Orange Futures: A Look At The New Overground Concession

1. Bearing down on the impact of delays and 3 minute target etc.

   Presumably the thinking in TfL is more drivers to allow stepping back but the LR cynic brigade will be thinking adding plenty of extra padding…

   It won’t do anything for dwell times getting worse on other operators due to rising passenger numbers having knock on effects on LO services.

2. London Overground doesn’t have a massive amount of padding at the end of lines currently does it? Not like Southeastern Metro that often allows 20 minutes + at the end of routes which in reality take 5 minutes, and are timetabled for 5 mins at certain times.

   I’m leaning toward that cynic brigade in LO starting to add more padding. Possibly along routes too. Who knows, it may even be necessary at places. How they will get people onto and off trains efficiently at Canada Water when 3500 homes are built within a 5-10 minute walk will be interesting. The new masterplan foresees a massive amount of towers and retail space increases, meaning more leisure visitors too.

3. Any chance of explaining what is intended by the peculiar expression “Duking it out”?

   Typo: “targeting behaviour operator behaviour”.
   [Thanks, corrected.]

   I cannot see the comment about freight operators going down too well, since they can be permitted a 15-minute variation on NR tracks and if they are forced to such tighter schedules, they may well depart rail for road, especially if there is no other suitable rail route. Freight trains cannot normally accelerate or brake anywhere near the capabilities of electric passenger stock, so if they are held, then there will be a delay that nobody can rectify, financial penalty or not.

4. re Graham

   duking it out = (v) To fight, especially with the fists.

   I can see an extended dwell at New Cross Gate southbound too.

   Is the LO operator going to pay to change the interior of TSGN trains to stop dwell times getting worse as passenger numbers rise? I think not. For me this is about reactionary delay reduction which is up to 3 times the original delay south of the river hence stepping back and padding…

5. @Ed

   “I’m leaning toward that cynic brigade in LO starting to add more padding. Possibly along routes too.”

   Given that most lines share with either freight paths or other operators (Southern out to West Croydon) it would be very hard to do that.

   Looking at the statistics, the Gospel Oak to Barking services are at the busy stops (Blackhorse Road, say) for upwards of 150 seconds – it’s supposed to be 30 – but without making the trains late. There is a lot of slack in existing services. Clearly the Gospel Oak to Barking with proper electric, longer trains will be able to detrain passengers much more quickly.

   There are other points on the London Overground network where trains are hanging around in platforms for ages:

   – over 210 seconds South Acton P1 is “LR/TfL” interface junction with District Line to Richmond
   – over 150 seconds at Forest Hill P1 northbound … shares with Southern trains
   – over 130 seconds at Denmark Hill P1 – shares with Southeastern service to Victoria from Dartford
   – about 120s at Norwood Junction P6 – peak hours trains calling at odd platform
   – about 115s at Seven Sisters (both directions) with their tiny platforms, poor access, 36tph Victoria line
   – over 110s at Denmark Hill P2 – shares with Southeastern service to Dartford from Victoria
   – over 110s at Queens Road Peckham P2 southbound – shared with Southern local services
   – over 100s at Caledonian Rd & Barnsbury P2 (where the Reversible lines are)

   Surrey Quays is about 90s, which is 3 times the target.

   So, little reason for “adding in slack”, actually quite a lot of reason make journeys faster.

6. In the general interest of being informed about how LO works rather than how people think it works – One day list of average station dwell times for London Overground split into hours [Excel format]. This is the data from National Rail Enquires, filtered to show only “actual data”. Just to put “starting to add more padding” to bed.

7. avoiding a situation where the Operator is perversely incentivised to miss station stops in order to arrive at final destination within the three minute punctuality measure

   It’s worth noting that MTR’s Melbourne franchise is notorious for doing this.

   The 10% of other operators’ delays thing is in the Crossrail franchise too as discussed here.

   @ngh: growing dwell times shouldn’t affect punctuality against the timetable, as opposed to overall journey times, because trains should be timetabled to allow for expected dwell times, shouldn’t they?

   @Graham Feakins: Fortunately there are far more freight paths allocated on the Overground than will ever be used (especially because of the failure of Channel Tunnel freight to meet expectations). But expect pressure on NR from LO to hold the freight trains to those paths.

   Another interesting point from the document:

   The target level [of 2% fare evasion] will apply on existing routes throughout but will be set initially higher on devolved routes to reflect currently observed higher levels of ticketless travel. The target will then tighten to reflect TfL’s programme for gating stations during the first two years of the next concession.

8. “This change [more 3 than minutes late rather than 5 minutes] will have a statistical knock-on: it will mean that, on paper, London Overground will suddenly become less punctual from November onwards”

   The obvious way to deal with this is to record both figures now so that a valid comparison can be made. In fact, nowadays, it should be possible to re-evaluate historical data to show a comparison with past values. One would expect the new operator to show an immediate improvement against historical data because now he is being specifically incentivised to improve this.

9. I am curious to know whether any changes in service patterns are foreseen on the former Anglia routes ?

   Do all stations now have a minimum of four trains an hour ?

   Are all services planned to go through Hackney Downs or have services from/via Stratford and Tottenham South to Enfield or Cheshunt been considered ?

   If Anglia runs trains via Hackney Downs it would make sense for Overground to use the Stratford Tottenham South route.

   I have been playing around with possible service patterns but it is not easy to have four trains an hour on the Enfield and the Cheshunt branch, while providing a service with equal intervals on the Hackney Downs Hackney Downs – Edmonton section. If eight trains an hour use that section, should half of the trains be ‘express’ between Seven Sisters and Edmonton Green ?

10. I don’t know whether the draft agreement covers this or not, but it would be very easy to prohibit the practice of skip stopping in an attempt to recover schedule/avoid performance penalties.

11. HS
    Do all stations now have a minimum of four trains an hour ?
    NO
    Not North of Edmonton Green”
    Stratford services – we’ll have to wait & see (at present)
    Getting trains, regularly Seven Sisters / S Tottenham / Lea Bridge Stratford is not going to be easy.
    That northernmost curve is TIGHT & single-track – not really a starter.

12. 100andthirty,

    But skipping timetabled stops (skip stopping is something completely different) has its place and shouldn’t be banned completely. Banning it could produce the incentive to cut out a potentially late running train entirely rather than pay for the (justified) penalties for causing a reactionary delay to other trains. It may be that missing out some stops enables the train to run and not cause the reactionary delays.

    Remember, as ngh delights in reminding us all, that we are deep in reactionary delay country here in South London.

13. Punctuality matters to the operator, who needs to have the trains present themselves at junctions in the right order, and have crew rostering to sort out, but it is irrelevant to the passenger whether the target is three minutes or five minutes. On a low frequency long distance service it would be foolhardy to rely on that degree of punctuality – as long as connections are honoured. And on a high frequency service, no-one cares which train they are on. If the trains are all ten minutes late, you don’t have to wait ten minutes, you just get on the train that was due ten minutes ago.

    As for skip stopping, there is rarely any justification for it. The idea that, for instance, Chingford passengers getting to Liverpool Street on time is more important than Walthamstow Central passengers getting there at all is obviously bonkers.

    There may be a case for running a delayed train fast from a busy intermediate station if another train is hot on its heels, as that will even out the loadings between the two trains – whereas if both trains were to call at all stations the first would mop up most of the passengers who would normally have got the second one, and end up overloaded. But this is only really worth it if the service interval is relatively long, say 4tph or less, and it is only one train that is delayed – the second train really must be waiting right behind.

14. What does this mean for Delay Repay though? When I was using the NLL 2010-2015, one could only claim for a delay of 30 mins. While this could occur, one was more likely to encounter delays that would be around the 15-20 min mark. Which was slightly annoying as you’d never get compensated for it.

15. @Harjinder Singh

    Not sure if it’s going to be visible for long, but you can have a look at if you want to see how the West Anglia lines run.
    [Link removed by Briantist request as was not working. LBM]

16. Also – there are still a few non-stoppers in the West Anglia schedule –
    [Link removed by Briantist request as was not working. LBM]

17. We had a similar issue when fleet reliability changed from miles per 5 minutes delay (MP5MD) to miles per technical incident (MTIN) since TRUST records a TIN after 3 min.

    I seem to recall that comparison between the last reporting period of MP5MD and the first period of MTIN showed an average fall of around 30% across the five fleet categories used for the Golden Spanners awards. Obviously performance for a period is subject to the vagaries of rolling stock reliability with even the most reliable fleets subject to occasional big swings.

    But since then overall reliability has continued to improve and in most fleets the effect of the change in measure have been more than recovered. Memo to self: for next year’s Spanners review it would be interesting to have a few graphs of the long term changes in reliability of fleets that have been around since I started publishing reliability data a dozen years ago.

18. @timbeau

    “As for skip stopping, there is rarely any justification for it. The idea that, for instance, Chingford passengers getting to Liverpool Street on time is more important than Walthamstow Central passengers getting there at all is obviously bonkers.”

    I would suggest that there is a very specific reason for London Overground trains skipping stops when they are late, which is the passenger service with the Orange Trains is interleaved with freight paths.

    It is my observation that if a train is delayed then it will have it’s passengers ejected and either go to a turning point or to the start of the return journey as quickly as possible.

    London Overground has several interfaces with other non-Overground services outside the freight system, most of which I listed above.

    Skipping stops (or cancelling stops) is done – I believe – to prevent the horrible knock-on effects in preference to causing cross-service delays, because it’s a better “bigger picture” solution than freight backlogs or missing slots at South Acton, Forest Hill, Denmark Hill, Norwood Junction, Queens Road Peckham (and the freight waiting area at Caledonian Rd & Barnsbury).

19. @timbeau

    Sorry, your specific example of Chingford – the interleaves are at Clapton Station to the Coppermill Junction – with the Stansted Express.

    http://carto.metro.free.fr/cartes/metro-tram-london/index.php?station=clapton

20. @Subria
    Delay Repay is a pernicious con. The whole principle is wrong, valuing your time as being only equivalent to the fare you paid. If a train journey was a fairground attraction, or a ready-meal, then a failure to deliver might justify no more than your money back.
    But if your new washing machine not only breaks down, but ruins all your clothes, floods the kitchen and sets fire to your house, you would expect rather more than just your money back from the supplier of the machine! So white goods manufacturers make sure that doesn’t happen. Contrariwise, railways seem to think that simply giving you your money back is quite generous, regardless of the consequences of their failure to deliver. But a failure to deliver by the railway can be more serious than the cost of the ticket: whether that means a missed job interview, or flight, or funeral.
    A £20 refund of an advance purchase ticket is not enough to get you home from Scotland at short notice by any other means, or indeed get you a bed for the night if you are stranded there.

21. It’s mentioned in several places that this is the let of a franchise. Is this a change from the concession model that LO ran on before?

22. [Edited by Malcolm to add station names: would contributors please only use the 3-letter abbreviations for a second or subsequent mention of a station]

    I hope the increase in frequency of Clapham Junction to Stratford [CLJ-SRA] services does not adversely affect the Richmond [RMD] branch of the North London Line [NLL], which is already ponderous enough and seem to have to make do with capacity that’s left unused by the CLJ branch.

    Trains already regularly dwell for 2-3 minutes at South Acton and/or Acton Central and often have to wait for a late running train from CLJ to cross the junction south of Willesden Junction [WIJ] before. Even with the extension to 4- and now 5-car trains, services to and from RMD are regularly overcrowded in peak times.

23. timbeau says “Delay Repay is a pernicious con”

    That is a bit harsh. The delay repay scheme does not cover consequential losses, and you are right to point this out. But public transport as a whole, world-wide, does not do this. It could perhaps be done, but the cost would probably be enormous, and borne by the fare-payer. (The only form of transport where you might have a chance of refund of consequential losses would be private hire of a limousine).

24. Harjinder at 08:33

    The replacement fleet size for the West Anglia and Goblin trains presently on order is only 6 units extra, and those 6 have previously been explained as going to the DC lines to allow 6 trains to move to the NLL and ELL.

    That seems to suggest no significant increases in services in the early years, however I think there are still options for more orders in the future.

25. @Paul: In theory, off-peak services could be improved without extra rolling stock (essentially by running the peak service, or something approaching it, all day). There are of course still difficulties (staffing, train maintenance, cost, other things).

26. @timbeau – that’s fair enough. Of course, an alternative is to simply say sorry and be done with it?

    I know it’s a National Rail vs Underground issue, but when you are compensated for delays over 15 mins on the Underground, and 30 mins for Overground, it does seems a bit on the nose.

27. Ref. Briantist’s 0445 post of average LO dwell times, could he please explain exactly how these have been calculated?

    My understanding of NLL and WLL is that dwell times are scheduled for 30 secs, except for Acton Central, Camden Road and Highbury at 60 secs. and Willesden Jct. at 90 secs.

    Whilst many of these times are exceeded, most only do so by a few seconds.
    At the other end of the scale, door opening and closing procedures mean than dwells of less than 20 secs. are virtually impossible.

    My understanding of the dwell time definition is wheel-stop to wheel-start. Presumably the table produced by Briantist is something different?

28. There is at least one regular LR commentator who drives on the ELL, and (s)he certainly hasn’t given the impression that there is much slack through the Thames Tunnel at all.

29. @Malcolm/Subria

    Of course compensation is better than nothing. But too often the railways act like it lets them off the hook – the calculation being that it is cheaper to give everyone their money back than to be fined for arriving late/ cancelling the train/ not honour a connection/ etc. Which takes no account of the actual cost in time, distress, inconvenience and consequential losses to the people who rely on the service.

    And no compensation if the first train is cancelled and the second is within 15 minutes, even if it so crowded because of the cancellation of the first that I can’t physically get on it.

30. @ Timbeau 0935

    “Delay Repay is a pernicious con.”.

    The railway undertakes to take you from A to B. It does not do so on the basis of accepting individual and varied risk from each passenger. The linking to delayed time is merely a nominal calculation device. Your washing machine manufacturer will have liability insurance to cover the occasion when something goes wrong. If you want the railway to cover you for your actual loss, however that would be calculated, would you be prepared to have the cost of covering that liability added to your train fare?

31. timbeau,

    “Delay Repay is a pernicious con.”

    This issue in law is more usually applied using the concept of reasonably foreseeable risks and who is in a better position to mitigate the risk. Clearly with a washing machine manufacturer it is reasonably foreseeable that if it catches fire the house may burn down. It is also the case that there is not much the consumer can do whereas the manufacturer is able to test his product and take the necessary corrective action.

    Train and travel companies generally are in a difficult position. They can have no real idea of how critical your journey is to you. If they did would it help? What rail operator would willingly serve an airport if it was worried that a train delay (possibly beyond its control) could cost it hundreds of thousands of pounds in compensation on a ticket that might not be very expensive?

    In the case of travel, the consumer can do a lot to mitigate the risk simply by catching an earlier train if the on time arrival is that important. If the journey is really that important and exceptionally delayed (e.g. trip to airport as first leg of two week holiday) it would probably be covered as part of travel insurance.

    There are also the practical details of getting anyone to bid for a franchise if delay liability was potentially almost unlimited and the sheer problem of detailing with all the delay repay claims that can be caused by a single incident – which is why you have simple easy to understand rules that are easy to implement. The delay to Delay Repay repayments can be unduly long as it is.

32. timbeau,

    And no compensation if the first train is cancelled and the second is within 15 minutes, even if it so crowded because of the cancellation of the first that I can’t physically get on it.

    This seems to be a contentious issue and inconsistently applied. Southern have told the London Assembly Transport Committee that it is your journey that is delayed and it would be honoured but other operators have claimed otherwise. It really needs to be spelt out in the franchise agreements whether or not this is covered and be consistently applied. A good argument for recording all passenger levels on trains using train weighing* ?

    * Other means of counting passengers may be available.

33. Re PoP,

    I think the message from TfL is that delay recovery south of the river now requires very active steps get the services running on time again unlike in many areas of the country (and even recently in some parts of London) where timetables would tend to passively self recover. Hence TfL is incentivising active recovery rather than the current fairly passive LO.
    Innovations might include training drivers on more routes so being sent the wrong way at Peckham Rye Junction doesn’t become a crisis!

    Re Ian J

    Imagine a peak southern stopping service is cancelled on the Sydenham corridor. The dwell times on the next SN service will be more than timetabled. Might the new Overground operator have more staff on the London bound platforms in the am peak to help with passenger management to reduce knock on delays (as SWT do)?
    Is the cost worth the delay reduction under the new arrangements…

34. Re PoP,

    Southern seem ok with not being able to board compensation but SE also Govia run aren’t until video footage and MPs get involved!

35. A couple of points. Don’t expect radical service pattern changes like Enfield to Stratford. They are not going to happen. I do expect there to be some “bunce” announced when the new franchisee name emerges – something like more off peak trains to Enfield Town is obvious and we know TfL have been negotiating to get the paths. [And please no lectures about path constraints into Liv St – we’ve done it to death].

    While there is clearly some cut across from the Crossrail performance regime I see some of the changes for Overground as a reaction to issues that have arisen on both the North London Railway and West Anglia bits. Freight trains have caused significant issues for the former and will most likely continue to do so for a long time while “management” of the train service on West Anglia has led to a lot of skip stopping – sometimes just serving Walthamstow Central and Chingford on the latter route. I would also agree with Briantist that the current Overground timetables on the non West Anglia lines are full of padding. It’s not unusual for w/b GOBLIN trains to arrive a minute early at Blackhorse Rd and leave early. e/b trains struggle a little bit timewise for some reason. Peaks are obviously a real problem for well understood reasons. NLL services are often early at Highbury and Islington suggesting plenty of slack in the timetable. The fact that trains run at a rather leisurely pace also suggests a “loose” timetable. I don’t see any great value in making timetables even looser.

    One other little snippet I spotted, and I wonder if this is a new concession “rabbit from the hat” surprise, is that the new draft TfL Budget / Business Plan refers to “electric trains entering service on the GOBLIN from Feb 2017”. Note the lack of reference to “new trains”. Now we know the *new* trains arrive in 2018 so I wonder if something has been funded by the new concession operator to bring *old* EMUs into service in the interim despite all the denials from TfL to date? That will be good news if it has been sorted – possibly using class 315s rendered surplus from the Shenfield line.

36. Delay Repay does have odd effects:

    My commute to work is 29 minutes (by the timetable).
    My last holiday (to inverness) took 6 hours.

    We were delayed on the way up – about 35-40 minutes. We didn’t really care, we had nice scenery, and comfortable seats, and it was only 10% of the journey. Yet we can get compensation.

    I’m regularly delayed on the way to work, 3 minutes is usual, 5-6 minutes is not unusual (arriving on time, now that is really unusual!). Delay is 10-20% of journey time, and it’s not a pleasant delay (and the fact it is ‘normal’ just makes it worse). Yet I don’t get any compensation (infact, my journey time has to double to get any).

    My conclusion, delay repay works for long distance, but not for short distance – we need a better way of dealing with this…

37. @James Bunting/pop

    Of course I realise that relying on a train to get you there on time is a risky business. What I object to is the railway’s attitude that paying compensation is the only thing passengers are interested in at times of disruption. The purpose of the railway is to get people from A to B, and leaving them behind at A (or indeed at some godforsaken interchange station somewhere between A and B) just so the train can arrive at B (or back at A), empty but on time, should not count as a success.
    Running empty trains past crowded platforms, or dumping a trainload of people at some desolate halt simply because its convenient to send it back from there, shows an arrogant disregard for the needs of the people for whom the service is supposed to be provided, and who are after all, paying for it. This is the sort of behaviour indulged in by the “pirate” buses in the early 1920s, which the London Traffic Act 1924 put a stop to.

38. Anonymike: Delay repay is a blunt instrument, true, and often the “wrong” passengers receive it. Many examples exist. But the fact that delay repay exists at all is (by my theory) a side-effect of performance rewards and fines on operators (which are themselves side-effects of the chosen privatisation model). Passengers would have felt doubly aggrieved if the franchise-letters (DfT, Tfl etc) were receiving, and keeping, all the fines, while the sufferers (the passengers) got nothing at all.

    Mind you, a case could be made that the instrument is so blunt that it ought to be scrapped entirely. I can’t see that going down well, though.

39. @WW
    “new draft TfL Budget / Business Plan refers to “electric trains entering service on the GOBLIN from Feb 2017”. ”

    You’ll have a job running any electric trains on the Goblin as soon as next February, unless they are battery-powered, as it is not expected that the wires will go live until October 2017.

    http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/tfl-tries-to-reduce-line-closure-time-for-goblin-electrification

40. timbeau,

    Running empty trains past crowded platforms, or dumping a trainload of people at some desolate halt simply because its convenient to send it back from there, shows an arrogant disregard for the needs of the people for whom the service is supposed to be provided, and who are after all, paying for it.

    This is where you and I will always disagree. On Southern I have never seen it done as a disregard for passengers but only to provide a greater benefit to passengers at the expense of some other passengers. I would suggest the problem is one of perception. The people adversely affected are aware of the situation and maybe upset about it but the people whose journey has been saved by judicious use of not stopping at stations when due to do so often remain in complete ignorance of the extra effort made to ensure their train arrives on time (or maybe late but not cancelled). This is especially true when station stops are missed to get the train on time for its busier return journey.

    There may be other situations that could be, as Sir Humphrey would say, misinterpreted. So not stopping at certain stations due to no guard being available for platform duties and the station not being authorised for DOO or because of a points failure or other infrastructure problem. I appreciate the issue of no guard available so not stopping at some stations does not arise on SWT – they just cancel the train.

    Also, in the event of disruption at a terminal (e.g. London Bridge) generally it is best just to get the first trains away as quickly as possible and to not stop at inner London stations even if this results in hardly anyone using the train. Remember there will be people stuck on trains queuing to get into the station.

41. Moosealot 10.03: Is it just me who thinks that the whole “franchise” versus “concession” nomemclature in relation to rail is back-to-front but so well established that it’s beyond correction? I understand that, in normal commercial usage, if you take on a franchise you are buying the (presumably valuable) right to use someone else’s established brand (and maybe technology or process) whereas with a concession you are conceded the authority to take independent decisions on these and other things?

    PoP 11.39: Footnote approved!

    ngh 12.06: Presumably while both Southeastern and Southern (not sure if you are referring to before or since the absorption of the latter into GTR) are Govia-owned companies they are not necessarily both subject to the same contractual terms with the DfT and hence may have different drivers of behaviour. Although I do not know whether this actually does apply specifically to compensation.

42. @Caspar Lucas
    Completely agree with your first point.

43. I recall in the days of First Capital Connect complaining because of a service disruption being exacerbated for me by a decision to skip my stop, they said that as soon as they skip a stop, the service counts as cancelled for statistical purposes.

44. @Timbeau – I was merely highlighting what I had read in the Business Plan. I was not aware of the October date for actually switching the wires on and I read *far too much* railway stuff! It also seems that TfL are unaware too if they can publish an inaccurate Business Plan. For the sake of posterity here is a direct quote from said Business Plan / Budget.

    Gospel Oak to Barking line electrification

    In 2016/17, we will complete the preparation work needed to introduce electric four-car trains on the Gospel Oak to Barking line.

    Platforms will be lengthened and, from February 2017, eight two-car diesel trains will be replaced with the same number of fourcar electric trains. This will provide a 90 per cent increase in train capacity. Additionally, the improved acceleration and braking on the electric models will enhance journey times and reliability.

    I wish someone, somewhere would just give us an honest timescale rather than snippets here and there which are not consistent with each other. It’s ridiculous and not remotely fair on people who use the services whose expectations will have been raised unnecessarily and prematurely.

    Looks like the Mayor has signed a Mayoral Decision instructing TfL to seek powers for the Barking Riverside GOBLIN extension. I assume the last minute issues that had delayed the signing of the various legal papers over the redevelopment area and funding plan have been resolved.

45. @ PoP 1407 – surely in Timbeau’s case it is down to experience and geography? If I have interpreted the many nuances over the months correctly he lives in Kingston so uses SWT commuter services. He hates SWT and everything about them. No amount of reasoned argument is going to change his view on anything to do with SWT and the service he, his family and friends experience. I see the same arguments over multiple different forums under varying “noms de plume”. I’d argue it’s pointless actually trying to reason with him on these points he feels so strongly about. We all have “bees in our bonnets” about issues but this is a case of “multiple hives of angry bees in a bonnet”. 😉

    [For the avoidance of doubt, I trust that WW did not mean that timbeau uses “varying noms de plume”. He means, I feel confident, that different contibutors to various forums display a similar phenomenon to that which he (WW) perceives timbeau to be displaying here. Malcolm]

46. @ timbeau “A £20 refund of an advance purchase ticket is not enough to get you home from Scotland at short notice by any other means, or indeed get you a bed for the night if you are stranded there”.

    Should you find yourself stranded overnight by the railway they are responsible for any accommodation costs in compliance with Article 32 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning rail passengers’ rights and obligations. That says:

    “The carrier shall be liable to the passenger for loss or damage resulting from the fact that, by reason of cancellation, the late running of a train or a missed connection, his journey cannot be continued the same day, or that a continuation of the journey the same day could not reasonably be required because of given circumstances. The damages shall comprise the reasonable costs of accommodation as well as the reasonable costs occasioned by having to notify persons expecting the passenger”.

    The Article gives some exceptions where the carrier is not liable, mainly where delay is caused by events outside the carrier’s control.

    Greg

47. @ Malcolm – I am happy to be corrected by the man himself but I did mean one person posting under similar / different names in various places. The writing style and points being made are unmistakably the same person. It was not a criticism merely an observation. To be fair I post under different IDs in different places not as an evasion but it’s just the way things have panned out. My writing style is similarly easy to spot because I make no attempt to differentiate.

48. WW: sorry that I misunderstood you. But it is clear from what you say that you are not suggesting that timbeau (if he does post elsewhere as you suggest) is doing anything wrong (for instance not using sock-puppetry to represent himself as more than one person).

    Whether your observation is correct can remain one of life’s unsettled questions, unless timbeau himself sees fit to confirm or deny it: he is not obliged to do either, of course. But in general, discussion of any individual commentor (rather than what they say) will be discouraged. It is generally automatically off-topic.

49. On delay repay a potential solution for regular commuters is what British Rail did late in its life, which was give a reduction on the next season ticket if performance had fallen below a specified level. I seem the recall that being a few percentage points below the target. This meant that regular 10 minute delays (a la Southern) did lead to a financial benefit to the commuter, something that will never happen with delay repay.

    I think there were two targets, reliability and punctuality.

50. Slightly off topic, with the board meetings being accessible by the public in person, is it possible to watch it live from somewhere online?

51. On the subject of delays, when it comes to metro transport it’s worthwhile considering the alternatives. Buses tend not to serve the same routes, at least not as a single service. As far as I can find there’s no compensation for London Bus delays. Performance is measured in very different ways to trains though.

    Of course for orbital journeys outside of central London a great many people drive. Driving is deeply unreliable for journey times. You get no compensation for delays, indeed a traffic jam will cost you more in fuel even with stop-start or hybrid.

    And should you take a taxi you can visibly see the cost of your journey increase as you sit stopped in a jam.

    It’s not to say that Overground can’t do better on reliability, or that a delay compensation scheme better tailored to a metro service couldn’t be devised- I just think it’s worth having a little perspective?

52. Anonymous 17:51

    On the GLA website media centre Mayoral Broadcasts site. So, for today’s board meeting click here. There does seem to be an issue with around the first 18 minutes of recording or maybe it’s just me.

53. @ AL_S – I agree there is no compensation for delays to bus passengers. If there was TfL Buses would be bankrupt on the basis of the the last year’s performance which is appalling. TfL adjusted several of their targets downwards for the current financial year and performance is worse than those lower targets and much worse than last year.

    I disagree with you slightly about the performance measurement. I-Bus allows TfL to collate data for every bus by location, day of week, time of day and scheduled journey. While I-Bus is not 100% reliable it offers a vastly larger and more reliable data population than the previous observer based sampling technique. I-Bus also reduces the risk of “game playing” by operators who previously ran extra buses past the observation points on days when they knew the observers were there so as to give a better impression of performance. TfL uses a concept of excess wait time for high frequency bus services which is similar to the Tube. Low frequency bus routes are measured on the basis of on time departures within a time window which is similar to the National Rail network. At a basic level, though, TfL does know if buses are running on time or not stop by stop on every route – the schedules are that detailed. That’s not dissimilar to what is known about each train journey in the country.

    Your point about differing regimes is pertinent given the modal differences. Rail passengers get some level of refund for longer delays, bus passengers and drivers get nothing and incur time / cost penalties while taxi users get charged vastly more if their taxi gets stuck in traffic. Pedestrians just have to put with being diverted over longer distances when there are works and cyclists might just be able to ride round the problems and the jams.

    @ Malcolm – I understand your point about “personal” postings. If you wish to wield the axe to my earlier posts then no problem.

54. PoP 14:07

    On DOO cancellations due to no guard it doesn’t help to know that Thameslink run to Merstham and Coulsdon South all day with no guards (I assume as none of their trains have them) but if Southern have no guard they can’t stop at said stations despite the two companies being one and the same operator.

55. Purley Dweller,

    A very good point which I have never thought of. Of course, it is only since December that Thameslink have called at Merstham and Coulsdon South so maybe its changed since then.

    Even the trains are basically the same so it can’t be explained away by that either.

56. @ngh: Imagine a peak southern stopping service is cancelled on the Sydenham corridor… Might the new Overground operator have more staff on the London bound platforms in the am peak to help with passenger management to reduce knock on delays (as SWT do)? Is the cost worth the delay reduction under the new arrangements

    Good point, but it sounds like another reason for the Overground operator to take over the stopping service from Southern, so that these inter-TOC cost issues don’t arise (SWT have the advantage of having the Waterloo approaches to themselves).

    @Anonymike: I’m regularly delayed on the way to work, 3 minutes is usual, 5-6 minutes is not unusual

    If you were travelling on C2C with a smartcard you would get automatic 3p a minute compensation for every delay of more than 2 minutes, which sounds like a better way of doing it for commuter operators. I believe the system makes an assumption about which train you were on based on touch-in and touch-out times. The amount of money might seem a bit derisory but over a year’s commuting it would add up, and the real advantage is the refund happening automatically, as at the moment TOCs have a strong incentive not to let passengers know about their ability to claim refunds.

    It also avoids the problem of the old Passengers’ Charter schemes where falling below an arbritrary threshold triggered a season ticket discount – a blunt instrument because it gave no incentive to perform significantly better than the threshold, and if a TOC was resigned to falling below it, they didn’t have much incentive to mitigate their failure.

    @Purley Dweller, PoP: While they are now one operator, presumably their employees have two different sets of employment conditions having been transferred across under TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) ). The ‘Southern’ guards’ union would probably object to any extension of Driver Only Operation, even during disruption, on wedge-end/slippery-slope principles. On the other hand the Thameslink part of the business are going to start serving a lot more stations soon so the issue won’t go away. And all the more so if London Overground take over more of the South London network.

57. Relevant to this: Buried on p. 95 of an ORR report released today is the statistic that “around 15% of potential claims are paid out” for compensation. They didn’t include LOROL in their analysis.

58. And the winner is….Arriva

59. Indeed. It looks like the various service packages we highlighted have been taken up as well.

    Have added the official press release to the foot of the article.

60. What is the degree of overlap between the Arriva management team and LOROL’s management team?

61. ngh, crowd management is EXACTLY what is needed now. LOROL trains are all fairly short and have body side cameras so few problems with dispatch unless people just won’t clear the doorways. However the Southern 8 car 455s now face an issue at certain stations whereby the crowds waiting for LOROL trains are blocking the driver’s view of the back of the train and thus triggering a manual door close from the platform with resultant delays to trains behind.

    Ian J, I think, any attempt to extend DOO on newly colonised Thameslink routes is going to incur the wrath of the punters as well as the guards, not to mention drivers now under much more pressure by being solo. They are used to having someone on board to help from the likes of Horsham and East Grinstead, Haywards Heath etc, and their purchase of hefty 1st class tickets may not be an entirely coincidental factor in their reaction. It will just be seen as yet another dilution of the service level on the Southern network – see also losing catering, closing ticket offices, 313s on the coast…

62. Re Ian J, Purley Dweller and PoP,

    DOO – The southern guards have known formally for while that there will need to be a much smaller number of them in the future as Thameslink takes over Southern services. A big win for DfT’s DOO/DCO strategy. The way the TSGN contract was tendered ensured there wasn’t much they could do. I believe SN are looking at natural attrition so not that controversial but this could lead to issues if they haven’t been taking any one on in the mean time… 2017 might be interesting

    And GatEx will soon have stock that can work DOO and is conveniently being tested in DOO mode by Thameslink while some modifications are made to the 387/1s…

    It would also be nice if LO at the stations they operate advertise the length of the Southern services (like southern do and like used to happen at the same stations before they transferred to LO…) which might help with dwell time issues when there is a short formed service or even with the mix of 8 & 10 car at places like Forest Hill!

63. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2016/march/arriva-named-as-new-operator-for-london-overground

64. For all LOROL’s excellent publicity I have it on good authority they are somewhat uncooperative with Southern. There are now many locations where stop car marks are primarily designed with only their trains in mind leading to some stops effectively having built in delays.

65. Having commented how much tougher the work had become for drivers on the ELL in response to a previous article I can now foresee quite a challenging time for industrial relations. As predicted, working diagrams will be revised in May to incorporate 8 minute turnarounds at Dalston Junction rather than the unworkable 6 that was introduced in the December 2015 timetable change. My concern is that change seems to be driven by performance and not by issues which relate to driver fatigue. A 3 minute PPM target is all very well but that can disappear in just one busy stop, such as Canada Water in rush hour, and it certainly does when we get held on the down at Norwood Junction these days. We generally arrive on time there only to have 4 or 5 minutes added as we wait for a delayed Southern to be given priority through to West Croydon. It’s frustrating to be on time for 95% of the journey only for this to be eroded at the penultimate stop. No doubt it’s so we don’t block the platform at West Croydon as we wait for the dispatcher to confirm the train is empty before we get the bat to go into the turnback, but it shows that many of the events that get absorbed now will be flagged as PPM failures in future. The ‘side effect’ is that drivers get less time to take a breather in the turnback (a breather is all it can be as there is no toilet facility there). Whatever drivers are taught about incident avoidance and use of Personal Protection Strategies the constant reinforcement that punctuality is all is a concern. A driver error not only has safety implications but it can bring a considerable amount of the network to a halt for an extended period. Most don’t, instead they get marked on your driver record and make you less employable elsewhere.

    I am accustomed to people saying “Well you get paid well enough”, or “If you don’t like it find another job”, but at a time when morale is already quite low we now face the prospect of more weekend working with the introduction of all night services on Fridays and Saturdays, along with early morning starts on Boxing Day. It is a significant erosion of family time, especially for those of us who have children or who have partners who work Monday to Friday and who we rarely see. Driving on Friday and Saturday nights is already a challenge, or rather DOO dispatch is. There is so much more to look out for with passengers under the influence or who board en masse, blocking doors while waiting for their friends to catch up. Yes more drivers will need to be recruited but we are under establishment figures now at New Cross Gate depot and I doubt we will reach full compliment for a long time as driver retention becomes an issue.

    Whatever the merits of the concession model, the operator is still a private company and as such, a primary objective is to deliver decent profits back to shareholders. Whilst there are discussions to be had about that from a passenger perspective, as a driver I have a creeping unease about expectations around driver productivity in a safety critical environment where safe working should be the single biggest priority.

66. @ Anonymous 10.02

    The TfL specification stop markers have been the source of much mirth due to the presence of the extended chevrons leading them to stand out much more than existing stop markers… a kind of ‘stop markers for dummies’ if you like. Can you clarify how this leads to built in delays though? I’m baffled by that aspect of your comment.

67. ngh,

    It would also be nice if LO at the stations they operate advertise the length of the Southern services

    I think this stands little chance of happening. It seems it is just not in TfL’s psyche to think that trains can be of a different length – let alone the passenger needs to know. Their trend is to run fixed formation trains of the same length on any individual line. It will be interesting to see if a mixture of 4-car and 8-car trains persist on their lines out of Liverpool Street.

    If they can’t/won’t do this on the DLR or between Baker St and Liverpool St I can’t really see it happening to take into account the trains of another TOC.

    By the way, am I the only one that thinks emblazoning their trains with a big 5 for five car at the front doesn’t send out a good message? To me it tells me that it is one of those short trains coming rather than a Southern train of proper length.

68. Re Anonymous 09:09,

    Had been typing the above post on and off so missed yours.

    Agree on the need for crowd management (several years ago rather than just now!) but can you see TfL / Arriva paying for it?

    455 drivers should be using the platforms monitors (or originally curved mirrors in some locations till a decade ago) on the platforms rather than looking back since they were introduced in 1984… The issue always seems to be LO passengers on the wrong side of the line and it being much harder to see what is going on with the platform cameras in their current locations. The new timetable with more even spacing of LO services on the Sydenham corridor seems to have helped a little.

    DOO on Thameslink services is a long done deal – there haven’t been guards on the Thameslink – Bedford Brighton at any time since it was launched… No job title exists at Thameslink
    Haywards Heath get 4tph of DOO Thameslink at the moment.

    Apparently the required number of guards to operate SN services will be 400 fewer by mid/late 2018.

    Thameslink and Southern conditions are being kept separate so they could potentially split again in 2021.

69. Re PoP,

    If LO claim SN trains are causing them delays SN can just turn around and say your stations are causing our trains delays!
    As train length (only for SN services) is easy enough to do there shouldn’t be any excuses, if TfL have idealogical problems then they should be allowed to take over any more NR services south of the river.

    I suspect SN may have a rather long list of issues with LO that might enable southern to run a better service which would in turn help LO run a better service. Unfortunately I suspect most will shatter the LO keep it simple view of the things, unfortunately they live in complex world.

70. @PoP 10.17
    I guess initially the big vinyl 5’s did serve a promotional purpose as the step up from 4 to 5 was quite significant for a service that will never be capable of becoming a ‘proper’ 8 car. It also provided an early visual cue to passengers that they could stand in the most suitable place on the platform. But now they are all 5 cars services I hope they will be done away with.

71. While I understand the comments about TfL’s alleged attitude to variable length trains I am very puzzled by the statements about the apparent behaviours being seen at stations. The implication is that TfL and the operator are ignoring their safety responsibilities to keep on top of well understood safety risks and that they are failing to act in a reasonable manner with respect to other operators using stations where they are the Station Facility Owner. Given we are talking about a known high risk – the platform / train interface – then it is all the more gobsmacking. Are people really saying that there is a borderline breach of safety management / co-operation requirements?

72. Anonymous
    18 March 2016 at 11:11

    Yes the big 5 on the front will be going soon..

73. But a big mystery which I have yet to see explained is why Underground style zoned strip maps of individual routes showing NLL and Watford DC services are appearing above the windows on the ELL-based stock, but without strip maps of their own area of operation. This is on trains without pantographs for that matter. The implication is that they may get AC-equipped and be transferred, but the franchise information on stock allocation and future service patterns doesn’t allude to this. At the moment, it just looks like a silly mistake.

74. PoP
    I think this stands little chance of happening. It seems it is just not in TfL’s psyche to think that trains can be of a different length –
    Well, on the Chingford line & the Enfield, the station dot-matrix “boards” usually (always?) show the number of coaches in a train, in advance ….

75. @pop, quoting me
    “Running empty trains past crowded platforms, or dumping a trainload of people at some desolate halt simply because its convenient to send it back from there, [unquote]”
    On Southern I have never seen it done as a disregard for passengers but only to provide a greater benefit to passengers at the expense of some other passengers. This is especially true when station stops are missed to get the train on time for its busier return journey.”

    I may be mistaken, but from observation, the 0842 service from London is not nearly as busy as the incoming service that forms it – even if it has skipped half a dozen stops to get there in time for that 0842 departure! And of course if it has been parked in a siding, waiting for time to fill its return slot, the last chance those people who did want to use it can reach it was by taking the preceding train at 0827, which is likely to have left before the cancellation was even announced.

    @WW
    “he lives in Kingston so uses SWT commuter services. He hates SWT and everything about them”
    I use SWT to illustrate points simply because I am familiar with them. Despite the unfortunate Wild West image conjured up by their parent company’s name, I am sure SWT are no better, and no worse, than any other franchisee, and I have had occasion to praise them: for example they ran a workable limited timetable in severe weather rather than simply giving up as some operators seemed to – as a user of the Wimbledon Loop, I had little good to say about FCC in that regard, and my manager’s experiences of SET (stranded overnight near Sevenoaks with no power) are also in mind. No, real anger I reserve for the not-at-all-lamented DOR!

    @WW/Malcolm
    Rumbled – I do indeed use different noms-de-guerre on different sites, for historical reasons, but I have only posted under this name (and anonymously once or twice) on this site. One exception – I once posted under the name of a historical character as I was writing “in character”.

    @Robin Butler
    “a potential solution for regular commuters is what British Rail did late in its life, which was give a reduction on the next season ticket if performance had fallen below a specified level”
    This still happens, although since the performance is averaged over a “service group” (e.g all suburban services) poor performance on one particular line can be too diluted to provide appropriate compensation. I have also seen comments that where performance relies on an unreliable connection, what compensation you get can depend very much on which of the two services is at fault. Commuters to Chertsey, for example, frequently miss their connection at Weybridge, resulting in a 30 minute delay, because the SWML train from Waterloo is late and the branch train doesn’t wait. But their compensation is not based on the performance of the SWML, but of the Windsor lines, in which the Chertsey branch is included.
    (Sorry, another SWT example!)

    @WW
    “I agree there is no compensation for delays to bus passengers. ”
    I have – once- had compensation from TfL for disrupted bus travel – bus driver, starting from Waterloo, only got as far as Aldwych before dumping us (actually slightly further from my destination than I had started!) and running empty to the depot (note not BACK to the depot – the bus was already heading towards the depot)hich would bhave taken but on route- e=deed

76. Greg,

    Hurrah. Long may it continue!
    (displaying the number of carriages in advance of the London Overground train arriving on the Chingford service).

77. @ Greg / PoP – presumably because the indicators are inherited from the former franchise operator who installed them. Let’s see if the facility remains when all the systems are upgraded as promised in the new TfL Business Plan!

    From the section about London Overground delivery plans

    This will include new customer information screens, passenger help points, better CCTV, improved general maintenance, automatic gates and new vending machines.

78. Those train indicator screens vary enormously in quality across the national network, and there are some major routes and important hubs where they are, frankly, inadequate. In general, London has the most useful and consistently highest quality ones.
    ,

79. Is the focus on shorter delays (putting pressure on Network Rail and Other TOC and Freight operators) a way of demonstrating there is slack in current pathing? With an ultimate goal of higher frequency LO services slotting into the gaps.

80. @PoP I wonder if something like the postal service model, where you’re not generally compensated for delayed post but can pay extra for guaranteed delivery (with a large compensation payment if it’s missed), could work. That way there would be a feedback measure and ToCs could adjust their behaviour based on how many people were signing up for it.

81. lmm: Interesting thought. But parcel delivery is entirely in the company’s hands. Self-loading goods (passengers) are capable of independently taking the wrong turning at the top of the stairs and thereby missing their connection, resulting in difficulties establishing beyond argument whether the large compensation is due.

    Maybe that’s only a fiddly detail, with some clever solution, though.

82. @imm
    postal service model; compensated for delayed post

    Quite -compensation if the parcel is delayed – even if the van arrives on time. But it seems what’s appropriate for parcels doesn’t apply to passengers.

83. Regarding the loss of train length announcements at LOROL stations, I did have a long running dialogue with LOROL about this – their first and last e mails containing these comments:

    18.08.14:
    ‘I was sorry to read your comments regarding announcements at Brockley Station. I have discussed your comments with our control room and they have advised me that all information regarding Southern trains were originally relayed to customers by Southern. London Overground is due to take over all the information system at the station including information that is sent out by Southern. During the transition period the 2 systems will be running together and London Overgrounds system cannot generate this information as all our trains have 4 carriages. In November the changeover will be completed and you will then be provided with this information again’.

    November 2014 came and went…plus another year:

    8.12.15:
    ‘I have spoken with the projects and Infrastructure team who have informed me that unfortunately Southern are not currently using the Darwin system and this information is not being fed into the Customer Information Screens. Due to the nature of the screens this is not currently possible and a change would need to be made by us to make this functionality possible.

    I would like to assure you that we are still looking into this matter and the CIS screens will be reviewed regarding the information displayed for Southern Trains. I would like to also clarify however that there is currently no plans to change the system in the short term and this is still in the review stage by the London Overground Projects team’.

    I think we can assume from that the expensive system that used to provide the useful information on train lengths has gone for good, in the name of progress…

    On the topic of the old season ticket extension to compensate for delays, that never worked for me because I would renew an annual ticket a day or two before the price increase, so a ‘free’ extension would actually cost me more money, pushing me into buying a new ticket after the price increase!

84. @Brockley Mike
    “On the topic of the old season ticket extension to compensate for delays, that never worked for me because I would renew an annual ticket a day or two before the price increase,”
    I always get the choice of compensation either as money off the next ticket, or as extra days, and choose the former for precisely that reason. Is that option not available on Southern?

85. @timbeau – not sure nowadays – this was a while back and I now get an annual oyster season. But Southern punctuality has of course improved enormously anyway ever since they added several minutes to the timetable for the short journey to London Bridge!

86. Brockley Mike: An interesting tale explaining a bit more about the loss of train length information.

    Sadly it seems typical of so many “upgrades”, whether to versions of operating systems, sat-navs, TV remotes, and just about anything remotely programmable. The new version always seems to have all sorts of elaborate bells and whistles that you don’t really want, and has dropped one tiny but vital feature which the designers, probably quite sincerely, believed that “nobody uses”.

87. No we get delay repay. If my train is 30 mind late I get about a pound on my £1200 annual season ticket. I rarely bother!

88. @Saintsman. If ‘they’ are trying to show there is slack in the existing timetables, ‘they’ will only be showing it to themselves. LOROL write the timetables (with TfL guidance), Network Rail merely check them and iron out any conflicts with other operators.

    @Timbeau. If that 0842 from London doesn’t leave on time, then the 0846 arrival into the same platform will be late, and also late departing, thus delaying the next one, and so on. Skipping booked stops is a decision never taken lightly – nor always correctly – but is always done with the intention of minimising overall delay to the maximum number of passengers.

    @ everyone. Skipping a booked stop counts as a PPM failure AND a cancellation, so the operator usually gets hit twice (i.e. fined) in their contract with the service specifier.

89. Aha! (re compensation for delayed passengers who have paid an extra fee): That’s where LBM’s ceremonial helmets will come in handy. Passengers who have paid the extra fee can be required to wear these, for the attention of platform staff, who will not let a train depart until all wearers of such helmets have boarded!

90. @SFD
    ” If that 0842 from London doesn’t leave on time, then the 0846 arrival into the same platform will be late, and also late departing, thus delaying the next one, and so on. ”

    If everything is running late, the train due to arrive at 0846 won’t actually arrive and need a platform until after the 0842 has left (late). So mere late running shouldn’t snowball. The order that trains arrive may be different if they reach the junctions in the wrong order (and all the junctions in question are flying or burrowing – not flat ones), but with standard three-minute intervals and five minute turnrounds, the any delay should be containable. The remote termini at the country end have longer and more generous layover times, and that is where the time should be made up.

91. In response to various points:

    Tfl’s lack of co-operation leads to situations such as unhelpfully placed DOO monitors on platform 6 at Crystal Palace, which LOROL trains do not use, which causes all trains to stop much further away from the stairs than is necessary, resulting in delays while passengers catch up with the train. The new 5 car marks with chevrons did not go down well with Southern drivers either, as they seem designed to draw the eye which is not good when you have more than 5.

    On other platforms, such as Brockley, it is now harder to get DOO monitors installed where needed, because LOROL manages them, which results in delays as longer Southern trains take longer to dispatch due to the inadequacy of look back on a curved crowded platform. Despite what an earlier poster said, there are MANY platforms on the South Central network that require the driver to look back, and a number of these are on the New Cross Gate-Norwood Junction line.

    As for TFL ignoring their safety responsibilities…well much of the railway operates on the basis of it being convenient and possibly cheaper to gamble on the small probability of something going wrong. Hence the crazy situation of one member of staff who is supposed to be concentrating on driving a 100mph train responsible for 12 groaning coaches of passengers between Bedford and Brighton to name just one example. There is also actually very little in the rule book about the platform train interface and what there is can be suitably ambiguous, thus leaving the crucial responsibility to the relatively powerless driver, whilst allowing the various corporate or government agencies and individuals to continue to say they have fulfilled their part in maintaining safety.

92. @Timbeau – RobERT ButLIN, if at all possible.

93. @PurleyDweller – I always claim delay repay. It’s not just about the sum of money I receive but the cost to the TOC of processing the claim, which will in most cases be far greater than the sum received (and, of course, the smaller the payment the larger the transactional fixed cost will be, proportionally). If everyone entitled to Delay Repay claimed, this would be a cost around 5-20 times greater than it is at the moment, depending whose figures you believe. I’m sure this would be a useful behaviour modification device for the TOCs. A further sanction on them, if you like.

    It’s even better (i.e. costlier to them) if they foul up the delay repay, which is not uncommon. Though heaven knows how this works out if delay repay and CS is outsourced, as per Southeastern. I expect, sadly, the cost of fouling up the repayment is on the CS operator.

    While I’m wittering about delay repay, when it was introduced, whoever was running the Southeastern franchise at the time (it may even have been Connex) said that once you had claimed delay repay, you lost entitlement to season ticket reductions based on the performance measure. Not just for that season ticket, but permanently.

94. @timbeau – “The order that trains arrive may be different if they reach the junctions in the wrong order (and all the junctions in question are flying or burrowing – not flat ones), but with standard three-minute intervals and five minute turnrounds, the any delay should be containable.” Well, not really, because as a general principle requirement is to present the trains in the correct order at termini where,if the timetabler has done his job properly, conflicting moves are avoided as far as possible, and parallel moves are maximised. (But you are right about using the country end to take up the delays).

95. Malcom
    … and has dropped one tiny but vital feature which the designers, probably quite sincerely, believed that “nobody uses”.
    Like PROPER timetables on the TfL web-site, you mean?
    Yeah.

96. Mike P: On 100% of the occasions when I could have claimed delay repay (all 1 of them), I chose not to, for the same reason that you choose to always claim. I wasn’t seriously inconvenienced (as it happened; obviously people often are, and that’s different). I didn’t think that increasing the total railway bill by my refund and the significant waste which the administrative cost implies was worth it.

    Obviously every delayed passenger is a different situation, and they do always have a right to that money. But a right is not an obligation.

97. Malcolm: My pointing out the impact on TOC costs if everyone entitled actually claimed Delay Repay certainly wasn’t intend to obligate people to claim 🙂 It’s intended as an encouragement, and to underline the broader (potential) effect beyond the individual sums received.

    It also depends how angry one is about certain TOCs having got to the capping point on profit-related repayments to the DfT.

98. The trouble with compensating passengers for poor performance by reducing the price of future season tickets is that if/when a spell of ongoing poor performance finally ends, the passengers then experience what appears to them to be a price rise (often compounded by coinciding with the annual inflationary price rise).

99. @ Greg – for goodness sake give it a rest. There are proper timetables for TfL Rail and all Overground services on the TfL website. There are also full Underground WTTs available too.

    @ Mike P – while I understand your point about claiming Delay Repay do you really imagine that the cost of claims and the admin cost is not factored into the franchise budget? I would also expect there to be some contingency / risk factored in to deal with the inevitable fluctuations in performance and possible claim levels. The likelihood of being able to “financially punish” a TOC via increased Delay Repay claims is very low.

100. Musing over the appointment of Arriva, but making no comment about their bid or their bid’s quality vs any of the other bidders’ proposals. I always wonder whether the cost of changing from one supplier to another is allowed to be taken into account, and if it is, whether they do take it into account. With Overground, at least most of the staff stay the same, the livery stays the same, but there will still be costs that the bidders have factored into their bids, and costs to TfL for managing the changeover.

     It’s much worse for the franchises where uniforms, and train liveries are taken into account. (and no one believes the oft trotted out nonsense about trains being repainted only when due).

101. Nonetheless the repainting when due nonsense is likely true, since there are plenty of 319s still in Southern and FCC colours, and in the former case it’s been around 7 years since they were last assigned to Southern.

102. @100and thirty – call me cynical but I have a strong suspicion that DfT willingly tolerates (silently) the costs of rebranding because this is a small price to pay for trying to destroy the notion that there is such a thing as a railway “system”.

103. @Graham H
     You are probably right. Certainly, from the passengers’ point of view, identifying the service is far more important than identifying the operator. Thus, for example, the change of name from Silverlink to London Midland is of little practical value to the passenger whereas a clear understanding that the service is a Northampton line service is. If the DfT were really taking the passengers’ interest to heart they would insist on a constant service name to be the major brand, with the operator not allowed to change this and with the operator’s identity subordinate.

     This principle was clear in the early 90s with London’s bus services, which were then to be contracted out on a net (as opposed to gross) cost basis with the operator getting the credit and taking the risk. The first of these was the 24, let to Grey-Green, which, in turn, repainted the buses in their house colours (not surprisingly, grey and green). This caused such an uproar that Steven Norris, then the Transport Minister for London, instead on a contractual requirement that all buses operating within London should be (at least predominantly) red.

     With railways, it’s not so much the colour, but the service name which is important. I, for one, would be horrified if my service name changed from South Eastern to Wizzy Express Trains – or any other name – not withstanding the huge deficiencies of the current operator.

104. @ Graham H “Call me cynical but I have a strong suspicion that DfT willingly tolerates (silently) the costs of rebranding because this is a small price to pay for trying to destroy the notion that there is such a thing as a railway ‘system’.”
     Following the example set by Transport Scotland with generic branding of services in the ‘Saltire’ livery it now appears the DfT has cottoned on to the same idea – witness the green livery now appearing on trains operated by GWR, replacing the previous FGW blue livery on stock which has a long-term future with the franchise. Incoming franchisees are apparently expected henceforth to adopt liveries which are not brand-specific with the only ‘nod’ to franchise ownership appearing in small print somewhere on the vehicles involved. Whether the Virgin empire will accept such strictures remains to be seen…

105. @North devonian – I don’t think the new GW livery has anything to do with DfT pressure at all – merely trying to get rid of the toxic legacy of the previous First leadership. (BTW only a very small percentage of the total fleet has been rebranded or is intended to be rebranded)

106. @quinelt
     ” The first of these was the 24, let to Grey-Green, which, in turn, repainted the buses in their house colours (not surprisingly, grey and green).”

     The 24 was the first privatised route in central London, in November 1988, but Grey Green were already operating several routes in the N London suburbs for nearly two years before that.

     The very first was the 81 – Hounslow to Slough – taken on by London Buslines (now part of the First Group empire) in July 1985.
     http://www.londonbuses.co.uk/bus-photos/081-100/081_LN32-F.jpg

107. @timbeau/quinlet – London bus Lines had nothing whatsoever to do with Grey-Green, nor was the 81 the first LT route transferred to the private sector – the 235 in Richmond and the 98B in Pinner were transferred many years before that.

108. @ Graham H – I fear to tread on your toes on matters historical but surely the two routes you quote were simply surrendered to private operators by the old LT? That is a rather different proposition to compulsory tendering under the government controlled LRT regime.

     @ Quinlet – having recently read a rather excellent book on “Privatising London Buses” which features a great deal of “insider” recollection I don’t think the 24 being in Grey Green livery caused any great furore. I rather think it was encouraged rather strongly in order to mark it out as an exemplar of the “brave new world” especially as it passed Downing St and the Houses of Parliament. Many years later, after some very mixed experience with a range of operators, it was decided that a more coherent approach was necessary once deregulation of London’s buses had been ruled out. A fully contracted out network with London Buses’ former subsidiaries all in the private sector provided the basis for the “majority red” livery decision. Having grown up away from London and always had a range of livery colours on the local buses I actually rather liked London having a variety of liveries. Made it very easy to spot your bus in a jam or busy bus station.

109. @Graham H
     “London Buslines had nothing to do with Grey Green”

     Precisely my point. London Buslines, not Grey Green, was the first privatised operator of a former London Transport service.

     “The 98B and 235 were transferred many years before that”
     http://www.countrybus.co.uk/independent/tworoutes.htm
     These two routes, along with a number of others, were introduced by independents during industrial action on London Transport in 1966. Most of these routes were short-lived, but these two remained operated independently until the 1980s.
     There were other commercial services within Greater London, operated by such as Orpington & District (later to become Metrobus).

     The former London Country services had been transferred to the National Bus Company since 1970, which was privatised as four separate companies in 1986 – all now part of Arriva, although some routes are operated by other operators (and a few are now TfL routes).

110. @timbeau – I think you,in turn have just made my point. The 98B and 235 were former LT central area routes transferred to the private sector, even if the mechanism for doing so in 1966 was different to 1985. As I recall, Atlas and Isleworth Coaches applied to LT for permission to run those routes – permission which was then granted as soon as LT announced their withdrawal. Both routes had been operated by LT, which the Metrobus routes never had been (along with several others such as Thames Valley A and B, and the various Eastern National routes to Wood Green). [My apologies in advance to the moderators for prolonging an offtopic detour – for amusement, there’s a useful Capital Transport publication “London Connections” (no relatiion!) which is fairly complete in decribing these odd services,although the 98B saga is not quite accurately spelled out there ]

111. WW
     Sorry, but I disagree profoundly.
     I do agree that WTT’s are available & so are proper timetables for “Overground” services, but, I know a lot of the time, with an “underground” service with their frequency, it doesn’t matter, but if you are catching an early train, or going out along the “proper” Met then a real tt would be a real help, rather than having to type in supposed start & finish stations & then selecting the hour-interval you think you might be looking at.
     The “full spreadsheet” of a proper timetable is so much better (IMHO )

     [Greg, We have told you time and time again there are real timetables for the Met. WW and I have told you repeatedly that the re are real for the London Overground and TfL Rail. This subject is closed unless you have anything factually genuinely new to add. We know your opinion on this subject. You don’t have to keep restating it (and won’t be able to). PoP]

112. @WW at 01.19 – sorry not to have picked up on your points. Yes, the 1966 arrangements* were very different to the 1985 ones, but the exam question I thought I was answering was “which LT bus routes were the first to be transferred to the private sector”, rather than “which were the first to be concessioned under the 1985 method”.

     A propos the 24, Ridley had been eyeing that as a showcase concession even whilst the LRT legislation was going through the mill. The route passed all the political right places. And he was being egged on by the owners of Grey Green by personal lobbying. The distinctive livery was a pure bonus for him. It was often mentioned at internal meetings regarding the Bill. [There are still people who believe the Hundred Years War wasn’t started with a gift of tennis balls…]

     _______________________________________________________________________

     * My impression at the time -knowing little about concessioning practice at the tender age of 18 – was that the 1966 arrangements were a simple licence to operate, with LTE taking no responsibility for service specification or commercial risk and with no guarantee of continuity of operation. Certainly the 98B (my local route at the time) went through five operators with some gaps between them and with at least one (Sundown Coaches of Thamesmead!) performing a mere handful of journeys before giving up.

113. @Graham H 2151 19/3 I’ll not drag this discussion too far off its subject matter but the wider commentary on liveries is certainly one of rationalisation to long-term franchise-specific liveries, regardless of operator. As for GWR, one HST has been reliveried as a ‘demonstrator’ and given their short-term future with the franchise no more are to be changed. As for the remainder of the fleet, various types of multiple unit are to be withdrawn or transferred elsewhere over the next few years and those, too, are remaining unchanged. The only stock to be repainted is that which is to be retained, which is receiving ‘works’ attention and is due to be repainted as part of that attention. So no, there is no intention to wield the paintbrush of profligacy at anything which moves – which surely rather defeats the argument about expunging reference to ‘First’?

114. And for the other First franchises?

115. No idea. I have no information so rather than speculate…

116. The conversion of the 24 certainly made political capital, and the Prime Minister once observed that they were the only buses running when a strike had taken most London buses off the road. The route also “just happened” to be the one used by the former Leader of the Opposition, whom she had defeated in the 1983 General Election, to commute to the House of Commons.
     But it was not until 1992 that Stephen Norris became Minister for Transport in London, and not until 1997 that he brought in the “80% red” rule, initially only for buses operating in Zone 1. However, he did require the purchasers of the former London Transport companies, when they were sold off in 1994, to retain the red livery)
     http://clondoner92.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/london-buses-were-on-verge-of-being.html

     On the wider point, the terms “franchise” and “concession” to seem to be being used back to front on the railways. One expects a franchisee to ride on the reputation of the franchisor by using its trade marks etc. Apart from the use of the NR “double arrow” logo there seems little evidence of that. This may reflect the thinking at the time, that the letting of services was only a stepping stone to the free-for-all nirvana : the idea was that the franchises would wither away as all the open access operators would make them redundant, and the short terms of many of them reflected that view. Thus imposing a specific livery on them was seen as unduly prescriptive (especially in the case of franchises like Anglia and Northern Spirit, which were taking over a mixture of Regional, and Inter City or PTE services, which already had different liveries.

117. @timbeau – it was worse than that: the Treasury actually believed (and still may believe) that a separate livery for each franchise was essential because of the way it would, err, build brand loyalty. I seem to recall this doctrine first appearing when the very early discussions for |Heathrow were underway at a time when the 1993 Railways Act was not yet contemplated and BAA’s only possibility was to have a JV with BR. That would be fine, said HMT (it was their *only* precondition), provided the trains were painted a special livery to show their JV status and the apportionment of risk. Unfortunately for the general public, the Treasury spotted the flaw in the argument just as we started sawing away at the branch.

118. Brand loyalty……..bah. It must take a good few years to build brand loyalty, and then its snuffed away in a moment of re franchising. Of course, some hate the current brand so much that they will be delighted (perhaps) to see it swept away.

     Think of some of the well known brands of no more we all fondly remember……..Desani, Sunny Delight, Berec (destroyed Ever Ready), Lancia. And look how long it took VW to make Skoda respectable (although perhaps we shouldn’t go into that particular deviation from topic)

     Look at the past silly private rail operator names…..’one’, ‘c2c’ (oops that’s still current…..silly name though).

     Based on Graham H’s comment, I reckon the branch the Treasury were sawing was the one they were sitting on.

119. Prior to the 24, in 1987, Grey Green were awarded the route 125 franchise. There was a wide variety of liveries on their newly acquired vehicles. These included South Yorkshire Transport Metrobuses complete with advertising for local (not any more!) stores covering the whole back. These were repainted in Grey Green livery within a few weeks. Some of these were actually newer than the existing M’s being operated by LT Leaside

     Grey Green’s buses weren’t painted red until some former route 24 Scanias were allocated to the Bakerloo line replacement services during the 1996/7 shutdown.

     However, it wasn’t the first GG involvement with the 125. In summer 1975 (or thereabouts – memory lapse) there was a severe shortage of serviceable SMS’s. LT chartered luxury coaches with drivers from Grey Green at Stamford Hill to operate the 125 for about 6 weeks. During this time, the usual Finchley drivers acted as conductors to collect fares for LT.

120. Oh, and on another topic, I read the Shaw report today. I was struck that it was apparently Arriva that observed that it is hard for NR to cover the UK as a centralised state company. Isn’t this a case of ‘the pot calling the kettle black’.

121. That’s Grey Green’s 125 buses, after the red 24 Scanias returned from the Bakerloo job.

122. @100andthirty
     Perhaps you meant to refer to topf, kessel and Schwarz.

123. @100andthirty – yes, it was that branch – we even had the Cabinet brief ready for the SoS when the Treasury gave way.

124. This is my first return to the LR website for some time. BGORUG issued a press release yesterday reminding passengers that weekend GOBLIN services had ended and the 8-month closure was fast approaching. The press release also carries links to our proposals for alternative arrangements for passengers during the blockade and our floating the idea of ex TfL Rail Class 315s in June 2017 to cover the gap until the Class 710s enter service in May 2018. There are also links to several other documents about the electrification works and Network Rail’s press release.

     tinyurl.com/juuaquc

     Glenn Wallis
     Secretary
     Barking – Gospel Oak Rail User Group
     barking-gospeloak.org.uk
     @RidingtheGoblin

125. @LBM/Malcolm – while it’s not that I don’t sympathise with individual pressure groups,I did think this site did not provide them with a publicity platform/newstand.

126. Graham H,

     A fine line has to be drawn between being a publicist and being informative. As he claims that there are links to other documents (including NR press releases) this may be of use to people wishing to know more and so the occasional mention could be justified. We are acutely aware of the dangers of allowing self-promotion and other moderators may take a different view – or take a different few if this is not a once-off mention. In my opinion the line in the sand has not yet been crossed.

127. The sole purpose was to be informative, as one or two comments above had indicated that not all were fully aware of what was planned during the blockade or TfL’s plans for the service afterwards

128. What will be of interest will be if “the powers that be” take up your ( Glenn Wallis’ ) apparently sensible suggestion of continuing with some of the life-expired class 315’s as a stop-gap until new trains arrive, rather than having 2-car grossly overcrowded diesels running under live wires, as is the present proposal?

129. Thanks for the info Glenn, I think it’s pretty useful – especially as there is not the greatest amount of info in and around the affected stations!

130. Re the Goblin closure. What will happen to the diesel units – will they be sub leased for use elsewhere?? Seems perverse to have fairly new trains sitting doing nothing – or is the period too short to be worth the bother of adding them to another operators safety case?

131. Re Island Dweller,
     I suspect Chiltern’s safety case will not be an issue as their 172s are effectively identical for that purpose and they will be looking for more stock at about that time… (there has been an occasional bit of unit swap between the two previously!)

     NR published their Goblin electrification drop in session programme today:
     http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/drop-in-sessions-at-stations-from-gospel-oak-to-barking-ahead-of-eight-month-phased-closure

     At stations 18th April -5th May

132. @ Greg – the re-use of 315s has been rejected. See the Mayor’s Answer below.

     Electric Trains for Barking – Gospel Oak Service
     Question No: 2016/1102

     John Biggs

     Could the Mayor please explain why it not viable to lease electric trains to fill the gap between the completion of the electrification and platform extension projects in mid 2017 and the arrival in passenger service of the new Class 710 electric trains in April 2018?

     Class 315 electric trains on TfL Rail duties will be replaced by new Crossrail Class 345 trains from early 2017 and the Class 315 trains are not currently designated for any further use. Could not the lease of ten of these Class 315 trains be extended for 10-12 months to enable them to be transferred to the electrified Barkng-Gospel Oak route so enabling the eight 2-car diesel trains on the service to come off lease instead? This will end the appalling overcrowding at a stroke and allow 8 desperately needed modern diesel trains to be transferred to another train operator.

     Written response from the Mayor

     Class 315 trains will not be available from the TfL Rail route until late summer 2017, and the new Class 710 trains will start to be introduced on the Gospel Oak to Barking route from December the same year. Transferring Class 315s to the Gospel Oak to Barking line would be expected to bring significant costs in terms of the lease extension, driver training and solving the logistical issues of maintaining and stabling the fleet. Given the short period of time the trains would be in service on this route, this would be unlikely to provide value for money.

     @ Island Dweller – some of the 172s remain in use while others will be off for overhaul. See the Mayor’s Answer below.

     Electrification of the Barking – Gospel Oak Rail Route
     Question No: 2016/1101
     John Biggs

     As the railway between Barking, Woodgrange Park and Forest Gate Junction is already electrified and will remain open while the rest of the route is closed for electrification, will London Overground continue to operate trains between Barking (platforms 1, 7 or 8) and Woodgrange Park where turn back facilities are already provided?

     Written response from the Mayor

     Electrification of the Barking to Gospel Oak Line is being undertaken by Network Rail and we are working closely with them to ensure that the project minimises the impact on passengers.

     The vast majority of Class 172 diesel trains are stabled at Willesden so would not be able to reach the far end of the route at Barking to provide the connection you propose. In any case,a connection between these two stations would be expected to carry very few passengers. Additionally, TfL is using the period of the blockade to overhaul a number of Class 172 vehicles, which means limited rolling stock of that type will be available during that period.

     You don’t need to stretch your imagination too far to conclude who might have provided Mr Biggs with those detailed questions. 😛 😉

     [Text slightly reformatted in an attempt to improve clarity. PoP]

133. The Woodgrange Park answer suggests a slight lack of imagination, since the service could be provided with almost any train, and if a Willesden-based 172 was chosen there are alternative ways of getting it to/from the depot. But the “very few passengers” bit of the answer might well be correct.

     They were well framed questions, though; let’s hope that their inspirer keeps up the good work!

134. The answer to Q1101 misses the point. It doesn’t matter where the class 172s are based, as the question specifically mentions that the section in question is electrified.
     But I doubt that a Barking- Woodgrange Park shuttle would be worthwhile – apart from anything else, where would the units lay over at WGP out of the way of the freight heading from Tilbury to the NLL?

135. Greg:
     Thank you for ascribing the ideas solely to me but both our submissions to TfL were written by a committee member who in past lives worked for LUL and London TravelWatch. To date we have had none of the feedback TfL promised and according to reports they are still resisting the idea of using 315s as unviable, even though the Crossrail Concession agreement indicates the current leases on the 315s expire in 2019!

     Island dweller:
     As indicated by the Mayor’s answer (No.2016/1101) quoted by WW there are plans for the 172s during the blockade.

     Ngh: TfL published an identical press release (except for the video) today as well. It seems we have to wait until 18th April to discover what alternative arrangements are to be offered to displaced passengers.

     WW:
     Mayor’s Answer No.2016/1102
     This answer contains some inaccuracies. The Class 345s are expected to start delivery to TfL Rail/Crossrail in May 2017. It may be that 315s will not be available until “late summer 2017”, but Class 710s most certainly will not “start to be introduced to be introduced on the Gospel Oak to Barking route from December the same year.” The LOTRAIN contract with Bombardier specifies that the first Class 710 unit should be delivered to TfL on 4th December 2017. BGORUG estimates that it will be May 2018 before the service will be able to be converted to Class 710 operation. We are puzzled by the claim that extending the leases of the 315s would be costly when the Crossrail concession agreement indicates that the leases expire in 2019.

     Furthermore, the Crossrail concession agreement contains a bizarre “Priced Option 3”. This entails the retention of 18x315s for an indeterminate period to operate a Gidea Park – Liverpool Street High Level service. The 18 units have to be rebuilt with air-conditioning and longitudinal seating. Why would you spend that sort of money on 35-odd year old EMUs?

     Finally, we don’t accept that the logistical problem of stabling and maintaining the fleet are insurmountable. Willesden TMD maintained similar 313s, so maintenance could stay at Ilford with stabling at Ilford, Chingford, and/or Willesden, not forgetting out stabling at East Ham. To quote our committee member, the problem with this idea for TfL is that “it wasn’t invented here.”

     Mayor’s Answer No.2016/1101
     We knew that this idea was really a non-runner although the bi-directional signalling at Woodgrange Park would allow traffic to pass a unit standing at either platform, not that it would be there for more than a few minutes. The idea was really to try and flush out from TfL some idea of the alternative provision for passengers. As it was, we learned what TfL was planning from Waltham Forest Council before this answer was issued.

     Back in 2014 at what was to become our last meeting with LOROL, when discussing fitting additional handrails in the Class 172s, LOROL said that Angel Trains had been pressuring LOROL to release units for rectification work at Derby. LOROL said that they had told Angel that they would not release them until the line was closed for electrification.

136. @ G Wallis – I’ve only had a brief read of part of the Crossrail Concession Agreement but my reading of it is that class 315 leases expire when TfL Rail release the units it no longer needs or another date (which may be earlier than Dec 2019) if such is already set on the existing lease. Clearly *some* trains have to remain into 2019 presumably for peak only workings until through services commence using Cl345s. There’s therefore no guarantee that Cl315s will be around – they may well head straight to a scrap yard once released by TfL Rail.

     You seem to be assuming that any lease of 315s for short term use on the GOBLIN would be on the same terms as TfL Rail enjoy but that cannot be guaranteed. I suspect the leasing companies may be asking too high a price or demanding too long a duration for it to be worth TfL’s while to incur the extra cost. There may also be other logistical issues that could cause extra costs such as lack of space at Ilford or Willesden as new fleets are delivered and commissioned. I also suspect that handling this extra bit of fleet leasing was not priced into the future Concession Agreement with Arriva. I accept you / BGORUG have far better contacts than I’ll ever have so you probably have greater insight than I do. Much as I’d like to see longer trains ASAP I suspect it’s not going to happen until the Cl710s are ready.

137. WW
     At the risk of doing this subject to death, the lease for TfL’s 315 fleet would have an end date, in this case according to the Crossrail concession agreement, 2019. To return a unit early, TFL Rail would have to negotiate a refund on the unexpired part of the lease. There are numerous examples of TCOs hiring, or sub leasing units to another TOC. Of course TfL Rail would have to agree any such deal with Eversholt, the owner, in this case. But I don’t see it in being in Eversholt’s interest to be awkward, since the units will either go into store or go straight for scrap.

138. The Goblin platform at Barking is not currently electrified, so any shuttle from Woodgrange Park would have to be diesel initially: the platform will presumably be out of action for some time because of the electrification work being done on that platform.

139. “The Goblin platform at Barking is not currently electrified”
     Platforms 7 and 8 are electrified, and can be used for Goblin services – indeed they would have to be used for any extension to Riverside. However, a shuttle service would get in the way of trains going to and from the direct route to Grays, as well as freight trains, and for the sake of keeping a rail service to Woodgrange Park (only) the game is probably not worth the candle.

140. Edmonton ‘Eadcase & timbeau

     While accepting “the game is probably not worth the candle”, several GOBLIN trains do terminate in and depart from Platforms 7 & 8 at Barking every day. If they are not departing within a few minutes they stand on “the Up Connecting Line”, London side of Upney Junction

141. With both Ilford and Willesden getting depot upgrade works (very very large in Ilford’s case with Bombardier taking over more space) would there actually be the space (given the outstabling will be more heavily used during this period) to keep some 315s on and introduce both the new Crossrail (345) and overground (710) without affecting those 2 higher priority programmes? Then there is the issue that Arriva and MTR will be wanting to train up the depot staff on maintaining the new stock. If memory serves the electrical system on 315s is quite different to the 313s so they would still be unfamiliar to Willesden staff who wouldn’t have touched a 313 in almost a decade.

     Stock is typically retained for at least 4-6 weeks after its replacement is successfully in service with the first units of new type this is usually far longer.
     Any bets on the first 315s being released being the problem ones and /or just about to require major mileage based exams which would delay transfer further (is there the space/people to do this or has not doing it already been factored into other plans several years ago before Goblin electrification was funded?). If stock is going for scrap the ROSCO will sometimes agree to a bit of parts swapping to keep the remaining units in service.
     There is a lot going on that may not all in the the public domain…

142. It seems that the GOBLIN will reopen to passenger service on 27 Feb 2017. This is subject to confirmation by TfL when they make their formal announcement but all the pointers are to “Late Feb” and that’s the last Monday in the month. Unfortunately there won’t be many wires in place due to issues with the supply of steelwork. It therefore looks like wiring will have to take place in engineering hours or in possessions. To be strictly accurate no new weekend possessions have been added to TfL’s planned closure list but I expect that will be clarified when TfL announce the reopening date.

143. WW
     Previously, there were very strong hints that lots of weekend, or Sunday closures would be following-on from the Mon-Fri re-opening in February.
     It now looks as that will be the case.

     ( “Issues with the supply of steelwork” doesn’t look good. Does anyone know who or what caused the screw-up? )

144. @ Greg – I was careful to say that we should wait for the formal announcement re any more possessions. They may well be required but there must be a dependency with what can be achieved during the remaining 4 weeks. As for the steelwork issue I have read one comment on that and know no more. I don’t feel that conducting a “hang and flog ’em” blame discussion would be helpful. I expect there will be questions asked via official channels in due course and that should provide some more insight.

145. The plan as I understand it was that most wiring (and even some mast) would take place after GOBlin reopened.
     When Network Rail are being more open than TfL it is always “interesting”.

     The small part steel work is all from 1 UK supplier who are generally very reliable but it could easily be an issue with that suppliers subcontractor as GOBlin almost certainly meant restarting production of some components after a (long) break and if a batch of some components has failed QC then there will be hold ups.

146. @ Ngh – it’s a shame that the scope of the blockade works was not made clearer. I’m sure I’m not the only person who had expected to see wires up by the time the service resumed. In terms of practicalities what are the steps for installing catenary (ignoring civil or track works to provide clearances) – install mast foundations, install masts, install cross spans, prepare tensioners, string / hang wires, tension wires, check clearances, energise??? Genuinely interested as it’s 30+ years since I’ve seen it being done for the Tyne and Wear Metro and that utilises a different design of kit. I know a lot of other cables, trunking and sub station / feed work also has to be done.

     On a second question how much work can be done in engineering hours or possessions in terms of stringing wires? I’d have thought having relatively unimpeded access during a blockade would be much more efficient.

147. Re WW,
     Broadly correct except you won’t find headspans on GOBlin as they are effectively verbotten due to reliability issues (15mph under the roof at Paddington is about the limit of new installation that would be approved).

     4 Horizontal Cross member option used for GOBlin /T&H:

     All can be seen in this photo at Gospel Oak:
     https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cxxq_JDWIAAJa0Q.jpg:large

     1. Single track – Simplest solution, lightish mast with a lightweight cantilever arm* over track (on the right the 3rd set of masts an beyond at very back of the photo but the most common form across the country). Limited to short arm spans…

     2. Single track -Single heavy duty mast on 1 side with heavy duty long single track cantilever arm with wires over track suspended from heavy duty arm. (as along the platform on the left to get longer cantilever length)

     3. Twin track cantilever. Single heavy duty mast on 1 side with heavy duty twin cantilever arm with OHLE on track closest to mast hung from the mast via lightweight cantilever arm as in 1. and the further track from the heavy duty cantilever arms, wires over furthest track suspended from heavy duty arm. (over twin track to the right 2nd mast set from front)

     4. Portals- 2 or more tracks Masts both side and rigid cross member between them where the wires are suspended.
     Example at the front of the photo

     *one of the item covered in the definition of Small Part Steelwork (SPS) which is where the shortage apparently is. The Heavy duty arms aren’t SPS.

     2 useful guides:
     An NR one which has few “issues”
     http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/sites/default/files/sitedocuments/Planning-and-Building-Control/Planning/nr_a_guide_to_overhead_electrification.pdf

     And an electrification engineers unofficial one (as previously recommended in the first Friday reading list):
     http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/OLE/author/admin/
     Worth looking at P92-96

148. Re WW,

     PS forgot about your second question, easy enough and routine to run a full wire length run efficiently overnight (call it 800m). The issue is having everything mast cantilever and portal wise complete along the length of the run first. With RRVs it should be possible to do a reasonable number of simple masts per night, the issue will be logistics of trying to do 2 or more things at once without getting in the way. the complex mast situation and junction will probably need week closures but if things really are that fluid it might be best to hold off on any wiring and go for max overnight works and some partial weekend closures to begin with.

     There will still be huge number of closures for bridge deck replacements /repairs at weekends especially near the “Lea” section to also consider when planning the final electrification works.

149. @ Ngh – thanks for the replies and links.

     Are we still due yet more bridge works? I thought the ones near the Thames Water plant and buildings and Lea Navigation had been done. Are you referring to bridges over the NR West Anglia line / road into south end of Ferry Lane Estate?

150. A whole load scattered arround on the eastern section with certainly a fair few around Wanstead which logistics for the rest of the works precluded.
     Have all 3 and the other issues at the Lea been done?

151. Interesting links ngh, thank you. There was a section east of the River Lea (Blackhorse Road end) replaced a few years back. Christmas 2012 I think?

     Works appear to be ongoing at the stretch directly over the Lea (South Tottenham end) and have been for some time. I cycled past a couple of days ago and glanced along the Lea navigation assuming they’d be finished by now but still seem to be working away.

     This whole section of track had a very low line speed prior to these works anyway – certainly the state of the previously replaced viaduct by the waterworks was in very poor condition prior to its replacement.

     Interestingly, just east of Blackhorse Road (Pretoria Avenue) where tracks have been lowered to get under several bridges they have had pumps running 24/7 for days. I can only presume the lowered track has seen issues with water collection (a TW leak maybe?) though not sure what the long term solution of this will be.

152. @ Ngh – the bridges near the Thames Water works have been refreshed and encased in new concrete supports – not sure whether there was replacement per se. The bigger bridge over the Lea Navigation has certainly been done. The GOBE Twitter feed said line speeds won’t be raised there just yet but NR would do a speed review later this year. I can understand a need to “bed in” the new assets but the PSR there was very restrictive. Taking it out would certainly help trains run more smoothly.

     I can understand that there are issues nearer Wanstead Park – you can see the smaller bridges over residential streets are knackered when you pass over them. The bridge over the M11 was apparently strenghtened over the Christmas period. Perhaps it’s just my imagination but I’ve never felt the viaduct stretch was quite as speed restricted as over the Lea.

153. Re WW,
     Water works stretch was/is 20mph so any improvement there will have a big impact. The “later in the year” sounds like code word for there is still more work to do but we’ll only find out when we attempted to do it or have done it.
     Wanstead is only a slight drop to 40mph (as was M11).

     Virtually all the issues west of Tottenham have been sorted.

154. Minor attack of pedantry.
     I suspect you’re referring to a bridge over the A12. The Goblin line never crosses the M11.

Comments are closed.