Nants ingonyama bagithi baba
Sithi uhm ingonyama!
From the day it arrived at St Pancras,
And blinking, step into the sun.
There’s more to East Coast,
Than, new a brand and cheap seats.
More to do than can ever be done.
There’s far too much to take in here,
More to build than Network Rail can fund.
But delay penalties high!
And the Scotsmen that fly!
Keep small the real profits to be found.
It’s the circle of life!
And it moves us all!
Ingonyama nengw’ enamabala
Ingonyama nengw’ enamabala
Through despair and hope…
Ingonyama nengw’ enamabala
Ingonyama nengw’ enamabala
Through faith and love…
Ingonyama nengw’ enamabala
Ingonyama nengw’ enamabala
Till we find our place…
Ingonyama nengw’ enamabala
Ingonyama nengw’ enamabala
On the path unwinding…
Ingonyama nengw’ enamabala
Ingonyama nengw’ enamabala
In the circle…
Ingonyama nengw’ enamabala
Ingonyama nengw’ enamabala
The circle of life.
Virgin Trains East Coast to be replaced with ‘operator of last resort’ and rebranded London North Eastern Railway (LNER). Last day for Virgin Trains East Coast to be June 24. We will update this post to include the official announcement once it is made.
Update: An official LNER website has now been launched.
Mmm – operator of last resort? East Thames Buses was one..how about East Coast Railways?
Bring back Flying Scotsman! All she needs is a nice coat of LNER apple green!
Those trains must have paint layers an inch thick by now, with all the rebranding between nationalised and privatised operators.
Looks like HMT won in the end and didn’t want the political flak from the “bailing out Branson* option” of giving VTEC a management contract that DfT wanted.
Stagecoach’s share price is only down 0.7% currently and recovering further already…
*Virgin only has 10% stake the other 90% is Stagecoach.
Re SH(LR),
Look like LNER Blue actually…
Re Transport Insider,
They have dusted off the even older “LNER”
LNER looks like a further push towards the “transferable branding” that DfT are starting to be keen on.
It would not surprise me to see LNWR/WMR and GWR keep the branding even if the parent franchise changes hands.
To lose one franchisee is unfortunate.
To lose two looks careless.
(Apologies to Mr Wilde)
@NGH – at this rate we might well yet see BR rail blue and grey.
@Ryan
Transferrable branding seems to work well on ScotRail…
The LNER website was registered on the 29th March, this has been in planning for a while!
Grayling in talks with Sadiq about devolving GN services to TfL “London Overground” post TSGN franchise in 2022 and a consultation on what to with the remaining King Cross GN service post 2022, the suggestion is giving some of them to the new East Coast.
I suspect this is not quite what people may think as Grayling probably means GN Moorgate services, the GN Kings Cross services will start to decrease at the weekend as they transfer to Thameslink in stages so there will be a few fasts to Peterborough and King Lynn as well a few other services left.
The LNER website was registered on the 29th March, this has been in planning for a while!
Yup. The big ‘behind the scenes’ debate has been between the Treasury and DfT. DfT wanted to bail out Stagecoach and keep them on as a ‘not for profit’ operator. Treasury were having none of that.
Given that the optics on both were going to be bad, I suspect it’s taken a while for the PM to work out which particular political hot potato she wanted to get stuck with.
Re IgnoredAmbience,
Potentially a poor choice of models in the cover image that closely resemble some from a well known meme generator?
The DfT’s consultants went into VTEC about 3 weeks before the website was registered 😉
Groundhog Day
The previous re-nationalisation of East Coast (a misnomer, as it doesn’t reach the coast until just before the Scottish border!) was followed shortly afterwards by the abandonment of some services which were supposed to have been introduced in a major timetable change the following year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10345719
Those services are now planned to start next year, eight years later – but right on cue the franchise has been re-nationalised again.
(Incidentally, neither DOR nor their successors were ever called to account over these cancellations – which adds up to more than 30,000 services over those eight years. Nor was the original franchisee given the opportunity to make such economies before having the franchise stripped from them)
Crap website – lots of smiley loveliness doesn’t hide the failure
It would be nice to think this is the end of the road for privatisations (I hold no party political view) but sadly the laws particularly of economics will dominate from now on. The fact that Stagecoach and Virgin are both labelled as affirmative options for future bids means nothing has been learned or, and this is worse, both companies have learned something and their future bids will be more costly for the taxpayer than ever.
Horrible colour on the LNER website – either Apple Green or Garter Blue would have been better although of course Olive Green trumps all!
Companies House shows a change of name in February.
The DfT has a couple of dormant companies sitting ready to go for problems like this.
The system is starting to be reminiscent of how ITV *used* to work.
Posted to twitter, but also worthwhile here: the company was renamed from a DfT holding company on the 14th February: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04659712
Interestingly, looks like it was previously in place for a potential GW collapse plan. (I can’t remember the history of this).
Re Timbeau,
Grayling has promised the new services will begin once the stock is delivered and/or NR have done the necessary works.
(#Lincoln in Timbeau’s case for those with shorter memories)
Re Ignored Ambience,
GW plan B in case they could negotiate an extension with First which they did in the end (shortly after Stagecoach didn’t extend on SWT so they were probably getting bit nervous)
@NGH
“devolving GN services to TfL “London Overground” and a consultation on what to with the remaining King Cross GN service post 2022, the suggestion is giving some of them to the new East Coast.
GN Kings Cross services will start to decrease at the weekend as they transfer to Thameslink in stages so there will be a few fasts to Peterborough and King Lynn ”
Perfect – East Coast would then actually serve the east coast (at Kings Lynn)
– Class 800s are much better suited to such distances than class 700s (cf their use to Oxford, Worcester etc) (HSTs would, of course, be even better…..)
– The Peterborough services could be extended over the “Joint Line”, freeing paths through Newark that would otherwise be taken up by those pesky Lincoln services.
I seem to remember that someone is sitting on a warehouse full of brand new staff uniforms for a previous direct operation scheme which was cancelled at the last minute.
Are these still available.
Hah, here’s one I came up with a while back:
From the day we arrive underground,
And blinking, step into the gloom,
There are trains to see, on lines purple and green,
Pink as well; and one we shall see soon.
There’s one line that I catch most here,
On S Stock, where cool air can be found,
But the trains going by on the spiralling line
Remind me that it used to be round,
It’s the Circle Line,
And it moves us all,
Through Sloane Square, Royal Oak,
Underground and above,
Till we find our stop
On the track unwinding
It’s the circle,
The circle line.
@thickMike
“Horrible colour on the LNER website”
Looks to have been chosen to avoid having to repaint the trains again.
@Nameless
Indeed. LR staff need new uniforms…
@NGH
Appendix 4 of Chris Gibbs’ 2016 report recommends transferring “Great Northern Metro” services to TfL. i.e. Moorgate to Hertford and Welwyn only. He assumed that Stevenage, Hitchin and Letchworth services via Hertford would not survive.
@Thickmike
Their spelling isn’t too hot either.
“Publically owned”?
Re Nameless,
Stevenage should reappear with the platform…
Buts it’s only going to be temporary
@ Timbeau 1421 – why on earth would DOR or their successors be “accountable” for DfT decisions to scale back the service requirements / cancellation of proposed extra services? DfT are supposedly accountable via the Minister to MPs and thus constituents. This is the model so many MPs prefer over any nasty devolution to Mayors or regional devolved boards. Contractors are accountable only to their shareholders and the cliient. It is perhaps noteworthy that the SoS has committed to the delivery of planned extra services. I assume this is to try to generate income, ensure the planned train fleet is deployed and not left sat in sidings and finally to avoid political fall out from “The North” and Scotland.
I do take your point about lost services but surely one of the lessons on the East Coast is the complete lack of an integrated strategy that aligns affordable and deliverable infrastructure improvements with appropriate and commercially viable (?) train service uplifts. The fact that we are now almost past the third failed franchise suggests there are systemic failures *somewhere* in the railway industry structure.
I know I will sound like a boring old dolt (no change there, you all cry) but the best ever service on the ECML was with BR’s Intercity East Coast division. GNER’s on board service was decent but the service reliability left a lot to be desired at times. I’ve used the route on and off for 5 decades from the days of Deltics right through to now so I know little bit about the service.
@ Muzer in poetic mode: Here’s TS Eliot, possibly musing on rail franchises …
“Each venture
Is a new beginning, a raid on the inarticulate
With shabby equipment always deteriorating …. “
@Timbeau 14:08
They don’t just look like the stock image models who make up the couple from the ‘distracted boyfriend’ meme – they are those models.
@Timbeau 14:39
“Perfect – East Coast would then actually serve the east coast (at Kings Lynn)”
Edinburgh (2tph), Berwick (1tph), Alnmouth (1tp2h), most of the station beyond Edi en-route to Aberdeen (4tpd), Inverness (1tpd), Sunderland (1tpd), and Hull (1tpd) don’t count as East Coast?
@ Nameless 15:00
The Hertford-Letchworth direct train is basically gone anyway. The May 2018 timetable has 1tph to/from Stevenage only, and then post-December they start work on the reversing platform at Stevenage (so trains don’t go north of Watton-le-Stone while they do it). There is the last train on Sunday (so under the new timetable) that is direct northbound, but weekday direct trains don’t exist at all.
@si
I had said earlier that EC don’t reach the east coast until just short of the border, so perhaps I should have said the east coast of England. I admit to overlooking they now serve Sunderland, but it is stretching a point to put Hull on the east coast. (Newcastle is closer to open sea than Hull is).
@WW
I stand to be corrected, but I had understood the decision to scale back services was made by DOR directors rather than the DfT itself.
Even if the DfT had made the decision, National Express should have been given that option before being stripped of the franchise.
Why have they made the LNER logo to look like the line (the longer part of the N) runs Northwest? I know you can’t make an N go northeasterly, but there’s no need to make it go nw surely. Or was it just that the logo designers don’t know their east from their west?
Geoff in Wembley,
Er, Edinburgh is west of Bristol. How far west does it have to be before it counts as NW (as opposed to NE)? It might be the lNEr (London and North Eastern Railway) but in fact it goes north and slightly west from London.
Some interesting stuff in the Grayling pronouncement…
“I have indicated that we will separate it into 2 or more franchises after the end of the current contract in 2021. We have not yet reached a decision about how to operate Great Northern services.
However I have had initial discussions with the Mayor of London about the possibility of transferring some of these to the London Overground, as recommended by Chris Gibb in his report.
Any change would be subject to consultation. But there is also an operational case for integrating Great Northern services from Kings Cross into the new LNER operation, and this is an option that I am asking my officials and the new LNER route board to do feasibility work on.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/east-coast-rail-update
So it looks like through services stay with Thameslink, Moorgate services transfer to TfL as LO and rump Peterborough, Cambridge fasts and King’s Lynn trains go to LNER
Grayling and Sadiq must have patched up differences… Silvertown tunnel approved last week and now offering him more LO routes?
Also looks like DfT are trying to mutualise LNER:
” I want the LNER to have employees at its heart. So I am instructing the new board, working with my officials, to bring forward proposals which enable employees to share directly in the success of LNER both as a pure train operator and subsequently as the new partnership. I am pleased to announce that Andy Street, the Mayor of the West Midlands and the former Chief Executive of John Lewis, has agreed to provide informal advice to the team about how best to achieve this.”
Surprised that Grayling is going for something that for him must seem like virtually communism!
@Timbeau @WW – For the benefit of others like me who took a while to figure it out, presumably DOR = Directly Operated Railways, the DfT created operator who took over the East Coast franchise in 2009 after National Express East Coast defaulted? Apologies if this is stated elsewhere, but I couldn’t see it.
Jon B,
Maybe to Grayling, TfL, London Overground and the Mayor have their uses. Palm off onto them any rail area of London that is a bit awkward for the DfT.
Who knows, maybe if the Mayor and TfL had kept quiet then Grayling might have eventually changed his mind and wanted to sick Southeastern Metro on the Mayor.
DfT have form for this. Romford-Upminster and an attempting shafting of West Ealing – Greenford onto London Overground.
Note ngh’s comment about the treasury having none of Grayling preferred option (not the communism one). But, whatever else you may say about Grayling, he will, possibly through gritted teeth, toe the party line.
Re Jon B,
Mutualisation – VTEC destroyed industrial relations at the franchise so rebuilding those is priority, which it is nice to see DfT have recognised.
splitting “So it looks like through services stay with Thameslink, Moorgate services transfer to TfL as LO and rump Peterborough, Cambridge fasts and King’s Lynn trains go to LNER”
The rump going to LNER would cause lots of pricing issues so I would expect they would have to maintain a separate brand for Peterboro fares reasons, but it would add some commuter fare stability to the EC franchise. With the Introduction of the IEPs, Bounds Green should be bit quieter which might serve as suitable main depot for the rump.
I know age has taken its toll on my mental capacity so could someone explain the “St Pancras” reference at the start of the ode, please.
As an aside, I can’t tell you how much I love reading London Reconnections material. Always well written and informative. Thank you.
Jon B,
Chris Grayling seems to have great faith in Chris Gibb as he seems to have implemented, or plans to implement, or at least thinks of implementing almost all of his recommendations – even ones about transferring to London Overground.
Maybe his faith in Chris Gibb is greater than his dislike of the Mayor. Or maybe he as grasped that all Mayors have their foibles but they basically they make the same decisions regardless of what party they are nominally members of. It might even be better if it is not the same party – someone to blame when things go wrong. It gets awkward when it is something like the Garden Bridge.
The present separate fares from Peterborough could presumably be maintained by Thameslink’s all day service. If the peak only (ex GN) trains into King’s Cross were transferred to the ECML operator, they wouldn’t need their own fares as well, would they?
Given the peak Peterborough trains have the same ECML calling patterns as the Horsham ones, would these not be better kept with Thameslink, rather than moved to the ICEC franchise?
@Confused of Carlshalton – it fits with the rhythm of Circle of Life, whereas Kings Cross doesn’t, though ‘the platform’ would have worked and been accurate…
From the day we arrive on the planet
From the day it arrived at St Pancras
Re Paul S,
but you would have some really unhappy commuters to P’boro as the number of peak cheap trains would have halved….
Re Si,
Agreed I think they will see sense and split GN in a slightly less obvious ways for example leave the peak extras (4tph) with TL to operate with 387s and transfer Kings Lynn to LNER to operate with new stock and retire the 365s (something new with SDO would be useful for the route)
IEPs waste lots of space with 1/3 of the driving cars being crumple zone (non passenger) so something off the shelf at 110-115mph max speed would be good for King Lynn services.
I have been away from the internet whilst all this was unfolding. Have I understood that Arup (Garden Bridge), Ernst and Young (one of the big four that came in for severe criticism over the Carrillion affair) and SNC Lavalin (Infrastructure and rolling stock consultants) are to be the board of this Train OPERATING Company? I hope they have someone of Chris Gibb’s stature to lead it.
Ngh – something new(ish), off the shelf, with 110mph max speed …
How about the 387s?
As a resident of King’s Lynn I am amazed to learn that I live on the coast. Not much of a beach!
@ Timbeau – I don’t see how DOR could act independently of the DfT in terms of the services to be run. They still operated to a contract and service specification. I also don’t see how DfT and HMT could tolerate an “in house” operation acting without political and financial client oversight.
Afraid I disagree with you about offering NXEC a chance to cut the franchise down to fit their finances. If you bid you to run a contract then you take the risk. If you get it wrong you suffer the consequences. Politically it just doesn’t wash to allow franchisees to hack services back for purely financial reasons. I know the DfT love to pretend they have no control at all over the railway but we all know what the reality is and that DfT are proficient at making “bad decisions” vanish from much of the public consciousness – especially if the axe falls on something that hasn’t even started yet. TfL are equally proficient as the latest P13 FInance report demonstrates – loads of capital spending cuts and deferrals that have not been reported during the financial year.
@ PoP 1746 – I pretty much agree with you re Grayling’s decisions about possible devolution. He’s only handing over “problem children” that the DfT don’t want the hassle of sorting out and which are peripheral to the main franchises they’re currently in. It shows a certain pragmatism or a desire to dump problems on others (delete as applicable). I can see how TfL might make a half decent fist of running the GN Inners, much less so a low frequency service from Croydon via the WLL to somewhere north of Willesden (can’t see TfL being allowed to run to Milton Keynes).
I also agree that if we had not had the ridiculous Mayoral “grandstanding” over Southern Railway / London Bridge issues that we might have seen some greater harmony before now. It’s notable that Mayor Khan has kept his mouth closed on rail issues for many months. Perhaps someone’s had a word in his ear?
The DOC ‘operator of last resort’ had already been set up run by the consortium of Arup, Ernst & Young and SNC Lavalin, which doesn’t strike me as renationalisation but rather a different version of privatisation.
As someone once said,
Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce
Interesting to see an apparent outbreak of peace between Khan and Grayling. In the end, as with the Crossrail bailout, they need each other. A sign of real detente would be if Grayling agrees to consider transferring Oxford Street to the TfL Road Network…
TfL have a good record in taking over problem children and making them star pupils (see: Silverlink Metro). Arguably TfL would be better placed to maintain the infrastructure between Finsbury Park and Moorgate as well, given that it has more in common with the Underground than most of Network Rail’s network.
@PoP:
“Grayling might have eventually changed his mind and wanted to sick Southeastern Metro on the Mayor.”
The typo probably makes this sentence more accurate!
This “nationalisation” is really just a management contract as far as I can tell
The Great Northern platforms at Moorgate, Old Street and Highbury and Islington are in such a state it’s an embarrassment. No wonder the DfT is happy to hand them over to the Mayor. With a deep clean, better lighting, new trains and being on the tube map, those services could be a big success.
James,
What typo? That is what I intended to write.
@PoP I presumed “sick” was a typo for “stick”
@WW
I don’t think DOR was acting indepdently of the DfT, but they did change the rules to suit themselves.
As I understand it:
DfT specified the Eureka timetable
National Express contracted to run it. The timetable seemed to be not negotiable.
National Express then pulled out as they couldn’t run the specified service (whether they jumped or were pushed is not important).
DfT, in the form of DOR, took over.
Then, suddenly, DfT/DOR decided that it was no longer necessary to run the complete timetable after all, moved the goalposts, and gave itself permission to cherry-pick.
This was supposed to be because it was essential to save money to avoid DOR running at a loss – the cuts would, we were told, save £9m per annum.
The profit made by DOR in 2013/14 was £225m.
Even the connections were wrecked, because the truncated Newark terminators lay over in the bay platform there, meaning that any train for Lincoln has to leave Newark before the train from London has arrived, and cannot return until after the London train has left again.
This fiasco is all over the national papers this morning, with the usual conflicting mess of both doctrinaire & supposedly pragmatic opinions.
Given the emotional overtones of the original posting by JB, I think some of us might be permitted a little of the same.
[ I must admit my first reaction was blind fury at the accumulated waste of people’s time, effort long hard work (etc) at trying to run a railway service – again. ]
Recent-historical note: How many operators now?
This is from memory, so please tell me if I’ve left anyone out?
GNER – owned by “Sea Containers” – who did a very good job, but were econimically shafted by otside financial pressures on the parent company.
DOR, briefly, who didn’t do badly.
“National Express” – I’m not sure a polite comment is possible….
DOR, again.
“Virgin” – meaning mostly Stagecoach.
Who are now being allowed to walk away & (IF I understand correctly) will be getting compansation for same (!)
DOR under the revamped “LNER” brand, though the competence of management implied by that name is unfortunately extermely unlikely ….
@Frankie Roberto
According to Geoff Marshall’s vlog, the first Class 717 train for the Moorgate GN lines is likely to enter service this August.
The stations are a living monument to Network South East.
Trains from Moorgate to Hertford N. and Welwyn G.C. will become much more frequent from this Sunday’s Thameslink timetable change.
SHLR
More to the point, given that an Hitachi bi-mode is slower than HNG’s finest in 1938, I would suggest a fleet of P-3’s & W-2’s in apple-green & garter blue.
280 lb pressure, Kylchap triple exhausts, optically lined-up gear to within 10 microns & take it away. ( Oil-fired or mechanical stokers for coal? )
😵
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
WW
Doublepusgood …
My memories go back to steam haulage ( look at the photo in my avatar) and I, like you despair of this ongoing, erm, train-wreck. As you say, the ex-LNER/BR services organised by Fiennes & his succesors was one of the very best. All thrown away for politics.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Joop SNR
Yes, K Lynn is on the coast, that’s why it still has the Hansa warehouse ….
Like Hull, it is very strongly tidal, after all ….
Anybody wishing to slate Stagecoach/Virgin for this needs to bear in mind that the franchisee was promised by the DfT that by now there should have been diggers on the ground building a 4th track from Huntingdon to (just south of Peterborough), as well as a viaduct or tunnel at Werrington Jn (north of Peterborough). Plus I think the DfT/NR made some promises about ETCS that will no longer happen. There is egg on the faces of both parties here.
As far as a logical split of the franchises is concerned, I think there are two logical options:
– Keep all suburban + Cambridge/King’s Lynn and Peterborough services with the Thameslink franchisee in future. This helps maintain a large pool of drivers with route knowledge for diversionary routes. Given the similarities of the Class 700 and 717 units, it also makes sense that they are maintained to the same specification. For London Overground, the Class 717 units would represent an additional stock type and a new maintenance contract.
– Keep Moorgate services with the Thameslink franchisee and transfer Peterborough and Cambridge/King’s Lynn services to the long-distance operator. This again keeps the stock maintenance/driver knowledge synergies for the Thameslink operator.
Either way, I don’t think it is sensible to have three separate operators on the same, congested mainline.
@Straphan
The Kings Lynn and fast Peterborough services will not be operated by class 700s, but by 387s and 365s respectively. There is therefore no particular reason, on the question of rolling stock uniformity, to keep them as part of the Thameslink franchise.
There was at one time an aspiration to run IEPs to Cambridge. And of course if they are used on the Peterborough run they could be extended to Spalding and/or Stamford to meet the long-standing calls for better services for the growing commuter markets there.
“I don’t think it is sensible to have three separate operators on the same, congested mainline”
There are already four, including the open access ones.
@Straphan
Would prefer to see the G.N. King’s Lynn trains transferred to Greater Anglia thus bringing in train services in East Anglia apart from the self contained C2C under one roof.
Currently the fastest route from my home town of Bury St.Edmund’s is via Cambridge or sometimes Ely into the King’s Lynn fast to King’s Cross trains with a journey time of around 1 hour and 46 minutes.From Sunday this increases to just over 2 hours with a connection into a slower Thameslink train to St.Pancras.
This is due to timing changes to both the Ipswich to Cambridge and Cambridge to London routes.In the opposite direction the timings are much the same as before starting from Kings Cross.
All is not quite lost though as there are occasional trains via Ely to King’s Cross with a journey time of under 2 hours.
Yes we do also have trains via Ipswich to Liverpool Street but this is a longer way round to a different part of London.
What I am advocating is a better coordinated approach to one region which is something
that happens in other parts of the country.
Let’s not let Transport Minister Grayling get away with his disingenuous comments about VTEC. Yes, by the conditions that NOW prevail, they may have overbid, but Grayling’s predecessors were happy to show a huge big smile about what a good job they had done for the (then) government. Remember the old adage, if it looks too good to true, it probably is.
Further, DfT has, more or less completely, failed to deliver on promised, though perhaps not contracted, upgrades – fourth track Huntingdon to Woodwalton, Werrington grade separation and power supply upgrades. (They did do the Hitchin flyover, Peterborough re-modelling, the new Doncaster platform, and Shaftholme/Joan Croft junction). Grayling is, nominally, accountable for this shortfall, as the funds were diverted to pour into the yawning open maw of the mismanaged GWR line upgrade. The power supply upgrades are made all the more necessary by the substitution of bi-modes for electric units as electrification schemes were cancelled, requiring more electric power to drag those diesel engines around. Grayling needs to see Roger Ford for a lesson on basic physics, rather than praising bi-modes for being a convenient way out of the mess that he has got himself into.
A French President once referred to ministers as “fusibles”, i.e. they blow from time to time. It’s about time that Mr Grayling “blew” and was replaced by someone better informed about transport. I’m beginning to wonder whether Humza Yousaf (“I’m no transport expert”) might do a better job.
@Timbeau: Indeed, should have said FRANCHISED operators. I am aware that Class 700s do not and will not operate fast Cambridge or Peterborough services; which is why I am rather agnostic as to whether they should be part of one franchise or the other.
While I suppose direct services from London to Spalding or Stamford would be an improvement of sorts for those people, the trains that would run there would simply be extensions of the outer suburban Peterborough service. That means that the fastest connections to London from those locations would in all likelihood still involve a change at Peterborough for an InterCity train.
@Hugh.S: That does not really help on the operational side – in case of disruption your version of the East Anglia operator would be left with no support at King’s Cross.
@Straphan
“That means that the fastest connections to London from those locations would in all likelihood still involve a change at Peterborough for an InterCity train.”
Maybe so, but speed isn’t everything. Many people would trade those few minutes for a direct train, especially one which is not already full before they join it.
A quick check of journey planner indicates that existing connections at Peterborough to/from Spalding involve a twenty minute wait. That eats up most of the time advantage the ECML services have over the best Great Northern ones.
@100andthirty Chairman of the Operator of Last Resort, is Robin Gisby, former ECML Route Director who did a great job impersonating Gerry Fiennes after Great Heck.
Chief Exec is Richard George MD of the Great Western Trains MBO in 1997 before being replaced by Andy Cooper the following year. My most recent British Rail Directory suggests he was one of Prideaux’s team at Intercity before the diaspora, but it only has initials not forenames so I can’t be sure
@Straphan
“While I suppose direct services from London to Spalding or Stamford would be an improvement of sorts for those people, the trains that would run there would simply be extensions of the outer suburban Peterborough service.”
It’s worth pointing out that the non-Thameslink Peterborough trains are still relatively fast as they stop at (at most): Huntingdon, St. Neots, Biggleswade and Stevenage with one morning train running non-stop from St. Neots. They take a little bit over a hour to go from Peterborough to King’s Cross compared to ~50 minutes for a non-stop run. This time differential could also decrease if they were run with Class 800s instead of Class 365s.
@Timbeau: that’s what the connections are now. If the services to Spalding/Stamford were operated by Thameslink/suburban extensions, I doubt they would run in the same times as the current services.
@Anon E. Mouse: I doubt that, as half of the two-track section between Peterborough and Holme/Huntingdon is only 100mph, whereas any services calling at Huntingdon and stations inbound would have to use the slow lines, which are sub-100mph anyway. I doubt a Class 800 unit (or most EMUs for that matter) has better acceleration than a Class 365.
@Straphan
Those 20 minute connections are into/out of InterCity services. An extended Thameslink/GN suburban service would run at different times, but it is unlikely it would sit at Peterborough for 20 minutes as connecting passengers are currently expected to do.
As Anon-E-Mouse observes, the remaining peak hour GN Peterborough services are less than twenty minutes slower than the non-stop IC225s, although I take the point that south of Peterborough a 365 has better acceleration than a class 800 weighed down by several of MTU’s finest V12’s.
(Between Peterborough and Spalding the 800 would leave the 365 standing!)
@South Coast Ed- Yes, DOR stands for Directly Operated Railways. Something that the government in a fit ideological purity decided to sell off.
Of course we’d better not mention DRS….
@Straphan
Note that I said could instead of should.
I’m not saying that journey times could be improved as things stand but if the ECML gets an (overdue) upgrade then there is potential for positive change. For example, a small change that could be implemented is a crossover from the Up Slow to the Up Fast to the south of Biggleswade (N.B. there is already a crossover from Down Fast to Down Slow at this point) which would prevent fast trains from there having to continue along the slow line as far as Ickleford (just north of the Hitchin flyover).
@SHLR I believe that DRS stands for the Direct Rail Services freight operating company (FOC) created by British Nuclear Fuels Limited, then transferred to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) when the NDA was created in 2005. DRS is the only remaining publicly owned rail freight company in the United Kingdom, and it operates all nuclear flask trains in Britain.
Re LBM,
And DRS also makes a tidy profit for the NDA…
It also operates a lot more than flask too.
Not having drivers on ex BR terms and conditions like the big 2 FOCs did was a useful advantage. (Ditto GBRf)
@SH(LR)
DOR was not sold off, it is still a government owned company. it is only the operational side which is contracted out to a private consortium. The assets of DOR and LNER are still owned by HMG,
@Greg
To be fair “HNG’s finest” only managed that speed for a second or so, downhill, and broke down so never made it to London. Modern trains routinely go up Stoke Bank just as fast as Mallard went down.
The tides flow up to Teddington and Gloucester, but I wouldn’t say they were on the coast. However, if that is indeed the criterion, the ECML is on the coast for much of its route between Newark and York.
@ TIMBEAU Whilst there were suggestions early on in the programme that IEPs could work to Cambridge/Kings Lynn they’re hardly suited to these services, even if configured in a slightly higher density layout than currently being built. Whilst not universally liked for their seats etc…the 387s can’t be faulted as a fast outer suburban people carriers, class 800s would wreck dwell times on such services.
As for extending 800s over the Joint Line, I agree that after re-signalling a better service is desperately required but I don’t see the economics of replacing admittedly full 1 or 2 coach trains with 130m long (very) expensive ones. That said a few of LNERs bi-mode 5 cars could possibly work the odd extended service to Spalding (probably the limit of commuting) in marginal time.
@HUGH.S Be careful what you wish for as soon all of GAs EMUs other than the Norwich services will have no First Class and have 2+3 seating, (though to be fair they at least seem to be trying to make them as comfortable as possible!)
I seem to recall that IEPs were only suggested because they would save time on the critical two-track Digswell Viaduct – and at the time DfT were terribly keen on them.
When it was realised that, in practice, the saving would only amount to a few seconds the idea was quickly dropped.
@ GT 0901 – Not sure I am despairing. It’s not as if I have to rely on ECML services for anything important. The important thing is that services keep running effectively and reliably.
The underlying issues sit with the DfT to resolve as they control Network Rail, now the main line TOC and have a major influence over GTR. Obviously that’s not every user company on the route but they have sufficient control to try to produce a co-ordinated way forward. The problem is the self declared 2 year deadline for the East Coast Partnership and whether that is remotely compatible with all of the work and planning that has to be accomplished to define and procure a viable (in all dimensions) way forward for the route. I don’t think anyone would want to see a fourth franchise failure on what is supposed to be a top performing rail route.
Re: Greg Tingey, yesterday, 08.38 – but most commentary is that VTEC’s owners have has[lost?] the best part of £200million and of course have completely lost the expectation of returns from a profitable business for several more years. How does this tally with “being allowed to walk away with compensation”?
Re PoP
Not quite, DfT realised (with GWML learnings in the interim) that this could be achieved far cheaper and better (given local loadings including bikes around Cambridge and further North) with 387s which also have 110mph capability, hence GTR retained the original TL 387s on lease for the GN Kings Lynns etc. and GWR got some new 387s instead.
The idea was just achieved differently.
The main issue is that the OHLE isn’t up to multi-pantograph 110mph yet…
Re PoP & SFD,
Given future proposed ECML upgrades including the new track and signalling at Kings Cross (including closing the shortest of the 8 car platforms), I’d suggest that some Kings Lynn units are procured to maximise the available infrastructure and it limitations:
7car 24m Aventra with similar spec to the new LNWR 10 car Aventras for the WCML complete with SDO, big vestibules and ETCS capable and then retire the 365s using the spare 387s from the King Lynn services.
Permutation of 26m IEP car length aren’t a good fit for KGX – King Lynn as they would all lead to a significant passenger capacity reduction.
Cambridge North has opened in the interim with a future Cambridge South also proposed so the goal post have been moved significantly in the interim.
@Timbeau: I stand corrected on the status of DOR!
@NGH – It’s also worth noting that line speed today doesn’t exceed 115mph until just just north of Welwyn North tunnel. With their likely faster acceleration, the lighter 387s or a notional new Aventra replacement are likely to be only very marginally slower than a 800 from Kings Cross to Cambridge Junction. The difference is likely to be so negligable that a common timing path might be used for planning purposes to achieve maximum capacity.
I don’t have a problem placing the Cambridge/Kings Lynn fasts within LNER portfolio. They sit very comfortably outside the regular GN/Thameslink patterns and dont introduce any fares complications at intermediate stations (apart from Cambridge itself, where from an Orcats point of view no doubt they must command the vast majority of London business already, so represent a very good commercial add on to a profit oriented franchise). The peak only additional limited stop Cambridge and Peterborough expresses are more problematical. They were only really planned to continue to run into KX because there will be no room for them in the Thameslink core. I suggest they should be kept with Thameslink and perhaps the operator should bring in some ex SWT 707s for these services, suitably modified for OHLE, and possibly reformed or with higher power motors to achieve a similar power/weight ratio to the 700s. That would provide a similar travelling experience and driving environment as well as a common technical platform for maintenance at a shared depot. I don’t really see why these should be peak only either. If there’s sufficient fleet why not run at least some of these enhanced service patterns all day? A hard and fast rule of Thameslink only ever operating trains that go through the core or insisting on only one (franchised) operator at KX strikes me as a bit of old fashioned ‘SRA’ thinking, especially when these services are such a small part of the overall operation.
I’m guessing SRA is Strategic Rail Authority. What’s the old fashioned thinking from them, isolate franchises by London terminus?
@Toby – Yes, they had that policy for new franchises at one period, not long before they were abolished. I believe it led to combining West Anglia and Great Eastern at Liverpool Street, Thames Trains and Great Western at Paddington. No saying it’s wholly bad but needs to be considered on a case by case basis, not used to bundle up together service groups that have little other in common, especially if the ‘imposter’ can have largely dedicated facilities within the particular terminal, as at Kings Cross suburban with the new layout. See here:
http://www.townend.me/files/kingscrossremodelling.pdf
@ Mark T – I understand your point about not rationalising just for the sake of it but you have to wonder if the sheer number of operators on the ECML, including open access, is one of the reasons for repeated franchise failure. It must create additional risk for a franchise and pose uncertainty as to strategy / direction as companies are unlikely to have the same needs / objectives in the same timeframe.
Clearly the latest failure is partly down to excessive bidding and partly due to parties not meeting their commitments to VTEC. However no other main line route has open access competition and any residual TOC on TOC franchised “competition” is limited. I know Grand Central and Hull Trains have loyal customers and both want more train paths but you have to ask if the infrastructure is simply being asked to do too much without significant upgrade.
I am not sure the past tells us much – Thames Trains were apparently a disaster and “one” was not much loved. However First seemed to do a decent job with Great Eastern way back when and MTR Crossrail / Overground aren’t horror stories when running into Liverpool St (still have their moments tho!). It’s surely much more about the quality of the franchise management, the effectiveness of the incentives they have and the scale of investment to support reliable services?
@PoP: But with all these open access operators and the magic of competition surely one would jump into the void left by VTEC leaving the field?
😉
SH LR…..you mean First Group (Hull Trains) and Arriva – DB (Grand Central)? The capability of both groups is established (at risk of opening the floodgates of comment about both companies). Their open access operations are tiny. They could bid for more paths but that process moves as a slower pace than re tendering.
@130: Yes, this is the great new age isn’t it? Dynamic companies, running services that people want, with wonderful clean trains and staff with big smiles.
Or should I stop looking at my train set and get back to reality? 😉
SH LR – well GC and HT do have small “perfectly formed” teams dedicated to customer service. That’s both their USP and achilles’ heel. When it’s all going well, they do a great job, but if they’re a train short or there are problems on the line, they are too thin on the ground to sort out the consequences.
@ 100 and 30 – I understand Grand Central *are* bidding for extra paths and I think Hull Trains have secured extra ones in a few years time when their new bi-mode trains arrive. Can’t remember if First Group have gained the paths they wanted for their single class concept for fast London – Edinburgh services. I believe both Transpennine Express and Cross Country have extra services planned for Newcastle – Edinburgh which will pile on the capacity concerns on that line. Not all of the capacity issues are at the south end of the ECML. There are plenty elsewhere.
WW.. Thanks. I was aware of these, but whilst significant for HT and GC, they are trivial compared with the scale of VTEC/LNER. However, your comments just illustrate how odd it is to prototype the public private partnership (we’ve seen that before – it didn’t end well) that the SoS plans on a line with so many operators. LNER might be the majority player, if measured by mileage, but probably only just in the majority.
Very personal comment/requeat:
Can we please not refer to the new state-backed (DfT) operator out of King’s Cross by those intials?
One; It casues confusion, with a genuine historical name.
and
Two: There is no way that this new operator is going to have anything like the competence or ability of the late G Feinnes’ employers, pre-1948
[Comment accepted as an expression of your feelings on the matter. Unfortunately though, that is the name which has been chosen – and may well continue to be used by any new operator, should any further attempts at conventional franchising be made. It would, perhaps, have been nice if they had respected history, but they did not, and we cannot eschew use here of the initials or name which now might refer to the new entity. Malcolm]
@Walthamstow Writer: Isn’t it the case that Grand Central want to:
– Get rid of HSTs.
– Run Class 180s coupled together as far as Doncaster, then split for Bradford and Sunderland?
In any case, the industry standard modelling tool (MOIRA) isn’t great at predicting the volume of revenue abstraction by open access operators; nor how market growth splits between the various operators.
Re Straphan,
GC have got rid of their HSTS (now at EMT being refurbished but late and ideally they should have been in service today for the timetable change) and now only operate 180s (ex GWR) and in the future ex Hull 180s when they are replaced by IEPs.
@Greg
LNER is not the only operator using pre-1948, or even pre-1923 names. We also have Great Northern, Southern, South Eastern, Great Western and London North Western franchises, and (until 2004) also had Great Eastern.
As for the performance of the pre-1948 namesake, away from the razzmatazz of publicity stunts was it any better a performer than the other members of the Big Four?
Financially, it never declared a dividend, having to service the huge debts it inherited from the Great Central’s London extension project.
@ Timbeau
The revived company name seems to omit the “&”.
I am advised that it was once known as the “Late and Never Early”.
GWR was of course “God’s Wonderful Railway”.
Nameless
No: “Gas Works Railway”
😜
@NAMELESS
Or alternatively the “Great Way Round” which it really was, to Devon and Cornwall at least, prior to the improvements and additions on the Berks and Hants and some other railways further west that created the more direct line via Westbury.
@Mark Townend; you could argue that actually the L&SWR deserved the term “Great Way Around“ much more than the GWR. The withered arm truly was that!
I believe the name “Great Way Round” applied to the three major routes operated by the GWR. The first being the route to Exeter which until the Berks and Hants line was opened required routing via Bristol. The second was the route to South Wales which until the Severn tunnel was opened required a detour via Gloucester. The third route was the line to Birmingham which In its original firm required trains to go via Oxford. This last circuitous route was finally resolved by the opening of the new north line aka the Great Central/ Great Western Joint line which opened in 1907.
Interesting though these “initial” digressions are, could I gently suggest a move back to the topic in hand please.
The LNER company directors are shared with a load of other DfT dormant companies:
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04661194 Transpennine Express Ltd (previously South Eastern Trains Ltd)
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03266762 DFT OLR2 LIMITED (previously CROSS COUNTRY TRAINS LIMITED)
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03266760 Thameslink Ltd
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04659516 WEST COAST MAIN LINE COMPANY LIMITED
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04659669 LONDON MIDLAND TRAINS LIMITED (previously NORTHERN TRAINS LIMITED)
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03076444 EM TRAINS LTD
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06950819 DIRECTLY OPERATED RAILWAYS LIMITED (This name rings a bell – have they used this before? Not dormant)
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07141122 DFT OLR HOLDINGS LIMITED
This is the company they used last time:
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04659708
secretlondon: And your point is… ?
I booked tickets yesterday on the LNER.CO.UK website, and the transaction shows on my credit card account today as being with “WWW.VIRGINTRAINSEASTCO”!
@Andrew-R: That is something for LNER to change with the institution that processes the card payments. Some of those institutions are slower than others at processing changes like a change of name…
This may or may not be the appropriate place to draw attention to a current investigation by the NAO into the way in which student loans are treated for public expenditure purposes (I know – just bear with me for a mo) . Hitherto, these loans have not been counted as public expenditure because the assumption is that they will be repaid in full (Ho!) later. When the inevitable happens, the loans are indeed written off and that write off counts as public expenditure, but many years down the track (now you see where this is going?).
The NAO is challenging this assumption and will probably insist that the loans score as public expenditure at the time they are taken out. Transfer this risk logic to franchise payments/premia and we might see a very different view of how much the railways “cost” the taxpayer and a very different view on the activities of DOR etc..
So, gross up the expenditure and then recognise the franchisee payments as income over the life of the contract, making appropriate provision for any impairment?
Wouldn’t that be percieved as making government expenditure look bigger?
Oh dear.
Sorry – i before e……
@Nameless – yes…. And therein lies the interest.
@Graham H I don’t think the situations are comparable. For student loans, the relevant transaction has happened – the granting of the loan – and from then its just a question of how the asset (repayment due) is treated. The dodgy bit is the assumption of full repayment. For franchises, the transactions (the various expenditures) haven’t happened, so standard financial reporting practice (and standard rules about matching income to expenditure) would say that there isn’t even a question to answer.
I’m not so sanguine as you – underlying both discussions is a question of risk. As with the history of NR, it is the question of risk that has determined the classification. If, as you imply, franchises are seen to be riskless, then there is no problem; and/but contrarywise. After the repeated EC debacles, I would be interested to see DfT claiming it’s riskless.
May be horses for courses, but then much would depend on whether the ONS was willing to take a relaxed view.
If you haven’t recognised an asset up front in relation to the future franchise payments (which you haven’t) then the question of the allowance for risk in the value you place on the asset is irrelevant.
@ML – Indeed, and that would be the case in the private sector; alas. the public sector doesn’t capitalise its assets and runs entirely on cash flow. I guess the issue becomes one of whether one discounts future cash flows further on risk grounds.
(Except for the WGA or whole of government accounts of course.) But on a cashflow basis, then even more so – the cashflows are future cashflows, so you aren’t considering them in this year’s accounts. So the question of whether some of the cashflows might not materialise really really really just does not arise.
@ML – I’m afraid that’s not the way government finances work. The issue is about the classification of expenditure, and the risks to future cashflows are entirely relevant – indeed, that was the reason why NR became a nationalised industry.
I’m afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree
And now we read (BBC) that the IEP/Azuma/Nova 1/whatever-it’s-called-this-week is incompatible with some of the signalling systems on the East Coast Main Line, meaning that LNER’s Class 800s, and Hull Trains’ and Transpennine’s 802s, will have to run on diesel under the wires, whilst LNER’s straight electrics (class 801) will be useless.
@Timbeau That sounds like half a story. Just which systems are they incompatible with, and where? What have signalling systems to do with the motive power used? Far to little detail. Can you give a source?
RayJayK ,
Well you asked for it. According to ngh, who seems to supply us with a lot of news to us before anyone else, the issue is with the Trackside Functional Module (TFM) which is part of the signalling.
Alstom TFMs and Hitachi IEPs seem not to get along but both due to interference but both bits of kit meet the Electro-Magnetic Compatibility (EMC) specification under test conditions. Also the TFMs work with all other manufacturers trains.
According to ngh, the simple and obvious thing to do to fix this is replace the TFMs with something that can work with Hitachi trains but the issue comes as to who should pay for this given the easiest solution does not necessarily mean that the equipment that needs replacing was actually at fault.
I don’t know whether this enlightens you or just makes you more confused.
Re PoP,
And the same problems with TFMs west of Swindon too.
Neither is news… more like olds.
The 1994 EMC regs were a bit stiffer than anything before in both respects
@Rayjayk
I cited the BBC. Normally I would give a link, but I’m on holiday and it’s not easy to cut & paste on this smartphone. Google “BBC news Azuma” and you should find it.
Thanks PoP.
Are Alstom’s TFMs in the minority on the ECML that replacing them is suggested: Or is it that there are more trains than TFMs needing changing? If everything else is said to work with all makes of TFM, one would suppose that the thing which does not so work is what needs changing.
It does sound as though an update to the ECM standard may well be the (eventual) outcome but that is of little immediate use.
Is the reference to running on diesel relevant or is it a red herring?
Just to add, it wouldn’t be the first time new electric trains have caused interference with the signalling – one reason the Underground stuck with 4-rail electrification is to isolate track circuits from return traction currents.
I recall reading that when the first thyristor equipped loco (87101) was to be tested in the mid-seventies, the signalling engineers wanted to be given prior warning in case it upset the signalling. But the operating department occasionally “forgot” to tell them, and the signalling department didn’t notice- thus proving that – in that case – it wasn’t causing a noticeable effect.
@Raujayk
Unlike electric traction, independently powered traction (be it steam, diesel, hydrogen or battery) does not cause large electric currents to be pushed into the running rails (which act as an earth return) where those currents can interfere with the electric currents controlling the signalling system.
Timbeau
Thanks
Link HERE for those who are interested.
From the BBC article: The problem affects equipment that registers passing trains and instructs signals and points accordingly. … now then, do they mean Eurobalises that “talk” to the IECC’s, or are they referring to signalling track-circuit axle-counters? Or something else?
RayjayK
I strongly suspect it is directly related to electric trains & the amount of power they are using & the “signals” that are leaking out, because of the high power-levels involved. You’d better ask NGH, as this is his area of expertise ….
@ML
I agree with Dawlish on this.
It is usually track circuits that are of most concern. This is because of electrical commonality, with the traction current return path sharing the running rails with the track circuits. Axle counters do not suffer from this as the electrical circuits in the sensors are completely isolated from the rails (but see induced current risk below). That a risk has been identified doesn’t mean the event has actually happened but experts may have conceived it as a possibility based on frequencies of operation of particular models of track circuit in conjunction with the measured output of the particular traction package under test. The primary risk is that the traction package can inject sufficient signal into the rails at the requisite frequency to hold a track circuit relay energised (indicating clear) when that section should instead be showing occupied due to the presence of the offending train, an unprotected wrong side failure. Some track circuit types are more susceptible than others and changing the model is a traditional method to solve the problem but can be time consuming and expensive. Many track circuits were changed in readiness for new Eurostars and class 92s on the South Eastern division in the early 1990s. Tweaks to the traction system, including on-board monitoring of particular interference frequencies operating cutouts, and filters were also employed. Another risk is induced current from rail, supply or return cabling into parallel signalling circuits. Point detection circuits, with cabling running close to the rails to get to the various limit switch boxes, are particularly susceptible to this. The latest signalling equipment is designed to be intrinsically immune to electric traction interference so it’s mainly a problem in older areas.
I forgot to scroll up and look at previous replies! TFM problems are unlikely to represent a safety problem but are far more likely to lead to shutdown of the modules concerned. That means the signals connected to the affected unit return to red and points become inoperable, thus it is mainly a reliability issue, as the failed TFM must be changed out to get trains moving normally again.
A TFM is a distributed input and output component of SSI systems that interfaces the trackside datalink network to the actual trackside equipment. Changing a TFM to an updated model is a very quick and easy modification, with all the location specific wiring including ID code and power supply already preconfigured in a large military spec plug coupler. It can be completed within a few minutes.
So, obvious question: How many of these TFMs are there to replace and how much do the new ones cost?
…….and can it be done without interrupting the service?
Re Mark et al.,
As I understand it: Induced current picked up in the cable between axle counter and TFM. Resulting in the “red” outcome described by Mark
The same TFMs (installed mid- late1980s) were modified when the ECML was electrified and TFMs were upset by cl91s.
There is a huge difference between lab EMC testing and real world hence you would want /need to substantially exceed the lab tests to be ok in reality.
From memory the shape of rails acts as an interesting directional antennae with the largest signal due to the return traction current being spewed out perpendicular to the web so any thing that is approximately parallel to side (+/- ~6″ in height ) of the running rails is exposed to the maximum signal (for example signalling cables!). The problem is also reduced in autotransformer type OHLE feed set ups.
There is also at least 1 instance of a much newer TFM and axle counter combo on the GWML being upset which was solved by increasing cable length (affects its abilities as a “tuned” receiving antennae), screening and relocating the cable.
The TFMs west of Swindon are also of the problem variety, hence no electric IEP running when the wires from just east of Bristol Parkway to Wootton Bassett Jn get switched on in few weeks.
As a mechanical engineer formerly having to manage the consequences of EMC studies, a subject that baffles all but the most specialist electrical engineers, I am commenting with much trepidation. But…….
With the development of modern electric trains with three phase drives designed to latest standards, I am increasingly forming the view that it is the harmonics of the 50Hz supply (or ripple on DC systems) arising from drawing lots of power from the supply that causes the interference and the contribution of the particular train design is small.
NGH highights that problems occurred with the introduction of the original electric trains; the class 91 was a powerful loco for its time. The IEPs – in both 9-car and 10 car formations are a bit/a lot more powerful than the class 91, so will draw more current – hence more harmonics. I would suggest therefore that the EMC resistance of lineside equipment could be assessed simply by modelling likely current draw though a typical input filter. In this way, the infrastructure could be assessed a lot earlier than when the train actually arrives!
Of course a great deal of effort has to be put into the three phase inverter design to minimise the conducted and radiated interference and means provided to prevent gross interference in any foreseeable failure modes.
The experience of testing S stock at Old Dalby demonstrated that the interference recorded was almost identical to that modelled by feeding the same DC current (with measured AC ripple though a modelled inductor/capacitor filter of the same value as that fitted to the trains. The three phase drives contribution tended towards nothing
NGH
So someone needs to trot along the track between Wooton Bassett – Stoke Gifford ( “Bristol Parkway” ) & change all the TFM’s, pronto?
I assume this “can’t be done” for finance &/or regulatory reasons, or are “they” arguing about who is going to pay for it?
Greg Tingey,
I think the belief is that replacing the TFMs can be done but this assumes that:
1) this is the best, most cost-effective solution
2) they can sort out who pays for it.
There is always the third option of simply not running in electric mode or banning the trains. You might think that is extreme but the Class 92, built in the 1990s, partly for Channel Tunnel freight work, is still banned from Victoria to Brighton (which includes Redhill – Clapham Junction) and Tonbridge – Redhill due to electrical interference problems.
@NGH – Swindon is new signalling, no more than a couple of years old, so axle counters make sense as that is standard train detection for new schemes. Up north on the ECML the signalling is rather older, so probably doesn’t include axle counters, although it is largely SSI I believe so the TFMs collect information from traditional track circuit relays instead . While axle counters were heard of in UK back in the 1980s/90s, they were comparatively expensive and generally only deployed in ‘problem areas’ where track circuits were impossible or extremely difficult to use. Examples of early adoption include Forth Bridge, Severn Tunnel and Dawlish Sea Wall. Elsewhere, the mighty track circuit continued to hold sway in new schemes until about a decade ago. Basingstoke was the last major scheme I recall as being fully track circuit equipped and that was completed around 2008. The slightly earlier Bournemouth scheme, followed closely by the much larger Portsmouthresignalling using the same Siemens technology, were the first to employ axle counters exclusively I believe. In Germany they have been standard for many decades.
@PoP – I believe a particular type of widely used track circuit is the main reason cl.92s remain banned from the Brighton line. They could be mass changed, but the sheer number involved makes it unviable just for a freight diversionary route. Freight can still run that way, it just needs a diesel on the front. That equipment is slowly being removed in scheduled renewals and enhancements along the route, so one day it will disappear entirely.
@130 – Interesting. I know in attempting to make signalling and communications equipment immune to AC traction interference, electrical signal frequencies are always chosen to be well away from mains and its harmonics. Hence the common 83.3 Hz track circuit frequency for example.
Mark Townend,
That is much as I understand it. But I would challenge your description of it as a freight diversionary route. It is not a freight diversionary route. It is a freight route.
The point I was making to Greg is that you don’t have to do anything and there is a precedent. It is all very unsatisfactory though when you are at East Croydon and you get the whiff of diesel (somewhat more than what a class 171 creates) caused by a diesel train running on an electrified route. Equally a diesel engine can be heading a freight train shunting in platform 6 at Purley in order to access the aggregates depot. And aggregate depots are on freight routes not on freight diversionary routes.
@PoP – OK but in its current state it must be considered the secondary backup route at least as far as continental freight traffic is concerned, as the haulier has to find a diesel to run that way if necessary. If tunnel traffic had built up to anything like what was envisaged by promoters, then more frequent routine running via Croydon may have been required and tipped the mass track circuit replacement into viability.
If affecting LNER Azumas, this problem is also likely to affect similar trains being acquired by TPE and Hull Trains for service in the North East, so a large proportion of planned services could end up not using the wires long term, unlike continental freights which are very small in number at Croydon. That’s why in this case I believe an infrastructure solution is most desirable and likely, especially if it is older equipment which may not be as ‘hardened’ as latest models, and it can be changed comparatively easily. What we don’t know is how widespread the problem is. It may only be certain sites that are affected but that could nonetheless result in disproportionate lengths of additional diesel running to avoid relying on constantly switching back and forth between electric and diesel, which probably introduces more operational risk.
Another thought on the Azuma signalling problem. Unlike the situation on GWML, a proportion of the ECML IEP trains are, as far as I’m aware, still intended to be electric only. Without sufficient diesel power to run at conventional speeds, these trains will not be able to run at all in the areas affected by this problem. Granted they will incorporate a single generator unit for emergency heating and lighting purposes and potential to crawl to the next station in event of a major power failure, but no way will this be powerful enough for normal service use. Another pointer towards an infrastructure solution.
Thanks to all who have thrown light on this problem. I know of nowhere else that such a complete and thorough response could be found.
NGH tells us (11 Sept 07:26) “As I understand it: Induced current picked up in the cable between axle counter and TFM. Resulting in the “red” outcome described by Mark.”.
and
“There is also at least 1 instance of a much newer TFM and axle counter combo on the GWML being upset which was solved by increasing cable length (affects its abilities as a “tuned” receiving antennae), screening and relocating the cable.”
If I were landed with the need to *ensure* that things worked I would replace, relocate and screen the connecting cables at the same time as replacing the troubled components. Is this what needs to be done and is this what bumps up the cost?
RayJayK,
Can’t answer your question but I notice that nowadays on newer track (e.g. around London Bridge) the ancillary cabling tends to cross the running track and 3rd rail at right angles in recessed ducts as if a determined effort is being made to minimise the likelihood of eddy currents. As opposed to the old method of just letting the cable lie on the ground at any angle convenient when installing them.
At one time under BR, orange plastic pipes under the rails were used to protect and identify local ‘tail cables’ going to rail terminations and equipment. That was eventually banned by RT or NR (can’t recall exactly when). The joke was it just made the cables more visible to tamper drivers so they could gaurantee to rip them out with the the tines of their machinery. Today I think the preference is for more substantial ducting as PoP describes including special hollow sleepers that protect very effectively against track machine damage. Tail cabling for most equipment is not typically screened or armoured. The exception may be axle counter sensors depending on particular manufacturer’s specifications.
@poP
“Equally a diesel engine can be heading a freight train shunting in platform 6 at Purley in order to access the aggregates depot. .”
Unless the depot itself is electrified – which raises safety issues – diesel traction is needed anyway. hence the invention of the electro-diesel. But the only E-Ds currently in revenue-earning service now are the class 73s (on the Highland Sleeper, where their dc electric capability is of now use), and the class 88s (which are ac only, and therefore no use at Purley)
If axle counters are just as prone to electrical interference as track circuits, what advantage do they have? Unlike track circuits, they can’t detect broken rails, obstructions on the track, or emergency track circuit clips, and they can cause double-counting errors if a train stops on one.
@Mark Townend
“a proportion of the ECML IEP trains are, as far as I’m aware, still intended to be electric only. Without sufficient diesel power to run at conventional speeds, these trains will not be able to run at all in the areas affected by this problem”
The BBC article suggests the problem only exists north of York. Thus the straight-electric class 801s could still be used on services as far as Leeds and York. However, they make up two thirds of the planned LNER fleet (42 out of 65), so it is unlikely the bi-mode class 800s could cover all the Anglo-Scottish services as well as those planned to Sunderland, Huddersfield, Lincoln and Harrogate. I was told only yesterday that LNER is still telling the Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership that the target date of “next May” for the 2-hourly service to Lincoln will still be met.
But then, that’s what they were being told in 2009.
Axle counters, once EMC issues are sorted and they set up working correctly, are usually considered more reliable than track circuits and can have dramatically fewer items of equipment and lower power requirements out in the field, especially for covering long block sections. Unlike track circuits, they are largely immune to weather changes and extremes, and most contaminants. Where they are deployed, special arrangements for enhanced permanent way inspection are implemented. That can be demonstrated to be an improvement in safety as inspections can also pick up rail head fractures that could endanger running but would not be picked up by track circuits. Special arrangements for emergency closure of the tracks are also implemented to replace TC clip protection. The miscount errors can be solved by a technique imported from Germany in which the smaller operational train detection sections are ‘nested’ within a number of additional larger ‘supervisor’ logical sections that can, on themselves going clear, reset the smaller sections to clear automatically. The failure only ever occurs ‘right side’, that is falsely showing occupied, and occurs only at sites where wheels can plausibly stop over a sensor and then roll back a little, so mostly in longer platforms that are divided up into multiple detection sections for the signaller and interlocking to determine how much spare space there is before admitting a subsequent permissive movement. That is why the recent Nottingham resignalling, otherwise an entirely axle counter job, retained just a few track circuits in Nottingham’s long station platforms, frequently populated by multiple small trains. The first UK project to employ supervisor sections to entirely remove track circuits is intended to be Birmingham New Street in a year or two’s time I believe, when, losing its last control area, the local signalbox at the station will finally close operationally.
Some more advantages of axle counters over track circuits: Removal of insulated block joints in switch and crossing assemblies eliminates a structural weak point where failures can occur, and more comprehensive and resilient traction return current bonding is possible easily everywhere without large expensive additional impedance bond components that are another failure point. With no electrical commonality, heavy traction current cannot enter track circuit cables and equipment under fault conditions which sometimes leads to fires and explosions in signalling equipment cabinets, especially on DC lines.
timbeau @ 12 September 2018 at 13:00
“The BBC article suggests the problem only exists north of York. ”
I thought the problem had been reported, in the place where the test runs have been.
Might be very widespread?
A few more observations about TFMs and Axle Counters. As far as I know there are no cases of axle counter sensors connected directly to TFMs in UK. Axle counters are standalone systems whose sensors are wired locally to small dedicated equipment housings close to the trackside, sometimes known as mushrooms. These contain interface cards for the sensors themselves and modems to communicate over a cabling network separate from the SSI datalink system. These cables connect a collection of these trackside units back to a larger ‘evaluator’ site which is usually housed in a climate controlled relocatable equipment building containing a number of 19 inch racks of electronics. These compare wheel counts and directions received from a number of sensors to manage a series of separate train detection sections, and the state of these is passed on to the interlocking via voltage free contacts monitored by a series of TFMs housed in the same building .
The idea of directly connecting the sensors to TFMs and doing the evaluation in the SSI itself goes back decades and Alstom had a product that did this at least twenty years ago. Used in Belgium with the same SSI central interlocking hardware at the time (but with different software) that TFM was not compatible with a UK spec SSI system however because it used a much faster fibre-optic datalink that could cope easily with the vastly increased data volume and speed requirements for reliable axle counting over a wide area. Some axle counter evaluator systems can talk to an interlocking from the same vendor directly over a serial data link, without the voltage free contact interface.
Distributed input /output devices for processor based interlockings are evolving with new ‘object controllers’ being offered today that feature more bits in smaller housings, faster transmission rates and ability to communicate via IP networks and these are very likely to include (either now or in the near future) integrated axle counter transmission and evaluation. The downside of this approach for NR is a risk of increased proprietary lock-in so axle counter sensor, i/o unit and interlocking may all have to be bought from and configured by a single manufacturer, unlike SSI datalinks which are, at least in theory, a (more) open standard, so any manufacturer’s TFM that supports the protocol should be able to play nicely with another manufacturer’s interlocking that also does so.
What does this have to do with the Hitachi problem? It is possible that the interference is causing problems for BOTH subsystems separately: Modern axle counter systems on the GWML, and older SSI TFMs on ECML (as well, possibly, as older SSI equipped parts of GWML , e.g. Didcot area). Later SSI TFMs are better hardened against EM interference and are very easily substituted in older systems. Many have been updated over the years as part of normal maintenance activity as new equipment revisions have been created to overcome problems experienced in service. NGH describes a solution up-thread for the offending axle counters involving varying the length of cables attached to the sensors to decrease their efficiency as antennae for the offending interference frequencies. A technical project should be identifying the real size of the problem on ECML and looking at the options available. One of the challenges if a large scale change out of TFMs is recommended is the component stock availability and how quickly that can be supplemented by new manufacture if necessary. What effect could that have on other planned projects and general maintenance activity? Could the work, as a simple equipment substitution, be carried out by local NR faulting and maintenance teams perhaps?
I hope this little problem does not result in yet more of the ECML IEP fleet being respecified as bi-mode as was necessary for GWML. I doubt the DfT would get a particularly good deal from Agility for that.
Re: Mark T – a bit late to re-spec the East Coast 801s as 800s; they’re slready being delivered. In any case, the situation on the GWML was entirely different in that once electrification to Bristol was not going to happen, it was essential for the 9-car fleet to be bi-mode. My hunch is that the interference issue will be sorted. Power supply for an all-IEP fleet is probably more significant.
@PoP: the Class 92, built in the 1990s, partly for Channel Tunnel freight work, is still banned from Victoria to Brighton (which includes Redhill – Clapham Junction) and Tonbridge – Redhill
Particularly ironic, as Tonbridge – Redhill was electrified for that Channel Tunnel freight.
The original Eurostar trains also had big electrical interference problems that delayed their entry into service (fortunately, the Tunnel was delayed too). But I think that was made worse by the nature of third rail current pickup, where there is sparking every time you cross a gap in the third rail.
If, as reported, the problem systems are north of York, it may be possible to run a full service north of there despite the limited number of 800s by making people change trains there, or by running mixed class 800/801 formations from KX and detaching the class 801 at York (loadings tend to thin out as you go north, although not that much), or possibly, if suitable locomotives are available, towing the all-electric units through the affected area.
None of these are ideal of course, and the first option (change of traction) would be much simpler if there were a separate locomotive.
Locomotive haulage (usually in push pull mode) is very common in the rest of Europe. (I was pushed all the way from Salzburg to Cologne on Tuesday). Why is it so shunned over here?
Ian J,
Yes. And note that Redhill – Reading wasn’t electrified (though bits of it happen to be so). It always was the intention that these proposed freight trains would continue up the Brighton Main Line to Clapham Junction.
With a lot of engineering works, some of which is continuing, in the past few years, Tonbridge – Redhill electrification is proving its worth with Hastings trains being frequently diverted via East Croydon and onto this route to rejoin their normal route.
In the past few years it has been particularly beneficial as we have had not only extensive work around London Bridge but also extended closures of the Sevenoaks tunnel. And we sometimes get our direct trains back from East Croydon to Charing Cross!
But never a class 92 to be seen.
timbeau,
Locomotive haulage (usually in push pull mode) is very common in the rest of Europe. Why is it so shunned over here?
1) For electric locos, no significant advantages to distributed power.
2) We tend not to have the long platforms that they have on the continent thus locomotives take up valuable platform space at termini that could be used by carriages carrying passengers.
3) For diesel it is reckoned that for fewer than six carriages diesel units are more energy efficient.
4) Lack of operating flexibility.
Note also you can’t optimise engine size according to train length because the train length can vary.
If you want to see loco haulage (and propelling) just go to Marylebone in peak hours.
@Timbeau: There was a chap on the continent campaigning against the push-pull Benelux trains on the grounds that it would be more likely to derail if pushed (so for half the then journey). He was put right by a train engineer in the Dutch magazine for chartered engineers.
I can only assume he played with a train set…. It helps to put some extra weight in the coaches of a push-pull set on one of those…
@poP
They have push pull operation at Kings Cross as well, of course, with the class 91s, and it will shortly be used by Transpennine as well.
Other advantages
– traction units can be taken out of service for maintenance without taking the passenger vehicles out of service as well.
– the service life of the passenger accommodation and the traction system are not intimately bound up with each other – see for example Chiltern’s (and Scotrail’s) recent replacement of class 67s with 68s on their push-pull services, whilst keeping the same carriages: the converse is also possible of course – swish new carriages propelled by elderly but still serviceable locomotives.
– you can optimise engine size to train length by using a different locomotive. Even more usefully, you can use different locomotives with the same rolling stock depending on circumstances – for example, on my recent trip to Austria a standard push-pull set was used on the line local to me, but with a larger-than-normal locomotive because of the steep gradients on the line.
– on the continent, loco haulage can actually be more space efficient than distributed power because without the need for underfloor equipment you can use double decker rolling stock.
@SH(LR) The need for ballasting driving cars was illustrated in the Polmont crash in 1984 and, arguably, at Lockington two years later
Push pull and loco haulage maybe not quite as frequent as it used to be!Pre Pendolino was the norm for West Coast main line trains with classes 86,87,90 and Driving Van Trailers..Still in daily use on Greater Anglia between Liverpool Street and Norwich and East Coast main line.
However to be replaced soon on both these lines with either Stadler Flirts or Hitachi Azuma Multiple units.Will still continue in a limited way with Chiltern and Arriva Trains Wales and to be joined by some Transpennine Express trains with C.A.F coaches and Class 68.
timbeau,
All true of course. Its a case of horses for courses. And we do have a sort of compromise with the powered leading car and powered trailing car but semi-permanently coupled into the unit.
Maintenance is a valid point but will probably become less so with units requiring less and more predictable maintenance plus the option of doing a complete swap out of the engine.
Would also point out that if the loco breaks down you can be absolutely stuffed and have to suspend the services. With multiple engines, if one breaks down you can usually at least limp to a suitable place to sort out the problem with much less disruption.
@timbeau:
the service life of the passenger accommodation and the traction system are not intimately bound up with each other
Neither is it for multiple units – retractioning has long been commonplace – eg. the Networkers, or the Southern railway’s putting old traction equipment on new coaches and vice versa (aren’t the Wessex Electric units currently in the process of having the traction equipment they had put into them from their predecessors replaced?)
@Ian J
Indeed, but the rolling stock is out of action whilst the retractioning is going on
@PoP / Mark T
re class 92s – is this the same reason as to why Networkers aren’t allowed – period – on the Brighton Line or onto SWR territory (sure I read this on here?)
re ECML / reliability of locos vs multiple units
HSTs are of course ‘locomotives’…albeit with the proven ability to at least limp onwards on one power car…unlike e.g.
180s – recent-ish experience with GC traction are that the ex GWR 180s were in a shocking state, breaking down almost daily, and one famous Friday evening lumped us all out at Potters Bar following a complete mechanical fur cup. The only limping being done was by the occupants of the (full) train over the bridge waiting for the next slow back to KGX….
re Azumas
I am somewhat surprised that this has taken so long to come to light – notably after all of the plans for ECML rolling stock have either started to happen (see above re HSTs/180s) or are in an advanced stage of planning (91s / TPE locos etc). Whereas we already had a proven, comfortable, reliable and safe alternative in the form of the HSTs – now alas mainly gone, never to return. Such is progress…
The suggestion of terminating all new electrics at York seems far fetched – is this practical? The last time this happened was for the ‘White Rose’ (Night)stars – a small additional class over and above the 125/225s…quickly withdrawn.
Tim,
I am not an expert but have always assumed that electrical noise was always the main reason for banning Networkers. There are exceptions of course. There is a blanket ban in platforms 4-6 at Charing Cross simply because a 12-car Network can’t fit in the platforms and doesn’t have SDO.
I believe when they were first introduced engineers found interference as far away as Wimbledon and Clapham Junction despite the trains being nowhere near those locations. And remedial work had to be done on the South Western just to permit them to run on South Eastern metals.
@TIM – A great deal lot of money was spent on AC immunising the signalling on the South Eastern ready for the Networkers, along with other infrastructure work.
@TIM: Pedantic perhaps, but the ‘White Rose’ service was not Nightstar stock. It was North of London (NoL) Eurostar sets.
@PoP: There is no blanket ban on Networkers in platforms 4-6 at CHX, they just have to be 10 coaches or less…. It used to be (as recent as a couple of years ago) that the evening Sevenoaks slows would depart from 5, sometimes next to a Tunbridge Wells service from 6. Both of them would be formed of Networkers….
Re PoP et al.,
The Networkers bodyshell is bit wider than go any where BR stock designs hence the South Central and South Western bans.
The footboards wouldn’t survive a trip outside SE territory on to SC or SW.
The 10x 365 currently on short term lease to Scotrail had circa 60mm “shaved” of the footboards so they didn’t get mangled by the platforms in Scotland.
The Charing Cross P4-6 issue is a platform lenghten + width issue.
Re: Networker gauging – in the run-up to 465/466 introduction, I distinctly recall reading about the work being done to fix the track position to allow for the larger kinematic envelope of the new rolling stock, including of instances where the clearance between structure and (presumably worst case fault mode maximum displacement) vehicle body was down to one millimeter. Certainly in the late 1990s when I lived in the area various trackside structures were adorned with signs stating GLUED TRACK DO NOT SLUE*.
*sic: I was not convinced by the spelling but that’s what it was.
The two spellings “slew” and “slue” seem to be about equally widespread. If I’m not mistaken, the “u” spelling seems more used among the people who actually do (or specify) it, and the “w” version among those who write about it from the safe side of the yellow lines.
@BALTHAZAR
The first time I became aware of gluing was at Paddington on the Heathrow Express platforms, where signs on the face walls proclaim something like “glued ballast, do not tamp”. Alignment there needs to be accurately maintained to ensure level access between train and platforms, and the tracks are on a fairly tight transition curve towards the country end with significant cant. I understand the technique has also been used along the Dawlish sea wall, not so much to maintain a particularly critical alignment in that case but simply to prevent large amounts of ballast from washing away in high seas!
@Malcolm – The ‘slue’ variation has a nautical background according to some dictionaries. Perhaps that’s how it got into common use in railway civil engineering use. I’ve not seen the spelling used elsewhere. In electronics there’s ‘slew-rate’ describing a circuit’s response characteristics to an input signal, in amplifiers for instance.
@Malcolm – – I have often seen “slue” used as a fairly slangy word meaning ” a raft /collection/ torrent of something abstract, as in a slue of new ideas or a slue of changes, but never a slew of changes etc. Slue has overtones of liquid being poured, and that may be its origin.
I have no technical expertise on this matter (as the following question may make painfully clear), but would it make sense to fit the proposed traction package for a new type of train to e.g. a redundant 319 and run it up and down before building the actual trains?
Slew is in common usage and tends to be used on the rare occasions when referred to in press releases by Network Rail. Slue is used in internal Network Rail documents.
I have always thought this analogous with gaol and jail. Gaol and Slue are British versions occasionally still used. Jail and Slew are American but have come into common British usage. I believe the police still refer to gaoler not jailer.
Re: Herned – has been done, e.g. Hitachi fitted their proposed Networker traction system to a slam-door unit. However, a couple of issues with what you seem to be proposing:
– re-engineering bogies for different traction motors and gearboxes is hard as structural issues come into play (may be OK for a short term demonstration within impaired fatigue life though)
– it would be difficult to replicate the different unit architecture and high power output on a fundamentally different demo unit
– if I’ve understood correctly, the ECML issue only emerged when at least two units were under high power simultaneously, so a single demo unit would not have identified the problem in any case
Re Balthazar……your comment re two units under high power tends to support my theory that this is a “current drawn from a 50Hz supply” problem and not the Hitachi trains per se – unless, that is, Hitachi have made a cock up in and area or core competence.
Is this whole thing of interference at high power not an issue that has had to be addressed on High Speed lines? It seems to me that it is to be expected rather than it being a surprise. Is it perhaps, a matter of people (and/or entities) hoping that it might not happen; and waiting to see where and when it rears its head.
Re 130,
I agree to a certain extent but there is far more going on in reality and increasing total current is just part of the problem.
Filter design for 3 phase drives (VVSDs) in general is very variable (no pun intended). Some manufacturers supply far better quality filter components, integration of different categories of filter components and general effort into filter design. It is worth noting that with collapse of the total global VVSD market by ~50% 2-3 years ago, the firm least impacted puts a lot of effort into filter design (and general focus on quality).
The IGBT switching speed is typically at least 50x faster than the waveforms being generated (either supply side (regenerative braking) or motor side), how the drive firmware manages the IGBT switching to produce the final waveform is very important.
As I’ve noted at least 4 times before on LR: All the European multiple unit manufacturers have effectively used exactly the same single manufacturer and model IGBT chips for a very long time, hence tried and tested filter and firmware solutions.
Hitachi don’t use the same chip as everyone else…
A 3rd rail EMC nightmare is about to emerge which isn’t due to 50Hz current draw or even traction current usage!
Reducing susceptibility is the other half of the coin…
Re RayJayK,
The frequencies for signalling used on the HS lines tends to be different to conventional lines and tend to be far higher frequency (thousand + fold) than the IGBT switching speeds or even mains frequency unlike the frequencies used by many legacy conventional line signalling technologies.
@NGH – And newer equipment is usually much better hardened against EM interference, as are the latest SSI TFMs for example, simply because manufacturers know how to do it better now. I expect new lines will use axle counters throughout, so that eliminates track circuit compatibility issues and we know from GWML experience that the sensor cable problem is manageable and lessons learned can be incorporated into new designs. HS and other new railways are specified and designed as a complete new system. There’s usually a lot of integration testing of subsystems before construction starts, and usually more time to test and tweak installations ‘off-line’ before commissioning and public opening so these little niggles can and are be sorted out well away from the public eye.
Some developments-
Work is continuing to address potential EMC interference with signalling equipment on parts of the ECML, the initial clearance only applies to the route between London King’s Cross and Leeds. Network Rail is installing isolation transformers to the signalling between York and Edinburgh before this section can be cleared. In addition, reactors are being fitted to each transformer car, adding approximately 750 kg per vehicle.
Network Rail ‘has taken a risk-based approach to bringing the trains into service without the filters on the transformer cars’, on the understanding that they will be fitted by the end of 2019 or early next year. In the meantime if the interference issues damage signalling modules or track circuits, NR has reserved the right to impose restrictions on the trains or revoke the acceptance. Meanwhile, ORR has instructed Hitachi to ‘record harmonic footprints for each train prior to entry into service on the ECML’.
ORR has raised caveats whilst ETCS onboard equipment is fitted to the trains, it may not be used except for limited functionality such as providing speed signals to the door system.
Also concerned about access by climbing on the inter-vehicle jumper cables to reach the roof-mounted high voltage equipment or the 25 kV 50 Hz overhead electrification. ORR says the operator and manufacturer must ‘reach agreement’ on minimising the risks before either the bi-mode or electric trains are placed into service, pending the implementation of modifications. LNER is expected to brief its staff to be ‘extra vigilant’ on stations and during the dispatch process.
@Aleks, unfortunately there are a few innacuracies in the source article. The rectors will be fitted to the motor cars, so 3 for a 5-car or 5 for a 9-car. One train has been modified and is undergoing testing. The harmonic footprinting is required by standards, and would have happened regardless of any interference issue. The ORR is just repeating details from elsewhere in their instruction.
J Forbes
The rectors will be fitted to the motor cars
Ah, ongoing (C of E I presume) churching & “servicing” en-route I presume, with the climax as one passes Durham?
The “harmonic footprinting” would take on another meaning, too – metrical psalms, perhaps?
@GT
As a native Pitt Yakker (Durhamite) I can assure you the cathedral also elicits fantastic harmonics.
Re Aleks,
When quoting it is traditional to highlight what is and isn’t quote (and hence what is commentary on the source) and to acknowledge the source. The simple option is ” ” or the more complex (nicer visually) html tags using blockquote and /blockquote inside pointy brackets at the beginning and end of the quoted text.
The editors and journalists from at least 4 of the bigger rail journals regularly read LR and in 3 cases regularly comment too, hence they tend to notice when Ctrl+c and Ctrl+v have been used on stuff they have written! The editor of your source journal in this case is one of those 3…