|
Post by phil on Oct 30, 2015 4:37:33 GMT
Another element of connectivity is the NE Enfield Action Plan, which whilst heavily slanted to the notorious A1055-A121 Link Road did pay regard to east-west public transport connections. We are awaiting the inspector's report on that. Personally, I would have thought STAR would be richer with both spurs at Hall Farm Jc reinstated, on a single line basis. There was no good reason, other than the scrap value of the rails, to remove either of them in the 60s. Chingford to Stratford is a very busy bus corridor, but a tedious journey that way; Walthamstow is amajor and growing centre. Reinstating rails is the easy bit - finding places for the trains to go without getting in the way of other services is most definitely not. I believe that one of the limitations as regards the Hall Farm curve is the ability of Stratfords platforms 10 and 11 to turn round many more services from the north, with Stansted or the Lea valley being far more of a prority when it comes to destination. Even after Crossrail and any remodelling of Bow junction the resultant small increase in capacity on the approaches to Liverpool St has far better uses than Chingford via Stratford.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 29, 2015 21:46:43 GMT
What an absolute mess! The whole thing is just utterly messy. How do they expect to run 30tph with the amount of inter-running and junctions the thing will encounter both north and south of the river? The kinks reduce it something on par with some of the fantasy threads and are just an obvious clue as to project creep and political greasing. Not to mention the bizarre amount of nearly-but-not-quite duplication north of Angel. I think the service pattern looks quite complicated with the amount of branches in North and South London, compared to the slightly simpler route of Crossrail 1. I haven't looked at all the factsheets yet , but how will they reverse trains at Wimbledon and Tottenham Hale without disrupting other services? It's as if Crossrail 2 is trying to be a mix of high frequency metro services as well as a less frequent outer-suburban service. Actually it is not as bad as you think, pricipall because the LACK of junctions on the northern branches. Firstly the New Southgate branch will be physically segregated from the ECML so as with the Abbey Wood branch of Crossrail 1, if the core timetable starts being delayed it doesn't cause too many issues in service terms (particularly with the depot to send trains into if there is a need to send trains out of the way while service recovery is underway). Secondly the Broxbourne branch sounds as though it will operate very much along the lines of Crossrail 1s Shenfield branch - i.e. just as the tracks Crossrail 1 uses there will be relatively segregated from other GEML services, it sounds as if the Crossrail 2 tracks in the Lea Valley will be relatively segregated from WAML services. Again this arrangement means that the need to hit precise timings at junctions or the ability to recover from issues is much easier than on the South West legs (see below) The big issue comes with the South Western leg where services will need to share tracks and junctions with residual SWT services to Sheperton, services round the Kingston loop, stopping services to Woking and services to Dorking / Guildford via Epsom. In many respects this has similarities with Crossrail 1 when the western leg joins the GWML - OK there aren't as many branches, but the GWML relief lines carry quite a lot of freight traffic from Reading to Acton yard (very different from the crossing moves at Forest Gate in planning terms, plus there will still be residual GW services into Paddington using them too. Therefore in service planning terms, it is the South Western section that has the biggest potential to screw things up and therefore is what the timetable will have to be developed from. What happens on the Southgate / Broxbourne branches simply follows in from that but given their self contained nature they are actually a good way of doing things. By contrast, consider Thameslink - it has to mesh with 3 main line timetables north and south of the river, has a critical at grade junction in the core, shares tracks with InterCity, freight, London suburban services, etc. The potential for timetable disruption is immense. Crossrail plays it safer by restricting itself to Shenfield and Reading - with the Abbey Wood branch being entirely self contained and Crossrail 2 continues this theme.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 22, 2015 17:34:00 GMT
Err, what you have just said doesn't add up. If SHS was always a zone 1 station for all journeys when the original ELL extension (to Dalston & Highbury) was opened, there would have been no need to mention it (let alone alter the arrangements) in connection with the later extension to Clapham Junction (which post dates the original extension by a good couple of years). Thus while I don't dispute that SHS has been in zone 1 ever since the Clapham extension was given the go ahead, is it not possible that before that, if you travelled over the ELL but did not alight at SHS you would not be charged for a zone 1 journey. Makes perfect sense to me. The ELL didn't reopen with a full service until May 2010. The current Mayor spent a fair amount of time in the first half of his first term trying to get the agreement over ELL Phase 2 which was a manifesto commitment. AFAIAA the line opened with SHS in Zone 1 and requiring Zone 1 tickets to travel in, out and across it. Looking through the London Reconnections archive of articles on the East London Line and South London Line it's evident that the agreements to build the ELL Phase 2 and its conditions were in place *before* the ELL Phase 1 opened. Searching in Google for "East London Line Phase 2" brings up this letter from Ian Brown which sets out that agreement was reached in 2009 to build ELL Phase 2. Note the letter is a Word document download. We all know the agreement included SHS being in Zone 1 to avoid revenue abstraction from other TOCs. Look at the date of the letter and compare with that for ELL Phase 1 opening. If you wish to disbelieve what I'm saying then that's fine but I don't know what else I can do to "prove" the point about the fare zone treatment. Firstly my belief was that although phase two was always planned to happen by the mayor / TfL, moves to get the necessary finance out of the DfT etc only started after phase one had opened and it wasn't particularly easy to finalise . In effect at the time phase one opened it was by no means certain phase two would occur so quickly after phase one. In such a situation - which I accept didn't happen - then it is entirely plausible that fares policy could have been revised between phases. Secondly, its not a case of 'wishing to disbelieve' as you put it - rather a case of my recollections surrounding the position regarding SHS (note Chris M recalls there being quite a lot of discussion over the issue at the time phase one was under construction) appears to be incorrect, as demonstrated by your evidence, particularly the key dates. I am therefore quite willing to accept that SHS has always been in zone 1.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 20, 2015 17:42:43 GMT
Are you sure this has always been the case? I could have sworn that before the ELL extension opened there was lots of controversy about the status of Shoreditch and as a result it opened with slightly odd arrangements compared to other Zone 1 stations when it opened. Maybe they were done away with as part of the deal to take the ELL to Clapham Junction and got drowned out by protests over the SLL withdrawal. AFAIK there were no "odd arrangements" at SHS when it opened. It's always been in Zone 1 since opening. The only journeys where the system is "blind" to the route in fares terms is Canonbury - Clapham Junction and Highbury & Islington - Clapham Junction. The fare is charged as via Zone 2 only. This is no different to other journeys where it is impossible for the system to "detect" your route. Examples are Highbury to Richmond and Stratford to Richmond (using Overground or LU, NOT using a NR service via a London terminal). This is because there is a direct Overground train via a cheaper route and no closed / gated interchange if you travel via Zone 1. I only know this from having spent too much time looking in the Single Fares Finder. A whole pile of journeys that use the Overground are priced via Zone 1 regardless of route. In theory you can go from Highbury to Denmark Hill the long way round via Clapham Junction but you'd be charged as if you went via Shoreditch High Street. If you want a non Z1 fare you must go "backwards" via Stratford and the Jubilee Line and touch on the pink validator at Stratford. You will note that TfL do not specify Canada Water as a pink validator touch in because people would go via Shoreditch anyway, dash off the train, touch pink and dash back in the train!! The decision to put SHS in Zone 1 was part of the package that was agreed to build ELL phase 2 from Surrey Quays to Clapham Junction. TfL were forced to put SHS in Zone 1 to avoid revenue abstraction from other TOCs that run into London termini, they were required to NEVER have a LOROL train run into Victoria (abstraction again) and to scrap the proposal for a Bellingham - Victoria service to part replace the SLL. In short the DfT were complete bleeps and Boris was "done over" and the people who've paid are the passengers using the ELL. OK we got a new bit of useful railway and that's good but at what cost to people? Err, what you have just said doesn't add up. If SHS was always a zone 1 station for all journeys when the original ELL extension (to Dalston & Highbury) was opened, there would have been no need to mention it (let alone alter the arrangements) in connection with the later extension to Clapham Junction (which post dates the original extension by a good couple of years). Thus while I don't dispute that SHS has been in zone 1 ever since the Clapham extension was given the go ahead, is it not possible that before that, if you travelled over the ELL but did not alight at SHS you would not be charged for a zone 1 journey.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 20, 2015 17:31:24 GMT
The freight only 'Tottenham Lines' from the Midland Mainline/Thameslink Carlton Road Junction (just North of Kentish Town Thameslink) through to Junction Road Jcn ( just west of Upper Holloway ) n T&H lines actually passes behind 'Murphys yard' at Kentish Town although most of the work is stated as being sub contracted out, having a base already in situ makes life easier. This section also planned to be electrified as part of the scheme which could provide some interesting journey opportunities in the future A very good reason for wiring it is the new Thameslink depot strategy which has all units being maintained by Siemens at their new depots at Three Bridges and Hornsey. The wiring of the MML - GOB link plus the curve at Harringay means stock transfers to the former have no need to go as far as St Pancras and reverse. While Bedford currently looks after the bulk of the Thameslink fleet - the site cannot accommodate 12 car units and is difficult to expand to do so (At least 50% of the new Thameslink fleet will be fixed formation 12 car units with no ability to split them into anything shorter outside of the depot environment), and also it doesn't fit with the strategy where Siemens take on all the risk of looking after the trains and receive financial penalties if they cannot meet the TOCs requirement to have a specified number of units in service per day.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 17, 2015 20:55:21 GMT
No, Shoreditch High Steet is a normal Zone 1 station. There are (or were) posters about it at Canada Water, and probably elsewhere, noting that you will be charged for zone 1 and/or must have zone 1 on your travelcard to travel through SHS Are you sure this has always been the case? I could have sworn that before the ELL extension opened there was lots of controversy about the status of Shoreditch and as a result it opened with slightly odd arrangements compared to other Zone 1 stations when it opened. Maybe they were done away with as part of the deal to take the ELL to Clapham Junction and got drowned out by protests over the SLL withdrawal.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 17, 2015 18:33:31 GMT
But how many people go more than half way round anyway? A handful of people travelling from Queens Road Peckham (and points west) to Cally Road & B (and points west) will either have to change twice or go the long way round, and for most of them there are quicker alternatives through the middle anyway, e.g via the Northern Line from Clapham or London Bridge, or via Thameslink and West Hampstead. People who are cash poor will want to avoid zone 1, but on that score these people probably won't be affected by the changes as they will want to travel via Clapham Junction - because Shoreditch High Street is in zone 1. Simon I thought Shoreditch only counted as Zone 1 if you entered or exited the station there. If you remained on the train and didn't get off then your journey would be covered by Zone 2.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 15, 2015 20:20:35 GMT
On the national network, the Cumbrian coast ERTMS trial has required the replacement of MPH with KMH on all lineside signage and in cab speedometers. This is because being a pan-Europien system designed with the express intention of harmonising signalling systems it cannot be configured to work on MPH. If NRs plan to fit ERTMS and scrap lineside signals* on the Southern half of the ECML by the end of the decade comes to fruition then pretty much every train cab will need to have a KMH speed display and associated lineside signage.
Why is this relevant to LU? Well given the move to automatic train control to squeeze the maximum service out possible from the infrastructure, and the widespread use of KMH by the manufacturers of such systems it is not hard to see LU start to adopt KMH at some point in the future, particularly if retaining MPH adds significantly to the cost over the base KMH variant.
* the GWML is due to get ERTMS but as an overlay onto the lineside signalling currently being installed and as such MPH will stay in use for the time being.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 14, 2015 0:16:19 GMT
In addition to all the problems highlighted above (which are problems and TfL should be told this in no uncertain terms) the junction at the south end of the southbound tunnel sets up a short weaving section with traffic from the old tunnel wanting to head to Wooliwch and Charlton needing to move left across traffic from the new tunnel heading further south needing to move right. Short weaving sections like this have only three possible outcomes - 1. traffic jams caused by slow moving traffic. 2. traffic jams caused by accidents, 3. accidents caused by traffic jams - and these are not mutually exclusive! Then you come to the issues of funnelling all the extra traffic onto the already overloaded roads through south London (with all the attendant air quality implications) and the very indirect connections to the A12 and A13 (where most traffic wants to go) at the north end - requiring traffic to negotiate two or three roundabouts and/or multiple sets of traffic lights (with all the attendant air quality implications). As regards weaving at the southern junctions, this could be solved in the same way the slip roads from the A13 into the exsisting tunnel are handeled - namely with traffic lights allowing traffic from the A206 and the mainline to proceed alternately. Not ideal I know but given there are already lights on the A2 at Kidbroke, and on the A12 on the section heading north from the Tunnel, plus further lights to ensure traffic does not enter the tunnel if a queue is forming at the exit, and those that stop traffic if an overweight vehicle has been detected - a further set is hardly going to be that much of an issue (which is not to say there won't be queues - but thats what happens at the moment in busy times anyway). As for the northern exit of the Silvertown tunnel - yes the onward routes to the A12 and A13 are not great, but that is not what the Silvertown tunnel is being designed for. It's function is to take traffic bound for Canary Wharf and the Royal Docks southwards and thus provide a measure of relief to the exsisting tunnel for traffic that does require the A12 or A13 when it emerges onto the north bank. The ability of the Silvertown tunnel to take lorries that are currently to tall for the northbound Blackwall bore is just the icing on the cake as it were. When looked at in this light (and not as a strategic cross London highway) the Silvertown tunnel as designed is not as bad as people think in design terms.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 13, 2015 23:56:44 GMT
Charge for the tunnels? Do TFL want a revolution on NE and SE London? Hope the consultation tells them this loud and clear The suggestion is that residents of boroughs located close to the river will get discounts from the tolls - much as residents of Dartford and Thurrock get a extra discount on the Dartford crossing and residents of the congestion charge zone get a discount off that scheme. TfL are of the view that Blackwall should only be for local traffic (I.e. The boroughs flanking the Thames between Thamesmead / Barking and Tower Bridge) which the proposed tolling + discount system encourages. If you live in Bexley or Sidcup or Bromley say, TfL want you to head out of London and cross the river at Dartford then come in on the A13 rather than use Blackwall. Similarly if you live in Wanstead or Walthamstow and want to get to Bromley, your route in TfLs eyes should be via Dartford then back in on the A2 / A20. You also forget that air quality is a big issue for those living around the current tunnel - something they have made abundantly clear to their elected representatives and as such there is LOTS of pressure to ensure that any new tunnel does not increase traffic volumes. Voters in the vicinity of Blackwall are also far less likely to be car owners than those in outer boroughs and as a result there is a strong green lobby in city hall. More widely those, opposed to tolling have yet to come up with a way of funding a 3rd crossing. Central Government has made it VERY CLEAR all maters regarding roads within London have been devolved and as such have to be 100% funded by the GLA out of the block grant. This is what, more than anything else saw previously drawn up plans (by the DfT) to fully grade separate the Bounds Green section of the North circular ditched, Ken (Livingstone) or no Ken. The cost of the inherited scheme was way beyond what the GLA could resource and Central Government refused to consider helping as 'roads are a deveolved matter' as far as they were concerned. The proposed Silvertown tunnel has exactly the same problem with funding and can in no way be financed by the GLA without some kind of charging regime being put in place. Thus what opponents of the charge fail to grasp is that it's not a case of 'to charge or not to charge' - it's a case of 'no charge, no tunnel' If you don't like it then the people to complain to is the DfT, or to be more accurate, the Treasuary who have (under administrations of both colours) comprehensively failed to invest in our national infrastructure over past decades and love to pass the buck to other organisations whenever possible.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 22, 2015 23:18:32 GMT
Too many people seen to be viewing Crossrail and London Overground as being fundamentally different from every other TOC when as far as the industry goes they are simply another operator once they appear on NR infrastructure. OK they may appear far 'better' than ordinary franchises as far as the public are concerned but people should remember that from a DfT perspective, they are both Franchises - merely ones that the body responsible for letting said franchises decided to let as a concession and ones which said authority is willing to pay an extra subsidy, raised by local taxpayers - NOT the DfT, to achieve certain outcomes. I am going to quibble very slightly with the comment about the DfT view. I thought it was the case that the bits hived off to TfL to specify also had other exemptions granted to certain Railways Act provisions which does put them on a slightly different basis to a normal franchise. There is also the position that certain risks sit squarely with TfL / the Mayor and not with the Secretary of State. With regard to Crossrail I think there are provisions that prevent it reverting to DfT control because of the way the project financing works - TfL are squarely in the frame for making sure certain financing is repaid from Crossrail revenues. I agree there are no special provisions re track access. I do wonder quite how hard MTR Crossrail will contest service disruption attribution given the onerous regime they are signed up to with TfL for the Crossrail service. The potential for "events" to screw up the Crossrail service is considerable given the route is not segregated on the GEML or GWML. It will be fascinating to see how they approach service management and dealing with external impacts. There may be differences between the exact nature of the TfL concessions and regular Franchises but these are trivial in character and do not remove the right of the DfT to veto anything they don't like such as 'nationalising' or bodies like TfL running the services themselves rather than contracting out service provision or doing away with the requirement for all station ticket offices / machines to sell tickets to every other national rail station in the UK. This also applies to Merseyrail and the Welsh and Scottish administrations where it has been made quite clear that the SNP want to renationalise rail operations north of the border but the Conservative administration will not have any of it. Ultimately however you dress it up, the fact remains that the DfT retain the right to take back the ability to offer concessions / franchises if the devolved body is deliberately trying to do things that try that run counter to Government policy (e.g. nationalisation) or things that end up running up unsustainable debts etc. As for service disruption, in the east Crossrail do have the get out clause as the self contained Abbey Wood branch does give options of maintaining a reasonable service across the core if the GEML has problems and the possibility of sending services diverted from the GEML down there too. The situation is a bit more difficult to the west of London though as there is nowhere else to turn stuff round than the reversing sidings to be built just after the line rises out of the tunnel before they start running along the GWML itself.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 19, 2015 19:10:47 GMT
I question ANY decision that reduces operational flexibility. In agree with that sentiment. I hope that the situation is never reached whereby it is discovered that in throwing out the bath water the bath was thrown out as well! btw, today, Sunday 9th August 2015 there was track works on the fast lines at Stratford station and as a consequence all trains were passing through platforms 5 and 8. These are the tracks normally used by TfL rail trains, so in addition to the usual Liverpool St - Shenfields the trains using these platforms included those on the Southend Vic and Clacton routes and I also saw some InterCitys passing through as well (but without stopping). I wonder whether this will cease to be possible 'in the future'? with passengers (horror of horrors) being thrown off longer distance trains and either put on all stations slow trains or (horror of horror) sent by bus. I hope the track simplications do not have negative results for the freight trains travelling from the NLL to Barking (etc). Simon While Crossrail lobbied hard, they DO NOT have any more rights than any other TOC when it comes to the GEML & GWML when it comes to securing track access. NR are under a legal obligation to treat all operators fairly and allocate paths in a responsible way - and Grater Anglia, DB Schenker, First Great western, Freightliner, etc made sure they were NOT disadvantaged when the final agreement was drawn up between NR and Crossrail. As a result if engineering works (be they planned or emergency ones) need to take place on say the 'main' lines between Stratford and Shenfield, TfL WILL have its service reduced so as to ensure the remaining capacity is fairly used by all operators with a view to minimising the inconvenience to ALL users of the rail network. Cancelling all Grater Anglia and Freight services while leaving Crossrail unaffected is not acceptable from a non Londoners point of view as various Home counties MPs know only too well. Too many people seen to be viewing Crossrail and London Overground as being fundamentally different from every other TOC when as far as the industry goes they are simply another operator once they appear on NR infrastructure. OK they may appear far 'better' than ordinary franchises as far as the public are concerned but people should remember that from a DfT perspective, they are both Franchises - merely ones that the body responsible for letting said franchises decided to let as a concession and ones which said authority is willing to pay an extra subsidy, raised by local taxpayers - NOT the DfT, to achieve certain outcomes.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 19, 2015 18:40:04 GMT
First Great Western in Devon and Cornwall were to get 150/2 which have a connecting gangway between 2 car units to replace 150/1, 143 (pacers), and 153 (single car trains). Four car trains are badly needed on the Exmouth - Paignton service as these towns are now commuter towns for an expanding Exeter. Torbay (bigger than Exeter) is to build 8000 houses in the next 10 years. 158's are to be used between Exeter Central and Barnstaple, another commuter line for Exeter. If the cascade does not take place then they will need the D stock. Of course they would need to be seaworthy, unlike Cross Country trains, to negotiate the sea wall at Dawlish or they might be restricted to Cornwall. Please remember that on the coming five years or so, a large number of the 166 & 165 NSE vintage Turbos currently operating from Paddington to Newbury / Oxford will be migrating westwards as electrification takes place. Whether they will be deployed to Devon & Cornwall or whether they will displace other units from the Bristol area say, I cannot say. One route that will definitely be going over to Turbo operation is the Bristol to Portsmouth / Brighton which presumably frees up 158 units for elsewhere in the Great Western network.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 12, 2015 19:23:05 GMT
I'm in the RMT and totally support the strikes for the reasons I put earlier in this thread. Rumours, true or not is that ASLEF are closer to a deal than the other unions. Of course that's typical of LU with their divide and rule tactics. ASLEF might not represent station staff, but if I were a train op and in ASLEF I'd be very concerned of the plan to remove 838 station posts. That's 838 less qualified staff to help a driver when dealing with a passenger alarm, stalled train, customer incident etc. I draw your attention to DOO. The drivers union did not cause to much of a fuss when guards went on the Overground - and provided they are suitably rewarded I doubt they will cause to much of a problem with DOO / DCO as required by the latest Northern franchise being put out to tender at the moment. As such, it makes perfect sense to try and come to a deal with ASLEF if they are amiable to it and remove them from the equation. Divide and rule it might be - but the National Rail system has been working that way for 20 years now and I don't see why LU should be any different.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 13, 2015 0:15:45 GMT
Illford depot has a wheel lathe - not many other depots in London do. As such units (and occasionally locomotives) are sent there from other places to have this work done at Illford under contract and the sight of a 378 is not that unusual in the context of things that have had attention there in the past.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 3, 2015 19:01:37 GMT
Those proposing a service between Amersham and Watford need to consider the following
(1) It won't make sense from TfLs point of view to run such a service given the relatively easy option of changing at Moor Park. It also would tie up expensive S8 stock (assuming there is sufficient spare units - if not then that is yet another big thing against the proposal) that could be better used elsewhere and the quantity of people wishing to make the journey will be very small in comparison to elsewhere.
(2) From Chilterns point of view running on the Aylesbury - Watford axis poses a number of issues. As with LU, operating such a service ties up valuable diesel units (of which there is a national shortage, not helped by the latest EU emission regs meaning it is impossible to order further batches of already in service designs and the lack of interest in making a new compliment UK gauge design by train manufacturers). It also requires additional crew and cannot be done without DfT approval (Note this is to prevent franchise operators launching a new service which the DfT won't fund when the franchise changes).
(3) Watford junction capacity. Even if Chiltern did provide a service it wouldn't be at more than 1 or 2 tph at most. When the train arrives at Watford the crew would probably require a PNB leading to the unit blocking one (or at least part of) a platform till it was time to head out again. LU and LO won't have this problem as the frequency of their services and crew depots would allow the incoming crew to have their break while a fresh crew take the train out.
Now of course none of these problems are irresolvable given enough money and political will - but with the country facing further squeezes on departmental budgets over the coming years, introducing new services without a robust positive business case - especially if it involves substantial outlay in terms of new trains - simply won't happen
|
|
|
Post by phil on Dec 2, 2014 10:24:24 GMT
Tim, will these be 387 variants or a further batch of the 378/2 stock? Depends on who wins the contract! If its Bombardier it will probably be an updated version of the 378. However, as there is a very active discussion going on in TfL about train formations on West Anglia Inners, i.e. should more trains be run as 8-car formations (not just in the peaks) there might be an 8-car variant such as two half-trains permanently coupled together to get over the unit length limitations with the 378s but again it depends on who wins the contract, for example, a Siemens product would not have the limitation of the Electrostar family. We won't really know anything until late spring or early summer 2015. All we do know for definite is that trains on GOB, Romford-Upminster and Watford DC will be 4-car only! Just to re-emphasise Bombardier can make trains more than 5 cars long! The limitation is on the OLD(er) technology use for the class 378 (and 378, 377, etc) that has now been completely replaced with the class 387 - which despite looking very similar, have signifficant changes compared to earlier versions of Electrostars such that multiple working between 387s and 379 /378 / 377 / 376 / 375 is impossible (though in an emergency one can rescue the other). If TfL require additional trains the Bombardier's offer will, under the hood (to borrow an automotive term) use class 387 technology and will therefore be capable of being provided in grater than 5 car unit configurations - i.e. 8 cars is perfectly possible. Bombardier will not be supplying further complete 378 (or indeed 377) units, certainly not as part of a large new order like TfL are making. They will however be offering a solution based on the 387 platfrom which may well look visually very similar to the existing 378s
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 14, 2014 2:48:02 GMT
Watford DC already has 4-car trains running, so what are you talking about? I believe that what the original poster may have been getting at is the manufacturer of the Electrostar range (Bombardier) has said that they cannot supply / lengthen a single class 378 unit in more than a 5 car configuration due to the way certain parts of the train have been designed. hence if tfL ever did want to go up to a six car train then they need to either replace the entire fleet or reconfigure it to make the current 378 units back into 3 car trains and use two in multiple (plus add additional new build units to supplement them). Now its easy to say "why not update them" but from Bombardiers point of view the entire Electrostar train is actually a pretty "old" platform technology wise and they have ruled out modifying the 378 (or earlier) design. Instead they have developed a replacement which - although it uses very similar bodyshells (for the moment) to the current Electrostar family, is fundamentally different underneath. So different in fact that although the very latest version (Class 387) can couple to a class 377 for rescue purposes, they cannot run in normal service together.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 14, 2014 2:27:59 GMT
I was under the impression NR own it. Nope! - a common misconception. Please remember that the section from New Cross / New Cross Gate up to Shoreditch in pre TfL days was owned by London Underground Limited (as sucessors to the origional Metroploitan and Metropolitan District railway companies). Although it is true that as built the GER, LBSCR and SER all had involvement in the beginning, British Rail had long given up any ownership rights (other than in the vacinity of New Cross Gate / New Cross Stations) way before privatisation let alone TfL, arrived on the scene. The northern section running from Hoxton through to Dalston also escaped from NR ownership - in this case becasue the Broad Street to Dalston line was shut by British Rail. Now in normal circumstances that would have been the end of things and the viaducts demolished to release development space - but even back in the early 90s it was obvious that the former Broad Street approaches had potential to be combined with the under utilised ELL Underground line. Accordingly ownership was transferred from British Rail to the local councils, who then sold / transferred it to TfL upon the establishment of said organisation. The viaducts constructed to link the two bits were designed and constucted for TfL who naturally owned the completed structures (just as the entire Crossrail tunnel network, i.e. Royal Oak to Pudding Mill lane plus pratically the entire Abbey Wood branch will also be owned by TfL NOT Network Rail. Thus the only bits of the ELL Network Rail actually own is the section from Dalston - Highbury (where it runs alongside the NLL) and a few small bits of track around New Cross gate and at the junction with the SLL. All signalling on the route is controlled from the TfL owned and operated (via the LO concession) depot / control centre at New Cross gate - and I believe that even the signallers controlling the line are LO staff. The only involvement NR thus have with the core of the ELL is that they have been contracted to maintain and provide faulting cover for the infrastructure (in a similar manor to HS1) - mainly because the revitalised ELL uses traditional 'mainline railway' signalling equipment, etc and it makes more sense to have NR do it than have TfL do it in house so to speak (i.e. by the underground).
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 14, 2014 1:46:16 GMT
A defective 3rd rail feeder cable resulted in one of the Sydenham spur lines losing power for a distance and unfortunately this wasn't noticed until a train became stranded on the "dead section". As a result services were suspended in both directions (very little point in continuing to send trains through in one direction if there is no way for them to get back again).
I believe the issue was eventually sorted by either allowing the stranded train to roll back onto a live section of rail (allways a bit risky on a gradient as no juice from the 3rd rail means no power to run the air compressor and keep the braking system supplied with air) or another unit was bought up to assist (the assisting unit still having shoes in contact with a still live section of con rail).
London Overground services to Crystal Palace were terminated at New Cross Gate for the duration of the incident as turning them elsewhere (say Norwood Junc / West Croydon couldn't be done without screwing up most Southern / Thameslink services as well).
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 30, 2014 23:08:02 GMT
Is the ownership change something to do with ensuring "non discriminatory" access to Heathrow to operators other than HEX? I can see that getting Oyster to work at Heathrow (HEX) stations (for want of a better name) is not necessarily straightforward but validators are the obvious fall back. Whether the system overall can cope with the concept of yet more "zones" given the desire to expand Oyster to Gatwick and various other places on the TGSN network and to Dartford and Swanley remains to be seen. Is the reference to revenue protection just for train running in to Heathrow or more generally? I would be genuinely surprised if MTR had NO revenue inspectors at all given the spread of Crossrail and mix of areas being served. There will be fare evasion on its services - that inescapable in London plus there are umpteen open interchanges with other lines / routes. Yes, that's correct. Hex cannot own the infrastructure and operate their own services into it. Are you sure? (though your screen name does suggest so) I was under the impression that thanks to the Government of the day allowing BAA to effectively "buy" the "state's" portion of the project from British Rail (to make Railway privatisation simpler) the railway from Airport junction into Heathrow is not part of our national railway system. Effectively it is a "private railway" and has a similar status when it comes to EU directives as the various "private" Heritage railways scattered all over the UK. As a result EU directives requiring financial separation of infrastructure and service provision don't apply - so there is no legal reason why Heathrow Airport Holdings cannot transfer ownership plus all responsibility for infrastructure operation to its HEX subsidiary and get Crossrail to pay HEX for access to the infrastructure. EU rules about open access also don't apply to "private" railways and as I believe the branch is not offically classed as part of the national railway system (having a connection or even through running onto it doesn't make any difference - e.g. the NYMR running on to Whitby hasn't changed the staus of the NYMR) so HEX has no fundamental obligation under EU law to accept Crossrail trains in the first place. Furthermore as train services over the branch to Heathrow be they HEX trains from Paddington or Heathrow Connect for the portion of the journey between Hayes and the airport are not part of our franchised / publicly subsidised services railway network, I believe HAH have the exclusive right to set the fares policy as they wish. Even the provision of through ticketing to the rest of the UK rail network is not an absolute legal requirement when you get down to the legal fundamentals covering the operation of the airport branch / HEX (or Heathrow Connect between Hayes and the airport). The reason through ticketing exists is solely due to comercial agreements signed between HAH / HEX and the other train opperators in ATOC because such a deal is beneficial to both sides - (the same applies to Eurostar, Grand central and Hull trains). Thus I suspect the issue of Oyster aceptance & ticket surcharges cannot be enforced by trying 'legal' means, rather TfL and HAH have to come to a mutually acceptable of agreement over the issue - for example TfL may agree to pay slightly higher track access charges* to HAH (via HEX) for use of the infrastructure than would otherwise be the case in exchange for Oyster acceptance. Now naturally HAH are not stupid - having Crossrail coming to the airport does bring them significant advantages with direct links to the city and Canary Wharf being the obvious ones, plus of course improving their "green" credentials so its not as if TfL are entering the negotiations from a position of weekness. Both sides have things they want from each other and I have no doubt they are fully awere of the public and political backlash if a deal is not done so I confidently expect the issue will be resolved before Crossrail starts operations to the airport. What is certian however is that because it has to be resolved on the basis of a mutually satisfactory deal being struck - the deliberations themselves will be confidential and the exact specifics will take some time to be released into the public arena. Thus we get the situation where nobody within TfL can say anything definite on the subject - something that is unlikely to change in the near future. * between Royal Oak & Reading plus between Stratford and Shenfield, TfL will be paying track access charges to Network Rail. Its only the core section of Crossrail which TfL own outright
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 28, 2014 23:55:14 GMT
I have just looked at the Wikipedia article on Crossrail 2 and it seems to suggest five terminus stations at the Southwest end of the line. If this is the case does this not cause problems with frequency and delays through the central section. Especially if the operators wish too increase the frequency to 30 trains per hour. The reason I ask is this is that I was always under the impression that the more terminus stations you have at the ends of a line like this the more problems there are if one of the trains is slightly late. Which is why most of the London Underground lines have at the most two terminuses at each end. To be pedantic, the term you are looking for (i.e. the plural form - as in multiple objects / places - of the word "terminus") is the word "temni" Adding a "s" at the end of a word to indicate more than one is not always correct - even if the BBC etc insist on doing it to the word "referendum" (the plural version of the word is "referenda" NOT "referndums") Coming back on topic though, I would suggest that you shouldn't read too much into the number of branches on the South Western side of the map as there is no guarantee that they will all end up in the final draft as it were. In particular you need to factor in the following:- Kingston branch: 2x level crossings requiring property demolition to remove, a lack of proper termini (e.g. Kingston being an elevated simple two platform station with a 'wrong direction' bay & Twickenham with its 4 platforms being an important overtaking point for faster trains on the Waterloo - Reading axis). Plus there is the need to accommodate the Sheperton trains in the event they don't get subsumed into Crossrail (whichever direction they approch from) and the issue that withdrawing all the trains that currently go 'round the loop' from Waterloo will represent a break from the long standing service pattern - (Think the Thameslink Wimbledon loop fiasco here) Epsom / Chessington branch :- 2x level crossings (both of which are London side of the split for the Chessington branch), a lack of propper termini (e.g. Epsom station being shared with Southern services from Croydon). Plus there is the need to accommodate the Chessington / Epsdom trains in the event they don't get subsumed into Crossrail and trains to Guildford via Epsom, Leatherhead & Effingham Junction SW main line to Woking :- Lack of a decent termini plus the fact that currently all terminating services need to cross the fast lines to / from the central bay. Hampton Court: - Actually a pretty good option (assuming Waterloo services go) as the station could be expanded to 3 or possibly 4 platforms fairly easily (from the current 2) The downside of course is that it doesn't serve the Kingston / Epsom areas, but might be a good option to terminate the bulk of the service if finding paths elsewhere is hard. In this respect it could be thought to mirror the proposed New Soutgate / Alexandra Palace branch (which exists partly because the WAML on its own (not having the number of branches the SWML does*) cannot justify a 30tph service. * Also having the river Lea running alongside is a restrictior on lineside developments - essential for generating revenue. Thus what you could get say is something like 4tph Twickenham - Hertford E, 4tph Woking - Broxbourne, 4tph Epsom - Cheshunt, 2tph Chessington - Cheshunt, 16tph Hampton Court - New Southgate. Of course with enough money and will the constraints I have mentioned on the Kingston / Woking / Chessington / Epsom lines could be removed but it would be naive to simply assume all these branches can have a 6 tph service as they stand and even 4 tph would be a struggle given the interworking with other NR services on some of them. In some respects this is not dissimilar to the dilemma Crossrail 1 has faced and even with significant improvements being made, the slow / relief lines from Royal Oak westwards are still compromised by having accommodate freight and FGW passenger operations as well as Crossrail trains limiting the options. The Eastern branches however are pretty much self contained so a high tph is possible. With Crossrail 2 the two northern branches become mainly self contained (assuming 4 tracking of the WAML) and its the SWML section that faces issues from multiple operators and service patterns. Ultimately though the big flaw of the whole project from my point of view is that because of the undeniable need to provide relief to the underground serving the northern termi of Euston / St Pancras / Kings Cross, the NE segment emerges in the wrong place to be actually helpful in terms of relieving the NR lines into Liverpool Street. Ideally what you want is something that links the SWML and the WA routes by way of Victoria, Tottenham Court Road & the City (connecting with the WA lines via both Clapton and Stoke Newington in the vicinity of Hackney) thus catering for both city and leisure travellers but as I said above that doesn't work if you want to serve Euston or particularly the likes of Dalston. It is also perhaps noting that in the past it various transport specialists have observed that while having Crossrail (1) linking Paddington to Liverpool Street makes sense from a geographical (and Heathrow - Docklands) perspective, if you went on sheer passenger numbers and where congestion was most acute at NR terminal stations, the best 'fit' in terms of balancing branches etc are the SWT into Waterloo & the GE / WA lines into Liverpool Street and not the GWML.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 4, 2014 21:03:51 GMT
You also get HW2000 machines. The difference over 1000s is that 2000s are suitable for use under overheads, 1000s are not and are restricted to diesel or DC electrified lines (the principle differences being the internal clutch and 'snubbing' arrangements - mechanically speaking they are identical).
As to why HW1000, well the HW bit I believe relates to the manufacturer of the point machine, not the type. I recall hearing however that soon after it was unvailed the HW company got subsumed into somebody else (I imagine GEC which eventually became part of Alstom - whose signaing division is now known as "Signalling Solutions")
I believe clamp lock points were BRs attempt to mimic the air operated points on LU - except that because BR lacked a lineside air supply they had to be designed around hydraulic operation with a dedicated power pack. The latest incarnation improves one of the big deficiencies of the origination design (namely their tendency to bounce as its hard to adequately pack them with ballast thanks to the rams etc in the 4ft) by sticking the rams etc inside a hollow barer (metal sleeper)
|
|
|
Post by phil on Sept 21, 2014 10:36:09 GMT
There is no logic at all in the platform numbering, as explained to me with some force by an American tourist bound for Norwich (Norr-witch) the other day (tourists, who would have been somewhat rare in the Angel Lane of the 1950s, are now ten a penny, because of all the hotels near Westfield) This has been commented on before - particularly around the time the new Overground platforms were constructed. The reason given at the time for leaving the existing numbering untouched was that it wasn't simply a case of ordering some new signs, in fact quite a lot of money* altering various systems including various signalling related stuff as the controlling signalbox uses 'automatic route setting' and if the platform numbers change then that has to be modified to suit. * Anything to do with signalling - even if its not directly involved in train movements is incredibly expensive and that includes things such as software changes - all of which have to be done by the original manufacturers of the kit. The best chance you have got is when the signalling moves from the current Liverpool St IECC to the Romford ROC as this will involve outlay on new signalling kit and is an ideal opportunity to make other minor changes at the same time. Whether anyone will take up the chance is another thing of course. As for improved facilities on the platforms themselves - there is nothing in the pipeline, although its worth remembering that we are still a number of years away from Crossrail implementation and the exact passenger flows are still uncertain so maybe the reverent authorities are simply waiting to see how traffic develops. Besides because of the eastern split, passengers for mainline services may well prefer to change at Liverpool street where Crossrail will have 24tph instead of 12tph in the peaks and station facilities are far more extensive. After all its not as though Stratford will be getting cross platform interchange with mainline services is it.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Sept 21, 2014 10:16:22 GMT
I do hope that LT's obsession with revenue protection will not result in the WA stations to be transferred to them being made less convenient for users. Highams park, for instance, has four exits/entrances, which it would be impossible to gate each of. This includes the exit from the down platform to Larks Hall rd, which was made by "people power" some 30 years ago and is a rare example of an unofficial exit (it was originally the staff gate to the goods yard) being made official. Walthamstow central will also be problematic. Chingford could do with the exit from plat3 being made fully functional with an oyster reader, as that side of the station is the destination for many users. You would be surprised what can be done these days - my local station (while not in London) has 3 access points - none of which are particularly wide - and all were gated a year or two ago. Because hey are all linked and have a help point with AV capabilities it only takes one person to oversee them all (a requirement if the gates are in operation)
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 11, 2014 1:06:23 GMT
The problem with that idea is that it would mean diverting trains up another branch line. I am not sure that Crossrail or Network Rail would be very keen on that idea. If it was simply a case of sending a few trains up there it wouldn't be any issue however wha the MP plus quite a few others seem to ignore is :- (1) The branch is currenly worked as under the "one train" system with no signalling on the branch whatsoever. Furthermore the number of stations plus the length of the branch means that without significant investment in passing loops, extra & longer platforms and installing some signalling a 75minute service interval is the best that can be offered - which is totally unacceptable for a Crossrail branded service. (2) Even with an enhanced service the extra revenues generated will be far to low to justify the expenditure required and there are far better candidates for the cash especially as St Albans itself will be well served by an enhanced Thameslink service in a few years time
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 9, 2014 22:17:00 GMT
Taking that in order: S Stock is due to be completed by end of 2015 377/7 by the end of 2014 378 extra cars by mid 2015 387 by early-mid 2015, however that might change if DfT take up the optional 34 extra units 345 is due to start production mid 2015 and complete by end of 2017 or early 2018 but remember there are 18 optional extra units. Bombardier I think can run 4 or 5 production lines simultaneously. So, to answer Latecomer's question, they'll probably not be overstretched with an order for LO/WA come 2017 when it's required then - unless they get the orders for TSGN 313 and 442 replacement fleets and C2C's extra stock..... I suspect that the 'new' Gatwick express stock will be 387s (with a modified interior) - they need 27 units and in the peaks they will continue to go to Brighton. As for Moorgate - how about taking advantage of the Siemens production line and ask them to churn out a batch of 6 car long class 700 trains.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 16, 2014 22:15:19 GMT
Most people laughing at the French seem not to know that the Class 375s when delivered were out of gauge for parts of the Kent Coast lines. Networkers are still out of gauge in many places, leaving Wandsworth Road towards Clapham Junction and north of Blackfriars there are "No Networker" signs (big X with Networker written above). In that case it seems to be step boards (stand on the country bound platform at Woolwich Arsenal and see how close they are to the platform!) That was (and still is) not so much for gauge clearance issues but rather the fact that the original traction package fitted, being one of the first deployment of AC motors for train traction purposes had a nasty tendency to induce large amounts of electrical noise onto the track some of which had the potential to cause track circuits to falsely clear under the train and in theory allowing another Clapham style smash to happen. Thus in the run up to their introduction lots of signalling alterations had to be made to accommodate them - although such work was also necessary for routes used by Eurostars and class 92s* as they also had early AC drive systems. Later generation units such as Bombardiers Electrostars benefited from technology improvements so their AC drives are far more stable and produce far less noise thus allowing their use on lines where Networkers are banned e.g. London Bridge - East Croydon (there are 'no Networker' boards on the Brighton lines as they curve away at Bermondsey) Now I know some Networkers have been fitted with revised traction packages in the last couple of years which are presumably comparable with Electrostars and if the whole fleet is done, the need for 'no Networker' signs will disapear (Trains being 'out of guage' physically speaking is covered by other procedures and doesn't use lineside signs) *The reason why class 92s have to be dragged by diesels when diverted via Redhill is because the track circuits used on the Clapham Junction - Redhill section are not compatible with the class 92 traction package yet are fine for the later built Electrostars. At one stage after privatisation there was talk of using Networkers on the London Bridge - Tonbridge via Redhill runs (in place of the 508s), which was fairly rapidly canned when it was pointed out just how much signalling work would be needed to accommodate them.
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 23, 2014 7:35:12 GMT
The answers to your questions are scatted throughout several threads on the boards, however to save trawling through them this is what we know:- (1) The branch WILL be transferred to TfL control, the TfL takeover being a condition (as with the Romford - Upminster shuttle) of the mayor getting control of the West Anglia branches to Chingford, Endfield and Cheshunt (via Severn Sisters). The DfT Consultation states that it will stay with the new Great Western franchise. That isn't what they were saying back in September last year www.londonreconnections.com/2013/price-oranges-dft-ask-tfl-take-greenford-upminsterHowever I don't despute things may have changed in the intervening months
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 29, 2014 12:59:07 GMT
The answers to your questions are scatted throughout several threads on the boards, however to save trawling through them this is what we know:-
(1) The branch WILL be transferred to TfL control, the TfL takeover being a condition (as with the Romford - Upminster shuttle) of the mayor getting control of the West Anglia branches to Chingford, Endfield and Cheshunt (via Severn Sisters).
(2) The branch will remain diesel worked unless TfL can magic up the necessary finance (which given the financial pressures they are under is extremely unlikely)
(3) Given the above the stock situation remains fluid. Originally it was assumed the the Thames valley branches to Windsor, Marlow & Henley would remain diesel even after the GWML electrification, and thus subleasing a diesel unit from FGW at Reading would be possible. Now that the branches have been confirmed as getting wires that option is probably out. On the other hand the plans to electrify the Gospal Oak to Barking route would release its current diesel fleet for use elsewhere including the Greenford branch. Failing that maybe some sort of option involving a Chiltern unit might be doable.
(4) Service enhancements could yet happen but given its something of a forced takeover (TfL didn't really want it) we don't know how things will turn out in the future. As to the service frequency - a lot will depend on the number of units that the branch uses as I think you can just about get 3tph with a single unit - going to 4tph requires a second train plus crew which may not be justifiable by the revenue the branch generates.
(5) Its long term future - well nobody really knows. Back in BR days it might have got wired simply to remove the need for an isolated diesel operation (which is precisely why the Romford - Upminster line got done - Ilford could then become an EMU only depot) but these days the railway is simply too fragmented for that argument to work. The route itself has potential though for say a High Wycombe - West Ealing service to connect with Heathrow, plus diversionary uses so if the Chiltern lines were wired then the Greenford branch could conceivably be done to maintain diversionary routes for electric stock. The ability to turn things via the triangles at both ends is handy though its freight potential is limited by the lack of access to either Acton yard or the WLL / NLL that the GWML through Ealing provides.
|
|