|
Post by phil on Aug 1, 2016 21:26:36 GMT
In effect it is a tube line. It goes in a tube with multiple stations through London like other tube lines. The means of powering and gauge are largely unimportant in the definition and for large sections of the line (certainly the east side) it's really no different in scope and reach than the Central Line, just another long commuter railway that has part of it's length in a tube. As a result, those in the west, whether they're initially impressed or not, will just have to adapt to the majority requirement of the railway in question. That's the way it works, just like all the commuters from Amersham and Chesham had to adapt for the greater good of the Metropolitan Line they shared with those further into the city. No its not. Tube lines do not have to share the tracks with jumbo sized stone trains from the Mendip quarries (which limits the number of trains that can be run off peak) nor trains to Bristol / Norwich should engineering works or an equipment failure close the main lines west of Old Oak / east of Stratford. It also can never run at a tube line frequency (e.g. 33tph) with 24tph considered the maximum reliable frequency for such a non segregated setup. Yes Crossrail may have a more frequent service than most other National Rail lines but outside the Old Oak - Stratford / Abbey Wood it is basically no different from any other national Rail line in London - and is still subject to National Rail rules from track access agreements and freight operators needs to fares policy. Thus it is no more a 'Tube' line than Croydon Tramlink or the DLR are - each has its own characteristics governing everything from track / vehicle design to service patterns and do not slavishly follow what the 'tube' does. As such telling users to shut up and put up with something because it fits with the needs of TfL is not on. Yes compromise is of course necessary, but that means both sides need to give a bit - and in the case of the trains, a internal arrangement which roughly maintains the number of transverse seats GWR (and to a lesser extent TfL) rail offer today is hardly an outrageous thing to ask particularly given the Crossrail trains will be far longer than the trains currently in operation.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 1, 2016 21:01:22 GMT
No, it is a high capacity suburban railway like the Metropolitan Line and this is reflected in the seating layout. It was never intended to be a regional service like Thameslink. With all transverse seating we would see the same problems that the A stock had in the central area with no room for short distance passengers to move away from the doors to allow longer distance passengers to board and use the empty seats. I never said it should be all transverse seats, but that something closer to a 50:50 mix was desirable. Although things are complicated by 3 rather than 2 sets of doors, whats wrong with having longitudinal on side and 2 aside classic style on the other for example? or alternating longitudinal - door - transverses - door - longitudinal etc.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 31, 2016 8:46:45 GMT
Well in central London Crossrail is a tube line and you could not run peak services between say Canary Wharf and the west end with transverse seating and the desired headways - the dwell time would just be too great. The commuters in the Thames Valley will have the option of traditional seating layouts on trains into Paddington or high density layouts on direct trains to town. With respect, its not a tube line. Everything from the size and length of the trains / stations down to the power supply and signalling is all derived from National Rail practices. While it is true that the core will indeed be busy - I fail to see much of a difference between Crossrail & Thameslink which also has to factor in high passenger volumes. As such I contend it would still have been possible to increase the provision of traditional seating in Crossrail trains to something resembling a 50:50 split between traverse and longitudinal seating without causing serious harm to the trains ability to cope with the loadings in the core. Thus the decision to treat it like a 'tube' is a political one and solely stems from the fact hat TfL have been the lead agency tasked with getting the thing built. In its 1990s incarnation Crossrail would have been a true joint venture with British Rail who would have been careful to protect their users interests when travelling from outer suburban destinations on the GWML and Chiltern lines but TfL are, perhaps naturally, not concerned with such things. After all the users of stations like Slough, Maidenhead & Twyford live outside the GLA area and as such cannot bring any electoral pressure to bear on TfL if they don't like what they get. Yes I know theoretically the DfT are supposed to look after such users but in reality providing TfL do not affect their franchising plans for the GWML, the DfT are not particularly fussed about the specifics of Crossrail stock.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 30, 2016 9:43:43 GMT
The interior walls and floor look very functional, like the NY subway. The moquette hurts my eyes - genuinely, I wonder whether that's the best they could come up with. The four seater configuration is going to cause a few problems. Oh dear! it's not the moquette that will be used on the trains in service. Installed to get the trains weighed and tested. Think the transverse seats are only in three of a nine car train. A lot of people like these seats and in the past three and two seats used to be norm. As has been noted elsewhere in the internet, the commuters of the Thames Valley will NOT be impressed. Once again I get the feeling that TfL have forgotten Crossrail IS NOT A TUBE LINE and that on the outer reaches of Crossrail (particularly Slough) passengers are used to, and will want traditional seating layouts. Surely its not impossible to have an interior seating layout akin to the new Thameslink stock or at least ensure the seating mix between longitudinal and transverse is more of a 50:50 split
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 29, 2016 14:50:17 GMT
A 378 could and has been used Drayton Park-Moorgate. The branch is not gauge restricted, however OHLE equipment cannot be fitted without major civil engineering works, which may be what you're thinking. The issue is largely moot on two counts though; the 378s could use the existing third rail equipment, however a new fleet of class 717 EMUs of a similar style to the class 700 Thameslink/class 710 SWT units. The current PEP stock (class 313) do have slightly lower roofs than the Mk. 3 stock (see SWT's 455/7s as a nice comparison); this allowed room for the pantograph in the lowered position. Incorrect I'm afraid. Firstly 25KV OHLE units like the 317s have the same roof profile as the 455s so the presence of a pantograph has nothing to do with it. Secondly the Drayton Park to Moorgate branch IS guage restricted and the 313s were specifically designed to fit this route. While other classes of unit such as the 507, 315, etc share the same bodyshell - the 313s were the first of this family of units to roll off the production line. Thirdly, the use of 313s away from the GN -Drayton Park - Moorgate line only occurred due to improved fleet utilisation plus a downturn in passenger traffic on the early - mid 80s. When built there was never any intention to use the 313s on other routes.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 29, 2016 7:14:32 GMT
I am a little surprised they are replacing any of the dlr stock already, the oldest stock is only around 26 years old, underground trains tend to last around 40 so i am surprised these arent carrying on for another 10 years? There is a desire to move away from 2 car units - because the DLR hardly ever operates them that way now due to the massive increase in demand since the system opened. By going for 3 car or even 6 car formations the dead space between coupled units can be used for passengers - plus it makes things easier for the Train Captain who would then be accessible to more of the passengers. Its one of the reasons the new Thameslink stock are in fixed 12 and 8 car formations rather than 4 car units coupled together.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 26, 2016 11:49:08 GMT
I think facts are not the main idea here. Indeed The RMT gave up on facts long ago, preferring to engage in scaremongering and extreme left politics rather than actually being sensible about any proposed changes to the railways. Any serious points they may have are drowned out by a far larger quantity of uninformed nonsense which does their members no good in the end.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 25, 2016 23:23:51 GMT
Ahh but this ignores the elephants in to room i mentioned earlier. For starters what about replacement of the slam door stock used for services to the Kent, Surrey, Sussex and Hampsire? Just like InterCity could cope in the short term with its mixed Mk2 / Mk3 fleet on the WCML, NSE could (and their successors did) keep the Mk1 EMUs going, but even back in the early 90 it was obvious that time was running out for them, yet there was nowhere near enough 'profit' to do anything about procuring replacements. The Chiltern lines did indeed get some serious cash spent on them in NSE days, with both infrastructure and new trains - but this was funded not out of profit but by an increase in Central Government funding who were persuaded to invest. It was the same with the DC Networkers on SE services - they were not funded out of profit, but by a extra dolop of central Government funding (which InterCity was also unsuccessfully bidding for to upgrade the WCML). Further on what about things like the signalling replacement on the LTS line or the WAML? both very much needed projects that did not actually start to happen until after Privatisation - again the funding wasn't there to do them in BR days without extra Government cash. Thus even if TfL is 'profitable' on a day to day basis that doesn't translate into it being a profitable enterprise overall, as in truly commercial setup, that 'Profit' coming in must also pay for the timely renewal of business assets as necessary. The worst situation is, as with the later days of BR when someone like central Government uses the 'profitable' angle to reduce investment and thus delay the renewal of the assets that generate said profit. I don't think I said that "profit" was used to fund all investment for NSE or for TfL or LU. Obviously it is funded by government to some extent and farepayers for the rest. Rolling stock on NR is difficult because its deployment is controlled by DfT despite their endless denials and replacement is linked very heavily to franchise renewal which allows the assumptions on costs and revenues to be reset in order to cater for increased leasing costs as new stock comes on stream. DfT also allows new TOCs to "adjust" a whole range of things to do with fares and terms and conditions including revised peak fares, pricing up the shoulder peaks and removal of "generous" T&Cs on leisure fares, railcard discounts and a vast range of other things in order to screw more money out of people's pockets. No you didn't say "profit was used to find all investment", but that wasn't what I was trying to highlight. What I was trying to highlight is lots of things might be called 'profitable enterprises if you are sufficiently selective about what is included. for example quite a few heritage railways in the UK actually return a fairly reasonable profit - if you just look at ticket sales, shop sales, catering sales, day to day staffing costs and consumables. However things rapidly change when you factor in the money that needs to be spent overhauling engines and carriages so that you actually have the ongoing means to make that day to day profit in the first place. Of course outside of Government circles anything not being profitable tends to go bust very quickly unless it gets donations (e.g. in the case of a heritage railway, to overhaul a popular engine) or grants to make up the difference. Thus the answer to the question "Is the Underground profitable" depends on how truthful you are. With the Underground I'm sure it is profitable on a day to day basis (just like InterCity was in the final years of BR), but once you factor in the need to spend large quantities of money in the coming decades on things like new trains, new signalling, new escalators and rebuilt stations to generate said day to day profit, then the reality is the Underground runs at a loss - just as InterCity would have done if it had been setting aside money every year to replace the WCML locos, coaches, signalling, etc. The problem then becomes one of convincing the Politicians of this situation - i.e. that true profitability does actually include being able to replace assets as and when necessary, and that describing something as 'profitable' (when it truly isn't) should not be used to cut back on financial support.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 25, 2016 12:19:26 GMT
At the time its investment needs were relatively modest but there were serious bits of work needed on Chiltern and C2C. Ironically we can see the benefit of a lot of that investment being coupled with later additions like new rolling stock. Ahh but this ignores the elephants in to room i mentioned earlier. For starters what about replacement of the slam door stock used for services to the Kent, Surrey, Sussex and Hampsire? Just like InterCity could cope in the short term with its mixed Mk2 / Mk3 fleet on the WCML, NSE could (and their successors did) keep the Mk1 EMUs going, but even back in the early 90 it was obvious that time was running out for them, yet there was nowhere near enough 'profit' to do anything about procuring replacements. The Chiltern lines did indeed get some serious cash spent on them in NSE days, with both infrastructure and new trains - but this was funded not out of profit but by an increase in Central Government funding who were persuaded to invest. It was the same with the DC Networkers on SE services - they were not funded out of profit, but by a extra dolop of central Government funding (which InterCity was also unsuccessfully bidding for to upgrade the WCML). Further on what about things like the signalling replacement on the LTS line or the WAML? both very much needed projects that did not actually start to happen until after Privatisation - again the funding wasn't there to do them in BR days without extra Government cash. Thus even if TfL is 'profitable' on a day to day basis that doesn't translate into it being a profitable enterprise overall, as in truly commercial setup, that 'Profit' coming in must also pay for the timely renewal of business assets as necessary. The worst situation is, as with the later days of BR when someone like central Government uses the 'profitable' angle to reduce investment and thus delay the renewal of the assets that generate said profit.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 23, 2016 18:51:58 GMT
For example the InterCity business sector of British Rail was, in the last few years of life, the only European rail operator to return a modest profit - in other words income from fares, advertising, etc was sufficient to pay staff and keep the existing operation going. Ministers were very proud of this and expected NSE to do the same in future years.... Just out of interest, why are Network South East, in particular, expected to be vaguely profitable? I'm talking historically - and that aim is mentioned in correspondence between the then head of the Network SouthEast business sector and the SOS in Whitehall. Of course with the Conservatives wining the 1992 general election, privatisation was suddenly on the agenda and became the favoured method of achieving profitability - with many of the initial franchise winners soon finding themselves in difficulty as a result of the franchise terms which continued to work towards this 'profitable' status. It was only when several came close to bankrupcy that the DfT finally conceded that an element of taxpayer support would continue to be required indefinitely
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 23, 2016 18:39:48 GMT
So these trains will be able to evacuate people through the side doors in the tunnels under the city? Fascinating. It is a requirement for new build tunnels to consider evacuation routes when being constructed and it is far safer to evacuate to a walkway and then back to a station / emergency access shaft than expect people to walk along the track. As such Crossrail 1, the DLR and the tunnels on HS1 all have this feature, with Crossrail 2, the HS2 tunnels and any future Bakerloo extension requiring to be similarly equipped. This is another reason why building small diameter traditional tubes will not be happening in London (other than the aforementioned possible Bakerloo extension) as the cost of the larger tunnels does not stack up for 7 car tube trains - its far more effective to make the tunnels a bit larger still so they can accommodate 12 car mainline gauge trains.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 23, 2016 18:25:30 GMT
In answer to the original question, it depends on what you mean by profit - and more importantly whether that 'profit' is sustainable
For example the InterCity business sector of British Rail was, in the last few years of life, the only European rail operator to return a modest profit - in other words income from fares, advertising, etc was sufficient to pay staff and keep the existing operation going. Ministers were very proud of this and expected NSE to do the same in future years....
However, the reality was somewhat different as this profit was only achieved by ignoring (as in not spending money) on several 'elephants in the room' things - namely
(i) the increasingly obvious need for new rolling stock for the WCML, MML & GWML (ii) the looming need to spend significant money in renewing the 1960s era power signalling on the WCML / GWML (ii) spending on big ticket infrastructure maintenance deferred where possible (iii) A significant contraction in the number of routes and places served compared to the pre 1992 InterCity network.
Thus while TfL and the Underground may on the surface be 'profitable' organisations - I very much doubt that remains the case once you factor in the big spending required on stuff like new buses / trains / station improvements is factored into the mix....
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 14, 2016 18:24:40 GMT
How much control do TFL have over the London Overground as presumably Network Rail own and manage the rails and signals etc. If in the future they wanted ATO installed (similar systems to those used on LUL) who would pay and could it actually be achieved. ATO is due to be installed on the East London Line really quite soon. And actually a 'digital railway' including ATO is certainly planned for the National Rail network. Thameslink and Crossrail, for example, will both have ATO. Network Rail do own and operate the infrastructure. The operator (currently still LOROL I think) runs the trains, with performance targets and services specified by TfL. For more, please start a new thread.All please note, NR do not own the ELL infrastructure! Everything between New Cross Gate / SLL spur up to where it starts to run alongside the NLL is owned by TfL. Furthermore TfL own the infrastructure (but not the trackbed) from Dalston to Highbury with NR effectively being the Landlord for this bit. Operation of said ELL infrastructure is however contracted out to NR to manage as the infrastructure - just as HS1 is managed (not owned by NR). The rest of the infrastructure used by LO is both owned and managed by NR
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 14, 2016 18:21:40 GMT
In another thread, tut mentioned that the ELL was due to be fitted with ATO soon. ATO is due to be installed on the East London Line really quite soon. And actually a 'digital railway' including ATO is certainly planned for the National Rail network. Thameslink and Crossrail, for example, will both have ATO. Network Rail do own and operate the infrastructure. The operator (currently still LOROL I think) runs the trains, with performance targets and services specified by TfL. I have to admit, this is the first I'd heard of it! I knew that the Thameslink Core from Blackfriars to St Pancras was going to migrate to ATO once fitted with ETCS level 2 (and the new rolling stock is fully introduced) and that the Crossrail core was going to operate ATO with a CBTC system, but I wasn't aware of any ELL plans. Has anyone got any kind of source for this info? All please note, NR do not own the ELL infrastructure! Everything between New Cross Gate / SLL spur up to where it starts to run alongside the NLL is owned by TfL. Furthermore TfL own the infrastructure (but not the trackbed) from Dalston to Highbury with NR effectively being the Landlord for this bit. Operation of said infrastructure is however contracted out to NR to manage as the infrastructure - just as HS1 is managed (not owned by NR)
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 8, 2016 21:45:12 GMT
I thought it was the presence of signalling cabinets on the trackbed rather than the state of the girder that dictated the arrangements at Clapham Junction? Nope - though the signalling equipment was a complication and added to the costs, the primary reason why reinstatement of the the original platform layout was always was the state of the girders, which effectively would have required complete replacement if they were to take the weight of trains again.
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 27, 2016 18:01:40 GMT
Please do not bring the Arun Valley route into this. I live on that route and many people who live here would love a service via Dorking that avoids the Gatwick bottleneck. Bringing Arun Valley services into this is completely "off piste", or, I will argue that you are wrong It is indeed 'off piste' / 'off topic' to discuss the Arun valley here and that was not my intention as such - but within the London area the fundamental issue is the same as the Lea Valley, namely the route via Dorking has only 2 tracks and very few passing places once it gets busy. In the case of the line through Sutton Epsom and Dorking however its long distance trains that lose out - getting stuck behind the frequent all station stoppers with no way of getting past them while in the Lea valley its the reverse way round (stoppers cannot be run frequently as they hold up long distance stuff). Diversion onto a 4 track railway with dedicated 'slow' (all station stoppers) and 'fast' (long distance) services for both the Lea Valley and Arun Valley services is thus beneficial for both sets of travellers as it allows more trains to run. Simples as a Meerecat would say. [Note the real problem with the BML, and potentially the Lea valley if the designers are not careful, is conflicts at the remaining flat junctions or a lack of platforms at stations where all services call. As E Croydon shows, both these factors actually prevent quadruple track main lines (with service group separation) from achieving their full potential].
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 27, 2016 17:25:22 GMT
I very much doubt anything significant will happen with Euston Square until the plans for rebuilding Euston for HS2/Crossrail 2 - indeed it wouldn't surprise me if plans for upgrading Euston Square aren't designed as part of the same project even if TfL pay for it all themselves. And yet Euston itself has just had lots and lots of work done on it. Makes you wonder about HS2. Maybe thats because Euston had got into such a state that not couldn't wait any longer for some upgrades (while Euston Square can). HS2, and particularly the Euston station aspect is far from a totally finalised design - having undergone several revisions already to reduce costs or to try and keep the original concept of a properly integrated station alive despite the 'silo thinking' approach being cheaper and easier to build.
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 25, 2016 15:47:06 GMT
The station was well used on my train towards Stratford just now! People getting on and off and on the northbound platform to Tottenham Hale. Makes you wonder what the people did before the station opened! I believe Angel a Road and Northumberland Park would both see more passengers if there was a regular service Nobody disputes that - but making everyone from the likes of Harlow, Cambridge and Stansted suffer for the sake of a small part of London is not acceptable either. In many ways the WAML through the Lea valley is a textbook example of why a frequent stopping service is incompatible with a double track railway also serving areas well beyond London (e.g. why routing say, Arun Valley services via Sutton, Epsom & Dorking is not a good idea). Everybody realises that the key to improving local service provision in the Lea Valley are new dedicated tracks for local stoppers - until that happens (and ALL stoppers are removed from the tracks used for longer distance services) you will never be able to achieve the step change in service political bodies and residents of the area are calling for.
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 16, 2016 16:16:23 GMT
Hi there I am new to this forum, so please bear with me. Does anyone have any update on work to 3/4 track part of the Lea Valley Line, to the North of Lea Bridge station. I keep looking for info about the STAR project but can hardly find anything on the web. Is it definitely going ahead and does it have a likely completion date. Lea Bridge station reopening is a completely separate thing to the STAR project (though there is obviously some synergy between the two), because it could be served to the existing Stratford terminators and required no significant infrastructure works away from the station itself. The proposed 3 / 4 tracking plan starts at Tottenham Hale - quite some distance away from Lea Bridge station and after the line from Clapton has joined the line from Stratford. At the moment it is still just a proposal though - IIRC the final details / financing / of the scheme have yet to be finalised, so it will be some time before workers will appear on the ground. Thus you are realistically looking at somewhere around 2020ish at the earliest before it could be up and running.
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 14, 2016 18:22:06 GMT
At Colindale I saw someone who was not let out of the barriers due to a code I didn't recognise (I can't remember what it was this time). There were no staff visible overseeing the gateline and I saw none in the ticket hall (not all of which is visible from the gateline) so I had to advise him to go back down to the platforms and use a help point to try and get some assistance. At Debden, after the ticket office hours were slashed but before the office was closed completely, in a similar situation one early evening a young man also not being let out decided to vault the barriers (which he did in a manner suggesting a background in gymnastics) rather than use a help point. These are far from the only occasions though that I've traversed stations without seeing a single member of staff. My use of the tube has declined sharply but I recently passed through Canning Town station mid afternoon on a weekday. There were no staff present at all at the gateline, in the ticket hall or at the ticket machines. There were people having problems at the gates but no one to assist. That is surely completely unacceptable? It is also illegal under H& S regs because it prevents passengers from being able to escape in cases of emergencies like a fire. The rules are quite clear, if gates are left unattended at any time they must be left in the open position. That includes nipping off for a fag break, a toilet break, emptying the bins, etc (Note the gates are not considered unattended if they are monitored by CCTV, have a help point near by and the staff member at the other end of the help point can open the gates remotely - however if theses remote monitoring / activation systems fail, then the gates must be considered unattended and opened ASAP).
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 7, 2016 19:17:21 GMT
Well the bridge height above the highest point underneath could be anywhere between 14' 6" and 14' 9" but still a vehicle in excess of the height restriction should not be passing a height restriction sign. The safety margin is there for a reason! Precisely - for example a heavily loaded bus or lorry will naturally have a lower overall height than one that is full. Given this variation and the fact that the marked vehicle heights as displayed in cabs ignore loading factors the measurements on the signs have to include a safety margin. That however does not excuse anyone contravening the sign.
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 7, 2016 19:11:38 GMT
I was passing under the Roding Rd bridge just north of Loughton station yesterday, and particularly noted the bridge defenders. They are set about 18 in from the main structure and see off the worst offenders - eg an EOS double decker last year, which was fit to join the Hoho fleet once the defences had done their work, and a brand new Biffa dustcart. This would be a very costly road to lower, because of trunk water mains below the carriageway From the broad tenor of several posts on here, there appears to be a general acceptance that on cost/convenience grounds, nothing material is going to be done to remove this evident risk to railway users, at least until there has been a serious loss of life incident. Assuming there is a list somewhere identifying the bridges which are hit most often, it would seem a fair strategy to press for a rolling action plan to remove at least the top 5 most frequent locations within the next 5 years, before moving on to the next 5 etc. I guess the potential for action is really down to politicians, and political pressure felt in response to any injuries, deaths or disruption being caused to road and rail users (including of course train drivers who are possibly most at risk). Hence it seems strange that the rail unions are not visibly pressing Ministers for action on this as forcefully as they seem to be with efforts to remove level crossings. Hey Ho - I guess that's life. Level crossing pose a FAR higher risk than bridge bashes of people being killed / injured (have a look at the official statistics) and it is absolute nonsense to try and equate the two. The train drivers union position reflects this reality. In any case NR have invested heavily in installing protection beams to the most hit bridges - and while yes trains may well have to be stopped until the bridge is inspected, if the protection beam has done its job train services can be up and running fairly quickly. Bridge bashes are a ROAD TRAFFIC problem and any funding to change the height should come exclusively from the ROADS budget. Height restriction signs are there for a reason and if road hauliers cannot get their drivers to obey them then its not the railways responsibility to fix them. A start would be to massively increase the fines and make dam sure that it hits operators as wlel as drivers in the Wallet - too many big pay outs by the big logistics companies would get the attention of the people who matter in such organisations.
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 6, 2016 17:09:38 GMT
Lowering the road is likely to be less extensive, but you still have to make sure that you don't undermine the bridge abutments. Either set of works will take months at minimum to plan - longer if any closure of the railway is required. So it's not a quick fix. Water mains? Sewer pipes? Gas mains? Electric cables (though those tend to be under pavements) - all may need lowering too so as to maintain sufficient ground cover between them and the road surface. Then there is the 'traffic management costs'* to be factored in. As you say the risk of undermining the abutment foundations is another issue. * At least half the costs of motorway widening projects go on cones signs, average speed cameras, collision barriers to protect the workforce, temporary road surfaces, temporary lane markings, temporary lighting, paying for people / equipment to shuffle everything round every few months to give and take back bits of roadspace as the actual widening work is started / finished.
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 6, 2016 16:59:17 GMT
It seems to me that the stabling of trains at Watford Met is a given because where else could they go There will be pressure from (ex) Watford Met users to have at least a peak service as otherwise passengers will be walking past empty trains to reach Cassiobridge or the Watford LO stations and the current W30 bus that currently gets workers to the Holywell estate from the Watford Stations will need to be 'redesigned' to get passengers from Cassiobury to the train stations. This all needs to be sorted out well before any decisions are taken on any future alternative use for Watford Met. From what I've read it's already been sorted out. Watford will close to passengers. It'll be sidings. A bus route is far more easily reconfigured as opposed to a train timetable. IIRC a key part of getting the extension through the planning process was to keep costs as low as possible as it was a very close call as to whether the BCR would be sufficient to allow the project to go ahead. Thus as occurred with Ebsfleet International (whose security scanning gear, etc was simply transferred from the redundant Waterloo international), the pan is for much of the station furniture (ticket gates, machines, etc) at the current Watford terminus to be transferred to the intermediate stations on the extension. Again, as with Ebsfleet / Waterloo, this might mean a short delay between Watford (Met) closing and the intermediate stations opening with services running non stop to Watford High Street for a few days. As a result the use of the existing Watford terminus (other than in extreme emergencies) will not happen, however much people complain. People need to remember the choice facing the promoters was quite simple* - no extension and keep Watford Met or close Watford Met and build the extension. Anything else (while obviously possible physically) was not financially acceptable. * In exactly the same way that in Scotland the choice was between no railway or a single track one with the minimum of double track necessary for a 30minute service. Anything other than the later decimated the BCR such that the end result would have been nothing at all.
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 5, 2016 7:42:01 GMT
I have been looking at the vivarail website and it would seem that the "D-Trains" are intended to replace Pacers and derivatives but someone else is refurb'ing Pacers. It would be nice to see D-stock back on London tracks e.g. on LO but they seem underpowered. People forget that the word 'Pacer' covers at least three different classes of unit. IIRC some - but certainly not all of the 'Pacer' units types can be refurbished to meet the forthcoming accessibility regulations - the refurbished unit seen a few months ago being very much a "this is what we could (not will) do response from the leasing company". That unit is currently out and stakeholder responses are being gathered. The existence of this single 'demonstrator' does not automatically mean that (i) the owners of suitable 'Pacer' units will go down this path, nor (ii) that the franchise holders will wish to employ such vehicles given the political and user hostility to them. The D-Train concept itself is sound in principle, but as with the Pacer refurbishment, making a judgement on a single unit is a tad unwise. I'm sure that both the company behind the idea and any potential users will be paying close attention to the details with the units power ratings being an important consideration. Neither want any bad publicity to make the job of selling the trains to the public even harder than it already is (given the tendancy for people to listen to newspaper nonsense, rather than what profestional engineers / transport system specialists have to say in the matter.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 29, 2016 20:27:19 GMT
I've read that the Met was proposing around 1930 to project 8 trains an hour from Hammersmith over what was then the Met & is now the H & C to Whitechapel, thence down the ELL and on to Addiscombe to become part of the Underground. I believe they didn't get very far with the Southern Railway in discussions, because the Met was concerned at the run-down state of the Addiscombe Line & its' falling passenger numbers. So I understand the plan was fairly swiftly dropped. I'd be grateful if anyone can shed more light on this, specifically: How advanced were these plans-did they make the technical journals or magazines, even newspapers & does anyone know if a formal plan was prepared? Did any discussions actually take place or did it not reach that level? Finally, does anyone know which SR stations if any were formally slated as due to convert to Tube stations or with Tube platforms alongside or next to the existing SR facilities? Many thanks! Firstly, as I described on another thread, the Metropolitan Railway company thought itself a cut above the other 'tube railways' serving London - offering a Pullman car service in to the City from Aylesbury for example. It was only after the formation of the "London Passenger Transport Board" in 1933 (an event the Metropolitan Railways management and shareholders bitterly resisted) that the Metropolitan line became more integrated with the other Underground railways that make up todays 'tube' / Underground system Secondly The loading gauge of Metropolitan line trains are virtually identical to mainline ones - as such there would have been no need for separate 'tube' (as in deep level lines) platforms to serve such stock. If additional platforms were needed they could have been built at standard UK height and used by both Met and SR trains. Thirdly, out of all the 'big four' companies created in the 1922 grouping the SR was unique in that it earned far more from passenger traffic than freight. The LMS / LNER / GWR focused their attention on express services and serving UK industry / mines and were not particularly bothered about suburban traffic - regarding it as a bit of a nuisance. Hence when opportunities came along to hand over suburban routes to the LPTB, the GWR, LMS & LNER were quite eager to cooperate. By contrast, the Southern Railway regarded the large revenues generated by commuters as something to be protected and essential to the company's financial well-being. Don't forget the District had wanted to extend from Wimbledon to Sutton but were frustrated at every turn by the LSWR, then the SR who were determined this should not happen - with the result we see today. As such the SR (as with its predecessors, the LSWR, LBSCR and SECR) was incredibly hostile to encroachment by the 'tubes' / Met / District. This was helped by the large investment previously undertaken by electrification by the aforementioned companies, which with the commitment by the SR to continue the process, meant that the SR could quite legitimately say that suburban traffic south of the river should be left to them and the 'tubes' / Met / District should concentrate their efforts north of London where suburban improvements were well down the list of the GWR / LMS / LNERs prorities. Fourthly, even back in the 1930s, the four tracks from New Cross to Lewisham were very congested and just as there is no way of fitting the Overground through that section without removing SE services to London Bridge, the same would have been true of SR services. Expansion to 6 tracks would have been expensive for the Met and with the SR being hostile, securing the necessary powers was unlikely to happen. In reality I suspect it simply boils down to the fact that the Metropolitan Railway Company ( not the Metropolitan line management of the LPTB which only came into being post 1933) was rather frustrated with the low use / profits being generate by their stake in the East London line* and wished to improve them. Its not dissimilar in principle (making better use of an underused asset) to the various proposals they put forward for a time which linked the Northern City Line** to the Metropolitan line proper. With the SR hostile it stood very little chance of success but the Metropolitan possibly thought it worth a go. *(yes, this was purchased from the original owners by the Met in 1913 and didn't become a part of the Northern line until the mid 1930s when the LPTB had forcibly taken over all the previous railway companies concerned) **a joint enterprise owned by the Metropolitan Railway, District Railway, SR (successors to the SECR & LBSCR) & LNER (successor to the GER)
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 21, 2016 22:57:20 GMT
Just a thought on this: Would you walk into Tescos & expect to see clear information about what Asda had on sale that was a better bargain than they had? Or that the local Waitrose was easier to reach for people living at X & Y, and had better parking facilities than them? Or vice-versa? Totally misses the point. We have to get away from this pernicious idea that public transport operators are in competition with each other. They may compete for the franchises or concessions, but once they get them they are in a partnership in providing the network mandated by government (local or otherwise). If I buy a ticket from, say, Charing Cross to Clapham Junction, I may pay South Eastern for the ticket, and my contract is with them, but most of the journey is on SWT. SWT are therefore not SET's competitors but their partners, or subcontractors, in providing the service I've paid for. And it would be exactly the same if I went via Victoria instead of Waterloo, except my contract would be with LU and the subcontractor would be Southern. The TOCs' failure to honour connections because their bottom line (and hurting the other operators' as they end up carrying the compensation for the stranded passengers) is more important than actually honouring the contract with the paying passengers. TfL is Transport for LONDON, (including the bit south of the river where LU and LO hardly penetrate, fares are higher, and concessions like child and freedom passes are more restrictive), run by the elected Mayor of London, and should by obliged to provide impartial information on ALL services in London, whether or not it runs them directly. After all TOCs are obliged to do so. No its not missing the point. Firstly on the railways in general, one of the reasons given when we privatised our railways was that "competition" between TOCs and "private sector know how" would drive down prices and improve quality - and one of the key things in private business is you don't go round advertising rivals services if possible. So while yes ticket machines and booking offices must be impartial - the same is not true of operators own publicity where they are free to ignore other operators in an attempt to attract your custom. South West Trains don't advertise GWR services for example despite them getting to Exeter from London faster while Southern on board maps don't make it very clear Southampton or Portsmouth are quicker to get to via SWT. You might not like this 'ethos' but unfortunately not enough people voted Labour back in 1992 to stop it from happening, so its here to stay and any discussions over rail policy need to reflect that reality. Secondly we know that TfL are very protective of their brand, they are willing to invest in things that the DfT regard as being the responsibility of the TOCs including things like fares, station environments / cleanliness / rolling stock interiors / etc. As such it is inevitable that TfL do not want to be too closely linked to services they do not have much of a say in - like the franchised rail system. Equally it should be noted that the DfT are not big fans of TfL either - in the eyes if the DfT / Treasury, TfL still spend far too much money on things that should be up to the private sector, plus the perception is they haven't got round to sorting those troublesome railway unions properly yet. Yes both parties will cooperate when it suits both their agendas - but if one wants something and the other doesn't then nothing changes. Finally, yes we know what TfL stands for - but at present a large slice of that (the suburban rail operation) is NOT controlled by them - it remains hostage to whatever deals the DfT / Treasury have done under the franchise system. TfL can put all the lines they like on their maps and make as many public statements as they like - it will make sod all difference until serious reform with regard to suburban rail operations takes place in the DfT. TfL have worked long and hard to build up their brands - throwing away that reputation for the sake of something they cannot change makes very little sense.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 21, 2016 22:28:39 GMT
Thameslink is also a very different beast to Crossrail, - Yes it might offer a frequent service between London Bridge / Elephant and St Pancras but thats pretty much the only thing it shares with Crossrail Thameslink is similar in concept to the Cross Country operation in Birmingham - a frequent service that simply happens to cross from one side of the city to the other but totally geared towards long distance travellers and not the citizens of the West Midlands making short hops. The Cross country service is not very like Thameslink. Cross country runs on the same tracks as the local Centro services, and simply provides an express service on the same lines. In that sense it is rather like London Midland to Watford Junction, Chiltern to Amersham, or C2C to Upminster, although they have dedicated tracks rather than actual sharing. In central London, Thameslink, and various other NR lines, fill various missing links in the network. If the Centro map doesn't explicitly show the XC services, people will nevertheless know that there is a direct service between Coventry, Birmingham and Wolverhampton. They may be pleasantly surprised to find it's faster than you would expect if you were expecting only an all stations service to be available. But someone at Kings Cross wanting to go to Blackfriars (or Tate Modern) would have no idea be there was any direct service other than the Circle Line. Thameslink has as much place on a map of rail services in central London as the Metropolitan Line does. You are rather missing the point. Crossrail train (like the tube and most suburban rail operations is planned to stop at pretty much all stations has no 1st class, no toilets etc. The bulk of Thameslink trains will by contrast not stop at ore than one place within the GLA area plus have both loos and 1st class facilities. As such Thameslink is clearly set up as a more long distance operator than ANY of TfLs services. THAT is why I said Thameslink was more akin to Cross Country (whose on board facilities and comfort are on paper better) than Centro local services in the West Midlands Why is this important to the thread title? Well:- (1) TfL have a history of NOT showing anything other than their own services on their maps. Whether it would be useful to the public doesn't seem to mater - its almost as if they think that showing Thameslink means they would then be forced to show other TOC services like C2C to Upminster rather than pretend that too is only accessible by their services. (2) Even if TfL do get to take over other suburban rail operations within London, the DfT ha made it VERY clear that will NOT include Thameslink services. Thameslink, thanks to it focus on outer urban operations is a nice cash cow or the Treasury who will be able to use the fact it has a fleet of band new trains plus brand new infrastructure to extract as lare a premium payment as possible from bidders. In other words Thameslinks stock and outer suburban emphasis means transfer to TfL won't happen, and if it doesn't transfer it won't appear on the Tube map. Simples! Thus while I understand your example of KingsCross - Blackfriars and would agree that showing Thameslink on the tube map would be beneficial the reality is if you want to get Thameslink back on the tube map you have to convince TfL to stop being so self centred when it comes to service provision.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 21, 2016 16:16:18 GMT
I saw a tube map which showed what crossrail will appear like when completed. It got me thinking, will thameslink be shown on the map for the sections that run within London and close by once the upgrade has been fully completed? It won't be because TfL seem have a policy of not showing anything they do not run (or let out the concession to) on the maps the produce. The map showing all rail services in London is I believe an ATOC production (with TfL data and logos on it). Thameslink is also a very different beast to Crossrail, - unlike TfL, or indeed most suburban rail services it has first class and toilets in its trains, fast non stop trains to the edge of the zonal area, plus its route focus is very much on districts beyond the GLA area (which is precisely why TfL will not get a look in when it comes to letting the next proper franchise - as opposed to the current management contract - in 2018). Yes it might offer a frequent service between London Bridge / Elephant and St Pancras but thats pretty much the only thing it shares with Crossrail In that respect Thameslink is similar in concept to the Cross Country operation in Birmingham - a frequent service that simply happens to cross from one side of the city to the other but totally geared towards long distance travellers and not the citizens of the West Midlands making short hops.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 20, 2016 21:58:57 GMT
There was talk at one time of de-electrifying north of Newcastle, as most services had to be diesel anyway as they either ran north of Edinburgh or, south of York ran to Leeds or Sheffield and beyond, so the cost of maintaining the infrastructure was hard to justify. St Pancras, electrified in 1982, lost all its electric services in 1988 when they went down the hole. Apart from brief periods when the Thameslink core was shut, scheduled electric services only returned to St Pancras in 2007 Hazel Grove to Stockport only sees a minimal electric service these days. Ignoring experimental or outdated schemes (eg Bury), or situations where lines have closed (eg Crystal Palace High Level), or lines converted to light rail (eg Altrincham) it's hard to think of electrified lines which have reverted to diesel and had the electrification fully removed. Doubtless there must be the odd spur or siding in places, but struggling to think of anything substantial at present. The ex LNER lines around Newcastle -Upon-Tyne had their 3rd rail removed in the early 70s and became worked by DMUs till they were electrified again as part of the Metro.
|
|