Last summer the Secretary of State for Transport, Chris Grayling, commissioned a report from an experienced and well-respected railwayman, Chris Gibb. The goal was a framework to enable much-needed improvements to railway services across the Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) franchise.
Terms of reference – optional extra
Although all of the franchise was to be looked at, it was clear to most people that this was basically a case of asking what could be done in the Southern Railway area as a whole to provide a significant improvement in performance. The terms of reference as to what was off-limits seem to be fairly vague – or possibly even ignored. Gibb has gone into great detail in some areas with ideas possibly worth studying, but unlikely to be helpful in the short term. He has also made various subtle comments on the industrial disputes which have affected the area, whilst sticking rigidly to the term of reference that stated:
The management of industrial relations remain a matter to be managed by Govia Thameslink Railway Limited.
Whether this term of reference was intended to encourage Mr Gibb to steer clear of this area or was simply a case of the government emphasising at every opportunity that the industrial dispute is nothing to do with the DfT is unknown.
Originality
The report is invaluable in that it contains a number of original ideas. Equally though, it sometimes states the blindingly obvious. That some of those points need to be stated at all, however, shows how far the GTR network really is from an ideal railway.
In true railway style, the report is delayed
The report was due to be presented to the Secretary of State “by the end of the year” and that deadline was met, although the time constraints naturally mean that the report is not as glossy or well structured as one unconstrained by time. Gibb started work on the 1st September so only had four months to complete the work. Indeed the time taken by the government to publish it was actually greater than the time taken for Gibb to write it.
As explained on the DfT website:
This report was due to be published in April, following the department’s initial assessment of the recommendations with GTR and Network Rail. The pre-election period meant we could not release the report and today’s publication is as soon after the election as possible.
The election was called on the 18th April, so clearly the government weren’t rushing to publish and obviously they were not expecting to be left without a clear majority and the distractions that would cause. Delayed publication seems to be yet another of the insidious indirect consequences of Brexit.
Hard hitting from the start
Gibb does not pull any punches. He leads by stating what he thinks is the primary issue (spelt out in detail in section 3.2.2). He lists a catalogue of changes taking place and states that the fundamental problem was that all these changes were taking place at the same time with no overall systems integration.
The first three items in Gibb’s list of changes are placed fairly and squarely at the collective feet of the DfT. The fourth item is laid at the doorstep of the unions. Most other items have the hand of government upon them in some way – either through Network Rail or the Office of Rail and Road. The effect of the London Overground timetable on Southern is noted. Indeed the only item for which management (government or TOC) or unions cannot really in some way be held responsible for is:
Rapid growth in passenger demand, resulting in overcrowded stations
The fact that the word “timetable” appears 79 times in the first 76 pages of the document emphasises just how much of a problem the timetable is – and this is before we have a 24tph service running through the centre of London.
Blame the unions
Section 3.2.3 is headlined “The Primary Cause of the System Breakdown in 2016”. In this Gibb argues that the industrial dispute was ultimately the straw that broke the camel’s back. This seems to be an emotive argument, rather than one backed up by facts, although he states fairly reasonably:
But I am convinced by what I have seen that if the traincrew were to work in the normal manner that they have in previous years, the output of the system, a safe and reliable rail service for passengers, would be delivered in an acceptable manner, which would be similar to other commuter rail services in the South East.
This may or may not be true, but it could equally be said that had the other events that caused so much disruption not been present then the effect of industrial action, at least in the later walkouts, would also have been fairly minimal.
Southern commuters have suffered for a long time from industrial disputes but, if emotion is put to one side, it is easy to see that the case is not as clear-cut as suggested. The average Southern commuter would be more likely to have a better journey on a day when the railway ran perfectly, but for the RMT being on strike, than in the reverse situation. This is simply because RMT strike action is no longer very effective in the region as a result of more driver only operation (with a second crew member still present) and more guards (those that still are guards and not Onboard Supervisors) being prepared to work on strike days. Furthermore, the few trains that are cancelled mean that the other trains have a greater chance of running to time.
Gibb implies that if the unions withdrew their action then, despite other problems, a decent rail service would be restored. This overlooks the fact that on the vast majority of days no-one is taking part in an industrial dispute as such – although there must be situations where members are still working to existing practices rather than those that are proposed. Such an argument also fails to explain why the system deteriorated almost as soon as GTR took over the running of Southern and also why things were so bad throughout 2015, most notably at the start of the year, when no industrial action was taking place.
Maintenance
After commenting on the industrial action, the Gibb report then looks at maintenance of the network. As with his comment on a lack of systems integration, here he has probably fairly and squarely identified a major issue. Sad to say, the problem is not new – it is well known but requires a considerable amount of money to fix.
Way back in the 1980s, a senior British Rail manager said that the trouble with the Brighton Main Line was that it had been ‘soled and heeled’ too often. Given further deterioration in the privatisation years and lack of money spent on the Brighton Main Line, it is not surprising that today we have a railway that is not reliable:
Along with the rest of the 2018 Thameslink network the condition of the infrastructure needs to be urgently raised. This is not complicated stuff – it is about rail renewal, switch & crossing renewal, sleeper renewal, ballast renewal / removal of wet beds, drainage improvements, telecoms / signalling cable renewal, axle counter introduction, vegetation, removal of temporary speed restrictions, attention to fencing, structures and earthworks.
Such a comment would be expected from Gibb. It was he who led the transformation of the Virgin West Coast Main Line to reduce the considerable delays by looking in detail at all factors that were causing issues. On this aspect, the results of such an action are clear to see on the West Coast Main Line. It is not surprising therefore that Grayling was quick to release £300million, as suggested by Gibb, to enable this work to be carried out.
Possibly, what led to such a prompt releasing of funds to overcome the backlog of maintenance was Gibb spelling out what he thought needed to happen if this was not done:
If these funds cannot be identified, then I recommend that a decision must be taken by the DfT to reduce the Thameslink 2018 specification to a level that the existing system reliability can support. Such a decision should be taken in January, 2017. If it was decided to do this, there are significant implications […] less rolling stock, drivers and depot facilities will be needed for Thameslink, and older rolling stock can be withdrawn quicker. But Thameslink will remain at 12 tph – half of what has been envisaged under the Thameslink programme.
One can just imagine how politically unacceptable a 12tph peak service on Thameslink would be when a full service of 24tph is expected in December 2018. One can certainly imagine what the attitude of Southern commuters – who have suffered years of disruption on the promise of a better service – would be.
Gibb then goes on to point out the large number of vacancies on Network Rail, the fact that there are no specific plans to fill these vacancies and that there is no plan as to how the backlog of maintenance is to be tackled. So, one of the other things he addresses in this area is how this backlog of work is to be carried out.
The report makes the eminently sensible suggestion of reducing overnight main line services and having earlier last trains Monday-Thursday on Metro services. The 11 pages of Appendix 3 go into considerable detail as to how this is to be carried out, down to exactly which trains should be withdrawn and which should have additional compensating stops. This revised timetable was introduced last May with very little dissent. The withdrawn trains should be reinstated by the end of the year.
A blockade too far
As well as enabling more overnight works, Gibb recommends a two-week closure of the line between Horsham and Three Bridges in the summer of 2017:
During Summer, 2017 I recommend a closure for two weeks of the route between Horsham and Three Bridges, with passengers and trains diverted via Dorking, Epsom and Balham. At the same time, with no trains coming from the Horsham direction, I propose closure of two tracks between Three Bridges and Earlswood, closure of Horley, Salfords and Earlswood stations, and a reduction in service. GTR’s local service between Horsham and Epsom will need to be reduced to provide paths and crews for diverted Arun Valley trains. These two weeks would allow for an intensive and productive period of infrastructure maintenance, on these sections, that are notable for their poor condition. With the support of DfT, Network Rail and GTR should start planning this closure at the start of 2017.
It is here we start to question the ideal over the practical. For a start, six months is actually not a lot of time to prepare for something like this. Although he subsequently points out the dates of Waterloo partial closure (5th – 28th August) which need to be avoided, he does not appear to appreciate the need to avoid the following week as well. For a full week starting on the August Bank Holiday Saturday there will be no Southeastern trains at Charing Cross, Waterloo East and London Bridge. Prior to that, through much of August, is the work at Waterloo to length platforms. The work at Waterloo is expected to be extremely problematic (something we will cover in a future article). Ultimately, on a practical level, doing the work between Three Bridges and Horsham in 2017 was always likely to be a non-starter.
August and early September is really the only summer period where passenger levels are light enough to consider line closure between Horsham and Three Bridges and, even if you could do it in late July or early September, the potential for yet another major engineering blockade to affect already planned ones – either in terms of demands on plant or manpower, or plant breaking down due to lack of maintenance or staff being overcommitted – just seems to be a risk not worth taking. The principle of the idea may not be a bad one, but it really has to be implemented in 2018 if it is to be done. It is notable that this recommendation was not acted upon.
The timetable – it’s always the timetable
Another area where Chris Gibb focuses his attention is the timetable. It is a mantra here at LR Towers that you can never put too much effort into getting the timetable right. In trying to suggest improvements, Gibb looks in great detail at why we are in the situation we are in today – where there is basically no slack in the timetable. The consequence of this is that, on Southern, it is next to impossible to fully recover from a disruptive incident in the morning in time for the critical evening peak period.
Gibb probably goes to the heart of the problem, at least on some lines, when he states that:
It is clear to me that the three previously competing operators deliberately filled up every off peak path, to stop the other operators running additional services and receiving a larger income allocation through ORCATS. I can see no sign of any rationalisation of the contractual obligations occurring prior to the letting of the current franchise, so all the competing services were amalgamated into the new franchise obligations.
This is one of the many clear absurdities that Gibb points out throughout his report. However, in this case, his proposed solution is unlikely to go down well. One of his ideas is a “fire-break” between 12.00 and 14.00 Monday-Friday where, for example, services with 6tph go down to 4tph. Apart from timetabling complications, this seems to almost kill off the idea of ‘turn up and go’. Furthermore, the alternative of the regular clockface timetable is also destroyed. One suspects that a lesser inter-peak service from start to finish would be more practical and more desirable if one were to go down this route. It is also hard to imagine TfL willingly agreeing that London Overground should take part in such a process where it shares track with Southern. The lack of TfL co-operation would add to the complexity and limit the proposal’s effectiveness.
Oh Doctor Gibb, what have you done…
The other timetabling idea is to reduce stops at lightly used stations with an infrequent service. History has told us that this normally leads to a further decline in patronage and eventual closure. Gibb seems to want to remove stops to improve reliability, but the effect could be significant or negligible depending on station and the timetable in use. A blanket change would thus appear to be undesirable. Perhaps it is more a case of wishing to do something rather than achieve something. Whilst he probably produces a strong case with his example of Newhaven Harbour, which has another station nearby, it is disingenuous to categorise it with Southease – a remote, inaccessible village on the South Downs Way where numbers of passengers may be small, but the railway performs a valuable service to the community.
Ultimately, whatever the operational benefits of the proposals to reduce the service to some lightly-used stations at various hours, the result would likely to be politically unacceptable anyway.
Depots – the forgotten problem
Another operational feature that Chris Gibb dwells on is depots. Provision of depots is certainly an area on which, in general, there has not been enough focus. The trouble with depots is that they aren’t exactly ‘sexy’. It is thus hard to get politicians and the public to equate improvements to depots with better journeys. Indeed, a recent proposal to lengthen trains on Southeastern failed to get government approval not because of the cost of the trains, but because the cost of expanding a required depot was deemed too expensive.
With regard to depots, Gibb makes a number of points. The gist of these is that the depots are not in the right place. As a result, Selhurst is required to stable too many trains and is too cramped. He expresses his dislike of closing small depots and centralising train storage. In particular, he regards the decision to concentrate South Coast stabling at Barnham as a factor that led to increased union militancy, which does raise the moral question about whether an operator (or the DfT) should consider potential union power when formulating an operational policy. He is particularly scathing about the incredible amount of diesel light train movements (no passengers aboard) on the Uckfield line as a result of the trains being inconveniently stabled at Selhurst.
Uckfield branch, inevitably, gets a mention
On the issue of the Uckfield branch, the report goes to a lot of effort to put forward a case for electrification based on no further doubling of track, and on overhead electrification.
The report does an extremely good job of explaining why the current setup with diesel units is most unsatisfactory. He cites the considerable empty mileage run, environmental factors, train performance into London Bridge, the inability to swap trains at London Bridge to recover from delays (due to electric trains being unable to run to Uckfield), limited time for both track and train maintenance due to running empty trains back to Selhurst at night and a host of other things. Unfortunately this, along with another related proposal for the Uckfield branch, seems to be impractical.
A flawed solution
There is a fundamental flaw in Gibb’s proposal: he doesn’t seem to realise that most of his arguments are not an argument for electrification, but an argument to eliminate diesel working into London. He does not consider alternatives. So diesel bi-mode, Southern EMUs operated in push-pull mode with a diesel engine from Oxted to Uckfield or even pinning one’s hopes on future battery-electric bi-mode do not get a mention.
When considering electrification Gibb makes the fundamental (and common) mistake of quoting low-cost successful schemes and doing a few calculations on a mileage basis to come up with a figure he thinks is plausible. One would not expect someone of his standing to fall into this trap. Basically, overhead electrification consists of three elements which tend to each average out over multiple schemes as each costing roughly a third of the total cost. If not done in conjunction with signalling then there is probably also considerable costs related to immunising the signalling. At this stage, we haven’t even considered the cost of the electric trains.
The three main factors involved in electrification are wiring the line, enabling clearances in bridges and tunnels and – easily forgotten – making sure that the necessary extra capacity in the national power network (“the grid”) is there in the first place. The proportion of the total cost of these three elements can vary considerably from scheme to scheme.
In the case of the last consideration, unfortunately, in this part of rural Sussex the power supply is limited and what is available is already accounted for. Any apparent spare capacity disappears when you take the requirement for resilience in the network into account. There simply isn’t the extensive, dense housing or the energy-demanding industrial processes already present that would mean that the necessary easily-upgradable infrastructure was available for a cost-effective solution. The cost of getting the necessary high voltage lines to a suitable location would thus be high and the railway would bear all (or most) of that cost.
A further consideration is that politicians are likely to run a mile from further electrification until Network Rail can get costs down. The suggested alternative of someone else doing it does not seem very realistic either – especially as instances of other people claiming to be able to do something cheaper than Network Rail have usually not ended well. In any case, if there are limited resources, it is hard to see an existing delayed project being delayed even further in order to electrify the line to Uckfield for its 2tph peak and 1tph off-peak service.
Gibb would have been on much firmer ground if, having emphasised the benefits of eliminating diesel traction, he had recommended further investigation into the practicality of electrifying the Uckfield branch using 25kV AC with no change to the existing track layout.
A stable solution
Gibb also proposes a depot, or at least stabling facility, at Crowborough – two stops short of Uckfield. He points out that this would do a lot to reduce the considerable empty mileage runs and provide more space at Selhurst. That in itself would have beneficial knock-on effects. This does seem a good idea, but then he seems to think that the depot can be built and operated using the existing ground frame “until such time as the route signalling is renewed.” What is questionable is just how practical this is, given that no resignalling is on the horizon and normally a ground frame means that no other train movement can take place over the adjacent main line track in the relevant signalling section. The 25-mile long route from Hurst Green to Uckfield has just six signalling sections.
With the current setup, there is reportedly a four-minute delay between the signalman at Oxted giving the release and the release on the ground frame being activated. Shunting is not a speedy process and drivers are no longer allowed to reverse trains. As a result, they have to walk the length of the train to the other cab. If two diesel units are coupled together on the Uckfield line it is impossible to walk from one end of the train to the other without going outside. Going outside means going down onto the track and observing safety precautions unless a suitable walkway is built. Changing ends in such a fashion is not a popular procedure in wet weather. It is even less popular when it is snowing and, from the sanctity of suburban London in summer, it is easy to forget how harsh rural weather can be in that part of the world.
Milton Keynes – East Croydon
One of the most intriguing ideas in the report is the idea of handing over the Milton Keynes – East Croydon service to London Overground. Again, much of the reasoning for this is that the service causes a strain on Selhurst depot (technically Norwood depot, which is adjacent to Selhurst depot) with drivers having to have a lot of extra route knowledge and also knowledge of overhead wire procedures. Gibb points out that this route does not fit well into GTR’s operations. With some people arguing the GTR franchise is too big, this must be an obvious route to remove from it.
Again, we have a slight breakdown in logic in that, whilst Chris Gibb produces a good case for removing the Milton Keynes – East Croydon route from GTR, he fails to explain why it should go to London Overground. Milton Keynes is halfway to Birmingham and getting London Overground to run it does not seem to be a logical fit. It is a bit surprising that he did not suggest running this as a micro-franchise which operated just this route. He provides suggestions for depots but this, in many ways, just highlights the depot problem we have in London.
What the report does not mention is that there are often proposals for the Milton Keynes service to be cut back to Watford Junction. If that were to be done then it would make a lot of sense for London Overground to run it, as many of the stations served are already TfL managed stations. Whether TfL would want to run the service is another matter. The service is currently hourly so it does not really fit in with TfL’s turn-up-and-go model. It is an awkward service to run as it frequently gets delayed and it is not easy to recover from delays without affecting other services. Indeed one of the only ways to recover it is to miss out stations on the least served part of the route. These stations, between Willesden Junction and Clapham Junction, are the very stations that, ideally, you want to ensure have a reliable direct service with stations further afield.
There is also the danger that, with TfL running it, the penalty regime could mean that, as on the route to London Bridge, the London Overground trains get a higher priority between Clapham Junction and East Croydon. This would mean that there would be further disruption to Southern metro services.
It may be that, by recasting its existing services, London Overground could integrate a Watford Junction – Clapham Junction service, with some or all trains extended to East Croydon or elsewhere, at a higher frequency than today. However, we are really unlikely to find out as long as Grayling is Secretary of State for Transport, because his opposition to London Overground, and especially London Overground services running beyond the London boundary, is well known.
Gatwick Airport
The report quite reasonably focuses considerable attention on Gatwick Airport and the Gatwick Express service. The suggestion is made that the old underpowered class 442 trains with just two single leaf doors per 23m carriage, completely unsuited to the Southern network, are withdrawn. This was an existing objective and has already happened.
The report makes much of the differential fares at Gatwick Airport and the problems that these introduce. Again, well-known stuff that many have commented on before but it is good to see it emphatically pointed out yet again in this report. Similarly, the well-known problem of extended dwell time on a rainy day caused by the platform canopies not extending the length of the platform is pointed out.
What is bold and different is the suggestion that the airport station should be sold off to Gatwick Airport. Whilst an intriguing idea, it is hard to see this happening. It has not been established that the Airport would want to buy it and it would seem to be almost impossible to rationally establish a fair price.
One concern with selling off the airport station would be that Gatwick Airport Ltd would probably not be keen to carry out work which improved reliability generally but had very little to specifically offer the airport. Another concern would be that once sold, it would be very hard to regain ownership if things weren’t working out. The debacle over access charges to Heathrow that Heathrow Airport wanted to impose on Crossrail shows the potential for conflict.
A plethora of recommendations
The Gibb report is full of recommendations and insights and in this short assessment, we have only been able to cover a few of the more notable of them. In the report, there are 38 specific recommendations (Appendix 11) with the majority requiring action by the DfT. Whilst we are sure some will turn out to be impractical, others politically unacceptable and others somewhat non-specific, there are a lot of interesting ideas and explanations for why we are in the situation we are in.
The Gibb Report comes across as a report that provides much food for thought even though not everything mentioned in it would be practical – or politically acceptable. Nonetheless, the government has made a good start with addressing the backlog of maintenance. It remains to be seen how many other recommendations are acted on.
Ah snap I just wrote a post on the report, though with more of a Southeastern slant.
The big bit of info for Southeastern passengers is that the report puts a cost on stabling 20 trains from Southern at just £2 million.
https://fromthemurkydepths.wordpress.com/2017/06/29/transport-sec-chris-grayling-sits-on-rail-report-for-months-what-it-contains-revealed/
I have just had two excursions into Southern territory for the first time in years. Only London to East Croydon, but enough to feel how much slower it is than I remember from my days of commuting from/to East Croydon and these trips were off-peak. Like you, I haven’t completed reading the report, but much of it makes common sense to me as does your analysis – which is up to its usual excellent standard.
As for electrification to Uckfield, the distances involved are at the very limit of what it sensible for battery power right now unless there was a chance to do some fast recharging in the turnaround time at the end of the line – which would need a significant electrical supply. I can’t see the logic of a 25kV island in a sea of 750V, though.
As to MK to Croydon, getting it integrated into the current Euston outer suburban service would make more sense than to pass it to London Overground. A micro-franchise might make sense; it would “own” more stock than Hull Trains or Grand Central! The service is well filled even north of Watford Junction. One of the best improvements that could be made is to speed up the journey between Wembley Central and Kensington Olympia. This is painfully slow though very low speed limits, tortuous pointwork, having to stop to change from ac to dc or vice versa.
The point about power supplies in rural Sussex are well made. Clearly I can’t name them; the county education service recently upgrade a small school. Nothing too grand, new microwave in the staff room, install a power shower in the disabled toilet. For the classrooms there are new interactive whiteboards. Work carried out over the Easter break. Go to switch everything on and the main switchboard trips out. The country’s electricians have several attempts with no success. Call out National Power; bloke in van turns up and says you’re taking too much power. We will have to install a new sub-station. The estimate arrives a few weeks later and runs to almost 3 figures. No budget provision until (probably) 2019. So it’s back to a chalk board, no showers or hot pies.
Re From The Murky Depths,
And circa £70m cheaper than rebuild Slade Green to add the same stabling and maintenance capacity…
Re Gordon,
I presume you mean 3 figures in front of the k? (i.e. 6 figures)
If 25 kV is the better system (safety, cost, energy-saving etc), and if changeovers have become almost trouble-free, and if there is plenty of dual-voltage rolling stock, then any new electification anywhere (more than the odd siding or spur) must be done at 25kV. Just like no-one has equipped a new house with gas lighting for a good few decades, regardless of how neighbouring houses were lit.
I think Chris Gibb has looked at other options but not necessarily stated he has discounted them or why. (Not only on this topic but others too as explaining why in full would take too long)
Battery from Oxted – Uckfield – the 3rd rail power supply North of Oxted is already stretched and limits train acceleration currently so it couldn’t take recharging batteries in addition to supplying extra traction traction power for 4 more electric trains per hour (2tph each way) without a major upgrade again needing UKPN (and possibly National Grid grid work) so expensive infrastructure wise – a power supply upgrade alone doesn’t do anything for the East Grinstead / Uckfield or wider timetables… hence the BCR weak for battery charging.
Bi-Mode The Oxted Tunnel is one of the structures nationally that defines the upper structure (loading) gauge in this case the car width is limited by the reverse curves at the northern end of the Oxted tunnel (on the electrified section before the line splits 2 miles further south). This means that quite a lot of stock doesn’t fit on the East Grinstead or Uckfield branches this includes both BR Mk3 suburban stock so no Porterbrook Cl 319 (to be know as Cl769) or similar ex-SWT 455 bi mode conversions and no Anglia clone Stadler Bi-modes (as they will be articulated articulated Jacobs bogies (similar to the eurostars but with longer cars), the GE routes on which they will be used have a generous loading gauge). Hence there is no off the shelf Bi-Mode stock options for the line, the only solution would be a 377 conversion as has been pondered by Porterbrook for Marshlink in 2015-2016 but Porterbrook would rather you went for one of their 319 or 455 conversions first… The proposed (and all gone quiet for circa 12 months) 377 bi-mode for Marshlink wouldn’t be able to keep to the current timetable on Uckfield Branch so is a non-starter in its current form and no easy way to fit another underfloor diesel engine in. The Stadler Bi- Mode option would also cause issues with reduced capacity and increased dwell times especially at East Croydon and London Bridge so a non starter for other reasons other than not fitting through the tunnel.
Hence I believe Chris Gibb has examined those options and discounted them.
Malcolm, is 25kV cheaper, given the need for bridge & tunnel clearances? Or is it just that 3rd rail has now become unsafe – how many deaths & injuries has 3rd. rail caused?
Malcolm: I don’t see plenty of dual voltage stock available. There’s lots of “potentially” dual voltage stock, but if flexibility of fleet deployment is required a lot more currently dc-only trains would have to have the ac kit fitted. From what others say, the power infrastructure outside the railway needs to be upgraded irrespective of the railway’s needs. Dc tracking is kinder to the power infrastructure than ac as the dc system can and does take power from all three of the high voltage ac phases whereas ac uses a single phase and can unbalance (if that’s the right word) the ac infrastructure. It is too simplistic to say ac good, dc bad for this route..
Another mention here for London Overground getting higher priority over GTR. This just isn’t the case. The regulation statements past and present have no distinction between the two operators. The only exception currently is Thameslink trains have a higher priority than both Southern and Overground at Norwood Junction
What the report does not mention is that there are often proposals for the Milton Keynes service to be cut back to Watford Junction
I’m not sure this is completely right – page 52 of the report does say:
TfL may decide to change the service, for example by not running it north of Watford Junction, or running it to an alternative southern destination other than East Croydon.
Presumably he is sympathetic to this or he would have suggested handing the service over to the London Midland franchise instead. Although a factor there might be that TfL would be more likely to make it DOO than LM who have guards.
As significant is perhaps the suggestion that Great Northern inner suburban services be handed over to TfL – obviously a political non-starter under the current Secretary of State but if the election had gone differently (or not happened) he might already have been reshuffled away by now.
100andthirty: I certainly do not know enough about the factors you mention – let alone the tunnel dimensions, or the signalling isolation requirements – to say “ac good dc bad” for this case. All I am saying is that this respected railwayman has suggested AC in the report we are discussing, which aligns with what I thought was a national long term policy to ultimately phase out these obsolete conductor rails. General statements about “AC islands” are not sufficient – in my view – to challenge Chris Gibb’s suggestion, for the reasons I gave. But yes, the specific local factors may be.
As an aside though, planning for the long term does not seem to be very popular these days.
Re 130 and Malcolm,
GTR will have plenty of spare 4 car dual voltage 377/2 and 377/5 available soon as they won’t need 38 units to operate the Milton Keynes -East Croydon services…
POP: I think the sentence mentioning the 442s should read ‘underpowered’, not ‘unpowered’.
[Fixed. Ta. PoP]
100andthirty: GIbb does say he considered third rail electrification; section 5.1 of appendix 5 (pp 60-61) explains why he went for AC.:
He also mentions ORR not wanting to extend the third rail, though they’d allow it for a mile or so to reach the proposed changeover point.
Looking through the new East-West rail phase 2 consultation documents could the future franchisee be another option for taking over the Milton Keynes – Croydon service?
The EWR franchise is C Graylings idea so I assume he’d be warmer on this than letting TfL get their orange mits on it. Might be easier than trying to renegotiate the London Midland franchise to accommodate it. Would even create a partial outer orbi-rail system.
RogerB
750V DC 3rd rail is even worse than that – it’s unfashionable!
A parallel & equally-ridiculous historical case was the long delay in electrifying Birkenhead Central – New Brighton / West Kirby / Rock Ferry, because the then “National Standard” of 1.5kV DC overhead “had” to be used – it took several years for sense to re-assert itself.
This looks like a replay, to me at any rate.
Though …
John Elliott’s point about the cost of sub-stations is also one to be considered,
@MALCOLM 30 June 2017 at 07:25
I found this site ..http://momodem1.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/a-walk-through-oxted-tunnel.html….. which shows the reverse curve in Oxted Tunnel that restricts loading gauge (previous commentator) . Mark Beech tunnel is also available. Note: With the obvious track work in some images, I assume he is a railway worker/observer with permission, not a trespasser.
One of the justifications in the report for electrifying Uckfield is to improve the ability to recover the service by removing the constraint of dmus from Uckfield having to always return there. What is really needed is the ability for any of Southern’s Electrostar fleet to be able to work to Uckfield. By going for 25KV you impose the constraint that it must be a DV unit which, even with 377/5 supplementing 377/2 and 377/7, are still in the minority and would leave diagramming difficulties under disruption. We’ve already had at least one instance of a 377/2 leading a 377/4 round the WLL and no-one noticed until the driver attempted the changeover to AC at North Pole. There is plenty of scope for that at Hurst Green with DC units going to East Grinstead
The only logical thing to do is to electrify Uckfield with DC. The ORR’s objections are an “in an ideal world” type mentality and they need to be forced to be pragamatic (see also AC clearances). DC electrification is not going to go away for a very long time indeed and so the ORR need to wake up and smell the coffee. Plans such as that to convert Basingstoke to Southampton to AC never made financial sense at the best of times and certainly don’t now. That particular project has been buried and won’t see the light of day again for at least a generation and probably much longer.
Having had some involvement in costings of AC and DC schemes, I have a very high degree of confidence that Gibb has totally under estimated the cost of the former. Analysis done for North Downs and Marsh Link shows the AC cost to be about 3 to 4 times greater than that for DC. I see no reason why Uckfield should be different. The power supply issue is easier to solve with a DC fill in scheme as the internal HV distribution network already provided on DC lines can be extended.
@ Fred
Indeed the DC to AC conversion ‘electric spine’ has been postponed, DfT have told EWR not to electrify phase 2 on building which rather removes a decent chunk of the back bone.
I have not read the report but does the Reading – Gatwick Airport service get a mention. It obviously uses paths between Redhill & Gatwick and probably more than one when it reverses at Redhill.
I went on this service last Saturday from Guildford to Redhill and I was surprised how busy it was. All seats in all 3 cars were taken and people standing as well as lots of luggage in the aisles. A few people got out at Redhill but the majority appeared to be heading for Gatwick. Is there a case for increased service frequency on this route ( 2TPH at 20 & 40 min intervals) ?
In contrast on the Thameslink train from Redhill to Purley I was the only person in my coach and all the other coaches showed as ‘green’ i.e. lightly loaded on the interior display. As they say in the airline business moving empty seats is a sure way to make a loss.
Re Johnm
The main reason for the extra platform at Redhill is precisely to increase the number of Redhill – Reading trains to 3tph. This allows the removal of calls at lightly used stations such as Betchworth by Gatwick trains – which can also then go 2tph all day with an even 30minute timetable due to an easing of platforming issues at Redhill in the peaks.
Re various comments on the Uckfield line:-
Firstly, the signalling on the line is SSI – with DC track circuits so needs no major changes to accommodate OLE (as opposed to con rail which requires the wholesale replacement of all the track circuits).
Conductor rail requires far more electricity supply points due to the laws of physics – as Mr Gibb notes in his report. While a single AC supply is expensive it would still come out cheaper than the DC option. Also you cannot ‘simply extend’ the current railway HV network at minimal cost – the supply into that NR HV network from the national grid will also require upgrading – remember what happened with Railtrack and the slam door EMU replacement power supply issues saga anyone?
Crowborough Ground frame is actually a set of motor worked points controlled by a locally operated control box with a release granted by Oxted. As such it needs no radical surgery – the box could be put inside a shunters cabin for example (or just outside it if it was not staffed 24/7)
Because the line was singled in the late 1980s, Structural alterations to bridges and tunnels would be relatively minimal, albut with some minor slewing to put the single track in the centre of the formation in some locations. For locations where the loops exist,. the Uckfield branch could take advantage of the Paisley Canal approch (where diesel stock is pretty much banned unless an isolation is taken due to reduced clearances between the trains and the OHL) as there is zero requirement to run freight traffic on the branch.
At present the ex Crowborough goods yard remains in railway ownership – but given the pressure on housing in East Sussex (its not exactly noted for having vast swathes of ex industrial land that can be built on) the situation may not stay that way for long so the sites potential needs to be recognised before it gets too late.
Finally regarding the limited number of dual voltage 377 units – ALL Electrostar builds were designed from the beginning to be able to have OHL equipment fitted (as in all the internal wiring etc is present – all you need to do is add a pantograph plus a 25KV transformer – both of which have mounting points built into the body, followed by a software update and off you go). Thus its perfectly possible to increase the number of dual voltage EMUs without the need for new builds should the Uckfield line get OHL.
To take Redhill issues further Chris Gibb says that the following must occur “Coulsdon South, Merstham and Redhill to be served between 0001 and 0500 only on Saturday and Sunday mornings, with Thameslink services running via the Quarry Line or Redhill, without stopping, on Monday to Friday mornings, depending on engineering requirements”
That means last trains from London will be the 23:02 from Victoria and 23:08 from London Bridge as all other trains would be travelling along the line after his curfew.
So the 50,000 plus residents of Reigate, Redhill, Merstham will have no means of returning from London by public transport after 11pm 5 nights per week. There is no other public transport to Redhill or Reigate at that time of night (its very limited the rest of the day). As many theatres and gigs do not finish until a time when it is impossible to get to London Termini by just after 11pm it will mean more driving into London as no alternatives
Re:Johnm : On the Thameslink trains from Redhill – they are not very popular as they meander through South London to destinations no-one particularly wants. If you was on a Victoria train or even a London Bridge one you would have seen a train packed with many more passengers. In particular the Victoria train leaves a few moments after the Thameslink and gets to East Croydon first.
T33: it’s a minor point, but returning from a theatre after 11 pm could still be done by a mixed-mode journey, e.g. car to/from East Croydon or somewhere, and train north of there. But admittedly this would be a bit of a pain, and driving into central London (or staying at home) are rather more likely.
Re:T33
One should point out there is a bus from Gatwick to Redhill at 0044 and 0244, so one could go via there. Not the best solution, but you’re not totally cut off. One should also point out many towns further from London would love trains till 11.
@ PoP – does Mr Grayling really hate “London Overground”? He hates a train service that is contracted in broadly the same way as every other TOC? Surely it is rail services being directly outside his control and in the hands of someone else that he (apparently) hates? I look forward to him hating Crossrail and having absolutely nothing to do with it opening (assuming he is still at the DfT in Dec 2018 (heaven forbid)).
I have not read the Gibb report but I am somewhat surprised that he appears to have come up with a number of things that you’ve been able to “shoot down” with relative ease or which are pretty much borderline stupid. Even recognising the stupidly compressed timescale to which he was working this seems a very odd outcome from someone with his apparent skill set and experience.
Re T33
You need to remember that post 2018 Thameslink services from Redhill will return to the London Bridge route rather than ‘meandering through south London’ – however as Mr Gibb notes if you want that service to run as planned then serious service reductions are necessary for the moment.
The brutal truth (as outlined in the report) is the Brighton line has suffered from years from a ‘make do and mend’ approches to infrastructure maintenance so that passengers are not inconveienced and have ever more train services to use. This is NOT sustainable and no amount of complaining will alter the facts on the ground. For too long TOCs and others have been seducing users with unststaunable service levels that give users a dangerious sense of entitlement regardless of engineering considerations.
As such the curtailing of late night train services and more blockades are essential to ensure propper and long lasting repairs (as opposed to short term papering over the cracks for the umpteenth time). Yes this causes disruption, etc but its about time the railway industry was honest and confronted the moaners head on – what do you want unreliable train services at all hours or a service that actually gives enough time to maintain the infrastructure?
Perhaps they could swap some DC only 377’s with some of the dual voltage 375/6’s that Southeastern have?
As an aside, I saw a 377 yesterday at Beckenham Jn in the Northern bay platform. It was painted in the new SE mainline colour scheme of “better hope the aircon works” dark blue, but with two first class compartments at each end of the train instead of the single central first class compartment…
For me, one of the most interesting things in the report was the statement that moving to DOO was/is a franchise condition. If that is so, I would have expected much more support for GTR from the government in the ASLEF/RMT negotiations.
Crowborough depot. If this is a a serious proposal, the first thing to do is to safeguard the land. A brownfield former goods yard and engineering site, it is now in mixed light industrial use with a timber merchant etc, but could definitely be at risk of housing development being so attractively close to a station. The site definitely is the most promising from a planning point of view for a depot. Although there is housing nearby it looks like the depot could remain largely shielded by trees, just as the businesses there are today. The nearest alternative old goods yard site is at Edenbridge Town, but that is nearly half way to Selhurst so the empty running avoidance benefits would be smaller.
The GF appears to be the motorised type with point machines visible on Google Earth. That type usually has a small switch panel in a locked cabinet rather than a mechanical lever frame. The release may very well have a long time time delay as there appears to be no separately indicated track circuit on the panel immediately south of the main line connection, as seen here.
A depot layout would have to reinstate the headshunt behind the down platfrom in order that a train could draw clear of the main line connection to set back into a fan of sidings in the goods yard. The platform back edge fencing could be removed to assist crews changing ends. While movements from the headshunt towards Uckfield can be made easily when starting service in the morning, the big problem with the existing signalling is that movements INTO the sidings can only arrive from the London direction, not Uckfield, unless a further time consuming reversal is carried out on the single line north of Crowborough station (for which of course the section nearly all the way to Ashurst would have to be clear). Alternatively incoming movements in the evening could all be terminated short at Crowborough rather than going all the way to Uckfield, but I can’t see that being acceptable. This suggests some signalling alterations will be neccessary. The area was last resignalled in 1990 with control being located at Oxted, a new small PSB building opened in 1987. It is an an early SSI scheme, but I think it should be capable of taking a relatively minor change of layout without full resignalling. Perhaps to save costs the layout alterations could be combined with a desired control transfer of the entire Oxted control area to Three Bridges ROC, which with new control screens provided would avoid alterations to the physical panel faceplates at Oxted.
The layout changes required for best functionality would be full bidirectional running on both up and down tracks so in the evening an up empty from Uckfield could run directly into the headhunt via the down line while the next down passenger train passes it using the up platform. With signalling alterations taking place it would be sensible to incorporate a second access turnout into the yard, perhaps at the south end of the sidings, in order that a single points failure cannot lock the entire fleet in (or out) of the depot or cause long delays by having to manually move and clip a broken turnout for each individual movement. An example of this approach applied to a new small depot being constructed is at Banbury for Chiltern Railways, the access roads and turnouts for which can be seen on my layout sketch here.
Another useful layout reference diagram for the Crowborough area is here.
Re. the Uckfield line…..would there be any benefit in reverting back to a diesel shuttle service between Oxted and Uckfield (as was the case for most of the 90s and 00s), at least until decisions are made about whether and how the electrics (or bi-mode trains) get to Uckfield?
Feels deeply short-sighted and inefficient that we’ve ended up with just three unelectrified islets (Uckfield, Marshlink and North Downs) in a sea of DC third-rail electrified railway across most of Southern England, and if NSE had survived a bit longer, I’m sure Graham H might have found some way (with additional cash) to remedy this, but there we are…..
@Malcolm – mixed mode what a great idea – perhaps we should take some parcels and BBQ coals with us too. Fair point but only OK if you are going up town later rather than using your season ticket to stay late.
@Anon – fair point on other towns – but when for the last 30 years (which is as long as I can remember but possibly longer) you’ve had an 00:14 service from Victoria it’s a bit tough to find your service curtailed at 11pm. And also why do much smaller places like Horley, Haywards Heath and Burgess Hill etc still have public transport that late at night
@Phil The Thameslink point was to explain why the train was so empty – In 2018 it won’t be.
Appreciate that something has to be done but losing your only connection late at night that hundreds of people use daily (and it is hundreds as I have seen GTR figures, just the 00:14 alone averages 56 passengers a night getting off at Redhill according to GTR’s figures on the 5 nights being cancelled – but from personal experience as a regular user I would say regularly more)
Yes, the line needs better maintenance but a better solution that Chris Gibbs is necessary. It doesn’t need to be 5 nights a week and perhaps one regular night a week starting even earlier but with proper replacement buses would be a better idea.
On new depots, Gibb could have suggested Redhill, where there is a lot of flat land in the junction between the Tonbridge and Main lines that GWR currently use, where GTR/NR could create several extended 12 car sidings. The Quarry line on the far side also means it is very difficult land to trespass on, which would ensure better security. There is already a small drivers/Guards depot that could be extended.
@Anonymously -those three islets were certainly on our to do list in NSE days (as was the diesel island between Bedford and Bletchley). N Downs was nearest to solving; if it had not needed an extra substation perhaps somewhere near Dorking and possibly between Wokingham and Ash, it would have been done long ago. Looking back, with the usual advantage of hindsight, I would have investigated the power supply from Dorking Deepdene.
MT
My anti-virus software went bananas with your link to Crowborough – what is wrong with it, or is it a false positive?
[I have had no success with opening the Crowborough link either. LBM]
…… and perhaps at possibly raiding the current supply at Farnborough for Farnborough North -couldn’t do it now, of course and there are well ingrained prejudices at mixing the power supplies from different routes..
@Greg: No problem with either link… Both look to be fine.
@Graham: Install an independent sub station sharing only the HV AC supply? Or would that still cause problems?
@SHLR – Dunno! I’d turn to the electrical engineers for advice. I do note, however, the Watford dc/NLL services share a number of power bleeds off the radial services as they pass round the capital.
There seems to be a bit of confusion about train crew depots and rolling stock depots. South Coast stabling is not concentrated at Barnham; one train can be stabled in the down loop platform. However, a large number of train crew are based there.
Re: the hyperlink to the Oxted signalling diagram. I found it through the simsig website which I’ve always found trustworthy. They seem to have one of these ‘numbering plans’ available among the reference documents for each of their published signalling simulations. I had no problems with it on my desktop and my phone. I’ll try it on my father’s machine later today. Note the layout shown at East Grinstead on the simsig plan differs from that in the panel photograph I also linked to, The station throat was changed from a single track to double at some time since the original installation. That demonstrates that small layout changes can be and have been implemented previously with this generation of signalling equipment.
My Chrome browser asks if I agree to multiple downloads before displaying the diagram. If I agree it works fine.
@Pop and others.
Probably something weird to do with their wiki software, database driven no doubt.
It’s mentioned in part 11 of the Sussex series that the single lead junction at East Grinstead was replaced by a scissors crossover when the platforms were extended to 12 cars.
@T33
Southeastern has withdrawn late night trains on certain sections of route to allow maintenance to take place, but only on certain days of the week, when they are then replaced by buses. I would imagine Redhill and other stations would similarly be served by a bus from the nearest appropriate railhead, at least as far as a ‘normal’ last train (your 00.14 example) if not an all night service.
@LONDONER IN SCOTLAND
While the drivers are based at Barnham, rolling stock is stabled nearby at Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. The station platforms and sidings at both are full at night. Bognor has carriage cleaning and I think toilet tank discharge and water filling capability. Littlehampton has the same as well as a washing plant. Between them the two sites can stable in excess of 200 20m cars, i.e about 50×4-car units.
@JOHN ELLIOTT 2 July 2017 at 21:25
East Grinstead 12-car platforms and new throat junctions. Work carried out sometime between 2008 and 1012 deduced from Google Earth historic imagery.
Homophone alert: “The principal {i.e. senior person, or money invested] of the idea may not be a bad one” should be “The principle [i.e. general theorem]….”
Betterbee,
I have in ingrained in my head that when one refers to the senior person in a sentence one uses ‘principal’. Unfortunately, not it is not so in this situation. Now corrected,ta.
With regard to third rail electrification – in previous years this had been frowned upon by the ORR and even infill schemes like Marshlink and Uckfield were cast into outer darkness (or 25kv as they call it in the South).
There has since been a subtle change in their view, possibly not unrelated to the extreme costs of OLE, that means it would be possible to pop conrail down (subject to extra safety features , such as kickboards all over the place). Bear in mind the railway has its own 33kv ring main so electrification would not cause the lights to dim in Crowborough.
The newly extended platforms on the Uckfield line are crying out for a regular electric service and the sparks effect of a proper timetable with electric trains would have a massive impact on commuting and even potentially spark development in lineside communities. Uckfield 750DC has surely to be a no-brainer.
Supermac: an upbeat comment favouring third rail to Uckfield. However, some of it sounds rather like an enthusiast’s assertion of what they would like to be the case. I would be interested in any firm evidence of “a subtle change in [ORR’s] view”, or “the extreme costs of OLE [relative, presumably, to third rail]” or “the railway’s own 33kV ‘ring main'”.
Yes, there would be a sparks effect, doubtless, but is a dramatically improved timetable actually likely or feasible? Just one issue: the number of London terminal slots for trains from Uckfield is unlikely (it seems to me) to undergo much increase, regardless of the trains’ motive power.
It seems to me, leaving aside the safety implications, that the main factor inhibiting further extension of third-rail electrification within the old SR is the number and cost of electrical substations that are required (as well as possible signalling upgrades if the track circuits aren’t immune to DC currents). Compared to what is involved with OHLE, installing the third rail itself isn’t actually the limiting factor.
Is it really the case that there have been *no* technological developments over the past 30 years that have remedied this? After all, DC third-rail electrification is in widespread use across the world (albeit not on the same scale as in Southern England…..the closest equivalent might be the Long Island Railroad in NY), so railway engineers somewhere might have worked on this?
Supermac: the railway does indeed have its own 33kv ring main. Not down the Uckfield line though. Indeed the ring main in the adjacent Hastings line is at only 11kv (done to save cash in NSE days); and this is a regular source of reliability issues in that route.
Also, I question the likely sparks effect on the Uckfiled line. Most (but not all) electrification schemes come allied with one or more of new signalling, new trains, longer trains, more frequent trains etc. It is that which drives the sparks effect. Notably the Chiltern line had all of these except electrification in a total route modernisation of the early 90s, and passenger numbers rocketed.
An Uckfield electrification would come with none of these. There would be a reliability benefit, yes, and possibly a marginal reduction in journey times, although this may not be realised due to the single line sections. Otherwise no discernible benefit to passengers.
Re Malcolm and SuperMac,
1. The 33KV (or older oil filled 66kv that is being replaced or occasionally 11kv) NR cable network is not a ringmain it is a radial network and fed from the local Distribution Network Operator (DNO) networks mostly UKPN except the SWT (Wessex) area west of the M25 which is SSE. The DNO feeds are at 132 / 66 / 33 / 11 KV. [There are 3 monster supplies at New Cross (former Gas works), Durnsford Road (Wimbledon – former railway power station site) & Selhurst that cover most of the Z1-4(5) area south of the Thames with lots of smaller DNO feeds beyond across outer London, Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire and Dorset.
2. This means NR is reliant on the DNO and in turn NatGrid being above to supply NR in the area concerned. In the case of the 3 monsters there is National Grid supply at 400KV or 275KV feeding the DNO at the location where the NR feed is tapped off.
3. The 33kV cable that feeds the East Grinstead route is maxed out (or actually more than maxed out as it can’t supply (absorb) enough current to allow the electrostars to accelerate (or regeneratively brake) to the same level they can elsewhere on the 3rd rail network. The electricity supply for East Grinstead route (from Sanderstead) was repurposed from the Selsdon – Elmers End line that closed in 1983 and allowed East Grinstead electrification to go live in 1987 using lots of recovered materials and the spare supply capacity (which wasn’t /isn’t quite up to the job) hence the 1987 scheme cost should not be used for cost benchmarking purposes. (Also note expectation of only 8car trains)
So if you want to electrify to Uckfield with 3rd rail you face 2 issues:
a) the need to take another 4tph of electric trains between Sanderstead and Oxted on an already maxed out network so an enhanced supply would be needed (£££)
b) 4tph Uckfield – Oxted will need an enhanced feed from Sanderstead or a completely new supply. (£££)
The problem is that there isn’t a single location for a DNO supply point for 3rd rail (or OHLE) with enough spare capacity for lots of small local 33kv supplies as a single train would be enough to use more than all the “local” spare capacity in DNO’s network. There is a 132KV cable in the area with theoretically enough spare capacity for a feed (for 3rd rail or OHLE) but the spare capacity is already allocated for network resilience in the case one of the preferred routes in Kent is lost. (Quite a few LR (or Evening Standard) readers will remember what happens if you have supply problems into or out of Northfleet).
(The NR power supply around greater Tunbridge Wells area is also problematic as is the entire Hastings branch and the Redhill – Tonbridge line which could all do with improvements but where do you get the juice from…)
To avoid any confusion …
ngh is clearly speaking with his electrical engineer’s hat on. To such a person 4tph means that you need to supply electricity to 4tph which means he is talking about what someone wearing an operator’s hat would call 2tph i.e. 2tph in either direction.
Of course if you had a depot at Crowborough, I would argue that you may only really be talking about a maximum 3tph (as perceived by electrical engineers).
Surely we’re talking about up to 4 extra trains being fed by the supply, potentially all running at full power at the same time within the newly electrified area (and in the existing electrified area), so per hour doesn’t really come into it, except that the maximum power draw will probably be contained within an hour or two during the a.m. peak.
Re PoP,
Indeed – we don’t want any one from North Surrey / East Sussex getting over excited about additional services!
Mostly agreed on the Crowborough point as that makes running the peak extra trains (1tph off peak /direction, peak 2tph) far easier and cheaper however i suspect there would still be 1 (may be 2) per peak instance of 4trains per hour (2tph each way) for electrical supply purposes.
Re Mark,
Very unlikely to all be drawing full power at the same time but that is one of the potential design criteria (the assumption is that isn’t the case in most places as it would be unaffordable to do so) and quite a complex problem especially with the stretched existing supply. The usual solution is to stick “notch 2” signs up so drivers don’t take as much power as they could as the cheap solution.
Depending on assumptions you’re looking at around 20MW additional supply capability in the base case needed to the 3rd rail substations (existing* and additional). *Existing between Hurst and Sanderstead assumes Track Paralleling (TP) hut replacement with substations else replacement with larger substations substations. The 3rd rail option does give the option of multiple 33kv sources to split the load but still a lack of easy options for supply points in some places.
RE: supermac, SFD – surely we can agree that there never was such a thing as the “sparks effect”? The implication of the name is that the simple fact that the trains are powered by electricity leads to increased passenger numbers. Clearly rubbish. See also “nosecone effect”, where passenger numbers apparently go up because of the shape of the front of the train.
What actually happens is that certain interventions (electrification or the introduction of HSTs in the above examples) facilitate the provision of significantly better services – in terms of frequency, journey time, on-train facilities, or whatever – which passengers respond to.
Does this example prove the existence of a “Class 153 effect”, i.e. that if all trains were replaced with single diesel railcars we would achieve 40% passenger growth?
http://www.cornwalllive.com/loop-leads-train-passenger-boost/story-11522715-detail/story.html
And what about the “flywheel effect”?
http://premetro.co.uk/news/shuttle-passenger-numbers-on-the-rise-again/
No there isn’t – in both cases a specific intervention (infrastructure in the former, rolling stock and operating practice in the latter) has made possible a much more convenient service for passengers.
We should not attribute outcomes purely to one feature when others are in play.
Nor, of course, should we assume that increased passenger numbers are by definition a sign of success. If they do not increase enough to pay off the investment, is that a good thing? (Answer: it may or may not be, dependent on what you are trying to achieve and whether your measure extends beyond the direct financial impact on the operating railway.)
To explain: My feelings on the “sparks effect” are not dependent on more trains, as clearly there would be a capacity issue closer into London, but simply that you could removed the unreliable diesels there, run longer trains regularly, with better acceleration and tackle all the downsides of a small diesel service in a sea of leccy (including the inability to stock swap or step up).
The reason I think 750DC is a no brainer, despite the acknowledged issue with substations, is the tunnels, bridges etc. Back in the day, simply demolishing bridges and rebuilding was not a problem, but now residents’ groups and others mean a tangle of enquiries and protests to be absorbed just to get the job done (see GW electrification for confirmation). Lowering track beds takes time and is very difficult in tunnels with inverts.
Moreover, putting up OLE would simply lead to another situation where a captive fleet has to be retained to run one line and therefore defeat the object of the exercise.
Finally, the ORR has said conrail can be installed, subject to stringent safety rules, which represents a softening compared to the past.
NGH Re: Ring Main, apologies for mis-selling it and I bow to your greater knowledge!
Balthazar
Gerry Feinnes says you are wrong.
See chapter on Shenfield & Southend electrifications in his classic book.
House-prices going up & passenger numbners increasing in advance of the electrification ( &Admittedly other improvement ) works.
Supermac
Yes – see my previous comments about the historical precedent in the Wirral
Sparks effect – The well documented 20% uplift from the 1967 Bournemouth electrification probably had components of the growth due to quicker journeys and more trains but also they were a lot cleaner as the swap was from steam.
Re Supermac,
Ring mains – a cunning ploy from the mid to late 1940s changes to the wiring regs (11th edition amendments) for domestic/ small office purposes in limited circumstances* to reduce copper consumption and hence imports (the UK was struggling to find the foreign currency to pay for imports at the time). The side effect was to create more work (in person hours) for electricians in the decades since.
*frequently never met or complied with
Greg,
And with Southend electrification you also went from run-down steam trains to new electric trains. And remember that steam travel was not really as depicted by immaculately-maintained preserved railways or modern day TV dramas (filmed on preserved railways). Apart from the dirt and the noise there was the hit-and-miss nature of steam heating as well as increased journey times due to limited acceleration.
On a diesel class 171 DMU serving Uckfield, the basic difference, as far as the passengers are concerned, with an electric class 377 unit is the noise and vibration of the underfloor engine and that is about it.
Given that it is well-known that the Uckfield line already attracts people who could equally well drive to a station with straight electric train service, the likelihood that there might be a significant sparks effect by replacing existing trains with electric trains of roughly the same age would be very limited.
The Uckfield sparks effect is most likely to be seen in East Croydon than elsewhere as electrostar or similar family units have more standing space in 2+2 seating configuration as they are slightly wider bodied 20m units than the 23m turbostars. The 171 also have also of wasted space at the cars ends (exhausts and more cabs) in comparison too EMUs.
A fair number of the passengers on the 171s to from London Bridge just use them to get to East Croydon which played a reasonable part in the justification for getting more stock and platform lengthening on the Branch itself.
Can we avoid the term “sparks effect”? There isn’t actually much evidence that the upsurge in traffic results from electrification per se, but rather from a combination of non-electric factors such as shorter journey times, new stock, and so on. As someone has already remarked, Total Route Modernisation of Chiltern produced excellent results with new diesel traction. Similar points might be made about the replacement of loco-hauled diesel with HSTs (aka the “nose-cone effect”).
On that basis, a business case for Uckfield electrification would have the following elements:
– elimination of diesel depot (the biggest prize by far)
– removal of separate stock of diesel spares (with usually some economies of scale – but not always if the nth new Uckfield electric triggers a new spare)
– cheaper fuel – maybe but can easily swing the other way.
– better performance (can be turned into fares revenue)
– more reliable (see spares and performance).
– maybe, better ride – v difficult to evaluate and monetise, alas.
– err, that’s it,folks – only the last of these items has much to do with electrification per se, unfortunately.
@Pedantic of Purley
“On a diesel class 171 DMU serving Uckfield, the basic difference, as far as the passengers are concerned, with an electric class 377 unit is the noise and vibration of the underfloor engine and that is about it.”
I went to Salisbury from Clapham Junction yesterday (and often use the line to Axminster), and frankly, the noise of the underfloor diesel engine can get really wearisome after a while, especially over two hours to Axminster. On occasion, I have even changed at Basingstoke on the return journey to get a `juice `train up to Clapham Junction. Wow – What a difference! Less noise and vibration.
On the Uckfield line – which I confess I have ridden just once in the days of Thumpers (ugh!) – I would have thought that the big changes, far more significant than any future switch to EMUs, were in sheer quality of the passenger exerience of 171s over the old DEMUs plus the fact that this coincided with the (re?)introduction of off-peak direct services to London.
ST
Yes. This is simply never addressed by the proponents of supposedly “modern” diesel unit-traction.
In the past year I’ve been to Loughborough, Derby & Sheffield, using THESE every time.
The psychological effect is extremely wearing & tiring, compared to travel in an HST … but no-one in “Officialdom” ( in its widest sense ) appears to know or care about the paying passenger’s experience.
Re: Greg 16.52 – “& admittedly other works”: my point exactly*. Fiennes and I are in agreement – a better service for passengers attracts more passengers; see the examples I cited earlier – not a traction volt in sight!
* or, to put it the other way round, if you were to electrify a railway but faithfully reproduce the pre-sparks passenger offer offer and experience, I contend that you would not see a significant uplift in usage.
Whilst I take the point in general about the unpleasantness of underfloor diesel engines, I feel obliged to add that often I end up getting the class 171s from London Bridge to East Croydon. I really do not think the difference is that great and in this particular case they are not that bad.
A couple of observations…..
I often take Turbostar type trains and like PoP don’t find the diesel allcthat troublesome, but then, like mim, my journeys on these things generally last only 20 mins or so. I can also put up with half an hoùr on a Voyager/Meridian……But London to Derby or (shudders) Milton Keynes to Edinburgh via Birmingham in a Voyager (under the wires the whole way) is something I try to avoid at all costs.
Space in Electrostars: I travelled on an Electrostar with 3+2 seating last week and was struck by the extreme narrowness of the gangway compared with any other 3+2 trains I have seen (eg class 455, various Desiros). Are they really wider than class 171?
I presume those who are interested have seen this which seems to generate more heat than light. However, just in case:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2017-06-27/debates/2DE37AFD-15BF-4D79-8C72-6E910C3F4318/SouthernRailGibbReport
@PoP: But that’s what? 15 minutes? It really starts to grate after 30 minutes… I used to have to travel up to Leicester on a semi-regular basis. After an hour you really want to escape….
What makes it worse, is that there are lots of speed changes once the train gets beyond Bedford, so it never settles down into just a steady background hummm…
@SHLR – Indeed. Lord Dawlish writes: “When advising the Palace on a replacement Royal Train, we briefly discussed a number of options. When we came to the dmu option, the look of horror on courtiers’ faces was wonderful: “You can’t have a Royal dmu”.
@GH: His lordship might be please to note that suitable motive power is available for Her Majesty’s forays into the West Country!
😉
Re Sparks effect.
The GN electrification effect on services out of Kings X and Moorgate appeared to be negative. The electric services were less frequent than the temporary diesel timetable imposed during the works. The temporary timetable leaflet itself carried an apology for the reduced frequency compared with the previously existing service. The new trains were also unreliable with the official excuse of “teething problems” still being used six years after electrification.
@NGH re ring mains.
Less work for electricians, surely. Coupled with reduced usage of raw materials, I would have thought this was a good thing.
Re Gibb’s SR report
For some reason, I started wondering about the state of the regulator’s teeth.
The Gibb Report was debated in Westminster Hall this morning — here’s the Hansard report..
Isn’t a big part of the issue with diesel engines down to what your everyday experience is? i.e. if you usually travel on electric units then you will definitely notice the difference, but when you travel daily on diesel units then you pay it no more attention than the engine in a car.
I would be amazed if someone who travelled regularly in say voyagers and no other trains would think there was anything unusual being able to hear engine noise
To quote GB Shaw _ You can get used to almost anything, so you’d better be careful what you do get used to.
Re Nameless,
Au contraire…
The reduction in materials is due to a mathematical optimisation for certain conditions* allowing the volume of copper to be reduced with a ring main using smaller diameter conductors but increasing the overall cable length used while still having a lower volume of copper used than a radial circuit. The penalty is in increased cable length which leads to more work in installation (more chasing, more conduit, more connections etc.) and far more work testing (the current official estimate is that an equivalent ring circuit will take 4-5times longer to test than a radial circuit even with modern hi-tech testing equipment).
There is good reason the rest of the world doesn’t use ring mains…
*The 13A fused plugs were introduced at the same to help try to enforce some of the conditions (interestingly the minutes of the meeting where it was decided to go for the short term rating of 13A rather than the continuous rating of 10A that the then new variant of the Multy Kontact (MK) plug and socket was designed for have got lost at some point). Some of the assumptions are jaw dropping to the modern reader…
However increasingly in practice these conditions aren’t being met and ring circuits are falling out of favour especially as it can often be harder to get RCDs/RCBOs to function as intended with ring circuits in some circumstances.
The voltage drop and power losses can also be greater with rings for modern installations under both the current or future editions of BS7671.
@Herned
When on a preserved railway recently, I was amazed how quiet the carriages were compared to an EMU. No brake compressors, air conditioners, fans cooling traction electrics…
Re Moosealot,
Also try the new Crossrail 345s for comparative silence…
The choice of AC rather than DC is inevitable given the way Gibb proposes electrification would be funded – that the franchisee would fund, build and own the electrification infrastructure, (the point being that Network Rail has no spare capacity or money for taking on extra electrification projects for years to come). SNCF have no experience with third rail electrification but plenty with 25Kv AC (they invented it!), and it would be implausible to have a third rail owned by a separate owner to the rest of the track, whereas separately owned overhead kit is sort-of feasible (but maybe not desirable).
@Ian J….Regardless of AC vs DC, separately owned and operated electrical infrastructure on our railway sounds like a recipe for chaos!!!
Our railway system is fragmented enough as it is…..please don’t make it worse 🙁.
Ian J
SNCF have no experience with third rail electrification …
Well, not currently ( oops, pun ) – but, the first time I went to Paris a line which is now part of the radial Tram system was 3rd-rail DC, with hand-operated sliding doors, a la Tyneside electrics. [ Puteaux – Issy val-de-Seine, IIRC ]
Long since gone, of course
@Anonymously _ hear! Hear! Having had to deal with the mirror image of the problem whilst privatising railways in former commie states (where the railway electrification kit also served as the public electricity supply), I can assure you that a rational attribution of faults, guarantees of continuity of supply, and a definition of outputs is an enormous legal task – and not one always crowned with success. The other argument , of course, is the eternal problem of dismantling the railway (or any other sector for thatmatter) into its component parts, and that is that you can never, repeat never, align risks and management control properly, and therein lies the path to financial and operational ruin…
GREG TINGEY 6 July 2017 at 10:51
SNCF also runs the scenic, metre gauge Ligne de Cerdagne in the French Pyrenees, electrified using a a top contact 3rd rail system at 850V DC.
As to big diesels under passenger compartments, am I alone in actually liking the reassuring rumble and hum of a well maintained great lump underneath? Able to sooth me to sleep if I choose, allowing me to gauge the effort being made in a very visceral, seat of the pants way when I’m observing the journey. That’s not to say I don’t also appreciate the smoothness of the motor carriage with only electric drive, or the near silence and peace of an unpowered trailer, just I don’t dislike the underfloor engine experience enough for it to put me off travelling, even on long, 6 hour plus Voyager journeys.
The Japanese Imperial train also functions as a luxury charter set named “Nagomi”. It is a dual voltage EMU, into which can be inserted an exclusive imperial saloon car that can also be used with other EMUs. On unelectrified tracks the EMU can be hauled by diesel locomotives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E655_series
@MT – “am I alone in actually liking the reassuring rumble and hum of a well maintained great lump underneath?” Probably; one doesn’t like to speculate….
Interesting about the Japanese Imperial Train. Perhaps if the Palace had been moved to buy the ONS, we might have had something similar.
SNCF does indeed run third rail trains, also on the line through Chamonix, and quite possible elsewhere too. But they are unlikely to have recent experience of adding third rail equipment to an existing railway. But as others have said, the whole idea of a separate owner for the power supply sounds fairly daft already – whether it is extra daft if the kit is on the floor rather than up in the air is perhaps moot. Either way there’s plenty of money in it – for lawyers.
SNCF have a bigger DC network than NR as they still have a massive 1500V DC Overhead network so have all the requisite expertise with DC substations and the required AC supplies which is the difficult bit.
Fitting the insulating chairs and 3rd rail is relatively easy and can be outsourced to plenty of UK contractors. On virtually all the un-electrified section the requite number of sleepers already have the holes for the 3rd rail chairs…
Re NAMELESS 13.42, 5th July 2007.
“For some reason, I started wondering about the state of the regulator’s teeth.”
Indeed. Gibb appears to have put his finger on a number of rather serious problems. The speed at which his proposals on night-time engineering possessions has been put into effect suggest that he has pointed to an issue that had to be dealt with rapidly, for example. The apparent lack of clear thinking on depot location and on fares’ policy are other interesting insights, which suggest that serious issues can develop on the railway for which nobody takes responsibility.
There several points that Gibb highlights which make you wonder whether he should look at other parts of the railway in the same way.
Guano
Indeed
Out of area, but possibly relevant for future use (?)
The vast cost-overrun & time extension on Tram-Train (Rotherham) has recently resurfaced [ See “Railnews” for details ] Please follow this up off these pages unless directly relevant?
I think there are many options for the uckfield line… how about connecting the uckfield line to the Tonbridge to Redhill line just north of Edenbridge Town, and stable trains in the unused Redhill sidings? This also gives other journey possibilities.
Other electrostars will be avaliable also from 2020 when the Stansted Express 379s become surplus. I think a partical electrification of the uckfield line and bi-mode Electrostars would be a sensible conclusion.
@Rodney – those “unused” sidings are likely to vanish in the context of rebuilding Redhill station and improving connectivity between the N Downs and Brighton routes.
Financially and operationally, a partial electrification to Uckfield is about the worst possible outcome – you keep all the present disadvantages (an island of non-standard stock; still need power supply upgrade) and derive very few benefits despite having spent what BOFP techniques suggest would be about 80% of the cost of doing the whole job properly. Mr Pareto laughed.
I wonder if there are any benefits going for a lower voltage DC overhead line in upgrading these diesel island areas. That might allow smaller structure clearances than now appear neccessary for 25kV. A voltage higher than third rail would be desirable clearly, 1.5kV or perhaps 3kV like Belgium. The higher the voltage, the smaller the number of substations required usually and the smaller the conductor cross section.
Conceptually, existing dual voltage trains should be able to be modified to replace a large main HV step down transformer with a static converter from the higher DC voltage to the unit’s native supply. Such conversions might be incapable of running on 25kV however, unless a more sophisticated switchable module was added, that could handle both overhead supplies.
Going DC overhead could help with earthing strategy and costs too, particularly in boundary areas where both overhead and 3rd rail overlap. I am assuming here that with 3000V DC the return path could be floating unearthed running rail, just as with 3rd rail. If so there would be no conflict between the safety earthing strategy of 25kV and the no earth DC paradigm in the changeover zones. Could a DC overhead system be made safe enough for a modern application on the Uckfield line or elsewhere?
As to signalling, there was some comment above about DC track circuits on today’s unelectrified sections being incompatible with DC electrification. While DC tracks might be used around junction areas, I’d have thought that age of installation would employ jointless track circuits such as the TI21 (now Bombardier’s EBI 200 product) throughout the plain track between. Regardless, with the TI’s maximum length of 1100m, there must be many, many individual track circuit sections on these lines to continuously cover the long blocks involved for TCB working. It’s probably time that large quantity of maintenance intensive equipment distributed along the lineside was replaced by modern axle counters, where sensors are only required at the logical block boundaries around signals and junctions. For new electrification, axle counters would also avoid a large quantity of new impedence bonds
There are downsides to 3kV as compared to 25kV: Larger conductor, more copper; Heavier conductor, so beefier catenary and stanchions, although insulators may be smaller and lighter; A non standard system so a whole set of new engineering and operating rules and standards would need to be developed for UK application (1.5k DC may be easier in this respect as it is already present on NR infrastructure – T&W Sunderland line).
Re Mark Townsends comment re-track circuits
I have to occasionally attend S&T faults on that line so let me assure you ALL track circuits on the Uckfield branch, apart from the mandatory 2 mile buffer zone* where from Hurst Green towards Edenbridge, and the track circuits in the vicinity of where the Redhill – Tonbridge line passes overhead, (assuming that does not also fall in the 2 mile section) are bog standard DC track circuits and would have to be changed at considerable expense if ANY form of DC electrification is pursued.
By contrast the current signalling is, to all intents and purposes AC immune (though more by accident than design, DC track circuit equipment being considerably cheaper than EBI / TI21 equipment).
However, if in future, it were felt necessary to immunise against DC traction – then rather than converting the track circuits to another type, removing them altogether in favour of Axle Counters would be a far superior solution given the single line sections and the ability of each loop to only hold one train in each direction at a time as this would lead to a reduction of kit and do away with long mult-section track circuits which increase the number of potential failures.
*Due to the theoretical possibility of DC traction return currents still being present in the running rails – even with Insulated Rail Joints – after the conductor rail stops and their ability to falsely energise DC relay coils used in DC track circuits, for signalling purposes no DC track circuit equipment can be fitted within of 2 miles (minimum) of a DC conductor rail. In fact depending on the level traction current being drawn this distance might have to be extended – I recall being told that when experiments were being done during the commissioning of BRs original Thameslink scheme, the physical linking of the SR and LMR lines at Farringdon meant that stray DC traction current from conductor rail powered trains could still be detected at Kentish Town!
** AC traction has similar restrictions as regards the use of 50Hz AC track circuits – though due to the UKs electrification history(or lack of it / slow progress over the decades as regards 25KV AC) they are less likely to be in close proximity anyway.
@Mark: Perhaps Southern could borrow a few old Eurostars and restore the 3rd rail equipment? They might need to lengthen a few platforms…
Otherwise Siemens might be able to supply a couple of ICE 3M units?
Uckfield to Edinburgh here we come!
😉
Re Graham H and Redhill sidings
The sidings in the V between the Tonbridge and Brighton lines will still be accessible as the track layout at the south end of the station is NOT being modified as part of the platform zero works (and will thus continue to present timetabling constraints, plus the ability to bring everything to an immediate standstill should any of several key components i.e. points, the rails, insulated joints, tracks circuits, etc fail).
As such the current non electrified, 3 car sidings (in fact the old steam shed roads – the filled in inspection pits are still present in the 4ft) and associated signalling / track to let trains in and out will stay.
What is being done is the removal of the sidings and pointwork mid way round the Curve on the Tonbridge line and replacement with plain line.
@Phil – Thanks for the DC TC confirmation. So, there are many insulating block joints in the plain line sections that would be saved by axle counters too.
@SHLR – I thought of that too! Perhaps they could be half sets with a power car at one end and a soon to be redundant Abelio Anglia driving trailer at the other 🙂
@Phil – thank you for the clarification. The remaining sidings aren’t exactly an attractive proposition from an operator’s or capacity point of view.
@phil @GrahamH The sidings at Redhill are currently used by at least 2 GWR Turbo’s overnight plus a 12 car 377 comes up from Brighton and parks in the Tonbridge Loop (reverses on the up main just before 11pm), think it comes out about 5am to Selhurst.
Looking at Google Earth and viewing, there is a lot of space here where additional sidings could be built if storage were necessary, The area is of no use for housing or industrial as there is no access except across railway tracks (the third side is the Quarry line which comes out of the Quarry tunnel just after the Tonbridge line crosses it.
@ ngh 6 July 2017 at 19:31
“SNCF have a bigger DC network than NR as they still have a massive 1500V DC Overhead network so have all the requisite expertise with DC substations and the required AC supplies which is the difficult bit.
“Fitting the insulating chairs and 3rd rail is relatively easy and can be outsourced to plenty of UK contractors. On virtually all the un-electrified section the requite number of sleepers already have the holes for the 3rd rail chairs…”
Including on Basingstoke-Salisbury…
Related to the discussions above about Redhill and the work that is progressing there to build an additional platform, I have produced a layout sketch illustrating the current work, including some speculation as to what a final layout at the south end of the station might look like when further track and signalling renewals take place in the future:
http://www.townend.me/files/redhill.pdf
Re Mark T,
Redhill – A direct link from P3 to the Down Tonbridge has been on the NR wish list for Redhill South Jn for a while…
@NGH – Thanks, I’ll add that to the speculative future layout for the next version.
Re Mark T
Few thoughts on suggested future layout.
I’m far from an expert but I think it will cause some operational problems: –
– lack of Reigate branch from Platform 3 means the half hourly all day London to Reigate service has to use platform 2 from London, which is also the main platform for all London bound services (Platform 0 is only suitable as a relief platform due to lack of any facilities as all are on the 1/2 island)
– Inability to access platforms 1 from Reigate whilst train departs from platform 2 (or the missing 3) – platform 1 main use will be GWR trains and Tonbridge terminators (1A)
Re T33,
“Lack of Reigate branch from Platform 3 means the half hourly all day London to Reigate service has to use platform 2 from London, which is also the main platform for all London bound services (Platform 0 is only suitable as a relief platform due to lack of any facilities as all are on the 1/2 island)”
1. Why does a lack of facilities on P0 make it unsuitable for use as the main platform for up departures in the future? (Think about it from the network wide point of view not someone on the platform at Redhill.
(There will be 90m of canopy and waiting shelter then more to follow, which is far better than most GTR station especially for comparative stations on passenger numbers)
2. The new North Jn track layout has been designed for “parallel move functionality” [NR’s words] which suggests Marks understanding is correct.
3. My understanding is that GTR plan to put as many Up trains through P0 in the 2018 timetable as possible as it needs the parallel moves at Redhill
@ NGH
I said there would be people with a better understanding than me. The North redesign is my understanding too and my comment was not on that but the Southern throat in Marks future plans.
I look from a very selfish passenger point of view, so I’ll disagree politely, P0 is unsuitable because there is no toilets, no coffee/newspaper shop, no information point and the waiting shelter is for dispatch staff not passengers. The only comparative worth looking at as a passenger is what is available on platform 1/2.
On point 3, I was told the exact reverse by GTR at recent stakeholders meeting. All northbound trains will use platform 2 except services from Reigate which will use P0 when attaching to Gatwick portions in the peak and will use p2 the rest of the time when no attachments being made.
GTR have evened out the services so departures to East Croydon off peak will be in 12:11 to VIC, 12:19 to Bedford, 12:29 to Peterborough, meaning unlikely more than platform 2 will be needed. In the Peak it is 07:09 to Bedford, 07:15 to Victoria (from P0 after attaching Gatwick portion) and 07:29 to Peterborough. All times are repeating half hour patterns.
P1A – will be used by the Tonbridge shuttle and GWR services will use p1B (mainly) and P0 depending on timing.
It may be that a long term aim of NR is to change this pattern of services when they rebuild the southern throat in CP7 or later. Then they can add facilities to P0, on performance to date I can’t see them finding money any earlier.
As if to prove a point made in the article, the RMT are on strike today and ASLEF are refusing to work overtime. The Southern service seems to be operating without delays or cancellations. Admittedly there is a slightly reduced service in the first place as a result of the ASLEF overtime ban.
@T33 – That usage seems sensible in the short term with current traffic density while the layout is in this interim form, but the additional track I suggest would add capacity, flexibility, resilience and even speed for certain movements. For example it would permit southbound departures (including reversers from Guildford) to depart from either #1 or# 2 at the same time as northbound arrivals to #0 from either Gatwick or Reigate. It’s likely the new track could also enable a higher speed run-in to #0 from the south, maybe 30 or 40MPH instead of the current limit of 15 imposed by the existing turnouts, which in turn can’t be moved or lengthened due to the proximity of other turnouts and crossings in the complex junction and the platform ends. Up arrivals from Tonbridge to #2 could also occur at the same time as Up trains from the Gatwick line to #0. Losing the long crossover from #3 to the Reigate line, with its three fixed diamonds across fast tracks, is desirable from a maintenance and reliability viewpoint. Using #2 for Down Reigate trains instead gets them out of the way of following Gatwick and Tonbridge bound trains. If such a train had to wait at the north end for #2 to become available longer than anticipated, following Down trains could use the bidirectional facility to loop round it via the up line to access #3.
With #0 becoming the main London platform eventually, waits would typically be minimal and passengers will have had access to whatever facilities are in and around the ticket hall on the way through to the platform via the new walkway and steps anyway. Note I haven’t seen any plan of this access arrangement so far, but I hope further improvements to facilities on the platform itself can be justified. A cafe kiosk there could be a money spinner with the potential footfall involved.
@PoP – Southern are running no Redhill line to London Bridge morning Peak services – meaning around 40-50 minutes extra journey time for most commuters due to inability to board trains when changing at East Croydon due to significant Overcrowding
Also all Redhill to Victoria off-peak fast services are cancelled – again causing inconvienience and longer journey times.
I’d disagree with your point that services are operating without delays or cancellations, even though you caveated the slightly reduced timetable, as for us the reductions are significant and painful
I found the planning documents for platform 0 on the Reigate and Banstead website. Drawings show toilets, a 90m canopy at the south end, and a passenger waiting shelter further north, sited next to the small staff kiosk. Access from the subway is by a stairway wrapped around the toilet block. Level access will be created by linking the platform across to the existing lift tower that had already been built sufficiently tall for the extra level in previous access work at the station. There will thus be two link bridges attached to the lift tower. One already there at subway level and the new one immediately above it at platform level.
Search for 16/01325/CON at http://planning.reigate-banstead.gov.uk/online-applications/
Only tangentially related, but what is happening at the Metropolitan Curve? Track has been removed a couple of weeks back. More activity seems afoot. Are they laying new track?!
@Mark T – thank you and well found – I remember sifting through those planning documents when it went in but didn’t see any obvious changes from our meeting with Network Rail in March 2016 on the subject but missed the toilets in the stairs.
In that March 2016 meeting we were told that there was no room for toilets, nor were there any funds for them. I wrote stating this was an issue in April and then in June 2016 they submit planning with toilets on the plan (even though the drawings appear to be dated June 2015 so presumably the project sponsor at the time knew). Assuming they get built then we will have had a result.
On the shelter we were told there was not enough room for a passenger shelter (beyond the canopy) as there was a need for staff facilities and the emergency exit left no other space – again will be interesting to see final outcome.
Similarly with Coffee shop, there was apparently not enough platform space for a kiosk to be added. I wonder if they might have found a way now. The kiosk on platform 1/2 is a money spinner and obviously one on platform 0 would become the same if footfall moves across and its not like the Railways to fail to miss a commercial opportunity
Hopefully we have a meeting with Network Rail project manager soon so will find out more then.
On the new layout plan I think I follow your points and it seems to make sense. Your understanding is far better than mine (or perhaps my time to study). Hopefully room for additional trains as well as faster approaches in due course.
@PoP – “The Southern service seems to be operating without delays or cancellations. Admittedly there is a slightly reduced service in the first place as a result of the ASLEF overtime ban.”
Similar to what T33 explains, I don’t know what, in particular, you consider “a slightly reduced service” to constitute during ASLEF overtime bans but I consider reducing what was the usual 6tph peak service on the London Bridge route via Tulse Hill to a mere one train an hour to be more than just slightly reduced!
In traditional fashion for the route, the service increases to 2tph off-peak to/from London Bridge, with the withdrawal of the 2tph via West Norwood & Crystal Palace trains serving Beckenham Junction.
@ANONYMOUSLY: Yes, full blown track laying is going on at the moment. a class 66 with various wagons, was on the old viaduct/northern overhang last week. The only way it could have got there was via the Metropolitan Curve.
T33, Graham Feakins,
Yes, I know that some people will be disproportionally affected by the revised timetable but the majority will probably not even notice that a revised timetable is in effect. When one looks at the overall picture “slightly reduced” is a reasonable description although this will have a bad effect for some people.
The point I was trying to make was within the context of the industrial dispute and the effect it was having. Whilst it has been extremely damaging, Chris Gibb almost gives the impression that it is primarily the strikes these disputes that have caused the chaos. It is clear that we are in a situation where the RMT strikes, now at least, are pretty ineffective although they may have had some effect if ASLEF was not on an overtime ban.
So, currently the only industrial action that seems to be having an effect is the ASLEF overtime ban. No-one is obliged to work overtime that is not contracted so equally one could lay the blame on the DfT and GTR (and First Capital Connect its predecessor) for getting into a situation where we have a shortage of drivers.
I am not trying to make a political point just trying to emphasise that some of the comments in the report need to be taken with caution. I read the report to suggest that the primary reason for the problems was the sheer number of uncoordinated different issues (including industrial action) that came together. It seems from Hansard that many MPs read it differently and somehow believed that the industrial dispute was the be all and end all of the suffering that has happened.
The overtime ban has reduced Victoria – Eastbourne (direct) services from two and hour to one an hour. There is no split at Haywards Heath on the hour and 12-car trains
trundle all the way to Littlehampton.
Also seen at Haywards Heath was a 16-car train bound for Victoria with the platform screens reminding passengers of ‘short platforms’ at Gatwick and East Croydon!
@PoP appreciate some areas are feeling virtually unaffected because they have an excellent service to start with. Where services had already been cut to the bone the losses will have significant meaning.
We’ve had pregnant ladies unable to travel and commuters being sacked because they can’t get to work. After two weeks of begging Southern has been pushed and shoved into agreeing to reinstate one of the three cut London Bridge trains (which were already cut by 5 trains in Sep 2014 for the London Bridge works). That means Redhill line now has 2 trains where once there was 9.
Feelings are very raw along the Redhill route, this plus the Gibb report and 2018 timetable proposals are not exactly positive news we need.
For those who may not know, Gibb says remove all late evening trains 5 nights a week from Redhill line (after 11pm from London which happen to be only public transport at that time) and 2018 timetable is adding 22 minutes to return journeys to Clapham and Victoria.
In addition to the loss of T33’s Redhill services, they have taken out the joins at Purley in the morning. As a result the high Peak trains with 10 coaches are reduced to 5 and are full and standing before arriving at Purley. The only reason that people aren’t being left behind like they were in January is that there areally more people on holiday now.
Purley Dweller – A lot of Redhill peak trains are also currently short formed – if they are not running as many services they use less stock so why can’t they run at full length? Seems badly managed to me. It must also make it hard at Coulsdon South and Purley when trains arrive already completely full.
Also the extra London Bridge train this morning didn’t make it out of Gatwick sidings and thus didn’t run. Classic Southern
T33, Purley Dweller
The “seems badly managed to me” is exactly the point I was trying to make. The initial trigger for this current disruption may well have been union action but it shouldn’t have caused this level of cancellations and short-formed workings. Unless the unions are being disruptive in a way we do not yet know about.
I really don’t understand the 5-car working at Purley bit. Certainly with 8-car trains (2 x 4-car) the idea during disruption is to send the entire 8-car train down one branch (usually the Caterham one) rather than try and split it. Maybe they can’t do this with the 10-car ones. So why can’t they reorganise the rolling stock so that it is an 8-car train?
PoP, as an ASLEF member who does not work his days off anyway, I can confirm all that is occurring is an overtime ban. Thus other than the cynical belief that the DFT/GTR have trashed the service to make us look bad, I don’t understand short formations either. The cuts say far more to me about how this operation is being run than the behaviour of the workforce. And frankly, MPs have jumped on the Gibb report because it says what they want it to say – those evil unions are responsible for the disruption.
@Southern Heights (Light Railway)…
But… but, there is currently no track on the Metropolitan Curve! And I reckon this must have been the case for at least 2 weeks. Am I misunderstanding?
Will they put track back?
@ PoP 11/7 – you said
“I read the report to suggest that the primary reason for the problems was the sheer number of uncoordinated different issues (including industrial action) that came together. It seems from Hansard that many MPs read it differently and somehow believed that the industrial dispute was the be all and end all of the suffering that has happened.”
Nice to see the report has had the desired political effect then. 😉 Exactly what the DfT ordered.
And GTR have been required to cough up £13m in “extras” as some form of “penalty” for their poor performance and DfT’s rejection of their “force majeure” claim. I am left wondering quite who has “won” here – the cynic in me says GTR have as there’s not the remotest hint that they might be booted off this contract.
Re: WW – depends on whether you consider “not being booted off the contract” to equal “winning”, doesn’t it? I’m not saying this is necessarily the case for GTR, but owning the right to lose money for a number of years might not be everyone’s definition of a “win”!
PoP and T33. It does look like they never send ten cars down the Caterham or Tattenham Corner lines – I assume this may relate to the train sticking off the end of the platform at Caterham and Tattenham Corner.
Southern’s inability to run full length trains even when there aren’t any route related restrictions is very frustrating. Even worse is when, even with all the spare stock, they manage to fail a train at Selhurst and the EG lines gets one train and hour instead of the pre-strike 4. And last Sunday with further random cancellations – looked like they were running an hourly service instead of half hourly, train lengths were still the same. It’s not acceptable on a Sunday for passengers to be standing because the company can’t be bothered to run maximum length trains.
AoC you are correct, certainly ten cars will not fit in advance of the platform starter signals at Tattenham Corner.
@MONSIEUR ANONYMOUSLY: Hmmmm, I saw it last Friday and there was track on the lower portion and connected at the crossover. I was on a train from Charing Cross, so unable to see the upper part. So perhaps they used the Charing Cross line to get the train in there?
@ Balthazar – I was not very clear. I know Go Ahead have said they expect to lose money on the contract but I wonder how long this will actually last. I also question whether they have suffered the full extent of performance penalties that is actually due given the multiple issues affecting the franchise. I do not know what the latest “settlement” of £13m actually relates to in terms of what they should have been abated vs what they were contesting with the Dft. There is also the small matter of legal costs avoided from not pursuing their claim through further stages of dispute.
There are other issues such as the DfT not having kicked GTR off the contract in the past despite multiple franchise breaches due to persistent poor performance. I know there are “big picture” issues for the DfT in terminating the franchise contract but GTR do seem to be “lucky” in having dodged multiple potentially fatal consequences in their operation of the contract. *If* they can actually run the envisaged post 2018 timetable then I suspect they will start to pull in the money. Of course a very great deal could go wrong between now and then.
@WW – meanwhile tax losses pile up, no?
I suspect the issue for the DfT over GTR is that the Franchise as issued didn’t work because of the many factors that they hadn’t thought of or factors that just hadn’t happened when it was let. Like trying to get a quart into a pint pot at London Bridge or forcing DOO. So it’s been continuously adapted to try and make it work which you can’t really penalise GTR for factors that hadn’t been allowed for – hence force majeure.
The problem really goes back to the DfT’s lack of preparedness for the Thameslink work and that they didn’t want to spend anything fixing track to make it ready south of the Thames. They didn’t make sure there was enough Drivers or stock either.
Graham H – no company actually wants to make tax losses
@T33 – – probably not, although there are occasions when it is helpful to do so, depending on the corporate aggregation rules. It’s some time since I sat down with the Taxes Act but it is certainly possible for a company with subsidiaries to make management charges to that subsidiary, driving it in to a loss (to be set against group profits), whilst receiving more in fees than the profit foregone., If in doubt, ask that splendid Ernest Bramah invention – the “hereditary tax avoider”.
Hi, just to say I’ve read the many interesting and informed comments about my report with interest. I won’t try and respond to every comment, but will say that there has been much focus on just two pages of a huge report, and I have encourage people to read the whole report before passing judgement. Anyone can pick individual phrases out and use them out of context to support their viewpoint: but thats free speech !
I will pick one phrase from page 27, which deserves airing to this informed audience: “Everywhere we have been we have found dedicated railway people determined to improve the service offered to passengers, both in the short term and long term, and often working in difficult circumstances”.
Welcome Mr Gibb.
@ T33 – Without seeing the GTR contractual definition of “force majeure” and all of the operative clauses it is very hard to say what may or may not qualify. My limited experience of those provisions tells me that it tends to be things demonstrably outside the control of the supplier that may give grounds for a claim citing force majeure. Inherited issues from a previous supplier or the client writing a poor specification are risks (or, for a particularly nasty contractor, opportunities) but not really force majeure. As I say that is based on my knowledge of other contracts and I accept something different may apply for GTR.
Having looked at the Franchise Agreement it all looks pretty standard stuff to me but with some extra clarity around the actions of Network Rail and ORR. Industrial action is also within the scope of the definition (no surprise there).
@WW – The real issue and we can blame GTR as much as anyone (but the real culprits are the DfT) is the lack of forward planning when stretching a poorly maintained network to its absolute limit. The franchise agreement may say many things but when put into practice could any of it be fully achieved with a collapsing network?
On forums like this back as early as 2012 I said it was poorly planned and sadly I have been proven correct. If you were going to perform open heart surgery on a rail network such as London Bridge, you had better make sure that the arteries are working properly beforehand as they will be taking the strain. Nothing was done and hence the meltdown we have experienced.
To Mr Gibb (if that is you and not a troll) – I agree that Railwaymen work hard but they are not allowed to provide a good service by politicians who withhold the necessary Finance. You didn’t fully address that the Treasury removes far more money from Southern than it puts in by a factor of hundreds of millions – if you penny pinch you will get a bad railway.
I did like the phrase “most efficient money proposition” so you did obviously see it as an issue.
The proposals you make to extend engineering time are needed however the methods are not acceptable on a key public service.
For example closing the Redhill route 5 nights a week so there is no public transport service to Redhill area from London or Brighton after evening work, sports, theatre and concerts finish is simply not acceptable and should never be allowed to happen.
There is also a latent need for overnight services to Gatwick from Redhill line stations as the local workforce have great difficulties getting there for 4am starts or home from 2am finishes – something you have not considered.
However making Network Rail invest in better quality infrastructure along the Redhill route and then closing it for a longer period for just one night a week with full bus replacement to maintain services would have been more acceptable, especially if attached to making the even later night trains that fly through our stations stop the rest of the week.
It was a shame that the DfT blocked us from applying let alone joining your board. We’d have been happy to take the time to help you understand the passenger problems and discuss better ways to get the work done that is necessary.
@ T33 – You clearly know far more about GTR’s services than I will ever do. All I’ll say is that I would have expected GTR to have undertaken due diligence over things like staff numbers, recruitment volumes, training throughput. Similarly I’d have expected something similar in respect of Network Rail’s performance and asset plans. On top of all of that Govia would have enormous amounts of information as the operators of Southern. I know I am being “logical” here and that this can go out of the window in the mad dash to submit a winning bid. Similarly there may be denial on the part of the client in refusing to acknowledge the risk you identify about stretching infrastructure beyond breaking point by accepting overly ambitious bids.
My only counterpoint is that for these things to happen almost needs a palpable level of stupidity on the part of client and bidder. IME of being on large scale procurements and subsequent contract management I have rarely seen such stupidity. You can get a “wavey hand” attitude from advisors who don’t want “distractions” if the basic contract terms are settled and the financing aspects are being finalised. They don’t like new risk or changes to terms. It’s impossible to know if any of this transpired between the DfT and GTR. It’s not as if rail franchise contracts are anything new in the UK nor that there isn’t a load of accumulated experience of their operation. Obviously the Thameslink works are a significant difference but the financial risk sits with DfT and the rest is, at a simple level, coping with a lot of possessions and service changes.
@WW
Sadly I know too much about GTR but that is probably a situation caused by living in the middle of their patch.
I suspect no-one at the DfT, GTR or Southern expected from their Due Diligence the fall out in January 2015 of the London Bridge works, when NR declared shortly after the franchise was agreed and signed in May 2014, that only 18 trains could be turned round in the peak at the terminus platforms from the 27/9 that had previously done so. GTR had been expecting to turn round 24 and attempted to do so resulting in the chaos that January , as 24 was what the volume of passengers needed.
The methods of operation required in these conditions (don’t ask me how it was calculated as I was given the number by the then Passenger Service Director of Southern) meant that utilisation of Southern stock was pushed up to 96% which seems very high to me as an outsider and probably doesn’t allow enough time for proper maintenance.
In terms of the infrastructure there must have been an expectation that NR would maintain the track at a standard to run the service but Gibb report has in hindsight shown this was lacking. Don’t forget the risk of that is with DfT not GTR.
In any case as Rail Franchises are concerned, this one is a Management Contract and not a Franchise and as such I think the first of its type awarded by the DfT (please feel free to prove me wrong but I am not immediately aware of any others). So it was very much a first time for everyone.
The idea of sitting on loads of possessions and service changes sounds simplistic and is probably true but the sheer scale of them is probably unprecedented. But that is why it is a Management Contract because the change was too large and too unknown for a private company to be willing to take financial risk on it.
T33.
The timetable process doesn’t work like that. The draft timetable for January 15 was being written (by Southern people) during 2013, and it was known by early 2014 – well before the franchise was agreed – what the service level would be. NR certainly did not declare in 2014 that 18tph was the limit, and at no point has that service been planned. There has always been a minimum of 20tph and usually 22tph.
The franchise is very definitely not a ‘management contract’. It is a franchise contract like any other, with the specific difference that revenue is retained by the DfT. In a ‘management contract’ the franchise is not at risk for any financial issues, as it gets paid it’s reasonable costs plus a small percentage fee. GTR is very much at risk on costs.
In the deafening silence from the news media concerning the benefits accruing from the works carried out between New Cross and Charing Cross over the August Bank Holiday week-end and the subsequent week, I would state that it was a pleasure to pass through the Bermondsey Dive-under for the first time on Monday late afternoon, returning late that evening. Platform 6 at London Bridge was in use, and I did notice that Metropolitan Junction appeared to be still connected to the Thameslink tracks west of London Bridge.
The previous timetable appeared to be in use, and the passengers were thinly spread between trains, but I put this down to it being a Monday as there was only one other passenger in the front carriage of the last train up the Medway Valley line to Maidstone West – usually on other days of the week there are half a dozen more.
@Maidstone Jotter: Appearances are deceiving! One of my colleagues travels from London Bridge to Waterloo East in the evening rush hour. He say that SE are only letting one train stop every half hour at LBG in the evening rush…
Apparently there’s a bottleneck… SE are claiming this is near Charing Cross (at least that is what my colleagues heard), but I think that this is wrong.
Previously there were 4 tracks from LBG deep into Bermondsey for Charing Cross services: 4 & 5 (to New Cross) Down and 6 & PL (a.k.a. 7, from Blue Anchor) Up. As far as I can tell now there are only three: 6 (Down), 7 (Rev) and 8 (Up). I suspect this is where the issue is.
Platforms 8 & 9 were very quiet last night…
Southern Heights,
It would be very interesting to know if this restriction meaning up Charing Cross trains do not call at London Bridge is an evening-peak only restriction or whether it still applies to down trains in the morning as well.
I suspect it is evening only. This would seem to suggest there is nothing fundamentally wrong but there is a problem in providing the additional stops within the existing timetable.
If it is an evening-only restriction, my guess is that they were relying on a speed limit in the London Bridge to Charing Cross area being removed by now.
if the problem doesn’t go away shortly, which I suspect it will, then I suppose they will have to continue restrictions until they can issue a revised timetable.
I can’t see why the tracks from Blue Anchor up should cause a problem unless there is a temporary speed restriction there and they need to omit the call at London Bridge to make up for lost time to ensure arrival on time at Charing Cross for the return journey.
@PoP: It caught me by surprise as well. Two other addments:
1. RealTimeTrains still shows everything as stopping at LBG
2. There is nothing on the SE web-site
This leads me to conclude:
1. They only found this out on Monday
2. They hope to resolve it soon
I haven’t caught an up train through the diveunder as yet, so I don’t know if there is a speed restriction.
The times I have been given are 17:29 (2F90) and 17:52 (1K92), both of which are booster trains (if that’s the correct term) originating at Orpington and Hayes respectively and running fast to London Bridge. So at least they are guaranteed to be nearly empty.
Perhaps there’s also a bit of an over-reaction on the part of SE?
@PoP: It’s a 23 minute gap and now appears on the SE trains web-site as well when you search for departure and it has just appeared on RTT as well….
There is then a 9 minute gap (18:01) and then the next one is 18:03. So this must be something very specific to that part of the Up PM Peak…
Southern Heights,
I have seen them referred to as bounce-back trains. Presumably out of service, unlike other trains, they can run them slightly early if necessary (track availability into London Bridge permitting). They probably had a bit of an allowance built in to their schedule to ensure they were on time on arrival in London.
I suspect SouthEastern are understandably anxious to ensure that trains in the evening peak do not arrive late at Charing Cross.
Southern Heights,
Now on National Rail Journey Planner too but it wasn’t earlier today. So OK except 17.00 – 18.00. From 17.00 to 17.30 the service is probably just about acceptable but much less than desirable. After 17.29 the next departure is 17.52.
So we are really talking about needing one extra train around 17.40 to make the situation acceptable for the short term. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. Clearly Southeastern are choosing not to publicise this but that may be because it is a fluid situation and they don’t want to give out information that may quickly become out of date.
There is the same problem in the morning between Waterloo East and London Bridge. Generally not as bad but the next train at Waterloo East for London Bridge after the 08.06 is the 08.30.
Re PoP and SH(LR),
Still some legacy issues:
1. Temporary speed restrictions on the new track (points) in places.
2. The previous restriction on no platform changes at LBG after the train leaves Charing Cross has yet to be lifted (due to LBG not being able to cope with last minute platform changes when down services were 7/8 rather than the current 6/7. hence right time and platform departures from CHX. There is still the fear of having to use P8 in the evening if there is problem.
3. SE are short on stock so journey time savings vs pre blockade are required to enable the time to stop so until the TSRs are lifted and things settle down it is too risky. Savings of 2.5-3 minutes minimum from passing St Johns (Up) back to passing St Johns (Down) should emerge relatively quickly and enable more stopping.
The saving in the down direction will appear relatively quickly based on the Down Sussex Slow opening experience in Jan this year but will take longer to emerge inthe Up direction.
@ngh: Thanks for the clarification. From that I would assume that this only for a relatively short period.
However the SouthEastern manager at LBG yesterday, said that this was until the end of the works.
It also makes me wonder why they haven’t put anything (not a sausage) about this on their web-site as this does affect people living out in Kent, not just those on SWR using their London Terminals ticket to get a free hop over to the City, my colleague does.
As they’ve now also cancelled the acceptance of tickets on LUL, he’s well annoyed!
Re SH(LR)
Given it took 6-8 weeks on the Sussex side for things to bed down across the board after than bit of the dive under opened may be they have reckon it isn’t worth the change before Christmas. The leaf fall timetable will probably start in just over 3 weeks so may be they are reallocating some of the slack to that instead as it benefits more people?
The bad service window is 1645-1800 with just 4 trains inbetween. the problems is that there is only 1 other bounce back and it is just before one of the earlier ones that stops during that time so not that useful in addressing the big gap.
There is plenty of space on P8/9 for the people waiting.
ngh,
I am pretty sure on SouthEastern we are already into leaf-fall timetable which is included in the September – December 2017 timetable.
In any case the leaf fall timetable in this part of the world isn’t what it used to be. It seems nowadays it is a case of an earlier start from its outer terminus with existing slot picked up by inner London. Also, on a lot of lines, it only applies to the first few trains of the day. Presumably they believe by then that the worst of the problem is over for that day.
Also it is getting harder to sensibly predict when the worst period will be so you don’t want a timetable with longer journeys in operation for too many months for the sake of a problem that is at its worst for just a few days (mostly).
@ Ngh – were all of these issues not foreseen? It strikes me as odd that they weren’t given experience earlier in the project (as you cite) and South Eastern have been short of trains for so many years that that should not be a surprise to anyone, least of all South Eastern. I am sitting here shaking my head in disbelief that the learning and experience hasn’t been applied in this instance. Seems a rum old deal for passengers given the easement to use alternative TfL services has been cancelled for certain trips.
Of course, before all this Thameslink work at London Bridge, there was a significant traffic flow on Southeastern from London Bridge to Waterloo East (for the main line) and vice versa, especially during the peaks. If the service still cannot be restored to what it was before, then as WW says it does indeed seem a rum deal that passengers can no longer use the TfL (Jubilee) alternative without penalty. I’ll make enquiries.
Re WW and Graham,
By using effectively empty services they are still providing capacity for several thousand passengers during the low service 75 minutes (1647-1800) outside of this it is 95%+ stopping.
The 4 stopping services during the “gap”:
1657
1713
1727
1751
If I remember the service pre works in the pm peak there were a limited number of services that stopped from both LBG to CHX and LBG to CST but not as bad as the current reduced service level.
The TfL easement was funded by the programme but now P6 is available it is now SE’s issue…
SE were of course meant to have started getting more stock by now but have only got a limited amount (initially 8x 377s with then another 8 units have transferred in the last fortnight but only 3 of the second batch are in service yet.) combined with on going refurbishment programmes
@NGH – Well, unless I have misunderstood your comment, you have grossly understated the position pre-Thameslink work.
My 2014 weekday timetable shows the following trains stopping at London Bridge for Waterloo East:
Between 16:00 and 17:00 – 16 trains
Between 17:00 and 18:00 – these:
17:02/06/09/12/18/22/30/36/38/42/45/49/54/58 (14 trains).
I have been careful to omit the other trains that ran through during that period.
Whilst this is poor statistically it is what I observed Thursday and Friday on Traksy between 1600 and 1800. When trains were late on the up, they were already late at New Cross and were catching up between there and Charing Cross. If this is typical it suggests that any problems are before New Cross and that the next timetable change may be needed to sort it out.
Re GF and NGH, Whilst there may have been 16 or 14 trains in the hour stopping, what level of passenger usage did they have? When there was only one platform for trains to stop at, then it made sense to stop either all or none. All the non-stoppers would have gone by on the platformless loop but even that had limited capacity. Even so they seem to have gone from one extreme to the other with 16, 14 and 24 minute gaps.
In the days prior to reconstruction I believe all but two ex-Charing Cross trains in the down direction stopped at London Bridge. Those two trains were in the evening peak and were long distance trains. Someone commented a few years ago that the reason for them non-stopping was because they were already full on leaving Waterloo East.
In the up direction lots of trains ran non-stop through London Bridge using the up passing loop. In the morning peak this was because there was only one up platform so undesirable but unavoidable. In the evening, from observations, they always appeared to be empty so I presumed out of service.
The situation today is quite different. Whilst most passengers are much better off, those travelling against the flow between Waterloo East and London Bridge are clearly much worse off. All the more so because originally they were promised their would be a few trains in the peak periods after August 2016 and then they were led to believe full service would be restored from August 2017.
I cannot believe that the track layout and signalling is significantly worse in 2017. There always was a two track restriction at New Cross for Charing Cross services. So I can only conclude it is a timetable issue – possibly caused as a result of temporary speed restrictions – and as a result of not wishing to rewrite the entire SouthEastern timetable for what, hopefully, will be a period of four months at worst. Given that the timetable seems to basically work really well I can understand that.
RAYK asks “Whilst there may have been 16 or 14 trains in the hour stopping, what level of passenger usage did they have?”
As a then frequent user on early evening services changing from Southern terminating services to Southeastern peak services at London Bridge (“LBG”) to reach the West End via Waterloo East (“travelling against the flow”, as PoP rather inaccurately describes it), I can promise you that platform 6 at LBG was well filled with intending passengers for each and every train, collecting many from the ‘Brighton’ side such as myself as well as those many more who entered LBG from the locality who wished to get to Waterloo East for the main line home.
Almost every train out of the ones I listed had full to standing in *at least* the front four cars as far as Waterloo East from LBG, so much so that I always sought a seat farther back on the trains, normally by the country end of the late lamented footbridge stairway or beyond.
I have been discouraged from using that route as a result of the subsequent poor service interval ever since, let alone the deep-level and tiresome interchange that LBG now enforces in its new guise.
Re: GF – I have to wonder whether your (and others’) worsened experience is understood but accepted by the railway as a whole as being better than the alternative. As PoP points to, there are presumably current reasons for it. The world is full of individuals who consider a degradation in their personal circumstances (which may include the circumstances of those they see around them) to be self-evidently a universal worsening. T’aint necessarily so…
Re: PoP – “In the days prior to reconstruction I believe all but two ex-Charing Cross trains in the down direction stopped at London Bridge”: ooh, don’t I just remember the time I was aiming for (then) home on the Sidcup line from Waterloo East and found it was non-stop to Tonbridge (in the days before mobile phones)…!
One of the non-stoppers in the pre-reconstruction days was an Orpington stopper (I think around 17:27). This was always quite full….
It matched a train in the morning that ran non-stop from Grove Park to Waterloo East, so providing a “not quite so slow” service.
Re GF – Thanks for your info.. If they all boarded at London Bridge ‘At least the front four carriages’ of 14 or 16 trains an hour is a lot of displaced people. But is that what you meant.
Yours is the first comment I have become aware of re the current ‘Vertical Challenge’.
Has anybody timed the descent and ascent using the escalators and just walking from say P12/13 to P6/7.
@RayK: As there is no joined up timetable anyway, does it really matter?
Re SHLR, ‘As there is no joined up timetable anyway, does it really matter?’
Indeed not; and especially when there are few stopping trains to join up to.
I was considering the possibility that, in the new year, there may be enough stopping trains to Blackfriars, Charing Cross and Canon Street for it to be worthwhile knowing whether to dawdle or to hurry and which platform to aim for when a choice is relevant to the final destination. Knowing how long it takes will then be useful information.
By which time we ought to have Finsbury Pk – E Croydon services, yes?
@ Greg – I thought the link with GN services didn’t click in until the Dec 2018 change. Whatever kicks in in Jan 2018 on Thameslink will be fairly modest IIRC then builds up again in May 2018 with the “big bang” with the national timetable change in Dec 2018. I can sort of understand this more modest approach given the need to keep building class 700 reliability, bed in all the new infrastructure and then get people used to the revised timetable. Seismic changes take a lot longer and who knows what is lurking in the background with driver recruitment, route learning, new signalling and control systems etc etc all needing to be sorted before Thameslink drivers can run on to GN and South Eastern tracks.
I haven’t seen anything to indicate how well the GIbb recommendations are being implemented nor how the timetable “consultation” for TL / Southern / South Eastern has progressed or even if anything has been finalised. There is very little time left really given we are less 15 months away from introducing that full new timetable. That’s nothing in timetable planning and mobilisation terms.
No. Not till May. January has the existing service switched to London Bridge on existing round the houses timings.
January is just the 4tph that used to go via London Bridge off peak before the works (and typically via Palace during the works and peak before the works) reverting to via London Bridge 24/7 apart from engineering works (when they would divert via Palace etc.).
Existing Thameslinks service conversion to 700s is virtually complete and they will start to role out on GN routes that are converting to Thameslink soon, then after than on the southern routes that are swapping to Thameslink.
23x 377/5s and 2x 377/1s going to Southeastern (original target of 25 units for this December met) , stabling issues resolved without needing to spend the £2m after an extensive re-diagramming exercise.
@WW
I thought the link with GN services didn’t click in until the Dec 2018 change.
According to the GTR timetable consultation, the link between the GN and TL routes will open in May 2018, initially for only 4tph (with 20tph through the core). This will then increase to 8tph when the works to allow 24tph through the core are completed with the ATO up and running (currently scheduled for Dec 2018).
@ Anon E Mouse – thanks for the clarification. I look forward to a ride on the new link next Spring.
The so-called “Ironing Board” seating on the class 700’s has now made the national press
GoViaT are blaming the government, of course …..
Greg…..Hmmm – do any of us recall any market testing of the seats?
Re “strict government regulations”
LU has very strict requirements for both vandal resistance and fire safety – more so than is generally required for main line trains because of the single bore tunnels with no easy escape.
Most will remember that the old refurbished Victoria line trains had quite comfortable seats. I used to sponsor one of the UK delegates on the international committee that drafted the European Standard for fire safety on trains, and on one occasion I hosted the meeting and attended. My representative showed off a version of the Victoria line seat that complied with that high standard. This was greeted with amazement by everyone else on the committee.
This was achieved because we used to make it clear that seats had to work as seats (including being comfortable) ANd comply with the safety and vandalism requirements.. We had the view that trains had to be fit for purpose and comply with the requirements. Increasingly I see surprise from folk who complain that aspects of their new trains don’t work properly; “but they met all the standards”, they say!
So I guess by that logic, the seats on the IEP’s should be the same…
@ 100&30 – don’t get me started on the subject of Vic Line seats! I really miss the old comfy seats and dislike the new “compatible with the (former) MD’s posterior” design. And I shall stop there. 😉
I have yet to sample a class 700 or even see a class 800 IEP – both of whom’s seats seem to be attracting a load of social media “comment” which is then being “fanned” by those with an axe to grind about the influence of the DfT compared to “professional railway people”. No wonder the normal media have finally woken up given they sit and rake through Twitter all day long.
@WW – All I’ll add is that I know that Siemens were embarrassed when they first witnessed the Class 700 seating on their new train.
You can ‘get started’ when you sample one or two yourself. You won’t be alone.
GF. Well, if Siemens were embarrassed, why didn’t they do something about it? They specified and ordered the seats, no one else (someone will now tell me that DfT specified the seat by model number!). Comfort is an implicit requirement for seats and Siemens UK MD or class 700 Project Director should have sunscreens seats to their own *rseometer test if they were proud of their train.
GF & WW
Re the general public’s comments on the 700’s.
There’s a huge amount of xenophobic & ignorant remarks about “Why (evil) German trains, can’t we build our own?” I presume that these people were asleep 1992-5?
Though I do find the pass-the-parcel between GoViaT & the DfT amusing, for certain values of amusing.
It is interesting to note that the complaints tend to be very localised geographically.
Just look at the number of complaints there aren’t about the same seats on:
Southern 377/6 & /7 (soon to be in service 5 years)
GatEx 387/2 (50% go on to Brighton)
GWR 387s (some go all the way to Didcot )
The complains appear to be centered on outer Great Northern users who have got used to “big comfy” seats on “their” 365 (21x of the 40x are due to go off lease with the first 5x already gone). And don’t like the Fainsa Ironing Boards on the 387s or 700s the use of later of which is rapidly growing on GN routes. The very same users also appear to be upset by the prospect of GN services being connected to the Thameslink core (gradually starting from May and then the next 3 TT changes) so that the trains no longer depart from Kings Cross and might be late due to problems in South London (they sound like Taxi driver stereo types) and that worst of all someone will have taken their seat before they can get on at St Pancras Thameslink! (the someone might also have got on south of Blackfriars for the ultimate horror story!)
The individuals also didn’t seem to like GTR proposed timetable changes for GN stopping patterns etc. for the big change due in May 2018.
NGH
Nonethless & for a valid comparison I travel around inside London quite a bit & I also really don’t like the Fainsa Ironing Boards, nor does Ian Walmsley. They are (IMHO) even worse than those on the 378’s.
I dread the coming of the 710’s both for comfort & positioning, but that is another story, so I’ll stop now …..
I am not wanting to stifle all discussion on seating but remember that is purely subjective. I actually like the hard seats which I regard as far better when looking out the window.
This is one of these subjects that seems more emotive than one could imagine if one didn’t feel strongly about it. If it degenerates to a discussion on personal preferences then the delete button will be invoked
Re. Class 700 seats.
Leaving personal preferences aside and looking at key functional aspects, I think there are three issues. One, the legroom, I am not sure about and I don’t know if it varies much. I am sure the seats are likely to have been packed in as much as possible, particularly given they are naturally fewer in number with larger vestibules and 2+2 layout. The other two issues both relate to the lateral spacing. No doubt it was either (DfT) specified, or was implicit in the specified capacity calculation, that the gangway had to be maximised. The seats have no spacers either between or to the body side and it is this that to my mind is the fundamental problem. Of course passengers therefore spill out into the gangway, sitting at an angle, and reduce the capacity and free flow, but that is not reflected in the purely theoretical capacity calculations (something of a hobby-horse of mine in past professional life). The lack of spacing to the body side is compounded by the tumblehome and ducting which both gets in the way of legs and feet (or bags which may or may not be able to be placed elsewhere) and in most if not all of the train has an angled top surface that one cannot rest a foot on. I sort of understand reasons to shape the duct like this but the overall combination is poor to say the least.
@RNHJ
“The seats have no spacers either between or to the body side and it is this that to my mind is the fundamental problem.”
Just like the 450s on the Portsmouth line…
(I will leave that particular bugbear there otherwise the scissors will come out.)
Re RHNJ,
But it is now included in theoretical calculations from the SW franchise tender and the others since.
The 707s were originally to have a 1 person per 0.25m^2 standing capacity allowance but because of the issues you highlight (also also lack grab rails etc in certain places due to ceiling construction and wiring routes above the ceiling) with the 700s this was reduced to 1 person per 0.35m^2 in the SW tender (and also the current SE tender). Which is one of the major reasons why the 707s are leaving SWR and will struggle to find a new home.
It is also one reason why Bombardier have had lots of wins with the new Aventra platform, in the areas with transverse 2+2 (or 2+3 on Anglia) seating or vestibules they have underfloor heating rather than traditional ducts in the tumblehome area. [Longitudinal seating area retain the traditional behind the ankles grills]. The Aventras also have far more grab hold opportunities, so overall they get a 0.25m^2 per standing space per passenger calculcation allowance with 2+2. and large vestibules.
The legroom in the 700s is inadequate in general (there are a few seats with adequate legroom). I am 6’4″ tall with relatively long legs. I always imagine that anyone planning seating on public transport is a SAG. One can also suggest 153s as inadequate although they do have soft seats.
I consider myself as disabled for seating purposes. End of rant.
Re. NGH, very interesting thanks. I thought the one 345 I’ve been on had a better layout. The subject of handholds (or lack of, to complement the comfort of the much increased actual space for standing) is another one of my bugbears from the past (and applies very much to the 700s) but I don’t really want start that one running as well…
@Pop
“when looking out of the window”
Not always possible with many modern seating layouts. The for started with the HST, the first trains in the UK in which, at least in second class, the seat pitch did not match the window spacing.
I remember remarking when visiting the class 707 mock-up at Waterloo back in 2016 that I and another visitor, neither of remarkable girth or leg length, could not fit side by side on the seats. I theorise that they are designed for the average human, and thus are too small for 50% of the population (and rather more than 50% of the commuting population, in which there are more adults, (and more men) then the general population.
I did find one very comfortable seat – the one with a view ahead. Time was when passengers could expect a seat (Bulleid could cram 132 seats in each trailer car of a 4SUB) and the driver was expected to drive standing up!
Maybe the 701s will be an improvement.
@Timbeau,
My recollection is that the WR HSTs originally had all table seating aligned to windows in 2nd class. First class had 2 + 1 similarly.
Roger B. Timbeau is right. Mk111 bodies had the same number of windows in first and standard configurations (unlike mk11). This meant that if first class lined up with the windows, standard wouldn’t or vice versa, hence first class won.
100and thirty,
Exactly.
Timbeau,
It is nonsense to suggest you can’t see out the window. With some rare exceptions (e.g. toilets removed) you always have a view. Just not as good an unfettered one as one would like. Even on 2nd class HST there were always some seats with unrestricted views.
Re PoP,
The exceptions got a lot less rare with Hitachi’s latest rolling stock – both the IEPs and 385s for Scotrail have seats with fine views of nothing but off-white paneling!
As regards the Fainsa Ironing Boards (aka Fainsa “Sophia” seats) most variants don’t have proper moquette fabric covers but a cheaper fabric with the texture of 60grit sand paper, a quick solution would be to recover the seats with proper LU standard moquette which would instantly improve passenger comfort for those in summer weight clothing.
Fainsa though good design, high levels of automation and Barcelona labour costs (for what they haven’t automated) are incredibly cheap and that isn’t going to change unless their competitors invest massively. Fainsa also recently merged with the French seating group Compin (Alstom’s favourite seating supplier) and the Fainsa designs are being used for all the mid range options i.e. not TGV and not plastic metro seats but everything inbetween so there is even less real competition.
The postural ergonomics of the Ironing Boards are very good.
Modern crash requirement effectively require metal seat structures (fibreglass and plastic structures were found to age badly so are now effectively verboten)
@pop
Indeed there are always some seats with unfettered views. But there are usually also some with a window pillar lined up with the passenger’s head, requiring a craning of the neck to get a view. Of course, with longitudinal seats like the 378s you only get a view if there are no standees in the way.
Re GT,
Well at least Govia can now pass the parcel rather than just taking the flack as they have been beaten to prime spots on the naughty step by others with Stagecoach’s epic VTEC performance (now very close to taking out the whole group if you reconstruct and model their finances) along with Abellio (Anglia*** and Scotrail*) and First (SWR* and TPE**) both with multiple smaller attempts to get on the DfT naughty step too.
Govia are nearly redeemed and in the saintly category of MTR and Arriva. DfT need plenty of viable bidders…
*SWR and Scotrail have both got ORR warning letters.
**TPE is probably the next VTEC due to over bidding unless First have very deep pockets.
***Anglia’s Brantham depot fiasco is yet to hit the fan (“what depot”) along with the tip down seat dwell time issues.
Govia might even have rye smile as the entire GTR debacle will reduce their profit on GTR over the whole franchise by less than Stagecoach are losing on VTEC every year at the moment
I agree it’s a relativistic thing picked up especially by GN passengers. Other perceptions also come into play, since the interior material/colour palette has all the charm of the inside of a fridge, whereas the 707’s in the obsolete but cheery SWT palette make for a much cosier ambience. Coupled with seats that are similar in feel and posture to those they replaced, SWR passengers have less to gripe about. People also forget the hideously tight leg space between the facing seats on the original Thameslinks. As a regular short-haul Thameslink user, the new trains make for a noticeably less crowded journey, and it’s so much easier to transport luggage and bikes. I’ll reserve final judgement until a trip to Cambridge or Brighton..
@Timbeau
“Of course, with longitudinal seats like the 378s you only get a view if there are no standees in the way.”
An alternative (for people who feel particularly supple) is to sit in such a way as to face forwards (without letting your legs interfere with the seats either side of you) so that you can tilt your head to look out the window that’s (supposed to be) behind you. I have done this before but there’s a certain knack to it.
The hard part is not getting a crick in your neck… 😉
NGH
Anglia’s Brantham depot fiasco is yet to hit the fan Do tell!
Because the local newspaper stories all agree on difficulties, but they seem to be errr… different difficulties, if you see what I mean.
VTEC – yes, well ….. the successive “failures” on what used to be the Great Northern Railway are an object lesson in how not to do it. Given that said route is one of the most profitable in the country.
[Subjective seat discussion relating to the individual snipped as promised. PoP]
Greg,
The fact that it is one of the most profitable routes in the country is completely irrelevant in a franchise system. If it is known to be profitable the franchisee pays to run the route. The problem is not that the route is unprofitable (it is very profitable) but that successive bidders have overbid and overestimated profit and underestimated costs.
The East Coast Main Line franchise shows one of the weaknesses of the system as espoused by Christian Wolmar. Profitability on this route has very little to do with efficiency or good marketing or even running a decent railway. The main consideration is the state of the economy and a further consideration is that of other external factors that may particularly affect passenger numbers.
So ECML franchise has been brought down once partly by London bombings that significantly advesey affected the leisure market on this route and currently by an overoptimistic assessment of the future state of the economy – partly brought about by the uncertainty with Brexit.
As Wolmar would claim, bidding for a franchise like ECML is basically taking a punt on how the economy is going to do in the next few years. Get it right and you are in the money. Get it wrong and you hope you can get the government to pick up the tab. The stupid thing is the franchising system doesn’t entirely transfer the risk to the private sector (which was supposedly one of the really good things about privatisation) because the government is always the operator of last resort.
Re Greg,
Brantham (ex ICI brownfield) – The plan was to go cheap an only have access from the south to avoid having to move UKPN 132kV pylon(s) to the North. The problems is then that depot moves to /from the north then have 2 moves across the Manningtree level Crossing, they also forgot to included future additional freight paths in the analysis which now suggests that the barriers will be down for 45 minutes continuously when they go down at many times of day.
The firm advising Abellio also advised HCC on Croxley pre TWAO…
PoP
The fact that it is one of the most profitable routes in the country is completely irrelevant in a franchise system
Yes, I ( & so does everyone else here ) knows that already …
Your follow-up comments are pertinent, but I’m afraid that’s not the point. It is how are we still stuck with this all-too-obviously broken “system”?
Wolmar & several other people, have “remedies”, but, other than going back to a “proper” railway company, or it’s nationalised equivalent, what’s a practical solution, given that, at present, government are recycling their mistakes again & again?
[We will presume that is a rhetorical question otherwise I would have to snip it for going way off-subject and raising bigger issues PoP]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
NGH
Oh dear.
The articles didn’t appear to mention the Grid pylons & I now appreciate the actual LC problem, as that wasn’t apparent from the information.
Solution(s)? Pick another site? Upgrade existing site(s)?
They are going to have to move fairly quickly, though, are they not?
@Ngh: If I’ve got the right spot, the flattened industrial site just across the Stour towards Norwich from the Manningtree junction, then there’s a second problem with it: Flooding risk….
Re SH(LR),
Yes that site
Re Greg,
Whatever they do they need it for December this year..
There isn’t the space at current sites so some former railway sites or other former industrial sites are being looked at but they all have some issues.
@SH(LR), I don’t think flooding would be a problem, the sea wall on that side didn’t need to be upgraded when the did the Manningtree side in the 80s (I think it was). The railway is another metre or two above the sea wall. For various reasons I don’t think river flooding is a problem there as there is too much land available nearer the river.
And surely there is the east curve of the triangle available to help movements to the North? I don’t recall there being much traffic in that direction, but yes it would involve crossing the up line twice.
@NGH @SH(LR) @SILENT LURKER The problems with Brantham, (though I think it should be Cattawade to be geographically correct), do seem to be myriad.
Variously reported as;
* no deal yet done with the land owner,
* flooding, whilst the land may be above high water, much of it has been under water since last autumn suggesting that there is at least issue with drainage
* the gradient from the site up to the main line even at the south end is too steep even for modern traction as there will be little opportunity to get up any real speed
* issues with increased closure of the level crossing, which could be partly mitigated by sending stuff around the branch to reverse at Mistley or Harwich Int, (but this will increase ECS times and add to diagrams)
Rumours suggest other sites being looking at include Ipswich Sugar Factory (adjacent to the new Bacon Factory curve) or Parkeston, both of which have their own issues.
This issue just seems to add to existing alleged problems with delivering the bid timetable, (such as not taking account of frieght paths and that the configuration of the new fleet means that berthing and stabling was already going to be difficult even with Brantham and that as a consequence significantly increased ECS mileage will be needed!
At least Bacon/Sugar Factory is on the main line, with a triangle.
Parkeston is down a longish branch ….
They are going to have to move fast, though.
@ALFIE I think Cattawade is part of the parish of Brantham, so either is correct.
Regarding the level crossing, anecdotal local reports (i.e. chatting to my family) suggests that the problem with the crossing is HGVs backing up on the north side (the crossing itself is only used by high vehicles as there is the bridge for cars). Perhaps some widening of the road back to White Bridge would help there. My understanding of the problem is that once the HGVs have backed up enough then cars can’t overtake them to pass North to South through the bridge and so get held up as well. HGVs going South to North can queue on Cox’s hill and be overtaken easily.
@Slient Lurker: That (sort of) level crossing has to be one of the weirdest I have ever seen. When I went past I really did not believe what I was seeing. As we were travelling North-South, we ended up going over the top…
There is (or was?) a very similar one right by Ely station & used to be another by Copper Mills Junction in Walthamstow – except that, with the rebuild & “STAR” construction, the LC gates have gone, permanently, to be replaced with paling-fence
@SH(LR) There is another similar one at Ely I believe. You can see the logic, the water table is so high you can’t dig the road down without pumps, so put a level crossing in for the vehicles that can’t fit under the railway. I’m slightly surprised it isn’t used as a pattern more often.
@SH(LR)
A similar situation occurs at Ely station although in that case, something is being done about it.
And something a bit similar used to be at the southern end of Oxford station where the Botley Road goes under the railway with a height restriction. It was only for emergency use but the gates were interlocked with the signalling.
I’m sorry but as someone who comes from a country with a high water table, it just looks like you’re trying to ruin our reputation (for being tighter than the proverbial Scotsman’s purse)!
@ 100andthirty
Re class 700 seats.
While I doubt the DfT went as far as specifying the exact type of seat to be used, they were very keen on “getting a good deal” financially* (particularly as they continue to peddle this myth that ROSCOs are ‘ripping off the taxpayer where as every single inquiry – including by the National Audit Office amongst others found it was the Governments very own franchising policy that caused said high leasing costs).
Now it doesn’t therefore take a genius to realise that if the supplier uses less luxurious components, then the price they quote can be lower – and at the time there was a lot of political support for the deal to be given to Bombardier in the UK. The decision to award the contract to Siemens was justified to the nation as being because it “obtained best value for money for the taxpayer ” according to Ministers / DfT / Treasury officials involved (i.e. It cost HM Treasury* the least amount of money). At no time was the decision based on “guaranteed comfort for the user” – indeed by the time the 700s started to be built, it was the norm to include wi-fi and power sockets – not to mention tables of some description in new trains, yet the 700s lack all of them.
Thus while I agree Siemens certainly could certainly have supplied a more comfortable seat (I’m sure the would have happily provided Pullman style armchairs had the DfT been happy with a ‘money no object’ approch to train procurement for example), they are hardly likely to do so in their own initiative when it would either negatively impact their own profits from building the trains – or if it would negatively affect their ability to win the order in the first place!
So while its true that several other non ‘DfT procured’ train fleets may also have low comfort ratings seat wise, that does not let the DfT off the hook for the quality of the on board experience in the case of the 700s (nor the 800 IETs being delivered to GWR as it happens). Trains are no different to anything else – as a purchaser its up to YOU to do your homework and decide what you want before asking suppliers to build it by including it in the specifications (e.g. say that seats must have a certain level of padding etc)
*Ironically this insistence on ‘lowest price’ came back to bite them on the arse so to speak because as the DfT spent so long finalising the deal with Siemens, significant movements on the currency markets as regards the £ versus the Euro made the eventual cost to the taxpayer of the Siemens built stock grater than if the Government had given the contract to Bombardier in the first place!
Re Phil,
I suspect part of the problem is the choices made by DfT in trying to optimise / compromise on various requirements with choices made between 2007 and 2011.
The same choices would not be made now, for example first class (See SE franchise tender) would have been axed now on Thameslink but wasn’t then for the Thameslink specification when it was unthinkable to axe first class.
The requirement for good pedestrian flow and low dwell times won’t be going away on non-intercity services and Thameslink is at the front of this wave of secular change. In five years time it will be seen as the norm.
Re the seating, this short BBC report may be of interest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-B0XZa5_GU
It suggests that passengers may suffer long term damage to themselves, so could possibly open the gates to civil litigation.
Thanks for explaining the first class malarkey – its provision on the 8-car units that loop around Sutton is a complete nonsense, creating uncertainty with passengers and prompting staff to spend effort on the occasional announcement saying “no first class service on this train”… which sounds like a mistake when you see 1st still written on the side.
Graham Feakins,
If so, I would suggest that some airlines would be in the firing line long before train companies. easyJet, for example, are using similar seats when refurbishing planes. Personally, I preferred them. At least the railways have the defence that no-one is obliged to sit on the seat throughout the journey.
NickBXN. Isn’t the Sutton loop (non) first class confusion a consequence of the change in Thameslink service specification following political pressure. I recall the loop services were due to terminate at Blackfriars and therefore would have used different trains.
Posture wise the seats are very good, the covering and padding let them down comfort wise both easily remediable. As a thought the seat base cushion should probably have 2 bonded foam layers with the top thinner layer (about 25-30% of the thickness) about 1/3 less stiff than currently and the base about 10mm thicker overall.
Re GF,
I suspect the Osteopath was quite happy to say sensible sounding thinks if he got the free promo on TV…
Plenty of generic stuff about sedentary lifestyles and sitting to much.
GF
If you look at that BBC/You tube clip at about 12-14 seconds in, you can clearly see (from the back ) a woman with insufficient leg-room wriggling/squirming & trying to get comfortable. Not good.
NGH
Quite possibly correct – they could be thicker & still meet all the “regs”. Doesn’t do anything about the ( lack of ) leg-room, though.
Re 130,
Correct – But:
1) the now pulled Tattenham Corner and Caterham (remaining <= Zone 6 Southern services) wouldn't have had 1st either
2) The MML stoppers don't have 1st either.
So some units would always have had no first.
3) the level of 1st provision on GN outer services was approximately double that on Thameslink, Southern or SE – so there the dynamic turning on and off of first class (Front coach – the norm is 1st is provided, Both Front and Rear coaches (GN temporarily), or Neither has been quite useful for the adjustment period.
Expect much wailing and gnashing of teeth in GN land (the biggest ironing board complainers) when the 700s start running through the core at commuter times and the quantity of 1st has been normalised (halved) to just the front! {insert Popcorn emoij}
ngh,
Correct – But:
There is a difference. For the Thameslink loop it applies to every train whereas at least for the Cats and Tats it is not (currently) each train or even the majority of trains. More relevantly, the stock tends not to be limited to that route in its daily diagram. I can’t speak for MML stoppers.
There always was the occasional first class accommodation in (then) second class only trains. Notably on what is now Southeastern you would get peak hour ‘bounce back’ services where coastal trains would do a short out-and-back to Hayes to maximise stock efficiency. These trains were popular with some people in the suburbs who aspired to more luxurious travel.
I have fond recollections of the nearly-always-practically-empty 00.05 from King’s Cross which was primarily for postal traffic but had proper first class compartments and was advertised as second class only. The poor man’s sleeper train.
The MML stoppers certainly haven’t had (timetabled) first class for at least the last 20 years. Even some of the fast MML Thameslink trains in the morning didn’t in 1999.
And of course, there are the declassified first-class sections in the 317s used on London Overground. Great if you can get a seat, but of course it means there aren’t as many of them…
I now realise I have misread and misunderstood ngh. He was talking about other Thameslink services that would have had first class provision but would be declassified.
So Cats and Tats were part of the Thameslink plan for a short while but that was really an act of desperation brought in at a late stage (to be replaced, in part, by a different act of desperation with trains to Rainham). So not part of the original or even early revised plan.
In the case of Midland Main Line stoppers this does appear to be pretty much unavoidable – unless one goes against current trends and makes first class available from these stations.
Declassifying First Class carriages when used on standard-class-only services is adminstratively easier than compensating First Class passengers when no first class is available.