|
Post by melikepie on Jun 10, 2015 17:06:26 GMT
Btw, does anyone know what would happen to the anomaly that is Clapton? It is technically on the WAML but mainly served by Chingford trains and only a couple of GA trains in the peaks. If the service expansion from Tottenham Hale became reality, would there be any chance to increase calls on the HD to TH trains?
|
|
|
Post by pridley on Jun 10, 2015 21:33:09 GMT
To quote someone who now drives for LO, in response to a question about why all these short formations are occurring now: - taken from this post on railforums.co.uk Sounds like Abelio have been deliberately running trains into the ground that they know will be handed over to TFL for tax payers money to subsidise. Will this behaviour get them the next Franchise? Maybe they know they have screwed that up already. But bottom line, TFL needs to better communicate what is going on, and Chingford users, frankly, should understand that the concession model works and that TFL will clearly be investing in the trains. HOWEVER, they should be leasing a unit or two to take up the slack during this transition, or is that completely unrealistic? Surely they can find a suitable temporary train somewhere in Europe?! Or will they not satisfy Network Rail? Or is there a silly bureaucratic hurdle? Either way, TFL knows that it must get these repairs out of the way soon as possible, but with all these new staff, they must communicate better, with drivers given marching orders to give announcements and apologies.
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Jun 10, 2015 21:52:54 GMT
You'd have a real job finding alternative units in the UK at the moment. The 317/7s have come almost directly out of storage at Eastleigh for this exact reason. The only units that you would want to hire in are those which are either the same type, or very similar to the current units, so as to negate or minimise driver and fitter training, which can be very expensive. Every AC PEP unit, and every 317 is currently accounted for, and not releasable from current duties for the next couple of years. As for finding stock in Europe, not only would it (again) be incredibly expensive in terms of training up drivers and fitters, keeping spares for it, fitting it with UK safety systems, getting it here in the first place etc, but it also wouldn't fit! European stock is built to a larger loading gauge, and so the train would run into problems at the first bridge/platform/lineside cabinet/gantry it encounters!
What could be do-able would be forcing AGA to provide an extra so many 317s a day to LO whilst the LO trains go through their check-ups. This could be done through some internal cascading, substitution by LHCS on lines were an EMU would otherwise be taken up. Do this along with some timetable adjustments to release EMUs and create shuttle services, and you might be able to free up some stock to allow this. But this is a lot of hassle and disruption, for very little effect, and would be redundant in a few months once the check-ups are complete.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,441
|
Post by Chris M on Jun 10, 2015 22:05:16 GMT
Only trains that have a safety case from a licensed British safety approvals body may be used on Network Rail lines - this is to ensure that they meet all the relevant safety standards. It is bureaucratic (I believe) but it is not silly. Trains may only run on lines that they are cleared to run on - this is to ensure that they fit (most European trains don't - google "loading gauge"), aren't too heavy for the infrastructure (slightly more complicated than just total weight - google (route availability), and are compatible with the signalling (e.g. don't cause electric interference), etc. This does take a lot of time and effort, but it is not silly. Drivers may only drive trains they have been trained on - this is so they know how to operate it safely, identify problems, resolve minor problems, accurately report to fitters the nature of problems they can't resolve, etc. This takes time and is neither silly nor bureaucratic. Drivers may only driver on routes they have learned - trains are not driven on line of sight, so drivers need to know what is round the next corner (or two or three), where the signals are and which signal box controls them, when they need to start breaking for stations, what the speed limits are and where they need to start breaking for them, etc. This takes time and means you cannot just hire any driver who knows how to drive the type of train you have hired. I don't know how bureaucratic this is, but it is not silly. While I don't know how much of a requirement it is, TfL would be silly to run trains the depot don't know how to maintain (for obvious reasons). Finally, there is not a general surplus of suitable spare EMUs available to hire (as far as I know) so even if all the above wouldn't take three times as long to implement as would be required for the changeover period, there wouldn't necessarily be the trains available to hire anyway. You probably could hire a loco and set of coaches, but it would unlikely be able to meet the timetable requirements for an intensive suburban stopping service and I have no idea if any are cleared for the routes TfL have taken over, and I'd be surprised if there were trained drivers (route and/or traction) and depot staff available.
|
|
|
Post by pridley on Jun 10, 2015 22:30:16 GMT
Another major issue noted in the reports is overcrowding. Many of these routes run through impoverished areas, and I think TFL may have underestimated the boom in demand. Standing only to Edmonton Green at 10:00 recently. Massive drop in ridership on the 279 bus that runs the Southbury loop route, unless I am mistaken. I would imagine similar things have occurred via Chingford. I must say that when they pull up next to the Seven Sisters train at Hackney Central, the Chingford trains are full to the brim with little capacity for additional services, though I hope TFL realise that 4 carriage trains will not be good enough now on these routes, even off-peak. Yes, eight will be too much, but not necessarily for too long. Certainly not for medium term context of the lifetime of the new trains.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 10, 2015 22:39:56 GMT
But bottom line, TFL needs to better communicate what is going on, and Chingford users, frankly, should understand that the concession model works and that TFL will clearly be investing in the trains. HOWEVER, they should be leasing a unit or two to take up the slack during this transition, or is that completely unrealistic? Surely they can find a suitable temporary train somewhere in Europe?! Or will they not satisfy Network Rail? Or is there a silly bureaucratic hurdle? Either way, TFL knows that it must get these repairs out of the way soon as possible, but with all these new staff, they must communicate better, with drivers given marching orders to give announcements and apologies. I thought it was the case that TfL have already leased two extra trains to provide extra resilience but it seems every train they've got is cursed to some extent - either having sat off lease in sidings for months and not having had enough "shake down" mileage prior to transfer to LOROL or they've been neglected by Abellio as a money saving exercise. There aren't other trains just lying around ready for instant use and how long do you think it takes to train drivers on stock that is new to a route or operator? Not a five minute exercise and then there's the issue about whether a depot can effectively maintain two "alien" units and if it's even worth bothering with. The only answer is for Ilford Depot to fix the trains properly and to do it as quickly as they can. I can't agree with your "Chingford users, frankly, should understand that the concession model works" remark. Their only experience of TfL operation of their trains has been a disaster every day since they took over responsibility. If people are late to work, late home and crushed into 4 car rather than 8 car trains what are they supposed to think? They don't care about fancy forms of contract. It's a wretched mess and it has to get better and get better fast. In 30 years of living in E17 I can't remember the service ever being this bad in terms of the train operator causing problems. Plenty of overhead wire, points and signals issues but not on a daily basis. Apart from the first day I have deliberately avoided using the West Anglia service because I've no wish to get stuck or crushed into a short formed train. I'm fortunate to be able to make a choice - many cannot do so. The comments on Twitter from Chingford Line users are very bad and unforgiving and a petition against TfL's operation has been started. I can completely understand why passengers feel like this. There is no reason for the public to change their view until there are no delays, cancellations or short formations which are the train operator's responsibility. I agree there must be much better communication with passengers and the twitter feed is now reporting delays and short formations but that info also needs to transfer to the website too. There has also been a lot of negative comment about the staff on stations and the poor way in which they are handling the problems and also being rude to passengers. That also needs sorting too (assuming the remarks are valid). If stuff doesn't get sorted then Boris is going to get a delegation of local MPs kicking his door down at City Hall or the House of Commons!
|
|
|
Post by pridley on Jun 10, 2015 23:30:41 GMT
MEANING OF THE COLOUR ORANGE / AMBER / GINGER?
Many are frustrated by the sea of orange / ginger. Many do not realise, but colours are often chosen for their meaning. Is it orange, or is it really amber? We use that symbol on traffic lights on the way to green. It is also the colour of the high visibility jackets used by workers, potentially symbolising work and transition. Indeed, the West Anglia slogan is "Off to work we go".
My suspicion is that it symbolises lines under reconstruction and work. There are actually people who believe that colours affect the sub-conscious and this is intentionally used in many marketing strategies to avoid need for complex diatribes. Just pick archetypal images and colours. If so, once they reach the critical mass objective level, maybe that is when we will see the lines split to new colours? That cannot happen until routes are complete. For example, ELL is morphing into a circular route, particularly if Crystal Palace trains are extended back to Clapham Junction via Streatham. Could this extend to the West Croydon route, that could continue to Wimbledon to turn it and the District Line into a further outer circular via the less used Thameslink loop? (with the Edgeware Rd Branch re-branded to be a circular?),
Of course, linking eventually Watford into this once it gets displaced from Euston by HS2.
Also, and there may be opportunities to connect West Anglia to Metropolitan Line?
Once re-connections are complete, capacities reaching a maximum, will we begin to see them morph away from orange to new identities and new colours? Does the orange colour give away this plan?
So maybe they are retained as orange until the full plan comes into view, with information drip fed to the public as and when financing becomes available, but I do not believe there is not a strategy.
Or is the use of orange / amber / ginger a completely unconscious decision? Or does it have a completely different meaning?
Surely TFL took time to pick out their colour!!!
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Jun 11, 2015 7:10:56 GMT
I hope LOROL will send AGA the bill for all the remedial work, and pursue them through the courts till it's paid...
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 11, 2015 11:06:40 GMT
MEANING OF THE COLOUR ORANGE / AMBER / GINGER? Surely TFL took time to pick out their colour!!! Overground is orange for one reason only - it was already the colour of the East London Line, which became part of LO. It had been that colour since the 1990s. Orange was used in the 1980s for ALL British Rail lines, including the W&C, before being adopted for the ELL. Later additions (H&C, W&C) have had to fit in wherever there is space in the spectrum. So there is nothing intentionally temporary about the use of orange - just that it has happened to be available on three separate occasions when a new colour was needed. The colours on the Tube map are largely fortuitous, or pragmatic. The colours were not set in stone until the Beck era - green for the District may have been influenced by the colours of that company's steam locomotives, but see this early map for a red metropolitan Line, yellow Piccadilly Line, blue Central Line, and an orange GN&C. Here's another one., with the Hampstead Tube in red and the Met in mauve. (the Met's steam locomotives were maroon) here's another - Cenbtral now green, Bakerloo red, and another, with the Central now an orangey-yellow - colours adopted H.C.Beck's original design Even in 1936, when the colours were finally adopted, the shade of red for the Central Line was distinctly orange. Of course, Beck only needed six colours, and chose colours which had good contrast in all lights, and were reasonably colourfast - the strong colours of black and red were used for the vertical and horizontal axes - an orangey red being used to distinguish from the traditional Metropolitan maroon. Green was also traditional for the District. Central Line red has always had a tendency to fade on posters exposed to sunlight, and the reproductions I have linked to may have suffered from this too, but more recent examples have had a bluer purple for the Met and the Central has gone to a purer red. Yellow would not show up well against a white background, so was not used in the original map, but was ideal to show up against the purple and green of its parent lines when it was marked separately from 1949. I imagine blue-grey was chosen for the Victoria Line because it is easier to differentiate two shades of the same colour if they are close together, and the Vic is closely related to the Picc. Similarly, early maps showing the Fleet Line under construction showed an orangey-brown, before it was renamed "Jubilee" and given the colour of grey (silver) to suit the new name, making orange available for re-use. However, I agree that LO badly needs to differentiate its services - it makes no more sense to show GOBLIN and Enfield/Chingford lines in the same colour than it would to show the Piccadilly and Central Lines in the same colour. The need for five new colours (assuming one of the groups stays orange) will be a challenge though. Ads for the hypothetical extensions: I don't think extension beyond Crystal Palace to Clapham Junction (I assume you mean via Streatham Hill, not Streatham) is likely - this would eat up capacity on the slow lines between Balham and CJ which is needed for trains into Victoria West Croydon - Sutton - Wimbledon - Edgware Road: Although most people off the Sutton line at Wimbledon do change there for the District (or SWT), a through service would require major remodelling of the trackwork in the Wimbledon area, quite apart from the traction and signalling incompatibilities. Not sure what you have in mind for Watford - connection to the NLL via Primrose Hill has been mooted - and of course there are connections off the WLL although they run fast from Shepherds Bush to Wembley. Restoring the Met-to-WA connection at Liverpool Street is unlikely - there is little space to fit in a flat junction, and the original curve, even if it could be re-opened, was too tight for modern stock.
|
|
|
Post by pridley on Jun 11, 2015 11:52:10 GMT
The Wimbledon / West Croydon link becomes more meaningful when XR2 comes to Wimbledon.
Watford trains used to go to Broad Street via Highbury & Islington and then latterly for a while to Liverpool Street via London Fields. I have a feeling that Euston will need to have its decks cleared for additional regional services and also HS2 trains, and the potential interchange with Northern Line at Primrose Hill provides a good link to the West End that is little different than having to wade through the crowds at Euston, plus it diverts folk travelling to Stratford, etc away from central London, further easing congestion.
With Liverpool Street, given the extent of works to London Bridge, and what is known to be required at Liverpool Street, do not discount station re-modelling capacity building being put to work to this station to make way for East Anglia ambitions that will go way beyond Norwich in 90. Including re-opening the West Anglia Braintree route to resolve there being only one mainline into East Anglia at present. Also, the politican direction away from expanding Heathrow will put major pressure on politicians now to expand links to Stansted, which has real potential due to its potential connections to both East Anglia and also direct rail links to Birmingham. Also, further afield in the long term with the new link from Oxford to Cambridge, which most likely would continue to Stansted. Also potential re-connection of Hertford East and Hertford North. Once XR2 opens up this corridor, the chain of events will cascade along with a massive house building operation in the area, because this is a place where objection to new development is lower than other areas around London, pure and simple, yet it has an economic pull due to Cambridge.
I believe that Liverpool Street re-modelling will possibly see a street level concourse with multiple lifts and escalators down to platform level, plus a lower level concourse, similar to St. Pancras, with atriums dotted around to bring natural light down, but with an expectation that through passage is at the upper level if West Anglia's link to the Metropolitan line. This doubles concourse capacity, facilitates the West Anglia link, which whilst not functional as original, could surely be re-engineered, it being the cheapest way possible to bring tube level frequencies to the West Anglia stoppers, alongside opening up the four spare platforms at Moorgate, and the two spare platforms at Barbican for terminating trains, along with significant stabling capacity along the "redundant" lines to Faringdon. If the West Anglia platforms can be moved closer to the existing Metropolitan station, you could see the platforms reversed for other tracks, with West Anglias running right through the main concourse without stopping.
Note, re-open the curve to City Thameslink, and you can have four direct Stansted to Gatwick trains per hour, with the only other option for that being a new curve at Kentish Town and Tottenham Hale, using GOBLIN, and is that not what is being done via Finsbury Park for Thameslink trains to Cambridge and Petersborough?
I don't think it will be an issue re-modelling tracks into Wimbledon. Much work will be required once XR2 reaches it, and all you need is two terminating platforms. It could be like the circular route via Clapham Junction, where you have to interchange.
|
|
|
Post by pridley on Jun 11, 2015 11:53:38 GMT
I hope LOROL will send AGA the bill for all the remedial work, and pursue them through the courts till it's paid... I doubt it. This would put other operator's backs up and precipitate further (unjustified) objections to TFL expansion. I would imagine they will simply recognise that the franchise system is broken, and re-invest their profits back into the trains.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 11, 2015 12:49:59 GMT
The Wimbledon / West Croydon link becomes more meaningful when XR2 comes to Wimbledon.. Possibly - indeed XR2 to Sutton has been suggested before. But the numbers of passengers switching from the St Helier line to the District will surely be less when XR2 comes: because more of them will use XR2 instead. . the potential interchange with Northern Line at Primrose Hill provides a good link to the West End. And the Vic at H&I. But I doubt there are any extra paths available east of Camden Road. . there being only one mainline into East Anglia at present. There are two: via Chelmsford, and via Bishops Stortford. . Stansted, which has real potential due to its potential connections to both East Anglia and also direct rail links to Birmingham.....Oxford to Cambridge, Hertford East and Hertford North. What has this to do with expansion of Liverpool Street? . West Anglia's link to the Metropolitan line running right through the main concourse without stopping.. Liverpool Street has been rebuilt fairly recently, and is about to be so again for Crossrail. What you propose would require demolition of large amounts of the Broadgate real estate. Not going to happen for half a century at least. . re-open the curve to City Thameslink, and you can have four direct Stansted to Gatwick trains per hour, . Again curvature too tight, too much other infrastructure in the way, notably XR1, and no capacity in the Thameslink core. Who wants to go from one airport to another anyway?y . I don't think it will be an issue re-modelling tracks into Wimbledon. Much work will be required once XR2 reaches it, and all you need is two terminating platforms.. It is not at all clear how they will squeeze two XR2 platforms in - let alone two more. Thameslink currently has a single through platform for both directions, which is the major constraint on frequency on the Loop.
|
|
|
Post by patstonuk on Jun 11, 2015 16:17:44 GMT
I hope LOROL will send AGA the bill for all the remedial work, and pursue them through the courts till it's paid... I doubt it. This would put other operator's backs up and precipitate further (unjustified) objections to TFL expansion. I would imagine they will simply recognise that the franchise system is broken, and re-invest their profits back into the trains. The normal arrangement with leased rolling stock condition on handback to the lessor is quite simple - it should be returned in the same condition as at the start of the lease, subject to any mutually agreed changes or modifications. This requirement extends to maintenance issues and any shortcomings in this instance will be a matter to be resolved directly between AGA and Eversholt.
|
|
|
Post by pridley on Jun 11, 2015 17:07:40 GMT
Given that we have one Network Rail, it is a disgrace that they have not moved towards a single standard for rolling stock to facilitate a market in it. I would imagine something like that has occurred with freight routes for that reason. It may take a few decades, but if all new rolling stock meet certain standards, we could then see leasing companies pop up to deal with these situations. I know that is the case for freight. I have a buddy who works for a rail freight leasing company in Czech Republic. They lease cars to German and Czech railways, who clearly have common standards.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 11, 2015 17:39:26 GMT
Given that we have one Network Rail, it is a disgrace that they have not moved towards a single standard for rolling stock to facilitate a market in it. I would imagine something like that has occurred with freight routes for that reason. It may take a few decades, but if all new rolling stock meet certain standards, we could then see leasing companies pop up to deal with these situations. I know that is the case for freight. I have a buddy who works for a rail freight leasing company in Czech Republic. They lease cars to German and Czech railways, who clearly have common standards. Do you understand how Standards work in the rail industry? Have you ever managed and reviewed Railway Standards or had to demonstrate compliance with them? Have a look at www.gov.uk/government/collections/background-to-rail-interoperability#technical-specifications-for-interoperability-tsis and also the Rail Standards and Safety Board (RSSB) and the suite of Group Standards. There is a logic to NOT having a single standard. You need standards that focus on particular needs / assets / risks and which are clear and manageable. This means it is ludicrous to have just one standard. None of this is designed to trigger "leasing companies popping up". I think you will find that all new rolling stock DOES have to meet standards or else it can't operate. Why else does it take a not inconsiderable effort and a lot of time to get new rolling stock designs into service? Given the differing roles for rolling stock and different customer / operator requirements you will never get completely standardised designs but you DO get compliant and safe trains.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,441
|
Post by Chris M on Jun 11, 2015 23:22:56 GMT
Another reason why stock is different from the point of view of drivers and maintainers is that technology moves on. Read this post by @aspect about the evolution of fault information for drivers for just one example.
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Jun 11, 2015 23:36:43 GMT
Just to let you know, the seating on the new trains for this line will have seating very much like the S8s on the Metropolitan Line, whereas you have a mix of longitude and bi directional seating. This was confirmed at the recent Q&A Twitter feed of London Overground I keep seeing this statement but TfL have said no such thing. They have said "might" have a mixed layout not "will" and that was via Twitter. I'm sorry to be so picky but I think anyone expecting a majority of transverse seating on these trains is likely to be disappointed. TfL's preference will always be to get as many people into the trains as possible and we know what that is likely to mean in terms of interior layout. Depending on who wins the contract and how the specification if framed is likely to have a strong bearing on what sort of design we see. If the spec is centred on maximising capacity rather than specifying a seat / standee split then you can see what will happen (haven't seen the spec so this is just me musing). aw shucks! For a moment I was so hoping that passenger comfort would be considered too, and not just space for crush loaded rush hour crowds. I think its Taipei in Taiwan which has trains with carriages that don't have any seats at all. I hope this is not something to which tFl aspire for London! Simon (also concerned about CrossRaill trains... will the seating make passengers cross [aka: angry] here too?)
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Jun 12, 2015 10:19:34 GMT
I hope LOROL will send AGA the bill for all the remedial work, and pursue them through the courts till it's paid... I doubt it. This would put other operator's backs up and precipitate further (unjustified) objections to TFL expansion. I would imagine they will simply recognise that the franchise system is broken, and re-invest their profits back into the trains. Essentially, though, this would be giving a massive unjustified public subsidy to the private operators - i.e. tell them they can leave the equipment in whatever state they like, because when TfL take over they'll put it right at their own cost. Any equipment which is not in working order ought to be put right and the bill sent to the previous operator who neglected it, plus administration and delay attribution costs. If there is evidence that maintenance was deliberately skimped on, patched over etc but yet reported as everything being fine and dandy and the new operator took over under that impression, is that not far more serious?
|
|
|
Post by pridley on Jun 12, 2015 11:40:52 GMT
Given that we have one Network Rail, it is a disgrace that they have not moved towards a single standard for rolling stock to facilitate a market in it. I would imagine something like that has occurred with freight routes for that reason. It may take a few decades, but if all new rolling stock meet certain standards, we could then see leasing companies pop up to deal with these situations. I know that is the case for freight. I have a buddy who works for a rail freight leasing company in Czech Republic. They lease cars to German and Czech railways, who clearly have common standards. Do you understand how Standards work in the rail industry? Have you ever managed and reviewed Railway Standards or had to demonstrate compliance with them? No, I know nothing about them. But from a consumer point of view, it is clear that something is stopping a market for solving the problem of short term rolling stock requirements. Or at the very least, there should be some slack and maybe London Overground should have one or two spare units that can be deployed at short notice. The system seems too cut to the bone, and whatever a technician says about Standards, means nothing for the rail user. And I think that moving towards standards, or at least standards groups to allow more flexible deployment would be a sensible objective. Certainly, within London Overground that is surely a possibility. That London could muster one or two spare units for crisis engineering issues on trains? And surely every Underground line also needs a spare unit for that situation?
|
|
|
Post by pridley on Jun 12, 2015 11:47:32 GMT
I doubt it. This would put other operator's backs up and precipitate further (unjustified) objections to TFL expansion. I would imagine they will simply recognise that the franchise system is broken, and re-invest their profits back into the trains. Essentially, though, this would be giving a massive unjustified public subsidy to the private operators - i.e. tell them they can leave the equipment in whatever state they like, because when TfL take over they'll put it right at their own cost. Yes, but that is just one of the many intolerable outcomes of franchising, where the private operator has no long term capital interest in the capital of the railway. If I was running TFL, I would use my ability and interest to invest in these faults as a bargaining chip. Indeed, it is a PR coup to say that we took on and turned around a disaster. PR wise, TFL would be better off paying for the repairs and claiming full credit. That way there is less resistance to taking over Southern services, because operators will be that more resistant if they know that they will be handed a bill after losing the franchise. Knowing that they can walk away with less liability makes them less likely to protest about TFL taking over, and the Concessions model means that TFL can afford to do the works and has the motive. I would say that there is justice and there is politics, and the two often do not collide. TFL may take the hardline approach, but I would imagine their emphasis is on not ruffling feathers. At least that is how I would do it. And quite frankly, Franchisers are already subsidised by tax payers to the hilt because the francise system means that they have no obligation to invest in capital projects beyond their initial franchise agreement. They just focus on taking money out the back door. It is what it is, and trying to get them to do otherwise is like telling a dog to quack.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 12, 2015 13:44:43 GMT
Do you understand how Standards work in the rail industry? Have you ever managed and reviewed Railway Standards or had to demonstrate compliance with them? No, I know nothing about them. But from a consumer point of view, it is clear that something is stopping a market for solving the problem of short term rolling stock requirements. Or at the very least, there should be some slack and maybe London Overground should have one or two spare units that can be deployed at short notice. The system seems too cut to the bone, and whatever a technician says about Standards, means nothing for the rail user. And I think that moving towards standards, or at least standards groups to allow more flexible deployment would be a sensible objective. Certainly, within London Overground that is surely a possibility. That London could muster one or two spare units for crisis engineering issues on trains? And surely every Underground line also needs a spare unit for that situation? Come on - it all boils down to money. No one is willing to pay to have trains sitting around for long periods doing nothing in the hope that they might be needed some time. I'd argue that it is not that the system is cut to the bone it is that it was once rationally resourced but now there is so much demand that trains have to be pulled into service with the risks that can bring. A small example - the GOBLIN effectively uses its one spare train to run the PIXC buster peak extras. There are occasions when they don't run because a train fails and the spare has to be deployed on the core service. BR had vast fleets of trains and carriages sitting around spare. OK it allowed it to cope with "events" and to cater for excursions, football traffic etc but much of that traffic has been eroded by road transport / car use and the comparatively high cost of rail for "one offs". We have all voted over the last 20-30 years for a system that is expensive to run and which is, of necessity, tightly resourced. That stretches back to DfT and Treasury strictures placed on BR in the 70s and 80s which saw land sold off, tracks singled, passing loops removed and rolling stock quantities reduced. That was all on the assumption that rail was a failed product and beyond redemption and we'd all be whizzing around in our little metal boxes on wheels. I know you know all this so I find it strange that you say a standards regime is at fault when standards have always existed to ensure safety and operational consistency. Standards have nothing to do with the willingness of funders to pay for extra operational resilience. The thing that is at fault is Government Policy over many decades and the public being completely unwilling to ever push transport up the electoral agenda so that it gets taken seriously. We achieve some success in London because transport has a greater influnce on millions of people's lives and we have devolved responsibility for it. Therefore the electorate can exert pressure on the politicians when required although that doesn't always work either.
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Jun 12, 2015 14:33:20 GMT
Do you understand how Standards work in the rail industry? Have you ever managed and reviewed Railway Standards or had to demonstrate compliance with them? No, I know nothing about them. But from a consumer point of view, it is clear that something is stopping a market for solving the problem of short term rolling stock requirements. Or at the very least, there should be some slack and maybe London Overground should have one or two spare units that can be deployed at short notice. The system seems too cut to the bone, and whatever a technician says about Standards, means nothing for the rail user. And I think that moving towards standards, or at least standards groups to allow more flexible deployment would be a sensible objective. Certainly, within London Overground that is surely a possibility. That London could muster one or two spare units for crisis engineering issues on trains? And surely every Underground line also needs a spare unit for that situation? As snoggle has said, a lot of it comes down to money. It also comes down to a growing market. In the early 2000s, Porterbrook purchased 3 class 170 units to use as spot hire units. After a couple of years, they ceased to be spot hire units and were taken on full time by Central Trains. When you have spare stock, it will almost inevitably be gobbled up by some TOC somewhere - such is the need for capacity that any train stopped long term will soon have people looking at it (subject to being in a good state and being something they can operate - you wouldn't see the class 455s running around west anglia for example). Surely you realise that LO have got spare units for WA, it's just that at the moment, all the spares are being used to replace the demics in for check-ups. If LO had a extra unit that could be operated on the WA, once the few months of check-ups had been done, what would it then do? It could either sit in a siding effectively burning a hole in LO's pockets, unless they owned it outright. It could be used to lengthen existing services and operate service trains, but at that point it ceases being a spare and becomes just another unit Railway standards do exist, and most units can operate on most other lines, subject to there being the appropriate power supply. The only real exceptions are the GWML and chiltern lines, where units need to be fitted with APT, and some lines where there are restricted clearances (eg merseyrail). In a lot of cases, components are the same eg Brecknell Willis manufacture about every pantograph for new use UK trains, Thales do all the AWS/TPWS systems, Dellner provide the gangways, BMAC do the lights etc, but the problem with having (for example) a standard type of cab, or type is that it effectively rules out competition between train manufacturers. The big 3 at the moment (siemens, bombardier and hitachi) all have their own designs, and forcing the other 2 companies to build trains to the design of the 3rd isn't going to happen - they have no interest in that, and so not only do you not have competition, but you also end up with periods where the sole manufacturer can't output enough to keep up with demand, followed by periods where nothing is being ordered and they lay off half the workforce.
|
|
|
Post by patstonuk on Jun 12, 2015 14:34:56 GMT
Essentially, though, this would be giving a massive unjustified public subsidy to the private operators - i.e. tell them they can leave the equipment in whatever state they like, because when TfL take over they'll put it right at their own cost. Yes, but that is just one of the many intolerable outcomes of franchising, where the private operator has no long term capital interest in the capital of the railway. If I was running TFL, I would use my ability and interest to invest in these faults as a bargaining chip. Indeed, it is a PR coup to say that we took on and turned around a disaster. PR wise, TFL would be better off paying for the repairs and claiming full credit. That way there is less resistance to taking over Southern services, because operators will be that more resistant if they know that they will be handed a bill after losing the franchise. Knowing that they can walk away with less liability makes them less likely to protest about TFL taking over, and the Concessions model means that TFL can afford to do the works and has the motive. I would say that there is justice and there is politics, and the two often do not collide. TFL may take the hardline approach, but I would imagine their emphasis is on not ruffling feathers. At least that is how I would do it. And quite frankly, Franchisers are already subsidised by tax payers to the hilt because the francise system means that they have no obligation to invest in capital projects beyond their initial franchise agreement. They just focus on taking money out the back door. It is what it is, and trying to get them to do otherwise is like telling a dog to quack. Forgive my asking, but did you miss this from yesterday?: I doubt it. This would put other operator's backs up and precipitate further (unjustified) objections to TFL expansion. I would imagine they will simply recognise that the franchise system is broken, and re-invest their profits back into the trains. The normal arrangement with leased rolling stock condition on handback to the lessor is quite simple - it should be returned in the same condition as at the start of the lease, subject to any mutually agreed changes or modifications. This requirement extends to maintenance issues and any shortcomings in this instance will be a matter to be resolved directly between AGA and Eversholt.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 12, 2015 14:42:15 GMT
And I think that moving towards standards, or at least standards groups to allow more flexible deployment would be a sensible objective. Units are being flexibly deployed - look at the ex-Thameslink class 319 units now in Manchester, the nomadic history of the 317s (which have worked out of every a.c electrified London terminus except Paddington), or the ex-Stansted 322s now in Yorkshire (having spent time in Scotland and Cheshire). That London could muster one or two spare units for crisis engineering issues on trains? But there is no money to finance a bigger contingency overhead than the already do - any spare units get snapped up for scheduled work And surely every Underground line also needs a spare unit for that situation? They do - all operators carry a few spares. But even the Underground doesn't have a standard design - you can't run 1973 stock (let alone S stock!) on the Central Line, for example. You could design a train capable of going all over the system, but as a jack-of-all-trades it would be master of none - shorter and narrower than necessary for most lines, and with lots of different signalling kit (all of which costs money both to install and maintain, and needs space finding for it) to suit the different generations of signalling systems on the different lines. On the wider network, a single standard type is unfeasible: passengers from London to Norwich would be less than impressed if AGA provided a class 315 - and conversely, passengers on the Hertford East line would not be happy with a class-90-plus-eight: think of the dwell times!
|
|
|
Post by Hassaan on Jun 12, 2015 19:00:39 GMT
But bottom line, TFL needs to better communicate what is going on, and Chingford users, frankly, should understand that the concession model works and that TFL will clearly be investing in the trains. HOWEVER, they should be leasing a unit or two to take up the slack during this transition, or is that completely unrealistic? Surely they can find a suitable temporary train somewhere in Europe?! Or will they not satisfy Network Rail? Or is there a silly bureaucratic hurdle? Either way, TFL knows that it must get these repairs out of the way soon as possible, but with all these new staff, they must communicate better, with drivers given marching orders to give announcements and apologies. I thought it was the case that TfL have already leased two extra trains to provide extra resilience but it seems every train they've got is cursed to some extent - either having sat off lease in sidings for months and not having had enough "shake down" mileage prior to transfer to LOROL or they've been neglected by Abellio as a money saving exercise. There aren't other trains just lying around ready for instant use and how long do you think it takes to train drivers on stock that is new to a route or operator? Not a five minute exercise and then there's the issue about whether a depot can effectively maintain two "alien" units and if it's even worth bothering with. The only answer is for Ilford Depot to fix the trains properly and to do it as quickly as they can. I can't agree with your "Chingford users, frankly, should understand that the concession model works" remark. Their only experience of TfL operation of their trains has been a disaster every day since they took over responsibility. If people are late to work, late home and crushed into 4 car rather than 8 car trains what are they supposed to think? They don't care about fancy forms of contract. It's a wretched mess and it has to get better and get better fast. In 30 years of living in E17 I can't remember the service ever being this bad in terms of the train operator causing problems. Plenty of overhead wire, points and signals issues but not on a daily basis. Apart from the first day I have deliberately avoided using the West Anglia service because I've no wish to get stuck or crushed into a short formed train. I'm fortunate to be able to make a choice - many cannot do so. The comments on Twitter from Chingford Line users are very bad and unforgiving and a petition against TfL's operation has been started. I can completely understand why passengers feel like this. There is no reason for the public to change their view until there are no delays, cancellations or short formations which are the train operator's responsibility. I agree there must be much better communication with passengers and the twitter feed is now reporting delays and short formations but that info also needs to transfer to the website too. There has also been a lot of negative comment about the staff on stations and the poor way in which they are handling the problems and also being rude to passengers. That also needs sorting too (assuming the remarks are valid). If stuff doesn't get sorted then Boris is going to get a delegation of local MPs kicking his door down at City Hall or the House of Commons! Personally I'm not surprised that TfL have been found out of their depth. The previous LO services were a piece of cake in comparison: All trains the same length with no attaching or splitting. No or very small areas that are as heavily congested, especially with trains of varying stopping patterns. Less interface with services of other TOCs. Less infrastructure issues, at least these days anyway. It also doesn't surprise me that they've been caught out giving wrong, misleading or vague information, or none at all. In fact, doing one of those is something they regularly do, we see it on here time and time again, like the "operational restrictions" the other day on the subsurface lines that turned out to be a shortage of staff . As is the case with poor staff training, especially regarding various matters to do with ticketing.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 12, 2015 21:11:41 GMT
Personally I'm not surprised that TfL have been found out of their depth. The previous LO services were a piece of cake in comparison: All trains the same length with no attaching or splitting. No or very small areas that are as heavily congested, especially with trains of varying stopping patterns. Less interface with services of other TOCs. Less infrastructure issues, at least these days anyway. It also doesn't surprise me that they've been caught out giving wrong, misleading or vague information, or none at all. In fact, doing one of those is something they regularly do, we see it on here time and time again, like the "operational restrictions" the other day on the subsurface lines that turned out to be a shortage of staff . As is the case with poor staff training, especially regarding various matters to do with ticketing. Not sure I really agree with some of what you've said. Yes the basic train configuration was simple enough but they've had to cope with hugely overloaded trains from day one. Remember the Class 313s on the NLL were jammed solid in the peaks. It was almost hand to hand combat to get on and off at Highbury and Islington. Ditto the 150s on the GOBLIN. LOROL has had to manage fleet transition on 4 routes and then cope with introducing services on several new routes. Those new routes involve considerable interworking with other TOCs. LOROL has one of the largest interfaces with freight of any operator in London with a disproportionate impact on paths and, if a freight train conks out or falls off a bridge, on the train service. LOROL also has important interfaces with London Underground operation with those "joining" points being prone to failure - how many times have the points failed at Gunnersbury? There have been massive infrastructure issues - the GOBLIN crawls along in places and only very recently have Network Rail fixed most of the bridges near Tottenham reservoirs. We have 9 months of blockade due on the GOBLIN which will give us significant improvements but nonetheless it's not going to be easy. LOROL have also got to cope with the Earls Court redevelopment works, Crossrail at Whitechapel and Thameslink south of Surrey Quays in terms of infrastructure work interfaces. Those carry on for years and very soon the ELL will be disrupted for a week while Crossrail put the decking in at Whitechapel for the walkway / ticket hall over the ELL. It's a matter of record about the extensive works on the North London Line pre Olympics to give us a new reliable railway. On top of all of that platforms have been extended, signals resited, trains converted to one person operation, trains lengthened and stations rebuilt plus made accessible. All of that has been done relatively smoothly with barely any engineering overruns or noticeable mistakes subsequently screwing the service. To me all of that demonstrates a high degree of competence and attention to detail. There's a clear ability to plan and cope with change as well as manage disruption. Now having said all of that it's clear something (or several things) aren't working properly with the West Anglia stuff. I've seen stuff in various places but nothing that is yet definitive. At some point TfL / LOROL will be pulled up in front of somebody and be asked to explain what went wrong. As I've said until I'm blue in the face we can't go back in time and start again. LOROL must simply work as hard and as fast as possible to get the rolling stock fettled and kept in a good state so that the service stabilises and people have reliable journeys with the required train lengths. Once that's done then the slog of getting trains cleaned and refurbed and stations tidied up can start. To be fair the people on the Twitter feed have clearly been told to watch the train service and formation info and ensure any short forms, delays or cancellations are communicated openly. That's a decent improvement and clearly not unduly difficult to put in place. Here's hoping that they rarely if ever have to keep sending those tweets because the service has been got right. I have to say that I don't really understand all the "Overground" isn't a "real" railway type debate. It quite clearly is a railway run by companies with very significant expertise. As a basic principle keeping information simple and straightforward is decent enough policy but it has to flex when the circumstances require it. Perhaps the West Anglia routes will be the thing that brings about that increased detail and greater flexibility in TfL's approach? "Horses for courses" and all that.
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Jun 12, 2015 21:36:41 GMT
I've every confidence LOROL will get it right eventually, as they did with NLL and later E/SLL. Just a great pity the start has been so bad...
|
|
|
Post by pridley on Jun 12, 2015 23:11:53 GMT
I've every confidence LOROL will get it right eventually, as they did with NLL and later E/SLL. Just a great pity the start has been so bad... I would not be surprised if there was not sabotage, in terms of purposefully leaving trains in a shoddy state, to try and ruin the image of the Concession system by a vested interest of the Franchise system. You could see Abellio slowly letting the trains and stations deteriorate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2015 23:16:46 GMT
Wake up sheeple!
|
|
|
Post by pridley on Jun 12, 2015 23:21:46 GMT
Very interesting to hear all these answers. Obviously I know nothing about train running, so this all makes sense now. I had no idea before reading this forum how difficult it is running a railway.
|
|