|
Post by pridley on Jul 18, 2015 16:33:40 GMT
Yes, people have answered my questions, but everybody is ganging up and mocking me for asking questions. I was right to ask whether a reduction from 5 to 4 carriages could be pulled off. It does result in increased number of seats with the increased frequency, and I am not an idiot for suggesting that once the 4tph, 4 carriage service is saturated, whenever that is, that there is potential to extend the trains again.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 18, 2015 16:37:25 GMT
I have read that the Aventras on West Anglia, etc. can be extend to five car eventually. I expect this prior to any major infrastructure improvements if the line gets to capacity on 8tph with 8 car trains. It is cheaper to provide extra carriages than to disentangle the two West Anglia lines. But that may have to be done eventually. Regarding whether it is in the contract, the contract states that there are options for new carriages for later lengthening purposes. There has been talk elsewhere of Crossrail being capable eventually of 12 car trains with the same stated about Crossrail 2. Also, upgrade later from 24 to 30tph, with that also being possible later on with Thameslink. I cannot remember where I read this, but clearly, Crossrail was designed with future upgrades in mind. Not sure why anybody thinks this is completely outlandish. Of course Aventras can be extended. There are contract options to do so. Class 345s for Crossrail 1 - these will initially run into Liv St as 7 car trains (confirmed in a recent Twitter session). They will be extended to their planned formation of 9 cars for use through the tunnels. Liverpool St surface platforms are to be lengthened to allow 9 car trains to run there too. The infrastructure on the tunnelled sections and elsewhere will allow for a further increase in train length to 11 cars, not 12. I understand that 30 tph may be possible on CR1 but it's not clear if that would be a "tweak" of existing capabilities in the signalling and control system or if it will involve a larger upgrade to those systems and other infrastructure e.g. extra terminal platforms. I see Mr Hewett is challenging on the 30 tph point - I'll have to see if I can find a source for my musings. As no decision has been made about CR2 rolling stock it's impossible at this point to say if they will be 12 cars or some other length / formation. Personally I'd build it to take an eventual 14 or 16 car train formation but that's an expensive / controversial option because of the implications on the wider network. I have not read any comment from anyone here using the term "outlandish" other than yourself.
|
|
|
Post by pridley on Jul 18, 2015 16:46:13 GMT
It is a fact, even if you don't like it, that 24 tph is the max for which both CR and TLK have been designed. Professional railway operators believe that even that frequency is pushing it;now why do you think they are wrong? It's matter of public record and was made abundantly clear to all the TLK (and most probably the CR) bidders; why do you know better? Whence you superior knowledge? I never said you were wrong, I SIMPLY stated that I had read elsewhere that there could be future upgrades. Will you apologise for patronising me and being rude when you read the following links? I post them and you can critique them, but I did say that I read about it, I never said that I made this up or that it was even my idea. Apologies for reading London Reconnections and TFL White Papers, etc. Again, you accuse me of attacking you with "superior knowledge" as if I am making stuff up to hurt your ego, when in reality you are being defensive because your ego is fragile, but here it is: London Reconnections state that by 2050, there could be a £100m upgrade of Crossrail 2 from 24 to 30tph www.londonreconnections.com/2015/london-2050-part-5-peak-tube/Also, here, from Crossrail themselves: www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/crossrail-tunnelling-contracts-advertised"The publication of OJEU notices for construction of the Crossrail tunnels in central London marks another significant milestone for the Crossrail project. The tunnelling contracts are crucial to the completion of Crossrail and will enable 12-carriage trains to travel under central London from Maidenhead and Heathrow in the west to Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east. Here, TFL stating that Crossrail 2 could be extended to 12 car trains eventually: consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail/2-2013/supporting_documents/Summary%20of%20Option%20Development.pdfThere is the possibility of moving to 12 car trains later if required to meet the demand , and to accommodate these train lengths the station platforms would be 250 m long (as opposed to the 200 m identified for the original shortlisted option). In the same document, TFL state 30tph eventually for Crossrail 2: The number of trains on the central section in the peak hours would be up to 30 trains per hour. As the trains would be 10 cars initially, th is would give the system the capacity to move up to 45,000 passengers an hour in each direction in the peak hours. There is the possibility of moving to 12 car trains later if required to meet the demand , and to accommodate these train lengths the station platforms would be 250 m long (as opposed to the 200 m identified for the original shortlisted option).
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 18, 2015 16:59:49 GMT
snoggle - the 24 tph max for TLK came from the contract documentation for the supply of the new stock, which I had the doubtful pleasure of having to read in exhaustive and exhausting detail. Behind the scenes, there was an ongoing row between the bidders and the operators (and NR) on the one hand and DfT on the other, because even 24 tph required dwell times of less than 45 seconds, which many professionals felt was unachievable. (Bear in mind that that dwell time was defined as time from wheels stopping turning to wheels starting turning again,so a signifcant proprtion of that 45 sec was taken up with audible warnings, door release operations and actual door opening time.] NR have been adamant that they cannot deliver more than 24 tph with the planned signalling. Given that CR 1 is to have the same, I would be most surprised if there was scope for any more 24 tph there,but, as I say,I haven't read the contracts (the builder I was advising didn't bother to bid for both...). Ofcourse,you could further upgrade the signalling, but clearly aren't going to do so a year or two after buying the first lot, and that still doesn't ease the dwell problem. And yes, I know, before it's pointed out to me,that historically tube lines have achieved 30 tph and willbe achieving 36 tph in the future, but the operational context is simpler than for a main line railway - for example, there is a much smaller choice of destinations, so punters spend less time sorting themselves out on the platform, and sliding doors always seem much faster than plug ones.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 18, 2015 17:01:28 GMT
pridley - no I won't apologise; no reason to. You are now talking about CR2,whereas before it was TLK and CR1 - quite different kettles of fish....
|
|
Dom K
Global Moderator
The future is bright
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by Dom K on Jul 18, 2015 17:16:23 GMT
Yes, people have answered my questions, but everybody is ganging up and mocking me for asking questions. I was right to ask whether a reduction from 5 to 4 carriages could be pulled off. It does result in increased number of seats with the increased frequency, and I am not an idiot for suggesting that once the 4tph, 4 carriage service is saturated, whenever that is, that there is potential to extend the trains again. Probably because what you say is repetitive and nonsensical. Unfortunately, from experience and reflective of this forum is that constant speculative and crayonistic ideas aren't really liked here. That doesn't mean it's wrong to do so, just not here. We recently had a member who would just list stations as if it where throwing darts at a tube map. This went on for several weeks and in the end it just became an annoyance. I'm afraid your postings are exactly that, annoying. I no longer take notice of what you say as I'm sick to death of reading the same old thing and constant fantasy and copy and pasting from Wikipedia. Discussions normally are very interesting when based on facts and some intelligent foresight. I'm afraid you need to either change how you post or just accept that your posting style is not tolerated here on this forum. I like new and enthusiastic members, but remember one thing, this an established forum, with alot of experienced members, not just using forums, but working on the tube, LO or other services that this forum represents. You should see the warning signs of your threads being locked and general disapproval of your posts as an idea to change what you say. I hope you take my advice, but don't be surprised if you end up leaving this forum voluntarily or by exclusion if you don't. #justsayimg
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Jul 18, 2015 18:44:26 GMT
This forum really is full of a bunch of arsey pricks. In the death, if you sign up to a forum and try to lobby support for a position almost exclusively designed just to increase the profit on your house what on earth do you expect eh? I rest safe in the knowledge that you wouldn't dare repeat that phrase to either me or anybody else on here if they were in the same room. Goodnight Mr Ridley, it's been emotional.
|
|
|
Post by pridley on Jul 18, 2015 19:15:28 GMT
I find the continual patronising responses repetitive and boring, frankly. I have a stated interest in West Anglia and Crossrail 2, and am posting in those sections only, and have been trying to develop my understanding of the situation, posting links to what has been stated in documents and on the news, seeking to disentangle it so that I have some sort of an understanding about the direction of change.
I have had Mr Hewitt claim that he wrote the legislation, and that it does not allow for the Mayor to invest in routes that affect Hertfordshire. Another person posted the actual legislation and it allows for it. No apologies, but others are still wrong all the time.
Above, again, Mr Hewitt states that 12 carriage trains and 30tph is impossible on Crossrail, that I am an idiot for discussing it, and Thunderbirds are go. I then post links to TFL publications stating that the tunneling contract allowed for 12 carriage trains and that there is an anticipation of 30tph in the longer term, certainly by 2050. I bet there will be no apologies. Certainly, no response. La, la, la.
Another poster stated that it is impossible to extend Aventra trains, again, rather than politely stating their opinion, ridicule me, and yet the TFL contract with Bombardiar allows for car extensions to five cars. So I was then ridiculed for suggesting that Watford may extend to five cars again once the 4tph service is saturated, something that will occur before 2050. Again, people spend time ridiculing rather than politely discussing where the headlines are leading.
I wanted to discuss the practicalities of 4tph on Southbury Loop with a view of lobbying my MP. People take the pi$$ out of me for having an interest in it, which would be fine if I had hid the interest. Actually, I was completely open about it, but by sharing that information people saw it as a weakness and decided to destroy me with abuse and ridicule. And it has been repetitive, inane abuse. The whole experience was totally draining, and yet surely one should be able to go on a forum like this to find out what is happening.
If you don't want to hear about stuff to do with Crossrail and Overground, why not ignore those posts? Why ridicule and be horrible to somebody who is not an insider like you? Whilst I do not operate on the railway, I do work within regeneration and have substantial knowledge regarding long term city planning with two post graduate degrees in and substantial experience, which is why my perspective is different to that of somebody working in an operational position. However, it is clear that this is a very clicky group, that does not tolerate other perspectives on life.
|
|
|
Post by pridley on Jul 18, 2015 19:23:01 GMT
This forum really is full of a bunch of arsey pricks. In the death, if you sign up to a forum and try to lobby support for a position almost exclusively designed just to increase the profit on your house what on earth do you expect eh? I rest safe in the knowledge that you wouldn't dare repeat that phrase to either me or anybody else on here if they were in the same room. Goodnight Mr Ridley, it's been emotional. Mr Whistlekiller. I joined this group to find out more about what is happening in a specific area. Unlike most others who would post in a forum like this I was honest about why I have an interest in it and I have only posted in parts of the forum relevant to my interest point. I am not only interested in the area because I own a house here. I bought a house here because I was interested in the developing infrastructure and regeneration plans happening here, and because it is a place I could afford. Most people discuss railways because they want their area and their commute improved. Most stuff on the news about rail is about people affected by it making a noise. Just because I am not an enthusiast in general, I do not fit into this clicky group that rejects people with another point of view. And by the way, I do not live in the Southbury Loop area, and in reality, 4tph there would not affect me because my local station would get all the new services. However, I sincerely want to see other parts regenerated and it truly upset me to see lobbying from wealthy, articulate individuals divert services and cash away from east Enfield, where there is less wealth and eloquence. For me, that is more of a political issue. This politik is why Enfield Town retained two platforms and Cheshunt lost its fourth West Anglia platform, so I want to see a reversal in that for more than selfish reasons. I hope you all feel super good about yourselves bullying me off the forum.
|
|
Dom K
Global Moderator
The future is bright
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by Dom K on Jul 18, 2015 19:34:25 GMT
I find the continual patronising responses repetitive and boring, frankly. Now you know how the rest of us feel
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Jul 18, 2015 19:39:31 GMT
re: the increase from 3 to 4 trains an hour, I wonder whether it will be achieved by reducing the number of trains to Euston from 3 to 2 and sending two trains to Camden Road via Primrose Hill ? The other side of the island platform could be reinstated and this could be a terminus platform as that way the bridges which were not replaced before the Olympics will still not need replacing.
Or maybe these would travel the whole way to Stratford (paths permitting)? (rush hours only?)
This might annoy passengers who actually want Euston (half hour services are even less attractive that 20 minute services) but if the HS2 works go ahead and paths into Euston at a premium this could possibly be an enforced solution.
Simon
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2015 19:50:19 GMT
This forum really is full of a bunch of arsey pricks. I simply asked whether folk were sure this was the case and asked a few bleeding questions about how reversion from five to four cars could stick politically. As you can see from my post just prior, I have found an explanation on my own, which explains that the downgrade is in fact an upgrade, and follows the new policy of Metropolitan Line type stock into Metro terminus's with longitudinal only probably limited to NLL and ELL. And the Bombardier contract does allow later increase to five car trains to Watford if / once the 4tph service is cheek to jowl. No thanks to you lot. And since none of you were able to find that explanation your selves, maybe you don't know quite as much as your over inflated egos would be led to believe?! Either that, or you would rather put people down than throw them a fricking bone. It seems that I came on here looking for answers, whereas old timers here come to seek validity to their "superior" knowledge, BULLYING and putting down anybody who has a new idea they did not have, or a question they are incapable of answering, because it destroys their fragile egos. *To be read in the voice of Elvis Presley* Thank you, thank you very much. I, uh, well, I'm sorry it's come to this - but I can't say I'm entirely surprised. I shouldn't like to see you leave, myself, I think anybody's welcome here. But not necessarily any post. The forum prides itself on being a place for railway (particularly LU) members of staff, former members of staff, enthusiasts and users to discuss London's railways. It also rightly sees itself as tasked with upholding the honour and legacy of its much-missed founder. This is one of the reasons why people feel obliged - I think - to respond to some of the more improbable ideas that occasionally find themselves here. It is deemed important to correct mistakes and to explain - to any reader who might come by - why the answer is (likely to be) 'no'. This is not really the home of pie in the sky thinking and bizarre conspiracy theories. I'm genuinely sorry you feel victimised, this is not how the forum operates. But people might make jokes, e.g. about an international airport named after you, in an attempt to show, by satire, where it is you're going wrong. You are unconstrained by the nature and structure of reality and by the facts of economics and sadly it shows to those who have spent their lives really doing it. And so they try to answer in good faith, but they don't ever seem to get anywhere. I have been the author of my fair share of low quality contributions. But one must understand the calibre of post that is expected here and one must make a serious effort to engage with what people are saying. It's not about accepting what snoggle and grahamhewett say because they preach from on high, so must be right. It's about listening to what they tell you. It's about understanding what it takes to get a serious railway project off the ground. If you'd like to talk about the same, you must be willing to learn and make good faith attempts to explain how your ideas could work. If you'd like to play with some crayons, there are plenty of places better suited to that activity. Hey, you could write a novel, you have quite the imagination. Alternatively, if you have questions, then you should pose them as such, in a non-confrontational manner. But above all you must try to avoid coming across as the author of a pamphlet for a particular interest group, wondering loudly why oh why you can't have everything you want all the time. This is a place, partly, for making real and serious suggestions about things that might reasonably be done. It's a place for posing honest questions about whether such and such a thing is viable, or whether it could or should happen. It's a place for listening to the well-informed, well-supported answers to those questions, and not challenging them as though arguing with your mother over whether you should be allowed another slice of pie. Instead you should engage honestly with the facts that you are being supplied with - pro bono, by people who take time out of their lives to post on here. It's also a place for learning and sharing knowledge about London Underground and enjoying a shared hobby. Now, this is the intuition I want you to have. This is how, I think, some people feel. That's not an attempt by me at insulting you. I want you to understand that that's likely how people feel when they read your posts. You can understand why that's annoying, can't you? I'm sure you have hobbies and a domain of professional expertise and it's frustrating when people make what you consider obvious mistakes, but are very loud about it. But I'm sure you would consider this an unfair appraisal. I doubt you consider yourself ignorant about what you post at all. It doesn't really matter. I'm not trying to tell you you are ignorant and noisy. I'm trying to show you where the conflict is coming from, why there is maybe some tension here that we would like to dissipate. The answer, I think, is fewer knee-jerk reactions and more reflection. You have already notched up 212 posts. That's a lot. I was quite noisy when I started. Perhaps too noisy. Take a little time. Chill out a little. Remember that we're not hashing out the cure for cancer here, we're just a having a little fun. I'm a stand-up comedian and the one thing I must remember before I open my mouth is that I am not that important. I mustn't take myself so seriously. I mustn't take it all to heart and I mustn't get too attached to my own ideas, nor must I expect everybody to want to hear everything I have to say. This won't sound right in the ears of some people. Of course you are important. We're all human beings, we all have a right to voice our opinion, especially here, in a free and open internet forum. But the way I find to communicate effectively in this world and to be happy is to not get so upset if an idea of mine doesn't quite go down exactly how I would like it to. And that's my um lecture over with. But for what it's worth, I would like to say sorry if I've ever really upset you in some way. I don't want to see people leave in ignominy and I don't want anyone to feel railroaded (pause for laughs). I do hope you'll stay and contribute what you can, but I'd like you to do a little thinking too. I would like to extend the hand of friendship. I too have been frustrated by some of your bizarrer ideas. There's no hidden message in the Crossrail logo and Chesham ain't getting 4 tph. But I don't have any malice for you and I respect you as a human being with a particular interest. But please, stop digging my friend. And if, and if you conclude that this particular forum's remit does not overlap with your personal areas of interest, I hope you might say goodbye on nicer terms. But do not expect the answer to stop being no.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 18, 2015 20:01:27 GMT
pridley - I'm sorry you call me a liar and that you don't believe what I say is the actual legal position. You may have access to legal advice and knowledge that isn't available to legislators,or you may simply be an amateur running on guesswork; trouble is, you don't tell us why you know better. Until you do, people won't believe you. Personally, I don't mind how much you abuse me -it simply enables everyone else to understand better what sort of person you are. I joined this forum (a) because it enables me to learn from others with widely differing expertise to mine (eg driving trains, knowledge of day to day operations etc), and (b) because I had other expertise which is not widely available (eg legislating,managing Cabinet ministers, planning the network etc), which might shed some light on things. What expertise do you bring to the table?
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 18, 2015 21:45:48 GMT
In the same document, TFL state 30tph eventually for Crossrail 2:..............etc etc Thank you for those links on XR2 - they are interesting, although of course it is all speculative as there is no approval yet for the thing to even be built at all. But this thread is about the Wat-Eus line. The article you linked to included this quote from an MP "I am so pleased to hear that there are plans to run four services an hour on the Watford to Euston line, I think this will make the Overground an even more popular choice for travelling around our area and into London." This is indeed an interesting development. But have TfL confirmed these plans? Has the MP actually understood what he was told? What are the timescales? Remember that politicians are not transport experts. Can you, (or anyone else for that matter) provide a link to a definite TfL proposal to increase that service to 4tph? I have been unable to find one. The proposed replacement of 5-car 378s by new 4-car trains is mentioned in the Bombardier press release and the one I linked to earlier. As the new trains are expected to have seating more like that on the Met's S8 stock (with some transverse) the actual number of seats per train will increase. yet the TFL contract with Bombardiar allows for car extensions to five cars. , Please provide a link to support this assertion London Reconnections state that by 2050, there could be a £100m upgrade of Crossrail 2 from 24 to 30tph "Could be". And a lot can happen in 35 years. (Actually, I wouldn't bet on XR2 being opened by 2050, let alone be ready for an upgrade!) London Reconnections is no more official than DD, and has its own share of fantasy proposals. The TfL paper talks about extra cars and extra trains. If we assume TfL's paper is correct *and* we assume they mean a total order size of 249 cars not 249 *extra* cars then we have a base order of 180 cars (I think we all agree on that!) plus options for 69 extra. That doesn't equal 24 extra trains - 96 cars - as mentioned by Bombardier. . I can't find this paper - is there a hyperlink? All the references I have seen are to an option for 24 extra complete trains. As you say, assuming they are also 4-car sets, that will be 96 cars. Sixty-nine cars is not (quite) enough for 24 three-car sets! Indeed, the simplest explanation is that there is a typo, and the reference to an option for 69 cars is in fact meant to be the 96-car (i.e 24-train) option mentioned in other releases. I stand corrected that Aventras can be extended - as you say, the 345s are to be built as 9-car trains and later extended to eleven (or even twelve). The Overground version may also be extendible - BUT I have seen nothing official to suggest that such extension is envisaged at any time in the near future. Significant infrastructure changes would be needed to accommodate 5-car (and ten-car) trains on the lines on which they are planned to be used. Nobody on this forum minds questions being asked, but it is difficult to answer a question if it is based on an assumption that can't be substantiated, or an apparent misunderstanding. ("Begging the question"). How am I supposed to answer the question "is your daughter beautiful?", when I have no daughter? Questioning that assumption is part of the dialogue, and can (and indeed has) produced useful insights, for example where the questioner had come across a reference that he assumed would be common knowledge but was in fact hot news.
|
|
|
Post by pridley on Jul 18, 2015 22:22:08 GMT
To Tut, thank you for your kind comments.
I was just going to hang up and go, but one more comment before that. I came here a complete novice, searching for answers on the web. I have no background in trains. I find the Mayor's Strategy and want to know why it is not being fully implemented. Sorry that you are completely in the know about Chesham, but I was not. I now at least understand what is going on, but I kept asking questions because I wanted to work it out for myself. Being a thinking person, I don't want to just be told something cannot happen, I want to understand it.
So basically, you gang up on somebody who is not part of the "gang" who admits they are a newbie, but is enthusiastic and wants to understand.
I would suggest, if others like me ever come along asking "stupid" questions, maybe just stop for a minute, and think about gently explaining things until that person understands.
Otherwise, this is just a forum for those who know, or think they know everything. What a disappointment. I had hoped to explore my interest in the future direction of the rail network in London. I guess I'll have to ponder it all on my own now. This makes me sad, but that is the way it is. Quite frankly, I do not have time to try and defend myself for asking questions and wanting to understand things. Good day to you all.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 18, 2015 22:49:56 GMT
In the same document, TFL state 30tph eventually for Crossrail 2:..............etc etc Thank you for those links on XR2 - they are interesting, although of course it is all speculative as there is no approval yet for the thing to even be built at all. But this thread is about the Wat-Eus line. The article you linked to included this quote from an MP "I am so pleased to hear that there are plans to run four services an hour on the Watford to Euston line, I think this will make the Overground an even more popular choice for travelling around our area and into London." This is indeed an interesting development. But have TfL confirmed these plans? Has the MP actually understood what he was told? What are the timescales? Remember that politicians are not transport experts. Can you, (or anyone else for that matter) provide a link to a definite TfL proposal to increase that service to 4tph? I have been unable to find one. The proposed replacement of 5-car 378s by new 4-car trains is mentioned in the Bombardier press release and the one I linked to earlier. As the new trains are expected to have seating more like that on the Met's S8 stock (with some transverse) the actual number of seats per train will increase. yet the TFL contract with Bombardiar allows for car extensions to five cars. , Please provide a link to support this assertion London Reconnections state that by 2050, there could be a £100m upgrade of Crossrail 2 from 24 to 30tph "Could be". And a lot can happen in 35 years. (Actually, I wouldn't bet on XR2 being opened by 2050, let alone be ready for an upgrade!) London Reconnections is no more official than DD, and has its own share of fantasy proposals. The TfL paper talks about extra cars and extra trains. If we assume TfL's paper is correct *and* we assume they mean a total order size of 249 cars not 249 *extra* cars then we have a base order of 180 cars (I think we all agree on that!) plus options for 69 extra. That doesn't equal 24 extra trains - 96 cars - as mentioned by Bombardier. . I can't find this paper - is there a hyperlink? All the references I have seen are to an option for 24 extra complete trains. As you say, assuming they are also 4-car sets, that will be 96 cars. Sixty-nine cars is not (quite) enough for 24 three-car sets! Indeed, the simplest explanation is that there is a typo, and the reference to an option for 69 cars is in fact meant to be the 96-car (i.e 24-train) option mentioned in other releases. I stand corrected that Aventras can be extended - as you say, the 345s are to be built as 9-car trains and later extended to eleven (or even twelve). The Overground version may also be extendible - BUT I have seen nothing official to suggest that such extension is envisaged at any time in the near future. Significant infrastructure changes would be needed to accommodate 5-car (and ten-car) trains on the lines on which they are planned to be used. Nobody on this forum minds questions being asked, but it is difficult to answer a question if it is based on an assumption that can't be substantiated. ("Begging the question") How am I supposed to answer the question "is your daughter beautiful?", when I have no daughter?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2015 23:14:56 GMT
To Tut, thank you for your kind comments. I was just going to hang up and go, but one more comment before that. I came here a complete novice, searching for answers on the web. I have no background in trains. I find the Mayor's Strategy and want to know why it is not being fully implemented. Sorry that you are completely in the know about Chesham, but I was not. I now at least understand what is going on, but I kept asking questions because I wanted to work it out for myself. Being a thinking person, I don't want to just be told something cannot happen, I want to understand it. So basically, you gang up on somebody who is not part of the "gang" who admits they are a newbie, but is enthusiastic and wants to understand. I would suggest, if others like me ever come along asking "stupid" questions, maybe just stop for a minute, and think about gently explaining things until that person understands. Otherwise, this is just a forum for those who know, or think they know everything. What a disappointment. I had hoped to explore my interest in the future direction of the rail network in London. I guess I'll have to ponder it all on my own now. This makes me sad, but that is the way it is. Quite frankly, I do not have time to try and defend myself for asking questions and wanting to understand things. Good day to you all. I fear it may already be too late, but I hope you read this. If not, if my comments may be on record: I'm aware you've taken a bit of stick. Of course it's not so nice, especially as a newbie, to met with constant rebuttal. I had actually been amassing a fair amount of respect for the ability to take criticism you had been demonstrating; but I suspected something like this was coming. It's why I tried not to weigh in, except where I came across something which I considered very wrong and which I felt I could talk about in a meaningful and useful way. I had originally written a reply to your ideas about Chesham that was very terse and standoffish, but I realised that it would not have been good to post that, so I added to it, to make it valuable, rather than mean-spirited. It's also why I - and others, I think - have tried to be humorous where we can, rather than getting into a scrap. We try to keep things light-hearted and not get too personal. It's a much better way to make some meaningful points and - also, if we're honest - to vent one or two of our frustrations. And it's good, I think, to be able and willing to take such things in good spirits - as I believe they have been genuinely well-meant and well-intended. And - and it's a good way to learn and reflect on what we've been doing and how we come across to others. But I - I know you've been the butt of a joke or two, as well as on the receiving end of a - a few words of criticism. And I did mean to mention earlier that I can't blame you for feeling a little hurt. A little rejected. But I know this community, they're good people, they didn't want it to end like this, I don't think - certainly not the overwhelming majority. It would be nice if you would be able to take a little time away and then come back ready to start afresh. If you're enthusiastic and you want to understand, you wanna try and make sure that comes across in your posts. I think it would not be unfair to say that many of your posts feel quite confrontational as well as more than a little self-assured and preachy and you've had a tendency to meet reasonable, well-intended counter-arguments and explanations with scorn. You - you respond generally by assuming people are just close-minded and that they lack vision. It's not really so. They know what they're talking about these people. They've been there and they've got enough T-shirts to fill several ornate wardrobes. There's a lot to be said for learning about how a community works when you start out. People here - they want people to think: District Dave, now there was a man who knew where his towel was - he really left behind something valuable - a community it is an honour and a pleasure to be a part of. And as the great philosopher Tubeboy - eminent disciple of Abraham Lincoln - once said, quoting his former teacher: "And in the end, it is not the years in life that count, it is the life in your years." There's um a close parallel that can be made with posts on this forum. Not how many, but how good. This is a genuinely warm and welcoming community. They are patient, they are willing to teach and willing to learn and they're enthusiastic. But they care about what they do and they - they don't wanna keep repeating themselves and they don't want to have to keep going over the basics if their interlocutors aren't prepared to listen and learn. There is, I think, a place for you, here, if you are prepared to bury the hatchet and come back with a slightly different attitude to the forum - and the railways in general. But don't think I don't understand that you feel a little ill-treated. I genuinely don't believe the community has wished to gang up on you and exclude you. But - from an objective point of view, you've ... you've made what most people consider some substantial errors. And - and when these are pointed out to you, you have not generally responded as users would perhaps like. And people see you behaving a little caustically towards their peers, their friends, people they respect. And so many people are moved to - to say something about this, you understand? But I, I do recognise that there is also wisdom in a less confrontational mode of communication. I can appreciate that you feel unwelcome and underappreciated. I think very few people feel like this a few months into their membership. There is some fault on both sides, though I stand by my friends in their frustration and I can see why one or two of them may not like being referred to in the way that you referred to them. Me - I don't care. Heart of gold, me, mate, heart of gold But - um - what a sorry, sorry thing. I am, genuinely, sad for you. I do, genuinely, think you could come back to us. But I do, genuinely, think that, thus far ... well, would you accept "could do better"?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 19, 2015 6:20:13 GMT
The TfL paper talks about extra cars and extra trains. If we assume TfL's paper is correct *and* we assume they mean a total order size of 249 cars not 249 *extra* cars then we have a base order of 180 cars (I think we all agree on that!) plus options for 69 extra. That doesn't equal 24 extra trains - 96 cars - as mentioned by Bombardier. . I can't find this paper - is there a hyperlink? I linked to the paper in my posting at the bottom of page 1 in this thread of postings dated around 1100 on 18/7/15.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 19, 2015 8:03:33 GMT
I can't find this paper - is there a hyperlink? I linked to the paper in my posting at the bottom of page 1 in this thread of postings dated around 1100 on 18/7/15. Thank you! I hadn't spotted the link (they don't show up very clearly when you're scanning a thread as long as this). And it does include: 3.3 "Priced options are included in the MSA for up to 249 cars for train lengthening to five car and/or additional trains for possible future schemes including; (a) Barking Riverside; (b) Stratford – Angel Road; and (c) four tph Euston – Watford, five tph Gospel Oak – Barking. Options may be exercised by TfL at any time up to November 2019." Not clear if the 249 is over and above the 180 definitely ordered, or includes them. But either way, if all the options are taken up (and it's a big If), there would be a mix of four- and five-car units as neither 249 nor (249+180=)429 is divisible by either four or five! Nothing to say that any of these projects will definitely happen, of course. For one thing, the next mayor may have completely different priorities. Squeezing an extra 1tph into Euston may depend on whether HS2 goes ahead. And even if Wat-Eus does eventually go to 4tph if the option is taken up in Nov 2019, it will be some time in the early twenties, many years after the five car class 378s have been replaced by new four car sets on the existing 3tph service. So, it appears there is an aspiration, paper exercise, feasibility study or the like into 4tph on the Watford line - Pridley was perhaps being over-optimistic in assuming it will definitely happen - given past performance on promised network improvements (Thameslink 2000, Crossrail by 1990, APT etc) I'm not going to stake my house on it!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 19, 2015 11:29:50 GMT
I linked to the paper in my posting at the bottom of page 1 in this thread of postings dated around 1100 on 18/7/15. Thank you! I hadn't spotted the link (they don't show up very clearly when you're scanning a thread as long as this). And it does include: 3.3 "Priced options are included in the MSA for up to 249 cars for train lengthening to five car and/or additional trains for possible future schemes including; (a) Barking Riverside; (b) Stratford – Angel Road; and (c) four tph Euston – Watford, five tph Gospel Oak – Barking. Options may be exercised by TfL at any time up to November 2019." Not clear if the 249 is over and above the 180 definitely ordered, or includes them. But either way, if all the options are taken up (and it's a big If), there would be a mix of four- and five-car units as neither 249 nor (249+180=)429 is divisible by either four or five! Nothing to say that any of these projects will definitely happen, of course. For one thing, the next mayor may have completely different priorities. Squeezing an extra 1tph into Euston may depend on whether HS2 goes ahead. And even if Wat-Eus does eventually go to 4tph if the option is taken up in Nov 2019, it will be some time in the early twenties, many years after the five car class 378s have been replaced by new four car sets on the existing 3tph service. So, it appears there is an aspiration, paper exercise, feasibility study or the like into 4tph on the Watford line - Pridley was perhaps being over-optimistic in assuming it will definitely happen - given past performance on promised network improvements (Thameslink 2000, Crossrail by 1990, APT etc) I'm not going to stake my house on it! My sense of things is that TfL have a series of options for service enhancements which have been evaluated against a range of demand scenarios that haven't been published formally. This is why there is a little looseness around the described possible options for extra cars / trains. If we look at the GOBLIN the first issue is to get longer trains in service once the wires are up. You then need trains for the Riverside extension. Both of these developments may well bring a massive surge in demand - both new and suppressed. The next stage beyond that is moving to 5 tph. Clearly I can't predict when 5 tph is likely but the previous two stages do have dates and there is clear evidence that raising capacity / adding extensions in a transport network like London's brings out the punters. I expect we will see peak time 4 car EMUs close to crush loading on the GOBLIN by 2020. I suspect the Watford Line is, as you say, entirely dependent on decisions around HS2. Works to strengthen infrastructure nearer Watford may also be a factor in allowing a higher tph. TfL will have to wait to see how HS2 pans out in order to have sufficient clarity to confirm plans for the Watford Line. The only real issue, and it's a commercial one, is the time limit on the options pricing. Bombardier won't maintain prices for ever but 2019 may be a teensy weensy bit early for TfL to be clear about how many extra cars it needs for which routes. Obviously it can talk to Bombardier about extending the time limit but needs to be careful about not breaching procurement rules.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jul 19, 2015 13:28:46 GMT
Whether it's 180 committed cars plus 69 more as options or 180 + 249, I suspect that the optional number relates to some planned scenario but also linked to rules/conventions concerning public procurement. For example, it is not "good form" (competitors might object!) to place a contract for, say 100 cars with options for another 1000! Within this constraint, it is sensible to include options for as many cars as you imagine you might need as you never quite know what is round the next corner.
The original ELL order was to be for some 80 or so cars. Just at the right time, taking over the NLL came onto the agenda and some large options were put in the contract, all of which were taken up. Yet there were not enough as the need for 5-car trains was not expected to happen so quickly
|
|
|
Post by A60stock on Jul 20, 2015 3:43:13 GMT
Any speculation as to whether aventra motors will sound similar to an electrostars?
Will the move to aventras signal the end of the electrostar production line for the rail industry? (it must now be around 15-16 years since the first ones entered service)
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jul 20, 2015 5:28:37 GMT
Any speculation as to whether aventra motors will sound similar to an electrostars? Will the move to aventras signal the end of the electrostar production line for the rail industry? (it must now be around 15-16 years since the first ones entered service) Bombardier have already announced that.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 21, 2015 22:30:55 GMT
Some recent Mayor's Questions and Answers cast a little light on plans for the Watford Euston line. There is also confirmation of the proposed seating layout for the Adventras due for the Watford service.
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Jul 22, 2015 18:14:46 GMT
Hadn't somebody from TfL already said that the West Anglia trains would have a mix of transverse and longtitudinal seating or was that just wishful thinking by somebody here? I would have expected the new fleet to have a consistent layout to permit maximum flexibility.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 22, 2015 18:52:39 GMT
Hadn't somebody from TfL already said that the West Anglia trains would have a mix of transverse and longtitudinal seating or was that just wishful thinking by somebody here? I would have expected the new fleet to have a consistent layout to permit maximum flexibility. Yes in a Twitter session about West Anglia. What hadn't emerged was that the seating arrangements on WA would be different from the Adventra stock on Euston Watford and GOBLIN routes.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 22, 2015 20:45:38 GMT
What hadn't emerged was that the seating arrangements on WA would be different from the Adventra stock on Euston Watford and GOBLIN routes. With three different rolling stock types, and no through running between them (and few interchanges) there really is no good reason not to consider the Overground as several different lines, with different colours. And I think some of us (including me) owe Pridley an apology. it seems that 4tph on Wat-Eus and extension to five-car may both be on the cards after all.
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Jul 22, 2015 23:46:13 GMT
The timetabling on the Watford DC and what it interfaces with are based on 3tph as I understand it. If you can get the turnarounds sorted then maybe you could go to 6tph, but 4pth is incompatible. I think there is a signalling limitation of 3tph too. South of Harrow / Stonebridge Park, the infrastructure manages 12 tph (6 Bakerloo to Harrow, 3 Bakerloo to Stonebridge Park and 3 LO trains) at the moment; northwards there is only ever one train, per direction, between Harrow and Watford, but the signalling can cope with a higher frequency. Adjusting the Bakerloo line timetable would easily allow 4 LO trains per hour to Harrow and onto Watford and could possibly help with some of the timekeeping issues as well as reducing the stress on the 1972 Mk II stock fleet. Given the long turnarounds at the termini (approx. 18 minutes at Watford and 10 minutes at Euston from the working timetable) platform occupation needn't be increased either, for 4 tph or even a possible 6 tph.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 14:48:02 GMT
Looking back through this thread, I didn't notice any reference to what happens when the Croxley Link opens - when the 4tph from the Met joins the 3tph from Euston. Is the common section too short to be regarded as a potential problem?
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jul 23, 2015 16:19:37 GMT
Looking back through this thread, I didn't notice any reference to what happens when the Croxley Link opens - when the 4tph from the Met joins the 3tph from Euston. Is the common section too short to be regarded as a potential problem? Let's say it's 4 TPH on each route - a total of 8 TPH in each direction. This could be a constraint if it's not designed properly. Compared with the junction at Baker St which will take a total of 32TPH in each direction, 8 TPH should be no problem and any self respecting group of track and signal engineers will be able to deal with this, even allowing for the different signalling systems between LO and Metropolitan trains
|
|