new temporary timetable TTN100/24 15 April 2024

I guess this means that the emergency timetable has now been created for Fri-Sun, whereas previously, it was only Mon-Thu?

60 train service? How has it ever been allowed to get to this point?

The 1992 stock is 30 years old which isn’t really that old for a train. They are now a similar age to their predecessors (1962 stock) when they were about to be replaced. The difference between reliability between the two stocks is stark.

It’s always been known that the 92’s were a poor product, but has that been compounded by poor maintenance and lack of investment?

To be specific, funds for upgrading LU were in short supply towards the end of the last century, which led to the task being outsourced to the private sector under the 30-year PPP - Public-Private Partnership. That initially promised new trains on the Piccadilly and Bakerloo Lines, but not on the Central and Waterloo & City lines. Both PPP companies did not last the first quarter, with no orders having been placed for these trains, leaving the problem of funding future upgrades with the Government. On the collapse of Metronet, LU originally planned a small order of new trains for the Bakerloo Line, and proposed the same design for the Central and later the W&C line to share development costs. The later incorporation of Tube Lines into TfL left a need for new trains for the Piccadilly, which eventually took priority in the order. A grant was provided to produce a prototype train by 2015, which later became the deadline for tendering the contract. That led to the order with Siemens, and current testing of pre-production trains. The Piccadilly Line was promised new trains under PPP from 2012-14, so a lost ten years! The Bakerloo upgrade was only envisaged for 2020.

At which point in these events did the Mayor of London intervene? Is the Mayor's involvement in the proceedings a benefit or a liability?

As with TTN99/24 there is provision for 58, 56 and 53 train availability.

Was rather hoping to hear some steps back towards the normal service;
With all the high profile attention, hopefully the cause of the upsurge in failures has been understood, the existing preemptive/control measures tightened and a new stock of brushes/springs obtained. The March TFL board report says both Internal and External specialist Engineers are on the case.
Also hopefully motors have been released from the CLIP project team to bolster the maintenance team spares float and ease their repair loop.

If a 10 year delay in new Piccadilly Line trains leads to the current extended life of the Central Line trains, as claimed, then Tube Lines commenced operations in April 2003 with a contract for 30 years, but funding agreed only for the first quarter, to October 2010. In January 2007, Tube Lines started the process of ordering new Piccadilly line trains by querying if train manufacturers would be interested in supplying them. Contract award was anticipated for late 2008. But by 2008 Tube Lines had commenced negotiations for the next part of the 30-year contract. In late 2009 Tube Lines applied for more funding for upgrades than had been offered and sold out to TfL in May 2010. It would appear that the new trains were to cost more than anticipated, and an order was delayed whilst funding was secured. With failure to reach agreement, the order was never placed, and TfL were left in the same situation as Tube Lines, i.e. needing new trains but without funding. [Dates from Wikipedia entries for Tube Line and also Piccadilly Line]

Tube Lines were resignalling the Jubilee and Northern Lines, and presumably would have done the same for the Piccadilly Line, so were on top of those costs. But those lines already had modern trains, so the Piccadilly Line order would have been the first Tube Lines experience of ordering a new fleet (although they got four new trains along with the extra car for each Jubilee Line train). Metronet ordered new Victoria Line trains and the S stock through an in-house arrangement with their partner Bombardier which had been part of their original bid for the contracts.

very radical perhaps but cant the Cravens train be borrowed for the Hainault Woodford shuttle - an 8 car train is not needed there! (would be far more useful to far more people shuttling between Leytonstone and White City)

ABB was ASEA Brown Boveri - a joint Swedish/Swiss venture. Not all of ABB became ADtranz - only the rolling stock division.

Their Västerås (Sweden) factory was always a specialist in traction systems, including motors.

Interestingly the 'replacement' buses at the eastern end of the route between Chingford-Loughton-Epping and as extras on 20 and 150 ceased before the Easter weekend. Unsurprising as the Chingford service was very poorly used and with a 50 minute journey time to Epping via Loughton that's not surprising!

GJS

I think Tom is very involved with Underground News.