|
Post by snoggle on Apr 18, 2019 17:30:10 GMT
Goodness me folks - I thought I was the arch cynic but you're all outdoing me. A few comments - this is not a formal report. It's an article based on gossip. It may be moderately well informed gossip but until the Crossrail Board take a decision next week we don't know for certain. - Of course things slowed down after last August. As soon as the deadline pressure went people relaxed, others left, the management team was distracted until the sponsors took action. I'm not excusing this but it was entirely inevitable even if people on the project and elsewhere knew the work was late. - There has been some progress in that Tier One contractors (construction) are off a number of sites. That allows M&E / Comms etc work to get underway in a more meaningful way *provided* the underlying scope and sequencing is right. - If Crossrail have used the recent months to actually get a grip on the inherited mess (things started going badly wrong in 2016) and are clearer about the remaining programme then I'd say that was a positive. Obviously we need evidence that this is true. - That last thing we need now (IMO) is another political driven obsessional opening date target. That won't make things happen. It will repeat what has gone before in terms of bad news not being properly communicated leading to a bigger mess later. - Mark Wild was clear a number of months ago that there would be several instances of "doom and gloom" about the rolling stock / signalling testing and integration. Well guess what - we have doom and gloom about this BUT they are at least getting the track time to actually do testing *and* they are making progress rather than standing still or going backwards. - I think there has been a deliberate decision not to create "hostages to fortune" in terms of announcements. Hence why there are suggestions that we may be looking at 2021. Inevitably that winds people up and polticians get stroppy because they always want to blame their opponents and have "victims" to hang on the gallows. None of that bluster gets us anywhere though. Let's see what emerges next week. I dare say everyone will be fuming again but I'd rather see if we get some facts and also extra insight published. Hopefully we will. I still expect an opening of the core around July - September next year with the linking in phases to follow later. Obviously that is disappointing but I'd rather the thing opened properly and most importantly ran as reliably as possible. No one wants weeks or months of in service breakdowns.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 12, 2019 23:22:26 GMT
It may well be that at first, they are restricted to off peak workings so that systems can be proven without the pressure of full peak loadings. Interesting - I thought they'd do the opposite. Run them off peak for driver training purposes and then put 1 or 2 paths into passenger service in the peaks to take the pressure off the most overcrowded trains. I understand your point completely but at some point they've got to cope with peak crowds. The point is that traffic has probably fallen anyway and a 4 car unit at 15 min intervals for, say, the peakiest hour will not be overstressed. There should really be loads of room so while they'd be busier than in the off peak they're very unlikely to be bursting at the seams in the early days. The risk that TfL / Arriva face is if the word gets round too fast and there is, for some reason, a surge in peak demand that fills the trains up. After such a long and dire period on the line I don't see that happening - people are probably far too jaded to be convinced quickly that a new era has started (whenever some of the new trains do run). The gentlest off peak test is to liven up some paths on a Saturday or Sunday for 710s and see how they cope. Possibly shove a 378, as a "rescue" unit, into a siding / goods loop on standby in case of failure. There are no freight trains on a Sunday on the GOBLIN so that's the day with least risk of disruption to other parties.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 12, 2019 21:25:26 GMT
I suspect almost all of these restrictions are due to a lack of test data rather than evidence of problems. If CSDE and ASDO, etc are not required for AC operation on the Goblin then chances are that they simply haven't tested them, focusing on getting what is actually required to work. I suspect many other modern fleets that are currently in service without issues have some similar restrictions in that the trains are designed to operate under a wider range of conditions than are found on the routes they currently work so nobody has spent the time or money proving that unneeded aspects operate safely. I understand that GWR's IEPs are all operating on "conditional" approval and look how many of those are in service! I think your basic point is right - some systems aren't in place so can't be tested so please don't switch them on and others are not crucial at this stage but will need a resolution later. At least the regulator is prepared to take a reasonable stance but obviously any risk sits with manufacturer and / or operator and not them!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 12, 2019 16:41:22 GMT
I note that one of the restrictions is: So a separate authorisation will be required before they can operate the Watford DC.
Yes. It is worth remembering that there has been next to no operation on DC tracks - only those between Willesden depot / Junction and Kensal Rise Junction on the North London Line. Therefore Bombardier will not have the test data to allow them to demonstrate how the train performs on DC metals at anything like passenger speeds. Nor does it have any "fault free" mileage accumulated. I would expect that there may now be more of an effort to test trains on DC tracks provided track access can be granted and the trains are cleared to run. I heard a long time ago that the Brighton Main Line was a possibility for overnight tests but NR are doing a lot of work on that line to improve the infrastructure. I guess a 710 might have to move or be hauled to New Cross Gate for overnight tests if track access is granted for tests. I'd guess TfL asked / instructed Bombardier to concentrate on getting AC approval first so the GOBLIN situation could be sorted out. Conversion of the DC service is a lower priority.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 12, 2019 14:01:39 GMT
What are the conditions, does anyone know? At this current moment in time, virtually every reply to the tweet I embedded is someone asking what the conditions are! I suspect there may be a full press release from ORR in due course. Do ORR do press releases for rolling stock approvals? I was looking on their site just yesterday and couldn't find a single thing about rolling stock approvals. It's obviously an activity they undertake but I couldn't find anything about the process, the criteria or any approvals. I'm obviously pleased to see some progress at very long last but understanding the conditions will be key. It does partly explain the reduction in overnight mileage runs on the WCML and the increase in daylight training runs on the GOBLIN in the last week or so. We have had a couple of days when all four return Willesden - Barking training runs have actually operated.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 11, 2019 12:15:08 GMT
Please can you provide the source for you assertion as that represents a downgrade in safety compared to what is there at present. Certainly, nothing on paper or linkable just verbally from an LURS visit to Romford ROC in response to several questions while standing in the Elizabeth Line control room, answered by one of the Service & Infrastructure Managers. ECTS level 2 is not working correctly, ECTS level 3 has currently no fitment anywhere else in Europe, it’s too new. CBTC to ECTS transition at the west end of the core has to be done on the move between Paddington and Westbourne Park sidings, (at the east end it’s conducted stationary in the platform at Stratford). This transition is causing a problem. Speeds below 10mph are only currently achievable. Therefore fitting AWS/TPWS to Heathrow will allow the 345s to serve the branch in the short term. Longer term it’s hoped to get ECTS2 installed and working correctly. Apologies if this sounds as hearsay. A future edition of UN will have a report of the visits undertaken. Err I am now more confused. I thought the Westbourne Park transition point was from CBTC to normal Network Rail signalling? ETCS is NOT yet fitted on any tracks out of Paddington. It is the longer term plan but it's not in place now. Therefore the transition should be the same as at Stratford / Pudding Mill Lane except being performed "on the move". As for Heathrow my understanding is the same as Phil's (yep, shock horror, we agree ). I struggle to see how TPWS use by the 345s would be permitted by ORR for the reasons Phil cites. I fully accept that you were told what you were told on the Romford visit. It just doesn't quite make sense when set against other things that have been said.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 9, 2019 9:54:15 GMT
Back to the big picture. Crossrail is still guzzling money and the indefinite delay to the core section is presumably causing havoc to TFLs budget. Meanwhile a heap of very expensive trains are presumably somewhere quietly rusting away, still needing periodic maintenance expense, all of which is not good. Inherently if the core section is not yet complete “enough” to safely open, then why on earth have TFL not arranged to at the very least get those trains earning some income on trips into Heathrow and Reading? The current focus on the core seems to have diverted attention from a potential quick win which would give TFL some presumably very welcome extra income. Some of my reply will repeat what others have said. - signalling is not compatible with the 345s in the Heathrow tunnel. Work continues to allow operation of 345s at some point. I have completely lost the plot now as to what is actually being done in the tunnels and what has to be done to rolling stock to allow their operation into H'row. I've seen so many conflicting reports I've given up. In the meantime TfL have to struggle on with class 360s and HEX use their 332s - both of which work with the legacy BR ATP fitted in the Heathrow tunnels. - TfL have no right to grab train paths or income from GWR earlier than was planned. It would be a waste of time and effort for them to try given they actually managed to get a broadly decent deal with the DfT and HEX for the future scope of Crossrail services. No point upsetting the DfT and SoS needlessly. - The latest Crossrail update for April says TfL are seeking assurance from Network Rail that they can complete platform extensions and CCTV installation before December to allow 9 car 345s to run to Reading as was always the plan. Given that is only 7-8 months away someone needs to get a move on or else we won't have 345s to Reading from the December timetable change. - Although not generating income some of the 9 car 345s are at least being used for driver training runs to Reading so that is a positive preparatory step. - I understand there will be a modest Sunday timetable uplift from May 2019 on the western TfL Rail services. The Paddington - Hayes shuttle runs from mid morning onwards thus giving Acton Main Line and West Ealing a Sunday service. It starts late because of Network Rail's rights to track possessions for maintenance and inspection purposes - not dissimilar to what happens on parts of the Overground on Sundays.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 7, 2019 23:21:22 GMT
Eh? Excuse me being a bit thick but what precisely opens on 10/12/19 and what reopens 10 days later? It's not entirely impossible to close and reopen a line in a short space of time - the Jubilee line closed for 5 days to allow the addition of the extra car. Granted, the amount of work needed was alleviated from the fact that the extension stations had been built with 7-car in mind and the older platforms were long from the outset but my point still stands. It is possible to close and then re-open a line in 10 days. The only (theoretical) difference is that the Jubilee didn't have it's opening, closing and subsequent re-opening in such a small amount of time. I know I wasn't very precise but I'm just bemused about a 10 day shutdown over the festive period. Strikes me as peculiar because if the railway is ready for pre Christmas traffic then what can be done in 10 days that'll be different if / when it reopens for the post New Year return to work? Both of the signalling transition points - Westbourne Park and Pudding Mill Lane - will have to work from day one for empty stock workings for the core service so I can't see that would be involved. I assume the stations will be ready(ish) if the public are expected to use the line for shopping at the busiest time of year. Given people will be holiday it would make sense to have a period of operation in the holiday period so those who want to see the line / have a ride can do so in slightly more relaxed circumstances. It just all feels a bit odd to me but we're all just speculating like mad. The JL 7 car swap over is a good example of a short period line blockade. Obviously a lot of work was done before hand to prepare alternative stopping points. camera positions and the extra platform edge door activation. IIRC a couple of trains were extended to 7 car before the blockade so they had test trains immediately ready while the rest of the fleet was lengthened over the short blockade period. I know the Infracos are now universally viewed as a disaster but I think Tube Lines did a decent job with the 7 car element of the upgrade. Obviously the signalling and control upgrade was a nightmare because of the huge learning curves involved for TLL, Thales and LUL.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 7, 2019 11:07:49 GMT
I heard last weekend that the latest grand plan is to open on 10th December then close again at the close of traffic on 24th December for 10 days. Rail replacmeent buses will be provided on the outlying sections and i understand tender have been sent out. Eh? Excuse me being a bit thick but what precisely opens on 10/12/19 and what reopens 10 days later? I don't understand why outlying sections would have to be replaced by buses unless there is some crazy plan to try to integrate both Shenfield and Reading/Heathrow services into the core all at once. Even with the split service structure that is planned that is an enomously high risk strategy which I can't believe Howard Smith of TfL would support. His approach has always been measured with time to stabilise operations before increasing the service level / operational complexity. Let's be honest - at some point when the core opens there will be problems with platform edge doors or train doors or a train failure or the signalling will fall over. You'd want the first phase of operation to be relatively simple so controllers and staff have the chance to learn without massive train service problems piling up in consequence. With the core opening there is only the Abbey Wood service that could be described as an "outer section" and I don't see why you'd put a RRS on after only running for 10 days when there are plenty of alternative routes to all of the stops on that line. Sorry to be a bit demanding with my questions but any more insight would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 5, 2019 22:48:06 GMT
Another day, another partial line suspension due to unavailable rolling stock. GOBLIN suspended on Friday evening east of South Tottenham due to "insufficient trains". Also no class 710s out today at all - overnight GOBLIN runs also cancelled.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 5, 2019 22:46:06 GMT
This reminds me of my Work Experience last year where I spent a week at Endeavour Square. The whole building is open-plan. On my first day, the lady from facilities stressed that ES had 'no such thing as assigned desks' and that anyone could sit wherever they wanted, whenever they wanted, as long as somebody wasn't logged on already. Due to this, each employee had separate lockers which could be locked/unlocked with their ID card. I never saw any 'battles' as such, in fact the building was fairly empty! If I'm honest I quite liked the building, very futuristic and modern. The views didn't leave much to be desired either. Something I really liked was the original D Stock moquette they used in the cafe on the top floor, although I'm beginning to feel that this is starting to be a bit overused... Well you have an advantage over me in having been in Endeavour Square. Just call me old fashioned but the idea of people who you need to work with or who are on your team and are direct reports being scattered willy nilly around a multi storey office block is faintly ridiculous. What I suspect it has done is create an extremely impersonal atmosphere with no concept of team spaces, office filing or anything else. I assume everyone is 110% reliant on IT systems for document retrieval / information access. That would be the IT system that last time I read a relevant TfL Board Paper had not even been upgraded to Windows 10. Still I am sure someone believes such an approach is all terribly "lean and efficient" even if people haven't got a clue where anyone is, where they are working and what they are actually doing. How you're supposed to be accountable for office based staff on that basis I know not. I appreciate the operational side of the business has to cope with "moving" staff given they're on the front of trains or rostered at various stations. However that should be reasonably predictable given people are formally rostered and are expected to be in specific places at designated times. That at least affords an opportunity for operational managers to see and talk to their staff. Anyway enough grumbling from me - I don't have to cope with this nonsense any more (thankfully).
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 4, 2019 20:40:35 GMT
I had to smile. Daniel Moylan was still a TfL board member when Boris wanted to sell 55 off to developers, he didn't voice any criticism back then but now Khan is mayor and Moylan is no longer on the board it seems he's against the idea. I wonder what on earth could have made him change his mind? I think I was probably smiling at the same time but possibly more at the (allegedly) Pinocchio like shape of Mr Moylan's nose. Quite interesting to see my previous post from 2013 has proved to be more than correct with staff numbers having been slashed across LU and TfL with yet more people due to go as more 30% headcount cuts happen. Oh and the office space rationalisation has also happened as most people no longer have their own desk and have to work remotely or battle to find shared desk space.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 3, 2019 12:13:48 GMT
I use the GOBLIN twice a week between Leyton Midland Road and Barking, since they started running the 30 minute service there has been one cancellation last Wednesday which meant I had to get the District to West Ham but other than that its been okay. Correct me if I'm wrong but Gospel Oak is where drivers change over and have meal reliefs, if you're only running a two train service then its going to be on the Gospel Oak end not the Barking one. I didn't realise there were "stand by buses" in case the line went down, the only time I've ever heard of that was for the Millennium Dome in 2000, we had a load of buses sat outside Stratford and North Greenwich in case the Jubilee Line was suspended. The bus companies must have made a mint on that and I'm sure the drivers were delighted to get paid for just sitting around all day. The line suspension info is on realtimetrains and on Twitter via London Overground's account. There have been other cancellations but largely on the NLL and WLL routes. There was also one day when a train was cancelled on the Euston Watford route leaving 40 min gaps between trains. The basic point is that the 378 fleet is being run on "knife edge" spares margins and you will understand what that means. It is simply not sustainable in the medium to long term and we are already seeing the consequences in the short term. Fair point about crew reliefs and breaks. However what that really points up is operational convenience outweighing passenger needs. It can't be beyond the wit of LO and TfL to secure alternative arrangements so that any partial service actually runs where passengers travel most. Arriva are contracted to run the supplementary LO services - double decks on the Leytonstone route, single decks on the F Park - Gospel Oak service. It was supposed to be being enhanced but due to a cock up with the delivery of new buses to Metroline for route 393 [1] (they are far too long) this means Metroline are having to hire some of the old Arriva buses that used to run on the 393. These were apparently going to be used on a revised LO supplementary service that ran closer to stations because single decks can squeeze under all the low bridges on the route. Ensignbus have temporarily allocated a number of old Go Ahead London double deckers from their sales stock for the "stand by" service. [1] Metroline recently took on the contract to run the 393 for five years from Arriva.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 3, 2019 11:04:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 2, 2019 20:43:26 GMT
They really, really should have converted more than three trains back to four cars, even if they had no intention of using them on the GOBLin unless in emergency. What is the status of the line and its fortunes at the moment? There is no point in converting more. The fleet is being run so tightly now that only three trains can be spared for the GOBLIN. To be honest I'm surprised they found three "spare" trains. It is evident that the 378 fleet is not faring well. There are cancellations most days because trains keep conking out. The GOBLIN lost service last Friday and also on Saturday due to wire and fleet problems. Even when a service could be restored with 2 units TfL run from S Tottenham to G Oak only despite the section from Blackhorse Rd to Barking being vastly busier. Despite the loss of service over two days there was no sign that the stand by buses were activated to provide a full replacement from Walthamstow Central to Barking. Instead the daft supplementary service from Leytonstone to Walthamstow ran instead. London Travelwatch hosted a meeting about transport issues in Barking today. The service on the GOBLIN was raised. Needless to say little new information emerged. All we got from TfL is that driver training on the 710s has started, the instances of software faults is reducing BUT TfL could not give an in service date for the trains. They even went so far as to suggest that past statements from Bombardier had not been delivered against. Well colour me surprised! There seem to be one or two 710s out most days on the GOBLIN - presumably for driver training. However the paths being run in seem to vary day by day. Mileage accumulation runs on the WCML are also continuing most weekday nights. It's impossible to ascertain from any of this what is *actually* going on. If anyone in TfL / Bombardier / ARL does know then they are not telling the public. The more this drags the more ridiculous and unacceptable it gets. The Mayor, Commissioner and senior Bombardier people apparently came to some sort of deal a couple of months ago. The deal has never been made public so it is completely impossible to determine whether it is being met and what action, if any, the Mayor and Commissioner are taking to ensure the deal is delivered as promised. If you were to be cynical you might imagine that actually there wasn't any such deal and it was all a nice bit of window dressing to shut people up. Otherwise you'd tell people what the deal was so it could be independently assessed and people held accountable as needed. In another place I saw a remark that a contributor to Rail Magazine had said that Bombardier had submitted the paperwork to ORR seeking approval for passenger use of the 710s. I suspect that comment is not correct if, as TfL have said today, software problems are still being resolved by Bombardier. Not sure why you'd seen approval against a still variable software platform. I accept that the train software will almost certainly have ongoing iterations to clear bugs and glitches found "in service" but we simply don't know if all safety and operational glitches have been removed from the software yet.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 30, 2019 13:41:27 GMT
Another day, another set of problems. Seems a unit has failed at the Barking end of the route with brake problems. This has caused the route to be suspended between Barking and South Tottenham for many hours. Goodness knows what is wrong with the train for it to be causing 5-6 hours of service suspension.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 30, 2019 1:21:39 GMT
Last I read was that TfL were conducting studies to try to determine what interventions could me made at Stratford to cope with peak time crowding. This is much more to do with flows to / from street and interchange flows involving longer walking distances. I don't think very much if anything can be done about the through platform widths. I believe TfL are keen to provide access to / from the street from the easternmost interchange corridor. That's fairly wide and has stairs to the main through platforms. If I was to guess TfL would want to direct people for NR / Crossrail / Central Line services to use that corridor as an exit in the AM peak and entry in the PM peak. This would relieve (to some extent) the utterly dreadful central corridor (the narrow one) and possibly the western corridor (from the JLE ticket hall to the north ticket hall). There is also the proposal to open a western entrance off the Jubilee platforms to serve the old Carpenters Rd estate area. I understand what is being suggested about possible Central line growth but I am sceptical that it will see a lot of growth from the east because of interchange to Crossrail. This is sort of stating the obvious but passengers will experiment about what route to take. What we do already know is the Shenfield line in the peaks is horrendously oversubscribed. 9 car walk through class 345s will bring a capacity boost and the planned frequencies should take some pressure off in the short term. Initially some Central Line pax may well opt to try Crossrail (once it's all joined up) but if they are relinguishing a seat or even a bit of standing space for a horrendous crush on Crossrail they won't stay with Crossrail for very long. I do expect the Central Line will be relieved *west* of Stratford because Shenfield Line pax won't be changing to it. They'll remain on Crossrail into the core tunnel. The other question is whether Eastern Crossrail pax change at Whitechapel at Canary Wharf or remain changing to the JLE and DLR at Stratford. I'd say that's a difficult one to second guess at the moment. The final big problem for TfL is how on earth they cope with contra peak flows into Stratford AM and out in the PM. This assumes that the expansion of residential / office space and other leisure / educational facilities in the Olympic Park all happen as planned. If they do then I'd argue that's a much bigger problem for TfL to handle in terms of station operation. An ever growing number of stn entrances also puts staffing costs up and makes stn operation more complex than perhaps it needs to be. The other obvious question is where does the money for all this come from? There may be the prospect of extra S106 contributions from new developments but TfL would have to demonstrate that those developments were tipping the station over the edge in terms of creating more demand for TfL to handle. That may be hard to prove given how much development is happening and the fact that transport service changes themselves will also drive demand (e.g expect a lot more people using platform 11/12 when STAR starts running). I do tend to agree that "dropping a bomb" on the place and starting again would be the best, if wholly unrealistic, option.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 28, 2019 13:31:37 GMT
I wonder what people will think after 2020 when they find their tube and bus fares rising faster than inflation? They'll probably demand another 4 years of frozen fares without any regard for the dire consequences. Won't four more years be exactly what SK puts in his 2020 manifesto? I really don't think so. The current policy was "bounced" on him by London Labour Party members. It was viewed as being "easy" (it wasn't and isn't) and an antidote to 8 years of increases under Boris Johnson. Politically I can see why Labour liked that but it was a stupid policy. A policy of moderating fare rises and fine tuning things like the product range and caps etc could have offered passengers greater value for money without the attendant huge costs. I think after 4 years of actually being Mayor he will understand that there is not much more to squeeze out of TfL in terms of staff cuts. The next area would be to start cutting service levels meaning inevitable strike action from the unions as drivers and maintenance staff would be up for the sack. I can't see that happening. I was told recently some of the stuff that has been going on in TfL and I was genuinely shocked. I thought I'd seen just about everything after a quarter of a century working there but it's vastly worse now than when I left. The ability for TfL to actually start delivering on future schemes is, in my view, somewhat imperiled. Even more resource is going to be ripped out of the planning function at TfL in the next round of cuts. There is no point in a Mayor having manifesto commitments and preferred projects if they can't be delivered. You need planners, you need intelligent clients, You need astute procurement people, you need skilled and experienced engineers and project managers, you need informed and motivated operational staff to deliver projects properly. It is as if that lesson has been deliberately chucked out with the rubbish. The Mayor has made the classic errors of all new Mayors - it all looks very easy when you take over and then you get to year four and find you've done very little because you wasted 2-3 years of the Mayoralty working out what to do. Hence the palpable lack of progress on the Picc Line upgrade, the abandonment of the Northern and Jubilee upgrades, no progress on the Bakerloo Line extension and no large scale station capacity works started. The only things that have been achieved is a bit of work on air quality / ULEZ, some cleaner buses, a bit of cycling work. The headline commitments on air quality won't be met, Oxford St pedestrianisation is dead, far too many bus services have been cut with more due (unless he backtracks at the last minute), new Overground trains are nearly 18 months late and service enhancements are postponed, Crossrail is 18 months late. That is not a good record even if some problems started before he took over. To leave any sort of legacy the Mayor needs money in the next term and TfL is structured to work best by having annual fares increases. It needs to have a growing revenue base. I also believe the DfT and Treasury will make annual RPI (or RPI+) increases a mandatory part of any TfL funding settlement in the upcoming planning round. You can view that as a political move to restrict Mayoral policy but I certainly expect that conversation to happen behind closed doors. If the Mayor is stupid enough to be "bounced" into a fares freeze policy a second time he will, IMO, severely endanger TfL's ability to operate safely and effectively. The capital programme will have to be suspended barring committed contracts and essential safety justified renewals of track and signals. That's a dreadful place to get to - it will put us back in the worst of the 1980s version of London Transport. Does the London Labour Party really want to be associated with a transport network redolent of the worst years of Mrs Thatcher? I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 27, 2019 17:54:30 GMT
Your regular reminder that the TfL precept on council tax raises a negligible amount of money each year The issue about actual / perceived fares structure anomolies really has nothing to do with the Council tax precept. Point taken, but nevertheless south London is paying more for its infrequent services than Epping for its much more frequent (and much longer) journeys. Two Zone 6 stations Epping, 16.7 miles from Charing Cross as the crow flies, 9 tph, 57 minutes, £5.10 peak/£3.10 off peak to any Zone 1 station Kingston 10 miles, 4tph, c45 minutes*, £6.60/ £4.10 to Charing Cross NR (£8.20/£5.60 to most Zone 1 stations) *National Rail quotes 55 minutes, citing a very pessimistic 21 minutes to make the change at Waterloo East. The disparity is even greater for any London residents over 60 travelling before 0930, who pay £6.60 on NR, but nothing at all on the Tube. Yes and? I know you find this immensely irksome as you've raised the issue on multiple forums many times. There are no easy or short term answers given funding issues and the structure of the railway industry. You would need a very significant change of policy with a huge supporting mandate from voters in London and beyond to effect the sort of structural change to fares that you seek. I deliberately mention the wider area because pulling down fares in Gtr London just causes huge "steps" in fares beyond wherever you set a fare zone (or similar) boundary and you would need to change things in bordering areas to avoid ludicrous fares hikes. It is noteworthy that your TOC, SWR, is barely referenced in the TfL report - I assume TfL consider this to be a step too far at this point in time given the remaining duration on the SWR franchise and possible complication of CR2. And note that I don't disagree with your concerns. A common fare regime would make sense but it will not solve all the issues nor will it avoid new ones being created. Everyone wants lower fares, better concessions but doesn't want to pay the extra in taxation or other charges to fund it. We need to move the debate on the railway, funding and fares out of "fantasy land" which is where it resides with far too many politicians and other commentators. I wonder what people will think after 2020 when they find their tube and bus fares rising faster than inflation? They'll probably demand another 4 years of frozen fares without any regard for the dire consequences.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 27, 2019 10:54:01 GMT
Except TfL have already proved they can successfully negotiate with councils outside London on taking over metro services. Kent County Council initially objected when TfL tried to take over Southeastern's metro services but they came to an agreement in 2015 with cross party support in Parliament only for Chris Grayling to scrap plans in 2016. Its not the local councils that are the problem, its the government. Sadly Kent County Council changed their mind at the last minute which Grayling used as partial justification for his decision not to devolve services. I suspect the problems with the Croxley link have not endeared TfL to Herts County Council either. I agree the Government are the main issue but I think it's a bit premature to say TfL have the county councils on board. I doubt they have and plans to grab control of tracks and signals will raise many more concerns (real or perceived) despite warm words in the latest proposals about preserving paths for longer distance trains. Looking at the Southern proposals part of TfL's plans result in an off peak reduction of 2 tph into London Bridge from Surrey / Sussex. 4 extra long distance paths go into Victoria off peak but you know how people look at this stuff - any cut, anywhere will be seen as unacceptable even if there is a net overall gain (most of which accrues to inner London services).
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 27, 2019 10:48:03 GMT
Is Essex still subsidising TfL for its Tube services? Because, if not, it is high time the zoning was revised. (This might also help mitigate the traffic problems around Epping). It is inequitable that London boroughs, three of which have no Tube or Overground (or DLR for hat matter) service at all, are not only paying, through the GLA precept, to subsidise Essex commuters - but paying more for their own travel through the higher NR fares (the TOC Tax) Between them, the six outer London boroughs south of the Thames have just seven stations served by TfL services and charging on the TfL fare scale, of which just two are on the Tube. LB Richmond, (Richmond and Kew Gardens) - despite most of the borough being on the Middlesex ("north") bank of the Thames, these two on the Surrey side are the only two TfL-served stations in the borough LB Croydon, (West Croydon and Norwood Junction) LB Bromley (Crystal Palace, Anerley and Penge West) LB Bexley can be added when Crossrail opens, as the entrance to Abbey Wood station is in Bexley (although the platforms are in Greenwich). LB Kingston may have to wait for Crossrail 2. As for LB Sutton................ Your regular reminder that the TfL precept on council tax raises a negligible amount of money each year and would barely pay for director salaries never mind fares subsidies to Essex residents. TfL's precept raises precisely £6m per annum and has done for years. www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/finaldraftbudget_-_part_1_mayorsstatement_2019-20_final.pdfThe issue about actual / perceived fares structure anomolies really has nothing to do with the Council tax precept.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 26, 2019 23:37:09 GMT
TfL have no experience in maintaining the type of infrastructure involved in south and south east London. The tracks are used by long distance services. The DfT has a problem with the southeastern franchise. They may wish to do a deal. There is no time to do a deal with TfL over South Eastern. The TfL report acknowledges that the next opportunity for a major intervention or devolution will be in 2027. The only deal the DfT is rumoured to be doing is yet another direct award with Govia to keep South Eastern ticking over for however long. If I believe the gossip Govia are now playing hardball to extract as much cash out of the DfT as possible and who can blame them for exploiting a situation that is entirely the DfT's creation. The only fall back Grayling has is use of "operator of last resort" - i.e. a transfer back to public sector control like LNER. That must be politically unacceptable to Grayling so it must be a very remote possibility. Something would have to go drastically wrong for that to be the outcome.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 26, 2019 22:57:30 GMT
I say this purley from personal perspective, but I think City Hall have got this campaign for rail devoltuion drastically wrong by going from the top down with a big grandiose plan that usually garners a certain degree of (sometimes justified) nimbyism from local authorities outside the Greater London Area. I don't wish to be the devil's advocate, but I do feel that TfL need to exercise a bit more guerilla campaigning against the DfT in particular who do have a tendency to engage in smear contests (it being a loyal government office). I know badgering your opponents isn't the way to get results but there are some glaring failures that just being put into the public limelight enough. Recycling the 2016 campaign just reinforces the cynics eiwe point that if TfL gain control of the arterial routes into London, that will crowd out services from the wider home counties and beyond. Politically this campaign will never work with the current SoS. It's a complete non starter. However *any* campaign for devolution and / or infrastructure transfer anywhere in England and Wales is doomed under this SoS. If you changed tactics they wouldn't work either because Grayling has effectively put the entire rail industry on hold for 2, but more likely 4, years because of the "rail review". It's a classic tactic to ensure nothing happens of any great import or cost beyond what is committed and can't be stopped. Even if I were to ignore half of what I read about the operation of the DfT under Grayling I'd still say it was a dysfunctional disaster area. TfL really cannot resort to guerilla tactics. Remember the DfT apparently and for their own reasons may actually devolve Great Northern Inners and some "orphan" services run by Southern in the early 2020s. When asked to comment about progress the Commissioner said it was "like getting blood from a stone" in dealing with the DfT. And that's presumably a "helpful" version of the DfT as TfL are trying to help them achieve something they want. Imagine what it would be like dealing with a hostile DfT? Rail passengers don't need convincing about South Eastern's services and their actual / perceived inadequacies. I suspect things on Southern have calmed down since new timetables, routes and driver rosters were brought in. You don't hear about massive delays and discontent about Southern's inner area services these days. The Brighton Main Line remains far too problematic but money is being spent to try to deal with the worst problems. The problem for TfL is that their claimed proficiency on NR services is being trashed. The comments in response to the Mayor's tweet about this new report centred largely on the mess that is the Barking - Gospel Oak service at the moment. There are also regular problems on West Anglia and let's be frank there have been NO timetable or capacity improvements on West Anglia, other than on Sundays, since TfL tookover. Not one. There is also NO prospect of any given the new 710 fleet just replaces the 315/317s like for like. There's no frequency enhancement. The promises are a tad hollow. Arriva's performance is also nothing like what happened under LOROL. The whole thing is sloppy in comparison. And TfL Rail's performance is patchy at best. The western services are plagued by the unreliable class 360s, there's been no frequency enhancement into Heathrow for well known reasons and no station improvements because NR can't negotiate contracts. Enhancements out east are running years late too. If you chuck in 18-21 months delays on Crossrail this is NOT a good record. I can't believe anyone at the DfT or Treasury will pay this latest attempt from the Mayor and TfL any great attention. It'll be consigned to the bin like the previous one.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 26, 2019 14:32:35 GMT
The Mayor and TfL are pushing again on the topic of rail devolution and what they call Metroisation. They have used the release of their response to the Williams Rail Review to restate their case for taking over rail services in South and SE London. I've not read all the paperwork in detail but two big differences this time. One is a demand to take over responsibility for the infrastructure from Network Rail and thereby gaining the funding for such that currently goes to Network Rail. There is also a very heavy emphasis in the report about TfL having to run lots of double decker buses to tube stations because the rail service is so poor. Places like West Norwood, Eltham and the Thameslink Wimbledon Loop are cited as areas where people take buses and then the tube rather than poor rail services. Looks like a rather unsubtle demand to take pressure off the tube network (thus deferring upgrade plans) and to allow cuts to peak time bus services. Mayoral Press ReleaseThere are links to their Williams Review response and their updated Metroisation report from the above press release.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 25, 2019 17:00:02 GMT
The DC line is supposed to be going up to 4tph from the new timetable change (19th May), however at present there aren't any spare units to run it. So the current plan is to run an uneven 3tph (15 28 45 from Euston) with a 30 minute gap in service. The 4th path (58) is currently in the system as runs as required and will be available for driver training on 710s until enough are ready to run a full service. I know that the DC is not the easiet route to run clockface headways on but 13, 17 and 30 min gaps are appalling. I see the value of a training path but this is a step backwards for passengers from the pure x20 headway that is run today. I don't understand how ARL have managed to create such appalling timetables on the NLL and now the DC. It all used to be nice and regular with sensible, regular headways.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 21, 2019 22:05:03 GMT
Are there more trains now (service frequency) under the overground brand or did LUL run a better timetable? Memory is getting a bit hazy but I think it was a 15 mins frequency alternating between the two New Crosses giving a 7.5mins headway to/from Whitechapel or Shoreditch. Nowadays you never have to wait for more than a maximum 5-6 mins (during the day) for a London Overground train to show up so the service has definitely improved since the route now forms part of an integrated network that simply wasn’t the case when A stock units rumbled through what was then still something of a backwater. So much has changed in a decade. From memory it was x15 on each southern branch (NX / NXG) off peak which stepped up to x12 in the peaks. That gave a x7.5 / x6 headway Surrey Quays to Whitechapel (Shoreditch in peaks but can't remember how frequent the Shoreditch service was). Needless to say the service on the core section (and north thereof) is vastly better with trains every 4-5 mins for a lot of the time. The only branch where you could argue things are not quite as good is to New Cross. Demand is now on a scale that was probably unimaginable in LU days.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 21, 2019 11:01:47 GMT
Slight hint as to what is going to be announced in April: “Direct operating costs will increase by £143 million, owing to financing costs along with costs to the Central section, which will be non-fare generating in 2019/20” The end of the first business quarter (31st of March 2020) is only a fortnight or so away from the May timetable change which is where I’m putting my money on for the core. The only small spanner in that analysis is a political one. Purdah for the 2020 Mayoral Election kicks in from a point in March 2020. That prevents the Mayor and TfL from having grand ceremonial openings which might be deemed to affect the election process. The same issue affected the public opening of the East London line extension to Dalston Junction. Therefore I'd not be shocked to see a ceremonial opening and perhaps a limited "preview" service happen in March 2020 before purdah. That gives the Mayor his photo op and allows MTR Crossrail and LU a soft start to operations. That would also align with a view that there is no real revenue upside in the 2019/20 financial year - 2-3 weeks of a preview service is not going to put a lot of money in TfL's coffers.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 20, 2019 20:19:07 GMT
And just to illustrate the dangers of joking about Walthamstow Wetlands wildlife it seems to be the case that one of the GOBLIN AM peak workings was delayed by a swan on the track this morning. Happened between Blackhorse Rd and S Tottenham. Two class 710s were apparently out and about on the GOBLIN this morning - one of them running in a path that was a former timetabled slot now empty through lack of trains. No surprise to see 710/1s at Crewe. Apparently there are some there and others at Old Dalby.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 20, 2019 12:41:37 GMT
The new TfL Budget for next year has three interesting assumptions with regard to Crossrail. content.tfl.gov.uk/board-20190327-agenda-pt1.pdf- confirmation of a possible opening schedule in April 2019. - TfL are assuming that the core tunnel services will commence in the final quarter of 2019/20 (therefore Jan to March 2020). - TfL are assuming £28m worth of extra revenue from the take up of Paddington to Reading services in December 2019.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 20, 2019 0:24:48 GMT
Dual voltage unit 710 269 was out on the GOBLIN yesterday. There appeared to be some kind of cardboard box style wrapping around a few axles, any idea what that may be about? Probably to stop the rats and water voles on the Walthamstow Wetlands from eating the under train cables if one breaks down between Blackhorse Rd and S Tottenham. (A joke btw - in case anyone dares to take me seriously.) No idea otherwise, first I've heard of it.
|
|