|
Post by phil on Apr 20, 2016 19:30:41 GMT
Can't see any chance of downgrading an electric service to diesel! I hope those days are well-and-truly over. The Lymington branch adopted the method of working I described around 5 years ago and it hasn't done that line any harm. In any case the ONLY reason BR wired the Romford - Upminster branch was to make things easier at Illford depot and not have it hang onto a couple of 1st generation DMUs in what was otherwise a completely electric area - a 4 car electric unit was, and still is overkill for what the branch requires in capacity terms. It was never done as some sort of grand plan to upgrade the service - even if that is what BR may have sold it to the public as. With the need by TfL to hire in a unit to operate the branch (at present because of stock shortages and in the future because the Crossrail stock will be way too long) does it really make that much difference to what the motive power is on a one train worked single track shuttle service? As I have pointed out a totally self contained line with a depot not that far away and with other transport options relatively easy to come by in case of problems, the Upminster branch is an ideal place to run trials.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 19, 2016 12:28:57 GMT
While that brownfield land could potentially be used for a depot strategy, train depots require large amounts if it in long and broad strips capable of processing fixed formation 12 car trains. Oddly spaced or smallish plots are of no use. By contrast housing developers are past masters at shoehorning buildings into pretty much any situation. Besides if you are going to send 24tph all the way up the Lea Valley you will need a serious number of travellers to fill the trains - which means lots of residential development. In this respect with reservoirs on one side and the Edmonton line a short distance to the west the potential number of passengers is not as great as with CR1 and the GEML. The thing is the current service along the Lea valley is overcrowded partly because the current infrastructure precludes a decent service being offered. Using that to justify a 24tph CR2 service is nonsense - the reason the GEML was an ideal outlet for CR1 was it already had a 6tph off peak and something like 10tph in the peaks with the trains being overcrowded. In some respects the STAR proposals are a useful stepping stone - the improved service the planned extra infrastructure allows will mean that the planners of CR2 will get a better idea of the potential revenue / costs further service upgrades under CR2 would generate. However we should also not forget that the NIC have not closed the door on another CR2 northern branch - they key being to find something that has low costs or has lots of redevelopment potential en route. It is unfortunate that the alignment of CR2 and topography dies not allow an easy connection onto the Edmonton / Endfield line as sending some CR2 trains there would make a lot of sense in terms of service frequency uplift. Thus while the Lea valley is indeed a sensible place for CR2 to aim for it does not follow that it is the best place to send all 24tph As I said, Rail travel should be encouraged and will when part of the WAML turns from a crippled rail service into a frequent TfL service. The catchment area is greater than you think, the service will pull people in from Northumberland Park, Enfield Lock, Waltham Cross/Abbey, Harlow, Hoddesdon and Ware. There will be also frequent use of the service for people who want to reach Tottenham Hale. Also, the demand for Crossrail will supersede that of the Overground from Chingford and Enfield Branches in some areas because it will be a direct service that people will be willing walk the extra mile for. I traveled often from Seven Sisters to Enfield on the Overground, and I always wanted the fast service (this was in NX Days) simply because the journey took to long. Also, if you are going to have a second branch, where can it go where there isn't already a rail service? All very valid points there, however we need to remember that the Treasury (as reflected in the NIC report) is insistent that there must be a high rate of return (i.e. lots of housing development) to fund any proposal. The Lea valley route is on the face of it a low cost option as regards a northern destination, but it would need a lot of development to justify a full 24tph all the way along it under Treasury rules. 12tph (which requires less infrastructure and more importantly less trains) and repeating the Paddington turnbacks found on CR1 at say Tottenham Hale on the other hand looks far better to the been counters who will determine whether the project goes ahead in the first place. My personal view where to send an alternative branch would be to either provide a connection to the Endfield and Chingford lines as well as the Lea valley - but that probably wouldn't meet the Treasuary's requirements for housing development.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 19, 2016 7:51:39 GMT
The New Southgate branch was proposed to solve 3 issues Firstly there was a nice large plot of land next to the ECML which could be used as a depot Secondly, it would have provided extra capacity in the Wood Green area and taken some of the strain iff the Picadilly line. Thirdly, it provided a usefull TfL only stub (in the manor of Abbey Wood) to terminate services as sending all 24 up the lea valley is a waste. The big disadvantage is that the branch would be expensive to build (being mostly in tunnels) and more signifficantly it lacks a large revenue generating opportunity en-route. With the DfT / Treasury's insistence on lots of new, intensive development along the route being necessary to justify brand new construction and nothing like Canary Wharf (without that the Abbey Wood branch on CR1 would never have been approved) mid way along it, the Southgate branch performs badly on paper - even if though 99% of transport projects, including those where said paper figures look doubtful like the Scottish borders railway proposals, have turned out to be a massive success when built. What the abandonment of the New Southgate branch does do however is mean the requirement to totally rethink the depot strategy for CR2 plus the need to consider enhanced turnback facilities or the promotion of a different branch to replace the New Southgate option. There is miles of Brownfield Land between Tottenham Hale and Enfield, portions of it are left derelict. I myself used to travel along the WAML and the site was sewer, both in appearance and smell, it was worse when passing Angel Road. Whilst I agree that the Picadilly Line needs a relief line, it too will get an upgrade which will increase capacity. Why would sending all 24 trains up to Enfield be considered a waste? Surely we should be encouraging more people to travel by train in these outer boroughs. During the peaks, trains are stuffed with commuters and School children as a result of the countless number of schools near the line and all throughout the day many locals will travel to and from Tottenham Hale to either get to Westfield Statford or to Stanstead Airport. While that brownfield land could potentially be used for a depot strategy, train depots require large amounts if it in long and broad strips capable of processing fixed formation 12 car trains. Oddly spaced or smallish plots are of no use. By contrast housing developers are past masters at shoehorning buildings into pretty much any situation. Besides if you are going to send 24tph all the way up the Lea Valley you will need a serious number of travellers to fill the trains - which means lots of residential development. In this respect with reservoirs on one side and the Edmonton line a short distance to the west the potential number of passengers is not as great as with CR1 and the GEML. The thing is the current service along the Lea valley is overcrowded partly because the current infrastructure precludes a decent service being offered. Using that to justify a 24tph CR2 service is nonsense - the reason the GEML was an ideal outlet for CR1 was it already had a 6tph off peak and something like 10tph in the peaks with the trains being overcrowded. In some respects the STAR proposals are a useful stepping stone - the improved service the planned extra infrastructure allows will mean that the planners of CR2 will get a better idea of the potential revenue / costs further service upgrades under CR2 would generate. However we should also not forget that the NIC have not closed the door on another CR2 northern branch - they key being to find something that has low costs or has lots of redevelopment potential en route. It is unfortunate that the alignment of CR2 and topography dies not allow an easy connection onto the Edmonton / Endfield line as sending some CR2 trains there would make a lot of sense in terms of service frequency uplift. Thus while the Lea valley is indeed a sensible place for CR2 to aim for it does not follow that it is the best place to send all 24tph
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 19, 2016 7:16:12 GMT
C2C were originally going to get some units from Heathrow Express, the contract was about to be signed then cracks were found under the Class 332s so the deal was halted. Good job that Porterbrook did a speculative order for 20 Class 387/3s. I thought the deal was to use Class 360s transferred from Heathrow Connect? They were not affected by the problem with the 332s other than having to "stand in" for the 332s in the short term. [happy to be corrected - I only paid a little attention to the issue] The 360s would be a better fit from a driver and operational point of view given that like the current C2C fleet they have full width driving cabs (and are thus unlikely to have DOO visibility issues etc). However from a fleet maintenance point of view the 387s have the edge due to it Being a Bombardier product like the existing 357 fleet. Longer term the plan is for the 387s currently working for Thameslink to move to the Thames valley upon the introduction of the new Thameslink Siemens stock. In that case getting rid of the 360s in exchange for 387s could be a better strategy.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 19, 2016 7:07:44 GMT
Can't see any chance of downgrading an electric service to diesel! Why not? The electrified Lymington branch in Hampshire is worked by a diesel unit during the week and an electric unit at weekends. This frees up a 4 car electric unit for use on busy London services (4 cars are overkill for the branch in capacity terms) while the use of an EMU at weekends keeps traction / route knowledge current and ensures the electric traction supply is kept in good order. The Upmister branch is in fact an ideal test bed for the D stock - its a totally self contained branch, has a depot (Ilford) not far away, and if the unit did run into problems has handy bus services nearby to deputise.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 16, 2016 17:11:39 GMT
I never quite grasped the concept of the New Southgate Branch. An expensive project such as Crossrail 2 needs to deliver some good results and therefore must be done properly. A proper railway that is both frequent and direct all the way through to Enfield (Via Tottenham Hale), will take lots of stress off the Victoria Line and help boost interest in the North and North East. Less is more in some context. The New Southgate branch was proposed to solve 3 issues Firstly there was a nice large plot of land next to the ECML which could be used as a depot Secondly, it would have provided extra capacity in the Wood Green area and taken some of the strain iff the Picadilly line. Thirdly, it provided a usefull TfL only stub (in the manor of Abbey Wood) to terminate services as sending all 24 up the lea valley is a waste. The big disadvantage is that the branch would be expensive to build (being mostly in tunnels) and more signifficantly it lacks a large revenue generating opportunity en-route. With the DfT / Treasury's insistence on lots of new, intensive development along the route being necessary to justify brand new construction and nothing like Canary Wharf (without that the Abbey Wood branch on CR1 would never have been approved) mid way along it, the Southgate branch performs badly on paper - even if though 99% of transport projects, including those where said paper figures look doubtful like the Scottish borders railway proposals, have turned out to be a massive success when built. What the abandonment of the New Southgate branch does do however is mean the requirement to totally rethink the depot strategy for CR2 plus the need to consider enhanced turnback facilities or the promotion of a different branch to replace the New Southgate option.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 4, 2016 19:25:30 GMT
The ATP on Metropolitan for Chiltern post resignalling is, I understand, intended to retain tripcock/trianstip. Though if it gets to the situation where Tripcocks are only being kept for Chiltern (LU having migrated to a replacement system) then Chiltern / the rolling stock owners might also retro fit the LU system to avoid paying LU to keep the Tripcock system (for which LU would otherwise have scrapped) in good order.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 27, 2016 21:40:24 GMT
Thanks, the loco seemed to be one of the GBRF class 66's? The same sort of train was on the e/b District yesterday. surely with the sheer length and height of these locos thy would be restricted even from the ssl tunnels? Remember that the A stock - which most definitely fitted the SSL tunnels! - was actually bigger than standard loading gauge. However, the 66s are primarily intended for surface sections, and access to the east end is possible at Barking without negitiating the tunnel sections. (The rigid wheelbase of the six-wheel bogies might be a problem at the Aldgate triangle) What about length? Just because the A stock had the widest profile in the country and the D stock is not that much smaller doesn't mean a mainline loco like a 66 would fit through the inner circle sections without hitting things (though a 73, being a short and compact loco might be OK)
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 20, 2016 11:36:49 GMT
As a regular user of Thameslink, I'm afraid I share the pessimism around whether the proposed service pattern is actually deliverable. I have a nasty feeling that it will be a lot like the rollout of Operation Princess (the massive expansion and frequency increase on Cross-Country routes) which ended up being completely unworkable, because it imported delays from so many different regions and depended on the entire rail network performing well. In the end that had to be severely de-scoped, with some destinations cut out completely and reduced frequency to others. There are a few issues which I think will cause additional problems: - The original plan was for Sutton Loop services to be terminated at Blackfriars. As you can imagine, this was massively unpopular and the decision got overturned. This does mean, however, that space for the 4tph to Sutton has to be found in the core, plus it's one more conflict at the junction south of Blackfriars. - St Pancras only has 2 platforms on the Thameslink route (despite, I believe, having passive provision for 4). This means that any conflicts from GN and Midland routes have to be resolved at the junction, rather than being able to use the station as a 'buffer' and sending them in to the core in an orderly fashion. - The rather, short-sighted IMO, decision to leave some of the network running 8 coach trains only. This means that the peak overcrowding on these routes will continue, leading to longer dwell-times which is exactly what you don't want in the core where you're trying to push trains through as fast as possible. There's also the question about what happens if one of the 'short' 8-car class 700s isn't available, will they send out a 12 car, or will the train just get cancelled? I also think that it was short-sighted only having 2 through platforms at Blackfriars post-rebuild, as that again means that trains will be waiting at the junction for a path through the core, rather than loading/unloading in the station. I hope that the combination of good timetabling and ATO will make all this workable, but I'm not holding my breath. St Pancras Thameslink may be new, but sharp curves to the south, its shallow depth below ground level, and the need not to undermine the main station building meant it could only be built with provision for 2 (admittedly wide) platforms. Yes 3 or 4 platforms would be nice but there simply wasn't the physical space to build them (just because something may be nice to have doesn't suddenly mean the laws of physics / geology / engineering become any different - something many seem to forget when saying "I don't understand why they ..." or "They could just have...."). Blackfriars required terminating bay platforms for those services unable to go through the core and however the station was laid out, with the flat junction to the south conflicts will always be present between different service groups. As such the actual layout is the best that can be achieved in that it allows operation to and from the bays to be kept separate from Thameslink. The only possible improvement would have been to have 3 platforms for Thameslink at this location - but as anyone standing at the south end of the station will see, an office block called Ludgate House blocks the alignment of the approaches to any extra platforms 8 car trains are necessary as it has been impossible to lengthen the platforms at busy stations like Tulse Hill & Herne Hill where selective door operation is not acceptable due to passenger volumes. To not have 8 car trains would have required abandoning the Wimbledon loop - and we all know how well that went down with users when it was suggested. Finally, while they may not be in stations, the Thameslink timetable will use the following pieces of track as 'holding pens' if required to try and ensure correct time keeping through the core. (1) The canal tunnels (2) Just to the south of Blackfriars where an 8 car train for Elephant can be held between the station and the junction while trains to and from London Bridge go round it (3) Between London Bridge & Blackfriars Junction. So while its true the proposed Thameslink service may not be the best solution any alternative service pattern has to respect the current infrastructure on the ground and not rely on things that haven't been built / are not planned to be built in the foreseeable future / cannot be built due to site constraints. As I have said, with the loss of terminating platforms at London Bridge & St Pancras, plus he inability of the suburban platforms to accommodate 12 car services at King Cross and the new Bermondsey flyover feeding Thameslink directly onto the Brighton fast lines, the current Thameslink service linking outer suburban destinations on 3 main lines has to stay. If you really want to improve its reliability the biggest improvement that could be done is to drop the Wimbledon loop and all the junction conflicts that imposes - but that has been tried already and rejected.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 18, 2016 18:03:07 GMT
In reality, the down Moorgate all-stations train would probably get held back to allow priority to the Thameslink service on the slow line. But how practicable would that be if the Moorgate service goes over to TFL with a 3-minute on-time performance regime? Very practical - TfL can say what they like in their concession tender but as that document already alludes to, NR have other operators to consider. Just because the GLA and Mayor may want something doesn't mean they will get it! - the national rail network is not the tube (as some people seem to think) and needs to be treated as such. That said there is nothing wrong about TfL aiming for a 3minute performance regime - but NR are not going to bend over backwards to meet it at the expense of other operations that have a 5 minute performance regime
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 17, 2016 19:15:57 GMT
I was referring more to the Great Northern operations. If you take the proposed Tattenham Corner-Cambridge service. After leaving St Pancras it will go across a flat junction at Copenhagen Junction and share the King's Cross approach tracks. From Finsbury Park it will have the choice of using the slow lines (shared with the all-stations Welwyn and Hertford services), or use the fast line which is shared with everything else. At Potters Bar it will need to be on the slow line, now definitely sharing with the all-stations Welwyn trains, which are also planned for a frequency increase. Once past Welwyn GC it will need to access the double-track section between Digswell and Woolmer Green, shared with everything. North of Woolmer Green it will likely use the slow line, shared with a further 4tph Thameslink service (which don't call at Knebworth), and at Stevenage with terminating Hertford trains (apparently a dedicated bay platform has now been dropped from plans). Whilst there is some choice of routing between Woolmer Green and Hitchin, by Hitchin it *must* be on the slow line. From Hitchin to Cambridge the service is on a double-track railway with no realistic overtaking facility and will be calling at seven intermediate stations, with a further 4tph of faster services sharing the line, 2tph won't call al any of these seven stations. Good luck with that one when things are running off timetable. If any late-running ends up with a King's Cross - Kings Lynn stuck behind that from Hitchin it will lose anything up to 20 mins, when the Kings Lynn train reaches Littleport it will have reached the first of two single-track sections carrying a planned 4tph. Given that trains on the Great Northern network can notch up quite hefty delays with even minor problems or late-running, the last thing needed is down trains having increased likelihood of being late going north. In terms of infrastructure the network has had a couple of miles of goods line converted to passenger status, an island platform at Cambridge and a flyover at Hitchin. (And a conversion of one diverging junction signal to flashing operation at Potters Bar!). Hardly substantial. While your observations on potential problems are genuinely welcome - do you honestly think the timetable planners are also ignorant of such issues. Also I feel you are forgetting that as with Southern branches, the GN branch of Thameslink is mainly about substituting existing services - not adding new ones precisely because of the infrastructure constraints you mention. Thus the current 2tph from Peterborough and the current 2tph that terminate at Cambridge are absorbed into Thameslink for example - not Thameslink added to these services. As such the need to share the Kings Cross approach tracks is hardly much of an issue when the only GN services to still use Kings Cross in a post Thameslink world are the 2tph service to Kings Lyn. Ultimately yes, Thameslink will be a very complex operation with very very little margin for error (be that infrastructure failures, trespass, passengers not boarding / alighting quick enough in the core, train reliability, etc). However as I outlined the infrastructure at St Pancras / London Bridge / King Cross precludes any simplification of the current plans - which are set to bring more longer (and in some cases more frequent) trains to places desperately in need of them. As a result considerable effort will be put into making the whole thing work as reliably and robustly as possible.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 17, 2016 18:43:01 GMT
Yes but if you look closely you will note that a down train FROM Victoria to East Croydon will block a East Croydon TO London Bridge / Thameslink Indeed, but you said that all trains cross on the flat. And there are plans to increase the amount of grade separation I did - because NR operations treat the 'fasts' and the 'slows' as two completely separate pairs at that location. Given the lack of any track connection between the pairs the use of the word 'all' is appropriate - although I accept it is open to misinterpretation by those not familiar with the location As you say a rebuilding of the area to provide full grade separation is under development and it is the only real answer to increasing train services in the post Thameslink world.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 16, 2016 23:03:02 GMT
In terms of potential problem causing areas once the entire scheme is finished, they basically are:- Windmill Bridge Junction north of East Croydon where all Victoria and London Bridge / Thameslink services converge on the flat There is quite a lot of grade separation at Windmill Bridge Yes but if you look closely you will note that a down train FROM Victoria to East Croydon will block a East Croydon TO London Bridge / Thameslink This occurs on both the fast and slow lines due to the way they are set up (2 pairs north to Victoria and 2 pairs south to Three Bridges). Blackfriars Junction is similar in that a down train heading FROM Blackfriars to Elephant & castle blocks an up train heading London Bridge TO Blackfriars The new Junction north of St Pancras (where the GN spur diverges) is grade separated so does not present this issue.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 16, 2016 22:03:40 GMT
WRONG! Come 2018 Thameslink trains will also serve the GN line and take over quite a lot of services that currently terminate at Kings Cross. Thus if the MML were shut for any reason then the option still exsists to divert services (pays permitting) to the liked if Finsbury Park, etc. Again on the Southern section you have two touted (via Elephant and London Bridge) which gives diversionary options even if station calls cannot be made due to short platforms on he a Elephant route. I have a feeling the proposed Thameslink network may well end up getting scaled back. Why do I get a heavy feeling the proposed Thameslink network is going to be an unreliable shambles? The mix of routes and stopping patterns is too ambitious by far. For example, 6tph between Hitchin and Cambridge, made up of three half-hourly services, one taking 20 mins through the section, one taking 30 mins and the slowest taking 40 mins. From the south trains will come off the Southern Region and import any delays from as far as Brighton or Horsham, including complex areas such as Croydon/Norwood, whilst to the north these services will interact with the line to Kings Lynn which has two long single-track sections. In the long term I strongly suspect Cambridge will disappear from Thameslink at least to some extent, once the delays skyrocket and it becomes politically unacceptable. Thameslink is already an unpopular service - few have a good word to say about it. I can't see this changing as the infrastructure work being done is minimal in the grand scheme of things. Thameslink cannot be "scaled back" as you put it - the rebuild of London Bridge and the loss of 3 easily accessible terminating platforms for trains from the BML has seen to that. St Pancras is hard pressed to handle the existing MML services let alone any Thameslink stuff while over at Kings Cross the suburban platforms can only take 8 car trains and there are not enough platforms in the main bit of the station to accommodate those trains (which are due to become 12 cars under Thameslink) as well as the current ECML services. In terms of potential problem causing areas once the entire scheme is finished, they basically are:- - Windmill Bridge Junction north of East Croydon where all Victoria and London Bridge / Thameslink services converge on the flat
- Blackfriars Junction where the routes via London Bridge and Elephant diverge on the flat
- Herne Hill and Tusle Hill for Wimbledon loop services.
- The Double track section over Welwyn Viaduct
Kings Lyn services will stay terminating at King Cross and in any case the Hitchin - Royston - Cambridge line is double track, not single. The single bits are onwards to Kings Lyn (which is not on the Thameslink network) As for stopping patterns - if you look at the service pattern, services via London Bridge (18tph in the peaks) deliberately don't call at intermediate stations to Norwood Junction to keep them on the fast lines in the middle. Approaching Norwood trains for East Grinstead / Tattenham / Caterham and possibly even the Three Bridges trains can swap to he slow lines with no conflicts - the conflicts only occur when trains from Victoria via Norbury merge in at Windmill Bridge Junction. On the GN section track upgrades now provide 6 tracks between Finsbury Park & Bounds Green allowing extra Thameslink and Moorgate services to opperate. Also the amount of new infrastructure is not 'minimal' as you put it - the main reason for the London Bridge works is to give Thameslink trains a dedicated set of tracks (and platforms) all the way from Blackfriars through London bridge and flowing onto the fast lines towards Norwood Junction at Bermondsey with NO conflicts. Thameslink's dire reputation thus far is mainly because of:- - The current need to send everything on the route via Norbury / Crystal Palace, Tulse Hill and Herne Hill with all its flat junctions, slow speed curves and low linespeeds.
- The historic need for trains to avoid London Bridge during the peaks (and use the current routings) as there were only two through tracks and 3 suitable platforms for them to use at London Bridge plus the need to weave over from the Brighton lines to the SE lines on the flat as they approached London Bridge.
- The inability to lengthen trains to more than 8 cars until certain key stations were rebuilt
- The Governments handling of the rolling stock orders, leading to delays in new stock coming on stream while still forcing Thameslink to release stock for the North West electrification.
Yes timekeeping will be critical - particularly if delays on one route are not to be transported to another. However the timetable planners are well aware of this and the entire BML timetable will effectively re-written from scratch in 2018 to ensure Thameslink trains have robust paths through areas like East Croydon.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 11, 2016 0:52:08 GMT
<<rincew1nd: The initial posts in this thread were originally here, in a thread advocating construction of CrossRail 2.>>Thereby repeating the problem of the "Paddington Turnback" - but where? (Thameslink also has the problem of only having one head in the north but multiple routes in the south, which means a single dewirement at Cricklewood can paralyse all the southern branches) WRONG! Come 2018 Thameslink trains will also serve the GN line and take over quite a lot of services that currently terminate at Kings Cross. Thus if the MML were shut for any reason then the option still exsists to divert services (pays permitting) to the liked if Finsbury Park, etc. Again on the Southern section you have two touted (via Elephant and London Bridge) which gives diversionary options even if station calls cannot be made due to short platforms on he a Elephant route.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 7, 2016 3:17:33 GMT
But I thought that Oyster represented the most expensive way to pay fares between the airport and London! I suppose though that the sheer convenience of changing trains at somewhere like Farringdon or Clapham Junction) when on through journeys from elsewhere in London makes people see using Oyster as being worth the price premium. (By way of contrast, changing trains at Victoria is the least pleasant of the options... what with the crowds, steps etc) A lot of people assume Oyster is cheapest all the time. Oyster is the cheapest option provided that (1) The service in question is provided by TfL (i.e. The Underground / Overground / Busses / Tram / DLR OR (2) The journey is undertaken on a franchised operator within the traditional London fare zones 1-6 align fairly well with the GLA boundary. Oyster will not allways be the cheapest where it is offered on National rail services franchised by the DfT which extend beyond the GLA boundary. This is deliberate as extension of Oyster fares must not materially change the current National Rail fare structure or the revenue potential, and thus the returns to the Treasuary the franchising system provides.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 26, 2016 12:45:07 GMT
What's the history and reasoning behind the Watford special fare zone? Its all to do with the fact that WCML express trains operated by Virgin call there. Watford Junction is little unusual in that respect, because on other main lines InterCity services have their first / last calls a lot further out (Stevenage, Luton & Reading) Basically at a station where multiple operators call, the revenues to a common destination (in the case Central London) have to be split up amongst them, with the most frequent operator generally getting the most money. Also if Watford was fully absorbed into the zonal fare structure the London Midlands fares would have to come down by quite a large amount However the DfT let the Virgin and London Midland franchise on the basis that there would be no change (other than inflation) to the fares income they would receive (if it did alter then the company would be able to challenge the 'premiums' they had to share with HM Treasury under the Franchise agreement). As such the only way TfL could get Oyster acceptance at Watford was to create a special zone which ensured that the the fares and the distribution of monies to the other parties was not changed by Oyster. This will be repeated when Oyster will be available to Reading and Gatwick in the future, as the DfT have taken great care to protect their financial position. Consequently Oyster will NOT always be the cheapest option outside the GLA area and the fares revenue on DfT franchised operators does not suffer from Oyster acceptance.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 16, 2016 10:57:08 GMT
Crossrail is different as TfL wish to incorporate Crossrail trains to Heathrow into their current zonal fare structure rather than making passenger / customers pay the levy through a expensive ticket. Why can't this be done by making Heathrow (the central Express/Crossrail station) a special zone, and setting the fares to/from/via that zone to include the levy? Isn't this essentially what's being done at the Gatwick Express platforms at Victoria? If HAL want to be certain everyone is paying, it is up to them to provide sufficient Revenue Men to check tickets between Heathrow 123 and the next stop (Hayes or /Paddington as the case may be). . It CAN be done - in fact Heathrow would love this to be the solution as the revenues it would generate for them by Passengers paying the Levy as part of their ticket would probably be grater than what they will get on a per train toll paid by TfL However TfL have made in very clear from the outset, they want Crossrail to fit into the existing zonal fare structure and allow Travelcards, etc to be valid on the entire route into the Airport, not just as far as Hayes . That means that the Levy cannot be added to tickets and has to be paid directly from TfL to Heathrow. Of course had the airport rail link been properly financed by the state - as occured with the link to Stansted (rather than get Heathrow to finance ot in exchange for 25 years worth of exclusive running rights / guaranteed fast line GWML paths / the right to charge a extra levy to passengers like the Severn Road Bridge) then the situation would not have arisen.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 16, 2016 1:22:28 GMT
Does Heathrow Connect (HeC) pay this levy? If not then since Crossrail replaces HeC then there is no justification for it to pay. If HeC does pay then perhaps the same payment should be made by Crossrail. Simon Heathrow connect charges a premium fare between Hayes and the Airport - so no Heathrow Connect doesn't pay the levy - the Passenger / Customer pays directly as part of their ticket for that section, which costs considerably more than it should do based on other National Rail fares of a similar distance. From Hayes to London Paddington Heathrow Connect effectively to all intents just another FGW service* and the fares charged for that stretch are the same as BR / NSE (adjusted for inflation over the decades of course) - which is also why travelcards can be used on it between Hayes and Paddington. Crossrail is different as TfL wish to incorporate Crossrail trains to Heathrow into their current zonal fare structure rather than making passenger / customers pay the levy through a expensive ticket. As such Heathrow Airport are demanding that if the passengers won't be paying TfL does - and this dispute is all about how much TfL can be charged on a per train basis - which presumably from Heathrow's point of view goes something like this: "A Crossrail train can carry xxx passengers and is predicted to be xx% full when using our tunnels. If all those passengers had to pay the Levy themselves (like HEX and HC passengers currently do) this would equate to £xxx per train". *If Heathrow Connect were to ever cease the the Hayes - Heathrow section could be stopped imediately (its not regarded as part of the National Rail network yet), however FGW would have to still operate the Paddington - Hayes part of the service to maintain the minimum service frequency at intermediate stations - (which is something they have effectively sub- let to Heathrow Express who operate them under the 'Heathrow Connect' banner ) HEX passengers / customers also pay the Levy - again as part of their expensive ticket (which of course, HEX being an open access operator all the way, also includes a premium for it being a non stop service).
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 3, 2016 19:53:38 GMT
Take your point wkiller,but I think the doctrine that those in authority (engineers, bankers, politicians....)know best can be a dangerous one.... Engineers are good at Engineering which is exactly what you want to happen and it is not unnatural for them to be not so good at other things. bankers (should in theory) be good at finances and ensuring the engineers don't get carried away. However they make lousy engineers so should curb any tendency to get involved in any engineering themselves. Politicans are usually rubbish at absolutely everything except politics - mainly because they have relatively little experience in the areas they are expected to oversee. This is particularly evident with those aiming for high office, who spend a long time studying politics and social sciences at University, followed by a brief period working in a media organisation before ingratiating themselves into the party machine. Germanys top politician had a long career as chemical research scientist before turning to Politics - we haven't got anyone in the UK that comes close to it. Instead our political scene is dominated by Lawers, accountants and career Politicans - none of whom seem to have any genuine understanding of good solid practical stuff - be it science, engineering, healthcare, social care, etc.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 25, 2016 0:45:22 GMT
This is quite a smart buy by TfL.... after all they have just been awarded suburban London commuter routes.Alongside the converted diesel Schoma locos, once Crossrail is complete it will negate, or at least reduce, the need to hire in mainline locos (Metronet contracted five Class 66 locomotives from GB Railfreight) for engineering works across the Underground/Overground/Crossrail/TfL Rail networks. As far as I am aware, its just plans at the moment, nothing is set in stone just yet. It doesn't matter WHO runs the TOC, nor the exact type of contract. National rail infrastructure within London remains owned and operated by Network Rail who organise maintance and renewals. It is NR who hire in the likes of class 66 locos for engineering trains and no amount of orange painted passenger rolling stock will change that.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 25, 2016 0:41:12 GMT
They will still need locomotives for engineering/maintenance trains when Crossrail is complete. Crossrail infrastructure, outside of the Royal Oak - Stratford / Abbey Wood section is owned and operated by Network rail who have responsibility for looking after engineering resources NOT TfL. It then follows that having a tiny fleet of Crossrail only locos simply for the TfL owned infrastructure is not a good use of money once the thing is up and running, particularly as maintenance requirements of a brand new passenger railway will not be onerous and things like class 66 diesels will fit through the tunnels quite happily. During the construction phase however, having a dedicated fleet makes perfect sense though.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 3, 2016 0:28:12 GMT
Which map?
If you are talking about the tube map, then that is a result of the TSGN services being a Franchise awarded by the DfT and one over which TfL have no say. The Overground routes are there precisely because they are concessions let by TfL themselves - who have the final say on what they want from them.
Had TfL not been given the powers to administer National rail franchises then its quite possible that we would have seen no national rail services appearing on the map at all.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Dec 24, 2015 22:22:35 GMT
Question is who is paying the cost of making the Oyster fares slightly cheaper than walk up paper tickets. HM Treasury / DfT have a track record of not liking Oyster (presumably because it has been such a success and they wished they had come up with the idea first) and have resisted any attempts to do anything that might affect the subsidy profiles of conventionally let franchises.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Dec 3, 2015 17:36:38 GMT
I am very surprised Surrey County Council are that on the ball...... They are not in general - however it wouldn't have played well with the councils electorate if passengers from West Sussex (which doesn't even touch the GLA area) got Oyster (even if it is the most expensive fare available) while Surrey did not. However thats not to say Surrey CC are the deciding reason why Merstham - Horley are getting Oyster acceptance - there are many other factors at play here.... the attitude of the DfT being a particularly important factor.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Dec 2, 2015 19:01:46 GMT
See Crusty54s post above. The Gatwick Express fares are shown here www.gatwickexpress.com/en/tickets-and-fares/buy-online-and-saveAs you can see £19.90 is the current walk up single adult ticket price (though if you book online it drops to £17.70) and all statements thus far indicate this is what will be charged if you use Oyster to / from Gatwick. The Thameslink fare to Blackfriars (in the peaks) is £10.20, The Southern fare to Victoria (in the peaks) is £15.30 Please remember that the Government will only accept the extension of Oyster onto non-TfL provided rail services provided that:- (1) It does not alter the profit / costs / subsidy profile of any current franchises. (2) it does alter the nature of the franchise such that when the franchise is re-let the profit / costs / subsidy profile change significantly. This is why fares from Shenfield and Reading remain in the hands of the GA and FGW franchises respectively and is also why Watford junction (fares set by LM & Virgin) is outside the traditional 1-6 zonal structure. As such there have been plenty warning given that unlike when Oyster is applied to rail services within the traditional 1-6 zonal structure, rail fares will NOT go down. In the case of Gatwick the Government are on record as saying Oyster fares to the airport will not be the cheapest option and lower fare paper tickets will continue to be available. Its also worth remembering that its Gatwick Airport themselves who are the ones pushing for Oyster to be extended there, because:- (1) Provides parity with Heathrow Airport (who will accept Oyster once Crossrail is up and running) (2) Makes things 'easy' for airline travellers who can then be sold an Oyster card on board planes and be told that it also includes travel into Central London. The reason for extending Oyster to Merstham, Redhill, Earlswood, Salfords and Horley is more of an enabling measure and a gesture to Surrey CC who indicated they would not best pleased if Gatwick (which is in West Sussex) got Oyster acceptance and they did not. Fares from these stations are expected to be the same as the current standard walk up paper ticket prices - again frequent travellers may well find some for of season ticket cheaper. As these stations are not served by Gatwick express owever, fares using Oyster will be more reasonable if you can prove you sued this route - if you got off and touched out / in at Redhill on the way to or from Gatwick say, then you would presumably be charged the cheaper Southern fare to / from Victoria. So my advice to anyone on here DON'T USE OYSTER TO GATWICK - you will pay way more than you need to for the privilege. Rather pre-book paper tickets from East Croydon / Purley / etc to Gatwick, pick them up from your local station ticket machine or get them posted to you and then use Oyster to get to East Croydon / Purley /etc. where your paper ticket takes over.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Dec 1, 2015 16:12:51 GMT
The Gatwick Express Oyster fare will be £19.80. The other peak fare will be £14 and off peak £8. Guess something similar could apply for Heathrow. Quite possibly In other words rip off air travellers by selling Oyster cards while in air en route to the UK and don't mention that unlike Oyster journeys in TfL land, using Oyster guarantees the most expensive, not the cheapest fare.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 28, 2015 12:54:45 GMT
I'm going to gatwick on 9th of Jan and I'm praying oyster gets accepted before then. Please note that it is on record that the extension of Oyster to Merstham, Redhill, Earlswood, Salfords, Horley & Gatwick Airport will not replace the current fare structure - it will be overlayed onto it. As such Oyster will actually be more expensive than some of the other fares available - particularly if it gets accepted on Gatwick Express branded services which are planned to keep their more expensive surcharge. With regard to the GWML it is quite possible that a similar situation will persist and that if people want the cheapest ticket from the likes of Twyford or Reading say, then they may find paper tickets are the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 24, 2015 0:46:30 GMT
.... and there are HV dc feeds to this country from the continent using converter substations.
This is done for frequency reasons rather than anything else. If you tried to connect the French AC grid to the British AC grid both would have to be EXACTLY in phase with each other - in other words if you took the 50Hz waveform for each grids and overlayed them they MUST be in phase, or chaos would ensue. (Its notable that at times of heavy demand in the Uk, the grid is allowed to drop the voltage quite significantly - but they must NEVER let the frequency change by a single Hz, so the former is sacrificed to keep the latter stable. This matters because there is an awful lot of vital equipment that relies on that magic 50Hz being maintained - most of which is invisible to us incidentally, i.e. we are not talking about your flat screen TVs here.) By using a HV DC link the grids are never connected directly and the issue of one countries phase being slightly different never causes an issue.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 21, 2015 9:44:25 GMT
Also many outer suburban trains do not stop at Wimbledon, They could (more easily than at Clapham Junction) - and at Balham too! Indeed - but outer suburban / fast services are not going to stop at both Clapham and Balham or Wimbledon and Clapham - which means interchange between Southern & SWT becomes more complicated. It also ignores the point about Overground and Windsor line interchange. There is also the fact that on both the Southern and SWT side it is physically possible (albut expensive) to make 3 fast line platforms for both services thus allowing pretty much every service to call. Doing the same at Wimbledon is & Balham is even more expensive.
|
|