On the 10th December 2015 in Court Two at the Royal Courts of Justice a new case commenced. Its presence in Court Two may reflect more on the number of legal professionals present rather than its perceived importance, but one thing was true: a case that saw the Queen take on her own Secretary of State for Transport represented something very unusual indeed.
“The Queen”, of course, was not personally present. Civil cases involving civil matters relevant to The Queen (or, in practice, her representatives) end up in the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, which generally hears cases at the Royal Courts of Justice in The Strand. Harking back to an earlier era, it is, in some sense, an appeal to the monarch and the monarch takes the case on behalf of his/her subjects. In this case those subjects were the London Borough of Enfield and, in more modern parlance, they were seeking a judicial review of the actions of the Department for Transport (DfT).
Enfield’s complaint pertained to the East Anglia Franchise tender issued in September 2015. In particular, to the level of service stipulated for just one of the 131 stations covered by the Franchise – Angel Road. They had been promised 4 trains per hour (tph), the council insisted, and this was not reflected in the tender that had eventually been put out.
You could be forgiven for thinking this particular case seems incredibly banal and trivial. But dig beneath the surface a bit and you’ll find a surprising amount is at stake. Not only are there large financial decisions involved but it also has implications for what the Secretary of State is free to do in his decision making in future. For the DfT, still rebuilding confidence in its ability to award franchises after the West Coast Mainline Franchise fiasco in 2013, there is also reputation at stake.
The Background
The issues involved here are very much about principles rather than details of the scheme. No diagrams were referenced in court and likewise, so we don’t get distracted, we are not going to look at the scheme in much detail here. In short, Angel Road station is an area known as the Meridian Water development area. Meridian Water is a scheme in which Enfield have invested considerable time, money (approximately £70m so far) and effort for over two years. To quote the scheme’s website:
[I]s the key development opportunity in London. This £2.5billion redevelopment, on an 85ha site, is transformational and inspirational that will deliver approximately 8,000 new homes, the full range of neighbourhood facilities and 3,000 new jobs.
That the council is very serious indeed about Meridian Water can be seen from the work that has both been put in so far and which is planned. The full masterplan can be seen here but, again, the website lists a number of critical elements to the scheme that have either opened already or are planned soon – a new £3m public space (Angel Gardens), a new primary school opening in 2016 and…
…4 trains per hour (tph) to an improved Angel Road station by 2018.
It is perhaps fair to say that London’s Boroughs have an occasional tendency to assume that transport improvements can simply be willed into being, regardless of the long term plans of bodies such as the DfT, TfL or Network Rail. This certainly wasn’t the case with Enfield. Since the scheme had first been proposed the council had been in detailed discussions with the DfT and clearly believed that the department intended to provide the service level the council desired.
It came as a great shock then when the Invitation To Tender (ITT) for the future franchise was published and there was no such requirement. With so much at stake the council applied for, and was granted, an hearing for an application for judicial review over the decision. Because of the urgency of the situation the application for review and the review itself (presuming the application was not denied) were heard at the same time.
Pursuing the claim
A application for judicial review is not something one undertakes lightly. This is especially true if you are a cash-strapped council and could be landed with both a hefty legal bill and outraged council tax payers horrified at how their local taxes have been spent. In this case Enfield council had good reason to fight the case. The entire Meridian Water scheme is centred around a massive new housing development in the Lea Valley. Without decent transport links they cannot attract developers and the developers made it very clear that without a headline rail service of 4tph all day they were not prepared to go ahead.
Why trains matter
That transport is seen as critical to Meridian’s success by both council and developers is hardly surprising. In London, transport and housing are intertwined (something our recent look at the Bakerloo line extension also highlighted). What the required service level here emphasises once again is that today 4tph is seen as the absolute minimum one should expect from a suburban rail network.
In part the credit for this particular truism should go to TfL. During his time as the man in charge of London Overground, Howard Smith continuously banged the drum for 4tph as the minimum level of service for which any suburban railway should strive. You need a fifteen minute service, he would insist, for psychological reasons as much as transport ones, for that is the point at which the average traveller stops looking at timetables and starts treating the service as “turn up and go”. This has a profound effect on the railway line in question and on its users. The obvious benefit, of course, is that people get to where they want to go quicker, but it also brings with it a subconscious feeling that they the area is well served and well connected to the rest of the city. It makes people want to live near that line and, just as importantly, it makes people elsewhere more willing to travel out of town and sample the bars, restaurants and other entertainments that the newly connected locality has to offer.
Nothing demonstrated the efficacy of this principle quite so much as the success of London Overground – and no doubt the halls of Crossrail, Smith’s new domain as Head of Operations, resound to similar assertions on minimum service levels today.
What is perhaps different now, however, is that the importance of “turn up and go” is appreciated as much by developers as by railway planners – something that the DfT’s tender announcement meant Enfield felt the damage of very quickly.
Indeed in court, Enfield council claimed that over £2bn worth of development was at stake. They wanted the services they felt they had been promised.
The case for the defence
In court the claimant made it crystal clear why they were pursuing the claim but the defendant (or rather his barristers) did not make it clear as to why the Secretary of State for Transport was so determined to defend it. As we suggested at the beginning of this article, however, it isn’t hard to take a guess.
The most obvious reason is that the Secretary of State wants to be free to make the decisions that he feels are fit and proper. A principle is at stake and it is one worth defending (with taxpayers money) otherwise it is a bit like giving in to blackmail – as soon as you give in once you make yourself vulnerable to further action.
There is also the issue of face and blame. Reissuing the tender notice would make it at least seem like the DfT had made a major error. Furthermore doing so might attract claims not just from other councils but (as with the WCML) from potential train operating companies due to abortive money being spent on a tendering process only to have it revised. With the DfT still smarting over the letting of that franchise and the failure to account for their reasoning in specifying a particular technical bit of accounting (a subordinated loan facility) one could well believe they were anxious to avoid further headlines suggesting they cannot do their job properly.
Whatever the reasons, what is quite interesting is how the barrister for the government argued the case for the Secretary of State. Various arguments were presented as to the grounds on which the Secretary of State was entitled to make his decision. It is likely than none of them have been seriously challenged before, let alone tested in court.
The Secretary of State is the Secretary of State for… Transport
The defence argued that the Secretary of State was the Secretary of State for Transport and not Secretary of State for the Communities. In other words, that the Secretary of State could not, and indeed should not, take into account issues such as future housing or future employment policy.
The suggestion of such a siloed approach would seem to be extraordinary given that the current administration likes to talk about “joined up government” and one feels that, were ministers present, they would likely have been cringing at this point. From a legal perspective, however, it was clear that the defence felt this was a particularly strong point to make.
Indeed as an argument it does nicely highlight an interesting characteristic of the UK constitution – a lot of duties and responsibilities are not defined in a formal document and it is far from clear as to where the Secretary of State’s duty actually lies. To a certain extent this is perhaps a feature rather than a bug, at least from a ministerial perspective. In this instance, for example, this lack of a formal specification is probably helpful to those defending the case. It is almost impossible to claim that the Secretary of State did not take into account all the factors he should have considered when one doesn’t really know what those factors are.
The needs of existing passengers outweigh the possible need for future passengers
Another argument presented was one which will be familiar to those who regularly read our coverage of rail proposals. The defence argued that the Secretary of State was duty bound to consider the adverse effect on existing passengers and that this should be afforded a higher priority that the benefits to any future (as yet unknown) passengers who may not even materialise.
Those who have followed the Thameslink Wimbledon Loop issue will see a very similar theme being played out. The question would appear to be whether this consideration is a duty of the Secretary of State, or merely done expediently so as not to lose votes. Both here and on the Loop there is no danger of losing votes from those adversely affected in future. One simply can’t lose votes from a group of people who don’t yet exist.
Enfield Council should not get a “free ride”
Enfield Council propose to contribute a lot of money, probably much of it channelled through a section 106 grant, towards reinstating a third track to provide 2tph in the short term, which they had expected to be complemented by stopping 2tph on the other existing tracks to allow 4tph in total. The defence barrister argued that the council could quite reasonably be expected to contribute more money, reinstate the fourth track and run 4tph of additional trains on the two reinstated tracks. This would avoid the need for existing services to be altered. In essence, he argued that this was really about the council trying to get something for free when it was perfectly possible to achieve their objective by paying for it – which is what they should be doing.
It is at this point that the dangers of a legal argument without expert witnesses becomes apparent. Enfield Council could indeed have offered to pay for an extra track but that would achieve very little, because the real limitation to 4tph provided by additional trains is that there is insufficient terminal capacity at either Liverpool Street or Stratford for these extra trains. So Enfield Council could easily argue that they have contributed all they can that would make a difference and they need extra stops on existing services as this is the only way to provide the extra frequency.
Taking the argument further, one could argue that Enfield Council should pay to provide extra capacity at Liverpool Street (unbelievably expensive). An alternative would be to run a shuttle service from the new station just one stop to Tottenham Hale (or two if it calls additionally at Northumberland Park) where passengers could change for the Victoria Line – the ultimate in parasitic behaviour as it would deprive other people of a service further down the line. Nevertheless, conveniently for the defence, this would not be the Secretary of State’s problem.
Services should be provided where there is a known demand
A further assertion by the defence was that there is limited capacity on the line and that adding stops to existing services would mean removing them from elsewhere. It was quite wrong to take away proven demand, counsel argued, and instead prioritise demand that was not certain to exist and might not yet be there.
Again this was an interesting argument and probably a logical one to a barrister, but it was one quite at odds with the history of the railways. Beeching argued that long distance traffic should get priority because it was profitable and in the past the closure of a railway has been based on the level of hardship caused and not simply the number of passengers using it.
The railway has historically been willing to sacrifice passenger flows in order to handle or even encourage a preferable emerging market. The Bromley North branch was popular in peak hours but it lost its direct trains so that more trains could be run from the coast.
The Chesham v Watford problem
It is easy to see the dangers in relying too much on crude passenger numbers. Watford (Met) tube station has roughly twice as many passengers as Chesham Tube station. If the Metropolitan Line extension were to be built and Watford tube station kept open it could crudely expect to have roughly the same number of passengers as Chesham. But Chesham is at the end of a long branch whilst Watford is at the end of a short branch from Croxley. Relying on crude station passenger numbers, it would seem to make more sense to close the Chesham branch than the Watford branch. This would ignore the fact that Chesham commuters would be extremely inconvenienced whereas Watford commuters would have the slight inconvenience of an extra two minutes walk (on average) to Cassiobridge or Watford Vicarage Road station.
In the same way it could be argued that people on the new housing development would be extremely inconvenienced by only having 2tph whereas an inconvenience by others to make the 4tph would be minor. It is notable that neither side seemed to be prepared to suggest who would lose out if it were to be decided to provide 4tph. The nearest to anything definite was “other people further up the line” – of course barristers probably don’t understand the railway nicety of “up” and “down” and, in a sense, nor should they have to so long it is clear what is meant to the presiding judge.
An aspiration of 4tph was not related to passengers using it
One of the peculiarities of the case was that both sides seemed to accept that the point was that the 4tph “headline” was crucial to attract people to the new housing and this was not actually related to travel demand. Indeed neither side ventured to suggest how used the service, if it existed, would be. That is probably because neither side would dare hazard a guess for fear of it being mocked as a figure drawn out from the air.
Inevitably, it was pointed out that 4tph had nothing to do with actual usage. We touched on much of the general reasoning for this figure above, but it is also the classic economic problem of providing a service that people want but don’t necessarily want to use. This could be anything from a rural rail service in case the car won’t start one day to expecting phone boxes to be retained in case the battery is dead in one’s mobile phone. Many would argue these expectations are unreasonable, but this is clearly not wholly true. If you are boarding an ocean liner there is an expectation that the lifeboats would hold sufficient passengers in case the liner sank, but it does not mean that people expect to use the lifeboats or are unreasonable in expecting there to be sufficient numbers of them. So it is in London with stations.
The crux of the matter
It would seem that the issue for the judge is simply one of whether it is up to the Secretary of State to determine a minimum frequency for a particular station as he sees fit and, if so, what factors he has to consider when making this decision.
The subject not mentioned
Something that both sides appear to have chosen not to mention for fear of weakening their argument is Crossrail 2. Crossrail 2 is largely about housing regeneration and a lot of that is proposed to be along the Lea Valley where Enfield Council want these new houses to be built.
Clearly the full size of the huge development cannot be achieved without Crossrail 2, yet Enfield Council (and the Mayor) are keen to get the project going in advance of Crossrail 2 itself. Presumably the defence was anxious not to weaken its case by showing how vital the housing development was as part of the London plan. Likewise Enfield may have been anxious not to mention Crossrail 2 as this is a tentative scheme and the defence could present a strong argument about why the Secretary of State should not concern himself with something that hadn’t been approved by Parliament and in any case would not come into effect until a long time after the franchise in question had expired.
The person not mentioned
Another issue that did not appear to come up was to what extent the Secretary of State should be deciding local issues perhaps better determined by the Mayor of London. Certainly, to the current Mayor, the housing scheme is one of great importance. The Secretary of State could argue the policy could change with a future mayor but the reality is that the future mayor, regardless of political colour, would be equally enthusiastic about the housing scheme in question and the transport links that make it possible.
A gamut of issues
It should be clear that there are many fundamental issues which were raised. It is hard to know the full range of these for as well as the oral evidence there were also the written papers submitted by both sides for the judge to read to which we have no access. The fact that both sides are still arguing shows that these issues are not clear and this appears to be the first time they have been tested in a law court.
An unintended effect of privatisation?
In “the old days” British Rail was never taken to court in this way and an obvious thought is whether John Major’s government even considered that a franchising system could lead to expensive court battles, either because the complex system for awarding franchises was flawed (as in the West Coast case) or because local authorities would challenge the Secretary of State on what service the franchised specified. Even if they had considered the first possibility, one feels it is unlikely that the second possibility even occurred to them. Or, if it did, perhaps the determination to privatise outweighed the projected risk.
A dangerous suggestion
Whatever the reasons, the fact is that the case exists and that it – and its potential consequences – perhaps do not bode well for the DfT. For though we have concentrated so far on issues where Enfield Council have considered the process flawed, these were not the only issues raised. For lawyers love producing alternative arguments in case their primary argument fails, and in this case there is a real danger that one of those alternatives, deliberately or not, will have caused the blood of more than a few individuals at the DfT to run cold – that the DfT handled this particular franchising Invitation To Tender incompetently.
What does a word or phrase mean?
Many civil law cases turn on the words or phrases used and what both sides understood by them. This case is no exception and elements of the massive amounts of correspondence, generally by email between the two parties, were scrutinised. It does seem incredible, to a layman observing from the outside, the extent to which there was not a meeting of minds.
One of the simplest and most fundamental issues was what was meant by 4tph. Incredibly there seemed to be no arguments as to whether this implicitly meant every 15 minutes or, simply, literally 4 trains at some point during the day in one hour.
Rather dubiously the DfT argued that the specimen timetable (the minimum requirement for a future franchisee to run) did run 4tph for an hour in one direction in the evening peak and so the condition was satisfied. It must have been fairly obvious to anyone well versed in transport, and particularly in the context of a new service, that 4tph meant a 4tph “turn up and go” service all day and seven days a week as operated by London Overground.
Another word that clearly caused problems was “expected.” A DfT official wrote that he expected the ITT to have a requirement for 4tph at the station in question. Enfield Council clearly took that to mean that it was the current intention and that, given the detailed correspondence that had taken place, if this intention changed then they would be informed by the DfT.
Not surprisingly the DfT took a different view and argued that the person writing “expected” wouldn’t know for sure what was in the ITT, so was merely stating what he believed it would contain. Furthermore, the DfT argued that Enfield Council must have known this because they knew the individual concerned and his job function and would be aware that he would not be in a position to declare definitively what was and was not in the ITT.
Who was what, when and where
If that was not bad enough there were references to emails, when they were dated and meetings involved between the parties. At some of these there was some doubt as to who actually attended these meeting or was merely noted in the agenda as due to attend. Dangerously for the DfT, what Enfield Council was clearly trying to convey was an element of confusion within the DfT and that the Department on this occasion was dysfunctional.
Reliance
Another issue raised by the barrister representing Enfield Council were perceived assurances. Needless to say these were repudiated by the DfT. The legal issue will be whether Enfield could have reasonably believed various statements to be assurances and to what extent, if any, they could rely on them. Students of old school law will recognise this as a classic case of promissory estoppel – the principle that a promise is enforceable by law when the promisor makes a promise to the promisee who relies on it to his or her detriment. Those with a more modern knowledge of law would see this more accurately described as a case of the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
One of the DfT’s arguments was that as the ITT went out to consultation Enfield must have known that the Department could not give assurances in advance of this consultation. It was not made clear whether the 4tph in question was part of the consultation. Another argument centred on the fact that Enfield Council must again have known that an individual in question was not in a position to give any such assurances so they should not have perceived anything said by him as an assurance.
Judgment and Clarity
The judgment came on 21st December and was missed by those at LR towers who were clearly celebrating Christmas too early. The judge found in the DfT’s favour, but clearly the DfT did not handle this well. It has to be also said that Enfield were perhaps too optimistic in their interpretation of the contents of emails, notwithstanding that the position of the DfT could have been more clearly and more accurately described.
As judgments go it is a model of clarity and is actually, for the most part, quite readable if a bit long and stodgy. So we will avoid duplicating too much of it here and simply suggest that it is worth a read. A few extra nuggets of information help cast light on the judge’s decision. One of the critical emails that the claimant relied upon was not even sent to them, but to the GLA, and the defendant could not have even reasonably expected the claimant to have seen it.
These are the types of operational and technical judgments which Parliament, in enacting the statutory scheme, has entrusted to the Defendant.
More critically, one line in the judgment is extremely telling. It tells us what we already knew but gives it legitimacy. This is the extent to which it is the DfT who make operational judgments down to an extremely detailed technical level. This may not be what the DfT want said. Be in no doubt, if the Thameslink 2018 timetable is unworkable – or the East Anglia one coming to that – then, according to this judgment, the fault very definitely lies fairly and squarely with the Secretary of State at the DfT. This will probably not sit comfortably with Conservative MPs who want to blame the operator, Network Rail or anyone but themselves for the problems at London Bridge this time last year.
One can be in no doubt that the service provided on our railways is micro-managed by the DfT and it must be ironic that privatisation has led to government involved at a level that even the most extreme command economies of any political persuasion would not dream of getting involved in. Certainly in the past this would have been left to British Rail or the Strategic Rail Authority.
Ripples in the glass of water
A great irony of all this is that the final ruling in the case may ultimately not matter. Even if the franchise doesn’t specify 4tph at Angel Road, the winning operator may still decide it is still worthwhile to provide a 4tph service. It is also possible that the operator could come to some working financial agreement with the council that would satisfy both sides such as making up any shortfall in costs.
What matters though is that, potentially, from small issues bigger ones come. This may prove to be simply an obscure spat spilling over to the law courts, but by challenging the basis on which the Secretary of State’s decisions are made it may turn into a case as important as Bromley Council and Fare’s Fair. One that determines the shape of the relationship between London and the DfT.
There is also a third possibility, however, one which will not be welcomed by the DfT. For, regardless of how the ruling went, the fact that this case came to court at all seems to suggest that – as Enfield’s alternate incompetency argument posits – there are genuine questions waiting to be asked of the way the tender itself was put together.
Here at LR Towers, we suspect that as a result the parties who will ultimately have to put this franchise into being – Network Rail and the potential bidders – to take a very long, hard look at the tender as issued. For on the railways where small issues exist, larger ones often lurk just behind.
Should those investigations reveal anything, that could be very bad news indeed for the DfT.
Most interesting! Given the probable effect on both Enfield and the DfT if they were to lose I’m surprised it actually got to court rather than some 59th minute agreement. Given that any decision will create precedent I think it unlikely that whatever the outcome there will be appeal(s) all the way to the Supremes (unless an opportune scapegoat is found to take the fall and let everyone breathe easier.)
How long are the proceedings expected to run for?
Just going to leave this here (because it took me far longer to make than I should probably admit):
The final, fuller version of the boxing poster image from behind the title.
This all seems a bit bonkers to me. I understand the points being made and the semantics but perhaps I was imagining the supplementary element of the ITT that set out the specific requirements of the Stratford – Angel Road service? I know the 4 tph element was a bit fuzzy in that document and was more to do with allowing some scheduling flexibility at peak times given 2 tph have to stop on the main line. What is it that I am missing given that supplement was issued and I assume bidders are working to it?
It’s all a bit sad given that Network Rail are merrily beavering away clearing areas of vegetation and trees alongside the WAML to add in the third track for the shuttle element of the service. Normally you get all the legal stuff done and then nothing physical happens. This time it’s the other way round where lawyers are throwing rocks at each other while people are doing the real work. I’d love to know what City Hall are making of all this given the emphasis on getting this work progressed and funded.
[name typo comment snipped – that was my fault during the edit. Been reading too many history books lately. – JB]
Alison,
The case was supposed to last one day but, as is often the case, the judge had to deal with a short but urgent case before this one so it continued into a second day but I was not there on day 2 to witness it. Currently we are waiting for the judgement.
Update: Judgement now included in link in article – we missed it!
I’m waiting in eager anticipation as to what Graham H has to say about all of this ?…..
(I’m still puzzled though as to why it is the Queen and not LB Enfield who is listed as the plaintiff in this civil case. If it were, say, one of the developers who was taking the SoS to court, would the same apply?)
Fascinating!
Minor typo, in “The person not mentioned” – “Another issue that did not appear to come up was to what *extend*…”
[Fixed. Thanks. PoP]
“An alternative would be to run a shuttle service from the new station just one stop to Tottenham Hale where passengers could change for the Victoria Line”
The carto metro tells me that Angel Road to Tottenham Hale is two stops, not one. Northumberland Park is between them. I suppose you might be able to get onto a Victoria Line train there.
[I have modified the text to make it clear that there is also the option of stopping at the intermediate station of Northumberland Park. It was badly worded. PoP]
I’d bet DfT win a piric victory with Enfield, TfL, potential developers already having come to an agreement in principle with all of the 2.something remaining bidders to get 4tph.
And while I’m at it what are the odds at the LR bookies on “HMS Reality” sinking “SS Norwich in 90” without trace?
Who was the Judge, and what did he say? Reading the above I would generally think DfT would have the upper hand.
As a legal nitpick, while an old-school lawyer might recognise this as a case of promissory estoppel, in this century it has been clear that the public law doctrine of legitimate expectation (which is in issue here) is not an estoppel and no more than an analogy can be drawn between the two approaches (see Lord Hoffman’s comments in R v East Sussex CC, ex p Reprotech [2002] UKHL 8).
[Additional sentence added to the article to reference legitimate expectation. Thanks for the info. PoP]
Anonymously – yes, all (I believe) judicial reviews are in theory brought by the Crown on the application of the party seeking review, for historical reasons. In practice this is beginning to fade and you can now see papers just naming the party seeking review and the defendant authority. The Crown’s involvement is entirely nominal: you don’t need the Crown’s permission to bring a judicial review application (you do need the permission of the Court, but that’s a separate point).
I hope I don’t destroy any Part II if I mention that Enfield lost.
[The never was any part 2 planned. Thanks for the link to the judgement. We were unaware the judgement had been given. Article updated accordingly. PoP]
The link on the success of the Overground links back to this article.
[Temprorarily removed – will be sorted out. PoP]
Slightly confused by Lawyerboy’s link. This seems to be the Judge denying an application for Judicial Review following a hearing on 11 November yet the Article states that there was a hearing in December. Not sure how we got from a JR being denied to a hearing.
[Wording changed to describe this as an application for a judicial review – the first stage in the Judicial Review process. PoP]
Two quick point:
The first is that I’m not sure it’s fair to say (in the first paragraph of the article) that “a case that saw the Queen take on her own Secretary of State for Transport represented something very unusual indeed”: because of the fact that all Judicial Review (JR) cases are nominally brought in the name of the Queen, it’s really quite common to see the Queen v one or other Secretary of State. (The Home Secretary probably faces the most such challenges, but the SS for Transport will definitely have seen his share over time as well).
The second is looking at the judgment that lawyerboy linked to. Paragraph 90-91 are particularly interesting. Although Mrs Justice Laing says her conclusion there is tentative, she basically concludes that even if the DfT give someone else (like a council) a legitimate expectation that they will provide a particular service, they’re entitled to over-ride that expectation if their modelling concludes that the overall best service pattern doesn’t allow for it.
So that’s great news for the DfT, rather less good news for councils and developers, and to a certain extent seems to go against previous approaches by the courts. One of the key cases in the development of the idea of “legitimate expectation provides an example. It concerned an elderly lady who was promised she would have “a home for life” in a particular care home; a few years later, the local health authority concluded that it was uneconomical to maintain that home, and planned to close it – i.e. that the best overall service they could provide to everyone who needed care in their area didn’t allow for that home to remain open. But in that case, it was held by the Court of Appeal that the lady’s legitimate expectation should be met, and the health authority should be made to keep the home going. For anyone who wants to read more about it, the case is R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan [1999] EWCA Civ 1871, available at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1999/1871.html
What implications does this have for the soon to open Lea Bridge station? Has it also had its service slashed and will Waltham Forest be therefore next in line to sue the Queen?!
[More accurately, exhort the Queen to take on their case as well. No-one sues the Queen. She is immune. PoP]
Can’t have the government being forced to keep its promises can we?
@Hedgehog
“Northumberland Park is between them. I suppose you might be able to get onto a Victoria Line train there.”
Only if you are LU staff!
“Those who have followed the Thameslink Wimbledon Loop issue will see a very similar theme being played out. ”
“4tph as the minimum level of service for which any suburban railway should strive ”
Ironically, the insistence of Loop passengers in having a direct service to St Albans seems to have scuppered any chance of 4tph to places people actually want to go.
@Lawyerboy
“Who was the Judge, and what did he say”
“He” was Mrs Justice Elisabeth Laing. (Very confusing, since both parties to the case were also, constitutionally, representing an Elizabeth!)
Were there two hearings, on Nov 11th (mentioned in the judgement in the link) and Dec 10th/11th (mentioned only in the article)?
@PoP
“No-one sues the Queen. She is immune.”
Tell that to her Great^9-Uncle, Charles I.
timbeau,
The hearing was definitely on December 11th. I can only presume the November 11th reference in the judgement was an error.
Charles I claimed to an absolute monarch. The Queen is a constitutional monarch. Totally different. And he wasn’t a queen.
RB/PoP: because of the urgency the hearing was both an application for judicial review (granted @ para 107) and the review itself (denied @ para 109) – see para 6 of the judgment.
[Thanks for that. A further modification has been made to make that clear. PoP]
And sorry to say that HM doesn’t get a mention anywhere – the Claimant is said to be the London Borough of Enfield rather than a royal personage.
[Well she did on the court listing. PoP]
@Anonymous 08:11 : the judgement by Justice Laing discusses the applicability of the Coughlan case you reference (in para. 72-76) and while I don’t understand all the legalese, it seems in the Coughlan case there was an unambiguous and unqualified commitment to an individual so it was similar to a breach of contract therefore not necessarily applicable to a wider ranging policy decision affecting the public at large.
Judicial review is expensive. I cannot see what it has cost Enfield, and their tax-payers, to have their one day (or two part-days) in court.
@ Reynolds 953: My reading of it was that the material at 72-76 was background to the question of whether or not in this case Enfield had a legitimate expectation; in fact Mrs Justice Laing concluded that they didn’t, at 87. Whereas the discussion at 90-91 concerned whether, even if there *had* been a legitimate expectation, it could be over-ridden. But on re-reading, your interpretation may be right.
(as a PS, technically one doesn’t refer to High Court judges as Justice X – they’re Mr or Mrs Justice X. I think the main source for the confusion is the US supreme court, where they are referred to as Justice X)
Why is the whole idea of spacial planning aligned to transport so alien to the government? It seems as if roads are the only thing where that is permitted. My local bus service is stymied by the fact that no-one thought to build a short bus link between two massive adjacent developments. God forbid that a nationally specified railway service should be related to a local plan. Franchising is so close to perfection that it will bring the best possible results in the best of all possible worlds. Tinker not! Rant over. Pheww!!
I have rewritten the Judgement and Clarity section in light of a particular line in the judgement.
The defence’s claim, that the Secretary of State for Transport “could not and should not” take into account matters in the purview of the Secretary of State for Communities, would be a surprising constitutional innovation. As Sir Humphrey might put it.
Purely from a legal perspective, laws are invariably drafted giving responsibility to “The Secretary of State” without any suggestion that this means a particular one of them, or even that there might be more than one. Originally, under Charles II (or whenever), there was only one. And since the Prime Minister has to be able to decide on his own authority how many there are, and what jobs they have, no division between them can possibly be enshrined in law—or case law. The Cabinet of secretaries of state has, legally and practically, joint responsibility for everything any of them does.
In the judgment this claim seems to be boiled down quite a long way, to the proposition that the Secretary of State has a “wide discretion” in what he chooses to take into account, which is very much less contentious.
So the DfT win on a technicality (or more rather, Enfield lost by assuming that civil servants mean what they write). Bully for them.
Obviously, without a 4tph (seriously, how could they argue that meant in one hour in a day, that would be like arguing that 4tph is achieved because trains go through the station without stopping) I am expecting that the development of 8000 sorely needed homes (albeit yet more flats and boxes I’m sure) today will be delayed until the franchise is awarded and the developer can see what the winner will run. The developer may even pull out – a massive embarrassment for Boris and the government.
The issue of transport and housing is so intertwined that to even argue that the person responsible for the former has no interest in the latter is absurd. I wonder if this will come back to bite them in the future, when they do try to claim some authority over the latter.
As I recall, the Coughlin case may have another relevance for transport matters (amongst others). Isn’t this the one where the learned Judge defined exactly what is required to make a consultation proper – consult before you make the decision, take account of responses etc? All too often it seems that a decision is taken and the consultation is to see what people think about it.
3 other things from the judgement stand out to me.
First, that the DfT sought to argue that it was not permissible to challenge the ITT/TSR in the courts. but the judge rejected this argument. This does open up the DfT to further challenges and they will need to consider this on every occasion.
Second, that the DfT could, with a straight face, argue that by the council arguing for 4tph they could reasonably assume that this mean the council wanted 4tph 24/7; and also that ‘up to 4tph’ meant that they had met the requirement for 4tph.
Third, that Mrs Justice Laing felt it entirely appropriate to differentiate between different civil servants in the DfT, so that an e-mail from a civil servant who was directly involved in a decision would carry more weight than the same message from a civil servant who, though with an interest in the decision, was not directly involved in making it. Traditionally letters (and emails) signed by central and local government officials have always been taken as the view of the organisation as represented by the signer. This decision seems to suggest that such letters are merely the view of the signer and not the organisation as a whole. This leaves it wide open for Government bodies to resile from any written commitments just by being sure they are signed either by someone not directly involved in the decision making or by someone who is not actually the decision maker.
Much as I acknowledge and applaud Howard Smith’s role in establishing London Overground, 4 tph is the minimum turn up and go requirement. The first Mayor’s Transport Strategy (July 2001) which provided the foundations for a ‘London Metro’ and set out its core elements, defined a turn up and go frequency as target minimum ten minute frequency throughout the day (para 4E.23), a target that is met over significant parts of the London Overground’s operations.
Wax Lyrical says
On the contrary, the Cabinet has no legal responsibility at all. For departments headed by Secretaries of State (which is most, but not all, of them), all decisions are legally those of the secretary of state concerned, which is why you can sue them or challenge their decisions by judicial review. You can’t sue or challenge the cabinet that way (and it’s very hard to sue or challenge the prime minister, because the thing you want to challenge will almost certainly have been formally decided by the departmental minister or somebody acting on his or her behalf).
There is collective ministerial responsibility for decisions of the government – but that’s a political principle, not a legal one.
1. With the DfT budget cut again do they actually have enough of the right staff to actually make decisions without being challenged? Or will consultancies have to be brought into an even large er extent. There seems to be lack of joined up thinking with in the department let alone outside of it.
DfT will have to have some evidence behind the “SoS’S” decisions when the next JR comes knocking.
DfT taking on board and comprehending all the local spacial strategies and their frequent updates would be substantially more staff. Health and Education do at least appear to know they exist…
Next they’ll be claiming NOx emissions are nothing to do with them so Heathrow can have a 3rd runway but sorting the emissions issue is Defra’s problem…
2. I’m sure HM Treasury will be delighted DfT weren’t thinking about other departments remits as the residential stamp duty from the Meridian water development will have been £10m minimum going to HMT (assuming first home FY’16-’17 rules and pessimism on all variables, assuming sold for buy to let to those outside the UK would be far more lucrative). [assume Enfield keep their mitts on most of the rest e.g. council tax, business rates etc. which will fund local services but there is an overall increase in national/local government revenue nationally]
3. Some government departments are known for thinking about how decisions impact other branches of government and analysing it, for example BIS is very good at this.
4. DfT can and have taken other government departments interests into account (usually after claiming is was too hard to calculate the benefit until the other department had done it before them) for example the value of made in UK to the UK as whole including tax and apprenticeships where they have lost to HMT and BIS behind the seems. Also see the aftermath of the Thameslink rolling stock contract award.
re sykobee,
“The issue of transport and housing is so intertwined that to even argue that the person responsible for the former has no interest in the latter is absurd. I wonder if this will come back to bite them in the future, when they do try to claim some authority over the latter.”
Like Crossrail 2 😉
DfT are infamous for not wanting to do analysis outside the minimum scope because to is too hard aka to time consuming and they don’t have the data internally.
There’s another railway Judicial Review going on, which is also R v DfT – not a London one, mind you, but an argument over the routing of the Ordsall Chord in Manchester (well, Salford). Whitby v Network Rail in practice is the title, and that’s headed for the Court of Appeal
Interesting article, thanks. Feel a bit sorry for Enfield although reading the article I doubted they would win.
You have a mixture of ‘judgement’ and ‘judgment’. The one without the ‘e’ is usually preferred by lawyers for court rulings. 🙂
[I bow to your judgment and have changed the article accordingly. PoP]
” what is required to make a consultation proper – consult before you make the decision, take account of responses etc? All too often it seems that a decision is taken and the consultation is to see what people think about it.”
It often seems that way, but consultations do throw up showstoppers or at least things that need fixing. For example, the last word on this sign reflects a change made following the consultation after I (and no doubt others) pointed out the potential difficulty in finding an opportunity to pay between 10pm and midnight.
https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/image_data/file/33480/Dartford_signage.png
The Secretary of State may be indivisible (so that anything required in law to be done by the SoS can be done by any of them, and you don’t need to wait for a new appointment if the nominal SoS for the department in question has gone under a bus – not sure what the position would be if a latter-day Guy Fawkes accounts for the lot of them) . However, Government Departments are, I believe, separate legal entities – so a contract can exist between, say, the MoD and the DfT.
@marek: yes, I tried to compress that thought too far. Better: The political unity of Cabinet mirrors the constitutional interchangeability of Secretaries of State. Which S.o.S. a judicial review challenges doesn’t matter, in the sense that any of them has the authority that they *could* have taken the decision challenged. And the judgment is binding on all of them.
It’s all a huge amount of fun for the lawyers, but you do have to seriously question the wisdom of enshrining the organisation of the railways in Acts of Parliament. BR might have been ‘ deeply inefficient’ but it was able to reshuffle itself fairly regularly in its final years in order to face up to the best way of delivering passenger and freight business. That applies to all large autonomous organisations. They change or die. The DFT railway is only kept alive because vast amounts of money were poured into it. It’s just crazy that the next organisational change would require Parliament to go through its strange rituals, with decisions made by (mostly) those without any specialist knowledge at all. The irony is that it would need an Act of Parliament to get us out of this bizarre situation.
lawyerboy 13 January 2016 at 01:39
” an old-school lawyer might recognise this as a case of promissory estoppel ”
As soon as I read the quoted e-mail to Enfield Council, I was sure they were on a loser.
This all stems from the fact that we have no viable mechanism for coordinating housing policy and transport policy, let alone reaching any binding agreement between them.
In metroland days, the railways built a line into the middle of nowhere in the hope that someone would then build houses around it. Although they got away with it, that’s never likely to happen again.
Now we build houses near a station and then spend years campaigning to have trains provided, by which time everyone has become reliant on cars anyway. It is even worse when a station has closed; one campaign to reopen it, then another to actually run some trains to it.
If only Dr Beeching had had within his remit, the ability to plan new housing around underused stations, we could have kept a proper network and not become so reliant on roads.
Re Jon and PoP,
Judgement vs Judgment the spell checker will have got you but then some comments are also discussing what the Judge meant 😉
Re Alan G,
On my local line on the other side of the Thames, the consultations (before it even got near the tenders or contracts) on previous 2 “franchise” agreements effectively specified 4tph 0630 to 0000 Monday – Friday (with 0700 on Sat start for start of 4tph) with 2tph from the start of service till the magic time at the level of detail I used so you can see what was coming if there is no detail.
The golden rule for other would appear to be: If there isn’t detail it hasn’t been looked and isn’t happening.
At least DfT didn’t go for 2 Up 2 down = 4tph.
I wonder if DfT did some detailed analysis and there were some unexpected effects on the number of trains/drivers required (i.e. train has to have driver change one service earlier because the driver is 1 minute over time as a result of X* 2-3minutes added by stopping over the shift etc.) and a big step change in costs on the WAML services and they haven’t brought this up because Enfield etc would then know the cost needed to bypass DfT accurately.
“However, Government Departments are, I believe, separate legal entities – so a contract can exist between, say, the MoD and the DfT.”
This isn’t the case- the Crown is legally indivisible. MoD and DfT could sign a Memorandum of Understanding, but this would not form a contract, and neither party would have the ability to sue the other (since the Crown cannot sue itself).
Its the connectivity and dispersal issues that create the challenges. One detail might be to look at the options for other ways in to the city. A connection at Hackney Downs or Hackney Wick for the North London Line, with the planned for (space at Dalston Junction/retained tunnel/preserved alignment) reinstatement of Dalston East Curve would
…[a lot of crayonistic suggestions snipped] …
A peak hour ‘spur’ terminating as close to Liverpool Street as the remains of the viaduct to Broad Street allow might be a futher option, as could …
…
– NLL/ELR delivery of services between Finsbury Park and Canonbury, with a high capacity station connected to the Emirates Stadium turnstiles boulevard bridge. Additional trains can shuttle to/from Bowes Park (using existing reversal siding) to provide capacity urgently required for passengers left behind at stations from Alexandra Palace to Finsbury Park. The facility to divert Moorgate Branch trains to say Shoreditch, also provides an engineering/emergency option with less impact than
….[More crayonism snipped] …
– Electrification and reconnections between Harringay and Kentish Town, enabling the Barking-Gospel Oak services to have a longer platform to terminate in at Kentish Town,
[Sorry, your varied suggestions, some of them advanced before, for rearrangements of the railway lines all over North London, may be of interest for some, but they are not appropriate here. I have left a few traces to give the flavour; but further comments along such lines, from you or anyone else, will probably be deleted in their entirety. Malcolm]
My perfectly innocent comments have disappeared again.
Why? [See an upcoming eMail from LBM. (Malcolm)]
There is a very important precedent set by this judgement, that will affect the trust any other party has in believing that they have an agreement of any sort, with any civil service department. And that that “agreement” will be abided by.
There – is that plain enough?
@Greg: I agree that anyone who believes they have such an agreement should pay attention to this case among others. I am not so sure that this case, of itself, has “set a precedent”. The judgment (however much we might dislike it) seems to follow earlier precedents, rather than setting a new one.
@ Fandroid – surely privatisation was done the way it was so as to ensure no one could ever put the old BR back together again? I don’t view it as particularly bizarre that people seeking to smash an industry structure into a million pieces made it so difficult to reverse although they probably didn’t foresee what happened to Railtrack with Mr Byers at the DfT. Once you have people with other motivations, i.e. making money from sold off assets, you’re into a whole other set of problems as witnessed with the proposed Quality Bus Contract in Tyne and Wear and the issue of compensation for “confiscated businesses”. We will continue to see these issues as more and more public services are flogged off. Once they’re gone you can’t get them back as we will soon find out with the NHS and local authorities. [This is straying into general political comment. Left in this time, but please do not overdo it. Malcolm]
It will be interesting to see how Enfield Council, City Hall and Meridian Water’s developers react to the lost JR application / case. It is quite telling when you see how many buildings have been flattened and land prepared near the A406 close to where the new station will be. Even more has to be destroyed to create the full site for development but no signs yet of any ground being broken to actually build anything new.
@Malcolm, Greg
I agree no precedents are set here. The availability of JR as a method of challenging franchising decisions is an obvious application of basic public law principles – and this is not the first: see the fracas 3 years ago over the WCML franchise.
So far as legitimate expectations are concerned, the courts are astute to prevent offhand, informal or general comments binding public bodies. That is, I think, to the good: if you want moderately open government it has to be able to communicate its intentions, change its mind, and have the ability to recover from mistakes. If you want a formal assurance on a point you need to seek it formally. That includes seeking it from a person with authority to give it. There is nothing radical in the idea that not all civil servants have the power formally to commit their departments.
What appears to have happened here is that Enfield sought an essentially informal assurance, which they got in somewhat qualified terms. They would have been fools to rely on it as binding, and as the judgment points out, they didn’t: their internal reaction was that the key email was ‘providing some comfort’. No surprise, then that the challenge failed (on its face: we wait to see if any of the franchise bidders take the bait of providing Angel Road with a better service than the ITT).
That said there is much here to be disappointed about, notably the failure really to investigate if 4tph was necessary or feasible. It is particularly galling that this may well limit the services on the line for the next nine years. But that is a problem with the franchising system. Whatever you think the solution is, I think it’s pretty clear the situation won’t be improved by increasing the involvement of lawyers.
@WW….Although it was made very difficult to put back together, it is by no means impossible. Just time-consuming and *expensive* (which is probably why Labour did not do this when they were in power). At least we can be grateful that Stephen Byers took advantage of Railtrack’s collapse to take the infrastructure back under public control. The current Labour leadership’s idea of simply waiting for the franchises to run down before using them to reassemble BR, piece-by-piece, could work as well I guess, but might cause other difficulties (and doesn’t solve the problem of other assets that remain in private hands, such as the ROSCOS).
@lawyerboy…You might well be the first lawyer in history who *doesn’t* want to create extra (and potentially lucrative) work for their profession! For that, sir, I take off my (imaginary) hat to you….
@Anonyminibus…Your comments raise the interesting issue of how the attractiveness/value of property to one group of people (those who rely on public transport, for instance, to commute to work) may in fact be completely irrelevant to another group of people (those who have cars and only use those for transport). Therefore, in a rural setting, it probably doesn’t matter if there is poor public transport provision, since there will still be plenty of potential buyers who want it for other reasons, and can manage without a train or bus service (and believe me there are plenty of those!). Within Greater London though (or any urban area, for that matter), it becomes a critical issue for majority of potential buyers of the property, since many of them will rely on public transport. Which is why I’m guessing LB Enfield were so keen to duke this out with the DfT, and at the same time to try and make a political point of it.
Having said that, a purpose built train service with 2tph off-peak (which is still better than many other settlements in the London commuting area!), combined with its location and the lucrative property market, will probably still make it worthwhile enough for the development to go ahead in some shape or form.
And I don’t think, given the socio-economic climate in the 60s and the the reason for appointing him in the first place, that Beeching would have been expected to take into consideration any other factors (such as potential future housing growth in the affected areas). There were though some instances of proposed closures not going through due to planned housing growth in the area (e.g. Sudbury), along with other instances where this made no difference at all (e.g. Hailsham).
lawyerboy & Malcom
The fundamental issue is one of TRUST
If an assurance appears to be given, then one should expect it to be kept.
Now, it appears that (in this case the DfT) a civil service department can give apparent assurances that are not worth the paper they are written on.
This becomes, by the usual principles a general application.
Where, then for any planning or development proposals at all?
really, really, not a good prospect, I think.
Anonymously @ 2109
As Graham H has observed, we don’t have an answer to “what is the railway for?” Given that, my gratitude towards Mr Secretary Byers is limited. A great deal of money is being spent on fixed assets at the moment, not all of it wisely. And this seems set to continue.
In view of the light this case sheds on the quality of administration (inaccurate minutes, non-participation in meetings, …) I am not persuaded that DfT and its (I assume) highly paid helpers are good stewards of the railway.
I also remain to be convinced that the rolling stock lessors have done a bad thing by financing the new carriages provided over the last 19 years from time to time.
I see tremendous value in fora like this holding the railway to account. Particularly as the quality of public discussion elsewhere is quite poor.
I don’t know Enfield but the current Angel Road station is bang next to the A406 and the M25 seems to be within striking distance. I wonder whether the instant case has an element of “greenwashing” about it; especially in view of the absence of evidence about whether the trains to be provided would be (a) accessible (not full of people from further down the line) and (b) used.
Greg: I agree that people should draw appropriate conclusions from the case in question, and some important conclusions concern exactly whom, and what, one can TRUST. Where I differ from you is centred on the issue, of much concern here, as to who and what gave the assurances. “The department” giving them is ambiguous. If an assurance is to be given by “the department”, then it must be a formal one, given explicitly in the name of the department. Anything else, as lawyerboy says, should be treated as an individual viewpoint.
I tend to agree with the view, often expressed here, that the DfT has particular problems. But in this matter, I think these problems are irrelevant, and the conclusion which we should draw would apply to any department, or any section of government, local or national.
Old Buccaneer: I think you make some good points here. Could I just ask for a couple of points of clarification? What are the “fixed assets” to which you refer? (The usual meaning of “fixed” would exclude rolling stock, but logically investment in rolling stock, and investment in, say, track, are not fundamentally different in their effects, good or bad, on performance or financial viability).
The other concerns the reference to rolling stock lessors. As I understand the system, the role of these people is “merely” to provide the money to finance rolling stock provision; they have no role in deciding what rolling stock is to be provided, to whom, or in what quantities. So I cannot really see why the question of doing (or not doing) a “bad thing” should arise.
Anonymously: your tribute to lawyerboy is all very well, and may be deserved, but I must dispute the implication that almost all lawyers are greedy. Of course, the precise proportions could be disputed, but my own fairly limited experience of the profession indicates that there are plenty of decent non-predatory non-parasitical members of the said profession. The caricature nasty lawyer probably does exist, but is certainly not universal.
@Old Buccaneer: A great deal of money is being spent on fixed assets at the moment, not all of it wisely
True, but in Railtrack days post-Hatfield even more money was being spent on fixed assets, even less wisely (which is why they went bankrupt). Renationalisation of rail infrastructure stabilised the situation and ongoing costs have fallen (though not as much as ORR thinks they should have), even if Network Rail’s performance with the GWML is not much better than Railtrack’s with the WCML.
On the Angel Road question, what happened to the proposal to give the Mayor powers to “buy” additional stops within London from franchisees?
Having read the judgment in full I don’t claim to fully understand the related case law but having been involved in contract claim disputes some of the underlying issues are horribly familiar. Things like poor / non existent minutes, people not properly confirming decisions, reliance on statements made by people without appropriate authority etc. One aspect of the judge’s deliberations I do struggle with is her dismissal of the relevance of the Steering Group that brought together people from City Hall and other responsible parties. Having read the notes of that group in the past it’s pretty clear what the aims and objectives were and there has been plenty said in public about the link between the Meridian Water development and the related need for a better rail service. I am suprised that was considered to have at least some relevance especially as DfT were a party to said group even though they appear to have sent someone to it without requisite authority or who, possibly, did not fully understand the full ramifications of what was being discussed. I’ve seen this sort of thing before – heck I’ve even been the “junior” person sent along as a department rep – but you have to hope someone in authority is asking the “junior” pointed and relevant questions so they can assess if more of a grip is needed.
@ Greg – surely the point is not trust. The point is that we are not talking about Joe and Fred agreeing that one will paint the other’s fence. We are talking about significant public bodies that are bound by a whole load of statutory obligations and who have to demonstrate good governance. This means there needs to be full and proper formal communication to ensure the issues are understood and acknowledged. It looks to me that this was attempted but perhaps not at the right level or with the assistance of the Mayor of London (given his political connections). Whether we like it or not it looks like too much reliance was placed on the wrong communication and there wasn’t a full formal follow up. Given the potential ramifications that might roll on from this it just goes to show that getting the boring basics of paperwork, minutes and letters and chasing down responses are absolutely crucial actitivies. People at work used to think I was mad to be as fastidious as I was about minutes and records of discussions. I learnt the hard way having been caught out before…..
It strikes me that the role of the consultation process creates some nasties here given Enfield Council had responded but obviously had significant expectations / needs for a confirmed position. Clearly, though, consultation offers no guarantees and you can’t seek to slide round the process and secure your position to the possible detriment of others.
I agree with Lawyerboy’s overall comment that the end result may be a poor service on the STAR corridor for a number of years and one which may have unexpected consequences in that part of London. It is also telling that the DfT’s subsequent review of the “business case” for a 4 tph service could not find a positive case. I am left wondering if anyone from the DfT has tried to catch a 192 bus from Tottenham Hale in the peaks or even squashed themselves inside a PM peak time departure from Stratford on a WAML service. I’m not saying that would provide an instant business case but it would at least show there is significant travel demand in the corridor that can only grow given there are constraints on bus size and rail capacity. I wonder if TfL’s business case process would throw up a different conclusion? I also wonder why the prospect of LOROL running the service to TfL’s spec was seemingly abandoned fairly late in the process?
And once you have absorbed this interesting legal topic, here’s another challenge on the way to consider following:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/cab-drivers-launch-court-challenge-to-cycle-superhighway-a3155681.html
According to ‘The Evening Standard’, “The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association hopes their bid could disrupt completion of the £47million scheme and they are asking a judge to declare that the continued construction of the segregated cycling route linking Westbourne Grove and Tower Hill via the Victoria Embankment without planning permission “constitutes a breach of planning control”.”
@WW – Thank you for your reasoned analysis from your point of view. Indeed you are correct that notes and records, hopefully correct, must be made at the time. In my case, within the first week of gainful employment, I was told to make careful notes of a Conference with Counsel in Middle Temple on behalf of our clients for a forthcoming High Court case. Of course, in those early days, my boss shadowed me but ever since then the essential thing is to make a note of what was said, so that it can be reported to the client and maybe produced before the Court later on (perhaps *much* later on).
In the case of the client, I was constantly emphasising the need to preserve records ‘just in case’ and I’m afraid that’s where paper files tend to form a more reliable record than emails. My firm printed out all emails to save in their relevant files (apart from anything else, it was far quicker to refer back to in date order, with the useful addition of real letters interspersed). Moreover, you will have noted that the judge had a ‘bundle’ of over 1000 pages to read anyway and I suspect that there were more bundles than that (the last C of A case I was long involved with comprised 17 such bundles); however, if the evidence from one party is not chosen to be included in the bundle when it ought to be, then that can cause its own legal challenge, whilst if the evidence is missing in the first place because nobody saved it/bothered to record it, or it was destroyed (witness certain newspaper proceedings recently), then that is a failure of the party concerned and no consultant can reasonably be expected to save the case solely on that but must try to tease out a way around in support of the case. Hence, possibly, in the present case, that need for a second opinion from a consultant came because of unsure ground.
I need to read the Judgment again but maybe the evidence concerning the Steering Group was not within the original remit of the Judge to consider, especially if little emphasis of it was given or was not included in the skeleton argument presented prior to the Court Hearing.
As for public consultations generally, please see the recent comment I related from my neighbour on the Bakerloo extension topic. He ends with the words: “So what was the consultation for? Talk about “going through the motions”.”
@ Malcolm
I disagree with the view that the strength of any ‘assurance’ from a branch of government rests on precisely who that assurance comes from. In my branch of (admittedly local) government, any letter on formal letterhead is a communication from the organisation and not from the individual. Every individual is well drilled in the need to take care what they say and drafts are frequently, if not almost always shared with all those with an interest to ensure that the contents are accurate and contain no unwelcome ‘assurances’ or the like before they go out. In one sense, therefore, the nature of the signer is almost irrelevent.
Of course this is not foolproof and occasionally fools do say things that they shouldn’t, but even then the presumption is that we will honour the foolish promise and take up the matter internally or, at the very least, send out a suitably grovelling letter explaining that the original ‘promise’ had been made by somebody without the power to do so and that it’s all a dreadful mistake.
Letting things rest on the nature and position of the signer of the letter leads to a situation where most people will not know whether to trust a response or not, especially as departmental structures and personal responsibilities are frequently obscure, to say the least.
@Graham Feakins – the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association (LTDA) application for a Judicial Review came up at the GLA transport committee yesterday. Apparently their case is that the Cycle Superhighway schemes should have sought planning permission. Andrew Gilligan, the mayor’s cycling commissioner responded that the TfL lawyers would be arguing that the scheme did not need planning permission and a requirement for planning permission is for the local authority to decide, not the courts.
Even if TfL lost the case, this won’t stop work on the schemes (which are about 60%-70% complete) and they would appeal, and if they lose the appeal, they will seek a determination from the local authority and if they need planning permission, seek this retrospectively.
It isn’t clear what the LTDA really hope to achieve here other than maybe establish a precedent on the need for planning permission.
The LTDA seem to be spending a lot of their member’s money on QCs given they also applied for a judicial review on the Tottenham Court Road scheme (covered in LR passim) and this was rejected by the courts.
Old Buccaneer
One of our correspondents has been closely involved, shall we say, in the Enfield/Angel Road debacle. He has told those of us who didn’t know already/live in the area, that Angel Rd is both badly sited & that local access is absolutely appalling.
The station badly needs a partial re-site a complete re-build & much better pedestrian access, the latter being narrow, twisty, unwelcoming, dirty … I think you get the idea.
Look at it on satellite or one of the usual map programs to see what I mean?
HERE The station is in the middle of the picture – zoom in to prove that it really IS the station, or out to see the surroundings.
Oh dear.
@Old Buccaneer – as Greg says Angel Road station is in a dreadful location and the pedestrian access is lengthy, illogical and plain nasty. I would not want to use it after dark and I’d be hesitant during daylight. I am amazed *anyone* uses the place but I know they do. The irony is that there is plenty of retail locally (IKEA, a massive Tescos and other shops) and also lots of employment. What actually happens is that the 192 bus from Tottenham Hale is chronically overloaded every day of the week – I’ve seen about 80 people waiting on a Sunday for a 15 minute service with buses that can carry about 45 people. There is a constant stream of people for the 192. A lot of people use the bus to IKEA but would almost certainly swap to a frequent rail service to the resited Merdian Water which will be metres from IKEA’s front door. There is also very considerable demand to / from the Montagu Road area – within spitting distance of Angel Rd station but people use the 192 or the 34 / 444 which run along the A406 and link to Silver St station or Walthamstow (the 34). The Edmonton to Walthamstow section of the 34 is by far the busiest and you’d be suprised (as I frequently am) just how many people get on and off at stops within what would be easy walking distance of Meridian Water station. This is all before a single new home is built in the area.
There is no need to “greenwash” anything here – moving the station makes sense as it would widen the catchment area and make it more logical. Providing a vastly more convenient service to connect with the tube at T Hale and Stratford would, I am convinced, open the flood gates. Even on a 30 minute headway the service into / out of Stratford is well used not only by locals like me hopping up to T Hale but also people heading to / from Herts. I’d use the service much more if it was more frequent because the risk of missed connections off my useless local bus is often too great at present so I have to slog by bus through Leyton instead. I am sure there are many people whose travel patterns would quickly adjust to use the train if only it ran reasonably frequently and reliably. Quite how the DfT’s modelling doesn’t reflect what seems “obvious” (yes yes I know my random observations are not statistically reliable) to me and others I’m not sure but then I’m not a modeller nor someone setting out the assumptions and dependencies between factors used in the modelling.
Re WW,
“Quite how the DfT’s modelling doesn’t reflect what seems “obvious” (yes yes I know my random observations are not statistically reliable) to me and others I’m not sure but then I’m not a modeller nor someone setting out the assumptions and dependencies between factors used in the modelling.”
Simple – ignore any useful level of detail.
a) because this take time and money to acquire.
b) it make the case weaker so no need for more subsidy from DfT in the short term.
c) because they can’t handle tha level of detail everywhere they don’t have people directly or indirectly
I can’t remember off hand but I think TfL have an economically deprived area tick box where as DfT don’t on assessments for discrimination risk recognition. Hence DfT can ignore helping improve access to/from less affluent areas…
That Hayes Peoples History website reminds me of the old LR layout!
Re Lawyerboy,
No improvement during the 9 years of the new franchise…
STAR is at least a small improvement during those 9 years.
CR2 aims to deliver improvements as early as possible with in the build window e.g. accessible stations and level crossing removal early on whether 4 tracking WAML by 2026 for the subsequent franchise letting would fall in to that category is very unclear as you wouldn’t be running too much extra on the 2 new tracks for 4 years.
@ Ngh – when I attended the CR2 roadshow at T Hale the reps were unwilling / unable / refused to say anything about the 4 tracking north of T Hale in terms of a commitment or timescale to do it. Clearly they are all sorts of “who blinks first” games going on in the background as to who pays / who is responsible / who would use the extra infrastructure. In the meantime commuters can go hang. Similarly there seems to be total confusion about what is happening at T Hale station. Nothing from CR2 about what, if anything, would be done to handle the extra passenger flows. It also seems that the planned rebuild seems to have stalled as local politicians don’t know what is going on with regard to extra NR platform capacity and if it can / will be built.
Another angle to consider for LB Enfield’s motivation is simply making a point. It’s not without the scope of imagination that they have seen the decision, considered that they were unlikely to have it overturned, but simply wanted to push the DfT harder than a strongly-worded letter expressing disappointment, for any future decisions.
Had they been completely dismissed this may have been counterproductive, but that many of their core points were taken on – irrespective of the complaint being comprehensively dismissed – may give the DfT pause for thought in future decision-making.
If that was the intent, then it’s probably not bad value for money.
I wonder if this case illustrates two issues:
(1) Local authorities are sadly short of real expertise these days. That is despite large sums apparently paid to many Chief Execs! Central government (of all shades) has gradually deprived them of power and money over the years. Perhaps if Enfield had the right staff they would have seen the problems coming and confronted DfT more robustly and earlier.
(2) A franchise renewal is not even vaguely comparable to a revision of a strategy. It’s just an adjustment to business as usual. Strategy seemingly only turns up occasionally in the modern world of Britain’s railways and that relies on the Secretary of State realising that he/she is actually the only one in overall control (Andrew Adonis?).
As an aside I would echo WW’s words. There is massive demand for bus transport in that area. Getting the North-South rail links sorted out properly would solve a lot of problems.
@WW as a peaktime commuter on the Stratford line… it’s honestly not so bad. Yes all the seats will be full, at least at one end of the train. But there’s a lot more room per person than on the Jubilee or DLR service that forms the first leg of my journey. Heck, I remember one day when the 17:47 was cancelled, and while the 18:17 was crowded, no-one was left standing on the platform.
From a personal perspective I’d love to see a 4tph service. But it’s not crush level crowding yet, and I can more or less believe that the business case isn’t there.
What a total mess. Let’s hope this brilliant article gets taken up by the wider media.
Housing development is supposed to be a government priority. Developer-led transport investment is explicitly the delivery mechanism supported by the Mayor’s London 2050 strategy paper. And when a London Borough actually tries to do something along these lines, well, let’s just say that no conspiracy could create such a perfect klutz-up.
In order to understand what has gone wrong, we need to grasp how the system is supposed to work. We can start by asking Graham H.’s question: ‘What are railways for?’ The formal answer should be ‘To fulfill the government’s strategies laid out in the High-level output statement (HLOS).
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-level-output-specification-2012
Broadly, the HLOS is informed by the various Network Rail route studies (formerly route utilisation studies) and transformed via the SOFA (statment of funds available) into Network Rail’s Strategic Business Plan and its various Route Plans. The four HLOS strategies are:
1. The creation of the “Electric Spine” … ‘The rolling programme of electrification is expected to help make rail freight commercially more attractive across England,’ (That’s right, the policy objective is to undertake a specific activity.)
2. To increase capacity and accelerate journey times between our key cities
3. To facilitate commuter travel into major urban areas.
4. To improve railway links to major ports and airports.
Maybe not all well and good governance but priority 3 should be our stop. But wait, the HLOS goes on to say ‘Government is not specifying the detail of how these strategic outputs should be met.’ It then lists a set of ‘illustrative’ projects that, to be fair, is neither exhaustive nor will all be carried out.
The consequent Anglia Route Plan talks about options for 3-tracking but is not definitive. (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/publications/strategic-business-plan-for-cp5/)
But wait, this only defines the programme for Network Rail. Franchise definition is a separate process. The DfT franchising policy papers can be found at the following link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/rail-franchising#background-to-rail-franchising
The various papers deal with issues such as the risks expected to be borne by the franchisee, the conditions under which franchise competitions will be held and general comportment expected from franchisees. But nowhere is there a general policy statement on what franchises are intended to deliver. The Wolmar question is never asked, ‘what are franchises for?’.
Since the Network Rail and franchise development processes are separate, with separate consultations, there is no guarantee that a franchise specification takes demand into account in the same way as the HLOS process. To put it another way, the Secretary of State (SoS) appears to have 100% discretion in defining the franchise objectives and scope.
It is a wonder that there have not been Angel Roads before, or perhaps there have been and we just have not noticed. Clearly, this policy vacuum is not sustainable. And the Angel Road court case may just be the catalyst to change things.
Let’s finish with a couple of points that arise from the court case and are quoted in the article.
Firstly, the argument that ‘existing passengers have priority over new ones.’ Privatisation and the franchise process were specifically designed to place market development over existing business.
Secondly, the SoS’s lawyers argued that non-transport objectives could not be taken into account in specifying the franchise. Whereas, paragraph 2 of the HLOS, a command paper submitted to Parliament, states that:
The Government’s strategy for the railways was set out in the March 2012 Command Paper – Reforming our Railways: Putting the Customer First. The Command Paper set out how our passenger and freight railways support Government’s overall transport vision by supporting economic growth, facilitating business, commuting and leisure journeys, providing a greener transport option than road and aviation, and relieving congestion on our road network.
So, did the SoS mislead Parliament in submitting the Command paper or did he mislead the court in instructing counsel? I think we should be told.
Government promises which turned out to be not worth the paper they were printed on – look no further than the “Eureka” timetable for the ECML – a franchise commitment which somehow evaporated when the Government took over operation of the franchise.
@timbeau
presumably because the left and right halves of the brain were suddenly able to talk to one another….
@ Answer=42 – nice commentary but are we really terribly surprised that stated aspirations or aims are never really achieved when they collide with other government concerns like the economy? If the DfT do pay heed to this judgment I rather suspect there will be less effort put in to trying to recognise possibly related bits of legislation or government policy. The focus will get narrower and narrower rather than wider because it means there are fewer things to “trip over”. I agree this case points up a real life mess and highlights the conflict between what the government says it wants to do and then actually does. However I can’t see any Court really seeking to tie Minister’s hands over how they define something like a rail franchise specification. Similarly the DfT will work hard not to make any detailed or specific commitments in future!
@WW
The corollary is political, not legal, which is why I ended as I did.
I agree that the DfT will control its communications better. Even with the present system, LB Enfield were caught between a rock and a hard place: if they had asked (which they should have done) for formal guidance from the DfT, the answer would have been ,’The proposal for four trains an hour at Angel Road, as with other such proposals, is in the process of consideration and, should it prove feasible, value for money and in line with policy, will be consulted on publicily in due course. No commitment can be made prior to the completion of this process.’ A necessary step but not particularly helpful.
In principle, the solution is simple: the franchise should be designed to implement the route study / HLOS / route plan. A single process for Network Rail’s plans and franchising would be more coherent and save the DfT effort. But it is, of course, not as simple as that: the HLOS is a five year cycle; the franchise is rightly a different and longer cycle. Perhaps it is time we recognised not only that the franchise system is not working but that it cannot be made to work.
@ Answer=42 – one difficulty is that a franchise award in and of itself may generate additional work for Network Rail over and above the HLOS. Clearly it’s for the DfT to decide if it wishes to buy that extra work but sometimes it does make that decision. You could, of course, simply make franchises 10 years long and have their renewal dates phased across the 10 year cycle allowing investment in particular areas to roll on a related 10 year cycle. A tad simplistic I know and many TOCs overlap in key parts of the network but not beyond sensible consideration.
WW’s comments also show that whoever & whatever parameters were being used to determine “Potential Use” for Angel Rd & used as an excuse(?) by DfT to refuse 4tph were flat wrong.
But, I will carefully restrain myself, just this once, from pointing a finger at anyone ….
ans=42
Thanks for your careful analysis, however, you said: It is a wonder that there have not been Angel Roads before, or perhaps there have been and we just have not noticed. Entirely correct – usually stations that are just “across a boundary” where the “other” side of the boundary is responsible for input to services.
Neither of the two I know of are anywhere near London, though.
@answer=42
“presumably because the left and right halves of the brain were suddenly able to talk to one another….”
possibly, but in the example I cited the timetable was a franchise commitment. The franchisee handed back the keys as they said it was unaffordable, so DOR took it over. DOR were then allowed to cherry pick which parts of the timetable to run – so they claimed, to make the operation profitable. (The actual saving was £9m p.a, and DOR made a profit of £225m pa).
I am surprised that the franchisee, who had to pay a large penalty for early surrender, didn’t seek review of why they too were not allowed to pick and choose, but had to settle for all or nothing
@timbeau: The franchisee had chosen (presumably rather unwisely) to bid for the franchise. Franchisees in general are expected to pay for their own mistakes – as the other side of raking it in when they get things right. DOR had not chosen to bid for the franchise, they were lumbered with it.
Of course, DOR could have been forced to run the whole timetable, but it would have been their paymasters (Mr and Mrs Taxpayer) who would have made up any resulting financial loss, so I find it at least understandable that they were not so forced.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYwlgPtW8AAEMZL?format=pjpg&name=large
From an advertisement in today’s Estates Gazette.
Is this another council counting its chickens (for Northumberland Park), or does it know something we don’t?
@ Anon – I stand to be corrected but Haringey have been considering that whole area around north Tottenham and Northumberland Park for a while. The redevelopment of White Hart Lane has proved controversial especially with a “mystery” fire on the premises of an objector. There was a feature on BBC London a while back – many of the locals were not impressed and who can blame them. They stand to be priced or kicked out of the area. I assume Haringey are proceeding on the basis that STAR will exist and CR2 / 4 tracking will turn up at some point. In the meantime the buses can pick up the slack (ho ho ho) and people will be dumped onto the tube and Overground routes with some fighting their way onto AGA trains at NP. The proposal for Wood Green is interesting and probably does tie in with their pressure to get CR2 sent via Wood Green and not Turnpike Lane.
WW Yes, just thought it was a bit brave to send this out to potential investment partners with the implication that CR2 is a done deal!
Thank you for an interesting article; it’s not altogether surprising that LBE lost; as Fandroid remarks, they seem to have been very poorly advised by their lawyers, although that said, too much can depend on the personal whim of the judge du jour.
Taking some points in no particular order:
– In constitutional law, there is only one Secretary of State and legislation empowers them all to act for each other without distinction, even if they have as a matter of convenience allocated particular business amongst themselves. The point goes back to 1540 when Henry VIII appointed two private secretaries jointly. The functional split began to take shape only under Rockingham’s second ministry in 1782. The unity of persona is one important reason why departments of state cannot sue each other or contract with each other. I cannot for the life of me see why LBE’s lawyers tried to make the opposite point. Poor advice. And a point rightly ignored in the final judgement as far as I can tell.
– On a related point, civil servants have no independent existence, either. We are all mere reflexes of the “Secretary of State”. That said, some are more equal than others and only those above a certain level can act formally in place of the Secretary of State. This raises a further legal point which could have been, but wasn’t on this occasion, an argument used by DfT and that is the question of whether LBE could reasonably have relied on the advice of JR’s interlocutor, as being a person on whom they were entitled to rely. Put another way, I wouldn’t rely on the word of a mere clerical assistant in the matter but I might feel entitled to do so if a Grade 5 told me something. I don’t know the grade of the person involved but I would be surprised if it were much above HEO [Higher Executive Officer]…
– which brings me to the poor management exhibited by DfT. It is dinned into people that where contracts and quasi-judicial matters are involved, there are a range of possible phrases that can give a hint without implying a legal commitment, such as “minded to…” or the “wish to take into account”, and so on. These should have deployed in dealing with Jonathan Roberts to avoid creating a “legitimate expectation”. I would expect to discipline anyone who said too much.**
– I thought the judge’s summing up of the timetabling process was, for a layman, quite lucid.
– Fandroid (first comment) – none of this has anything to do with running the railway by Act of Parliament. the railway has always been run by Acts of Parliament. The JR [Judicial Review] process and its parameters are entirely matters of common law. Maybe what was meant was that it was a result of franchising – something else entirely but may not be true even then.
** DfT were lucky (not really – I imagine T/Sol [Treasury Solicitor] had a quiet word with the Lord Chancellor’s Office) that they had a sympathetic judge. I recall one JR case where a junior official in my predecessor’s team, who dealt with Freight Facilities Grants, had promised an applicant that he would undoubtedly get a grant for some wagons and grain loading facilities at Hitchin – a promise apparently made in advance of the application actually being submitted. This duly arrived after I had taken over and was a rotten case. So we threw it out – and got JR’d for our pains. Although there was no actual evidence that any offer had been made earlier (we even went to the lengths of going through the entry permits to show that the applicant had never visited the department…), and even though the officer in question had no authority to make any sort of offer (he was only an SEO [Senior Executive Officer]), the judge actually stated that he believed this was a case where DfT was using its strong arm tactics to bully a poor innocent businessman. So we had to give the PIB his £1.2m with which he promptly vanished from the scene with nary a hopper wagon to show for it. The SEO in question had resigned before I arrived leaving a trail of casework wreckage and public liabilities, to go and run a secondhand bookshop in Stamford. Had he not done so, he would have been dismissed (and possibly prosecuted for misfeasance in public office – a more popular attack these days than then.) The point of this unamusing tale is that with a different judge, the LBE case might have gone differently despite the obvious weight of the law against them.
[Some TLA translations added by Malcolm, who hopes Graham will forgive him for marginally interrupting the flowing prose. A handy brief summary of Civil Service grades can be seen here.]
WW
Having attended the North Tottenham Stakeholders’ Forum before Christmas,I can confirm that Haringey are predicating their pitch not just on STAR and 4-tracking,but also the certainty of CR2 eventually using the 3rd and 4th tracks up the Lea Valley.
As you indicate,this whole business is a bit worrying,for reasons of not-much relevance to this thread,but interesting nevertheless.
@ Graham H – good as always to get your insight. Interesting but not surprising that there should be a strong line taken against employees who go round causing chaos in their wake. Seen it many times and I may even have caused some in my time – youthful exhuberance outweighing experience. I was also quite surprised that DfT have effectively outsourced the production of franchise specifications. I can perhaps understand buying in some highly specialist skills but having consultants seemingly do the lot feels a bit odd to me. Is there no one who is the “client” these days and who possesses a brain to be able to properly weigh what consultants might be telling them. Departments devoid of knowledge, skills and experience are doomed to make mistakes but then I would say that having always ended up as the “expert” in every department I’ve worked in.
Your and others’ comments about the legal position of SoSs has been illuminating too – I had no idea that was how it worked. I note with a wry smile your remark about a probable “behind the scenes” chat about who the Judge would be. Even with my level of cynicism that possibility had not crossed my mind. I need to rewatch some Yes Minister episodes. 😉
@WW – as a small, and not at all well-known, further comment on the nature of the indivisibility of the SoS, at the time of the first 1974 election, when it appeared that Heath might still cling on after a deal with the Liberals, there was extensive discussion in the Cabinet Office as to what the “minimum government” might be – meaning that how few great officers of state were needed to discharge the business of government whilst Heath negotiated. The advice to Heath at the time was that you had to have (1) a Lord Chancellor to ensure that the judicial system worked, (2) a single Secretary of State to sign any necessary delegated legislation, and (3) a First Lord of the Treasury – to authorise payments from the Consolidated Fund. No need for a Prime Minister or a Chancellor of the Exchequer, you will note – tiresome modern innovations…
Graham H.
Isn’t the First Lord of the Treasury the PM? Only recent exception I know of was Lord Salisbury, who was a Secretary of State, during the century before last.
GH
And, of course, in a REAL emergency, you don’t even need them ….
Any Lord Chancellor will have the letters “PC” after his name, anyway.
So, provided that a means can be made to ensure that funds can flow in a legitimate manner, then you don’t even need Parliament, in the short term, at least.
It is entirely possible to govern (as in “Direct”) the country solely by means of Orders in Council, or so I understand it, anyway….
@Graham H
Thanks for all the information. I must admit that I was enough of a massive fan of Yes, Minister and I still rather treasure the three hardback volumes of the complete works I have.
Your insights are always top of my list when reading the comments here.
@Haykerloo – not in constitutional theory -the office of Prime minister wasn’t *officially* recognised until 1905, and there were certainly times in the eighteenth century when the acknowledged “leader” of the Cabinet wasn’t the First Lord. Some of the Cabinets, indeed, had no obvious dominant figure although they always included a First Lord (they also included the Master of the Horse… and it was only in Queen Anne’s reign* that the Archbishop of Canterbury ceased to attend).
@Greg T – You may be right, but that wasn’t the advice given to the PM du jour.
*and so now it can stop raining ( a goons’ reference)
GH
I actually get the impression from this whole thing of:
“I’m walking backwards for Christmas”, actually.
LINK
Why not start with a 2 trains per hour service to begin with and add a more frequent service once the required infrastructure is built? This seems to be relatively easy to do. Make the two Stratford lea valley trains all stations to Hertford East. Re-time the Cambridge trains so they catch up the stopping services at Broxbourne, thus allowing cross platform interchange onto Hertford services.
This not only gives Angel Road a regular service but also a reduced London- Hertford journey time (assuming good connections) and the added bonus of two extra paths between Tottenham Hale and Liverpool Street.
@BJG
“Why not start with a 2 trains per hour service to begin with and add a more frequent service once the required infrastructure is built? ”
There is the small matter of the non-stop TOM-stop trains from LST to the airport?
The purpose of the extra run of line from Coppermill South junction to Angel Road is to stop the conflict with the Standsted trains, which already mean most trains from Stratford power up to that junction in a few minutes and wait there for the line ahead to clear.
@BLG
Also, have a look at https://mm-evt.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=ed525d6702d14122a7c1a3733d5b7ffd (“search for Tottenham Hale”) – it shows how CR2 will integrate into the area.
If there is an intention at some vague, hand-wavy point in the future to four-track the West Anglia route through Tottenham Hale, is the plan to follow the SWML’s paired-by-direction models, with platforms only on the outer (‘slow’) lines?
Granted, the paired-by-direction model might require a flyover/dive-under somewhere, but it would be consistent with the layout beyond Wimbledon, and the CR2 tracks could be aligned to rise up alongside the existing tracks, which would then become the ‘fast’ lines.
The reason I ask is that serving all four tracks with platforms would require notably wider (and more expensive) stations. Something like Berrylands, on the other hand, would be rather cheaper to construct. Not only this, but with no need to splay the tracks apart on the approach to the stations, the costs of extending bridges near the stations is reduced, as the tracks would remain together.
@Graham H
“not altogether surprising that LBE lost; as Fandroid remarks, they seem to have been very poorly advised by their lawyers”
Not necessarily – they may have decided not to heed the advice of their lawyers. I have seen lawyer’s letters starting “I am instructed…………” which clearly indicate that the lawyer thinks the client is wasting his money. (More often in my field it is code for “the client has this technical argument which I have to take on trust because it is way outside my area of expertise”).
@timbeau 🙂
Or look at it another way. Figures of £80 million spent, £2 billion at stake. Judicial Reviews costs say £250,000 to prepare the case and engage lawyers and any expert witnesses and pay the other side’s costs if they lose.
It could be that the London Borough of Enfield decided that even with a low chance of success – possibly as low as 1% – it was worth taking the risk. There is also the question of how this will affect things if they lose. Will it make DfT more adverse to crossing their path again or will they make things more difficult for Enfield? And maybe at £250,000 the publicity may give a wake up call that will cause something to be done.
As someone above said, the silence from GLA is a little strange. Meridian Water is a designated Housing Zone, with many millions pinvested. Might they have been assisting the legal case beneath the radar?
@ Briantist – that map really doesn’t show how CR2 “integrates” into the area. It shows what is in scope for demolition and roughly where the portal will be. It gives no clue as to whether the demolished areas are reinstated and there is not one iota of information about T Hale station. I asked a range of questions about this and all I got was a shrug saying “yes those shops go, yes the scrap yard goes, yes the low rent office space goes” and “we know nothing about T Hale station. Why not respond to the consultation and ask?”.
Basically, to summarise, it was “tough sh*t we’re knocking down half the area and we don’t care about the consequences” and “why on earth would you expect us to know anything a station we’re going to drop a massive number of passengers in to?”. I may be being a tad harsh but I wasn’t terribly impressed. I haven’t responded to the consultation because the scheme is politically a “done deal” and I don’t see it as my job to tell CR2 what they should already know. I also think it’s poor they couldn’t be bothered to even note what I was asking them given they had umpteen people standing around doing nothing. Depending on the speed of the design and legal processes then people in and around Tottenham Hale may be facing 15 years of disruption from STAR, GOBLIN electrification, 4 tracking, the LU sponsored station rebuild and then Crossrail 2. I suspect people on the Ferry Lane Estate are going to be mightly unimpressed with that as are people on or near Broad Lane.
@ Walthamstow Writer
Yes, fair points I think about the lack of actual details from CR2 compared to the detailed station plans for some other places, there is some unevenness.
The online map compares well to the PDF map for information about Tottenham Hale because it shows both the proposed route of CR2 isn’t planned to use the route of the removed Tottenham north curve, but the portal (triangle symbol) will be just at the most southerly point of the Tottenham South curve.
It also shows that the tall redbrick building in The High Centre is going to be demolished, as are the current units containing everything from Lidl to Poundland in the retail park.
It does also show that the current pair of tracks – with their associated access under the Ferry Lane bridge – being used for CR2 at Tottenham Hale. So, this is either “illustrative” or it does mean that the new pair of tracks will be to the east of the station. This makes sense as these will be used for the fast tracks to Cheshunt for non-stopping services to Stansted Airport.
I guess you do have to read it with this though – http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=575174 – to get the fuller picture. ¬¬¬ The full planning application for the changes to the station are http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=271423
This gives many, many iotas of the proposed layout for the station http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=575190 has the track layout, which I had taken to take into account STAR, but now realize that you are correct and that the space for the later “LST-airport” platforms isn’t as well defined as I had thought.
@WW
I must admit that I’m now re-looking at http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=575188 and I can see how the STAR platform would work – a train could easily sit on a single line where the word “Railway Corridor” sits, but – indeed – where would a new east platform sit given that the underground access to the massive Hale Village underground car parks blocks one of the Ferry Lane bridge sections and the middle one is too close to the bridge for two tracks (but OK for one for STAR?)
But, from a n other thread & highly relevant…
Briantist pointed this out as a reminder
I think the map that Briantist has linked to
1) implies that the Seven Sisters platforms will have a southern entrance close to South Tottenham station on the Diesel Overground, as well as a northern entrance at the original station.
2) shows a curious lack of detail for the Tottenham Hale station area.
The lines aren’t even far enough apart to imply where Tottenham Hale platforms might be. Some searching questions to be asked by Haringey Council, Enfield and Haringey’s GLA member and the MP for Tottenham.
Re Briantist et al.
I think the 4 tracking solution laid out in one of the old RUS was rebuilding Ferry Lane Bridge.
The first RUS 2007:
Option 12 looked at 4 tracking pages 112/113 of the pdf – 4 track STBrox that got reduced to 3 track STAR later…
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/greater%20anglia/great%20anglia%20rus.pdf
The origins of CR2 route can be seen in it.
The SE RUS 2011 shows option development on WAML pages 113 to 121 and clearly shows the problem caused by Ferry Lane Bridge.
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/rus%20generation%202/london%20and%20south%20east/london%20and%20south%20east%20route%20utilisation%20strategy.pdf
@Alan Griffiths
” implies that the Seven Sisters platforms will have a southern entrance close to South Tottenham station on the Diesel Overground, as well as a northern entrance at the original station.”
It doesn’t just imply it, it is part of the design. See the PDF – “A dedicated link between South Tottenham and the new southern ticket hall” – https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail2/october2015/user_uploads/s3.pdf – also the Overground line is currently under electrification.
@ngh
Thanks for the map. I think I had a previous discussion where I suggested that STAR was planned to go north of Angel Road and had to backtrack somewhat.
As the PDF is very long, I’ve put a copy of the relevant graphic from p120 of the July 2011 London and South East Route Utilisation Strategy here:
https://ukfree.tv/styles/images/2016/ferry_lane.png
If all this means that the new pair of lines to the east of the existing ones are up/down fast from Liverpool Street to Cambridge/Stansted Airport and CR2 uses the existing line with the existing stations, or they become paired by direction and cause the necessary station rebuilds up the line is a good question.
Even if that DID happen, there still would be the very good question of how trains to/from Lea Bridge would be in the right place.
@PoP 22.50 – only £250k for a JR?! Why, we were paying that 20 years ago, and I hadn’t noticed lawyers’ wages getting smaller! (My point about poor legal advice related mainly to the silliness about how many Secretaries of State there might be – which was the point on which LBE chose to lead, and which a small amount of research and a skim read of De Smith would have shown their legal advisers how wrong they were.) I’m not sure LBE’s auditors (if they ever bother to go through the books – not something auditors like to do these days) would like a bet whose odds were surely closer to 4:1 against, particularly as I suspect that the stake wasn’t £2bn – that assumes that nothing would happen if only 2 tph was on offer.
@Graham H
“how few great officers of state were needed to discharge the business of government ………..You had to have (1) a Lord Chancellor to ensure that the judicial system worked…………….No need for ………. a Chancellor of the Exchequer,”
Indeed, it is irritating that the news media always refer to Mr Osbourne as “The” Chancellor when he is not even the most senior of the three chancellors in the cabinet.
The third one is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In addition, the High Court Judge in charge of Chancery Division is the Chancellor of the High Court, and other institutions such as universities and dioceses also have chancellors.
I’ve drawn a diagram of what I think all these documents say about Tottenham Hale station for both STAR and Crossrail 2.
https://ukfree.tv/styles/images/2016/Tottenham%20Hale%20STAR%20and%20Crossrail%202.png
Drawing it up properly I realise that the only logical way to run things is actually to have Crossrail 2’s portal sit between two lines to Lea Bridge and to remove the Coppermill Junction from normal operations?
@ Briantist – I am well aware of what the current plans show for T Hale’s station rebuild. I was less certain about the STAR arrangement but seems a single track and 1 extra platform face is the achieveable short term solution. However 4 tracking and CR2 require something quite different – as you highlight. I guess I am just a bit wary about T Hale station being worked on perpetually for up to 20 years. I only hope that the apparent delay to the LU works suggests a rethink might be underway so that work done in the next two years doesn’t have to be undone in less than a decade. That’s not an efficient use of public money and it simply isn’t fair on local residents and users of the station. I also think it’s not viable to leave the LU station, esp escalator capacity, to be left untouched with the possible advent of CR2.
Re Briantist,
Agree with all your thinking but there is potentially some bigger thinking to do than that….
Would you want the 4 track section paired by use DF-UF-DS-US i.e. Liverpool Street (Fasts) and Crossrail /Stratford (Slows) so maintenance is simpler (i.e. what you and the RUS assume) or paired by direction DS-DF-UF-US or DF-DS-US-UF* so you could have cross platform interchange at Tottenham Hale and Broxbourne if you had 2 island platforms. It depends on what you expect the interchange volumes to be.
*This would make it easier to turn back CR2 trains north of Tottenham Hale (no flyover required) and means only 1 platform island and lift needed at intermediate stations between Broxbourne and Tottenham Hale (and make it much easier to secure certain stations). It may also have the advantage of easiest to get pedestrian flows sorted.
So until they have decided which of the 3 realistic options there are I suspect public detail might be lacking.
[In general before anyone gets crayonistic remember that there are 4 Victoria line Tunnels under the NR tracks at the station… so there are fewer potential options to get pedflow right so cross platform might be key]
@ngh
Great points, I see your thinking. I’ve drawn up your suggestion here too.
https://ukfree.tv/styles/images/2016/Tottenham%20Hale%20Crossrail%202%20Locals%20on%20West%20tracks.png
It certainly would be easier to re-use the existing platforms at the stopping stations north of Tottenham Hale if the lines switched over like this just south of Tottenham Hale.
In between STAR and CR2 this would mean that Northumberland Park would need an extra platform for a decade and also the proposed station at Pickets Lock would need three platforms temporarily too. Angel Road, or Meridian Water as it probably will be called will have four platforms as it will need to be able to terminate two trains?
@ngh
“you could have cross platform interchange at Tottenham Hale and Broxbourne if you had 2 island platforms”
I can’t see quite how you would do that at Tottenham Hale without having a larger footprint for the station than seems possible. Also, paired by direction means new stations all the way up the line to Cheshunt.
@Walthamstow Writer
“I guess I am just a bit wary about T Hale station being worked on perpetually for up to 20 years. ”
One of the problems with living in Hale Village was living in a mudbath of Somme proportions. It was mainly like that from the giratory removal THEN the bus station rebuild and so on. Without extreme caution the changes to the station would just keep repeating the experience over and over.
To nitpick the diagram, Lea Bridge Station wasn’t open in 2015.
@ngh: Would you want the 4 track section paired by use DF-UF-DS-US i.e. Liverpool Street (Fasts) and Crossrail /Stratford (Slows) so maintenance is simpler (i.e. what you and the RUS assume) or paired by direction DS-DF-UF-US or DF-DS-US-UF* so you could have cross platform interchange
Crossrail 1 at Abbey Wood was originally going to be paired by direction to give cross platform interchange, but was changed to paired by use to simplify construction and maintenance. It’ll be interesting to see what choice is made this time around.
If the intention is to eliminate level crossings from Crossrail 2 routes, then Northumberland Park and Brimsdown stations will need a total rebuild anyway.
Re Ian J,
I’m willing to bet a fair few more interchange passengers at Tottenham Hale than Abbey Wood though!
The intention is to eliminate level crossings (doubt 100% can be but…) so Enfield Lock and Cheshunt probably need doing in addition too. As you are then going to rebuild most of them along the section of route any way (STAR or CR2) you might as well have a very good think about what to do (or that was my thinking any way). Probably only 1 station apart from Broxbourne won’t get rebuilt, but then Broxbourne will probably get at least a partially rebuild anyway as it is the terminus and interchange.
Re Briantist,
2 islands (with 4 platforms faces) take up less space (width) than 3 islands (with 4 platforms faces) and tend to have fewer steps, escalators and lifts too. See Cheshunt for a local 2 island example. I was assuming a phased demolition and rebuild of Tottenham Hale if going down that route (See recent Reading rebuild for how this can be done)
In the end / in total, paired by direction ( DS, DF, UF, US ) is going to be cheaper & easier, especially when the tunnel portals are taken into account & if all the level crossings are (mostly) going to be removed or, perhaps rebuilt … but short-termism will likely prevail & ww will get Star rebuild, followed ablut 3 years later by the CR2 rebuild.
This is called “forward planning” (again)
ngh
The interchange figures at Tottie Hale are scary right now – which is why they want to put CR2 there, to remove a lot of the problem – people will just stay on the new CR2 trains going dahn th’ole …
@ngh
“2 islands (with 4 platforms faces) take up less space (width) than 3 islands (with 4 platforms faces) and tend to have fewer steps, escalators and lifts too. See Cheshunt for a local 2 island example. I was assuming a phased demolition and rebuild of Tottenham Hale if going down that route (See recent Reading rebuild for how this can be done)”
This sounds like a good idea, but I was having a hard time trying to work this out in my head, so I’ve drawn it up as a diagram.
https://ukfree.tv/styles/images/2016/TOM%20with%20islands.png
You could indeed do this. It would require the following steps:
1. Create the eastern island platform and new southbound trackbed.
2. Divert the southbound existing services to the eastern island.
3. Close existing platform 1 to the public and dig it up to replace by double-width trackbed;
4. Divert the airport-bound trains to the Eastern island using half new trackbed;
5. Close platform 1 and dig it up for trackbed for single line airport bound;
6. Create western island platform;
7. Move airport bound services back to western island;
8. Not have STAR on eastern/western island
9. Open Crossrail using central two tracks;
The only issues here are that, even if you replace Ferry Lane bridge, you still end up half of the old Platform 2 because the south end part of the site is restricted. This means that either the two islands are not as wide as they could be (if you could take up ALL of existing Platform 2).
You could have the airport trains having east and west exists like the Central Line trains do southbound at Stratford (platforms 3 and 3a).
@lmm
It doesn’t say that the station is open anywhere on the map. But it was still there!
Re Greg,
But do you just create more problems with all the extra volume even if you have removed some interchange flows?
For example longer / more fast WAML services = more interchange passengers. VIC Line passengers from Walthamstow might change there if they want TCR / West end. CR2 Passengers swapping to Liverpool or Stratford Services etc.
Errr ….
Braintist – you’ve put the fasts on the “outside” & the slows on the “inside”
Shurely shome mistake?
Re Greg,
It was the 3rd suggestion in my post.
If you are going to rebuild virtually all the stations any way it makes some sense.
1. Easy turn back of several tph of CR2 services at Tottenham Hale (centre turnback siding near Northumberland Park depot? with no flyover required!)
2. Single centre island platforms all the way north with access to stations from new road over-bridges (to replace LCs) 1 gate line, 1 lift, 1 set of stairs, easy to enforce revenue collection as the alternative exit is 2 tracks and a high fence to each side…
The aim is for all CR2 stations to be built /rebuild as accessible, unlike some of the CR1 stations till recently.
Possibly
Depends on whether you are going to terminate CR2 @ Broxbourne or Hertfoprd E, I suppose, though there’s plenty of room for successive crossovers there, between Broxbourne station & the actual junction.
@Greg Tingey
“Braintist – you’ve put the fasts on the “outside” & the slows on the “inside”
Shurely shome mistake?”
I knew this would happen! I was trying to work out how the station might be redeveloped (basically taking all the platforms and making them into tracks and vice versa) in terms of an operable schedule.
Yes, in the longer run when Crossrail 2 starts to replace the STAR service running up and back at 2tph on the “fasts” … yes. At least, probably yes.
It does, however, show that the best course of action to rebuild the station should be create the Eastern island platform for STAR.
Not sure how that’s going to work in terms of the “STAR “contract award” £53m March 2016.”
By looking at the consultation material and safeguarding plans on the Crossrail 2 website you can surmise:
a) the tunnel portal is on the west side of the tracks, near where the Tottenham and Hamstead railway crosses above
b) Crossrail 2 will have 3-5tph terminating at Tottenham Hale
c) there will be 4tph all stations to Stratford, starting from Broxbourne
On the basis of 15tph coming out of the tunnel + 4 tph from Stratford on the slow lines, it doesn’t seem to be reliable to terminate those 3-5tph (as per b) in the same platform as the rest going north, even with a turnback siding somewhere further north. This implies a 5th platform at Tottenham Hale for turn backs, which implies a large rebuild whatever happens with Crossrail 2.
With the slows on the west side, Crossrail 2 and the Stratfords could use the existing tracks and stations; the new tracks would be on the east and be the fast pair. Being new it would be easier to engineer them for 110mph rather than the existing 80/90mph (OLE limitation as I understand it). New tracks could generally avoid all the existing infrastructure – signals, OLE masts, platforms etc. This would surely make it easier (cheaper, less disruptive) to build. No need for platforms on the fast lines anywhere between Tottenham Hale and Cheshunt as the trains won’t stop there. A simple flyover at Coppermill Junction to get the fast lines to Liverpool St over or under the lines to Stratford and Robert is indeed your father’s brother.
As long as the STAR people don’t put any signals, cables or OLE foundations in the way of the new fast lines, they can put the track where they like. It is straightforward to move good quality new track horizontally – the chaps at Reading, London Bridge and elsewhere have been doing it routinely. The third platforms at Northumberland Park and ‘Angel Road’ might have a short useful lifespan, but that’s hardly the end of the world.
@SFD
Whilst western side slows for crossrail reusing the existing station infrastructure makes sense of course, would crossrail 2 be happy to pay for 2 new fast specification tracks or would an agreement with Network Rail (DFT) need to be arranged to cross fund this. Surely the Crossrail 2 financiers would argue that upgrading the slows is their responsibility only?
Also begs the question as to how the Broxbourne terminators would get to the Ratty Lane depot, I assume an under/over pass would be needed to avoid conflicting with the Cambridge & airport (+/- Hertford East if they go fast from Broxbourne).
@Snowy. There is no capacity for more trains in the line. If Crossail 2 wants more trains, Crossrail 2 pays. It’s not relevant in this case anyway, as the cash will all be coming from the same place.
As for the sidings at Broxbourne; one assumes they would only need to be accessed intensively at the start and end of service when there is plenty of capacity to deal with them crossing the main lines.
@Greg Tingey
“Braintist – you’ve put the fasts on the “outside” & the slows on the “inside”
Shurely shome mistake?”
There are precedents – Clapham Junction to Barnes, Finchley Road to Wembley Park.
Simplifies reversal of short workings, and allows slow services to be served by a single island platform reducing staffing and maintenance overheads.
@ SFD – hang on a minute. Surely the point is that the money *won’t* all be coming from the same place. Here’s my reasoning.
– Stansted want more and faster trains to London. Nothing to do with CR2.
– Growing commuting volumes from Cambridge south means more and longer trains to ease overcrowding. Nothing to do with CR2.
– Government aspires to try to sort out the above two. In theory a HLOS / SOFA type funding arrangement unless some cash can be screwed out of Stansted’s owners.
– STAR – a Mayoral thing with a mix of private and public funding.
– Better local service frequencies – not funded and not achieveable at present but is the policy position for Enfield Council, TfL and City Hall.
– CR2 – a Mayoral thing with 50% government cash at best (based on the Chancellor’s past utterances). All the rest raised from Londoners, from future fare revenues and the levies on / contributions from the private sector.
Therefore the funding demonstrably is not coming from the same places as we currently understand things. Therefore there is ample scope for a massive bun fight over who is demanding what and when and therefore who pays for what. That’s why I think there is a big game of “don’t blink first” going on at the moment as to who says what about their respective initiatives. It’s HS2 and OOC / Euston all over again. Very happy to be corrected as you clearly see things differently.
The configuration of slows in the middle and fasts outside was also adopted by the then Swedish infrastructure manager Banverket when four-tracking the main line north of Stockholm to accommodate Arlanda Express services. Most intermediate stations keep a single centre island for the stopping services, but there are a couple of bigger intermediate stations with twin islands for cross-platform connections. This configuration also simplified the divergence of the airport loop, as the outer express tracks peeled off via a dive-under junction and the local trains carry on along the old main line to the outer-suburban terminus at Marsta. (Note that suburban trains don’t go to the airport as it is premium fare, so sillinesses persist elsewhere, too!)
Stansted can’t have more trains to London without a new tunnel under the runway, and have no plans to provide it anytime soon.
There is plenty of space on the Cambridge trains to Liverpool St. In any event increasing capacity by almost 50% through making everything 12 car on the route to Cambridge and Stansted doth not four tracking require.
Taken together, the requirement for extra infrastructure to provide capacity on the WAML for longer distance services alone is not something that I think DfT needs to aspire to in the foreseeable future.
Besides, the extra capacity 4 tracking provides can not actually be used, unless the trains can go somewhere that isn’t Liverpool Street (full) or Stratford platforms 11/12 (soon to be full). Hence the reason it hasn’t been done before.
So 4 tracking only really makes sense if it forms part of Crossrail 2, albeit it could probably be done as an early phase (no tunnelling). Hence the funding for 4 tracking comes from the same place as Crossrail 2.
One pertinent question…are level crossings across more than two tracks allowed?
If not, surely that means all of the level crossings between Broxbourne and Tottenham Hale will have to be removed if four-tracking is implemented?
Re Anonymously,
“are level crossings across more than two tracks allowed?”
Yes (I think the widest is Woodcroft Road on the ECML with 5 tracks!) but you wouldn’t be able to drive across them for most of the day as they would be down virtually all the time with the proposed WAML frequencies.
CR2 aim to eliminate LCs if possible.
By jove….looking at Google Maps, there are two other LCs (Maxey Rd and Glinton Rd) across the ECML close to the one you pointed out which go across *six* tracks!!! And on the 100mph+ ECML as well…..I’m rather stunned that they’re still there, and haven’t been replaced by bridges ?.
As well as the frequency issue, my biggest concern with wide level crossings (particularly ones with full length barriers that are likely to be required in a built-up area, as with the WAML) is that you’re far more likely to get something stuck in-between the barriers over the tracks if someone decides to be stupid…..
Re Anonymously
“if someone decides to be stupid…..”
Surely “when someone…”?
Though obstacle detection should see that and help sort the issue.
@Chris J
Stockholm Arlanda airport is now served, in addition to Arlanda Express, by non-premium trains.
The one at the London end of Exeter St Davids station also has six tracks
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.7313055,-3.5437222,3a,75y,83.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0g7qTanRcSGl2LK_woHVYg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Anonymously. The question you probably meant to ask is “are level crossings permitted on newly 4 tracked railway?”
To which the answer is surely no (although it is difficult to locate the relevant regulation or standard).
@SFD – I assume (dangerous that) that the reason why there are no four track level crossings is a practical one to do with the size of gate required.
Network Rail did consult on closing all level crossings on the ECML south of Doncaster as a single project but decided to proceed on a single crossing at a time approach (I assume lack of money or engineers scuppered that approach).
@ngh @06:07 All obstacle detection does is transfer the consequences of stupidity to rail staff (signaller/driver) and users. “Sorting the issue” requires expensive idiot-proofing.
On the subject of level crossings north of Peterborough, it seems that, as with the Lea Valley, the water table would make it (?impossibly) expensive to go under the railway; and a ‘saut de mouton’ would take quite a bit of space.
OB says “All obstacle detection does is transfer the consequences of stupidity …”
Not quite all. It also saves lives, which is worth doing even if some (not all) of the lives saved belong to stupid people.
Which being said, in the long run, in my opinion, all level crossings (where potential train speed exceeds 15 kph) must close.
I don’t understand the “All obstacle detection does is transfer the consequences of stupidity …” comment either. There are genuine issues not down to stupidity such as a vehicle stalling on a crossing, suicide by deliberately parking on the crossing (as happened at Ufton Nervet), escaped animals etc.
Regardless of stupidity, stupid actions have implications for others apart from person committing the action. Delays due to collisions should be avoided, for the financial consequences if nothing else, and anything practical (including cost considerations) that reduces it should be implemented.
Way of topic, but also on the East Coast, British Rail apparently had a policy of buying farms with crossing rights when they came up for sale and selling it as two lots with the crossing rights extinguished.
@Graham H
“I assume (dangerous that) that the reason why there are no four track level crossings is a practical one to do with the size of gate required.”
Crossing with swing gates which close across the track are very rare these days. If lifting barriers are used, it is only the width of the road which is a constraint – see the crossing I linked to at Exeter).
Not sure when the requirement for the railway to be fenced off from the road was relaxed at level crossings, but here are usually cattle-grid style “mantraps” to stop people wandering off the road at crossings, as seen at Exeter (for some reason only on the side of the crossing facing the station – perhaps they are more to do with fare dodging than public safety?)
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.7313055,-3.5437222,3a,75y,130.97h,77.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0g7qTanRcSGl2LK_woHVYg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Re Old Buccaneer,
Obstacle detection usually comes with linked CCTV, ANPR and a letter in the post from BTP for the vehicle driver if the are naughty.
NR and BTP get automatic stats collection and analysis to help with targeting crossings for enforcement visits.
@timbeau – a fair point for crossings installed after the lifting barriers were invented, but I suspect that most date from before that happy time, when the gate size would have mattered.
@Malcolm – Hurrah for closing crossings but three bazins* for cost and disruption (or even engineering feasibility) – think Lincoln, or, nearer London, Raynes Park or Farncombe.
*Bazin – a thumbs down sign; the opposite of a Michelin star.
I am sure crossing closure is always feasible, but yes, cost is a big concern. Which is why I said “in the long term”. Note also that I said “closure”, not “replacement by a bridge/tunnel”. Sometimes crossing closure might best be achieved by permanently closing something, either the road or path, or, shock horror, the railway.
As mentioned above, the level crossing just north on Exeter St.Davids (Red Cow crossing) currently has 6 lines, but until the early 1970’s, it had as many as 15 lines, as it also crossed a freight yard and station avoiding lines, both now gone. The gates were just wide enough to cover the road, rather than all the tracks. I have seen a picture in a book somewhere and it looks like an access road into the yard, rather than a level crossing, but in fact is was a proper road, although not as busy as today. There is a gap in the middle big enough for a couple of cars and I have heard that it wasn’t unknown for cars to get stuck in the middle as the gates were closed. Obviously, a crossing this wide would not be considered acceptable today.
Even at Lincoln almost-closure of the level crossing is planned
http://uk.sitestat.com/lincolnshire/lincolnshire/s?Home.transport-and-roads.roadworks-and-improvement-schemes.east-west-link.lincoln-pedestrianised-high-street.Download.80577&ns_type=pdf&ns_url=http://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk//Download/80577
There are some who argue that the road, having been there 1,800 years before the railway, should stay where it is, but given the number of other indignities it has suffered I think that ship has sailed.
http://i59.tinypic.com/dr72hi.jpg
Re Chris J@22:22 (and Answer=43@07:35)
Some minor corrections concerning the four-track line north of Stockholm:
There are no intermediate stations with island platforms between the fast and slow lines permitting cross-platform transfer. All fast and semi-fast services run non-stop from Stockholm Central to Skavstaby where the four-track section ends, so such an arrangement would be of no use anyway…
The layout at Skavstaby junction (where the four-track section ends and splits into the old Northern Main Line and the Arlanda line) is really less then ideal now that local trains operate via the Arlanda line. A local from Stockholm bound for Arlanda must cross from the slow to the fast line before the junction, while a semi-fast train have to cross from the fast to the slow line. This restricts the local (SL/UL) service via Arlanda to 2 tph and the semi-fasts to 2-3 tph.
Trafikverket (the current infrastructure manager) is also blocking the plans to add more stops between Knivsta and Uppsala, claiming that the added running time would further reduce capacity at Skavstaby.
All this because of a former infrastructure (“transport”) minister found it proper to close a PPP-deal AFTER his party had lost the general election, knowing that the incoming goverment had other plans… (this is somewhat of a “Graham H-story”). But now lets ger back to East Anglia!
@ Malcolm @13:31. The policy of making the railway safe is of course agreed. Implementing that policy on a much improved railway in the Lea Valley looks, err, challenging.
Burrowing could work; so could flying over; but for either solution, space seems to be required, which, as ever, is at a premium.
While road closure seems to have been applied at some sites, there are also sites adjacent to stations where it looks unlikely to meet with local acceptance.
In the context of STAR, and further four tracking, closure of the railway looks like the least likely option.
@old Buccaneer
“The policy of making the railway safe is of course agreed. ”
This can also lead to unintended consequences – Google “Mexico Inn” for an example where making the railway safer by eliminating a foot crossing has made the pedestrians less safe because the alternative is the A30 with no footway and a 50mph speed limit. (Getting run over by a bus is, of course, not going to appear on NR’s accident statistics)
OB says “In the context of STAR, and further four tracking, closure of the railway looks like the least likely option.”
Of course. I was straying off-topic into level crossings nationwide, of which there may be cases where this would be best. But I very much doubt if such cases (if any exist at all) are in the London area. I will strive to limit such straying.
Coming back to STAR and away from level crossings I see that Contract Award for the works is due to be signed off by the TfL Finance and Policy Committee in February 2016. The estimated project authority is shown as £53m on the “projects look ahead” paper. It’ll be interesting to see if the paper gets to the meeting in the light of the issues raised in PoP’s article.
WW: “unless some cash can be screwed out of Stansted’s owners.”
Gatwick certainly have an advantage that the mainline passes through their station, but Stansted are out on a limb, er, spur. Rather like Heathrow, in fact. So if they want a better service – which won’t benefit anyone else – they clearly should foot the (entire, imho) bill.
As regards Totty Hale rebuilding, it would appear to be a prime example of nobody wanting to pay for someone else’s future proofing and those coming along later not wanting to pay upfront at all. The locals will suffer for that, blinkered, view.
@ Timbeau: I feel your pain. Hence my reference to local acceptance. Mexico Inn is a problem for Penzance to solve. Mollison Way looks pretty unpleasant on Google Maps/StreetView too. (Other mapping tools are available; seeking to stay on topic)
@timbeau: The alternative to the Mexico Inn crossing is not the A30. This is a factual quibble only, I think the point of your point is probably quite valid.
@Malcolm…..Perhaps the best known example of a line closure to eliminate multiple level crossings was Gloucester (Eastgate). Although this did mean that through trains on the Cross Country line between Bristol and Birmingham now had to reverse if they were to call at Gloucester (which probably isn’t a big deal in this multiple unit era).
This was also one additional reason (amongst many) for closing Lincoln St Marks and thus removing one of the High Street level crossings.
I’ve also heard vague talk/rumours of curtailing the Lowestoft line to Oulton Broad, as apparently the level crossings cause traffic chaos in the town whenever they’re down. But as this would move the station a fair distance away from the town centre, I think this is unlikely to happen.
@anonymously
“This was also one reason for closing Lincoln St Marks and thus removing one of the High Street level crossings. ”
Unfortunately, it actually resulted in more trains crossing the High Street, as St Marks was west of the High Street and Central is east of it, and many more trains terminate from the west than from the east.
The diversion of Nottingham line trains into Central also required the closure of the avoiding line, which had crossed the High Street on a bridge, so freight trains – of which there are now more thanks to the recent upgrade of the Joint Line – now also have to use the level crossing.
timbeau
Actually, the avoiding ex-GCR Lincoln loop line could easily have been left open, it was 1980/90’s penny pinching that led to that unfortunate move.
Putting the loop back is do-able but very expensive.
What do the people of Lincoln want & are they prepared to pay for it?
I think I’ll stop now, before the scissors arrive.
Just for the sake of completeness here, the level crossings north of Tottenham Hale that are required for STAR and Crossrail 2 are at:
1. Garman Road at north side of Northumberland Park. The existing footbridge covers the unused trackway (CR2/STAR)
2. Green Street north side of Brimsdown Station (CR2). It’s not really clear here if two additional tracks wouldn’t need to tunnel under this section, or it would be possible to accommodate two more tracks and have room for platforms on two of them. Some diagrams suggest only one extra track (STAR to Brimsdown).
3. Ordnance Road north side of Enfield Lock (CR2). Station buildings would need to be removed for two additional tracks.
4. Trinity Lane. (CR2) Access to Parkland. Looks like ultra-low usage pedestrian level crossing.
@Greg
“putting the ex-GCR [sic*] Lincoln loop line back is do-able ”
Not really. Look at Peppercorn Drive and Gresley Close (really!) on Google Earth to see typical examples of what is there now.
This is not the Ally Pally or Crystal Palace branch we are talking about, where the trackbed is more or less intact. Think more on the lines of Greenwich Park or Merton Abbey.
(*It was GNR/GER by the way, which makes it vaguely on topic).
And, getting back on topic, it is indicative of why Enfield Council lost: local councils really have little influence on DfT/BR/NR plans for the railways running through their area, whether it is the number of passenger trains calling at Angel Road or the number of freight trains using the GN/GE joint line.
@ Briantist – err STAR only goes to Angel Road. The only crossing affected is at Northumberland Park. Four tracking of the main line route creates more significant issues with level crossings. Places like Brimsdown and Enfield Lock present pretty serious issues given the potential for local severance and traffic issues. It is going to be very interesting to see what solutions are put forward and whether they can be implemented. Looking on Google Earth shows some other issues about the closeness of several buildings on or very close to the 4 track alignment. There are going to be huge issues in reconstructing the stations given the relative lack of space.
In other locations (Herne Hill, Mortlake, SWML) tunnelling of the fast lines has been proposed as a cheaper way of quadrupling than knocking down houses, and also avoids having four track level crossings. Tunnelling in the Lea Valley might be more problematic than some other locations given that it is a flood plain and so the water table is probably quite close to the surface, but is it a possibility.
Of course, it doesn’t remove the level crossings, and the extra stopping trains will simply replace the fast ones, but there may be a small improvement in barrier downtime if all trains are travelling at the same speed (barriers have to be down early enough to clear for the fastest trains)
Briantist: you missed Windmill Lane, Slipe Lane and Wharf Road, all north of Cheshunt.
Timbeau: aside from the level crossings, putting 4 tracks up the Lea Valley is relatively straightforward as the corridor and land ownership is generally wide enough for the additional tracks.
@SFD
If there is sufficient width (i.e lack of lineside structures) to four-track the route, is there no also space to replace the level crossings with bridges? (Neither of these are possible at places like Mortlake and North Sheen, where the railway is squeezed tightly between buildings).
Timbeau
I have an allotment very close to Northumberland Park station,and can confirm that the water-table is,not infrequently,above ground level.
Timbeau, the level crossings will be a problem. But somewhat less of a problem than tunnelling through marsh.
Mortlake and North Sheen are not particularly far above Mean Sea Level (let alone Highest Astronomical Tide). It reminds me of the mantras in “We’re going on a Bear Hunt”.
Re Old Buccaneer,
Indeed digging either the line or roads down at the Mortlake crossings would put the road or rail height of whatever was dug down below every high tide level so extensive drainage would be required.
I can’t believe that going below high-tide level would be a show-stopper; after all quite a bit of London’s infrastructure is so positioned. But it would undoubtedly cost more.
@Walthamstow Writer
“@ Briantist – err STAR only goes to Angel Road.”
sorry, I meant “July 2011 RUS route as per diagram.
As a general point, there did used to be double lines north of Tottenham Hale, but if you look at the old maps they didn’t go that far north as they were used to access the branch line to Enfield Town (long gone) and lot of works.
This map – http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=18&lat=51.5893&lon=-0.0606&layers=173 – (London TQ 1:1,250 1947-64) shows every last rail in every detail. Note how the four-track merges into two just south of Pickets Lock?
It’s not like there WAS a fast line to Cambridge that got ripped up, these were all little sections that were doubled to connect up to the Lea for loading/loading and various light and heavy industry.
@Sad Fat Dad
“Briantist: you missed Windmill Lane, Slipe Lane and Wharf Road, all north of Cheshunt.”
Actually, I was trying to keep to the rules of only dealing with matters within Greater London/M25/existing-TfL-stations. North of Cheshunt is Hertfordshire…
… north of the London map, you need to see OS 25 inch 1890s-1920s. Here’s Brimsdown.
http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=18&lat=51.6562&lon=-0.0324&layers=176
IMHO read these along with Google Earth/Maps to see what was possible in the past.
@Briantist, switching to full pedantry mode now, but Trinity Lane LC is in Hertfordshire, outside the M25, and not on a line served by TfL services.
I will now resume a normal life.
[Hypothetical tunnel routing and technology musings snipped. LBM]
Current plans include sending an extra 4 trains an hour via the Hounslow loop, stopping only at Hounslow and Brentford to compete with the Richmond route, once Waterloo is rebuilt. Which is fine for Stations West of Feltham, but is not going to do much to relieve the crush loads at Twickenham and Richmond.
Oh well, roll on crossrail 3 or 4.
@rational Plan
” extra 4 trains an hour via the Hounslow loop, ………to compete with the Richmond route”
In what sense “compete”? They are all run by the same operator. The Hounslow Loop competes with the Picadilly Line – hence SWT’s recent doubling of frequency and early introduction of 10-car trains on that route.
“not going to do much to relieve the crush loads at Twickenham and Richmond.”
If there are more trains to Feltham and beyond, regardless of route, some of the passengers currently cramming onto the trains through Richmond will take these extra trains, giving a bit more space for those who have to take the “via Richmond” trains (because they are going to Richmond)
4tph Windsor via Richmond and 4tph Reading via Brentford would be an improvement. Richmond-Reading passengers would have to change, but a 7/8 minute wait at Staines is not a high price to pay for a doubling of frequency.
@timbeau. Twickenham and Richmond are popular destinations in their own right as well important interchange points. Any new services via Hounslow would have to be in addition to the existing ones.
They could add a Windsor service to the route, but the existing one only really starts to fill up once you get to East of Staines, with the biggest loads at Ashford and Whitton, It’s crush load by Twickenham. People only get on at Richmond because about 20% get off for the Tube and Overground and Richmond itself. I read in Modern Rail that they are looking at new turnback facilities at Bracknell amongst others.
@rational Plan
“Twickenham and Richmond are popular destinations in their own right as well important interchange points. Any new services via Hounslow would have to be in addition to the existing ones.”
Which is what I was suggesting – doubling the Windsor via Richmond services to make up for sending all the Reading services via Brentford. (vice versa would also be possible, as would sending 2 tph on each of the four permutations).
I am well aware of conditions at Twickenham and Richmond, but there is no way that any more trains can be squeezed through there, so the only way of making space is by diverting some passengers from further up the line (Ashford, Staines, Ascot, etc) via Brentford.
All of the extra proposed services via Brentford would have called at Staines, Ashford and Feltham, which should take some passengers off the trains running via Twickenham and Richmond and leave a bit more space on them.
In the same way that Crossrail 2 will help Hampshire commuters, a main line tunnel from Battesea to West Dulwich would help Thameslink and the Haykerloo would help Sidcup more than Hayes, and HS2 allows better services to Tring and Northampton, providing more trains via Brentford will help Twickenham.
@RP
“They could add a Windsor service to the route, but the existing one only really starts to fill up once you get to East of Staines”
Meant to add that it is precisely because the Reading trains are busier than the Windsors that I propose the latter should be the ones to serve Richmond and Twickenham.
(The fact that Windsor trains are now 10-car and Reading still only eight is more to do with platform lengths than passenger loadings.)
Briantist (in Gigabit internet heaven) 30 January 2016 at 09:56
“@Walthamstow Writer
“@ Briantist – err STAR only goes to Angel Road.”
I’ve found my old list of the level crossings between Tottenham Hale station and Broxbourne junction (my descriptions may not all match Network Rail’s names):
Level crossing at Northumberland Park station, Marsh Lane – railway land to east
Bridges about 500m north (Leeside Road) and south (Watermead Way)
Level crossing at Brimsdown station, Green Street – no bridges nearby
Level crossing at Enfield Lock station, Ordnance Road – railway land to west
No bridges nearby
Waltham Cross station – little railway land, lifts under construction, bridge on A121 Eleanor Cross Road only two tracks wide
Trinity Marsh level crossing at Trinity Lane (Pedestrian level crossing at end of Trinity Lane)
Cheshunt junction and Cheshunt station – Trains can pass between Southbury loop and bay platform 3 without conflict with other trains – land to east
Windmill Lane level crossing – immediately north of station.
Cadmore Lane level crossing – pedestrian only – land to east
“Cadmore Lane has been identified as one of the Anglia route’s top 50 high risk level crossings, owing to the large number of users and frequent train services that pass through. Hertfordshire County Council and Broxbourne Borough Council are each contributing £155,000 towards the £2m total fund required to close the crossing, which will be replaced with a ramped cycle bridge by the end of February 2014, providing easier access for the public.”
• Next to Turnford Brook –pedestrian only?
• Slipe Lane Level crossing to Kings Weir – pedestrian only – land to east & west
• Wharf Road Level crossing to Nazeing Marsh – pedestrian only – land to east & west
Broxbourne station – 4 through platforms, sidings to east, 3 tracks under B194 Nazeing New Road bridge to south
• Work on a replacement stepped footbridge at Mansers level crossing, near Bingley Way, Hoddesdon – which has seen three instances of misuse in the last six months alone – is due to start in the coming weeks. Completion of this programme of work is currently scheduled for the end of January 2014.
Broxbourne junction – flat – Gerald Game Bridge just to south on Essex Road only two tracks wide
I can’t imagine that ANY of these level crossing could continue into an era of 4-tracking. 4-tracking would also require re-building of two or three substantial road bridges.
Regarding the Windsor and Hounslow loop services, the London Borough of Hounslow have got their crayons out (more accurately, using taxpayer money for consultants’ crayons) and the following “Terminal 5 to Feltham” scheme was presented at the latest borough cabinet meeting.
http://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=571&MId=9272
But … bridges can be built & level-crossings eliminated – look at the bridge replacing the LC at Ponders End f’rinstance
@Reynolds 953 – a sure sign that the much-trumpeted squeeze on local government finances has yet to bite…
Sorry I was not clear. While it looks neat on a timetable to have each branch have 4 trains an hour serve the same staations, the problem is it would either mean Ashford and Windsor line stations would miss their direct connections to Richmond and Twickenham, or the stations West of Staines towards Reading would do so.
And while most traffic is heading for London many of the Towns along the line are significant job centres in their own rights and attract decent local commuter use by train.
It’s all very well saying, oh they can wait an extra 10 minutes and change at another station, but 10 minutes is significant in commuter terms and so is the disbenefit of changing trains. It won’t take to long for that connecting train to be cancelled in the morning peak to make you late, especially if can’t get on the following service which is now crammed with those people who have waited for the cancelled train at other stations
So people will moan at considerable volume to their MP. It is easier to leave the base service as is and add extra peak services on top in different service patterns. The current trains have plenty of capacity off peak.
A peak train starting at Bracknell for example could divert all those people who can’t get a seat West of Staines and want London.
@ timbeau The Windsor service provides Ashford and Whitton with a fast service to London, while your changes would not affect that aspect of Ashford’s service (it would still lose direct connections to Richmond line destinations), Whitton would have to either catch the slow Hounslow loop trains or change for express to try and get on crammed express trains at Twickenham.
@ Reynolds953 and Graham H. I critiqued these plans on Skyscrapercity at the time they launched. Hounslow trying to flog the idea that it’s building a Garden Village on marginal Green Belt Land on the Western edges of the borough.
Not a bad idea in principle as it is filled with very rough ground filled with weeds and rusting burnt out cars (it is on the edge of Feltham after all). But the truth is it is just three large underused plots near the airport and do not make a cohesive whole.
The Northern most is least contentious as its under the approach path to the Southern Runway and all is proposed is a small industrial park next to all the others and in walking distance of Hatton Cross tube (so no need in any transport improvements other than an access road).
The whole plan is anchored by this very expensive link to Terminal 5 with a long viaduct around the Western edge of Feltham and Bedfont linked to the main line by flying junctions. There would be an aerial station near the Clockhouse Roundabout before diving into the tunnel towards the airport skirting around the Southern perimeter.
Oh where to start! The plan also calls for 3,000 houses on western side of Fletham and while locally contentious, it’s not that big a scheme to warrant a new station never mind a spur off the main line. a new bus service connecting the local station will be enough for that.
It’s once you get to the middle site near the congested Clockhouse roundabout that you see the naked property play. It currently already has a successful office park near there and a warehouse estate. But what they hope to build is 4 million sq ft of offices, several thousand hotel rooms half a million sq ft in retail and hundreds of mid rise apartments. Well the A30 can only take so much as it is.
A branch line would not attract the traffic to justify it’s cost nor the level of service to attract major office occupiers. If on the other hand it’s on a through route to terminal 5, not only do you have a fast connection to the airport but you have direct services to London and other significant local destinations.
Voila your council now has a major regeneration scheme, oh whats that you say Mr Osborne is not letting us keep extra business rates we get from new commercial development, my my what a co incidence.
The trouble of course it’s vastly cheaper and I suspect quicker to just have a spur go straight to Staines and either have some crossrail services terminate at Staines (where people can change) or through services to Waterloo can run direct. No need for all that expensive extra tunnelling or flying junctions either!
Reporting on, and discussing, other people’s (very) crayoney exercises is one stage better than doing our own. But it’s still a long way from Angel Road, so perhaps we should gradually wind up these south-westerney bits please.
@Malcolm – and/but keep Rational Plan’s critique at the back of our minds should the occasion arise.
@ Reynolds 953 – TfL’s remarks on that Hounslow scheme are not exactly “enthusiastic”. Some very pertinent and measured remarks there and which almost certainly apply to other schemes too (hence my making this comment). It goes to show clearly that there are always choices, consequences and more issues to consider than we might imagine.
Enfield has lost again at the Court of Appeal.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/480.html
So in summary:
i) The way (methodology) the DfT went about things was not flawed taking into account all the requirements for different aspects of the East Anglian Franchise.
ii) The DfT could have avoided this mess (paragraph 49)
iii) paragraph 76
@Pop – I rather liked para 49 too but I don’t think either party comes out of this very well. Reading the end of the judgement it’s clear Enfield have tried to bolster their cases using a submission from someone whose statements were pretty discredited in the original judgement. Seems an odd thing to do even allowing for the fact that the individual may have a few role in the regeneration project. I’d be undertaking a review of what that person has said in respect of the regeneration project to make sure are more hostages to fortune lurking anywhere else.
Having had to sit with lawyers going through written records and making witness statements I know how horrible this whole process can be. However it does make you very aware of the importance of clarity in written communication and keeping contemperaneous records of telephone discussions and not binning E mails. I wonder just how many legal cases are going to be lost in the future as the pace of communication gets ever faster and the means of doing so ever more wide ranging. The boring old “trade” of carefully crafted and clear letters between people seems to be a dying art.
I would love to know what the current state of play actually is – if anyone is able to say.
Walthamstow Writer,
Fair comment about both sides.
I think you will find that nowadays many emails will be written with the same care as a letter was in the old days. As the judgment shows, the medium in which the words are sent does not diminish their importance. I did find it a tad bizarre in the 21st century that at the Royal Courts of Justice the emails had to be printed and put into the enormous bundles. So much for the paperless society!
I, and, I suspect, many others will find the notion of binning emails quite amusing. As the original bidders for c2c discovered they are very difficult to destroy. You can delete your copy but that merely puts it in your deleted folder. You can empty your deleted folder but that won’t necessarily delete it off your server. It was probably sent to more than one person or forwarded and their copy will still exist. Even if you get it off your email server (and its backups) and you were the only recipient it may still exist on the outgoing server and it would have to be disclosed.
Because of the above, I would argue that critical emails in business or administration are generally crafted with even more care than paper letters.
Similarly with telephone calls. It is almost impossible to destroy evidence of a telephone call. My internet phone provider provides me with an accessible log of every call I ever made or received together with its duration. Admittedly it is less usual for the contents to be recorded as a matter of course because, I think, it is normally illegal without all parties being aware of this.
PoP/WW: re: emails. The banks have discovered repeatedly this century how sharp a sword emails (and ‘instant messaging’) can be in the hands of regulatory enforcers. Especially the ‘informal’ ones.
Don’t get me started on the subject of lawyers’ bundles or recording of telephone calls.
@ PoP – I agree with you that technology allows things to be tracked / recorded and that, yes, a copy of an E Mail may be lurking somewhere. The question is how much effort is made to find the sole copy of something. Perhaps things have changed since I was last involved with commercially binding communication but I came across far too many examples where people were saying things willy nilly that were racking up huge potential claims with little or no recognition as to how the supplier might use this communication. They got a hell of a fright when a multi million pound claim fell through the “letter box” and the lawyers asked them to explain what they were doing and to provide witness statements.
Many people had no idea that their seemingly innocuous internal communication via E Mail could end up being extracted for a FOI response (if such were carefully drafted). I can recall telling people on my team of this possibility and they couldn’t believe that could happen. However it can and does. A classic example of this is when the Mayorwatch blog / website used FOI to request a copy of a key TfL contract (the cycle hire one I think). Eventually this was released after much wrangling / delay. There then followed a further FOI requesting copies of all internal communication concerning the protracted decision to release the contract. That left an awful lot of people not looking very clever. I am sure there are many other examples across the public sector. I am not suggesting that anyone should stop communicating or should cover things up. It’s that organisations do need to instill the right awareness, understanding and behaviours to ensure risks are managed and the organisation acts professionally. Social media is another nightmare that hadn’t hit so much when I was last in a senior position. I imagine it’s far more pressured these days. To me the Enfield vs DfT case simply shows that all is still not well in how to ensure full and proper understanding and how to ensure such is captured in writing and then verified in writing (if need be). I dread to think how much public money has spent on lawyers.
PS – IME the legal trade just love paper. Having done a heck of a lot of contract drafting, proof reading etc I know what it’s like to drown in paper and the solicitors had 3,000% more paper than I had. It is a real skill to be able to keep track of it all, read it, annotate and then remember what it all says and then still be able to argue that black is white (when it suits them). 😉
“I think you will find that nowadays many emails will be written with the same care as a letter was in the old days. ”
My experience (in various investment banks) is at odds with that. Those involved with drafting contracts and dealing with regulators would definitely always choose their words with care. But the vast majority of staff – even (possibly especially) in dealing rooms – are firing off emails and messages without a thought to precise wording or possible consequences of that wording. Of course, most of the time, those messages never get reviewed. I’ve had almighty rows with younger staff, trying to impress on them the possible consequences of ill chosen words in an email, possibly reviewed a year later by a HR manager with an agenda. Most of the time I got a look that told me they thought I was mad.
The really Machiavellian managers (I’ve worked for a few) would always be careful to pass on certain messages by word of mouth, outside of a minuted environment….. Suspect that’s more possible in private sector rather than public sector.
@Island Dweller – “Suspect that’s more possible in private sector rather than public sector.” Surprisingly, not so – FOI is feared even more than judicial discovery and so much internal communication within Whitehall remains by word of mouth. [It’s worse in Ireland, where I did a high-level consultancy for their Department of Transport in which nothing, apart from exchanges on fees and our final report, were committed to paper at all, err, at all]. FOI and discovery are, contrary to what they are supposed to do, destroying public accountability.
Never commit anything to paper or screen that you wouldn’t want the subject or your boss to see. It’s amazing how few people seem to follow this rule.
Partly to answer my own question above Enfield Council have today announced that the redevelopment of Meridian Water will go ahead. A development partner, Barrett & Segro, for the housing has been appointed. The construction of the new railway station has also been confirmed. I am left wondering if Govt have told Enfield that they don’t need to worry about the train service level as something suitable has been put forward by the winning bidder for the Greater Anglia franchise. The new franchise operator is to be announced in June. I assume all legal action has now ceased after two defeats for Enfield Council.
So I wonder if:
a) this has been a huge waste of time and money
b) this is brilliant tactical play by the London Borough of Enfield to highlight the issue and get vital concessions (which the DfT will never admit to) that mean it is well worth the money spent. The question is “did LBE need to win the case to benefit from it?”
@PoP shall we ask the District Auditor? Maybe not.
After all the hoo-haa it seems a final funding package has been put in place to deliver STAR by December 2018. TfL take over the sponsorship of the project from the GLA but NR are responsible for design and delivery. Seems Enfield Council have decided the DfT franchise decision is such a big deal any more (see risks part of paper)
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/fpc-160727-item11-star-p1.pdf
Looks like the DfT have given 2tph for a STAR service (well at least initially) as per the Greater Anglia award today. As that’s broadly consistent with some of the off-peak frequencies in the lower lea valley its certainly an inprovement in current practice and I suspect is enough to pacify the developers cheque books for now.
Not quite sure it lives up to a master-stroke as hypothesised by PoP in his option b, perhaps a mini-stroke (or TIA for anonymously)?
@ Snowy – the bit we don’t know is what the timetable is on the WAML. The much promoted extra trains to Cambridge and Hertford East don’t look remotely compatible with :-
a) providing a clockface 4 tph service between T Hale and Angel Road stopping at all stns either peak or off peak.
b) allowing TfL / Arriva to run more services to Enfield Town or Cheshunt.
If there are spare paths into Liv St off peak then it looks to me as if Abellio have bagged them all at the expense of Arriva. I also struggle a bit to see how 9 tph at Harlow Town and Bishop Stortford off peak works alongside a 2 tph stopping service at Angel Rd and Northumberland Park. Obviously some of the 9 will be stopping services but we already know the route is severely constrained now given it’s impossible to journey from one station to the next to the next within Greater London because the stopping pattern doesn’t allow it.
The new rolling stock *might* provide a tiny bit of flexibility to maybe cope with 1 tph extra but I’m assuming that’s all been factored into the proposals that form the new franchise contract.
It is very noteworthy that not one single piece of supporting enhancement work by Network Rail is in any of the press releases I’ve seen today. Obviously *some* work is happening now to facilitate Crossrail and STAR’s third track will be built but what about everything else? Some of the service proposals look very ambitious on what has long been a constrained and not very reliable infrastructure in Essex and East Anglia. No mention of four tracking or resignalling for example. Perhaps Chancellor Hammond will splash a load of infrastructure spend in the Autumn Statement but today it feels like a key piece of the jigsaw puzzle is missing?
Re WW,
The railway gazette article does suggest infrastructure works (but we all know that quite bit will be needed on both WAML and GEML)
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/passenger/single-view/view/stadler-and-bombardier-to-supply-trains-for-abellio-east-anglia-franchise.html
“Tough new performance targets’, with Public Performance Measure scores to be increased from 89·7% to 92·9% ‘through a more robust timetable, investment in infrastructure, people and process and through an alliance with Network Rail’. “
At least the Railway Gazette gives full details of who will supply all the trains given the DFT press release only mentions trains supplied by Bombardier and makes no mention of trains Stadler will supply. See link below –
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/better-journeys-for-rail-passengers-and-boost-for-derby-train-industry-as-new-east-anglia-franchise-announced
The choice of Aventra trains will mean they will be compatible with Elizabeth Line and W A Overground and looking to the future some might even get to be used on Crossrail 2 ?
Given how Network Rail and Highways Agency are now government organisations perhaps a joint group to look at GER and A12 could be set up to plan an upgrade to both given how they share a joint corridor through Essex .
Re WW, Snowy
Given the performance spec of the aventras there may well be or rather will be a secular change in timetabling rules on WAML and non Norwich GEML services so many current assumption may non longer hold. 100% stock change may have had some interesting advantages if bidders were brave enough.
The choice of 5 or 10 car @24m for Aventras suggests a slightly narrower body’s shell width and therefore 2+2 seating with wide aisle and definately not 3+2 seating. A 10car unit will save about £800k by having few cabs than 3x 4 car at 20m and at least 16tonnes lighter with few bogies overall which will help acceleration and braking.
Melvyn……it is not necessarily so that selection of an Aventra* delivers compatibility with the Elizabeth line or LO WA units. I recognise that selection of Bombardier makes this at least possible, but it will not be delivered unless the three separate project teams get together and require it, or Bombardier magnanimously makes it so.
I am making this comment both in terms of coupling compatibility and performance.
* What’s in a name. Bombardier’s suburban/extra-urban platform is the Aventra. Their metro platform is Movia. Both LU’s S stock and 2009 tube stock are Movias. However they are anything but compatible!
@ngh
Indeed and moving to a completely homogenous fleet should ease timetable planning in respect of differing speed/acceleration characteristics but surely the timetable will still remain constrained by infrastructure – Stansted airport junction/tunnel & the single track section at Ware especially. By the time you’ve added all the extra services I would have thought the flat junctions at Broxbourne & Coppermill lane start to interfere as well.
The new fleet characteristics surely can’t be that much better to allow the above and improve the ppm by 3% whilst catering for the considerable growth & therefore increased dwell times that Abellio must be banking on to pay premiums of £3.7billion (although i’m assuming most of this is gamed towards the end of the franchise).
Perhaps WW is correct & the autumn budget will include a large infrastructure works package, presumably along the lines of the West Anglia task force recommendations. But with 5yrs to go before we start seeing this service level & currently only 2 level crossings going through the TWA process for closure, Network Rail have got a lot of work ahead in CP6 which is already considerably overbooked with deferred projects.
Re 130,
Completely agree I don’t think they will be fully compatible when delivered (and this will get worse over time) but I suspect that Anglia and LO units be incredibly similar as they will need to couple in service within their own fleets but Crossrail doesn’t require this with coupling for emergencies only (indeed looking at the photos in the recent 345 unveiling article there aren’t electrical connection boxes on the Dellner couplers… They may of course have not been fitted yet but it is perfectly possible they won’t have them if you assume towing the unit (semi) dead)
@ Ngh – the Railway Gazette news item kept being added to as the day progressed so I think the NR reference and alliance was added later. Anyway it’s clear from chat elsewhere that various aspects of the new train fleet (carriage length and formations) will affect things like clearances and platform lengths. This obviously means NR will have a considerable involvement just to make sure the trains can run and stop safely. I think those impacts stretch right across Anglia and aren’t just in London.
Your remarks about a step change in timetabling rules is interesting. I hadn’t perceived that that a full rewrite was a possibility but clearly it is. I still think we’re unlikely to see any “miracles” within Greater London because there are obvious pinch points that whizzier rolling stock can’t fix. I also remain concerned that the ability to expand Overground services to Enfield Town, for example, may have been stopped completely with the plans to bolster off peak services into Essex and Cambridgeshire. I assume (hope!) someone in NR has been in control of a “master timetable plan” right through the planning and tendering processes for both the Overground concession and the Greater Anglia franchise.
Re WW,
Agreed no miracles just some minor improvements.
The timetable is effectively based on everything being a 317 as it has the worst acceleration.
There is once in a generation opportunity being take by both TfL and Abellio to replace the lowest common denominator stock in timetabling terms with something that performs better than the current best performer…
Re Snowy,
Agreed on no change in those critical junction areas, stopping patterns with better acceleration, (regenerative) braking (DAS built in?) and dwell times* for wider doors and larger vestibules and internal layout were more my line of thinking. That then might enable some knock on changes. There have to be improvements to keep the promises with the quantity of stock they are leasing.
*Dwell times differences on 700 vs 377/387 vs 319 on TL services are now very obvious, this is where big chunk of the difference comes from.
The key thing that hasn’t been mentioned yet in any analysis I’ve seen so far is that Greater Anglia will move from net subsidy (franchise premium NR grant allocation) which possibly makes it far easier to fund improvements if DfT isn’t paying a subsidy out of its reducing budget potentially just getting a smaller net contribution to it coffers and aligns with all the reports into NR structure and financing. Even better if the money bypasses DfT (with its agreement) to GA directly fund some changes (Hence the alliance – A concept originated by a Mr W of other DfT fame). More passengers is key to making it work financially!
@ngh – I doubt that DfT is allowed to hypothecate income from a franchise back to that franchise. DfT’s income will be paid in to the Consolidated Fund; their only room for manoeuvre is at the time of striking the deal. Whether any franchise would be willing to invest any “extra” income into service improvements (most of which would inevitably crystalise right at the end of the franchise) is a moot point, alas.
Re Graham H,
NR have a suggested improvements list (CP5+6) some (most) of which will be required to meet Abellio targets.
The question is then how the works are funded as they are need to start sooner rather than later. The franchise agreement (based on DfT etc press releases and Abellio) appears to include commitments by Abellio to invest in NR infrastructure improvements, the question is then the mechanism use which is presumably direct between Abellio and NR given the use of the “alliance” but this could be tricky given the need to cash now and income later, the alternative is higher franchise payments and higher NR grant but we don’t know any detail yet.
In terms of stock:
EMUs:
10x 12car Stadler Airport (& some Cambridge) units (20m cars)
[10x 12car Stadler Norwich units (20m cars)]
22x 10car Bombardier Aventras (24m cars)*
89x 5car Bombardier Aventras (24m cars)*
E(D)MU
[24x 4car Stadler regional units units (??m cars)]
[14x 3car Stadler regional units units (??m cars)]
*this will presumable lead to some platform lengthening for 240m and SDO at other stations.
@ngh – indeed it’s one thing for the deal to be wrapped into the franchise agreement as here, although that would be a first for NR to be party to a franchise agreement (do they have the power to do that?), but another for a TOC to do a subsequent deal after the franchise agreement has come into force.
24m long cars and only two doors as side? Frankly, this is madness on suburban services. Even if the doors are wider than the old 31x stock, having just 20 doors on a 240m train will be a severe constraint on dwell times. There is the risk that any gains on inter-station runs will be lost on dwells. It’s not an accident or whim that class 345 has three doors/side.
Norwich every 20 minutes can’t be operated by 10 units so presumably will be supplemented by other stock. How do we know there will be 2 doors each side on the suburban stock? I expect that will be the case with intercity and regional hence them being the same brand of train. The suburban stock being specified as Aventras and 24m long carriages could suggest a door combination like the 345s (obviously not exactly the same due the the slightly different lengths of train).
Purley Dweller…….2 doors a side on suburban. I have nothing to go on other than the picture above the product descriptions for the Bombardier trains in the Railway Gazette article linked from one of yesterday’s posts. If this is wrong and the trains have three doors as side then all should be well for dwell times.
@Purley Dweller
“Norwich every 20 minutes can’t be operated by 10 units ”
Where does it say 3tph to Norwich? How can such a level of service possibly be justified? Liverpool is more than three times the size of Norwich and only gets 1tph.
But it could – just – be operated by ten units – The aspiration is “Norwich in 90” each way, plus a ten minute turnround at each end, meaning a 200 minute cycle time. (albeit No provision for a maintenance overhead).
In practice I suspect some of the trains would be slower than 90 minutes as places like Stowmarket and Diss need to be served, and would be run by other stock.
@Timbeau
On the DfT website press-release. This link takes you to the individual line improvement map where,if you select intercity in the drop down menu it states 3 trains per hour Norwich to Liverpool Street. As only 4 trains in total per day will be 90mins (& thats total in both directions) most trains will be significantly slower than 90mins so I suspect the suburban/regional EMU stock may be included for the stopper services.
Re 130,
That image was the original Aventra (Mk2) render from the product launch along time ago…
Re Snowy,
Agreed, I’d expect 2 with intercity stock and 1 with suburban/regional stock.
@timbeau
Only 2 trains each way per day at 90 minutes (probably a pain to all other services operating around those slots), is promised for London-Norwich. That still requires some infrastructure ‘interventions’.
(BTW, Liverpool is 2 tph in the ‘with-flow’ peaks. But for distance from London, better to compare Birmingham.)
Norwich at an average of over 100 minutes for 97 straight line miles from Liverpool Street will be a shade less than 60 mph, buffer to buffer, so rather less than that if origin to destination. But how much speed does the average Anglian need?
By the time this happens, Birmingham will only be 6 years away from 49 minutes non-stop from London, at 100 straight line miles and 122 mph!
Not saying that one is right and the other wrong, but the imbalance is evident.
Looks like East Anglia still isn’t going to be very visible competitively to other parts of the UK – and an average 60 mph is probably as much as eastern England will see for the following decade or two.
Snowy… this is what the DfT web site says:
•Norwich in 90: 2 trains in each direction between London and Norwich (a maximum of 90 minutes journey time)
•Ipswich in 60: 1 train in each direction between London and Ipswich (a maximum of 60 minutes journey time)
•3 trains per hour between Liverpool Street and Norwich all day (currently only in peak times)
I had read “two trains in each direction……..” as implying Norwich in 90 for two trains each hour but I wonder whether it really means two trains a day in each direction?
@130
I’m with JR in thinking it means only 2 in each direction per day. It’s also conveniently silent as to whether they are peak services or not. I also wonder whether 1 will stop at Ipswich to provide the 60min service or if that will be too much of a time penalty and a seperate service will be needed.
This link seems to imply that it’s 2 trains per direction per weekday for London/Norwich in 90 minutes:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/better-journeys-for-rail-passengers-and-boost-for-derby-train-industry-as-new-east-anglia-franchise-announced
It is definitely 2 trains per day in each direction. I would be surprised if they were at peak times in the peak direction.
As ever we’ll have to wait for all the details to become clear. One report suggests that that Adventras will be 240m (10 car) and 110m (5 car) which seems a little odd. As most of these will be operating outer suburban services I hope that they won’t be 3 sets of doors per car not least as a 10 car trains will inn many cases be replacing 12 car 321/360s with their high capacity 2+3 seating, three sets of doors will loose too many seats on trains which will run fast or semi-fast for more than 20 minutes between stops. That said I wonder if the 10 car trains could be more suburban in nature and destined for Southend Vic, Hertford and Braintree services, whereas as the five car sets could work the longer distance services to Clacton, Ipswich, Cambridge etc… However we’ll have to wait and see! My understanding is that most of the 3rd Norwich services will be extensions of the current stopping Ipswich services. I too doubt the validity of 3 tph to Norwich when others such as Clacton, Braintree remain at only 1 per hour.
All in all very interesting for us Anglian users, though the scale of change over the next four years is going to be phenominal, the route clearance, crew training, depot improvement, (including a new facility at Manningtree), is going to take some heroic efforts from the management team, I wish them well.
@Jonathan Roberts
“Norwich will be a shade less than 60 mph, buffer to buffer – 122 mph!
Not saying that one is right and the other wrong, but the imbalance is evident.””
But Birmingham is many times bigger than Norwich, and the railhead for a large conurbation, the centre of a large conurbation, and with many onward connections, so is not really comparable. I can think of cities comparable in size and distance which have fewer direct trains to London in a day than Norwich has in an hour. Is 3tph really necessary?
@ 100&30 – I’d be very surprised if Abellio went for 3 doors per car on the suburban stock. More likely to be 2 doors but wider with bigger vestibules as per class 700s. I can’t see commuters to Harlow or Chelmsford or Billericay tolerating the loss of seats that 3 doors per car would imply. Clearly there are serious dwell time issues on GEML and WAML at key locations but it seems the class 700s are showing the way in terms of reduced dwells. Coupling a better train design with more effective dwell time management by platform staff may be enough to secure consistent improvements.
We need only consider the “mass outrage” from the C2C timetable change and the apparent social media reaction to yesterday’s announcement (largely negative about every aspect of the award!) to see that we are dealing with a “very hard to please” crowd of commuters. You wouldn’t think they’d just been handed one of largest rolling stock investments ever in a single franchise, gained extra services and promised improved performance levels. I am awaiting the outbreak of World War Three and demands for secession from the rest of the UK when more details of the trains emerge. 😉
Re WW,
Agreed on first paragraph, as mentioned in my post above (1215 yesterday) it is interesting observing the difference wide doors and large vestibule make on the various stock running on Thameslink at the moment. There is a unique window to observe the difference better different stock types and internal layouts and door widths and dwell times, it makes huge difference.
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/queen-v-sos-dft/#comment-275605
timbeau asks “Is 3 tph [to Norwich] really necessary?”.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. But comparisons with other towns and cities is surely not the only way to judge this. So many other factors come into it, the balance of employment, housing, commuting being only one. And of the 3 trains being discussed, one is only nominally a Norwich train, being mainly intended to serve intermediate stations.
But if there are paths, trains, crews, would-be passengers, money and DfT approval for a given level of service, why should it be denied just because one or more of these factors is absent in respect of a completely different city?
Re Malcolm,
But it isn’t really 3 as the 3rd is there for local connectivity and will be caught (and possibly overtaken) by the next of the 2 fast.
Local connectivity was a key theme of the anglia route study. The other part of the local connectivity them is picked up by running the electrodiesel up/down the mainline a bit presumable when there isn’t a slow Norwich rather than a couple of minutes behind!
@timbeau, WW, ngh
I’m actually agreeing with you that Birmingham is way different to Norwich as a catchment/destination.
What is interesting is that the New Anglia LEP and other stakeholders were very effective at a political level in arguing for ‘Norwich in 90’, which addresses a strongly felt belief that Anglia is quite remote in terms of transport accessibility by both rail and road.
Meanwhile, however fast Anglia ‘runs’ to improve its connectivity, other mainstream UK corridors are going to forge ahead faster. There will be a limit to the ability to justify new investment for the Norwich catchment.
@ JR – I agree that the political campaign to date has proved effective. However it’s been so effective they’ve effectively argued themselves to a stand still for the very reasons you state. There are limits to what can be done and afforded. I also suspect there are limits to what the locals might accept – even if a new Anglia HS line was justified I could envisage enormous arguments / resistance about its environmental impact in rural Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk. If Abellio make the new package work then I think they’ve got a good deal overall.
Perhaps I’m just old fashioned but the service levels being proposed for many of the key towns and cities look very good to me. Do Harlow and B Stortford really need 9 tph off peak? Does Southend really need the same “turn up and go” frequency as much of the Overground? They may well do but they’re very decent service levels compared to what’s been on offer for many decades [1].
[1] no need for people to go checking their old timetables to show BR did better! I accept I might be wrong in the detail but it’s the general observation I’m more concerned about.
Re WW,
Harlow and Bishop Stortford are probably quite useful to slow certain trains down and make the timetable work especialy if they are following something with more stops. (Also fast/semi/stopper interchange)
Southend is probably an attempt to compete with C2C and grab passengers… (again)
I would argue that the political campaign for ‘Norwich in 90’ has not been effective. Lots of show – but what has it actually achieved that wouldn’t have happened anyway?
The campaign first got going before the 2010 General Election, and if they are lucky, there will be 2 trains each way a day doing the run in 90 minutes a mere ten years later. There will not have been a single penny spent on the infrastructure to enable it.
With some forceful timetabling, you could do Norwich in 90 now with a stop at Ipswich; the new trains will save about 3-4 minutes on that through better acceleration but that’s it (as trains don’t need to accelerate much when they don’t have to stop). The benefit of that 3-4 minutes is that you can be less ‘forceful’ with the timetabling, ie fewer other services have to lose out, particularly as they will all have new trains as well.
The third train an hour is only for local connectivity. Anyone who has been on an off peak service to Norwich will be able to see a lot of fresh air on board north of Ipswich. The trouble Norwich has – nice enough place that it is, is that it is out of the way, not sufficiently close to anywhere else large enough, and not on the way to anywhere else large enough, to justify a high frequency, high speed service. Comparisons to
Birmingham or York for that matter are not relevant. Better comparisons would be Chester or Lincoln.
@Malcolm
“But if there are paths, trains, crews, would-be passengers, money and DfT approval for a given level of service, why should it be denied just because one or more of these factors is absent in respect of a completely different city?”
Because some of those things are in limited supply (particularly money, and the trains and crews it would pay for) and over-provision to one destination means no service to another.
Even 2tph seems excessive, when you compare it with the provision to the two cities SFD cites.
The “Norwich in 90” proposals have come in for criticism in rural East Anglia as it seems to be part of NR’s continuing campaign to make the railways safer, but the roads more dangerous, by closing level crossings and forcing motorists and particularly pedestrians onto long detours over unsuitable roads. This is understandably unpopular with local inhabitants living and working near the line, who will see no benefit from a train whizzing non-stop through their community every ten minutes.
Timbeau – the level crossing closures currently out for consultation are not part of the ‘Norwich in 90’ proposals.
@timbeau….This must be the first time anyone has ever argued that closing level crossings *worsens* overall road safety, rather than improves it!!!
I suspect Norwich in 90 and 3tph has much to do with improving its attractiveness as a commuting destination to London, given the obscene house prices the closer you get to the city.
What type of Adventra inter-city trains will be replacing the current Class 90/MkIII stock? Will they be of an equivalent standard, or will they be perceived as ‘worse’ than the stock they replace by the average user (cf the replacement of Class 442s by Class 444s on the SWML)?
I also see that they are planning to extend most Norwich to Cambridge services to Stansted Airport…..given the known contraints on that branch, how is this going to be achieved? Or are they simply going to take the place of the current Cambridge to Stansted Airport shuttle trains?
@anonymously
By no means the first. I commend to you the arguments made against the closure of the Mexico Inn crossing at Long Rock near Penzance. The alternative walking routes involve several hundred yards of A road with a blind bend and no footway.
Sadly, Cornwall County Council fell for Network Rail’s spin, and the over-reaction of the coroner to the first fatality on the crossing in its 160 year history.
Anonymously
1) it’s not the first time LX closures have been argued to worsen road safety. I have been in several public meetings where that has been said, variously by the public, local councillors, and Members of Parliament. one councillor accused me of representing ‘the Nanny State’, which I found ironic in that she was at least 70.
2) the extensions to Stansted can only be in place of the existing Cambridge shuttles. There are only twelve paths an hour through the tunnel, and no one wants to pay for a second one.
@SFD
Those who have argued that closures can worsen road safety are not wrong in every case. It depends on the alternative routes available. In some cases these are really dangerous. However, in the event of future deaths, NR can say “not our problem”. It’s an apples v oranges problem.
Are the proposed Stadler Flirts DEMU’s, 25kv pantograph electro-diesels or some other kind of hybrid?
Re Nameless,
“Are the proposed Stadler Flirts DEMU’s, 25kv pantograph electro-diesels or some other kind of hybrid?”
25kv pantograph electro-diesels
Re Anonymously,
Aventras won’t be replacing the Intercity stock, 12car Stadler EMUs will.
The Norwich Stopper will probably be aventra as there won’t be enough 12car Stadler units.
@ngh…..I see. As these are Stadler’s first ever UK mainline trains, it will be interesting to see how they adapt their designs to the more restrictive British loading gauge.
More dual-mode electro-diesels in this region is a good idea…..it always irritates me the number of diesel trains that run for considerable lengths ‘under the wires’, which is wasteful of a finite resource (diesel fuel) as well as environmentally unsound.
@Anonymously – Stadler began by building narrow gauge stock for Swiss railways (and have also built stock for broad gauge lines in eastern Europe) I suspect they’re well used to adapting their modular designs to suit a variety of loading gauges.
Anonymously: Strictly electro-diesels are also somewhat wasteful, lugging a diesel engine about, but probably far less so than diesels under the wires. The greenest solution (while sticking on rails and not making everyone cycle!) is either to electrify everything, or to get the passengers to change trains at wires-end. Or wait for the better development of bionic duckweed.
Network Rail are on a steady trajectory to replace level crossings, for obvious reasons. They pose the greatest current risk to life on the railway. East Anglia may think it’s being victimised, but that’s because it happens to be flat!
The business pages in the papers think that Abellio is being very brave. Their bid was put in well before the Brexit vote, with passenger predictions based on growth predictions at the time. Yesterday’s papers were reporting a predicted mini-recession at the end of this year. If VTEC are reacting to their actual reduced growth by serious rearrangement of staffing (with a strike planned), then we can also expect traumatic times on Greater Anglia.
@Malcolm
There is a simpler solution than getting everyone to change trains at the limit of electrification. It used to be done at Bournemouth every hour. It is still done at Edinburgh on the Highland Sleeper six nights a week.
Whether it’s under power or dead in train, lugging heavy diesel generators around under the wires is not only a waste of energy but a waste of expensive kit too.
timbeau: True. The Weymouth solution is not quite as green as passenger-changing, though, since the non-electrified section is typically less lightly loaded (that’s why it wasn’t electrified), and so can use shorter trains.
But one might add that guesses as to what might be “greener” can be wrong and/or controversial, because of (among other things) the need to account for energy used in construction (of track and of rolling stock).
As for electrodiesels, I tend to think of them as greener replacements for diesels, rather than electrification foregone. It would be great to have them here (Basingstoke) for the West of England line. All announcements are drowned and conversation abandoned whenever a 9 coach train made up of class 159 units accelerates out of the platform.
@Fandroid…..Or electrify Basingstoke – Salisbury (perhaps to Exeter if the BCR stacks up)? But I digress….
@timbeau……Locomotive/traction changes seem to have fallen out of favour on today’s railway, due to a perception that they increase lay-over times and require extra infrastructure (sidings and points for shunting etc). Plus it only really works if both stretches (electrified and unelectrified) are suitably lengthy, to make the changeover worthwhile. Thus XC Bournemouth to Reading could benefit (in theory) from a loco change at Coventry, but somehow I can’t see that happening at Ely for a Norwich to Cambridge/Stansted Airport service.
@Malcolm….Yes, lugging a huge inactive diesel engine is not very efficient, but is still better than running for hundreds of miles along the *electrified* ECML/WCML under diesel power alone! Even if the electricity is generated with a carbon source, wouldn’t the carbon footprint for ‘running under the wires’ under diesel power still be higher overall?
@Nameless/SFD….If there is a road LC closure with no replacement crossing (bridge/underpass), then I can see why this might add to pressures on local road infrastructure. This isn’t all that different though to what happens across the country when roads are permanently closed….I have yet to see any studies showing an increase in local road fatalities as a result of town centre pedestrianisation, for example.
But if it is a pedestrian-only crossing, is it really too much to ask for a replacement footbridge (as recently installed at Shelford Junction) to alleviate the problems you describe?
Whoops I meant XC Bournemouth to Manchester in my example above!
@Malcolm
“The Weymouth solution is not quite as green as passenger-changing, though, since the non-electrified section is typically less lightly loaded (that’s why it wasn’t electrified), and so can use shorter trains.”
Which is why only eight (or sometimes only four) of the twelve coaches went beyond Bournemouth, the electric “loco” that pushed the train from London and was detached at Bournemouth actually being an emu.
The Highland Sleeper saves resources in another way, the three diesel hauled portions from the north being combined into one long train at Edinburgh, to be hauled by one more big loco south thereof, thereby saving on crew and motive power costs.
Oddly, the locos used on the non-electrified sections of the Highland sleeper are electro diesels, although the nearest line on which they could operate on electric power is on Merseyside.
How is this relevant to East Anglia?
Rather than electro diesel units, an electric unit could run to e.g Ipswich or Norwich, where a diesel loco can be attached to take the train on to Lowestoft, Great Yarmouth, or wherever. At Norwich, it would be easy to arrange with minimal shunting – the loco simply says on the buffer stops between duties.
The current fashion for not coupling-up en route seems to stem from an unfortunate experience a transport minister had a few years ago at Crewe on the way to North Wales, when a 57 and a Pendolino failed to co-operate. Of course, neither was originally designed for that job. (Neither motive power unit, that is: I make no comment on the minister’s suitability for his job). Designing compatibility in from the start should be much more reliable.
@Anonymously
“due to a perception that they increase lay-over times and require extra infrastructure (sidings and points for shunting etc). ”
Not necessarily – with push/pull operation, and a bi directional platform, you can simply have the diesel push the train to the start of the electrified stretch, and leave it in the platform until the next train in the other direction arrives to buffer up to it.
Or, as I suggested for Norwich, if the train reverses there, the diesel is just left on the stops.
Anonymously: ‘Locomotive/traction changes seem to have fallen out of favour on today’s railway, due to a perception that they increase lay-over times’. I regularly travel Kings Cross – Gleneagles. This involves 4hrs 22 mins running under the wires in an HST followed by an 11 minute wait at Edinburgh then 1 hr 05 minutes not under any wires. There would be ample time to put a diesel on the front of an electric set at Edinburgh. Why isn’t it done? I suppose possible answers include crew training/rostering, amortization of existing stock (or using stock that is largely written down), the additional unit cost of the diesel and the unproductive down time on the diesel when it isn’t pulling the train from Edinburgh to Inverness. No doubt others can come up with better reasons.
Level crossings are a pain in East Anglia with yet another vehicle hit recently outside Ely. The frequency of car strikes plus the speed limits imposed on certain types of crossings are behind the wish to close as many crossings as possible.
Re the current Mk3 stock on NRW – LST, I avoid using it as the door operation, climb in and difficult to access seats (arm rests require limbo dancing skills to negotiate) put me off. Instead on my journey from OUS I catch the EMU from IPS as either type is easy to access and has empty seats. The additional time is not important to me. The new express stock may well suit me well.
Lots of TLAs there Jim, not all obvious. For the uninitiated, all but EMU (!) can be found at http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/static/documents/content/station_codes.csv.
THC
@Littlejohn….And all of those reasons you state are more expensive than running for over four hours and nearly 400 miles using diesel traction* when there is a perfectly good power source right above your heads for that whole distance???
*The collapse in oil prices would obviously affect this, but this practice dates back years (even to the time when the ECML was electrified?), including the period when they were much higher.
@timbeau…But that relies on (1) current high speed EMUs having a push-pull mode that can be used for more than just the occasional emergency (they may already do, I’m unsure), and (2) appropriate infrastructure at the changeover station.
Returning to my XC example (Bournemouth to Manchester), would it be theoretically possible before the Electric Spine is implemented to do a loco change at Coventry where the wires start/end, with the current track and signalling layout there?
@ngh It would be useful if the fast Southend Victoria trains called at Southend Airport to reduce journey times from London and boost the attractiveness of the airport as an alternative to the London airports. It would also help by removing airport passenger’s luggage from the more heavily loaded stopping services during the peak.
Littlejohn’s reasons are a good start. Another possibility might be shortage of substation capacity, given that the East Coast electrification is often claimed to have been done “on the cheap”. There could also be a notion that the 11 minutes in Edinburgh is not just wait, it is also recovery time.
There is also the idea that in-service coupling, like in-service AC/DC switching, is a “glitch-attractor”. If something is going to go wrong anyway, it often seems to go wrong at such moments. Some sophisticated statistics are required to determine whether the “special action” is actually causing the glitches, or just focussing them on one moment.
Whilst I can understand the comments relating to ‘lugging’ diesel engines about on electric trains, the majority of miles (or km) that the bi-mode Flirts will do in East Anglia will be away from the wires, at least for some time to come. That said on routes where they do, such as Ipswich – Peterboro, Norwich – Cambs and on to Stansted and the extended Sudbury branch at least they will be able to put the pan up and reduce localised emissions. Hopefully over time the wires will spread even during the life of the franchise and the beauty of the modular design of the Flirt family is that they may be convertable to pure electric or battery/stored energy or any other method of propulsion that might come along during their life.
I also wonder if the Flirts might find their way on to some of the more rural electric services, such as the Harwich branch, Colchester – Walton, as the 5 car Aventras may be too capacious most of the time and it would avoid platform lengthening at many of the smaller stations too.
@Alfie -no one is planning to extend the Sudbury branch and there are no plans to extend electrification beyond what has already been announced -even the present plans (eg in Wales) may well not be completed during the lifetime of the franchise. Such is the state of the economy these days.
@Anonymously
“@timbeau…But that relies on (1) current high speed EMUs having a push-pull mode that can be used for more than just the occasional emergency (they may already do, I’m unsure) .
Some modern unit trains have no end couplings because they are not expected to work with another unit – class 700 for example, as it is too long to couple to anything else in service. But by definition, an EMU can work in multiple (that’s what the “M” stands for), and therefore in push pull mode with something else. That something else may be an identical EMU, or something else designed to work with it. Certainly a unit train can be designed to do so.
“would it be theoretically possible before the Electric Spine is implemented to do a loco change at Coventry where the wires start/end, with the current track and signalling layout there?”
I don’t know the layout at Coventry, but of course the changeover can be at any convenient point under the wires. Before the HST era, XC trains used to change traction at New Street all the time.
@timbeau – the rescue plans for TLK require a a 700 to couple to the defective unit and propel the unit to a suitable parking lot that can take half a kilometre of train, with all that that implies in terms of delay – one of the key issues during the negotiations about the specification of manufacturer’s liability for delay.
Graham H,
I don’t see why you need half a kilometre of sidings – and I cannot think of many that are anywhere near that long. Surely all you need is 250m. Good train propels bad train in, uncouples and goes away.
PoP……I can see the value in being able to take a whole 24 coach train into the siding, and then uncouple there and remove the good train at leisure rather than having to sort out the uncoupling with one train blocking one or both main line roads. Two 240m trains, plus space for arrestor, space to uncouple and signal sighting plus small overlap would give a siding at least 520m long.
@Graham H
I did say “in service”. Coupling two class 700s together will only happen in the circumstances you describe, when it is to be assumed that there is something wrong with one of the units, so full compatibility is unlikely to be necessary or possible.
@pop
Operation as you describe would be possible, but would block a running line until the two units are uncoupled – and what happens then, if the fault prevents that uncoupling from happening?
100andthirty and timbeau,
I understand all that. It is pretty basic stuff. Graham H said “the rescue plans for TLK require a 700 to couple to the defective unit and propel the unit to a suitable parking lot that can take half a kilometre of train”. I was querying “require”. If he had written “It is desirable…” I wouldn’t have queried it.
@PoP – in terms of service disruption, what you describe is almost as bad as clearing the line ahead of the defective unit whilst a Thunderbird runs wrong line to haul the delinquent forward. Even DfT, who seemed to think that two sets coupled together was an easy* option, realised that.
@timbeau – not just blocking the running line whilst the sets are uncoupled but requiring the propelling set to reverse back from the dud until it could proceed forward on the running line again -assuming that the signalling was set up to allow that sort of thing. (Meanwhile nothing could follow the halflkilometre convoy closer than 2 ? 4? blocks away.) Simples.
BTW all or any of the above assumes that the fault in the defective unit permits it to be driven from the front cab even after the breakdown…
*Not “easy” because you have to empty the first train then the second one before the whole procession can trundle off into the sidings. And that assumes thatyou now have room on the platform for two trains’ worth of punters. What would you estimate from LU experience? 10 minutes? 15 minutes?
@PoP – your post crossed with mine – I said “require” because there is no other way of moving an immobile unit as envisaged by DfT. (You couldn’t propel without coupling up)
So desirable but technically not normally necessary. Any port in a storm, as they say.
A bad solution is much better than no solution. I don’t suppose the Apollo 13 astronauts complained that the NASA solution to their problem had its imperfections when they considered the alternative.
The exact meaning of “require” could perhaps do with looking at. Graham said that a particular rescue plan requires this amazing long siding. What that suggests to me is that, should such a siding not be to hand, then a different plan would obviously have to be used, which could in principle involve anything at all, including cranes, skyhooks, cutting up on site, etc, etc. The only consequence of the lack of a suitable siding would be that the envisaged plan could not be used.
@Graham H….Alfie wasn’t referring to any plans to reopen the line between Sudbury and Cambridge via Haverhill (although that would be lovely!). The new franchise agreement mentions (re-)extending Sudbury branch services to Colchester and Colchester Town (although how they found spare paths on the mainline for this is beyond me). If dual-mode Stadler units were to be used, then presumably this would mean wiring up the branch platform at Marks Tey to perform the changeover there?
Incidentally, referring back to Malcolm’s comment, does the ECML have enough substation capacity to enable more electric trains to run (to Hull, for example, with/without wires via Selby)?
Littlenjohn 11.56: Graham H may well correct me, but it is my understanding that it was indeed British Rail’s intention that, post-ECML electrification, Inverness and Aberdeen services would be formed of IC225 sets hauled by diesel locomotives. However, the past is of course another country – in this case the mid-1980s, when those deciding future fleet sizes (not to mention negotiating with Government for funding).were not to know that a consistent 40-year decline in rail use was about to end. So when the new electric fleet entered service, it was no longer big enough to provide these services as well as those on the 100% electrified routes of the ECML. Additional IC225s were simply not on the table. Logical solution: retain some of the diesels that had been expected to be replaced. And then add more diesels incrementally over the next 25 years until a new fleet that can run on electric power wherever the wires are is on the agenda.
Anonymously. I would guess the path for Sudbury trains relates to Braintree ones pulling off the main line leaving a convenient gap.
@Anonymously – thank you for the Sudbury correction (we had had that re-opening proposal floated here so very recently…); my apologies. Whether it will be worked by bimodes using both types of power is unclear – future practices for diesel bimodes running under the wires for shortish distances will be an interesting discovery. “Last milery” hasn’t been exactly a success amongst freight operators generally.
@Caspar Lucas – that’s my recollection,too.
I wasn’t closely involved in the ECML electrification spec at the time but I would be surprised if there had been much spare substation capacity – everything was done cut to the bone.
I was under the impression that Network Rail has put a lot of effort into beefing up the ECML overhead. That may well have included extraas substation capacity (if it was needed). After all, the new fleets of IEPs of various descriptions, plus the additional services will all require more power than has been needed up to now.
@ Yep Graham H I meant only to Colchester Town, we’ll have to wait until the timetable is recast to see how it all works, what with 3 tph to Norwich, 4 tph to Southend V and the better performance of the new trains – December 2019 or there abouts I think.
@Fandroid – you may well be right, although there seem to be a number of HST diagrams that spend the whole of their time under the wires (shortage of stock,perhaps).
@Graham H…Not to mention Virgin’s use of Voyagers between Birmingham and Glasgow/Manchester, on the *entirely electrified* WCML! Nothing annoys me more to discover that a train whose whole route is ‘under the wires’ is diesel-powered….what a waste?.
@Graham H…..Are those HST diagrams on the ECML perchance? I clearly remember a bid in the early 90s for government money for extra InterCity 225s from that sector, which was in competition with NSEs (ultimately successful) bid for 365s for Great Northern and Chatham Line services.
I’ve always suspected that decision had more to do with the politics of keeping BREL/ABB York in business for as long as possible (although even this didn’t prevent its closure once this order was completed) than to do with the merits of the bid per say….am I right? If so, the net result was *everyone* losing out in the end (York closed anyway; not enough 225s for all the electric services run on the ECML; 365s incredibly unsuited for their current use as high-speed commuter trains on the Great Northern)?.
@Fandroid – I checked on ECML power upgrades with one of the EC franchise bid teams. It seems that there have been no significant upgrades since electrification. This is why, for example, the morning peaks from the Cross have a high diesel content, to leave the juice for the commuter traffic.The NR view is that the combination of fixed length TLK trains and IEPs with a new timetable will make a full upgrade inevitable within the next two years if the promised benefits are to be delivered.
@Anonymously – the Board was – internally – in two minds about EC electrification. There was a faction,led by the Board member for Finance,which argued for de-electrification as soon as the opportunity presented itself. By 1992, the shadow of privatisation blighted any new investment anyway.
@Graham H…..Really??? Why on earth would anyone suggest de-electrifying a line that had only *just* been electrified?!? Unless they wanted to take a massive financial hit by writing off the cost of the newly-installed infrastructure, they were in for a long wait…..makes me wonder why they were in charge of finance!!!
@Anonymously – not necessarily immediately but “when the opportunity presented itself” – there was a bet that Railtrack would do the deed before too long. One driver was that the assets were not being used as intensively as expected – in particular, the electric haulage of freight didn’t materialise on the planned scale.
On the other hand, the Board Member for Finance did like to shock his colleagues…
@Graham H…..But what was this supposed opportunity? A storm bringing down every power line on the east coast? Railtrack selling off the excess copper wiring to generate extra shareholder income?
Even without additional electric freight, wasn’t it soon clear with mild passenger growth post-electrification that the assets would become more intensively utilised (assuming sufficient electric rolling stock could be sourced at some future date post-privatisation)? Isn’t it sensible to incorporate some spare excess capacity into new infrastructure to future-proof for any growth in traffic (a subject covered on numerous occasions on these pages)?
Sometimes the mind really does boggle when presented with examples of human stupidity such as this……
Anonymously – the bid for extra IC225s (to be leased, as a market test for rolling stock leasing) was made by InterCity West Coast. There were a couple of ‘show’ runs from Manchester and Birmingham to Euston to help persuade the politicos. Ultimately, it failed because the leasing cash (£150m if I recall correctly) was a carrot dangled by Treasury / DfT specifically for the NSE sector to help replace some slam door stock. However the carrot didn’t (or couldn’t) say ‘NSE only’, hence the ICWC bid. It wasn’t warmly received at Marsham St.
@Anonymously – the Treasury set their face firmly against “predict and provide” way back in the ’70s. So far as they were concerned, the railways were in secular decline it was not their business to take on risk. That was for the private sector. [That doctrine,however silly in retrospect, wasn’t entirely without its benefits – it brought the highways programme slithering to a halt…]
What might have triggered de-electrification ? Who knows at this distance in time – the OHLE was done very much on the cheap and wasn’t expected to last as long as it has or as long as DfT were told it would at the time.
@SFD – leasing – a whole book could be written on the Treasury’s peculair attitude to it right up until PFI/PPP was invented. Essentially,most of us in Whitehall, the nationalised industries and local government believed that it was a “prick teaser” if I may put it so crudely.
@SFD…Hmmmm, I never realised the extra 225s were destined for the WCML (which in view of what happened there subsequently is a discussion that is too off-topic). But the irony of your statement is that the 365s AFAIK didn’t replace a single slam-door train! On the Great Northern, they simply displaced the 317s (I’m not sure where they were cascaded to….the WAML?); on the Chatham Main Line, they were used to augment the slam-door stock (my source for this information is here: http://kentrail.org.uk/Class%20365.html). Privatisation means we’ll never know if this might have led to a follow-on order to replace all of the Kent Coast slam-door EMUs with more 365s (which would have saved train-building at York, but with units that aren’t as good as the later 377 Electrostars, IMHO).
Unless Graham H or someone else can correct me otherwise, I’m sticking to my earlier theory.
@Graham H…..How long was it designed to last for? 20 years? 10 years?? 5 years??? Why would anyone build a substantial piece of new physical infrastructure with a design lifespan of anything less than c.30 years (or even more)? Why would the treasury ever think that the private sector is any less risk averse than the public sector (I can think of several examples where the *opposite* is true)? The mind continues to boggle…..no wonder so many things in this country are a mess ?.
As a user of the Chatham lines in the late 1990s I can, indeed, confirm that the class 365s did replace class 411s – and a sad exchange it was as the 411s – ancient though they were – were distinctly more comfortable trains than the 365s.
De-electrification has happened when the opportunity presented itself usually when the electrification infrastructure was life-expired – see the Tyneside routes in the 1960s, or the rump of the Lancaster-Morecambe- Heysham scheme, where some of the line is still in use, but only by diesels. The introduction of dmus in the 1960s brought in an alternative technology that was simply not available when the lines were originally electrified. (The rise of the internal combustion engine is what made electric road traction uneconomic to replace as well).
But who knows: with lighter-weight electro-diesels, de-electrification might again become an economic option somewhere, at some point in the future. But the ECML north of Newcastle is much busier than it was in 1992.
IC125s do indeed work some services under the wires – the Kings Cross-Newark/York services are almost exclusively so worked (giving the lie to the excuse that they couldn’t be extended to Lincoln……) but these are usually part of multi-day diagrams also covering Aberdeen or Inverness workings.
As for the Voyagers, I understand the reason for their use on Birmingham – Edinburgh is that a four car unit is adequate for that flow, and VWC cannot spare Pendolini from its busier routes. The only shorter trains in its fleet are the diesel Voyagers.
The proposal for a handful of IC225s (as an alternative to the 365s) was intended to divert criticism of the cancellation of the IC250 project on the WCML. At the time, the ECML had just had an upgrade from 125mph to potentially 140 (IC225 kph, although that speed has never been run in service) whilst the WCML, a much more important route in terms of populations served, was getting by with 100 mph with the odd stretch of 110.
As far as I recall, the displaced 317s on the GN went to the Tilbury line and allowed some slam-door 302s to go. Likewise, a cascade on the SE lines saw the 4CAP (class 413s) off, as well as the last compartment EPBs.
@Anonymously – in a world where the cards are stacked against investment that might seem to be an enhancement, the game was to justify an upgarde (usually on cost savings grounds) and then dare the Treasury to cut back. I imagine (I was not privy to the BR thinking on this) that the belief was that no-one would dare de-electrify the route once electrified even if the OHLE had only 20years in front of it.
(@timbeau -by 1980, everyone had forgotten the story of the Tyneside electrics, not least because they had been replaced by the electric T&W Metro; the Morecambe-Heysham scheme was an experimental one to test the technology and hardly counts – a trivial service commercially – and you don’t mention the Bury electrics – also grossly superannauted by the time they were dieselised). You might also have mentioned the Woodhead de-electrification and closure but that was killed by the collapse of the house coal trade well before the time we are talking about.
@Anonymously – your point about the private sector being risk-averse merits a separate post. Having spent much of my post-BR life advising banks on the construction and population of risk registers, I can assure you you are absolutely right about the private sector’s views on risk – if they can’t measure it, they price at the worst possible outcome. I have rarely come across a more risk-averse bunch than the project finance sector. They need their steady percentage to satisfy their own backers (Ontario teachers pension funds, I’m looking at you). I can also assure you that the public sector is very willing to devise risk profiles based on reasonable probability distributions – the issue they face is whether they are allowed to take the risk.
The Treasury doesn’t understand this. It believes that the private sector is composed entirely of derring-do pirates of the Carribean types. Even Branson’s franchise bid team is extremely cautious when it comes to anything other than branding. This causes the Treasury (and DfT ) genuine puzzlement as to why there aren’t more bidders queuing up for franchises.
@Graham H
“Tyneside electrics, [later] replaced by the electric T&W Metro”;
“Bury electrics – also grossly superannuated by the time they were dieselised)”
They were not dieselised – like the Altrincham line, it was selected to become the first part of the Manchester tram system because the infrastructure needed renewing anyway – and, unlike the Tyneside electrics, there was no diesel interregnum. Wimbledon – West Croydon is another example of such a conversion.
“the [Lancaster-]Morecambe-Heysham scheme was an experimental one to test the technology”
Really? Opened in 1908 by the Midland Railway, using the same system as the LBSCR, and remained in use (with an upgrade to 25kV in 1953) until most of the line closed in 1966, which even after the WCML was electrified through Lancaster in 1974, would have left the last few miles to Heysham isolated. (the current route between Lancaster and Morecambe is the former LNWR line, which was never electrified)
“a trivial service commercially” – how so? Both Morecambe and Heysham were, for different reasons major destinations in the first half of the 20th century
“You might also have mentioned the Woodhead de-electrification and closure ”
I did not include lines which had been closed completely (such as Crystal Palace HL, Ardingley) rather than simply delectrified
@timbeau – yes, really: without the upgrade, the line would have either closed or been dieselised. 1908 tech didn’t cut the mustard by 1960… Same is true of the Bury electrics – without the Manchester metro as a saviour, they would have had to be either (a) re-electrified, (b) dieselised or (c) closed – as well you know. By 1950, neither Morecombe or Heysham were major destinations in their own right – you musn’t be fazed by the Midland Hotel… [We will, anyway, be shot for trading these sorts of remarks].
@Graham H….Woodhead was never de-electrified; as this photo nicely shows (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Class_76_locomotives_76033_and_76031_at_Woodhead_on_24th_March_1981.jpeg), electric freight locos continued to ply the route right up until its final closure in 1981.
@timbeau….I never realised the displaced 317s went to the LTS; I had always assumed the clapped-out stock on that line were directly replaced by the 357s. As for the Chatham Line, I was only going by what I read on the Kent Rail website, where it states that these units were used to augment the existing stock, not replace any of it.
@Graham H….As for your other points:
– Why is it only in this country (and possibly other Anglosphere nations as well) that the cards are stacked against investment that might seem to be an ‘enhancement’, as you put it, when other nations (particularly in continental Europe) seem to easily manage this? And why on earth would anyone design OHLE with a lifespan of only 20 years?
– Private start-ups (my brother is heavily involved in one such company) do take risks in the derring-do way you suggest, but in general, once companies reach a certain size and level of turnover and become publicly listed, they become risk averse (usually at the behest of their shareholders who- understandably- would rather maintain their nice dividend income). If the Treasury civil servants can’t understand this fairly basic point, then until we can replace them wholesale come the revolution*, God Help Us All…..
*Note to GCHQ/NSA….THIS IS A JOKE!
@anonymously:
wiring up the branch platform at Marks Tey to perform the changeover there
Alternatively, the new units may be capable of changing from diesel to electric power while on the move (I think the French AGC bimodes can do this).
The ECML power supply is being upgraded for IEP and the new Thameslink trains. This includes changing to a +/- 25Kv autotransformer system as on the WCML and adding a new 400Kv feeder station.
In 2003, Christopher Garnett of GNER advocated de-electrifying the East Coast Main Line north of Newcastle to improve reliability. He may or may not have been trolling.
@Anonymously – ‘cos it’s cheap. (As for your other points, quite so – one of several reasons why so many quit Whitehall mid-career)
@Anonymously
Most 302s were replaced during the NSE era by 310s and 312s cascaded from the GE and LM lines by 321s.
The 365s were only delivered very shortly before the end of British Rail, and the transfer of the 317s to LTS, on loan from WAGN, came after privatisation. By 1997 there were eighteen of them on LTS, allowing the last 302s to be withdrawn.
The entire fleet of hand-me-downs on the LTS, including the 312s (which were only twenty years old, but a very dated design even when they were built) were replaced by the 357s.
@Graham
The Morecambe line was certainly not a commercial triviality when it was electrified, although having visited the place recently at the height of summer I would agree it is well past its prime now!
Apart from Heysham, none of the examples you cite were actually dieselised, all being either closed, converted to tram, or upgraded to modern standards.
Even the Manchester-Glossop line, left isolated when the main Woodhead line closed, was re-electrified rather than dieselised when the equipment, and in particular the venerable class 506 units, wore out. (The 506s had sliding doors, but the only ac units based in Manchester were 304s – which, despite being ten years younger, had slam doors – so a small number of 303s were specially imported from Glasgow to avoid any “back to the future” bad press or, as BR put it, to avoid having to accustom regular passengers into how to use slam doors)
Apart from Tyneside, the only other example of a passenger line I can think of being delectrified was the Sheffield-Penistone section of the Woodhead line, which continued to operate with diesel traction after electric passenger services ceased in 1970 as the diesel service from Huddersfield was extended to Sheffield under the wires to replace the former connections into the electric service at Penistone. The wires were de-energised in 1981 when the freight services across the Pennines ceased, but the diesel services continued over the now non-electric line until 1983, when the trains were diverted to run via Barnsley.
A number of freight lines have been de-electrified: the best known example is the Newport-Shildon line (the original Stockton & Darlington), electrified in 1915, but the equipment was not replaced when it wore out in 1935 as coal traffic levels in the Great Depression did not warrant it.
The Southern Railway/Region fitted the “Booster” locomotives (classes 70 and 71), with pantographs, and provided overhead electrification in a few sidings and freight branches, notably the Angerstein Wharf branch in Charlton, as even in the 1940s Health & Safety frowned on the idea of live rails in shunting yards. The overhead equipment was removed when electro-diesels (class 73) replaced the straight electrics in the 1970s.
Honourable mention to the Epping – Ongar railway, which is still in operation but no longer electrified.
No information yet about what the four daily through trains from Lowestoft to Liverpool Street will consist of.However likely to use a four car regional Stadler electro diesel set which will couple up to another similar set at Ipswich to give the required capacity south thereof.
A similar through service was introduced by Anglia railways on privatision using class 170s and terminated by One/National Express East Anglia in 2010 because of the lack of capacity with these trains.There was also a similar service from Liverpool Street to Peterborough via Ipswich,Bury St.Edmunds and Ely which was cut back to run from Colchester or Ipswich to Peterborough instead every two hours.With the new franchise this will be increased to hourly.Sadly no mention of a revival of this but Bury St.Edmunds will gain a half hourly service to Ipswich with onwards connections to Liverpool Street.
I also think that the Lowestoft to London through service and its Norwich portion will be part of the third slower ex Norwich service which will use two of the four car regional electro diesels coupled together if there are not enough inter city sets to go round.
@Anonymously, @Timbeau
Some class 302’s spent their final weeks on WA services from Liverpool Street, to stop the gap between withdrawal of 305’s and introduction and their replacement by 315’s.
These had 1st class sections but the signs were removed.
It made a pleasant change to travel in first class seats from Bush Hill Park to Seven Sisters.
In the olden days there had always been a few 302s on the GE lines, augmenting the fleet of 307s on the Southend services. The passenger accommodation was almost the same, although the 307s whirry bits were different, having been converted from dc to ac early in their history. The most obvious external difference (apart from the numbers) was that although both types originally had the brake compartment in one of the middle cars, with the pantograph mounted above it, when the 307s were converted both the brake and the pan were moved to one of the end cars (although the motors remained under the middle car).
Abellio confirmed as the franchise winners:
https://www.abellio.com/news/abellio-confirmed-new-east-anglia-franchise-operator-department-transport
The “more than 70 coaches” to increase capacity in the short term on WAML (presumable to include enough for STAR etc.) and GEML services, 12x 317s and 6x 321 soon to surplus and off lease at Great Northern will be hired in from Jan ’17 to increase capacity until the new Bombardier and Stadler units arrive in 2019 & 2020.
387s (ex Thameslink) should displace the first GN 321s in September, with 317 disappearing later in 2016 and early 2017 with the arrival of 700s on GN services, though it will be interesting to see whether than plan might be rejigged to release just 6x 321s and all 12x GN 317s early instead to suit AGA.
@ Ngh – not sure I see the relevance of 18 4 car units being brought in short term with STAR. STAR doesn’t complete until Dec 2018 at the earliest when Abellio should be receiving new Bombardier stock to boot out all the ex BR stuff that runs on West Anglia. Unless you know something the rest of us don’t about STAR ……… ?
Even if these 18 trains weren’t being hired then Abellio could still have grabbed a couple of ex TfL Rail / Overground class 315s or 317s to run the extra STAR services in the short term. I want to know what stopping service Abellio believe they can operate on West Anglia when the “new railway” springs forth from its gestation and how that impacts Overground services via Seven Sisters and STAR local services. There’s been virtual silence about West Anglia services even recognising the impact of the “standstill” period.
Re WW,
The new Bombardier stock is being delivered starting in 2020 not 2019 (Stadler stock) so they need extra stock to cover STAR in 2019 and lenghten other WA services as well.
Some of the LO 317s have very expensive leasing costs so GA wouldn’t want them back again! GN stock available sooner and cheaper.
Not sure a 315 to Southend would go down well!
321s on GE, Southend etc and 317s on WA hence big uplift in WA capacity.
Re: WW, ngh
Another consideration is compliance with the 31/12/19 deadline for fitment of CET* tanks and PRM** accessibility. Posdibly the additional stock deployment creates headroom to allow units to be modified
*controlled emission toilet
**persons of reduced mobility – before anyone screams “political correctness”, note that reduced mobility covers pregnancy, carrying lots of luggage and being with children
I can’t work out whether the Bombarbier trains start entering service before the end of 2019, but it is clear that delivery continues into 2020 so some thinking has gone into this.
The “inter city” Stadler fleet displaces the Mark IIIs (currently being fitted with CET but not being made PRM compliant). The “airport express” Stadler fleet presumably displaces the 379s, which may be temporarily retained to allow non-compliant 317s or 321s to go off lease. The 360s are also compliant.
The 30 Renatus 321s*** will be fully compliant before the deadlines, as will the 27 units referred to in the Abellio press release (plus the “pre-series” 321). If memory serves, the 317s coming from GN are CET fitted but not PRM-ed, while the Anglia 317s and 321s are completely non-compliant.
***noting that delays to this programme mean the Abellio press release saying all 30 will enter service in the first year of the new franchise, compared to the previous announcement of 10 (or 12) during the current one
Furthermore, the “regional” Stadler units presumably could displace 317s/321s while compliant 170s remain, bearing in mind that the 153s are non-compliant and I think the 156s are PRM-ed but not CET fitted.
It rather sounds like there will be some juggling in 2019-20 to meet the deadlines, with the final stock deployment only being possible after full Adventra delivery.
A further interesting point, if this analysis is correct, is that the compliant 379s, 360s, Renatus 321s and indeed the other 27 units to be PRM-ed will not be available for cascade to other operators before the deadline.
Re Balthazar,
Agreed on the head room for refurbs aspect, but I suspect shortly before 2020 for most franchises the SoS will signing lots of short term derogations* (for stock heading to Booths soon afterwards will be easy to justify!). I suspect most of the 6x 321 will be for cover in the first year or so.
*(Especially as the future 100x AGA 321 only 58x are currently scheduled for some kind of 2020 works and I can’t see any more then that having a long term future elsewhere).
AGA have big DMU fleet issue so I can’t see the Stadler EDMU subbing for EMU especially as there are DRS locos and mark 2s operating in Norfolk and regular short forms.
NatEx were good at negotiating expensive leasing deals (also see refurbed 317s now at LO) so I can see the 379s being available earlier than the other PRMed stock.
Plenty of good stock available at the right time for Valleys, EWR and MML electrification. (LM sorted with 323 ex Northern and 350s ex TPE).
Re: ngh.
While we can’t rule out unplanned delays, I strongly suspect that the East Anglia fleet plan has been designed to meet the simultaneous PRM and CET deadlines.
Since my post this morning I have seen Roger Ford’s Modern Railways article which states that Aventra delivery runs January 2019-September 2020. So there will be a sizeable Bombardier contingent already in service on 31/12/19, as well as the full Stadler fleet.
Regarding Stadler EDMUs, note that the 14 x 3-car units exactly replace the existing 5 x 153 + 9 x 156 fleets, leaving 24 x 4-cars to be deployed in other ways (including of course a minority for the direct Lowestoft-London services and as back-up for the regional services) before the full Bombardier/Stadler fleet is in place and the “final” service pattern is implemented.
So despite your (and Ford’s) comments about short-term PRM derogation, I don’t see it as part of the plan for East Anglia.
I presume the high lease costs for 379s relate to the cost of money to the lessor at the time the vehicles were accepted. Maybe someone can advise whether there is any reason why rolling stock can’t be refinanced to reduce it?
Oh – and in my humble opinion your final paragraph is a heroic attempt at the crystal ball!
@Balthazar – “Maybe someone can advise whether there is any reason why rolling stock can’t be refinanced to reduce it?” No reason at all, and I would expect ROSCOs (which are basically bond management institutions) to do this at all the time; indeed,they will have taken a view on future market movements in setting their prices in the first place – whether they pass any savings on to the TOCs is,however, by no means clear. ROSCOs could, for example,argue that they have already factored future savings in the price of money into their charges.
Has this article mutated into a general purpose Greater Anglia discussion? It started as a result of a specific problem about the STAR proposals, but seems to have gone off on quite a few tangents since…
@Paul
It’s very difficult to segregate discussion on East Anglia from STAR, as STAR 4tph solutions inevitably look to what is possible on East Anglia services to provide possibly half of the desired volume at local stations.
I have just seen a Tweet from another industry magazine suggesting that Siemens are to challenge Abellio’s award of the contract for the suburban EMUs to Bombardier. (I don’t subscribe to that publication as it costs several hundreds of GBP per year).
I presume the basis of the challenge would be something to do with the Utilities Contract Regulations and their EU sire. However, surely Abellio, as a private company, is entitled to do business with whoever it choses. Or does it count as a state company because it’s owned ultimately by the Dutch government? Would it have been different if it had been, say, First Group? Also, if the Regulations apply, how far down the supply chain do they flow?
Re 130: I believe a train operator under contract to HMG counts as a utility though. One also wonders whether the use of a UK assembly plant may have slid up the priority list during the franchising process, and if so at what point that might have happened bearing in mind external events…
@Balthazar – – the definition of utilities stems from the relevant SI Forget which number off hand) relating to infrastructure operators. Not only is it a generic definition (the government did not wish for RT/NR to be classified as a nationalised industry on the basis of the definition) but TOCs – or anyone carrying on a railway undertaking were not mentioned at all (for the same reason). [I believe that LU avoided this problem because they were carrying on a railway undertaking authorised in primary legislation].
@130 – I suspect the answer to your question lies in the terms of any deal between DfT and Abellio rather than on the status of Abellio per se. If so, we’ll never know as that won’t be in the public domain, except perhaps in a heavily redacted form.
There has been a Mayoral decision on funds transfer from two London Boroughs to the GLA and then on to TfL in support of the STAR works.
While not exactly the most thrilling paper but it does provide an update on where we are and gives a series of milestone dates including start of passenger services. Start on site is imminent – 13 days away – although obviously bits and bobs of clearance works have already been done in a number of places. Start of passenger service is shown as the timetable change in December 2018.
WW
Thanks
I hadn’t realised that even stage one of STAR ( Preceding CR2 one hopes) effectively gives a very long passing loop between Copper Mills Jn & Angel Rd.
Of itself that will improve operational flexibilty, quite a lot
@ Greg – the track layout has varied a great deal over many iterations to try to contain costs but the concept of a long loop has been integral to the plans all the way along (I think!). The only bit I don’t understand is what the layout at T Hale will be – one extra track or two extra with rejigged platforms to allow STAR trains to pass at the point. The space is very tight at T Hale and obviously if CR2 proceeds the place is likely to have a “bomb dropped on it” and major reworks done. The complete lack of any info from CR2 suggests much debate about the design and what LU is tasked to deliver during the upcoming ticket hall rebuild. One would hope that the works provide a basis from which CR2 works can be added without undoing what is to be delivered imminently.
WW
Thanks
As you say Tottie Hale is tight for space & re-jigging for 4 tracks, all with platforms could be very difficult, without slueing to the West, which would be both difficult & expensive ….
I note the extensive ground-clearance to the S of the station, which is obviously pre-preparing for at least one extra running line between there & Copper Mills Jn, which has been going slowly for a couple of months, now. [ Plenty of space for 4 running lines to Cop Mil Jn – it’s squeezing the platform space in that’s going to be a problem. ]
In the meantime, I do hope something is done about the present layout, grossly inferior to that before DfT’s involvement – you try getting off a Southbound Stansted to get the tube, with a wheeled luggage-case(!)
This seems the most obvious place to ask this question: What is the current expectation for the train service at Meridian Water? I have seen posted elsewhere that the Stratford-MW service on the new track will replace the existing Lee valley- Stratford service, rather than being additional to it, is that correct?. Network Rail’s page talks about two extra trains per hour which seems to be classic press officer language for avoiding the detail
@HERNED
When I was looking into this, I found that at Meridian Water there will be a “turn up and go” service of 4tph towards Stratford. This will be made up of 2tph mainline services (which don’t stop at Angel Road now outside peak) and 2tph on the STAR line.
Not sure if just the STAR trains will be all-stops (Meridian Water, Northumberland Park, Tottenham Hale, Lea Bridge and Stratford), but all passing trains now stop at Lea Bridge.
Because the service won’t JUST be one set of trains but overlapping with longer-distance trains, the obvious use of the London Overground brand can’t be done.
@ Briantist
Thanks for the reply, that is what I had seen previously. The current Network Rail and other websites are very shy about talking about the actual train service, only mentioning two additional services with no talk of where they will stop, or even go!
The 2015 Invitation to Tender specified 4tph from Stratford to Angel Road, calling at Lea Bridge between 6am and 11pm. It was permitted that some peak hour trains would skip Northumberland Park.
Thanks Chris, but that document specifies 4 tph at Lea Bridge, not Angel Road – the whole premise of the court case this article refers to! It says 35 trains will be provided weekdays from Stratford-Angel Road, which over ~18 hour days is only 2tph
Good point. Looking at the other services TSR 1 and TSR2 table 19 (available here). Together with the 2tph STAR service, I make an offpeak (10am-3pm) 4tph at Lea Bridge, 3tph at Northumberland Park and 2tph at Angel Road?
What an utter con trick perpetuated by the DfT. So there is no 4 tph service north of Tottenham Hale and a possible longish gap in the peaks at Northumberland Park and Meridian Water between mainline trains. Shows how you can get this completely “back to front” by misreading the tables in the Train Service Requirement plus the Part 3 document. I’d somehow managed to convince myself there’d be a full, daily 4 tph service at all stations but, of course, there won’t be. I had not appreciated it would be as awful as it will be – half hourly at best at Meridian Water off peak. And to think £170m is being spent to provide such a poor end result.
Not quite sure why this is news again. The ITT train service specs were published over 2 1/2 years ago, and were always very clearly set out as (broadly) the existing service level for stations between Stratford and Angel Road (Meridian Water) with +2 tph between these locations from December 2018.
Therefore it has been public knowledge for that time that Meridian Water (ex Angel Road) and Northumberland Park would not get 4tph except occasional peak hours. Hence the court case and hence this article.
I don’t believe anything has changed, except I have a feeling Dec 2018 is now some point in 2019.
Walthamstow Writer, Sad Fad Dad
Having sat through the first day of the court case, quite a while ago, I was in absolutely no doubt all parties were aware of exactly what, in broad terms, the proposed service consisted of. I have never read anything suggesting otherwise.
There are always occasions when people get hold of the wrong end of the stick (I have done it myself) and in a big way. For years Croydon Council was telling us that the Underground was coming to West Croydon and we even had photo-montages of ‘A’ stock at West Croydon. More famously, one of the short lived free evening papers had a map of the ‘new’ Circle line with a physical connection at Hammersmith between the Hammersmith & City line and the District line.
More forgiveable, is people getting the wrong idea of future Thameslink services with senior Network Rail people (on the engineering side) getting quoted in Modern Railways and obviously being completely unaware that the proposed service pattern would not incorporate the existing service pattern (including the Wimbledon loop). This despite clear documentation elsewhere from Network Rail that this scenario was not intended to happen.
@ SFD – As I said I had somehow got it in my head that a full 4 tph service was what was going to run. It will broadly be that from Stratford to T Hale but I’d assumed that continued north. I clearly wasn’t paying attention or exerted enough brain power to properly understand those TSR tables. I do find the DfT’s approach of hiving off the STAR service into a different document and different format extremely unhelpful.
I also struggle somewhat as to how the DfT can ask bidders to stop peak time WAML services at Meridian Water when the line is at its most congested but won’t countenance off peak and weekend trains serving the stop to give a good service. An utterly short sighted approach. No wonder people want rail devolution.
@ PoP – yep “guilty” as charged. As I am looking forward to 4 tph from T Hale to Stratford I’d convinced myself it applied to the whole STAR corridor.
The Department for Transport has decided that the closure of Angel Road station should proceed. It should be replaced by Meridian Water station, on or after 19 May 2019. The matter is now with ORR for its consideration / ratification. Link here to DfT report with a summary of responses from the closure consultation: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/angel-road-rail-station-closure-may-2019
I went past today – it’s all looking pretty close to being finished.
re JR,
Shame that they didn’t publish the actual responses rather than just the summary, some of the responses look likely they could have been highly entertaining!
e.g. “relocated the footbridge to Pilning” etc.
Interesting. Probably a coordinated campaign by the Pilning Station Group? They have not published any news on it on their web site so far.
@ Jonathan Roberts
Given the recent confirmation of the award of Housing Infrastructure Funds to Enfield Council which includes rail infrastructure to support an increase in service provision to Meridian Water, I wondered whether this was for option 2C as you detailed in your report? The council must be pleased it will finally be getting the service level they expected and then some.
Having reread it, I’m slightly bemused by how much work is required to move structures despite the built in passive provision for the 4th track during 3rd track construction.
@Snowy
Something like 2C is the base option at present, with service patterns to be finalised. However other rail options might achieve the underlying 4tph minimum service frequency objective at Meridian Water, within a £40m rail budget, so this is being checked as part of GRIP processes. The final budgeted version of the 3rd track scheme did not include full safeguarding for a 4th track, so some physical adjustments will be necessary.
@JONATHAN ROBERTS
If only they had connected the DLR from Stratford International to Lea Bridge, the existing DLR software could have easily run 12tph up a single branch line, at least until Crossrail 2 is built.
@BB
(12tph DLR over single track)
That implies a train every five minutes. But the scheduled journey time from Tottenham Hale to Meridian Water is four minutes (and, curiously) five minutes for the return. So even allowing zero dwell time at the terminus, 6tph would be a challenge – let alone 12!
T
@TIMBEAU
The DLR managed 12tph in a single track section between Bow Road and Stratford before Pudding Mill Lane was rebuilt. If there was a double-track section to allow trains to pass at Northumberland Park. I think you could achieve 12tph on the STAR section of line with self-driving trains. Automatic Train Operation seems to be a very safe way of running with the particular advantage that without a driver, no-one has to walk the train length to reverse direction at either end.
Would there now be room under Liberty Bridge Road for a single DLR track northwards? And what about relocating the station?
@ALEX MCKENNA
“Would there now be room under Liberty Bridge Road for a single DLR track northwards?”
There is the HS1 depot access ramp that links the HS1 line to the depot. It rises eastwards out of the HS1 station and does a rising steady curve to end up Northwards to get to the depot.
It does exactly what you would need to access the start of the STAR line at Lea Bridge. Perhaps the access ramp could be double-decked. Or, as it is little used, just share it electronically.
The double tracks under Liberty Bridge Road are used to divert freight around Stratford station. I can’t see an easy way to make one a DLR to STAR track and the other for passenger service. Perhaps a DLR flyover could be built in the space?