As Dom K says there are yellow Oyster readers at the bottom of the stairs that lead to platforms 11 and 12 from the main (central) corridor. This is the narrow but very busy one that leads from the main ticket hall by the bus station to the north ticket hall (for Westfield). As I have a mix of Oyster cards I have to touch in and out (or the reverse) if I use the GA route from T Hale on which my other card is not valid. I have never had any issue at all with using those validators and thank heavens they are there for people who have two different types of ticket who interchange between services.
This week's update to the TfL Track Closure list has added a series of Sunday or all weekend closure for the GOBLIN. No sign yet of a full or part blockade in that document. No other new closures beyond the end of July either.
Railway Gazette article confirming (no surprise there!) the main points in the EU procurement notice. Note also that TfL will be seeking some form of leasing / PFI type arrangement separately for the trains. Looks like the TfL budget can't cope with buying the stock even when we are talking about delivery in the next Mayoral term!
Good morning. Once the tunnel section for crossrail becomes active - what will happen to the two lines currently used by TFL rail between Stratford (SRA) and Liverpool St (LST) - As if im right the line will go into tunnels just after SRA?
Will Greater Anglia just use the two lines for extra capacity? I heard a rumor that Chingford trains may go to SRA via opening up the Hall Farm Curve and thus may use the redundant TFL rail lines into LST? Many thanks
<<rincew1nd: Station names given when three-letter code first used>>
Any surrendered capacity will be used by Greater Anglia services. The accepted franchise spec clearly increases the number of longer distance trains into Liverpool St. Others have remarked about Crossrail services. In the very long term Network Rail have a plan (or vision?) to route Stansted services via Stratford and then use a flyover to reach those tracks into Liverpool St. Quite where the billion or so quid for this will appear from is anyone's guess.
While I would dearly love to see the Hall Farm Curve reinstated it is dead in the water I'm afraid . STAR  has the priority and there will, AFAIK, be no provision in the track and signalling provisions for the Hall Farm Curve included within whatever works are done in respect of STAR and adding improved signalling capacity. I was told by a very well informed source long ago that a Stratford - Chingford service simply is not as attractive as STAR because STAR supports very large scale redevelopment and new housing and has pulled in money from a range of sources. The same opportunities simply don't exist between St James St and Chingford and no one is going to build in the Lea Valley Park. The reopening of Lea Bridge station has triggered a mini housing boom in that area but that does nothing to support the Hall Farm curve idea.
The Hall Farm Curve should have been put back when it was estimated to cost £25m a fair number of years ago. Unfortunately no one could or would find the money so we're stuck and are likely to remain so for a very long time and all that will happen is that costs increase because STAR will have nicked all the paths and platform capacity at Stratford leaving any subsequent initiative with vastly higher costs to cover.
The next big railway scheme is Crossrail 2 and while that affects the Lea Valley it won't do anything for the Chingford Line apart from possibly make it even harder to get paths into Liverpool St as Greater Anglia try to ram as many longer distance / Stansted trains as possible through Clapton and Hackney Downs because they're the money earners.
 I think Hall Farm Curve reinstatement was last floated by Network Rail in its "Anglia Vision" document. There are no signs of that document being developed further or pursued by anyone in a position of authority or influence.  Stratford to Angel Road enhanced service currently under construction
Yes Complete breakdown in TfL project management and also total shambles of main and sub contractors. Some already completed work at stations may need to be stripped out and done again. Same state of affairs at Hackney Downs. Stoke Newington supposed to be completed by mid-July and absolutely no start on site yet Stamford Hill building falling down and propped up by temporary steel braces.
Breakdown or internal reorganisation causing problems?
While I am pleased to see affordable housing being built I am concerned about the loss of the car park. It is busy throughout the week and there is no apparent idea as to where those commuters will go. Not all of them can turn up on a bus as people drive in from outside London and park there - especially at weekends for access to football fixtures and shopping in the West End. Tottenham Hale can't take up the slack and I doubt Walthamstow Central can either and we don't need more cars trying to crawl along Hoe Street.
TfLs press release specifically says the following:-
"A car park user survey carried out by TfL indicated that approximately 90 per cent are travelling to this car park from locations that are closer to another TfL or Network Rail station."
In other words drivers from outside the immediate area should stop driving to Blackhorse Road to take advantage of cheap fares and use stations nearer to where they live (even if that means they have to spend more on tickets).
Doing away with the car park is one way of getting round the 'Epping issue' where half of Essex descends on the place to avoid the more expensive fares charged by National Rail services.
Yes and unless Waltham Forest council put in or strengthen existing parking restrictions those same people will still drive the same area and park in residential streets causing all sorts of issues. It's all jolly lovely doing surveys and then blithely hoping that people change long term habits. They rarely do if there is a substantial financial incentive as I suspect there is in this case. Once upon a time car parking was deemed an integral part of efficient public transport provision. As I said before it is fine providing additional housing but I remain sceptical about this particular development.
These idiots must be completely out of touch with reality.
I couldn't count the number of times I've seen trains operated with the driver's door open.
It beggars belief that no one from the busybody with the camera, through the ninny that wrote the piece. to the editor that allowed it to deface his publication, was aware of the fact that it is quite a common occurrence in hot weather.
I happened to be on the tube last week and therefore saw the Standard article while on the train. I saw a few words and the obvious use of a "social media" / "smartphone camera" type photo and thought it would be a load of hyped sensationalist nonsense. I sincerely hope no one at LU has taken this seriously or attempted any action against the driver. These sorts of "oh look how shocking" uninformed snapshots and rubbish remarks on social media are an absolute curse and the TV media & newspapers have people trawling the web with search routines etc all day, every day with the result that people get quoted and hounded and have their privacy breached. Virtually nothing is private or away from potential surveillance or scrutiny these days. Must make life very difficult for people working in public areas or with the public - constant risk of the slightest thing being recorded / snapped and then misinterpreted.
And well done to "Mr Shrugged" for a well rounded, factual and astute response.
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.
Generally the GOBLIN trains do use P1. However there are a number of workings which use Ps 7/8. Some of these workings are for route knowledge retention but others are to cater for extra peak workings which run close-ish together meaning P1 is occupied when another train has to arrive. One of the passenger related issues with not using P1 at Barking is the lack of active customer information and announcements to direct people who will "go on auto pilot" to platform 1. C2C don't really make any effort to advise passengers about the Overground service or any variation to it. This is a very long standing issue highlighted by the line's user group.
We may see improvement when the new trains run but that depends entirely on what happens with demand. If numbers remain roughly at current levels then yes the extra doors and space will help hugely. If growth surges we may get back to very crowded platforms and trains pretty quickly. I've just looked at the year end patronage numbers for all TfL modes (in the London Datastore) and Overground put on 74m pass jnys in 2016/17. Now some of that will be West Anglia but some will be on the "original" network and that's despite the GOBLIN being shut for a fair part of the year. That suggests we may well see some level of growth on the GOBLIN whenever NR get round to finishing the work and TfL can get the new trains into service. I suspect TfL will remove the current PIXC buster extra trains once all the 4 car EMUs are in service. This may then reduce the number of odd platform workings at Barking.
I'm gobsmacked that this has emerged during election purdah. If the TfL person / City Hall person spoke to the press last week then fine but if it was after Saturday then I'm amazed they released the info / commented even though it's relatively uncontroversial in the greater scheme of things and doesn't change the overall project status.
The entire Croxley link is outside the area the mayor is responsible for, pay no tax to TfL, and almost exclusively benefits people who cannot vote for him (or against him) whether they want to or not. The project is new infrastructure, was formerly led by the local authority and TfL have had almost no control over the budget and limited input into the scope until very recently. The majority of the south eastern metro routes serve the GLA area, the majority of people who would be affected by any changes pay tax to TfL and are entitled to vote in mayoral elections. The project is about the transfer of existing operations, involves (at least initially) no new infrastructure and has been on TfL's wishlist for a long time meaning that budgets and scope are strongly known within TfL.
They are very, very different schemes and so there are far, far too many factors involved to drawn the sorts of conclusions you are attempting to. You might be right, but it simply is not possible to know based on what we know.
Apologies for a bit of pedantry but be careful about using the "pays tax" argument. It doesn't really hold much water. Yes, council tax payers in Greater London pay a TfL precept but it raises a tiny amount of money (£6m per annum) so it's not an issue of any financial significance. Almost all of TfL's investment funding comes in grant from central government (plus borrowing) so all national taxpayers help fund that regardless of their ability to influence who is the Mayor of London. It's no different to me as a resident of Greater London being unable to influence how much investment the Government puts into the Tyne and Wear Metro, Nottingham Trams or concessionary fare funding for Shropshire. We just accept that central government doles out money to a wide range of bodies to try to deliver regional benefits.
TfL's main funding is from fares, grants, a share of business rates and other charges it makes together with extensive borrowing. At present it also receives hypothecated grant for Crossrail's construction. On Croxley the position changed from TfL (LU really) being indemnified for its costs and participation by HCC to a full scale transfer of responsibility from HCC to TfL to undertake delivery of the project. Funding comes various sources but largely external to TfL. TfL were forced, by the previous Mayor, to accept the transfer *and* to take on all cost risk associated with delivering the project.
As we have said umpteen times before if you had taken on that risk you'd want to make sure the costs were accurate, the design and plans were firmly based and there was enough money committed to the budget to allow you to deliver. TfL have done their review and they clearly believe there is not enough money and it seems the Mayor will not sanction the use of a central funding pot for Borough schemes for Croxley. I know we have differing views on the Forum about the project but I can completely understand why TfL does not wish to proceed without certainty over funding. It's almost certainly against its own governance and standing orders to proceed with a project where it is known there is insufficient funding for the anticipated scope.
National Audit Office report on the "South East flexible ticketing programme" reads like an episode of Yes Minister.
My one experience of the SW trains smart ticket was not very smart - non of the gates ever seemed to accept my son's ticket, and the staff could not solve the issue nor the helpline. So he was just waved through every day, and the one time he was questioned he showed the picture of the receipt, which satisfied the inspector, who also could not solve the issue. Went back to paper tickets - delay repay refunds for the previous terms "smart" ticket were processed automatically as normal so the ticket was somewhere in the system, just unable to be read.
Thanks for this. I've just read the Executive Summary of the report. What a complete shambles. It confirms my long held view that the people in charge had no idea what they were doing and had no real support from the train companies. I'll read the full report but the summary makes horrific reading. And to think I nearly applied to the DfT to be involved in that as I felt my knowledge and expertise might have been beneficial. I'm so glad I didn't!!
According to The International Light Rail Magazine Tramways and Urban Transit May 2017 No. 953, the “Watford Junction extension is delayed” Details below
“Meanwhile, TfL has notified the London Assembly that the Metropolitan line extension to Watford Junction cannot be delivered within the scope of it’s GBP284.4m (EUR332m) funding package; it suggests that the scheme may have to be dropped or delayed until a solution can be found to meet the GBP50m (EUR58m) funding shortfall. "
This isn't anything new. I suspect they are referring to what the Commissioner told the Transport Committee when he appeared in front of them in early March (I've gone back to the meeting transcript and also recent Mayor's Answers to double check). Given lead times for magazines I don't think there is any "scoop" here. It just reiterates TfL's position.
Given we will shortly be getting another dose of "purdah" due to the General Election I expect there will be no official comment on the extension *unless* the government feel they need to panic and find the money to help the sitting Watford MP. I am, however, deeply sceptical that this will happen. Mr Grayling doesn't strike me as the panicking sort.