|
Post by alpinejohn on Jul 14, 2017 11:20:16 GMT
Just spotted an article on the Standard website about cracks being observed in a listed footbridge over the lines at Kew Bridge. Railway bridge in south-west London 'at risk of collapse'As the structure is apparently listed, I guess the cheap option of demolition and replacement with a modern steel structure is not going to be an easy answer, but if the risk is significant it raises the interesting conflict preserving the bridge v keeping services operating. Currently the TFL status update shows no sign of disruption.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on May 27, 2017 9:02:25 GMT
There are a couple of weird Chiltern Railways (presumably a mix of Parliamentary and route knowledge) services in/out of Baker Street on Saturday only. As you can see they are shown on the latest timetable linked below There is an 06.08 departure from Baker Street to Aylesbury, and a Chiltern service departing Aylesbury on Saturdays at 23.18 arrives at Baker Street on SUNDAY at 00.37. Inherently there must also be a couple of empty coaching stock moves involved as well. I wonder if the residents have twigged why their weekend beauty sleep is routinely disturbed by the sound of a diesel set operating into Baker Street. www.chilternrailways.co.uk/sites/default/files/files/timetables/Chiltern%20Timetable%20May%2021st%202017.pdf
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on May 26, 2017 12:07:36 GMT
Seems Heathrow lost the High Court appeal - www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-40059659What seems strange to me is that Heathrow? seem hell bent on jabbing a stick into rail service providers at the same time they are elsewhere arguing that the improved rail access will ensure that road access(and emissions) to the airport will fall - so please, pretty please, let us build an additional runway and terminal 6... Is HAHA a separate entity from the airport? I do like the nuclear weapon idea! Perhaps in quick succession TFL and NR might suddenly encounter "technical signalling issues" which have the unfortunate result in HAL and Tube services not being able to access the airport - for perhaps a few months (sort of like they were happy to inflict on GOBLIN passengers) whilst they sort things out - so there is a clear precedent on what constitutes acceptable disruption. I wonder how soon it would take for the M25 to become a permanent car park and HAHA are forced to come back offering to scrap all access charges if TFL/NR can restore rail services... A bit of a shame the High Court has deprived us of an entertaining game of poker.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on May 18, 2017 20:44:50 GMT
I read that here as well, but I can't find any reliable sources to back it up. Obviously you can't built a cut-and-cover tunnel but a bored tunnel should be no problem, and Heathrow runs so close to capacity as it is that you can't just close one of the runways for any length of time. The only things I'm seeing are that it will be cheaper to build the third runway above the M25 rather than put the M25 in a tunnel below it. Chris is right and I suspect I might have been the one to red flag the idea of just sending a TBM under an "active runway" to permit a more convenient railway infrastructure alignment. Inherently any major airport owner will think long and hard about risk, impact, probability and insurance. Concerns which are greatly exacerbated in an airport like Heathrow where there is no slack capacity to permit any extended runway closure should the tunnelling project not go according to plan. The potential consequential costs would be immense if the TBM failed or encountered poor ground and ended up stuck beneath the runway forcing an extended runway closure - so much so, it rather makes the idea pretty much a non-starter - at least until an additional runway became available. To put things in perspective typically there is one major tunnelling incident every year (OK some years none then others can have four) but without digging out dusty text books, I recall a study showing insurers paid out well over half a billion to cover 18? significant tunnelling incidents between 1994 and 2005. These covered a whole heap of different tunnelling systems - Ground freeze, NATM(New Austrian Tunnelling Method), TBM(Tunnel Boring Machine, C&C(Cut & cover) and a heap of different causes including at least one serious incident caused by an earthquake! As for the third runway location the core idea is it would be on an east west alignment to the north of the current Northern Runway. I suspect they will however try to keep the runway as far to the east as possible to avoid actually extending the runway directly over the M25 - although an overbridge taxiway might be possible - the sight of a plane trundling overhead may be somewhat distracting to motorists. Whilst the M25 to the west of the airport is partially in cutting, it is already a very wide and very busy road - ranging between 4 lanes each way to almost 8 lanes each way, once you add in the slip roads and brake down lanes. Even with a massive central pier the cost of building a structure strong enough to span the full width of the motorway and withstand the stress loads associated with an "active runway" would be enormous. It is not just the sheer weight of a bridge structure needed to support a plane like the A380, an active runway also has to withstand potential point load impacts and the transmitted energy of a A380 landing and then braking on a runway. Heading swiftly back to topic this all suggests that as and when the new T6 location is fixed, the tube and rail services will probably approach it from the west. In essence the rail services will be extended in a graceful u turn around from the existing T5 platforms - where the Tube and National rail platforms already have passive provision to extend westwards.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on May 17, 2017 6:40:55 GMT
Has/ was there any consideration for linking in the new terminal to the tube line? I see that the 'master plan' shows a rail link from the new terminal to T5? Simon11 – As others have not responded – I think the short answer to your question is of course yes. However when it comes to large infrastructure developments and Britain’s planning system – the eventual outcome may seem far from planned. The future shape of Heathrow probably ranks among the most murky destinies, which seems unlikely to become crystal clear anytime soon. It would be a brave Heathrow executive who would “at this stage” commit to invest heavily in passive provision for transport infrastructure for the airport expansion plans, except as part of a fully “planning approved” and unavoidable project. This is of course exactly what happened when Heathrow committed to build the Terminal 5 complex (which is in fact T5a, T5b and T5c) but they are all served by the single (T5 aka Heathrow West) station. If you look closely at the master-plan you can see there was extensive rail platform provision within the sub-basement of T5. Indeed I think there are still a couple of unused platforms and space for potential lift/escalator shafts lurking below T5 which could be brought into use at some future stage if required. Despite the recent third runway Government endorsement, the prospect of legal challenges and planning process delays which may change or completely frustrate the airport expansion plans does not provide the ideal backdrop for any pre-emptive transport planning or provision. What seems clear, is that if/when, the third runway does actually happen, there will also be a need for a new terminal (T6 aka Heathrow North) [and rail-links] primarily to serve the new runway. Logically this terminal would be located “somewhere north of the existing northern runway” to avoid planes having to taxi across the existing northern runway to reach the existing terminals and in the process significantly reduce that runway capacity. However the exact position of the additional runway is far from fixed, and until that is nailed down, apart from some Crayonista drawings it is probably too early to invest in pouring concrete for any possible terminal.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on May 5, 2017 21:33:03 GMT
I have read previous threads on this subject but never seen a satisfying answer for the following question... Why, when terminal five was constructed, was the existing 'loop' to terminal four not simply extended? I have seen explanations like ' it was unviable and so it was decided to build a straight extension instead' but what does that mean?? I would have thought branching off the existing loop at some point after terminal 4, building a single platform station at the new terminal 5, then re-joining the loop before reaching terminals 12&3 would have been cheaper and provided a better service to all the terminals? Hmm - I think the short answer to your question is that we got, what we got, due to a mix of geography, history and cost considerations. Obviously if it was easy and cheap then your idea of just extending the loop to pass through T5 before returning to T123 might well have happened. But it might be easier to understand the factors at play if you look at a decent map. Fortunately there is a freely available, and reasonably geographically accurate map - prepared by Heathrow as part of their Runway 3 planning submissions. This may help you see just how problematic the idea of extending from the original loop was, and still is. Heathrow MasterplanThings to note (1) History - others have pointed out that the idea of building a 5th terminal was indeed "on the radar" (sorry) when the loop was constructed - hence if you look closely at the route of the loop on the "Masterplan" you can indeed see there is indeed a decent length of straight tunnel running almost North South from T4 to T123. This straight section was where, at the time, Heathrow was indeed thinking of building T5. Unfortunately those plans changed subsequently and BA decided they needed a much larger terminal than could fit in that location - so Heathrow made use of that space for a dedicated cargo terminal instead. Obviously as very little cargo travels to the airport by tube the passive provision for a station below the cargo terminal remains unused. (2) Geography - If you really wanted to extend the loop from T4 to T5 before returning to T123, then the "Masterplan" will show there are a heap of serious issues to overcome. You can't go tunnelling under live runways or indeed taxiways and Heathrow really does not have any slack capacity to shut a runway whilst a TBM passed underneath. So any extension to the loop would have to head alongside the South runway and taxiways pretty much until the western perimeter fence before starting to swing north to eventually approach T5 from the west using one of the pre-installed tunnels - which were put in as part of the T5 project to ensure future developments would not require closures for runways or taxiways. Unfortunately there are also a few other things in the way. There is a reservoir and a heap of existing road and rail tunnels - used (people mover) - unused (presumably for an eventual Western mainline link) at the west end of the airport. Inherently any extension of the loop would need to pass deep below them before making a very sharp curve to approach the existing Tube T5 tunnels from the west. There is also the issue of finding a route which avoids any impact on the plans for T6. (3) Cost - Snoggle has already identified probably the most important consideration - at the time the Government were somewhat attracted by any solution where the public purse did not have to pay for some or all of the project! Whilst the resulting solution might indeed be seen as sub-optimal for passenger convenience and has left TFL tangled up with complex ongoing charges (effectively paying a premium for access to T5), the idea of Heathrow offering to pay for and provide the tunnels needed for a tube service into T5 was hardly going to be ignored. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 30, 2017 14:25:08 GMT
Oops they did it again... A few hours back someone called Francesca Gillet penned another Standard article professing to cover everything you need to know about the Elizabeth Line.. The article can be seen here linkI love this bit of total nonsense .. "The first passenger trains have been spotted across London during the tests but TfL are keeping information about what the trains look like on the inside closely guarded." I guess journos at the Standard rarely bother to check their facts or take a quick trip to WH Smith where its seems the Railway Gazette has published loads of interior pictures of the "secret" new Elizabeth Line trains. Hey ho never let facts get in the way
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 28, 2017 11:51:56 GMT
I was at Barking on Saturday afternoon and a Goblin train reversed on platform 7 which would be the route to the extension. I've only experienced this in the PM peak when it took ages for everyone to get off a terminating GOBLIN train. It then headed to the reversing track. In the meantime it had delayed a C2C train and when it eventually arrived it was then caught again because of the reversing GOBLIN. I can't imagine C2C being happy about that if it happens regularly. That is partly what prompted my earlier remarks about TfL taking a pessimistic view. I think it's the case that C2C and freight companies have expressed concern to the Inspector responsible for assessing the TWA application from TfL to build the extension. If it goes ahead then we can guarantee that whenever Arriva London Rail apply for track access east of Barking that C2C and the Freight Operators will all object to the application and demand compensation (this seems to be standard industry practice) because of the risk of delays to their services / impingement on their existing running rights. I thought GOBLIN services use platform 1? which is not a through platform and hence the dwell time needed for a terminating service seems unlikely to affect C2C services. I cannot understand why a GOBLIN service was sent into platform 7 to terminate especially during peak hours unless there was some sort of track work or signalling issue. Obviously if use of platform 7 was an unusual event for the GOBLIN service - then dithering passengers may have contributed significantly to the extended platform dwell time. However if in future services are routinely using different platforms then passengers will soon become familiar with the new arrangement and presumably dwell time will reduce. Also once they switch to longer electric units with more doors for the same number of passengers to board/alight, things should speed up. As for the extra 5th service, I guess that even when riverside opens, any terminating services can still be routed to platform 1. If through platform demand really becomes a major issue in the future, then perhaps NR could even re-establish platform 1 as a through route. I think the bridge is already in place although some parking and porta-cabins would be lost, and that platform would only be able to serve limited routes beyond Barking.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 26, 2017 14:32:56 GMT
Don't forget that's 60 months if only one is done at a time. I guess you could also shorten the timescale if you skip updating the four brand new 7 car trains added to the fleet in 2005? so about 9 years younger. When the additional trains first arrived they really stood out as brand new compared with the rest of the 96 stock - but by now I would be hard pressed to spot any material difference in terms of wear and tear or cleanliness, hence I had assumed the whole fleet will be done eventually.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 18, 2017 8:34:54 GMT
It is good to see plenty of interesting observations in this thread about the possible direction of these modifications. One thing seems clear they seem to emphasise there is a need for joined up strategic thinking from someone at TFL.
For instance there would be no point putting wheelchair accessible cars only at the end of trains, if the platforms only have wheelchair accessible humps in middle. Things need to line up, indeed pretty much the same issue applies to wherever accessible provision is installed on a train.
To be honest in an ideal world every car in every train would be fully accessible, even if that ideal may not be immediately attainable. It would be sad to see TFL only aim in the longer term to deliver just the absolute minimum required by DDA even if it means the actual accessible bits do not line up. OK there is a short term compliance issue - but personally I think it is time for TFL to really embrace this challenge and go beyond the minimum.
Inherently, even if every car "lost a few seats" to make room for wheelchairs/buggies the actual consequence (especially during peak hours) would be almost certainly increase the actual space available for standing passengers when they are not being used - and inherently add to the capacity of the train. Whilst we all prefer a seat - the reality is that for those who have to travel during peak hours, many passengers already have to stand in sardine like conditions, so liberating a bit of extra space by removing some seats will actually make that experience better for those forced to stand too.
Given the risk of different solutions being adopted for different lines, I hope that at the very least TFL consider applying some sort of clear external marking to be applied to accessible cars. This would help those needing an accessible car to locate and board them quickly. (Perhaps some sort of painted colour line along the top of relevant cars like some mainline stock mark their first class carriages would work).
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 16, 2017 8:00:54 GMT
There's two of them out there now and a third one in the tent at Stratford now. Looks like they're planning to do one every four weeks now If one is completed every 4 weeks, how long will it be until the fleet is completed? And how long until 50% are so that there is (theoretically) more chance of getting one than not!? The jubilee fleet comprises 63 x 7 car trains (after the 2005 upgrade. If you discount the 3 either complete or already being worked on, then the remaining 60 will take 60 months (5 years) if there is no change in the current completion rate. However it seems reasonable to assume the completion rate will pick-up as the supply chain and team doing the work become more familiar, so 5 years is probably quite pessimistic.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 2, 2017 14:36:32 GMT
It seems TFL have begun looking for partners to develop and update facilities at the "listed" South Kensington Station. More information is here Construction Enquirer ArticleBut in summary, TFL hope to provide step free access at the station, with the costs either fully or partially funded by additional retail facilities.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 16, 2017 20:35:38 GMT
... How do you know that there was not a request for a financial contribution to TfL? I assume the development will be caught by things like the Crossrail levy and possibly CIL..
As the linked article makes clear I am pretty sure there is some expectation of funds for transport improvements although no real indication of how much or indeed for what! Hence the question mark in my post. As it stands the press release notes mostly focus on affordable housing (something I am sure is needed) and providing accessible parking spaces which I guess might count as transport improvements.
With electrification and longer trains and potential extra patronage on the short term horizon, platform crowding seems likely to be a growing problem which will simply not go away. Hence I really hope that some of this potential funding source was specifically allocated towards widening at least the most crowded sections of the station platforms.
Inherently the Overground is now becoming a victim of its own success especially compared with the depths of Silverlink. Whilst the rising patronage on GOBLIN is something TFL should be congratulated for, I rather doubt I am the only person on here who really hates standing on narrow crowded platforms? Obviously if you ignore the yellow lines (as many routinely do just to get past platform furniture) then yes the platforms are adequate. But there is very little shelter and places where the remaining available platform width is less than the width of a buggy, hence people tend to bunch up by the entrance rather than spread along with obvious impact on peak hours dwell times.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 16, 2017 18:16:44 GMT
As I think I said before, the "new" BHRd built by BR was done on the ultimate cheap - narrow platforms, no canopies, no ease of access. The old BHP was a commodious station with wide platforms. The number of people using the narrow platform now, let alone on electrification, is just too great. Another missed opportunity by the Mayor? Given the extant concerns about overcrowding on the BHR platforms, I was rather surprised to read the following Press Release on 2 March Mayor Unlocks BlackHorse Road land for HousingGiven someone is going to make a shed load of money out of this decision, I am astonished that the Mayor (or at least someone at TFL) did not press for some sort of planning gain contribution to widen the platforms at Blackhorse Road Station? 350 extra homes is probably going to significantly increase patronage at BHR, so why on earth did not the Mayor also demand the developers a significant contribution to upgrading this busy Overground station? Sadly I rather doubt the Local Government Ombudsman will take any interest in this sort of weird decision now their days are numbered.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 15, 2017 17:18:11 GMT
Pretty much the same story has now appeared in the Standard but with a quote from the Mayor's office (its outside London) which rather confirms they are washing their hands of this project. Meantime the Chancellor's recent Budget has inadvertently lost a heap of expected NI contributions so I rather doubt the Treasury will magically be finding another £50m for Croxley. Together it rather confirms the project is once again dead in the water - well at least for the next electoral cycle.
So what are the lessons? I am sure others have spotted that one aspect of the British political cycle is the rather wasteful feast/famine nature of central government readiness so spend on capital projects. Hence in the run up to almost any General Election it seems Chancellors can suddenly announce they are able to fund all manner of projects - only for many to be kicked into the distant future, dropped entirely or severely pruned once the election period is over. Like it or not - such is political reality so LUL need to factor this into their planning skills.
Inherently LUL need to look for ways to better scope projects both discretely and at minimal cost, and also work out how to concertina a project timescale to ensure that most if not all of the most costly elements are immediately ready to go - putting spades on the ground the moment that predictable supply of spare (electoral bribes) money becomes available.
For Croxley LUL need a signed off design with detailed planning permission and lined up a contactor(s) to supply all the big stuff especially that bridge in weeks not years. Sadly all manner of time consuming enabling work (diverting services) had not been started or indeed funded by Herts CC - despite their constituents being the prime beneficiary. The nature of "windfall" projects is they need to be completed in a very narrow window of opportunity or risk being put on the back burner. Inherently for Croxley to ever happen, Herts CC need to work with the LUL project team to ensure they have a clear run at delivering the project on time and budget whenever the Chancellor suddenly finds a heap of cash down the back of the sofa in the run up to the next General Election.
Inherently if a project gets off the blocks quickly, it can become too politically and financially expensive to cancel, so it will happen.
Unfortunately for Croxley the project was a long way from firm contracts being signed let alone spades on the ground or actual bridge spans being manufactured and delivered. Given the current unhelpful political stand-off between the Mayor and the Transport Minister, Croxley has unfortunately become a convenient political battle ground for finger pointing and political points scoring. Even once the protaganist's have moved to new roles, the ill feeling now surrounding this project, could delay what could be a really worthwhile project for many years to come. Indeed I am now tempted to place a fiver with William Hills that Watford Junction Station will not see any Met Line services before 2050.
Hey ho politics and common sense are rare bed-fellows.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 4, 2017 10:21:32 GMT
NIG - "They have platform monitors or mirrors same as Piccadilly line which do the same job as in cab monitors the only difference is you can see your the platform when moving away it sounds a bit like the driver was new or being very over cautious"
Thank you for this response - as it sort of explains how Jubilee and Northern trains were flowing well through very crowded platforms whilst the Bakerloo driver seemed far less confident.
I agree it probably makes little difference if drivers use CCTV or mirrors to get a clear view down the side of the train to decide when to close the doors. However your subsequent observation about drivers with CCTV still being able to see the platform when moving off seems very important.
Given our happy addiction to try and sue anyone else for accidents most often caused by our own stupidity, I am sure the inability for Bakerloo drivers to monitor the side of the train as they move off, is a real factor in extended dwell times - just in case someone has managed to get their bag, arm, head ... stuck outside and is being dragged along the platform. Inherently if the in cab kit can still supply the CCTV feed for the initial seconds after setting off, it should give the driver a chance to spot any problems and hit the brakes before an incident becomes too serious.
Given the projected growth in traffic in the central area, TFL need to think this one through. Currently Bakerloo drivers lack the ability to view the platform adequately as they move off, so on crowded platforms they inevitably get very exercised and trains are delayed if people consistently fail to stay behind the yellow line. This backs up following trains and obviously reduces line capacity, so doing low cost things to reduce/remove this problem makes sense even if they do not have the funds to replace the Bakerloo stock yet.
If TFL want to ensure reliable peak hour flows on the Bakerloo the options appear to be to somehow link the in cab announcement Tannoy system directly to the relevant platform speakers - so that people on the relevant platform can actually hear when a driver is telling them to stay behind the yellow lines or the train cannot depart! Alternatively at least for peak hours to significantly increase the actual platform staff on all the busy central area stations on the Bakerloo line whose main job will be to try and get people to stay behind the yellow lines, or just get someone to install decent quality CCTV now along all those central area platforms (a cost they will eventually face) and retrofit a compact in cab flat screen monitor to allow drivers to monitor the departure. Whilst I cannot find any photos of a refurbished Bakerloo cab, I cannot believe the cab is so crowded that it is impossible to find a suitable place to attach a small flat screen display to allow drivers to monitor the departure in much the same way drivers on the Northern and Jubilee do.
As for the spare capacity being contra-peak I had not realised that. However I suspect much of that potential would be lost if peak hour trains are all bunched up in the central area due to extended dwell times - in large part down to those pesky passengers not being willing or able to stand behind the yellow line.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 26, 2017 11:08:45 GMT
Last Friday I had an interesting peak evening trip on the tube using sections of several central area lines. To say the least it calls into question the idea I have seen floated on here that the Bakerloo has slack capacity, and also emphasises the need for the Bakerloo stock to have a serious update or early replacement.
Leicester square to Charing Cross on the Northeren proved quick and easy even if it was standing room only. The northern line train arrived and departed very swiftly from very busy platforms. After a rather serious hike at Charing cross over to the Bakerloo platforms, I squeezed onto a very crowded platform for a train to Baker Street. The display showed three closely spaced services - +1 +3 and +5 minutes. Given the huge crowd I was not surprised the train crawled into the platform and then suffered an extended dwell time (presumably the reason why following services had bunched up). I managed to board at the front and after a while, the driver came on the tannoy and asked people to stand behind the yellow line (which seemed a physical impossibility with the platform still so crowded), and as his announcement was only inside the train had negligible affect on the crowd still on the platform.
Further annoy appeals were made by the platform staff and eventually the doors closed and we set off - after a dwell time of at least 4 minutes (so not ideal for a peak hours service).
The same extended dwell time occurred at all following stations (except regents park) with the drivers announcements evidently becoming increasingly stressed - eventually followed by a request for the platform staff to come to his cab - presumably to get them to make a further appeal over the platform speaker system for people to get behind the yellow line as he could not see it was safe to close the doors. By the time we reached Baker Street I guess we had a cumulative delay well over 10 minutes.
Switching to the Jubilee showed a marked contrast. The platform was equally crowded but the train hurtled into the platform, doors opened and a huge number alighted and even more squeezed on and we left within 90 seconds (84 actually).
The clear implication was IF TFL want to keep the current Bakerloo stock in use for an extended period, they need to go a lot further than a cosmetic overhaul. The most significant requirement is to retrofit the sort of in cab platform video displays which ensure the driver can actually see the whole length of the train (as installed on Northern and Jubilee). I guess the platform element of this spend will be somewhere in the TFL budget pipeline as but probably only happening when replacement rolling stock was provided. However if the current Bakerloo stock is now being expected to perform for many more years, with increasingly crowded central area stations, then retrofitting the current stock with the sort of in cab video kit would probably pay for itself simply by reducing dwell times and effectively allow a much more efficient despatch of trains from crowded platforms, and be a far cheaper way to improved capacity than the alternative of installing PEDs.
The do nothing option surely means these sort of extended dwell times during peak hour services on the Bakerloo are going to be an increasingly frequent occurrence.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 9, 2017 19:05:09 GMT
" simply setting the points would not work" Sorry I just want to understand what you mean? Are you saying there are track conflicts which need addressing? No - if it wasn't for those pesky passengers you could split the service tomorrow. Indeed it has been done in the past when there were problems with the points at Camden. Thanks for the confirmation - I thought I had misunderstood something and some real track changes were needed to separate and enhance line capacity. Apologies to the Mods I have a feeling this and related posts might be better split off into a new thread about Camden Town - even if it leaves the current "longer trains" thread a bit disjointed? So about Camden Town and those pesky passengers.. Thanks to Chris M, I have spent a few hours ploughing through several interesting web articles and related papers and agree the new plans seem to have a reasonable chance of eventually getting the OK, even if the new plan still entails seeking some compulsory purchase powers and may also impact on one of the area's long established markets. What worries me now, is the obvious disconnect between the Battersea extension opening date and the rework of Camden Town allowing the services to be separated. The Camden Town timeline is now : 2018 Public Enquiry : 2019 Govt decision/TWA : 2023-4 revamped station complete. Given recent history of TFL project timetable slippages(Croxley) I think those dates need to be seen as a very optimistic aspiration - with a fair prospect that the actual commissioning date could be a good few years later than TFL would like. Those "aspirational" dates contrast sharply with Battersea where the starting gun has been fired and in large measure the planning roadblock has been cleared. So given a fair wind, their planned completion date of 2020 seems deliverable. Inherently how plausible is it to service the new extension without actually splitting the service? One table in the "London Reconnections" paper caught my attention - the proportion of passenger traffic split between interchange, entry and exit. At present interchange is a relatively small share. This tempts me to consider hand-grenade throwing mode, and ask IF LUL really need to split the service from 2020, then perhaps the logical solution would be for LUL to totally close Camden Town for all entry/exit (except during emergency) until the renovation is complete. A less extreme alternative, might be to simply discover faults and unfortunately close down indefinitely all the existing escalators, as this would probably have a similar effect. Looking at the street plan there appear to be other tube and mainline stations within 15 minutes walking distance which could take up a lot of the slack (the time-frame apparently considered reasonable if/when Watford Met closes). Closing off street access would however ensure that interchange traffic would then have exclusive use of the existing passageways, and probably provide ample platform capacity for interchange without extended dwell times. I doubt this approach would bode well with the good folk of Camden Town, but splitting the lines has been an integral part of the Battersea extension for a long while and if planning delays mean Camden Town station is not ready, then what else can they do?
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 9, 2017 11:42:23 GMT
" simply setting the points would not work" Sorry I just want to understand what you mean? Are you saying there are track conflicts which need addressing? or, as I suspect, the track-work is not the problem, but the existing inter platform cross passageways cannot handle the additional interchange passenger flows.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 9, 2017 11:25:52 GMT
The idea of longer trains is probably not going to fly given other cheaper ways to increase capacity.
I am however perplexed by the perceived "difficulty" at segregating the Northern branches at Camden Town. I think the existing tunnel configuration already allows this? If tomorrow the decision was made to split the routes then I suspect that all that is needed is to set the relevant points and eventually plain line them at a time when it is not in use. I am not aware of any stretch of track which both routes must use if the proposed split configuration was implemented even if the Northbound platform approaches get very, very close to each other.
Inherently the "Camden Town" problem seems entirely down to managing passenger volumes in a limited space. Currently there is one often grossly crowded central link passage between northbound platforms with a similar set up southbound. Add in people actually entering or leaving the station and the lurkers clogging the link corridor waiting by the Next train indicators and voila the central cross link appears to be the core problem.
OK a few "in the know" passengers know about and already use the poorly signed link passage at the south end of the platforms. Inherently the answer surely is to get on now and create additional large capacity links between the two north and southbound platforms which with suitable signage should handle most of the route interchange flows, and free up the central passage mostly for entry/exit. I recognise that TFL also want to make the site fully accessible, but given the local largely NIMBY perspective to planning permission applications for almost any surface level changes that dream seems a very long way off. However it would be rather difficult to find grounds to reject an application by TFL today to create additional inter platform passageways located so far below ground that few if any surface properties can hear the existing trains.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 9, 2017 10:32:38 GMT
This thread began by reporting that Murphys had been awarded the GOBLIN electrification project. I was therefore rather surprised their distinctive green vans were not widely in evidence in the NR video announcing the task was 80% done or indeed recent photos kindly provided by Snoggle. As Murphys have a strong base in civils I guess their part was mostly tangential to the platform and track lowering civils, although even there, Murphy's seem to have used Stobart Rail for a lot of the trackside work. Nevertheless as the big stuff seems well advanced it may well be that the knitting etc can be largely added alongside an operational line even if NR have not managed to complete everything they had planned during the current blockade.
Inherently the big question is "what is the big question?" that triggered NR concerns about the electrification project design? Presumably NR already have a snagging list, and it seems a shame that with still almost 3 weeks without trains, they are not throwing a lot of resource at all or any of those snags especially any which apparently need a further closure. If nothing else they should be able to do as much of the track occupancy enabling work now - installing footings etc surely does not need high tec components - just a decision on what footings need to go where. Hopefully if they use the remaining 3 week well they can reduce as far as possible the need for any weekend possessions.
Hopefully someone in the London Assembly will be stirring up the Mayor, TFL and NR by tabling a heap of targeted questions on what is really wrong and why they are not taking full advantage of the current closure. I am not sure where things stand re the decision by TFL to manage the platform extension works rather than NR. Comparing the recent photos by Snoggle and previous driver's eye videos gives little sign of work being done to make platforms suitable for 4 car let alone 5 car services. Given the stunning traffic growth on other Overground routes it seems a shame that they have aimed so low, especially as the lions share of costs on any platform extension project is mobilising a materials, staff and equipment to site so at most site the extra cost of a 5 coach ready platform would be a fairly insignificant increase on the cost of simply doubling the current 2 coach platforms.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jan 24, 2017 9:35:37 GMT
This earlier thread may provide an insight as to how the pre war 9 car service operated a limited stopping service on the Northern Line with some cars cut out of service at the many shorter central area platforms. districtdavesforum.co.uk/thread/12197/9-car-platformsAs others have said, never say never, as tunneling technology continues to develop dramatically allowing projects which would be far to difficult/costly to now be accomplished. Tunnelling straight under the Alps was for many years considered a pipe-dream and now its is reality. The short answer is that if you just need to enhance the capacity of a railway, you look at the cheapest/easiest solutions first, moving only to implement more expensive solutions when those options have been exhausted. In terms of passenger carrying capacity, things like updating the signalling to allow more trains per hour has essentially the same effect as extending trains, hence TFL are rather keen to spend on signalling improvements. A similar theme underlies the idea of separating the CX/Bank services to effectively remove the bottle neck area delays where trains are routinely stalled waiting for their route to clear. Whilst separating the service may be less convenient for passengers, it should allow far better flow and greater throughput. I suspect that the immense cost and disruption of extending all platforms to accommodate longer trains would be right at the very bottom of the list of options. Indeed I suspect that some limited dualling of central area platforms could be a better solution before ever going in that direction. Doubtless someone at TFL has carefully studied dwell times at most if not all central area stations to see if extended dwell times at a single station - such as Tottenham Court Road was causing massive delays to service on the whole of the rest of the line. If so there just might be a case for dualling the platforms (4 instead of 2) as this could be largely done without impact on day to day operations. Then by allowing following trains to effectively overlap at a bottleneck station, the problem of extended passenger dwell time will be largely removed. I suspect that dualling a couple of central stations would be a whole lot cheaper than modifying most if not all of them.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jan 21, 2017 10:42:58 GMT
I note with interest that the Deputy Mayor for Transport said on BBC News today that the two new stations on the extension will be equipped with platform edge doors. A first for the Northern Line. I assume that the signalling on the line and the kit on the train fleet will cope with those new PEDs seamlessly (by using what the JLE does). This sort of ties up with a TFL paper discussed on here last year? linkWhen considering an ITT for extra Jubilee and Northern rolling stock, the paper ruled out the NTFL(New deep tube) because of the impact on the existing PED configuration on the JLE especially given the residual operational life of the current rolling stock, despite examining opportunities for cascades. I guess this announcement confirms that both lines will be operating trains with essentially the current door configuration for a long, long time to come. I have not seen any sign that proposed ITT has translated into firm orders. However as the paper acknowledged there was sufficient existing 1995 stock to provide some service to the Battersea extension, the lack of an order is no surprise especially given the current "no fare increases" policy. I somehow doubt extra trains will be ordered any time soon, and TFL are building up problems for themselves as they will surely miss the chance to purchase extra trains for both lines at affordable prices. I assume that by now a lot of the original Alsthom production line facilities (and experience) have been re-tasked. Meantime anyone traveling on rush hour Northern services will know they are already unpleasantly full and the line needs extra capacity now. *ITT = Invitation To Tender. When using abbreviations can we please use the full length version in the first instance for clarity? Many thanks.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jan 19, 2017 15:05:12 GMT
It will be carnage if they don't as it's bad enough now when delays are still severe hours sometimes after the issue has been resolved. For them to introduce 36tph running how man extra trains will be needed for service and how many run now isn't it 39 in the peaks? I believe it'll be 43 trains for peak service. I think the order from Bombardier was for 47 new Victoria line trains, so if they need 43 available to run the planned peak service will 4 (8.5%) spare trains provide adequate margin for maintenance, training and any other predictable demands? I guess with relatively new trains, the Victoria line would make a good test bed to determine just how many spare trains are actually needed to deliver a reliable peak service. Which poses the question of whether that ratio can then be used when it comes to re-equipping other lines with the new deep tube stock. I rather doubt there would however be scope to reduce the overall number of trains required even if totally identical trains are going to be operating on several lines, without some sort of policy to consolidate maintenance depots.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jan 17, 2017 20:30:50 GMT
At approximately 15:55 into the following youtube video you will see exactly where those tracks go ..
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jan 15, 2017 18:51:53 GMT
I thought the original reopening was earlier than "late February". Has something gone wrong?
A while back project updates from Network Rail implied the works were about 80% complete and proceeding as planned or is this delay down to something TFL were organising.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jan 6, 2017 11:36:50 GMT
Do we know where the old equipment went?
I would love to think, that whoever planned these updates, took a few seconds to ask the LT Museum staff if they would be interested in this old equipment rather than simply let them pass to a scrap merchant who would doubtless be happy with a windfall gift and quite possibly already listing them for very substantial amounts on eBay.
I suspect that even if the Museum lacked space to house these describers as an exhibit, they would probably be able to arrange to auction them off and if nothing else see their value accrue to the museum funds.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jan 3, 2017 7:58:57 GMT
Snoggle
Thank you for such a reasoned and thought through input. I cannot say there is much if anything I disagree with.
My real fear, is the very obvious NEEDS of London are being sacrificed to secure re election.
Failing to collect sensible fares is the prime reason why overdue upgrades to critical transport infrastructure is being kicked down the road - and no amount of re-arranging deckchairs is going to stop the looming financial collision. I am sure there are people who have bought in to the "something for nothing" message implied by a "fares freeze". Being a cynic, I look for the catch, which as you say, is the complete mess we have now. The true extent of the damage will probably only emerge long after Mayor K has moved along the greasy pole and cannot be held to account.
Meantime London can never get back those 4+ years of doing nothing! Nor can you realistically get back the immense experience and knowledge being thrown away at TFL and LUL.
Hey ho such is life.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jan 2, 2017 15:28:04 GMT
Slowly the true transport strategy of the new Mayor is emerging.
He continues to loudly trumpet his fares freeze (well for some fares at least) whilst quietly dumping Boris baggage. So no more Boris buses being ordered and their conductors are being quite literally shown the door which will then be firmly shut behind them. TFL HQ staff being pruned significantly whilst being given additional workload - playing catch up with long deferred road repairs, new cycle highways, delivering Overground and TFL Rail projects etc. One might even think TFL is being set up as the fall guy when the wheel falls off.
Given the financial impact of the fares freeze it seems the prospect of most underground extensions (except perhaps Battersea) are being discretely kicked a long, long way down the road, to ensure the Mayor gets a second term. The non-review of ticket office closures was a neat example of the usual politicians distraction trick which I feel Sir Humphrey would be proud of.
Sadly the fact remains elements of London's transport infrastructure are close to breaking point, and what is needed is a rapid independent review by someone with suitable experienced but intentionally unconnected with TFL (perhaps someone who has been running a major overseas transport system) to identify the most critical locations where money needs to be spent urgently - fixing things like overcrowded platforms before they become really dangerous. As a passenger it appears many central stations are often serious overcrowded, and need platform edge doors now - not 20 years from now. If that review dictates the fares need to increase to fund the work then so be it.
Sadly I suspect most of the people of London would hope that the Mayor's prime focus was actually on delivering safe and reliable transport rather than securing his next office term despite the consequences.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Dec 26, 2016 17:39:19 GMT
I spotted some interesting comments by the Mayor to the London assembly including some indicative dates to replace the Piccadilly line stock, which presumably will be equipped with NTFL?
Among several interesting observations was confirmation that there would be two tenders issued for the Piccadilly line one to cover the rolling stock and a second for the signalling. The mayor indicated that the tenders would be issued in 2017, and orders placed in 2019, with new signalling being installed in 2021 and new rolling stock deliveries "from" 2023. I did not notice the Mayor actually refer to NTFL (whether this is intentional is not clear?). One clear implication is the new signalling will be installed first, whilst the existing rolling stock is still in service. Does this imply the old fleet will need to be retrofitted? If so it will presumably mean a period when even less units are available for service on a line which is hard pressed to handle peak demand. If not, does it mean the new signalling system will remain dormant until all the new NTFL units arrive - allowing a big bang switch-over, and avoiding the need to modify the existing rolling stock. That may explain the mayor use of the phrase Deliveries rather than introduction into service. If they are planning a big bang solution I wonder how they intend to mitigate any teething trouble risks. Another intriguing factor is the complexities of joint running with S stock on part of the route which may rule out a proven off the shelf signalling solution. Given past procurement problems with SSR signalling I fear the proposed signalling system delivery date may prove optimistic especially if they are aiming for a solution which can eventually be enhanced to allow autonomous operation at some stage in the future.
|
|