first option. Then you start to have Docklands-like signalling and ATO operating capability. To make it more DLR-like you could then make the trains shorter but I don’t think that will go down too well!
the reason, of course, that london overground reports no overcrowding is that it is based on standing being allowed at four passengers per square metre on its trains. The other train companies have mixtures of trains on which standing is not allowed (so all passengers in excess of the number of seats are in excess of capacity) or on which only 2.2 passengers per square metre are ‘allowed’ (and standing above this level is in excess of capacity).
due to inefficient packing of people, four passengers per square metre of floor space seems to be the threshold of what is possible on big trains.
Briantist,
Just to add,
Frequency of trains on two track section at Borough Market to/from Charing Cross before current works: 29 tph. Of these many are 10 and 12 car trains in peak hours.
Maximum frequency operated on DLR: 30tph These trains are roughly the equivalent of slightly over 4 carriages of a Southeastern train by the time you take the oversized couplers on a DLR 3-car train into account.
Briantist: isn’t your suggestion a crayonista dream? It would require on any route that has services running outside the metro area additional dedicated tracks.
Which is really the problem with the south London metro. Whilst north London generally has separate infrastructure (ie the bulk of London Underground and DLR), South London is a mess of interconnecting services and metro services sharing track with regional.
The core of your suggestion is creating a grade-separate metro on dedicated infrastructure. The actual technology is more or less irrelevant. But the core is very expensive, beaten only by mass tunnelling. It would of course solve a lot of problems, though it would also help to rationalise services , at a cost of forcing some passengers to interchange, to simplify the map.
Part of the 2 track with mixed service pattern problems south of the Thames (either slow / semi-fast or slow – fast) is the limitation on train acceleration due to the 3rd Rail DC power supply.
If the available power* were increased by 60 – 80% (on average) so that acceleration could match that of the same stock on 25kv AC. (The better acceleration also make a higher top speed between station much more worth while)
*Either increasing number of supply points (substations) or possibly also increasing the nominal 3rd rail voltage to 850V as well, heavier section / aluminium 3rd rail etc.
At which point 25kV AC OHLE starts to look interesting as an alternative…
Of course you might decide if terminal and junction capacity allowed to run a few more services than to try to speed up semi fasts!
Wolf @ 10:01
Agree with your analysis in general, however would add that some suburban stock in use with TOCs is also measured on the 4 passengers per sq m basis, the most numerous example being SWT’s 455s, since their last interior modifications a few years back.
There is another London TOC with some stock measured this way, but I don’t have the info to hand.
@Briantist
“Assuming that you can create 100% separated lines for them,”
Most of the preceding discussion has indicated that you can’t – no really, you can’t. We might as well start with the assumption that the moon is made of cheese.
And if you could segregate the lines you could do all the rest without conversion to DLR toy trains anyway.
@Richie
“the (relatively) low frequency of use on the lines into the Terminus stations (compared to LU). Take Vauxhall as an example. The “downstairs” line has 30+tph on 2 tracks while the 8 tracks “upstairs” don’t have many more tph between them. Is this due to ………… the inability to reverse trains at Waterloo at a higher frequency, ”
Terminal constraints are the main constraint at Waterloo but there are far more than 30tph through Vauxhall. Platform 8 alone sees about 20 in the peaks. (What I think has happened is that you have not included the non-stop trains passing through platforms 5 and 6, but have included them in the total number of platforms). According to “live departures” there are in fact 42 departures from Waterloo in the next hour – fifteen each on the Local and Main, and twelve on the Windsor.
@Greg
“More specifically, the Southern (and Eastern) companies were allowed to build right into the City,
Err, no.
The LBSCR termini were at LBG – sarf’o river, in Bermondsey & VIC, Norf’o river, but in Westminster ( pre-GLC-borough names, note. )
IIRC the only termini in “The City” were …
Liverpool St , Fenchurch St, Cannon St, Blackfriars, Holborn Viaduct &, of course, Moorgate.
I did say “allowed”, although as you say only two southern companies actually did cross the river – although there were direct services to Cannon Street that Brighton and LSWR travellers could use if the walk from London Bridge/Waterloo to the City was too onerous.
And I also said “eastern”, so included Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street (both GER stations – the LTSR never owned a London terminus).
The Metropolitan was the game-changer, which gave three of the four northern companies the vicarious access they had not been able to get themselves.
And we both forgot poor old Broad Street
@Paul
“SWT’s 455s, since their last interior modifications a few years back”
I misread that as “inferior” – a view with which I would concur!
Walthamstow Writer 19 October 2015 at 01:10
“I think Crossrail will not have ticket offices at any LU run station so that includes Whitechapel and Farringdon.”
What proportion of tickets are bought at station ticket offices, rather than collected from machines?
I collect all manner of tickets from Forest Gate (Crossrail is coming! and bringing lifts in 2016!) but I have already bought those tickets using this computer at home.
@wolf, Paul – it is worth reading the DfT note on overcrowding in full; the relevant para says; “Crowding is measured by comparing the standard class critical load with the capacity of the service. The standard class capacity includes the number of standard class seats on the service and may include an allowance for standing room. No allowance for standing is made on a service when the time between stations before (AM) or after (PM) the critical load point is more than 20 minutes, but it is allowed when it is 20 minutes or less. The allowance for standing varies with the type of rolling stock but, for modern sliding door stock, it is typically approximately 35 per cent of the number of standard class seats. For most train operators the standing allowance is based on an allowance of 0.45m2 of floor space per passenger. However, for South West Trains a figure of 0.25m2 is used and for Southeastern’s class 376 ‘metro’ style stock and for London Overground a figure of 0.35m2 is used. In some cases train operators do not have standing capacities calculated for their rolling stock based on the available floor area. In these cases the standing capacities have been estimated as 20 per cent of the number of standard class seats for long distance rolling stock, and 35 per cent of the number of standard class seats for commuter rolling stock. These estimates have been used for Arriva Trains Wales, CrossCountry, East Midland Trains, East Coast, First Great Western and Virgin Trains. “
@Graham H
“No allowance for standing is made on a service when the time between stations before ………..the critical load point is more than 20 minutes”
I don’t understand what is meant by “time between stations”. Is it saying that standing is not allowed-for on a non-stop service taking more than 20 minutes (e.g Paddington to Reading) but not on an all-stations service between the same points, because the times between Reading and Twyford, Twyford and Maidenhead, etc are all less than 20 minutes? It seems perverse to suggest it’s acceptable to stand from Twyford to Paddington for 53 minutes, but not from Reading to Paddington for 25.
Re Graham H,
So if SWT were to be able to stop fast services at Clapham Jn (after necessary infrastructure work) then they could get a standing allowance on many fast line services?
Combined with a Woking stop – convieniently 19 mins non stop from Clapham Jn, Basingrad a further 18 minutes from Woking, Winchester – Basingrad another 15minutes to get a standing allowance all the way to Southampton, Weymouth (or Portsmouth just needs Woking and Clapham Jn stops)???
@timbeau – search me! The DfT explanation as to what is happening is designed to confuse and does nothing to explain why the standards are what they are. One explanation of what DfT means is that the 20 minute rule applies to an individual train, and so, yes, if your Twyford is full at that point then it would be acceptable to stand for the whole of that time.
This is not what was meant when I imposed standing rules as part of the PSO back in 1985 (sorry, blood and custard moment). What we said then was that on L&SE services, no one should stand for more than 20 minutes (there were no standards for anything else as we assumed that IC would not wish to damage its reputation – ho ho – by forcing people to stand for any significant time, and OPS was – well, they had to take what they were offered, didn’t they?). There was a further tacit assumption that that 20 minutes applied between a London terminus and the stop immediately preceding it – so, yes, stopping at Woking Waterloo fast at CJ allowed it to be full and standing all the way. A trick!
The varying PIXC figures shouldn’t surprise, however; if I had had my way, we would have moved to usable floor space @4/m2 on a stock specific basis long ago. I suspect that recent resistance has been based on the fact that there would both losers and winners.
I assume (but may be wrong because of the inept explanations offered by DfT) that they still mean that no one should stand for more than 20 minutes. If people are standing for longer the view at the time that standard was imposed was that more trains/capacity would be required. Nowadays that is clearly impossible in many cases, but it didn’t seem so difficult at the time. What is not generally known is that the overcrowding measures were originally devised not to limit overcrowding, but at a time when traffic was falling, were intended to be a measure to get the Board to load up its services and run less fresh air. Later, Ministers seized on the idea as a means of stopping overcrowding and given the amount of slack in the system in the ’80s, that seemed plausible. The wheels began to come off that in the ’90s when growth showed signs of bumping up against a capacity ceiling. The first (and only) NSE Business Plan, which I produced, deliberately forced politicians to address the issue. The basic choice was between more investment, worse quality or higher fares. With the benefit of hindsight (hmm) I suspect that privatisation was thought of as a very useful distraction from having to answer the question…
@Richie
Comparing Vauxhall’s SWT service to LU Victoria line is like comparing apples to the International Space Station, they’re a completely different type of operation. The Victoria line is a 2 track railway, with no junctions (save at the ends and to the depot). It runs entirely on ATO. Also, all trains stop at all stations and are of the same type of rolling stock. This makes it incredibly easy to operate a high frequency. (36tph peak, 24 tph off peak)
At Vauxhall SWT (which has 32tph off peak stopping + 16tph fast), while there are 8 tracks, there are other considerations. Namely this:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/VXH/to/WAT/2015/10/19/1200-1300?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt
A list of all trains through Vauxhall which end up at Waterloo.
This degree of branching and having to skip stops (so that people from Southampton don’t have to stop everywhere) is why the frequency is lower. A Class 159 also has a very different acceleration/speed profile to a Class 455. That doesn’t help either. On the Windsor side (lines via Putney), there’s the additional problem of a large number of level crossings west of Barnes, which have limitations as to how often they can be closed, which holds up traffic.
Things can be done with service simplification, but not so much on the South Western side, especially given that many of the junctions are grade-separated.
___________________________________________________________________________________
On a more interesting and slightly more technical point, how much can be achieved with service simplification on the SE side and how much of that would be allowable.
SouthEastern:
***************
I feel a big issue would arise between Victoria and Shepherd’s Lane Junction (North of Brixton), where the entire SE service is forced into a 2 track railway. This is currently at 9 tph. 4tph Victoria – Orpington, 2tph Victoria – Dartford (via Barnehurst) and 3tph LCDR Mainline. The major issue at Herne Hill is also felt which surely limits any service increases as well. I assume TfL would keep the Orpington trains at the same service level anyway, but it would prevent squeezing out an extra 2tph via Denmark Hill, which somewhat harms TfL’s turn-up and go on most routes philosophy.
How much would splitting up Lewisham achieve and how much would be desired (ie: losing direct services from Hayes – Cannon St and Barnehurst/Slade Green-Charing Cross)? The Victoria services in this case would also be forced to go to Hayes (or I guess we could continue the flat crossings at Tanner’s Hill Junction and Courthill Loop South as a Charing Cross/Victoria to Dartford service), but already additional complexity is needed if we’re to avoid running anything*** at < 4tph.
The current off-peak service pattern (as far as I'm aware) is
via Sidcup:
2tph Cannon St Rounders (via Sidcup)
2tph Charing X – Gravesend
via Barnehurst:
2tph Charing X – Dartford
2tph Cannon St Rounders (via Barnehurst)
2tph Victoria – Dartford
via Slade Green:
2tph Cannon St Rounders (via Barnehurst)
2tph Cannon St Rounders (via Sidcup)
2tph Charing X – Gillingham (via Blackheath)
2tph Cannon St – Dartford
While this combines to give 4, 6 and 8tph on each branch (South – North respectively), it becomes complicated close to London. How useful is 2tph Charlton – Blackheath? Is there any scope for an increased Victoria – Lewisham service?
I haven't even started to think about actual SEML services, with the 2tph Orpingtons currently going to Cannon St via Lewisham. Could something like the following be achieved (minor crayons, but no infrastructure works, so hopefully it's not fanciful, except in possibly breaking useful journey pairs, please point out any infrastructure that would be limiting in this case).
via Slade Green:
——————-
6tph Cannon St – Slade Green via Greenwich (LO) of which:
2tph loop to Crayford
2tph loop to Barnehurst
2tph go to Gravesend
via Barnehurst
——————
6tph Cannon St – Barnehurst via Lewisham (LO) of which:
2tph loop to Crayford
2tph loop to Slade Green
2tph go to Gravesend
via Sidcup
—————–
4tph Victoria – Crayford via Denmark Hill (LO) of which:
2tph loop to Barnehurst
2tph loop to Slade Green
2tph Charing Cross – Gillingham (SE Semi-Fast)
Hayes Branch
—————-
4tph Charing Cross – Hayes via Tanners Hill (LO)
SEML Metro
—————
4tph Cannon St – Sevenoaks via St Johns/Hither Green NOT Lewisham (LO)
LCDR Metro
—————
4tph Victoria – Orpington via Brixton
Everything else can continue to be run be the South Eastern franchisee.
***I'm assuming "away" from major lines we can afford c.2tph on LO services, much like on the Southbury loop and the Romford – Upminster, but not allowing that low service level near London.
Looking at the Southern (I’m having a long post day):
With Thameslink taking a lot of the branches (Caterham, Tattenham Corner), this actually has real scope for some simplification (again, if infrastructure allows and it doesn’t annoy the locals).
There do seem to be a couple of stubs though, which kind of prevent the 4tph turn-up and go. These are the 2tph Beckenham Junction branch and 1 tph South Croydon – Milton Keynes service. The Beckenham branch is limited by its single track and South Croydon – Milton Keynes is limited by a lack of paths on the WLL. These aren’t easy things to sort out, although one might suggest that the valuable 2tph out of London Bridge could be put to better use elsewhere (with an already solid provision of rail services to Beckenham).
TfL don’t seem particularly interested in East Croydon, which means that the Southern Metro network becomes the following:
Victoria – Sutton via Mitcham (and extensions)
Victoria – Sutton via Selhurst (and extensions)
Victoria – Sutton via Crystal Palace (and extenstions)
LBG – Sutton via Mitcham (and extensions)
LBG – Sutton via Forest Hill (and extensions)
Other than an overwhelming amount of trains terminating at Sutton (and extensions), how feasible would 4tph on each of these services be, limiting it to these 5 services (including whether any useful journeys are suddenly broken). I guess one of the major issues comes with the fact that there are limited interchange opportunities. I’d suggest it would make more sense to terminate trains in the extensions than at Sutton (because there’s little space left there anyway, although that may require some limited infrastructure works, like 2 tracking to Epsom Downs).
Re glbotu
” how feasible would 4tph on each of these services be, limiting it to these 5 services (including whether any useful journeys are suddenly broken).”
It would need to be 6-8tph on each to provide the capacity other wise it is effectively a cut from the current capacity (!5tph Vic going to 16tph & 12tph LBG which should increase post completion of the building works) 27tph into 20tph doesn’t go!
Thameslink are only taking some of the services on the CAT and TAT branches. There will still be some VIC Southern ones.
But what you suggest then means no services West Norwood – Tulse Hill and all the interchanges that provides (Thameslink)
What happens to the VIC- LBG shuttles? (Which are very useful capacity wise as they are peak flow in both directions unlike all the others you mention.
West Norwood, Gipsy Hill and Crystal Palace currently have well used 4tph to London Bridge (2 outer loop shuttles and 2 Beckenham Jn) which would be reduced to 0tph by what you propose with longer journeys with at least 1 change as an alternative so is probably a non starter politically (unless you throw in free Northern Line from Balham to LBG for the price of an NR LBG single???)
Beckenham Junction is needed because Windmill Bridge Junction and West Croydon can’t cope without a big upgrade – see Sussex part 9 article. 2tph more LO isn’t even possible at the moment. The alternative in the case of tram to Crystal Palace was diverting the services after Crystal Palace to a reinstated Norwood Junction P7 instead of Beckenham Jn. The VIC -Sutton via Palace services use the unused part of an LBG – VIC Shuttle path and vice-versa so you would need huge amounts of infrastructure work to accommodate what you are thinking of especially if LO frequencies are increased as planned…
So complete non-starter.
@glbotu I think your ideas for a SouthEastern LO Metro are bang on.
I suggest however, that the simplification you suggest for Southern services are a little over-simplistic. There would be a great deal of potential for such a radical change (provided the political will) with substantial investment in interchange stations at places like Streatham and Tulse Hill, but without that, too many potential journeys would be lost. In a way a Southern LO Metro could be a simpler proposition (than SouthEastern), as there are already dedicated fast tracks from both London Bridge (Thameslink) and Victoria to East Croydon.
There’s also the potential for the Blackfriars bay terminators to be provided by an LO Metro, whilst leaving the Thameslink core to a single operator.
P.S. I’m not suggesting that @glbotu’s suggestions would be cost free- either in terms of financial or political capital. They may well require some infrastructure/signalling/power upgrades as safeguards for longer distance services.
@ngh
As far as I understand it, the current Southern Metro runs***:
2tph Sutton – Victoria via Crystal Palace
4tph Sutton – Victoria via Selhurst
2tph Sutton – Victoria via Mitcham Junction
2tph Sutton – Victoria via Mitcham Junction (fast from Dorking/Horsham, would remain with Southern)
That makes 8 tph Sutton – Victoria, only one route of which sees 4 tph.
2tph West Croydon – London Bridge (via Selhurst)
2tph London Victoria – London Bridge (via West Norwood)
2tph Beckenham Jn – London Bridge (via West Norwood)
2tph Caterham – London Bridge
I’ll admit, I didn’t notice that the Caterham – Finsbury Park was a peak only Thameslink service and would remain with Southern otherwise. This was an oversight.
So, my suggestion is taking an 8tph to Victoria and 6 tph to London Bridge and turning it into 12tph to Victoria and 8 tph to London Bridge.
I guess I was attempting to minimise the number of services which run at low (2tph) frequencies, replacing them with higher frequency services along the same corridors. While West Norwood – Tulse Hill may be useful, it’s only 2tph, which means that to make that Thameslink connection, you don’t get turn up and go. This is the general problem. That there are lots of kind of useful services, but you have to wait for them. My attempt at “re-drawing the map” was to maximise sending more trains down fewer corridors, but allowing a turn-up-and-go service at each.
I guess accommodating everything is rather too difficult. In which case, I can’t really see the advantages that LO could bring on the Southern. As you’ve managed to demonstrate, a simplification of service patterns isn’t available without major infrastructure works, which means maintaining the current 2tph to everywhere service pattern.
***Again, ignoring extensions etc.
@ Greg – of course you can buy national tickets at WWCS. That is because LOROL are obliged to retail such tickets as part of their being a Train Operating Company and subject to all the normal franchise commitments (yes I know it’s a concession but the obligations are the same). I just wonder that if the financial pressures continue bearing down on TfL when the inevitable happens and moves to shut all Overground ticket offices start being considered (if they haven’t already been).
@ PoP – I was mistaken about Farringdon. I wasn’t aware it had gained a Thameslink ticket office – the one time I’ve had a look around there were only ticket machines in the new ticket hall. The point about the central area stations, where operated by LU, is that while a ticket machine may well be capable to doing whatever it is more about the background regulatory control and structures. AFAIK LU is not subject to all the regulations and obligations imposed by Rail Settlement Plan. TOCs have no choice where they are the operator. Things may well have changed with LU but I would be genuinely surprised if they’ve agreed to move their whole system into the regulatory purview of RSP. They’ve no choice with the ex Silverlink bits they inherited and I believe there has been no great change to technology at those places. I certainly can’t recall CTS made ticket machines being installed there. Other examples of LU avoiding the clutches of RSP have been the creation of separate ticket windows at T Hale (now gone) and Stratford in the LU ticket offices but with separate staff and machines. In order to avoid the wrath of London Travelwatch over loss of NR ticket retailing capabilities I believe separate arrangements, some run by Greater Anglia, have been put in place at T Hale (on TOC property, not LU) and at Stratford.
I expect MTR Crossrail, as operators of Woolwich and Custom House, will be caught by RSP rules as they’re a TOC and they’ll have to do whatever is appropriate to the service level they’ve decided to provide. If Mr Smith is happy to sell a Penzance ticket at Custom House then fair enough. I just don’t see it happening at Tottenham Court Road (regardless of the illogicality of all of this). It wasn’t logical when I was creating the UTS Base Data back in the mid 1980s and I doubt it’s any different now given the massively complex range of tickets and restrictions that now apply. Feel free to go “nah nah you you were wrong” in December 2018 when Crossrail opens and we can play with the ticket machines. 🙂 🙂
@glbotu/James Bass
glbotu’s proposals remove not only the through serveices but any connection between the North Dulwich line (direct London Bridge- Sutton route) and the Gispy Hill line, but also do the same for the North Dulwich/Thornton Heath axis. As I suggested above, two-level interchanges where the direct London Bridge- Sutton route crosses the Victoria – Crystal palace and BML lines would be an expensive fix for that.
An partial alternative solution might be to build a new connection between Streatham Hill and Stratham Common, with an interchange at Streatham.
Alternatively, we can have
London Bridge – Tulse Hill – Crystal Palace – East Croydon/Becky J
Victoria – Streatham Hill – Tulse Hill- (reverse) – Streatham – Mitcham Junction – Sutton – over the hills and far away
Thameslink – Tulse Hill- Streatham – Thornton Heath – West Croydon – Sutton – Wimbledon – Streatham – and back.
Some BML semi-fasts could call at Selhurst to maintain connections to East Croydon
This covers all existing routes with, at most, one change. The stopping service on the BML route would be slower than the existing service because of the detour between Balham and Streatham Common.
The limit on service frequencies would probably be capacity at Tulse Hill, especially the reversing Victoria services, although I have chosen the routings to minimise conflicts there. If I recall the layout correctly, the westernmost tracks can only be used by trains between Herne Hill and Streatham or Streatham Hill, but the easternmost ones can be used for any movement
@glbotu/JamesBass/timbeau – no doubt, but none of this is going to happen. It’s mere garret crayonism. Just because TfL take over the inners, they will make no immediate change to service patterns and unless there is a great deal more money than is likely to be the case, it isn’t going to happen – if really desirable (and no one has actually demonstrated that it is) – for a couple of generations.
@ Graham H – on a similar theme Transport for All tweeted this morning that a TfL takeover would make suburban rail services more accessible. I was wondering where the magic lifts, ramps, bridges, new platform heights would instantly come from. All TfL have changed is the rule about needing to book assistance in advance. The GOBLIN is only marginally more accessible than it was (at Gospel Oak) and there are no platform staff or wheelchair ramps (between train and platform) at Blackhorse Road although I accept the stepped footbridge is a very significant impediment to anyone with walking difficulties / in a wheelchair. Despite promises of an “Access for All” accessibility scheme at Blackhorse Road it is impossible to find anything about it – TfL won’t even answer questions about it now in their Twitter sessions. Doesn’t stop people turning up with huge cases, kids in buggies or old people struggling with the stairs although it’s obviously a long way from ideal.
As a tiny aside I noticed recently that a Class 172 had gained extra vertical handrails plus other handrails and strap hangers in the vestibules / stand back areas the other day. Presumably an attempt to make the rush hour crush marginally safer so people can hold on to something.
Reading statements like “This is not what was meant when I imposed standing rules as part of the PSO back in 1985” and “It wasn’t logical when I was creating the UTS Base Data back in the mid 1980s” are why I like this place so much. 🙂
Re WW’s “The GOBLIN is only marginally more accessible than it was at Gospel Oak” I’d have to disagree. It being my local station I’d have to say that the installation of the lifts is the greatest thing since whatever the previous greatest thing was. Absolutely better than the very long flight of stairs, anyway.
@Graham H
“none of this is going to happen”
Indeed – I was trying to illustrate how difficult it would be to achieve.
The main attractions of TfL control would be
– accountability,
– a level playing field on fares
– a more horizontal division of services (the problem with a vertical structure being that someone will end up at the bottom of the heap!)
But particularly accountability – the term “franchise” has a root common with “freedom”, and the TOCs have that in abundance – it seems they have a fairly broad licence to do what they like. And when the franchise comes up for renewal it is not the travelling public or even their elected representatives they have to satisfy but an unelected quango whose terms of reference seem to have no room for input from the people who actually have to use the service.
@timbeau – thank you for the clarification! I agree entirely about DfT’s lack of accountability – one of the things that has always puzzled elderly Whitehall hands has been why they are never challenged. Having spent years applying a steel ruler to the knuckles of any Minister who wanted to tell BR to add a restaurant car to the 11.00 from KX, we now find that DfT happily does so without any reference other than to their own (wholly uninformed) whim. Why does no MP ever ask who or what decided – and why – such and such a service should be every 30 minutes with a last train no earlier than xx.xx? There isn’t a freestanding industry to blame any more.
@ Alison W – clearly Gospel Oak station is much improved for those who benefit from the lifts. Those stairs are a pain if you’re not an athelete and trying to connect to the NLL. I was really referring to the GOBLIN route as a whole – there’s been no magic improvement in terms of accessibility. Any such schemes come from DfT Access for All funding and NOT TfL itself. South Tottenham is being done now and that’s a big scheme with a new entrance, ticket hall and lifts. West Hampstead will be next. Both are Access for All schemes in terms of the lift works. TfL are funding the larger ticket hall at the latter location. However there have been moans that Dalston Kingsland is not gaining lifts even though the station is supposed to be gaining some improvements. Seems TfL only chase Access for All funding in respect of NR routes. It remains to be seen if Access for All funding continues in the wake of the current Spending Review.
@Graham H
I was also trying to make the point that a radical reshaping of Southern Metro services (whether LO or otherwise) would not be a simple or cheap affair. I think it would be desirable in the long term to move to a high frequency and interchange model, but it would require a lot of money and political will, both of which are probably better expended elsewhere. Let’s hope there is some scope to increase some frequencies on the current network, which is what I think @glbotu was trying to get at. I think “crayonism” is just a tiny bit harsh, as the discussion is about whether changes without large infrastructure changes are possible. I don’t think they are on the Southern Metro.
I do think his ideas for a SouthEastern Metro have more potential, but again, they would require political will and I’m sure they would require at least some infrastructure expenditure.
@Graham H
The most egregious example of lack of accountability being the curtailment by a certain operator of six trains a day (from seven specified in the franchise) shortly before the timetable came into effect. The reasons were never properly challenged – let alone the TOC having its knuckles rapped – the rolling stock was reallocated, and when new rolling stock became available it was used to boost market share on another route.
Indeed, the operator is frequently held up as some sort of paragon because its revenue exceeded its operating costs by such a huge margin – far more than the savings made by not running the services in question.
It’s exactly this lack of accountability in practice (despite it being there on paper, allegedly) that made the “democratic deficit” argument against transfer of SouthEastern metro services to Dartford and Sevenoaks to TfL (as stated by local MPs) last time round so laughable.
@JamesBass – fair enough. I think what is behind my remarks, apart from cost, is (a) lack of clarity as to what it is we are trying to solve (and is it worth solving), and (b) an easy assumption that moving to a metro “grid” is better than what we have now – I see the attractions of it intellectually, in a Cartesian fashion, but whether it would be either what the punters want or good vfm remains unclear. Indeed, NSE pondered taking a tiny step in that direction with a possible interchange station at Leaham, but even that step was financially difficult to justify, alas.
@Graham H: I agree with your reservations. To them, I would add that even if the two hurdles you mention (punters’ wishes and value for money) are somehow overcome, there is the further one of the long dead hand of the past.
By that I mean that if a big shake-up scheme makes 250,000 people happier, and also makes 200,000 unhappier by about the same amount (if you could even measure this), even if the financial cost is apparently covered by the net benefit, it won’t happen. Nasty noises (and negative votes) from the losers will sound through a lot louder than the happy noises (and positive votes) of the gainers.
The rail network in South London is what it is. Of course it could be improved, but only (in my view) by comparatively small steps, each one having few losers. If it were totally destroyed, by an asteroid or something, of course it would be rebuilt differently. But it won’t be.
@Malcolm – the game changer may well be CR3 (assuming that it’s NW to SE) but it’s hardly worth hanging around for it to happen. Meanwhile,there are plenty of tweaks to be done, that cost relatively little and don’t require hard pressed analysts to put some Benthamite value on human happiness.
My apologies for mispelling Leigham as Leaham -not an area I know well
@ glbotu 12:29
I’d forgotten about the 4 level crossings between Barnes & Richmond. This explains why two of the 4 Windsor lines seem to be wasted. Hence the idea of a Clapham Jn – Esher express tunnel [sorry – can’t remember who proposed it] which would take over two of the Windsor tracks (with the 8th track reinstated at Queenstown Road). I assume that a tunnel without stations would be a lot cheaper to build than a tunnel with stations, and one running for most of its length under Richmond and Home Parks would be a lot cheaper than one running beneath residential areas.
Could the idea of express tunnels be used for other examples where there are “spare tracks” approaching a terminus station. For example, Loughborough Jn to Bromley South or East Croydon. This would enable more capacity to be released for metro services on the surface lines.
Re glbotu and James Bass,
The original high level TfL proposals for southern metro involved 3 infrastructure proposals (or Orange Crayonisms to Graham H) which are hinted at in odd sentences in the NR Sussex route strategy
a) Gloucester Road – West Croydon
b) Peckham Rye
c) Streatham rerouting (now apparently watered down by some practical realities)
The original Streatham proposal I think involved sending all the Streatham Common stopping services east at Streatham Common Junction on to the Streatham Spurs then stopping at Streatham then a new Tunnel / Chord east of Streatham to somewhere around Leigham Court Tunnel then Stopping at Streatham Hill. Thus attempting to solve TfL’s A23 bus corridor headache. Adding about 6 minutes to journeys due to the extra stops and distance.
Streatham Common – same service as currently
Streatham +4tph Vic (from 0tph to 4tph), rest as present 4tph Blackfriars, 2tph LBG which NR want to increase to 4tph.
Streatham Hill +4tph Vic (from 4tph to 8tph)
[More pathing issues in addition to earlier – LBG via Streatham Common is effectively paired pathing wise with a VIC – via Mitcham Jn path to optimise the VIC slow line capacity to avoid conflicting moves.]
Re Graham H,
It looks like the Leigham concept never really died – it appears to keep rising every couple of decades in some form or another!
@ngh 2142
It seems I (1523) was not the first to think of that solution for Streatham
@Richie
“This explains why two of the 4 Windsor lines seem to be wasted. Hence the idea of a Clapham Jn – Esher express tunnel ”
There have been proposals for such a tunnel, but Esher is the station after Surbiton and at least five miles from the Windsor Line so it would do little to relieve the level crossings between Barnes and Richmond .
This may seem slightly bonkers but is there capacity to run extra off peak services from the SWT inner branches as far as Wimbledon and then reverse them in the depot and head back out? This would bolster service on the branches and give people the option of a change to the tube or tramlink or other SWT services at Wimbledon. I appreciate people probably want to mostly head to Zone 1 but surely some of the branches would benefit from 4 or 6 tph rather than 2 or 4 as far as a good interchange point. As I say this would be off peak only.
@WW
I think the depot reversal would involve crossing the fast lines on the flat, so no, there probably is not the capacity.
@WW That’s not a bad idea.
@WW
” is there capacity to run extra off peak services from the SWT inner branches as far as Wimbledon and then reverse them in the depot and head back out?”
If only they would – SWTs favourite game is to reverse services short of the main line (Kingston and Motspur Park seem to be favourites) – giving London-bound passengers a long wait for an onward train, and outbound passengers no way of getting to them from Waterloo and Clapham Junction (or indeed Wimbledon) .
It shows a total disregard for the long-suffering passengers and after it has happened seven times on six consecutive weekdays (always at five minute notice) everyone on the Kingston line is fed up of it (especially as the alleged cause is never on our own line – we have had Epsom, Brookwood and Haselemere cited as the causes of the alleged congestion – although I would have thought that, if trains cannot get through Surrey as fast as usual, there would be less congestion in the inner suburban area, not more!)
And people wonder why SWT’s passengers are the keenest on the idea of TfL taking over.
SWT is still better than having to rely on Thameslink…!
@glbotu
“SEML Metro
—————
4tph Cannon St – Sevenoaks via St Johns/Hither Green NOT Lewisham (LO)”
The problem with this is the two track railway between Orpington and Sevenoaks, shared by the fast and stopping trains. At the moment the off peak service over this section is 6tph fast and 2tph stopping; in the down direction the stopping trains are booked to wait at Sevenoaks for the fast train to overtake. I looked at what service was achievable in the peak, and between 8 and 9 am into London I counted 9tph fast and 3tph stopping.
The stopping trains take 14 minutes and the fast ones 9 minutes, so assuming a standard 3 minute headway a stopping train needs 3 paths; this back of the envelope calculation sort of adds up as the peak hour 9 (fast) + 3 (slow) x 3 = 18, which gives 2 spare paths on a 20tph railway. We could fit an off-peak service of 6 fast + 4 slow through, but this would mean that the fast trains would be bunched closer together, meaning long gaps in the 6tph service from Tonbridge (and fast trains from Sevenoaks). There would also be a reduction in the stopping service during the peaks.
The TfL map only shows the LO service has far as Orpington and with a dreamy money pot for new trains, staff, etc it would be possible to increase the service on the slow lines to Orpington from the current 4 to 6 or even 8tph. Perhaps we could also run the current 2tph Sevenoaks stoppers fast from Orpington into Charing Cross.
@ChrisMitch
I use Thameslink occasionally – usually because I don’t want to walk in the rain to Waterloo. A year – even six months ago, I would have agreed with you, but although Thameslink’s timekeeping is sometimes rather approximate, they have never dumped a trainload of passengers at Wimbledon Chase or Tooting at five minutes’ notice, which would be the equivalent of SWT’s recent daily behaviour.
@ timbeau
The 4 Barnes – Richmond level crossing could (in theory) be replaced by tunnels/bridges. Assimg this isn’t going to happen, the Esher – Clapham Jn tunnel would be a way to make better use of the approach tracks to Waterloo.
@ glbotu
Is the SE really only running at 9tph out if the east half of Victoria ?
@Edgepedia, with the Sevenoaks stoppers arriving in Orpington 3 min ahead of the fasts, I expect anyone mobile changes, so making them fast thereafter as well would just take up another LBG path with low occupancy. The current Orpington stopper split with 2tph CHX (fast from Hither Green) faster) and 2tph CST (via Lewisham, every stop) seems sensible. Switching them all to CST would slow West End times a lot with the slower journey and LBG change, and switching them to CHX would remove access to the DLR Lewisham and the Overground at New Cross.
They never seem that busy off peak (though I usually take the fasts) so I’m not sure the extra stress on the 3 bay platforms increasing the CHX service, or disrupting the main line with Sevenoaks slows is worth it. Unless there is CR3 to suck them into a tunnel north of Hither Green, there just aren’t the paths nearer Central London.
Also while 4 of the 6 tph stop at Orpington, the Dover trains don’t, so you’d need to preserve extra headway if you snuck a slow in front of it.
Re timbeau,
Theroetically they could dump passengers at Wimbledon Chase (but there is no benefit unless there is infrasture issues on the rest of the looop) and reverse but not at Tooting.
Re Edgepedia, gblotu, James Bass, Malcolm,
As Edgepedia has done (& I didn’t have the time to! (yet)) I suggest everyone looks the the peak timetables and especially those from before the Jan ’15 in the case of LBG before coming up with service simplification “improvements” that actually reduce capapity and service levels. Maximising capapcity even with lots of infrastructure spend won’t enable a fully simplified timetable.
(Jan ’15 timetable resulted in 8 tph fewer SE peak hour and 4tph fewer Southern peak hour of which most are/were Metros* in Southern’s case and circa 50:50 in SE’s case. 4tph SE and all the Southerns will return, the other 4tph SE will end up reinstated in the Blackfriars Bays).
*An initial look at the Dec ’15 Southern timetable suggests another AM metro via Forest Hill service is being sacrificed to add another long distance service during the building works hence “most”.
Southern Metro – before the LBG works There were also 2tph additional metro PIXC busters into London Bridge starting from Streatham Hill Sidings so peak West Norwood, Gipsy Hill, Crystal Palace to LBG frequency was 6tph now circa 4tph post Jan ’15 (1 lost in each direction via New Cross Gate and via Tulse Hill).
Is there any indicative post LBG works/post Thameslink indicative timetable. I mean, the Thameslink timetable is “headline” news, so there’s lots of that, but are there any that show the Southern/SE sides. It would be interesting to see.
I did forget about the use of SE in the Blackfriars bays. Where will those end up?
@ Richie,
It is not really safe to assume that a reinstated 8th track on the approach to Vauxhall would result in a four track Windsor side. There is much documentation online that describes a future 3+3+2 layout, with 3 Windsors, 3 main fast and two main suburban.
I’d be tempted to wait and see what falls out of the detailed design for the transfer of all the Windsor side services into the international platforms (and P19).
Re Paul / Richie,
Indeed 3+3+2 and bringing the disused platform at Queenstown Road back into use so the 3 Windsors can be more optimally utilised.
Re glbotu,
Southern Side yes – the off peak pattern for Dec ’15 is the basis for peak & off peak pattern 2018 onwards but with additional peak services both SN and Thameslink. The consultaion document resposnes and timetable drafts are on the GTR website. It doesn’t cover Metro though where the assumption is the pattern will be similar to pre London Bridge works (i.e. South Bermondsey terminations and reversals reinstated etc.) Also NR’s Sussex report. It is a piece it all together unfortunatley.
SE side – Not really the public focus is on the Aug ’16 timetable rejig when the CST services stop calling at LBG for 16 months. The NR Kent route study is due in 2016.
Blackfriars Bays and SE long term will be tricky as presumably they will need to be routed via both Herne Hill and the Catford Loop to work arround all the other services (unless the current distribution of VIC – fasts is altered).
@glbotu
The solution to the Beckenham Junction 2tph seems to be build the Crystal Palace Tramlink & bring Norwood Junction platform 7 back in to use. Then run trams on the single track Beckenham/Palace (4tph), trams Croydon/Palace via Harrington Road (4tph), and send the trains which presently terminate at Beckenham Junction to Norwood Junction instead (bringing Palace / Norwood Junction up from 2tph to 4).
Birkbeck would lose its two trains an hour to central London, but with 8 trams/hr to Beckenham Jct & 4 each to East Croydon & Crystal Palace, they might not be all that much missed. Especially if Croydon can be brought in to Zone 4 to avoid it costing more.
Again, the assumption that a TfL takeover will – and should – be splashing the cash on infrastructure to resolve a solution to an as yet unidentified (and quite possibly wholly imaginary) problem.
@Richie
“The 4 Barnes – Richmond level crossing could (in theory) be replaced by tunnels/bridges. Assumimg this isn’t going to happen, the Esher – Clapham Jn tunnel”
There is no reason in principle why a tunnel from Clapham Junction to Esher or Walton has to follow the line of the SWML. If it took a straight line it would pass under Richmond Park . A spur to join the Windsor lines near Twickenham might kill two birds with one stone, removing fast services from both the Windsor line and the SWML. Stopping services could stay on the surface, saving the cost of new stations. This wouldn’t eliminate the level crossings but would reduce the rail traffic across them and, with a lower speed differential, reduce the barrier down-times.
@John B
Oops, I was seeing capacity on the slows and forgot that they got busier after Hither Green.
Does anyone have a rough estimate of how much a rebranding would cost? If TfL were to take over Southern metro services, for example, and they decide to respray/sticker the trains (including the newest ones) and make colour cosmetic changes to the interiors, plus reprint maps and leaflets etc, plus new signage in stations and on platforms … that sounds like a considerable cost that doesn’t seem to get mentioned much. Multiply that by any SE and SWT takeovers …
@Graham H
“the assumption that a TfL takeover will – and should – be splashing the cash on infrastructure”
Indeed there are many reasons why TfL should take control whether or not there are any infrastructure changes or indeed timetable changes. The ELLX may well have been a one-off (well, two-off as it was extended at both ends!) . The previous discussion has identified that there are no easy fixes to rationalisation, simplification, or frequency improvements south of the river – but it is useful to analyse what it would take, whether that is ten mile long express tunnels, a new megainterchange at Loughborough Junction, Sttreatham Common, Windmill Bridge, Queenstown Road, or south Lewisham, or Crossrails 3,4,5 and 6, if only to demonstrate how difficult – expensive – it would be to achieve.
But having planning for all services under one roof is a sine qua non for any of this.
London may be ahead of the other metropolitan areas in the UK in still having control of its bus network, but it is way behind on rail – all the metropolitan counties have a strong say in provision of rail services in their areas through WYPTE, Centro, etc, notwithstanding that they are actually operated by private franchisees. Merseytravel is perhaps the best model for London to follow in this respect, as it is both the sponsor (and hence calls the tune for) some services operated by Northern (like other PTEs), but it is also the franchising authority for the Merseyrail services (like the Overground). PTEs have even been known to own rolling stock – WYPTE owned a handful of 321s, 144s and 155s (which is why seven of the latter class were never converted to 153s)
It may be impossible to disentangle the NR services south of the river from an operational viewpoint, but TfL could sponsor them on the PTE model – and of course he who pays the piper calls the tune.
@Gio
Someone somewhere must have the figures for how much it cost (or is costing as the work is far from complete) to rebrand the West Anglia services. new maps and so on would be minimal as they get reprinted every so often anyway.
SWT should be easy – all the trains concerned are already in a different livery to those operating SWT’s other services, and whose predominant colour is traditionally associated with London Transport.
@Paul
Would that be 3 Main Fast and 3 Windsor from Clapham Junction?
Also, what service improvements can be made to the Windsors, without the aforementioned level crossing issues being resolved? Barnes terminators?
@A lot of posters
My goal, as people have pointed out, was indeed to see what could be done without expensive infrastructure, putting forward an idea for trying to get turn-up and go. I guess the point being that actually, on Southern Metro, London Overground can’t do very much to get the instant win they’re looking for. Other than issues around Sevenoaks, it doesn’t seem like too many people have had issues with the SE side, which could very much allow for LO to improve the service pattern and get the quick win that they look for (and which notably isn’t happening on the Lea Valley Lines, namely because there isn’t the space/capacity to do anything).
How much is capacity constrained on the Southern and South-Eastern Metros by the fact that they have to keep branching and joining around various flat junctions. The ideal solution would of course be lots of grade separation, but that will never happen, because of South London property prices.
@Richie
South Eastern run 11 tph out of London Victoria Off-Peak
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/VIC/2015/10/20/1100-1200?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=SE
4tph Orpington Stoppers
2tph Dartford Stoppers
5tph “Longer Distance”
Re glbotu,
” Would that be 3 Main Fast and 3 Windsor from Clapham Junction?
Also, what service improvements can be made to the Windsors, without the aforementioned level crossing issues being resolved? Barnes terminators? ”
Yes.
Yes more services via Barnes Bridge.
@timbeau – given my past, how could I not agree with you? (The PTEs/ITAs don’t of course control the rail infrastructure and have to face a multi-user railway but all of them have now accumulated both considerable expertise and a steady political will which are of enormous benefit).
@glbotu – “London Overground can’t do very much to get the instant win they’re looking for” – I am sure LO are pretty realistic about what can and can’t be achieved by way of a quick win. It’s run by professional railway operators and they know the limitations of what they inherit – and the unavailability of much additional funding. Those who point to what has been achieved on the ELL/NLL overlook the many years’ research and negotiation that went into those changes.
@ngh
more services via Barnes Bridge
problem with that is that they would miss the major traffic centres of Richmond and Twickenham. I doubt that the 4tph stopping service could cope, even if it were politically advisable to deprive Zacland of its fast service to London. There are also a considerable number of passengers travelling from Ricky/Twicky towards Staines, Windsor and Reading.
There was a time (1979) when the Reading services ran fast from CJ to, I think, Staines via Hounslow and the Windsors provided the only connections from Ricmond to the west. But in those days the Hounslow loop stoppers were 2 tph and the Weybridge loop was a shuttle from Virginia Water. I doubt that you could squeeze many fast services round the loop – there is no equivalent to the overtaking facility at St Margarets.
Re Timbeau,
Windsor lines – There is no suggestion in plans of altering the exisiting service patterns – just not making the level crossings issue any worse! No easy solutions to be found here either.
The extra addtional proposed services would be stoppers and relieve the major traffic centers at Hounslow, Putney, Wandsworth Town and Clapham Jn.
The Growth at Putney has been phenominial (see ORR data*) with another 1,000+ flats in large developments under construction in the Putney / Wandsworth areas.
*Adding 800k EXTRA passengers every year for half a decade! (equivalent to growth of an extra 1.8k+ daily commuters each year)
@ Edgepedia – 20 October 2015 at 07:17
The problem with this is the two track railway between Orpington and Sevenoaks, shared by the fast and stopping trains.
This thread seems to highlight two problems in the South London area.
1) In the inner area, lack of sufficient paths and lack of land for any increase in number of tracks.
2) In the outer area, double track shared by fasts and slows as exampled by Edgepedia above.
Bearing in mind that we are looking forward to what may be needed in the next two or three decades, is a possible solution in some places to (2) the provision of passing loops (not necessarily at a station) where there might be a sufficiency of tracks side land?
Or have passing loops gone totally out of fashion? The present Earls Court Development between West Brompton and Kensington Olympia (now underway) precludes the possibility of any long passing loops at that point on the WLL, as National Rail failed to safeguard the more than adequate trackside land there, despite the intensive use of the WLL by LO, freight and Southern.
@ngh
“The extra addtional proposed services would be stoppers and relieve the major traffic centres at Hounslow, Putney, Wandsworth Town and Clapham Jn.”
The Hounslow loop has seen phenomenal growth in services, it used to be 2tph (and often only a 4-car) but now runs at 4tph – two to Weybridge and two round the houses – which are usually 8car and sometimes ten. It is one of the few routes on which SWT has any serious competition – how much of the ridership is stolen from the Piccadilly line and how much is new traffic I don’t know.
Whether or not any extra services can be squeezed in east of Barnes, and in particular on the 3-track section through Queenstown Road, is open to question, but where are these extra services going to go at the west end of the route? The lines through Feltham and through Whitton are both already fairly busy, and there is nowhere convenient to terminate until at least Staines in one direction and Twickenham in the other – and even then you have to tip out in a through platform.
Simplifying south London’s metro lines is a big topic, but one that will keep on coming up. My take is that SE and SW London are relatively well setup for metro tunnels – two each are needed to handle all the traffic (thus Bakerloo and CR2 means we are half way there). But Southern is not well setup for a metro tunnel without more thought.
The cheapest option is probably additional junction stations – Streaham Vale (near Streatham Common), Leigham Vale (south of Tulse Hill), Brockley (high level), Penge (near Penge East/West), Brixton (high level), etc. Each of these has some merit, but doesn’t really tackle the constraints enough to justify the change in service routings that is needed for metro-ification. the key problem is that Southern is slow due to Clapham Junction being a dog-leg from most places in Southern-land to central London.
Looking at Streatham, some have suggested taking all services from Streatham Common up to Streatham and into a tunnel surfacing at Streatham Hill or Balham. But I’d point out that the distance from a Streatham Common tunnel portal to Victoria is less than that proposed for Crossrail 2’s run from Wimbledon portal to Victoria. The bold move would thus be to tunnel straight from Victoria to Streatham Common (and probably another portal) as part of a future CR. Intermediate stations in Clapham would totally relieve the Northern line and a stop at Battersea Power station would be sensible. All assuming Victoria can physically be expanded further once CR2 is done.
Finally, on the Windsor lines, mention was made of a tunnel to maximise capacity. Here is the write up that may have been referred to.
Re John U.K,
And some double track shared inners on ex LCDR SE Routes.
Additional or longer passing loops may be very useful for example extending the Kent House passing loop to Penge East and towards but not through Beckenham Junction (especially if there are other changes at Beckenham Jn as it would allow 2 fasts to pass a slow rather than 1.
@Stephen C and others – what keeps coming up again and again in this thread is the need to spend very serious money (£100bn for your ideas?) so that S London can be offered a metro. A great deal of time is spent by crayonistas in a factual vacuum rearranging the existing services so that this beau ideal of a metro can be achieved. We do need to stop and ask ourselves three questions:
– is it what people actually want (just try breaking the existing service patterns – as suggested by gblotu – and prepare to face the lynch mob), as opposed to a Good Idea.
– could it be afforded – suggestions range from 2 to four more crossrails + many lesser works/additional stock etc – so costs range upwards of £100bn. Done over say 75 years, that’s more than the total annual capex of the UK rail industry – for the whole of that timeframe…. Does anyone think that is a realistic proposition?
– Is any of this a possible quick hit? No, none of it, technically, financially or politically.
TfL know this, LOROL know this, even if GLA members, who are, after all, politicians do not. Where TfL have improved service levels it’s because they knew they they could do so with only small expenditure, and without breaking existing journey patterns on any significant scale (and in the one case where they did, they have had a rough time). TfL will not be promising more than they can deliver.
It’s also quite entertaining as to the way in which a discussion about a S London takeover by TfL then transmogrifies into a discussion about SWT inners without mentioning CR2, but let it pass.
@Stephen C
“The bold move would thus be to tunnel straight from Victoria to Streatham Common (and probably another portal) as part of a future CR.”
Most of this route is already earmarked for XR2, expecially given recent proposals to route it via Balham instead of Tooting for geological reasons.
“a stop at Battersea Power station ”
Adding more grist to the mill of relocating Clapham Junction?
“The cheapest option is probably additional junction stations….. ”
One such junction station might meet a BCR if it solved all the interchange problems, but five is stretching it. And as these would generate little extra local traffic – the area is reasonably well-sprinkled with stations: the locals simply go to e.g West Norwood for Victoria, and Tulse Hill for London Bridge or Blackfriars. Indeed, I can quite expect that if a new interchange station were built at Leigham Vale to replace these two, not only would you get complaints from the locals about extra traffic and noise from people using the new station, but you would also get complaints from people near the existing stations about having to walk further to catch a train. (not to mention that existing users of the 2tph Crystal Palace – London Bridge direct service would object to it being replaced with a change at Leigham Vale, even if the frequency on both legs became 6tph.
@Graham H
“a discussion about a S London takeover by TfL then transmogrifies into a discussion about SWT inners without mentioning CR2, but let it pass.”
The former could be done at the stroke of a pen (or crayon!). The latter will not happen until at least 2030.
@GrahamH, just to note that 20 to 30 years ago, no one would have believed that Government would be spending as much on railways as it is, nor that passenger number would be rising as fast as they are. Realities can change (in fact I posit that Network Rail has in part failed to realise that there has been a step change in the desire for infrastructure projects).
It is tricky to reply in detail here, as too much crayons = deletion. Suffice it to say, that I’ve consistently tried to reduce the total cost of CR2, provide better value for the money it costs (eg. 2 lines for price of one) and propose ways to provide far more capacity in the SW without the powers that be appearing to care. There is also opportunity in central London to catch up with demand (rather than blasting 2 single bore tunnels on CR2, blast 1 large tunnel with 4 tracks, as I believe the Spanish have already done) but again, the powers that be are not changing plans.
What I think has failed to be done recently is to put a total price on the scale of work needed in London, for a few different options. Without a total price, there is nothing for the treasury to get their heads around. After all, I’d suggest that we are reaching the limit of what tweaking signals, platform lengths and passing loops are capable of, necessitating either a change in UK economic geography, or investment on the grand scale.
GH rails (rightly) against a 75-year investment for just London that exceeds the total UK rail capex for the period and in the next post timbeau adds relocating CJ (which I don’t recall being mooted earlier in this particular thread) to the mix. [Snipped for politeness. LBM]
glbotu says: “Other than issues around Sevenoaks, it doesn’t seem like too many people have had issues with the SE side”.
Plenty of issues, trust me. I think they’re mostly up there.
For instance – same issue on the Dartford lines as Sevenoaks with longer-distance semi-fasts sharing tracks with Metro stoppers, and getting stuck behind them.
But I will agree that both the SW and SE sides south of the river are much easier to handle than the spaghetti in the middle.
@Mike P
“and in the next post timbeau adds relocating CJ to the mix”
I had hoped that the question mark in the comment would indicate that it was not a serious suggestion. sadly there is not the money for a holistic approach, so any individual proposal, despite costing billions and taking decades, will only fix part of the problem, which results in mission creep as everyone tries to leap on the latest proposal and bend it to their own purposes.
I can remember when Chelsea-Hackney was intended to relieve the District Line by taking over the Wimbledon branch south of Fulham Broadway. The Wimbledon branch is certainly no less busy now, but the latest proposals for CR2 will no longer address this at all.
Another example of mission creep – back in the 1970s, there was a proposal to extend a Tube line to Lewisham. That got hijacked by Olympia & York, so now, 40 years later, there is another proposal, to extend a (different) Tube line to Lewisham.
@timbeau – it wasn’t that TfL could take over at the wave of a contractual wand – they could, obviously – but the sudden appearance of rampant tunnel construction in very much the same corridor as CR2. {we don’t have a term for promoters of extreme tunnelling yet but I’ll think of one).
@Stephen C – I would entirely agree that the London of 10-12m needs something much larger (at least 50% more than what we have now, which is visibly creaking at the seams) and that something may well be 5 CRs and Tube 2 and… However, the chances of getting that past the Treasury are zero – but see below). Showing them the full bill would only cause them to dispatch creatures of the night to devour the schemes’ proponents (as they did with CR1 I, a much more modest proposal). As I may have remarked before, the Treasury employs two whole divisions (PE1 and PE2) whose sole function is to say no. As a friend* who worked there said, when the government of the day actually asked them to increase public expenditure, it really hurt.
The two standard ways of bucking the system (you probably know about these already) are
(a) to do good by stealth – use a decision on X to the long term benefit of Y; and its close cousin…
(b)… salami tactics
The Treasury is, of course, only too well aware of these ploys. The trick is to know more than they do and present the game accordingly. I wish I had confidence in DfT’s ability to do these things. TfL are a bit more savvy these days, on the other hand.
* He resigned as the Head of PE2 and went to edit an ex-pat newspaper in the Canaries. Most of his predecessors also resigned in frustration but may not have gone to the Canaries.
All this expansionist talk assumes that the need for peak travel will continue to increase at its present rate. As communications technology increases in sophistication, will so many people really still need to travel into central London five days a week? Should we pander to this desire, or encourage “smarter” remote working practices, leaving the transport network available for those whose jobs cannot be done on the Internet?
Of course predictions of more people having their office at home are nothing new – on the eve of “Back to the Future Day” it is interesting to notice that the Marty McFly “de nos jours” was apparently a home-worker – well, until he was fired – even if it was by videophone and fax rather than internet and smartphones. But in the real 2015 we all still pile into little boxes to go to work, whether they are our own personal ones (and, pace Doc Brown, we certainly do still need roads!) or strung together in long chains.
But maybe we are coming to the end of a 200-year aberration, and in a few decades nearly everyone will once again live over the shop, or at least within walking distance of it.
@Graham H:
While I agree with your point that “£100 bn over 75 years” is a massive pill for HM Treasury to swallow, the only reason it would represent the entire capex for the country’s national rail network is because that particular bar has been set so low. (Also, UK’s rail privatisation = bad, rhubarb rhubarb, yadda yadda, etc.) Few other countries balk at spending more than that.
What truly surprised me was the 1940s plan linked to some days ago that actually proposed no fewer than twelve RER-style projects, with the key goal being to reduce the need for all those termini. This suggests today’s political reluctance to support major infrastructure projects on such a grand scale as a matter of principle is a more recent, post-war phenomenon. I think we may see a step-change in spending priorities over the next couple of generations. This is, fundamentally, a political problem and political principles do change, albeit at a speed that compares unfavourably with continental drift.
[Major snip for comments essentially made before on numerous occasions. PoP]
My apologies for the wall of text. It looked a lot shorter in the text editor I was using.
Three relatively short comments.
Following on from the 3 + 3 + 2 approach at Vauxhall it is notable that the recent Wessex route study mentions a possible 9th platform at Vauxhall on the eastern side – which would make it 3 + 3 + 3 presumably.
Or have passing loops gone totally out of fashion?
Not totally but not really in fashion for the reason that people misunderstand what they achieve. Passing loops are good at letting fast trains overtake slow trains and reducing journey times. They are not good at increasing capacity. Since the fast train is occupying a slot behind the slow train it might as well stay there. Looping it in front of the slow train means it has has now occupied another train slot as well.
If you are going to have a loop it is generally better to have one long loop rather than multiple small ones as each use of a loop probably costs a train path.
timbeau,
The Wimbledon branch is certainly no less busy now, but the latest proposals for CR2 will no longer address this at all.
You keep stating this as if it were a fact but I don’t see this is the case at all.
Lots of people get on the District line at Wimbledon and lots get off at Victoria so I suspect quite a few get on at Wimbledon to at least go to a station in the vicinity of Victoria. Surely these people would use CR2 in preference – especially if 10tph started empty from Wimbledon as rumoured. Then there are the people would will backtrack from Wimbledon Park to use CR2 and those who use the District line at Wimbledon Park and Southfields in preference to Earlsfield simply because currently they cannot get on at Earlsfield.
Anomnibus,
Getting rid of the termini seemed to be considered a major desirable thing then I guess. Perhaps with hindsight it is appreciated that they aren’t all bad. I don’t, for example, see how Eurostar could really work without a London terminus and both Cannon St and Charing Cross have much to commend as ideal termini (not the copious number of platforms at Charing Cross though, obviously).
I wonder if that really was entirely the reason. Abercrombie seemed to have an absolute obsession with getting rid of railway bridges over the Thames. A consequence of this would be that various termini would have to go.
The anti-road lobby has successfully argued the case that more roads generate more traffic. It seems the same logic can be applied to rail networks, if you can increase capacity demand will track it until the same limiting level of unpleasantless occurs. While I can see the merit of sweating existing assets better by eliminating bottlenecks or using better management, mass-rebuilds must have a lower BCR, and just lead to an ever more centralised jobs market. I see today that TfL are selling off land for development, but it seems to be for housing, not commercial use. Its a shame they can’t consider satellite commercial development to reduce central demand and use the spare contraflow capacity in the network.
Metro routes under the control of the Mayor could be used as a tool to push jobs into the suburbs.
@John B – I fear you are right. Some twenty years ago, when it was my business, I commissioned a study by George Yarrow into the factors that drove the London peak. He did some interesting regression analyses (no doubt a lot easier to do these days). The first order driver was inevitably CLE, but the second order driver (and this by a long chalk) was not congestion, or pricing, as one might have initially expected, but the volume of service offered. As I was at that stage writing a business plan for NSE which required substantial investment to enhance capacity, I put the study at the back of a filing cabinet in a locked basement with the door marked, in the obligatory fashion, “Beware of the leopard”.
[CLE is Central London Employment. LBM]
John B
We have looked at this many times in comments. The prevailing theory is one of agglomeration theory which suggests that people need to be in close proximity to work together for the greatest productivity and in this age of ideas and collaboration this is ever more true. It is only a theory and one that is open to challenge.
One of the theories why London is so successful (there are many to choose from) is that Great Britain has no “second city” of half the size of the main city to dilute the agglomeration effect – unlike most countries. Arguably, Great Britain has no “third city” (a third of the size) and, the way things are going, may soon have no “fourth city” either. As economist Evan Davis says, London sucks.
Despite the above, it does appear that other cities or large towns can thrive with a symbiotic relationship with London and so Brighton, Reading, Oxford and Cambridge are, arguably, examples of this. Centres closer to London are generally less successful (e.g. Croydon) but Stratford has done well – partly built on shopping – so it is not inevitable.
The reason I mention this and the relevance to the article is that the Mayor’s 2050 report is written on the basis that there is no point in trying to resist this – it will happen anyway. The GLA and the Mayor recognise that roads are pretty much saturated in the busiest areas (e.g Central London) and only high density public transport can provide a solution for the extra numbers – which they regard as inevitable.
Whilst having people travel more than they have to is not environmentally good – even cyclists emit copious CO₂ – if we have to accept that as part of economic success then it is best that it is done by public transport which in many ways is much more efficient and much more scalable than a roads based solution.
As with all economic theory it is pretty much impossible to prove any of this. I am just saying that this, or something similar, is the working hypothesis behind the planning.
@PoP says that a train which loops in front of a stopping train “occupies another slot as well”. I would have thought that the two trains simply swap slots. But it doesn’t alter the major point, that the passing loop does not increase capacity.
A hypothetical line with a loop round every station might have a capacity getting on for twice that of a line with no loops. But it would be much simpler to operate, possibly cost no more to build, and have the full double capacity if it was just built as double track (in each direction).
@PoP
“even cyclists emit copious CO₂”
But this is not of fossil origin and therefore not contributing to the increase in global CO2 levels – the carbon emitted by a cyclist is simply being returned to the atmosphere from whence it was photosynthesised a few weeks before by the plants that the cyclist ate (or, if the cyclist is a carnivore, by the plants that were eaten by the animals that he ate)
@:Anomnibus
“What truly surprised me was the 1940s plan linked to some days ago that actually proposed no fewer than twelve RER-style projects, with the key goal being to reduce the need for all those termini.”
These were written in wartime, probably by someone with a lot of crayons and a lot of hope. It is difficult to think back to the 1940s, but the prospect of any immediate work being done was obviously remote, and the efforts of the Luftwaffe were creating a clean sheet in many parts of London making some things conceivable which would not have been at any time since 1666. (Compare Wren’s plans for London with the reality). There was also a legacy from the Keynesian economics and the “New Works” schemes of the 1930s – modest by the standards of some current proposals, but the actual execution, partial though it was, is actually quite elaborate compared with what is actually taking place nowadays.
Graham H
we don’t have a term for promoters of extreme tunnelling yet
Mole-Rats? Termites?
PoP
a possible 9th platform at Vauxhall on the eastern side … Could be “interesting” for both land-take & curvature reasons.
Err … Paris is far, far bigger than France’s second or third cities, whichever they may be.
Your argument does work in Germany, however, but only 1870-1945 & post 1995(ish)
@PoP a TOC might view demand growth to be inevitable (and even welcome, after all more turnover should make more profit), but TfL, being a tool of the London Mayor, could have a role in suppressing demand if that was deemed good for London as a whole. Having TfL control all but long distance transport in the capital could make it a more powerful tool for a Mayor wanting to control demand, but I agree there is no sign of that.
With London jobs going to commuters coming from a 90 minute radius, its an argument for a Tf(SouthEast) body, but I don’t think there is the desire for a SouthEastern parliament for it to report to.
But if political power fell in the hands of antiagglomerationists (a word I hope won’t catch on) then they’d want to control a body working in the best interests of the London, the Northern Powerhouse etc, which is just DfT and British Rail again.
At least a inside M25 transport body would have a consistent approach North and South of the river, which would be a start
@Graham H 1633. A promoter of extreme tunnelling is known, quite simply, as a “Boring”.
@ PoP 17/10 1541 – I think Nigel Holness and Howard Smith, currently hosting a live twitter session about TfL Rail, are finding out what people think about chocolates when the train service has been useless and no one was told anything. A fair bit of stinging angry comment!
@Graham H
“we don’t have a term for promoters of extreme tunnelling yet”
Tunneladoras? Crayon Boring Machine operators?
Boring Crayon Machines?
Greg,
And Paris is very successful. It is up there with the alpha+ cities. See Good ‘ol Wikipedia.
Malcolm,
I would have thought that the two trains simply swap slots.
Yes, absolutely if if the loop was long enough and not speed restricted so that the fast train could get ahead of the slow train as the slow train was slowing down. In which case your loss of capacity is because the slow train stopped at the station – which would have happened anyway. In practice I suspect this would still lead to some loss of capacity because the slow train has to build up speed whilst the fast train didn’t have to slow down.
However the term “passing loop” generally refers to a short section of track such as at Kent House and this mere swapping of paths is simply not possible because the following train will be forced to slow down if hot on the heels of the slow train. Hence the desirability to make the loops ones of decent length i.e. substantially longer than what is generally considered to be a passing loop.
I think we are on the same wavelength. It is just a matter of semantics.
Notwithstanding all that, you still have to take into account that is not possible that another fast train can follow because its train path is now taken up by the slow train. A further slow train can follow because it will be further delayed by the station call and so will not catch up with the slow train ahead of it.
Someone once referred to crayons as “virtual TBMs”, so “a promoter of extreme tunnelling”…..is surely simply a crayonista.
Lots of talk about very expensive long term projects. Lets look at the short term with Southeastern that can be achieved, and that Tfl are more likely to succeed with:
An entire 12-car metro network. Not that tricky in the grand scheme of things. Many services are currently 8 or 10 in the peaks. All the infrastructure now exists, after recent upgrades costing a fair few million to make all platforms 12 car and upgrade power supplies, EXCEPT no one bothered thinking about Woolwich Dockyard. Still, rebuilding or moving that station is not the hardest or costliest thing in the world, especially when thousands of homes are planned right beside it. A similar job to Rochester station’s move a couple of hundred metres which is now underway. That isn’t too expensive, and doesn’t have huge housing happening to piggy back developer contributions off.
But has NR, TfL or Southeastern been pushing for this? It appears not. TfL would be far more likely to do so. And once done a big capacity boost as all those increasingly busy 8 and 10 car services can become 12-car. It needs new trains to provide (or cascaded stock to free up networkers) but again not the most tricky proposition in the world. One which TfL would be likely to push than the DfT given the past 5-10 years experience.
No multi-billion pound scheme but hefty capacity increases none the less.
I’d also expect in time that all semi-fasts on the Woolwich line (which currently skip Woolwich Dockyard) become all-stoppers, so the need for 12-cars grows there. The amount of housing going up at stations currently skipped is too great, and passenger growth too high.
Woolwich Dockyard will see further boosts when housing goes up nearby. Plumstead is seeing strong growth too, as are areas further out.
John B said “The anti-road lobby has successfully argued the case that more roads generate more traffic. It seems the same logic can be applied to rail networks.”
Not quite the same. There are physical limits to how much roads can be widened and car-parks extended (even with unlimited money) without destroying the city they are trying to provide access to. Because rail networks pack people in better, do not need city centre train-parks, and can where necessary be piled on top of one another, or buried deep underground, they could (if the money was available) be extended almost without limit.
There is also another difference. When people find the roads too slow, because of congestion, they (or some of them) shift to rail. If the trains are too slow, there is nothing to shift to, so they have to put up with slow trains (or stay at home, or go off-peak).
This has the odd effect, explained at length by Martin Moggridge, that average car speed in towns is generally equal to average public transport speed. But, to bring my argument full circle, that then explains why more roads generate more traffic. (Actually, they don’t always generate more traffic, but they certainly do sometimes).
Ed, all those trains in the Woolwich line could be 12 car today if a) someone had bought them (with the SDO capability) and b) there was space to park and maintain them. There is no need to move Woolwich Dockyard, indeed there is nowhere to move it to without compulsorily purchasing residential property, highways and it becoming wither Woolwich Arsenal West or Charlton East.
Malcolm. Urban roads can also be put underground and on top of each other, see the A86 around Western Paris (but take plenty of cash if you ever want to use it).
Timbeau 14:04. Except on Sundays…
@sad fat dad
“Ed, all those trains in the Woolwich line could be 12 car today if a) someone had bought them (with the SDO capability)”
The majority of trains on that line are made up of 5-car class 376s and 2/4 car 465s and 466s. The latter are now about 25 years old. A problem might be that even with SDO a 12 car train would have two complete cars in the tunnels. Achievable with walkthrough, but not the current stock.
Electrostars don’t seem able to go beyond 5 cars, so the 5-car 376s can’t form twelve-car trains, but SET has many 3 and 4 car sets.
Ed,
I don’t see how you can say that no-one thought about Woolwich Dockyard. Lots of people have given it a lot of thought. It is just they haven’t come up with a solution compatible with modern safety standards. If they had introduced 12-cars when intended, before GPS and beacons were commonplace and the relevant hardware built into the trains, it would have been acceptable to just arrange it so that the driver could cut out the relevant doors – as happened for years with ‘A’ stock at stations with a short platform between Baker St and Aldgate.
As the subject is Taking Control of South London’s Railways, it would probably kill the idea of TfL taking control if it meant that semi-fast trains from the Medway Towns became all stations. I can see the logic in what you are saying but it just won’t be allowed to happen as the principle will be established that services from outside the GLA area must not suffer.
As someone is bound to point out, people have moved and bought houses on the basis of this service. The ramifications of ditching it are too great. Personally, I think you are going to have to do some 4-tracking from Abbey Wood to beyond Erith if you want to increase the number of stoppers going via Abbey Wood in the peak period – and that presumes that there is terminal capacity for them. If there is terminal capacity (a big if) such a thing may not be such a bad investment because it is already safeguarded and would improve the case for extending Crossrail to Dartford (probably non-stop from Abbey Wood) once it is done.
By semi-fast train, Abbey Wood to Dartford is currently only 8 minutes so only 4 extra Crossrail trains required to extend Crossrail to Dartford. It might involve an expensive build at Dartford though.
timbeau,
I am virtually certain Woolwich Dockyard can take 11-car trains. And I am also pretty sure that the platforms were extended to 11-cars to in order to overcome the potential problem you describe. That ensures that, with monitors located in the tunnel entrance, you could have at least one pair of doors of each carriage in the platform.
The problem financially justifying any further work at Woolwich Dockyard is that the problem will eventually just go away with modern rolling stock. So you can’t amortise the cost over 60 years for a short term problem.
On a typical 60 or 70 MPH 4-aspect urban main line section south of the Thames, an express can ‘close up’ on the tail of a stopping train to some extent as it slows down for a loop stop ahead. The express running on greens can start to see double yellows for a short while without losing significant speed, then just as the stopper clears the loop turnout, preferably at a reasonable speed of at least 40MPH, a signaller or ARS poised for action can quickly set the fast route and the cautions ahead all quickly step up to green for the express to hurry past the stopper. The stopper, with station duties complete, can start away again from the platform on a yellow immediately after the express has passed through the next block and no matter how hard the slow accelerates the signals should normally be clearing up to better aspects as the spacing equalises out again. Traditionally, planners usually like to keep a good three minutes or so between the slow run in and the following express passing in order to minimise the performance risk to the express, leading to extended planned dwells often at quite minor stations where otherwise sub minute dwells might be used, but instead of such long planning headways, the much shorter signalling headway can often be used to good effect in real time to reduce the dwell considerably, even with colour lights on sticks as opposed to ETCS which promises to improve things further. Fast, ideally automated route setting (ARS), and fast-acting point machines are imperative.
The Swiss have just opened a twin-bore 57Km Gotthard Base Tunnel. If the economics of that work, I struggle to see why a twin-track tunnel from Zone 4-5 in the north of London to Zone 4-5 in the south, with a single station in the CAZ, wouldn’t also be economically viable.
@Graham H – while I understand your comments about people believing in money trees and mega schemes can I turn the question round and ask if you accept that there is a real and genuine problem (or problems) facing the public transport network in Greater London? You’ve experienced both sides of the “divide” hence the healthy scepticism but I’m interested in what you think does have to happen (not necessarily involving crayons).
Love the reference to HMT unleashing wild creatures to devour scheme proponents. Great imagery and all too believeable. I also agree with your assessment of TfL’s approach – doing what is achieveable without vast sums of money (relative to other possible expenditures) and not overpromising. What is clever is that somehow spending modest amounts seems to have a rather larger impact than might be expected. Obviously there are other things that do cost money but which are harder to quantify (e.g. TfL taking revenue risk – so far there’s been no economic downturn since Overground boomed / expanded so we’ve not seen any large hit to the revenue base and how TfL had to handle it).
Kate, perhaps if the tunnel between each end of zone 4-5 also happened to be on the prime freight route between the world’s 4th and 8th largest economies, there might be a case.
Kate,
It is hard to think of two things more different.
Switzerland is a mountainous country. It has two critical rail routes for international freight traffic. It is not part of the EU (although it is in the European Free Trade Area) so it has more freedom to introduce
tariffsroad toll charges. It has an enormous problem with road freight going through the mountainous passes. It has two existing rail freight routes – the Gotthard Tunnel and Lötschberg Tunnel. The latter has a high level and a base route but the base route can handle longer trains. These tunnels need to be closed one a night each week for maintenance. Both routes are packed and very intensively used. I have been in the control room for the Lötschberg Tunnel. If a train doesn’t turn up on time for the base route it loses its slot, has to drop off some wagons and go via the high level route. It is that busy. None of this namby-pampy “we will get you through when we can” Eurotunnel-type approach. There is a clear demand.Despite all this I would challenge your assertion that it is economic. I think the Swiss people voted for it primarily because they wanted to get rid of the road traffic from their road tunnels. It may turn out to be economic but I don’t think that was the entire reason it is being built. Even so the project has been cut back from what was originally planned because of cost.
In summary, you can’t meaningfully compare the economics of a freight train tunnel[*] under the Swiss Alps with a passenger train tunnel in London.
* I know passenger trains will also use the Gotthard base tunnel but that is not why it is being built and many passengers in Switzerland catch the train for the spectacular views so passenger trains through it is not going to be an unmitigated success.
Minor typo:
“is practically a railway tradtion and’
[Corrected. Thanks. PoP]
Woolwich Dockyard.
Usable length of platform at Woolwich Dockyard (both directions is 224m) so 11 car.
Background on 465 SDO written by PoP almost exactly 4 years ago:
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2011/two-of-our-carriages-are-missing-bringing-twelve-car-services-to-hayes/
The comparison is not meaningless. in both cases there is a clear geographical barrier to transport, the fact that it is the Alps in one case and a metropolis in the other is irrelevant apart from the fact that in the Londin case there is the added benefit of a crucial midway station adding to the economic gains.
Similarly, there is no reason why such a tunnel couldn’t carry express freight from Gatwick both into London and across London or indeed offer a freight route from the Channel tunnel, via Tonbridge and Redhill across London avoiding the congested and slow WLL. And just as the Swiss want to discourage road freight, we may in the mid-term need to discourage freight on the M25 in the interests of air quality.
So while on initial inspection the two appear very different, I don’t think the comparison can be rejected out of hand.
Kate,
It is clearly hard to convince you but if you had a visit to Switzerland combined with seeing the detailed continental freight traffic flows that criss-cross Europe – on a completely different scale to what we get in the UK – then maybe it would make more sense.
Perhaps a more pertinent question is: Given that lorries are already on the Channel Shuttle, how come no-one has produced an economic acceptable case for having a freight flow from north of London through the Channel Tunnel? This could either be lorries on shuttle wagons or containers. A firm did propose this largely by widening routes and laying additional tracks but after a lot of opposition the company disappeared without trace.
Surely, if anything along the lines you suggested would succeed then this would?
@Mark Townend: See the Japanese shinkansen for examples of how cab signalling, high speed turn-outs and (most importantly) precise operating discipline enables fast services to overtake stoping services at loops at station multiple times an hour at multiple places along a line, while still achieving very high punctuality.
@Kate: the AlpTransit project of which the Swiss tunnels are a part is funded by a per-kilometre tax on heavy good vehicles. The Swiss can impose such a tax without adding to costs in their economy because most of the heavy goods vehicles are only passing through the country. Basically consumers and industry in Germany and Italy are paying for a scheme to reduce lorry traffic on Swiss motorways.
If you wanted Channel Tunnel freight to avoid the WLL then you could achieve the same result with a flyover at Rehill (there is already one at Reading), with no long tunnels needed. But there is very little Channel Tunnel rail freight.
@Kate
Of course London has already opened a twin bore tunnel from Zone 4/5 to a station in the CAZ (HS1) , has another one built and being fitted out now (Crossrail 1), another one going through Parliament (HS2) and a fourth being planned (Crossrail 2).
Although do note that those that have only one station in the CAZ, how big those stations are.
@WW – That’s not an unreasonable challenge (even if the Devil has used the ploy before). So: although a long term programme of relatively modest and inexpensive capacity upgrades has been worthwhile and can probably continue to yield dividends for a decade or two more, London has already passed the point where the long term answer is unavoidably major new lines (whether these are Cross Rails – a term whose meaning is becoming unclearer by the day – or full size tubes is for discussion). A key feature of that is the assumption that however hard we try,the CAZ is with us for ever and a day,just getting bigger – suburban centres like Croydon will remain sideshows. And the delivery method must be backed by steady finance – it’s not a matter of getting the lords of the Dark Tower in GOGGS to agree scheme by scheme but to agree to a very long term programme with matching finance. The trick has been pulled by Highways in the past – a clear set of agreed appraisal criteria and a plan. The funding limits were set and hey presto, you turned the handle on the methodology and Highways filled up the available headroom with their choice of schemes.
The whole edifice rests on trust – too often in the past local government (eg in Scotland) or quangos (eg RT) have failed to control costs and had to return repeatedly with begging bowls. One should argue now London is a responsible devolved body that will carry on delivering on time and on budget, as it has done so far. How itspends that budget is up to it.
There – not a crayon in sight – although I did order a tin of 36 Faeber-Castell’s Polychromos for the joy of it. No desk should be without. [Next off, the equivalent Faeber graphite range – Goethe’s famous “Green Pencils].
Kate – Just to reinforce what PoP and others have said about Alpine tunnels. The Swiss appraisal system is different and puts a value on the environment and rural peace and quiet which we don’t – culturally, the two nations are very different and the relative strength of their public finances is also very different. The new base tunnels were financed as part of a total package which saw the numbers of lorries in transit physically restricted (and indeed banned altogether from many places and at many times) because individual cantons, who had the right to do so, had (a) imposed their own physical restrictions on lorries using their roads and (b) had equally refused to upgrade their roads to carry the traffic. We don’t have such constitutional arrangements here (alas) .
If you want a really good example of what the Swiss (but no one else) think they can justify and fund when they choose, look no further than Roger Bonvin’s plan for a grand Alpine narrowgauge cross – no international freight involved – east-west under the Furka and north-south under the Grimsel. Of course, even the Swiss baulked at the Grimsel element although not before they had driven the southern pilot tunnel.[A pity – the idea of sitting in an MOB saloon and being conveyed from Luzern to Tirano the pretty way is very tempting] The main justification was defence and all-year access across the Swiss national redoubt- something again that doesn’t apply in the UK…
Ian J ( & PoP )
But there is very little Channel Tunnel rail freight.
Which is an utter disgrace.
Why?
IMHO it is because the fees for using chunnel freight are too high – rather than look at the “total box” of monies, the bean-counters & politicians are looking at the tunnel in isolation & not regarding total transport & environmental costs.
The chunnel should be chokka with through freight – it is, after all, connecting the world’s 5th & 1st ( or alternatively 5th & 6th ) largest economies & should be booming.
That it isn’t says a lot about our political & economic structures.
@Kate:
“The comparison is not meaningless. in both cases there is a clear geographical barrier to transport […]”
It’s a lot cheaper to just divert freight trains around London than tunnel below it. In fact, London’s own Tube network, among other things, is increasingly an obstacle to building new tunnels under the city in itself.
In Switzerland, you can either go over or through the Alps, but you can’t go around them without bumping into France or Austria. Tunnelling through a major mountain range is both hard and very, very expensive, even for a major economy. Road tunnels are particularly tricky as they need much more extensive ventilation and fire-prevention systems due to the somewhat flammable nature of petrol and diesel, so the preference is for rail tunnels as they’re generally cheaper to build, kilometre-for-kilometre. (Electric vehicles will radically change this in future, but it’ll be decades before fossil-fuelled vehicles disappear entirely from our roads.)
Switzerland is also a junction country that connects Italy with northern European markets like France and Germany. For a country known for olive oil and spaghetti carbonara, it’s easy to forget just how much heavy industry it has, or how big it is. The entire slow lane of key Italian motorways can be end-to-end HGVs as far as the eye can see on most weekdays. As almost all those trucks have to cross Switzerland as well, there’s a strong argument to be made for shifting as much of that freight onto rail instead.
Reduced pollution is only one benefit. It’s a serious problem when you have endless convoys of HGVs spewing diesel fumes while crawling up and down the sides of huge mountains that make Ben Nevis and Snowdon look like pimples, but the other advantage is that shipping by rail keeps fuel costs down for the transport and logistics companies as fuel is expensive in both Italy and Switzerland. (That the Swiss also tend to use a lot of hydroelectricity helps with “green” credentials too.)
We now return you to Discovery Geographic’s “Random Stuff Being Made”. This episode, Tony Hirst talks us through the unexpectedly complex manufacturing processes behind peas, air, and gravel.
Greg,
But there is very little Channel Tunnel rail freight.
Actually there is absolutely loads of Channel Tunnel rail freight. It is just it is transported within lorries on the railway wagons. My point was that it is daft that this is loaded on one side of the tunnel and unloaded on the other side when much of it could loaded/unloaded on the other side of London. The fees for Channel Tunnel freight are totally irrelevant to this argument.
Re PoP,
I disagree on the Channel Tunnel through freight fees – they are part of the problem as it is better for Eurotunnel to push freight via lorries onto their trains as it help justify their existance and cost structure (otherwise the security bills have to be split between fewer terminal users – Cars/motorbikes who pay much lower fees) but not the whole problem the economics need to change…
To make channel tunnel through freight work it has to be both practical and economically competitive:
1. containerised for security and easy handling for transhipment (unless bulk goods e.g. cars, steel or aluminium but these run as point to points at the moment)
2. Trains need to run from sufficiently large aggregation locations on each side of the channel unless the trains can easily be split or joined on route. There may just not be enough traffic from many locations.
3. Trains ideally need to be approaching 750m total wagon length and be able to take 9’6″ / containers (this is problem in the UK but is improving) Increasing these from the typical 350m total wagon length and the use fo well wagons due to few W12 routes means total train capacity for “awkward” containers could be just 1/3 of what it could be, which will have a mayor effect on cost.
4. The closely held ownership of certified locomotives (Class 92) for the channel tunnel is an issue as it several restricts new entrants or changes in market share.
5. No suitable electrified routes from the tunnel for long/heavy services except HS1 (which isn’t suitable of other reasons.)
The British loading gauge is a problem, as standard containers can fit on lorries on the Shuttle but not on most railway lines on this side of the Channel.
The lack of bulk point-to-point traffic – we don’t export much coal or other raw materials. Bulk materials, particularly coal, are cheaper to transport by sea and the biggest remaining coal fired power stations were originally built for ready accessibility to the Yorkshire/Nottinghamshire coalfield, so ports such as Immingham are more convenient. Oil and gas are also more convenient to transport by sea or pipeline – I’m not even sure if they are allowed through the tunnel.
Economies of scale in the automotive industry mean that a lot of new cars cross the channel in both directions, and a lot of them go though the tunnel.
“I struggle to see why a twin-track tunnel from Zone 4-5 in the north of London to Zone 4-5 in the south, with a single station in the CAZ, wouldn’t also be economically viable.”
Because London is the objective, not an obstacle.
– the cost of that single station would be a major part of the budget.
– lots of people, and freight, need to travel across the Alps. Relatively few people want to go between any two specific points on opposite sides of London – Croydon to Harrow for example. They want to go to the CAZ, which is an area too big to be served by a single station.
(And a Croydon-Harrow tunnel would be of no use for Croydonites and Harrovians wanting to go to or from Barking for example).
A Pennine base tunnel would make sense, although even that idea is compromised by the wide range of potential traffic sources, particularly on the Yorkshire side. Should it run to Leeds or Sheffield, or be suboptimal for both by branching at Holmfirth for both? Imagine the outcry if the centre of “last of the Summer Wine” Country became a major railway junction!
The Swiss – indeed all Alpine countries – have, of necessity, a different attitude to their scenery, ploughing motorways and railways through landscape which is simply in a different league to anything in the UK, without a tree-hugger in sight. Just look at the arguments about where the tunnel portals for HS2 would be.
Sad Fat Dad – “There is no need to move Woolwich Dockyard, indeed there is nowhere to move it to without compulsorily purchasing residential property, highways and it becoming wither Woolwich Arsenal West or Charlton East.”
Woolwich Dockyard could be moved a few hundred metres west as much housing nearby is currently being ‘decanted’ for demolition and rebuild. Compulsory Purchase Orders are already served and people moving out. In 5 years it will all be leveled and rebuilt over 10 year period. As will areas just north as part of the new masterplan. That site is also equidistant between Woolwich Arsenal & Charlton, so wouldn’t be Woolwich Arsenal west. It could be argued that’s what the existing station is, as it’s very close to WA.
As for stock, I can’t see third rail Networkers going anywhere for the remaining 15-20 years of their life, and apparently it’s very difficult to add SDO. Does this mean no 12-car trains for 15-20 years in an area with rapid population growth? If so, then a station rebuild or move (at minimal cost with housebuilding plans) seems a relatively cheap and simple solution to increase capacity by a fair margin.
Pedantic of Purley – “The problem financially justifying any further work at Woolwich Dockyard is that the problem will eventually just go away with modern rolling stock. So you can’t amortise the cost over 60 years for a short term problem.”
As said above, Networkers probably have 20 years life left in them. I’m not sure we can keep the existing network at 10-car maximum for the vast majority of services for that long with housing and population growth. They’ll be no SE frequency increases from 2018.
Crossrail will help the Woolwich line in the short term, but there’s also the issue of diagrams, where a train on the Woolwich line arrives at Cannon St then goes out on the Hayes, Sidcup, Orpington and Bexleyheath lines. Those lines get no benefit from Crossrail and are seeing strong growth eg the Hayes line and the housing now going up directly beside Catford bridge station. The majority of services on those lines will be limited to 10-car just because of one station. There would be some services which are 12-car, as now, but it does restrict flexibility and capacity quite widely, and potentially for 20 years. London will likely have 2 million more people by then, and SE London seeing around 600-700k of that.
Ed
If CPOs have already been served,it’s too late.
The redevelopment plan has been agreed.
Any land-take will either have to be from the new development,or will have to wait until those buildings,in turn,are torn down (not entirely facetious…the planned life of modern buildings is around 40 years….)
Only some CPOs are served, and I don’t think the area directly by the line, which will be served in the next couple of years. It’s a 10 year rebuild. I’m not even sure the housing plan has passed planning at the outline stage. Certainly not detailed. It should still be achievable to gain cash and space for Woolwich Dockyard station, either moving or rebuilding, but I fear time is slipping by.
It’s times like these where I think TfL would be so much more on the ball.
Is there really strong housing growth on the Orpington/Sevenoaks line beyond Grove Park? Its firmly in the grip of Green Belt, and all I can think is new housing already arriving at Dunton Green and Fort Halstead when Dstl leave, and Bromley’s plan only has 200 units in Orpington/Crofton (http://www.bromley.gov.uk/downloads/file/2306/five_year_supply_of_deliverable_land_for_housing_june_2015)
Apart from specifics, is most of the demand around London coming from flats on Z1-3 brownfield sites rather than leafy Z4-6 developments and sneaking things into the Green Belt?
Orpington station numbers have dropped from 5.314m (2008) to 5.239m (2013) for example
@ Ed – it’s my understanding that TfL review and comment on all major planning proposals. They do this for the rather obvious reason of understanding the transport impacts and secondly to determine what form of funding contribution should be “obtained” from the developer to help fund improvements (whether for capital works or service improvements). I would therefore be somewhat surprised if they had not been consulted / commented on whatever is happening housing wise in and around Woolwich. What they can’t, of course, do is insist that Woolwich Dockyard station receives funding for improvement as they’re not responsible for it. They may well have “suggested” that the rail infrastructure be improved as the best way of handling the impact or may merely have suggested a couple of TfL bus routes get enhancements to shovel people on to the DLR and Crossrail in Woolwich Town Centre. Whether Network Rail is as involved I cannot say. I doubt the TOC gives a damn one way or the other as the current owners may not be around by the time the development completes and they have no obligation to do anything anyway (other than if DfT tells them to). I guess that neatly encapsulates some of what you and Graham H have been saying about local accountability. 😉 TfL is, I guess, incentivised to review / comment as it is the likely recipient of developer contributions but I suspect it also has a statutory role somewhere in the piece.
I would be surprised if Network Rail would be consulted unless the property was immediately adjacent to theirs (or above it – but even then that doesn’t always happen – http://www.nce.co.uk/pictures/704x528fitpad%5B150%5D/3/2/4/1326324_old-street-uger-drilling.jpg) .
The TOC wouldn’t be interested – the don’t own the land, if the development requires extra services the ORR will pay them to run them, and it’s not their problem if the infrastructure gets broken.
And TfL do not control either the land the rails run through or the services that run on them, so they have no real standing in the planning process as far as the railway is concerned.
John B – Bromley’s plans are always to stymie housing but as noted on another article, they keep losing when it goes to planning appeals. The latest is on the Hayes line around Lower Sydenham, where up to 1000 homes have been approved recently, overturning Bromley’s plans and decisions. Even in Bromley town centre a tower has just been approved on appeal against their wishes.
The Orpington line is the one with less housing plans than the three Dartford lines and Hayes. But even taking that into account, 4 out of 5 lines with large housing growth planned alongside will mean 20 years with many services restricted to 10-car running, which is going to bring about a tight squeeze all due to one station.
TOCs and NR don’t get involved as noted above. TfL take much more interest in developments around stations they control I believe. A far more holistic approach, which they then use to lobby hard for transport improvements. No guarantees of course and they can’t insist on funding, but a much better chance of changes than what happens under the present system.
Worth noting though that Orpington rose from 5.2m in 2013 to 5.6m in 2014.
Re. Woolwich Dockyard:
As the original article points out, TfL are interested in taking over metro routes, but this hasn’t actually happened yet.. Furthermore, TfL’s own remit means they have very limited influence at present on what happens to infrastructure they covet, but do not currently have any control over. While they are undoubtedly involved in discussions on major projects in the area, chances are, their input is focussed on roads and buses, while Network Rail would be involved in discussions regarding Woolwich Dockyard.
As for extending or re-siting Woolwich Dockyard station, this isn’t a simple job. The present station is in a deep cutting and has tunnels – not bridges – at both ends – both of which have roads passing over them. The platforms already stretch from tunnel portal to tunnel portal now. To extend any further would require major civil engineering work. It would require closing the line to all through services for weeks, and for what?
Woolwich Arsenal is just a few hundred metres away to the east [Moderator measures it as 1068 metres; does “a few” stretch to over 10 ?]. Indeed, the latter’s proximity suggests it may be better to close Woolwich Dockyard instead. There’ll also be a new Crossrail station near Woolwich Arsenal in a couple of years. That’s access to the North Kent railway, the DLR, and Crossrail services.
If the locals insist on better rail connectivity, there’s always trams.
Hang on folks – TfL have a London wide remit on behalf of the Mayor. Even where they may not control a railway line or the land this does not remove them from the process. It also does not prevent them concluding that in a specific case that doing something to the railway infrastructure, rather than other options, may be the most effective thing overall. Given that the Mayor has also taken to using TfL as something of a “developer” on behalf of City Hall then I’d argue their remit is stronger than ever to get “dabbling” where rail is the best answer.
I doubt Ms Dedring is doing the work on improving National Rail’s contribution to transport needs single handedly. 😉 I expect TfL are very actively involved and are well aware as to where all the housing developments are / will be.
Ed. There is a much cheaper solution. Don’t stop the 12 car networkers at Woolwich Dockyard. I can see this happening post 2018, especially when Crossrail takes a decent chunk of demand off the line as well.
@Sad fat dad
“Don’t stop the 12 car networkers at Woolwich Dockyard.”
But as has already been mentioned, unless you close the station some services on that line will have to be shorter than 12 cars. And that means all other stations on that line will see some ten car trains. And stock utilisation rosters are such that a train arriving at Cannon Street on one route may find itself next operating on another route – to Hayes, say. So a significant number of SEs trains will have to be shorter than 12 car, all because of that one station.
There is open space above the tunnel portal at the east end, which looks as if it might be opened out to extend the platforms enough. But surely if it was that easy someone would have done it?
SFD’s solution is probably the most likely one (the closest to do nothing usually wins!)
The biggest issues are probably political rather than financial or engineering (local council???). Extending Woolwich Dockyard to 12 car would probably only require 21m extra (224 to 245m) which could be done by extending the platforms to the Western end under Frances Street to level with the west (rear) wall of the electricity substation adjacent and above the line. And plenty of short road diversions possible while it is done. There would be no need for the vista at street level to appear any different after any works.
re timbeau,
“There is open space above the tunnel portal at the east end, which looks as if it might be opened out to extend the platforms enough. But surely if it was that easy someone would have done it?”
Looks far to close to housing.
I don’t really understand why people are talking about building work or closing station here. In the short term, there are no more carriages available, so it is not possible to extend all trains to 12 car, so SFD’s solution works fine.
In the longer term, if new carriages are found so as to extend all trains to 12 car, then Selective Door Opening can be made a requirement of their acquisition. (Yes, I am skating over what happens to the left-over 10-car non-SDO stock, but finding a home for these should be easier than calling in the builders).
There have been some good points made about the comparison with Switzerland but for me it has highlighted one very important point, albeit one point with two limbs:
The transport strategy for London and the SE needs to embrace freight (both heavy freight and ‘white van’ freight), and neither TfL (nor any of the other passenger TOCs) are well-placed to manage the integration of passenger and freight services
Can’t see the problem myself:
There is open space above the tunnel portal at the east end, which looks as if it might be opened out to extend the platforms enough
Looks far too close to housing.
nearby is currently being ‘decanted’ for demolition and rebuild
So, just wait for the nearby housing to be demolished, open out the tunnel portal at the east end and problem solved.
I wouldn’t object to Woolwich Dockyard closing. Might be politically difficult given its use has tripled in 10 years, though still the least used station on the line. Currently 6 out of 8 trains an hour stop there. Perhaps that could be cut to 4. But then with all the new housing, even if that is allowed, they’ll soon be calls to boost that figure.
Malcolm – There will be no new widespread SDO stock anytime soon. Networkers are staying for 20 years in all likelihood. Could any other TOC take such a large third rail fleet that cannot become AC? Unlikely. Maybe replacing some older stock on Southern or SWT, but that would be many years off and not worth it?
There is talk of released Thameslink 319s being available from 2016, and possibly coming to SE to operate some Victoria routes (eg Vic to Orpington) freeing up Networkers for a few more 12 car services. There could well be enough free cl319s by 2018 to make many/most peak services 12-car networker diagrams if the station issue wasn’t there.
So it’s very likely that there will be no new SDO compatible stock for SE for 20 years, meaning the problem needs dealing with one way or another. Waiting for new trains to arrive will mean a long wait for improvements.
There’s also the 376s – they could go elsewhere and be replaced with SDO stock able to be 12-car? Many Southern & SWT lines can only take 10-car trains, so 376s could go there and SE gains stock with SDO, either cascaded or a new order. 376s are a smaller fleet than Networkers though so they’d still be a fair few 10-car max trains.
Thinking outside the box…..can the Networkers fit in the Merseyrail tunnels? If so, could they be reconfigured as three car sets and cascaded there to replace their aging units and allow new SDO capable 12-car stock to (finally!!!) operate in SE London? We’ve only been waiting 25 years, after all…..
Merseyrail have akready been authorised to buy new trains – after all, they’ve only been waiting 40 years…
And b) they probabaly won’t fit anyway as they are slightly wider than most stock…
I doubt if Woolwich Arsenal could cope if Dockyard were to close – similar reasons are given for why Mornington Crescent and Covent Garden were worth spending money on.
The 365s currently used by Great Northern are built to the same basic design as the 465s. Will any of those become spare as a result of Thameslink 2000-and-counting and/or the IEP project (which I gather will include trains for the Cambridge expresses)?
SWT will be wanting 10 car trains once it gets its act together at Waterloo (they intend to use the space vacated by Eurostar, but seem not to have noticed that ES left in 2007)
@timbeau – don’t for once blame SWT for the delay in getting their trains into WIT. As long ago as 2009, DfT commissioned consultancy advice (from my firm amongst others) as to what to do with the terminus. (A) Clearly, they hadn’t noticed it was empty until then, and (B) they then sat on the advice for the next 5 years – I have no idea why…
@ngh:
“And b) they probably won’t fit anyway as they are slightly wider than most stock…”
Are you sure you’re not confusing them with the diesel “Thames Turbos”, built for the GWML? They were based on the same design, but they’re definitely a little bigger than the Networker stock.
Incidentally, closing Woolwich Dockyard would have the useful side-effect of speeding up the service for everyone else a little. This means (slightly) fewer trains would be needed in total to provide the service.
That said, if a developer could be convinced to do a total rebuild of the station, along the lines of Woolwich’s Crossrail station, then that might be feasible. It would mean selling (or leasing) the “air rights” above the present station site, but that might be sufficient to tip the BCR in its favour.
Extending Woolwich Dockyard is unlikely to leave much change from £100 million or so, which suggests it’ll either have to be rebuilt by a developer in an “air rights” deal, or it’ll close. I can’t see TfL or Network Rail being interested in spending that kind of money themselves on such a relatively minor station.
Re timbeau,
No All the “surplus” 365s are heading to Greatwestern inner stopping services.
SWT will be have the stock for 57 (so circa 50-52 in service) 10 car metro trains in few years time. (and about 20 8 car trains in daily service).
SET are about 40 extra 4 car units short of being able to run all metro services at full length (assumign 10 car if stopping at Woolwich Dockyard) including reinstating the missing paths due to London Bridge in 2018).
Many VIC – Orpingtons are shortformed at the moment and the short term solution might be surplus 319s on that route (they are route cleared) and provide surplus trains.
Up to 25x 377s may come from Southern allowing the mid distance 465s to return to inner services subject to continued DfT SET arm wrestling. Btu that would still leave a shortfall. Might the best option be to get bombardier to address the issues that prevent 376s being lenghtened to 6 car (software and traction power bus???) with a midlife refurb and lenghten them to 6 car. (If timed to align with LO upgrades from 5car to 8 car on NLL and WLL there might be a suitable number of surplus middle cars available). [also retrofit aircon to the 376s]
@StephenC 20 Oct 14:09 – yes, that is one of the articles I was thinking of. I suspect that an express tunnel from Barnes-Richmond is one solution along with bridges/tunnels for the 4 road crossings.
@ Anomnibus 20 Oct 17:41, @timbeau 20 Oct 19:07 – re. 1940s plans
The County of London Plan (Forshaw & Amercrombie, 1943) is an detailed (188 page) plan to rebuild post-war London. The rail sections are quite short, but are focussed on removing rail bridges across the Thames, electrifying suburban services and re-locating them underground so that they can connect across central London.
The Railway (London Plan) Committee was setup by the Minister of War Transport in 1944 and published a (30 page) report in 1946. The committee was chaired by Sir Charles Inglis (Cambridge) and had the following as members: Crowther (The Economist), Fairburn (LMSR), Missenden (SR), Mount (Ministry of War Transport), Pepler (Ministry of Town and Country Planning), Thomas (LPTB), Train (LNER).
The most significant recommendation was the replacement of London Bridge with an underground station with five “cross-rail style” routes to connect the 3 ex-LBSCR and 2-ex-SER lines to various destinations across London. The next two proposed “cross-rail style” routes both follow the current Thameslink route (via Loughborough Jn). The proposed route 8 became the Victoria line, while route 9 is now the proposed Crossrail 2. All 9 routes were proposed as “full sized” tunnels which connected with the “full size” network.
The remaining 3 proposals were for LU Northern Line enhancements using “tube size” tunnels including a Finchley Central – Golders Gn – Clapham Jn route and a Kennington – Tooting B/Way express route.
@ Kate 21 Oct 22:37- fully agree that freight needs to be part of the strategy. An updated version of the proposals made by Andrew Gritten and his company (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Railway_(UK) ), would make a lot of sense as “through freight” could avoid central London. With a very large loading gauge, the Eurotunnels shuttle wagons could be used.
@Graham H
“don’t for once blame SWT for the delay in getting their trains into WIT.”
They may be more sinned against than sinning in this regard (and of course there was no point in them ordering extra cars until they knew they would have a use for them), but I didn’t detect a huge sense of urgency from SWT to get NR and/or DfT to buck their ideas up during the “Alliance” era.
Southeastern issued a report today with this: “We have submitted a second report to the DfT regarding the Priced Option to introduce additional rolling stock on Southeastern in order to address the severe overcrowding problem we have on our services. We have conducted a stabling study to identify options for stabling the additional units at various locations on the Southeastern network.”
timbeau,
That was a cheap unjustified dig. South West Trains boss Andrew Haines was aware of Eurostar’s future departure many years ago and was frustrated that the DfT seemed to be in absolutely no hurry to take advantage of the situation when he desperately needed platform space. I think (but it was a long time ago so cannot be sure) he pointed out then that they could have at least got platform 20 into service if the willingness was there.
@PoP – quite so – and one of the “interesting” things about the work that DfT commissioned back in 2009 was that (a) they had suddenly twigged that using WIT would allow for longer trains but – (b) they had not twigged the basic problem that the two suburban sides of Waterloo are operationally linked.
Interesting to see SE have submitted second report. I wasn’t even aware their was a first. At least they are now publicly recognising overcrowding and publicly calling for action. They have been saying similar at recent meetings with local authorities and community groups.
So they need 40 sets just to have a full 10 car railway, let alone 12. Didn’t know it was that much. Most services in the peaks now seem-10 car (which isn’t really enough) on Dartford lines, but that is with reduced frequencies as London bridge rebuilding is underway.
This is probably very naive, but if the easiest and cheapest solution by far is to just allow manual driver cut offs of doors at Woolwich Dockyard station, is it really so unlikely for the H&SE to not authorise it? It would save enormous amounts of money and help overcrowding levels. Do they weigh these factors up against risks from accidental door opening in a tunnel?
By the way, if anyone wants to know the sites where very large amounts of housing will be built, look west of the station, to the area west of Prospect Vale, where the line runs through. That whole estate either side of the line will be demolished, along with the very large swath of industrial land directly north and west, on the other side of the a206. Directly to the south, another large estate to the west of Woodhill school & Maryon Grove is also to be demolished. This is many acres and many thousands of homes will be built.
The line runs directly through there, on an extremely flat surface, and is located directly between Woolwich Arsenal & Charlton station. The current station is far closer to WA than Charlton. Rochester station is currently being completely moved a few hundred metres and costs £26m, and that’s on an embankment.
timbeau 10.04: Further to ngh 10.46:
IEPs will not be operating to Cambridge. This was a serious option on the table a few years ago, but is not there any more. Govia Thameslink Railway will be moving most of the Class 377/5 subfleet to Great Northern in the not-too-distant future to operate Cambridge Expresses.
(I swear I posted something similar on LR a few months ago, although I can’t recall on which thread…)
Related to the post above, this google streetview shows the line through the estate in Woolwich Dockyard. All housing seen on either side will come down in the next 5-10 years. The railway line is level with surrounding land. Of all the sites to build a station this looks one of the easiest: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Woolwich+Dockyard,+Woolwich,+London+SE18/@51.4918491,0.046879,3a,75y,107.82h,76.72t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbAm0oU9j1SHVpaMUwt_6QA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DbAm0oU9j1SHVpaMUwt_6QA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D353.42087%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x47d8a8f3a6c57895:0xd209d1a17950b234!6m1!1e1
@poP/Graham H
Happy to accept that the delay is not SWT’s fault (Andrew Haines – there’s a name from the past……..) and that their relative silence on the subject may be because quiet diplomacy was seen as more likely to get results than slagging off the dilatory decision makers. It must be as frustrating for them as for their clients/customers/captive commuters to see trains queuing outside Waterloo whilst five platforms stand empty.
Ed,
You can see how many carriages are on each peak hour train at How busy is your train? on Southeastern’s website. Unfortunately you have to download a PDF for each line to get the info. If you choose one of the right two timetables you can actually spot a very rare beast – a 12-car train.
This really shows up that they haven’t got sufficient carriages to run their reduced service.
I don’t think ORR would allow just the driver opening the doors. Even if they did they would probably require a catwalk or similar (as on the DLR which does not, or didn’t, have a failsafe SDO system). To do that would require enlarging the tunnels anyway.
Re Ed,
No circa 40 for a full 8/10/12 car as appropriate (Victoria & Blackfriars services 8 /via Woolwich Dockyard 10 /everything other route 12*)
*Assuming minimal 10 car services on other routes (loop services) due to Woolwich Dockyard and ignoring Bromley North Branch…
So the poor suffering VIC-ORP customers have lost their semi-fasts, may lose some (increasingly shabby) Networkers and get the (much slower accelerating and increasingly unreliable) 319s?
Interesting to know how that will go down against a backdrop of rising fares, overcrowding, slower acceleration times affecting timetables/service patterns etc, not to mention what happens when one inevitably breaks down on the single line somewhere round Sydenham Hill/West Dulwich….and what happens then to the Dover Priory etc fasts (other than to further shaft the Catford Loop)…
I was under the impression that all the 319s were going ‘oop north’ and they weren’t impressed with 30-year old ‘cast-offs’ from London…
There’s about 80 class 319s going spare I think. Northern have 20 already. They could well get another 20 as electrification slowly progresses, but I don’t think need all 80. London Midland will get about 10-20?
That could leave 20-30 available. They are third rail capable and cleared for some SE routes. Yes they’re old, tatty and not particularly reliable, but that’s no different to most Networkers now. Both really need comprehensive mid-life work to for the next 15-20 years.
I done a bit of digging into the new Rochester station, which is down the line from Woolwich (the semi-fasts calling at Woolwich Arsenal also stop at Rochester). It’s due to open in December, and one reason for the Rochester work is to make it 12 car capable I believe.
Anyway, £26m sees the station move a few hundred metres, located on an embankment, and it’s on a curve. See pics here from 3 days ago: https://www.flickr.com/photos/transrail/22116429168/in/photolist-zGmtSh-zGjUCW-z2ULGA-zWDdDw-zYWsZD-zyA373-yD37Cv-zijPsG-yCDjCE-zi3XGS-zxidLd-zrJjtB-zoymgs-yrGsPu-z2y2Gd-zav1Ai-z8cDQN-zavkVR-ySZqEa-ydCnSR-zavqLc-ySTqUw-ySZkKa-z9tdGu-ydCvGD-ySZmFD-z8c8Hd-z8czUb-z9tiD3-ydtuzh-zbkA8t-zbkyPX-ydCdKx-z8cd73-ydCkSZ-ySZbyz-yZX1B9-ySTEd5-z4tQVj-z4A2NP-z4v5kb-z4A2YP-yp55RL-zk3wJW-zmXest-z4A3dM-zm6L3a-zk3vXf-yp55zJ-zk3wiL
If Rochester can get a brand new station for £26m, with no housing funding available and on more difficult terrain, surely it’s worth a look at Woolwich Dockyard moving. A substantial amount of funding could be secured from developer contributions meaning minimal cost to hard pressed NR.
Re Tim,
Appareantly the MTIN of the 319s is much worse up North which surggests something about the maintenance quality (or lack thereof).
A low spec refurb can’t have helped with impressions either.
The isn’t enough OHLE for them all to go up north for quite while yet…
@ngh
MTIN means Miles per Technical Incident Number, which is a railway measure of fleet reliability, specifically defined as miles between an incident causing a delay to the service of 3 minutes or greater.
A similar metric is Miles Per Casualty (MPC) where a Casualty equals a 5 minute delay or cancellation, for each 28 day performance period.
Apparently however the railway industry is moving to the 3 minute criteria, so this will become MPM. Although I’m not sure what MPM means exactly.
@ngh
“Appareantly the MTIN of the 319s is much worse up North which surggests something about the maintenance quality ”
Isn’t this just another manifestation of the syndrome that afflicted the 315s as soon as LO got hold of them? (The previous owner having more incentive to look after the examples they are keeping than the ones that are moving on). In the 319’s case there may also be a degree of unfamiliarity with the type, as they are older than the 323s and 350s, which are the only other a.c emus that have operated local services west of the Pennines for at least 15 years.
@Tim/ngh – then there are the 319s that may be required for the Cardiff valleys – date uncertain,too.
@Graham H
I’d have thought there’d be a bunch of redundant Class 315/317s for the Cardiff Valleys, given LO are replacing all of theirs with new Bombardier units.
@glbotu-these too have been mentioned from time to time,although the 315s are getting close to their sell-by date. It’s fun, isn’t it – so much for DfT having a rolling stock strategy, denying that they do when challenged, and then behaving as if they have. One feels really sorry for the Welsh /Lancastrians/ SE Londoners and almost everyone else who hasn’t the foggiest as to what they are getting. Th whole thing has been thrown into disaarray, of course, by (a) the growing delays in the electrification programme, and (b) the continuing uncertainties over the detailed deployment of the IEPs (and their extreme unpopularity with bidders)
@Ed:
The new Rochester station is actually an easier civil engineering job than the proposals suggested for Woolwich Dockyard. You’ll note that the new station is being built while services are still running: they’re using similar techniques as used to build the DLR station at Lewisham, including pushing the underpass structure through the embankment, rather than digging down from above.
You can’t do this at the suggested Pett Street site: you’d need to build a conventional station entrance, platforms, footbridge, lift shafts, and so on. (You’d also need to tweak the signalling, or trains waiting on the “London” platform would hold up the gates at the Charlton Lane level crossing a little to the west.)
It’s clear both roads alongside the railway here would have to go as they’re far too close at present, but that’s not a big deal if the area is being redeveloped. So… feasible, but if TfL can’t talk a developer into doing it effectively for free, I honestly can’t see it happening.
Rochester only has the one station, so the new one won’t have a more heavily patronised neighbour offering better connections barely a ten minute walk away.
Woolwich already has two such stations, one served by both South Eastern and the DLR, the other served by Crossrail. Does Woolwich really need another? Remember: each station adds to the total journey time. Who benefits from Woolwich Dockyard’s re-building / re-siting, and how many more would benefit from its closure by a faster journey?
I saw a man on the train into Victoria this morning with a big official printout booklet of the new Rochester station. Was that someone in this thread?
I’m not sure Woolwich does need two stations. Dockyard’s main purpose has mainly gone, as the dockyard shut many years ago. It depends on just how high density housing is planned nearby. It does look increasingly likely that most of the riverside will have high density 20+ storey towers – they exist to the west and to the east.
On the subject of building a station around a running line, this seems to be happening just down at Abbey Wood for Crossrail, which in effect is a brand new station with new platforms being constructed and station buildings. lifts and footbridges. Plus, many stations have had extensive work and platform lengthening the past 4 years. There were/are many weekend closures but it’s still open Mon-Fri. Maybe in some ways harder as Abbey Wood is having new platforms built whilst the line stays open? I really don’t know – this is just idle observation.
IF Woolwich needs two stations – & I suspect it does, especially since new housing is going in.
Then, actually building a new one, sightly further West would be a good idea, from the point of non-overlapping catchment areas & the convenience of local residents, again in the future.
But, as Anomnibus remarks, the trick is to get the developers to (at least partly) pay for it.
On such matters, the mayor seems to have been doing some colouring-in – this link shows a map with a dotted Overground crossing the Thames from Barking, CR1 past Dartford (and also CR2 to the upper Lea Valley, though drawn as if a spur of CR1 – probably inaccurately done for diagrammatic simplicity).
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mayorspressoffice/22169949539/
The full context concerns 200,000 new homes and is in the link below, so maybe Woolwich will need all it can get.
http://www.london.gov.uk/media/mayor-press-releases/2015/10/mayor-launches-city-in-the-east-masterplan
Greg,
There may be significant problems with a station further to the west of Woolwich Dockyard in addition to the current station.
You would be fairly restricted where it could go with the old proviso that next to the railway line is generally best. Maryon Park means the catchment area would actually be fairly limited but, more importantly, it probably limits how far west you could go. At best, where Ed suggests, around Pett Street you are around 500m west of the western end of the platforms at Woolwich Dockyard. You are also getting near to Charlton Lane crossing which, as Anomnibus says, may have further implications.
Potentially worst of all, a 12-car (assuming they can run them) needs to accelerate as quickly as possible to clear one platform and the associated safety overlap so the next train can start approaching but before it has finished doing that it needs to start slowing down for the next station. I suspect, as a rule of thumb, you really, ideally, want at least three clear train lengths between stations. ECTS signalling will improve the situation eventually one day but it won’t totally overcome the problem.
@PoP I understood Greg to be continuing the “replacement” notion for Woolwich Dockyard, rather than suggesting an addition. Three Woolwich stations does seem a bit over the top, quite apart from spacing issues.
Malcolm,
Yes, I can see now that what he probably meant. The issue of Maryon Park is still valid though and I would argue that, because of the park, the current location is actually better in catchment terms than moving it further
eastwest. Of course, if you started taking into account the size of individual developments rather than a simplistic view where all housing land is equal, you might legitimately come up with a different answer.Yes – I was assuming a new station “could” be built to the W of the present “Dockyard”, probably as close to the W end of the short tunnel (“Dockyard Tunnel” )as could be conveniently arranged. The present Dockyard station would then close.
And I think PoP may have his compass-points reversed (?)
@Pedantic of Purley:
As Malcolm said, I don’t think anyone is seriously suggesting Woolwich Dockyard be retained if a new station is built at the Pett Street site, although there may be a case for rafting over and building on top of the old station once the new station opens in order to extract as much money out of developers as possible.
I think the key obstacle with a re-sited station is that level crossing. At present, a train leaving Woolwich Dockyard towards London will trigger the barrier closing cycle (flashing red lights for a bit, then barrier starts to close, etc.) There’s enough distance between Woolwich Dockyard’s platforms and the crossing that no special measures are needed.
Closing that station and replacing it with one at the suggested Pett Street site would require the level crossing cycle begins as the train approaches the station, rather than when it leaves, which means the barriers will be down for longer. This is a major problem as Charlton Lane is a very popular road as it gets you to Blackheath, and to the Charlton FC stadium nearby. One cannot simply cut it off.
This means something will need to be done to remove that level crossing once and for all. How that’s achieved is a major engineering headache: it’s a very constrained site, so the only option is to build a road bridge over the tracks. Much depends on whether there are redevelopment plans for this area too. If not, the price tag for closing Woolwich Dockyard and building “Maryon Park” station rises substantially, and TfL would need to be sure it’s well worth the price.
So, feasible, but only if there is sufficient developer interest. Without that, I can see Woolwich Dockyard closing, but only the least-cost “passive provision” being provided for a potential new station.
is there a possibility to divert Charlton lane to the east, over the tunnel, to meet the roundabout at the junction with Westmoor Street ? NR are very keen to get rid of level crossings.
Not sure what there is hiding in the wooded area above the tunnel though.
A look a map tells me that
1) taking out the level crossing at Charlton Lane is one issue
2) platform extensions or a replacement station at Woolwich Dockyard is another, different issue
Alan G: Two different issues, yes. Anomnibus explains why he thinks they are linked. Because, according to him, moving the station westwards would increase delays at the level crossing. I don’t know if he is correct about this link, but it sounds plausible to me.
There is anyway a third issue, also linked to the station. When will the line receive additional carriages to enable all trains to be 12-car, and will those additional carriages be equipped with SDO (which arguably would allow the station to remain as it is).
@Malcolm
“When will the line receive additional carriages to enable all trains to be 12-car,”
This is a relatively easy problem to fix. If TfL ran the line and chose to do so, they could add some more 710s to the current order. The type must be dc-capable since some of them are intended for the WatEus line – also known as the dc line!
The class 465/466 fleet consists of 113 4-car sets and 43 2-car sets (excluding the 34 class 465/9s used on outer suburban work) , 538 cars. 26 are needed for the eight-car Vic-Orpington service (3x8car trains) and the Bromley North shuttle (1 x 2car) leaving 512, or enough to make 42 ten-car trains (limited by the number of 2car sets) and 11 eight car trains, with a spare 4car set).
This excludes the 465/9s which were replaced on the inners by the 36 5-car class 376s, making 18 more ten-car trains. That’s a total of 71 trains, of which 60 are 10car.
Reshuffle these 692 vehicles (or swap the 376s with a dc operator who currently operates 4- and 2-car units in ten-car formation – easy to do if both operators are controlled by TfL!) and you can only form 57 twelve-car trains. So you 14×12 = 168 new vehicles, or 42 4-car units, to get to a total 71 12-car trains.
If only the sixty existing ten-car trains (and not the eight car ones) were to be extended to twelve-car, you only need 120 new vehicles, or 30 units.
120-168 vehicles is a fairly large order (and would result in a mixed fleet, as neither 365s, 376s nor whatever the 376s might be swapped out with are still in production), but by no means unusual. – TfL has an option for 24 extra class 710s (96 vehicles) to add on to the firm order for 45.
I like the Pett street replacement station idea in Woolwich, but I’m not convinced Charlton Lane level crossing is such a problem for the new station site. The crossing is about 600m from the east end of Charlton station today and would be around 500m from the west end of the new station, assuming the east extremity was around the Prospect Vale bridge. There would be little difference between the approaches in each direction, therefore, and the protecting signals can easily be placed or left where they are, overlap clear of the crossing. I think the crossing still remains locally operated with manual controlled barriers interlocked with signals. There is a pedestrian footbridge with steps for when the barriers are closed. The prospect of greater service frequency under TfL control rather than station proximity would be more of an issue I think.
@timbeau: Relatively easy. Subject to funding. And somebody agreeing that this is how that particular bit of cash should be spent. And depot space. And driver training. And whatever else I haven’t thought of.
Each of which might happen, or not. In my opinion they are not particularly influenced by whether or not TfL is operating the line. But clearly some people (not aimed at anyone in particular) see a takeover as a magic wand which dissipates all difficulties. Tell that to the Enfieldians and Walthamstovers.
But magic wands apart, my underlying point was really that such alterations to the fleet might (via the magic of SDO) make it unnecessary to move, alter or close Woolwich Dockyard.
Charlton Lane LC
Hmmm – is that “cabin” still manned?
Surely not, under LBG resignalling, I would have thought it was CCTV from 3 Bridges by now?
Still manned.
@Greg Tingey, 24 October 2015 at 10:06
“I would have thought it was CCTV from 3 Bridges by now?”
It appears not. From an unofficial source here:
http://www.signalbox.org/sectionc.php?year=2018
“London Bridge PSB to be abolished, area to be controlled from Sussex Regional Operations Centre at Three Bridges. Panels 8 and 9 will be dispensed with in 2014, panel 1 in 2015, panels 2 in 2016, panels 3 & 4 in 2017 and panels 4, 5,6 & 7 in 2018.
Charlton Lane gate box will not now be abolished as part of this scheme and will remain until after 2020”.
Google Street View image from September 2014 still shows the crossing cabin in place:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4894184,0.0397021,3a,75y,229.56h,80.42t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sdbTvfRVGkqGOpyjOc-l7eQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DdbTvfRVGkqGOpyjOc-l7eQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D40.443077%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Many ROC-related control transfers leave existing trackside equipment and local interlockings in place, merely remotely re- controlling it all from the new facility rather than the old panel box. A subsequent migration to new computer interlockings and trackside is much easier once the new centre is in charge with software configured control screens rather than hard-wired panels. I don’t know the scheduled renewal date in this case but it seems sensible to convert the crossing at the same time as the trackside is renewed, rather than undertaking a difficult reconfiguration of old equipment, perhaps shortly before replacing it all.
SFD
That’s, err loopy.
Given that all the LC’s under “Wimbledon” panel are CCTV, & (I think) all the ones under Liverpool St. are CCTV, why this anomaly?
Anyone know?
@Greg Tingey:
Still manned, apparently. Note the risk assessment ratings: while not at the very top of the To-Do list of level crossing removals, it’s probably not that far down.
The level crossing cycle dictates how the signalling needs to be set up to allow sufficient time for the crossing barriers to close. The most recent document I can find is this one. (PDF) The relevant section is #2.47 (page 18 in the PDF), which states that the full cycle should be:
Amber (3-5 secs), Flashing red (4-6 secs), Barrier down (6-10 seconds). This should be followed by a visual inspection of the crossing before the signal for the approaching train can be cleared. Total (best case) = 3+7+6 = 16 secs. Total (worst case) = 5+6+10 = 21 secs.
For reference, the distance from the Charlton Lane level crossing to the tunnel portal on the eastern side of Maryon Park (i.e. roughly where the western end of a new “Pett Street” station would have to be if the Prospect Vale overbridge is retained as-is), is approx. 420 metres. At the line speed of 60 mph., it would take a freight train or skip-stopping passenger service passing through the station without calling there a little over 15 seconds to pass through the Maryon Park tunnels and reach the level crossing, which means the level crossing cycle would need to be started some distance to the east of the new station.
So the level crossing is definitely an issue – especially as it’s already having to cope with 20+ tph right now.
If TfL have any intention of running an even more intensive service over these tracks, that level crossing is going to be a serious liability, rather like its counterparts on the SWML: increasing service frequencies will mean the barriers come / stay down for longer = more vehicles queuing up = tailbacks interfering with the very busy A206 dual carriageway (very) nearby.
This is an issue regardless of what happens to Woolwich Dockyard; much depends on what TfL’s plans are for the line.
There may be other difficulties with major reconstruction between Charlton and Woolwich. See this report from a group of tunnel enthusiasts, posted in April 2015
https://subterraneangreenwich.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/charlton-tunnel-cave-a-rail-tragedy-waiting-to-happen/
Malcolm – I don’t think anyone on here sees TfL as a magic wand that will fix all ills. I’m not convinced the public do either on the whole. Just that given the past 10 years experience, TfL are more likely to push through change than the DfT.
Replacing the Networkers with 20 years life in them would be more expensive surely? And you can’t levage developer funding for that. That’d be a bigger expense than a new station (if developers contribute – and the scale of development suggests many millions in s106 and Community Infrastructure levy payments to come), and if Networkers don’t get SDO then something has to happen to expand capacity. I’ve wrote about how the huge estate redevelopments either side of the line but less the industrial estates north of the a206. All/Much of them are likely to go. Greenwich Council are drawing up a new masterplan, possibly released by the end of the year. Previous plans encourage removal and high density towers.
With possibly 40 spare class 319s 4-car units available from 2016, that could allow extension a great deal of Networkers to 12 car, and provide sufficient capacity to handle SE metro area’s population growth for 10-20 years.
Alternatively there’s the 377s possibly coming from Southern in 2018. This would free up 465/9 refurbed networkers running longer distance to boost metro routes, but there’s no SDO on them either. Could the 377s run on metro routes instead?
On the subject of how TfL may possibly carry out work to help alleviate crowding, I’ve recently been using SE metro and DLR, often through or from Woolwich. To cope with rapidly increasing passengers TfL have made some DLR seating longitudinal as a short term fix, while putting out tenders for new stock.
The trains are often just as packed on the Greenwich line, and the Networkers could really do with more space around the doors, and less 3×3 seating just inside. If TfL were in charge recent history suggests they would look at some quick fixes, and negotiate with the leasing company to improve the interior. As it is, nothing has been done, nor specified in recent franchise extension from the DfT. SE don’t seem keen and the train leasing company probably wont unless told to. So its inertia. A quick fix going begging.
The Networkers are due to have disabled toilets installed up to 2019. This would be a good time to carry work but no one seems interested.
ps. Very interesting article Alan re. the tunnel built over chalk holes
@Alan Burkitt-Gray:
That part of south-east London is notorious for its chalk pits and quarries. The chalk ridge runs more or less all the way from Norwood, via Sydenham, all the way out beyond Gravesend, and caverns, subsidence, etc., are a well-known hazard for housing in the area, with underpinning companies doing a very brisk trade.
The developers are well aware that there’s a high risk of subsidence and the need for future underpinning. The existence of deneholes, chalk pits, quarries, and whatnot are well-known. The details of where they are is rather less so, but a developer who doesn’t do their due diligence on a property can, and will, be sued for negligence if they’re not careful.
Local councils can only do so much; they don’t have an infinite amount of money to perform 1.5m-grid borehole investigations whenever a crack appears in the wall of a house.
As for the two Maryon Park tunnels: I expect Network Rail already perform regular monitoring to detect any movement in the tunnels, if only because both structures are well over 150 years old. Not that a hole could never open up, but that it’s unlikely NR are leaving things quite so much to chance as the article implies.
(It doesn’t help the blog owner’s case that he clearly has a vested interested in performing borehole investigations.)
the article about chalk holes is indeed very interesting but I can see nothing to suggest the frankly alarmist tone of the writer, with a call for “At the very least Network Rail must impose an immediate and strict speed limit through the tunnels of 5mph until thorough investigations can be carried out. ”
The writer seems to have jumped to the conclusion that the cavities have had no attention since the article was written in 1849. But the article can tell us nothing about anything that has happened since it was written.
Would anyone take a proposal for Lumley’s Folly* seriously if it was based on an 1850s article highlighting the high tolls on Blackfriars and Waterloo Bridges?
The writer has produced no account of any events on the line since 1849, and no evidence to suggest Network Rail are unaware of the caves, nor indeed can we tell from the article whether, in the intervening 166 years the shoring has rotted, been strengthened or indeed replaced by concrete.
*I see that the supporters of the folly have produced a realistic video representation – so good that they don’t really need to build the real thing!
Alan B-G
I would suggest a ground-penetrating radar scan, soonest!
As quicker, cheaper & a lot less disruptive, compared to shutting the line, whilst boreholes are dug.
Do Network Rail know? Has anyone informed them? They may not have seen the “Subterranean Greenwich” article, after all.
Should “we” alert them, or, perhaps point the “Subterranean Greenwich” article at them &/or the local press?
@ Ed – for the purpose of balance and accuracy let’s be clear that the seat adjustment on the DLR waited until the new concession was in place. Sounds horribly like waiting for a new rail franchise before stuff gets done! TfL has not gone to tender for new DLR trains. It is undertaking a market sounding exercise with rolling stock manufacturers to assess the state of the market, technology and what can be done for a future generation of DLR trains. The OJEU notice specifically said it was *not* a call for the supply of new trains. Now TfL may well go on to order DLR trains but let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
In all client and contractor relationships it’s the client who pays and who specifies what can change. All the “flim flam” about TOCs investing etc is just rubbish. They may well seek to squeeze out operational efficiencies and if there’s a cost involved you can guarantee it’s somewhere in their bid which means the client has accepted it and the associated cost. I know you know but if the DfT won’t specify brighter stations, more platforms, longer trains, higher standards for information nor put in the management oversight on the franchise contract then, of course, the TOC will do the absolute bare minimum it can. Nearly all of them have no “on rail” competition and they have no great incentive to chase down extra revenue through quality and innovation. I’m sceptical even as to whether the “Inter City” TOCs have that much of an incentive given they’ve had years to massage the fares system to shove up ordinary fares to eye watering levels that a proportion of the market has to pay because there are no advance fares or they’re travelling on the spur of the moment or have to travel in the peaks. It’s a great big mirage where routine boring expenditure on the essentials gets called “investment”. Heck I’ll start calling my trips to the supermarket “investment in personal sustainability” – that would be my sustainability through shoveling food in my food! It’s all a nonsense. LOROL and MTR Crossrail are no more splashing their own cash than Govia or Stagecoach or First Group are. They’re doing what TfL have specified in their contracts or in subsequent variations.
We must remember that TfL could very well end up with no discretionary funding for “nice to haves” and may even have to cut back what they currently specify if things go pear shaped. Taking revenue risk is great when the economy does well but the more risk TfL takes on itself the more vulnerable its service delivery is if the economy tanks badly. I am sure TfL will take a prudent view of all this but it cannot control the behaviour and decision making of individual travellers and if less revenue is received then it must trim its budgets and costs to remain in a stable position. If it doesn’t then its credit rating and all the loans and borrowing its racked up over the last decade suddenly become a great burden. TfL is at the mercy of the bankers just like the rest of us.
Timbeau @ 0125
Don’t forget that the Networker fleet also covers the Sheerness shuttle (2 x 2 cars) and services between Charing Cross and Gravesend/Gillingham. That gives fewer to make up TfL services to 12 car.
WW @ 2128
Well said. There is also an interesting question over the allocation of Oyster/Travelcard revenues if TfL takes over from TOCs – is the pie bigger, smaller or the same, and who then gets what cut from it?
I find it quite alarming about Mount St Tunnel.
As anomnibus says there are all sorts of voids in the chalk in South London. If we stopped the railway because of every possible one we would never run a service. And why stop at railways? One opened under the road at Greenwich a few years ago.
What concerns me is the name of Mount Street tunnel. There is no longer any Mount Street. So in the event of an emergency, collapsed ground or otherwise, the emergency services will be given the name of a street that doesn’t exist and this may well cause confusion. It ought to be renamed.
I would be happy to call it investment if the TOCs were borrowing money in the hope/expectation that the things they spend it on will bring in more revenue downstream, with which they can pay back the loan and interest. But they always insist that the money for new work (most of which is replacing existing assets) has to come from the farebox. This temporal cross-subsidy looks very like a reverse Ponzi scheme to me – money from existing customers being used to attract future ones.
It only works because they have a monopoly. If Ford or Honda put up the prices of its old outdated models to fund development of new models no-one would buy them.
@man of Kent
“There is also an interesting question over the allocation of Oyster/Travelcard revenues if TfL takes over from TOCs ”
That question already arises – there is already an allocation depending on who runs which services. For example, now that LOROL operate some services on the Forest Hill route Southern’s revenue (and costs) will have been reduced. Even if TfL takes over all services which don’t go beyond the Oyster Zone, the TOCs will still get some revenue allocation as most of them have at least some long-distance services which connect terminals with Oysterised stations in the suburbs: Bromley South, Clapham Junction, East Croydon, Surbiton, Finsbury Park, Upminster etc.
The discovery of the void was reported in 1849 – that’s AD, not BST. Why does anyone, including the writer of the article, think that NR are not fully aware of it?
If you ignore – or simply fail to look for – any subsequent documentation you will have no idea what subsequent developments there have been. The hole might have been filled in at any time since 1849 for all we know. Given the preponderance of dene holes in the area it would be very surprising if NR were not looking out for them.
The same newspaper in March 1849 could well have reported the suppression by the Austrian Imperial Army of the Hungarian seccessionists in Transylvania. However, anyone moved that that information to start a Hungarian independence movement should first check more recent history.
PoP suggests that Mount Street tunnel should be renamed because there is no longer a street nearby of that name.
Of course, anything that might help a rapid response to whatever by the emergency services is a good idea. But I suspect that if named railway tunnels are an issue in that respect, Mount Street may not be the only one with a rather unhelpful name. In the event of an emergency near Kings Cross, will the firemen be looking for a Gas Works, or taking a trip to the Danish capital?
I’ll bring my turquoise crayons in from a different thread:
[Well that’s just daring us. Not on this site please. Snip! LBM]
timbeau
Because old records get forgotten or lost.
According to your apparently sound logic, the drill-through & blockage of the GN&CRly tunnel near Old St would never have happened, because “everybody knew” that the was & is a railway tunnel down there!
Or the even worse case of a drill penetrating the central line a few years earlier, & very narrowly missing a driver ( It holed the roof/cab of a train IIRC )
[moderator’s note: timbeau did not use the phrase “everybody knows”, nor imply anything like it. On the contrary, he suggested proper searches through all records. Your point that records get lost is valid, however.]
Malcom
Please don’t!
Some years ago, working in central London, I was emerging from Tottie Ct Rd tube, to find, in the southernmost pedestrian tunnel, & youg woman, in great distress, blood running down her face, etc – I immediately “dialled” 999 on my phone – got “Ambulance” gave description & location – to get question: “Where – what’s the postcode?”
I swore as vilely as I could at that operator & then tried (dialling) again – this time I got someone sensible.
After all, there is only ONE “TCR” station in Britain.
That sort of dangerous, ignorant stupidity is guaranteed to make me lose my rag, because lives can be at stake.
@Greg Tingey
18 October 2015 at 18:53
“Err
One major advantage of a TfL takeover of the capital’s rail network is that it allows for a much more joined-up approach to transport infrastructure planning.
The Dangleway, you mean?
Cough.
Or the cancellation of Cross-River Tram?
Or the “garden bridge”, oh dear.”
Yes, all crass decisions taken by one particular mayor, but which surely can’t be taken as an overall judgement on TfL’s effectiveness in running London’s transport infrastructure.
Regarding SWT, having had to put up with them for the last 2o years I can’t wait to see the back of them. Awful company which has not the slightest interest in integration of the transport network in London or anywhere else. Remember “Oyster Extension Permits”, anyone?
@Anomnibus, 24 October 2015 at 13:20
At the line speed of 60 mph., it would take a freight train or skip-stopping passenger service passing through the station without calling there a little over 15 seconds to pass through the Maryon Park tunnels and reach the level crossing, which means the level crossing cycle would need to be started some distance to the east of the new station.
For a non-stop, the presence of a station platform a little closer to the crossing would make no difference whatsoever. The warning sequence will start with the approaching train in the same place as today. For a stopper, the closer platform may, in fact, result in a slightly shorter road closed time for a movement in the up direction. The crossing attendant is well aware of which trains stop and which don’t and can adjust the start of the sequence accordingly. Automated crossing can also be configured to handle stopping and non-stopping trains differently. AHBs often have stopping/non-stopping controls although that type wouldn’t be suitable for such an urban site. I would imagine a modern automated obstacle detection full barrier installation could be configured in a similar way if so desired.
On such a busy route so close to London, I think grade separation really should be considered very seriously when the crossing renewal comes up. Although it would be controversial building a new road through the park over the tunnel, the land costs could be quite modest and no demolition would be required, although earthworks could be significant, cutting into and retaining the hillside above the tunnel. The crossing would then no longer be a constraint on service frequency or a risk to operations.
@Greg/Mark T
Records do indeed get lost, as the Old Street Auger demonstrates. But it was the over-the-top call for “an immediate and strict speed limit through the tunnels of 5mph” simply because the writer had come across a 166-year old newspaper article that I was questioning. An enquiry to Network Rail as to whether they were aware of this history might lead to such measures having to be taken, or (much more likely) might lead to a reassuring reply that the tunnels are regularly monitored and/or the hole filled in over a century ago.
As has been mentioned above, anyone planning new work in the area, be it new houses or a new road to bypass the level crossing, would be well advised to do a ground survey first, and the local council is well aware of this. (My sister, who used to live close to where the A2 collapsed at Blackheath Hill, had her house insurance premium weighted against such events even though it was clearly documented that the house was built on the definitely cavity-free filled-in cutting of the Greenwich Park branch).
@Man of Kent
I’d forgotten the Sheppey shuttle (and the Medway Valley line if that uses 465s as well) . These will change the numbers slightly: Conversely, is there any reason why the Gillngham semi-fasts shouldn’t be twelve car as well? (After all, they don’t call at Dockyard!)
Steve – re. SWT
A lot of SWT’s ghastliness is IMHO, down to their boss (or ex-boss, now, I think )[SNIP – we don’t do personal attacks on this site, even if apparently supported by Wikipedia]
I’m not sure the Charlton Lane level crossing is a show-stopper. Charlton Lane is not a main road, it’s a rat run which already has width restrictions and traffic calming. I suspect a lot of local residents would be more than happy to see it closed. There is still access to the east via Woodland Terrace and Prospect Vale, to the west via Harvey Gardens and Charlton Church Lane, and at its southern end.
Resiting Woolwich Dockyard station slightly to the west is an opportunity that is unlikely to come around again. It is justified in my view by the significant amount of housing planned in the vicinity. Closure would be short-sighted – I certainly believe it would be easier to get agreement to close the level crossing than the station.
@Ned
Good points there. Closure to vehicles would be a good result, saving the no doubt considerable expense of a new and controversial road through the park. Pedestrians would still be able to use the footbridge, but there would probably be pressure to retain an accessible route, so either the footbridge may have to be replaced with a ramped version, or perhaps a safe, lighted and accessible alternative route over the railway could be created through the park.
The station won’t close. It has not proved possible to close a station that doesn’t have any trains or passengers (Newhaven Marine), nor any one of dozens of stations around the country where daily passenger numbers can be counted on one thumb.
What *might* happen is that the number of trains calling at the station could be reduced, so that 10 car trains are allocated to the services that do call, and 12 cars to the rest. It is entirely possible, if slightly inefficient from a rolling stock point of view, to have 10 car diagrams captive to services on that line. It would be substantially cheaper than relocating the station also. This could keep things going till new stock arrives with SDO. If new, SDO compatible, stock does arrive it could be allocated to this line specifically; it doesn’t have to be full fleet replacement.
@ Mr Greg Tingey 07:38
I had a similar experience when I saw a horrific road accident whilst driving somewhere approximately 60miles from where I live. The operator taking my 999 call was clueless unless I could provide more accurate location details, yet I told them the name of railway station directly outside where the accident occurred. How is anyone expected to know the postcode in such a situation?
It would even be possible to run all services as 12 car in the peak, omitting Dockyard, but as eight or ten in the off peak, including Dockyard (I’m sure I’ve heard of other stations which get a better off peak than peak service). It would also be possible to run a “Parliamentary” service to keep the station nominally open.
However, to do so might have undesirable consequences for crowding at Woolwich Arsenal. It would be cynical to suggest that reducing the service whilst there are no residents would reduce the political outcry – and of course it would affect the value of the land being redeveloped.
Something I’ve wondered about LO – the more they expand the LO network, the more complex it becomes. Wayfinding for a passenger becomes increasingly difficult – it’s really time for TfL to devise a naming system for their lines. Emulating the Underground model would be unlikely – trying to come up with a load of line names would be quite a task, but they should consider adopting an alphanumeric style of line labelling, along the lines of New York or German U-Bahns. O1 Northbound to Watford, O4 to Clapham Junction….?
@Greg (point of fact, reference to SWT’s “ex-Boss”)
Not sure who you mean by “now-ex-boss”
Sir(!) Brian Souter is, as far as I am aware, still chairman of Stagecoach Group, which he founded 35 years ago. His sister and co-founder still owns a major shareholding but has had no executive role for many years.
The most recently-ex MD of SWT, Andy Pitt (the third to hold the post in the 20 years since privatisation) retired about four years ago. As far as I am aware Tim Shoveller has not left yet (although he was a no-show at the latest meet-the-managers forum!)
(Names obtained from the attached, which may be of interest).
http://www.shrug.info/THE%20ASTONISHING%20HISTORY%20OF%20SWT%20UNDER%20STAGECOACH%20%5BAUTUMN%202015%20UPDATE%5D.html
Oh, and actually re. Pedantic’s point that there would be no benefit in a direct service from Gatwick to Northampton/Milton Keynes. If you start at intermediate stations such as Hemel Hemptead or Watford, travel time going across London to get to Gatwick is actually marginally slower. However this involves two changes – presumably struggling with heavy luggage up and down escalators – and does not take into account the delays of the ever-present Tube failures. Extending the Southern service directly to Gatwick makes complete sense and would probably turn out to be incredibly popular.
@Disappointed Kitten, 25 October 2015 at 18:20
I like the idea of line numbers. That could also be applied to the more complex Underground lines and light rail networks with multiple branches e.g. M1, M2 etc for Metropolitan, D1, D2 etc for District. L1, L2 etc for DLR. For the Overground network the existing orbital lines could stay orange as O1, 02 etc as you suggest, but each group of terminal lines under TfL control could have a distinct identity, prefix initial and map colour supplemented by line numbers, otherwise we could end up with a future overground map consisting of all the main line inner suburban services confusingly coloured orange! For instance, Waterloo services could be prefixed W (West, Waterloo?) and could use the same colour as the W&C which could be numbered in the same series as (say) W1.
Disappointed Kitten,
I don’t think I actually said that. The point I was making was that there is no realistic way a to have fast service from East Croydon to Shepherd’s Bush nowadays as part of a East Croydon – Milton Keynes or any other similar service. If people are happy with the time penalty because they have luggage or other reasons then that is fine.
The previous service served Gatwick when the railway was less crowded and the West London line had fewer stations. What I wanted to stifle was the notion that the former Gatwick service could be revived with anything like the same timings.
@Disappointed kitten
“trying to come up with a load of line names would be quite a task,”
Challenge accepted:
Premier Line (Watford – Euston ex LNWR route)
Brunel Line (ELL, through Marc Isambards tunnel)
Goblin Line
Emerson Line
Enfield Line
Chingford Line
suggestions for the NLL/WLL? Orital Line? Heath Line? Brondesbury Line? E&WID&BJ Line
Names don’t have to have any real significance of course – How about the Elizabeth Line?
@Disappointed kitten and others – the last timeI suggested this on this site, I was slapped down (for no good reason that I could see) . However,I think you are absolutely right (and we really don’t have to wait for a TfL takeover); the whole of the London suburban network should be numbered (names are a frivolity and get pretty tricky once you get to the multiple variations on some basic TOC routes) – fun though that may be. I would also add in the DLR as getting too complex for ease of recognition – again I have been savaged for this but ( as a mere gentleman, rather than a player in the field of route numbering), I note that if it’s desirable to number bus routes, then it cannot be undesirable to number other complex transit systems – the mode is irrelevant to the argument.
Timbeau; if the ELL is the Brunel Main Line (BML) then the NLL can be the Brondesbury Main Line (BML2).
Re Mark T:
After just finished a nice artisan calvados and maybe feeling a bit cynical, my spontanious comment is “there are some intelligent people even in England”!
Of course this is by no means a fair judgement – but I think there is wee bit of truth in my thoughts…
(And in my hometown Stockholm SL had a try at abolishing route numbers on the metro for at least 10 years, now they are back and everybody is happy. So stupidity is transnational – for better or for worse!)
@Graham H
I agree – it was short-sighted in the extreme to get rid of headcodes. Much easier to recognise a 16 or 42 or 73 or rather than an undifferentiated “Guildford” (when a passenger actually wanting to go to Guildford doesn’t want any of them!)
even “via Xxxxx” is harder to make out at a distance – 17 characters instead of two!
I’m with Graham H on line names vs. numbers. Numbers are not only easier to understand (and squeeze into the increasingly cluttered maps), but they’re generally easier for foreign tourists to grasp and pronounce.
What’s more, there’s no rhyme or reason to most of the names in use today. The original Metropolitan Railway ran from Farringdon to Paddington, but this is now labelled as either “Circle” or “Hammersmith & City”. The Circle Line isn’t, and the Hammersmith & City serves no station named “City”. Then there’s the Bakerloo, which has never terminated at either Baker Street or Waterloo for any useful length of time. Or bizarre logic of naming the Tube line that extends furthest into south London the “Northern Line”. Is the intention specifically to annoy visitors to the city?
For a country that has a renowned reputation for good design, including Beck’s original maps, London’s public transport is currently a very poor advertisement.
I content, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that named lines should be dropped. There is no sensible reason for them aside from a misplaced sense of nostalgia. It’s high time London’s Underground map went digital!
The case for the prosecution rests, m’lud!
@timbeau – indeed; I certainly wouldn’t be prescriptive as to the form of the numbering (the Swiss and German approach does seem to cover it.) To give an example of the nonsense we are about to embark upon – we shall shortly add CrossRail1 and then Cross Rail 2 , and we shall have LO routes that meet only accidentally with each other in remote suburbs but between which other, quite differently designated, routes provide a better connexion. Frankly, the travelling public doesn’t care a damn whether the route is (a) wholly TfL owned and operated (LU), (b) partly TfL owned and wholly operated (CR); not at all TfL owned but wholly TfL operated (LO); (d) TfL concession (DLR); (e) owned and run by someone else (TOC/NR). They just want to get from a to b quickly. I would go further and say that this petty obsession with ownership structures (supra) actually gets in the way of an efficient use of the system.
@ Graham H – do you really believe your final remark about ownership getting in the way of an efficient use of the system? I would ask “whose use?” because I can’t see passengers being that confused by something you earlier said they were unlikely to be aware of. Passengers get confused by a lack of geographic knowledge of an immensely complex city and by a complex transport network. They are obviously choices that can be made about service structures – do you have simple core services run frequently but which serve only part of the potential market or do you have something more involved / complicated that serves a wider market but at a likely higher cost and with other compromises like lower frequencies?
London, of course, is “lumbered” with decades or even centuries of historical travel patterns which have locked in particular services that no one would dare change. Look what happened when bus route 13 was threatened and there was an election looming!
Perhaps I am unobservant but I don’t see massive crowds of people struggling to get around on the buses, tubes and trains. I do fall across visitors and more occasional users who don’t have the requisite knowledge and look puzzled. They’re usually easily helped.
Meanwhile I’m off to hide under a table while everyone discusses line names, numbers, system maps etc again. Give me a nudge when you’re all done. 🙂 🙂
@WW
“do you really believe your final remark about ownership getting in the way of an efficient use of the system?”
When you get nonsense like this
http://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/media/25034/cross-country-route-map_480x808.jpg
Try using that to find out how to get from Manchester to Glasgow
Or even this
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Tube_map_1908-2.jpg
So the spaghetti-in-tomato-sauce we now have in east London is nothing new
@WW -In a sense I agree with you that regular users don’t bother with line identifiers; if they’re like me (and I suspect,you and most contributors to the site) one simply threads one’s way around via well-trodden and long-programmed routes which you could probably do with your eyes shut. However, we are now at a time of very rapid change both in service patterns/opportunities and of ownership. The discusssions on this very site about specific interchanges and the need to “simplify” or rationalise the S London network illustrate that quite clearly. To respond to that by designating routes according to the mix of ownership and operation seems odd, if not whimsical. (I never travel without my contracts manager and legal team…)
While numbers are a very good idea we are lumbered with the folk memory of the ex-Southern region numbers which were over complex and not designed with passenger information as a priority. Any numbering system must be clear and transparent and simple.
@timbeau -how very curious that the only department store specifically mentioned on the tube map should be the A&N! Swan and Edgar and the Civil Service Stores (“Open to Alll”*) would be turning in their collective commercial graves…
* I was once travelling down Victoria Street in a bus, and passing the not-yet-renamed Army and Navy stores, when the Americans opposite noticed the shop’s facade and turned to each other remarking “I guess it must be for the military” … True 150 years ago but …
I suspect that map was specially overprinted by the A&N stores for its own advertising purposes. here is an unadulterated version
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/65198000/jpg/_65198663_1908undergroundmap.jpg
The point I wanted to make was the apparent absence of the inner and middle circle services.
The A&N (and indeed Civil Service and Millets Army Surplus) stores had strayed somewhat from their original descriptive titles by the time the names vanished friom the high street. But then so did Radio Rentals – and Carphone Warehouse is an example still going strong.
But I do remember the exchange in the first episode of Dad’s Army when Captain Mainwaring misunderstood Private Godfrey to say that he had served in two of the armed forces, rather than as an assistant in a shop in London.
@quinlet: I don’t know which folk you are remembering. Certainly some people believed that SR headcodes were “difficult”. (And I still think 59 should be the Brighton Line). But they had an exact meaning, exactly as complex as the system they were describing.
If we want numbers, they must have an exact meaning too. Otherwise they are pretty useless – if you want Teddington and you have a list in your head of which numbers go to Teddington, you are sure to give up on the numbers if it turns out that they don’t always.
If quinlet wants the numbers to be clear and simple, and I want them to be accurate, the only way we can both be satisfied is if the services are first made clear and simple. And we have just discovered in recent discussion, that making the services simple is, err, not a simple task!
@Graham H: I don’t know why whatever you said about line numbering was moderated away (and a quick search has only found other mentions by you of the moderation, without discovering the original material). But it could have been general frustration by moderators, that in our collective memory such discussion never seems to “get anywhere”. I think WW has a similar feeling. (It could also have been related to the perceived importance of whatever discussion it was a digression from). Certain other topics are either banned, or strongly discouraged, on similar grounds.
But, in the vague hope that we might “get somewhere” (whatever that might mean), we will not interfere with it, at least for a while. In my own particular case, I have already found myself sticking a toe in the numbering water, so if the topic has to be chopped again, it might be by a different pair of scissors than the ones I have been entrusted with. (And no, I don’t run with them).
Numbers can also mean different things to different users – note the puzzlement caused by the “1757 from Waterloo to Waterloo” – even those aware of the “roundabout” services need to know whether it’s a Hounslow or a Kingston, and which way round its going. It starts out called “Strawberry Hill”, then becomes “Richmond” and finally becomes a “Waterloo” – but the front blind rarely gets changed and the rear blind never.
Far easier to recognise it as a “21” (or “32” in the reverse direction – Hounslows are 87 and 89).
Portsmouth Line passengers would recognise 81-84 as theirs. Southampton/Bournemouth had the 90s. Generally the more stops, the higher the number.
On the eastern and Central sections there was the additional commonly-known recognition factor that evens were West End (Victoria/CX) and odds were City (CSt/Blackfriars/London Bridge)
@ Malcolm – my remark was in the context that while I understand the points people make about service “IDs” there are many ideas but never much of a conclusion. I take Graham H’s point about being familiar with the network – by and large I can go “on auto pilot”. However there are places where I certainly can’t (that south of the Thames land!) and I have to check departure boards, maps, platform numbers etc like everyone else. Provided the boring bits of kit like train and platform describers / monitors are working then there’s little problem. Ditto for finding bus stops etc – I’ve used a shed load of new bus routes recently and only had one glitch in all that time.
I am just not particularly convinced that the system is as “broken” as people suggest provided the basics are working. As I said earlier I do not see mass crowds of people unable to travel. We have people from all over the world working in and around London and they seem to cope. They may not be at “London Reconnections Expert” standard but then who is? I’m certainly not when it comes that funny place called South London and the Home Counties. Others here have vastly better knowledge than I do about the rail services that run.
@WW good points, particularly about the information systems. The SR headcodes were conceived in a time when many country stations only had a porter mumbling something imperceptible, so looking at the front of the train was really helpful. Nowadays you have to go a long way from London before finding a station without “next train” displays. Even Marlow has one, though the trains only ever go to Bourne End or Maidenhead. And it’s quite hard to even see the front of the train, what with yellow lines and stuff.
At Wimbledon the District line indicators have been broken for a few weeks, so we are back to porters mumbling something incomprehensible over the tannoy. Somehow they manage to garble the actual relevant bit of information when announcing (every couple of mins) “next city train, platform 3” – where the useful piece of info is the platform number. Public speaking is a skill not everyone has.
Route numbers would not help here, but they may make maps easier to decipher.
Just as background for those who don’t recognise precisely what those train headcodes meant to the commuter (on the Southern Region at least), please see this page:
http://www.semgonline.com/headcodes/eheadcodes.html
from which this is the set from the BR(S) 1961 and 1981 era:
http://www.semgonline.com/headcodes/eheadcodes/eheadcodes02.html
Indeed, not only did the commuter but also others such as the station staff recognise the routes designated through their stations as the trains approached just as easily as any London bus route today (the latter generally without specifying more than route number and destination, so no different). It might appear complicated on the trains but of course there were only particular services, with their own headcode(s) serving stations away from the termini. At the termini, we were blessed with comprehensive departure boards with platform indicators (I naturally refer ‘normal running days’).
A typical set of views of the headcodes on trains here:
http://www.semgonline.com/gallery/class421_01.html
Headcodes were familiar enough to the general public in the 1920s that they could be referenced in advertisements
http://www.gcrauctions.com/zGraphicsIndividual136/S136L002.jpg
timbeau, – I seem to remember the Hounslow loop services were “O” or “89”, not “87” . Was this one of the services HOVIS used for their once famous adverts?
The problem with the Southern headcodes is that, in some ways they were too precise as they were designed not, primarily, for passengers. So that there were separate codes for empty stock to depots and for short workings. Even then they were not absoutely foolproof, so that, for example, the one peak hour service between Ashford and Tonbridge that does not stop at Pluckley, while stopping at all other intermediate stations, did not have its own separate code and could, therefore, cause some confusion.
A passenger focussed numbering system which also included destinations (pretty similar to buses) would inevitably be much simpler and, therefore, easier to understand, even though it might not give platform or singalling staff the precision that the old SR headcodes achieved and which Malcolm praises. Perhaps, though, that degree of precision on the train headcode is no longer needed for either?
@WW – Idon’tbelieve the system is “broken”, merely that it could be better.Your point about the need for, and availability of real time displays – which I wholly endorse – deals with only half the problem, however. Like most (all?) journey planners, the assumption with PIS is that you know precisely where and when you want to go, and any intermediate connexions will be available. To take a trivial example from my next village- it has a thrice weekly bus service and if you interrogate Surrey’s info systems that’s apparently the only way of getting there. Look at the bus map and a complete bus timetable and you can see that there is an hourly bus service down the neighbouring main road whence a 15 minute stroll will bring you to the selfsame village.
With the tube, none of this matters (and it may be that’s what colours your answer) – you *know* that there will always be a frequent onward connexion and that interchange is easy. Most journeys are only one change away, a few two. All you really need is a tube map. Compare that with S London (to drag this back on topic) – unless you are familiar with the system, if you embark on a journey that isn’t completely on one line, you are faced not only with uncertainties about where to change and how frequent the next service will be,but when you get to the change point, you may well be faced with a plethora of services of unknown mien. Compare and contrast with, say , the bus stop spider maps.
@ Graham H: ‘I note that if it’s desirable to number bus routes, then it cannot be undesirable to number other complex transit systems – the mode is irrelevant to the argument.’ Well, actually I think it might be. The travelling public, and I suspect, the contributors to this site obviously have a far more intimate relationship with a train line than a bus route, and while they are quite prepared to use numbers for the latter I believe there’s a clear preference by commuters for some less abstract designation for their regular train journey. Where I currently reside, in Seoul, for example, all the inner lines are identified by numbers (1-9) but the foreign community here almost always refers to them by their colour: the green line, the orange line, etc. Why is this? I think it’s simply that for most people names are more ‘approachable’, more accessible and ultimately more memorable.
Now for renaming self-contained branches of the Overground I’m not advocating the use of nonce creations such as (ugh) ‘Silverlink’ or the like, which several commentators have rightly taken issue with above, but surely certain established appellations such as ‘the Goblin Line’ would be acceptable? Also, why not re-institute perfectly sensible geographical names such as the North London Line, the East London line, etc, which have the additional value of familiarity?
@jas – I wasn’t advocating any particular system- names are good if memorable but London is perhaps too large for that approach (and it doesn’t easily lend itself to the complexities of the S London network, alas). Not sure about bus routes -attempts to name rather than number bus routes seem to be as transient as the actual routes – except in London – and that is an issue that the bus operators don’t like to be told about. And some of the route names are frankly daft – we have one in Guildford called the Kite – the reason for this is apparent only when you look at the map…(and no one other than an LR contributor would need to travel even half the route so its name means nothing to the punters). [Then there is the problem of multiple uses of the same route numbers in the same area – small prize to Basingrad which until recently had two routes 1 and a route named “Premier” – but that’s probably too far offtopic ].
@Castlebar
“I seem to remember the Hounslow loop services were “O” or “89”, not “87” . Was this one of the services HOVIS used for their once famous adverts?”
You must go back a long way to remember letter codes – 2-digit numerical codes were introduced by the Southern in 1929 although existing suburban stock continued to use letter codes until withdrawal in the 1960s. Hounslow Loop services were indeed “O” (as indicated in the key on the advert I linked to) if going anticlockwise. Clockwise ones added a bar over the letter. (One or two dots could also be added for more variety)
The codes were indicated by stencils covering an illuminated opal glass plate. Only ten were provided – H,O,V,I,S, P, U,N,T, and L, but by inserting them upside down or back to front, passable representation of the letters A, d, and J were also used,
The 2-digit numerical codes also initially used stencils, and again only ten plates were provided so no multiples of 11 were used as codes until the roller blind era (and then only for non-electrified routes)
Looking at line numbering, a few months back I did this:
http://districtdavesforum.co.uk/thread/25153/london-bahn
WARNING: Here be Crayons.
@ Graham H – I am well aware of the perils of low frequency buses, having to walk to villages from main roads etc. Done plenty of planning of such journeys and occasionally made them! One recent journey was a TfL route that only runs 2 hourly and another ran only every 90 mins. Years back did the once a week bus from Hexham to Morpeth. Your description of the perils of South London rail travel is pretty much describing me – I don’t really know the lines in detail and the lowish frequencies are offputting. Things like Overground I understand as well as frequent links to places like East Croydon but I couldn’t tell you where trains go to from West Dulwich or Crofton Park. I do, however, remain sceptical that giving the services a letter or numeric identifier would make it any easier for me given the service patterns change by day of the week and between peak and off peak. That’s back to Quinlet’s observation about headcodes being complex if what they have to represent is also complex. The breezy understanding all the “south of the Thames” LR blog posters have of their rail services is just the same that I have of the tube network having used it for decades. I dare say if I forced myself to ride all the south of the Thames suburban lines regularly for six months then I’d know them inside out.
The clearest demonstration that London Overground needs some differentiation of its services is found by following its Twitter account. Relatively few people are interested in the full range of LO service updates, they really need separate Twitter feeds for the “Orbital” services, the Watford line and the NE London radial services. Every line needs a designation; it can be a name, it can be a number, but it definitely should not be the names of the 2 end points – that is the biggest problem for tourists trying to navigate the Paris Metro, so let’s not repeat it.
@WW – I suppose the simple answer is that some form of differentiation between routes does at least warn/clarify would – be punters that the S London network is not the tangled web of services that it seems to be to those who haven’t lived there.
@Steve L
“Every line needs a designation; it definitely should not be the names of the 2 end points – that is the biggest problem for tourists trying to navigate the Paris Metro, so let’s not repeat it.”
Paris Metro Lines have numbers – the terminus names are only used to identify direction. Is “Direction Wimbledon” any less confusing than “westbound” (for a line that runs up and down on the map)
The mistake the Overground does is to use terminus points only. Is a passenger from Willesden Junction to Hampstead Heath necessarily going to recognise the “Stratford to Clapham Junction/Richmond line” (all three being far-off places of which he knows little). And of course the “Highbury & Islington to Clapham Junction” line is not even the recommended route between those two points.
The advantage of numbers is that, with careful selection, they can provide useful mnomonics. As with the evens for CX and odds for CSt rule.
Consdider the DLR: if you number the routes:
1. Startford to Lewisham
2. Bank to Lewisham
3. Tower gateway to Beckton.
4. Bank to Woolwich.
5. Straford to Woolwich
6. Stratford to beckton.
Then all routes sharing tracks are either consecutive
the Lewisham branch is served by routes 1 and 2
Shadwell to West India inclusive is 2,3 and 4
Woolwich branch is 4 and 5
canning Town to Stratford International branch is 5 and 6
or simple multiples
Bank is 2 and 4
Beckton is 3 and 6
This would, I suggest, be easier for users to remember than the apparently random numbers allocated to bus routes.
Similar grouping could make Southern’s Metro network easier to understand.
I will leave the details “as an exercise for the student”
In Boulder, Colorado, the bus routes are called HOP, SKIP, JUMP, BOUND, DASH, STAMPEDE and BOLT.
In London we could have rail lines named DAWDLE, DITHER, DALLY, CREEP, TRIP, FALL, and SLITHER but probably not CRASH:-)
@ChrisMitch until recently I used Wimbledon Park station every Sunday and almost always the train describer was faulty. Apart form the Edgware Road service all other destination were covered by ‘City via Victoria’ whether terminating at Tower Hill, Barking or Upminster. I used to ‘tweet’ about it but TfL never acknowledged.
Incidentally, Network Rail at Charing Cross has been broadcasting Gillingham with a ‘hard’ G twice in all departure announcements for 19 months now. No amount of tweeting, emailing or a personal visit to the office at CX has made any difference. I suppose most Gillingham passengers travel from Victoria but there is still an error.
@timbeau I remember using Putney station before the arrival of the Class 450s and some services were formed of refurbished 4-CIGs showing 87 for the Hounslow loop.
The 455s still display the route number
http://rickinghamphotography.co.uk/site/images/phocagallery/other/rail/thumbs/phoca_thumb_l__mg_4836.jpg
http://www.railwaymedia.co.uk/EMU/455/i-4WxjsFW/1/M/455703%20455723%20Wimbledon%20100212g-M.jpg
Note that the second one, at Wimbledon, is displaying Waterloo via Kingston (21) although no-one in their right mind would use this train to go to Waterloo from there!
For Southern headcodes, the key is to recognise that you need a start, a finish and a via point to completely define the route, so taking a leaf out of the RER, we can have a three letter mnemonic code as follows:
Termini
S East London Line
T Thameslink core
V Victoria
L London Bridge (terminating)
via points
A via Forest Hill
E via Gispy Hill
I via Norbury
O via Mitcham Junction
U via Tooting
destination
B Becky Junction
C Caterham (and short workings to East Croydon)
D Dorking etc
F Epsom Downs (and short workings to Sutton)
K Tattenham Corner (via Kingswood)
P Crystal palace terminator via Forest Hill
W Wimbledon loop
X West Croydon terminator
Thus a London Bridge – Epsom Downs via Crystal Palace service would be LEF but if routed via Forest Hill would be LAF. On the return it would be FEL or FAL as appropriate. A Thameslink to Caterham would be TAC whilst a Wimbledon loop would be TUW or TOW depending which way round it goes (switching to WOT or WUT respectively somewhere on the loop).
Passengers for Sutton would recognise xOx as being the most direct from central London, but anything ending -D, -F or -W will get you there in the end.
Passengers from London Bridge to East Dulwich or Tulse Hill, for example, would learn that any train whose second character was not “A” would serve their purpose
The Outer South London Line would be identified by the outward leg (VEP or LAP) until part way round and then become PAL or PEV respectively . I did think of using the destination from the outset but although VEL is fine, the return working would be a little indecorous. Services from the east London Line to West Croydon via Gispy Hill or Tooting are not envisaged!
Philip Wylie @ 15:42
I think “City via Victoria’ or Edgware is all it is designed to do on the section south of East Putney. No amount of tweets would result in them changing the design of the underlying system.
Only the very basic level of information was provided to differentiate between destinations after Earl’s Court.
I expect the full SSR re-signalling will be the only solution now.
I’m not sure an alphabet soup of route codes would be of much help. Most of us are already used to using numbers for routes, so one option would be to assign a ‘hundred’ value to each terminus:
1xx – Victoria (Surrey side)
2xx – Victoria (Kent side)
3xx – Waterloo
4xx – Charing X
5xx – Cannon St.
6xx – London Bridge
(I think that’s all the South London termini.)
That leaves 99 code numbers for the various services from each station. Typically, tourists are more likely to be familiar with the termini than with individual stations on routes, so that’s going to be their point of reference when navigating. I.e. an updated Tube map would show “Victoria (1xx, 2xx)” to explain what services leave / arrive there.
For Thameslink, Crossrails 1, 2, etc., I think an “X” prefix is needed. The letter makes it clear that these are “cross-London” routes, with no central London terminus. “X0xx” for Thameslink (essentially “Crossrail 0”), “X1xx” for Crossrail 1, etc. In effect, these are proper cross-city ‘metro’ services and should be treated as such.
The letter prefix would therefore also be applied to the cross-city metro services north of the Thames as well: “Sxxx” for the sub-surface lines*, “Txxx” for the deep-level Tube network, “Dxxx” for the DLR, and “Oxxx” for the Overground network. Three digits should be more than enough to allow for future expansion. (If we ever reach the point where one of these networks needs four digits to describe all its routes, either London stretches from York to Hastings, or summat’s gone seriously awry!)
Note that, as modern passenger information display technology is perfectly capable of fitting “to Victoria” or “to Hastings” alongside the route code, there’s no need to have a different code for each direction. These codes are for passengers, not signallers or drivers!
Exceptions would be the “loop” routes, where two codes would be used, each representing one direction around the loop (clockwise or anti-clockwise). On-board PIDs typically display the stations a train calls at, so passengers unfamiliar with the route would still get confirmation of which way around the loop the train is going.
* (Personal preference, mainly. The sub-surface trains now look almost identical to those on the Overground network, so it makes more sense to me that they have their own identity, rather than having them lumped together with the much smaller Tube trains. The Overground network still needs to be separated though, as it makes it clear that the two systems are separate, with the “O”-prefixed routes clearly serving south London.)
timbeau: congratulations on your avoidance of uncouth language! (I think – maybe I am just an innocent and have missed something obvious…)
Even bus planners struggle with consistency of route numbering (and should any potential confusion between bus and train route numbers be avoided?)
@100andthirty:
I don’t see why anyone would get confused. Ordinary people manage to use route numbers in hundreds of other cities without issue.
Our problem is that sites like these tend to attract people with a particular interest in the field. As a result, there’s a tendency to over-think such problems.
There’s also a tendency to equate ignorance with stupidity; they are not the same thing.
All public transit users the world over understand the basic concept of route identification. Buses in London aren’t the only place where you’ll find numbers used to identify routes: they use them in Italy, Paris, New York, Hong Kong – you name it. It’s a common design feature. Most cities use the same technique for trains, railway lines, and anywhere else it could be applied to. (Why? Because it’s a common user interface. Learn the basics once, and you can apply that knowledge to all the other systems.)
It makes sense to adopt such systems for London’s own networks. There’s no good reason not to do so. You get the benefits of using a system even tourists will be familiar with. Furthermore, as TfL are going out of their way to close ticket offices on the LU network, adopting a common, global standard user interface makes sense if only to reduce the burden on the floor staff.
As an addendum to the above:
A route number should be limited to identifying the physical route the vehicle will take. It is not necessary to have a separate route code for every possible variation of said route, such skipping Woolwich Dockyard station. Nor is it necessary to have a separate code for a vehicle that is being terminated short of the end of the route. There may well be such code used internally, by the operator, but this level of detail isn’t needed by the masses.
Buses have additional bits of info next to the great big number, such as the place where the bus is going to terminate, and, if necessary, a letter to denote which particular variation of the route is being taken. (E.g. “36B”, “26X”, and so on.)
There is, again, no reason why passenger information displays, be they on the cabs and sides of trains, inside the carriages, on the platforms, or in the waiting areas, cannot provide similar supplementary information. You can even – pace Mr. G. Tingey – have spoken announcements explaining said details as well. Because that’s actually information the passengers need to know.
This isn’t the 1920s. We can automate all of the above right now. It just needs someone with the will to do it. Which is, of course, the rub.
@Anomnibus
On what basis do the masses not need such detailed information? As a member of ‘the masses’ there are occasions when I do want confirmation of just that detail for the train approaching.
Also, I recall with huge irritation occasions on which the train I and many others were on actually went to a destination totally different from that announced by platform staff. Each train is allocated a unique identifier. Why not display that on the front of the train and also display said code on platform and other displays confirming both destinations and stops?
Re: the ongoing “London Overground line names” discussion.
Speaking as someone who has actually done the “visit every London Overground Station in a day” thing…
https://ukfree.tv/styles/images/2015/London%20Overground%20Challenge.pdf
I have had plenty of time to ponder the reason why TfL designed the network without formal or informal line names.
I suspect there are two main reasons:
1) The need to have the brand-name well known. “London Overground” is the brand and modern marketing methods require that the name not be diluted with words like “Goblin”. All the features of the service – the turn-up-and-go, the staffed-stations, the early-to-late, the seven-day-a-week, the walk-though-trains (mainly) form part of a “proposition” that then requires a single set of marketing messages. This is highly effective.
2) Other than nerds like me (and others here) most REAL people don’t think about lines. Normal people use the Overground to get from their home to somewhere and back again. That somewhere might be another Overground station, or one of the interchanges to complete their journey. At a PUSH some people might change from one Overground service to another, but having observed the main points where this can happen (Clapham Junction and Willesden Junction) it isn’t very confusing “on the ground” as to where to go.
I think the TfL have done research and made a positive decision NOT to use line names (or numbers or letters or Roman numerals or hieroglyphs or mnemonics) because they are not needed in the way they would be if they joined up in the centre like the Underground.
@anonanimus
“On what basis do the masses not need such detailed information? ”
On a mass transit system skip-stopping is unusual. Short workings, although a nuisance, can be managed. If your train stops short, you just wait for the next one. (Indeed, unlike buses, you don’t have to pay again)
All those proposing complicated coding schemes for routes are over-engineering the solution, all too common in software engineering. It makes the solution fragile to change, and needs a crib sheet to be handed out to every passenger. You might as well chose random numbers and tell people to look for a 3,17,46 when they look it up on their phone or a timetable board.
Anyway the rise of the mobile world is such that before you could implement any new scheme the current 50% of passengers who have a phone app that gives them personalised advice will have risen to 95%. Its not hard for a text processor to follow a twitter feed and filter our the relevant stuff.
John B. You are not the first one here to suggest that passenger information is about to become unnecessary because of smartphones. Fortunately none of our transport providers has yet swallowed these optimistic (and curiously round-figured) notions of 50% “now”, rising “soon” to 95% takeup. Also, just think for a moment about bandwidth, tunnels, and the size of a crowd on a station concourse at a time of disruption.
@John B/Malcolm – there seem to be plenty of people out there who still see no need for a smart phone. Maybe they will all die soon, but the scale of market penetration doesn’t seem likely to accelerate any time soon. [Call me a rotten cynic,but we have been here so many times – remember pod-casts? – when people’s judgement becomes blown by the latest technology.]
@John B – you miss the point – it’s not about providing realtime information at all; it’s about having enough info to plan a journey sensibly -info before you set off, for example.
I’m puzzled. The only radio I listen to are podcasts, and I plan any unfamiliar journey on my computer, and check for disruption on the way by checking a smartphone app. Computerised maps has been about the most useful thing the internet has given me. Do people still pore over printed timetables and route maps any more before setting out in their car or on public transport?
I invented the 50% stat, but http://www.statista.com/statistics/270888/smartphone-penetration-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/ shows it to be 58% this year and rising by 4% a year.
@John B – I think you are making my point – this issue is about the nature of the information not the medium on which it is distributed . Route differentiation is part of that. No McLuhanisms here! BTW thank you for your confession. Now how, in the nicest possible way, do we know to trust you on any other point….
@John B:
The mainline network is already run using Train Reporting Numbers[1], which are, to all intents and purposes, the same thing. The head-codes displayed on old slam-door trains reminisced about in earlier posts are just the last two digits of that number.
And, again, it’s quite common to see the continental equivalents of these numbers at stations and on-board trains there too. They’re up to five digits in length in Italy, and they even say them out loud on the PAs. (“Regional Train no. 22536, from Fiumicino to Orte, is approaching platform 6. Please stand behind the yellow line!”)
It would be rather difficult to program any kind of “intelligent” train mapping and timetable app without such a coding system already in place. Computer databases are utterly reliant on ID numbers for pretty much everything.
The discussion was mainly about the networks overseen by TfL, who – London Overground network aside – don’t use the Train Reporting Number system. However, they do have their own systems, or they couldn’t possibly function.
[Superfluous text snipped. LBM]
@ John B – well yes I do use printed maps to plan journeys. I also keep a printed map in my camera bag so I can check while out and about. I will also use timetables and maps that are on line but rarely a journey planner as so many of them are hopeless. I’d rather just use maps and timetables to sort things myself. This is why I get cross at the very variable standards of local authorities when it comes to public transport info. Some are excellent with good maps, good timetables and other supporting info (e.g. service changes) that are all kept up to date. Others just say “use Traveline” and that’s it. Even Traveline is hopelessly variable with far too many regional systems with different interfaces, different functionaility etc. The concept is excellent but the execution is often dreadful. How is it I can search for any South East timetable in a “Library” facility on line but no such facility exists for North East England? Who allows this nonsense? To some extent the poor Traveline and local authority provision has prevented me making trips because there is no certainty that there are services to use or that anyone has up to date information about them. A shame but there you go.
I’ve stopped using a mobile phone to check times for a whole range of reasons including cost, battery life, creating unnecessary anxiety over making connections etc. I’ve made a load of journeys recently and nearly all have worked well (barring some appalling bus service management and curtailments at zero notice). I recognise I am probably in the “luddite” category from your perspective. I can’t afford to play the “get a new smartphone every 6/9/12 months” game nor can I commit to a high cost monthly contract scheme. I’ll always be a long way behind the curve when it comes to mobile telephony / computing capability unless they invent whizzo phones that cost £25 and tariffs that cost 2p a day.
Can mobile networks actually support 100k+ data users at a station when it all starts going wrong (as at London Bridge earlier this year.)
The networks seem to be unable to support far fewer users than that at Clapham Jn in normal week day peaks without disruption…
When I lived and worked in Paris I just had to remember to get the A1 RER on the way home. A nice simple system that could easily be replicated in London (with or without a Paris number of crossrails). Transilien (equivalent to London TOC metro services) also use a similar numbering systems. RER letter A-E and Transilien H, J, K, L, N, P, R, T, U
@ngh:
“Can mobile networks actually support 100k+ data users at a station when it all starts going wrong (as at London Bridge earlier this year.)”
Not without spending serious money on the mobile networks, which is unlikely. You’d need to over-engineer the system to cater for worst-case scenarios, rather than the typical peak usage, which adds substantially to the costs of construction and maintenance. Few companies will spend that kind of cash unless legally obliged to do so as they wouldn’t see much, if any, return on their investment.
That’s not to say that it can’t technically be done: it can. The GSM-R (and related) communication systems built for mission-critical users like railway companies and emergency services are designed to be resilient enough to handle those worst-case scenarios. But Joe Public doesn’t get to subscribe to those.
Route codes are completely unnecessary for regular travellers and commuters (many of whom could probably sleepwalk their way into the correct train if they had to!), and downright confusing bordering on useless for people new to the area (e.g. tourists, of whom there are many in London, like it or not).
Say you wanted to travel in the mid 90s from Elmstead Woods to Dunton Green (i.e. before the station had next train indicators) on a Saturday, and are new to the area and line. Without asking anyone or bothering to look things up beforehand (perhaps you’re in a rush), you see and board a train that as the number ’12’ at the front. ‘This should be ok,’ you think, ‘this is the line to Sevenoaks, there are only stopping trains from this station, so this one should get me to Knockholt.’ Except that you’ve just boarded a train that will only take you as far as Orpington……
This is an unusual example, admittedly, but you get my point. Now that just about every station with London-bound services (even ones in the deepest, darkest reaches of the Home Counties) have train indicators, what’s the point? Before, route head codes might have been useful at rural or quiet stations with no train indicators, but now they’re fairly redundant. Even so, I remember Kent Coast Electrostar sets continuing to display the headcodes on their front and side electronic destination boards with all the other route information until the mid noughties.
As for giving London Overground route numbers/letters etc., I think that will just invite further confusion without making things any simpler. I was recently in the US on a business and leisure trip (hence my prolonged absence from this forum), and had the joy of using both the Washington Metro and New York Subway. Some thoughts based on these experiences:
– The combination of route colours/letters/numbers/shapes on the New York Subway are a bloody nightmare to navigate if you’re new to the area!!!! They’re no help at all. For example, I nearly got off one of the Express trains in a panic thinking it would not stop at the station I was heading to, until I realised that it was only ‘Express’ once it reached the Bronx. Matters are not helped by the surprisingly large number of stations without train indicators, and the numerous rush-hour/weekday-only services (some of which run in one direction only). Believe me, it makes the Metropolitan line and it’s peak-hours only slow/semi-fast/fast services appear as a model of simplicity! If I as a fairly savvy, not too dumb regular public transport user could get confused, God only knows how the average New York visitor or tourist manages. One look at the Subway map will show why line names (which are used on Wikipedia) wouldn’t help either….too many interacting, overlapping routes with slow and fast services (sound familiar?).
– The Washington Metro keeps things very simple…lines are referred to by their colour. It works (as it does for the Underground) because these are largely point-to-point lines, with only a few branches. As long as the system relatively simple, they work fine and are easy to understand. However, for more complex ones such as the LO (or any of the lines south of the river, should they ever be taken over), they’re not as helpful as some people on this forum seem to think. What ARE helpful are clear destination and route descriptions on the concourse/platform/train indicators (the trains these days have them on the sides as well). Mind you, I still managed to take a train going in the wrong direction on the Metro (platform descriptions describe the terminal destination, instead of compass direction as on the Underground, or general locality as on the Subway, so again not as helpful if you’re new to the area).
@Anonymously:
Even New Yorkers think their system maps are rubbish, but it’s also a much older, and more complex, system than the relatively new one in Washington DC, so it’s an unfair comparison. NYC’s Subway dates back to 1904, while Washington DC’s opened nearly 70 years later.
But the key issue here is the user interface: the network maps.
At present, only the Tube network, which is primarily a north London network, has individually named lines, while the DLR and Overground networks are each scribbled on there in one colour each, with no distinction or hint as to what routes are actually available from anywhere on each network. And that’s before we look at the additional routes TfL want to take over.
As maps are the primary user interface for current navigation systems, the representations of both the DLR and Overground networks are effectively useless. You can’t tell by looking at any map if trains from your station go where you need to go.
Crucially, however, there simply aren’t enough colours to give each line or route one of its own. The use of colour needs to be drastically rethought, which means we’re back to using other forms of labelling. Hence line numbering.
My focus on simplification is purely to make things manageable: once you add all the south London metro routes to the existing Underground, Overground, and
Wombling FreeDLR lines, reducing clutter and complexity will be very, very hard to achieve for any conventional map of the entire system. We’re rapidly approaching the point where we may need to switch to separate “North London Tube” and “South London Metro” maps, with a “Mother Of All London Connections Map” to show how and where they connect.The bus route spider maps are a good example of how very complex transit networks can be made more ‘legible’. We have computers that can effectively automate the creation of such maps for each station, so these may play a part in future.
But my key point is that route codes are already used in other countries, with no ill effects. Italy uses five-digit codes for many of its regional trains, and they really do put them everywhere, including the passenger information displays on platforms and in waiting rooms, and in the automated public address announcements at stations. If it’s fine for them, what makes London such a special little snowflake?
For once I find myself totally agreeing with Anomnibus.
@Anomnibus -:-) (and Anonymously’s post begs the question as to how he would actually navigate his way round a complex system…)
There are issues with the app approach now – so how about we try to solve them? For the capacity worries it’s possible to install equipment to improve mobile phone coverage (already used at conferences etc.) or station wifi offers an alternative – we have it at St Pancras which is probably the most important place given Eurostar, but elsewhere could be very valuable (sadly using the Underground wifi is currently linked to British phone companies, making it useless for the foreign tourists who need it most).
In the long run I think the app advantages are compelling enough to make them inevitable – a public display can only be lowest common denominator, while a personal one can offer people information in their native language, can display appropriately for the visually impaired, and best of all can be used to check the platform while one is dashing for the entrance to the station. The pricing will eventually fall to WW levels, just as with anything else (podcasts are no longer the new cool thing but they’re absolutely a success story). And with an app most of the trouble of knowing which service is which disappears – I know I want the 18:57 on platform 9 and that’s enough. Indeed the biggest problem I have is with the loop services, where in an effort to make things friendlier the platform displays show a fake destination that doesn’t match the one my phone is telling me to look for.
Another thing that would help everyone is having platform information earlier – on the Continent it’s normal for a train’s platform to be listed in the timetable 6 months in advance, while here you’re lucky to know 10 minutes ahead of time.
Anomnibus@2354
The route codes on old slam door stock were very definitely not* the last two digits of the train reporting number, each train has a different number in the sequence normally 2 greater than the previous, with odd in one direction and even in the other.
* of course every fiftieth train in one direction will have the same two digits as the reporting number, but that’s coincidence
Whilst I commend Imm in managing to keep his comments on wi-fi etc. relevant to transport, please be aware a broader Wi-Fi etc debate is for elsewhere. This is already largely an off-topic diversion and we don’t want the off-topic diversion itself to go off-topic.
The issue about platform numbers is not quite as described. It is normal for a train’s platform (and train times) to be shown up to three months in advance and, taking Great Britain as a whole, this is what happens. There are clearly issues with this not working, particularly in the London area, and this is a known problem that Network Rail appears to be trying to fix as it used to be working.
What SFD said. Plus a clarification; train reporting numbers and route numbers are entirely different things, and should not be confused. The main point of a train reporting number is that it should be unique (or at least unique within a large area and at 24-hour day). The main point of a route number (such as might be displayed on a headcode) is that trains with the same stopping pattern, at different times, use the same number.
The functions overlapped slightly in the distant past when lineside signalmen would look at a route-number type headcode to confirm which train they were dealing with. But this role has long since disappeared, now the only readers of headcodes (if we had them) would be passengers, and perhaps platform staff.
If there was a widespread system of route numbers, then the numbers could in theory be used as part of the reporting number – this may happen in some countries.
@timbeau
I’d just like to take a moment to shoot down your suggestion of RER-style displays. It is by far and away the most confusing form of route indication I have EVER seen. It’s great for commuters, but commuters have ages to spot the patterns and the current standard of information (and in fact less than that) is good enough for commuters. The point of removing confusion from the system is for those less familiar with the system or generally less good at using large public transport networks.
@Everyone Else
The point of this discussion, as far as I can tell, is to find a means for London Overground to simplify information for passengers. The question we have to ask ourselves is what information needs conveying?
I would suggest that once a passenger gets to the station, it’s too late. There’s plenty of useful information for them, normally in the form of multiple screens telling them where their train goes and Phil Sayer blaring it out on the PA and helpful people hanging around whom one can ask “where’s the next train to………?” The issue arises beforehand. When people decide how, when and whether to make their journey.
We can go on about how everyone uses planning apps these days, but judging by the number of people still huddled around tube maps, I’d suggest that’s not the case. Planning apps are still slow and somewhat inconvenient and still kind of stupid. You still have to go “you entered ‘waterloo’, did you mean ‘Waterloo Road, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne'” and there are still a large number of people who aren’t technologically competent enough to use them.
What the London Underground/Overground map attempts to provide is a very simple diagrammatic means of telling you where you can get a train which will be available to you within 15 minutes (usually less) and where it’s going to go. OK, so sometimes there are branches to cope with and trains terminating short, but that isn’t too much information that needs to be garnered from more real-time sources. If I want to get from Finchley Road to Newbury Park, I can see, without too much thinking, how I can get there and there’s a general promise that it’ll be fairly hassle free.
The DLR provides a mild conundrum, but again, it can be used while keeping the promise of the tube map, that you can show up and get a train. It’s a got a few more branches than the average tube line, but if I show up at Shadwell, I can be pretty confident of getting a train to Beckton within 15 mins.
The addition of the London Overground has already somewhat “broken the promise”. Both the Watford DC and the Romford-Upminster run at 20 minute frequencies and the Southbury Loop runs at a half hourly frequency and you also get the “lie” that if you show up at Chingford, you can get a train to London Fields without changing. A person unfamiliar with the network might genuinely struggle with this and once the promises start being broken, it reduces the effectiveness of the map as a whole. “Well, I thought this meant I could go there, but last time, I had to wait 25 minutes and I’m in a rush, maybe I’ll just get a taxi/drive”.
Once you start adding in vast swathes of the South London railway network, which currently works at a base frequency of 2 tph, with lines going all over the place (as our rather lengthy attempts at simplification have shown), there needs to be some means of explaining this situation to passengers before they choose to travel, ie: when they first decide to look at the map.
Currently, if you rock up at Balham, you might expect a direct service to Beckenham Junction. You would be wrong in your assumption and spend some time in confusion staring at the Customer Information Screens wondering why all the trains go to London Bridge/Epsom/Sutton/Caterham, before finally deciding to get the next train to Crystal Palace and change.
What we seem to be try to do in this thread currently is come up with the perfect solution. The perfect solution is too complicated. What we need is the good enough solution. How can we group together the service patterns to ensure that when someone who’s not confident navigating the London Rail Network can make a reasonable decision about their journey by only consulting the tube map. Because that is exactly how people navigate London. They don’t get an A to Z out, they don’t type stuff into their phones, they go and look at the tube map.
[Moderator’s note. I was very much inclined to trim this message. It is too long for our usual style of discussion. I have left is as a concession to a relatively new contributor, and because it does pursue a consistent theme. But would glbotu and everyone else please try hard to keep within one screenful, or thereabouts. Otherwise I’m afraid many of you may soon start to find bits snipped out. No names, but it should be evident to anyone who some of the snip-victims might be. Malcolm]
[ Of course a screenful is a very variable quantity in this day and age so I would suggest around 40 lines as a guidance of the normal maximum. We are reluctant to make it a hard and fast rule. Remember people read stuff on mobile phones and very long comments are liable to be even more ignored on those devices than on a computer screen. I have already deleted one long rambling off-topic comment today. PoP]
Agreeing with Anomnibus I think many commentators are confusing the needs of planning with reassurance and detailed information en-route and confusing the needs of regular travellers with those of occasional travellers.
Of course regular travellers are highly familiar with their own lines, pay little attention to planning (they know their journeys and timetables) and need little detailed en-route information or reassurance unless things go wrong. I have regularly seen regular travellers quite confused and missing trains when things happen like a platform alteration.
Occasional travellers are quite different. Their needs for planning purposes are far more serious and maps which don’t give you a clue as to whether you will need to change trains or not are less valuable than those that can give you that information. For a complex network numbers are, perhaps, the best way of doing this and the vast improvement in comprehensibility that spider maps brought to the London bus network just demonstrates this.
Journey planners are all very well but they do have their own built in assumptions which may be very conservative. This occurs, for example, on the time taken to interchange. I regulalrly travel from Canterbury to Heathrow via St Pancras and Paddington and the journey planners all allow the best part of an hour from St Pancras to Paddington. This is certainly cautious and that may well be the best approach. If you have limited mobility or are trying to shepherd a family with small children and suitcases, it may well take you that long. However, knowing the route and travelling on my own, I know that an 8.40 arrival in St Pancras will get me on to the 9.10 Heathrow Express, rather than the 9.40 that the journey planner suggests.
They are also very sensitive and could well recommend a longer and more expensive route just to save a couple of minutes – the journey planner will always tell me to go from Canterbury to London Bridge via St Pancras and the Northern line even though the direct train is far more confortable (no changes), much cheaper and only a couple of minutes slower.
Anomnibus
at 23:54
The train reporting number last two digits are not route defining, they clock up over the course of a day, if anything it is the letter that defines the route.
@anonymously
“Say you wanted to travel in the mid 90s from Elmstead Woods to Dunton Green you see and board a train that has the number ’12’ at the front. ‘This should be ok,’ you think, ‘this is the line to Sevenoaks, there are only stopping trains from this station, so this one should get me to Knockholt.’ Except that you’ve just boarded a train that will only take you as far as Orpington……”
What’s the problem – you’ve got closer to Knockholt – it is unlikely you’ve been overtaken by a direct train (as you observe, all trains from Elmstead Woods are all-stations) , and there may be more trains from Orpington to Knoockholt than there were from Elmstead Woods. The usual maxim is “take the first train and change where necessary”. (On my line, they delight in keeping you guessing: the “take the first train” advice is good if, as they often do, they are starting your train part way down the line, but not if they decide instead to run fast to the first station after the junction you are waiting at)
@quinlet
“the vast improvement in comprehensibility that spider maps brought to the London bus network just demonstrates this.”
Even so, they are not perfect. I can think of an example not far from where I’m sitting which only shows very circuitous routes to New Cross and Kings Cross, when there are much more direct routes available a few minutes walk away.
@glbotu is spot on: taking over the S London network adds a great deal of complexity and low frequency services. As many remarked earlier in the thread, it would be lovely if a TfL takeover could produce a simple, high frequency network – it isn’t going to do that any time soon, partly because of the cost and partly because of the uproar at disrupting existing travel patterns. So, we are where we are and better “strategic”* info seems the cheapest way of making an instantaneous improvement at low cost. No concrete need be poured.
* this is essentially quinlet’s point. By strategic, I mean information about the system layout and frequencies that would be used before setting off. Any old fool can use “tactical” information and cast themselves into the system using “next bus/train in x minutes going to y”. But soon on their trip, they will find they have been led about and wasted time and distance (actually, the won’t be aware of this because they never asked in the first place) , or – in rural areas such the Hexham-Morpeth example quoted – left up the creek without a bus until next week… NOTE: I am completely neutral as to what medium this info might use. I always like the feel of paper books myself, but a lifetime of accumulating the country’s timetables has made me convert to digitised storage and this can easily be accessed whilst sitting in the station waiting room.
I agree with Graham’s point about strategic information. When planning a recent Norway trip, I was frustrated because there appeared to be no direct buses from Narvik to Tromsoe on the day I wanted to travel. This seemed so improbable, there were adequate buses on any earlier day, so I eventually sought reassurance from as many (human) travel enquiry places as I could, and they all told me it was a regular service, same times every day all year, nothing special about my chosen Monday. Indeed the bus turned up at the normal time – the glitch was in the data in the (otherwise commendable) travel planner.
@timbeau…Oops, my example was meant to refer to Dunton Green throughout (which is sufficiently far from Orpington to make taking a bus or taxi to there unviable).
In the nineties, there was only one stopping train per hour from London that continued past Orpington to Sevenoaks (headcode 14, before you ask!). There were no extra all-station services between Orpington and Sevenoaks (e.g semi-fasts) to make up the difference.
‘OK, so you could just wait at Orpington for half-hour to get the next stopper’, you might ask. Except that our punter, realising their train isn’t going any further, panics and takes the first train they see continuing down the main line without checking the train indicators (in the days when they were flapper-boards). Imagine their horror when they realise that there train is speeding past all stations on its way to Sevenoaks. And to top it all off, an unsympathetic ticket inspector fines them £10 for over-travelling on their ticket.
‘Sod this….I’m never taking the train again.’ And I wouldn’t blame them!
@Graham H….now there’s no need to be rude. The NY Subway is pretty much as complex a system as you’ll find anywhere. My point was that a proliferation of letters/number/shapes/colours doesn’t necessarily make things easier to navigate for the newbie. I’m normally the type person who if dumped in the middle of an urban area without access to car could still find their way home by public transport if they had to. I think that glbotu has got this spot on.
@All:
Yes, I realise the Train Reporting Numbers change according to time as well. Sorry. Serves me right for writing a post while working on a translation at the same time.
Simpler, consistent route numbers that define the tracks a train will take, and its end points are needed then. These could be generated from the Train Reporting Numbers, or simply plucked from a suitable database.
Any additional (i.e. “tactical”, to borrow from Graham H) info can be provided separately, as is already done with other modes of transport. E.g. “70 Orpington via Penge East, calling at all stations”. Even the 20-year-old Network has a scrolling dot-matrix display on the cab that can show that information. The dot-matrix platform info displays also show similar details.
All that’s needed is that consistent code number to appear on the maps and show what the route options are – i.e. provide the “strategic” information needed to work out how to get from A to B in the first place.
The only reason I want London’s rail network brought under tfL control is the issue of accountability.
On information, London is pretty good – provided you don’t rely on the Tube map, all the information is available in one place on the Interweb. Sadly, this is not the case elsewhere. Researching buses in Oxford recently to get from the station to the hospital, I was struck by the patchiness of the coverage until I realised that there was no one site which covers everything. Depending which hit you take from Google you will either get the services of one operator or the other, and you need to realise that there are two to get the whole picture. (And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if someone were to tell me there are actually three, so I still haven’t got the whole picture………)
Similarly, my first attempt to find buses to Watlington made it appear that it had no bus services at all except on Sundays!
Route numbers – seems a sensible solution to me. Two characters is probably not enough – the old Southern Region often used the same code three or even four times for non-overlapping routes (e.g Victoria – Orpington and CX- Bexleyheath on the SE, plus SC and SW routes I don’t recall), and the Overground already needs twelve route numbers to cover all the branches, but three characters is surely enough. Bus users seem to cope with three digit numbers.
The suggestion, made at the time headcodes were dropped, that they were “too confusing” suggests that the speaker thought train users are not as clever or well-educated as bus users, which seems contrary to the usual perceived stereotypical demographics.
The phrase “calling at all stations” seems to have fallen totally out of use these days. I suspect this is because it was always dependent on a certain level of map-reading ability, which is probably achieved by 98% of the population, but catering also for the last 2% has gained (rightly in my view) more importance recently. A list of stations served, however irritating to the ears of the regular traveller, is pretty unambiguous.
(People taking the phrase literally (probably only Neddie Seagoon) might get on an all-stations Dover to Tonbridge and expect to be taken to Aberystwyth.)
@Anonymously – I’m sorry if you thought that rude;it wasn’t intended to be – merely a puzzled question. I very much agree that one doesn’t need to complicate the matter; it ‘s inevitably a question of degree – clearly, not differentiating routes is a nonsense (imagine the London bus map stripped of all route numbers – that’s what TfL face with the S London rail network just now).
@timbeau – and because evening bus services, if they are to be tendered, may end up in separate hands to the allday operation, you get the nonsense of routes that appear to start at about 19.00hrs, particularly if they embody a slight variation on the daytime routeing. The CMA would, of course, be proud.
[CMA presumably Competition & Markets Authority (“We work to promote competition for the benefit of consumers”), rather than Certified Management Accountant]
@Malcolm
” A list of stations served, however irritating to the ears of the regular traveller, is pretty unambiguous.”
Not as irritating as the verbal diarrhoea of “this train will now terminate here, and will not be calling at [long list of places it is no longer going to]” to which the regulars at my station have taken to adding random other places it isn’t going to either (Brighton, Cockfosters, Inverness, Gare du Midi, New York Grand Central, etc) .
If it’s not going anywhere, why taunt us with all the delights* that might have been? (*Well, Clapham Junction anyway)
@timbeau
Traveline will get you all bus information even from differing operators.
@quinlet
yes, but I needed a map.
And not everyone will find Traveline. Google “bus oxford” and see what you find.
OBC’s map doesn’t show other operators’ routes. I find that Stagecoach, to its credit, shows all three operators – yes, there was a third! – including the direct route I needed. But if I hadn’t already known that such a route existed, how would I have been expected to know to look further than OBC’s map?
@LBM? – CMA is indeed the Competition and Markets Authority, a body whose obsession with (a) public transport and (b) banking is equalled only by their ignorance of the economics (and use) of either. Without going too far off topic – the CMA has opined that it is wrong for bus companies to coordinate their timetables and provide interavailable fares. Fortunately, everyone in the realworld is very skilled at making the appropriate gesture in their direction (sometimes with sound added as well).
Graham, that was me, temporarily borrowing LBM’s clothes, and forgetting to identify myself. But thanks for your delightful further information – off-topicality notwithstanding.
[Are we cross-dressing moderators now?? Anyways, thank you for the clarification Graham, and thanks for asking for clarification when I’m not around, Malcolm. LBM]
timbeau says “Google “bus oxford” and see what you find”
Indeed. Google is generally pretty good at giving you the page you really need, rather than what you asked for, but its failure here is probably down to the rather aggressively misleading name chosen by this particular operator. In the same way that nobody can trade-mark the name “Corn Flakes”, perhaps such operator names should be banned in some way. (Though the confusion here is probably fuelled by the semi-shared names Oxford/Oxfordshire).
@Graham H:
From a purely theoretical perspective, the CMA are correct. There’s no legal or ethical obligation for businesses to cooperate in any way. From their perspective, it’s called “competition” for a reason.
However, while it’s possible to add a small mark-up to, say, an insurance premium to provide a price comparison service, there’s little potential for profit in providing an aggregation / comparison website for local bus services – especially when they’re subsidised.
This leads to an obvious problem: the more routes a network has, the greater the entire network effect becomes compared to the sum of its parts. Stagecoach are, I suspect, well aware of this and understand that, while their maps will drive a percentage of customers to their competitors, in theory, it should also encourage a greater percentage in using their services to reach them. (That it also helps with their corporate image is merely icing on the cake.)
So the CMA are right, but only partly so. One of the biggest changes in the last 20-odd years is the rise in importance of networks and networking. Not just transport networks like metro systems, but also in communications. It’s become far more common for businesses today to talk in terms of cooperation and partnerships, joining forces with complementary businesses who deal with specific elements of a final product or service.
The Internet has made some of this cooperation and partnering much easier to do, but the agglomeration effects seen in major metropolises also plays its part, and that’s why transport networks have risen to the fore once again. It’s no longer about the individual and the company car, but about teams and transit networks.
The CMA would probably agree that the role of aggregation and management of a local or regional transport network should be taken on by local or regional government (i.e. taxpayers, which includes local and regional businesses, not just Joe Public). The model used in London most likely fits their ideal model for this particular industry.
[Non sequitor and sections of text snipped for brevity. LBM]
Glbotu
I get a very odd error-message for “DD’2” forum on trying to look at your line-numbering post:
”you do not have permission to access this threa”
Uh?
timbeau
Beckton is 3 and 6
And cheap at twice the price! ( Apologies to The Goon Show! )
John B
Also BUMBLE, FUMBLE & STUMBLE (?)
If you are going to have “Slither” then SLIDE, SLOPE, SLIPPERY, SERPENTINE & SINUOUS would also be appropriate.
On could go on all day like this, but I think I’d better stop ….
John B & Various posters …
Do people still pore over printed timetables and route maps any more before setting out in their car or on public transport?
YES
And private transport, too.
Anonymously
Profoundly disagree
What we need is more, accurate, trustable information, without unnecessary added on frills.
What we are getting is all the frills & virtually no actual useful information – LUL are particularly bad at this.
Imm
CORRECTION
while here you’re lucky to know
103 minutes ahead of time.PoP
It is normal for a train’s platform (and train times) to be shown up to three months in advance and, taking Great Britain as a whole, this is what happens.
NOT at Paddington it isn’t!
”Musical platforms” is the order of the day there …
Malcom
The phrase “calling at all stations” seems to have fallen totally out of use these days.
NO
LUL use it all the time, where it is completely unnecessary ….
Like the Victoria line
Grrrr
Timbeau
That 3 bus operators & no overlapping information is one of the “benefits” of competition, of course.
Yet again political dogma triumphs over usefulness.
Except where it doesn’t, as Graham H points out
[Greg (advice may also apply to some others)
When you have been away for a while, and you come back and see so many things you would like to comment on, we would be grateful if you could be a little more selective. There is nothing wrong with any particular point in the above message, but the overall effect is somewhat overwhelming. LBM has snipped other points due to repetition and irrelevance. Malcolm]
@Greg Tingey….what exactly do you mean by ‘without all the added on frills’?
IMHO, inventing a panoply of route names/numbers/descriptors where they didn’t exist before to make things ‘easier’ for the traveller is doing precisely that!
Whereas accurate, usable, trustable information (such as in the provision of adequate next train displays/indicators at stations, platforms and trains), perhaps linked to online resources for viewing on smartphones/computers etc., is infinitely far more useful for both regular and new users.
@Graham H…don’t worry, no offence taken. 🙂
I’m not against overall route descriptors when referring to lines where they make sense (e.g. North/East/West/South London lines, Mid-Kent line, GOBLIN etc.). A quick look at most London TOC websites will show lines described as such under ‘Service Update’ to assist with finding out about service disruptions. LO’s failure to properly implement this for the existing and newly-added LO lines (already much discussed here and elsewhere on this site) is the real reason I suspect for why we have ended up on this topic when referring to any future takeover south of the river.
People on here keep on referring to bus route numbers and asking why they can’t be used on mainline and metro railways as well. In theory, there is no reason why they can’t be used (and indeed are used in many places abroad). My point is that introducing them isn’t as helpful for the average user as many people seem to think.
Anomnibus at 1602. A lovely long treatise about what is theoretically correct. Just like my university lectures (many years ago). There is the small detail that it bears no relevance to what 99% of the public care about.
For a bus service, frequency and convenience is what matters. I want the next bus, and I don’t care what colour / brand name it carriers.
That the CMA seems totally unable to grasp “the real world” drives me to despair at times. Their dogmatic “theoretically pure” approach makes buses (outside London) a much less useful option.
Island dweller. I agree 100%. And that’s why I fundamentally disagree with the CMA andcthe Virgin and Stagecoach views on competition for inter city timetable paths. But I doubt anyone will change them having seen the nonsense this week about bank accounts.
Long ago, related businesses learned that cooperation grew the market for everyone.
@anomnibus and others – I haven’t yet met anyone (other than someone doing GCSE economics) who agrees with the CMA. Another common fallacy they entertain is a belief in ease of market entry – bus services (because of the need to establish a local operating base with all the costs that that entails) are a natural local monopoly, but the CMA’s understanding of (any) industry costs is impoverished, to say the least.
BTW and just for amusement, I once had to give evidence to their predecessor, the MMC. They were totally obsessed with status and not substance – we were greeted at the door by a lackey who inquired after our names, titles and ranks. He ushered us to the waiting room, where lackey 2 repeated the info-gathering. We waited until lackey 3 appeared, who…. you guessed. We then sat at at the designated table where the Chairman began by asking us for…. After some random exchanges we trooped out. A friendly MMC employee remarked afterwards that we were lucky – we were at least allowed to sit at the same table as the commissioners.
I think the key point about the LO and line naming is that they already have names for their lines- they just happen to be dreadful. They seem to have simplified them a little recently, but…
Highbury & Islington/Dalston Junction to West Croydon/Crystal Palace/New Cross/Clapham Junction
…was the truly farcical replacement of the East London Line and South London Line names.
I think that numbering has some merit, but at minimum, reverting to simpler line names would be a help- especially in the differentiation of information about service disruptions.
@JamesBass
Agreed, and the East London Line abbreviates nicely to ELL. Similarly the other Overground lines become SLL, WLL, NLL, GOBLIN, and DCL (DC Line). As opposed to ‘Highbury & Islington/Dalston Junction to West Croydon/Crystal Palace/New Cross/Clapham Junction’ abbreviating to HI/DJ/WC/CP/NX/CJ…
@LBM -it’s alright now,most LO lines have reasonably familiar names, but once (to drag the thread back to topic again) we get to S London , the congeries of routes have no recognisable names.
@John Bull
Fascinating and comprehensive article as usual
The focus is/has been on East and South London. Currently lots of lobbying in regards to rail services in South London
However GTR has serious problems [details snipped], also currently very poor industrial relations
I’m surprised no commentators or experts haven’t picked up on this.
The refranchising dates of 2021 may end up being redundant
While everyone is ranting on about the whys and wherefores of bus competition in Oxford and motivations about publicity it may just be worth noting that Oxford has a bus partnership scheme. This was introduced at the County Council’s request to reduce bus volumes and pollution in Oxford City Centre. The threat was to force all bus services to terminate on the periphery and everyone transfer to a council operated shuttle using bendy buses into the city centre. Needless to say this rather concentrated the minds of the commercial bus operators who came up with something better.
This means that Stagecoach and OBC co-ordinate their timetables to give balanced and co-ordinated headways on the key corridors. Stagecoach run the majority of interurban / rural routes to the north while fellow Go Ahead company Thames Travel run to the south. There is also a fully co-ordinated ITSO smartcard scheme that allows interoperable smart ticketing across all three main operators. Operators have also invested in large numbers of euro5/6 and hybrid vehicles to reduce emissions. Therefore we can all stop hypothesising about competition and the all the rest of it because it largely doesn’t apply in Oxford. One of those rare examples of deregulated co-ordination.
The one thing that has changed for the worse is that the once excellent Oxfordshire County Council website no longer provides bus timetable and bus map information. It was previously an excellent single source of information. I suspect for reasons of cost cutting it is now a travesty of what went before with no timetables or maps just the merest reference to bus passes and the Park and Ride scheme. I was going to point Timbeau at the OCC website but there’s no point now.
@WW
despite the co-ordination, OBC’s map only shows its own routes
http://assets.goaheadbus.com/media/cms_page_media/1/ZoneMapAug15WEB.pdf, and try and find a route from the new Oxford Parkway station to the Hospital
Compare stagecoach
https://www.stagecoachbus.com/uploads/scobcsmartzonemapmasterapr15.pdf
“Stagecoach run the majority of interurban / rural routes to the north while fellow Go Ahead company Thames Travel run to the south.”
Unless there has been a major merger recently, Stagecoach and Go Ahead are quite separate companies. TT and OBC are both subsidiaries of Go Ahead.
This thread is reminding me of the story, put about by the South Eastern Railway, of the depressed gentleman who lay down on the London, Chatham & Dover to commit suicide – and died of starvation.
[The following comment refers to an earlier comment which had to be deleted because it was completely unsubstantiated and potentially defamatory. Nevertheless the overall picture is well-known and is not disputed so Walthamstow Writer’s comment can be read without needing to know the precise details alleged without any apparent foundation. PoP]
@ KGX11 – I suspect the reason no one is shouting about GTR is that it is a management contract and therefore much of the risk sits with the DfT. Thameslink has always proved to be a nightmare franchise for whoever has run it – Govia (twice) and First Group. Obviously the operator has some elements of performance risk but ultimately the money comes from the DfT and other risk comes from Network Rail (which is the DfT in another guise). I can’t see the government wanting another franchising “car crash” becoming public hence the apparent “radio silence”. I think it’s known that GTR breached their franchise terms within months of taking over and since July they’ve gained Southern and Gatwick Express to add to the mix.
The problem here is that what do DfT do? They need Thameslink to succeed. They need an operator in place to get the CL700s into service. They need an operator to work through the machinations of the London Bridge project. I can’t see there being much interest in a replacement franchise because of the costs involved and the likely response from bidders about taking on what may be perceived to be a “poisoned chalice” at least until 2020. Somehow Govia will struggle through because DfT need them to. Others may, of course, disagree.
@ Timbeau – “sigh”. Of course I know Stagecoach and Go Ahead are separate. I trust you can forgive slightly clumsy phrasing. I don’t need to look at the maps – I’ve done so before. Given their dates (in the urls) I would not expect them to reference a railway station that only opened for business a few days ago. AIUI the only bus linking the new Chiltern service to central Oxford is the 500 Park and Ride service on which I understand rail tickets are valid (provided they’re to Oxford or a valid destination beyond).
Honestly some of these claims sound rather outdated. I know five years ago every journey planner only knew about its own trains and the only integrated view of UK train journeys came from Deutsche Bahn. But today Google at least will happily direct you to walk if there’s another bus stop half a mile away that will get you there sooner, provide multiple operators’ information through the same interface, and give you exact times for Underground services when planning cross-London train trips. There are certainly still imperfections – the point about being directed onto slightly faster but substantially more expensive services is a valid one – but the state of the at really has improved a lot even just in the last year or so.
Briefly reading a Thameslink poster at Bromley South tonight, they have allocated route numbers TL1 to TL4 to the broad pattern of services. TL4 was described as “Kent” – presumably covering at least two variations (Sevenoaks/Rochester) and three if they still go to Orpington. (A Sevenoaks train arrived with the roller blind set to “Orpington via Denmark Hill”).
@timbeau @WW
Note that the Stagecoach Oxford map doesn’t mention the destination of the routes that cross the boundary – whereas the Oxford Bus map does. It’s just another piece of information that adds reassurance (especially so if any of the routes cross both boundaries).
@WW
(sigh) All right, both maps still show the location of the new station as “Water Eaton Park & Ride” (the station was to have been named Water Eaton, and of course there are now more “Ride” options than before).
But you will look in vain on the OBC map for the 700, or indeed any route between Summertown and Marston.
When it’s all gone orange, we will be more or less back to this map, give or take the cross-Londons…
http://www.projectmapping.co.uk/Reviews/Resources/London%20Connections%20original.jpg
…so it shows the degree to which they would have to differentiate or designate services for navigation and travel alerts, somehow.
I thought that this one (despite some cartographic awkwardness)
http://www.projectmapping.co.uk/Reviews/Resources/oyster-rail-services-map%2041.pdf
made some useful progress in untangling the South London spaghetti, but the map’s rules had counterintuitive results elsewhere, such as Thameslink and HS1 sharing the same colour.
A most excellent NY map was proposed this week, which has much to commend, and could give some pointers in the designation debate (best appreciated by scrolling down to the detail close-ups. It’s a tad nerdy, but that’s what makes it good, in my opinion).
http://www.citymetric.com/transport/its-time-redesign-new-york-city-subway-map-heres-how-1525
That CityMetric article perfectly describes my recent experiences in NY! This paragraph in particular:
‘Lines running local, then express, and then local again, is a special feature of the New York City subway that no map does a good job showing properly: this can be especially confusing for tourists.’
Hence my confusion/panic in nearly getting off an ‘express’ 6 train, when actually it was going to stop at my destination in Manhattan after all. Something which the new map does appear to show slightly clearer (although it’s difficult to tell due to the low resolution of the image file).
WW
Actually regulated co-ordination, surely, because Oxford city council enforced regulated co-ordination inside their boundaries.
I wonder if other areas might take a leaf from that book?
timbeau
Oxford: It would appear that none of the operators/council/map-providers are talking to each other, then?
The services are there, but it is ridiculously difficult to find out about them, so no-one ( or a lot less people) use them.
What’s the point of all the obfuscation, or is it simple incompetence?
@NickBXN
I thought that this one (despite some cartographic awkwardness)
LINK
made some useful progress in untangling the South London spaghetti, but the map’s rules had counterintuitive results elsewhere, such as Thameslink and HS1 sharing the same colour.
Yeah, I like that map too. It probably needs some fixing, namely because of the awkwardness of multiple termini on some routes. Especially London Bridge. If they don’t differentiate between Cannon Street and Charing Cross (why do they differentiate London Bridge). The other thing is that, as explained above, there seems to be no desire to subsume Thameslink (which is fair enough, it does seem to make sense that a single operator would run the 24tph Thameslink core and that it shouldn’t be TfL because Cambridge and Brighton are very far away). Also, like so many maps, it seems to suggest the Victoria – Beckenham Junction via Crystal Palace service and Chingford – London Fields. This is even sillier because it seems to have no problems separating off the direct Kings Cross service and stopping Moorgate services with parallel lines.
It’s also good because it has a means of displaying services of < 4tph off peak, albeit not an immediately obvious one, unlike the everything orange map, which uses the limited service dotted line to great effect.
@glbotu/NickBXN
“I thought that this one (despite some cartographic awkwardness) made some useful progress in untangling the South London spaghetti”
A valiant effort, but:
I would question the need to show HS1 (or HEx) at all on what is marked as an “Oyster Rail Services” map. (Especially as it is evident the map was produced when there was still a direct service from Wandsworth Road to Victoria, at which time Oyster was most definitely not accepted on HS1, even at a premium).
Which is the other problem – at Victoria, even after 13 decades of common management, and despite Lady Bracknell’s famous remark, the line is still very much material and it is confusing to show the Chatham and Brighton services in the same colour as they only meet at Victoria. (although, as glbotu says, it does seem to suggest a Victoria – Beckenham Junction via Crystal Palace service, even if careful study of the colour code reveals that it is only because both Vic and BJ stations have direct services from London Bridge, which pass through Crystal Palace in opposite directions)
The map would have been clearer if London Bridge services via Forest Hill and via Peckham Rye were given different colours and/or the Crystal Palace circular service were depicted as switching from a Vic to a LB service somewhere near Gipsy Hill.
Re. Great Northern/Moorgate services (and hopefully not too far off topic), has anyone ordered any replacements for the old 313s yet? IIRC Govia have said there will be new trains by 2018; if so, they’ll need to get a shift on.
@timbeau, glbotu
The points made about the map bring us back to the benefits of route numbers instead of simply grouping services by the London terminus (or one of them) that they use. Just taking the Crystal Palace issue raised by timbeau, if there were separate route numbers for:
Victoria – London Bridge
Victoria – West Croydon/Sutton
London Bridge – Beckenham Junction
using whatever fancy numbering system seems to do best, then there would be no confusion suggesting that a passenger could go to Victoria and find a Beckenham Junction bound train.
@Quinlet
“there would be no confusion suggesting that a passenger could go to Victoria and find a Beckenham Junction bound train.”
Actually, they can. But they won’t get one from any intermediate station between Battersea Park and Streatham Hill inclusive.
Nor can you get a direct train to Birkbeck from Victoria.
At the risk of dragging the thread back to the original topic a few comments on what I see as some of the problems of the LO proposals as far as the Windsor lines are concerned.
The whole area served by these lines is seeing massive growth in housing and business, crucially not just within zone 6. For example a new town at Longcross, and several large schemes proposed in Staines town centre. It could be argued that the existing 2tph Reading line service is inadequate and should really be 4tph, in fact it was for a few years before that service was dropped in favour of increasing stopping services round the Hounslow loop at Tfl’s behest. Further into London the pressure is well documented and stations such as Wandsworth Town have suppressed demand even before new housing developments are completed.
The current proposals would see the ‘fast’ Reading services separated out. It’s hard to see how splitting operators will lead to equitable solutions to increase capacity across the whole network. I suspect that Tfl will be in the position to shout loudest and that any extra capacity would end up being allocated to inner stopping services.
Staines, Feltham, Twickenham and Richmond will be in the strange position where the service will be ‘owned’ by Tfl but the fast services which the majority of people aim to use are operated by someone else. Similarly passengers at Chertsey and Addlestone would start their journey at Tfl stations but switch to another operator at Weybridge for the main part of their commute.
It all seems to be a recipe for less integration of long term planning, day to day operation and service recovery. As Graham H has pointed out a few times the assumption that Tfl control will immediately result in an improvement appears based purely on a fictional pot of money being available. I’d argue that if that money is somehow made available it can be much more effectively spent by specifying outputs for an integrated network managed by one operator, be that Tfl controlled or not.
As an aside I know that SWT don’t seem to be very popular with a number of people but I think there is a danger of basing your opinion of the best thing for the network on your own personal experience. I use SWT nearly every day and the last major disruption I can recall was a failed freight train during the summer, outside that the last time my train was cancelled or significantly late was nearly two years ago. I’d hope that on here we can rise above personal dislike of a particular operator and try to analyse the facts.
Starlight, 12:39
The Wessex route study shows the intention to have a 4 tph Reading line service as far as Ascot by 2019 – the additional 2 tph being through services between Waterloo and Aldershot.
They propose a further increase to a 4 tph Reading off-peak service, 2 fast and 2 all stations, but that is undated.
Re Starlight,
I’d been having a few few windor line thoughts too, you have covered a few of the same items already but the big one I’d add is with the merger of AB-InBev and SAB-Miller the Stag (Mortlake) brewery site is up for sale (again) with a minimum of 850 new home proposed (no planning yet so we’ll need to wait and see if that number increases). This will put a lot more pressure on the stopping services at Mortlake (and possibly Barnes Bridge) so long will / has going to 10 car and a couple more services via Barnes Bridge gibven before everything si effectively full again. Are the Windor lines another “victim” of NR using 2001 census data???
Some potential big issues (12car and the level crossings etc.) to tackle if growth keeps going which probably wouldn’t be helped by having 2 TOCs on route.
Having Southern and Thameslink (with cheaper TL only fares) on the BML didn’t help overall capapcity or timetabling.
Paul, 12:56
Interesting, certainly the residents of Camberley have been getting somewhat upset about how poor their service to London is. The last version I recall seeing suggested that 10 cars and a couple of extra peak services would be sufficient for the next 10-15 years which is probably a little optimistic.
I wonder how that fits in with any aspirations Tfl have further into London. Discussion on the thread about Croydon showed how disjointed any planning is with NR and Tfl using different population assumptions.
@quinlet – surely a complex numbering system isn’t needed, and something simpler like timbeau’s using two colours for via Peckham and via Sydenham routes would be sufficient to fix that problem.
I note London Fields’ lack of direct service from Chingford is mentioned as a flaw. No one seems to care about the Met line’s fast and semi-fast trains had the same issue – mostly because it’s not one needed for the ‘big picture’ maps, but rather one for when a passenger arrives at the station. That they have to change trains doesn’t change routings.
A “core routes” with branches approach would probably be enough for the tube map although my concern is that that then doesn’t really work on the SouthEastern side, namely because everything diverges just after London Bridge/Victoria.
The Southern side would probably work as:
London Bridge via Sydenham
London Bridge via Dulwich
Victoria services
Which might just be handleable.
On the SouthEastern you’d have
via Greenwich
via Bexleyheath
via Crayford
SEML
LCDR
Catford Loop
Bromley Branch
Hayes Branch
That’s 11 new line colours (or existing line colours). That’s also 7 new lines converging at London Bridge which will be vaguely confusing.
I get the feeling that that Chertsey tail is wagging the Hounslow dog here.
It was not that long ago that the Chertsey line was run as a shuttle from Virginia Water. Most people using the branch, as you say, change at Weybridge rather than take the long way round calling at all stations via Hounslow (with a consequential campaign for users of the line to get “Void Days” calculated with the SWML group, which they use for 95% of their journey) rather than the apparently more reliable Windsor group (which they only use for 5% of it). If the Chertsey line could be decoupled from the Hounslow loop there would be no real need for TfL services to go beyond Whitton. The extra line capacity between Whitton and Virginia Water could be used for the extra Reading line services that are likely to be needed.
But, I hear you say, doesn’t that put even more services through the bottleneck at Richmond? (both the Hounslow Loop services that used to go to Chertsey, and the extra Readings)? Well, not necessarily.
A new innovation in the Sunday timetable from December is that the hourly Waterloo- Twickenham – Kingston service will be diverted via Hounslow instead of Richmond. This will of course provide a better service over the Hounslow loop, although Kingston loop passengers for Richmond will have a longer journey or have to change at Twickenham (or do what most of them do already and use the No 65 bus which is much more frequent and much more direct!)
So let’s adopt this principle further: divert Kingston loop services after Twickenham to run via Hounslow instead of Richmond in the path of the current Chertsey line services. This releases a path through Richmond for the extra Readings.
@Starlight
“I use SWT nearly every day and the last major disruption I can recall was a failed freight train during the summer”
SWT is a large network and the perception of someone at New Milton can be very different from that of someone at New Malden.
The Thames Valley LEP published a report last year into possible improvements and benefits from increasing the services between London/Heathrow and Reading, which included more services and remaking the case for the south-west facing spur to Heathrow. The report can be found here –
http://thamesvalleyberkshire.co.uk/SearchResult/building-the-economic-case-for-rail-investment-4549
I am not an expert on such things, but the report appears to be well researched and includes some respectable benefits. This is contrast to NR’s proposals in the Wessex Route Study, which basically says everything will be fine for a while with 10-coach trains, and further improvements thereafter need more study.
As someone who used this line for 4 years, I can say that NR’s optimistic assessment is misplaced. I travelled to Richmond and 4 years ago, I would usually get a seat on the way home, but now you are lucky to get a seat before Staines. Whilst this is obviously a personal view, the service has got very noticeably busier in a short period of time. NR’s Wessex Route Study is not keeping up with usage.
Jim Cobb, 1415
There have been numerous attempts at getting a southern rail link to Heathrow dating back I believe to the 70’s. The airtrack proposals and Windsor Link Railway are both worth a look. These both also include ideas to improve connections with the SWML which are currently poor. I would worry that Tfl taking control of the London area would make it harder to pursue these ideas which would be of benefit the region as a whole.
Don’t want to get too far into the detail of maps and route names but just a couple of thoughts for anyone who thinks there’s no need to think about change:
The lure of the tube map is hard to over state for those outside London who are unfamiliar with the system. It isn’t uncommon for people to head to Waterloo from either Richmond or Wimbledon via the District Line. There are plenty of other examples where a journey via NR is quicker and in some cases as frequent but people just don’t know it’s there.
It’s not just tourists either. This study https://plus.maths.org/content/london-tube-strike-not-all-bad found that after a tube strike as many as 1 in 20 people continued to use an alternative route after a strike finished with a net economic benefit.
@Starlight – Yes, I am aware of the numerous different Heathrow plans. The Thames Valley LEP report does a good analysis of various options including one which redirects all Waterloo to Reading services via Heathrow !
The report states that Heathrow access is still a worthwhile plan, despite all the failures in the past. Nevertheless, I wonder if their other proposals will get dismissed because this is “just another Heathrow access proposal” which it certainly isn’t.
@glbotu – as you say, “That’s 11 new colours” (maybe more!) and therein lies the rub – the range of new colours which are (a) sufficiently different from the existing palette, and (b) capable of being both used in enamel and printed without fading, is quite small. Add in the usual issues about certain forms of colourblindness and you are down to perhaps half a dozen new shades – I recall being shown the available range when the W&C was added to the tube map – not a very long list at all ( I recall a dark chocolate, a dark red, a light green, an ochre, possibly a dark orange, and a dark grey (as well as the chosen turquoise/eau-de-nil). The Paris Metro map adds a couple more – marron, and a kind of vert clair (quite close to our eau-de-nil in practice).
@Graham H
By marron do you mean maroon?
@glbotu, 28 October 2015 at 13:25
That’s 11 new line colours (or existing line colours). That’s also 7 new lines converging at London Bridge which will be vaguely confusing.
That’s why I said earlier a single group colour, identity and 1 or 2 letter matching prefix for each traditional service group, with line numbers determining destination and detail routing. With prefixes, the line numbers should only need to be 1 or 2 character. So, some examples: SW12 (Waterloo), SC3 (Victoria Central, some London Bridge), SE11 (various SE termini), TL2 (Thameslink), GE3 (Liverpool Street), GN1 (Moorgate). Each service group would get its own TfL roundel in appropriate colour like the Crossrail one.
I think Graham H did mean marron, which is a posh way of saying chestnut brown.
@LBM
marron is French for chestnut, and for the colour known in English as maroon.
@timbeau, Ronnie MB
Thank you both. I had Googled marron but it came up with a sea creature… The colour knowledge of the commentariat is outstanding!
@The Word “Marron”
“Marron” is
a) The French word for Chestnut
b) The French word for Brown
c) A posh way to say “Chestnut Brown” in English
“Maroon” on the other hand
a) An English word meaning to leave someone stranded
b) A dark, reddish colour.
@ glbotu “marron” is also a type of crayfish found in Australia (and very tasty they are too)
Not quite. ‘Brun’ is brown. French Wikipedia defines ‘marron’ as a range of colours in dark orange. Google both words and you will see a slight difference.
To help all to be clear:
http://www.toutes-les-couleurs.com/couleur-marron.php
No, I did indeed mean marron. The French have a different and perhaps wider range of words to describe quite subtle differences in colour*. (This is where I go out and buy the 126 chest of Faeber-Castell Polychromos crayons… )
*This might make it awkward to adopt them for public crayoning in the UK…
Although the English word “maroon” comes from the same French root, it is generally used for rather more purple shades than the French word “marron”. The fact that the Australian crayfish is a similar colour before cooking
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.andermel.com.au/images/large/amarron024_570.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.andermel.com.au/&h=495&w=570&tbnid=CESYfn7OuY9WeM:&tbnh=173&tbnw=199&usg=__hI1-Z1DNKJSeJ0U7jjRZ4YwYhbs=&docid=pltkyn6PwjN_LM&itg=1
seems to be a coincidence, as the information sources to which I have access suggest that is derived from the native Australian word for them.
The verb “maroon” is derived from a Spanish word for a feral animal (i.e one which has been turned loose or abandoned), and nothing to do with what happened to the sailors when a ship carrying red paint collided with a ship carrying purple paint (channelling the late Ronnie Barker c 1975)
What makes the oyster rail service map clearer than the usual tube and rail map is the splitting of the Southern services in to Victoria, London Bridge and West London lines. This split should be shown on the tube and rail map as should the split between the CX/CS and Victoria services on the South Eastern (though they shouldn’t share the same colour as Southern for the Victoria services).
ISTM we should use “Met maroon” for metropolitan lines within the metropolis, broadly defined, using Bombardier Electrostars & derivatives such as S8. S7s on District (Wimbleware) and T-Cup could use green. Fully agree with numbering for routes and groups throughout irrespective of contract structure and history. Orbital lines could have a paler shade denoting less frequent service to metropolitan standards.
@starlight, ngh: the problem with Network Rail’s, and to a lesser extent TfL’s, planning approach is that it is based on predict-and-provide. Either organisation predicts future demand (and the fact that they come up with different predictions is a clue that neither can necessarily be relied on), and then attempts to specify a service level to meet this demand. The problem is that, as Graham H has pointed out, one of the biggest, if not the biggest, drivers of demand is the level of service provided. So you increase the service to meet demand, and demand increases in response. Then you increase the service again, and again, running around chasing your tail at ever increasing cost.
The only way out of this bind is to take a step back and ask what the aim of your investment is. Since transporting people from A to B is not an aim in itself, this has to be some kind of social or economic benefit that comes out of travel: mobility that enables people to reach jobs they otherwise could not, reduce particular areas’ isolation from areas of greater economic activity, or so on.
Given that long commutes have an inherent social and environmental cost, it is likely that you will see a better benefit-cost ratio from increasing capacity into central London from areas close by than from longer distances. And the Overground has shown that there is a step change in the usefulness of a service once you get around the 4 trains per hour mark. So improvements in frequency to currently under-served areas within the M25 are likely to have a better socio-economic payoff than yet more trains to places further afield that already have frequent fast services.
@Ian J – This is where CBA tends to fall down. What you say is the outcome that everyone (including the politicians) actually wants. The dilemma policy makers have faced is that the bulk of economic benefits tend to arise from time savings and to a lesser extent from greater national connectivity. The consequence of that is that you end up subsidising intercity and long distance services at the expense of short distance commuting and regional services (the latter especially because they are used by so few relatively) because they have a better rate of return. I think we have got a bit better at valuing agglomeration and social effects over the last 20 years or so, and so they weigh that much more in the appraisals, but the bias in the appraisal system is still there – as the confusion over HS2 benefits showed. I suspect DfT haven’t caught up with the story yet .
BTW, that is why the PSO was – and the franchise “goals” are – still set in terms of train service volume. Setting them in terms of passengers carried would reveal the skew….
Re Graham H,
Exactly – Gatwick to London (either terminus) on Southern (not GatEx) is quicker than the all stops services from my local Zone 3 station and the fares collected are more for the former so why focus on the latter?
Re Ian J,
Most of the NR vs TfL difference is due to the former using data that is a decade older than the latter – if NR did a refresh the results would be very similar to TfL’s. It would also suggest that NR need to do more infrastucture upgrade for metro services sooner which might then conflict for priority with other non metro service infrastructure projects given limited funding, NR almost regarding it as TfL’s job to justify any improvements to metro services (TfL’s BCR methodology also helping in this regard).
A TOC’s goal is to make the most return on capital it can. This means growing its profitable business and cutting back the unprofitable stuff, within a very complicated regulatory framework governed by the DfT. TfL has a broader range of objectives set by the mayor. Even if DfT and TfL has the same data and objectives, the nature of the commercial relationship between DfT and TOC is likely to distort the offering, as the TOC tries to play the rules to its shareholders’, not its passengers’ benefit.
If TfL is given broad goals, it has theoretically both the data and the operational expertise internally to devise a better solution than the DfT that can only observe what a TOC is doing remotely, and lacks operational expertise.
@John B
“A TOC’s goal is to make the most return on capital it can. This means growing its profitable business ”
Indeed – which is why cutting out intermediate stops on Inter City services to improve end to end times is always seen as a Good Thing. Attracting more passengers to York by slightly faster timings more than makes up for the loss of the cheaper fares that would have been paid by those now unable to get out of Retford! The ideal for revenue is to have every seat used for the entire journey. Unless both termini are equally attractive to travellers there will always be fewer people joining than leaving the further you get from the main attractor, and vice versa, and thus more empty seats.
And it is also why, although more people would benefit from things like wifi on a suburban train than an Inter City (and often for similar journey times – compare Winchester or Cambridge with Windsor or Dorking for example), it is the latter that it is being rolled out on.
@John B – curiously, TOCs don’t all have the same financial objectives. It all depends on the way their owning group is financed and structured, and that in turn is reflected in the amount of risk they are willing to accept. Some are content to target cash flow (those who are financed mainly bonds, I suspect), whilst others look for upside risk (Virgin in the ’90s, for example). And there will be other – metafinancial – objectives such as market share and wider corporate aims – which are equally important, as the history of First illustrates. Failing to recognise these differences is a common mistake made by franchisors, and their Finance ministry minders, who often assume that simply hanging a juicy carrot outside the door will bring in many (or indeed any ,in some cases) bidders.
I’m not sure that the problem lies so much in differing objectives between DfT and the TOCs as that DfT doesn’t actually have any clear and relevant objectives. No one knows any more why Dft is spending what it does on the railway system – put another way, why are they buying this level of service and quality rather than any other. [Of course, the answer is that they are pragmatists, but in the last resort that isn’t a defence to the charge that they are not implementing the EU legislation, for example, which requires them to have clear objectives when imposing a PSO].
It is certainly true that there is a mismatch between financial and economic goals – shareholders and employees can’t be paid in funny money – and that is what makes the railways – as the clutch plate between money and economics – such a perpetually interesting field.
“It is certainly true that there is a mismatch between financial and economic goals – shareholders and employees can’t be paid in funny money – and that is what makes the railways – as the clutch plate between money and economics – such a perpetually interesting field.”
What a brilliant statement. This should be inscribed on a plaque and installed above the entrance door to various corridors of power in this country.
PSO is Public Service Obligation, the grant from the government to make up funding shortfall on many railway lines. CBA is Cost Benefit Analysis. This has been a public service announcement provided by LBM.
@SFD – 🙂 much obliged. You’d be astonished (perhaps not) at how few governments know why they are paying out subsidy to transport. I did a job in Ireland a few years ago advising them on the terms of their PSO; it quickly became apparent that they had never asked themselves the question why are we spending this dosh. They certainly had a National Transport Plan which had a long list of schemes that would be good to do, and a vague aspiration (totally unquantified) to improve accessibility but there was no actual demonstrable link between policy and spend and no research had been done on the relationship between investment, accessibility, money or economic benefits… and they certainly didn’t want to spend anything finding out. [Like a good consultant and in the interest of Anglo-Irish amity, I forbore from rubbing their noses in it].
The same goes for governments’ understanding of what makes the private sector tick. I fondly remember addressing a conference of EU officials, bankers and lawyers (yes, I know…) at which I remarked that unless you required -and paid – the private sector to do something, they wouldn’t do it, unless it was profitable. There was an audible gasp, followed by a rush of questions (not from the lawyers, of course) followed by a rash of invitations to go and repeat the message up and down the Continent. It wasn’t rocket science although I did get to visit some interesting places.
Re Graham H and SFD.
The best example of magic unreal money in the governments view of the UK economy is probably “imputed Rent*” along with its cousin “imputed home maintenance**” than magically inflate nominal GDP by over 10%…
* effectively the sum of the theoretical market rent of all the homes in the UK where no mortgage or rent are paid
** e.g. the sum of the value based on equivalent professional labour cost of your own time clearing out the gutters etc. for every residential property
@ngh – it would be interesting, wouldn’t it, to know whether other governments have parallel (or even identical) “adjustments*” ? [I have related before, my own activities in increasing the nominal GDP by 1% at the flick of a pen, at the time of BR privatisation) and so will not repeat].
* I’d forgotten about the value added by personal home maintenance – it sounds like the stuff that divorce lawyers argue about, no? I must remember to use NR costings when relaying the track on my garden railway.
@ngh
” “imputed home maintenance**” e.g. the sum of the value based on equivalent professional labour cost of your own time clearing out the gutters etc. for every residential property”
Which may be negative, given that you may have to take a whole day off work in order to wait in for a professional to do in half an hour what you could have done yourself in three. Nevertheless, to quote Hillaire Belloc:
“Lord Finchley tried to mend the Electric Light
Himself. It struck him dead: And serve him right!
It is the business of the wealthy man
To give employment to the artisan”
@Graham H
“And there will be other – metafinancial – objectives such as market share and wider corporate aims”
Market share is why operators try to put more trains on routes where Open Access operators compete, or there is a parallel operator, rather than improve services on lines where they have the market to themselves. If you have a monopoly, no improvement to the service will improve your market share, and no cuts you make will reduce it.
@timbeau – I suspect, although only from observing their behaviour rather than anything said overtly, that some franchise bidders – noteably First – took the market to mean the totality of available franchises, which is perverse. Certainly, I have worked for UK employers (thrice!) whose takeover by Americans can only be seen as the result of a non-logical view of the market and their possible competitors.
A propos the gutterclearing example, now that I have retired, I don’t need to take the day off any more, so at once, I am making a productive and positive contribution to the economy….
@ Graham H – I used to be a tad amazed at how many former LU colleagues couldn’t understand the money driven motivations of contractors (large and small). I claim no great insight or massive commercial experience but it just seemed “obvious” to me that money / profit was the main motivation. The second concern for some businesses was “reputation” and if you were “nasty” enough with threats to besmirch said reputation then that could sometimes work wonders. I did once manage to get Terry Morgan very annoyed indeed by pointing out the “real world” view, from where I was sitting, of the firm he was leading . He didn’t like that very much. No point running a contract if you don’t understand how the other party approaches things.
So many instances of people going “but they MUST do “x” because we have asked them to”. “Err no they don’t HAVE to do it nor do it in the way you insist or in the timescale you are demanding or do it for free”. “You’re useless!”. And so it went on …… I wonder if there has been a greater awakening of the real world or not? (not mentioning a resignalling contract .. ahem). Just think of all those foreign visits we could have done as a “double act” telling people the “bleedin’ obvious”. 🙂 🙂
@Graham H
“it would be interesting, wouldn’t it, to know whether other governments have parallel (or even identical) “adjustments*” ?”. Brings to mind the pragmatic, effective but infamous block adjustments which used to be applied annually in MoD as part of the Annual Budget Cycle (ABC) process. Then overnight (1998 if I recall correctly) they were banned.
The inevitable massive excess in that summer’s budget request was equally inevitably followed next spring by a huge underspend – to the puzzlement of the departmental economists.
Slightly tangential, but it concerns devolution (and PoP’s threat of locking the CR2 thread has now been carried out), Snip
[No point in having sanctions if you let people side-step them. PoP]
@WW – Yes, you would have enjoyed trying to explain how franchising worked to a slue of Macedonian bureaucrats (who really couldn’t get the message that no one on the face of the planet was going to jump on a plane and bid for one of their branch lines with a total turnover of £60k, let alone spend megabucks renewing the asset base. ) And you would have certainly enjoyed Pristina’s finest hotel the Spider” (sic) with the TVs built into the baths… And how you would have laughed at the shepherd employed in Tirana’s main station to clear the sheep before the train arrived.
@Southern Heights – unknown to me. [The rest snipped due to being a reply to a previously snipped comment, lest these comments get too confusing and the commentariat believe they missed something. LBM]
@Paying Guest – I remember well the panic that set in around late summer when we realised that BR was not – again – going to spend its budget within the year and the ensuing hunt for plausible capital projects that could be billed before the end of April.
Maroon is also a distress flare or explosive; which has a railway connection when placed on the track to warn an oncoming train of an obstruction. So vaguely on-topic.
Going directly back to the topic (gosh!), and picking up the excursus on being aninformed customer, one of the key improvements that I believe will have an immediate effect after a TfL takeover, is that TfL are in a different league to DfT es to specifying franchises. In particular, their attention to second tier deliverables such as cleanliness and information is wholly more consistent, and better enforced than anything DfT attempts. In part, I suppose this is because TfL “live over the shop”, but mainly because they have an integrated view of life with a matching appraisal system in which the small things can be evaluated and procured as an integral part of the concessioning process, whereas DfT has no means of doing this and treats them as add-ons to come out in the wash of the financial close negotiations.
[Snipped CR2 comment. PoP]
@Graham H: Had a quick look… LUL archive visit required @LBM: I’ll shut up now about that!
@Graham H (again): The kind of stuff about use it or lose it in terms of government budgets only leads to waste. Having worked for a (by definition) not very popular government department (though not in this country), we were faced with that question… Luckily we had an easy answer that was very cost effective, other sections took the wrong choice….
[Snipped suspected CR2 comment. PoP]
[Snipped CR2 comment PoP]
[Snipped comment prompted by CR2 comment. PoP]
@quinlet: we have been round this loop many times before.
[Indeed we have but as I have have removed references to the comment that prompted this we will not go around again. PoP]
National accounts in the EU (and some other countries that have adopted the European System of Accounts) are intended to be comparable. The following is a link to the various rules that EU countries can adopt to calculate imputed rent:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32005R1722
as with much EU stuff, the principle is that the cat must be skinned but each member state can choose the way to skin the cat.
[Snipped tunnelling related comment prompted by CR2. PoP]
@ Anonymous – the WC slow lines north of Euston are very underused, due in some part to freight paths. Lack of current passenger capacity on these lines is one of the reasons for HS2, so I assume more services would be a good think.
[More boring comments snipped. PoP]
[Yet another boring comment snipped. PoP]
@answer=42 – and if you believe (as I think you are implying that you don’t!) in other EU countries’ compliance with EU accounting rules, then you will be sadly deceived. Did I mention the Greeks, the Italians, the French? [I particularly cherish being invited to tender for a review of Alitalia’ business plan on behalf of the EU; when we read that they had increased the fleet from 132 to 124 aircraft, we found something better to do with our time.] As for the French, it was a joy to work with them on a restructuring programme for the Macedonian Railways; it also explained a lot as to why SNCF manage to make such thumping losses on what ought to be highly profitable activities.
I’ve missed all the fun!
[The fun will come soon enough! LBM]
@Graham H: The dilemma policy makers have faced is that the bulk of economic benefits tend to arise from time savings
Yes, that’s a flaw in the evaluation process. It may be that existing UK CBR values saving one person ten minutes on an hour long commute more highly than saving one person five minutes on a thirty minute commute, but if that leads to more people choosing to live an hour away from work instead of thirty minutes away, that is a net loss to society and the economy (because time taken travelling to and from work is basically time wasted). So evaluation needs to be more dynamic and take into account the effects of supply on demand.
(that this reasoning does not necessarily apply so much to leisure, visiting friends and relatives and business travel, since people rarely decide where to live based on journeys they make infrequently)
@ngh: It would also suggest that NR need to do more infrastucture upgrade for metro services sooner which might then conflict for priority with other non metro service infrastructure projects given limited funding, NR almost regarding it as TfL’s job to justify any improvements to metro services
But again we have this word “need”: I have never seen any evidence that NR appreciate that they are creating, as well as trying to satisfy, demand. NR’s planning process seems to be a giant machine for coming up with schemes to meet demand that they are stimulating. The problem is that the NR credit card has been taken away* at just the moment that NR’s inability to control its costs has become clear.
* thanks exactly to the kind of accounting shenanigans that Graham H has mentioned, which led to well-known problems (I think it turned out that a big chunk of Greece’s national debt was hidden in the accounts of the national railway company to help them meet the Euro accession criteria, for example), which led to tighter EU accounting rules on state-owned enterprises, which led to NR being reclassified as part of government.
@Graham
Suggest that you have a look at the peer reviews of the various national statistical systems on the Eurostat website (link below). I’ve read the Brit and French ones and a few others. There’s also an annual review of the gross national income figures from the national accounts (link below). The French like to think that their national accounts are superior to the Brits’… In the same way as the railways.
I haven’t met the SNCF international consultants but I have encountered the kind of political games that turned profits into public sector losses. This story is changing – at least in the quasi-private sector.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/quality/peer-reviews
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Monitoring_GNI_for_own_resource_purposes
All of the services on the map proposed for TfL takeover, except for SWT and the Temporarily Unmentionable Railway, are currently run by GoVia, who are 35% owned by Keolis, who are 80% owned by…
…SNCF.
@answer=42 – indeed those consultants are themselves subject to a very untransparent accounting trick – work for a state body or parastatal such as certain nameless consulting firms and it can count as national service – so the individuals concerned can be offered to the client for free… Never take the statistics at face value, particularly not when those involved have an interest in lying.
@Ian J – I don’thave an objection to the use of time savings as a metric per se,it’s more a case of (a) it shouldn’t be the dominant metric, and (b) it should be subject to a level of materiality. On a, we are beginnig to see a seachange as analysts realise that time spent travelling by train for business isn’t wholy wasted and also as we get better at evaluating the softer things; on b, it’s a matter of applying common sense – I find the time saving arguments, when based on, say, a million people each saving a minute (as opposed to 10 000 people saving 100 minutes) ridiculous. The reductio ad absurdem of the argument used to arise (and still seems to do so) with the arguments about the use of headline train times as the basis forinvestment. London-York used to be an unfavourite: York in under 2 hours is worth X, so weapprove the relaying of the approaches to save 2-3 minutes; we then find that only a couple of trains a day actually do the trip in the new time….
@Graham H
I have, indeed, seen that one. Still exists in principle but becoming rare due to tighter staff levels in French public service. The profit-devouring trick I was referring to was parachuting certain additional persons into key projects/positions to give them experience to allow them promotion. How the establishment looks after its own.
Should point out that the French have perfectly justified plaints about certain Brit behaviour. They talk both about ‘l’angleterre perfide’ and ‘le fairplay british’.
@answer=42 -oh yes, everyone’s at it = it’s just that the tricks vary from country to country (which is why I’m always suspicious about reassurances that the playing field is level).
On your first point, I had one French colleague from EBRD with a perfectly good degree from a first rate French university but, as he was wont to remark, he hadn’t been a polytechnicien and so his prospects were very limited. As a second illustration, I was discussing the financing of a new rail link to CDG and raised with the French promoter the question of access over SNCF tracks – “I was a polytechnicien at the same time as the (then RFF) head of access – it will not be a problem”.
When discussing rail maps (or any maps, actually) it matters what you are trying to inform users about. Is it possible routes (as moreorless at present), actual routes (sortof the Oyster service map), or service frequency? Even just trying to do those one at a time means a complex map; it will never be clear if you try to combine them.
And the (bus) spider maps are great for the services from a particular stop (or the stops it combines with in the immediate locality) but their widespread use has meant that more general maps (central area, etc) have disappeared, meaning that if you want to get to somewhere _not_ on the map (ie requiring a change of route) you are left in the lurch.
btw, “Goblin line”? Just NO! (Like ‘PIN number’ the latter is already present!)
@Graham H: A million people each saving a minute
But why is this ridiculous? If you get home from work a minute earlier every day (and leave a minute later) then that is nearly seven hours a year per person. TfL take it one step further by counting time spent walking through stations – hence they could justify spending more money to get a shorter walking route from Crossrail to the Bakerloo – something only possible if you measure travel times by the second.
I was a polytechnicien at the same time as the (then RFF) head of access – it will not be a problem
Fortunately such considerations never apply in the UK…
Ian J asks “Why is [a million people saving two minutes per day] ridiculous?”
This seems to be a matter of personal taste. Some people see it as pointless (what can they all do with their 2 minutes?”), and some see it as worthwhile. I don’t think there is any scientific or rhetorical way of persuading people in one of those categories to join the other.
One compelling (for me) argument in favour of the “just one minute” time saving,is to see it not so much in terms of the individual passenger (or,indeed,the accumulated time-saving of many passengers) but rather in terms of the trains themselves…the potential to make a journey a minute faster will enable either extra capacity or extra resilience…both of which are a “Good Thing”
In the same vein, an operator should be measured on how many minutes a passenger is delayed by, not the number of instances a train is more than 5 minutes late.
Do TfL have the same quality metrics as TOCs? Do they have those pie charts at stations?
A saving of two minutes may make no difference to some people. To others it may mean catching a connection (e.g. local bus) when otherwise they would have missed it. For that reason alone one should not consider a small time saving as always insignificant.
Consistently arriving a minute early at work instead of a minute late could have made a huge difference to some people in the days when you rigidly clocked in to work. There will always be “cut-offs” whether it be being to late for an appointment, arriving somewhere before it closed (e.g. airport check in), arranging to meet someone but they gave up waiting two minutes before you arrived etc.
@PoP/Ian J and others – of course, there will be cases where a minute matters but given the nature of most non-manual work, another minute here or there doesn’t make you more or less productive. Let me illustrate the point by referring to the (true) example of one of my HEOs,who to the despair of his Principals, downed tools at 16.30 on the dot; leaving whatever letter he was writing unfinished in mid-sentence.* To spell it out,another minute wouldn’t necessarily -most unlikely,in fact – mean that he would have finished the letter; moreover when starting up the next day, he would have had to (and did) spend considerable time reconstructing the previous day’s thoughts.
Bluntly, work doesn’t usually come in nice minute sized packages.
*As the man was near retirement,he was untouchable for practical purposes, alas.
What we are trying to do here is to find a number which represents the total harm inflicted on a group of people, when they are delayed by certain amounts of time.
This is quite different from determining the total volume of water contained in a number of glasses. We learn in nursery school that this is best done by simple addition of the individual volumes; we can verify this by pouring them in a big pot and measuring. But if we add the temperatures of all the glasses, we do not get the total temperature, we get a completely meaningless number.
One school of thought says that adding delays gives the most useful answer. But many other procedures could be devised. We could add all the delays greater than 5 minutes, and ignore the rest. We could add them all, but double any figure over 30 minutes. We could multiply each delay by the hourly wage earned by each delayee, and get the total wages lost. None of these answers is right in the way that adding the water volumes is. It’s a matter of taste.
Also relevantly, people tend not to think in 1-minute intervals: if your travel time to get to the station (by car/bike/walking) is more than about 10 or 15 minutes, you’ll probably think in 5-minute blocks – so if your train leaves at anywhere between 8.13 and 8.17 you’ll think of it as “about 8.15”. You’ll then aim to get there perhaps 5 minutes before (or 10 or 15 if you expect a queue for tickets – but regardless, you’ll probably be thinking in blocks of 5 minutes again). Thus a change between a train leaving at 8.14 and 8.15 doesn’t have any effect at all on when you leave the house (or, at the other end, when you think you need to leave work by to catch the next train). It just means that you arrive with slightly more time to catch the train, and usually you’ll spend that extra minute standing in the station.
The situation could be different if you’re taking public transport to get to the station, where the train leaving a minute later might make a bus that leaves 10 minutes later viable – but for any given timetable change, that will probably be the case for only a small percentage of public-transport-connection-users (and therefore an even smaller percentage of the total number of people taking that train). For most people with a connection, the change wont make any difference and they’ll keep taking the same bus to the station.
What is relevant with this “one minute makes no difference” idea is a form of “mission creep”. ” Add another stop > it’s only going to make the end to end journey a minute longer”, regardless of the fact that few travellers to/from the South Coast or the Arun Valley want to board or alight at Earlswood or Salfords, etc. So eventually, the end to end journey takes 10 minutes longer each way than it did 30 years ago.
@castlebar -while I agree entirely with you about mission creep – the GWML is a classic, as is the Portsmouth Direct (on which I live),where timings are now back to steam traction levels – the issue here is what number we use for appraisal and evaluation of new investment (rather than choice of where to live – for which your point is especially relevant) , and whether we ignore changes – cumulative or not – below a certain threshold. I don’t know what that threshold might be and I haven’t seen any recent studies. The ability to work on trains with modern IT kit has in any case changed the equation – as HS2 has somewhat belatedly discovered.
Anecdotally, I would tend to think in terms of 15 minute tranches of time when planning my day but I’m sure others have other experiences. What I’m sure is that people (other than prisoners and production line workers) don’t normally plan their day to the minute. Even the most cost conscious accountancy and legal firms don’t go below 6 minutes for chargeout purposes.
I have had an operator trying to justify not holding a connection (cross platform, doors open on incoming simultaneous with closing on outgoing) because the two minutes thereby saved were essential. Of course the delay to the fifty or so connecting passengers was nearly an hour – maybe more for any who missed further connections down the line.
There may have been many reason’s for Graham H’s HEO’s apparently illogical behaviour – if he had a long or complex journey, leaving five minutes late might mean missing an hourly fast train home, with no bus connecting with the next. Or he may have had evening commitments (maybe he was a local councillor or evening class lecturer?) For a few years I absolutely had to leave the office by 16.48 on two days a week in order to catch the 17.12 in order to collect my children from After School Club before it closed. Whilst they were understanding that occasionally things went awry (usually the Drain having an instant surprise closure), being habitually late would have caused difficulties, and being asked to make other arrangements (after all, their staff needed to go home too). Fortunately SWT were more reliable then.
But if the HEO was not planning his work so he could either finish a task or leave it is an easy state to pick up in the morning, that is inefficient.
@John B
“In the same vein, an operator should be measured on how many minutes a passenger is delayed by”
A certain operator’s habit of turning trains short, or running empty trains past full platforms, to get them back on time would surely change if this were implemented
Shouldn’t be difficult with Oyster/contactless/smartcard technology. They know how long you took to go from A to B, and they know how long it should take.
The management don’t seem convinced by my argument that they would not sign for a delivery if the van turned up on time but hadn’t had time to pick up their parcel first. (although following Amazon’s analogy too closely would lead to diversion to a neighbouring station (or a depot) counting as meeting a target)
Having written and reviewed business cases for TfL projects I can see both sides of the argument. When we were developing the case for Smartcard ticketing we identified that using a smart ticket was less cumbersome at a gate compared to removing a magnetic ticket from a wallet, putting it in the gate, picking it up, walking through all the while trying to put the ticket back in a wallet / pocket. Although the difference was small in time terms we felt there was definitely an identifiable benefit for a lot of people. I remember having interminable discussions with those who “checked” the rigour of business cases before they were allowed anywhere near the approval process. At that point most people had never seen a smartcard never mind used one in an urban rail environment. You can guess how long it took to explain the concept and technology. We certainly were not trying to overegg the case or find something to make smart ticketing a “killer” project and in the end we had to compromise on the calculated value and accept a “critical” comment from the “checker”. When we see the volume of transactions and relative ease [1] with which people get through gates perhaps the “battle” was worth it?
The other point to note about TfL’s methodology (as I knew it) was the weighting of different elements to reflect discomfort, crowding, unproductive wait time. Therefore the time spent in a queue to buy a ticket is increased in the appraisal because people view this as “dead time” that is simply delaying them. Ditto for a slow walk through a very congested walkway in a station or travelling on an immensely crowded train or waiting on a crush loaded platform. The values are developed off the back of customer preference research so there is an opportunity for TfL to take these negative aspects of a customer’s journey into account when developing the case for running more trains, buying trains that have more space inside them or building bigger stations, adding corridors and escalators or investing in ticketing changes that remove the need to queue at a machine or ticket window. I don’t know if the DfT / Network Rail have anything similar to this framework. They’ll certainly be familiar with TfL’s methodology but, of course, it’s a political decision if you want to “lumber” yourself with spending money to be nice to public transport users rather just buying the odd trinket as an add on to a franchise deal. Ooh cynical!! 😉
[1] note I am not claiming perfection before anyone feels the need to reel off umpteen experiences where their / their granny’s / their child’s smart ticket did not work at a gate.
@Graham H – “What I’m sure is that people (other than prisoners and production line workers) don’t normally plan their day to the minute.” – Unfortunately, I am told that a former employer of mine does just that to their professional staff, who are even expected to ‘clock off’ and on again via their computer logging system just for a tea/coffee break. Trouble is, that takes about a minute on the computer either side of the break, to the detriment of both employer and employee. The latter now indeed consider themselves prisoners. Charging to clients is now down to 3-minute intervals – and to think that my old boss used to charge out by weighing the file in his hands once the task was completed. Oft I wonder whether that practice is still pursued by some when costing out projects.
To step back a moment, a commuter might well time the walk to the station to the minute from leaving house/office and expect mid-journey changes in Southern railway land (BR(S)) to be timed to similarly accurate minute timings.
@ Alison W – hooray. Some common sense about what objectives we’re trying to achieve in using or changing transport system maps. We keep having these impassioned debates about how the transport system should be presented to people but I’ve never seen any great consensus about the problems to be resolved, why we would change and what the end result would be. I’m not saying we should debate it now just saying a step back rather than grabbing the pencils would be useful.
Thanks also for some realism about Spider Maps. They can be immensely helpful if you are a given location and want a direct service. What they are dreadful at is showing what happens for services *arriving* in the location for the map. They only show departing stops so you can leave the area. As you rightly say they fail to show a wider picture making it very hard for visitors or irregular users to know that they may only need to walk or travel down the road to pick up a service that would take them where they want to go. Thankfully TfL still produce the quadrant “real” bus maps and you can still get hold of them – *if* a bus station enquiry office is actually open. They are on the TfL website if you want to view them online. It was noteworthy that when TfL relaunched their website and didn’t provide the spider maps that it took only a few hours of angry comments and reaction before it was agreed that they’d be put back!
@AlisonW
Not sure the Gob line would be a popular name either (except with ageing 50 something punks).
Re the debate about a minute here and a minute there becoming a much longer delay, this was covered in a well aimed and very witty film by BTF (I refrained from calling it a BTF film, for fear of being accused of recurrence – !) called Right Time Means Right Time, but better known as The Pain Train.
For those who haven’t seen it, it chronicles a journey in which a succession of minor delays become an 18 and a half minute delay, making a bride late for her wedding on the way and another passenger miss his connection at Crewe.
@Ronnie MB
“making a bride late for her wedding ”
They weren’t going to start without her were they?
Perhaps it’s because I work in the rail industry, or perhaps I’m a bit odd, but I very much plan my travelling to the minute.
0711 leave home for walk to station
0742 arrive station
0744 catch train (which is ruthlessly punctual).
Leaving office, I require to be out the front door 17 minutes before train departure at Blackfriars.
And that is the beauty of train travel which does not exist, in my experience, with any other mode. With bus, planes, and particularly car travel, I have to allow contingency time, which causes me invariably to wait or be late.
The question is not whether journeys can be planned to the minute, reliably or not, but whether if you knew you had an extra minute you could or would do another 60 seconds of productive output. Some could, some couldn’t.
@Graham F – yes, I’ve heard of such battery farm employers even in the white collar sectors, but, again, making your staff be present and account for their time doesn’t (these employers please note) mean that they are productive for all the hours they logged in. [I used to work for consultancies where we had to account for our whole day in terms of chargeable time – there was a whole internal and invisible to management industry devoted to making sure that you did so; this didn’t mean that if you had been forced to account for another minute you’d actually have been that much more productive*…]
*The reductio ad absurdem of this was the buying out of unused leave (if you wished to sell it) on the grounds that had you not been on leave that extra day at work would have been wholly productive and chargeable. Gratefully, we all took the opportunity as the year – end arrived to earn a bit more, smiling privately to ourselves.
@Sad Fat Dad, 31 October 2015 at 13:57
Perhaps it’s because I work in the rail industry, or perhaps I’m a bit odd, but I very much plan my travelling to the minute . . . And that is the beauty of train travel which does not exist, in my experience, with any other mode. With bus, planes, and particularly car travel, I have to allow contingency time, which causes me invariably to wait or be late.
Something those who model transport desirability don’t quite get. They alway seem to use average wait from a random desire to travel time, so low-frequency skews assumed travelling time upwards, whereas if a familiar customer always presents for a particular train they don’t necessarily percieve the service as being slower, as they have adapted their own arrival time to suit the well-known schedule. Often such a traveller can stay in a reasonable environment at home or work and build other activities around the wait. In the morning you don’t get up half an hour early, get down to the station and hang around for 30 minutes drinking expensive flat whites moaning about there being only an hourly train. You stay in bed and get there just in time. Very Japanese!
@MT – just so – and if you were adapting to a new timetable that gave you a faster journey, you’d just as likely spend the extra time in bed or having slightly longer over the pre-prandial sherry. perhaps a second glass?
@SFD Of course, many of us here believe that train travel is (at least potentially) wonderful. But I wonder about the picture you paint (ruthlessly punctual trains – unless you were being ironic – and thus no wasted time, versus car travel requiring contingency and therefore waste). This may well be the case for many jobs, perhaps yours is one, where being on time is desirable, but no irreversible consequences if you happen to occasionally arrive late. Reasonably punctual train services are a good match for such jobs.
For leisure travel, say visiting friends, spare time is equally usable at either end of the journey, so by car you may as well leave when you are ready, especially if they are good friends who will understand your variable arrival time. For a funeral, say, or a new job interview, arriving late is as bad as not coming at all, so any means of transport requires lots of contingency (perhaps excepting Switzerland).
Sorry, but single minutes DO count in the workplace, especially in local government. Ten years ago I attended a conference for local authority staff at a nearby seaside resort. (The topic was “Making Cuts”, so an expensive local hotel was booked for it). The conference ran out of steam by about 3:30, and people were anxiously looking at their watches. Sillier and sillier questions were being asked. The last question came at 4:20 and got a single sentence as an answer. > Why? Because if it wound up at 4:20 or before, staff were required to return to their various offices around West Sussex. If the meeting finished at 4:21 or later, staff were allowed to go straight home. By 4:24, the hotel car park was empty. See, those single minutes DO matter.
@Castlebar – of course, but only in some cases. (In your instance, there was a threshold beyond which they counted but that won’t apply in most cases). Nor did the threshold make that extra minute more productive – as you say, people were just spinning it out…
I’m tempted to remind readers here of the Parkinsonian law about work expanding to fill the time available.
Actually, John B, I’d argue that the operator should be measured by how many minutes *per passenger* the service is delayed, not just on the vehicle’s delay:
Ten passengers delayed ten minutes on an inbound service in the evening rush hour is far less serious than four hundred pax delayed two minutes on the outbound of that same vehicle. (10×10 << 400×2)
@AlisonW: You have illustrated my point very nicely. Arithmetically, your inequality is valid. But if a different form of agglomeration had been used (such as the one I mentioned, where you add up all the delays above 5 minutes, and ignore the rest), then you get a different result. My point is not about which delay actually is worse, at the end of the day that is a matter of taste. My point is that a simple arithmetic sum is not the only way to do it.
I do agree with you, however, that just counting trains delayed, and completely ignoring their loading, seems like a fairly bad way to do it.
Actually, John B, I’d argue that the operator should be measured by how many minutes *per passenger* the service is delayed, not just on the vehicle’s delay:
I don’t know what it is like now but in the early days of privatisation and when Railtrack was around that is rough how it used to be. An operator would have service specification and a predetermined penalty payment if a trains was officially late. This would be based on anticipated use. So If a West Coast Main Line train arrived at Euston 11 minutes late this could run into many thousands of pounds and lead to much arguing as to who was responsible for the delay. Conversely a delayed arrival in mid-winter of a train at Pwllheli reputedly could lead to a payment as low as £10.
Apart from creating an entire mini-industry of delay attribution, this had an unfortunate perverse effect (now corrected) whereby it was better for the TOC to run a train 29 minutes late on a half-hourly service to avoid a payment for cancelling a train because that produced a lower penalty payment.
@Malcolm/Alison
Any delay statistics should include not only the number of people on the train but the people who should have been on it but couldn’t. A train that only arrives on time because it skipped several stops should include the delay to all the people who were unable to use it (whether travelling to or from the skipped stops)
@timbeau: Of course you are right in strict fairness. But such a figure might be very difficult to calculate or estimate.
The total delay statistic, if it is being calculated to shame or alter the operator’s behaviour, will never capture every nuance. (However, the figures that you mention are probably more than a nuance). But it does make one long for the good old days (if they ever existed) when operators’ reactions to adverse events were based on a gut feeling of how best to serve passengers (and would-be passengers) rather than how to game the system.
(Actually, even if those days did exist, it would be hard to tell whether the final outcome was better or worse for passengers than at present, though I might put my money on “better”, particularly when it comes to holding connections).
It is worth noting that the “evil” PPP brought in the use of Lost Customer Hours (LCHs) for every LU line and LU station to measure the aggregate impact for the duration of train delays, signal failures, full or partial line suspensions, late depot start ups and station closures. The impact is obviously weighted by usage by hourly time band and location (station to station section or station). While the peak numbers could be eye watering the downside is lightly used sections or quiet times of day might receive rather less attention. Therefore the regime has to have minimum values to ensure sufficient incentive to respond and to not neglect assets in the more remote bits of the network. Oh dear I am having flashbacks to a former life. 😉
There is no such thing as the perfect measure or benchmarks or targets. However it is worth noting that every LU service affecting incident is still recorded and allocated to the responsible department with the lost customer hour values being calculated. LUL’s periodic performance reports still use LCHs for those forms of disruption and I think departments still have targets set in LCHs. There are also more traditional engineering measures used plus more basic total numbers of events.
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/lu-performance-report-period-4-2015-16.pdf
To answer a couple of points above. Delay penalties for TOC’s do still try to balance how busy a train is as PoP describes. LU use a system of ‘Lost Customer Hours’ which attempts to measure the total time lost to all customers affected by a delay. Different systems but both attempting to measure, however imperfectly, the real world impact.
With regard to timbeau’s point the delay penalties don’t really reflect trains terminating short but this is picked up by the reliability metric. So a train which, for the sake of argument, terminates short at Kingston counts as a cancellation towards that measure and can trigger penalties.
With regards to the benefit of delay attribution I believe that overall the principle is a good thing. While as Malcolm says it would be nice to believe that in the good old days people would ‘do the right thing’ in real life people need to be held accountable for their actions and to do that you need some way to measure performance. For example I’ve helped manage major events on stations and there was a huge emphasis on ensuring that we weren’t responsible for incurring delays. I just don’t believe that pressure would be there without a performance regime.
Holding connection is a controversial one. In some cases, for example last trains, it is always the right thing to do. Very often though it isn’t the right thing to do for network performance as a whole, or for the other passengers who are then delayed and miss a connection somewhere else.
Beaten to it by WW with a much more eloquent explanation of Lost Customer Hours while I was typing!
@Malcolm
“But such a figure might be very difficult to calculate or estimate.”
Far easier now to track passengers than it used to be – certainly on metro-type services such as the ones that the article is about. All ticket gates are capable of determining when each user enters and leaves the system – indeed they use they data to time you out if you exceed a reasonable expectation for the journey time – to the annoyance of Tube Challengers and others with unusual itineraries. It is thus quite possible to detect automatically when a large cohort of ticket holders between the same journey points have all been delayed at once.
On longer distance journeys, Advance ticket bookings can be used to predict the number of users expecting to make any particular connection, which can be refined later by reporting to an interchange station the number of open tickets that have entered a station in time to catch a train that is to make a connection.
The figures will not be 100% accurate, as passengers, unlike parcels or Ocado deliveries, may break their journey, or otherwise not make the connection.
If one person takes 40 minutes to get from Lewisham to Cannon Street, he may have decided to meet someone for coffee at London Bridge. But if 250 people do, something has gone wrong.
Similarly, if there are 70 Advance tickets to London sold at Scarborough and Malton for a particular service, you can be fairly sure that there are at least 70 people who will be delayed if the connection at York is not honoured. If the number of open single and return tickets hoping through the gates at Scarborough or Malton shortly before the service departs, an even better estimate can be made – with experience an accurate estimate may be made of the number of the latter passengers who decide to break their journey at York.
And it works the other way as well – if you know that failing to hold the connection will only delay half a dozen people who will be able to get another train 20 minutes later, whilst holding it will cause a delay of over an hour to a larger number of ticket holders already on the train with connections further south,a judgement can be made as to whether to hold the connection or not (and whether to hold the second connection at Doncaster or wherever).
Such logistical decisions are routine for courier and delivery services, which see the vehicles as simply the means for getting consignments delivered.
One other factor with connections – all too often they play the blame game – it was the incoming service’s operator who was at fault for arriving late, why should we get a penalty for waiting for you? (and of course any compensation paid by the former hits their bottom line, making the goody-goody onward (non-)connecting operator look good by comparison). If they could recognise that they are partners in delivering a service to a customer, rather than competitors, that would be a big step forward. Indeed, in most cases one can see the operator of the connecting service as a subcontractor – if I’ve bought a ticket from Virgin but part of the journey is with Northern, a problem such as a missed connection caused by Northern cannot be shrugged off by Virgin as nothing to do with them – it is they that sold you the ticket and they are responsible to their customers for remedying any shortcomings in the service, whether they deliver that par of it themselves or through a subcontractor.
The trouble is you don’t just have to factor in passengers from the connecting train and the train that is waiting for them. In the example above holding a train at York will almost certainly delay other trains on the East Coast. This then ripples all the way down to London commuter services at one end and potentially as far as the Highland’s at the other. Most of the time the best answer for the largest number of people is going to be not to hold the connection. Of course that partly depends if the next connecting train is in 30 minutes or 3 hours! Just one example from my brief time involved with delay attribution was a points failure on the Great Eastern main line leading to a delay at Ascot. As an aside I found the whole process a little mind numbing after a while!
I certainly think it’s something the railways can do better but it’s an absolutely enormous set of data with a lot of variables to try and make sense of.
Just to get an idea of costs involved in this delay attribute stuff, I am led to believe that in future as soon as a Bombardier Crossrail train fails in the Crossrail tunnel then the meter starts with an initial payment of £100,000. Mind boggling but probably a reasonable realistic cost and if you have spent £14.8 billion on building a railway it doesn’t seem to be an overburdensome figure to ensure that the capital investment works and is used effectively.
Starlight,
And people wonder why a set of points can cost upward of half a million pounds. It sounds like a classic case of if you pay twice as much for a ten percent improvement in reliability then you grab it with open arms.
@ PoP – while I agree that the intention of having a very reliable Crossrail is laudable and good I don’t believe that MTR Crossrail or Bombardier will get an immediate £100,000 hit. The delay value might translate into that but there must be some assumed level of reliability that is reflected in a benchmark or allowance per period before financial pain is felt. If there isn’t then there is likely to be a quite ridiculous level of abatement risk factored into the bid. As I am sure you appreciate a lot of clever people do a lot of clever modelling around assumed asset reliability and past performance (applicable on the old bits of Crossrail). All that brain power is used to try to get representative performance levels, sensible steps between excellent, good, average, poor, bad levels of performance and triggering varying levels of bonus or abatement. This depends on whether the client is more likely to use “carrots” or “sticks” to drive appropriate behaviours. I would certainly be interested to know how the new infrastructure’s performance has been dealt with in terms of assumed reliability levels and whether any post opening adjustment will be made once data starts being collected on how the assets are performing.
While I have no doubt that everyone is aiming to achieve extremely good performance on Crossrail life tells us that new assets break down, people have to learn how things work, the public do hundreds of stupid things every day that imperil your service quality and a whole load of other “stuff” happens. Without wanting to damage anyone’s reputation I fully expect Crossrail trains to break down, stations to close, escalators to stop working, signals to fail and bits of track to go wrong. My hope is that those things are limited in number and that the right “learning” culture exists in all the supplier and operational businesses.
[Snip. Repetition. PoP]
And …
In that case the points at the divergence E of Whitechapel had better be really reliable, hadn’t they?
Re. reliability and punctuality:
If one lives on the Tube network, which is a high-frequency metro, then whether I get to the station five minutes early or late isn’t going to affect my journey time much: there’ll be a train a long in a few minutes at most anyway. But that’s in north London…
South of the river, if one’s local station is, say, Kent House, Chislehurst, or Petts Wood, where the stopping services are rather less frequent, missing a train can mean a 15 minute wait, which makes a more noticeable difference to journey time. Ergo, the metric needs to be modified accordingly.
[Digression snipped. Malcolm]
I do feel that the “delay attribution” problem is primarily due to the fragmented franchising system adopted in the UK. It’s a symptom of the multiple interfaces and corporate aims involved in the system.
In France and Italy, where the separation between
church and statewheel and rail was reduced to just one notional company running each, (with some joint ventures for cross-border services, and barely a handful of Open Access operators), this problem does not exist: the prevailing attitude is one of providing a service to the customer, rather than merely running a trainset.[snip] In the pre-automobile era, railways had an effective monopoly on long-distance transport, but this is no longer the case, so, again, the rules and metrics need to be adapted to fit. (“Fit what?” Whatever the social desire is. This is a political goal, not an engineering one. If there are perfectly viable competitors for the journey, it may be better to mothball a line with a view to reopening in future should demand rise above a set threshold, but if the road network is much more tortuous, the railway may offer the best service regardless.)
I think my point is that it’s dangerous to take a “One Size Fits All” approach to these things.
Walthamstow Writer,
When was the last time you heard of a tube train breaking down in the tunnel (as opposed to be taken out of service because of sticking doors or other fault)? It should be pretty difficult for an electric train with redundant motors to break down. It is (and should be) a pretty rare event. I don’t think £100,000 an unreasonable initial cost when you consider the disruption that would be caused because of the interfacing of Crossrail to the Great Western. This disruption could easily extend to Exeter and Cornwall. It will concentrate minds wonderfully at Bombardier. Yes of course they will factor in some provision into the cost but it is more important not to have these delays than to get the trains as cheaply as possible.
Lets just say this came from a reliable source speaking to a room of transport professionals (and me). I may have misunderstood but I don’t think so.
Indeed delays can ripple outwards – and now that we have Eurostar the origin of a delay can, in theory at least, be as far away as Istanbul or Moscow. But delay attribution is still being measured against the wrong thing – the delay to the train. The train is merely the means by which passengers (or parcels, or freight) are got from origin to destination.
There are often circumstances where a train is so heavily delayed that not only has it missed a connection to a branch but the following train is close on its heels. Current practice is to run the late train non-stop to its destination. It may make more sense from a passenger service perspective, to divert the delayed train to form an extra service for the branch to repair the broken connection, passengers for the train’s original destination being accommodated on the following service. Destination changes do occasionally happen on the Underground (known as re-forming), although it is not as obvious because the Underground does not publish a train-by-train timetable (we talk about the 12:31 from Waterloo to Teddington but not the 12:34 from Morden to Mill Hill East) , but the cancellation payment regime gives TOCs no incentive to do such things on the main lines.
To anyone who has had a post removed or modified recently. If you supply a valid eMail address, moderators will sometimes (but definitely not always) contact you with an explanation. This might save you some time in composing a post that will not see the light of day, and it will certainly save us some time in having to remove fewer posts. (And some contributors’ eMail addresses may have worked in the past, but ceased to do so).
Anomnibus
Agreed, but one phrase:
I think my point is that it’s dangerous to take a “One Size Fits All” approach to these things. rings a very loud bell.
It should, actually be on one of the cycling threads, but that is the exact problem with the vociferous “cycling lobby” – “Cycling is THE ANSWER” – And it doesn’t matter what the question was – horses for courses doesn’t seem to enter in to it.
I think we might/should be discussing the “appropriateness” of any/some forms of transport more in this forum.
But not right now, OK?
[Too right about not right now. Malcolm]
PoP
When was the last time you heard of a tube train breaking down in the tunnel (as opposed to be taken out of service because of sticking doors or other fault)?
Easy – when a Bombardier-built, oops, Central line train shed one of its traction motors, IIRC [ 25/01/2003 ] ??
You DID ask!
Further to the “what do you do with a minute saved” from all the usual suspects!!!!!!” In engineering terms, every second counts on a high frequency railways, and if the time saved amounts to a headway interval, then you need one fewer train for a given service. If you plan an new or upgraded line this way, you need fewer trains, and the trains you don’t buy don’t need drivers or maintenance. If you already have the trains there is the possibility of improving the service.
Customers do notice the odd minute saved. It’s impossible for us to be aware of all the benefits that the millions of individual customers get from these small savings, but if I could get a £ for each comment on how much faster the Victoria line is (to mention again one of TfL’s successes), I could dine out more often.
Malcolm
Actually, the post I was referring to is clearly visible on MY screen …
Do we have an alternate-reality problem here? [No, we have a moderators are human and sometimes make mistakes problem here. Comment duly unsnipped.]
100+30
Indeed – that’s one of the drivers behind the proposed Northern Line service split, isn’t it?
@130 -again,the issue is not whether people appreciate faster trains, of course they do, they question for those struggling to put together a business case,is how much that “appreciation” is worth in cash/pelf/moolah. And in particular, the issue is whether the punters would use the time saved productively or in bed or down the “Dingo and Wombat”.
@Graham H
In the particular case of the Northern Line split, there is also the balance to be struck between end to end journey times for those who get a faster and more frequent direct train, and the time spent wandering round Camden Town and Kennington by people who will now have no direct service
timbeau’s “12:34 from Morden to Mill Hill East” is actually more likely to be the “12:34½ from Morden to Mill Hill East”! The tube runs to half-minute scheduling.
@AlisonW
““12:34½ from Morden to Mill Hill East”! The tube runs to half-minute scheduling.”
Indeed it does, but the schedules are not generally advertised – if all the trains ran five minutes behind schedule – or even fifty – no-one would notice as long as the interval were maintained.
Even on a 2tph service, there is no point in advertising any service as running later than the service interval.
@Graham H – ‘Productively’ and ‘in bed’ are not necessarily mutually exclusive!
@timbeau:
(1) the attraction of the TfL appraisal methodolgy (WW to correct me if I’m wrong) is that it provides a way of including the valuation of passengers’ non-transport benefits (eg the time taken to move from the train to the surface). These benefits are not valued in the DfT methodology (and should be).
(2) the LU working timetables are available on line (someone else to provide the link,please). You will see that there are cases of timings to 1/4 of a minute. You are right that the tube, like the bus service, is, however, managed in real time to provide an even service interval. This key difference between LU and NR/Railtrack was the principal reason we managed to torpedo the Treasury’s “northern crossrail” spoiler…
@Alison: assuming you are right about the tube running to half-minute scheduling, it still puzzles me why you think that a departure from Morden is “actually more likely” to be timed at an odd number of half-minutes after midnight rather than an even number?
@Malcolm – to note my last post…
timbeau refers to a balance to be struck (in the case of the Northern Line split) between one group of users and another.
Unfortunately, there is a further group of people to be considered, those who would like to be members of one or other of your groups, but cannot get on any train at all due to congestion. A desire to provide for (at least some of) these people is behind the decision to try to run the absolute maximum number of trains physically possible, which seems to require a split.
@Graham: duly noted but I don’t understand why you are drawing my attention to it. It may be just me, so don’t feel obliged to reply.
@Malcolm -“assuming you are right about the tube running to half-minute scheduling” _ I had just pointed put that they ran to 1/4 minute intervals… I think you’d find the LU WTTs quite interesting – especially the runtime summaries that accompany them.
Ah I see. But my comment would still work with quarter-minute scheduling. 12:34½ is still no more likely than 12:34.
Oh absolutely!
@timbeau of 2102 – as I understand it, the LU appraisal methodology does indeed take into account the timespent by those, like Dante’s sinners, condemned to wander forever in the lower circles of Kennington
@ Graham H 2125 – yes TfL can measure the effect of improving platform to ticket hall time in stations. Again a weighting can be applied if conditions are very overcrowded rather than free flowing. On that basis improving Holborn station will be a sure fire winner! My memory’s a bit rusty but I think there are also ways of identifying the relative benefits of stairs, escalators or lifts for a given access stage in a station.
The LU WTTs are at
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/working-timetables
Still waiting for TfL to provide the bus equivalent with all the schedules for each TfL bus route.
@ PoP – I think you have slightly misunderstood my point. Regardless of how reliable or not an asset is you still need a regime that recognises the possibility of failure. Yes a train “sit down” might be rare in more modern stock but we had loads of them in JNP land when I was involved in doing attribution plus all the associated forecasting and reporting. There may very well be an eye watering abatement regime but the process of aggregation, averaging etc to smooth out abatement risk will certainly come into play. If it hasn’t been done that way then I hope MTR Crossrail and their supply chain have some deep pockets because things fail no matter how focused the minds are of very clever and talented people! If I’d been asked I would never ever have predicted even half of the the failures, faults and events we had to plough through to sort out the attribution of asset failures. I fully expect Crossrail will have an equally bewildering assortment of events affecting their railway operation.
Walthamstow Writer,
By the time Crossrail trains take to the tunnels there would have been nearly two years testing out the trains between Shenfield and Liverpool St (high level). The will also be much system testing including trains in 2018. So really by opening date (December 2018) there should be no reason for a modern electric train to completely fail.
Greg,
Thank you for your rhetorical answer.
Re: LU timetables and quarter minutes.
The rule is very simple. On automatic lines (Central, Jubilee, Northern and Victoria) trains are timed to the quarter minute. On all other lines they are timed to the half minute and generally have been since the line opened.
Although you can run 34tph using quarter minute timetables (you actually run at 105 second intervals – 34.29tph) you can’t do that for 36tph so it will be interesting to see what the Victoria line timetable will do late next year. My totally speculative guess is they will go to 10 second intervals – 100 seconds (36tph) in the peak and 130 seconds (27.7tph) in the off-peak.
PoP/WW – details of the Crossrail Performance Regime including penalties are in para 4.25 onwards of http://content.tfl.gov.uk/fpc-20140717-part-1-item05-crossrail-train-operating-concession.pdf.
If I’m reading the paper correctly, with penalties for a full cancellation costing GBP10,000-36,000 for lost capacity (the paper gives an example of just two trains missing a Stratford stop costing the operator GBP14,700), plus penalties per service of up to GBP165 per minute for headway exceeded by 40% or more and up to GBP137.50 per minute for delays of 3 minutes or more, a breakdown blocking the line for any length of time would soon be clocking up significant costs.
Do NR trains run internally to minute timetables? Doesn’t that introduce delays on route with frequent stops, if the natural start to start time for a pair of stations is 2min20 but, it has to be timetabled as 3min? Or in practice do they round up and down, so some stations always have trains leaving 45s late even when running optimally?
Graham H
Well, the absurdly-slow, roundabout & infrequent trains S of Horsham, that MUST go through the sacred space of Gatwick airport is a case in point, isn’t it?
Later:
Actually, Dante was referring to the Jerusalem UndergrounD, IIRC.
( With the “construction spoil” built up at the antipodes to make mount Purgatory. )
John B
NR “trains” – which don’t exist, of course, apart from engineering ones – run to half-minute timings & have done since Pre-Grouping days, IIRC.
@PoP – thank you for the 34.29 tph example – I had spent some time ruminating on how one squared the headline tph figures with the intervals actually used to construct the timetable. It’s the tph therefore which is the “slack” variable.
Graham H,
Yes a rare case of the truth being actually more impressive than the headline claim. It does mean that going from a notional 34tph to a 36tph in future is actually only about 1.7tph better. That’s still a 5% improvement.
A notional 27tph even interval timetable is running trains at 135 second intervals – actually only 26.67tph
If you want to ruminate on how to square timetable headline figures then look at the Jubilee line timing west of North Greenwich were trains arrive and depart at even intervals at North Greenwich and also do the same at Stratford – despite 1 in 4 trains terminating at North Greenwich. This would explain why a journey from Stratford to North Greenwich can appear to be quite quick or quite slow depending on which train in the sequence you take.
John B,
Network Rail use half minutes, I suspect, primarily for determining timings at junctions. I suspect, with manually driven trains, that there is little to be gained by specifying a level of precision that in practice would not be achieved on the ground. Given that a 200m 10-car train at 30mph takes a quarter of a minute to pass a particular point you could argue that timing for the quarter minutes when at 12-car train would often take more than a quarter minute to pass a particular point is a bit, well, pointless.
Where I feel Network Rail falls down is with dwell times only being calculated to the nearest half minutes. If you have four consecutive stations with a dwell time of 45 seconds each how do you best manage it? I suspect they have some great fudge but that is not really the way to go about it. London Underground have target dwell times for each platform on each station and this is to the nearest second.
It will be interesting to see how things are managed when Crossrail comes along. This will effectively be run to a Network Rail timetable and the regulation will be supervised by Network Rail. I have asked exactly how this will work but haven’t got a definitive answer.
Just to make the previous comment relevant to the current topic…
I get the strong impression TfL is frustrated by what they see as a bit of a lackadaisical means of working the south London railway.
I am sure TfL would push for ATO if they could, despite the well-known pain of implementation and pushing technology to the limit, because of the improved results and better headways.
They also believe that the same adherence to detail and focus on seconds would achieve a lot without that much infrastructure – though they do acknowledge that to achieve this you need staff on the platforms. It doesn’t just happen.
@ PoP – I am happy to be corrected but don’t the Japanese target improvements down to the second in terms of run times, turnrounds, dwell time etc? I believe they also employ ATO on some of their very busiest commuter routes which in part explains their greater efficiency.
And yes I am well aware that this focus and unrelenting management pressure on drivers has resulted in tragic accidents in Japan. I’m not advocating that approach here.
@PoP:
“I get the strong impression TfL is frustrated by what they see as a bit of a lackadaisical means of working the south London railway.”
I’d expect both Southern and South Eastern to take umbrage at that. It’s hardly their fault that the extensive, and hugely disruptive, “Thameslink 2000” upgrade project is coming in nearly two decades late. They’re not responsible for Crossrail’s presence in the Abbey Wood area either, and there’s the Kent resignalling project to take into account as well.
The South London railway network worked fine until south London itself started to expand in earnest. Unfortunately, that happened around the start of the 20th Century, while North London had already expanded massively by then. (Lewisham was still the edge of civilisation as recently as the 1890s. Scroll the map up to look at the sprawl of North London and you can see why the Tube network has always focussed on that side of the river.)
This period coincided with two world wars and the rise of the electric tram, with the automobile coming not long after; it’s hardly a big shock that south London’s heavy rail network became little more than an afterthought. By the time South London’s suburbia had spread out to a cover a similar extent to North London, and people realised Something needed to be Done(TM), all the opportunities to do it cheaply were long gone.
Whatever TfL’s plans for “South London Metro” are, I suspect their most difficult management task will be regarding expectations. The major surgery needed to solve all of the problems satisfactorily will be staggeringly expensive, so expect lots of initial focus on quick-win projects.
@WW
Yes some Tokyo suburban lines are timed to around 5-10 seconds accuracy. Where that can go wrong is when drivers are penalised for failing to adhere to the timetable, even through the consequences of external circumstances.
Even getting to a quarter minute timetabling accuracy could be valuable for south London, for example with station dwell times and junction occupation. There is a good case for applying TfL standards here. As PoP is well aware from his series of articles along the BML, alighting and boarding at Clapham Junction is a far bigger constraint at present, in terms of effective line capacity, than is Victoria.
Each station and junction requires detailed assessment, and then mitigation measures proportionate to the scale of their effect on overall capacity and reliability. It is the weakest station and junction (aka links in a chain) that will determine the practical frequency, until more radical investment were undertaken.
Anomnibus,
I don’t think any of that is relevant. You can take factors such as Thameslink work out the equation and I still think TfL would think that. It is no good pointing out it was fine many years ago – although I know a lot of people that would dispute that. TfL see much future potential that isn’t being used. To them this is by far the best, cheapest, most cost-effective solution – especially when the alternative is new tube lines or Crossails. Yes it would be hard to do but it can be done. Network Rail have their set of investment rules and criteria which differ from TfL and the mayor’s so in TfL’s eyes the problems need to be looked at differently.
Just to give a very simple example. Go to platform 8 at Stratford in the evening rush hour and see how many TfL Rail staff are present to try and reduce dwell time. I strongly suspect that didn’t happen prior to TfL taking over the Shenfield service.
Re PoP,
But SWT have about 8 staff on P10 at Clapham Jn during the am peak to attempt to reduce dwell times so it isn’t unique to TfL operation. Southern have 4 staff per platform at number of locations at busy times.
@timbeau
Does your notional lunchtime journey imply the reintroduction of an all day through Northern Line service to Mill Hill East any time soon?
Malcolm: a purely subjective view from seeing a number of the working timetables / turns for a driver friend of mine on the Northern Line; starting on the half-minute seems more common (which may not, of course, be actually true!)
@ Greg
Whereas I would like to discuss “…….the absurdly-slow, roundabout & infrequent trains S of Horsham, that MUST go through the sacred space of Gatwick airport is a case in point, isn’t it?……”
If I do, it will be sni……..
[Pleased you got the message. This has been brought up a number of times before. PoP]
@ Ngh – I’m going to be terribly picky and ask whether the staff you quote are there for
a) to manage dwell times or
b) to ensure “right time” departure or
c) to reduce dwell times below what is assumed in the timetable.
These could all be different things depending on how you view the situation and what your objectives are. I think PoP is suggesting that TfL’s approach would be to do (c) where it can deliver a demonstrable gain overall (and subject to safety being maintained / improved). SWT or Southern may be doing (a) or (b) for no other reason than avoiding massive penalties for delayed trains in the peaks. There may also be safety / risk assessment reasons at Clapham Junction given the curved nature of some platforms and the level of crowding which would make train despatch dangerous / impossible for drivers and / or guards to achieve single handedly.
I’m not criticising what’s being done just merely suggesting there are choices and differences in approach.
@PoP:
Thing is, that need for staff to help get people into the trains as quickly as possible is only really needed in the Zone 1 stations. [True, but no-one claimed otherwise. Malcolm].
[Stuff on south-north London contrast snipped – we’ve heard it before. Malcolm]
So I don’t think staffing levels is anything like the whole story here.
@Alison: thanks for replying to my bit of rather irrelevant nit-picking about half minutes. I’ll try to focus on more important things.
Timing granularity. If the timetables were devised entirely by computer, and the trains driven entirely automatically, then these machines could use seconds, or indeed microseconds. The need for coarser granularity arises for the human element (whether the human in question is passenger, platform staff, timetable planner or journalist). Nobody would take kindly to being told to ensure that a train is dispatched by 17:54:32.1, say, because it suggests a degree of precision which cannot be achieved.
The slight problem with the 10-second granularity suggested by PoP is that it is not possible to accurately represent any existing timetable containing quarter-minutes as a multiple of 10 seconds. In theory this might not matter, because changing the granularity in which working timetables are expressed would probably only happen when the timetables are being newly drawn-up. Even so, calculating to the second and expressing it (in the working timetable) as the nearest multiple of 5 seconds strikes me as the best approach. It also neatly sidesteps the “round up or down?” question which would arise if it were 10 seconds.
I realise this is all highly speculative, and I don’t think I have expressed it very well. So if anyone doesn’t see what I’m getting at, they should feel free to quietly ignore me!
@ Anomnibus – sorry but managing dwell time occurs at loads of stations other than in Zone 1. PoP specifically mentioned Stratford, NGH mentioned Clapham Junction and I’ll happily chuck in Highbury and Islington for the Overground (NLL) and Underground, Finsbury Park for the Underground plus many other places. The platforms load from edge to back wall and up the stairs at Finsbury Park in the peaks – that doesn’t manage itself. There are staff present to make sure trains get in and out promptly and safely. LU has had staff on non Z1 platforms in the peak to ensure effective train dispatch for years and years. They haven’t been taken away.
Have you seen the London rush hour recently? I only see bits of it occasionally these days and my jaw regularly drops at the numbers of people trying to travel. It was bad enough when I did commute regularly but it’s far, far worse now. Heck even off peak and weekends on the Victoria Line are like the rush hour in the early 2000s. I don’t have any stats to point to but my entirely subjective sense of things is that patronage has rocketed post upgrade completion. Obviously the upgrade itself is not the sole factor here but I do believe it is part of the picture. Passengers use services more when they are more frequent and more reliable.
[In fairness to Anomnibus, I should mention that in the snipped part he referred to various relatively quiet stations in South London.. But this in no way negates the points you, WW, have made in response. Malcolm]
@Greg re: the South Coast via Gatwick and Horsham services
The trains go ’round the houses’ from Portsmouth and Southampton because …
[Sorry, Si. This has been discussed here many times before, to such an extent that we moderators have taken to declaring as off-topic any further discussion of it. (Until and unless there is an appropriate article – unlikely because the affected places are not in London, and this is London Reconnections).
If, as I suspect, you did not realise this, then extra apologies, but it would not be fair to allow it to be discussed by some contributors while silencing others. Malcolm]
Re WW,
A mix of a and b.
C. Is isn’t going to happen – most NR stations have 30s dwell times* assumed in timetables apart for larger ones like Clapham Jn (60s) but there are problems everywhere to get dwell times under target** it is going to take longer trains, seats removed etc or new stock with more and/or wider doors and more frequent services and in the case of Clapham Jn probably CR2 as well!)
*my “small” local southern station dwell times are now circa 45s in the am peak
** or alternatively rewrite the timetable with 60s minimum…
@WW
When was the VL upgrade completed?
@ngh
CR2 could worsen matters at Clapham Junction because of extra interchangees there and poor station layout on curves. Potentially advisable to encourage earlier transfer at stations more amenable to faster boarding/alighting?
I note with interest that Porterbrook Leasing have speculatively ordered another batch of Class 387 EMUs.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/porterbrook-orders-bombardier-emus-to-meet-future-demand.html
Note that “Rail for London” are quoted as a potential customer for these trains which is very interesting given the vast numbers of EMUs already on order for Overground and Crossrail. I’ve been waiting to see whether any of the ROSCOs would speculatively build EMUs in the way that happened for DMUs back in the 1990s / early 2000s. I expect Porterbrook will have all these trains snapped up in short order once certain franchises are awarded.
Malcolm,
I specifically had the Victoria line in mind when talking about ten second intervals.
You are right that the fundamental problem is the working timetable and I don’t know how easy it would be to change it so that they measured in 10 second intervals. Personally I just don’t think you can achieve 36tph based on a working timetable that can only time to the nearest quarter minute and if you can it is only by fudging it. Yes there is little point in going to a misleading overprecision but something better than quarter minutes is about to become very necessary on the Victoria line (and, in a few years time, the Jubilee line). Since the Victoria line doesn’t interface with anything else then so long as one is happy to think in ten second chunks then you just make sure the frequency is a multiple of ten seconds.
I was once told that, according to the internal Network Rail reporting system, most trains left Victoria a minute early in the morning peak. On investigation it turned out that they were typically leaving 5 seconds early but the reporting system could only report to the nearest completed minute!
More on topic. Consider the problem of trains departing from Cannon Street in the morning peak and the constraint of going through London Bridge station on a single track. You have a mixture of stopping and non-stopping trains and the capacity is above 20tph. It could well be the case that if you timed to the nearest quarter minute you could squeeze a few more trains in because taking off 30 seconds is too much but 15 seconds may be manageable. It helps that it should be relatively easy to get trains to depart Cannon Street on time to the nearest quarter minute in the morning peak. This would potentially mean more trains into Cannon St (2 tracks through London Bridge) should be possible without relying on the west side of Borough Market junction triangle (due to be temporarily severed in December) to get some of the trains out. So it could be that just by switching to a timetable based on quarter minutes for a short section but critical section of route one could provide more trains – or at least run the trains one is currently running more reliably.
Jonathan Roberts,
Victoria line upgrade is still not complete. I am not sure if there is any outstanding infrastructure work to be done. There may be still work required to be able to handle the extra trains on the Seven Sisters – Walthamstow Central section without causing the tunnels to heat up any further. I think I read somewhere (Board Papers?) that it is intended to go to 34tph for the entire section of route in May 2016 and towards the end of the year go to 36tph. It is the 36tph that I believe requires something better than timings to the nearest quarter of a minute.
I presume Walthamstow Writer was referring to the upgrade to 33 or 34 tph with new trains which was the original plan and completed a couple of years ago but the big change was introducing the 2009 stock and getting rid of the 1967 stock in around 2010/2011. The current upgrade (extend all trains to Walthamstow Central and run 36tph) was classified as a separate project.
60 second dwell time at my local Zone 6 station is a impossible dream. It can take longer than that for all the schoolkids to get off, and then you often have a whole trainload of people to board because the previous train was terminated there.
However, on the return journey the platforms are displayed so late at the terminus that there can be little more than a minute left to load the train before it is due out again. (so it is unsurprising that they rarely leave on time!)
[CR2 and irrelevant topics snipped. LBM]
Re. Vic-line.
The upgrade can’t be implemented in terms of service pattern until the Walthamstow escalator works are complete – only staircase down, most of the day at present.
@Malcolm – I suspect PoP has actually answered your concern about granularity when he drew attention to the 34.29 tph service. The number of tph is made to fit the granularity – the travelling public not caring or noticing whether it gets 34 or 34.29 tph.
One attraction of a 10s or 15s timetable would be you could advertise to the passengers that a train was the 13:04 with 13:04:00 as the time the doors close, with the actual wheels rolling 13:04:10 or 13:04:15. This would remove the aggravation of a train doors closing on panting passengers who believe that arriving at 13:03:58 they’ve made it.
Not that I’m bitter about charging down London Bridge for the 2 carriage gap only to hammer on the doors.
@WW
Just as a quick 10 year onwards comparison, annual volumes at Brixton (essentially VL only) were:
18.1 million in 2004 (entry+exit)
29.4 million in 2014.
Many were to/from buses.
At Walthamstow Central, where entry+exit is also a function of the main line interchange, the equivalent numbers were:
10.9m in 2004
18.1 million in 2014.
In the 7-10AM peak period, the comparable entry numbers were:
Brixton:
11,505 in 2004, highest quarter hour 1,533 (0830-0845)
20,332 in 2014, highest quarter hour 2,614 (0815-0830)
Walthamstow Central:
9,087 in 2004, highest quarter hour 1,134 (0815-0830)
12,955 in 2014, highest quarter hour 1,534 (0815-0830).
As a single tube line station, Brixton is about as busy as it gets. The main line upstairs only handled 0.94m passengers in 2013-14 according to ORR, so about 1/30th of the tube station. So not really helping to relieve the Victoria Line.
Relief of the overloaded South London tubes is another potential benefit of a better South London rail network.
Jonathan Roberts,
Which I find very amusing because I am sure part of the rationale of the Victoria line going to Brixton was to relieve the main line upstairs. Now it seems the thinking is the other way around.
Next you will be telling me that we should have a main line size tube that stops at Clapham Junction and Victoria to help relieve the Victoria line at Vauxhall – which was itself justified on the basis of relieving the northbound Bakerloo line at Waterloo in the mornings (southbound in evenings).
John B: A simpler solution to disaggrieve the :58 arrivers would be to alter the rules so that “door close button” is on the dot, rather than “wheels start turning”.
No, probably that would have all sorts of unexpected side-effects, like claims for compensation from operators who claim they have 10 seconds less to be “on time arriving”. So not simpler at all.
The historical reason for the current convention (which we are probably stuck with, realistically) is doubtless slam-doors.
@PoP Whilst we’re at it, probably oughtn’t leave it too long before we think about relieving the Central line relief line between Paddington and the Wharf either.
@PoP
That main line sized tube is called Crossrail 2, I think!
I think any accounting measure that doesn’t preserve the fundamental reality that 30 1 minute delays together make a 30 minute delay will lead to absurdities – imagine an operator timetabling a single train as a series of connecting services so that they could count the delays separately.
I think of it this way: if a 5 minute delay means I don’t have time for my coffee before work then one of those 5 minutes must be the “critical minute” that makes the difference between getting it or not. Maybe it’s the difference between a 2 and a 3 minute delay that matters. But it’s probably fair to say that each minute has a 20% chance of being it – and so a 1 minute delay is 20% as bad as a 5 minute one.
So I hope TfL are counting the minutes as valuable. Because I like my coffee.
@lmm : Yes, 30 one-minute delays to the same passenger might be generally considered equivalent to one 30-minute delay to that passenger.
But there is no “obvious” equivalence between 30 different passengers each being delayed by one minute, and one passenger being delayed by 30 minutes. Yes, we can choose to call them equivalent, if we wish. But we could alternatively choose to say that one case is more serious than the other. Such a choice would not be an absurdity.
Log(30) vs 30xLog(1) maybe
Nobody would take kindly to being told to ensure that a train is dispatched by 17:54:32.1, say, because it suggests a degree of precision which cannot be achieved.
Since passengers need to be told a departure time no later than the actual departure time and an arrival time no sooner than the actual arrival time, the quoted time to passengers would then be:
Arr: 17:55
Dep: 17:54
I don’t know that many passengers would understand how a train could seemingly depart before it arrived.
@Kate: maybe. Though treating delays of less than a minute as beneficial to affected passengers might raise a few eyebrows (note for information, if x < 1, log(x) < 0).
@Lmm/Malcolm – the point of raising the question of materiality was precisely the question of whether there is a minimum time in which people can do anything productive (and that clearly doesn’t include downing a cup of coffee/having a longer siesta or similar ). A few will be able to do so – they might for example, dig another cubic foot of soil, but for many, giving them the opportunity to add another minute to a meeting (as in castlebar’s example) might not merely be unproductive, but counterproductive. Saving them a minute adds nothing to the economy; saving 30 or 30 000 such people one minute adds nothing to the economy. Saving them a productively useable amount of time each is a different matter.
There is a separate issue as to whether people would be willing to pay for that extra minute saved, even if not adding to the GDP. Would you, for example, be willing to pay for that extra minute asleep or drinking? And if so, how much. And again, there is the question of whether you would pay more than X times as much for X extra minutes because it enabled you to do something you desired sufficiently. This is trickier for appraisal purposes because, unless there’s a means of extracting that extra sum you are willing to pay for your extra time, then the investment to generate that extra time saved is a direct subsidy to you. Put very simply, the money is going to buy you a cup of coffee or a longer snooze.
The reason all this is important is that for the purposes of appraising investment which generates economic benefits rather than financial ones, we are trying to put a value on people’s time.
Graham: Yes, I agree. I was taking your issue of materiality to be one particular special case of non-linearity. We need some utility function for saved time. We don’t know much about that function, although it is probably monotonic, non-decreasing, and its graph probably passes through the origin (saving 0 time is of zero value) (sorry about Kate’s log!). It is probably NOT a straight line.
Yet another difficulty, though, is that maybe not everyone has the same function. I might totally fail to value a saving of less than 10 minutes, being too disorganised to think of something useful to fit in it, but someone else may be much better organised, and always has a little task in mind which could be fitted in.
At the end of the day, though, it’s only a model.
So maybe the impact of delays should be measured in log(seconds)
Its not a question of whether I’m productive or squander my extra minutes, I just want to minimise the fraction of my life wasted in dull travel, given other constraints.
This (American) paper discusses the different measures of valuing travel time across purpose and mode of travel (http://bca.transportationeconomics.org/benefits/travel-time/categories-of-travel-time) and suggests a 50% of average wage figure for public transport. If you assume by average they mean median wage, which is £35k in London (http://www.cityam.com/206242/where-can-you-earn-most-uk-pay-london-much-higher-any-other-part-uk) which is roughly £20/hour.
So travel delays might be costed at £10/hour
No one has mentioned the impact of passenger behaviour on dwell times and overall timings, a factor with which I am intimately familiar. In the morning peak there is a particular problem of those waiting for another train insisting on standing too close to the train they are not getting on, making it hard to know when it is safe to close the doors. To the extent where I’ve had to physically walk back to be sure. In both peaks the vast majority of passengers use the doors nearest their entrance or exit, meaning that there is a throng around maybe 4 doors on a 10 car train while the rest is clear. In the evening peak this has the knock on effect of the passengers backing up ie only so many can get up the stairs or through the gate when they all try to go at once, so others can’t get off the train and won’t walk to another door for fear of not getting off. And of course the doors can’t be closed until there is a clear gap along the train which sometimes is helpfully blocked by just one or two strollers. This easily doubles the dwell time sometimes which over something like Sutton via Crystal Palace to Victoria builds up a hefty delay and eats into the next train due to swift turnarounds (assuming the driver can actually change ends in a timely fashion without barging through the alighting crowds). If we have staff to dispatch the train it is only ever on the grounds of safety not speed – I do not think it is possible to change passenger behaviour anyway – and with increasing numbers of people travelling and longer trains there is an increased need for them at more stations. It’s possible that staff on every platform a la Overground could speed things up as the extra pairs of eyes create more certainty as to whether it’s safe to go.
@John B – – it’s an interesting question as to whether valuing time for the purposes of delay is in any sense the mirror of valuing it for the purposes of investment. I’m not sure it is. It was,however, the latter application that I was talking about; as Malcolm remarks,it’s likely that that value is some sort of function – and one that is almost certainly “personal” – although for the purposes of valuing whether an investment is worthwhile, one necessarily deals in averages. The debate about materiality is essentially about the shape and steepness of the underlying curve.
It is important to introduce at this point “willlingness to pay”. For an investment that is to fund itself financially, that is the only value of time of the likely actual customers that is relevant. How much the punters (and sometimes their employers) would pay is not necessarily the same as their hourly rate. It may well bear little linear relationship to time and will have all sorts of other factors that overlay it (such as the effects of taxation/and the costs of employment on wages). The mix of journey purposes obviously also impacts on the point.
For an investment that is to be justified on economic grounds, the only number that matters is the potential economic value of the punters’ contribution to the economy. That won’t necessarily be the same as their wages, and it may wellhave a totally different “materiality threhold” to a financial case.. It’s the purpose of the journeys that become dominant.
Re Kate et al,
Or just classify a delay as anything more than 3 minutes for modelling purposes and so the log issue isn’t a problem.
Re GTR driver,
P2 at Gipsy Hill in the evenings per chance?
Can trains on NR ever run to the same level of precise dwell time as the underground aims at? I am particularly thinking of the difference in platform heights, where (near-) level boarding at many underground stations must be inherently faster than at variable-height NR stations (and stepping off a train canted away from the platform face at Clapham Junction must be one of the worst examples).
There are other variable factors too e.g. the occasional short-formed train which causes passengers to have to move from their anticipated boarding point (when did LU last run a short-formed service!), or the need to use a wheelchair ramp [in contrast to LU stations where direct boarding is possible at a number of locations].
How do LO handle the wheelchair ramp issue – I seem to recall that there is no need to book wheelchair assistance on such services?
Also, dwell times have undoubtedly been affected by modern stock with slow door release – Siemens units always seem to be slower to me than Bombardier trains, but perhaps that’s perception rather than reality. It’s all slower than slam door anyway.
The same paper quotes (for US car drivers) that they have a strong aversion for variable travel times due to congestion, and a markup of 1.5 to 2.0 of peak time compared with off-peak time. If the same applies to public transport unpredictability, then there may be more customer satisfaction for 33+2 min than 31+4 (I would say +-, but you can’t really get early running in railways, and that’s probably where a gaussian assessment of journey times breaks down)
Malcolm & Kate: Of course the real advantage of slam door stock was that you could arrive before the service you were on did, and leave after the train had started to depart the platform!
Ah, those were the days … 🙂
@ Man of Kent – I’d argue that yes you can schedule and operate a main line railway to exacting standards just as LU do. It’s about will and also about understanding there are benefits to be gained. Watch the recent Chris Tarrant programme on Channel 5 about his travels in Japan (available to watch on the C5 website). Most entertaining but it does show how they do things and that Mr T suffered no apparent delays whether on a rural line, on a Shinkansen or a commuter line in Tokyo. Delays do happen in Japan but there is a magnificent focus on running a very punctual railway as part of everyday business.
You rightly identify stepping heights and distances and things like improving access for mobility impaired people. LU’s Journey Time Capability model measures things like step heights and stepping distances and places a benefit value in improving these factors. Now I’m the first to admit that the benefits would never justify straigthening the Central Line platforms at Bank (hugely expensive) but there are far more marginal cases where adjusting track heights (when tracks are replaced) or designing new rolling stock (for an upgrade) or doing works to add platform ramps or raise platform heights might well be justified within a larger package of works. At least a LU project sponsor can understand the value of these improvements, put them into the project scope and business case and hopefully deliver an end result that is overall more beneficial than one that just kept everything frozen as it’s been for 100 years.
I suspect the great “management gap” between who runs trains and who runs the tracks on the NR network means that such rounded consideration of benefits, that will largely accrue to the operators, never happens. Some NR stations are completely unacceptable in terms of their stepping heights (Hampton Court is a particular nasty unless it’s been upgraded recently) but then so are the composite platforms on LU which give you steps down into tube profile stock and up into sub surface / main line stock (Picc / District / Met / Bakerloo north of Queens Park). I am not saying these are easy or cheap to fix but there will come a time when a comprehensive upgrade and review is needed and you can make the requisite changes. Anyone believe that CR2 will be allowed to have massive steps down from their trains to Hampton Court platform? Err no because the station will have to be accessible just as the train will be.
GTR Driver “And of course the doors can’t be closed until there is a clear gap along the train which sometimes is helpfully blocked by just one or two strollers.”
This problem would be sorted by the introduction of (half-height or rise-and-fall) platform edge barriers, of course. Rather begs the question of how much is a ‘reasonable’ cost to attach to the additional dwell time you describe in order to generate a business case. Also the additional safety too (one-unders being an all too common reason for line delays, sadly)
@GTR Driver & Alison W – I recall that Southern said some time ago during a Stakeholders’ forum that they were issuing staff with whistles (again) at busy locations to get the passengers moving. Not sure how far that has progressed.
A number to bear in mind, as per the March 2015 issue of ‘Modern Railways’, by Keith Wallace, Programme Director at GTR: “Trains [the Class 700] in the central London core will have 27 seconds to unload and board passengers at each station…”.
For the past, at London Bridge (Brighton side), it was always interesting to note with suburban slam door stock exactly what Alison observed (“that you could arrive before the service you were on did, and leave after the train had started to depart the platform!”), whilst the main line trains arrived, stopped and the tables of card players continued until the round was complete and the last drop of Scotch drained before alighting after the mob had cleared the barriers. On the return journey, one of the four would have arrived to ‘reserve’ their usual table close to the buffet car the moment the train came in. They wouldn’t have taken kindly to all that 27 second lark on the future Thameslink.
So, 27 sec. at London Bridge and elsewhere on the Thameslink core and 60 sec. at other busy Southern stations as per above comments? The disparity between rolling stock types is going to be even more pronounced than ever. Timetabling is going to be a real horror, unless it is discovered that it all has to come down to the lowest common denominator.
@Graham H I’m paying for my coffee so it adds £3 to UK GDP if I get it, no?
An economy is a means to an end – my productivity is valuable because it ultimately produces something someone wants. So subsidising my productivity is entirely equivalent to subsidising their leisure. I certainly hope these models are valuing leisure time; otherwise it’s putting the cart before the horse.
I would apply the same argument to work as well as leisure – if an extra 30 minutes of work time is worth something (and sure in some meetings it isn’t) then it’s absurd for an extra 1 minute to be worth anything other than 1/30th of that, even if you did all your work in fixed 30 minute blocks an extra 1 minute has to mean a 1/30th chance of finishing one more block that day.
@WW – spot on – SWT had a long term (!) plan to deal with the platform height issue at CJ by reballasting the track. This took the best part of four years (further exclamation) to persuade NR through the alliancing process and seems now to have been abandoned with the approaching end of the franchise and the collapse of the alliance. It’s a very good example of the sort of relatively cheap trade-off that has been lost in the dis-integrated railway.
@Graham Feakins – certainly SWT took time out to issue its platform staff with Acme Thunderers – and see they used them. The 27 second timing has been – alas – only too obvious from the time when DfT discovered that running 24 tph through the core was impossible without it. The initial requirement was for a 60 second wheel stop to wheel start timing but that lost about 4 tph so DfT arbitrarily imposed a 45 sec stop to start time in the rolling stock requirements. With all the associated door releasing, door movements, alarms etc that became 27 secs. No evidence was offered (nor any modelling done so far as anyone could see) that this could be achieved routinely and at the time as some one working for a manufacturer’s financial backers, we spent a lot of time with the lawyers to ensure that none of the penalties for failing to achieve this metric fell on the manufacturers. The penalties are substantial and amongst the franchise bidding community, TLK was something of a slow bicycle race therefore.
PoP @ 18.50 2/11/15
Err – you are saying exactly what LBM “snipped” me for(!)
*cough*
Kate @ 21.07 2/11/15
Actually, LUL on the Vic line managed that about 2 years back, with a very peculiar screen display ….. ( & time-travel )
GF
unless it is discovered that it all has to come down to the lowest common denominator.
Otherwise known as NO TOILETS – on-train, or anywhere else – so that not even having a “radar” key will help you (!)
[Please. This is not an opportunity for everyone to discuss toilets on trains – again PoP]
Graham Feakins, Graham H,
The 27 second doors-open time is somewhat alarming if true. I can’t quite get my head around the figures. 45 seconds stop to start time is bad enough if also true but I cannot really believe on newly designed stock using the latest technology that that it would take 18 seconds to open and close the doors on a driver only train. This is especially true when one considers how it is known how critically important it is to minimise this.
Similarly I am a little puzzled by the limit of 60 seconds dwell time. I know that currently 12-car trains on Southern (and probably elsewhere) takes a worryingly long time just to enter and fully clear a platform on departure. However the Underground shows just how quickly trains can enter and depart platforms if conditions are right and what a high level of service can be provided. I would have thought that the implementation of the new signalling under ATO with very short block sections means that trains ought to be able to be rolling in to a platform at one end before the previous train has left at the other end.
Lets have a sense of proportion and put this into perspective. Crossrail 1 is planning 24tph from the outset and is built to be able to sustain 30tph. Yes I know it it will have 35% more doors for the same length of train. Crossrail 2 is planning 30tph from the outset it seems. So why should it be so difficult on Thameslink?
I suppose in summary what I am saying is that what was believed to be possible when the Thameslink Programme was specified and what is now believed to be possible are two different things. It is a very dangerous game to play but, much as technology is in the news when pushed too far, it is a fair bet that, by the time a project comes to fruition, technology has moved on and what seemed like a real challenge at the outset will be achieved without too difficultly.
The other thing that is easily forgotten is that the service will be built up in stages. It is 16tph now with conventional signalling and manual driving. 20tph with ATO should be easily achievable when introduced . They will then have a few months to become aware of issues and fine tune the operation so that when the full 24tph is introduced in December 2018 it should all just work. This will not be a big-bang “collapse on day one” type introduction. I am sure if ten years ago London Underground announced that the Victoria line was going to be upgraded from 27tph to 36tph we would have had similar stories of gloom and doom and prophesies of “it’s all going to be a disaster”.
Greg,
I don’t know the exact details of why something I said was disallowed when you said it (and haven’t got time or inclination to investigate) but:
– we are not perfect and just doing our best with the time we have to strike a reasonable balance when moderation
– it may be that the tone of the comment came into it. A lighthearted comment is more likely to be acceptable than a cynical or accusing comment.
@lmm -let me try once more – for some people, work comes in convenient tranches of 1 minute (or some other small number), for many it doesn’t , and they may well spend that extra minute on whether to shaft NN in Accounts, or looking at the trade press. I have never had a job in which an extra minute made any difference whatsoever to my output – one did the job in hand and then went home – even when I had a vacation job on a production line in Germany, where the day came in 6 minute bites; sometimes we finished early rather than start a new batch, sometimes we worked on to finish the batch in hand. If the 05.39 number 9 from Degerloch Loeffelstrasse to the plant where I worked, had run a minute earlier or later it would have made absolutely no difference to my output.
Yes, of course, one needs to include leisure time in any assessment, but not all leisure time is spent consuming extra services; it might be spent asleep,for example, or just plain thinking time. And the value of leisure time is -as the example you quote – a heck of a lot less than any likely value added through employment.
Graham H,
So you arrive at the theatre 1 minute after the play started and you have paid over £100 for a pair of tickets. The theatre won’t allow you in until a suitable break and it is a two act play.
Alternatively you arrive on time and just as you are immersed in the dramatic final scene coming towards its climatic end and you realise you have to slip out and leave that minute because you will miss your last train home otherwise (having carefully previously timed how long it takes you to get from your theatre seat to the platform).
And you still believe a single minute is irrelevant?
And, if Sliding Doors is to believed, even a few seconds can be life changing! (… which could make all the difference to the xx.xx.58 arrivers referred to in previous posts)
@PoP – I never said that – merely (runs hand through few remaining hairs) that not every minute saved is productive. [In the example you cite,I have no sympathy for you -if you must time your arrival at the theatre to the precise minute, then you must take the consequences * – and it’s some time since I went to the theatre where the production lasted so long as to bump up against last train home syndrome. Was it Chekov or Ibsen?]
* I recommend giving yourself a few minutes in hand – can always be spent in the bar.
27 Seconds – I think there is some confusion here, I suspect the 27s number refers to the time required for system recovery mode when running the core at 30tph rather than normal running at 24tph which would suggest nearer 45s (min 35s) doors open instead. I suspect apples and oranges comparison.
@ngh – the documentation circulated at the time the stock was ordered mentioned only 45 sec start to stopto be achived as a norm,not as recovery, leaving it to the manufacturers to decide how much of that could be used with the doors open (which would then make it part of their sales pitch to the operator,of course). Bombardier concluded that for a 45 sec start/stop cycle,the doors would be open for 32 seconds. So27 secmay be a recovery figurebut it’s also quite close to what can be achieved daily. As PoP says, it shouldn’t have to be like that, and all those engaged in the project (including, be it said, the NR Signalling project director) in various ways thought DfT was mad (Ilford mad,not just Barking mad) when they announced the change
Re Graham F,
27s shouldn’t be needed at LBG as only 16tph rather than 24tph.
Time to book a bulk popcorn delivery for P4/5 @LBG for 1700 on Tuesday 2nd Jan 2018 to watch the “their sitting in MY seat” performance on all the Southbound TL services (ex Southern fasts)?
Re Graham H,
A quick more detailed calc suggested to me cicra 33.4s for 24tph assuming 27s for 30tph so I think there is bit of apple and orange.
I’m still waiting for my whistle. I’m not sure the news that there are stations served by 455s with drivers on their own with a battered mirror has filtered up to the top echelons of management yet.
As to the other suggestions on improving dwell time and overall capacity, it always comes back to the same few principles; an awareness that there is a problem, a willingness to do something about it and the necessary resources to do it. My impression of the average TOC in South London is that they think of Winchester or Brighton or Ashford when they think about their empires. Isleworth, Gipsy Hill and Bellingham are curious inconveniences that don’t carry first class season ticket holders. I suspect that at GTR Towers the first question is what can be cut, whereas at TFL Towers (and I may be naive in thinking this) how can we do things better. Then of course we have the problem of tight franchise commitments versus premiums meaning that any improvement has to be profitable to be justified. The different model used by TFL specifies higher quality overall which can’t be just diluted to maintain a premium so a takeover will probably be welcomed by Metro users on many levels. I doubt if they can do much about the passenger effect on dwell times though!
@PoP
“And you still believe a single minute is irrelevant?”
or a more likely scenario that a difference of a minute – or even less – can result in a missed connection, and thus immediately compound to an hour or more.
Sticking to fixed dwell times may work on the Tube with the next train only a couple of minutes away, but shutting the doors in the faces of people trying to board a 2 or 4 tph service would be quite unacceptable – however much assault on your ears you get from SWT’s platform staff and their shiny new Thunderers. And therein lies the problem (which CR1 will need to address, even more so for CR2, but is already evident on the hydra-headed networks south of the river). At somewhere like Vauxhall or London Bridge, there is a train every three minutes or so, so the staff are keen to get the doors closed and the train away as there is another along in a minute. But the passenger for Bookham will not take kindly to not enough time being allowed to get on, and is unlikely to be consoled if the prompt despatch of the train means he has to wait for nineteen more trains to pass through before the next one of any use to him. On a service any less frequent than 6tph, staff must allow sufficient time for any passenger who needs that train to board it.
And, even if the frequency was 36tph, a 27 sec dwell time is obviously inadequate if it takes longer than that for everyone who needs to alight to do so.
@ PoP – based on what Graham H wrote I am not the least bit surprised that what we’ve ended up with is an apparent clash between a political aspiration for a given throughput and what hardened railway operators believe is possible given the signalling, line speeds, platform designs etc. Thameslink across Zone 1 is rather a tortuous line with curves, inclines, ramped platforms etc. I rather expect Crossrail 1 is a race track in comparison. Thameslink is a case of fitting in a “new” railway into a lot of old infrastructure.
I expect you know more than I do but I’m not that shocked that it could take 9 seconds to achieve a recognised stop on a Class 700 and then release doors, have them open and then have people start alighting and then the reverse (further 9 seconds) of people dashing inside at the last minute, doors closing, the train confirming all doors closed and then the driver being able to move the train. I agree that the remaining 27 seconds seems wholly unrealistic with crush loaded commuter crowds. It’s probably unachieveable off peak if you’ve got a lot of people with luggage trying to get on and off trains. I recognise that off peak dwell time parameters may be longer if the tph across the core is less. I think it’s going to be very interesting to watch what ends up actually being achieveable and who “carries the can” given the “teflon coating” applied to the supply chain’s contracts in order to get the deal financed!! Methinks the buck stops somewhere between GTR HQ and the DfT in Westminster.
Walthamstow Writer,
Why on earth should it take 9 seconds for the doors to open?
Train is ATO. Train stops. Doors open. What is so hard about that?
Admittedly closing the doors is harder because it involves human intervention.
I am still dubious about the need for the dwell times to be so low. I know the Thameslink core is tortuous in places but that is less significant with powerful trains and ATO. You also have stations either fully or largely protected from the elements which means reliable and predictable braking.
@WW – I’m sure you’re right about the game of pass the parcel (my only concern in my previous employ was to ensure that Bombardier, if selected, weren’t in the firing line…)
@ngh – Quite possibly – the 32 sec calculation was Bombardier’s, based on their preferred door supplier and a 45 sec dwell. I am not privy to the rival suppliers ‘ calculations. I did/do note, however. a substantial difference in timings on existing stock – SWT take for ever and a day with the Siemens kit, but the bulk of the Southern stock is PDQ. Bombardier identified no less than 17 processes involved between stop and start, and I guess the trick is to ensure that as many as possible happen simultaneously (clearly not the case with the 450s). Dragging the thread back to topic, I suspect the dwell problem is going to be the toughest nut for TfL to crack on takeover.
PoP, 9 seconds is possibly easily taken by driver having to check that the brake is most definitely on, that he’s stopped in the right place and that his fingers are not reaching for the wrong side doors buttons. Even if technology prevents an incorrect door release, it is still regarded as a safety incident if the driver attempts to do something wrong, think TPWS intervening on a speeding train even if the driver has applied the brakes and is only a tiny amount over. I have known drivers berated for “opening the doors too fast”. So now driving exists in a high state of paranoia which is always going to mitigate against doing things more quickly. The only answer ultimately is complete automation so that no human blame can be attributed and thus no human caution will be involved.
Re Graham H
“I suspect the dwell problem is going to be the toughest nut for TfL to crack on takeover.”
There are some easy thing and asom hard things – Start with doing some SWT (not even going as far as TfL style) interior modifications to Southern or SE metro stock would help. 3+2 seating to 2+2 could almost be done overnight by the present incumbents.
GTR driver,
The only answer ultimately is complete automation so that no human blame can be attributed and thus no human caution will be involved.
But that’s my whole point. As I understand it the driver closes the doors and gives the starting signal. The train is in ATO (and happily going through red signals which must be somewhat disconcerting) until it gets to the next station and the doors open automatically. The procedure is repeated. Under that scenario, which is what I understand will happen in the Thameslink core, why on earth should it take nine seconds for the doors to open? It doesn’t take anything like that on the Victoria line and that is with the drivers pressing a button to open the doors once the train has stopped.
This place was mentioned in someones comment today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH63_ZCrNJw shows zero seconds delay to door opening.
Evidence that people value their single minutes is that they run for trains—not because of the wasted 30 minutes for a missed connection, but because of the 1 minute they’ve overspent already. If that minute wasn’t productive they’d have left what they were doing earlier so as to be able to amble.
PoP, maybe it takes 9 seconds for the automation to do all those things I described, but only in Britain where we like to hamper everything(!). Judging by the sometimes slow reactions of SDO, it wouldn’t surprise me. If I ever get my hands on a 700 I’ll report back. Off topic but when you say red signals, do you mean with flashing POSAs?
Kit Green, we have none of these things of which you speak in Gipsy Hill(!).
Is the surprise announcement yesterday of 80 new carriages ordered by Porterbrook another example of where TfL gets things done whilst the DfT doesn’t at least in relation to London suburban routes? TfL rail have been mentioned in the press release as potential customers, despite their recent large Aventra order.
Meanwhile over at Southeastern and nothing for years. These new SDO capable trains would help with stopping at Woolwich Dockyard. What have the DfT done about overcrowding? Not a great deal. As mentioned above, even very quick fixes like making SE Networkers 2×2 seating throughout would increase capacity. But it’s intertia. SE seemingly wont do anything without DfT say so, and the DfT just do not.
Perhaps this is just a SE thing – c2c will be sourcing new stock in 2017 and SWT and Southern (Thameslink) are both adding to their fleets quite substantially (mix of cascades and new stock like the 707s for SWT). Whatever it is, the DfT do little for Southeastern metro routes. TfL are continuously on the look out for small and large scale improvements, knowing it will pay off from rising passenger numbers.
Tube trains had the advantage of automatically opening doors, NR trains have to account for passengers reaction times after the button lights, or negotiating with people blocking them in a crush. Tubes seem to have better stopping accuracy, so commuters learn to position better than trains. That might be due to busy tube platforms being generally underground away from wet rails.
Platform edge doors and automatically opening train doors would seem to be the way to go for busy stations, to preserve safety and promote punctuality.
Surely train GPS is accurate to know that its at the right position on the right platform for its formation, and allow quicker opening without driver checks, just providing them with an over-ride in case of doubt.
GTR Driver,
I forget the details, if I even knew them. And forget, if I knew, what POSAs are. I do remember automatic trains will pass red signals. It is a rather unsatisfactory consequence of mixing ECTS in automatic mode with conventional signals.
@PoP /GTR Driver – I don’t recall the full list of things that had to be done before the doors opened but they certainly included door release, audible warnings, movement of the doors and so on. (Actually, as far as I recall, it was the various audible tones that took the time opening and closing).
@Wax lyrical – or they just left it too late chatting/in the loo/having that last cup of coffee before they realised how late it was. Maybe they are all piece workers anxious to finish another bit of cloth or batch of nails.
Re Ed,
The extra 387s batch is likely to end up on MML Corby services which were originally rumoured to be run using 375s released from Southeastern which were replaced by some of the 25x 4car 377s from Southern.
@Graham H: It would be deeply unfair to hint that it is a Civil Service cast of mind that believes productivity is elastic only on the downside. I’m sure you are equally able to put in a spurt of extra concentration and effort to get your last ministerial briefing of the day done and dusted before your dash to the train, with a push beyond what you could sustain for the entire working day.
Re Ed,
PS as the SoS said:
“This deal is fantastic news, both for East Midlands’ booming rail industry, and for passengers, who will benefit from more British-built trains on the rail network in the future. Introducing more modern, high-quality trains is central to our commitment to give passengers better journeys and boost economic growth, with more than 3,700 extra carriages set to be introduced across the network by the end of 2019. It is great to see the industry leading the way.”
I think we can assume DfT have been involved…
@Wax lyrical – actually for senior staff, the day was wholly elastic as one never knew what was going to hit the fan when one got in in the morning. Faster trains were of no interest except as a means of getting at the G&T earlier. Sometimes it was quiet, sometimes you were hoiked off to sit unexpectedly in the Official Box for a couple of hours.
So far, no one has identified here, a single productive task where one minute extra can be used to add significant value: we’ve had drinking coffee, going to the theatre, and writing a more polished letter (something in my experience that either requires no time at all – because you got it right first off – or takes half an hour).
Actually, mentioning the Official Box* reminds me: there was one job where every minute counted. Sitting in the Box during a debate, you’d receive a constant stream of requests for additional speaking notes or briefing. No chance of telling Parliament to hold on while you wrote something; you just had to do it and get it right before the chap rose to his feet. But – you never knew whether you were going to have an extra minute in advance or not.
*In the HoL, more dramatically called “The Space on the Right Hand Side of the Throne” – when I was last an Archangel, the time could have been usefully spent casting one’s crown upon a glassy sea, chanting awhile.
Graham H, think of it in terms of money. You can’t get much for a quid, but you’d still strive to save it of a purchase, as they add up. Time, like money, is quantised, but you can still acquire it in small lumps and spend it in large ones. And for the lack of a quid, or a minute, an opportunity can be lost.
@John B _ Sorry but no one has yet explained here what it is that people (other than labourers and piece workers, possibly) can do in one extra minute however much it may be “worth”. If one could actually do something that was valuable then, yes, it would add up. Doing stuff for an additional five or ten minutes is another thing altogether there might be time to produce something additional. Now you, what do you do ? And if you had just one extra minute each working day, what would you do that was identifiably productive in that minute?
This appears to have become a philosophy, or perhaps relativity, thread.
If the audio signal for doors opening adds to dwell time then why not just start the sound as the train stops? It will rarely be too pre-emptive if the system works well.
@Kit Green – I can see that when stopping (although an engineer would no doubt tell us whether there was a need for some sequence such as train stopping/door release activation/ audible warning/ door unlocked/door opened, and how much of that could be simultaneous and what crosschecks need to be built in and so on) but clearly, when starting again, you must have audible signal before the doors shut. I apologise for not having retained the Bombardier list amongst my papers at the end of the job!
If you can do each half-hour task through the day in 28 minutes—and if the one minute makes no odds, neither does the next—you can fit in an extra half-hour task. And if one, why not another? You’re at the mercy of the Paradox of the Heap, before an early grave through overwork.
From today’s publication of the report of the Quality Contracts Scheme Board into the Proposal for a Quality Contracts Scheme in Tyne & Wear.
“9.24. Apparent value for money benefits that accrue from minutes and fractions of minutes per journey multiplied by hundreds of millions of journeys are, we consider, unlikely in practice to be perceived as in any way transformative by the travelling public.”
@Wax lyrical – yes, like Boxer, we will try harder – and remember what happened to him. [Actually, this is a common thesis amongst aficionados of a a certain party, that one can ALWAYS work harder. Well, no you can’t; there are limits…]
Ed, I believe it’s the franchising system at fault where SE are concerned. As a TOC in revenue support, they have to demonstrate savings (ie cuts) rather than spend money they are not gleaning in revenue. A TfL takeover looks better and better.
John B, everything is easier on a standardised closed system like the tube. Conditions on a line to line basis (train types, train lengths, stopping positions, even railhead conditions in tunnelled sections) must be far more consistent than on the main line.
PoP, POSAs are Proceed On Sight Authority signals, and resemble a colour light subsidiary signal – two red horizontal lights or two white lights at 45 degrees. Usually used for shunting or “calling on” a train into an occupied platform. If there is a signalling failure the signaller can set the white lights to flash with a red main aspect which indicates to the driver (and presumably the ATO) that he can pass and continue at caution. I’m guessing it replaces the current long and delay causing process of each train having to stop and talk to the signaller, both parties repeating a particular mantra every time.
Graham H, the audible warnings seem to take an incredibly long time I think, and contribute to a decision as to whether to re-release doors on a 377 for a late straggler that can be picked up without losing more time. On the 3776/7 series they are even slower.
Kit Green, if the train stopping starts the audible warning it would go off at every red signal too, and some days (especially during Jan/Feb 2015) there are a LOT of these.
GTR Driver
I would only expect the audible warning if the train knew it was next to an expected platform.
45 seconds, 27 seconds, 32 seconds … anyone get the idea that services would run _so_ much smoother if there were no, um, passengers to get in the way? And if you are going to play an announcement of where the train is heading (and not stopping at) the voices will have to speak even faster.
If these, quite amazing, unload-and-reload times are to be achieved then there needs to be a major investment in the Spanish solution so that both can happen in parallel. And whatever happened to those carriages which have pax-operated door buttons? Until they were lit people knew there was little point in pressing, so do you light them up prior to full stop?
To Man of Kent’s “unlikely in practice to be perceived as in any way transformative by the travelling public” should be added “but will produce great revenus opportunities for TOCs.” [cynic, moi?]
The extra minutes matter because work comes in bigger lumps. If I have a task that takes an hour but I only have 55 minutes to do it in, I will either have to find a clear hour somewhere else to do it or, if I do start it, I will have to drop it in the middle and spend more time picking up the thread again later.
It seems to me that the answer to the dwell-time issue in the Thameslink core is to simplify the routes so that all trains go to the same destinations – then it doesn’t matter if you miss a train because the doors closed in your face, as there would be another train along in 2mins. This raises the extra question of where to put all the extra terminating trains though, so we are back where we started…
Here’s a suggestion……why not go back to driver-operated passenger doors, just as on the Underground, at least for the slow services within London? Clearly, TfL found it beneficial to deactivate those pesky buttons on the D/1992 stock and to never bring them into use on the 1995/96 stock (I am unsure if they are in use on the S stock), so isn’t this a good idea for the main line suburban rail services as well?
Perhaps some clarity:
The 27 seconds quoted is doors fully open in recovery mode with 45sec dwells. Ie it takes a total of 18 seconds from the instant wheels stop to get the doors released, opening sequence to fully open, (about 5 seconds) then start door close sequence, chimes sound, doors close, traction interlock, driver cross checks then pushes start button, brakes release, traction power taken, wheels roll (about 13 seconds). Note these are all pessimistically timed.
When in ATO the Class 700s doors will open automatically at core stations without driver action. This presents a whole series of new challenges.
When in ATO the 700s will go through red signals, but only where there is an intermediate block marker between the red signal and the next signal ahead, and the movement authority is granted only to that marker. This is to retain the signalling convention that a single yellow signal means the entire section is clear to the next signal.
Normal dwells in the core will be 60seconds stop to start, 90seconds at London Bridge. St Pancras is the tightest, but the live modelling (with real people, in mock ups) showed it would work. It does require somewhat improved passenger management on the platforms though. To stop all boarders trying to get on one set of doors.
As a variation on Anonymously’s buttonless idea, could the buttons be modified so that the button can be pressed before the doors are released, such that they open immediately on release? I understand that buttons like this are to be found in various places elsewhere in Europe. That would cut the duration of a passenger’s reaction time from the dwell time, and also be less annoying.
@Malcolm 2130
This is commonplace on trams – possibly even the Croydon ones – where pushing the door button in advance of the next stop (i.e. acting as a stop request as per a more traditionally pole-mounted button) causes that door to open without further intervention.
@ Anonymously – 3 November 2015 at 21:24
Here’s a suggestion……why not go back to driver-operated passenger doors, just as on the Underground, at least for the slow services within London? Clearly, TfL found it beneficial to deactivate those pesky buttons on the D/1992 stock and to never bring them into use on the 1995/96 stock (I am unsure if they are in use on the S stock), so isn’t this a good idea for the main line suburban rail services as well?
They are in use at Hammersmith (Met) terminus, where the doors on the train standing at the platform appear to close after x minutes.
Appear to be overriden by driver at West Brompton (District).
I’ve a feeling that they are meant to be operated by passengers at ‘open-air’ stations in winter, but suspect opening the doors becomes second nature to drivers.
@ Kit Green – you might be surprised at the amount of debate there was about changing the timing of the warning beeps in the door open / door close cycle on 1995 stock on the Northern Line. Reducing the cycle time created a financial benefit to the Infraco because it also translated into a Journey Time Capability gain. However there was a great deal of debate about the ramifications for passengers and safety as well as whether the amount of work involved really justified paying the financial adjustment. IIRC there was a change made which gave a small gain which helped in creating a far more robust Northern Line timetable prior to the upgrade and ATO.
Oh and thanks to those people who have fleshed out the various stages in the train stop / door cycle / train start time cycle. Clearly there are choices that can be made as to how to maximise the efficiency with which these tasks happen.
John UK, to which services are you referring? Of the TOCs that have services that can be considered part of a Greater London Metro, I am only aware of South West Trains having guard-operated doors? I don’t know for sure about C2C, Greater Anglia, Great Western or Chiltern but I’m fairly sure their stoppers are DOO; London Overground/TfL Rail, Southern, South Eastern, Thameslink, Great Northern and London Midland definitely are.
GTR Driver: I think that John U.K. was referring to the distinction between doors which require action by a passenger before they will open, and those which do not. (In all cases, a driver, guard or automatic train gizmo will also be involved, of course).
To add to what Anonymous says and the related discussion on dwell times in the Thameslink core, I attended an IET lecture in March 2014 “Thameslink – Achieving Metro Headways on the Mainline” given by Paul Bates from Network Rail. Here is the 1 hour 26 minute presentation including Q&A on video with accompanying slides:
https://tv.theiet.org/?videoid=5091
As well as discussing the signalling, restraints, dwell time from wheel stop to wheel start, rolling stock and so on, there are quite a few little gems like how to cope with five trains fitted in between Blackfriars and Farringdon and the “what if everyone decides to alight at Farringdon?” sort of scenario. I’ll find time soon to go through it again myself but I’m sure that others here will find it of interest. Then we can compare notes (if appropriate).
Graham Feakins,
Thanks for looking that up. The more relevant stuff starts at 24:11.
Pertinent points:
– key challenge is dwell time
– approximately 250 signals between St Pancras and Elephant & Castle
– doors open automatically
– 30mph slow speed helps (not hinders) capacity
– it is quite clear that the core is designed to be able to handle 30tph to cater for service recovery
– the following figures quoted are based on the premise that the line is operating at 30tph
— Dwell time of 45 seconds
— Platform reoccupation time of 75 seconds
There is a good, but not very clear, diagram breaking down the various components of dwell time (which includes a breakdown of the door opening and closing sequence) at 26:30
I think the reference to signals needs to be taken loosely and probably refers to the number of individual block sections (or the nearest equivalent in oldthink) rather than the number of lights on sticks visible to a human driver.
@Graham H:
So far, no one has identified here, a single productive task where one minute extra can be used to add significant value
Reading and briefly replying to an email.
This key difference between LU and NR/Railtrack was the
principal reason we managed to torpedo the Treasury’s “northern crossrail” spoiler
Although as it turns out Crossrail will be performance managed on an interval basis in the central tunnels and on a timetable basis on the overground sections (and the going rate for delays is £125 per minute and £10,000 to £36,000 for a cancellation). This performance regime will make an interesting comparison with Thameslink.
@anonymous 21:28: thanks for the clarification: I now have a fascinating vision of a 1:1 scale model train set somewhere in the bowels of Network Rail HQ filled with passengers who do nothing but get on and off trains all day while engineers with stopwatches and clipboards time them.
@Graham F, PoP: it seems clear then that the 30tph “recovery mode” is meant to be the exception not the norm. Even if it can’t be achieved in practice during the peak, it may help with getting things back to normal quicker between the peaks.
250 “signals” between St Pancras and E and C equates to about one every 20 metres – compare with the transposition of the signalling loops every 25 metres on the DLR.
@Ian J – although clearly not that email…
As to the “northern spoiler”, I fear (no, actually, I am pleased) that at that time Railtrack took the view that the different operating philosophies was a show stopper, as we intended. RT demanded that LU had to present train xXxx to their system at the right time or they would refuse to accept it. Clearly, the problem has been solved’ if only by the performance regime being the slack variable (ie it doesn’t specify which CR service is involved) and equally, LU does operate over NR metals to NR signalling, albeit somewhat less frequently than CR1 will.
Ian J
Live model – at University College London. Some years ago.
Re the 250 signals. It is bi directional, has banner repeaters in many places, and is four tracks south of Blackfriars. And Paul Bates evidently means Kentish Town / Canal Tunnels as the northern limit. there’s nearly 50 just from Kentish Town / Canal Tunnels to St P alone. So 250(ish) sounds about right.
Graham H
Actually, this is a common thesis amongst aficionados of a a certain party, that one can ALWAYS work harder. Well, no you can’t; there are limits…
Actually, both extremes do this, to the real worker’s(TM) disbenefit.
On the “soviet” side there is/was the Stakhanovite movement & on the other, the example of John Henry, the steel-driving man.
All rubbish, as you say.
Alison [ AND Malcom & Man of Kent ]
The “Buttons” problem is (at least partially) solved by using the Croydon-Tram method.
You press the button if you want to get off at the next station, but they don’t open until the driver presses “release” (with appropriate pretty lighting-effects, of course)
And ..
Anonymous
Ie it takes a total of 18 seconds from the instant wheels stop to get the doors released,… Which is utterly ridiculously slow, given modern electronics.
Something has obviously gorn wonrg here, down in all the fiddly details, & “the plot” ‘as gorn mssin’ ….
S stock passenger-door-control buttons are always active. If a train is stopped at a signal in a station for a long enough time, the doors will close and the door buttons will activate. Same thing happens with trains waiting to depart in the underground terminal platforms at Aldgate and Moorgate, so it isn’t purely for open-air stations in cold weather.
Buttons on tube and sub-surface line doors. What has changed (no idea exactly when) is operating practice. The door controls have always allowed the operator to choose between (1) opening all the doors on the correct side, or (2) just releasing them so that passengers, where present, can use the buttons. (1) is now the norm, whereas at various times and places in the past, (2) sometimes applied. Unless I am wrong.
Re Greg T
I think 18s is unclearly worded in Anon’s original post as it includes both the opening 5s and closing 13s sequences. Reading it carefully the 5s includes time till doors fully open so similar to current stock latest generation SDO which checks the door is at the platform.
45s – 18s = 27s doors open
@GTR Driver – 3 November 2015 at 23:47
John UK, to which services are you referring?
As per my original post, trying to answer Anonymously question about passenger operated door buttons on UndergrounD S stock, from personal observations at Hammersmith (Metropolitan) and at West Brompton (District) stations.
Malcolm at 11:11 today draws attention to the apparent change in operating practice. I wonder if this also has something to do with the increased use of SDO on S stock?
Can there be Selective Door Release as well as SDO?
Yes apologies
5 seconds wheels top to fully open
13 seconds from start closure process to wheels roll
18 seconds total
Measurements today at Farringdon on a Class 377:
6 seconds
12 seconds
Total 18 seconds.
Malcolm, thank you, now that makes sense. A cross mode point confused me!
Southern’s 377 stock have a white lighting strip the width of the doors. This has to light before the door buttons become active which adds a second or so to the opening sequence. I’m guessing that it is a fluorescent tube with its characteristic starting delay. Purpose? The inevitable ‘safety’? If so, whose?
When getting off the train at a terminus with multiple platforms, it is useful to know which platform, and hence on which side the doors will open. On the approach to Victoria, the last signals before the throat are on the big gantry at Ebury Bridge. Next to the signal is a white numeral which tells the driver which platform he will be using. Because the approach to Ebury Bridge is on a curve, it is just possible (from certain window seats) to catch a fleeting glimpse of this numeral and take pole position at the correct door.
Looking again at my previous comment, I realise I should have made it clear that the white lit strip is recessed in the floor. The button-operator for the door (buttoneer?) should therefore stare at their feet until the floor is lit, before pressing the button.
@Ray L. The light in the door well does not have to be fully lit before the door buttons become active. The light is triggered by the same command that releases the doors. So the door buttons are active at the exact time the door well lights start to light up, not when they have finished their lighting up. But we are talking fractions of a second, and I’m a bit bemused how an article on TfL Devolution has got me commenting on door well lighting sequences.
@Sad Fat Dad. With the same bewilderment about why we are discussing it, I would like to add that the butoneer cannot know when to press until there has been at least a flicker from the lights. (Unless the button is so constructed that one can lean on it in advance and it will register as soon as it is enabled, but I have never seen anyone trying this, so it is at least widely believed not to be so constructed).
And if my home fluorescent tubes are anything to go by, the fractions of a second for them to start are often improper fractions.
@Malcolm
“Unless the button is so constructed that one can lean on it in advance and it will register as soon as it is enabled,”
Most such buttons appear to detect movement, so simply leaning on it won’t work
Relevant to recent discussion on this thread is a free lecture on Monday 16 November at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Railway Division, One Birdcage Walk, London SW1 titled
THE ART OF BOARDING AND ALIGHTING: DESIGNING TRAINS AND STATIONS TO ENSURE SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY – to be given by Professor Nick Tyler of UCL. The lecture commences at 18.00 (registration and refreshments from 17.15). Further details are on this link:
http://events.imeche.org/ViewEvent?code=L6282
And yet – even given the misunderstanding earlier, it can be a lot faster than supposed.
Yesterday @ Biggleswade, stop to doors opening when internal button pressed by passengers – approx 4 seconds.
Returning to Finsbury Park time for same operation, less than 3 seconds.
Malcom
But if “Croydon-tram-type” buttons are installed, then the button will already be “active” & will open immediately the driver or operator releases the doors.
As previously mentioned here ….
@Greg: The Viennese U-Bahn has those, they would speed things up no end….
@Graham H It works both ways though. Maybe finishing one letter at 16:46 instead of 16:47 just means another minute chatting. But then maybe finishing one at 16:45 instead of 16:46 means starting another letter and getting 15 extra minutes of useful work.
However you slice it, the fundamental fact is that an hour is 60 minutes – and therefore the *average* minute must, as a matter of simple arithmetic, be worth 1/60th of what an hour is worth. (And in particular if you can’t get anything done in a minute, then you can’t get anything done in an hour either – because to do something useful in an hour you have to do something useful in at least one of the minutes of that hour). And when we’re talking about a train of hundreds of people, averages are what counts.
I would think that leisure time should be worth the same amount as productive time for the simple reason that you can translate one directly into the other by working more or less. (Of course the value of time spent on a train is not zero, but that’s a separate issue).
@Imm
“I would think that leisure time should be worth the same amount as productive time for the simple reason that you can translate one directly into the other by working more or less. ”
Worth to whom? However lowly you are paid, your work time is more valuable to your employer than it is to you, or they wouldn’t pay you enough to go to work. If you work part time, or overtime, that is a reflection of the relative values you and your employer place on your time.
And of course how much people value their free time directly affects how much you need to pay them to go to work. Before the introduction of unemployment benefit there used to be a theory that if you wanted more work out of the upper classes you have to pay them more to make it worth their while – but if you wanted more work out of the working class you cut their hourly rate, so they had to work longer hours to earn enough to live on.
@Anonymous, 4 November 2015 at 10:29
250 signals
Paul Bates estimates around 600 balises in 380 groups and block marker spacing around 70m, with three through a 12-car platform. Signals every three or four blocks as illustrated gives a spacing of around 250m through the core itself, which at 10 single track km gives only around 40 signals. There are additional mid platform signals today at stations and very close run-in signals on approach so I think signal spacing varies down to around 100m actually. Let’s take an average of 150 metre spacing, giving us around 70 signals in the core. The 250 signals must include the multitrack London Bridge and E&C approaches and some of the northern approaches too. Whilst those approaches will have some balises, the majority will be in the ATO core, with stations apparently having up to 25 (perhaps for each direction) for positional accuracy. The stopping point is designed to be sufficiently accurate for screen doors in the core even though none are planned currently. Platform markings and signage will try to corral passengers into specific areas around doors, Japanese style, so they reason stopping accuracy is just as important.
@lmm -I’m sorry that you cannot be convinced but so far no one has explained what extra tasks can be undertaken in ONE MINUTE EXTRA. I’m afraid you are still missing the point (and I cannot bear to repeat again) – this has nothing to do at all with averages; it is about materiality. Put very simply, is it worth bothering with any extra time less than X,so far as indviduals are concerned? Nor is aggregation the answer.If an individual cannot use that extra time productively,then aggregation of large numbers of individuals’ similar experience is simply irrelevant. Statistically, it’s much the same as saying that if 10 events are each 10 % likely, then there’s a 100% likelihood of the event occurring.
As to leisure time being valued at the same rate as working time,I’m afraid there is no evidence to support that and professional transport planners use different values for these activities as a result.
I really don’t want to spend any more time on this which is wildly off topic.
[Agreed. I have now stopped the clock on all one minute productivity discussion. LBM]
But if there is nothing that can be done in a minute then there is no reason for train companies to worry about arriving or departing on time (other than being fined). The minute may or may not be valuable but if one had a choice of routes between one TOC that was consistently late compared to one which wasn’t, they would choose the latter. So ultimately it must be in the interest of the TOCs not to lose the minute or whatever number is appropriate.
I think we have clearly reached the point where no-one is going change their mind on the the issue. Everyone has had far more than their allocated minutes worth. Pondering on whether or not being given an extra minute would have made a difference is something that from now on you will just have to muse to yourself.
Any more comments on the value or otherwise of a minute must be done in private.
Clearly some of us have the Rudyard Kipling approach to time and some of us don’t. Let’s leave it at that.
I was given the definite impression at the time that the 250 signals embraced the whole of the area including as far as beyond London Bridge and down to Elephant & Castle and included ground signals and the like.
@Graham Feakins, 5 November 2015 at 22:27
. . . the 250 signals embraced the whole of the area.
Makes sense. I forgot the ‘wrong’ direction signals in the core. They’re not as numerous as the normal direction ones, but there could easily be 20 or so in addition to the 70 I estimated before. That still adds up to no more than 100 leaving the other 150 for the approaches.
@Mark Townend – “They’re not as numerous as the normal direction ones” – but I think they will be because the same sort of service has to be signalled to cope for both directions. I forget the term but the bi-directional facility has to be fully signalled and not just where (as on parts of the BML at present) a restricted service is permitted in the reverse direction on the ‘other’ track.
Graham
There is not a 1:1 mapping between “normal direction” and bi-di signals in the Core
@Graham Feakins, 6 November 2015 at 00:23
I was working in the same consultant’s office where the signalling scheme plans were being prepared for a previous version of the Thameslink scheme , in the very early noughties I think. I was working on something else for the same project, not directly related but requiring me to keep up to date with their development. At that time, with no ETCS or other ATP/ATO system on the table, even more intermediate signals were proposed, as many as three along each platform for the full 24TPH. This was scaled back to the single mid-platform example in use today for the 16TPH service. Whilst the reverse direction signalling was fairly comprehensive in scope on those early plans, it didn’t include the all the closing up and mid platform facilities applying to the normal flow direction. I haven’t seen any of the current scheme plans so cannot confirm one way or another.
@Anonymous – Ah. But then I went back to this: “THAMESLINK PROGRAMME INFRARAIL 2014 Mark Somers – Project Director Thameslink” from which I find this, under “Facts and Figures”:
“Signal Sighting
Total requirement 686
345 Signals, 70 Banners/Shunts, 271 Others (CD/RA, Off Ind, PSRs)
Virtual Reality Model includes 120 Signals
HD Video Model includes 197 Signals
28 Sighted without Model (Re Heading, Sidings etc.)”
Having said that, considering the following, a far wider region may be under consideration but the presentation wasn’t clear:
“Scope of Track Work Works
Plain Line Renewals – 48,223 metres
New S&C (switches & crossings) – 147 No. S&C units
Conductor Rail – 28,156 metres
Track Slues – 10,811 metres”
Plain Line Recovery – 46,921 metres
@Mark Townend – Thanks; you will have seen my reply in the meantime but what I quoted there is from the pdf I saved. You might be able to source it online from the bit in caps in my comment.
Funnily enough, I thought that the mid-platform signal at City Thameslink was there because of the Smithfield sidings at the north end of the station. There’s no corresponding signal on the down (southbound) platform is there?
@GF
Aha! Found an article on the current signalling:
http://www.railengineer.uk/2013/11/13/signalling-the-thameslink-programme/
“. . . 4-aspect sequence is used throughout the core and mid-platform ‘headway’ signals allow a following train to proceed into a platform as soon as the rear of the previous train has cleared it rather than having to wait for the ‘starting signal’ overlap to clear.
“. . . Limited bi-directional signalling is provided in conjunction with strategically placed crossovers by which trains may be turned back. Although full bi-directional signalling was specified for the original NSE scheme, it is now considered that any attempt to implement signalled single line working, say around a failed train, would severely compromise capacity and bring the service all but to a standstill. Other measures will be in place to get a failed train out of the way quickly.”
There’s a photo of one of the mid platform signals (at Farringdon) in the article, larger here: http://www.railengineer.uk/wp-content/uploads/Mid-platform-signal-with-POSA-online.jpg
@Mark T – “Although full bi-directional signalling was specified for the original NSE scheme, it is now considered that any attempt to implement signalled single line working, say around a failed train, would severely compromise capacity and bring the service all but to a standstill. Other measures will be in place to get a failed train out of the way quickly.”
Lumme! as Grandpa used to say. I wonder just what other measures they have in mind to get a train out of the way quickly on an essential double-track railway through the core whilst at least trying to maintain the service in both directions on the remaining track. Short of ‘Thunderbird’ locomotives parked on unidentified stub sidings, I can only imagine that means coupling up to another Class 700 behind/in front of the failed train.
Apart from the time that will take, considering my copy of Network Southeast’s 1991 instructions for Classes 455/456, in which is stated that they “are permitted to run in formation of up to sixteen coaches”, surely a formation of up to twenty-four coaches (possible 2×12) might get the failed train out of the way from where it failed but is surely likely to mess up (Grandpa would have used another expression here) the service all over the place without full bi-directional signalling.
Re GF &MT
.pdf is to be found at :-
http://www.infrarail.com/_downloads/presentations/IF14_Thameslink.pdf
should anyone wish to consult it. Like GF I had saved it. I have also produced an .rtf file listing the sources of all such doc’s that I know of. Unfortunately I did not produce this at the time that I originally sourced them and some seem to have gone astray since. As a result I can no longer give the source of either :-
‘KO2 and London Bridge – Steve McCormick – 2014 Oct 30th’
or the planning aplic’n drawings for LBG that were on the Southwark website.
I remember Paul Bates saying at the IET presentation that drivers aren’t particularly keen on pulling up to the mid-platform signals as it cases confusion to the waiting passengers – they think the train is stopping there and start legging it down the platform.
Presumably:
i) This isn’t too critical to maintain the present throughput
ii) When trains are running on ETCS/ATO this won’t be a regular problem, but it’s another aspect of passenger behaviour that won’t help when the system’s running in a degraded state for whatever reason.
Unless it’s added to the list of things drivers are penalised for…..
@GrahamF -this is precisely the debae which took place when the new fixed length 12 car sets were specified – fortunately (so far as the manufacturers, for whose bankers I was working at the time, were concerned ), the actual responsibility for disposing of a failed train was placed firmly on the operator, although the risk that the problems of disposal were magnified by the method (and therefore the manufacturers were still at risk from a minor delay becoming a major one – probably on every occasion…..)
There were three particular problemswith the DfT’s plan to rescue any failed train by propelling it clear by the following train:
– disposing of a 500m long cavalcade (nowhere very near to the central core available – perhaps Hornsey or Cricklewood n/b,Selhurst s/b), with paths etc
– detraining everybodyfrom *both* sets including drawing up twice
– no solution available if it was the front cab that failed
As far as I can see, these risks remain and have now been hardwired into the signalling configuration, and although Thunderbird + bi di has its own issues,they seem less prone to bring the service to its knees for a good while.
–
Implementing bi-di causes chaos today, and spreads the disruption from one line to both instantly, so with 24 tph it would just be a non starter.
Far better to stop the trains failing in the core in the first place, or on the rare occasions they do, get them out of the way as quickly as possible. In 12 years of commuting on the line, I can recall perhaps 10 train failures in the core, about half of which have been caused by obstructions in the pantograph well, and most of the rest being unable to get up the bank from City TL in wet weather when the unit concerned has traction motors out. Both entirely preventable.
@SFD -actually, it doesn’t spread the chaos necessarily to both lines -it depends whether the Thunderbird approaches the failure from the same line to tow it forwards or is attached to the rear (V difficult if there is a queue behind it). In the former case, all you have to do is to empty the line in the direction of travel of any trains in front of the failure. I agree that,of course, the utility of doing all that depends on being able to stable your Thunderbirds close by.
Can I ask a “stupid” question about the TL core signalling? Why are so many signals being installed, presumably at great initial and ongoing cost, when the core is going to be ATO? Are they there to run the current 16 tph service or are they there as a fallback in case ATO fails? If the latter then it doesn’t say very much about the assumed level of reliability of the chosen ATO system. I assume Crossrail 1 isn’t installing zillions of signals from Custom House / Stratford to Paddington / Old Oak.
Walthamstow Writer,
They are partly there as a fallback in case the ATO fails. Remember that could be either the ATO as part of the fixed signalling or the ATO equipment on the train.
Otherwise what would you do if in the middle of a morning peak you suddenly find that one train fails for some reason due to an onboard ATO fault?
Part of the reason but somewhat related is the fact that you don’t need to have a train even equipped with ATO to run through the ATO area. An “ordinary” train can run perfectly well. It is just it cannot take advantage of the ATO mode so will not be able to “bunch up” so close to the train in front. And I suspect the following train, even if ATO equipped and working, would not be able to bunch up so closely to it.
To take another scenario, the lines on Borough Viaduct out of Charing Cross get blocked and you have a 12-car train full of commuters stuck between Waterloo East and London Bridge. What are you going to do? Detrain with all that involves? With conventional signals all you have to initially do is simply use the Thameslink tracks to get it to London Bridge. You then run it through London Bridge platform 4 (remember only 16tph Thameslink trains through London Bridge) and back on to the Charing Cross down line using the very convenient track layout at Bermondsey Diveunder.
Another consideration is how you would switch over from one system to another if you didn’t have conventional signals? I cannot think of a workable implementation scenario if you didn’t have both ATO and non-ATO signalling working concurrently.
I suspect part of the reason for the system being overlaid is because it is the first installation of anything like critical importance in the UK. Future systems will either have the signals removed at a later date (as planned on the Great Western) or won’t have them installed at all.
Crossrail is entirely different for a number of reasons. The section where ATO will be installed is being built from scratch and there will be months of trial running and testing before a passenger boards a train. Crossrail might not have conventional signals in the centre section but the trains themselves will have to be compatible with all manner of signalling systems so you could argue that Crossrail is worse than Thameslink in that respect.
Finally, if you think this is terrrible then go to Germany. There they think ECTS is wonderful. So much so that, the last I heard a long time ago, they plan to overlay it over their entire existing signalling system. When asked about using it as a replacement they looked either blankly or with a look of horror. If you asked them about the cost they do a Teutonic equivalent of a Gallic shrug.
@WW
Paul Bates explains in the talk. The signals are there as a fall back if part of the ETCS and ATO system fails on a particular train. There’s little worry over the passive balise system, which has a failure interval of once in 990 years for each balise . . . and they’re duplicated. The radio system is the unknown factor. A train without continuous communications even for a short while will quickly lose its movement authority and grind to a halt on ETCS. Re-establishing secure channels and resyncing all the systems and protocols could take a while before new movement authority can be issued. Meanwhile the train’s going nowhere as is all following traffic. Such a train running under signals will have to run with larger block sections in front of it than normal so that will add to delay marginally, but not so much as if the train wasn’t able to move at all.
Some smaller older units not fitted with ATO or even ETCS may be retained by the operator to run off peak services at very quiet times using the signals, where the existing signal headway is no constraint on desired frequency. Such a train could run at any time. Even a one-off during the peak would have only a small effect on total throughput, but the vast majority of trains must be ATO to deliver the desired capacity and quality.
The signals might be removed in the future, once the system is bedded in and the fleet is all ETCS/ATO.
@ PoP – thanks for the explanation. Perhaps I was viewing it through “Victoria Line” eyes which has never had loads of signals on it and has moved between generations of ATO relatively easily. Certainly didn’t have as many nightmares during the transition as I feared it would. I had forgotten about non ATO trains possibly needing to enter or cross the ATO area so that makes sense. It just feels like an enormous volume of kit and whole life cost to achieve something, 24 trains an hour, which is not exactly a startlingly high number of trains given the throughput achieved in many other places in the UK and elsewhere. I guess it just feels somehow “wrong” and I wonder if it’s establishing a precedent for “asset heavy” provision elsewhere. To drag back “on topic” I wonder if TfL take the view that you will need thousands and thousands of extra signals across South London and beyond in order to squeeze a lot more capacity out of and run many more trains on South London’s rail network. (I’m taking it as read that there will be other infrastructure works needed like longer platforms, revised junctions etc as part of adding capacity).
@ Mark T – thanks also. I am aware of the complexity of restarting a failed / stopped ATO train where the signalling / control system has failed. I have, in a past life, worked through the procedures for restarting trains on the Seltrac equipped Jubilee and Northern lines so we could learn how attribution would be affected. I think the supplier was a bit shocked to have a LU performance manager sitting in a technician’s Seltrac course at the training centre at Stratford Market Depot. 😉 So were the technicians. 🙂 🙂
@PoP
Perhaps the Germans will roll it out on the bulk of their network in the Level 1 -LS (limited supervision) configuration, as conceived, developed and implemented in Switzerland:
Instead of a very complex conversion to level 2, they have developed a variant of Level 1 called limited supervision (LS). This, overlaid on existing signalling or incorporated with conventional resignalling, provides an equivalent of what previous classic train protection systems currently do, using standard active ETCS Eurobalises and Euroloops to provide a simple advance warning, over-speed and train-stop functionality, rather like our UK AWS/TPWS or the legacy Swiss and German protection technologies, Signum and Indusi respectively. Using this method SBB plans to have the entire Swiss network ETCS enabled by 2017. SBB will continue to use and specify Level 2 for new high speed, Alptransit and some other very busy main lines where the higher level offers additional performance and capacity benefit, but for the vast majority of the network Level 1-LS is being specified. Their master stroke is to have the LS mode incorporated in the ETCS specifications for Europe-wide application. Hence any international unit turning up on Swiss metals will have access to the entire network, using either Level 2 where fitted or the LS mode.
There are two very good reasons why the Swiss baulked at the complexity of Level 2 or even ‘normal’ Level 1 system wide:
1. Older traction units with their simple coarse power and braking controls are very difficult to adapt to the very tight control paradigms of traditional ATP systems, of which ‘conventional’ ETCS is a development. These often require very small frequent adjustments to power and brake and very accurately monitored instrumentation. LS allows the simple concepts of traction interlocks and simpler brake interventions already present on the older stock to be reused as they are in the historic protection systems, without significant expensive alterations to the systems in older units with only limited remaining lives.
2. LS doesn’t require the highly accurate route characteristics data that onboard computers for higher levels need for continuously calculating their permitted speed within their movement authorities, and equally importantly, the management of creating, changing and dissemination all that data in a suitably controlled way is avoided.
The result of this in Switzerland is that the entire (standard gauge!) network will be accessible to all domestic and international modern traction units fitted with full ETCS, whilst within their mixed domestic fleet, older units and locos impractical to convert to the higher levels will still be able to run on the vast majority of the network, with the exception of the very busy Level 2 lines (where their performance is probably unsuitable anyway).
Both French and German railways were very supportive of SBB pursuing the LS concept, including cooperating with its proposal for Europe-wide adoption in the specs. I believe they also see a widespread application of this technique in their own countries.
When ETCS was first being promoted, great savings were envisaged for trackside equipment and project engineering costs. These have proved to be largely illusory, except for very busy railways where ETCS can unlock extra capacity and avoid those huge multitrack signalling gantries. Outside very busy urban railways and major terminal approaches, full Level 2 cab signalling also makes great sense on high-speed railways, where reliably observing lineside signalling becomes impractical. Elsewhere on the secondary and branch network the possible shorter block length is rarely required for capacity and very few large signalling structures are usually required for colour lights, so the equipment savings over the new simple fold-down LED signals is negligible or non-existing, and more than offset by the detailed route survey, ongoing data management and radio coverage challenges of ETCS, let alone the difficulty of interfacing full level 2 to older rolling stock. In the UK, overlaid Level 1-LS is a sensible upgrade path from TPWS around most of the network and will be fully compatible with all modern ETCS rolling stock. On the busiest and fastest trunk corridors full Level 2 can still be implemented as planned to increase capacity and speed. Longer term, an incremental development for the secondary railway could be a radio augmented fixed block LS system with the lineside signals removed.
Mark T
All very sensible.
So sensible that I fear someone will raise all sorts of objections as to why & how it couldn’t possibly be done!
Or do you know better, to avert my cynicism?
@ Mark T – your detailed explanation begs one question – what are Network Rail actually planning to do? Are they adopting level 1-LS or are they pursuing / testing something different?
Last I knew, NR had no plans to use Level 1 in any form. A decade or more ago when that policy was first formulated, however, LS was still only a gleam in a Swiss Engineer’s eye. Now it is a working concept and manufacturers are producing onboard specific transmission modules (STM) that were first envisaged to enable an modern ETCS train to also use the track equipment of a national legacy system such as TPWS to emulate that system using a nationally tailored variation of the standard ETCS driver machine interface (DMI) – the main cab control screen. Thameslink follows this approach with its new trains for operation away from the ETCS core. ‘Reverse-STM’ modules as used on older traction in Switzerland, can also be made to do the exact opposite, that is allow an old fashioned cab and traction control system to continue to work largely unchanged whilst the old ramps and magnets are replaced with standard ETCS track equipment configured for the LS mode which, for more modern trains with full ETCS, the standard DMI should be able to handle natively.
In UK, Level 2 will be rolled out progressively on the main lines first, in many places as an overlay, retaining lineside signals at first like Thameslink that will be removed later.
From here:
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/12275.aspx
The high-level programme (excluding Thameslink core strangely) is as follows:
2013 – Testing begins at the ETCS National Integration Facility (test track on the Hertford loop)
2017 – ETCS level 2 overlay solution installed on Western from Paddington to Heathrow allowing Crossrail ETCS to run
2019 – ETCS level 2 overlay complete on Western from Paddington to Bristol (signals removed by 2025)
2018 – ETCS level 2 overlay from King’s Cross to Wood Green area (signals removed in 2020)
2018 – ETCS level 2 with no signals from Moorgate to Drayton Park
2020 – ETCS level 2 full solution (signals away) on the East Coast Main Line from King’s Cross to South Doncaster
The dates are bound to slip now, but it can be seen there’s no great commitment yet with respect to secondary and branch networks, which realistically must be at least a decade away from widespread commencement. Meanwhile conventional resignalling continues unabated (albeit also delayed), much of it using low-cost modular techniques developed recently, and retaining standard AWS and TPWS.
ETCS must be rolled out on a line of route basis in conjunction with a fleet strategy for all trains that operate over the infrastructure so equipped. Once converted, an ETCS line, unless it remains dual fitted also with signals and AWS/TPWS, will only be able to host ETCS trains, as is the case on the Cambrian line. It is an enormously complex process to roll out on a large network with many stakeholders. There’s still time for a change of approach in UK to allow a Swiss style LS solution on the broader network. That could allow an incremental approach, with areas such as Cornwall, say, being conventionally resignalled early with LS equipment instead of AWS and TPWS. Older trains fitted with a reverse STM could then continue to work just as today with existing AWS and TPWS cab equipment behaving exactly as it does today on both the resignalled railway as well as the broader network that still retains the legacy trackside equipment. More modern trains with full onboard ETCS could use a STM on the legacy trackside to emulate AWS/TPWS, Standard Level 2 on the mainlines nearer London and Level 1-LS when on the re-equipped sections.
As a new technology matures, as ETCS is rapidly doing now, sometimes a sensible engineering solution, although not envisaged at the outset, can ‘shake out’ through the experience of project teams and operators and become a new standard technique. I suspect and hope that will be the case with Level 1-LS in the UK, especially if, as seems likely, it becomes a widespread standard technique over much of continental Europe on secondary railways.
Here’s an interesting presentation covering the Swiss migration strategy:
http://plkold.evo.pl/fileadmin/pdf/ertms_konf/10_sesja_2_referat_03_-_migracja_do_ETCS_LS.pdf
Another presentation:
http://www.irse.nl/resources/ETCS_LS_IRSE_Wildenrath-V2.pdf
Does that mean by 2020 we’ll finally see 140mph trains on the ECML between Peterborough and Doncaster?
@Anonymously
140mph?
The new trains and signalling should be capable of that.
@Mark Townend 6 Nov. at 14:15 and WW: my understanding of any failure of ATO was not addressing what happens ‘in the middle of’ the Thameslink core but at the boundaries, e.g. close to Elephant & Castle, should a train fail to ‘engage’ ATO inbound in the first place. Accordingly, the train would not sit down but could continue to be driven by the real train driver through the core and out the other side using conventional signalling.
As I have said before, I cannot see this dual facility being abandoned any time soon, bearing in mind the number of times daily each train will have to convert both between ATO and non-ATO (twice in each direction) and AC/DC power supplies (once in each direction). Should I be advising on the cautious side* of things, I would not get rid of the ‘real’ signalling through the core any time soon (apart from the fact that other, non-ATO-equipped service trains are expected to use the core).
This has to be compared with the Underground, where e.g. ATO is only engaged when the train enters service and disengages when coming out of service – and there’s no AC/DC swap en route.
* That means beware the Ides of Graham F, which in another place are likely to coincide with the Ides of Graham H and others, or any other date in the lunar month. The general expression often used later is: “I told you so”. Of course, I hope to be proved wrong but…
@ Anonymously @ Mark Townend: “capable of [140 mph]”
The Class 91+Mk 4 combination was *capable* of 140 mph (225 kph, hence the name) over 20 years ago. Never happened in squadron service. Ask Captain Deltic for details.
Reducing the gap between ‘capable’ and ‘actual’ day-to-day is demonstrably part of TfL’s set of skills. Hence I support the extension of their satrapy to more and more of the DafT imperium.
More broadly, why is it beyond the wit of man to devise a system for the governance of the railways (broadly defined) in London which allows each unit (ministry, mayoralty, civil service, statutory undertaking, operating company, infrastructure company, engineering, train operations, …) to perform adequately (or better) within its area of competence and expertise? A “good” system of governance would provide clarity of objectives and functions and a better more efficient railway which bled less money through its interfaces.
I fear that the smaller questions (where to draw the lines between units) are obscuring the bigger question.
@Old Buccaneer, 8 November 2015 at 13:41
The Class 91+Mk 4 combination was *capable* of 140 mph over 20 years ago
Yes, I know but I deliberately kept my reply brief in order to discourage further discussion on the subject which is wildly peripheral to TfL taking over more of London’s suburban rail network! Nevertheless signalling, which is how we got there, was the key reason why 91s and Mk4s didn’t get a speed upgrade, as the industry and it’s safety regulators decided that lineside signalling was only suitable for speeds up to 125MPH (200kph). The same concern limits maximum speed on the WCML, where Pendolinos were also designed for 140MPH. On your second point I agree TfL seems to be able to get more bang for each buck spent, but equally they tend to specify much more bang to meet likely demand for the better quality services, which in total is likely to increase total expenditure. With London only franchises or concessions on the main line, there will less opportunity for an operator to cross-subsidise from or share operational economies with more profitable longer distance services. That should translate into less subsidy to (or more premium from) the longer distance franchisee to an extent, but that won’t overcome any operational and management economies lost through splitting, so even without any increase in service specification for the London operation, costs may already be greater than an integrated franchise.
@Graham Feakins, 8 November 2015 at 04:19
. . . should a train fail to ‘engage’ ATO inbound in the first place . . . the train would not sit down but could continue to be driven by the real train driver through the core and out the other side using conventional signalling.
I agree that whilst the ‘Southern’ remains ‘lights, magnets and grids’ the changeover to ETCS/ATO will always remain a significant risk. A single train encumbered by a failure to changeover should not do much damage even to the peak service as long as the signals in the core continue to exist and the train can continue through in hand/eyeball mode. Even when the ECML becomes ETCS fitted and without signals further north I would recommend maintaining them on the slow lines as far as Ferme Park/Hornsey in order that a Thameslink unit from the south that has failed to switch to ETCS can make it as far as the depot for sanctuary and attention. When the MML goes full ETCS without signals (date unknown), a similar consideration should also apply, perhaps involving a bolthole at Cricklewood. Once the LB&SC, SER and LC&D approaches are are all ETCS themselves and any changeover from classic signalling is accomplished well south of central London where other bolt-holes exist in the event of failure, only then would be the sensible time to consider removing the signals finally.
@Anonymously 0053. 140mph trains yes, but travelling at 125mph. To go above 125mph, all LXs will have to be close (there’s lots), and the OLE would have to be completely replaced except for some of the masts. And the time saving for upgrading the 125mph sections to 140mph between Peterborough and Doncaster? 2.5 minutes.
@ Mark Townend @ 1412 08 11 2015
Re: 225 kph: the kibosh put on 225 kph operation *after* it had been built and demonstrated illustrates my point about the need for a well governed system perfectly. Still I guess that’s how progress is made (or not, as the case may be).
Re: “total expenditure”: yes; but there will also be *income* from the fare box from the “likely demand” if it materialises. This is a story about quantities so not suitable for discussion in the abstract.
Understanding the technical choices to be made in respect of the multi – purpose, constrained network is a necessary condition for presenting the political choices.
The different technical and political choices which have been made for handling Crossrail services at Shenfield on the one hand and Maidenhead/Reading on the other are good examples.
I look forward to the day when Paddington-Abbey Wood services are extended to Ebbsfleet. Technically feasible today, of course; not necessarily practicable, affordable or (politically) deliverable.
ISTM TfL does a good job in a limited geographical and financial space. I am not sure which way causation runs. But incremental expansion of TfL space seems sensible.
@Mark Townend
“With London only franchises or concessions on the main line, there will less opportunity for an operator to cross-subsidise from or share operational economies with more profitable longer distance services.”
And why would a franchisee do that? If the long-distance services are where the potential profit lies, that is where the investment will be. The captive-market milch- cows travelling cattle-class will subsidise the profit-chasing glamour services, not the other way round.
If you want resources diverted from profit-making long-distance services to loss making local services, have the long distance operator pay a premium to the DfT, and have the DfT pay a subsidy to the local service operator. And that requires them to be different operators.
timbeau quotes Mark as saying “..to cross-subsidise from or share operational economies with..“.
timbeau’s analysis shows quite clearly that these to opportunities are quite different. A logical franchisee would not cross-subsidise (unless this was a condition of the franchise, which it could be in theory). But a logical franchisee of two “overlapping” services might plausibly share operational economies among them (for example using the same platform staff to deal with both).
Further, timbeau’s “And that requires them to be different operators” is open to question. Many people pay taxes to, and receive benefits from, the state, while remaining the same person.
“Many people pay taxes to, and receive benefits from, the state, while remaining the same person.”
Indeed, but the state controls that – it will require me to pay taxes whether or not I claim any benefits to which I might be entitled. The regulator may require an operator to provide certain loss making services, and the operator will have to fund them from the profits on the profitable ones. But that is the regulator making them do it. There is no reason an operator would cross-subsidise of its own free will out of altruism.
Where a loss maker is not a monopoly, they can and do subsidise loss makers to keep the competition out. (see the Darlington bus war for a particularly egregious example)
@Mark T: a radio augmented fixed block LS system with the lineside signals removed
Didn’t British Rail invent something of the kind in the 1980s? It was even fitted on the Cambrian Line I think. Not sure what the closest it got to London was, though.
@Graham F: This has to be compared with the Underground, where e.g. ATO is only engaged when the train enters service and disengages when coming out of service
But during the Northern Line resignalling, for example, wasn’t there a fairly long period where trains were switching between parts of the line with the old signalling and parts fitted with the new ATO while in service, with a remarkable lack of problems (by the standards of major resignalling schemes)?
But I agree that it would be premature to talk about removing the signals on the Thameslink core – belt, braces etc.
@timbeau/Malcolm -the question of cross-subsidy is not quite as straightforward as you imply. It isn’t wholly (or even mainly about the movement of cash between alegedly freestanding TOCs. For example, even though UK TOCs are financially ring fenced (and there are elaborate cross-default provisions), bidder A may well be able to offer a lower bid than bidder B because it’s part of a stronger holding group, whose parent company guarantee therefore costs less. That would be a distinct benefit flowing from the rest of the biddr A group but one which would not appear on the face of the acconts (in a footnote,if you were lucky…). Similalry, with the cost of any money that the holding company puts in or the levels of dividends taken out. Abit like the Treasury argument that a failure to tax amounts to a subsidy….
@Ian J
“Didn’t British Rail invent something of the kind in the 1980s? It was even fitted on the Cambrian Line I think. Not sure what the closest it got to London was, though.”
Radio Electronic Token Block is still used on the West Highland, Kyle, and Far North lines in Scotland. The Cambrian was converted to ERTMS in 2011. The closest it got to London was the East Suffolk line between Westerfield (near Ipswich) and Oulton Broad. That line was converted to conventional signalling in 2012 (but using axle counters rather than track circuits) as part of a signalling upgrade to cope with a increase in the service level.
@timbeau, @Ian J
RETB was a great system and particularly suitable for the Scottish lines and indeed the Cambrian, where its long range radio system could cover a large area from a very small number of transceiver base stations. The frequency bands used, also exploited by other railway communications systems throughout the UK, was reallocated, with a deadline by which the railway had to vacate the bands, a major reason why these older systems needed to be replaced or heavily reengineered to use alternatives. That has now taken place on the remaining Scottish lines:
http://telent.com/newsarticles/telent-awarded-retb-network-rail-scotland/#.VkByyvnhCUk
The remote passing loops on RETB and NSKT (no signaller key token) lines used a train operated hydropneumatic point system originally which needed no external power or control apart from a simple detection circuit for a points indicator, only provided for facing movements. The device has since become obsolete, and they have all been replaced by conventional powered point machines which need local track circuits or axle counters to ensure no trains are standing over them when they move and points indicators to confirm detection for both facing and trailing movements. The indicators for leaving the loop are combined with TPWS indicators that confirm the grid is good to pass over without tripping after a token has been issued. The combined indicators (looking remarkably like signals), TPWS, together with local track circuiting, power supplies, point machines and a mini interlocking to control it all start to look a lot like conventional colour light signalling, so there’s no real saving to be made today using such a remote loop arrangement compared to the alternative of low-cost modular signalling using LED signals and axle counters, which was the solution used to replace RETB on the East Suffolk.
Just to add a moment of (hopefully relevant) light relief the Government have announced that Oyster and Contactless Payment Card acceptance will be extended to Gatwick Airport and intermediate stations from Jan 2016. Seems to involve some fare reductions compared to paper ticketing but worth noting the footnote and no overall simplification of Gatwick ticketing!
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/contactless-payments-and-oyster-to-make-travel-to-and-from-gatwick-airport-seamless
It’s not clear to me how Gatwick Express fares will be charged differently compared to using stopping / semi fast services. I wonder if it relies entirely on which gateline you use at Victoria?
Re WW
“It’s not clear to me how Gatwick Express fares will be charged differently compared to using stopping / semi fast services. I wonder if it relies entirely on which gateline you use at Victoria?”
The GatEx platforms (13&14) have a separate gate line and platform barriers which gets entertaining when platforms are changed during disruption and they have to divert passengers the long way round through the other gate lines (either 9-12 metro or 15-19 long distance are happy with oyster use at the moment.)
@ Ngh – thanks. I thought that it could only be handled at the Victoria end of things. In the peaks, when Gat Exs run from Brighton, do they exclusively use P13/14 at Victoria or are some lucky commuters going to get Gat Ex travel at lower fares by virtue of P15-19 being used?
Meanwhile, in SWT-land, Oyster has still failed even to reach Epsom, (or Sunbury or Esher). In fact, only four SWT stations outside the GLA area accept Oyster, and one of those has its fares set by Southern.
timbeau
In fact, only four SWT stations outside the GLA area accept Oyster
Guessing …
Shepperton, Upr Halliford, Sunbury, Kempton Park & Epsom?
(Yes, I know that’s five … )
In passing, what is it with SWT & Oyster?
They resisted altogether for ages pursuing their “all passengers are potential ticket dodgers” trope ) & then found they actually got more money, so why are they still “agin” it?
Anyone know?
@ timbeau – well I am sure that if the relevant constituents in Surrey voted SNP that SWT would respond urgently to the need to extend Langoustine oops sorry Oyster ticketing to those stations. 🙂 🙂 🙂
@ Greg – I suspect there are a few issues. Firstly, is it a franchise commitment? – no. Secondly, is someone else going to pay for the equipment, installation and maintenance? – no. Thirdly, you don’t expect us to cut the fares do you? Heaven forfend!
Being slightly more serious the sense I get is that SWT only do things that deliver them a cost saving or a large revenue gain. They have form for arguing and resorting to legal means to clarify what their franchise agreement actually requires them to do. I have a sneaking suspicion there may also be some genuine commercial and technical issues for SWT. There may be only a marginal case for extending Oyster and there may be issue over fares alignment given technical constraints within the Oyster system about how many “zones” (fares bands) can be recognised. Southern have outplayed almost everyone else by extending smart acceptance to more stations outside London – not sure why but that’s what’s happened. C2C also got in early and Greater Anglia have followed.
There may also be a tie in for SWT in that they are now expanding SWT Smart (ITSO based) ticketing into London so equipping stations with the relevant kit may well be planned and the facility for Oyster / CPC will be switched on when all the kit and systems are in place. The readers can recognise multiple card formats. No point in doing the job twice, better to do it once and connect everything up properly. So I doubt it is all down to actual / perceived bolshiness from SWT and more down to handling practical issues in a sensible way even if it may not meet the over eager expectations of the local MP. Let’s be clear – Southern are streets ahead of any other TOC in terms of smart ticketing roll out and infrastructure so we shouldn’t be surprised if more can be done on their lines than elsewhere.
I agree with WW’s comment that this doesn’t simplify Gatwick fare options. Presumably makes it actually makes them more complicated by adding new fare points.
That said, I’m really looking forward to this. Ticket buying at Gatwick or Victoria is horrid – always massive queues. Being able to go direct to the platform and “beep in” will be a significant time saver.
Further to the Gatwick announcement, does this mean all payment handling will be by tfl, even if my journey is only on a GoVia train? Just out of interest – Does tfl get a percentage for processing the charge? I currently use contactless, and my credit card statement shows charges as “tfl travel”, no matter whether I’ve travelled by bus tube DLR or train.
By way of contrast, if I buy a paper ticket from E Croydon to Gatwick now, the credit card charge shows “South Central” (I checked with Amex and they tell me this is what the merchant provides to them….)
@Greg
” Guessing Shepperton, Upr Halliford, Sunbury, Kempton Park & Epsom?
(Yes, I know that’s five … )”
You score minus-one out of four, I’m afraid. None of those are on Oyster.
The four are:
– Thames Ditton,
– Hampton Court (across the river, and the GLA boundary, from the palace).
– Stoneleigh,
– Ewell West (paired with Southern’s Ewell East for fare purposes, and the only one of the four to have become Oysterised since privatisation – the others were included from the beginning because their hinterlands extended well into GLC-land).
timbeau
Given that the Shepperton branch is, err… a branch, I’m surprised that Oyster doesn’t work there, now.
( I know it didn’t in late 2014, but I haven’t been there since )
I must have been asleep not to realise HC & TD of course – how come SWT had their arms twisted over those, but not the Shepperton branch – anyone know?
@Greg Tingey….As well as their catchment areas serving a large adjoining part of Greater London, the use of the branch by significant numbers of tourists from Central London to get to Hampton Court might have something to do with it. Otherwise imagine their confusion and annoyance if they tried to travel their on Oyster only to discover that it isn’t accepted at the other end.
Greg – Hampton Court and Thames Ditton were both in Zone 6 years ago. As was Stoneleigh I think. The Ewell stations were added 10 years ago (?) when Southern extended to Tattenham and Caterham and (I think) Epsom Downs.
Re Oyster extension. I want to know fares to see if I can dispense with my useless Key Card for the season ticket. Will make Gatwick much easier particularly coming home. The queues are always long.
@Greg et al
As Anon pointed out, Hampton Court and Stoneleigh have large catchments within Greater London and were included in the zones from their devising in 1985 – when buses as well as trains were still nationalised and Stagecoach was a two-coach operation in the Scottish Midlands. Thames Ditton was included as it lay between two stations which were in the zones. SWT had to have their arms twisted to accept Oyster at all, but having accepted it for all other stations in the zones there was no reason to exclude those three. Ewell West fares are set in common with Ewell East (I believe seasons are interavailable) so when Southern took Oyster to EE, EW had to follow.
I don'[t think the tourists to Hampton Court enter in to it – otherwise by that logic Oyster would extend to places like Windsor.
Now that Oyster is going to Gatwick, with special fares, is there any reason it can’t go on the HEx as well? I appreciate there may be logistical problems in segregating paying passengers from the free inter=terminal shuttle function it also operates.
Two questions/points on the Gatwick and Redhill corridor Oyster announcement
Firstly, it will only be for Daily tickets, no seasons can be loaded onto Oyster. Presumably that protects people abandoning the Key and getting Oysters instead.
Then the fare structure, although not confirmed the DfT today said the single fares would not be part of any Oyster cap, so you end up with a system that for some journeys that extend beyond London Terminus is more expensive on Oyster than buying a paper ticket.
Hopefully they will state shortly this is wrong but I am not sure so it could be something they haven’t understood. I must say I do not fully understand Oyster as I don’t use it. If anyone can clarify that position would be helpful.
Apparently if you want to enter Zone 6 onto the Redhill Corridor Oyster ticket you have to touch in and touch out at Coulsdon South. This is a bit difficult on trains that don’t stop.
@timbeau – I suspect the major reason why HEx won’t take Oyster is that it isn’t part of the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement and has no incentive to take that on.
timbeau,
otherwise by that logic Oyster would extend to places like Windsor.
And Crossrail are fully expecting Oyster to be extended to Windsor once Crossrail gets to Slough. Basically for the reason as described by Anonymously but also because the relevant franchise holder would be missing a marketing trick if they didn’t.
@ T33 – I think it is far too early to know how the facility to Gatwick / intermediate stations is going to work. As the TfL fares announcement is due on Thursday we may get more insight at that point as to how things are shaping up. I would not be surprised if we get several ticketing related announcements this week as part of “sweetening” the fares announcement.
I certainly cannot see there being a set up which requires people to do something at Coulsdon South if trains don’t stop there. There is no precedent for that sort of thing anywhere on Oyster as it would be a palpable nonsense. It’s clear that the emphasis today is on the Gatwick aspect as it has the highest political impact. I expect info for the intermediate stations will become clearer in due course. Probably best to keep an eye on the Oyster-Rail website which is a mine of useful info but it hasn’t caught up with Gatwick just yet.
@WW – “…the Government have announced that Oyster and Contactless Payment Card acceptance will be extended to Gatwick Airport and intermediate stations from Jan 2016.” and “Southern have outplayed almost everyone else by extending smart acceptance to more stations outside London – not sure why but that’s what’s happened.”
Pre-GTR Southern had long tried to do more than just ‘what their franchise remit told them’ in order to improve matters and they started with their “Key” card concept on the South Coast (Brighton and environs) and worked inwards. Perhaps of interest is this extract of notes I made at a Southern Forum in March, 2011:
“Of great note and welcome is that, despite invariable mention of customer services as a generality, everybody who spoke referred to us as passengers.
1. David Storey, Franchise Improvement Director, got us settled in and the most important thing he mentioned was the ticketing system and the introduction of ITSO. Apparently, TfL has agreed to get rid of Oyster (!) and convert to the more advanced ITSO card.
[ITSO is a government-backed non-profit organisation which sets a common technical standard that:
•means transport operators throughout Britain can link up so passengers only have to use one payment ‘smart’ card no matter what bus, train or route they are using
•means that same card can be developed for multiple uses, including council services such as leisure centres or libraries
•means information gathered securely through card use can be used to provide better and more targeted service”.
By the July 2014 Forum, my notes report that Southern said this:
“Now or soon will be Smartcard + Travelcard ticketing throughout Southern area, as well as nine terminal stations + PAYG on Crawley/Brighton area buses.” and ” Ticketing – by September, 2015 Smartcard Key to be rolled out over whole franchise + Oyster PAYG extensions – as far as Epsom, Luton, Gatwick, Welwyn (and somewhere else I missed).” and ““Network Southeastern” smart cards should be interoperable throughout the whole of the former Network Southeast region. Investigating putting Freedom Passes on Smartcards.”
Perhaps also pertinent to this thread, I made a note of this comment: “Southern will be split into two operating divisions – suburban and main line but they will work together, especially concerning management contingency in the event of operational problems.”
@Graham F: Pre-GTR Southern had long tried to do more than just ‘what their franchise remit told them’
Introducing ITSO smart ticketing was a commitment of the franchise Southern were awarded in 2009.
Meanwhile the current GTR franchise agreement says:
The Franchise shall use reasonable endeavours to extend Oyster PAYG to those areas bounded by and including the Stations located at Epsom, Gatwick Airport, Luton Airport Parkway, Welwyn Garden City and Hertford North by 30 September 2015 provided that the Franchisee and the Secretary of State agree that the terms of such introduction are not detrimental to the overall commercial position of the Franchise.
And also:
use reasonable endeavours to ensure that on or before 30 September 2015 smartcard or smartmedia ticketing products (in particular ITSO Smartmedia ticketing and Oyster PAYG) can be accepted on the Luton Airport Bus Link.
So they are running behind schedule and presumably have been quietly given dispensation by the DfT not to have PAYG to Luton Airport etc. yet.
Investigating putting Freedom Passes on Smartcards
Aren’t Freedom Passes already issued as ITSO smartcards?
Ian J
I note “Hertford North”
How long before Hertford E, then?
To “level the playing field” if nothing else?
IIRC, didn’t DfT try to/succeed in quashing Oyster to Hertford E?
If I’m correct, & I may not be, which way are they facing?
Commissioner’s report to TfL Board 4 November 2015, page 23:
“On 19 October Hertford East became the latest station on the National Rail network to accept contactless payments and Oyster cards.”
@IanJ
Freedom Passes have been issued as Oyster based smart cards since 2004 and since 2010 they have had both Oyster and ITSO capability. They’re not really anything to do with Southern in any case as Southern are not involved in the pass design, manufacture or issuance.
@poP
“And Crossrail are fully expecting Oyster to be extended to Windsor once Crossrail gets to Slough. ”
Quite likely, but unlike Hampton Court it was never considered by the GLC when the zones were first invented.
Presumably all Crossrail stations, including Reading, will take Oyster, which will make for interesting times on the South Western route, where Oyster currently doesn’t even get to Ashford, let alone Windsor. If you touch in at Feltham and touch out at Reading, how will you get charged?
timbeau,
What about if you touch in at Redhill (or Gatwick!) and touch out at Reading? Does this mean you can go direct via Guildford? What if you subsequently decided to get off at Guildford?
@poP
I guess Oyster would charge you “via London” rates in such cases, calculating a route which requires no barriers / OSIs.
If you’re lucky it would assume Redhill – Clapham Junction – West Brompton – Earls Court – Ealing Broadway – Reading, thus avoiding Zone 1. (Or, from Feltham, via Richmond and Turnham Green)
If you’re unlucky it will assume Redhill – Clapham Junction – Whitechapel – Reading
If you get off at Guildford you would have an unresolved journey, just as if you had boarded at Waterloo.
What would happen if the Revenue Men found you on a train at Wokingham is an interesting question
“If you’re lucky it would assume Redhill – Clapham Junction – West Brompton – Earls Court – Ealing Broadway – Reading, thus avoiding Zone 1.”
Or: Redhill – Clapham Junction – Shepherd’s Bush – Ealing Broadway – Reading?
When Old Oak Common opens, presumably it’d be: Redhill – Clapham Junction – OOC – Reading
@D Notice
Shepherds Bush is an OSI, so The System would know you hadn’t gone that way.
If the Milton Keynes – Croydon services are extended to Gatwick again, a single change at OOC would qualify. (Might even be quicker than the direct train via Guildford!)
A thought – when did Waterloo- Waterloo via Chertsey services last run? Could you have used Oyster e.g from Surbiton to Feltham?
While we’re getting agitated about ticketing matters it is worth bearing in mind the work TfL are doing to move Oyster to the “back room system” used for CPC transactions. Once that happens and cards are moved across to the new format then TfL has vastly greater flexibility about the number of destinations that can be priced and capped by the Oyster and CPC system. Whether the TOCs and DfT will support Oyster extensions remains to be seen given the money being spent on ITSO extension via the South East Flexible Ticketing (SEFT) scheme. I am not up to date about when revised Oyster will emerge. I’ve seen remarks on other forums saying it’ll happen in 2016 whereas the last time TfL talked to the Transport Committee they were reluctant to commit to a firm date but were suggesting a 2 year implementation timescale meaning 2017 as a likely start date. Crossrail 1 will require updated Oyster but given TfL operated services beyond Hayes don’t start until Dec 2019 there is a decent amount of time.
Clearly Crossrail 1 throws up a number of issues to the west and pricing out to Reading also has potentially severe consequences about where you set the maximum fare for failing to touch in or out. Gatwick Airport also poses the same issue given the premium fare charged on the GatEx service. We don’t know how this is going to be handled but will Londoners really want maximum fares set at way over £20? I can’t see that being acceptable but we shall see what happens. As for pricing between SW London and Reading then if Old Oak Common is built as envisaged then there would an OSI between Overground and Crossrail station so that would identify that route by people walking through separate gatelines. As for other options then who knows? Perhaps DfT will bow to the inevitable and force the future SWT franchisee to Oysterise the Waterloo – Reading route?
As Ian J has rightly pointed out the potential extension of Oyster to the northern reaches of the TSGN franchise were a “reasonable endeavours” obligation. This is no way means it *will* happen given the dependency on TfL’s system. It may be that nothing happens until revamped Oyster emerges. I suspect we are at the limit of how fares can be “manipulated” to somehow squash Oyster PAYG in alongside the cash fares set by the TOCs. Given we have long had route / market based pricing on TOC services and TfL has no such thing there is an underlying inconsistency of approach which makes change difficult.
The Tattenham Corner line is a Sothern Railways fiasco. This great little branch line is being run into the ground with a completely capricious and unreliable service.A 33% increase in fares this year alone! Also down from 3 trains an hour to now only two. Train rarely run on time, are often cancelled or do not run the full route without any notice given while passengers are dumped off trains and left to their own devices. Please let this line become part of London Overgound
Tat Corner will become part of Thameslink in a couple of years. Not sure if this will improve the reliability though, if the Wimb/Sutton branch is any precedent.
The Tattenham service isn’t perfect and the trains are not on time by any means. I have just checked average lateness on arrivals 1600 to 2000 over the last 100 days Monday to Friday (recenttraintimes.co.uk). The average lateness of the 13 trains over the time is less than 5 minutes although a couple of trains have quite poor records. The last week has been particularly bad though. Up to London Bridge on arrivals 6 till 10 the average delay is less than 2 minutes. Only 2.5 minutes on the three that arrive between 8 and 9. It’s not so good into Victoria though, which is intetesting in itself considering the issues at London Bridge. The last week has been bad up as well. I’m not convinced that you would fancy the London Overground model of minimum seats though as you would have standees as far back as Chipstead I would think. I certainly wouldn’t getting on at Purley or Reedham where I sometimes get a seat on the odd occasion when I go into London in the peak.
I Hate Southern, Purley Dweller,
Singling out the Tattenham Corner branch seems to skew the picture.
It is true that the the hourly Purley – Tattenham Corner shuttles are to be discontinued but these were very lightly used and fairly useless.
In the morning trains from Tattenham corner are generally on time or only very slightly late at Purley. Similarly in the evening, any delay will have generally happened before reaching Purley.
Perhaps this is more pertinent to another thread as this is largely down to congestion in the Croydon area. Some of it is also down to splitting and dividing at Purley which could possibly be eliminated if there were more paths through, wait for it, East Croydon.
If you catch a different train between Purley and London (e.g. one to or from Horsham) you will experience exactly the same delays. Much as I admire London Overground, they cannot instantly solve things and don’t expect miracles if that were to happen (unless it coincided with improvements at East Croydon).
Interesting points raised by other commenters regarding Tattenham Corner line but although the regular lateness is annoying it’s the complete lack of interest Southern has in running it like a service instead of a grudging favour to us who use it daily. Morning trains are NOT generally on time they are mostly late or cancelled.What arrival times at Purley/Tatt Corner don’t show is that the train probably hasn’t stopped at most stations! Tuesday there were no trains for 2 hours during peak. Monday night, no trains. Weds several cancellations. Frequently when trains are chronically late leaving London Bridge the train does either not complete the route or skips stations. This can happen while you are on the train! The shuttle although under-used because it only runs to Purley, where in the middle of the day there are fewer trains, it was easier to wait 15 mins for a train to town or Croydon than be stranded at Purley. At least it gave you a train out or in when other services are cancelled. What possible benefit could there be becoming part of Thameslink in the future? It’s an easy platform change at London Bridge once the works are finished next year surely.
I Hate Southern,
I strongly suspect recent problems are due to the proverbial leaves on line and are not typical of year round service. Admittedly I don’t use the branch that much but I have never known stops to be omitted between Purley and Tattenham Corner. The time saving would be small and not worth doing. What does happen is that trains don’t stop at East Croydon or Norwood Junction on their inward journey if late. This is partly to regain time but mainly because they are very full anyway by then so a stop would achieve little and there are plenty of alternatives from Purley for those wishing to alight at East Croydon or Norwood Junction. I could well believe not stopping at Norwood Junction and East Croydon could happen from London but this benefits those using the branch otherwise as otherwise they might not be able to get on due to other people who want to alight at Norwood Junction and East Croydon filling up the train.
I haven’t experienced it on the Tattenham Corner branch but it is not that unusual on the Caterham branch for trains to run fast from Purley to Caterham. This is generally only done when the train is late and the next one is only a few minutes behind (on time). This means that passengers for three lightly used stations are inconvenienced by a few minutes and a massive amount of potential disruption in the next hour for a lot of passengers (including knock-on effects) is avoided.
What possible benefit could there be becoming part of Thameslink in the future?
Because you want to go to somewhere other than London Bridge or Victoria such as Blackfriars. So trains will still serve London Bridge and, for some, the journey will be quicker and less fraught e.g. direct to St Pancras.
Whether Thameslink will lead to more or less reliability remains to be seen.
The Purley-Tattenham shuttle is the remains of the long gone Coulsdon North and then the London Bridge-Crystal Palace-Smitham train. The biggest losers overall are really those in inner London who have lost four trains an hour at some stations as a result of recent withdrawals from London Bridge. From experience a handful of people turned out to use the shuttles and the London bound Tattenhams are much better used, albeit much quieter than other metro services off peak.
It is always going to be hampered by having to get through Purley and East Croydon with the various bottlenecks as discussed as well as its rather slow plodding curving route and short platforms, all of which were inherited by the modern railway and we are rather stuck with it. The Victoria trains are particularly torturous as they have to negotiate Windmill Bridge and Selhurst junctions as well as get caught up in the sheer number of trains between Victoria and Selhurst – whereas generally London Bridge trains run at 70 non stop to and from Norwood Junction before the mire of East Croydon arises.
Using the events of this week is not fair to make an overall criticism of the operator as on Tuesday a broken down train screwed the branch up – bear in mind it is a two track railway with no opportunity to loop trains or overtake and only Coulsdon Town and Tattenham itself to turn trains back. And the high winds on Tuesday dumped enormous quantities of adhesion wrecking leaves very quickly which had an impact everywhere and for the whole day.
However I do agree that the intermediate stations on the branch do suffer in disruption. I’ve been instructed to run fast from Purley to Tattenham on several occasions, and early turn back from Coulsdon Town is not unusual, though usually when the next train is minutes behind. In the morning peak keeping the stop at Kingswood is often made to reflect the number using it for local industry. I would have thought that it made more sense for a train to complete its journey as far as possibles in the direction of peak flow then run back fast so that those on the train are not dumped, but then I don’t have an overall view of events, just my train. Unfortunately events change during the journey is the delay gets longer and longer which is why running fast or early termination happens once passengers are on. Painful it is without doubt but I do not exaggerate when I say it can rescue the entire service pattern and benefit a much larger number of people overall.
As for Thameslink, maybe IHateSouthern could have a word with the Wimbledon loop users? Thameslink was always about reducing the time penalty of having to terminate at a terminus, running through instead and turning back where there is time to lay over without holding up another train. Boosting the frequency through the core to St Pancras is a happy side effect rather than the reason for Tattenham trains being routed through it.
Furthermore London Overground are not targeting Tattenham as it is to be part of Thameslink; and they are not interested in trains using the fast lines, just the metro style stoppers. And they are just as susceptible to the problems at East Croydon, Selhurst etc. During disruption they have a tendency to cancel trains or turn them back before they reach the points where they have to mix with other routes. But then it’s much easier to run anyway with only a few routes with the same stopping pattern and total control of their core section.
GTR driver, I Hate Southern,
I stand corrected about trains running fast to Tattenham Corner. In my defence I did only say I have never known it though, of course, it happens, or used to happen, on derby days. I suppose the accumulated effect of not stopping at stations is significant even if speeds are slow and passengers relatively few. But as GTR driver points out (and I am sure is the case) it is done when another train is close behind. This is far more likely on the Caterham branch.
Kingswood station serves the headquarters of Legal and General which is responsible for a large amount of traffic on the branch – and contra-peak as well. It is quite understandable that,exceptionally, stops are made at Kingswood. Indeed you could argue that this shows Southern are aware of their customers needs. It could also be argued they are acting for the common good by omitting stops between Purley and Kingswood so that many people arrive on time to work – or at least less late – whilst only a few are otherwise inconvenienced.
@ I Hate Southern. You paint a dreadful picture. The reality…
Monday night “no trains” . One was cancelled at due to no driver. The remaining 12 peak trains ran as booked, maximum delay was 11 minutes.
Tuesday morning – a train failure at Tattenham which cut the power on the line. Hence no service between 0553 and 0739 ex Tattenham.
Wednesday “several cancellations”. One morning train (0920 ex Tattenham) skipped stops. Everything else ran as booked. One evening train (1930 ex Purley) skipped stops. Everything else ran as booked, albeit trains between the 1742 and 1843 Purley departures were 15-20 late.
The DfT have launched the “will Timbeau and Graham H please give us their views about the South Western franchise” consultation process. 🙂 🙂
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/476448/south-western-stakeholder-consultation.pdf
Now’s your chance to let rip!
Re WW,
And DfT have also published the Scope part of the “Shaw Report” into the future shape and financing of Network Rail:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/shaw-report-scoping-study
@WW – now that Hewett fils has gone off to work for the Lords of the Dark Tower, I may feel free to comment 🙂
Oyster at Gatwick…. My partner has just flown out. Texted me to tell me me that on arrival into the station, there was an announcement on the train “this is the final station within the oyster area”. Someone is running ahead!
Sad Fat – don’t know where you get your facts from but it’s certainly not from using the Tattenham Corner line! Monday-no trains from Purley from 10pm – reasons given: no power. Find your own way home. Tuesday; our ticket seller said there had been no trains for 2 hours previous to 9am but there might be one at 9.40. There wasn’t and at 10am I went to another line. Reasons given; No power, broken train, no driver or leaves – you choose. Journey home evening. Train cancelled – no reason. Wednesday – journey in – Train cancelled. Reason : poor track or no driver. This is the way it goes regularly. No responsibility for a service they are not interested in. Even Southern’s own employees agree it has become a sad joke. Please somebody take an interest in this line. It could be a nice earner if it was more reliable.
Multiple reasons are given because multiple reasons interact. A broken down train killed the power on Tuesday and separated drivers from subsequent workings. Poor adhesion has been a big issue this week which gradually slackens the entire timetable and again separates stock and drivers from their schedule. As for Southern, if not them, then someone else. The franchising system does not allow for TOCs spending on more staff or stock than it can justify or investing in better information systems if that would affect its agreed premium or cause it to go into revenue support. And it can do nothing about infrastructure issues as these are the responsibility of Network Rail which has its own problems. Price we have paid for allowing the railway to be undervalued and run down for decades then trying to sweat everything to meet modern demand. It’s a long way back which I don’t expect to see the end of in my lifetime. There are no easy or politically acceptable (ie cheap quick and simple) answers.
@Walthamstow Writer
If a certain company is actually briefing staff by managers that they don’t have any money and have been heavily fine then that is fact. I have the official letters from a certain company stating how they were fined
All is correct the risk is taken by DFT/NR they need someone manage the new trains and London Bridge. Yes I am fully aware of it is a management contract.
Well it will become public when the GN and TL grinds to a halt as most departments are being balloted for strike action, this might not include the drivers however a certain company seems to want to alienate the drivers, I seriously doubt services will run late night and at weekends into Moorgate from the 13th of December because they are in dispute over diagrams and turn around times also which depots have been offered work
However if they can barely manage staff and maintain a reasonable relations
How will they make Thameslink succeed?
How will they get CL700s into service?
How will they manage machinations of the London Bridge project?
Its not minor/armchair bureaucrats or incompetent over paid MDs that make projects work
Really bad they breached their franchise terms within months of taking over however they seem very unorganized and stand offish especially in regards to staff
How do you if the fines cost more than the costs of handing back the franchise, that the franchise wont be handed back. It is being likened to the GNER situation
Everything you are referring is all correct but please don’t do make static assumptions for a fluid situation
I’m unsure what will happen. But the fact that TFL/Boris are constantly asking network rail about the NCL and the Northern Heights, it’s irrelevant of logistics all about funding and the political will
@ KGX11 – given that the “dynamic” comments were deleted from your previous posting what else was I supposed to do? I made a reasonable set of comments and stand by them – based on limited knowledge and no inside track. I do try not to make wildly inaccurate or plain daft comments on here. My main concern was how the politics may play out for the DfT if Govia really are struggling. Clearly a point in time may come when change is the only viable option for the franchise but that is going to be a tough decision to take [1]. It may also have big ramifications for the wider rail industry as well as the passengers using the various services covered by the biggest [2] franchise contract in the UK.
[1] whichever party takes the decision.
[2] I believe TSGN is the biggest UK rail franchise. Happy to be corrected.
@KGX11….’TFL/Boris are constantly asking network rail about the NCL and the Northern Heights….’
Er, could you clarify this please? Are you simply referring to late evening and weekend services on the NCL to Welwyn / Hertford, or something involving the old railway alignment between Finsbury Park and Muswell Hill via Highgate (now the Parkland Walk), which is what us railway affeccionados are usually referring to whenever we mention the ‘Northern Heights’.
@WW: I believe TSGN is the biggest UK rail franchise
For some reason the phrase “too big to fail” comes to mind…
@Ian J…..Supposedly so was Railtrack, until their bluff was called by the then Secretary of State for Transport.
We seem to be entering the world of speculation here. If people have facts then please publicise them. Otherwise speculation will be “discouraged” especially when there seems to be some doubt as to what actually is being talked about.
I think the announcement today of a TfL / DfT consultation qualifies as a fact.
Page 10 in this evening’s Standard, under “Exclusive” says ‘Transport for London today confirmed it will take control of London’s suburban rail network’. If this really were the case, it would be the biggest thing since 1933 and would be front page news.
A look at City Hall’s press release is rather more nuanced, simply saying that TfL and DFT have committed to working together to improve services and will be consulting on the idea of devolving the upcoming franchise renewals to TfL.
https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-sets-out-vision-for-rail-travel
Even so, it’s a big boost for the idea, coming so quickly on the ‘turning orange’ report, with quite some momentum.
@NickBXN – if you read the parallel thread “Orange Invades” starting with today’s entries, you’ll find a lively debate has already started there. BTW you don’t believe what you read in the press, do you? No, I thought not. I did meet a man who did once, but he was DfT’s press officer.
I was right about the drivers working to rule which caused serious disruption to both the GN and TL from 13th of December 2015
I was right about Boris’s designs on GN/NCL maybe it wasn’t a solid bureaucratic view. It’s very complicated and a long way off. Im actually suprised i thought South East London would be a real focus because of the lobbying
ps NCL is stated on the signage, as by operational staff also on their license “Authority to work on the Northern City Line”. Maybe Finsbury Park – Moorgate is used by office staff making some announcments
KGX11: When you commented about this a while back, I understood you to be referring to an ambition, by Boris and/or TfL, to take control of just the Moorgate to Finsbury Park stretch. If you were referring to the complete service to Hertford and Welwyn, yes you were right, and I, misunderstanding you, was wrong to suggest that the comments you were reporting were unsoundly based (or whatever I said) – I am sorry about that.
I seem to have also been a bit out of line in suggesting that your use of the old name “Northern City Line” was inappropriate. This name does seem, as you say, to be still in use in some quarters. Personally I think it is a mistake, but that is not really the point – people commenting here can use any name they choose if it is likely to be understood, which is what you did. Further apologies.
Old names take a long time to die out. Yesterday morning I heard a (relatively young-looking) platform staff member at Kings Cross announcing an “Outer Rail Circle Line service”!
Presumably the Outer Rail of the Inner Circle?
@ Philip – I doubt LU has dropped the terms outer rail and inner rail given the trains do still run a loop albeit not round in a complete circle. It’s a key identifier for tracks and used for things like track circuits and traction current sections. There’s a great danger of confusion if you rename long used terms *unless* there is a very compelling reason to do so. I see they are still used in the C&H working timetable.
Comments are closed.