Accounts of what is happening in the world of transport in London in the past few months have largely been focused on Crossrail and Thameslink. Whilst these two major construction projects (together totalling over £22billion) have their own problems, it should not be forgotten that other issues in the transport world continue to make their presence felt.
The publicity concerning the big projects tends to mask the substantial issues that TfL are now experiencing on a lot of their smaller, but strategically important, projects. To provide a break from Crossrail and Thameslink we take a look at various TfL schemes.
Four lines modernisation
The main outstanding part of this enormous programme is the resignalling of the subsurface railway (Circle, District, Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan lines). This is being replaced and upgraded to automatic train operation (ATO) in order that more frequent services can be run. The system will be similar to that currently operating on the Northern and Jubilee lines but will rely on wireless technology to a greater extent than is currently found there.
As TfL staff like to remind the TfL Board, you don’t get the main capacity benefits of the entire project until the new signalling is in place. They tend not to add that signal failures on the subsurface railway are currently one of the ‘big three’ causes of delays on the Underground.
What was supposed to happen in late June was that the first small section of the subsurface railway would go live with the new signalling. It would have only been between Hammersmith and Latimer Road stations. This meant only five stations were affected and it was on a section of a dead-end route with no pointwork involved other than at the Hammersmith terminus and access to the stabling sidings – also at Hammersmith. Despite promising reports of successful running during trial periods of previous weekend closures, the planned live implementation was quickly abandoned on the Saturday morning in question.
The problem appeared to be the failure of the trains to communicate with the lineside antenna. The system, updated since being installed on the Northern and Jubilee lines, does away with track loops (the orange cable between the rails). This is certainly a good thing, as in the long term it will facilitate maintenance and should be more reliable, but it seems to be experiencing some teething problems at the moment.
TfL has made much of the resignalling schedule being greatly in advance of contractual dates, but this does seem to be slipping with phase 2 already put back from September 2018 to January 2019. A second attempt to go live seems to have been planned for this weekend (21st – 22nd July 2018) and the weekend closures notice show the relevant track closures. One unsubstantiated comment on District Dave’s Forum, however, suggests that even this has been put back to September.
This may have knock on effects elsewhere. Naturally, Thales have only a limited supply of signalling engineers. So one wonders if the longer the Four Lines Modernisation goes on, the less the opportunity they have to tweak and improve the signalling on the Northern and Jubilee lines for some relatively easy wins.
32tph to Morden on the Northern line
Way back in September 2013, TfL gave a presentation to Camden Council showing (on page 13) the planned 32tph to Morden on the Northern line from December 2014. Since then other aspects of the plan have been introduced. Furthermore, when the issue of the cancelled future Northern and Jubilee line trains was looked into at an Assembly Transport Meeting in November 2017, TfL assured the Assembly Members that the 32tph to Morden was not affected and would still go ahead. The date given for introduction was September 2019, which meant that the previous postponed date had already slipped again from April 2019.
At the latest Programme and Investment paper this was then further descoped and delayed to
A minimum of 31 trains per hour on the Morden branch in peak periods in early 2020
which was accepted by committee members without challenging it.
One would really like to think that they will manage more than the 31tph, given that this is the first time such a low figure has been quoted and it has always been the case that 32tph was not supposed to be dependent on extra Tube trains.
Increased frequencies for the Northern line
In conjunction with the probably-not-happening 32tph to Morden, there was optimism expressed that some increase in frequency could be achieved on the central sections of the Northern line. Now all that is promised is an extra 1tph on the Bank central section to provide a total of 27tph, which is tied in with the extra 1tph from Morden in the peaks. Note that this probably means one extra train in one direction in the busiest hour of the peaks – often referred to as a ‘push through’. Basically the timetable is adjusted to squeeze an extra train in.
One of the disappointments of the lack of an improved service is that the capacity enhancement benefit of Bank station will not be translated into more than a few extra passengers being able to use the Underground, since the constraint on space on trains will still apply.
Slightly concerning for the future is the extra housing development taking place at Colindale. This is above and beyond the already extensive recent high-rise development there. This latest phase is a consequence of the sale of land that previously made up the Metropolitan Police training centre. It may well be that, in future, considerable use of the turnback siding at Colindale may be necessary to turn back some trains currently destined for Edgware. This would release trains to provide an enhanced service as far as Colindale. The final two stations (Burnt Oak and Edgware) are busy, but not nearly as busy as Colindale will be. As one TfL board member said, think of it as another Barking Reach.
Note that by the time Bank station upgrade is finished and the Colindale development is largely complete, Thales and TfL may well have signal engineers free to look again at extracting some improvements from the signalling system.
It is just about possible that there is a bit of long term thinking going on. It would be embarrassing for the government if Euston HS2 opened and the Northern line was only operating at around 24tph on the central sections (Charing Cross and Bank branches). HS2 looks like being delayed a bit but will probably open in some form with new platforms at an enhanced Euston station. If it were delayed to say 2028, or even later as has been suggested, for the first phase, and later still if a second phase took place, then there might be an opportunity to persuade the government to assist in buying some new trains for the Northern line. By 2028 the existing trains will have been in service for around 30 years and could be supplemented by new trains (Deep Tube Project or otherwise) that could be the vanguard for a future replacement order. If so, not to be underestimated is the cost and challenge of finding substantial extra stabling space for the Northern line.
Jubilee line 32tph
This appears to be a success story. When the new Jubilee line train order was cancelled last year there was some doubt as to whether even 32tph could be run between West Hampstead and North Greenwich. It now seems that TfL are confident this can be done with existing stock – although not until December 2021.
In a similar way to the Northern line, one wonders if any account has been taken of the enormous proposed further development of Canada Water. Unlike the Northern line there is no simple solution to any future capacity issues here. Adding more trains that happen to be available from a different rolling stock series isn’t an option, because of the presence of platform edge doors.
Victoria line
The Victoria line is always touted as the success story with 36tph in the peak. It is a success story, but there remains part of the plan that has not yet been implemented. The 36tph runs for about 80 minutes in the peak period though TfL talk of it as 90 minutes. The plan was to go for operating it for three hours in the peaks, with a gradual build-up over various iterations of the timetable. The evening peak is easier to do because you don’t have the problem of getting 41 trains into service in approximately two hours from 5 a.m. to 7 a.m.
The plan was for the Victoria line to operate 36tph for three hours in each peak from June 2018 but that plan went from being talked up to not being referred to. It did seem a bit surprising that the date of June 2018 was ever suggested, because the proposal is supposed to be dependent on signalling works at Northumberland Park depot to assist in getting the trains out quicker and that work hasn’t yet started.
At present there is no suggested date as to when the full three hour peak service will operate or – entirely possible – it is simply now an aspiration rather than a concrete plan.
Victoria and Bank Station upgrades
Most of the Victoria upgrade project is going well and it is nearly complete as far as the travelling public are concerned. The main delay is to the step-free access to Circle and District line platforms, due to contractual issues with the lift installation. This should be completed by December 2018.
For the most part, Bank also seems to be going well, with good reports on progress. However, at the start of the construction phase the final completion date for the entrance on Cannon Street was put back from 2021 to 2022. Whilst a lot of the benefits underground will still be apparent by Autumn 2020, the delay relating to the planned, highly-visible new entrance will be a disappointment to the City of London.
Bank Station – Bloomberg entrance
This has almost become a standing joke, with its schedule continually put back, yet it mysteriously remaining on track as the planned completion date is then suitable adjusted at the same time.
The original plan was that this entrance, located in Walbrook and providing direct access to the Waterloo and City platforms, would open in 2012. The entrance shell would be provided by the developer of the Bloomberg Building and all that London Underground had to do was fit it out.
The first three years delay were entirely due to the developer. In a sense the delay didn’t really matter because, as long as the development was delayed, the need for the new entrance was limited. In October 2013 we reported that the entrance was due to open in December 2015.
In fact, further contractor delays associated with the development meant that it was much later than intended that the shell was formally handed over to London Underground. Since then the fit-out appears to have been problematic, with fire doors not to specification and monitor and control systems being responsible for further delays. The expectation would have been that the entrance opened when the new building opened. A new Waterloo & City line timetable to cater for the Bloomberg building opening was introduced in October 2017.
In 2018 alone the planned opening month has so far been given as May, June, August, and now, December. The latest Investment Programme Report, in an amazing piece of chutzpah, states:
We are working with the contractor to ensure the station will open on time.
Crossrail did not start tunnelling until May 2012. Despite that, it looks like Crossrail will build and open a major new railway across London in little more time than it has taken the Bloomberg entrance to be completed. Indeed the expectation at LR Towers is that the Elizabeth line will open before this Tube entrance does.
Camden Town station upgrade
The project has a completion date of 2026. This appears to have slipped by a couple of years under the current proposals. Going back further, there is the 2004 scheme, when Ken Livingstone was Mayor, which was described as ‘essential’. The importance of the 2004 scheme going ahead was stressed because of the consequences that would happen if it did not – consequences that are played out every weekend due to the popularity of the Camden markets and the limited ability to get people in and out of the station.
The latest Investment Programme Report makes it clear that the purchase of the site of the former Hawley Infants School has not yet been completed. There is expected to be a public inquiry with construction due to begin in 2021.
Holborn station upgrade
Despite the urgent need, this is also a project that has delays measured in years before construction is started. In 2013 TfL was looking at commencing construction in 2018. It probably got delayed due to TfL’s financial position and the fact that a lot of the impetus was to get this built in advance of the Piccadilly line Deep Tube Upgrade.
The project’s completion date has been put back to 2029, with the first indication of this further delay being the recent consultation report. Despite us saying that postponing Holborn station reconstruction was not an option it seems that it is – or at least it is if you postpone the Piccadilly line Deep Tube Upgrade even further into the future. The further delay, meaning the completion is more than ten years away, tends to add more indications that money at TfL is really tight – and it looks like being very tight for a number of years to come.
Gospel Oak – Barking Electrification
Up until now, the projects mentioned are ones involving proposed future improvements that seem to be delayed or not happening. As such passenger awareness is limited and criticism tend to be muted. With Gospel Oak – Barking (GOBLIN) electrification the situation is somewhat different and this is rapidly becoming TfL’s ‘bête noire’.
The first problem with the delayed electrification is that passengers have already suffered – greatly. The line had been closed for months – and also longer than planned – for electrification wiring. The delays were down to Network Rail, but there was also amazement that TfL didn’t seem to know that the project was going horribly wrong, given that a visit to the worksites visible from public locations would have made it fairly clear that not all was right with the world.
The second problem, from a public relations point of view, is that the passengers waiting for their diesel train can now see the wires all in place. Furthermore, electric freight trains already use it. So it is somewhat upsetting for passengers when a crowded, two-car diesel train turns up rather than the four-car electric trains they were promised ‘from April 2018’.
If that wasn’t bad enough, recent reports suggest that there are times you are lucky if your diesel train turns up, as there have been a high number of cancellations. Some of these are because ‘pixie buster’ trains were removed from the timetable, but nevertheless continued to run and local passengers knew about these. Unfortunately when the leasor of the trains said they wanted one of their trains back, TfL were in no position to refuse. Worse still, the advertised timetable can’t be operated without cancellations if a train breaks down in service, because the ‘spare’ is probably undergoing maintenance. Diesel trains are less reliable than electric trains, need more maintenance and are probably affected more by the current hot weather. You can read what the Gospel Oak – Barking user group has to say about this here.
Worse still, there are no signs that the new trains, already built, are near to being approved for use into service. Software issues are apparently the cause of the problems. Even this wouldn’t matter if the diesel trains could continue in service indefinitely, but they were due in service with West Midlands Railway come the timetable change on 9th December.
In what could be a fortuitous saving grace for London Overground, because of the problems with the May 2018 rail timetable, West Midlands Railway is one of those TOCS that are required to continue with the current (May) timetable come December 2018. This does not in itself make it entirely clear that there is now no requirement for the class 172 trains to be reassigned to the Midlands in November or December 2018 but it does seem that London Overground is now in a much less awkward situation if the getting the new electric class 710s in service is delayed to the end of the year – or beyond.
In the now less likely event that the class 172 trains do have to go to the Midlands in order to be in passenger service then there would be a problem. Some time has to be allowed for driver training for the West Midlands in advance of introduction into service in the Midlands, so the trains really need to leave London at the beginning of November at the latest. That means that London Overground drivers, trained on the new trains, need to be ready by November. This suggests, even on this short route, that they need to commence training on the new electric stock at the start of October. So, as of mid-July, there is about eleven weeks to go before London Overground really needs the new trains – unless, in the meantime, they can get confirmation that they can continue with the existing trains. Using old class 315 electric trains made spare by the new Crossrail trains has been suggested as a fallback, but is generally discounted as being logistically impractical. Yet, without using these, it is hard to see any alternative back-up plan that does not involve replacement buses.
Just to really rub salt into the wound, even if the new trains did arrive in service to save the day, the latest proposals for the December timetable changes do not allow London Overground to make timetable changes. To what extent this will be strictly enforced is unknown, but it could mean that even if the electric trains arrive, they will be forced to run on diesel timings.
In effect, if TfL are not careful then they are headed for their own mini-GTR moment on a line which, though small, provides a critical piece of connectivity in north London. A line where they have already spent any passenger goodwill long ago.
North London line service improvements
Not only was London Overground expecting to have new class 710 trains available for the Gospel Oak – Barking line, they were expecting to have some to replace some class 378 trains currently on the Watford – Euston line. These class 378 trains could then be used to supplement the North London line. This would allow a 6tph all day service between Richmond and Stratford. This is something that London Overground has long aspired to.
It is looking less likely that these trains will be made available in time for the December 2019 timetable, but the slots are effectively ‘spoken for’ in the existing North London line timetable which has been written with this future service enhancement in mind. What remains to be seen is whether the trains will arrive and whether changes to the timetable will be permitted to allow them to be introduced.
A further complication to this plan is that the current proposal is to replace the five-car class 378 3tph service on the Watford Junction – Euston line with a four-car class 710 4tph service. This releases the necessary class 378 trains for the North London line enhanced service. If London Overground is not allowed to introduce a new timetable on the Watford Junction – Euston service come December they may not wish to replace the existing five-car trains with four-car trains.
Oxford Street
With the Mayor’s proposal for Oxford Street in tatters thanks to a decision by Westminster Council, there is the outstanding issue of what is going to happen in December when Bond Street station gets much busier. The Mayor has described Westminster’s decision not to go ahead with the scheme as a betrayal. It has certainly put a major dent in his ‘Healthy Streets’ policy.
What appears to be the case now is that Westminster Council wants funds from TfL to fund a further study. TfL, not surprisingly, take the attitude that a study has already been done and paid for by TfL, so another study is not needed. It is unclear as to whether there will be some compromise arrangements implemented before December, or whether this will become the ultimate political football between Westminster and the Mayor (except that there is another contender).
The TfL board Programmes and Investment Committee have requested an update about Oxford Street for their next meeting so the situation should then become clearer.
CS11 cycle superhighway
To some extent the delays and problems with the Underground and London Overground are less fundamental to the current Mayor’s Transport Strategy than they were to previous mayors, as Sadiq Khan is placing a lot of emphasis on healthier streets. That is why, in many ways, the failure to pedestrianise Oxford Street is probably a bigger blow to his strategy than many might think.
CS11 is arguably one of the more imaginative cycle superhighways. It utilises Regents Park in an endeavour to make it a truly pleasant cycling route. Critical to it is a changed, cycle-friendly remodelling of Swiss Cottage junction. The scheme also involves more segregation than a lot of the earlier schemes.
Not surprisingly this scheme has not gone down at all well with various sections of the community, with Swiss Cottage Junction being the future battleground.
Raising its ugly head in a similar way is a judicial challenge to Cycle Highway CS11. Not entirely surprisingly, this comes from TfL’s ‘frenemy’ – Westminster Council. This despite the fact that the critical part of the scheme, Swiss Cottage, does not lie within the City of Westminster.
The City of Westminster seems to have grasped that they have to select their grounds for a judicial review very carefully and have chosen to do it on the basis of making air quality worse. It does seem quite incredible that a proposal to encourage people to use their bikes more should be opposed on the grounds of causing the air quality to deteriorate. No doubt, in the short term, Westminster could have a case, but the argument for the long term will include such hypotheticals as the take-up of electric vehicles, the effect of the Mayor’s plan for an Ultra Low Emission Zone, removal of congestion charge exemptions for private hire vehicles and other factors difficult to quantify. In addition Westminster has to show not merely that they think it is a bad decision but that the Mayor could not reasonably have made such a decision.
What is also not known is the extent to which reduction of injuries and fatalities is a legitimate factor in the Swiss Cottage proposals. One suspects road safety trumps an alleged deterioration in air quality but maybe a judge would have to decide on that point.
Whatever happens, if this goes to court, London Reconnections hopes to have another fascinating day at the Royal Courts of Justice.
In Context
Although the TfL schemes mentioned seem to be having their problems, they need to be put in some kind of context. If the Elizabeth line opens on time on the 9th December 2018, even if some of the stations are in a bit of an unfinished state, then these delays elsewhere will be almost insignificant in the bigger scheme of things. The TfL transport estate is wide, varied and complex. The challenges they currently face – particularly in terms of finance – are great. In that regard, that many of the projects here are still progressing, albeit with issues, is a significant achievement in itself. That doesn’t mean those issues shouldn’t be highlighted, however – particularly with regards to the GOBLIN, which has the genuine potential to fall foul of the same logistical issues that have plagued Thameslink, albeit on a smaller scale.
It also needs to be borne in mind that the Mayor’s Transport Strategy has significant elements to do with healthier living and air quality. These are subjects that we have hardly touched on, yet a lot of preparatory work in these areas is taking place in the background. With another Mayor we may have had headlines about issues concerning railway improvements striking at the heart of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. With the current Mayor, this is still important, but some of the focus is elsewhere and the implementation of his Transport Policy needs to be seen against its broader context.
Jubilee Line – Canada Water…..
Even it the suggested improvements in service appear, there are still going to be difficulties, especially in the short distance between there & Surrey Quays, a longstanding problem. Platform lengths & capacities ( IIRC ) being the most obvious.
Victoria Line
At the “peak of the peak” Walthamstow Central is only just coping with the exit-loadings, & Highbury & Islington is getting very overcrowded below the ground, at all times – it reminds me of Holborn, say, 4 or 5 years ago …
Gospel Oak – Barking
The local press & councillors & MP’s along this route have also been increasingly unhappy, as delay follows delay, & new sets of problems emerge, with the latest, concerning the class 710’s being down to “paperwork” not going down well, I can assure you.
If, as suggested, the timetable is “dictated from above” as remaining unchanged, I predict further local outrage, especially given the long-overdue nature & expense already gone through.
CS11
It does seem quite incredible that a proposal to encourage people to use their bikes more should be opposed on the grounds of causing the air quality to deteriorate.
But, this has already actually happened, elsewhere in London, where supposedly “cycle-friendly” moves by a council has resulted in increased congestion & pollution on the major roads.
Be very careful what you wish for ….
I see that “TfL’s finances” are mentioned ……
Thanks for the summary. Does feel a little like death by a thousand cuts at the moment though…
Very interesting round-up. Minor typo in the Four lines modernisation section: “trail” period for trial period.
[Fixed. Thanks. PoP]
The section on CS11 is a bit garbled. The primary point of cycle schemes (and Healthy Streets in general) is *not* reducing deaths/injuries per se, but to make cycling palatable to a larger proportion of people, thus increasing capacity in terms of people moved per hour.
This usually requires reducing capacity for motor vehicles to some degree, which has the side benefit of making car journeys harder and therefore discouraging their use (which in places like Swiss Cottage/Hampstead, is mostly elective). This of course reduces overall pollution (which may or may not be offset by increased pollution from queueing traffic).
The goal is that there’s a net modal shift from car to bike (or foot).
So calling it a road safety scheme kind of misses the point.
Greg: resulted in increased congestion & pollution on the major roads.
I presume you’re referring to the early stats from the Waltham Forest schemes? The part you’ve missed out is that, once the rat runners were kicked out of the residential areas back on to the main roads, the *total* number of journeys made by car went down, and the neighbourhoods became infinitely nicer.
Graham,
Sorry if it is not clear. I am not disputing the intention of the Healthy Streets policy is as you describe. However, should it go to judicial review, then I was arguing that a benefit in road safety (a beneficial by-product of the main Healthy Streets objective) should be enough to justify the Mayor’s policy as a reasonable one to have. If this argument is accepted then one doesn’t even have to consider any issues regarding air quality – which I am sure over time will improve, as you suggest.
Graham,
Meant to add that if the Waltham Forest example shows that the long term effect is an improvement in air quality, as one would logically expect, no doubt TfL lawyers will be keen to use that as an example.
Personally, I suspect lawyers for Westminster Council will be advising the council not to take this case to court once they get into the detailed statistics and see how hard it is to present a plausible case. They will also become aware of how determined TfL is to fight this all the way.
Camden Town station upgrade
There was an upgrade scheme developed by LUL around 1993, I know because I worked on it.
The pedestrian flows for the proposed layouts (several proposals) were modelled in detail. From memory essentially there was a new entrance to the north of the current entrance. At the time it was considered necessary because the station was becoming overcrowded, particularly at weekends.
At the same time there was a scheme to fit escalators and/or reinstate the lifts at Finsbury Park.
Minor typo
North London line service improvements
3rd para
they many not wish to replace
[Fixed. Thanks. PoP]
Regarding Oxford Street: The Mayor could always just re-route the buses anyway…. As an experiment for example. To see how it affects traffic, over the next four years say. 😉
Gospel Oak – Barking
West Midlands Trains have told their customers that the new trains (and timetable improvements) won’t be arriving until May 2019 (Nuneaton-Coventry & Coventry-Leamington)
It makes sense to keep them in London until the new trains are ready as the existing 30 year old class 153s will keep going a little longer and the peak “overcrowding” is nothing like London levels.
I presume West Midlands Trains are being suitably compensated.
It might not be quite such a big scheme, but at least the remodelling of Highbury Corner is going ahead, with construction started. There’s talk of improving the tube station too, but I expect that’ll only happen if developer and/or council funding comes forward.
Peter Binnersley,
That is the first I have heard of that but in the current state of turmoil I could believe almost anything. I have subtly changed the wording of the article to allow for this possibility.
Great and thorough update! Do you or anyone else know what happened to the planned capacity increases on the Overground East London Line also? I had previously read that TFL planned to bolster services on this line and also on the South London link to Clapham Junction in the near term however however i’m assuming that the Class 710 delay has an impact on the 378 cascade and service increase? Any clarity would be welcome!
Islington Jim,
The East London line currently runs 16tph. I8tph is the absolute upper limit with the current signalling. The plan is to install ETCS ATO on the line in the early 2020s and run 20tph. For that they will require extra class 378 trains on the East London line so they need class 710 trains to displace the class 378 trains elsewhere.
In fact, in this particular case, for TfL the delay of the class 710 trains is a benefit. Due to wanting to buy them on existing advantageous terms they had to buy them a couple of years earlier than they wanted to. So they (or the class 378 they displace) won’t be hanging around for so long.
But the short answer is, even with the train delivery delays they will have the necessary trains a long time before the signalling is ready.
No mention of buses. The steady reduction in frequency over a significant number of routes cannot help the modal shift towards public transport – indeed, it could well induce a shift in the opposite direction !
@ PoP – interesting summary. A few remarks.
GOBLIN – the curse of writing an article strikes again. Another forum is reporting that two class 710 EMUs are now at Willesden so some positive movement. Whether that means they can now run on NR or have simply been moved to ease storage issues at Derby is unclear. There are also comments that class 345s all have a technician on board every time they run to fix any “in service” problems and to gather data. That’s going to become a stretch for Bombardier if they also need techies on class 710s as well!
Cycle schemes – it is worth noting that TfL are quietly implementing a stealth policy of cutting back bus routes where cycle schemes are in place or are planned. Bus routes running through Swiss Cottage (CS11) have been cut back in frequency over the last 10 months or so – 31, 268, C11, 187 plus all the main Finchley Rd trunk routes. Just waiting to see if the 46 gets a chop when it goes electric. Chiswick High Rd (CS9) is also having its routes rationalised and reduced – 27 to go entirely, 391 reduced, E3 reduced plus wider Crossrail related cuts. Waltham Forest has had no end of cuts and more are rumoured including the loss of a trunk route on Lea Bridge Rd. I would also seriously question any so called air quality improvements – the main road 2 mins from my house has worse peak time congestion than its had in the last 20 years. I’m sure Walthamstow Village is all very lovely but that does nothing for me.
TfL finances – I am pleased you have mentioned this repeatedly. To me this is the real “bogey man” behind all these delays. TfL and the former Deputy Mayor are on public record as saying this and the next financial year are “very tough” (polite speak for nearly impossible) and this MUST be the reason why so much work is delayed / rephased. There is no financial flexibility to support additional investment spend and any variance (and there are loads of them) to project timing and spend must give the TfL finance people kittens. Every week that a saving is delayed, expected revenue does not materialise or an extra cost is racking up makes TfL’s finances harder. Any roll over or dislocation into the next financial year makes that year even worse and threatens what increasingly looks like a very thin layer of “delivery” of the Mayor’s schemes. This leaves the Mayor looking more than a little vulnerable on transport issues regardless of how much hooplah is generated about Crossrail. It strikes me TfL are completely desperate for a return to RPI level annual fare increases which should kick in from 2021 (unless politics dictates otherwise).
Westminster CC – I think what we are seeing here is a pretty political attack on the vulnerabilities of Mayoral powers vs Mayoral rhetoric. You all know my views about Oxford St and what happened was entirely predictable. I agree the CS11 challenge is much more difficult but it causes delay and it forces TfL to incur legal costs it can ill afford. It also delays the scheme which pushes into the realms of election related challenge and further delay. As I’ve suggested before WCC have found one of the Mayor’s weaknesses and they are going all out to exploit that. If nothing else it is showing the Mayor is far from invulnerable even if the Tory Party is really struggling to find a credible candidate for May 2020.
Buses – obviously TfL are not going to go all out to advertise cuts to the bus network in their official papers. Needless to say they are happening and will have to accelerate if TfL are to achieve their planned 7% cut in network mileage. The Oxford St pedestrianisation challenge has blown a set of planned changes for Sept “out of the water” which will have dislocated later phases of cuts and redeployment of buses. In order to “catch up” TfL will have to accelerate and deepen the scale of changes across the rest of London. Expect to see some political fireworks when the Boroughs and other campaigners eventually twig what is going on with all these so called “unconnected” frequency changes etc which actually span across route corridors and boroughs. It remains to be seen whether the already delayed “Bus Strategy Update” due last May is actually made public come December (as per the minutes of the relevant TfL Committee).
Graham @ 11.07
Yes, there.
Most of the so-called “Rat runners” were in fact people who live there doing their first or last mile down the back-streets they know. Meanwhile the amazingly acrimonious debate rages on …..
Modal shift – approximately zero, as far as I can see, but that is anecdata & not to be relied upon.
Frankie Roberto
Thank You – for mentioning the proposed rebuild of H&I station – IIRC it involved partial or full re-opening of the old entrance on the East side of Holloway Road as seen here with extra lifts etc.
Can’t happen soon enough from my p.o.v. but it will have to get into the cash-limited queue, won’t it?
Can someone please explain what a “pixie buster” is? Is it unique to the GOBLIN? Are there any other mythical beings lurking on the Overground?
GOBLIN 172s:
1 unit is away for examination by the ROSCO / WMT as regards retrofitting a toilet (they were designed to be easy to retrofit for a planned life after GOBLIN. What WMT could really use is more EMUs in the short term (an electrification extension is going into passenger use a week Sunday) which will liberate some DMUs locally in the West Midlands.
WMT got clobbered with the non December TT change so blessing for Goblin users?
(GOBLIN 710s)
2nd now delivered to TfL so expect a couple more delivered and a couple of weeks of driver & maintenance staff training before anything moves
Re LostinMiddlesex
An old acronym
PIxC =Passengers In eXcess of capacity
PIxC buster is an extra service to pick up all the passengers left standing on the platform
Re WW,
“There are also comments that class 345s all have a technician on board every time they run to fix any “in service” problems and to gather data. That’s going to become a stretch for Bombardier if they also need techies on class 710s as well!”
Siemens often had several seen sitting in the first class just behind the drivers cab with laptops out, their presence seem now much reduced. It is all about data as regards software fixes required, maintenance issues (data for predictive maintenance) and increasing driver quick fix know how.
Is anything happening at the moment with the Barking Riverside extension?
Herned,
The document you need for questions like that one is here. Just search for ‘Barking Riverside Extension’ for your answer.
@ Ngh – does your remark re class 710s mean they have type approval or is that still awaited? If the latter I assume the move to Willesden is in the expectation of imminent approval and to give Litchurch Lane a tiny bit of breathing space re production line and storage of completed trains.
@PoP
Thanks for the link, I do skim those when they come out. What I should have asked is – is it in danger of slipping backwards as well as lots of the other ‘minor’ projects?
TfL’s Gospel Oak-Barking twitter feed stated on June 20 that the new trains would be introduced “this November”. The pictures look nice!
@ Walthamstow Writer
TfL are quietly cutting bus services basically everywhere. What makes you think there’s a correlation with cycle schemes?
@ Greg
The only place I’ve heard the H&I GN&C entrance reopening proposed recently is from the people opposing who were Highbury Corner works as a random suggestion for what the money should be spent on instead. I don’t think it’s in the right place to provide either step free access or significant extra capacity.
Are the Pixies on the Goblin a problem for Elf n Safety? I’m sure some solution could be kobold together.
The claim that segregated cycle provision is behind an increase in pollution has been peddled by Lord Winston and the black cab lobby. They have been repeatedly challenged to provide scientific evidence to back up this claim and have never done so. Winston, with his background in science, should know better. Other TfL studies (as previously mentioned on these forums) suggest the explosion of private hire vehicles and delivery vans are more likely to be behind increased congestion and pollution.
Andrew Gilligan was/is a decisive [divisive?] character but was able to bang heads together (even with Westminster) to get the original cycle schemes through – resulting in vastly increased efficiency of road space usage on those routes. (You get many many more cyclists across a junction than you do cars). Look at the cycle counter on the embankment – the numbers using this route are going up by the day. I haven’t seen numbers for Waltham Forest but in central London there are lots of stats showing modal shift to cycling.
This mayor has achieved virtually nothing on cycle / walking provision (much aspiration and press release, precious little delivery). He doesn’t seem to appreciate that you can’t please everyone and that some people will oppose his schemes. At some stage, he will have to stick his head above the parapet if he wants tangible progress on healthy streets.
Less than a third of households in inner London have access to a car – yet many local councils and councillors act as if every journey is dependent on a car.
@Graham
I believe the H&I GN&C entrance is in the right place to provide step free access to the deep level platforms by virtue of the fact that it is directly above them. The ideal step free experience being a street-level ticket hall that you can roll into, and a single lift that takes you all the way down to platform level.
Usefully, at the GN&C site I understand there’s also scope to create a subsurface link tunnel under the road to platform 8, where step-free interchangers from the deep lines could take the present lift up to the existing ticket hall.
@ Graham – I have lived through the monstrous mess that befell the bus network in Walthamstow as a result of Mini Holland works. TfL tried to keep bus services working during the work and failed. They then had to come along and rewrite the schedules to allow vastly more running time. Where they could not incur existing cost to maintain frequencies they simply reduced the frequencies. This was on routes I use so I know first hand. I also had this issue confirmed by a senior TfL manager who attended a local “event” near the Bus Station in Walthamstow. That person said that TfL had been given conflicting objectives from City Hall and that cycling schemes had been the priority despite the knock on consequences to bus services and bus performance.
There was enormous damage done to bus ridership, journey times and performance during the cycle superhighway (CSH) works in Central London. TfL incurred massive additional costs to somehow struggle to maintain service levels and they spent a lot of money to achieve very little. I expect that taught them a rather important lesson when faced with very tight finances. You do what you can to take out as much resource as you can get away with before hand to avoid additional costs later. It is also worth noting that previously TfL added resource to maintain frequencies during disruptive works. Now it just widens the headway to avoid extra costs. Worse if it “gets away” with no obvious impact to the service it then embeds that lower frequency on a permanent basis after the road works have finished. There are multiple examples of this.
I keep track of all bus network changes. Take it from me that there are definite concentrations of changes to the network to remove resource from routes that would otherwise be severely impacted by CSH works. TfL are doing this *in advance* of the works to avoid excessive additional costs. A rationalisation of the network also eases the scale of some works by reducing the number of bus stops needed – I expect this will be a key factor in the Chiswick High Road works. Obviously I am NOT in possession of any TfL strategy papers to evidence what I am saying. I am just drawing a conclusion from what I have seen / am seeing happen. If you disagree with me then that’s entirely fine.
Anywhere that gets cycle superhighway / mini holland works ends up with a reduced bus service in consequence. How that fits with the supposed “healthy streets” commitments in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy is beyond me. Healthy streets is supposed to *improve* public transport services but we’ve not seen any of that in Waltham Forest. Only one route has seen an improvement – the W16 on Sunday daytimes. Other proposed enhancements were shelved and many other routes have had frequency cuts with more planned. We also have the utter nonsense of buses being diverted away from the main bus station and a main alighting stop at the tube / train station being scrapped just so a cycle lane can be built. You will excuse if I am not just a tad jaded by this sort of rubbish.
Highbury & Islington entrance reopening
http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/revealed-plans-to-re-open-old-highbury-and-islington-station-1-5133291
The Northern City line out of Moorgate opened a totally separate station on the other side of the road in 1904. When the Victoria line opened in 1968 the Northern City line entrance closed.
QI – TfL’s list of busiest places in London, around 35million travellers a year (four times the level mentioned in the study for the council in 1995), and H&I is now the ninth busiest rail interchange in the UK.
@HERNED Is anything happening at the moment with the Barking Riverside extension?
TfL investment report Quarter 4 2017/18
On the Barking Riverside extension, work to relocate the ramp and two overhead line structures, and demolish the redundant Ripple Lane diesel depot building was completed
during possessions over Easter 2018.
Construction of the 4.5km Barking Riverside extension is set to start in summer 2018.
Forecast completion year 2021, Spend to date £20m.
We issued the invitation to tender for the main works on 13 April.
The delay was due, primarily, to some design complexities. However, we have reviewed the programme and identified opportunities to mitigate this delay, and the overall project completion date is not at risk.
@Aleks
What is QI?
As a general point, could commentators please use station names, and write out full technical terms at least once before using the acronyms.
It’s a big UK show with Stephen Fry – Quite Interesting
as an aside I had not realised that interchange was already a Top 10, before the Night Tube service reached that far and full planned frequency is not completely operational.
@Greg T:
At the “peak of the peak” Walthamstow Central is only just coping with the exit-loadings
Some funding from the London Growth Fund was announced in May for a second entrance to Walthamstow, as well as a new station building at Colindale.
@Greg T: Modal shift – approximately zero, as far as I can see, but that is anecdata & not to be relied upon.
An increase of 9 minutes per person per week in cycling, and 32 minutes per person per week in walking, in mini-holland ‘high-dose’ areas vs non-mini-holland boroughs.
@WW: I agree the CS11 challenge is much more difficult but it causes delay and it forces TfL to incur legal costs it can ill afford
If Westminster City Council lose then it is they who will be paying TfL’s legal costs.
Ian J
Excuse the sarcasm, but that is not what one would call a huge improvement, is it?
Certainly not for all the aggravation & local discomforts that WW so-eloquently describes.
Never mind the cost to local businesses & those who rely on taxis, because they can barely walk ( E.G. One of my near-neighbours, who is now paying almost-double in fares & taking longer to go very short direct distances that can no longer be traversed: 1490 metres, as opposed to 615, actually )
@ Ian J – the money announced for Walthamstow is a paltry £15m. There is not yet a firm commitment from the developer to make provision for a basement access point in the expansion of Selborne Walk shopping centre. To construct a properly fitted out ticket hall, connecting corridor and lift will cost a great deal more than £15m. I can’t see a lot of money coming in from the developer which leaves TfL to find the cash. I don’t see where that’s going to come from. The thing Walthamstow Central really needs is a third escalator but no sign of that materialising.
And just to make things even worse the proposed changes to bus stopping arrangements will force many more people to alight in the bus station rather the preceding alighting only stop. This will then force people down two long and deep staircases and to the gateline with the least capacity. This will cause peak time overcrowding and queues while gates stand under utilised in the surface Overground ticket hall buildings. You couldn’t make this nonsense up.
No mention of Croxley-Watford. Or is that dead?
I’m very happy pedestrianisation of Oxford Street is postponed – TfL were going to use it as an excuse to ravage local bus routes without any adequate replacement.
And that’s in the area that already experienced severe cuts. The geniuses at TfL used night tube on Jubilee as an excuse to 50% night buses reduction on *all* nights of the week, resulting in 139 being full even at 3-4am on weekdays.
At time of writing there is no news of Network Rail giving Class 710 type approval. 710256 has been at the NR Asfordby test centre since last December and is still there. 710261 was towed to Willeden TMD for TfL’s pointless ‘press launch’ and then towed back to Derby. 710262 & 710263 are now at Willesden but this seems to merely to help create some space at a cluttered Derby! When type certification is received each set will have to accumulate 2,000 fault free miles before TfL/ARL will accept it. Drivers need to complete a four day conversion course, NR has to gauge clear all the routes they are to be used on, depot staff have to learn how to maintain them, all to be done before a passenger can set foot on one.
Apparently the 378s are to receive a ‘710’ type refresh, with same external livery (retaining yellow fronts) and new style moquette.
@Greg: To quote from the article:
The research found that after one year, people living in parts of such boroughs were, on average, walking and cycling for 41 minutes a week more than those living in comparable areas.
I read that as including non-cyclists. In which case some people may well qualify for honourary Dutch citizenship…
That is not all:
the bigger increase in active travel came on foot – an extra 32 minutes weekly on average, with nine more minutes by bike.
So while I appreciate that some people may have some difficulty moving around, it would seem to be working on the whole.
@John Thorn
re Croxley:
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/the-metropolitan-line-extension-deadline-day/
Essentially, parliamentary powers to build a railway lapse unless a certain amount of work is done before a specified expiry date. It would take at least six months to do enough work to qualify, but in the absence of an agreement over funding (and in particular underwriting any (further) cost over-runs), what little work that had been done in 2017 has stopped, and the expiry date is now only a few weeks away.
Another over-running project, although hardly of Bloomberg proportions: it seems that public services out of Paddington by Class 802s, which were to have started last Monday, have also slipped:
https://www.railmagazine.com/news/fleet/gwr-west-of-england-class-802s-enter-traffic-from-july-16 (report in April)
http://www.tauntontrains.co.uk/news (report last weekend)
Hopefully the free cold showers in First Class which accompanied the launch of the Class 800s will not be repeated
We have two resident prolific commentors here expressing significant negative observations about the mini-holland scheme in Waltham Forest and (please correct me if I am mistaken here) no-one admitting to living in the area and approving of it. Or course this does not nullify outside reports claiming benefits, but presumably there must be some local people who are happy with it. It would be good to hear from such people, if any of them are reading these comments.
Thanks for such a comprehensive article, as ever excellent.
One question: does anyone know why the only bus maps now published are the spider maps and the ‘key bus routes in central London’ (which actually excludes some very useful routes)? Now living outside London, I like to check my journeys which, often, are not in central London. The unofficial London bus routes site is very comprehensive but, sadly, no map.
I cannot speak for LBWF, but the other mini-Holland scheme, in Kingston, seems to me to be effective and, apart from lane closures during the construction phase, not having a severe effect on traffic in general, or buses in particular. If anyone has experience of both projects, it would be interesting to see whether there have been differences in planning, execution, or use of the finished product.
https://www.kingston.gov.uk/info/200382/go/1258/go_developments/2
One major glitch was on the day the main road under the station was closed to allow removal of the old footbridge spanning it (it is to be replaced by a much wider one, suitable for cyclists as well as pedestrians). Because of the proximity to the railway this operation had to be done on a day when the railway was also closed. Unfortunately the arrangements for rail replacement bus services failed to take the road closure into account, necessitating an unscheduled detour of seven miles (via Richmond or Esher) to get from Hampton Wick to Kingston, less than half a mile apart).
@ SHLR – it is no wonder the volume of walking has increased in Waltham Forest. Buses are now so slow and at times unreliable it makes more sense to walk. Of course no one set out in policy terms that buses would be made worse to use in order to force people to walk but that’s the result. My bus usage locally has declined hugely as have my overall trips. All the cycle works have done for me is make me travel less and I have no recourse to a car and refuse to use taxis. I may be an exception to the general rule but that’s how things are.
@ Malcolm – An unusual plea for positive comment there. Perhaps there is nothing to be positive about?
@ PeterR – TfL scrapped the publication of paper bus maps and even stopped production of a version that could be provided as a pdf on the website. I understand this was a money saving move by TfL despite it being widely criticised. I made sure I saved pdf copies of the last published version and I see refer to them regularly despite parts of them being out of date. The website based representation of bus routes overlaid on Google maps is dreadful as it relies on prior route knowledge to be of any benefit. TfL’s decision to end its bus map contract with FWT (map producers) caused that company to collapse although parts of the business were subsequently bought by another firm.
If you are not aware then a privately produced printed map is available via http://www.busmap.co.uk but there is a charge for a download or paper copy. Paper copies are also on sale at the LT Museum. It is a good alternative. I think the loss of the paper bus map is one of the most ludicrous decisions taken under this Mayoralty’s tenure of TfL.
@Peterr
The disappearance of the comprehensive maps is discussed here
https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2017/09/quadrant-bus-maps.htmlans
http://tangytango.proboards.com/thread/10107/quadrant-bus-maps
Cost-cutting apparently – the cartographer’s contract has not been renewed. Now TfL only provide maps showing one route at a time, or all routes from (but not to) a given stop (ignoring other stops a few yards away). Imagine the storm if the Tube map were to be replaced by individual line-specific and platform-specific (not even station-specific!) diagrams.
However, private enterprise has filled the gap. https://www.shop.busmap.co.uk/
He has been producing them since 1995, and is now in the 37th Edition (dated April – and changes to routes made since publication are listed on the website).
Originally updated two or three times a year, but during the period they were available on TfL’s website (from c 2005) updates became less frequent, petering out in about 2014. Thankfully Mr Harris resumed the series last year following the demise of the TfL version.
Oh dear – someone hasn’t properly phrased the latest update section on the delivery of class 710 trains in the TfL Commissioner’s Report.
The first new trains will be in passenger service by November this year and will run between Gospel Oak and Barking, doubling capacity and replacing trains that are 35 years old.
There must be a time warp on the GOBLIN if someone thinks the class 172s are 35 years old. Obviously I know that class 315s will be replaced on the West Anglia routes but there is no mention of this anywhere in the relevant paragraphs.
Re Jubilee Line …. this came to me by email…
“Dear ….,
We have recently made some changes to the Jubilee line at Stratford station, reducing the amount of time trains wait on platforms before disembarking on their next journey.
This is due to the introduction of the new Jubilee timetable, which now means we have 30 trains per hour running through central London during peak times.
As a result, as one Jubilee line train arrives at Stratford another will depart, except at the quietest times of the day. In order to operate this more frequent service, we only use platforms 14 and 15 for these trains.
We chose these adjacent platforms for customer convenience. Any customer who just misses a train can simply cross over to the opposite side of the platform where the next train will be departing soon after, rather than having to go via the footbridge or back to the concourse for platform 13.
We hope these changes have had a positive impact on your journey to and from Stratford station.
Yours sincerely,
Kerri Rogan
Head of Line operations, Jubilee line”
@ ANONONONON 22:08
I believe the H&I GN&C entrance is in the right place to provide step free access to the deep level platforms by virtue of the fact that it is directly above them. The ideal step free experience being a street-level ticket hall that you can roll into, and a single lift that takes you all the way down to platform level.
Highbury and Islington has two separate island platforms (paired by direction), only one of which existed when the GN&C building was constructed. So it can only possibly be above the southbound platforms.
Also – are you certain they go all the way to platform level rather than having stairs like most other lift-served underground stations? (A brief search doesn’t turn up any indication one way or the other)
@Greg Tingy
One of my near-neighbours, who is now paying almost-double in fares & taking longer to go very short direct distances that can no longer be traversed: 1490 metres, as opposed to 615
If this were Holland they’d be using a bicycle*, tricycle or mobility scooter for such journeys, using the traffic-calmed streets and cycle tracks.
(* note many people who can’t walk well are able to use bicycles of one form or another – there’s a charity devoted to enabling this in the UK https://wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk )
Reading this article, informative as always, I just think to myself: does this happen in other countries? Somehow I just can’t believe it does. All this scrimping for resources and woeful project management and spin. I’ve lived in six European countries apart from the UK and projects may or may not have gone through the same hurdles. I don’t know because I didn’t know enough about it. But most capital cities seem to run beautifully in comparison. I would be interested to know if any readers from outside the UK can offer any comparisons. I often read the Finnish and Swedish press and something like a points failure makes the national news!
@Giovanni: well, there are a couple of infrastructure catastrophes that I know of in Europe at the moment – Berlin Brandenburg Airport, which was originally scheduled to open in 2011 and is now officially targeted at Autumn 2020, and the Amsterdam Metro’s North/South line, also planned for 2011 but now on course to open this Sunday!
The collection of smaller issues here in London though makes me worry a bit – perhaps excessively – that if it isn’t addressed, we could end up like the New York subway which is literally falling apart.
@Malcolm
We also need to distinguish between commentators who are relying (usually honestly and openly) on anecdotal and circumstantial evidence (which may or may not be causal) and those who are relying on more objective research.
quinlet: Indeed. Neither of these categories should be neglected, and I was not intending to denigrate either source. We are lucky to have both kinds of comment, and people who make it perfectly clear where they are coming from.
SHLR
You are probably correct …
I am walking more & cycling slightly less ….
[ A couple of LBWF’s cycling alterations, very close to home have actually made cycling worse, not better, what a suprise ]
See also WW’s comment about walking being easier (!)
Malcom
AFAIK the only people making favourable comments are LBWF themseleves & Cycling Lobby groups not based locally – but that may not be a complete picture, of course – more anectdata, unfortunately.
WW
On Bus Maps – I have protested to TfL & got the usual brush-off that “We know best” I’m afraid….
Graham
“If this were Holland …”
Stop right there ..
She cannot walk more than about 20 metres & cannot cycle.
This is the EXACT fake argument used by the cycling lobby … I will refrain from further comment, as this is a “family magazine” OK?
Giovannii
Really
See you Berlin Willy Brandt/Schönefeld airport &/or U/S-bahn to Tegel & raise you (!)
My earlier comment. I did indeed intend to describe Andrew Gilligan as divisive. Blasted predictive decided to amend the text when I wasn’t paying 110% attention to my proof reading and substituted decisive, which is probably also true, but not the word I wanted,
Apologies for the confusion.
I do share the concern raised by many in the comments above that buses are becoming less of a viable option because journey times are so much longer. There are probably multiple causes (not forgetting the 20mph limits in many boroughs). What frustrates me is that there are so many places where bus priority / bus lanes could be introduced to improve bus speeds – but tfl and boroughs seem unwilling to do this as this would require removal of parking / loading bays. Lack of joined up thinking because many boroughs rely on parking revenue?
Other countries have their issues – e.g. taking several years for the transport inspectorate allow new U-Bahn trains (and trams, I think) in Munich to enter service, causing indefinite delays to much needed timetable improvements while the rolling stock sits idle. They are lucky to reach 24tph (spread over 2 lines sharing a track) in the high peak. It also took years for Bavaria to agree their part of the financing of the 2nd S-Bahn core section (now under construction) while traffic on the existing one has become increasingly unreliable due to ageing infrastructure.
Huge amounts elsewhere written about New York.
Mods
@TIMBEAU
bus map link broken should be
https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2017/09/quadrant-bus-maps.html
@Malcolm:
It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.
Niccolo Macchiavelli, The Prince.
@ Giovanni – it may look bad to you but London is in a very peculiar position in having to fund an enormous transport network with a rapidly declining level of revenue support. Investment spend from central government is also declining with more emphasis on money raised locally. Nowhere else in Europe or the USA operates their public transport on this basis. I’d also make the point that the numbers moved in, around and to / from London on an average working day are very high compared to many other cities.
The Hong Kong MTR used to have an exemplary reputation for running an operating surplus coupled with very high levels of operational performance and project delivery. However in recent years the effect of ageing assets has impacted performance and project delivery has gone askew for a variety of reasons. So even the best can come a cropper. Similar problems have occurred in Singapore which also had an enviable reputation for its MRT metro system.
There have been terrible problems with the operational performance of some RER lines in Paris. There has been vacilation over project priorities. Some of the suburban tram routes have been late. There are already rumours that the vaunted Grand Metro orbital lines are late and over budget and construction has barely started. Rome has horrendous problems with its bus fleet with unserviceable vehicles, buses catching fire and a lack of money and political commitment to fund fleet replacement over many years. There are also loads of examples of abandoned tram routes, unfinished investment plans etc in Italy. Even in Japan I’ve experienced train delays due to severe rain – that was quite a surprise given everything said about how “perfect” Japanese train services are.
Every country has its problems with transport schemes, funding, project implementation, day to day operation. As visitors we are unlikely to spot the problems and grumbles that regular users experience. We all grumble about TfL and there are undoubted problems now and others being stacked up for the future but I doubt many large urban transport organisations could do the job TfL does with so little money / external revenue support.
In light of the comment provided by Peter Binnersley concerning West Midlands Railway and a helpful link provided by Graham Feakins about West Midlands Railway not introducing a new timetable in December I have further reworded the article to take this into account and downplay the likelihood that a serious problem will develop on Goblin without the new trains.
Hungary is notorious for corruption and incompetence in infrastructure projects – like the controversies over the latest Budpaest metro line.
[It is clear from this end that there was intended to be a link embedded. We sometimes get this from different commenters. If you get an embedded link wrong then it gets removed and never arrives at this end. So either supply the link ‘in clear’ or test it (right click on it in the formatted text for example) otherwise you risk it disappearing. PoP]
@ Quinlet – I do hope that we are not heading to a post scoring system or a subtle process of ignoring comment from those of who sometimes offer opinion rather than reams of evidence or official studies. I note Malcolm’s reply to you but I am concerned by your comment.
@Briantist:
In order to operate this more frequent service, we only use platforms 14 and 15
An interesting example of how a more frequent service can actually need less infrastructure.
@Greg T:
Stop right there
Maybe you should have continued reading his comment and seen the words “mobility scooter”?
Briantist, Ian J
An interesting example of how a more frequent service can actually need less infrastructure.
It is more a case of trading off one resource against another. Trains are more critical on the Jubilee line than drivers. So you can optimise train use by utilising more drivers and stepping back (or stepping back more – I am not sure which).
Its the same at Morden which, I believe, only uses two of the three platform roads when stepping back (Morden has five platforms and three platform roads).
A different example could be where a four track railway going down to two track is replaced by a two track railway throughout. It may well increase capacity due to the simpler nature of the service but it does so at the expense of not providing both a fast and an all-stations service – think of the Metropolitan line north of Baker St.
Greg: As you say, the apparent lack of local positives is indeed anecdata, but worse, it is also subject to the adage that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. However, my call for any satisfied customers to speak up was probably a mistake, since “no reply” proves absolutely nothing – significant though the audience is for this site, it is probably not large enough for such exercises.
When the “cycling lobby” (or anyone else) draws attention to the fact that many people with disabilities can nevertheless use cycles, it is not a fake argument, as no claim is normally made that everyone can cycle. Anyway, the argument made here included the significant addition “or mobility scooter”. Of course this might also be impossible for your neighbour, for a range of reasons, but Graham’s suggestion was unobjectionable.
Walthamstow Writer,
I do hope that we are not heading to a post scoring system or a subtle process of ignoring comment from those of who sometimes offer opinion rather than reams of evidence or official studies.
Opinion that is clearly opinion is generally not an issue although it sometimes can be for various reasons. Well-intended opinion (as judged by us, not the author) is not normally a problem though what I regard as primarily mud-slinging tends not to get approved by us.
What is often a major problem with a very small minority is when they present stuff as fact and we know jolly well that it is not true however convinced the person involved is otherwise. We not only stamp heavily on that but also treat anything unsubstantiated by that individual with deep suspicion and tend not to appove it.
References are always good when appropriate and give a comment more credibility. As a general rule in life analytical evidence always trumps anecdotal evidence.
WW: no point scoring system will apply here. Official studies are important, but (a) they are not necessarily correct just because they are official, and (b) they may sometimes answer a different question to the one being discussed here.
Of course quinlet, or anyone else, can put forward their own meta-arguments about how much weight should be given to particular categories of evidence. But I don’t think we should get too hung up on this. We have a discriminating audience, who can form their own judgment of who or what to believe.
The July Commissioner’s Report offers one explicit and one implied piece of information on station upgrade progress. Step-free access to all lines at Victoria will be “completed in Summer 2018” (Informed Sources law applies, but an improvement on December as mentioned above), but significantly no opening date is offered for the Bank Bloomberg entrance.
Ian J: Thank you for the Macchiavelli quote, which is pertinent to this issue and to many others. It would be good if it were so well-known as to have a handy abbreviation (“losers shout louder” or something, although that does not capture all of it).
To return to my point about studies maybe answering a different question. The study quoted clearly indicates that, in a mini-holland area, people are walking significantly more. (And cycling, but I’m concentrating on the walking). The question then arises as to the extent to which extra walking is down to a worse bus service. If that is the only cause, then the claimed health benefits could have been achieved (much more cheaply) by not pouring any concrete anywhere, just taking some buses away!
Of course I am vastly over-simplifying a complex argument here.
Considering the state of London’s transport in the 1980s – we all have a good example of what happens here when public transport is underfunded. Not a theory, but a historic example.
Jubilee could get trains to fit from the Northern when trains are next being added there. Ten trains would make eight with a trailer added, and four end cars discarded. Different systems to the main fleet would be a complication.
I am a Waltham Forest resident and I my opinion is the mini Holland changes have been very positive. I don’t live in Walthamstow Village and I’m not a cycling lobbyist.
Removing traffic from residential areas has made them far more pleasant places for walking and cycling. There are children playing in the street far more regularly these days, which is a joy to see.
Junction improvements to remove curbs makes it easier to get around if your pushing a buggy, or for a child riding a scooter. I’m sure these are equally useful for mobility impairments both temporary or permanent.
The segregated cycle lanes are not very near me yet, but I look forward to using them when they are. My son has just started to cycle, and we will be able to travel further and to more places using them.
Some of those who feel they have lost out in some way voice their opinions loudly and regularly. I’m just enjoying what we have and I’m very impressed with the local politicians who have a positive vision of change and are willing to see it through despite hearing so much about those strongly held opinions.
Of course, this is just my opinion and experience. But we have been data presented on the changes to people’s lifestyles, I was not surveyed but I am part of that change too.
@Malcom
In software development, the issue of “authentic change” is sometimes quoted as
All authentic change goes through four stages. Anticipation is the exciting stage of change where we anticipate the benefits and make our transformating plans. Regression is when things get worse before they get better. Breakthrough is when we finally see the light at the end of the proverbial tunnel. Consolidation is when we turn the benefits of change into business as usual.
If project dates are slipping without any reaction or objection from the TfL committee, then one has to ask whether the board members are performing their (presumably handsomely paid) job properly.
Also, how come some projects are never mentioned in TfL papers, eg Crossrail works at Whitechapel or the Finsbury Park upgrade? I don’t think the Tower Hill step free access even got a look-in either.
James? What’s the issue at Tower Hill. I thought step free was introduced there a couple of years ago?
My point is not that there was an issue with the scheme, but that it was almost never mentioned in the TfL papers whilst construction was ongoing. I’m just curious what the criteria for inclusion is.
Laney
FYI: Junction “improvements” to remove kerbs makes it very difficult for blind/partally-sighted people – & the guide dogs are horribly confused.
The cycling “improvements” in at least 2 places have made it worse for people on 2 wheels [ A complete blockage & a serious, dangerous “pinch” respectively. ]
As stated I’m probably walking more & cycling less ( & I live just outside “the village” )
The local politican mainly responsible tried to close our wonderful museums & libraries…..
James
The Finsbury Pk works appear to be grinding onwards, though I have no idea as to their adherence to any schedules.
Greg Tingey,
Junction “improvements” to remove kerbs makes it very difficult for blind/partially-sighted people – & the guide dogs are horribly confused.
Not for the first time I think you have that you have rather missed the point. The idea is to create an environment where motorists drive slower and drivers are more aware of their surroundings and do not have a presumed priority. At 20mph with traffic calming measures there really is no reason for a driver not to be aware of a blind person with a guide dog and give them priority. And if they do get hit, the injuries should be less severe.
Just because the kerb is removed, it doesn’t mean that there should not be the tactile strip indicating a crossing point – as often seen on cycle paths.
Often blind people find kerbs very difficult to negotiate as they have no idea of the depth. I speak from someone who has a blind aunt who had a guide dog for many years.
The cycling “improvements” in at least 2 places have made it worse for people on 2 wheels [ A complete blockage & a serious, dangerous “pinch” respectively. ]
This is exactly the sort of comment which is not helpful. It is an unsubstantiated opinion about a place that we do not even know where it is. The is also a tendency for you comments to be far too parochial. It is after all London Reconnections not Walthamstow Reconnections. It is then followed by something completely irrelevant.
As a small point, could I remind people that the UK spelling of the bit between the pavement and the road is KERB. I will curb any comments containing a misspelt (ie American) spelling.
A change that makes people walk and cycle more may not have them glorying in their new found exercise. It may be out of necessity, and they curse their increased journey times and tiredness. And studies that trumpet %age modal changes may ignore all the abandoned journeys as commutes become untenable and social activities abandoned.
Customer satisfaction is key, but hard to measure, and @Briantist’s stages of changes is all very well, but we all know in software of changes made because developers feel like it, and the final stage is resignation.
As almost a lifelong employee on the Northern Line and having writen a book on my experienecs titled ‘Automating the Northern Line’. Whilst the new signalling has increaced the flow of traffic, my attention towards the Brixton Extention and the failure to add a reversing loop for speedier turn rounds for a two platform terminus. The fear is the common one, wrong way round stock. Now that uncoupling is no longer applied to service traffic, had this been applied it would have been simplere to operate a one on one Brixton-Kennington service in order to keep the ‘A’s facing north.
Naturally the expence of building such loops when there was a cheaper way in placing stress on driver control staff?
James,
In theory, the Commissioner can chose what he wants to write about in his report. The Investment Programme Report generally reports on packages of work that were previously approved with a specific overall budget and timetable.
Not all packages are broken down into their components – especially when individual elements are quite small. So Tower Hill step free is part of the Accessibility programme and Whitechapel is part of Crossrail.
This can lead to quite major sub-projects not being specifically mentioned and relatively small projects being reported on in a level of detail not entirely justified.
Another project which seems to be off the radar is the second entrance at Limehouse DLR station which is starting to have a ‘Bloomberg entrance’ feel about it.
The issue of displaced traffic has always stymied Oxford Street. It’s the same for Soho. I was involved (as a graduate) on a study for Westminster of pedestrianisation in 1994/5. We couldn’t work out how to deal with servicing trips for the businesses – and the diversion of traffic from Wardour Street/Dean Street. (In the same job my boss put in the “all-red” phase for pedestrians at Oxford Circus one December and caused gridlock for buses back to Marble Arch – that’s another story).
The only road which provides full east-west coverage comparable to Oxford Street is Euston Road/Marylebone Road – and that’s a long way north.
PoP
IF tactile strips had been put in, that would probably have improved matters – but – they have not been installed.
I could give the locations & details, but, as you say this is not “Waltham Forest Reconnections”
Greg Tingey,
As with a lot of what TfL does, you have to distinguish between something which is a bad idea and something that is a good idea but badly implemented. If it is the latter then the solution is to implement it properly not get rid of it.
In my opinion, our local 20mph zones in Croydon are an excellent idea but appallingly implemented. So these things are not limited to TfL or your local borough.
TfL do seem to be struggling financially. Of course a lot of it is due to the reduction/elimination of government funding, but Sadiq’s no doubt popular election promise to freeze fares has compounded this, something which will no doubt be an election issue next time.
Colindale, at one end of the Northern Line will add masses of rush hour passengers, while the Battersea extension will add more at the other. All at a time when bus routes which might take some of the slack have been cut. It all seems very unfortunate, when compared to the policy from Ken’s time of trying to reduce tube overcrowding by increasing bus usage, which for a few years was very successful. Now buses seem to be the poor relation again.
It’s an interesting thought that bus routes running through Swiss Cottage have been cut due to CS11. CS11 may be great for people cycling from Swiss Cottage into town, but goes no further north so cyclists will either have to brave the Finchley Road or the very steep hill towards Hampstead, so is unlikely to have a major modal transformation effect north of Swiss Cottage.
PoP
Sorry, forgot look at link:
https://goo.gl/maps/pmpTsvmgHhE2
Look half-left up the side road? There’s a cycling ramp, nicely blocked off with new railings – you really couldn’t make this stuff up, a WW says
@WW
I was not intending to denigrate anecdotal evidence or to say that it is in any way inherently worse than survey evidence, just that it is different. It is up to all of us readers to decide what weight to put on each type of evidence – and I suspect that that weighting will vary from case to case. There are clearly potential flaws with each type of evidence. In the past I have paid particular attention to survey types of evidence because far too often people read into these ‘facts’ things that are not there. For example, traditionally transport use was measured by person km. That is all very well and has its place in, for example, measuring the stress on any particular part of the transport system. But it’s hardly an effective measure of people’s desire for transport because it automatically assumes that a longer journey is more desirable and has more benefits than a shorter journey – tell that to the person who just wants to visit the nearest post office. Evidence based on ‘I know no-one who thinks that X or Y is any good’ may just tell you something about who you associate with. Transport as a whole has suffered in the past from white, middle aged men (like me) making decisions on the implicit assumption that they are in some way ‘typical’. You pays your money and you takes your choice in assessing all types of evidence.
@Island Dweller 2330
I’m afraid all the ‘easy’ bus lanes have been done. Boroughs and TfL tend to worry about taking away loading and parking spaces because of their impact on residents and businesses rather more than any impact on revenue (which they are not legally allowed to take into account in any case). Removing a loading bay for a business which has no access other than over the kerb, for example, could make that business bankrupt. Residents who suddenly find they have nowhere to park their car near their home are not likely to be keen to vote for the council that did that to them. It is always a very difficult balance to draw when deciding how best to use the road in London.
Re. Briantist’s note on 4 steps of authentic change: I believe that all of the Cycle Superhighways and better developed Quietways are still at the very early stages. They may be packed at peak hours, but off peak, they are largely empty (much to the annoyance of cabbies) while non-commuting traffic stays resolutely motorised. In fact, the sight of the peak hour peletons racing along puts many people off (a big issue raised in a Lambeth consultation not long ago). The real change (and consolidation) will only come when the cycle routes are also populated off peak with people on leisure trips, business people between meetings, local shoppers, etc. It’s quite possible, but not yet likely, due to so many people simply being too scared to give it a go. The gaps in the infrastructure, loud, dense and smelly traffic, and terribly unsafe crossings at major junctions – still makes cycling deeply unattractive. I believe that if they keep on making invasive and space-eating improvements, then one day, the balance will be tipped. One example of a Quietway oxymoron: Q1 includes Waterloo Bridge and its approaches, for goodness’ sake!
@ Ian J – having ploughed through most of the new Board papers I have seen more than one reference to “November 2018” for the Bank Bloomberg entrance opening date. This is interesting as it’s a month earlier than the previously quoted December The commentary seemed a bit more positive about the internal fit out which seems to have progressed quite a lot. I suspect someone has “jumped up and down” about it and demanded the project sort itself out.
@ James – I’d agree with PoP that TfL clearly cannot and do not report on every single scheme / project that is happening. A slight shame for curious data obsessed nerds like me but clearly stakeholders and the public want a more readable document. There’s also an issue about time, cost and effort expended on producing these documents. The other side of the coin is that no one likes bad news and no one wants to publicise failure. I am therefore not remotely surprised that schemes that are “difficult” or which have commercial issues do not feature. Clearly some big schemes, like SSR resignalling, *have* to feature because of the project size and spend. And, as we can now see in small part, that project is incurring some delay about early implementation milestones so you can’t keep all the “bad” news out of the reports.
I tend to take the somewhat cynical view, based on decades of writing and reading LT / TfL papers, that if a project or part of a project disappears from view for a prolonged period that something isn’t right. We know there was a developer problem at Finsbury Park but I don’t know if that resolved itself and whether TfL’s expected scope for the new western entrance has been affected. I realised long ago that Crossrail had problems at Whitechapel, Bond St and Woolwich because they were NEVER mentioned in any publicity or reports. It’s a shame that the audience for these reports can’t be treated with a bit more maturity but in these febrile times for the media and social media I can absolutely understand (but not like) the iron grip TfL, City Hall and Crossrail adopt about controlling what is put “out there” for people to read / comment upon.
One other factor is that there has been a general “pushing down” of devolved authority at TfL. This means a number of schemes and projects that may have had approval papers at TfL Committee level are now discussed and approved in internal business meetings. This has reduced the volume of papers that now reach public view. I assume this was a strategic decision taken by the Mayor and his deputy in conjunction with the Commissioner, Board Members and General Counsel. It would also align with TfL’s revised organisational structure.
I think your Board member remark is unfair. I’ve not seen them in action but PoP has. He’s shared positive comments on here on what he’s witnessed. It’s clear from the many meeting minutes that pointed questions are asked and much more analysis is being requested by Board members. This is a good thing. I’d also say this current Board is much more focussed than under the previous Mayoralty. It feels like they are taking their job rather more seriously than was the impression I got under the Johnson mayoralty which was a rather laissez faire administration with a Transport Strategy (MTS) that was confused, inconsistent and pretty poor. The new MTS holds together much better and feels intellectually more rigorous. I don’t like some parts of it but it is more targeted and consistent than before. It is worth bearing in mind that TfL is only now getting to grips with implementing the new MTS. It is like changing the course of a supertanker – takes time to refocus the organisation and its policies, objectives and targets.
Greg:
While a cursory glance at the railings in that street view might suggest severe incompetence or malice, it shouldn’t take much thought to realise that there might be a good reason for the railings. A look at the previous imagery from this location shows that there were dedicated signals for cyclists providing a safe route to/from Selbourne Road. There are now works going on with insufficient road space to accommodate cyclists safely. Rather than dangerously encouraging cyclists into the midst of a busy junction, the cycle route as been physically blocked off. There is even signage at the other end of the slope onto St Mary Road indicating that cyclists are diverted.
A search for “Hoe Street gyratory” finds the following on https://walthamforest.gov.uk/content/roadworks
“As part of the town centre improvement works the cycle access ramp from St Mary Road will be closed until late 2018 to ensure a safe environment for cycles whilst the construction is underway.”
I have no local knowledge and it only took me a few minutes to realise that this might be an example of actively protecting cyclists safety, and not too much longer to find confirmation of this online. So perhaps you could do the same instead of jumping to conclusions based (effectively) on a single image.
@Mikey C: the policy from Ken’s time of trying to reduce tube overcrowding by increasing bus usage
A bit of revisionism there – my recollection was that the strategy was to increase bus usage in the short term, because this was the only form of public transport which could be ramped up quickly, while expanding rail capacity in the medium (Overground, tube upgrades) and long (Crossrail, more tube upgrades) term (and encourage cycling and walking). We are now seeing the fruits of the long term policy come through.
@Malcolm 18 July 2018 at 15:52
My parents live in Walthamstow, and had their road blocked at one end as part of Mini Holland (after a vote by the residents). The road has parking on both sides with only space for one car up the middle, cars and vans would regularly speed over 30mph along the road despite the speed bumps! Now it’s a revelation, you regularly see both adults and children, cycling, scooting, walking down the road.
While ‘Orford Road village’ got the easy gentrification target headlines, it’s not the only bit to be improved, there is Blackhorse area among others:
http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/15230541.Mini_Holland_has_transformed_our_lives__says_father/
For my commute, I cycle from Chingford to Stratford using the main roads (Chingford Road, Hoe Street etc), so while I cycle through Walthamstow, none of the roads I use have been changed as part of the scheme. I haven’t noticed extra traffic, it was crap before, and it’s still crap.
I’m not going to discuss the much delayed Hoe Street/Central road works, the council still don’t know what they want.
@ James – I assume you don’t continue towards the Bakers Arms on Hoe St as that does have cycle lanes on part of its length? Are you saying you don’t use them? No disagreement with you about Hoe St north of the Central or Chingford Rd but I think the aim there is to put people on quieter routes through Priory Court and Billet Rd (which does have cycle lanes now). I know that’s less direct but there was nothing in Mini Holland to provide segregated lanes north of the Central (other than along Forest Rd running E-W).
I suspect I walk in the wrong parts of Walthamstow but while I see roads that are closed off I don’t see people “frolicking” on the tarmac. I still see lots and lots of parked cars and people still trying to drive through areas to reach their destination or to deliver items. I know it is early days but there are no big signs of behavioural change / vehicle ownership levels.
There are also seemingly small issues that make me reluctant to cycle – a lack of safe and secure cycle parking near obvious journey generators like shops, doctors / dentists etc. There is some secure parking at one or two stations but not at others. Blackhorse Road is littered with bicycles tied to railings, lamp posts and the odd cycle stand. It is now getting difficult to traverse the pavement when changing from bus to tube / train there. It’s a shame that a secure cycle park could not have been constructed in the station car park and kept there even though the car park itself is to be lost to new housing. These things need more thought – given the scale of cycle theft I am not prepared to chain a bicycle (not a cheap thing these days) where it is likely to be stolen within minutes. Hence why I have not got my (expensive when new) bike repaired and started using it again. I fear TfL and the council have a lot more to learn about a truly integrated scheme that provides *all* of the right facilites. It’s not all about miles of tarmac, kerbs and legions of bollards.
If bicycles are stolen within minutes, then surely they can’t be chained up blocking the pavements for very long. Wait a few minutes and the pavement will be clear…
@ Ian J – I think you’re being a tad selective too. Yes part of Ken’s strategy was to boost the bus network to provide capacity while the tube was upgraded / made more reliable and to cater for congestion charge impacts. However there was a general policy of making buses much more attractive to use, more affordable and accessible. This is why routes across Greater London were improved and not just those near the Tube network or serving the Congestion Charge zone. There was also no stated policy that the bus network would be cut upon delivery of other elements of the wider transport strategy. To be accurate there were some cuts in Ken’s era plus a number of planned new routes were cancelled.
I know it’s stating the obvious but it’s a decade since Ken was last Mayor and we’ve had a Mayor who didn’t really have a sensible transport strategy for 8 years and who basked in the delivery of schemes procured and instigated by his predecessor. He certainly didn’t have a comprehensive strategy about buses other than concentrating on bizarre prejudices about vehicle designs. He was also *extremely* lucky to be Mayor during relatively bouyant economic times in the capital which meant patronage grew despite his dreadful Transport Strategy and continuous fare rises rather than because of it. He also escaped the consequences of ludicrous policy decisions like “smoothing traffic” and “having no vehicle hierarchy” on the road network as well as external factors like employment changes and the impact of technology on traditional transport trip generators like shopping. Even though the effects of these were emerging nothing was done to counter them.
The current Mayor doesn’t really have a bus policy either despite all the frantic attempts at window dressing to make it seem as if he does. What we do have is a more overt policy on walking and cycling which is taking people off buses because they are so slow. The financial situation at TfL, partly of his making and partly that of his predecessor, coupled with air quality related investment decisions affecting the bus fleet is making it nigh on impossible for TfL to cope with the cost impacts without also having to shrink the size of the bus network to make the finances work. It is rather worrying that bus revenue and patronage are still falling and TfL seem not to know why as evidenced by this remark in the Q1 performance report,
Bus passenger journeys in the quarter were nine million (two per cent) lower than 2017/18 and eleven million lower than budget. Lower Travelcard, bus pass and pay as you go journeys were only partly offset by growth in contactless journeys. We are currently investigating the cause of this decline.
If the current Mayor had said “OK we’ve now got lots of upgraded tube lines, new tube trains in service and a better Overground service I will now remove spare capacity on the bus network that Mr Livingstone put in” that might be a partially truthful statement with a link back to a previous policy. Instead we have a mirage of “well, really we’re not making that many cuts and we will run some extra buses in a couple of places but please don’t really look at the detail of what we’re doing because it’s much worse than we say in public”.
Herned: Ha ha. I think. However, a cycle theft probability of (say) twice a year is quite sufficient to put the typical would-be cyclist off, but quite insufficient to clear the pavements.
@Malcolm: I’m sure these bikes are merely “recycled” so don’t actually disappear off the streets… Perhaps an amble down to Columbia Rd on a Sunday is in order? I believe that is the prime market for second hand bikes?
@ Herned – Ho ho. Well done. The context of bike theft concerns was about putting an expensive, well equipped bike chained to a bike rack in a town centre location without proper surveillance. I have not done a forensic study of each bike at Blackhorse Road but those I did glance at were not in the best condition or of high quality. Probably a very deliberate decision on the part of owners who are forced to fend for themselves due to the lack of sufficient, high quality parking facilities. As I said such storage *does* exist at Walthamstow Central and Lea Bridge stns. It was the lack of consistency given TfL owned land is nearby at Blackhorse Rd that I was pointing out plus the disruption to pedestrian flows and blocking the passage of people with buggies, luggage or in wheelchairs. Not exactly an exemplar for “Healthy Streets” or Mini Holland. It could so easily be much better than it is.
Now would you like to try again to find a flaw in my logic? I do try to make coherent comments here.
@WW
It was completely a tongue-in-cheek response, and probably should have had a smiley or something for avoidance of doubt. I do completely see your point about the lack of decent bike parking places
No mention of TfLs trashing of the London bus network? It’s happening people, and aggressively, yet the media coverage is seemingly non existent.
Whilst the buses may not have the glitz and glamour of rapid mass transit train services, plush station upgrades or live up to this imaginary world of free spirited Londoners cycling lazily through the “healthy streets” of London, the bus network is Londons vital backbone and plays an important in London’s identity. Always has been, and always will be.
Yet it’s heart is quietly being ripped out. Rapid growth of the cities homes, yet reduction in bus capacity, bus priority and usable bus road space.
It would be nice to see a dedicated piece on this website.
@WW: Surely you have two bikes? One your cheap daily commuter bike that noxone is going to steal and the other your 21 speed super duper Mamil bike for tearing around the home counties on the weekends?
Frank
Agree with your polite request.
Especially given the way the current Mayor goes on about his dad being a bus-driver ……
Regarding the Canada Water development – I raised the issues about travel access at one of the British Land events at Surrey Quays shopping centre.
In addition to the significant work ongoing at Canada Water, in Deptford and the new Marine Wharf and associated developments, there is the ‘Masterplan’ to replace the shopping centre, printworks, bowling alley, swimming pool and cinema with many flats and a street level ‘high street’.
The response from the British Land person was effectively that transport modelling had been done and Canada Water underground station would be fine as there would be loads of new jobs in Canada Water area so as many/more people would be getting off the Jubilee line as additional people trying to get on allievating any additional rush hour crowding.
I have not seen any details of the modelling and would be very interested to see the underlying assumptions (e.g. whether it took into account all the building works underway, or whether they were only looking at the proposed British Land development in isolation).
@Messiah – Doubtless you are aware of the British Land planning application available here:
http://www.canadawatermasterplan.com/
In the Planning Statement document, there’s this:
“CWAAP Policy 8 states that “proposals must make sure that developments can be adequately and safely serviced and through a transport assessment, must demonstrate that they can mitigate their impact on the highway network’
Assessment of the Development
London Underground and London Overground…..”
and, on page 85 of text:
“With regard to Canada Water Station itself, the current issues with station operation are understood to largely be a function of congestion on the Jubilee line, and people wanting to board Jubilee line trains (whether from the station entrance or interchanging from London Overground) sometimes being unable to do so in peak times, leading to queuing and congestion within the station. Although the Development would result in an uplift in flows leaving the station, this will not materially add to the current pressure to board trains and should therefore be capable of being accommodated without significantly adding to the current station management issues.
It is important to note here that background growth (without development at Canada Water) may cause additional congestion and delays within the station where no changes or improvements are made to station operations. TfL is aware of the issues at Canada Water Station and is progressing further work into how this can be addressed.”
Also: “In terms of possible future improvements, proposals for a Bakerloo Line Extension (BLE) were taken to consultation by TfL in 2014. If taken forward, work on an extension could start in 2023 with services running by around 2028/29. The extension would broadly follow the alignment of Old Kent Road south-east from Elephant & Castle, via two new stations on the Old Kent Road before calling at New Cross Gate and Lewisham. The BLE is expected to provide an alternative point of interchange between London Overground and Underground services to and from central London at New Cross Gate, which is predicted to reduce the volume of interchange at Canada Water between northbound London Overground services and westbound Jubilee line services in the morning peak period by around 50%. This would provide benefit to station operations at Canada Water, with fewer passengers attempting to board congested Jubilee line trains. As this is not a committed scheme, it is not part of the 2031 future baseline in the STS, but has been tested by TfL as one of a number of intervention options in the STS to address growth in the Opportunity Area.”
I haven’t read closely any of the documents, so there may well be more. A second entrance is proposed for Surrey Quays station, for example. However, it’s useful to note that: “Enabling a joined-up approach to transport infrastructure: British Land has undertaken extensive consultation to date with partners at Southwark Council, GLA and TfL and will continue to work with them to ensure a joined-up approach to transport infrastructure delivery. The Development will promote sustainable travel by providing healthy streets, new pedestrian and cycle links, a bus strategy and a potential new station entrance to Surrey Quays Overground Station.”
P.S. From this page:
http://www.canadawatermasterplan.com/planning-application/
click on “Load more downloads” just underneath the visible download set to discover parts 1-7 of the Transport Assessment.
@Graham Feakins: I guess they never expected the ELL to be as successful as it is now… Otherwise they probably would have made use of the closure to rebuild the station on a pedestrianised Cope Street… They would have had loads of room to build in lifts and everything…
On the subject of “TfLs trashing of the London bus network” it seems the ten x number 277 buses in each direction from 0800-2000 between Highbury & Islington and Dalston Junction are now scrapped, losing 7 stops. The replacement is two extra number 30 buses an hour during peaks only (which arrive at Highbury packed having come from Marble Arch). This to allow Highbury Corner to be remodelled to favour pedestrians and cyclists (both very worthy groups deserving of excellent facilities, but bus users in the UK’s most populous borough appear to be getting a raw deal).
@1956
The 277 should have been extended down to Angel, just like the N277 has been, instead of being curtailed at Dalston Junction, in order to enable the works at Highbury Corner.
This would have improved the situation for people who walk, cycle or use the bus.
Pitting bus users against pedestrians or cyclists is not healthy, when the real problem is too many motor vehicles combined with worsening TfL finances.
@FRANK
I mentioned the bus cutbacks 🙂
The bus cutbacks seem to be happening across the network, and are nothing to do with specific modelling caused by Crossrail or Overground improvements. Indeed most buses go along corridors not served directly by trains/tubes.
To me the bus network is in danger of going into a never ending downward spiral, with reduced passenger numbers leading to service cuts, which then impact on passenger numbers further. Labour AM for Barnet and Camden is one of the few people who actually is grilling Sadiq on bus cutbacks.
http://www.andrewdismore.org.uk/home/2018/02/22/dismore-questions-mayor-over-outer-london-bus-services/
http://www.andrewdismore.org.uk/home/2018/05/18/6027/
@ Frank – much worse is due to come on the bus network. A 7% mileage cut spread over three years is what is in the approved TfL Business Plan. To quote Bachman Turner Overdrive – “you ain’t seen nothing yet”. It is simply impossible for TfL to take that much mileage out without very considerable rationalisation and the loss of entire routes. I know for a fact, because it’s in TfL minutes, that a large set of changes in Central London are due within months. Whether it is the long rumoured “core network” with many routes lost altogether and enforced interchange I don’t know. TfL have delayed their annual update on the “Bus Strategy” (there is one??) until the end of the year which raises more than a few questions in my mind.
There are rumours about the 48 going completely – TfL issued a very non committal woolly statement in an attempt to calm down an apopletic Hackney Council. That would be the same Hackney Council that’s said precisely zero when routes have had their frequencies cut over the last and the same council whose highway changes resulted in the removal of the D6 from Hackney Central. They were deeply unhappy about the 277 change but they were a formal consultee to the changes – it’s in the published documentation. There is no public record of them raising any concerns. Bit ridiculous of them to be suddenly outraged about something that they were asked about and said nothing.
My guess is that we will see a rolling programme of network rationalisation and cuts across London. Major borough centred networks in places like Bromley, Croydon, Harrow, Romford etc will see major restructuring of services and loss of frequencies and direct links. People will be forced to change buses where today they have direct services. Other routes will have to lose frequency and the more marginal will probably lose some evening and Sunday coverage. We are talking about taking out 37m kms over 3 years. You don’t do that by trimming a few radial routes into Zone 1 and losing a few peak time buses which has been past TfL practice. A few routes have seen wholesale frequency cuts in recent months – 268, 24, C11, 94, 31.
TfL also have no idea why they are still losing patronage when set against this year’s budget (comment in the Q1 Performance Report). One radical thought might be that if the bus service is getting worse and people face longer waits or enforced changes that perhaps they stop using buses? There is a bizarre contradiction in the business plan in that TfL are still expecting modest increases in patronage despite taking out 37m kms. That makes little sense to me.
This year’s update on the patronage numbers / KMs operated for the last financial year hasn’t yet emerged. I have chased TfL on this and it should appear fairly soon. I am keen to slot all the numbers into a spreadsheet I have to see what has happened over during 2017/18 on routes across London. I am not expecting to see very much positive news given there was a further decline at network level (Annual report numbers).
I wrote the basis of 2 or 3 potential articles on bus matters but they’re now out of date as events keep unfolding that change some of the policy dynamic and TfL’s response is not yet known. Oxford St pedestrianisation is a key issue but there are many others.
Walthamstow Writer 23 July 2018 at 22:27
” A 7% mileage cut spread over three years is ………………….. simply impossible for TfL to take that much mileage out without very considerable rationalisation and the loss of entire routes.”
If a bus route is changed from every 5 minutes to every 6 minutes; that’s a 20% cut from 12 buses an hour to 10 buses an hour.
Walthamstow Writer 23 July 2018 at 22:27
” A 7% mileage cut spread over three years is ………………….. simply impossible for TfL to take that much mileage out without very considerable rationalisation and the loss of entire routes.”
If a bus route is changed from every 5 minutes to every 6 minutes; that’s a 16.7% cut from 12 buses an hour to 10 buses an hour.
@ Alan G – and the route is how long? Taking frequency percentage cuts means very little unless it is set in the context of how long the route is and how many hours it runs. You could take 50% of the service off the 385 and save next to nothing as it’s infrequent and relatively short.
Here’s something I posted in another place.
“To take out 37m kms you need to remove the equivalent of 12.88 route 25s or 19.31 route 29s or 27.89 route 123s or 133.25 route 138s (taking 37m kms and dividing by the operated annual route mileage for each route in 2016/17). Obviously that’s not the strictly correct answer as operators never manage 100% mileage operation on busy routes over a year and TfL would save the contractual annual kilometrage which would be higher.
Another analogy is that to save the 37m kms you would have to withdraw the 21 busiest routes in London or the 195 least busiest services in their entirety.”
The basic point here is that at some point people will notice a material change in network coverage and service levels. A 7% cut is not insignificant. At some point this becomes political and damaging for the Mayor. He is just praying it’s after 2020.
> major restructuring of services and loss of frequencies and direct links. People will be forced to change buses where today they have direct services.
This is not a bad thing per se. If you can get most of the way to your destination on a fast train or on a frequent trunk bus, why would you not change to final neighbourhood destination bus?
We could instead ask why London had for the longest time no free transfers between buses (except on season ticket), and why changing between rail and bus costs money. From a transport network planning perspective that makes no sense. The Oyster and contactless payment processing network is far ahead of really many systems worldwide – but it’s not used to calculate sensible free changes?
Of course, I know the historical justifications – that there’s no room for bus passengers on the trains, and that cheap buses were a de-facto third class for London transport – but should these be maintained going forward? There is a major rail line coming into service underneath Oxford Street. Only in London would removing some buses from the street be a controversial idea.
To be more exact: Only in London would removing some buses from the street directly above the new rail line be a controversial idea. *
@WALTHAMSTOW WRITER
” A 7% mileage cut spread over three years is ………………….. simply impossible for TfL to take that much mileage out without very considerable rationalisation and the loss of entire routes.”
As you know a lot about this, I’ve always been curious as to the nature of London bus routes.
It seems to me as a casual observer and occasional user that there are many types of bus user:
– peak-hours user getting to/from a mainline station who pays for Zone 1 travel to cover this in their annual/monthly train fee.
– peak-hours user within London in an areas without a train/underground service, using travelcard payment. Not so price sensitive.
– peak-hours user in London who can’t afford to use train/underground so uses bus route that parallels a tube/train line. Very price sensitive.
– off-peak tourists (mainly within Zone 1). Not price sensitive.
– non-car-owing working-age people who use the bus infrequently. Will put up with bus fare rises to the point where getting a car would be cheaper.
– car-owing working-age people who don’t use the bus unless they really, really have to. Will only abandon their car if the buses are a quicker, nicer option.
– children on their way to/from school.
– people of all ages with limited mobility who need the bus service to get them to/from their home. Likely to be time rich, money poor.
– people who qualify for a age-related free travel, many of which who might just reduce their quality of life if their service is reduced, or simply use private transport.
– people of working age who live too distant from a tube/rail connection and who use a “wandering” (hail and ride) bus service to connect them to their home in a estate or housing area. Have no option but to pay what is necessary.
I’m not sure if you couldn’t very carefully cut 7% from the bus routes and still provide a suitable service, especially now the Hopper fares have been introduced.
I’m also sure that better integration with the London Overground and the Elizabeth line could free up bus resources too.
But the converse worry is that fuller buses mean dreadful bus-stop dwell times make taking the bus a much less attractive options to those with access to a car.
My guess is that the current mayor thinks that the Hopper fare can allow the bus network to be cut back carefully because you no longer need to provide a “get there without changing” option.
” Only in London would removing some buses from the street directly above the new rail line be a controversial idea. *”
I don’t understand this argument. A rail line already exists under that street – and has done since 1900 – and yet the bus services along that street have flourished throughout that period. The bus stops are much more closely-spaced than the Central Line stations (let alone the Crossrail ones) and the buses act as feeders to them.
There are plenty of buses along other streets with railways under them – Euston Road, Farringdon Street, Piccadilly, etc. Are they all redundant too?
By that logic, wouldn’t the District Line east of Whitechapel be unnecessary because C2C runs a parallel and faster service?
timbeau,
What don’t you understand about the argument? I can understand you disagreeing with it but it is not a hard argument to follow.
The difference between Oxford St and other streets mentioned is that Oxford St is not strategic for most traffic (since it is not permitted there) and there is a strong desire to pedestrianise Oxford St. The objections that stopped it were not because the people didn’t want it pedestrianised. They were because the people didn’t want the displaced traffic that they believe the scheme would have created. Also they didn’t want the worsening air quality and would rather tourists and shoppers were afflicted instead.
@ Briantist
Another group of significant bus users is people going out for the night, especially in the suburbs which don’t have useful rail coverage. I know plenty of people who would only use the bus to go for a drink. If they have a rail-only season ticket then they will be paying for their journey separately so represent actual revenue, and a worse service means they will be more likely to get a minicab/uber.
Not the most important sector I know, but it’s real extra revenue that helps keep the network going and TfL need every penny
Some cities do have “no bus/tram routes on non-pedestrianised streets with metro services above/below” policies which I’ve never understood. Big examples would be Karl-Marx-Allee and Skalitzer Strasse in Berlin, both of which have quite widely-spaced U-Bahn stations with no bus services along them (and no convenient parallel streets with bus services), something that has inconvenienced me several times as a tired tourist!
It always suprises me that in central London tube travel is far more expensive than taking the bus. I may be wrong but it doesn’t seem to be the norm in the rest of Europe.
While I realise the Underground is already struggling with passenger numbers in the peaks, I do wonder if there should be a £1.50 off peak fare for tube journeys both starting and finishing within Zone 1. I don’t know what effect that would have on TfL revenues but it would relieve the pain of some of the central London bus cuts. With so many users already using capped ticketing I doubt the fares loss would be great but it might improve the travel experience for many.
For clarity I am not suggesting that the £1.50 off peak maximum outside Zone 1 is extended into the central area, just a £1.50 fare off peak within Zone 1. Zone 2 – 1 fares would remain unchanged.
@PoP
The objections raised about displaced traffic illustrate the point that the surface traffic isn’t just going to disappear in December.
There are very good reasons for removing buses from a busy shopping street, and it has been done in many other places. But that is a separate issue from the changes in the rail network – the mere presence of a new railway running parallel will not remove the need for those buses, any more than it did last time, in 1900. Indeed, if Crossrail brings more people into central London in general, and the Oxford Street area in particular, more buses may be needed, to act as feeders to and from the stations.
@ Jarek – I understand your point about a single integrated, mode agnostic, fares and ticketing system. Despite many attempts to move towards it we have never got there – largely because there is no political consensus about achieving it and then maintaining it. The difference between fare structures for buses and tubes is marked in Zone 1 and over any longish distance that involves a peak time journey starting in or crossing Zone 1. In short the tube is much more costly. In the outer suburbs bus and off peak TfL tube / rail fares are broadly aligned. However south of the river this falls apart because TOC fares are not. Furthermore buses are often more frequent than rail services in S London if you are away from a main corridor. This skews modal choice for those reliant on public transport but to bring rail services up in terms of frequency and general “feel” (more staff, safer nicer accessible stations) will cost a lot of money.
I strongly suspect that the politicians who campaigned for the Hopper ticket did not envisage it being used as “cover” to cut the bus network. However this is seemingly what is happening if you read the “justification” now set out in recent TfL consultations about bus service changes. I’d also add that London’s bus network is one of the largest and densest in the world. Trying to compare it to what happens in many european cities is not really a fair comparison. The demand levels are not at all comparable and network structures are very different as are the politics and finances.
Trying to “dismantle” London’s bus network is not going to be easy. Making bland “hand wavey” statements that people will just change buses in future is not good enough. If frequencies don’t match up, if there are not common stops served then people will be put off. An example is a live consultation which proposes the removal of part of route 224 in the Wembley area. TfL just say “people can change buses at Alperton station”. I’ve changed buses there and it’s dreadful – especially if you have to cross the busy main road. Where is the risk assessment that properly addresses the risks of forcing people to cross a busy road? Where is the strategy that aligns the times and frequencies, especially early, late and on Sundays, where is the consideration as to how people who have children in buggies, who are laden with shopping or who are not fully ambulent will cope with this change? If TfL have done this work it hasn’t been published. If they haven’t done it then why not if “every journey matters to TfL and the Mayor of London”? – to regurgitate the strapline on TfL advertising.
I am not saying there are not savings that can be made. I am simply saying it needs proper planning, a comprehensive approach and explanation to the public and appropriate mitigation to ease risks where people are *forced* to change buses. There are relatively simple things like co-ordinated headways on common route sections when frequencies are lower, like considering the departure times of bus routes that cross at key interchange points, like timing buses to give a reasonable interchange time to / from low frequency rail services. These would “smooth” journeys where interchange is required and give people confidence that services connect and waiting times are reasonable. In some places public realm improvements may be needed to give better walking routes between stops. This requires some effort and timetable changes but it would stop some of the nonsenses that exist right across London. Again not achieveable in every circumstance nor necessary if frequencies are high but there is a LOT of scope in outer London for evening and Sunday services and also on weekdays where frequencies are lower because demand density is also low. If TfL do not make this effort then they will lose yet more patronage. If I can’t devise a workable itinerary with reasonable connections between services then I don’t travel (for discretionary trips). That applies inside and outside London. I doubt I am alone in making that assessment but others will be more ready than I am to switch to car use, taxis or Uber style services.
@HERNED
True, and there is also the matter of people who work at nights and need to get to work/home too.
If I was Mayor I would like to try splitting bus routes into local and express:
– Express buses would run between existing transport nodes to connect up the “missing links” of the tube system. For example a Stratford->Leyton->Leyton Midland Road->Wathamstow Central route. Express buses don’t have to use the usual bus routes. These would be “turn up and go” services.
– Local buses would run to maximise capacity around the other transport nodes. They would never run over capacity, drivers would be instructed to not allow passengers to stand between the front and back doors to ensure low dwell times. They should be timed to work with the local transport (tube/rail/bus station) node’s bus times.
In general, you would expect the capacity to increase, because most of the time that buses spend in the current system is wasted on dwell times. Express buses would lower journey times because they wouldn’t need to keep stopping and dwelling. Local buses would not be filled with longer-distance passengers, and would be able to match the needs for capacity at morning and evening weekday peak.
During the night, when the tube/rail network has closed, a network of associated night express services could keep the faster communication lines open.
The only other requirement might be to make bus stations slightly better for interchanges.
timbeau,
A point I have made repeatedly in the main Oxford Street bus article and subsequent comments is that, despite outward appearances, the bus stops for any particular route along west Oxford Street are not close together – often about the distance apart of the tube entrances, come December 2018, in fact. There are even some buses that use part of Oxford Street that don’t stop in Oxford Street. And, if the buses were diverted to side streets, it doesn’t necessarily mean that your bus stop is further away.
Furthermore, whether you agree with it or not, Mayoral policy is to encourage walking and improvement of air quality. It stands to reason that ‘something has to give’ and buses are not some ring-fenced placed-on-an-altar maintain-at-all-costs means of transport. Especially within a relatively small area dominated by a pedestrianised main route. I really am at a loss to understand why this is so controversial in this country given how common pedestrianised city centres are on the continent.
@ Briantist – I’ve not seen any research from TfL that splits bus users into as many groups as you identify. The distinctions tend to be a bit coarser and aligned with journey purpose. I won’t repeat them because there are reports online that people can access as they wish. I don’t have any real disagreement with your segmentation. It is worth making the obvious statement that a bus toddling back and forth on its route may well serve all those “users” across an operating day and at certain times you will see many groups together on a bus. That, ironically, is one of London buses’ strengths – it has a multi faceted user base. It is not the refuge of school children and pass holders and the poor as it is in many parts of the UK. There are notable exceptions to this but they are pretty rare (Oxford, Cambridge, Brighton, Reading, Nottingham, Edinburgh). That multi facted user base does, though, increase the risk of a political fall out for the Mayor! More people affected by cuts and changes.
There are a few fundamentals that need remembering. Many bus journeys are short and can’t really be replaced by rail or tube without users having disproportionate walking times to / from stations. The more likely result is that they walk (if they can) the most direct route or take a car / uber / minicab if bus services are worsened. The latter is more likely in Outer London where car use is already vastly higher. I don’t see how a rationalised bus network that is less dense / less frequent helps support the Mayor’s healthy streets agenda nor reduce car use in Outer London. TfL have been and continue to be just as happy to cut buses in Outer London as they have in the centre. Quite how that aligns with the broad Mayoral manifesto commitment, about diverting resources from the centre to improve outer London services, I know not.
Inner and Central London is a bit different as the tube is a bit denser and people may be more willing to walk or cycle. However there are still many groups who would struggle with the tube but who can use an accessible bus network and who appreciate the higher stop density offered by buses. As discussed on here previously there are also “holes” in Zone 1 where the tube does not reach or where you are forced to interchange within 1 or 2 stops to get anywhere.
I do not see Crossrail as a transport panacea. I am now very bored with the never ending pronouncements that it’s a game changer. It will certainly help some people make faster more convenient trips which is great for them. For me it’s pretty pointless given the lack of interchange with the Vic Line at Oxford Circus (for well recorded and understood reasons). I’ve no great desire to make extra interchanges in Zone 1 to reach TCR or Bond St or force myself off course onto a lowish frequency Overground service into Liverpool St. Sorry but it doesn’t compare against a 2 min headway on the Vic Line. I don’t see CR as the mass bus network replacement tool that TfL portray it as either. It is worth saying that most of the Crossrail related bus changes are about feeding suburban stations and achieving other savings in some areas that can be conveniently wrapped under the Crossrail banner. Quite how the advent of Crossrail in SE London justifies halving the number of direct buses between Woolwich and Greenwich and breaking the long standing Lewisham to Greenwich direct link is beyond me. Similar concerns apply in the Acton and Southall areas.
We have already seen that the Overground has resulted in bus cuts in Hackney, Dalston and Islington. The ones that Hackney Council are now concerned about. We will see more cuts and rationalisation. There is some justification for thinning routes south of Dalston Junction because Overground stations are fairly close together and trains run at high frequencies. The problem is that the Overground stops at Dalston and then veers off in other directions after Shoreditch High St. Journey patterns continue to places away from the Overground and there are not particularly convenient links by rail. If I was in Haggerston and wanted to get to Stamford Hill would I take the Overground, take another Overground train then change via 3 sets of stairs at Hackney Central to take a third Overground train or would I just get a bus? I’d get a bus – hands down easier, more frequent and even with today’s snail like schedules faster than the Overground given you could face up to 25 mins waiting time for trains never mind lengthy and involved interchanges. This sort of thing is repeated across London and often buses are more convenient so why cut them? If trains are not attractive and you make buses worse you are more than likely shoving people off the public transport network altogether. This makes no sense and is certainly not aligned to Transport Strategy objectives.
Your point about dwell times is a double edged issue. Yes more crowded buses have longer dwell times. More crowded buses are also less attractive to passengers – plenty of TfL research about passengers disliking crowding. Furthermore longer dwell times increases the total in vehicle journey time for passengers – another reason for people to stop using buses. Finally a longer round trip time is inefficient as you need more vehicles and drivers to provide a given service level. As we have seen in E17 TfL’s answer to this is to reduce frequencies rather than add resource. Guess what – buses are fuller, more crowded and have longer dwell times. I wonder what happens next? Round and round the spiral of decline until you have far fewer passengers, a much worse bus service and more people using cars. Yep that sounds like a win – back to the 1970s!!
My guess is that the Mayor really has no clue, at a detail level, as to what is being done to the bus network. He may well have read the broad numbers but he doesn’t understand what is happening to people’s individual travel options and the choices they are making. I am sure he has no conception as to what the bus network will be like come 2020/21. I doubt there are few in TfL who know because we seem to be staggering from one month to the next with forever changing proposals for cuts. We’ve seen changes implemented and then reversed because they didn’t work. We’ve seen non compliant schedules introduced which do not meet the contractual spec. We’ve seen consultations take 18-24 months to decide relatively simple, if controversial, matters. We are seeing promised consultations, in the Ops and Customer Services Cttee papers, not emerging at the time indicated. This suggests to me a system inside TfL that is struggling to cope with a complex and conflicting workload and which is feeling the impact of that loss of accumulated knowledge and experience. Still I’m sure the cost savings are lovely!
@ Herned – understand your issue about night time transport. However the night bus network has been losing patronage for the last 2-3 years (haven’t seen 2017/18 numbers yet). A quick look across the numbers for routes N1-N14 [1] plus the N25 and N29 shows losses ranging from 20%-50% over a 3 year period. After nearly 30 years of steady expansion TfL have thrown the network into reverse with widespread frequency reductions, especially at weekends but some have been cut on weeknights too. I guess it was unavoidable given that scale of patronage decline but it is very sad to see a previous huge long term success story go into reverse with no apparent effort from TfL to try to encourage usage. It’s as if TfL have simply “given up” – can’t recall any marketing effort for night buses in recent years. I’ve seen plenty of anecdotal comment from people that they no longer use night buses and opt for Uber or similar, especially for group travel. Some official research on this would be useful but I doubt anyone is doing any.
We have not yet got to the point of losing night routes altogether but TfL have said it is likely a small number may go. I would not be shocked to see some go in the next 6 months with others scaled back to weekends only. The night 250 service has been mentioned as a possible candidate for (as yet unspecified) changes. I also feel that one or two of the post Night Tube “weekend night” bus routes may also vanish. We shall see.
[1] and yes I know some routes don’t have a “N” prefix as they run as 24 hour routes. However contractually and statistically TfL separate routes into day and night routes so, for them, there is still a N14 even if passengers never see that number on the blinds.
Briantist
A very sensible idea, which is why it will never happen.
Oh, yes: The only other requirement might be to make bus stations slightly better for interchanges. – which is the exact opposite of what is about to happen at Walthamstow Central, of course.
PoP
Yes, BUT those continental pedestrianised areas are usually well-served either by buses running through on designated routes, or very close in at the periphery [an example I’m familiar with is Münster] or by trams [ As in Hanover ]
Which is not what we are being offered.
@Greg
There are plenty of pedestrianised high streets in the UK, and even in Greater London, with good bus connections. Oxford Street (and Regent Street) are long overdue to join them. There was no need to wait for Crossrail – pedestrianisation could (and probably should) have been done forty-five years ago,
@Briantist
What you describe looks very like the “bus reshaping plan” of the late 1960s/ early 1970s, with “trunk” routes and “local” routes meeting at “transport hubs”. It didn’t end well. Partly because people didn’t like having to change buses. Partly because there was insufficient space to build the interchange hubs. Partly because the buses bought to implement the plan were not up to the job. But mainly because it’s impossible to define routes as trunk or local in any consistent way. Even the longest, most direct, routes are local to the people who live along them. And a circuitous route may nevertheless be the only direct service between two points a long way apart (yes, 281, I’m looking at you).
@WW
“Quite how that aligns with the broad Mayoral manifesto commitment, about diverting resources from the centre to improve outer London services, I know not.”
I agree. Crossrail seems to be the cover story for cutting bus services across London, even when most of London is completely unaffected by the new line. In suburbia, the car is the alternative to the bus, not cycling or walking
Sadly, despite the election rhetoric concerning his bus driver father, to me Sadiq sees buses as a necessary evil. If bus usage and revenue goes down, cut services to match the decline, something he’s happy to repeat when questioned in the assembly. Of course a lot of this is driven by TfL’s finances, but if for example Ken was mayor, I’m sure he wouldn’t be casually accepting all the bus cutbacks without knowing why, and taking positive steps to increase usage.
@ Timbeau – and there in your comment is the killer phrase “people didn’t like having to change buses”. Of course in those days there was a financial penalty and possibly a greater time penalty as frequencies were lower than these days. It is not yet all clear as to what effect the hopper ticket is having on passenger behaviour. I keep living in hope that TfL will publish something on this so we have a bit better insight as to how passengers are responding to the facility. We keep getting banner headlines about the volume of “hops” but nothing else of value or insight.
WW
Yes.
The problem with changing buses, even allowing for the fact of the hopper fare, or my geriatric’s-pass is: Reliability & Consistency – which (IMHO) buses simply do not have, compared to timetabled rail services (including “tube”).
And current changes seem to be heading in the direction of making that low reliability even worse … & as far as I can see, no-one at all, certainly in Tfl seems to be even considering addressing that very real problem.
If you want a good example of a successful UK pedestrianised high street, try Canterbury. The High Street is half a mile long of pedestrianisation with buses at each end, but nowhere in the middle, not even a crossing route. The buses mainly serve just one end, so there’s little choice to decide which end to get off or on at. But it works, it’s popular and economically successful. It can be done.
This has been mentioned many times before, but in relation to “other European cities have pedestrianised their main shopping street with no controversy”:
Most of those cities have smaller central areas which are much more walkable for the moderately able-bodied.
London’s unplanned street layout means that there are few easy alternatives to Oxford Street as an east-west bus artery.
Most of those other cities have a public transport fare system that does not charge a premium fare for metro or heavy rail journeys over bus/tram.
@Phil E, 25 July 2018 at 10:40
The second point and the third point are two sides of the same coin. If there was no premium fare on rail transport, a continuous east-west bus artery through central London would not be as necessary.
@ Greg – from your comments in the past you are not a fan of buses anyway so no shock for you to express a preference about rail based services and their greater “certainty” (provided you aren’t a GTR passenger).
I think you are being a little unfair about TfL not doing anything about bus reliability. They are implementing a series of bus priority measures. The problem is that the information is not in the public domain to any level of detail. We get regular statements about numbers of schemes completed and an aggregated time saving but, to be frank, that’s meaningless to the average bus user. I appreciate that telling people that 10 seconds has been saved on route “x” is likely to draw derisive comments too but there has to be a better way of promoting the work that is being done at some cost – £200m over several years. A full list of schemes and the routes benefitting from them would be a start. Dare I even say that you could argue that the plans not to have the 97 and 357 serve Walthamstow Bus Station are a reliability measure as well as a “speed the journey up” measure? Obviously I dislike this plan but I can see other aspects to the argument.
There are obviously other measures too such as more realistic, less risk averse schedules and less annoying service regulation decisions that should also be done. For example Go North East show very clearly in their timetables where official timing points are and also state clearly that an early running bus will wait until the specified departure time from those points. The public therefore knows where the bus may wait. TfL could learn something from this. I recognise London is more complex, has far fewer bus stations and has many more buses on the road but some effort and clarity would help hugely.
@Phil E, 24 July 2018 at 09:43
> Some cities do have “no bus/tram routes on non-pedestrianised streets with metro services above/below” policies which I’ve never understood. Big examples would be Karl-Marx-Allee and Skalitzer Strasse in Berlin, both of which have quite widely-spaced U-Bahn stations with no bus services along them (and no convenient parallel streets with bus services), something that has inconvenienced me several times as a tired tourist!
Max walking time between U-Bahn entrances on Karl-Marx-Allee and Frankfurter Allee is 8 minutes. That means the farthest you can be from an entrance is 4 minutes walk.
Allowing bus travel time, you would have to run a bus every 5-6 minutes to make it worth it, on average, for people using the system on a daily basis to wait for a bus. Otherwise, it’s faster to just walk.
One could, of course, overlap 2 or 3 lines running along Karl-Marx-Allee every 10 minutes, but at that point you’re duplicating the trunk metro line – and since the metro has the capacity, you should connect the buses to the metro and use the metro as trunk. This is the core of transfer-oriented transport network planning.
On Skalitzer Straße there are indeed 10 and 12 minute distances and so 5-6 minute walks. Much like in London, this has historical grounds (in this case, the area was on edge of West Berlin, and the connections between Friedrichshain and Kreuzberg remain poor), but is now unsatisfactory.
The Mayor answered three Assembly Members’ questions about the Barking – Gospel Oak service cuts today.
As well as repeating the nonsense quoted from TfL’s Gerry O’Neill which has appeared in RAIL and the Waltham Forest Guardian website, the Mayor did say that the Class 172s were being sub leased by ARL until December 2018. However, the Mayor was not precise enough to make it clear whether 172 002 was included and would return to London Overground to improve the now dire reliability. Last Sunday saw 20 cancellations.
Why is running 315s as a backstop solution on the GOBLIN regarded as impractical, out of curiosity?
@Patrick M
See the last few posts on this thread http://districtdavesforum.co.uk/thread/29564/new-lo-nll-wll-timetable?page=2
It would require drivers familiar with 315s to learn the route, (or drivers familiar with the route to learn 315s). And while they are doing that they are not driving trains in service.
Moreover, the 315s currently run on lines with platform mounted cameras, but the Goblin doesn’t have them as it is intended to use body-mounted cameras n the 710s. So you would have to fit either the 315s or the Goblin platforms with cameras.
The time and effort spent doing all that, for a temporary fix, would be better directed to getting the 710s into service.
Patrick M,
I don’t know. I merely passed on what had been written elsewhere and appeared to come from ‘on high’ but without explanation. I can’t remember where but probably District Dave’s site or Barking Gospel Oak user group or maybe a Mayoral question. I did wonder if TfL Rail feel they have to keep hold of the class 315s that they have in case of some problem with the class 345 which would lead to their temporary withdrawal.
I suspect that it would be impractical to retrain drivers ‘just in case’ as they seem relatively confident that they will get the class 710 by November. However, if there were a catastrophic delay, I suspect they would find they could do it if necessary.
timbeau,
Ah yes. It was the camera mounting that was the clincher. For the moment, lets not go into the possibility of temporarily reinstating guards on trains now configured for Driver Only Operation.
@ PoP – there are conflicting views on when the 172s *have* to go to the West Midlands. The confusion arises because of the timetable change moratorium encompassing W Midlands Trains for this December. One day we may get a definitive view but even Mayor’s answers as recently as last week said their lease only lasted to December 2018.
My view is that if the 172s do have to go and the 710s are not ready is that TfL will, with huge reluctance I am sure, revert to a bus replacement service (RRS). The embarrassment will be huge but we’ve been foisted with a RRS for so many months that at least the poor souls with no option would know how to use it. The double irony is that electric freight trains will be free to rattle back and forth to their heart’s delight on the line. TfL are not going to countenance anything that affects MTR Crossrail or Crossrail’s launch in December.
The GOBLIN electrification really is becoming an unedifying part of London Overground’s history. A great idea but what an appalling implementation.
@WW: I would really appreciate a good article on what has been happening to London bus services in recent years, and it looks like you have the knowledge and experience to write a good one!
From my personal experience, hopper fares make life easier when you’re travelling alone or otherwise unencumbered. It means you do not have to wait for that one direct bus, but you just catch whatever comes first, and change. Main roads in London are (still) served frequently enough for this behaviour to make sense.
However, having recently become a dad with a pram, I will always choose direct buses rather than interchanges when out and about with my son. Only two prams/buggies/pushchairs can fit onto a typical bus, and both my partner and I have often found ourselves having to let up to three buses pass before being able to get on. We have also resorted to walking or even travelling by bus (thank you, hopper fare!) in the reverse direction to the one intended, just to be able to get a spot. And given a trip to the GP’s takes 45-75 min by bus (two buses and a long walk vs direct bus) or 15-20 min by car, we are seriously considering getting one. Especially since it looks like the situation is only going to get worse, and my local Elizabeth Line stations will be receiving step-free access on St. Nimmerlein’s Tag*, as the Germans would say.
Overall it looks like the good mayor seems almost oblivious to any other part of the electorate than the (relatively) young and childfree, inhabiting inner London – people who use the tube to get to work; and cycle or walk outside of work. Little surprise on the one hand – these are largely the people who voted him into City Hall; but on the other hand, he could do with reaching out to others if he wants to win the next election. As a childfree EU expat, I didn’t have to think much about who to vote for last time around; I will think twice the next time, though.
On a related note: what kind of bus:
– carries 1/3 more passengers than a double-decker;
– has none of those nasty stairwells that people so often get injured on;
– can offer bags of seats accessible from floor-level;
– can carry up to 4 pushchairs at a time;
– already has electric versions available from a number of European manufacturers?
Isn’t it time we brought this type of bus back?
Regarding Canada Water (mentioned some way up there): Once fully open, the Elizabeth Line will provide some relief to the Jubilee Line in East/South East London. Looking at the AM peak, any eastbound passengers from north of Bond Street bound for Canary Wharf will disappear, but they may very well be replaced by more mainline passengers wanting to get to Canary Wharf from Waterloo or London Bridge. On the westbound, the Elizabeth Line will no doubt eliminate some people travelling from Stratford to the West End (overflow from the presently hopelessly overcrowded Central Line), or from Canning Town/Canary Wharf (some people will choose Woolwich / Custom House / Canary Wharf Elizabeth Line stations; and possibly even Thameslink from Greenwich and Woolwich). Also, some East London Line passengers will choose to change for the Elizabeth Line at Whitechapel rather than the Jubilee Line at Canada Water. But will all this be enough to make space for the inhabitants of some 5000 new flats still to come? I doubt that…
*St. Nimmerlein’s Tag: loosely translated as Saint Never-ever’s Day (or – in other words – never)
@Straphan: I think you might need to try and find a surgery closer to your home. Mine is twenty minutes on foot and that’s beyond the blackened stump (i.e. beyond the Timeout zone of delight, beyond zone 2 in other words).
Doubling the capacity of a normal bus would be even better! Not having to lug around batteries helps too…
@Straphan/SH(LR)
Whilst, like SH(LR), I am surprised a GP would accept patients on his list from so far away, as a commuter with a (double) baby buggy for several years (in the days when buses still had step entrances), and more recently getting out and about taking the older generation in wheelchairs, you have my sympathy. At least with a baby it is possible to fold the buggy up, (carrying the buggy in one hand, the baby in another, and the shopping in…….er, um)
One tip: small children should be led to believe that you have to pay extra to sit upstairs on the bus……………..
@Timbeau/SH(LR): Yes, I thought I’d get rapped for choosing a GP oh sooo faaar away… Trouble is – they are within the top 10% of the nationwide satisfaction rankings on NHS Choices – unlike all other ones closer to me. It also doesn’t help that I live right in the corner of my borough – all the closer ones are in different boroughs; and registering with a GP in a different borough to the one you pay your council tax in brings about a host of issues that we won’t go into on a transport-oriented discussion group.
By the way: my home is almost 3 miles as the crow flies from my GP surgery – and thus right on the edge of their catchment area. The journey times quoted are a testament to how rubbish bus connections are in my part of the world – if anything.
And yes – I have yet to find a parent (myself and my partner included) who would fold a buggy on a bus to make room for someone else. My buggy weighs 10kg empty, and requires both hands to be folded – where is there a safe place for me to put my baby down for the duration (especially given he is only learning to sit up)?
@Straphan
I assume you’re referring to the buses with a 1/3 less seating than a double decker, while taking up much more room on the road
@Mikey C: Indeed. Those that have lower running costs per passenger space than double-deckers, shorter dwell times, and would be ideally suited for many trunk routes away from deepest darkest central London, where I believe the effect of the bus cuts could get real ugly.
@ Straphan – as you directly addressed me I should reply. As I believe I have said before I drafted an extensive document on a range of bus matters. This could have formed a small series of articles. For a variety of reasons it was not published. Much of what I wrote has been overtaken by events so is out of date. We are in an extremely fluid situation as to what is / may be happening to the bus network. I’m not actually convinced TfL fully know what is going on because financial pressures seem to be overriding what I might consider to be “logic”. I am also waiting for last year’s bus patronage numbers to be published by TfL. This would give more of a clue as to what has happened over the network. The numbers are late this year compared to prior years and I’ve been in contact with TfL as to when they may emerge.
While I am naturally flattered by your view as to my knowledge I am not minded to write anything – partly because reality is too fluid to make a half reasonable guess as to what may happen and why and partly because I just don’t know if my scribblings would see the light of day.
I also have to acknowledge that I am probably not as objective about current events r.e. buses as befits a LR article. That is one reason why my comments on PoP’s Oxford St articles have been so limited. I’ve expressed my views before. They don’t chime with wider views on here so I have to acknowledge I would not be adding to the debate by venting my fury again about Oxford St. Sometimes self restraint is necessary to avoid being edited out of existence or consigned to the “trouble maker” bin. Sorry but I don’t see that your wish for an article will be fulfilled by me.
@ Straphan – Oh and I am not going anywhere near debates about vehicle types. It’s still an incendiary topic for too many people and you just end up with polarised, non productive comments. It’s all “heat” and no “light”. I’ve had nigh on 10 years of it on other forums – I’m fed up with it. Why do you think that TfL have not been brave enough to fully axe the RM operated Heritage 15 in those leaked plans? So as to avoid the “Routemaster Murderer” (or similar) tag being hung round the Mayor’s neck that’s why. It’s ludicrous (IMO) but there you go.
@Straphan: Another criteria I used when I selected my GP surgery was if I was able to get there when barely able to stand. So I selected the second closest as they were only 2 minutes further away and also on the route to the station. This is handy for collecting prescriptions etc.. My choice was rather fortuitous as I found out later, when I did become horrendously sick and was barely able to travel even that far.
Anyway, perhaps with the cuts in the central London bus network as detailed today on Diamond Geezer there will be room for more efficient (passenger loading wise) buses on trunk routes….
@SH(LR): See, I take the view that I’d rather have a competent doctor a little further away than an incompetent one at my doorstep. Oh – and prescriptions are electronic these days!
@WW: Shame, I’d really like for someone more knowledgeable in the field of London Buses to write something in-depth about what’s been happening. I have a feeling the current issues are mostly to do with cycle superhighways (which affect both the speeds and the funds available for buses); but also to do with the increase in delivery vans (which block bus lanes rather effectively) and the increase in minicabs – which not only cause traffic jams in the centre, but also take passengers away from the bus network. Alas, these are only my gut feelings that I would love for someone more knowledgeable than me to investigate.
If these apparently hapazard alterations, cuts & very occasional improvements are going to continue at this rate …
Would it not be better to start with a clean sheet & completely re-design London’s bus routes over the whole area?
A massive & expensive undertaking, I realise, but I’m getting the imperssion that London’s bus route network is broken – broken by the financial & operational actions of several politicians from both the major parties in fact.
Starting again might actually be better?
Straphan,
Your gut feelings are correct. Or at least they are generally consistent with comments and speeches made by the Commissioner for Transport and the current Deputy Mayor for Transport. Although they don’t tend to mention the cycle superhighways, TfL certainly has admitted in the past that construction of them has led to traffic problems which has severely affected the bus network. Regarding private hire and deliveries, TfL and the Deputy Mayor are on the case, as they say.
One of the problems, certainly of the past, was a cycle superhighway would be planned because that was what the then Mayor wanted and the buses then have to re-organise themselves (stop location etc) to take into account the work done. Nowadays, the Walking and Cycling Czar is much more holistic and takes buses into account when scrutinising plans rather than have TfL having to go back and re-visit the scheme later.
Possibly more about this in the next few weeks.
Cycle superhighway to blame? Hmmmm? They have had an impact on a few routes (example – the 15 is now impossibly slow towards Tower) but there are vast swathes of London with zero provision of cycle super highways, yet they’re also suffering bus problems.
I thought tfl have stated that the biggest issue is the explosion of private hire and delivery vehicles.
It’s not just the construction of the cycle superhighways, it’s also all the junction and gyratory rebuilds (e.g. Elephant), and the “one way to 2 way conversions”
Informed sources state that Bombardier are preparing to start Class 710 mileage accumulation from the start of September BUT so far I am unable to find any confirmation that Network Rail have granted type approval to allow them to move off Willesden TMD under their own power.
It seems very likely that ARL’s sublease of 172001/3-8 from WMT will expire on 30 November, so getting 8x710s into public service on Barking – Gospel Oak by then will be a challenge!
@Mikey C: Regardless whether these junction rebuilds are branded as cycle superhighway or not, their stated objectives are usually the improvement of cyclist (and pedestrian) safety, usually by reducing the speed and capacity of junctions. The same goes for speed reductions on main roads from 30mph to 20mph which – gut feeling again – hardly any drivers (including bus drivers) adhere to anyway…
@PoP: Thanks. I am looking forward to reading more…
@Greg Tingey: The problem – as usual – is that the existing network has existing patterns of use which need to be catered for by the new network. As a result, the revolution you want will most likely either generate a network that looks suspiciously like the current one; or it will generate demonstrations of bus commuters armed with pitchforks and torches…
@Greg
“Would it not be better to start with a clean sheet & completely re-design London’s bus routes over the whole area?”
the same thing occurred to me this morning – unlike a rail network it could be implemented overnight (although it would take months if not years of planning). Assuming the same garages can be used, the only physical changes needed would be changing the route numbers on the bus stops (and, if blinds are still in use, printing new ones).
Somewhere, in the great world of unregulated buses outside London, it must have been done, albeit on a smaller scale. Have any readers experienced such a thing?
(My own home town seems to change the route numbers every time I go back – what was the 3 is now the 4, what was the 4 became first the 20 and then the 10. The 6 became the 66 but is now the 6 again. What was the 9 is now the 12, and what was the 12 is now the 9. But the actual routes they follow are still recognisably the same.)
Timbeau…..There are huge implications for redesigning bus routes beyond bus stops and blinds. Drivers need to learn new routes and times for timetables have to be established. Then there the entire electronic world that needs to mirror the real world. Diamond Geezer’s blog telling the tale of bus stop M highlighted some of the issues (this link is just a snapshot of the saga than could amount to a soap opera – https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2017/02/bus-stop-m-update.html). I would also add that re-casting the London bus system is much more difficult than re-casting the bus network of most of the UK’s cities all at the same time (roughly equivalent number of vehicles). In London it would be very hard to phase the work as it operates as a network and changes a step at a time could do a great deal of harm to people’s lives whilst it goes on.
@130
In themselves such problems would not be insurmountable. One would simply have to create a plan, and then a second plan on how to implement said plan, without causing too much disruption. One could even keep the rate of change roughly the same as now – just make sure each change brings the network closer to the long term plan.
The challenge would be creating a plan that would be feasible and effective, and then sticking to it. Unfortunately long term planning (particularly the implementation bit), is not something the UK is known for.
Nevertheless I can’t help but think a complete restructure would have some merit. So many factors have changed since the original ‘plan’ (or history) that need to be reflected in the network in order for it to be effective.
The biggest improvement from a redesigned network would be reliability and speed. In particular where improvements could be made in this are by cutting the length of routes (since longer routes are far more likely to get stuck in traffic or experience other delays that add up), and creating proper interchange nodes (or at least stops where multiple routes converge allowing easy interchange between them).
If London can get to a stage where interchanges are reliable enough , then thanks to the hopper they stop being as much of an issue. The speed increase due to fewer different routes on the same stretch of road, and the effective increase in frequency (due to almost every bus being one that will get you nearer to your destination, rather than waiting for one specific, less frequent bus route) would more than make up for the slightly increased journey time.
Having been brought up in an area where the bus turning up roughly when it was supposed to was considered a win (which meant interchanges were a completely miserable and unreliable experience as a result, if at all feasible), moving to a city where the bus network is implemented in the above fashion really opened my eyes to how much more effective and attractive it is to use.
I can begin a journey that requires two or even more changes (perhaps even a train or tram in the middle) and know with ≈97% certainty that I will reach my destination within a minute or so of when I expect to. On the off chance there is disruption – there is a very high probability that there is an alternative route, that is almost if not just as fast, that will not be affected.
Think the reliability level of changing between tube lines (when they’re all working normally) but for buses.
@Straphan
There’s actually not very much evidence to support the assertion that more minicabs are taking passenger away from buses. They tend to be serving very different markets because the costs are so different. Minicabs certainly take trade away from black cabs, because the latter are more expensive and offer a lower standard of service. They also take passengers away from cars. Not quite the same thing, but there’s good survey evidence that the increased take up of car clubs results in a big drop in trips made by car, but an increase in public transport, walked and cycled trips. Uber was on fairly public record a year or so ago in saying that their peak hour for hirings was midnight, when it’s clear that the main alternative is not the bus. I know we like to kick Uber and minicabs, but they are not the main problem to be faced on the roads.
@130
Indeed, a lot of planning, training and preparation would be needed. But the actual changeover could be done overnight. (As happens already for the piecemeal one-change-at-a-time process we are going through)
DM1:
I agree with you, a complete redesign would enable the bus routes to be optimally designed. In fact, we could do this every couple of years, to make sure we always have the optimal design. Of course, the optimal design will also depend on the available budget, so we could recast the bus network to ensure it remains optimal, every time we set a new budget (how often would that be).
Timbeau……It’s that word “could”. None of us really knows….. such a change is unprecedented. I doubt anyone would be able to articulate all the risks, let alone estimate the quantum of those risks. It would make the GTR “big bang” seem like a minor change!
DM1, not a British city then!
I live in a city (Wellington, NZ) where last month the bus network was completely revamped. Routes, fares and fare structure, interchanges, operating principles, operators (with new driver employment conditions and contracts), buses and bus types all changed at the same time, after five or so years of planning and preparation. (A precursor to this was the abandonment of the last right-hand-drive trolleybus network in the world, bizarrely said to be a step on the way to emissions reductions and a full electric bus fleet.)
Results have been mixed, complicated by the difficulty of distinguishing between the effects of changes as planned and the effects of their implementation.
Taking the second one first, project planning was poor. Not everything was ready, and there were predictable problems with drivers (some from out of town) not knowing the new routes (I’ve had to direct a few drivers), new bus hubs not being complete, buses not being delivered, fares not being charged properly, new bus depots not being finished, driver and union unrest over new contracts, etc etc. Unfortunately there seems to have been inadequate assessment of the risks and non-existence of contingency plans, and the network has yet to settle down – some things, like the new bus interchanges (said to be essential, because some passengers now have to transfer between buses) won’t be ready until the end of the year.
So it’s difficult to see how effective the new structure is, since it’s not (yet) working as planned. The new network is planned to cost no more than the old, so there were intended to be winners (of which much was made in the lead up) and losers (barely mentioned). Despite the problems, some winners have won (I counted 15 passengers on one bus on Saturday going to places that didn’t have a weekend service previously), but other winners have lost (at least temporarily) through poor timekeeping, bunched buses, poor interchanges, lost drivers, etc etc, and some potential winners appear to actually be losers because of inadequate peak capacity.
So the moral is that revamping a bus network is much, much more than stops and blinds: a very high level of risk management, project planning and implementation are essential; and managing expectations is critical (the message was that everything was going to be better). The consequences of these not happening are severe damage to the reputation of public transport in general and the organisers and operators of the network in partucular. (Uber is apparently doing very well.) We are nowhere near DM1’s 97% certainty, and it’s hard to see how we will get there. But there are signs of improvement…
PS: I’d like to know where DM1’s 97%-reliable city is – we could learn from them!
One of the reasons I was proposing a complete revamp is that we still have turn-arounds & termini & “loops” which are still following tram &/or trolleybus alignments, after at least 56 years.
Now, we could cut those corners off, & lengthen routes at the ends, whilst maintaining a service along the ex-looped sections if need be.
There are several examples in Waltham Forest alone, never mind the rest of London.
P.S. Didn’t Paris do this, about 20 years back?
@Greg
Not just in Waltham Forest: the circuitous route taken by the 281 between Kingston and Twickenham still faithfully follows the ghostly tramlines of the very first route to be converted to trolleybus operation, back in 1932.
@Greg T/timbeau – whilst there are still some circuitous descendants of former tram and trolleybus routes (and still a few survivors of “round the corner” bus routes from the days before travelcard), I’m not sure this by any means a universal issue and certainly not in central London, where the nonsenses caused by the Holborn and Embankment loops have mostly been eliminated.
There is, however, a more strategic point underlying timbeau’s complaint about the 601/281: as the NBC’s late and much lamented MAP project showed, many bus routes actually function as collecting runs to serve a specific centre (eg Kingston) and only fortuitously connect adjacent centres (eg Kingston and Twickenham in this case). The point is clearer in country areas such as mine where the buses between Guildford and Haslemere fill up as they approach either end of the route but are empty in the middle – no through passengers at all, despite following the most direct route. And if you think about it, why would people in centre A with a full range of shops and services, often travel to centre B with a similar range?
Greg – If it took the Parisians 60 years to notice that the trams had gone (last tram 1938), then we are doing well if we beat the 2022 deadline since the last trolleybuses ran…
@Graham H
There are other bus routes which duplicate the “collecting run” functions of the 281 into both Kingston (285) and Twickenham (33, 267, 290, R68, R70) . And the only parallel rail service between those two centres is not only just as circuitous but only runs twice an hour (in theory).
The 281 replicates the old 601 further, as it continues to the old trolleybus terminus in Tolworth. Most routes that used to cross Kingston have been split (71/371, 65/465, 131,411) but the 281 is one of the few routes still to do so – this does nothing to improve its reliability!
One of the remaining nonsenses in central London is that all five bus routes* from the UK’s busiest railway station to its main business district set off in completely the wrong direction – and then get stuck in the jams on Fleet Street or Holborn. There was a bridge at Blackfriars half a century before Waterloo!
*soon to be just three
Greg Tingey 20 August 2018 at 12:31
“If these apparently hapazard alterations, cuts & very occasional improvements are going to continue at this rate …”
I’m not finding bus reviews haphazard. Not everybody likes the recent proposals around Custom House station, but they were thorough and careful.
@Quinlet: I don’t think your assertion and my assertion are mutually exclusive.
The statistics show bus use has declined, particularly in inner London. This doesn’t really state at what time of the day this decline has occurred. Night buses have certainly taken a double-whammy from both Uber and the night tube.
This in itself has the potential to send bus use on a downward spiral. London is one of the few cities where most bus routes do not really have a separate peak and off-peak frequency – it is usually the same from the start of the am peak till about 11pm or midnight. If minicabs have started clawing at the bus demand in the evening, and TfL responds by cutting the evening frequencies, this will only send bus demand on a downward spiral.
Also, I refuse to believe (until I see some actual evidence to the contrary, of course), that the massive increase in private hire licences (which leave cars exempt from paying the Congestion Charge) has not had an impact on traffic – and bus – speeds in inner & central London during the day. I also strongly doubt the availability of cheaper minicabs hasn’t dented the demand for ‘errand’ trips by bus during the day (shopping, doctors, etc.).
One other issue with London buses that I was thinking about was the spacing of bus stops. Let’s look at the top of the list: bus route 1 is a typical inner/central London route (Tottenham Court Road – Holborn – Waterloo – Elephant & Castle – Bricklayers Arms – Bermondsey – Canada Water), and has 28 stops (towards Canada Water) along its roughly 9km route (source: londonbusroutes.net, tfl.gov.uk). This gives us one stop every 320 metres. From my experience of living and travelling by bus across London I don’t think this distance is very atypical. From my experience of living in other European countries, I think this is rather on the short side – German bus and (conventional) tram stops tend to be more like 400m-500m apart. Perhaps we could do an exercise of rationalising bus stop locations alongside the network re-shaping that everyone is baying for?
One other thing: ticket validation… Entering via the front and making everyone ‘beep’ their cards against the reader costs vast amounts of time. Especially now, as people have been encouraged by TfL to use their bank cards, which tend to be kept in slightly less easily accessible locations than an Oyster card (given the consequences of losing a bank card or having it stolen are more severe); and often in the company of other bank cards (given plenty of people will have both a debit and a credit card). I wonder if this aspect of the boarding process could somehow be expedited?
@timbeau – yes indeed – I think that reinforces the implication that cross-centre (as distinct from cross-central-London) routes have, to put it mildly an uncertain purpose, although I suspect if I ever lived in central Kingston and wanted to go to central Twickenham, I’d choose a halfhourly reliable train service every time – at train speed, the circuitous routeing is not that noticeable.
I totally agree with you about the curiosity of sending (nearly) all the Waterloo-City routes via Fleet Street. When I worked in the City (admittedly a decade ago now) and couldn’t face the Drain, I would try the 76 instead on nostalgic grounds. Until we reached the Aldwych, I was often the only person upstairs – no wonder given the speed down Fleet Street* and the awkward lane/stop shuffle round the s side of the Aldwych. Both BFrs and Southwark bridges offer a much faster river crossing. [In NSE days, we used Southwark bridge – Queen St being a through street at the time – for the 800 replacement bus while the Drain was modernised – very fast].
*Actually, the worst problem is Ludgate Hill, where it can easily take 20 minutes++ to traverse it. To make my point about linking routes unnecessarily the 76 and similar serve two distinct markets – Waterloo-Fleet Street and Waterloo City – and whilst the latter is obviously better served via Bfrs, I’m not sure how easy it would be to turn a bus route before it reached Ludgate Circus
++I once found HM trying to come up Ludgate Hill (no doubt luncheon at the mansion House beckoned) and the royal limo was stuck fast for 10 minutes despite the efforts of frantic whistle blowing police trying to get buses and lorries onto the pavement. Ludgate is a nightmare.
@DM1
20 August 2018 at 20:00
What is the approximate population size of the conurbation that provides 97% on-time transport? Is the approach really scaleable to London?
Graham H,
If it took the Parisians 60 years to notice that the trams had gone (last tram 1938)
Just resting. Trams in Paris are in the ascendency. There are loads of trams in Paris – or at least the suburbs. And very heavily used they are too.
@Graham H
Ludgate Hill was improved immeasurably by the replacement of the very busy Zebra crossing at the top of the hill by a Pelican. (Four legs good, two legs better!)
The 76 did run via Blackfriars Bridge until 1992. (The Drain is useless for the western end of the City of course).
No need to turn a bus route before Ludgate Circus (although Fetter Lane is available should that be desirable) – there are four routes between Waterloo and the City via Fleet Street – they don’t all have to be diverted away from Fleet Street.
As I do live in Kingston and travel to central Twickenham every week, I can report that the 281 bus, despite its circuitous routing, has the edge over the train, because the half-hourly train service is far from reliable, and Twickenham station is a ten minute walk from the town centre. Even the ferry is quicker, despite the ten minute walk between it and the nearest bus stop in Petersham, but it doesn’t run in the evenings.
@timbeau – indeed, the 76 via Bfrs used to be a very quick route to the City and I never understood the rationale for diverting it.
In practice what I was suggesting diversion away from Ludgate Hill.
In fact, probably the quickest route to the west end of the City is to walk to Bfrs Rd and get the bus across the river – about 20 minutes.
You know the reliability of the 281 better than I these days but I’m surprised that it’s more reliable than the train. BTW how reliable is the ferry?. (I always seemed to suffer from “negative presence” in relation to that…)
BTW, how can you use Fetter Lane to turn a bus coming from Fleet Street except by bringing it back via Holborn? (“Nice” turn into Kingsway…)None of the side streets is capable either of taking a bus or leads back to Fleet Street, and leading back to Farringdon St merely creates a horrendous right turn to get back to Fleet st.
The Guardian has today republished an archive piece from 1962 about the Victoria Line getting the go ahead. I’m sure some of the numbers mentioned will amuse. I also like the suggestion that fares on the new line could be higher than on others to help pay for the service. Imagine if central London Crossrail cost more than the tube…
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/aug/21/victoria-underground-line-gets-go-ahead-archive-1962
@Graham H
I hadn’t actually considered a short working from Waterloo to Fleet Street – I had in mind that (say) the 26 goes that way and the 76 reverts to its original route via Blackfriars, or that the 4 is re-extended, from its proposed new terminus at Blackfriars, to Waterloo via Stamford Street.
I don’t think that right turn at Ludgate Circus can be that “horrendous”, as the 172 does just that (although I note it is to be cut back to Aldwych, so maybe it isn’t working)
But if you do want to terminate in the Fleet Street area, the Farringdon Street route you suggested would work, with one modification – you go anticlockwise (left at Ludgate Circus, left again into Clerkenwell Street and then straight over Holborn Circus into Fetter Lane). Or, if you want to run both ways on Fetter Lane, just do an orbit of Prince Albert’s statue at Holborn Circus.
Other possibilities include diverting one of the existing routes over Blackfriars Bridge to run via Waterloo instead of direct down Blackfriars Road.
The 281 may not be as reliable as the train, but it is much more frequent, so the chances of one turning up in the next 15 minutes is rather better than they are for the train.
I must admit to only ever having used Hammerton’s ferry at weekends. It is dependant on the tides though.
@Graham H: If you’ve walked all the way from Waterloo to Blackfriars Bridge, you might as well walk the rest of the way. The Blackfriars Road/Farringdon Street corridor is a prime example of how the London cycling revolution has harmed the bus network…
@Straphan – I’m inclined to agree with you but I invariably find myself discouraged by the ghastly pedestrian Piranesian passageways at the northern bridgehead. [Bridgeheads and their anti-pedestrian ways are a particular bugbear of mine and I won’t wax in extensor, save to say that Waterloo southside must qualify for a special prize, and Lambeth is almost Parisian in its usability…]
@timbeau – yes, that would be an elegant way of turning what would be a new Red Arrow route in all but name. Not sure how you would deal with a Waterloo-Southwark Br – “City” route, however – it would seem difficult to avoid sitting at the Bank intersection for some 10s of minutes.
extenso – damn fat fingers/gout/predictive text.
Waterloo – City NOT via the Drain ….
I know somoene who works on the N side of Cheapside, but a lot of her fellows commute in to Waterloo …
And if it isn’t raining, an awful lot of them simply walk
Roupell St Colombo St Burrel&Hopton Sts round the Tate over the not-wobbly-any-longer bridge – up almost to the big church & turn right. Simples.
@Graham H: One of the advantages of the cycle superhighway scheme is that you no longer have to use said passages, as there is now a network of pedestrian crossings. Granted, both pedestrians and vehicles now have to wait forever to get across, but still…
Nice to see there are some advantages…
@Graham H
“Not sure how you would deal with a Waterloo-Southwark Br – “City” route,”
A route over Blackfriars Bridge and up Queen Vic Street would suit me…………
@Straphan
“If you’ve walked all the way from Waterloo to Blackfriars Bridge, you might as well walk the rest of the way.”
Indeed – why wait in the rain for a 63 when you can walk through Blackfriars Station in the dry. (Indeed, by also using Waterloo East/Southwark, you are under cover nearly all the way)
(And if it’s not raining I’ll be on NCN4/CS6 on a Boris Bike – although then you can’t avoid the aforesaid junctions at either end of Blackfriars Bridge, which are not very cyclist-friendly if you want to join or leave CS6 there).
@Graham H: If rumours are anything to go by, New Fetter Lane could be losing its only existing route, the 341. That said, if you did want to turn a bus somewhere nearby, why not run it down Charterhouse St to Farringdon station or West Smithfield?
@Answer=42 11:52
The city is Zürich so between 1.3 and 1.8m, depending on how exactly you count (about 400,000 in the city proper).
So significantly smaller – but the approach is very much scalable. Perhaps less so in the very centre of London – where there might need to be other considerations (I don’t count myself qualified enough to speak in any amount of detail about that). But in “suburban” London this is the exact approach that I get the feeling is lacking.
The main difference is the continual investment that has and continues to go on, and the seamless integration between modes. The latter would likely be significantly more challenging to achieve in London, although more for political reasons than anything else.
What also helps here is the relatively linear fashion in which the transport provision develops based on demand.
bus -> bendy bus -> bendy trolleybus (nowadays often with wire free sections) -> bi-articulated trolleybus (there are no non-electrified bi-articulated buses, with electrification considered a pre-requisite for their use) -> tram -> (metre guage) rapid transit (Forchbahn, Glattalbahn, Limmattalbahn if/when it gets built).
Longer distances are covered by the S-Bahn – with essentially three “mini-crossrails” passing underneath Zürich HB (only two actually go through, and one is also used by long-distance trains)
Much of this, for various reasons would be difficult, if at all desirable , to replicate in London.
Other aspects (rather unfairly in my personal opinion) are discounted without a second thought – such as trolleybuses and bendy buses (where these are appropriate for the road infrastructure, which again would be outside of central London).
It helps of course, that the public is for the most part very much in favour of public transport – a recent attempt to cut the ZVV’s (TfL equivalent) funding was blocked by the electorate for example. Relatively high subsidies of about 33% keep costs low, which also helps – I pay approximately 1CHF per journey within the city zone for example.
Oh dear. Nice to see the “this is so easy” brigade are out in full force. There is ample evidence from across the UK that making regular and extensive network recasts simply do not work. The suggestion that you inflict that sort of thing on London completely fails to appreciate the enormous scale, risks and impact of such an endeavour. You are talking about a wholesale change that could, at its maximum extent, affect 50% of the bus journeys made in the UK. That’s London’s share of total bus usage in England. You tamper with that at your peril.
I have lost count of the times when Leon Daniels told the Assembly Transport Committee that making wholesale change is highly risky and disruptive and unlikely to achieve the desired result. By all means have a phased approach and ensure you take the public with you rather than imposing something on them regardless of what they tell you via consultation. I have done a simple analysis of just the bus stand / terminal implications of the leaked Central London proposals. The changes are highly interdependent because of the shortage of stand space. You can’t just go “oh don’t change the 45” because that has implications on other changes like cutting short the 476 to Kings Cross. It is doubtful TfL will make these dependencies clear in the upcoming consultation but they are there and they create a rigidity in the proposed scale of changes. I am sure there are a number of other unstated factors like removal of routes in advance of planned gyratory works (for example at Waterloo). No great shock to me that Waterloo will lose a fair number of buses per hour. I expect a second or third phase of changes will remove even more before the works commence.
There is a very basic issue here – what problem(s) are TfL trying to solve? No one has stated that in clear terms. Without knowing the problems how can you have any confidence in the solutions? There is a load of flowery language in the leaked presentation featured on the 853 Blog. No one will be shocked that I have taken it to pieces and tried to understand what is really going on. To my mind the answer is a mix of “save a lot of money quickly” and “try hard to achieve some “Healthy Streets” quick wins for the Mayor prior to 2020″. Now none of that is focused on bus users. It’s financial and political and therefore of little relevance to the poor souls who use the buses. No wonder TfL aren’t being especially clear. You will also note the complete lack of timescales for all of this.
The Mayor conveniently said on TV “we will move buses from Central to Outer London”. Didn’t say when the latter happened. The other clever sleight of hand was using a percentage value to describe the cut (7%) but a kms value for the “expansion” in Outer London (4.5m kms). If we try to balance these up then the plan is to cut 37m kms (more than the nasty LRT regime achieved in the late 1980s) in 3 years and then do nothing until 2022 when, surprise surprise, 4m kms are added to the bus network (all figures from the TfL Business Plan). So enormous cuts over 3 years, wait 2 years and maybe get a modest expansion is what the official numbers say. It is perfectly possible this has been changed but the public are never told this.
I would just point out that TfL’s bus routes are all contracted. Every single change has to be negotiated, agreed and contract variations placed. It is clear that the procurement and planning resources in TfL and the bus companies are under enormous strain. They have been for several years but the current environment is probably the worst it has ever been and it will get worse. A wise person might ask whether it is actually sensible to put highly skilled and scarce resources under such repeated strain given we have another 3 years of this to endure. I can certainly foresee a major operator deciding they have had enough and selling up because the scale of change and attendant business risk is too high. That will do nothing for TfL in terms of competitive pressure on contract prices. I have a horrible feeling this whole “change the buses” thing is becoming a bit of a virility competition for some people – who can save the most money, who can make the biggest changes, etc etc? It just feels wrong and out of scale and certainly NOT what people voted for. No one will be shocked to hear that I do not expect there to be a happy ending to this particular “adventure” that TfL have embarked upon.
@ DM1 – I have a limited awareness of Zurich having visited a few times over the years. Sadly it’s so expensive in terms of hotels etc that more frequent visits haven’t been possible. I can recall having my mind blown on my first visit by the sheer efficiency and reliability of the buses, trolleybuses and trams. I sat at a suburban interchange and watched all the buses clock round every 10 mins or so, wait for the trams to arrive, everyone interchanges and then everything sets off again. It was so amazing for someone used to UK public transport that it has engrained itself on my memory. On my next visit I went and did the same thing just to check it was still happening. It was.
It would be lovely to imagine we could have the same in London but we can’t. It isn’t possible politically or financially. As you rightly point out there is the question of scale. There is also the significant point that Zurich has ensured it has kept fixed transport infrastructure (and priority) on its road network to the benefit of trams and buses/trolleys. That has given the populace a confidence to rely on public transport, to ensure it is funded and not obstructed and it has ensured a hierarchy (perhaps unstated) that puts public transport above private. We do not have that legacy in London. Our roads are chaotic and there is no political consensus about how to manage them. The same applies to financing of the transport network where we have the egregious situation of public transport fares revenue funding road maintenance. We have an old tube network that struggles to find the money to invest properly at the right time in renewed / better assets. We have a rail network that can’t manage to change timetables properly and people who demand their rail services can NEVER change. We have politicians who claim not be in charge of transport despite being the Secretary of State for Transport with enormous legal powers. We also have a facile and never ending debate about the role / structure / ownership / funding of the rail network. I bet you don’t have that nonsense in Switzerland?
The closest place in Gtr London where you could try and mimic Zurich is probably Croydon because of Tramlink. However there was scant attempt to provide the quality of interchange there that Zurich has. Sure there is Addington Village interchange and also New Addington but bus stops are scattered, frequencies are not aligned, signage between stops is poor etc etc. Central Croydon is nightmarish for a load of reasons with only limited planned bus to tram interchange. It’s more a case of squashing the buses around the tram route and trying to avoid each mode affecting the other. East and West Croydon are small exceptions to this but still not on the Zurich model at all.
There is simply too much activity and volatilty in Greater London to ensure that buses could run like clockwork *all the time* to align perfectly with tube, rail, tram and DLR services. Maybe Zurich has its manic moments but it’s always struck me as a measured and rather sedate place. I’m sure there are exceptions to this perception but it doesn’t have London’s more manic “vibe”.
TfL can’t or won’t even schedule buses on overlapped sections of route to run at even headways when the base frequencies are low / lowish (evenings and Sundays). I am sure the Swiss go to decent lengths to ensure good balanced headways on shared sections but we can’t or won’t do it here even when it is in passengers’ best interests. I’ll stop now as I could go on for hours (and bore everyone to tears).
I think your aspiration is a fine one. I just think it is completely undeliverable in London given current and likely political and funding issues. No one sees it is an important thing to do. I bet Zurich residents *do* see it as fundamental and make sure their politicians know this.
@Walthamstow Writer
I think you’ve summarised exactly the points I was trying to make. Yes, there are certain aspects that wouldn’t work in London at all- but the main problems appear to be political and structural. Were there a long term plan, with sustained investment (which admittedly is the polar opposite to the situation London finds itself in now as far as I can tell), then gradually adapting the bus network to fit this plan would work.
Perhaps I’m being a little idealistic in saying that when buses play such a huge role in London’s public transport (especially away from the Underground and commuter rail corridors), that making them efficient and effective (at least as much as possible) is an aim worth pursuing, no matter how complicated it is to achieve.
After all, such detailed and longer term thinking was (eventually) applied on the Victoria Line in order to achieve 36tph, and the SSR is now also having its turn (albeit after horrific problems with Public Private Partnerships in the past), meaning it’s not impossible in London where the will is there.
Part of it is also treating the buses less as a service that is provided, and more as a piece of infrastructure (e.g. a tube line) that is operated like any other (albeit with the infrastructure itself for the most part much simpler). The old trolleybuses and trams in London essentially forced this kind of thinking (you have to think carefully before you put wires up anywhere). A side effect (and probably initially considered an advantage of) dieselisation has meant that it is possible to modify routes on a whim. This is not conducive to a stable network well adapted to demand and predictable for passengers.
Zürich has huge historical advantages in this regard , having never gotten rid of its trams like most other cities – so the prioritisation they had historically has been kept up, so driving was never as attractive to the same extent.
The reason nothing appears as hectic (aside from the size difference), is that investments have tended to be in advance of predicted demand, rather than huge overcrowding causing somebody high up to realise that perhaps something needs to be done about it. This is, for various reasons, no longer possible in London (essentially the space is no longer there).
So, some 50 years on, a new Bus Reshaping Plan.
Implementation started in September 1968 but fizzled out.
But that time there was an overall Plan. This time they seem to be making it up as they go along – some stages reversing changes made in the previous one (see the route 100/388 see-saw)
Echoing DM1 & agreeging … but:
I never said it was going to be easy ( or cheap) to re-write London’s bus routes, but that it probably needed doing.
What I mistakenly didn’t say & WW has – is that this is a political & even worse from a Brit p.o.v. a long-term planning decision – & we don’t do those very often, do we?
However, I still think, that sooner or later the problem will have to be faced & the urgency of public transport for all – as the preferred mode. If only because we simply cannot imitate “Holland” or anywhere in the Netherlands because London is both too big & too hilly for cycling everywhere for everybody – & I speak as a cyclist. And no matter what the “lycra” brigade may shout, it is no more practical than the “Buchanan” solution was for 1960’s London.
But that is not our current Mayor’s preference-set, is it?
@ DM1 – I may be being unfair to people in Surface Transport but LU has a much longer history and competence in managing projects. OK not every one has been a rip roaring success but an “asset heavy” organisation has to have the requisite engineering and project competence. I doubt the bus side has ever treated large scale bus network changes as a “project”. I have my doubts that what is happening now is being considered as a “project” with the requisite objectives, targets, programmes, competence & resources and risk management.
As Timbeau has said there is a lot of reversing recent decisions. For those who know the detail there has been a series of errors and mistakes with a number of route and frequency changes which have had to be urgently but quietly reversed. In some cases TfL were warned by local reps and went ahead anyway with the chaos arising just as predicted. If nothing else this says to me there is a lack of competent, experienced resource (most of it has left / retired) in the bus side and certainly a degree of arrogance that you ignore what politicians and passengers warn you about. For me that’s not a “good look” and bodes badly for the future as the last thing passengers want is years of service changes while TfL scrambles for the “right” answer. We had that sort of non stop tinkering and changing in the 1980s (and earlier) and it just drove people off the buses. It was only when the network stabilised alongside some positive initiatives by the privatised bus companies that passengers started to return.
Past bus network changes have been driven largely from “business as usual” use of the contracting regime with regular route reviews meaning some routes gained improvements but many did not. That was a stark difference between Ken’s era (expansionist) and Boris’s (bare down on overall subsidy levels and negligible expansion). Boris was lucky for 6 of his 8 years in that patronage kept rising despite annual fare rises. When problems did emerge there was still enough cash to try to maintain service levels despite road works and congestion. Sadly the patronage losses have continued since then and TfL seem unable to stop them. They now no longer have the cash so cuts are the main response alongside some spend on bus priority measures. There has clearly been something of a fundamental change in the last 12-18 months as the previous Business Plan (first one after Khan was elected) opted to keep network volume stable. We then got a plan which axes 37m kms. There has been no official explanation, that I’ve seen or read, as to why this happened. Worse, Assembly Members seem not to have twigged what was in the plan hence the lack of challenge.
If TfL are intent of taking out 37m kms from network service volume then that is a hefty endeavour which will need a lot of planning and co-ordination. You need to do it in a way that prevents a further acceleration of patronage losses but I don’t see any signs of the requisite “care” being exercised in these leaked changes. In terms of scale we are talking about reversing 15 years of expansion over 3 years (from 2018 back to 2003). LRT, in the late 80s, intended to take out 11m miles over 2-3 years. TfL are talking doing double this (22m miles). It is a very different world now from the late 80s and I’d argue the reputational risks are much higher now. There is certainly no positive plan for the bus network (despite the verbiage in the TfL presentation) and the average passenger has little idea what it will mean for them. It’s all in very stark contrast to the more measured approach by the Swiss but, of course, they start from a different place in terms of how their network is structured.
@Timbeau, WW
Exactly.
Implementing and reversing changes rapidly does nobody any favours, especially when they’re not thought through. Alas in the current political climate I’m not sure much can be done. One would need time and a competent planning team in order to achieve anything useful (the fact that TfL no longer appear to even have their own overall network maps speaks volumes).
37m kilometres of cuts. To put that into context, I have found the figures for 2014, which had TfL running just over 500m km. As there are about 550 routes the cuts equate to the complete withdrawal of about forty of them, or 1 in 14. You can visualise that how you like: scrapping routes 14, 28, 42, 56, 70, 84 98, 112, 126, …..476, and 490, or half the prefix routes, or all the routes higher than 430.
Or, with a total fleet of about 8750 buses, the average PVR is about 16. So we are looking at removing, on average, slightly more than one vehicle from every single route.
If I was standing close to Mr Khan’s ear, I would be noting the potential for catastrophe in rapidly shrinking the bus network by some 7%. I would suggest that the potential to minimise this potential lies in treating the ‘right-sizing’ of the network as a project with the requisite objectives, targets, indicators, competence & resources and risk management (to adapt WW slightly).
The overall objective of this project is simple. It is:
‘Minimise political damage’
We must have some grudging respect for our previous mayor, as a leaving gift for London (where he wouldn’t need to be re-elected again), he got rid of the TfL operating subsidy, which of course lined him up perfectly with the next target segment of voters: “The eternal tax cutters”.
At the same of course he could release the money for the Garden Bridge, as by the time that one would come home to roost it could all be blamed on his successor.
In the same way he’s managed to grab the credit (ahem) for the bikes, when actually the only thing he did was set up the (loss making) sponsorship deal…
Can I change the project objective already? It should read:
‘Minimise political damage while achieving financial targets’
@ SHLR – I am rarely keen to be fair to Boris Johnson but the plan always was to scrap revenue grant by 2020 (Sir Peter Hendy mentioned this and said TfL have clear plans to achieve it). From what Isabel Dedring told the Assembly Transport Cttee the final funding settlement of Boris’s term was nowhere near what he wanted. It looks to me that the Newspaper Editor in Chief, Gorgeous George Osborne, is the real villain of the piece here. He forced the advancement of the removal of revenue grant by 2 years (to 2018) and gave London a relatively poor funding settlement for capital investment. IIRC the Funding Letter makes explicit that if any future Mayor tries to raise additional revenues from new sources then govt funding will be cut back. Similarly if fares are frozen then zero financial help will be available from the Government. In other words “sink or swim” TfL as we’ve washed our hands of you. They won’t be bothered at all that TfL are faced with having to chop 37m kms from the bus network. In fact they are probably secretly delighted that a Labour Mayor is having to undo all the good work of their favourite “bete noir” London politician, Ken Livingstone.
When you add on to that the arrival of a certain Mr Grayling at the DfT and his clear desire to be as political as possible with a Labour Mayor you have a poisonous mix. Someone tipped me off today on social media that the Communities Minister is apparently going to overrule the Mayor’s planning rules on number of car spaces in new developments (i.e. increase them). That’s a challenge to “Healthy Streets” policy and also housing / planning policies. When you throw that in alongside Grayling’s refusal to support the raising of parking fines and Westminster City Council’s challenges to Mayoral policies I can see a bit of a political effort to undermine the Mayor’s policies. How long before a Tory borough mounts a legal challenge to the planned bus cuts? A bizarre concept I know but in terms of causing more trouble for Mayoral policies a delightful prospect for the Conservative Party. We know the Mayor does not like criticism or challenge and can react badly. Looks to me as if someone has decided to see how far he can be provoked behind the famously “calm” exterior.
We’ve obviously done the Garden Bridge elsewhere but I still struggle that Khan was in favour of it proceeding. He later had to kill it but I don’t think he comes out of the mess very well at all. It is ironic that Labour Assembly Members have kicked up far more of a fuss and made more of the running on the issues that he did. He had to catch up which politically seems odd (to me).
““If you’ve walked all the way from Waterloo to Blackfriars Bridge, you might as well walk the rest of the way.”
Indeed – why wait in the rain for a 63 when you can walk through Blackfriars Station in the dry. (Indeed, by also using Waterloo East/Southwark, you are under cover nearly all the way) ”
Indeed, Thameslink is becoming reliable enough now (see other threads) that you can save yourself the walks through Waterloo East and Blackfriars stations by hopping on the rear of a train at the former, and by switching to Thameslink at London Bridge (via the concourse) you will be at the north end of the train when it gets to Blackfriars. I’ve not timed it, but it seems to take about the same length of time as walking. (And free if you have a “London Terminals” ticket)
Walthamstow Writer
22 August 2018 at 23:45
“We’ve obviously done the Garden Bridge elsewhere but I still struggle that Khan was in favour of it proceeding. He later had to kill it but I don’t think he comes out of the mess very well at all. It is ironic that Labour Assembly Members have kicked up far more of a fuss and made more of the running on the issues that he did. He had to catch up which politically seems odd (to me).”
He was giving it enough rope to hang itself.
The problem with that as a tactic, is that only the in-crowd might spot how astute it is.
@WW
As most of the bus cuts will affect central London and the inner London boroughs, then a lot of Labour boroughs will be affected worst.
If he then increases services in outer London, then many Tory boroughs will benefit!
@DM1 a few thoughts on Zurich v London:
Buses are great but stop at about 9 pm in my locality, after which Uber is the only way home. In London you can trust buses to get you home until about midnight.
The S-Bahn is amazing, you almost always get a seat. But Zurich certainly doesn’t have 3 crossrails. The busiest ‘Durchmesserlinie’ has 13 trains per hour. The Elizabeth line will have 24, as will Thameslink meaning capacity is about 40 years of growth away from being full up in Zurich; it’s already full in London as of December 2019.
Geographically there are lakes and 800m hills which make radial routes difficult in Zurich. The entire infrastructure is fundamentally focussed on getting people to the vast (and to the uninitiated very confusing) Hauptbahnhof and around the city by tram (but not the suburban towns and villages) and back out again. London has orbital routes and makes good use of them. Both cities could do with more but I would say Zurich loses out here.
It’s not all beer and skittles in London, I realise, and yes I would take a seat on an on-time RABe 511 over a delayed Class 700 ironing board anytime, but please value what you have. Recent investment in London has been on a huge scale compared to Zurich, how can you say the Brits don’t take transport seriously?
@SPYCH102
I can’t speak for your locality – but in my experience within Zone 110 (the city proper) buses and trams run until just after midnight, with an extensive night bus and S-Bahn network on Friday and Saturday nights.
I called them ‘mini-crossrails’ for a reason – of course they are not comparable with London’s crossrail in scale. Their purpose is however similar – connecting two previously disconnected lines on either side of the city and turning the main station(s) into through routes.
Comparing frequency in isolation in Zürich is somewhat misleading – firstly, in the case of the Durchmesserlinie, because it also service intercity trains – which for obvious reasons have longer dwell times, and so reduced frequency, and secondly because the trains can and are very long. Platforms 31-34 are 420m long (if my research is right). Platforms 41-44 are slightly shorter (I believe, but can’t find any reliable source) but are no shorter than 300m.
In other words, in terms of capacity Zürich can do much, much more in terms of length in comparison to London, before needing to increase frequency. Being able to use double-deck rolling stock makes this effect even larger. Even Crossrail has shorter platforms (200m) although as I understand it, building them any longer would have been near-impossible under central London.
I’ll also note, that platforms 41-44 (Museumstrasse) serve 17tph (counted from a timetable between 8 and 9am), although I imagine the Durchmesserlinie is busier in terms of passengers.
I don’t contest that there has been massive investment in London in recent years. My point is more that
1. For a city the size and density of London, there needs to be an order of magnitude more (the same goes for the rest of the country, probably to an even larger extent).
2. There needs to be long term planning and the funding to back it up, and the expertise to carry it out.
In Zürich, the infrastructure has kept ahead of demand. In London, a lack of investment (or at least, enough investment) has meant that demand caught up with and overtook supply, meaning the city is playing catch-up. It is doubtful at this point, that catching up is even possible in London.
In terms of scale of investment – the Durchmesserlinie for example cost around 1.8bn CHF- so about £1.4bn. Given London is about 20x larger (comparing inner city populations of 400,000 and 8.1m ) the scale is very similar I’d say, (when comparing with Crossrail’s £15bn) if not in favour of Zürich, given that that is far from the only sizable project that has happened or is planned.
As for radial connectivity – yes, outside the city proper it could be better – but as you’ve said geography makes that difficult – and although the Swiss are very good at tunnelling, I don’t think even in Switzerland, that the financial costs of building the infrastructure needed to provide a significant improvement would have a particularly favourable BCR. I have no doubt that what can be done reasonably either has been done, or will be done in the foreseeable future.
Bakerloo not issuing revised WTT to run against the LO 4tph until May if that helps clear things up. I think the embargo on timetable changes and the late running new trains have combined to make that the case. I wouldn’t be surprised to see some off-peak services run with the new stock before that date though.
There currently seem to be 3 or 4 of the new trains at Willesden depot, visible from recent passes on both DC and AC lines.
@ ASL – there are six class 710s at Willesden. I saw them all the other weekend. Some are only visible from the south – 3 in the depot, 3 in sidings outside. I managed this from a combination of arriving on a LO train and leaving on a 220 bus which skirts the east and south sides of the depot. The upper deck gives a reasonable view into the depot.
Re DM1,
“Even Crossrail has shorter platforms (200m) although as I understand it, building them any longer would have been near-impossible under central London.”
The platforms are actually 250m long but the trains in the tunnel section are only 205m initially but can be lengthened to 250m.
@NGH How will that tunnel lengthening happen? I assumed that the platform edge barrier simply didn’t yet have doors at the end ~30m, but it’s not come up in any photos I’ve seen or googling now
@ Toby
I believe that the ends of the platforms are walled off and the sections beyond are just bare concrete with no finishes/fixtures. Might be visible on the driver eye view videos on YouTube
@ASL
@WW
I have to put the ‘broken record’ on again! Still no type approval from Network Rail for Class 710. If mileage accumulation and crew training doesn’t start by 15 September, there won’t be enough 710s in public service to operate the Barking – Gospel Oak timetable from 30 November when ARL’s sublease on the 7xClass172s expires. When you write your letters to Santa for Christmas, please ask for fully operational Class 710!
Re Crossrail platform lengths, I think this video shows a variety of situations, but at 5m 30s there’s a fairly obvious block wall at the west end of the Farringdon platform.
Video: https://youtu.be/d-RzWLxPQCs
710 Mileage accumulation will be on GEML and WCML (similar to 345 testing before the OOC Crossrail depot opened it doors)
@ BGORUG sec – Unless something changes in the next few days with the “acceptability” of the class 710s then I’m very much of the view that we will see the 172s depart in November and the return of rail replacement buses on the GOBLIN. I can’t see a single class 710 being ready and even moderately reliable by November this year. If something does change within 4-5 days then I suspect we will see an utter mad panic to try to get 710s working with the attendant risk that the things will break down all the time in passenger service if they make it past the acceptance stage. Neither scenario is exactly “useful” to passengers.
This whole debacle with Bombardier is not making anyone look good. I dread to think what the commercial consequences are for TfL, Network Rail / DfT, Arriva London Rail and Bombardier arising from the decision to electrify the GOBLIN. It must be well into the tens of millions of pounds with the potential to head quickly towards £100m. The lawyers fees for all the various claims and disputes must be racking up too. I suspect some in DfT are writing a learned essay about the perils of electrifying urban railway lines so they can ensure it never happens again. It’s all very sad.
Why do all the new electric trains have to use ‘new’ untested tech? Surely there are enough current models by now?
@Chrismitch
Because that’s how you win a franchise.
But the TfL/Overground lines are not franchised – it’s just a contract to run the trains and manage the drivers isn’t it? There is no revenue risk involved, just provide a service, and get paid for it.
Re Chris Mitch,
These are the first trains with a new software variant (based on 7car 345 experience) and the new improved DOO camera system (345s use platform mounted cameras). Anglia, WM and SWR will all have fewer issues.
@Chrismitch
In general Overground has gone for tried and tested products where it could:
– the 378s are Electrostars, similar in concept to the 375/376/377s that had already been running south of the Thames for a decade – they look different only because they needed an emergency door in the cab front.
– similarly, the 172s are essentially Turbostars, a design with its origins in the Networker Turbos of the Network South East era: the initial problems TfL had with them was because the exhaust systems were a new design, as they were the first diesel units to be ordered anywhere in the UK since new emissions rules came in.
– the 710s are Aventras, like the 345s already built for Crossrail. So it is surprising they are having problems with them, particularly since the 345s themselves seem to have slipped into service fairly smoothly.
The Underground, of course, has its own particular needs, but both the S stock and 2009 stock are based on Bombardier’s Movia platform which has been around since 2001.
Timbeau. There are all sorts of software differences between class 378 and the train s it was based on. Equally, class 345 has software based on class 387 whereas class 710 has a new version.
Movie is a brand name an ‘based on covers a multitude of differences for example the software on Victoria line is quite different from that on S stock
With the news that Crossrail is delayed, I assume the associated bus changes will be postponed too?
Re Mikey C,
But they need to save even more money now!
The cash flow situation will be bad.
@ Ngh – understand your comment. Not sure it is immediately true. We’ve had the Crossrail bail out announced a few weeks ago. OK TfL have to fund some of that but there is new money on the table. Most of the revenue assigned to Crossrail this year and next is largely transfers of existing TfL revenue (Tube / DLR to Crossrail). This was stated by TfL finance people to the London Assembly. It is really 2020 onwards where things are bad if Crossrail is delayed. In financial terms for TfL 2020 is really eons away as they have to get through the rest of this financial year and the next. These were described by Val Shawcross (before she left) as two incredibly tough years probably because Crossrail wasn’t bringing in new money.
As I have said before it is the economy post Brexit and associated employment levels (and thus commuting volumes) that probably poses the biggest risk to TfL’s finances. If things go bad next year then all bets are off IMO. Once you start losing commuter income in a zero subsidy environment then drastic action will be needed. What the Crossrail delay will do is potentially make 2020/21 and 2021/22 very difficult years as well. I suspect there will now be an enormous tension between TfL wanting the Shenfield and GWML routes connected in ASAP and the DfT / RDG being nervous over large scale timetable changes. I’d not be shocked if TfL want Shenfield added in Dec 2019 and GWML in May 2020 but others want those dates shoved out by another 6 months. (I’ve not checked for associated already planned timetable recasts for Gtr Anglia and GWR which will be key issues).
Re WW,
Understood. They still have to make savings from buses though or find the cash from elsewhere.
Anglia Region total recast for Dec’ 2019 (for Abellio Anglia benefit)
Western Region total recast in May 2019 (was Jan ’19 originally) for GWR benefit (IEP and 387s introduction benefits).
TfL also has a Vision Zero plan for a blanket speed limit by 2020.
Someone said only the Motorway spurs were central Government and TfL manages the rest.
Would this be a standard 30mph on all dual carriageways?
You could say average traffic speeds are lower anyway. Roads like the North Circular require concentration when limits switch between 50 and 40 then even variable. Will this be easier on everyone ?
There will be a 20mph zone in ‘the centre’. Does that equate to ‘the congestion zone’?
Thoughts on bus timings especially night time?
Aleks,
Puzzled as to both the point you are trying to make and what relevance it is to the article or anything discussed subsequently.
Who says average traffic speeds are lower anyway? I can’t find any reference to this in either the article or comments. And no-one has mentioned motorway spurs. What would what be easier on anyone?
Also please do not get in the habit of having a topic of interest to you and inviting comments when we haven’t been talking about it – at least not on this website. We don’t want the discussion to divert to night time bus timings for no reason.
Re: Barking – Gospel Oak, I was amused to see this tweet from London Travel Watch today. Given they are the official London transport watchdog, I’m suprised they are willing to be this confident in what Tfl are saying…
We’ve recently discussed issues surrounding electrification of Barking to Gospel Oak line with Arriva Rail & understand @tfl will soon be run new electric trains on the line.This’ll be phased in with some electric trains running alongside some diesel ones from end Nov #ltwpolicy
@AP
You were not the only one who was amused! It is becoming clearer by the day that the “watchdog” has had a lot of its teeth pulled! Think this tweet arose from a LTW board meeting today? Interesting that Arriva Rail London was sent in to bat alone, but TfL seems to have taken a vow of silence since the Crossrail announcement, they certainly will not talk to us!
I assume Bombardier are paying for the two PIXC-buster buses that now shift fresh air between Leytonstone High Road and Walthamstow Central via Leyton Midland Road. Departures from both ends 07:00 & 08:00. No publicity just agency staff that appear at the stations between 07:00 & 08:00 to fruitlessly attempt to encourage passengers to use the buses. The contract runs out at the end of the month, in time for full bustitution to start.
There’s a new press release on our website https://tinyurl.com/yccqkl97
Forget my reference to PIXC-BUSters. These top secret buses don’t have any firm routes or timetables – TfL changing the arrangements every few days. I wonder if they are being used for route suveying and timetable testing possible new replacement bus routes for when the trains stop.
TfL have now confirmed the four “express” buses as running Monday to Friday from Leytonstone High Road at 07:00, 07:30, 08:05 & 08:35, calling at Leyton Midland Road on the way to Walthamstow Central.
A fight was reported on the 17:20 ex Gospel Oak tonight when someone tried to take a bike onto the train at Leyton Midland Road.
TfL have until the end of this week to get a Class 710 off Willesden TMD to meet their latest, self imposed, deadline on route gauging and driver training. Meanwhile ASLEF expects driver training to start in November, with Class 710s in public service in January!
BGORUG secretary
There was a very recent web-link stating that class 710’s are finally being allowed out on the “main” lines for testing …..
Here it is – though even there, I note … “by the end of the month” (!)
The TfL/Bombardier statement fails to mention that a Class 710 cannot move off Willesden TMD without Network Rail Type Approval, which has still not been issued. Modern Railways reports that Class 172s will be transferred to West Midlands Trains at intervals. We have reason to believe that the second unit will transfer within two weeks. That will leave insufficient units to maintain the timetable.
Once Network Rail grants Type Approval, it will take at least two months before a Class 710 can enter public service.
BGORUG secretary
Caan you or anyone explain why it is taking so long for the 710’s to get Type Approval?
(I saw the solitary example yesterday on the way to Liverpool, incidentally)
@Greg
“I saw the solitary example yesterday on the way to Liverpool”
Presumably it was you, rather than the class 710, that was on the way to Liverpool!
Far from being solitary, there were at least three at Willesden when I last passed through in early August, and Rail Magazine reports that there are now six.
https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/class-710-testing-due-to-move-to-the-main-line?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
@Greg
There have been six Class 710s at Willesden for at least a month now. All we know is that the trains have a new Train Control Management System (TCMS) which has to interface with every other system on the train and it doesn’t! The final software fix is always just around the corner!
The curse of Timbeau strikes again (keep going! ;-))
[Started with the 717s last Friday now this]
5Z50 Willesden TMD – Barking (started 3 minutes late)
5Z51 Barking – Gospel Oak
5Z52 Gospel Oak – Barking
5Z53 Barking – Gospel Oak
5Z54 Gospel Oak – Barking
5Z55 Barking – Willesden TMD
Glad to be of service
Some way to go before those initial 5s become 2s though.
Re Timbeau,
The 769 (on diesel power) press ride launch day is today, the curse is working its magic!
(But not on CAF’s new sleeper stock where the “magic” just applies to the handbrakes self-applying themselves at high speed so 6 month delay instead)
@NGH
Oh dear – that could result in a very rude awakening. Does the problem affect Transpennine’s CAF-built Mark 5’s as well?
Maybe Northern’s 195s and 331s are still on course for getting into service on schedule. Oh, wait – who’s been building them?
Re Timbeau,
Other CAF stock not affected. The TPE Mk5s are fixed formation and more akin to an unpowered multiple unit (like the old 4TCs ) so don’t have all the same features as the sleeper stock that will regularly get split, joined and swapped.
Serco are describing the Scottish sleeper stock as the most complex in history. I think they mean in their (selective) history only.
@NGH beat me to it! Do you know which unit it was? Our member at Walthamstow Queen’s Road didn’t get the number as he was videoing it!
Mileage accumulation runs on the WCML start tonight.
Re BGORUG Sec,
265?
WCML runs – Willesden to Rugby then Rugby – Crewe loops (standard Bombardier loops for 387s and 345s) then back to Willesden at dawn
Probably a simple answer to this but since part of the motivation for HS2 is that the WCML is at capacity, why is it chosen for mileage accumulation runs? Is it simply that WCML is full at peak times but quite empty at night? If so, could some of the daytime freight not be rescheduled to darker slots?
Re Stewart,
A carefully chosen section is used for testing / mileage accumulation (not the busiest bit).
Effectively full at peak times, some spare capacity in places off peak day time. At night (post 2230?) the WCML operates as a 2 track railway with much reduced capacity so many intermediate destination may not be accessible on a particular night as north of Rugby the “WCML” is effectively a collection of 2 tracks routes. Ok for the sleeper services but not for a lot of freight to intermediate destination. Lots of the routes off the WCML also close a night for maintenance. Hence there isn’t that much more room for freight without making big changes (possibly UK wide)
Whilst non-stop runs up and down the Trent Valley line might be a quick and easy way to tick the “mileage accumulation” box, it’s hardly a realistic simulation of the stop-start operation these units will experience in service.
Have the lessons of the Hillman Imp been forgotten?
@ Ngh – having seen a snap of the train when stopped at Barking it is indeed 710 265.
@ Timbeau – must admit to thinking the same thing about these initial runs. The train clearly just whizzed back and forth on the GOBLIN and is doing the same on the WCML. While I can see the point in proving it can actually move, stop, start and run at highish speed it isn’t, as you say, representative of its likely working life. It’s the boring work of opening and closing doors that throws up the problems given doors are responsible for a highish proportion of train faults. I know there’s a programme of testing and things have to build up but let’s hope this is the start of some substantive progress with these trains. I’m still in a slight state of disbelief that one has actually run on the GOBLIN.
Re WW and Timbeau,
Bombardier have a large “shed” in Derby where the units (up to 4x 345s at a time) get plugged into a laptop and test programmes are run that open and close the doors thousands of times or cycle the air con and heating between min and max etc. to find (and fix) lots of issues before they even move under their own power on site or even go to the test track pre WCML mileage accumulation.
Hitachi have recently set up a similar “well hidden” facility for IEPs at Eastleigh for fault finding and rectification pre-hand over. Newtown Aycliffe can’t cope with the rectification work on everything from all 3 factories that are all behind and have problems.
@NGH
All well and good, but although Crewe to Rugby, at eighty miles, is equivalent in distance to three round trips on the Goblin, it is hardly as arduous a duty cycle for the brakes and motors as conditions on the Goblin where the trains will be expected to stop and start eleven times in 13 miles, shut down one cab and start up the other, and then do it all again.
It strikes me as somewhat strange that people here (with or without inside knowledge) seem to claim to know better than the people doing the tests just what sort of tests are required. To me (without inside knowledge), it seems that certain possible faults would be mileage related, and are therefore best tested-for by running many miles. Others, such as the door faults mentioned, are best tested-for by operating the doors many times. There are doubtless faults related to start-stop work too (e.g. brake faults), and the right test for these will be something different (which may be done out of sight on test tracks somewhere).
Is the difference that the mileage tests are being done in rather more publicly visible places?
Re timbeau,
The day time testing loops have often been far longer in both direction than Rugby or Crewe. You can accumulate mileage far quicker and with lower risk of disruption on busy parts of the network. (see how not to with the 700s)
Re Malc0lm,
Agreed.
” it seems that certain possible faults would be mileage related, and are therefore best tested-for by running many miles. ” for example Aventra gearbox issues found by running 345001 up and down the WCML daily (for the last 18+ months and counting).
As most braking is done regeneratively or rheostaticaly, the gearbox and motor cooling are very important, especially as the friction brakes start blending in a lower speeds than on other EMUs and the friction brakes aren’t a new design.
As the actual test track isn’t that long hence there is plenty of braking while testing things like signalling equipment earlier on in the testing.
@ Malcolm
You are probably right, but there are well known cases of tests being done because of some regulatory requirement but which didn’t simulate real world conditions. See Volkswagen.
I have already mentioned the Hillman Imp – thoroughly and enthusiastically tested in deserts and arctic conditions, but couldn’t cope in real life “shopping trolley” and school run use typical of its target market, when 95% of its mileage would be with the engine cold, the choke out, and most of the engine oil still in the sump.
Timbeau…The Hillman Imp issue is alive and well in today’s automobiles as I’m sure you know. Current diesels (or the various emissions add-ons) don’t take kindly to short runs. Diesel Particulate Filters are particularly prone to premature failure, and some models dump excess diesel fuel into the sump if a forced regeneration of the DPF (burning off the carbon) is interrupted. Having the oil level rising in an engine is a very bad thing.
Anyone in the market for a car destined for mainly short journeys is well advised not to buy a diesel!
I wonder whether this is an issue for range extending bi-mode trains (such as the class 769 Flex)?
@ Malcolm – I was not claiming to “know better”. I acknowledged that more testing of different issues was likely. I did not appreciate that Bombardier had done tests with the doors opening thousands of times. In my defence is it not the case that Bombardier have still encountered a range of door problems with the 345s *once they were put into passenger service*? In other words it is not until you let the dear old public loose on your train (or bus or tram) that it really encounters the rigours of day to day use. Obviously some testing aspects can be “speeded up” through intensive processes and that may prevent a problem 5, 10 or 20 years down the line which is good and sensible but computer rigs are not people. You can think you’ve tested for every possibility but you never can. I know this all too well from many years as a client for projects.
I think I would be a tiny bit less jaundiced if a new train fleet in the UK was achieving good reliability numbers from day one. I can’t recall the last time that happened. Every fleet has been late (for all sorts of reasons) or has struggled for many months to start building reliability and not screwing up the service for people on a daily basis. While I understand the need for very strong assurance processes to prevent unsafe trains entering service I do just wonder if all the “proving” requirements for assurance and sign off end up putting some aspects of reliability testing at the back of the queue with passengers really being the guinea pigs. There must be a debate to be had about how you efficiently and effectively “shake down” a train design in such a way that it is safe, functional, “passenger stress tested” and reliable when it enters service. We seem to do safe and functional but not the rest. I am sure the many industry experts and engineers will now tell me I’m wrong – no problem with that 😉
To take a tangential example the Chinese tri-axle double decker bus that is supposed to be out and about on route 12 has yet to turn a wheel in public service because someone decided to retrofit hybrid technology to it. It keeps having to go back for more testing and rectification work. Multiple “first days” in service have been missed. If it had been left as a euro6 diesel (yes I know that’s contrary to Mayoral expectations) it would have been in service weeks ago as similar 2 axle buses run in Thurrock with little problem. Oh and there are literally thousands and thousands of British designed and made tri-axle buses running in Hong Kong and Singapore but we couldn’t use one of those. Sometimes being too “clever” isn’t very helpful. No one is going to develop hybrid tri-axle deckers until there is a real mass market. If London wants to seriously evaluate higher capacity deckers it should get on with it ASAP and then indicate to the market that there is a potential order of xx vehicles but whatever bus is ordered needs to meet TfL spec. Let the industry fix it later when they have the incentive to do so rather than try to do a trial with one bus with technology that didn’t work well when fitted to older TfL spec diesel buses – I know because I travelled on one that cut out on the A406 (which was fun as you might imagine!).
WW
The problem you describe is a well-known one of course, that has cost untold millions if not billions of pounds in failures & not just in transport. ( Gov’t computer programmes, anyone? )
The unending desire to “fiddle” & change the specification, once the intial order has been made.
Crossrail managed to avoid that one, by ruthlessly telling the people who wanted to fiddle to go & take a long walk off a short pier. And, when it was forced onto them, such as disability-access on the outer-reaches stations, by making sure that it was not on their direct budget.
The parallel failure is the perpetual desire to re-invent the wheel & refusal to use an already-working solution that was invented somewhere else. Tram-Train is the poster-boy for that particular idiocy.
Or, if you go further back, the R101 – see either J E Gordon or N S Norway for accounts of that.
Re WW,
Very much agree you can’t test for everything. Doors – very difficult to replicate passenger effects in testing. they have been a problems for everyone since before the Networkers (the point at which everything else got sufficiently reliable that doors became the big issue.) The apparently poor 345 reliability is largely down to the engineers on board investigating, documenting and fixing most doors faults when they happen which will most times trip the train over the delay time threshold for MTIN. Hence the doors should get a lot better with software revisions, sensor parameters and set up.
TfL rail out of Liverpool Street is effectively a large passenger test programme for the 345s.
(Chinese made) Hong Kong spec tri- axles. Finally doing something sensible in London! If TfL want to trial tri-axle buses to gather data the sensible thing would have been borrow one from Dublin Bus or if the weather is nice a well known tourist bus company whose garage is in the mayor’s former constituency (on the same road he used to live on) who have some euro5 spec Chinese built HK spec tri-axles.
Hitachi are having a few disasters in Scotland at the moment with brake software, the entire 385 EMU fleet was withdrawn from service yesterday lunchtime (the software was isolating the brakes in the second unit, luckily the driver realised what was happening and still managed to stop at the through platform with the brakes on the 3car front unit (the rear unit was 4 car)). They also had a major brake failure near Exeter on an IEP the other week due to a manufacturing defect in a Japanese built unit that shouldn’t have passed multiple quality control checks in Japan, the software combined with the hardware setup then refused to allow the decoupling of the problem and problem free units leading to an 8 + hour job stopper until some software engineers (in addition to the army of fitters) arrived.
Re 130,
The bigger the engine the fewer the issues with DPFs so the 769s should be ok, many of the recent problems are to do with SCR (closer to the engine than DPF) removing more heat from the exhaust gas stream so there is a lot less by the time it gets to the DPF. The SCR and other emission gubbins means that a lot more heat is retained in the engine bays hence the need for more engine bay cooling and chopping ever larger holes in the back of buses to improve reliability. Same applies with recent diesel locomotives retaining a lot more waste heat in the engine bay. Many non-germanic continental car manufacturers have effectively withdrawn from the small diesel engine market at the euroVI start point which has been one reason for the shift back to petrol not just VWgate.
@NGH 3rd October
“The curse of Timbeau strikes again (keep going! ;-))”
https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-rotherham-tram-train-services-to-start-in-three-weeks-1-9381644
NB – none of these (now four) events have yet resulted in a train running on a service appearing in the public timetable, but it definitely looks like progress.
Re Timbeau,
The curse keeps on working – the other complete 769 is going from Brush to Liverpool this afternoon!
“They also had a major brake failure near Exeter on an IEP the other week due to a manufacturing defect in a Japanese built unit that shouldn’t have passed multiple quality control checks in Japan”
No doubt that was a source of great embarrassment to the home company. Might they even go as far as figuring out how it managed to slip through the net, and act on it? That will be a fairly revealing report.
Ben,
But not if written in Japanese.
Four Lines Non-Modernisation
It seems from the recent comments on the District Dave site that this won’t even start until 2019.
One comment: “This is fast becoming a joke. They need to get this new system running soon because the near daily signal failures on the SSR are becoming a big issue”.
And that, I suggest, is the real problem. Only good news is they seem to be progressing well with hardware and a lot of the testing so, once the software is sorted out (familiar story?) they should be able progress quite quickly.
172006 went off sublease today and ran to Bombardier’s Ilford depot. ARL have only been able to cover five out of the six Class 172 diagrams today. Monday could be grim.
@PoP: Google Translate does a much better job of Japanese, than say for example Thai…
378232 is reported elsewhere as now reduced to a 4car unit (out on test to Milton Keynes today), for intended use on the Barking-Gospel Oak line.
GOBLINX gets green light
http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2018/12/21/196m-barking-rail-extension-awarded/
First 4 car class 378 substitutes for one of the 6 remaining GOBLIN 172’s from Monday.
Another two will follow per TfL.
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2019/january/modified-electric-trains-to-be-used-temporarily-on-london-overground-s-gospel-oak-to-barking-line
Modified rapture – as I don’t think the Overground normally has many 378s sitting around idle, one does wonder what other services have been trimmed back to find the three now to be used on the Goblin. (And is there any maintenance cover for this new 4-car subclass?)
@TIMBEAU
Are some of the new “black” Overground trains? I got on one at Surrey Quays on 19th December 2018?
timbeau,
Mainly the thoughts of ngh with a couple of mine thrown in …
In the short term London Overground can just about get away with having three 4-car class 378 working on Goblin. That is if they ‘pause’ any repainting/refurbishment scheme, do away with the hot spare and tighten up on maintenance. The original allocation to the East London Line was generous to allow for trains out-of-service when conversion to 5-car took place.
Also in the short term, Goblin can just about manage with three units to provide a half-hourly service but needs all three units in service almost all the time trains are running. Now half-hourly isn’t turn-up-and-go so it will be interesting to see how it affects passenger numbers. My gut feeling is they will hold up in the peak as people need to travel but off-peak may see a dramatic drop.
The problem is that eventually something will have to give. I suspect they won’t be able to keep up the ‘full’ service on Goblin at weekends for very long as even electric units need some maintenance beyond what can easily be done overnight.
Similarly eventually the maintenance backlog on the ELL/NLL (East London Line/North London Line) will eventually become too much. As there are some transferrable dual voltage trains on the ELL you could manage just by making the New Cross – Dalston Junction service half-hourly. This is probably the least worst of all options but us complicated the fact that the trains are normally diagrammed to alternate between New Cross and Crystal Palace.
A minor additional concern for the East London Line is the Night Overground which means stock is worked very hard indeed in a weekly period so giving even less maintenance time for some trains – which could obviously be rotated so it is not always the same trains working the night service.
A further consideration is driver training and it will be interesting to see how this is done. And whether they can get enough drivers trained in advance of the diesel trains going.
@ PoP – the New Cross services are interworked with the Clapham Junction trains across Dalston. W Croydon and C Palace services work to / from Highbury. Creating 30 min gaps in the Clapham Junction SLL service is surely not tenable because of the extremely high demand on that route. I recognise it’s possible to untangle the services but possibly at the cost of a less efficient schedule, train requirement and driver rosters.
While I am pleased someone has managed to get some form of mitigation for the GOBLIN I think the dire position of a half hourly peak service will be extremely unpopular even with larger trains. Gaps that long are, to be frank, ludicrous when you’ve provided a 15 min service, albeit a highly stressed one in the peaks, for almost a decade. Do TfL really want to be remembered for turning the clock back to the appalling service levels we saw with Silverlink back in the early 2000s? I dread to think how somewhere like Blackhorse Road will function with crowding if a 30 minute service does arise. Platform and stair / bridge crowding could be at very dangerous levels. I expect TfL have got all their fingers crossed that a 710 actually gets formally delivered to ARL very soon. Bombardier certainly seem to have at least three different Cl 710 units trying to accumulate mileage on overnight runs.
I note that a somewhat “ill tempered” letter has been sent by Deputy Mayor Heidi Alexander to Bombardier. Shame it’s 15 months late given it was clear long ago that train delivery was in trouble. Said letter refers to a “plan” that’s been discussed by the Commissioner, Gareth Powell and Bombardier “head honchos”. Heidi pointedly remarks that she (and presumably the Mayor) expect the plan to be delivered *this time*. One wonders how many plans have been promised and not delivered against?
Walthamstow Writer,
My mistake. The service pattern has changed. I feel sure it was Crystal Palace at some time.
I wasn’t suggesting cutting the service to Clapham Junction. You would have to amend the timetable to ensure trains to Clapham Junction and New Cross operated as two self contained services so that you could reduce the New Cross service without affecting departure times on the Clapham Junction service. Which might be a challenge.
Yes we all agree that half-hourly is very unsatisfactory. But it does appear to be the only really practical solution that doesn’t produce an even worse outcome elsewhere. And if does have the advantage that *if* Bombardier are close to a solution (and there are possible indications that they are) then this plan would keep the service running and even possibly maintain current timetabled frequencies if things take a turn for the better.
@ PoP – you are correct. The ELL service pattern changed a couple of timetables ago IIRC. Let’s hope that Bombardier are making some substantive progress although I suspect it won’t be fast enough to avert the worst impacts on the GOBLIN service.
@PoP
I believe that since the ELL was opened up to Highbury that the Crystal Palace trains have always run through to there while the New Cross trains have always stopped at Dalston, meaning that they cannot have been interworked since then. I don’t know if they interworked before then however.
TfL says that future uncertainty means it has to re-prioritise its capital programme. It has colour-coded its capital programme, with projects labelled in descending order of importance from ‘critical’, to ‘central’, to ‘desirable’ or to ‘deprioritise’.
Scheme : Latest position
Oxford Street Pedestrianisation : Cancelled due to lack of support from Westminster council, and the £43m diverted to Healthy Streets.
Bakerloo Line extension : Now referred to as a project that can only happen with government funding
Camden Town Station improvement : ‘Cancelled’
Holborn Station improvement : Pushed back another year to 2023-24
Piccadilly Line signalling upgrade : Procurement stopped.
Now referred to as a project that can only happen with government funding
Tram extension to Sutton : Postponed.
Previous business plan said that TfL would “develop a proposal”; new business plan says the same again
Proactive road maintenance : Cancelled for the second year in a row.
TfL will only do the minimum road works it has to maintain safety
Northern Line extension : Delayed for nine months.
TfL says this is not a financial decision in itself, but the mayor has so far been unable to quantify the lost revenue
Silvertown tunnel : Delayed by five months.
TfL says that the delay is not a financial decision, but due to complications with land surveys and a problem with the Development Consent Order
source https://www.building.co.uk/news/tfl-told-to-come-clean-about-capital-project-plans/5097400.article
Woolwich Ferry – Norwegian design team LMG Marin are responsible for the detail design with the emphasis on ‘green’ operations and reduced emissions. The shore terminals have been rearranged for automatic mooring so that the power to the thruster units can be reduced to zero when the vessel is in the berth to significantly reduce the fuel consumption and emissions. In trials docking of the square bow to magnetic mooring locks has only been achieved during slack tidal water. The previous rounded bows were held against the dock with engine thrust.
Reminder of the promised Woolwich service now scheduled for February
https://vimeo.com/290490965
“Docking in less than 10 seconds even during the strongest currents””
@ Aleks – I note in the video that this application of magnetic mooring is a “world first” for such a ferry service. There we go again with first time applications of technology for a TfL service.
Walthamstow Writer,
Given that a deck hand died fairly recently on the Woolwich Ferry in a completely unnecessary death, I would have expected all reasonable means to be introduced to make the work as safe as reasonably possible. Having deck hands having to throw heavy ropes around (very heavy if wet as they tend to be) on a choppy river is surely not acceptable in 2019 if a safe alternative is available.
Given that the ferries and the service they provide will probably be here in 50 years time I would have thought it highly irresponsible not to take advantage of the latest technology to improve safety – not only for deck hands but also for passengers.
There is also the added advantage of being consistent with the Mayor’s cleaner air strategy as the diesel engines should not be running when the ferries are docked because there will be no need to provide a force at the propeller to ensure the ferries are kept in position.
As always, someone has to be first. It would not be an easy system to retrofit and this is the sensible time to do it. When I went down there to see how they were doing I enquired what the delay was and the shoreside stewards thought it was that they were waiting for a spare part for the south side mooring. If correct, the use of the technology itself maybe not to blame and perhaps it is more a case of not having an adequate stock of spares to cover for possible eventualities due to the need to save money – or simply miscalculating.
There are times when it may be valid to criticise the introduction of new technology. I don’t think this is one of them.
@ PoP – Yet you criticised the use of hybrid diesel powered ferries a couple of weeks ago citing the use of electric ferries elsewhere? You said they were surely a more effective vessel to be buying given the long asset life that you now cite. Furthermore there would not be an emissions related concern about using the power of the ferry to “push” the vessel into the pier.
I take your safety point but it seems odd that problems with coping with the river’s variable tides are cited as an issue completely contrary to the claims in the promotional video. It is also not exactly encouraging that replacement parts are already needed at one pier when the assets remain under test. That raises a whole load of potential questions about manufacturing quality, the installation process and the ruggedness of the assets for the job in hand. Obviously the working methodology has to be safe but to ensure that it might be more appropriate to utilise tried and tested technology. I am sorry but this is yet another example of a late running TfL project. It seems more projects run late these days than actually finish on time or early. One wonders what relationship there is with the recent “employee satisfaction” survey results – published in the latest TfL Board Papers. They make depressing reading.
Walthamstow Writer,
I didn’t realise I had commented on the diesel-hybrid issue on this website. My criticism is not that they are diesel hybrid. That is a very sensible implementation option. My criticism was that there is no plan to take this one stage further and go fully electric for normal operation with recharging whilst docked. This now happens on the Helsingborg – Helsingör (Sweden-Denmark) ferry and if they can do it on that then it should be a piece of cake on the Woolwich Ferry – and not a ‘first time application of technology’. Boats making short distance journeys are ideal for modern battery technology as weight is rarely an issue.
The idea of captive docking seems very sensible. Being greener is as much about avoiding wasting energy as it is about how it is created and the emissions output as a result.
Yet again we are suffering because TfL are not being forthright about why the ferry is being delayed so we are all speculating and basing our speculation on odd bits of information. Until we know the facts we cannot know if it is the new technology aspect that caused the problem or something else.
I too am disappointed by how TfL seems unable to complete projects on time. Or sometimes at all. And how they mysteriously are no longer late because the timelines get reset. However, as I have repeatedly said it is not just TfL, not just the transport sector and not just Britain.
I don’t think being technology adverse is sensible when you have long asset life. Some of the new kit on Thameslink turned out initially troublesome (Network Rail weren’t aware the specification had subtly been changed by the manufacturer in question). Yet now it is settled down and working, it is far more reliable than what preceded it and is one reason why the new signalling on Thameslink works well and rarely goes wrong.
I’m a bit puzzled about how the new magnetic docking system is relevant to the accident resulting in the death of the deckhand.
That accident happened when the ferry was being released from its mid river overnight mooring buoy. As far as I am aware, the ferries never tied up when loading / unloading vehicles at the piers, they simply used a lot of engine power to keep the vessel pushed hard against the pier.
Are we saying that the new vessels will be docked overnight against the piers, held solely by magnetic force, and no longer be tied up overnight? If not, the dangers of tying and releasing the vessel against the bouys will remain.
In terms of diesel battery hybrid. The latest CalMac ferry uses this technology.
Boats with pointy ends have worked well for eons. Docking into a triangle with a curved soft impact side could guide the craft into the apex with magnets on the entry sides.
The new arrangement must rely on computer controlled thrusters for alignment accuracy.
@PoP’s comment it is not just TfL, not just the transport sector and not just Britain.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/whitehall-monitor-2019
The risk of major projects – of which there are currently 133 – not being delivered on time and on budget is growing. Less than a fifth of major projects are currently rated green (successful delivery is likely) or amber/green rating (successful delivery is probable), compared to almost half in 2013. HS2, meanwhile, is now rated amber/red (“major risks or issues apparent in a number of key areas”).
IslandDweller,
I was only trying to suggest a deckhand’s job is intrinsically dangerous and that anything that recognises this and reduces the danger is a good thing and ought to be applauded. I am surprised that there is no tying up (I don’t know the nautical term) when docking. I would have thought there would be some requirement to do so as otherwise the engine could break down and the ferry start to drift just as vehicles were being loaded or unloaded.
Are we saying that the new vessels will be docked overnight against the piers, held solely by magnetic force, and no longer be tied up overnight?
Presumably they will dock one of the vessels overnight at the piers. They can’t do both because at the beginning and end of the day they operate a one boat service. As they will no longer have a spare/out-of-use-for-maintenance one the amount of tying up should be significantly reduced. When I visited a couple of weeks ago one of the ferries was docked at the north terminal and I understand there is no problem there – only at the south terminal. This would suggest that the problem is not fundamental and makes the spare/replacement part reason for the delay seem more plausible.
Re Aleks,
As a reminder the global mega project (>$1bn) on time and budget rate is ~2%.
Re PoP,
I’d argue it is an issue, the Woolwich Ferry is very weight dependant (unlike the Scandinavian example) as the available depth at the south pier is just 1.8m at low tide which combined with all the other design requirements makes it quite tough overall.
@ngh – What is under the vehicle deck now? The previous passenger lounges for dockworkers have been dispensed with as little used.
@PoP “I am surprised that there is no tying up (I don’t know the nautical term) when docking. I would have thought there would be some requirement to do so as otherwise the engine could break down and the ferry start to drift just as vehicles were being loaded or unloaded.”
Correct for conventional craft. The ‘revolution’ here is that the craft is ‘tied’ with 4 shore powered electro-magnets.
” the spare/replacement part reason for the delay” – unlikely as the craft themselves passed all trials. Another plausible explanation could be a prototype probe part to be trialled for an assisted docking manouvre into a positioning guide. Mating a rectangle into a right-angle in currents may be overwhelming the technology, driving into a triangle would add physical assistance.
ngh,
Remember they have dredged the Thames at this point to get more draft. I am presuming your figure of 1.8m is the figure before the recent dredging. So battery weight is relevant but can be mitigated against.
@POP I’m almost certain that the previous ferries didn’t tie up when unloading – just used engine thrust. I’d never given it much thought – but you’re right – engine failure during loading could have been a disaster. I’ve used the old ferry countless times and there was never a delay (to allow for tying up) between arriving against the pier and the vehicle connection ramp being lowered onto the deck. (Would welcome a maritime expert to confirm or correct me).
Re the depth at low tide. The previous ferries could not operate for a few hours during extreme spring tides – both too low at ebb and too high when full. As a sometime cyclist, the steepness of the loading ramp during low tide was very noticeable!
Island Dweller,
I was relying on the commentary on the video link given by Aleks.
https://vimeo.com/290490965
Around 1:20 min. ‘The intelligent dock locking system makes dock operation safe by eliminating the need for line handling during mooring and unmooring’.
I had assumed this applied to the Woolwich Ferry as the video was specifically about the Woolwich Ferry but it is possible it was just a general statement not necessarily applicable to the Woolwich Ferry.
@POP Thanks for the vimeo link – interesting stuff.
These two (from youtube) show the old ferry. You see the strong engine thrust used to hold the ferry against the pier at the 4 minute point of the second video. I don’t see any sign of tying up during loading – but these are not filmed close up so I might be wrong.
(Commentary on first video quite amusing – docking should be light enough not to break an egg – well I’ve experienced plenty where they would have made omelettes!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WgtlFtzT3E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPCtFajOrcU
To add to Island Dweller’s video contributions, here’s one of the last day in service in October (2018):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLe0dLa4Dks
In particular, one can see stowed mooring ropes that were clearly not used when in service, or at least there’s nobody around to use them when docking. However, the mooring ropes can be seen when in use to tie up the vessels to the buoys (cf ngh comments).
This Pathé news clip of 1938 shows what was proposed to dam the Thames at Woolwich and replace the ferries by a roadway and ‘railroad’ with sluice gates underneath:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5yk0vNHdQQ
One can see perhaps why it wouldn’t have worked…
Graham F
AMAZING!
I can remember using those old-old Woolwich Ferry boats – they didn’t go until 1962/3 actually.
They were falling to bits by then ….
The ELL previously interworked all 4 service groups. For a couple of years now, all 4 service groups are separate (apart from Sundays which retains the old timetable pending a Thameslink/Southern rewrite)
@GF Why wouldn’t the barrage idea have worked?
…I mean it would have been an enormous undertaking, but perfectly feasible in theory, no?
@John Kellett – I had most in mind the delays that would then occur through the locks in what was then at least one of the busiest waterways in the world. Having said that, of course, the idea was to alleviate road traffic delays across the Thames there. There would still have been delays when the central bascules had to be lifted. I also wasn’t confident of the reality of working a railway across there. The permanent ‘dam’ would have been more disruptive than the solution later resulting in the Thames Barrier (itself long overdue for forward planning for its replacement because of rising sea levels).
This video shows the docking system being trialled. Presumably early days, as it took hugely longer than 10 seconds – more like 10 minutes -not to mention deck hands casting mooring ropes, just in case…
https://youtu.be/HfGfhmpe9wE
@GF So long as you had enough locks of sufficient capacity then it ought to work. There would still be a delay to shipping, but the removal of tides from the docks would bring its own advantages.
Whilst reviewing the new Woolwich control screens I only just realised that there is no actual docking – no physical contact against shore infrastructure. Once the ferry is close enough the magnets energise to capture the plates on the superstructure and hold the vessel away from the pier, the loading deck then drops down over the bow gap.
I hope those magnets are screened from the interior of the boat. An electromagnet strong enough to hold a vessel against the current could do serious damage to a mobile phone or a car’s engine management system.
Timbeau
We’ll have to wait & see what hapopens & who (If anyone) makes a damage-claim, won’t we?
Wonder if anyone has actually thought of that one?
😁
This is the supplier: https://mampaey.com/berthing-mooring-overview/the-intelligent-docklocking-system/… they use permanent magnets, not electromagnets
It would be astonishing if they hadn’t thought of the screening issue (although I have been frequently astonished lately!)
@HERNED – Permanent magnet fields shouldn’t induce any troublesome currents in nearby electronic devices as long as they are relatively stationary. The vessel and arm movements involved in docking are not fast enough to be of concern I expect.
Permanent magnets would be safer of course – no cutting adrift in the event of a power failure – but the screening is still an issue. And those hydraulic rams must be strong enough to be able to detach the magnets from the ship when it’s time to set sail – magnets which must themselves be strong enough to resist the force of a Thames flood tide.
More info on the new battery diesel hybrid Woolwich ferries, with the following excerpts:
Transport for London (TfL) has replaced its River Thames Woolwich Ferry with two battery diesel hybrid ferries due to go into operation… LMG Marin managing director Torbjorn Bringedal said “TfL knew what it was going for, and it is a very specific route, a very short crossing over the River Thames.” He said that this aspect lay behind the physical shape and interfaces of the ferries.
“This battery diesel hybrid solution is intended to make the life of the diesel engine perfect,” said Mr Bringedal. Diesel engines, which use low sulphur fuel, run on a constant low load with the batteries taking dynamic loads in peak shaving. “The diesel engines are producing constant power, so the batteries are covering power needed beyond this, such as when the thrusters need to change load. All these peaks are taken by the batteries, so the diesel engines are not affected.”
The advantages of using batteries for peak shaving on the ferry are that they allow the diesel engines to have the best efficiency possible, with the lowest specific fuel consumption. Mr Bringedal added “Batteries are suited to a short river crossing as this is such a short connection. The ferries are basically manoeuvring all the time – there is no transit period, so it is a tough life for a diesel engine if you have a direct mechanical or traditional diesel-electric solution. Here they are protected by the battery system, so I believe this is an excellent solution.”
The batteries also allow the best possible conditions for the exhaust to be cleaned. “There is hefty exhaust cleaning on this design,” said Mr Bringedal. The diesel engines are equipped with a catalyser and with particle filters on the exhaust. The catalyser takes NOx emissions away and the particle filters take away visual smoke or substances that end up as smoke.
The new boats meet London’s Low Emission Zone standards because of their diesel-electric hybrid propulsion systems.
I was interested to see from the Newslines section of the February European Rail Timetable that significantly larger battery ferries are already in regular service. They take 240 cars unlike the Woolwich’s 40. As I understand it, these are old diesel ferries that have had half their engines removed with diesel kept for emergency use only.
“Operator of the short ferry crossing between Helsingør in Denmark and Helsingborg in Sweden (Table 2345) has been renamed ForSea. Running every 15 minutes, an interesting aspect of the operation is that two of the ferries, Tycho Brahe and Aurora, now run entirely on battery power, becoming the largest emission-free ferries in the world. Batteries are recharged by connecting to special shore charging stations each time the vessels dock.”
@AP
I’m not sure that recharging at every docking would be practical on the Woolwich ferry – are the Helsingor charging units inductive, or do they have to be plugged in?
(Could the Woolwich ferry’s magnetic mooring system be adapted to also work as an inductive “contactless” charger?)
Looking at the Helsingor ferry’s website, it appears the crossing is twenty minutes and they run every 15 minutes, suggesting ten minutes at each end for unloading and reloading (and recharging).
Re AP (and Aleks)
As I said on Monday (28th at 09:43)
The Thames at Woolwich is constrained as regards vessel dimensions for ferry use especially draft. Hence if you add lots of battery weight you rapidly lose cargo weight (remember Archimedes principle) hence LBM’s quote from Torbjorn Bringedal is an excellent summary of the situation. Also see Double Decker electric buses vs Boris bus, greenness vs capacity trade off dilemma and Tfl have gone for the “Boris bus” solution with the ferry design.
One way to minimise NOx (and hence clean up requirement) is the avoid high engine torque and rate of change of torque (which is precisely what was maximised in the old set up) and what you minimise in the new design.
Re Timbeau,
No
Which is a lot less battery charge /discharge cycling that the Woolwich Ferry at 110 cycles per day if you assume electric only and charging between trips at high rates (deep cycling) hence batteries trashed quickly unless you go massive and mostly overnight charging and light cycling. At which point the “Boris bus” approach taken looks outstanding in comparison!
Norwegian electricity is also 100% renewable in source* unlike the UKs… so they aren’t just passing the emission parcel around
*so they can flog all their gas to the UK etc… 😉 some of the previous Norwegian ferries being replaced were LNG (to reduce NOx and PM but not much GHG reduction impact vs diesel)
@NGH
“Norwegian electricity is also 100% renewable in source… some of the previous Norwegian ferries being replaced were LNG”
The ferries run between Helsingør in Denmark and Helsingborg in Sweden. Norway gained its independence from Denmark in 1814. The crossing is more than 200 miles from the nearest part of Norway.
Re Timbeau,
Most of the electric only ferries in the world operate internally in Norway (see PoP’s original comment on Norway) and are designed by a Bergen (Norway) based firm of Naval architects (Singaporean owned) and have been custom built not converted and have often replaced LNG powered ferries 15-25years old and that part of my comment related to those and I should have been a bit clearer on that. The typical Norwegian ferry drive cycles are a lot more relaxed (Similar to the Denmark – Sweden example than the Woolwich one.)
intelligent Dock Locking System – Mampaey Offshore Industries
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osXUaVfon5s
Sales Brochure (Pg9 uses Woolwich to sell concept)
https://mampaey.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Brochure-Mampaey-intelligent-Dock-Locking-System.pdf
The intelligent Dock Locking System® ( iDL®) uses a specialized polymer as a friction material and permanent magnets which are moved by hydraulic cylinders to create a magnetic force with the vessel.
• Redundant magnetism technique used maintains mooring connection even during power loss
• The magnets will never lose their power
• Hydraulic oull-test and emergency push-off cylinder
https://www.goudsmitmagnets.com/en/news/354/ferry-in-london-moors-magnetically
Ultimate creation of the world’s first magnetically moored ferry at Woolwich.
Goudsmit Magnetics has been a leading international producer of magnetic systems for various applications since 1959 from the headquarters in Waalre the Brainport region of NL.
The neodymium-magnet equipped plates or ‘magnet pads’ have a breakaway force of 80 kN (=8000 kg with a 6 mm air gap). The magnets attract two 20 mm thick plates welded into the ferry’s hull. The individual magnetic plates are switched on and off by a hydraulic cylinder.
The information is sparse on how it works. Normally they reverse polarity to push off by hydraulically moving the cylinder magnets. If needed hydraulic rams can break contact, but can’t see them on the Woolwich unit.
https://www.chrismansfieldphotos.com/MODERN-WOOLWICH/Woolwich-Ferries/i-GvzcBDn
Route 15c to the White Cliffs of Dover >
https://www.chrismansfieldphotos.com/MODERN-WOOLWICH/Woolwich-Ferries/i-Gv5Z6qp
NGH
and Tfl have gone for the “Boris bus” solution with the ferry design.
Err … is this a good omen, or not, given the history?
Timbeau
No.
Norway was transferred ( “personal Union”) from Denmark to the Swedish crown in 1814 & became independent from Sweden in 1905 ….
On the subject of Helsingor ferry’s website there is also the excellent and wittily titled
http://sailwiththecurrent.com/ which describes the technology. Unfortunately, Crossrail-style, the website seems to have stopped being updated prior to the completion of the project.
Re Greg,
Yes, the thinking /concept is right. Implementation is another matter, with the Boris bus there wasn’t sufficient understanding that the real drive cycle and the micro level performance of the electrical system – it was harsher than expected (so “bigger” batteries required than fitted) and the initial batteries didn’t perform to spec.
@Greg
The “personal union” means they were two kingdoms with the same monarch but their own laws, parliament etc: like England and Scotland between 1603 and 1707, or the UK and Hanover between 1714 and 1837, or the Commonwealth today. So sort of semi-detached.
Back to the Woolwich ferry – if the mooring magnets are permanent, how is contact broken? They talk about a breakaway force of 80kN (8 tonnes) but Newton’s Third law applies – as the rams withdraw, they will pull the vessel shorewards until some part of it bears against an obstruction strong enough to resist it. Unless the engines are used to overcome the force of the magnets? Reversing polarity, as suggested by Aleks, would only work if the shipboard plates were also magnetised, which I understand is not the case.
What is “redundant magnetism”? Google doesn’t come up with any explanation of the term – the first hit is a quotation from a 1792 novel “Man As He Is” by Robert Bage – “Lady Mary’s gout had a redundant magnetism……..and saw as clearly into the bodies, and I believe souls, of every servant who approached her, as if they had been cased in crystal”.
The second hit is the Mampaey brochure
Re timbeau,
Redundant magnetism, I got some different results from google mainly 1800-1830 scientific papers and books. It would appear to refer to saturated ferromagnets in modern terminology.
The docking doesn’t make sense to me either from what is known so far. What would make sense is that the rams (normally allowed to freely move to cope with small wave movements etc) moves the magnet vertically upwards (and try to pick the boat up out of the water which won’t happen more than few cm) and the shear loading required to break free from the magnet is far lower the the tensile one at just 20kN or 2 tonnes. ( a decent external door / gate electromagnet has a holding force of 600kg)
Each of the magnets isn’t really “a magnet” as they refer to it, in reality each magnet appears to consist of 4 permanent rare earth magnets each in the centre of a “special*” steel plate (behaving as saturated Ferromagnet) in a 2×2 array.
*e.g. high silicon transformer steel.
They are being very clever and the field in the steel plates surrounding the magnets should help create the magic stand off air gap.
The docking system also has a ship to ship version that features the undocking rams for leverage. At Woolwich the new piled docks are fitted with large fenders between the mooring arms which seem to provide leverage against the hull for uncoupling.
Still can’t figure out the circular moving magnet thing.
This is the undocking with little evidence of ‘force’
https://youtu.be/0JOdsifzVKU?t=1080
The challenge seems to be with time for docking alignment here
https://youtu.be/0JOdsifzVKU?t=1525
Norway produces more renewable electricity than it can consume, ‘currently’ exporting 15% and building more interconnectors. [Non-sequitur snipped. LBM]
LBM just linked a topical electric ferry link so they are not rare
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2019/norway-invests-in-electric-ferries-cleantechnica/
I want one of these at home for my autonomous hovercar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGuto8iiQjk
ABB automated shore charging arm, aimed at the growing number of electric vessels. It will be the world’s first shore side robotic charging arm when it is installed for HH Ferries on the route between Helsingør and Helsingborg.
Via Twitter. New ferry running this afternoon, but vehicles only – no pedestrian passengers accepted. Seemingly Greenwich councillors (who have been trying to get dates out of tfl) are now even less impressed by tfl failure to communicate.
As tfl need local councils ‘on side’ for so many things, it seems odd that tfl are needlessly antogonising councils when a phone call would take moments.
This is the point in the mampaey presentation that shows a graphic of the circles being demagnetized, any theories on what is happening?
https://youtu.be/osXUaVfon5s?t=82
Wonder what reasoning they have for foot passengers?
No videoing of the docking arms – they could just close the quayside deck.
Staff to supervise miscreants.
Not yet ‘licensed’?
They can walk.
https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/woolwich-ferry-upgrade
The new Woolwich Ferry has reopened and is currently operating a limited service.
Opening ceremony v2.0 by Department of Commerce administrator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhUiWMoE3lY
@Aleks
“Wonder what reasoning they have for foot passengers?
……
They can walk.”
(!)
There was a quote on the “News Quiz” on Radio 4 last night (RIP Jeremy Hardy) – repeated 1230 today, referring to a replacement bus service for the Mersey Ferry, which sounds equally implausible at first.
According to Geoff Marshall, it is quicker to walk…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73X6pur0rEk&frags=pl%2Cwn
The TfL status update dated 10.46 this morning however maintains that the ferry is “suspended – No service until further notice”.
So is it, or isn’t it?
https://tfl.gov.uk/river/status/#line-lul-woolwich-ferry
River Bus
Status updates
Routes
Woolwich Ferry Reduced service
The Woolwich Ferry service has reopened and is currently operating a limited service.
I took that to mean since current docking is >10s they are not yet as frequent as planned so maybe traffic hold-ups.
or it may mean it’s snowing
https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/woolwich-ferry-reopens-with-limited-service-1-5876576
Services are currently running at a frequency of one boat every 20 minutes, with this expected to “steadily increase” over the coming weeks.
David Fisher, head of London river services at TfL, said: “We’re operating a limited Woolwich Ferry service following the completion of our improvement work.
“This will allow us to steadily increase the frequency of the service as staff and passengers increase their experience of the boats.
“Over the next few weeks customers should leave more time for their journeys or consider alternative options.”
@Aleks – there is no such thing in the UK as a Department of Commerce – we used to have the Board of Trade , and more recently the DTI, who were responsible for shipping until c1983 (a DTp function since then). Neither DTI nor DTp/DfT would have any interest in the Woolwich ferry beyond safety matters.
@GrahamH It was the US one when we had civic pride and wanted to show it.
@Graham H
See 0:25 in the newsreel footage Aleks linked to. The service was opened by the United States Dept of Commerce Highways Administrator – don’t ask me why: at least he had more to do with transport than Jayne Mansfield, who opened the Chiswick Flyover – although probably didn’t draw as big a crowd.
Also of note is the name of the company that built the new jetties in 1966, prominently displayed in the newsreel – Marples Ridgeway. In 1964, when construction started, Ernest Marples was the Minister of Transport, having held that post for five years.
Interesting take on TfL communications from Greenwich
https://853london.com/2019/01/30/when-will-the-woolwich-ferry-reopen-greenwich-councillor-criticises-uncooperative-tfl/
Asked about the issue by Conservative councillor Charlie Davis in Wednesday night’s full council meeting, transport cabinet member Denise Scott-McDonald said in a written answer that TfL had been “unwilling to indicate a more precise date for opening, nor the exact cause of the delays”.
Davis pressed the issue further, saying he was baffled how Greenwich Council could have no information on what was wrong with the ferry or when it would reopen. Scott-McDonald agreed, saying: “I’m absolutely frustrated with TfL and they have not been very cooperative. We are pushing them – it’s quite disappointing, but we’re just going to keep pushing.”
@timbeau – a long way from Woolwich, however*. BTW there is a distinction between those who take the decision (LCC etc) and those who merely contract to build it (at least I hope there is!
* and even further from TLK.
Woolwich Ferry. The ever entertaining Diamond Geezer wrote an account of his crossing on the new ferry a couple of days ago. But he seems to have jinxed it. The ferry has been closed ever since his crossing – “emergency engineering work”.
As far as I’m aware, tfl haven’t given any details on what’s gone wrong, but DG reported difficulties when he crossed in getting the ferry locked against the magnetic arm.
@IslandDweller et al
Could all Woolwich Ferry comments be posted in the ‘London’s First Highway: Part 2 – The Surprising Success of River Buses’ post please. We realise the Ferry discussion had started in this thread, but it’s more relevant to River issues. LBM
LBM. OK, will do – is there any way I can cut and paste the comments across?
Sorry – to be more explicit. Any edit tool that enables me to remove the comments out of this thread? I can’t see any edit function?
ID
Yes
You highlight your previous comment, using the mouse, press then paste into the new comments-box in the other thread …. (!)
A moderator writes: There seem to be some misunderstandings here:
1. I think LBM was asking for any further comments to be made in the indicated place. No objection to those who have already commented copying their comments over if they wish, but that was not what was requested.
2. Island Dweller probably knows how to copy and paste, but he was asking if there is any way for users to remove a comment. Unfortunately there is not (except by emailing [email protected] requesting removal (which is what people should do if they have accidentally written something bad).
Apologies if this already covered or suggested, but is the ‘transporter bridge’ option (a la Middlesbrough) not practical for the Woolwich site?
Re Tim,
It would be different order of magnitude (height and span) to Middlesborough , there is a reason they built the Blackwall tunnels! Part of the reason the ferry still exists is northbound height limits on the Blackwall tunnel, height and width limit on Rotherhithe tunnel and weight limits on Tower Bridge.
They may well be hoping the new Silvertown tunnels (if they ever happen) will reduce Ferry use.
When was the last time anyone built a transporter bridge…
PS
None of the transporter bridges worldwide can take the weight of a single HGV
@NGH: Just because nobody has, doesn’t mean you can’t… However a single transporter bridge would probably have the same capacity or less than a single ferry.
So a detable chair lift kind of idea, with detachable pads might be a better way to go for cars, not trucks! You’d need something special there!
@SH(LR) / NGH
The modern definition of an HGV (now renamed LGV (L for large, not light!) is any goods vehicle over 3.5 tonnes – although those of us whose licences were issued before 1997 have “grandfather” rights to drive vehicles up to the old HGV limit of 7.5 tonnes. Some cars weigh a couple of tonnes, and the two surviving Transporter Bridges in the UK can take six (Newport) or nine (Middlesborough) at a time, so a small goods vehicle (up to about ten tonnes) should be safe in theory, although I don’t think either bridge actually accepts them.
(The decking may not be strong enough to take the point loads)