|
Post by snoggle on Oct 10, 2017 13:17:36 GMT
Clearly this is emerging news from ASLEF via the BBC. Tom Edwards of BBC London has tweeted an ASLEF statement saying that the orders for new Jubilee / Northern Line trains are "paused" which has been interpreted as "cancelled". What is interesting here is that the Q1 (so several months old) Investment Report has commentary for both the Jub and Nor upgrades but the works are fairly modest in nature with some signalling changes brought forward at West Hampstead to allow a 31 tph timetable to be introduced in 2019. However the same document also has "2 October" as the milestone date for ordering the new trains for these two lines. That's clearly been missed as no authority papers have come forward to this week's Investment Cttee seeking the requisite financial and procurement authorities to place an order. It is usual that such papers go to the Investment Cttee first and then to the Board which is imminent. We must wait to see whether TfL / City Hall go into immediate "ASLEF are wrong" mode and reaffirm the project's status or whether a more muted response emerges. It would be best for anyone replying not to go into instant speculation mode or suggesting the world will end if we don't get new trains etc etc. I share this as "news" and clearly the story will no doubt develop. And here is something a bit more official from Railway Gazette. www.metro-report.com/news/metro/single-view/view/london-underground-capacity-upgrade-programme-paused.htmlI have searched and searched for an appropriate existing open thread on the J&N upgrades but couldn't see one hence why I've created this new thread.
|
|
|
Post by phoenixcronin on Oct 10, 2017 13:43:49 GMT
Is there enough 95 stock to run the Battersea extension without reducing frequencies on other branches?
|
|
|
Post by trt on Oct 10, 2017 14:05:02 GMT
What a bizarre statement. The East-West Elizabeth Line is going to ease congestion and demand on two primarily North-South routes? Well, maybe the Jubilee Line, as CR2 will undoubtably be a quicker way to get between the West End and Stratford (West Westminster and North Newham), but does that mean a stock transfer Jubilee to Northern, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 10, 2017 14:26:22 GMT
What a bizarre statement. The East-West Elizabeth Line is going to ease congestion and demand on two primarily North-South routes? Well, maybe the Jubilee Line, as CR2 will undoubtably be a quicker way to get between the West End and Stratford (West Westminster and North Newham), but does that mean a stock transfer Jubilee to Northern, perhaps? I think it's bizarre given I suspect it's being used as "cover" for the real reasons. I suspect (note the word I use) that trouble has been brewing with these upgrades for a while. My alarm bells went off when commentary on progress reduced to a trickle in official reports and then expected papers for funding and procurement authority didn't emerge. Having been responsible for capital spend at LU in the past I can recognise that all may not be well. I've seen it all before. My guess is that the bids for the new trains have come in with prices that are too high and / or too risky in terms of delivery dates and technical compliance. Alstom clearly have an advantage here and on the Northern it's two fold (assuming the PFI deal is broadly still in place and they have maintenance responsibility). Alstom could, in theory, put in highish prices for the trains knowing they'd be undercut but could then offer an easy low risk maintenance and introduction to service package. Other bidders could possibly build cheaper trains but would be disadvantaged in terms of maintenance, warranties and future upgrades (even allowing for the shorter in service life). If the numbers have gone wrong for the bid then the budget is clearly blown even though TfL rowed back on the numbers to be ordered about a year ago. The costs are never going to get lower than they are now and the later trains are delivered then the worse it gets for the project evaluation as the new stock has a presumed 18 year life now. Even year the entry into service is delayed gives less time for benefits to be earned to recoup the cost. Therefore talk of a "pause" is really not true (IMO). It's dead in the water. If TfL can't find the money now then there's no chance of them finding it in 2019 or 2020 when the fares freeze will have done all of its damage and the TfL borrowing levels will be maxed out. There may also be issues with Thales over signalling upgrade costs for each upgrade as they're the incumbent and there's no scope for competition to lower their prices just the risk of "corporate memory" remembering bad pricing for variations and "vengance" being sought later on. Citing Crossrail as some sort of relief is "convenient" for now but rather raises a load of questions about the competence of internal planning processes and why, if these patronage transfers were always expected, weren't these projects stopped a long time ago to avoid all the bidding costs etc? Doesn't look good and once the politicians on the Assembly start asking awkward questions this could run and run. As I've said elsewhere - what a mess. It's just like the 1980s again.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Oct 10, 2017 17:29:37 GMT
If the talk of no new trains is true it would be interesting to think where provision for the battersea extension will come from. I'm no expert on the Northern so I wonder what could be changed?
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Oct 10, 2017 17:33:21 GMT
If the talk of no new trains is true it would be interesting to think where provision for the battersea extension will come from. I'm no expert on the Northern so I wonder what could be changed? Off peak would not be a problem. But in the peak, it might be necessary to remove the Morden trains from the Charing Cross branch.
|
|
Dom K
Global Moderator
The future is bright
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by Dom K on Oct 10, 2017 17:56:23 GMT
LU response:
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 10, 2017 19:23:36 GMT
If the talk of no new trains is true it would be interesting to think where provision for the battersea extension will come from. I'm no expert on the Northern so I wonder what could be changed? I suspect it will come from some tighter scheduling plus working the fleet harder in terms of trimming the level of spares / train in maintenance. IIRC there has always been a fairly generous fleet size on the Northern which has never been fully pressed into service. I also assume LU have taken a view about the refurbed fleet's ongoing availability levels. Looking at the WTT 96 trains are needed for the peak. I think the NL fleet is 106 trains so they're working at about 90% of fleet. You can maybe push that a little bit higher but it is risky. Looking at the current run times on the Kennington loop then I reckon you'll probably need 1-2 more trains to run to / from Battersea assuming the new tunnels have a high run speed and the approach to BPS allows full speed approach / departure across the crossover (as on Vic Line). Off peak there probably isn't too much of an issue because frequencies are lower and the fleet requirement is lower but, of course, some trains do go back for maintenance. [happy to be corrected if any of the above is nonsense with the post upgrade NLU1 timetables]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2017 20:20:15 GMT
My guess is that the bids for the new trains have come in with prices that are too high and / or too risky in terms of delivery dates and technical compliance. Alstom clearly have an advantage here and on the Northern it's two fold (assuming the PFI deal is broadly still in place and they have maintenance responsibility). Alstom could, in theory, put in highish prices for the trains knowing they'd be undercut but could then offer an easy low risk maintenance and introduction to service package. Other bidders could possibly build cheaper trains but would be disadvantaged in terms of maintenance, warranties and future upgrades (even allowing for the shorter in service life). If the numbers have gone wrong for the bid then the budget is clearly blown even though TfL rowed back on the numbers to be ordered about a year ago. The costs are never going to get lower than they are now and the later trains are delivered then the worse it gets for the project evaluation as the new stock has a presumed 18 year life now. Even year the entry into service is delayed gives less time for benefits to be earned to recoup the cost. Therefore talk of a "pause" is really not true (IMO). It's dead in the water. If TfL can't find the money now then there's no chance of them finding it in 2019 or 2020 when the fares freeze will have done all of its damage and the TfL borrowing levels will be maxed out. There may also be issues with Thales over signalling upgrade costs for each upgrade as they're the incumbent and there's no scope for competition to lower their prices just the risk of "corporate memory" remembering bad pricing for variations and "vengance" being sought later on. Citing Crossrail as some sort of relief is "convenient" for now but rather raises a load of questions about the competence of internal planning processes and why, if these patronage transfers were always expected, weren't these projects stopped a long time ago to avoid all the bidding costs etc? Doesn't look good and once the politicians on the Assembly start asking awkward questions this could run and run. As I've said elsewhere - what a mess. It's just like the 1980s again. I think the issue is mostly around funding full stop. There isn't enough money for all of the upgrades to go forward. The Thales costs would have been reasonably known though I suspect their focus on 4LM means they would be distracted by other upgrade work. I'd be surprised if the train costs are far too high though a small order is going to be more expensive per unit. NLU2 already had several hundred million £s trimmed from the budget. Crossrail is, as you suggest, most likely a convenient opportunity. I suspect it will come from some tighter scheduling plus working the fleet harder in terms of trimming the level of spares / train in maintenance. IIRC there has always been a fairly generous fleet size on the Northern which has never been fully pressed into service. I also assume LU have taken a view about the refurbed fleet's ongoing availability levels. Looking at the WTT 96 trains are needed for the peak. I think the NL fleet is 106 trains so they're working at about 90% of fleet. You can maybe push that a little bit higher but it is risky. Looking at the current run times on the Kennington loop then I reckon you'll probably need 1-2 more trains to run to / from Battersea assuming the new tunnels have a high run speed and the approach to BPS allows full speed approach / departure across the crossover (as on Vic Line). Off peak there probably isn't too much of an issue because frequencies are lower and the fleet requirement is lower but, of course, some trains do go back for maintenance. [happy to be corrected if any of the above is nonsense with the post upgrade NLU1 timetables] The 3 (I think) extra trains that had been earmarked for NLE from the new train order had already been descoped for cost reasons so as you say the current fleet was going to have to work harder. I think the plan was for 2 extra trains to be offered for service taking the requirement (I think - my memory has gone since I left) to 98/106; still a reasonable fleet utilisation.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Oct 10, 2017 21:04:31 GMT
Two points. First, it is somewhat surprising that the assumed lifespan of any new stock to augment the 95/96ts is still thought to be in the region of 18 years. This would indicate a total lifespan of not more than 39 years for the older stock. Whilst this may be generally accepted as an optimum lifespan, surely it is worth pointing out that reality may just interfere. Without wishing to compare apples and pears (and acknowledging all the counter examples and reasons for why so), A stock did 50 years, 67ts did 43 years, 72mk2 stock will likely be over 50 years at this rate, likewise the 73ts. Even accepting the differing generations of technology, and the differences in build ethos, I can't see any reason to assume that assets will not be made to sweat in future any less than they are now; so perhaps a projected 18 years life is too little - perhaps 25 years would be a more realistic assumption. It would be interesting to know whether something like this was evaluated and dismissed, or whether it was too conveniently large a chunk of potential savings to not grab, given all manner of other figures coming out atm. Specifically, for the Northern, the option of not immediately opening BPS station may give a trains worth of respite, if trains can run unimpeded into and out of the reversing sidings without platform dwells slowing them down. Is West Hampstead currently having work to support 31tph through the Jubs core? Along with reversing at one of the Finchleys on the Northern? Perhaps then the goal in the medium term is to concentrate on a 'world class' frequency mostly in the central areas. snoggle, you mentioned in another thread that there was likewise a paucity of business information regarding the NTfL. Is there any way that these two issues could be combined in a different manner to provide different opportunities? Some sort of clever stock moves, or better purchasing provisions? Does TfL still have enough people to contemplate a larger, costly, and far more complex scheme that something so wide ranging might entail? With disappointing passenger numbers, bus cuts, and now cuts to tube improvements, how likely is it that the future passenger figures are considered (behind the scenes) to not actually warrant these things in the medium term? Secondly, none of this bodes well for the imminent completion in totality of Crossrail 2. Its just my hunch, but given the myriad political pressures the government faces wrt how much money it may have in the future, and where and how it chooses to spend it, I would have thought the treasury are looking for every available opportunity to pull back big ticket projects; more than likely in the South East too. TfL being unable to justify extra trains to maximise existing capacity on its current network will be liable to be misused to 'prove' other points. In combination with a drop in rail usage, and a stagnation of public transport usage in London, I fear the next budget will be heavy on road "investment", but cut back to the bone all public transport "subsidy". Being very cynical though...
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Oct 11, 2017 7:59:59 GMT
As others have pointed out, given the progressively reducing forecast service life of the additional stock, if you cannot agree to buy them now, you never will - as the maths just gets worse and worse. So its dead Jim!
What those press statements do not acknowledge is that by working the current fleet harder - maintenance bills and in service failures are probably going to ramp up. However as that is a problem which will come to a head a few years from now, I guess like most politicians - they rarely care about leaving a mess for their successors?
So extra rolling stock, joins the MLX(Met line extension) project as yet another sacrifice needed to funding the great "fares freeze" re-election ploy.
However unlike MLX, anyone commuting on those lines at peak hours will tell you - extra trains are needed! Hiding behind the fig-leaf of Crossrail is straight out of the Yes Minister book of politicians distraction techniques.
Sadly for London - these "do nothing" years won't come back. The real shame is that major projects needed by London get abandoned or kicked down the road - which could have been funded with sensible fare increases. Hey ho.
|
|
|
Post by trt on Oct 11, 2017 8:34:55 GMT
The real shame is that major projects needed by London get abandoned or kicked down the road - which could have been funded with sensible fare increases. Hey ho. Scrap HS2?
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 11, 2017 8:51:50 GMT
, given the progressively reducing forecast service life of the additional stock, if you cannot agree to buy them now, you never will - ! by working the current fleet harder - maintenance bills and in service failures are probably going to ramp up. However as that is a problem which will come to a head a few years from now, Thereby reducing the service life of the existing stock as well (same number of miles in fewer years) thereby reducing even further the forecast service life of any supplementary stock. Working the existing fleet harder brings forward the date at which the entire fleet has to be replaced, hopefully with a fleet of the desired size.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,225
|
Post by rincew1nd on Oct 11, 2017 12:28:10 GMT
The real shame is that major projects needed by London get abandoned or kicked down the road - which could have been funded with sensible fare increases. Hey ho. Scrap HS2? HS2 is a national project which should produce national gains, many politicians may find themselves joining the dole queue if it were scrapped which makes it unlikely. It has also had so much spent on it now that it would be electoral suicide for any government to consider scrapping it.
|
|
|
Post by trt on Oct 11, 2017 12:49:46 GMT
HS2 is a national project which should produce national gains, many politicians may find themselves joining the dole queue if it were scrapped which makes it unlikely. It has also had so much spent on it now that it would be electoral suicide for any government to consider scrapping it. Probably. It just seems hypocritical that there's such a draconian slashing of other infrastructure projects whilst this somewhat marginally beneficial and extremely expensive leviathan rolls on like a juggernaut.
|
|
|
Post by rapidtransitman on Oct 11, 2017 13:00:24 GMT
I realise that it's at least 7 years in the future, but will the proposed splitting of the Northern Line into two separate lines require extra trains?
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 11, 2017 13:11:28 GMT
will the proposed splitting of the Northern Line into two separate lines require extra trains? Probably not, as the idea is to make both halves run more efficiently by reducing conflicts (and therefore delays) at Camden, so trains will spend less time standing still waiting for a route to be set. But once they are split it would be easier to build a new fleet for one line whilst keeping the best of the existing fleet (i.e more than half) on the other. A precedent can be found on the Bakerloo, which kept most of its old fleet when the Stanmore branch was hived off with (almost) new trains.
|
|
|
Post by gals on Oct 11, 2017 17:04:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Oct 11, 2017 19:23:11 GMT
Confusing possibly - illegal seems unlikely.
The overarching project covers a lot more than just orders for extra rolling stock - so it presumably still needs to be considered at the meeting. I recall that signalling improvements were also expected to be a significant factor in improving capacity on these lines. That work may still be happening - even if extra trains needed to extract maximum value from the improved signalling has been "deferred for now".
The fact remains that if TFL cannot make a decent economic case to buy extra trains now, then in the current financial climate with fare income continuing to be constrained, the chances of the economic case ever improving - are essentially nil!
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,400
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 11, 2017 19:28:45 GMT
It seems that that report covers the period April to June 2017 and the decision not to go ahead with the order for new trains at the present time was taken much more recently than that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2017 20:10:28 GMT
Will the New Tube for London cover the extra Train Requirements instead?
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 11, 2017 21:55:41 GMT
Will the New Tube for London cover the extra Train Requirements instead? It would, eventually, but the time needed for design and development of a completely new design would take much longer than simply building more trains to an existing design.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Oct 12, 2017 10:08:34 GMT
Will the New Tube for London cover the extra Train Requirements instead? It would, eventually, but the time needed for design and development of a completely new design would take much longer than simply building more trains to an existing design. Note that the New Tube for London (Deep Tube Upgrade) trains as currently specified are not suitable for the Jubilee line. The door layout needs to be EXACTLY the same as the 1996ts to line up with the PEDs. NTfL is intended to have evenly spaced double doors.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,400
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 12, 2017 10:38:35 GMT
What you mean is that they are not suitable for the Jubilee line without the PEDs being replaced. This would obviously be a long and expensive job, but it is not one that impossible.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 12, 2017 10:58:54 GMT
the Jubilee line PEDs being replaced ............ would obviously be a long and expensive job, but it is not one that impossible. Quite a long job, I would think. I doubt the PEDs were designed for easy removal/relocation. And it would be an operational nightmare - you clearly can't run a mixed fleet either before or after the PEDs have been replaced, so you need somewhere to store the new units between delivery and entry into service. And you probably can't run either fleet while the work is being done - as soon as one station is converted the whole line becomes unusable by the old trains, but the new ones can't be used until the last station is done. I suppose you could run the line in two halves, as was done for a while in 1999 before the extension was joined up to the existing bit. Or, if some stations have been converted and others not, have the two types of train each skip the stops they are not compatible with. (Try showing that service on a tube map!) The Drain was closed for seven weeks in 1993 just for conversion from 3-rail to four, and new signalling, and swapping out the 1940 stock for 1992 stock (Compare that with the 1940 transition, which was done over a weekend - although the Armstrong lift made the stock transfers much easier!)
|
|
|
Post by trt on Oct 12, 2017 11:19:58 GMT
So you deploy the mixed fleet onto the line without the PEDs, shuffling the original ts to fill the gaps on compatible lines as older units come out of service. I can see Picc units moving to Northern Line and a 15-20 year refleeting programme. IF NTfL comes to fruition!
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,400
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 12, 2017 12:17:28 GMT
I imagine that with careful ordering some sort of service could be maintained. There are no PEDS north of Westminster, so both stocks can run between Stanmore and Green Park, reversing at Charing Cross. This would be the first introduction to service for the new stocks and the last preserve of the old ones.
There are no Peds Canning Town to Stratford, so again both stocks can run there, but Canning Town isn't a reversing point so that wont work in isolation. Fortunately, North Greenwich platform 2 is accessible from both ends, so removing the PEDs from there first would allow a shuttle service from Stratford by either stock. While the works are ongoing the existing North Greenwich terminators would just be tipped out at Canary Wharf. I guess the North Greenwich terminators from the west would have to become Green Park terminators for this phase.
Then the PEDs would be removed from the eastbound platform at Waterloo. New stocks could then terminate there and return west/north not stopping at Westminster (but probably only off-peak as the crossover is quite a distance west of the station). At about the same time it would make sense to remove the PEDs from the westbound at Westminster so the new trains would be able to call there - someone missing the station twice in a row would not be best pleased.
Next I would remove the eastbound PEDs at London Bridge, Canada Water and Canary Wharf. New trains would then be able to run in service all the way through eastbound (calling at North Greenwich platform 2) albeit non-stopping Westminster, Southwark and Bermondsey. Then I'd remove the eastbound PEDs at Westminster allowing all trains to stop there.
The eastbound platform at North Greenwich would be done during this phase as well, with all trains serving platform 2 while the works are in progress this could be done during service hours, speeding it up. If timed for around the 50% mark then it could be the first platform with PEDs for new trains.
Then possibly the westbound PEDs at London Brideg, Canada Water and Canary Wharf to allow a similar westbound service. Then remove the other PEDs from most busy platform to least busy.
Installing the new PEDs would be approximately the reverse of this, with old stocks gradually skipping more stations.
It would require a lot more detailed project management planning than this, obviously (10 mintues of an amateur looking at Carto.Metro does not a robust plan make) but it could be done with several months of moving disruption, which is probably better than a few weeks of total line closure.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Oct 12, 2017 12:57:41 GMT
I imagine that with careful ordering some sort of service could be maintained. There are no PEDS north of Westminster, so both stocks can run between Stanmore and Green Park, reversing at Charing Cross. This would be the first introduction to service for the new stocks and the last preserve of the old ones. Having to detrain (remove all passengers and shut the doors) at Green park would cause delays. Wonder if they would consider reopening, albeit temporarily, the platforms at Charing Cross and just reverse there in service?
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Oct 12, 2017 13:08:33 GMT
It seems to me, if going down that route, that the only practical way to do it would be to remove all the peds and then replace as feasible. If this would be allowed is another question, an easier way would be to transfer some of the Northern over to make up the numbers and buy new stock for the Northern line.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,225
|
Post by rincew1nd on Oct 12, 2017 13:19:18 GMT
Three words people...
ON TOPIC PLEASE
|
|