One of the rules of LR is that the more innocuous the title, the more interesting a TfL committee paper is likely to be. Additional New Rolling Stock for London Overground for the October 2017 Programmes and Investment Committee certainly meets this criterion.
A time-limited offer!
By way of introduction, the paper explains that additional rolling stock is needed for both the Barking Riverside Extension, now that it has been authorised, and to increase the service on the East London Line (ELL) to 20 trains per hour (tph) from 16tph. If these trains are not ordered by 26th October 2017, then they cannot be purchased at existing prices as an add-on to the existing order for 45 Class 710 4-car 25 kV AC trains, 14 of which are also 750 DC capable. The Class 710s are due to replace existing rolling stock on the London Overground Liverpool St services, Romford – Upminster shuttle, the Gospel Oak-Barking line (GOBLIN) and partially replace trains on the Euston – Watford Junction line (Watford DC) which enables some strengthening of services elsewhere.
The paper makes it clear that it isn’t just the purchase price that is an issue – it is the leasing terms as well. To benefit from existing leasing terms, it is highly desirable to add to the existing order before the deadline. It seems to be a case of ‘buy all we can afford now’.
One-off opportunity!
In the case of the ELL, what is far more interesting is how it has become possible to increase the frequency by removing signalling constraints long before anyone imagined it would have happened and at little, or no, cost to TfL.
To quote the paper:
In the 2016 Autumn Statement the Chancellor announced a £450m Digital Railway fund for trialling digital signalling technology, expanding capacity, and improving reliability. The strategic outline business case for the ELL 20 trains per hour project has been shortlisted to receive funding from this fund. Funding of £6m has been received to develop the project to outline business case but a final decision is not expected until spring 2018.
So an unexpected opportunity has arisen to both buy trains at a cheaper price than they would otherwise cost and to have the ELL signalling upgraded at no cost to TfL. Despite TfL being strapped for cash, it must be hard to resist such an opportunity. Indeed, one could even argue that because TfL is strapped for cash it is even more important to take advantage of such an opportunity while it exists.
Stabling comes (almost) free!
It gets better still. Even the cost of stabling the trains (at the east side of the tracks south of Norwood Junction station) is thought to be mostly covered by costs Network Rail are due to incur anyway and an application to a separate fund can be made to cover the difference.
So far everything looks rosy. But, of course, in real life, things never work out this perfectly. The biggest problem is one of timing, but there are others as well. Furthermore, as you can see from the above quote, a final decision on the Digital Railway proposal is due in Spring 2018. This leaves TfL with something of a gamble to make, for it is not explained what will happen if they place the order for the extra trains, only for the Digital Railway resignalling to not go ahead.
Indeed, the paper is clearly about the purchase of the trains and the need to delegate authority for this to take place, but it is surprisingly lacking in detail covering the full background. For example: which two of the four East London Line southern branches would benefit from the improved service? There is also a complicated train cascade plan. Some of this makes immediate sense, but other parts appear to do so if one knows the detail of existing plan which is reliant on the initial order of Class 710 units.
Buy for one line – use for two!
Just to add to the complexity, also included is a plan to temporarily improve services on the West London Line (WLL). This would use trains not immediately required on the East London Line. But, again to quote from the paper:
An enhanced frequency, to provide congestion relief, would be operated between Clapham Junction and Willesden Junction and/or Shepherd’s Bush. A plan will need to be developed to maintain services on this line when the trains are required for the ELL.
This says to the Committee that London Overground will be back for some more money. That money will be for a plan, to be implemented by May 2021, to enable the frequency of the WLL service to be maintained. They just won’t yet say what that plan is.
Moving on from this, we look now at the three aspects of this proposal.
Barking Riverside extension
This is by far the simplest proposal and the one that is the easiest to understand. An extra two trains are required to extend the 4tph GOBLIN to Barking Riverside. These have to be 4-car trains because there is no prospect of making GOBLIN suitable for 5-car trains in the short or medium term future (some work has been done in this area, but only at selected stations).
It is quite important to ensure that there is homogeneous stock on this line to simplify both operation and maintenance. So, realistically, as soon as the Riverside extension was confirmed it was almost inevitable that an add-on order for the trains would be required.
The extension should be in operation in 2021. This leaves the trains without a purpose for around three years prior to that. London Overground hope that they can sub-lease them to another Train Operating Company (TOC) during this period.
West London Line frequency enhancement
London Overground have a long-held desire to increase the frequency on the WLL from 4tph to 6tph. They also aspire to another 2tph (at least) from Clapham Junction continuing to Stratford, to further increase the frequency on the North London Line (NLL). This would enable 10tph on eastern end of the North London line. This is due to be implemented with with main order of the new Class 710 stock.
What, it is suspected, London Overground would really like is to have 6tph from Richmond to Stratford and 6tph from Clapham Junction all the way to Stratford. Unfortunately, the additional trains to Stratford would appear to rely on freight, travelling between East London and the West Coast Main Line, using the route via Gospel Oak instead of via the NLL. Until that actually happens, sometime after the electrification of the GOBLIN, such an intensive service on the NLL can only be a dream.
Typical hourly pattern currently on the West London Line, with the WLL trains highlighted in orange. Hourly Southern trains from East Croydon to Milton Keynes highlighted in green.
What is currently possible on top of already proposed improvements is an additional 2tph from Clapham Junction to either Shepherd’s Bush or Willesden Junction. Shepherd’s Bush would appear to be an unsatisfactory place to terminate a portion of trains from the south. The move involves around 500m of time-consuming wrong-way running from the relevant crossover into the southbound platform. Alternatively, one can carry out a time-consuming manoeuvre and go further north once out-of-service and turn back at North Pole turnback siding. Nevertheless, Southern trains appear to manage a turn-around at Shepherd’s Bush on RMT strike days when they are unable to go further north without a guard on board.
Willesden Junction would seem to be a much more desirable place to terminate. This would also fit in better with the existing service, which has 2pth from Clapham Junction to Stratford and 2tph to Willesden Junction.
It is presumed that there is not an issue terminating 6tph in platform 1 at Clapham Junction.
As suggested above, this seems to be the precursor of some bigger plan to be implemented in 2021. Whilst money at TfL is tight, London Overground predict that the demand is there so the improvements are necessary. They may be slightly encouraged by the fact that London Overground trains are more-or-less off-the-shelf. As a result, they tend to be much cheaper than Underground trains despite having significantly more capacity per carriage than deep level Tube stock. Also, depot modification and expansion seems to be cheaper and less problematic. If the demand is there, you get more bang for your buck investing in rolling stock for London Overground rather than London Underground.
East London Line
The ELL is well-known for operating at capacity at certain times of the day. Of particular concern are stations such as Honor Oak Park in the morning peak, where passengers cannot always board the first Overground train that arrives. The service to Clapham Junction is also busy for much of its length.
For many years there has been talk of running an extra 2tph ‘pixie busters’ (‘Passengers In eXcess of Capacity’, or PIXC to its friends) on the Crystal Palace branch in the peak period. Indeed, it is a bit of a mystery why this hasn’t already happened, as the trains are available (they are currently designated as ‘hot standbys’). The main reason for this not taking place seems to be the issues at London Bridge during its redevelopment.
There is also a long-term aspiration to run 6tph to West Croydon instead of the current 4tph. This is currently not possible. Both because of a lack of capacity in the Selhurst triangle area (Windmill Bridge and associated junctions) and because it is not possible to terminate 6tph of Overground services at West Croydon. Furthermore, there is no simple way for a train on the branch south of New Cross Gate to terminate short of West Croydon – other than by diverting to Crystal Palace.
If the necessary improvements were to be made as part of the East Croydon upgrade in the 2020s then 6tph would be possible to West Croydon. The terminating capacity issue can be resolved by reinstating a track west of Wallington (two stops west of West Croydon) to give a central terminating siding for 3tph – leaving 3tph still to terminate at West Croydon.
The fourth branch of the East London Line is the one to New Cross. This is not especially heavily taxed though trains can be full on arrival and departure from New Cross – but not to the extent that people get left behind.
5tph per branch – too simple
If you increase the service from 16tph (4tph per branch) to 20tph then you might assume that this means 5tph per branch. We can be almost certain, however, that this is not going to happen. Aside from the problem running extra trains to West Croydon, trying to fit trains 12 minutes apart on Southern’s network with trains generally every 10 or 15 minutes is just going to be a nightmare.
So where will the extra 4tph go? 2tph will almost certainly go to the Crystal Palace branch. It is known to be doable. This would also help relieve the Sydenham – New Cross Gate corridor in the morning peak.
Equally, we can conclude that the New Cross branch, though probably capable of handling 6tph, doesn’t need extra trains. As further evidence for this not being a branch on which an increased service is planned, the number of extra trains to be ordered is far more than would be required if the New Cross branch were to receive an increased service.
So, we can fairly safely conclude that the proposal is for the service to be increased to 6pth on both the Crystal Palace and the Clapham Junction branch. At Crystal Palace, where there are two dedicated terminating platforms available, we can be confident that the terminus can handle the increase in services.
At Clapham Junction, there is less certainty that the relevant platform, platform 2 can handle 6pth. One problem is the long single-line approach – slightly longer than at platform 1. A further complexity, which we will cover, is that you cannot easily create a timetable where the service will be every 10 minutes. There is no real reason to believe that having only one terminating platform for this service is a problem though. Even if it is, there is the option of diverting 2tph to Battersea Park.
The slightly messy timetable
Welcome though the extra capacity will be, with 20tph on the East London Line, the timetable will be a bit messy. With two branches operating 6tph and two operating 4tph things are bound not to be perfect.
Almost certainly, the service will operate on a pattern repeating each half hour with trains three minutes apart in the central section. For those that do not want to be bogged down by analysis, skip to the second table showing frequencies headed “A better pattern of branch frequencies”.
Here is one argument to try and find the best timetable. As we shall see later it is flawed but that just goes to show how tricky it can be to produce a decent timetable with multiple branches and different frequencies on those branches.
Imagine being on the southbound platform at Surrey Quays. Whilst not a rigorous proof of the best option, working out roughly what happens can be logically argued as follows:
- Arbitrarily you can assume that one of your 6pth branches is the first train. Let us say this is the Clapham Junction branch
- A bit of thinking reveals that at some stage a train on one of the 6pth branches must be followed by a train on the other 6tph branch. Without any real loss of generality, it might as well be assumed that a Crystal Palace train follows
- Equally, the third train must be one of the trains on the 4pth branch otherwise the more frequent branches get too frequent, and the less-frequent branches are not frequent enough. It could be a West Croydon train but that would lead to two consecutive trains going as far south as Sydenham, so it makes sense to assume this is a New Cross train.
- It is now 9 minutes since the previous Clapham Junction train left. They ideally should be 10 minutes apart but that is not possible as 10 is not a multiple of 3. So the fourth train should logically be our second Clapham Junction train
- By the same logic, our next train needs to be a Crystal Palace train
- There hasn’t yet been a train to West Croydon. It isn’t desirable for this to be one following a Crystal Palace train but this turns out to be unavoidable
- Another train is needed to run to Clapham Junction
- Similarly, another train is needed to run to Crystal Palace
- It is 18 minutes since a train ran to New Cross so another train is needed to run there
- There has only been one train to West Croydon in the past 27 minutes and that is a 4tph service so another train is needed to run there
A first attempt at establishing branch frequencies
The above crude analysis will provide the following frequencies on the branches over an hour:
| Branch | Service Pattern | Trains Per Hour |
|---|---|---|
| Clapham Junction | 9-9-12- 9-9-12 | 6 |
| Crystal Palace | 9-9-12- 9-9-12 | 6 |
| New Cross | 18-12-18-12 | 4 |
| W Croydon | 12-18-12-18 | 4 |
In reality, as is the case today, these exact intervals might not apply along the entire length of the branches due to the need to wait at junctions or run early to avoid that need. In order to maximise reliability, however, and reduce the buildup of crowds there will be a strong desire for a regular interval in the busy section that operates at 20tph.
In fact there is a flaw in the above argument presented in the article as originally published because not all possibilities are considered. As reader Tom has pointed out, you can actually do better and retain the even 15 minute interval on the two branches with 4tph. Possibly the best way to envisage this is to assume that this is possible and that trains on the two branches with 4tph do not follow each other. Then you for every five trains you have one to New Cross, one to West Croydon and with suitable juggling around with the remaining three paths available you can achieve a combination of 9 and 12 minute intervals on the two branches with 6tph.
What Tom points out is that you can run a better service with an 30 minute repeating cycle. The first 15 minute pattern would look something like this:
New Cross
Crystal Palace
West Croydon
Clapham Junction
Crystal Palace
and the second 15 minute pattern would be the same but with the order of the two 6tph branches transposed i.e.
New Cross
Clapham Junction
West Croydon
Crystal Palace
Clapham Junction
A better pattern of branch frequencies
This produces a better pattern for the New Cross and West Croydon branches
| Branch | Service Pattern | Trains Per Hour |
|---|---|---|
| Clapham Junction | 9-9-12- 9-9-12 | 6 |
| Crystal Palace | 9-9-12- 9-9-12 | 6 |
| New Cross | 15-15-15-15 | 4 |
| W Croydon | 15-15-15-15 | 4 |
For the passenger, the slight unevenness of some branches is not generally as bad as it would seem. Even if one were forced to have a 18-12-18-12 interval (which we now realise we don’t) average waiting time is only 7.8 minutes as opposed to 7.5 minutes for a 15-15-15-15 interval service – an increase of just 18 seconds. In a similar way, the average waiting time for a 9-9-12-9-9-12 interval service is 5.1 minutes whereas a consistent 10-minute interval only reduces the average waiting time slightly to 5 minutes – just 6 seconds better.
| Service Pattern (minutes) | Mean Waiting Time |
|---|---|
| 18-12-18-12 | 7.8 min |
| 15-15-15-15 | 7.5 min |
| 9-9-12-9-9-12 | 5.1 min |
| 10-10-10-10-10-10 | 5 min |
Not the final deal?
The 20tph ELL proposal should really be seen as a stepping stone to the ultimate aim of running 24tph. This will have to wait until 6tph can be run to West Croydon. Then the intervals can be evened out again with 6tph on each branch. Originally this was planned for 2023, but in today’s financial climate it is hard to see when this will actually happen.
A final curiosity
Something that on first reading is really curious about the proposed train order is the mix of trains. Two trains need to be 4-car for the Barking Riverside Extension. The number required for the ELL is surprisingly large. Analysis of the details given in the paper makes it quite clear that eight will be needed. Assuming one is required to cover maintenance that means seven are required to be in service. With an end-to-end running time and dwell time at one terminus of slightly under an hour for Crystal Palace, West Croydon and Clapham Junction it is easy to see how seven (or maybe even eight) trains are needed. The exact number depends on whether the enhanced routes terminate (at the northern end) at Highbury & Islington or Dalston Junction. It is almost inevitable that the more frequent routes would terminate at the same station otherwise the problem of uneven intervals looms large.
Now the curiosity is this. You might naively suspect that TfL would order eight 5-car Class 710 trains for the ELL, because eight trains are what is required. This won’t work because the Class 710 trains do not have an end gangway and so are not permitted to run in the East London line tunnel. So then you might expect TfL to order eight 5-car Class 710 trains to replace 5-car, dual voltage Class 378 trains from the NLL and WLL combined fleet. But this is not exactly what they propose to do.
The actual plan is to order six 5-car Class 710 trains to replace six trains on the NLL/WLL, which can be transferred to the ELL. Then, for reasons that aren’t explained in this document, one 4-car Class 710 is required to replace a 5-car 750V DC train on the Watford DC service. This would enable a seventh 5-car Class 378 train to be transferred to the ELL. The reason for this is that that this is intended as the continuation of a plan to replace the 5-car Class 378 with 4-car trains Class 710 trains on the Watford DC line and run a 4tph service using 4-car trains rather than a 3tph service using 5-car trains.
This still leaves the ELL short by one train.
Another 4-car unit would be released for use on the same service (Euston DC) by leasing an additional unit to run the Romford to Upminster service. A further two 5-car Class 378 units could then be released to deliver the enhanced service level of 20tph on the ELL
To be clear, the unit released from the Romford to Upminster service would be a new Class 710 already delivered as part of the main order.
Keeping Class 315
What is also curious, and smacks of real financial stringency is the fact that a Class 315 is being retained. It is not explicitly stated but it is quite clear that this is intended for the Romford – Upminster London Overground service in order to release a Class 710 for the Euston DC service. This, in turn, releases a further Class 378 for the East London Line service enhancement.
At present, the Class 315 train is used by TfL Rail and London Overground but in both cases the fleet is due to be scrapped. The London Overground services into Liverpool St would be replaced by the Class 710 trains currently on order as the main part of the contract. It is also presumed that this class of train would be finally scrapped once the new Class 345 fully takes over when TfL Rail’s Liverpool St – Shenfield service becomes part of the Elizabeth line in May 2019.
The problems of maintaining non-homogenous fleets are well-known. At least, for the short term, there should not be a shortage of spares. On top of this, the retained Class 315 will probably be the one in the best condition. Nevertheless, this cannot be seen as a long-term solution.
As part of the Class 315 fleet
More curious still is a reference to other Class 315s being retained. To quote:
One additional Class 315 train would be retained within the broader rolling stock fleet under this option…
As it was believed that the entire Class 315 fleet, currently all used by TfL Rail, was due to be scrapped this seems very strange indeed. Furthermore, the implication is that “the broader rolling stock fleet” refers to the London Overground rolling stock fleet, not the TfL Rail one.
The only plausible explanations so far are that TfL Rail have a plan to delay using 7-car Class 345 on the residual Gidea Park – Liverpool St (High Level) service that will operate in May 2019 when the Elizabeth line opens to Shenfield. Alternatively, that there are plans to run a new self-contained London Overground service to Meridian Water (the replacement station for Angel Road) and do it on the cheap with Class 315 stock.
What the TfL Committee thought of the proposal
With money tight (and perhaps with the memory of Garden Bridge looming), the TfL Board does seem less willing to simply rubber stamp proposals that are put before them. Understandably, board members queried whether it was a good idea to buy trains in advance of them being required just to get them at a cheaper price. It was even suggested that Bombardier would dearly love the order and, if the rolling stock were purchased later, then TfL would be at little or no disadvantage.
Not surprisingly, there was a lack of universal confidence amongst Board members that, if some trains were not immediately required, it would be possible to sub-lease them. It was pointed out to the proposer of this purchase that we are currently an unusual situation. Right now there is a small surplus of electric multiple unit rolling stock around and there may well not be any takers.
Follow the money
The Committee resolved to look at the finances with the public removed from the meeting, as there was confidential information involved. The proposer of this purchase, or more strictly, of a motion to delegate authority to purchase, seemed quite unfazed by this suggesting that he knew that the figures would convince the Committee of the wisdom of going ahead with authorisation.
And so it was. After a discussion behind closed doors, the Committee gave the necessary authority to purchase the trains. One cannot help thinking that the terms available under the original contract (including finance arrangements) made in a more financially confident world, were so much better than anything that could be obtained today. If so, then it is not surprising that the Committee approved the authorisation to order the extra trains.
Consequently, somehow, despite all the current financial stringency, the story of an ever-growing London Overground continues – even if not at the pace envisaged a year ago.
Good news and bad news
Looking at the bigger picture, the good news is that train procurement at TfL has not come to a halt. In fact, in this case, plans have actually been advanced. So there is some money available to spend if the case is good enough. The bad news is that the details of this procurement show just how desperate TfL are to save money whenever possible with a reliance on a Class 315 unit that from a fleet that was expected to be scrapped.
Nonetheless, this is progress in the ongoing quest to make 6tph the regular frequency on the majority of London Overground services. What is more, the services to which this should eventually apply include all London Overground services (with the exception of the Romford – Upminster shuttle) that don’t terminate in central London.
This is no mean achievement, considering that at the time of Dr Beeching any London suburb-to-suburb service was generally regarded as fit only for closure.
LR is funded largely by its community. Like what we do? Then help us to do more!
Should “Programme and Investments Committee”not be “Programmes and Investment Committee”?
[Corrected, cheers. LBM]
Also, the statement “At present, the Class 315 train is only used by TfL Rail and not by London Overground” is factually incorrect. LO currently operate Class 315s on the West Anglia route.
[Oops. Because they are not yet scrapped! Reworded. PoP]
Clapham Junction – Shepherds Bush can also do a shunt at North Pole.
[Thanks. I did not realise this. I have modified text appropriately. PoP]
Platform 17 at Clapham can and is used when there isn’t the capacity in P1. It’s doubtful 6tph would be timetabled there. Platform 0 due at some point for 8 car Old Oak shuttles.
NLL going 8tph/10tph from May with some 710s on the DC. New order makes DC all 710
No units currently for additional Crystal Palace PIXC services
Battersea Park and Crystal Palace seem most likely for an extra 2tph. West Croydon can take 6tph Overground now off peak, but not from May.
It’s good to hear this has been approved, but I wonder why they left it so late?
100andthirty,
Simple answer is because they couldn’t propose this until Barking Riverside got the go-ahead which was after the previous Programmes and Investment Committee meeting.
But I do wonder if this is somehow linked to the cancellation of Jubilee and Northern lines additional trains (JNAT) and seen as far better value for money as well as having the benefit of being much cheaper. Then that begs the question of, if they were going to cancel JNAT, why wait so long before doing so.
Anon says “West Croydon can take 6tph Overground now off peak, but not from May” but I wonder why because from May 2018 is it not the case that the Southern service London Bridge to West Croydon 2tph service via Tulse Hill and Selhurst will be diverted to run to Caterham via East Croydon?
That at least would release W. Croydon’s bay platform 1 during that period, or is some other Southern service expected to use it? (Here I assume that Overground trains are cleared to use the bay platform if their own reversing siding beyond the station cannot be accessed because of other track occupational reasons from May.)
Re PoP,
&
Except that is completely wrong – only 31 of the original order 710/1 (710101-134) were AC only the other 14 (710/2 710201 – 214) were ordered as dual voltage 25kV AC and 750V DC, so yes some can run on 750V DC! The actual reason 710s can’t be used on the ELL has nothing to do with electrical systems – 378s have an escape door in the cab front as required for the single bore parts of the ELL tunnels and the 710s don’t! Yes it really is that simple… This then drives the rest of the cascade.
The 710/1 (LO West Anglia to be maintained at Ilford) and 710/2 (Goblin and Watford DC services to be maintained at Willesden) will have different seating layouts. The 710/2 having entirely longitudinal seating as per the existing the 378s and the 710/1s a mix of longitudinal and transverse.
I hadn’t heard about the JNAT “pause” until PoP’s comment above. What a shocking decision given the overwhelming BCR, especially for the Jubilee trains.
Re Graham F,
A viable timetable in the vicinity on Windmill Bridge Jn when the number of trains into LBG starts increasing substantially again…
(the 4tph Thameslink starting from Jan ’18 is just a diversion from via Crystal Palace and actually makes things easier at Norwood Jn for 5 months before the ramp up starts )
What’s the current prognosis on making the Euston-Watfords 4 tph rather than 3?
Also, given the statement in the article, I’m looking forward to 6 tph on the Chingford line (!)
Graham F
GTR turnaround is over 20 mins at West Croydon from May, so the bay and the turn back are essentially fully occupied all day. Currently the bay is free half the time due to minimum turnarounds on the London Bridge via Selhurst service group.
ngh,
Don’t know how I got that so wrong. I must have read somewhere the class 710 was ac only. Surprisingly little modification necessary to correct the article.
Greg Tingey,
I was careful to word it so as not to imply that you would get 6tph on the Chingford line. I am sure they would if they could but they can’t so they won’t.
Malc,
I am halfway through writing about the ‘pause’ so we can go into some detail later.
ngh,
Thinking about it further, what you are saying appears to be inconsistent with the paper. To quote from the paper
From what you are saying the Euston -Watford Junction service will already be class 710. You can’t then free a class 378 by assigning a new class 710 to the Euston – Watford Junction service.
I am not saying you are wrong but I find the statements incompatible. Maybe I have misunderstood something else.
Re PoP,
Of the additional 9 trains all to be based/maintained at Willesden:
6x 5 car (presumably 710/3?) – Dual voltage with longitudinal seating for NLL/WLL
1x 4 car 710/2 – Dual voltage with longitudinal seating for Watford DC
2x 4 car 710/2 – Dual voltage with longitudinal seating for GOBLIN to Barking Riverside.
The displaced Ro-minister unit (to Watford DC) is also a Dual Voltage (Willesden) unit from the proposal wording.
So before and after taking up part of the option:
710/1 (AC only 4 car) 31/31
710/2 (DV 4 car) 14/17
710/3? (DV 5 car) 0/6
Re PoP @ 0048,
Watford DC would have been a mix of 710s and 378s according to the previous plan…
PS as the original plan was to buy enough 710s for the current service level of 3tph Watford DC but not enough for the now future planned service level of 4tph which was confirmed later, hence the previous plan to use a pair of 378s to increase the future service level to 4tph, this pair is replaced with a pair of 710s in the current proposal.
I may be confused or have read the article too quickly but the original class 710 order was sufficient to convert GOBLIN, West Anglia, RomSter *and* Euston – Watford services. Therefore the plan was always to kick 378s off the DC line. These were to go to the NLL/WLL to provide an enhanced 10 tph core frequency. It now seems the plan is that 6 378s from the NLL/WLL will be replaced by new 710s in this supplemental order while 378s stay on the Watford DC route. There is then the shuffle of 2 710s to the Watford DC line to release two more 378s to the ELL.
However this still strikes me as mad because it means the 6 extra 710s that were added to the *original* order (from 39 to 45 trains) now seemingly don’t have a home. What is unclear in this latest paper is
– how many trains are needed to run the enhanced ELL service – 6? 8? some other number?
– what happens to the Watford DC service? Is it a mixed fleet in future? What frequency is to run? Will the frequency be enhanced?
– what happens to the extra 6 710s from the first order. Looking back at papers and press releases they were described as for “increased services on other lines”. This then changed to a move to the DC line to release 378s.
The other oddity, that you’ve picked up, is the reference to the *additional* class 315 being held. Why does anyone need class 315s when there are seemingly 6 spare class 710s from the original order? There is a clause, as I am sure you know, that means TfL might be called upon to run the 2 tph STAR shuttle while Abellio continue to run the Stratford – Bishops Stortford / Hertford E services. No idea if that has been activated but it’d look very odd for TfL to be running clapped out 315s on that while AGA have spanking new Adventras on the longer distance route.
A small note for GOBLIN fans – TfL have said that the supplemental peak workings incl the through train to Willesden Junction in the AM peak will go when the EMUs enter service. If you haven’t bagged a ride on the special working then do so after 22 October and before 18 November when the line closes for its second blockade.
Hopefully someone’s got a clue about the deployment of class 710s because I thought I understood what was happening and now I don’t.
I have tracked down the paper for the original order which is here.
This makes things fairly clear so I will quote a chunk of it
So it seems clear that the plan all along was to provide six new 4-car units DC-capable to Euston – Watford Junction [Watford DC] which would enable:
a) four existing 5-car class 378s to be transferred in order to
i) increase capacity on NLL from 8 to 10tph
ii) provide resilience on ELL
b) enable an enhanced service of 4tph on the Watford DC service consisting of six new 4-car trains and two existing class 378 trains.
So, the latest plan enables a homogenous fleet to operate on the Watford DC line and it finally all makes sense (except why they are keeping Class 315 rather than ordering new trains).
PoP… the earlier paper says the options could be exercised up to November 2019. Why has it suddenly become October 2017, I wonder?
Is keeping the 315 a case of not having enough crumbs left after committing to the other trains?
I think that “one off” should be “one-off”.
Regards
[I think so too. Changed. Regards. PoP]
I have made a number of small changes to the article based on a better understanding of what is intended to happen in future. At the time of writing I hadn’t appreciated 4tph on the Watford DC line and 10tph on the east part of the NLL were already due to go ahead.
Still not clear to me is why the GOBLIN and Watford DC stock have to be dual voltage. Is it something to do with accessing the depot or is it simply for flexibility? Or are they really only dual-voltage capable (no pantograph actually fitted) ?
Anonymike,
I strongly suspect that is the case. But would it really be worth doing and actually save money in the long term if you were only talking about one or two trains? Which is what makes me suspect we are probably talking about four trains with a fifth spare – at least. But I cannot see any obvious use for these without speculating wildly.
I also suspect this is only short term. The current plan needs to have the trains temporarily assigned to the West London line replaced by 2021. So I suspect there will be a further order. It might well be that this further order has to be of a minimum size – or at least a minimum size to be financially worthwhile. So it might be a case of deliberately holding back on some units.
100andthirty,
I tried to make it clear. There are at least two dates involved. There is the date that they can order without penalty i,e, at the same price as the original order. There is also the final cut off date after which Bombardier are free to refuse to accept the order and negotiations have to start again. We now know that to be November 2019. Between those dates there is probably an established price mechanism that determines the cost.
Probably far more significant is that the leasing deal needs to be done by October 26th otherwise TfL cannot get good leasing terms. Dare I say it but probably yet another insidious, knock-on effect of Brexit on TfL – and there are more to come. Not trying to make a political point, just saying I think that is the way it is.
RE 130,
November 2019 is cut-off date for Bombardier.
October 2017 is the cut-off date for the ROSCO on original terms.
Re Anonymike,
Not all the BT options have been taken up so far and adding an extra unit to a StAR order (presumably AC only 710/1) at a later date for RoMinister might make sense, but StAR could wait for several years before a decision as there would be an element of 3rd party funding any way, TfL have gone for lowest cost for what they currently want to do.
In general I also suspect that the new units should have greater availability than the 378s but TfL aren’t betting on it yet till they are in service and bedded in possibly hence the 315 option as a fallback. The improved acceleration and dwell times with the 710s should also yield slightly better utilisation.
Walthamstow Writer,
I think I can now answer your questions – sort of – in case you haven’t worked it out for yourself.
There are definitely 8 new trains needed, one way or another, to enhance the ELL.
The Euston DC service is currently 3tph using 5-car class 378 trains (six of them)
The plan was to have a mixed fleet and have 4tph (eight of them)
The plan now is to have a 4tph service using just Class 710 trains (eight of them)
My understanding is that the six unaccounted for trains are to be used to:
a) increase the Richmond – Stratford service from 4 to 6 tph (but needs 4 extra trains just for running time)
b) extending the 2tph Clapham Junction to Shepherd’s Bush from Shepherd’s Bush to Stratford (also needs 4 trains but no extra time at terminus needed, maybe less, and it does give a few minutes spare for each train).
However, the obvious flaw in this is that it is two trains short which I am at a loss to explain – unless it involved taking away the hot spares from somewhere or they think they can get the reliability (trains actually in service) figure up. See ngh’s previous comment about availability/reliability. Another possibility is that I have misinterpreted what 10tph on the NLL really means.
PoP/WW
That does beg the question as to which ELL branches are being enhanced initially. You commented in the article that the New Cross branch doesn’t need an increase & the number of new trains ordered exceeds those required. However if it is relatively easy to increase frequency on this branch, perhaps thats low hanging fruit for LO to increase the core service without requiring further timetable/infrastructure enhancements elsewhere.
If New Cross is the intended branch, how many extra trains would that actually leave? Is rolling stock availability expected to reduce with the forthcoming weekend night service? Could that be what they are ordering the extra for?
The problem with that proposed ELL timetable is that on the busiest part of the line (between New Cross Gate and Sydenham), the service pattern is 9-3-6-6-6-9-3-6-6-6. The nine minute gap twice an hour will cause problems with crush loading, extended dwell times etc.
Better to swap the fourth train (to Clapham Junction) with the fifth train (to Crystal Palace), as this gives a regular six-minute service as far as Sydenham. This would give an average wait of 3 mins, versus 3.3 as proposed above, or 3.77 on the current weekday timetable (which has a 7-8-7-8-7-8-7-8 pattern).
The downside is a slightly worse pattern than propsed above for Crystal Palace and Clapham Junction (12-12-6-12-12-6 instead of 9-9-12-9-9-12), with an average wait of 5.4 mins instead of 5.1 (though this is still a considerable improvement on the current 7.5).
PoP: The Watford/GOBLIN stock has to be dual voltage as they’ll be a single pool, with GOBLIN being AC and Watford being DC.
I do wonder why the West Anglia fleet is going for 4 car units, to be mainly operated as doubles, rather the bolder step of 8 car units.
NLL is already 8tph in the peaks with through CLJ – SRA running on 4tph. 10tph is a 5tph/5tph split and requires 6 extra units.
710s are dual voltage due to Willesden TMD where they will be primarily based. Access from there to the GOB is either via Willesden Low Level bay and the New Lines or off the AC side and reversing in the Wembley area for the City lines. It depends what paths are available in conjunction with the NLL empties, Virgin empties, Euston slow line passenger workings and freight.
Is there any prospect of the New Cross services being extended in the future? For example Lewisham once the Bakerloo arrives?
PoP
AFAIK, there is no OHLE inthe Willesden depot or its immediate approaches, so 3rd-rail pickup is necessary to get the last few 100 metres or so under their own power.
See also AL-S on the common fleet, which I wasn’t aware of.
CG
HERE is an aerial view of New Cross ( zoomable, etc …)
For your requirement you would need re-instatement of the W-side diveunder ( As shown in our old friend, this picture & also provision for turnback(s) of the service at some point – which can’t be Lewisham, for obvious reasons, so where?
And, the real problem, running-track capacity for those extra trains slotting in between the existing Charing Cross & Cannon St services.
So … highly unlikely, shall we say?
@Anon
Please use full station names, not their codes, for legibility. LBM
Re CG,
Even less than the last time TfL vague proposal was covered by LR as:
1) in the mean time the last remaining bits of spare capacity will now be used for the 2tph of Thameslink through but not stopping at New Cross instead.
2) proposal for rejigging service patterns via Lewisham turned out to be less popular than the current US president.
3) TfL tend to miss something out each time they do some rail analysis south of the river as seen with Turning South London Orange where some of the capacity they needed was already spoken for post 2018 but key to their proposal because they only looked at Southern not Southeastern in detail so missed key SE detail, and the suspicion was that the Overground beyond New Cross proposal also missed some key info in the analysis.
4) 5 car trains in the peak is a waste of capacity on a busy corridor
My understanding is any 10tph peak timetable on the NLL will be 6tph to Clapham and 4tph to Richmond, rather than 5tph on each branch as the Clapham branch is much busier in the peak.
Re Greg,
Except how the SE services operate has changed lots since 1908 so the west side chord wouldn’t work it would have to be a central dive under rather than a simple western chord now.
@ Pop / NGH – thanks for the extra info. I had gone back to the original papers and press releases last night but clearly not all of TfL’s decisions are in the paper or public domain.
For example the decision to increase Watford services to 4 tph has been mooted but I’ve seen nothing to say it’s confirmed. NGH would appear to know it’s happening so that’s good enough for me and it sort of squares the numbers up.
A couple of other remarks. I certainly hope the Willesden based trains are not DC only. Otherwise someone’s wasting time hanging wires on the GOBLIN. 😉
The LO shorts from Clapham J on the WLL run to Willesden Junction off peak. These run through to Stratford in the peaks to give a solid 8 tph in the peak. It is the Southern operated peak extras that run only as far as Shepherds Bush. Interestingly the Old Oak Common stns consultation says Hythe Rd will have a central terminating track and platform faces to allow these trains to run to Hythe Rd to turn. I think there’s even a hint that they may be LO operated at some point in the future but I’ve just skim read a few of the consultation documents.
I haven’t seen TfL confirm which branch beyond Willesden Junction would get the extra 2 tph – Clapham J or Richmond – once the service steps up to 10 tph on the NLL. I suspect both options are a little fraught operationally given path / platform turnround constraints. Will also require some deft working at Stratford as well to get 5 tph off each terminating platform given the slowish approach speeds.
I know we don’t like too much speculation but I wonder if a few 315s are being held back to run the rumoured peak supplemental workings from Enfield Town to Seven Sisters which would then turn via the S Tott curve? There are not enough 710s on order to run the core West Anglia service and also cover those extra peak paths. IIRC the Dft lifted Greater Anglia’s service requirement to call at Edmonton Green in the peaks so there will be a capacity gap once GA restructure their timetable for the new stock in 18-24 months time.
So to summarise it looks like this in future.
GOBLIN – 8 Cl 710 trains plus 2 extra for Riverside Exn
RoMinster – 1 train but to be a 315 to release a 710 to Watford
Watford – 8 Cl 710 trains (6 originals plus 1 new and 1 cascade) to give 4 tph service
ELL – all 378s but with an enhanced service level of 20 tph on the core.
NLL/WLL – mix of 378s and 6 710s to give a 10 tph core service with branch service levels unclear as yet.
West Anglia – 31 Cl710s on all routes with existing service frequencies.
The bit I am still struggling with is what happens to all the 378s. We have 6 released from Watford DCs and 6 released from the NLL/WLL. That gives 12 sets to go somewhere. Your hypothesis is that 8 are needed for a 20 tph service. Where do the 4 spare trains go? You don’t need to keep class 315s in this scenario as a 378 could presumably do the RoMinster if they fit. It also means TfL will potentially have 6 spare trains sitting around for a while (the 2 BRE 710s and these 378s). Je suis still confused. There must be some other aspect here that we don’t know about or I’m still getting the numbers wrong.
The other 378s stay on the NLL/WLL to provide the increased 10tph service there (which would require another 5 units)
Current Peak requirement
DC – 6 x 378
NLL – 19 x 378
ELL – 26 x 378
TOTAL – 51 x 378 (out of fleet of 57)
Future Peak requirement
DC – 8 x 710
NLL – 18 x 378 + 6 x 710
ELL – 34 x 378
TOTAL – 52 x 378 + 14 x 710
So based on what Greatkingrat has said:
Current 387 utilisation is 89.5% which is conservative and unadventurous, above 95% counts as heroic and Southern were able to manage 96% at times with their electrostars during the worst times of London Bridge impact (pre 377/2 returning from Thameslink etc…
Future 378 utilisation is 91.2% which is at the lower end of normal for good organisations, 53 units would be 92.9% which is probably the sensible limit give the 378 fleet is split between 2 depots (2 units out at each).
Looking at dual voltage 710 utilisation:
14+9= 23 ordered
Goblin = 10
NLL = 6
Watford DC = 8
Total 24 which is (more than 23!) suggests that extended GOBLIN may actually only need 9 or NLL only 5 extra or that some of the AC only 710s will do a turn on GOBLIN. This also suggests that the lowish 378 utilisation may be used to provide alternative resilience for the NLL 710s.
4 units on maintenance and a spare for each side. These are needed for quick service recovery, especially on the ELL
@ Ngh – I believe the GOBLIN will need 9 710/1s in service post Riverside Ext so 1 spare unit.
I have sat down and tried to scribble out how the fleet gets allocated with help from the above posts. I end up with 11 378/2s spare. Anon’s comment about the level of spare and units on maintenance just about covers this but that seems an extraordinary level of units off service. Are the 378s really that unreliable? If there wasn’t such poor utilisation then a 378 could run the Rominster albeit with awkward maintenance arrangements given they aren’t dealt with at Ilford. Alternatively you keep a 710 on the Rominster and live with a 378 on the Watford DCs.
Makes me wonder what “magical mathematics” the TfL client had to hand in the Committee meeting that convinced the Board members present that this was some sort of unassailable deal. I’d have wanted a clearer picture than seems to have been painted in the public part of the paper. I still remain bemused that the enhanced Watford service level was not explained in the paper.
e WW,
“I believe the GOBLIN will need 9 710/1s in service post Riverside Ext so 1 spare unit.”
Goblin is getting Dual voltage /2s not AC only /1s but 9x 710s only makes the number of non West Anglia (i.e. dual voltage based at Willesden) break even so the cover has to come from either 378s or the WA 710/1s i.e. 23 ordered for peak service requirement of 23 (was 24 if Goblin requires 10).
However I can’t see where the magical surplus of 11x 378s you get comes from.
Of the 378s there are 20x DC only (378/1) and 37x Dual voltage (378/2) so 57 in total, of the 37x; 24x were in the original order and 13x were in the later follow on option.
ELL requires 26 which come from the original DC only units (there were only 20 ordered as ELLX (aka Clapham Jn extension) followed later and a top up order of 13x dual voltage units was procured for various purposes including ELLX so it looks like everything aligns nicely.
Couple of things come to mind:
As a Southern driver. When dispatching an 8 car 455 on the up platform at Brockley, it is often necessary to leave the cab and walk along the train to do the train safety check. The back of the train is being obscured by waiting Overground passengers due to the curve there. Looking back is the only means of dispatch available, presumably because when DOO was introduced all passengers were going to London Bridge so it was feasible, This never takes less than five minutes, with modern requirements to contact signallers and shut down cabs. This ideally needs to be sorted if there are to be even more LOROL trains backing up.
As a SE passenger, I can only access the up New Cross branch by changing from a Hayes train. It only calls twice an hour and does not connect – a 15 minute wait is usually required. It strikes me that if there was a higher frequency this would matter less (though the return journey is not so good as one is changing back to the unhelpful 2tph to Hayes) and more SE passengers might change to a northbound Overground train there. Perhaps the lower ridership of this branch is precisely due to unhelpful connections there? Other interchanges with Southern (at New Cross Gate, Norwood Junction etc) or the various operators at Peckham Rye and Clapham Junction are far more valuable.
GF, although the current London Bridge-Selhurst-West Croydon is being diverted to Caterham, the Vic-Palace-Sutton service is being cut back to West Croydon (to make way for the new L Bridge-Norwood-Epsom service) and this will use the bay instead.
@ NGH – thanks for that extra info. My poor addled brain has now worked it out (you’ll all be delighted to know 😛 ) having gone back through the numbers. It was the 378/2s that were proving problematic in my counting.
Thanks Anonymous 18 Oct at 23:27. I knew I’d missed something but putting that with Anon’s comment at 00:18 – “GTR turnaround is over 20 mins at West Croydon from May, so the bay and the turn back are essentially fully occupied all day”, one wonders why a 20 min turnaround is required there. It’s almost as if the former Vic-Palace-Sutton service is sitting there idle to cover the time between W. Croydon and Sutton and (almost ) back but perhaps less one train in service. What are the drivers expected to do during that 20+ mins, apart from changing ends every time they reach W. Croydon?
Well, there is quite a nice station café on that platform!
Anonymous (Southern Driver),
A few of thoughts about New Cross (London Overground).
One of the issues is that some locals can use either New Cross or New Cross Gate so it may still be beneficial to improve the service there to take the pressure off New Cross Gate. It could be done at a later stage (so 20 to 22tph) though timetabling might be challenging. One advantage is that there would be no need for extra paths on Southern territory. There would be an advantage of a finer grade of interval meaning a potential to reduce the variance in waiting time on other branches.
New Cross must be about the only London Overground station where the service is still worse than it was prior to becoming part of London Overground when, at its best, it had a 12 minute service.
Remember that passengers can simply catch the first train to Lewisham where there will probably be a greater choice of trains. You will point out that this doesn’t apply to the Hayes Line. In the evening peak period it is, rather awkwardly, every 22 minutes to Hayes from New Cross. Come December 2017 or May 2018, I don’t remember which, there will be an off-peak train to Hayes every 15 minutes from Lewisham on Mondays-Saturdays.
I am intrigued to see that LO running the improved Stratford – Meridian Water (Angel Road) service is raised as a possibility.
I always thought that Greater Anglia were charged with running these extra trains. Is the idea that GA would continue to run the existing timetable between Stratford and Bishop’s Stortford/Hertford East and LO would run the extra services on the new infrastructure? Or would LO take over all of the West Anglia services out of Stratford?
Re Ben North,
This is additional LO services above the Anglia StAR service level of 2tph to get to 4tph overall.
Given it may be necessary to have some of the West Croydon trains continue on to Wallington I wonder if there might be some scope to extend West Croydon trains to Sutton via Carshalton Beeches. Of course in a perfect world one would redouble the Epsom Downs Branch and extend the south terminus for East London line trains going via West Croydon to Epsom Downs. Alas I fear that would be seen as too ambitious! One can dream but I fear I may be straying into Crayonista territory.
RichardB,
It is not so much crayonista as highly undesirable. The problem area is Brockley/Honor Oak Park. You don’t want to do anything you can avoid doing that would make the trains fuller still on arrival at these stations.
Remember, it is not a game where you acquire territory. It is a social benefit that deals with giving people mobility. It matters not one hoot to the Mayor if people travel by London Overground, Southern or any other company. The only reason London Overground exists is to do a better job fulfilling the transport need than other companies appear to do. Extending London Overground to Epsom does not achieve the desired objective – it makes it worse.
ngh would probably add that it is fundamentally not a good idea to encourage 5-car trains on a network when you can run 8-car or 10-car trains.
@JOHNKELLETT and the article about the frequencies.
This is mainly the trouble of having high frequency routes splitting off to many destinations (and merging with other routes at the same time). Something that is not done so much in the mainline rail in this country is not picking a core route with maybe 2 branches at max (TLink another example where lots of branches with low freqs etc). It leads to a below optimum timetable for everyone, and creates problems when demand, and ease of implementation is different on each branch – better to stick to a core and invest in those
What generally happens though when timetabling branches is to add in some extra running time, so for example if we have a core with 20tph, thats a train every 3 min. If three are two branches, one with 12tph (Branch A) the other 8tph (Branch B), you can be stood on the platform and have a train to branch A every 6,3,6,6,3,6,3,6,6,3,6,3 mins (or some variation thereof). What will then happen is when the train is on the branch, extra running time will be added to make it an even 5 minute interval service, because the benefits of doing so far outweigh the couple of minutes journey time which is essentially noise that no one notices.
If only we could get SE running this way QTR
20 minute turnarounds at West Croydon for Southern services from May are no bad thing from the point of view of service reliability, which on the Metro routes is fragile at the best of times, and things are massively exacerbated when even the slightest thing goes wrong.
The fact that LO shunt their services via the turnback siding is itself a constraint on frequencies which is not mentioned in the article – assuming a 6 minute minimum reversal time for a 5-car 378, and a 3 minute margin either side as per typical reoccupation rules, you’d be looking at a maximum frequency of a train every 12 minutes – this doesn’t fit with the 4tph/6tph model on Southern Metro routes, or indeed the ELL. If LO were to use platform 1 and Southern were to shunt via the turnback, you could possibly (depending on paths etc) squeeze another train or two per hour on the route, or you could tighten up the reversal times to improve fleet utilisation and ultimately release a unit for work elsewhere, in this case meaning you wouldn’t have to retain a 315.
6 tph LO services to West Croydon could be extended to create a 4 tph service between Sutton and Wimbledon rather than creating a turn back at Wallington. The service could run to the single Thameslink platform at Wimbledon. This would reduce the justification for the Sutton Tramlink proposal. The service could be extended to a new high level station at Streatham Common. The LO extension to Wimbledon would only require trains and no additional infrastructure. If necessary the Thameslink linked sidings to the north of Wimbledon could be use for turnback.
Huw R: LO are using the bay from May. GTR drivers will get to enjoy the turn back for 20 minutes off peak
Huw Rossiter,
The fact that LO shunt their services via the turnback siding is itself a constraint on frequencies which is not mentioned in the article
It is a constraint but terminating in the bay introduces conflicting movements which means there is a constraint in overall capacity.
You pays your money and takes your choice.
To me the sentence in the article The terminating capacity issue can be resolved by reinstating a track west of Wallington (two stops west of West Croydon) to give a central terminating siding for 3tph – leaving 3tph still to terminate at West Croydon. qualifies as a mention of the turnback siding being a constraint on frequencies.
I might not have absolutely spelt it out but it must be pretty obvious this is what was being talked about.
Andrew Reading,
See my comment of 15:22. The often-suggested idea of extending London Overground beyond West Croydon always seems to be about extending for the sake of extending with no rationale behind it.
@ Ben North – although the Greater Anglia service specification has a special supplement to cover the STAR “extra” service there is also a contract variation for it in Arriva’s concession contract for the Overground. I believe there is also an option in Bombardier’s contract for class 710s for extra trains for STAR *if* TfL were to take on running the 2tph Stratford – Meridian Water shuttle.
It looks to me to be a little bit “belt and braces” in terms of two operators having potential obligations to run the short shuttle service. I guess that it was seen as a prudent thing to do given the housing development in the area has strong support and funding from City Hall and is predicated on a better rail service. City Hall have also put in many millions of pounds to fund the extra track and improved stations. There was also the Enfield Council case against the DfT as discussed in a separate article on LR. I can see why the politicians may have wanted to be certain that someone had the obligation to run the service that meant the obligations to the developer of Meridian Water were met.
If I was to guess what will happen it will be that Greater Anglia run both the main 2 tph to Bishops Stortford *and* the 2 tph shuttle under the contract with the DfT. We know from the service spec supplement that there is some flex around headways in the peaks (pathing problems for stopping services on the main line). The hours of operation are not exactly sparkling either but there is obvious scope to extend them if demand warrants it. The service will almost certainly have brand new trains on it under Greater Anglia operation given the full fleet replacement in their franchise.
@Walthamstow Writer – thank you for clarifying 🙂
I don’t really understand the need for 12-18-12-18 service pattern to both West Croydon and New Cross. Wouldn’t this timetable be better:
New Cross 09 24 39 54
Crystal P 00 12 21 30 42 51
West Croyd 03 18 33 48
Clapham J 06 15 27 36 45 57
The only thing negative about this is the 3-9-6-3-9 pattern for the Surrey Quays – Sydenham branch. A 3-6-6-6-9 pattern would be possible whis this timetable:
New Cross 12 24 42 54
Crystal P 00 09 21 30 39 51
West Croyd 03 15 33 45
Clapham J 06 18 27 36 48 57
but then you have the 12-18-12-18 pattern for BOTH New Cross and West Croydon. Isn’t the first timetable much better?
Re Tom,
Now try to fit in the Southern metro services on the New Cross Gate to Sydenham section and all the conflicting interactions they have too at Palace and Windmill Bridge/ Cottage Jn and platform occupation and parallel mobves at LBG and interaction as well as legacy Southern services form the fast lines that don’t transfer to Thameslink.
Hence coming up with a timetable focusing on New Cross is equivalent to the tail wagging the dog. In reality New Cross and Clapham branches will have to take what they are given.
Re WW,
I also suspect the apparently high unit requirement for the ELL will require some long layovers at Palace and increased use of P3 for LO services (P5 is the centre turnback) and more conflicting moves. Some of the current turnarounds at Palace at just 4 minutes which possibly isn’t a good combination with H&I at the other end and little resilience if there are any delays.
Tom,
I couldn’t initially see how I overlooked this possibility and spent ages staring at it. Personally, I can’t see that it has any great flaws in it that my option didn’t and one big advantage – the elimination of the 18-12 split.
After spending ages looking at what I have written, I can now see that the flaw in my argument is my fourth stage. I should have looked at the alternative possibility and the consequences of not having the fifth train being the same as the first train even though initially it would appear to best for it to be so.
Better still, I should have started by assuming 15 minute intervals were possible on the New Cross and West Croydon branches and seen what the consequences of this assumption would have been. I think I had presumed from the outset that this would not be possible so omitted this preliminary stage.
I am a bit surprised I overlooked this but am pleased a better solution seems possible. In the light of this, I will check this out a bit more before I leap into doing anything but I think an update to the article is necessary with all credit being given to you for pointing this out.
To avoid “congestion” on the core section of the North London Line why not just extend GOBLIN services to the West London Line (WLL)? Or, perhaps better, send these to Richmond, and the existing Stratford-Richmond trains to Clapham Junction via the WLL?
Re Mike Jones,
And how will Clapham Junction cope with those extra trains?
Tom
Your version has the advantage as well that the longer gaps Sy Quays to Sydenham tend to be followed by a Crystal Palace train. Crystal Palace trains tend to be less full than the W Croydon ones – three fewer stops with two being among the busier stations on the south end of the Overground.
Does the same process happen for the northbound timetable?
Sounds good that London Overground are to keep some of the Class 315’s to operate on the Romford-Upminster branch line which they are ideal for.
Also what about London Overground opening up a new station called New Bermondsey which the new station is to be built close to Millwall FC The Den ground in Bermondsey.
And also London Overground to reopen Primrose Hill station so that London Overground could operate the Stratford-Willesden Junction/Watford Junction services via Primrose Hill if the station does reopen,
I have updated the article to take into account of Tom pointing out that the pattern for the branches when operating 20tph was definitely sub-optimal despite me originally believing otherwise.
Whilst I don’t like being wrong, I dislike the thought that the article is incorrect even more and am grateful for Tom pointing this out so that I can correct it.
I have left in the original (flawed) logic of mine but have pointed out it is flawed. If nothing else it shows just how hard it is to get timetable patterns right.
Re: NGH
I was relating it to this (below) so that freight can remain on the NLL.
“What, it is suspected, London Overground would really like is to have 6tph from Richmond to Stratford and 6tph from Clapham Junction all the way to Stratford. Unfortunately, the additional trains to Stratford would appear to rely on freight, travelling between East London and the West Coast Main Line, using the route via Gospel Oak instead of via the NLL.”
Mike Jones,
I think that extending Goblin to Richmond is or was considered for the long term.
One problem is that Goblin currently only takes 4-car trains and you need to make most of capacity on the North London Line. So if there are slots available to Richmond there would be a reluctance to have them used by 4-car trains when you could be running 5-car trains.
Probably more fundamental, if a train departs for Richmond and goes to Barking then it isn’t going to Stratford – where there is probably a stronger demand. So you have to increase the Clapham Junction – Stratford service to compensate but then you may start having issues with terminating all those trains at Clapham Junction as ngh points out.
Golden rule of our editor: if you find yourself writing ‘why not just …’ you can be assured it turns out to be much more complicated than that. To which I would add ‘otherwise it would have already have been done’.
This is not to dismiss what you are suggesting which may happen one day. For one thing it gets over the problem that the bay platform at Gospel Oak cannot be easily extended for 5-car trains. But it is not trivial.
To supplement what Pedantic says about Gospel Oak, the following rule applies: if a 2-track railway splits at a junction (e.g. Gospel Oak) into two 2-track branches, you cannot make full intensive use of both branches except by reversing some trains at or near the junction.
Richmond to Barking via Gospel Oak and Clapham Junction to Stratford via Primrose Hill? It orphans Kentish Town West and so some service on current routes should remain (or extend the ELL to Gospel Oak but no). The platform lengths and need to get from Willesden high to low levels are why it hasn’t and won’t happen.
I’m interested in the different crayonista reaction to Primrose Hill versus New Bermondsey. It’s like old stations are preferable even when it would be an entirely new build.
Do you expect Crystal Palace to be changed for easier turnarounds?
Toby: You are completely right about the enormous attraction which re-openings have compared to wholly new infrastructure. Especially to the crayonista fraternity, but also to many other sectors. BML2 is a classic example, but there are countless others.
Of course, sometimes the old infrastructure does help to save a bit of money, or avoid too much new disruption and demolition. Fair enough. But the appeal of “there was a railway there in nineteen-hundred and twiddly pom” goes far beyond that.
I don’t think departures from platform 3 at Crystal Palace will cause too many issues with conflicting moves. Even when West Croydon services are disrupted and diverted there things seem to run relatively smoothly. The points at West Croydon into the bay platform have always felt ‘rough’ since they were re-laid 4 or 5 years ago. I’m not surprised that there have been issues there this past week.
In all the talk of what works for timetabling I just wish to throw in a little comment from a driver perspective. What works well on paper doesn’t always work well for drivers. How do turnaround times fit into driver diagrams? If everything is stripped to 6 minutes there will be delays and return services won’t start on time. If a little money was spent on toilets that could be accessed readily by drivers at certain locations it would mitigate delays significantly. Terminating in the bay at West Croydon will be a luxury provided we get a decent turnaround time. We could then access toilets and even have a chance of grabbing a coffee unless they use the opportunity to strip back the turnaround time.
When timetables were meddled with at Dalston Junction and the New Cross services had to wait for inbound services from Clapham to crossover we were departing over 1 minute late constantly. If timetabling overlooks issues that impact on driver fatigue or comfort then you will get drivers slowing up as a personal protection strategy, thereby eroding the notional benefits of the timetabling change. We have oft said that the planners ought to ride with us in the cab under the same conditions we experience during rush hour.
I’ve always thought that LO should make more use of the Battersea Park spur. There’s a huge amount of housing development in the area as well as the park itself.
A frequent service would open up a lot of travel options to and from the area. It also seems like a waste of an operational line and platform at Battersea Park to run 2 or 3 tpd.
There is indeed a lot of new housing at Battersea Park. There’s also a large number of apartments being built at New Cross. I noted comments earlier about extensions from New Cross, but I feel that it serves the core well to have at least one service every 15 minutes that isn’t bursting at the seams. A continual push to extend the network won’t help when the trains are at capacity for much of rush hour. The New Cross to Dalston services almost do the job of of a PIXC service from 7.30 to 8.45am on weekdays.
SA
IMHO, actually severing the Battersea park spur was a serious mistake, done to save the few millions necessary for a very small diversion, allowing the platforms to be extended without severance – too late now, of course.
Latecomer
Of course, IF you had enough money available, then extending ELL trains to 6 or even more carriages is entirely possible, because, seriously, it is a known & solvable engineering problem – extending platforms into expanded tunnels/cuttings at the relevant stations.
Huge cost, perfectly do-able.
Cost / Benefit, however ???
Latecomer,
To get the improvements you seek to turnaround times, should your Trades Union reps not be trying to get the Rules of the Plan, which the Schedulers work to, altered as surely it is this that must be adhered to, regardless of what the Scheduler him/her self thinks? (or are they already trying?)
In relation to the West London Line service changes, you may wish to know that TfL has just started a short consultation on its proposed two Overground stations in the Old Oak Common area: (1) at Hythe Road on the WLL (after the Southern trains diverge towards MK), and (2) at Old Oak Common Lane on the NLL Acton Wells-Willesden Jcn section. Link here: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2017/october/tfl-consults-on-two-potential-new-london-overground-stations-at-old-oak
It is intended that Hythe Road will have a 3rd, reversing platform accessible from the WLL, so that trains not proceeding to Willesden Jcn can terminate there instead of at Shepherds Bush or North Pole. This may be anticipated in some of the TfL new train order, and it could also benefit Southern services.
At Old Oak Common Lane, the plans show some long term foresight by illustrating the potential for the high level pedestrian access to be extended towards and over Victoria Road. This might enable access to any eventual neighbouring platforms on the Dudding Hill line, which is desired by various organisations as an additional Overground route in due course. See this related article in Ian Visits: https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2017/09/29/new-railway-line-for-west-london-proposed/
Bombardier who built and manufactured the Class 378’s and also extended them from 3-Carriages to 4-Carriages then extended the entire fleet to 5-Carriages could of built 2 of them with one operating on the Romford-Upminster branch line and one being stored at Ilford depot and to be 4-Carriage units that could of been ideal for the Romford-Upminster line. If Bombardier did built few more Class 378’s for the Romford-Upminster line.
Also why can’t London Overground keep some the Class 172/0’s to operate between West Ealing and Greenford. But it’s likely that the Class 172/0’s are heading to London Midland (West Midlands Trains from December) to work on the Coventry-Nuneaton and Coventry-Leamington Spa services. As these units are being replaced by the Class 710’s once the electrification is completed on the Gospel Oak-Barking line (GOBLIN). That the Class 710’s will operate as Dual Voltage and AC units that London Overground previously took over some lines back in May 2015.
Malcolm 21 October 2017 at 13:22
“Of course, sometimes the old infrastructure does help to save a bit of money, or avoid too much new disruption and demolition. Fair enough.”
Crossrail via Custom House being an excellent example.
AG
Or Dalston Jn – Spitalfields?
I still don’t understand why the Class 315 are being discarded (and seemingly have no other takers) to scrap, while we are scrabbling around for money for brand new trains elsewhere, especially if they are going to keep one anyway for the Upminster branch. Despite comments above, they are not “clapped out”, and I suspect their nice internal 3+2 seating arrangement would be far more preferable to Goblin Line users than the shock they are going to get with the inward-facing seat (or seatless) wonders shortly to be inflicted on them. Put them entirely on the Goblin Line, and it’s new extension, and reallocate things elsewhere. I suspect their leasing company owner would be only too pleased to get another 10 years or so out of them. The only ones disappointed would be the New Train Zealots
Mr Beckton….I gather that there was a “grand plan” whereby class 315s would be withdrawn from the Anglia lines and at least some of them go to Wales for the valley lines’ electrification. These would have been used for a few years to establish the “sparks” effect given that they are, as you say, not clapped out. Then new trains would have been bought. Cancellation of electrification put paid to that.
@ 100&30 – I don’t believe Valley Lines electrification is cancelled. Wires are still due to reach Cardiff aren’t they? I believe the wider issue is that the Welsh Government don’t want 40 year old trains on what they are terming a “Metro” network in and around Cardiff and the Valleys. There are very ambitious plans for that area. As ever money will be the issue for the new franchise.
@ Mr Beckton – I think GOBLIN users will simply be delighted to be able to actually board peak time trains. A different seating arrangement is not going to cause much heartache. There is little point in putting 40 year old trains on a newly electrified line when the likely propsects of replacing those trains in 10 years time are unlikely to be good. I know that’s a long way off but investment budgets are likely to be pressured in sorting out tube upgrade issues and CR2 (if it ever gets funding).
@ Mike Jones – a Barking – Richmond through service was considered a long time ago by TfL. As explained above there are plenty of good reasons why it has not been taken forward.
@WW. I’m not vested in a Barking-Richmond service, but from a passenger/marketing perspective terminating 4 trains an hour in the middle of nowhere aka Gospel Oak, doesn’t make much sense. Fine for a residual service, but GOBLIN has passed that point. Send them anywhere! Wembley?
WW. If electification is still going ahead for the Valley line, than I will be delighted. I accept, that my point was rather Westminster centric and WAG might take a different view. That said, WAG seems quite delighted that the so far unproven class 319 Flex (class 769?) Will enable PRM modifications to the existing diesels.
Mike: It is not only a question of where, west of Gospel Oak, these trains might go. Given the capacity constraints (at least at the busiest times) for the track west of Gospel Oak, Gobliners can only be extended if something else is dropped. By adding a crossover, perhaps, some trains from Stratford could be turned back eastwards, but this would be subject to Thompson’s Law (*).
Strictly, this is not quite correct at off-peak times, since some freight trains (not sure how many) have peeled off at Junction Road Junction or Camden Road West Junction, leaving perhaps a few paths. But it would be only a few.
(*) Thompson’s law (not to be confused with Tomson’s Law) says that when there is a trade-off, the squeals of the losers out-shout the joyful cries of the gainers – and it tends to lead to stasis in service patterns (otherwise known as stability).
Malcolm- currently 8 trains run peak (08:00-09:00) from Willesden Jctn. and Gospel Oak. Don’t think 12 trains is overtaxing the existing capacity? Anyway, I’m talking potential. Additional, WWL trains could terminate at Willesden or continue up the WCML. Whether Wembley terminators are feasible, who knows, but “The next train is for Wembley” sounds better than “Gospel Oak” and more
useful 😀
@mike Jones – You may find that there is little response to your suggestion because many contributors here know that capacity is a function of the signalling, track layout,train performance and so on and a bald statement that a 50% increase in throughput isn’t “overtaxing” the system is unlikely to be true. Upping line capacity on that scale is certainly a “potential” in some cases but usually at considerable cost; sometimes it’s not possible at all. In the case in question, enhancing line capacity is expensive and sometimes not feasible at all. Willesden is a particularly bad place to terminate trains as they would either stand on the running lines to do so (as they did in the days when the service was much less frequent than now) or they have to go to the low level bay, which is only about 3 cars long.
I do not think Graham H is right about the very useful low level bay at Willesden Junction.
I believe it was expanded northward for 5 cars when LOROL was born. Being between the up & down tracks means it’s use does not obstruct other direction services.
And it is the main way to get to & from the Euston dc line & the depot for 172 stock at Willesden onto the east bound North London line & so the Barking line. I am told it was once the through road with the up platform line originally an up loop. The geometry seems to back this.
Centre road turnbacks should b cherished & venerated.
They allow swift turnarounds, full productive use of drivers’ time & stock. For they avoid the turnaround decanting palaver you witness every few minutes, for example, at Queens Park when Bakerloos terminating at Queens Park to go southbound build up queues on the bank out of the tunnel.
@Jim Elson -I agree entirely about centre road turn backs – if only we had more of them scattered about the system! I haven’t been to WJ for a bit so if it has gone to 5 cars, I stand corrected; however, because it is,in effect, a branch off the HL line, using it does lead to a consumption of pathing time, alas, especially with the severe gradient on the link. [BTW, the cafe at WJ used to offer the best coffee on NSE for many years – to the point where staff at Euston House/1 Eversholt St would nip out for a cup – but I guess that is long gone, too].
That revised ELL timetable is clearly an improvement for New Cross and West Croydon, but the 3-9-6-3-9 pattern for the New Cross Gate to Sydenham section is a concern (as Tom pointed out). Crudely, you’ll have three times more passengers for one train than for another. Hence overcrowding, extended dwell times, etc. etc. In terms of waiting time this pattern gives an average of 3.6 minutes, which is barely better than the current 3.77 (and of course that assumes that everyone will be able to fit on the first train that arrives).
I would argue that the slight irregularity of an 18-12 service on the 4tph branches (and 6-12-12 on the 6tph branches) is a price worth paying for having a regular 6-minute service on the busiest part of the network.
Obviously Graham is right that the capacity of a section of railway depends on many factors, some of which are not obvious to most observers. But on the other side of the argument, the 8 peak trains per hour west of Gospel Oak (which was a surprise to me, even though I could have looked it up) might make the proposition of extending goblin trains westwards slightly less infeasible than I thought.
But there remains the question of “what problem are we trying to solve?” with such a proposition. The word Willesden/Wembley/Richmond/whatever on the front of a train instead of Gospel Oak is not the foundation of a case for investment. And it would be investment, even if there were no infrastructure requirements, because of the extra trains required.
There would have to be some real benefit to passengers (existing or prospective). I am not saying that there is not such a benefit, I just don’t know. But there may not be.
@Malcolm – you are right – no one knows what the business case would be for extending the GOB trains westwards and, as you say, changing the DMI doesn’t necessarily generate enough traffic… I might add, though that the same point is – and this what I was trying to say, perhaps in an overcomplicated way – applies to the operational implications of any westward extensions: to answer that question would require a careful look at signalling and track layouts and not just a wavy hand and airy talk about potential.
There may be 8 trains west of Gospel Oak on the North London Line now, but as this article discusses, TfL plan to increase that frequency enhancing the North & West London lines. Yes you could extend Goblin trains but would that be the best use of capacity? Probably not as they are 4 vs 5 car trains & you wouldn’t be able to enhance the Camden – Dalston section. You also have to factor in reliability, Goblin is currently self contained (apart from freight), adding in longer trips, interfacing with further junctions, lines & operators increases the peformance risk.
Personally I’ll be happy when the things finally wired, isn’t closed for prolonged periods & has 4 car trains. After that they can extended to Barking Riverside & spend money on the enhancements to get up to at least 6 trains per hour (as per Riverside TWAO documentation) both of which will make the service more useful, rather than extending its westward terminal to another ‘middle of nowhere’ station in North-west London that might ‘sound better’!
@ Malcolm – not just trains for an extension to the GOBLIN service. There would also be new platforms needed at Gospel Oak plus all the attendant stairs, bridges and lifts to access them, especially the new platform 4 for eastbound trains. This would not be a simple piece of construction and may simply prove controversial locally. We are talking about the Hampstead “borders” here where the locals are vocal and motivated to object to things they don’t like. At present interchange is done either at platform level or under the tracks. I don’t believe that would be possible for a revised set of GOBLIN platforms and whatever structures were put in would have to be high to cope with those nice new wires. Add in the likely disruption to GOBLIN and freight services while construction proceeded you’re looking at a potentially large sum of money. You’d need some pretty substantial benefits to be able to carry however many millions of pounds of capital and ongoing cost would be incurred.
I tend to agree with Snowy that what the GOBLIN needs is to get through the current works and new trains introduction and then have a period of stability to try to get patronage back on a growth trajectory. Much of the Riverside works are away from the current service and on brownfield land with reasonable access which gives the basis for 2-3 years of stability before the new service kicks in.
WW: What you say, except that it would be theoretically possible for extended GOBLIN trains to cease stopping at Gospel Oak at all. But there would be some fairly obvious disadvantages.
I think it may be time to put discussion of such an extension to bed now. While it was valid for it to be raised, there are plenty of other things in the article which deserve a turn under the spotlight.
I do Gospel Oak – Sratford a lot at the moment. Lots of freight movements, whether via Tottenham, Primrose Hill or along the main NLL. I’d say it’s a very tight ship already, particularly as most of the freights are really long too, and must have markedly differing occupancy characteristics of the signal blocks compared to the passenger trains.
For those who want the Barkings to terminate ‘somewhere’, at the western end, well a few multi-£m’s might reinstate the low level curve with a new flyover to Kentish Town’s centre platforms, where half of a double-frequency service might go. Perhaps, however, terminating ‘in the middle of nowhere’ carries the advantage of not over-stressing capacity in too many places along the route.
Nick BXN
If you want to play that game, a Much better option (?) – using almost entirely, existing infrastructure & therefore a LOT CHEAPER, would be to divert @ Jn Rd Jcn – W Hampstead & Dudding Hill route to Willesden & Richmond? ( You might need a flyover to translate across the Midland Main line at some point, though )
@ Greg T
I doubt that Thameslink would thank you for inserting another service onto its inner North London tracks where performance and resilience will be at a premium for its through Central London operations.
When drafting some Outer Orbital options for the London 2050 infrastructure plan, it was necessary to propose a new tunnel, to link the Gospel Oak route onto the Midland goods lines near West Hampstead, thence via Dudding Hill. This was geographically feasible though required careful engineering and environmental design. See outline diagram linked here, on page 90 of the London Infrastructure Plan 2050 Transport Supporting Paper: https://www.london.gov.uk/file/18983/download?token=rNu0c_AE
The new link had the benefit of reducing conflicts at Gospel Oak junction and on the NLL. It increased capacity for cross-London freight operations as well as orbital passenger services. The outline design allowed for interchange between NLL and OO services at a bi-level Hampstead Heath station, alternatively this would be possible at West Hampstead between the NLL and Midland/Thameslink stations. However, inevitably the extra infrastructure made the business case very challenging.
Re: Headways/capacity between Gospel Oak and Willesden.
There is a signalling control whereby a train cannot be brought to a stand within Hampstead Heath tunnel. This, combined with the relatively high frequency of stations compared to signal sections (it is 4-aspect signalling) has the effect of quite considerably extending the theoretical headway between trains on this stretch to in excess of 5 minutes in some cases (ergo, no 12tph).
…remembering that the signal spacing also has to account for 775m intermodal freight trains, as well as a metro passenger service.
@Andrew Reading
“6 tph LO services to West Croydon could be extended to create a 4 tph service between Sutton and Wimbledon rather than creating a turn back at Wallington. The service could run to the single Thameslink platform at Wimbledon. ”
The weakness in that one is the single Thameslink platform at Wimbledon, which already has to cope with four tph (6 in the peaks) and is operationally awkward because it is bi directional . Adding another four movements (more likely eight as laying over in the platform would block the line for any Thameslink service) is probably not the best way to run a reliable timetable. And does the St Helier line really need 6tph?
From a passenger demand point of view, the optimal Goblin extension at Gospel Oak would be toward Stratford. This is, of course, impossible, no matter how good your crayons are.
Perhaps we can add this to the list of interesting extensions that can’t be done, such as the Great Northern and City, and the Drain.
@JONATHAN ROBERTS
Can imagine joining the Goblin and Dudding Hill line would present quite a few opportunities and benefits for both freight and passenger, as you say though the tunnel would be a cost killer without a pro-spending and public transport government. Would be interesting to see the range of potential financial benefits though!
Presumably any route would take the low level lines and burrow down within the industrial triangle of land there, before surfacing somewhere on the course of Blackburn Road near West Hampstead Homebase? Given the need to dive under the MML anyway, was an interchange with the Northern line considered at the nearby Belsize Park station (thus more following the MML underground instead of the NLL)?
@ Ben
The burrowing options were complex.
An interchange with the Northern near Belsize Park was ruled out (though the lines weren’t far apart vertically). Costs, potential passenger volume and impacts on services weren’t favourable.
Easier and better value for Northern / Orbital interchanges could be achieved by:
(1) Linking Camden Town / Camden Road through a long subway or travolator alongside the Northern Line Barnet branch tunnels. The Northern Line Barnet branch platforms at Camden Town go some of the way already towards Camden Road, so requiring a continuing subway link then escalator close to Camden Road station – also providing a secondary entrance / exit for Camden Town!
That link itself faced a VfM issue, but, if politics and funding were supportive, would achieve a basic Northern (both branches) / Orbital link which is currently totally lacking.
(2) A Tufnell Park interchange with a Tufnell GOB station on the surface, via pavement.
That didn’t get a Northern Edgware branch / GOB and Dudding Hill link, but getting 6 out of 8 links [Edgware / H.Barnet to/from NLL east / NLL west (4 links, all achieved), and to/from GOB / Dudding Hill (another 4 links, of which 2 would be achieved)] was considered a major win compared to now.
Also, buses could link West Hampstead GOB to Golders Green, while at least part of the Northern’s Edgware branch catchment is served by the Midland/Thameslink corridor.
@JR
The High Barnet Branch tunnels at Camden Town run under Kentish Town Road until around Buck Street (see second image under section “The New Proposals” in https://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/second-time-lucky-rebuilding-camden-town-station/ ).
I’m not sure what a subway alongside those tunnels would achieve, as Camden Road is (funnily enough) on Camden Road – which peals off Kentish Town Road at the current station entrance.
@ Peewee
Indeed the Northern tunnels are under Kentish Town Road.
An escalator entrance angled from those (beyond the canal) gets you closer to the present Camden Road station entrance.
Also, why would you want to limit your perspective just to the present CR station entrance? CR’s platforms head towards (funnily enough) Kentish Town Road…
@JR
I take your point on a new station entrance for CR (probably in a more useful place for most visitors to Camden Lock too).
That being said, it’d still be a long and likely damp subway.
“That being said, it’d still be a long and likely damp subway.” – a metaphor for transport funding, perhaps.
@ Peewee
Thank you, I agree about improved CR access for Camden Lock being a gain.
Isn’t there a basic reason that TfL would aim to make any new subway nice (not ‘likely damp’), if ever anything could be justified? – in order to ensure that it achieved their own KPI objectives and scoring outputs.
Because new large scale trackage is a long way off, targeting new and improved Overground interchanges may offer plausible opportunities to get the extra trains to do more business and better earn their keep. Nevertheless any interchange business cases would still need to be made. Meanwhile, achieving even more with GOBLIN trains, in addition to Barking Riverside, looks destined for the ‘not yet’ category.
Ianno, what is the reason for trains not being allowed to stop in Hampstead Heath Tunnel?
Re Mike Jones 22 October “the middle of nowhere aka Gospel Oak” – Some of us do actually live nearby (me!) and the station is in Camden – an Inner London Borough. Of course if the fly-over link which took the GOBLIN into Kentish Town hadn’t been removed it could run into a more useful interchange station.
Re 42 “From a passenger demand point of view, the optimal Goblin extension at Gospel Oak would be toward Stratford. This is, of course, impossible,” isn’t actually true. If you go right back to the lines in the area first being built, the high level line didn’t reach the present site of GO but turned south on a close alighment to the present low level line and joined the line into Kentish Town West, indeed the supporting bridge over the MML is still triangular to reflect that.
As regards the single TL platform limitation at Wimbledon, we clearly need to get moving on the rebuild for CR2.
@ Alison W – Like you I’m not convinced about the “negativity” surrounding Gospel Oak. It’s a reasonable destination with a hinterland of mixed housing. The delights of Parliament Hill Fields and Hampstead Heath are not far away. The interchange also works reasonably well as it is now fully accessible between lines. We can’t have trains wandering hither and thither just because someone thinks it’s “untidy”.
What no one has raised is what you do if you break the Gospel Oak interchange and send GOBLIN trains somewhere else. The simple fact is that the reasonable frequencies offered means people now actually board westbound trains at Crouch Hill and Upper Holloway for onward NLL connections. Not something that happened very much previously as connections were poor and frequencies / reliability were even worse.
Given the funding environment I doubt we will see very much development of Overground services over and above the things we know about – Riverside ext, frequency / timetable boosts from a few extra trains and one or two modest station enhancements. Like so much of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy there is little ambition that requires significant spend other than CR2 and air quality measures.
WW: I mostly agree with what you say here, but would just mention that the proposal was not to “break the Gospel Oak interchange and send GOBLIN trains somewhere else”, it was to supplement the Gospel Oak interchange and send the trains somewhere else in addition”. Which, if it could be done at minimal cost (or indeed at all) would probably gain general support. Sadly, however, I am fairly sure that it cannot.
http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2017/10/26/barratt-exits-6bn-london-meridian-water-schemes/
Barratt have pulled out of Meridian Water, who knows how long it will take to get the scheme going again (I will not mention Brexit). So how does this affect STAR and the requirement of trains?
@ James – I am guessing but I suspect the reason Barratt pulled out ways because they wished to renege on the proposed number of social/affordable housing units identified as a key objective by Enfield Council. The article does not say that but this would fit the usual pattern whereby a developer agrees to undertake a project setting aside an agreed percentage of units for social/affordable housing and then subsequently seeks either a radical reduction in the number or abolition of said target citing excessive costs. If I am correct then full marks to Enfield Council to standing upto them. In contrast most other local authorities have accepted such statements without challenge. However I agree it does kick the project into touch unless they can find another developer.
Granted. But the immediate implication for the planned rail links is theoretically none. At least while there remains a realistic hope that one or more other developers will step into the gap.
@ RICHARDB
A reduction in social/affordable housing offered by Barret was what I understood. You could ask if Barret have really recalculated and found they require the reduction to make it worthwhile, or if they never planned on actually providing the originally agreed amount, on the assumption they could get agree a reduction at the last minute.
Anyway, lets hope that it doesn’t affect STAR; “build it and they will come”. I’ll have to a reread of https://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/lea-bridge-lives-again/
I doubt that STAR will be affected to be honest. My understanding is that it is fully funded via a number of parties but not the developers themselves. Even if one has pulled out there are others and there are still obligations over rail access to be met for the housing that is built.
Network Rail are on site at Meridian Water to build the new station and more activity is notable at Tottenham Hale with more works being done to the side of the station and earth removal just to the south of Ferry Lane. I haven’t checked out Northumberland Park but I understand work is in progress there too.
WW
Work is very much in progress at Northumberland Park,particularly since the Level Crossing was removed on 1st July .
Services are being moved,and trackbed cleared,levelled and drained.
There is also what appears to be a tunnel being dug under the entire formation just North of the site of the Marsh Lane crossing,which I have to assume is a utility tunnel to replace what I call the “Corrugated Iron Bridge” at the same spot which conveys some large services (HT electricity??) over the line at present,and which is amply wide enough to span four tracks (as,indeed,it once did…)
Alison- many years ago I went to Gospel Oak to run cross-country for my University. It felt very forlorne. Now I go there to visit the Southampton Arms 🍻 I mentioned extending GOBLIN services west, as this option had not yet been considered. However, I do feel that Gospel Oak is not the best terminus, and when you look at the destinations served by the GOBLIN route I think we are just scratching at the service in term of future demand.
Agreed with the WW, for the minimum cost it was to supplement the Gospel Oak interchange and send the trains somewhere else in addition.
I have not read all of the above! However, the procurement plan originally approved by TfL Board for the 710s was 31 4-car AC only units (30 for West Anglia and 1 for Romford-Upminster) plus 14 4-car dual voltage units (8 for GOBLIN and 6 for Watford DC). The DC requirement matches and replaces the 6 378s allocated to that line as confirmed subsequently by TfL in a FOI response. There are priced options which need to be exercised by November 2019. However, since then the plan to operate STAR has changed and DfT decided to leave it with GA. That leaves the Barking Riverside requirement and the 5-tph GOB and 4-tph DC plans – all set out in the Service Level Agreements in the current concession. (The extra GOB tph would be confined to Barking only).
Why are they buying 4 car units to run all-stations metro services?
Elizabeth and Thameslink are already running much longer trains with only the two driver’s cabs.
@Alan Griffiths
Why are they buying 4 car units to run all-stations metro services?
Longer trains can’t terminate in the bay at Gospel Oak. Many other platforms on the line are that length, too.
@Alan Griffiths
@Moosealot
On the GOBLIN many platforms could be extended quite easily (i.e. relatively cheaply) but as I understand it Gospel Oak and South Tottenham are particularly problematic (i.e. expensive) due to nearby junctions and bridges.
Also bear in mind that this route currently has two car trains, so this will be more than a doubling of capacity, and until about 10 years ago it was running a maximum of 2tph of 2 cars. Yes ridership has shot up significantly, but it will take longer to build the case to extend the trains further.
On the WatEus DC line, the 5 car trains are currently under-used, even at peak times. This is because much of the route is shared with the more frequent Bakerloo line, and for some of the stations towards Watford, frequent faster services are available. Potentially going to 4tph will stimulate more traffic on the service outside the Bakerloo section as it becomes more viable as a “turn up and go” proposition, but with the higher frequency it would be hard to justify more than 4 cars until it does.
On the ELL trains are 5 cars and unlikely to be extended in the foreseeable future, despite significant loadings. This is due to constrained underground platforms on the route, especially at Canada Water station where “underground obstacles” make platform extensions particularly challenging. Wapping and Rotherhithe stations also have multiple issues despite serving 6 car tube stock in the distant past.
On the NLL currently running 5 cars, there are some challenging platform locations (Gospel Oak and Kentish Town West for example) but on the whole my impression is that longer trains are more viable than on the lines mentioned above. It’s just going to take sufficient ridership to justify the upgrade.
On the WLLThe platforms have already been extended for 8 car trains, which Southern has been running on the MK route. However Willesden Junction High Level platforms need extending before LO can run longer services here, unless they terminate at Shepherds Bush. The bay platform at the proposed OOC station would presumably provide the means for 8 car trains from Clapham to terminate and reverse.
In general I would say that there is desire on the part of TfL and the mayor to run the longest trains possible on these routes, but that increased frequencies are more desirable for passengers in the first instance, and extending platforms is more costly than widely appreciated. I suspect in years to come we will see some of these new 4 car units run in multiple as 8s on the WLL or maybe even the NLL. For now though, they’re needed as 4s so are being ordered as such.
@ Slugabed – I used the line to Stratford at the weekend. A lot more activity is evident now with old bridges being replaced / refurbed south of T Hale. Piles have been dug for electrification masts at T Hale station and the start of what might be the extra platform works seem to have started. Part of the s/b platform is narrowed and part of the building has been dismantled. The track formation is being flattened and a hard stone base is being put in place. I assume drains and ballast will follow. The LU works at T Hale station seem to be taking up an ever larger area but not much activity evident in terms of building things yet. Perhaps there’s a load of utility and foundation work needed first? Ironically the one area with the most progress is where a cafe is supposed to be built (in the old bin store area – lovely!). Do LU really need commercial tenancies built first these days???
@ Alan G / Paul – busy as much of the Overground is I don’t think it is sufficiently busy to justify 8 or 9 car trains just yet. Much of TfL Rail and Thameslink clearly does justify those train formations. I know some Overground services are chronically overloaded but TfL will nearly always go for extra frequency first if the infrastructure can support it or only requires relatively cheap modification. This is based on the standard view that short wait times contribute to lower overall trip durations and remove the need for people to “plan” trips. I am therefore not shocked to see TfL going for the “art of the possible” at this time of tight finances. Getting some extra trains to increase / optimise frequency and capacity with minimal infrastructure spend is the best we can expect at this time.
Be grateful that the rail side of the business is still thinking this way. On the buses there are now widespread cuts to frequencies across London to save money. Part of this is a reversal of the long established view that higher frequencies drive patronage. TfL are changing their view that it is now on vehicle trip time / speed that is the crucial determinant of passenger choice. The widespread use of real time info means many, but not all, people head to stops just before buses are due *or* they use another mode if the bus wait time is too long. TfL are clearly hoping that despite lower frequencies people will still keep “turning up” by using their tablet or smartphone to get arrival times. This is a fundamental problem for the bus business and will make it extremely hard to justify frequency improvements in future. It remains to be seen if TfL’s gamble pays off – they will no doubt save money on bus contracts but if people decide the service level no longer works for them and stop travelling? Well we’ll be in a right old mess. So enjoy the era of more frequent train and tube services for as long as it lasts.
Lovely comprehensive answer from Paul but I suspect Alan Griffiths was primarily thinking of the new 4-car class 710 for the Anglia routes. And to be honest, I am a bit surprised myself they didn’t go for 8-car units and cut out the centre driver’s cabs (which incidently have no communicating doors if coupled in multiple).
Wapping and Rotherhithe did indeed used to handle 6-car trains once upon a time. But that isn’t a like-for-like comparison as the cars were much shorter in those days. Also, there is the very annoying habit of that engineers have of putting hard-to-relocate equipment at the end of platforms that were not used for their full length at the time of installation.
Could I add a reference to depot and stabling capacity? I have heard Chiltern mention the difficulties of maintaining 8-car trains* in 4-car sheds, but if your sidings are shorter than your trains then you really do have a bit of an issue…
*Loco+6 x Mk3+DVT
I was thinking of the 3 Lea Valley routes, but thanks for so many detailed answers.
@Paul/PoP
“Wapping and Rotherhithe stations……………..serving 6 car tube stock in the distant past.”
How distant? I have never seen any photograph of an ELL train with more than 4 cars in LU days.
Nor have I. But I have read about it. I suspect very distant past and before London Underground days. In fact prior to the London Transport Passenger Board’s creation in the 1930s.
A 6-car ‘traditional’ LU surface stock train is about the same length as a 5-car class 378. When I was involved with the class 378 procurement, length was debated and the biggest constraint was the newest station…..Canada Water.
Until through trains were abolished from Hammersmith around the St Marys’ curve 6 cars ran on the ELL. In addition, when CO/CP stock first appeared on the line in the 60s it was in 5car formation. However, as stated previously, cars were shorter, formations would have been ~315′ and ~262′ respectively.
Perhaps you could have trains pull up to platforms twice if longer trains were required, but I can’t think of a modern precedent of this within the UK, not to mention it would cause havoc with headways!
Ben,
Thanks for additional info.
We have been through the issue of short platforms on the East London Line quite a few times. The worst case is indeed Canada Water because of the combination of a short platform and a high volume of users- it is not the shortest platform in terms of currently useable length.
The most recent station (Shoreditch High St) actually is long enough for 8 cars and rebuilt Hoxton and Haggerston have passive provision for 8-cars. Rotherhithe and Wapping are problematic but there would be some wriggle room if you could remove equipment located at the ends of platforms.
Mike Jones: Thing is, Gospel Oak was never *designed* as a terminus, it’s just ended up that way as non-freight services got cut back. Ideally a northern platform would get built on stilts above the embankment on the Parliament Hill side rather than removing the GOBLIN services entirely from GO and relying on interchange at Hampstead Heath station.
btw, the cross-country still happens most years – I can hear it from my flat.
TfL’s original 2005/6 vision for Overground included 2tph Barking – Gospel Oak/2tph Barking – Clapham Junction services (refurbished 3-car Class 150s) and a 2 tph Stratford – Queen’s Park via Primrose Hill service. Barking – Clapham Junction fell by the wayside due to the cost of providing a fourth platform and associated works at Gospel Oak. Then the Queen’s Park service was cut back to Camden Road and scrapped when reinstating one of the disused platforms and renewing the No.1 Lines bridge was cut to save £40m and keep within budget.
I would say that half of arrivals at Gospel Oak off up Barking trains continue west on the NLL. The solitary Willesden PIXC-buster now has its own dedicated clientele.
The original LOTRAIN order for Class 710/2s was 8 for 4tph Barking – Gospel Oak (6 in service, 1xspare & 1xmaintenance) and 6 for Watford DC. I always assumed that the DC was to remain at 3tph, as far as I know TfL has never committed to 4tph on the DC, only said that it was a nice to have. I assumed that a Class 378 would be used to cover any failures. The 2 additional Class 710/2s must be to up the DC Line to 4tph.
An additional 2xClass 710/2s were an option in the original LOTRAIN order for the Barking Riverside extension. There was a further option for further sets to increase the Barking – Gospel Oak service to 5tph.
This decision by the Programmes & Investment Panel explicitly states that the existing Barking – Gospel Oak PIXC-busters are to be withrawn as soon as the Class 710/2s enter traffic and there is no mention of the 5tph option. Are services to be frozen at 4tph? It may be that there is enough availability in the final 18 strong Class 710/2 fleet to allow some Barking – Gospel Oak PIXC-busters if needed.
The reference to retaining an “additional” Class 315 is intriguing. An option in the concession contract with MTR TfL Rail/Crossrail is for retaining & refurbishing Class 315s (x15, IIRC) with longitudinal seats for a Shenfield – Liverpool Street High Level service. Is this option to be activated by TfL?
Actually Gospel Oak was designed as a terminus as the North London Railway would not allow a connection as the Tottenham & Hampstead was jointly owned by the Great Eastern and Midland Railways. One was only installed during WW1 and then removed. It was reinstated for WW2 and was then left in place.
Glenn Wallis, Secretary, Barking – Gospel Oak Rail User Group
I have read very little comment on the fact that the five-car Class 378 trains on the Watford DC line, are being replaced by four-car Class 710 trains.
But this article says that the three tph service is going to be increased to four tph, which means that the carriages per hour has increased by six percent, when running the new trains.
One problem that will rear its ugly head on the Watford DC Line is the issue of level access from platform to the trains using the line; 378, 710, 1992 Stock and in the future London’s new deep level Underground train.
The new Class 710 trains would appear to be 80 metres long, probably to be compatible with the Class 315 trains to avoid costly platform extensions.
Platforms that only have one type of train on the Watford DC line could probably be made step-free easily, but there must be upwards of a dozen platforms that have to accommodate both train sizes.
So perhaps, the shorter eighty metre trains and the Underground trains could use the same platform with two platform heights, just as is being implemented at Rotherham Central for the Class 399 tram/train and the main line trains.
We shall see what happens, but twenty metres saved by four-car trains might make all the difference.
Watford DC line definitely goes 4tph in December 2018, with new 4 car trains. Watford DC line trains need to be dual voltage so that they can handle diversions during engineering works around Euston onto the non-DC platforms or other lines from platform to Camden South Junction.
@AW The Underground stock uses the full platform length at all stations along the Watford DC line. The platforms are set at intermediate height to allow for both Underground and Overground trains to have a step up or down to them. There is no way to remove this issue. In Rotherham the trams are VERY short and the mainline trains do not need the full platform length. This possibility is thus not achievable on the Watford DC line.
I am surprised how few people are aware of the Overground increase to 4tph on this line, it has been in the planning for at least a year now. Interweaving Overground 4tph with Underground’s 6tph to Harrow is not easy. It will end up as an everybody compromise timetable.
Timetabler,
If that is what they end up doing, it will be worse than that. On the Bakerloo line Harrow & Wealdstone (H&W) to Stonebridge Park is currently 6tph and Stonebridge Park to Queen’s Park is 9tph. In my view these were very deliberately chosen as a multiple of 3 so as to enable the service to mesh in well (I hesitate to say integrate well because they don’t) with the 3tph Overground service.
To my mind the change in frequency of the London Overground service to 4tph really merits the Bakerloo frequencies being revised. Ideally, you would have 8tph H&W to Queen’s Park timed in such a way to give a consistent 5 minute interval service between those two stations. Unfortunately, that would probably require at least more one Bakerloo train and, even if you had them, any extra trains could probably be better used in central London.
Failing the above, surely, on the Bakerloo line, 4tph H&W to Stonebridge Park, 8tph Stonebridge Park – Queen’s Park would have been better? Note that 8tph Stonebridge Park – Queen’s Park on that section would result in no overall loss of frequency as it would be 8tph LU + 4tph LO instead of 9tph LU + 3tph LO.
Of the five stations north of Stonebridge Park that would be affected, Wembley Central and Harrow & Wealdstone are supplemented by other fast services. That leaves three stations: Kenton, South Kenton and North Wembley. Is it really worth messing around with both the Bakerloo and London Overground timetables and introducing unneeded complexity just to provide a marginally better services at those stations?
I probably shouldn’t say this given I stay part of the week in Kenton, but TfL really should bite the bullet and terminate the Bakerloo at Wembley Central. Nobody from further out uses it to get to the West End, as there’s faster options via the Met Line or rail. This will be even more the case once HS2 is up and running.
Turn half the Bakerloo trains at new platforms on the east side of the station, avoiding the crossover, and the other half at Queens Park. Saves wear on the trains too.
4tph for the three low use suburban stations mentioned is fine for those who want to travel in the Wembley/Harrow area.
@Toby Chopra – – It may be a bit sweeping to say that “no one” uses the Bakerloo north of Wembley because they use the Met instead. (In the days when I lived in the area, my Kentonian friends certainly used the Bakerloo to Town as it didn’t involve a change, and nobody, but nobody used the DC services because they weren’t that frequent and had a more awkward change, which is still the case today). The unbitten bullet is doing away with the DC services which releases valuable platform space at Euston but/and requires the closure of one lightly used station in a well served area and some spend on power upgrades (a fraction of the cost of the Euston space). We got quite close to doing that if Uncle Ken hadn’t intervened. However, the moderators ‘ axe is already swinging Damocles-style…
Two stations actually:
Kilburn High Rd & S Hampstead
[ Let’s not mention Primrose Hill redvivus, shall we? ]
@greg T – at the time of the last plan to ditch the dcs, the thought was to close S Hampstead and serve KHR by slewing the NR tracks; sorry, should have made that explicit.
I’m just passing on this tweet from an informed source…
Philip Haigh @philatrail
57m57 minutes ago
London Overground orbital routes to see 25% increase in frequency from next May NR reveals at @IMechE_Rail conference.
This is the +1 tph planned and LR reported service increase on the NLL and WLL from 4 to 5 tph
@ 100&30 – is it? I thought it was more the peaks only increase from 8 tph to 10 tph on the NLL with the onward split to Richmond / WLL being unclear. I’m not aware that TfL are moving to 5 tph off peak as I didn’t think they had the paths yet given the need to path freight. I also assume it is dependent on class 710s being in use on the Watford Line so as to free up a few 378s for this stage of service enhancement. As ever happy to be corrected if I am behind the times.
And being in pedantic mode the tweet / original quote is dreadfully unclear. It implies all orbital routes get an increase but they clearly will not at this stage and some never will on current plans (e.g. GOBLIN and Romford – Upminster).
WW – you are probably right, the speaker at the conference wasn’t absolutely clear.
BGORUG representatives met with TfL staff on 9 November. TfL stated that a 4tph service on the Barking – Gospel Oak line operated by Class 710/2s was seen as perfectly adequate for the forseeable future. The post 22:00 evening service would be increased from 2tph to 3tph from the December 2017 timetable change, although this would not actually happen until 15 January 2018, when the line reopened. Unless the 8xClass 710/2s were still not fully available, something thought unlikely, the PIXC-buster trains would be withdrawn with the May 2018 timetable change.
Like us, TfL was in the dark about when the OHLE would actually be available for use by electric trains. BGORUG representatives are meeting the Network Rail electrification team at the end of this month, when we hope they will be able to give us a date when they hope to clear the OHLE for use by electric trains.
GW
Given that London Overground & therefore TfL will have recieved the results of passenger-surveys on this line as far back as 2012, which showed peak-hour loadings of 300% ( Specifically, over 184 people in a 60-seat coach ) then “merely” doubling the train-lengths to 4 carriages is not going to prove sufficent, or I would have thought not, anway.
I fear your work will not be done, even when we finally get the new electric trains (!)
Greg Tingey, I imagine there will be far more standing space in the new 4 cars anyway as well as the extra seats from doubling the length, and walk through to make it easier to spread out.
Anonymous….unless I’ve missed something, it’s double the number of cars and a 74% increase in length.
100andthirty: I don’t suppose that you’ve missed anything at all, but I have. I do not quite understand your message. Do you mean that the new /trains/ are 174% of the length of the old ones, or that the new /cars/ are 74% longer (therefore the trains, having twice as many cars, are 348% of the length of the old ones)? Or that the new trains are 74% longer but there are twice as many /trains/ as before? Or some other meaning?
Has anybody heard if there will be any kind of “farewell” event for the 315s? They’ve been a big part of my life.
Malcolm
Old trains 2 x 23m carriages
New ones 4 x 20m
So old 46m new 80m.
130, Malcolm, Purley Dweller et al.,
Yes, not a doubling in length. But a proportionately significant reduction in cab, combined with the walk-through design that minimises wasted space at the car ends means that the amount of length available for passengers will be more than doubled.
Moosalot. ……. to coin a phrase “You might well think that. I couldn’t possibly comment. “
GRAHAM H 13 November 2017 at 19:40
Sorry, trying to understand how Kilburn High Road would be served by NR slewing tracks? Do you mean that the platforms would have been on the AC lines instead?
Yes
Thanks, I can’t imagine London Midland passengers being very happy at the extra stop in Kilburn, which isn’t exactly a major destination!
There were other reasons for not proceeding – more pressing – Ken Livingstone lived in Kilburn
@ANON at 20:55 Clapham Junction Platform 0 due at some point for 8 car Old Oak shuttles.
Are these for new platforms at OOC proper? (Not the new Hythe Rd)
@NGH at 10:17 StAR could wait for several years before a decision as there would be an element of 3rd party funding any way,
Assume there is a new AR from Meridian Housing, otherwise a short operational length. Current StAR has no reversal but could use Edmonton trackbed.
@NGH at 21:56 And how will Clapham Junction cope with those extra trains?
Richmond to Riverside, leaves Stratford to Clapham.
Only ‘extra’ on WLL are 2 tph Southern and maybe if needed peak fill-in shuttles.
Do you mean after the OOC interchange – the development there may be 2 decades out for full service demand.
Would that ultimately be 2 reversing platforms and 18tph?
@ANDREW GWILT at 22:17 London Overground to reopen Primrose Hill station so that London Overground could operate the Stratford-Willesden Junction/Watford Junction services via Primrose Hill if the station does reopen,
Rebuild now rather than reopen, Needs platforms, track level buildings, and accessibility lifts. Would need someone with big pockets nearby who wanted more space at Euston.
@PEDANTIC OF PURLEY at 23:16 I think that extending Goblin to Richmond is or was considered for the long term.
If Goblin users take to the enhancements in the same manner as NLL they may overload 4×4 car tph and the transfer volume at GO. With demand for 6 tph through running may be a requirement.
6 tph from Clapham to Stratford will serve the WLL and Clapham platforms.
The ‘extra trains’ are the 10tph from Stratford, 6 running through to Clapham so 4 will need to terminate initially Camden Road on a restored viaduct before the gardeners grab it and serving the Maiden Lane redevelopment. Eventually operating from the Bay at WJ-LL.
@TOBY at 08:49 Richmond to Barking via Gospel Oak and Clapham Junction to Stratford via Primrose Hill? It orphans Kentish Town West and so some service on current routes should remain (or extend the ELL to Gospel Oak but no).
CJ to Stratford is via Kentish Town West
WJ-LL to Stratford (opportunity) is the one via Primrose Hill.
Kentish Town West (single stop section) could see a reduction from 10tph to 6tph and maybe standing room only. This is a small trade-off for many more journey opportunities and better interchange.
ELL should be extended as Highbury interchange is overcrowded, Doing so would serve KingsX lands at Maiden Lane (private developer funded rebuild) and ease loading at Camden Road. This is an underused 4 track viaduct. The NR southern sectorisation and double track contagion prevents extension beyond Camden Road to GO.
The NLL would switch to a restored northern pair, the current southern pair would be your ELL extension with a transfer line to the Camden Junction.
Long term the railway lands at GO are earmarked for redevelopment so private funding could restore the southern curve to see some Barking working to the City.
The commonality between Primrose Hill and New Bermondsey is that they are both station sites.
NB does have passing trains but no development yet and the possibility of funds from Millwall FC.
PH has a fan base for the former Victorian station. The original buildings were quaint and high maintenance. There is a surrounding ready user market and short interchange from the overloaded Northern Line as well as a Tourist destination. A rebuilt lower maintenance but functional station could be funded by Euston developers.
There is no need to interchange between HL and LL but it is not far and could shorten journeys.
Using 4 car lengths on Richmond is a retrograde but that is not the congested section.
SIMON ADAMS at 13:52 I’ve always thought that LO should make more use of the Battersea Park spur. There’s a huge amount of housing development in the area as well as the park itself.
Walking around there at the moment is difficult, many paths are blocked by construction. Once finished it will be a great destination and a revived attractive station. Interchange is very good with my latest favourite stationey McStation name when opened Battersea Power Station station.
2 tph should be well used.
MR BECKTON at 13:30
I still don’t understand why the Class 315 are being discarded (and seemingly have no other takers) to scrap, while we are scrabbling around for money for brand new trains elsewhere, especially if they are going to keep one anyway for the Upminster branch. Despite comments above, they are not “clapped out”,
A 1972 design built in 1981 with withdrawal in 2020. That’s an honourable complete service life. They have had a lick of paint by TfL to keep the customer happy but still worn out underneath. They will need to cannibalise spare parts out of the best least used units for a rebuild. One plan was for a total as new condition and livery to celebrate the rebirth of rail in London (since 1980) and run it as a heritage attraction in it’s own right on the branch.
WALTHAMSTOW WRITER at 16:05 I don’t believe Valley Lines electrification is cancelled. Wires are still due to reach Cardiff aren’t they? I believe the wider issue is that the Welsh Government don’t want 40 year old trains
It turned out in Scotland when Government asked the users that is what they wanted – refreshed perceived higher quality 40 year old HSTs.
If Wales asked whether the price of the project was saving on rolling stock they may accept it. Cascading feeds resentment though.
GRAHAM H at 10:01
@Jim Elson -I agree entirely about centre road turn backs – if only we had more of them scattered about the system! I haven’t been to WJ for a bit so if it has gone to 5 cars, I stand corrected; however, because it is,in effect, a branch off the HL line,
One more if I understood the Hythe Road layout.
The LL bay is also primarily a LL service to Camden Road.
The GO bay was an expedient for transfers to replace Kentish Town. Stasis can continue for previous numbers but would investment be justified at that location for 400% growth? Alternating terminators at peak times between the bays at GO and WJ-LL to double 4 tph to 8 tph is a fix but takes a path. Extending the run does not ‘take’ a path. LO should stay on it’s own network. Wembley would not be welcomed with WCML conflict and Bakerloo will intensify in future. Acton would have been more useful. See the discussion about adding branches – though if Richmond does not need 8 tph I would park 2tph at the rear face of an Acton platform as a cross platform interchange with inbound EL.
JOHNKELLETT at 10:11 That revised ELL timetable is clearly an improvement for New Cross and West Croydon, but the 3-9-6-3-9 pattern for the New Cross Gate to Sydenham section is a concern (as Tom pointed out). Crudely, you’ll have three times more passengers for one train than for another.
But that’s only part as flows are variable not constant.
With a timetabled service of 2 or 4 tph (maybe 6) you want a regular spaced pattern so users remember the time not because they are entering continuously,
With a metro service of 6+ you might want shorter intervals at some periods of the hour based on local demand factors.
SNOWY at 13:24 TfL plan to increase that frequency enhancing the North & West London lines. you wouldn’t be able to enhance the Camden – Dalston section.
Not tomorrow or for free. But yes you could, either by Camden Rd terminators on the available unused viaduct or 4 tph from the bay at WJ-LL.
Even longer term if the GO housing scheme puts in a Highgate Road platform and curve by running some Barking trains through Dalston – east where needed or if TfL overcome what they consider an operational signalling limitation then Battersea Park.
enhancements to get up to at least 6 trains per hour (as per Riverside TWAO documentation) –
terminating 6 at the GO bay for interchange sounds like an overloading issue.
extending its westward terminal to another ‘middle of nowhere’ station in North-west London that might ‘sound better’!
Assume you are referencing Wembley which is at times a busy destination.
Acton is west, Richmond is South West.
The point really is that LO should take their passengers where they want to go or a useful interchange. At the moment asking passengers to get off one LO carriage (at GO or WJ) and onto another to continue their LO journey is unsatisfactory.
JONATHAN ROBERTS at 12:18 When drafting some Outer Orbital options for the London 2050 infrastructure plan, it was necessary to propose a new tunnel, to link the Gospel Oak route onto the Midland goods lines near West Hampstead, thence via Dudding Hill.
The new link had the benefit of reducing conflicts at Gospel Oak junction and on the NLL. It increased capacity for cross-London freight operations as well as orbital passenger services. The outline design allowed for interchange between NLL and OO services at a bi-level Hampstead Heath station, alternatively this would be possible at West Hampstead between the NLL and Midland/Thameslink stations.
Much cheaper to walk OSI on WestEnd Lane. Never found much detail on RingRail2o5o. It was never imagined that a single train would orbit the capital but as at Clapham Junction it would be possible to connect up services.
Freight volumes are being handled off-peak and running across MML at night does not pose a crossing problem from Carlton Road.
Wow tunnel, really there ? Dropping down from the NLL onto the MMLgoods would be cheaper.
ANSWER=42 at 14:55 From a passenger demand point of view, the optimal Goblin extension at Gospel Oak would be toward Stratford. This is, of course, impossible, no matter how good your crayons are.
It’s a car park, small warehouse, and two former curves. The higher previously linked with Midland for St Pancras Goods – not much of a stretch to merge right instead of left. Impossible maybe for a budget then the proposed redevelopment for high value apartments is a source, Surely they would like a Highgate Road platform for a City service.
Absolutely impossible if you do not discuss it until after the concrete towers go up.
JONATHAN ROBERTS at 20:51
Interesting visioning project to have been involved in.
Was the the brief of Orbital RingRail 2o5o to provide interchange with every radial route passed?
ALAN GRIFFITHS at 17:26
I was thinking of the 3 Lea Valley routes, but thanks for so many detailed answers.
Also those are peak heavy paths so you may only need the 4s out of hours.
GLENN WALLIS 1 November 2017 at 05:21
TfL’s original 2005/6 vision for Overground included a 2 tph Stratford – Queen’s Park via Primrose Hill service. The Queen’s Park service was cut back to Camden Road and scrapped when reinstating one of the disused platforms and renewing the No.1 Lines bridge was cut to save £40m and keep within budget.
I would say that half of arrivals at Gospel Oak off up Barking trains continue west on the NLL
Does passenger growth trump engineering inflation ?
So nearly half continue east on NLL?
A2CV @ 05.09 …
Stratford -Clapham Jn vai Primrose Hill?
And how do the trains magiaclly levitate up-&around onto the southbound lines at Willesdent, then?
Also – FORGET extending ex-GOBLIN trains back to St Pancras – where would you put therm, with only 4 platforms, already fully occupied?
Um.
GLENN WALLIS at 05:21 The reference to retaining an “additional” Class 315 is intriguing. An option in the concession contract with MTR TfL Rail/Crossrail is for retaining & refurbishing Class 315s (x15, IIRC) with longitudinal seats for a Shenfield – Liverpool Street High Level service. Is this option to be activated by TfL?
Extremely interesting. The service option is definitely included with a reversing siding at Chadwell Heath in place of the Ilford bay 5, a peak hours pattern from Gidea Park, and recommissioned Aldersbrook sidings (too short for 345s).
Given current concerns about crowding from Day 1 with usage higher than forecast 15 years ago it would be a way of restoring the original 10 car train lengths.
LivSt platforms only take 7 carriages anyway so would save the cost and difficulty of lengthening.
They should keep the TfL Rail branding though, wouldn’t do to have EL colours on 40 year old stock.
I don’t like the changed seats. After all the disruption, closures, and expense customers would feel very short changed to have the same old trains on the same journey but now having to stand.
All reasonable from transport objectives but would it go over well for PR.
TIMETABLER at 19:45 The platforms are set at intermediate height to allow for both Underground and Overground trains to have a step up or down to them. There is no way to remove this issue. I am surprised how few people are aware of the Overground increase to 4tph on this line,
Not surprised here, no more mentions of W—–d during this mayorality (not London).
The frequency increase is closer to TfL metro standards and patronage is considered below potential on the DC. If 5 car capacity is not being used then it makes sense to increase attractiveness with frequency.
Full accessibility must come eventually despite grandfathering. Of course there is a way by eliminating one of the train heights. A future extended Bakerloo could reach Jubilee standards with ATO, platform screens, and outer interchanges.
Having users change lines outside the centre eases peaks with counterflow.
Bakerloo with Watford Met similar to diverting Central to Uxbridge.
& whilst considering crayons extend the Bakerloo to Chesham, and from the Chilltern route study electrify Met to Aylesbury.
DC at Euston is considered poor utilisation of space by HS2.
GRAHAM H at 19:40 – at the time of the last plan to ditch the dcs, the thought was to close S Hampstead and serve KHR by slewing the NR tracks; sorry, should have made that explicit.
Would that mean stopping WCML at KHR, if that then S Hampstead had ML platforms too. There is a working railway between Queens Park and Camden Road suitable for LO = surely the way to go and you can get the Primrose Hill vocal support on board.
Future options are direct City / Wharf links for the resident bankers and cross platform interchange at Queens Park for the evening returning theatre luvies.
@Aleks2CV – at that time,the useage of S Hampstead was so trivial that the cost of bringing the platforms back into use was thought to be poor vfm. The issue with the via Primrose Hill route – so very frequently exercised here – is the lack of paths to the ea (d the lack of any convenient turning point either).
One question that wasn’t clear when the new additional order was announced was seating layouts.
The original plan was that DC and GOBLIN cl. 710 stock were to be longitudinal seating like the existing LO cl.378 stock and the West Anglia cl. 710 stock would be 2+2 seating to maximise seats (and prevent riots due to the “where’s my seat gone” complains from the further out stations towards Chingford, Cheshunt and Enfield where the last seats are currently filled in the am peak.
With the additional stock ordered it wasn’t quite clear given the slightly different stock utilisation and unit lengths what would happen (and TfL weren’t saying anything either) given that the previous seating plan was now bit nonsensical ( additional 5 car stock and shared usage 4 car stock.)
The new plan is that all units will be delivered with longitudinal seats (in keeping with LO tradition) with reason for the change since the original thinking being passenger growth rate and the rebuild of White Hart Lane stadium.
Needless to say TfL haven’t said anything publicly as presumably they don’t want a backlash before construction of the WA units has started. (The first dual voltage GOBLIN /DC unit is complete and went to the test track circa a fortnight ago).
This presumably this isn’t the extra (standing) capacity the Enfield Rail Users Group were looking for!
One awaits the appearance of small mushroom clouds in Walthamstow, Edmonton etc. when the news gets out to the locals…
I see Aleks2CV was bought a nice big box of crayons for Xmyth 😛
@AlisonW 🙂 Mind you, I think everyone, including Aleks, has been really very restrained in redesigning the Oxford Street bus network.
NGH
Small mushroom cloud emerging in Walthamstow RIGHT NOW – & you wait until “The Boss” finds out … I suspect she might be approaching Kim Jong Haircut for the loan of a small missile!
GH
Probably because redesigning said bus network would be a really difficult process, Whereas TfL’s simple smashing-up is as simple as Alexander at Gordios …
In fact Modern Railways had already reported the news about the changed seat layout plan for London Overground. But it was the MR equivalent of in the last but one dispatch box, towards the bottom and tucked in a folder about something else.
Re PoP
My source wasn’t MR but had to sit on it for a while and was a bit busy in the run up to Xmas, Aleks’ comment served as suitable reminder…
Re Greg
I suspect that will be minor compared to the response of some…
ngh,
I know you didn’t get it from Modern Railways and you had the information before it was published there. All I am saying is that the information has been already out there for a few days but no-one appears to have picked up on it – yet.
It only registered with me in MR once it had already been pointed out by you. It was too easy to read about it in MR and not really realise the significance of what they were saying. Nevertheless London Overground’s reason behind it is logical and I am sure they will chose to ride out any storm of protest that may result.
GRAHAM H at 11:51 @Aleks2CV – at that time,the useage of S Hampstead was so trivial that the cost of bringing the platforms back into use was thought to be poor vfm. The issue with the via Primrose Hill route – so very frequently exercised here – is the lack of paths to the ea (d the lack of any convenient turning point either).
Since this is london Reconnections and there is latent demand for any improvement to the permanent way in the city I expect all these studies to be archived somewhere by TfL for evaluation when their day will come. Appreciate that there is no room in this budget plan, will interfere with my path/maintenance/management, doesn’t match height/length/width/voltage, won’t help my commute, will be retired, not in my lifetime/backyard.
DfT has released mega Magic crayons with XR2/HS2. The Route Studies were interesting and help frame possibilities for the franchises after next. It has been a privilege to have lived through the rail renaissance and my ambition is for our grand-children to work with the best possible network legacy we could conceive for them.
Bakerloo to Watford was in the RUS but decades out. It looks like Euston disruption may start within 5 years, In that time frame the Googleplex and friends will be operating at Maiden Lane so that would be my choice for reversing from Queens Park. It’s a short but useful shuttle. In network terms and with 20 year goggles I’d like to see the Camden Rd bridge bottleneck quadrupled. Do Iron bridges have replacement cycles? With separation and a moved signalling sector the Highbury Terminators could extend to a reinstated double bay at WJ=LL running non-stop Kensal Green (lowered platforms – raised rail height) which works better for LO network terms.
Accept it’s just as easy to reverse at Queens Park and hop on a frequent Bakerloo. Operationally you might want to retain the option of using either.
A reinstated PH would be a nice gift to Camden from HS2 for community relations.
It won’t be historic, TfL even have an attractive bus shelter design in Croydon.
NLL Freight – any line improvements in London will fill once word of mouth spreads that there is a better Permanent Way. No available paths in both peaks is a given.
Running at capacity requires an accurate operational timetable but users aren’t that bothered if there is a train in 5 minutes. LU users don’t refer to a peak timetable.
In the evening there is an acceptance to stand back as the next train does not stop here freight. Maybe I’ve been seeing more that are construction trains for the improvements and rebuilding. Passengers actually appreciate the NLL and it’s freight heritage, It also adds variety as long as they keep rolling. So pathing and interference with an LO timetable may not be the issue claimed. Space the service like buses and treat freight equally. Would need a different service measure rather than on time performance.
GOBLIN upgrade as a freight diversionary route. This line has the potential to be as busy as the NLL so what diversionary are they talking about. I can only rationalise it to mean that either NLL or Goblin closes for night-time maintenance but not both at the same time.
London Gateway and Barking Ripple Freightliner are going to become increasing cross London freight generators. Will they accept being constrained in hours? Any possible reconnection path in London that is improved will become another LO.
Dubai Ports and the Chunnel are too big not to connect suggests ultimately a new orbital pathway. Freight truck tolling could pay for a dual truck carriageway around the M25 (M3 to A13) and combine it with a freight rail line. Stacked ?
Public buy-in as industry funded and ban trucks from M25 relieves other widening demands. No passenger stations – it’s on the motorway any way. Do allow orbital interworking between radial lines for pax at freight speeds as a convenience and central connections relief.
GRAHAM H at 17:21
@AlisonW 🙂 Mind you, I think everyone, including Aleks, has been really very restrained in redesigning the Oxford Street bus network.
There’s a Primark at each end, where else would you need to go ?
Has anyone ever considered through running of trains from Wandsworth High Street to Shepherds Bush and beyond bypassing Clapham Junction? That would be a way of avoiding the platform capacity restrictions at Clapham Junction. It would improve journey times from Denmark Hill, Clapham High St, etc and provide some trains on the WLL which aren’t 150% full all the time by removing the Clapham Junction terminus.
Before the Overground was established there was a “Parliamentary” service that did exactly what you suggest.
Well, a train is likely to be less busy if you skip the major interchange on the route.
@Richard
I guess you mean Wandsworth Road. While that used to be my local station and I would have been glad of the service, the Clapham Junction service would have been far more useful and I think you need somewhere better as the eastern end of the service, such as Peckham Rye or even Lewisham. Others will describe just what capacity problems that would cause.
There are accounts of the former Wandsworth Road to Olympia service here
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2012/dft-looks-to-end-wandsworth-olympia-parliamentary-train/
here
http://www.1s76.com/1S76%202009.htm
and here
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2011/06/24/taking-a-private-trip-in-londons-parliamentary-train-service/
It was run to avoid going through the closure procedure for a stretch of track previously used for a service between Edinburgh and East Kent (variously Dover or Ramsgate), which ran between 1986 and 2000 (non-stop between Bromley South and Olympia). After 2000, one of the Cross Country Brighton services was routed between Olympia and East Croydon (again non-stop) via Herne Hill and Streatham to keep the link “open” until Cross Country withdrew from the Brighton line as well in 2008.
The Ramsgate service attracted some unusual haulage in its latter years, when it only ran on summer Saturdays. Here it is in 1999.
http://andygibbs.zenfolio.com/p333386290/h6075098#h6075098
@Quinlet
“I think you need somewhere better as the eastern end of the service, such as Peckham Rye or even Lewisham”
– Bromley North 😉
@Timbeau – I wasn’t aware of the Kent coast-Edinburgh service (probably as I didn’t move to Bromley until 2005) but I wish I’d been on it that day in 1999! I remember the Brighton (to Manchester?) service but never got to use it as it was, I think, only once or twice a day in either direction .
@Mark
As the 1s76 website says, Deltic power was normal for the summer-Saturdays only Ramsgate service throughout both the 1998 and 1999 seasons (the last two that the Ramsgate service ran). And for exactly the same reason that a Deltic (the same one, indeed) was spot-hired in 2011 for freight use in the north east and Scotland.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSQZf6gYsMU
It was cheaper to hire-in power for a peak demand than to maintain an extra loco all year round.
Sorry, we are digressing!
I have read the article and the comments in detail, and I didn’t see this reason for going for 3 tph x 5-car to 4 tph x 4-car on the Watford DC Line mentioned.
It is only one car per hour difference, so capacity is virtually the same, Although a 4 tph frequency is more passenger-friendly.
But if say in a few years, more capacity is needed, then surely a 25% increase in capacity can be created by adding an extra car to each train.
There would be no platform lengthening required,
AnonymousWidower
That’s a shame. I obviously didn’t make it clear enough. Apart from the benefit of going to 4tph, the main reason for the new trains on the Euston – Watford Junction line is to free off the existing class 378 to allow a more intensive service on lines like the East London Line with a consistent set of stock.
The East London Line tunnel under the Thames (known unambiguously as the Thames Tunnel until Crossrail had other ideas) needs Class 378 not Class 710 because it has to be possible to evacuate the train via the driving cab in the tunnel. Class 378 can, Class 710 can’t.
(@Mods. Not sure if this is the right topic for the comment – I picked this one as it is Overground theme).
Wapping station and accessibility. Anyone who has used Wapping will know that it is not step free. Lifts carry you to a mezzanine level, but there is a further steep staircase that can’t be avoided. Impossible for wheelchair or those with a pram. If lifts ever were to be added, this would have to take some space from one of the buildings above the site. As it happens, they’re owned by GLA. But in a left hand – don’t talk to right hand moment, the GLA is offering those buildings for sale, seemingly without including any safeguarding for a future lift access point.
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/wapping_final_particulars.pdf
IslandDweller
8 December 2018 at 15:25
Copied to London Assembly member Unmesh Desai.
Will post response.
Island Dweller,
The basic rule is that, if there isn’t an obvious place to post a comment, don’t post it! We are not a news site. There are plenty of forums on other websites around for that.
However, since you have raised the issue …
There is no point in just putting in step free access at Wapping. The platforms are too narrow and don’t mean modern requirements. A wheelchair down there would be totally inappropriate. The platforms are also too short. The only sensible thing to do is redevelop the station completely when money is available (if ever) and the maximum length of likely needed platform in future has been determined.
Whether this makes the GLA decision to sell off the buildings more or less sensible is open for debate – but not here.
@PoP. I take your point about not being a news site. But the point I was trying to illustrate is the seeming lack of strategic coordination between two organisations – both of which report directly to the Mayor. Seemingly another example of the lack of a guiding mind / guiding process, as seen in the May timetable debacle.
I’m also rather taken aback about your dismissal of step free access to Wapping – on three counts.
(1) Isn’t the current zeitgeist “equality of misery”. The platforms at Wapping are indeed narrow, but so are many pavements and footpaths – we don’t block the less able from using those
(2) Step free access is not just for wheel chair users. I broke my leg a couple of years ago. For a number of weeks, I could only get around using crutches, and station lifts make a world of difference in that situation
(3) There are special circumstances that mean I will argue Wapping station should be first in the queue for accessibility improvements. At least three times per year (it might have been four in 2018), all road access to the entire neighbourhood of Wapping is impossible. The most well known event is the marathon but there are now multiple weekend events that close “The Highway” (specific street name, the A1203) for most of the day. Transport options that the less mobile might normally use (car, bus, taxi, dial a ride) cannot operate on these days. Able bodied people can get out of the area using the Overground at Wapping (the only station within the ‘cut off’ zone) but the less able bodied have no options at all – they are trapped.
IslandDweller,
Whilst sympathetic to your concern, I don’t think the fact that you are trying to make a point makes any difference. If someone else wants to bring up another issue and looks for an article vaguely on the subject to post it then how do we say no if we let others through ?
IslandDweller,
I will answer your specific points:
(1) The situations are not comparable. On a narrow street there is not much danger to other pedestrians. They may be slowed down but rarely does a dangerous mix arise. On a station platform the wheelchair has to be somewhere and people have to get past (to avoid creating a build-up of people). They are supposed to be able to do this without crossing the yellow line.
(2) Absolutely. But there is a problem. You can’t install lifts to the platform for the benefit of those on crutches and then have notices saying ‘no wheelchairs’. Best not to go down that route in the first place.
(3) As Graham H points out time and time again (but the message still doesn’t get through), you can’t build a business case (or BCR case) on the basis of a few exceptional days of the year.
@ISLANDDWELLER
For lifts to get to platform level would not require space above the station.
The existing lifts descend to a level above the tracks (the same as Shadwell).
To create step free access to the platforms would require new shafts either side of the tracks.
I’m afraid this is likely to be an impossible dream.
If it ever happened you would also create another problem. The platform widths are insufficient to accommodate wheelchairs.
It’s ironic really that “Wapping” station isn’t really big enough…
IslandDweller,
To cap it all I now realise you posted the same item with the same wording on another (more appropriate) site just eight minutes after posting here.
District Daves forum is far more appropriate for a new item unrelated to the current thread.
A recent presentation to Greenwich council from TFL, looks at either extending the Overground or DLR.
The Overground would have a stop in Central Thamesmead and then Abbeywood, or curve off to Plumstead or Belvedere to form a link to the rail line for through running.
A DLR extension would come from the Beckton line and would have far more options with four to five new stops, before connecting with either of the three Kent line stations.
From a maximising housebuilding perspective it would have to be the DLR options. An Overground extension maybe better from a regional travel perspective though. But if they were serious about that then the GOBLIN line would need to run much longer trains.
Either this would only be funded from the infrastructure pot for new housing sites, and probably a regeneration perspective as I can see 12,500 extra homes providing enough money to pay for so much work.
“We are designing a train protection warning system for the Richmond to Gunnersbury branch to enable us to interchange the fleet between lines and improve reliability across the network. Construction works will start in the summer.” [London Overground in Investment Programme Report – Quarter 3, 2018/19] What does this all mean?
I would suspect this will allow trains without tripcocks to operate.
More background please? All district line trains have tripcocks, I assume. So is it the case that some overground trains have them, and some do not, and it is desired to arrange things so that any of them can operate to Richmond?
@ Malcolm – a wild guess on my part but given the Overground EMU fleet is a tad “stretched” at the moment TfL may well consider it advantageous to remove any fleet inflexibility. I don’t know if you are correct about tripcock fitment but let’s say you are. It makes sense to put in an alternative system that removes the need for tripcocks given the way the 378 fleet will be redeployed and added to with new 710s. There is also the SSR resignalling – I don’t know how that will work (or not) on NR metals but if it were to be deployed then the LO trains would need to work with it or perhaps a different system that S Stock can work with. Once SSR resignalling is fully deployed then I expect tripcocks will become redundant. As I say all speculative comment from me.
Looking at the Anglia Sectional Appendix (this bit of Richmond is an outpost of Anglia ) it doesn’t seem like a tripcock is required to operate over this section? So I’m not clear why the non-tripcock-equipped fleet can’t operate there. Perhaps it is LO policy.
The appendix includes the interesting detail that all tripcock-equipped trains signalled into Richmond platform 3 will be tripped to help prevent an LUL train going there (platform 3 doesn’t have a fourth rail).
Malcolm, WW……. As far as I remember, for the areas where TOC trains and LU trains operated, when the ‘Train Protection’ regulations were introduced, there was a principle agreed that Tripcock would be used for all trains irrespective of operator unless it was unreasonable to do so. Chiltern trains already had them, as did the class 313s on what became Overground. It was only on SWT (as it then was) where there were far too many trains to make it sensible to equip them with Tripcocks for operation occasionally from East Putney to Wimbeldon. However LU mandated an extension of TPWS by insisting that it would be fitted at all main signals – ie all except shunt signals, I recall.
Since then TPWS has been fitted in areas that were formerly Tripcock only to allow, I understand, occasional trains such as engineers train to pass with train protection.
It is my supposition that the report from Taz implies that TPWS will be enabled on the Richmond branch to allow unrestricted use on non Tripcock Overground trains, whilst LU uses Tripcocks for now and its CBTC in future.
Over on DistrictDave there is a post 18th Jan 2019 that “Building of signalling equipment rooms has now started at Richmond and Parsons Green ” http://districtdavesforum.co.uk/post/474966
Presumably there is non- CBTC work that has to start so as to be integrated & fully ready before this section of the District line can start testing on new signaling. Taz mentioned CBTC would be overlaid on conventional signalling under the “Forgotten Digital Railway” article
I am reminded that the order for Class 710s includes six five-car sets to augment the North London Line services – has it been perhaps decided that these are not to be fitted with tripcocks? (Although it seems a little unlikely, as the other dual voltage sets (allocated to the Goblin and Wat-Eus pool) will presumably need tripcocks to work between Queens Park and Harrow&W.
Agreed on the need for TPWS fitment.
At the moment there isn’t a traditional physical contact tripcock solution for inside frame bogies so TPWS makes sense.
The first problem new stock the Chiltern 172s don’t have tripcocks and need to be sandwiched between 165s/168s fitted with Tripcocks in the shared use LU track area.
The second problem stock is the Siemens 717 being introduced to Moorgate GN services. Here a virtual (non contact sensor) tripcock solution has been implemented (using the 3rd rail mounting shoe points that aren’t used for shoes) but has had few issues (aluminium drink cans shorting it to the 3rd rail). This is temporary solution till ETCS installation into Moorgate GN replaces the current signalling.
The third problem stock is the 710s (same bogie design and 172s)…
TPWS fitting on the Richmond branch would also allow LO stock swaps back to New Cross via Clapham at Richmond to be far easier. Tripcock fitting to Aventra and the more complex computer systems could also have caused major issues both costs and delays.
@NGH
“TPWS fitting on the Richmond branch would also allow LO stock swaps back to New Cross via Clapham at Richmond to be far easier. ”
sadly, Carto Metro and Google Earth both confirm there is no longer a physical connection at Richmond.
@Timbeau It was on the LU map 10 years ago, anyone have an update?
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/175555/response/438758/attach/3/LU%20Track%20Map.pdf
Removal avoids the Wimbledon situation where the boundary markers were 120m apart.
Richmond
I think the problem is that any train wishing to transit Overground/District tracks to LSW tracks is that the only way of doing it ( certainly since 1970-ish ) was to go into platform 3 then reverse out again …
And that the length between the buffer-stops & the relevant set of points was quite short, restricting sets that could use it. Probably under 150 metres.
Long ago, there was a connection further out ……..
Both the DC line and the Richmond branch are having TPWS fitted for the 710s, however, we’re now on ETCS variants. The 378s can’t use it without a cab upgrade (extra screen) that there’s no money for.
Transfer between the ELL and NLL might become easier at some point, but not anytime soon!
The connection between the Under/Over-ground and the SWR lines in Richmond hasn’t been there for at least 4 years (and almost six months)…
@Aleks
Cartometro shows the connection as having been removed, suggesting the map is more up to date than the LU map – if Carto Metro is older, the connection would either not be shown at all or shown as extant.
Can check current situation using MK1 eyeball on Tuesday.
@Timbeau and others
I am reasonably sure the connection between Richmond Platform 3 and the Up Windsor was taken out over the Christmas period 2015/2016.
My photograph showing this a few weeks later is shown on Page 78 of the` London Railway Record` April 2016 issue. I was surprised that new bull-head rail was used.
Although there is no longer a connection at Richmond, trains can be transferred between the NLL/WLL system and New Cross Gate depot via Clapham Junction.
However, as things stand, if a train fails to switch to AC at Acton Central it’s effectively stranded. The connection between South Acton and Kew Bridge, which was electrified in 1916 and de-electrified in 1940, could be re-instated to provide a useful connection between the two third-rail systems.
Re Timbeau
“However, as things stand, if a train fails to switch to AC at Acton Central it’s effectively stranded. ”
Exactly! Hence the potential usefulness of the now removed link.
Cartometro is usually only a couple of months out of date on average and only has a few errors overall
@NGH
It does seem to be short-sighted to not have kept the third rail as far as Willesden Junction, to allow access to the depot (and the Wat-Eus route) for any train so stranded. Are there any other such “islands” (AC or DC), other than the obvious ones on Merseyrail and the Isle of Wight?
Bedford – Farringdon used to be an isolated AC section, but is now connected to the rest of the AC network via the Canal Tunnels.
@Steven Taylor: I think you are out by about 1 year. Between October 2014 and June 2018, I was travelling to Richmond on a (nearly) weekly basis. I’m pretty sure it was gone before my first trip, but certainly before Christmas ’15/’16…
I wondered why, now I know….
One of the big transport challenges is the need to get 10k people to the new cancer research centre next to the Royal Marsden Hospital. This will be near Belmont Station but that has a limited service. There is a suggestion the Sutton Tram might reach the site but it will not move 10k people in a couple of hours.
Restoring the Sutton – Epsom Branch to dual track would help but there is little room at Epsom Downs for more platforms – perhaps the housing estate on the old station sitre will have to be demolished ?
Extending London Overground to Epsom Downs would help in addition to the Southern Service.
The only problem with this is that I expect that most people will want to live South of Banstead.
@John M
Sorry, but who are these 10k people? Staff? Patients? Unless they are all working/attending 9-5 (and hospitals don’t work like that) they won’t all need to arrive within a two-hour timeframe.
Given that it has its own platforms at Sutton, the easiest way of providing a maximum capacity on the Epsom Downs branch would be to run a separate branch service at whatever frequency the termini can cope with. Alternatively, to avoid conflicts at the flat junctions at the London end of the station, run all trains from the West Croydon direction to Epsom Downs, and all trains from the Mitcham Junction direction towards Epsom or the St Helier line.
@ Timbeau There is a very popular service that runs twice an hour from Epsom to London Bridge via Sutton and West Croydon (and there are extra peak services). Restricting all trains from West Croydon to the Epsom Downs branch (platforms 3 and 4 at Sutton) would NOT be a popular move.
@RayL
Did I say it would be popular?
Thameslink’s throughput was similarly hamstrung by the minister of the day’s vote-chasing insistence on running Wimbledon services beyond Blackfriars.
@JOHNM
I don’t think that it’s THAT bad an idea in principle. There are only four trains an hour on the Overground at West Croydon, and the Southern services only run four train an hour from West Croydon to Sutton via Waddon, Wallington, Carshalton Beeches and Sutton.
The problem would be that there isn’t anywhere to turn a train south of Belmont, and the station is a single track, single platform: which is OK for the two trains an hour (in each direction) but not if you added in another four.
Of course, there is also the matter of the 20 minutes journey time (Belmont to West Croydon), which means additional trains-sets would be needed too.
Also, West Croydon is a “recovery point” for Overground services – there is a large turn-around time (14 minute I think) time which can be used to recover lost time and you can’t do that at Belmont as there isn’t room.
The capacity of such as service would be still only be 2,000 (700×4) people per hour.
Over what period are the 10k people meant to arrive – a day? a week? a month? a year? Neither 10k a day or a week appear credible. The current Royal Marsden in Sutton would appear to have only a few hundred people arriving and departing a day and probably not much more than 2000 a week (though I stand to be corrected on this). 10k a month might be possible, but the public transport demand to cater for this via Belmont Station would probably be less than 100 a day – which the current train service could cope with without any problem.
@JohnM – why do you think all these 10k people would wish to arrive on an extended Tramlink? Surely people will come from a variety of directions? BTW a high capacity tram service can easily shift 7-8000 pax/hour, given suitable rolling stock.
Epsom
Minimum move number one, whatever the follow-up is …
Re-double the track, at least as far as just short of the current Epsom station …
That would buy you time for whatever the later improvements might be.
@Greg
Both lines to Epsom station are already double track. Did you mean Epsom Downs station?
There seem two fundamental problems with the initial idea at the outset.
The primary purpose of London Overground running to West Croydon is to provide a sufficient service to stations immediately south of New Cross Gate. In particular Honor Oak Park and Brockley suffer from people not always being about to board the trains in the morning peak. Extending the service will only make this worse. Moreover it would replace a small, almost non-existent problem with a large real problem.
Suggestions like this often fail to consider the need for extra rolling stock which could well amount to the bulk of the capital cost of the scheme. Yes, you can lease, but that is really only hiding a real cost. Back to the article, and given the way rolling stock is absolutely fully utilised with no spare capacity – they aren’t kept in sidings just waiting for someone to find a use – the cost of such a scheme could be considerable with very little extra income to show for it.
PoP….noting there is about to be a glut of serviceable 3rd rail electric stock
Re 130,
…but:
– No stabling or depot space for them. (still a big margin cost to service uplift)
– Only 44% of it has ASDO all in 5 car format with no end doors for the Thames Tunnel
– Several subterranean ELL station are limited by short platforms (Canada Water, Rotherhithe Wapping, Whitechapel, Dalston Jn) that are expensive to lengthen
– The rest of the “core” section of ELL stations would need the passive provision to lengthen to 8 car used
– On 20% of the surplus stock has wide doors and fast opening doors suitable for modern metro stopping use in S London
and GTR ended up reducing their stopping service level via NXG into London Bridge because of the excessive dwell times on the LO services delaying their services and LO then trying to blame it most of on southern services so GTR cut 2tph (typically 10 car) making things worse.
The ball is very much in TfL’s court….
100andthirty,
Or to look at it another way …
The stock has become available because it has been replaced. And it is been replaced for a reason.
PoP – all you and ngh have said is true, but the only point I was making was that there is, unusually, a large number of half life or nearly new trains that could be used on other routes. I wasn’t suggesting they go straight to ELL!
Of course ngh might know what is planned for classes 707 and 458!
@Brian Butterworth
I think you’re info is out of date by some margin. GTR run 6tph West Croydon to Sutton.
London Overground have a 7 minute turnaround at West Croydon, so 1 minute make up time.
@NGH
Your knowledge is immense, but in this case seems a little off. Both GTR and LO suffer dwell problems on the Sydenham corridor in the morning. GTR still run the same 6tph in the high morning peak hour as they did before the May 18 timetable change.
If an operator withdraws services it certainly isn’t for dwell reasons, it’s because they don’t want to resource them for the money the are receiving. If GTR truly were worried about dwell affecting performance in to London Bridge, then they’d just pad them out between New Cross Gate and Bricklayers or put them in the Up Sussex Loop. All massively easy for trains that just come out of the depot for the high peak hour as some of these do
@NGH – ‘Several subterranean ELL station are limited by short platforms (Canada Water, Rotherhithe, Wapping, Whitechapel, Dalston Jn) that are expensive to lengthen’
As a trial they could reclassify the stations as either A or B with north carriages as A and southern end carriages as B. Selective announcements and education could allow the use of longer SDO trains.
Re Aleks,
The problem is those stations are the busiest ones for passengers (Canada Water being the busiest) hence use of SDO for just over half a train isn’t an option.
SDO is a solution for quieter stations or a set of doors at busier ones not half a train at busier ones.
NGH
Given that Canada Water is a “new” station, its short platforms are a disgrace.
I think that, sooner or later the bullet is going to have to be bitten & the platforms there lengthened, with SDO for the “old” staions at Shadwell / Wapping /Rotherhithe.
Is there “just” room for an extension @ Surrey Quays?
Given the amount of money thrown at Crossrail I find it extraordinary that extensionlets ( so to speak ) were not authorised at Whitechapel ….
Re Anon,
But not the same 6tph in the peak am hour (0800-0900) as they used to and only 4tph for the rest of the peaks.
Of those 6ph, 2 are Norwood Junction starters and 2 are Palace starters and hence far less useful to those further along the lines where they used to extend. (The 2 other being London Bridge – Victoria)
Before and even during the early stages of the London Bridge rebuild the peak service level was 6tph for all the peak hours in the main direction and 8tph in the peak am hour, hence why southern now have dwell time issues too as capacity has been significantly reduced. Sniping about performance from LO was one of the reasons in developing what became the May 2018 timetable though it has lost plenty of promised improvements or changes along the way with most of the non delivery of franchise TSR in the Southern Metro area. The LBG slow lines service still includes some assumptions about Thameslink CAT and TAT services changes that never happened.
The Southern service is currently much worse on the corridor than 6(+) years ago.
SDO is already in use at Canada Water (last set of doors doesn’t open). Platform lengthening here would also need to address the single-escalator bottleneck from the NB Overground platform down to the Jubilee line, which is a major problem in the am peak. Rotherhithe station would probably close rather than use SDO — the platforms are only spitting distance from Canada Water’s as it is.
We go through this topic every now and again
Greg Tingey,
I don’t think we have ever got to the bottom of what the problem is at Canada Water but we are all told longer platforms are very expensive to do yet it seems so simple to do. The only thing I have ever heard of that makes sense is of “an underground obstruction that needs to be moved” but it was never specified what it was.
It would have been a disgrace if it could have been done cheaply at the time of the Jubilee Line Extension being constructed (and the East London platforms being built) but I get the impression that it was going to cost roughly the same amount in real terms whether done then or later. If true, it wasn’t a disgrace and made sound sense.
Has anyone ever tried systematically double stopping at a station? E.g. the first 4 coaches stop by the platform and doors open, then the train moves up so that the next 4 coaches do the same?
Obviously it would increase ‘dwell time’ but this may not matter on a branch carrying less than half the trains and would increase capacity through a ‘core’ of full length stations.
Would human nature mean that just the front 4 coaches got used, or would regulars learn to wait?
The only example I’ve heard about that may be similar is the skip-stop service on the Chicago L’s outer lines (A or B stops, with more popular and transfer stations as all train AB stops). So end to end service was faster, but some passengers would have to transfer trains at an AB stop.
It was in place for decades I believe but was changed to the simpler all stop service sometime in the 1990s, as despite being a longstanding service pattern, people were still confused by it.
Regarding the wish to get further Overground trains on the Sydenham corridor, the sticking point is the underuse, during the working week, of the 10-car reversing siding at West Croydon.
Just two trains an hour use this siding M-F (they form the GTR West Croydon – Victoria via Crystal Palace service). When the Overground service to West Croydon was introduced in 2010, four Overground trains an hour used the reversing siding. That changed to the present situation a couple of years ago, with the Overground trains reversing in West Croydon’s Platform 1, the bay.
As I reported on another thread, some work has been started to reinstate the siding just to the west of Wallington Station, presumably as a 10-car reversing siding (there is room). From West Croydon to Wallington takes six minutes, so there would be time for the GTR ‘via Crystal Palace’ train to run to Wallington to reverse, including the driver changing ends.
That then leaves the West Croydon reversing siding available for additional Overground trains on the Sydenham corridor. Gloucester Road junction is worked very hard but judging from the slickness of some of the changeovers, there should be a few paths still available.
@NGH 1317
The Northern Line 9-car project had SDO at its busiest stations. And that was without walk through carriages.
So, TfL needs to order another ten Class 710 trains to run a 72 minute service from Belmont to the “unused-ish” bay platform 3 at Dalston Junction every 15 minutes, nicely timed to give an even service interval between New Cross Gate and Sydenham?
If only TfL had the money to do this!
BB
TfL are going to have even less money, now Mr K has said there will be another year of “Fares Freeze” – doubtless improving his re-election prospects but stuffing TfL’s finances.
Re Greg,
Another year is in line with what he promised.
But he hasn’t said anything about what he is planning for a second term…
Re Briantist / RayL
The elephant in the room is that there aren’t more paths through the Croydon/Selhurst triangle hence need to use what is available better i.e. longer trains.
710 also can’t be used in in the ELL tunnels as there isn’t an end evacuation door. hence more 710s elsewhere to cascade 378 to the ELL for the other proposed improvements in service level (e.g. Palace)
Timbeau,
The Northern Line 9-car project had SDO at its busiest stations. And that was without walk through carriages.
Most books refer to it as the 9-car experiment because that’s what it was – an experiment. The fact that it was not pursued strongly indicates how that experiment went.
Besides, that was then (nearly 100 years ago), this is now.
Doing something like that at Canada Water would be especially problematic as the adjoining stations are so close and already cause signalling issues as a consequence. I think it is the case that when a train is in the Canada Water southbound platform, no southbound train can enter Rotherhithe station. So, when the train at Canada Water leaves, the following train has to call at Rotherhithe before it can call at Canada Water. Therefore you really do want to minimise dwell time at Canada Water (and Rotherhithe).
Of course, you could tweak the situation by amending the signalling. But, if you are going to do that, you would be better off tweaking the system to run 18tph instead of 16tph. Then send the extra 2tph to Crystal Palace so you get benefits but don’t get issues at Selhurst Junction or on the way to Clapham Junction. This is in fact what they intend to do next.
@PoP
There is a case in Paris (where old Metro stations are often close together), of the closure in 1969 of one set of platforms (Martin Nadaud, line 3) but the retention of its passenger access from street level and indeed pedestrian use of the old platforms, being linked by tunnel at platform level with the relocated station of Gambetta (230 metres west). Link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambetta_(Paris_M%C3%A9tro)
Just wondering if anyone knows if there has been an assessment of the merits of gaining additional line capacity by closing Rotherhithe platfoms to ELL trains, but retaining Rotherhithe street entrance and creating a new passenger tunnel to Canada Water station (whether extended or not)… Other options might also be available, ie a new northern entrance to Canada Water – though the Rotherhithe Road tunnel ramp might be a constraint for access to Rotherhithe’s riverside catchment.