|
Post by snoggle on Feb 15, 2019 13:43:43 GMT
Oh dear. The "who knew what when" debacle runs on. Interesting that Summer 2019 was the assumed date for the core with a big bang through service from December with both east and west linked in in one go. Seems there is an Evening Standard article too but I've not looked at that.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 13, 2019 18:28:50 GMT
And who is effectively in charge of the TSGN "franchise"? Oh yes Mayor Khan's best friend - Mr Failing of Grayling. I think it's already clear that it will be a snowy day in hell before the DfT lift a finger to help the Mayor out of his difficulties with these 710s. But it snows in Hell every winter … Speaking of hell, I think the only question in the minds the GOBLIN commuters is when the 710s will enter service, so that the fear of the line closing due to lack of rolling stock dissipates. Well yes. However the failure of various parties to get the trains into service causes a whole load of other questions about the standard of the service now and into the future.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 13, 2019 0:32:13 GMT
Did anyone else think 'ffs' when Enfield's 'Design Champion' introduced himself on the video? Not really. We would not be getting the new Meridian Water station nor the extra track without Enfield Council having pushed so hard on the transport aspects needed to support their plans for the redevelopment in the area. I suspect the "new walkway" aspect of the Meridian Water station will prove to be pretty popular pretty soon. The railway really does cause a lot of severance in that part of London and the walking environment on or near the North Circular is appalling. Something that will be much better will be appreciated by the locals south of Montagu Road (and west of the railway) who will gain a convenient walking route to Tescos (and the station) if nothing else in the short term.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 13, 2019 0:14:05 GMT
Is it time to go cap in hand to TSGN to see if they have any 377 2XX units going spare? Just a thought... And who is effectively in charge of the TSGN "franchise"? Oh yes Mayor Khan's best friend - Mr Failing of Grayling. I think it's already clear that it will be a snowy day in hell before the DfT lift a finger to help the Mayor out of his difficulties with these 710s. I think it is the case that Minister Andrew Jones was recently "on the record" as rejecting any prospect of flexing the East Midlands Trains (EMT) and West Midlands Trains (WMT) franchise obligations that require the 172s to go to WMT to then release class 153s (I think) to EMT. His remark was rounded off by saying that the Overground is the Mayor's responsibility and it is for him to fix any problems. While that might look harsh what's the point of devolution if it's a one sided deal where any upside is down to devolution / the devolved authority whereas any problem is for someone else to fix? If you take on the responsibility it's for failings and problems as much as it is for success. I actually don't think TfL want to go down the road of taking on trains from anyone else. It's far too late now. They're a year late in responding to what is about to become a crisis. It would also be a "seller's market" which means TfL would struggle to get an acceptable leasing cost out of anyone even if suitable trains were available. They'd be over a barrel and they simply don't have the financial flexibility to cope with it. They remain stuck with having to cope with whatever Bombardier throw at them or, more pertinently, *don't* throw at them. We've done all the rolling stock technical issues to death in other threads / posts so I'm not going there.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 12, 2019 23:28:15 GMT
The Dutch system is not user friendly. In Amsterdam where mainline trains and underground trains travel side by side you must use the correct card readers when entering or leaving the station and also if interchanging you must touch-out the rail journey you just made and touch-in the rail journey you are about to start - again using the correct card readers and in that order. As I understand it, the same applies for interchanging between different mainline railway operators. In part the reason for all this faffing about is because the amount of value deducted from your card as a deposit varies depending on whether you are starting an urban travel journey or a mainline railway journey. I wonder if something similar would be seen as practical here in the UK? But if a large enough deposit is not taken at the start of the journey it would become financially viable (and very easy) to cheat the system. It can also happen that the fare for a journey changes depending on the route you follow - imagine (for instance) being charged a different fare (because the actual mileage travelled was different) on a journey from Gants Hill to Waterloo depending if you change trains at Bank or Stratford. ----------------------------------- Here in the UK I sometimes go to Horley (which is near to Gatwick Airport). Usually I go to West Croydon on the Overground and then walk to East Croydon. From here I have a choice of either using Oyster or paper tickets - the fare is the same. Oyster is easier but if I want to use the buses then buying paper tickets entitles me to also buy a Plusbus ticket, which acts as a ride-at-will bus ticket. Which I choose depends on my plans for the day. Another issue would be first class travel. Maybe the Hong Kong system would be adopted - passengers can swipe their Octopus cards before the journey or when on the train to pay a supplementary fare for first class travel? Simon Your reference to the Dutch system charging based on mileage / route is just one of a myriad range of issues that would arise in a UK system. Our fares structure is vastly more complex than the Dutch one and is riddled with mind blowing complexity. I like to think I'm reasonably intelligent but I can't get my head round the workings of the Routeing Guide that applies to NR journeys. Maybe I've just not dedicated enough time to it but I can't begin to see how you would somehow "encode" that level of complexity into any smart ticket / checking equipment. The DfT premise is that you need fare structure change / simplification to make PAYG work. At the most basic level they're probably right on that. The problems come with how you preserve the best aspects of the paper ticketing system and don't create another ticketing nightmare for passengers. The DfT demand that the balance of financial contribution between fare and tax payers doesn't change is, to my mind, a huge problem. There are charging oddities and inflexibility that could possibly be resolved in whole or in part by some additional revenue subsidy but that's not going to happen if the DfT stick rigidly to their position. I can just about see how you can have PAYG in the wider South East area. I can also see how you have in main urban areas or, in the North, across two or three Met County (PTE) areas. It does start to become pretty horrible in you stretch that to say Hull or Scarborough from Liverpool / North Wales. It also gets tough, in my view, once you start heading north from York towards Newcastle and Berwick. I know it is the plan for Transport for the North to cover this area with smart ticketing but I'll be amazed if you can use PAYG from Berwick to Liverpool. The walk up Ordinary single for that journey is £96.20 - I don't see how you can structure PAYG as a commercial product to cover that sort of trip without there being huge issues. I suspect all that smart ticketing will do for that sort of trip is that the smartcard simply acts as a receptical for a ticket bought on line / at a machine. IMO you might as well just give people a piece of card. There's no value added. In the South East it's clear that First Class is slowly being whittled away - especially on commuter routes. On many trains there is now negligible difference (other than price) on the quality on offer. Does a little square of cloth on the headrest and possibly a door dividing you from the "riff raff" in Standard really justify the mark up? Not in my view. Inter City is clearly different and I don't really see how you make First Class work on PAYG for such routes. The obvious way is that you are charged a supplement on board the train when your smartcard is inspected. However given you can easily travel from London to Newcastle and NEVER have your ticket inspected on the train then reliance on such a system would be suspect at best. It's also unworkable on peak time trains that are so heavily loaded that train crew struggle to move around the train. I'm sure some bright spark somewhere already has the "answer" to this issue with some clever box of tricks but all these things rely on human behaviour conforming to design expectations. Sadly doesn't work like that here. In some Far East societies the social norms are a little different which means that the system on HK's East Rail broadly works but even there IIRC there is on board inspection to make sure people have paid the supplement. I agree that DfT should certainly be actively considering how the Plusbus concept can be ported across (via daily / weekly caps) to work alongside rail PAYG. It should be achieveable in the South East and would be a big plus in some areas like Crawley / Gatwick, Brighton, Reading, Southend where there are still reasonable bus networks that feed the rail network. I'll stop now as I could drone on about all of this for ages. This is the sort of scheme which my brain would like to have a go at creating.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 11, 2019 21:15:08 GMT
Realistically do TfL have any options other than replacement/supplementary buses if the trains are not ready? The half-hourly M-F service with 378s probably isn't sustainable long term, the 172s are not available, 313/317/319 units are not suitable, non-OPO units are not suitable, 230s aren't cleared yet, ... I think that politically they've just got be vocal about it being Bombardier's fault not TfL's. Not that this helps the passengers. I don't think there is any rail based fallback plan once we get to 3 378s in service. The problems came up at the Assembly Plenary on Transport last week. The Mayor and Commissioner are questioned by the full Assembly in those meetings. All we got was the "party line" of the Mayor and Commissioner "talking at the very highest levels with Bombardier" to express their concerns and demand a solution. We got the "we are converting existing trains that offer a bit more capacity than the "old" (ahem) diesel trains even if they only run half as frequently" and "we've negotiated a month's free travel from Bombardier". Oh and "We are very sorry about the delays to the new trains and the inconvenience to passengers". These are all the stock phrases from TfL so no veering away from the agreed line and absolutely no hint whatsoever when a train might enter service or what it will take for someone to cancel the order or do something more radical. The Commissioner specifically ruled out the use of old electric trains for the well known and much discussed "no body mounted CCTV or screens in the cab" reason. So no change whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 11, 2019 19:04:59 GMT
Has there been any recent sign of 710s out and about accumulating mileage in test mode or have further issues appeared and they are back to square one with test mileage? Just in case anyone feels that 710s are the only Bombardier product with issues (with software and insufficient testing significant among the concerns) I spotted a very recent article regarding problems with the introduction of a fleet of double deck trains ordered in 2010 and due for service in 2013 on Swiss SBB long distance services. Of the 62 trains ordered, thus far barely 12 have appeared in some sort of service, with reports of in service failures with these trains causing delays and consternation given the Swiss expectation that trains should work and be on time. Perhaps no surprise it appears that the in service trains are routinely carrying a roving technician to tackle frequent issues with doors and other software glitches. I am beginning to wonder just how long it will be before the first 710 will operate in passenger carrying service on Goblin. I am tempted to put a fiver on 31 December but which year? I've just had a quick scan on Realtimetrains for last week. There appear to have been some trips up and down the WCML over several days. Impossible to say which unit(s) were involved. Trips on the GOBLIN itself have all been cancelled over the last week. I haven't checked West Anglia to see if something has been running out there. I've not seen anything positive being said anywhere. The usual "informed sources" on Twitter seem to be universally negative about the prospects for the trains. No one knows if a unit is close to achieving the fault free target or if trains have suffered failures and the mileage has been reset so the accumulation has had to start again. One source suggested it may be another four months before a train could be delivered. If that proves to be true it will almost be early Autumn before trains could run in passenger service given the lead time for driver training. I'd like to believe it won't be as late as this but I think I'm probably deluding myself. In the meantime the M-F service will be down to half hourly in around 4 weeks time. No one knows what will happen to the weekend service (except perhaps TfL and ARL but they'll not be saying anything until the last minute). I think that if the service does collapse as expected then there will be a political backlash. Assembly Members are getting noticeably tetchy and those passengers who do comment on Twitter are very p****d off. That will get worse when half the service vanishes.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 10, 2019 19:57:53 GMT
A dull observation: had the GOBLin been extended to five car length instead of four, there would have been just that tiny bit more flexibility for now as a separate short length sub fleet wouldn't be needed. Actually a valid observation. However I think we got the best we could hope for given the financial constraints currently on TFL Once you decide to mobilise staff to extend platform lengths, at many GOBLIN stations the cost to add an extra car length seemed likely to be far less than the cost to having to add the extra capacity later especially as many platforms were previously able to accommodate far longer trains. Unfortunately I think going beyond 4 cars was a victim of "value engineering". If you look at YouTube videos showing drivers eye view trips on Goblin, it looks like moving beyond 4 car length trains would involve resolving some very significant expenditure problems which were largely dodged by sticking to 4 cars. I suspect that once the line gets its full complement of 710s in service that passenger growth will surge providing TFL with a solid business case to move to 5 car trains on GOBLIN however that is a few years off. I doubt you can cheaply extend the reversing platform at Gospel Oak without either major bridge widening expense and moving signalling and recently installed OHLE masts at one end, or at the other end moving buffer stops alarmingly close to the main line. Further along the route extending some existing platforms may be impossible without the final car overhanging and blocking adjacent junctions, with the most likely solution being to abandon and relocate platforms to perhaps less convenient sites. Obviously anything can be fixed with enough cash, but in the current climate what is really needed now is 710s! A couple of comments - there certainly are problematic locations for 5 car trains. As you rightly say Gospel Oak is probably the worst with South Tottenham not too far behind. Blackhorse Road (BHO) would also need attention and while not impossible in terms of length there would be more significant issues in terms of platform width plus capacity on the overbridge and staircase. Crowding is already pretty bad at peak times and longer trains will drop ever larger numbers on to the narrow platforms. TfL *really* should have used the blockades to provide some more platform width at BHO as a mitigation against passenger growth. Fixing the staircase issue would be more problematic given how lift towers have been positioned. - I think it's TfL's stated preference that they would like to move to 5 tph before they consider lengthening platforms. They may even get a freebie train or two out of Bombardier that would facilitate this - assuming the 710s ever run in passenger service. TfL believe there is just enough signalling capacity on the line to accommodate 5 tph and the freight workings. It's not known if Network Rail agree with this or not.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 9, 2019 23:55:59 GMT
Whilst the scale in the UK is greater, I do wonder if anyone has looked at the Netherlands OV-chipkaart. Multiple operators, not just trains but other transport as well, using a smart card system that behaves (to the user) very much like Oyster does in London. Now, you might say that the Netherlands doesn't have much more population than London (it's roughly double), or that it's much smaller than the UK, or that they had many difficulties making things work. But still - it is there, it does work, and surely we can't be less capable than our Dutch friends, now, can we? Yes, we can. While the Dutch have had their fair share of public transport woes they do have the enormous benefit of a broadly consistent policy approach from government. They also have a structured approach to public transport provision - especially with buses which removes many of the problems we will have in the UK. They also had the extremely helpful precedent of the Strippenkaart system that existed for decades before OV Chipkaart turned up. We have none of this. We don't even have a uniform charging scale on the national rail network. We have territorial "organised anarchy" and government wonders why "rail fares are complex and passengers are confused by the structure and range of tickets".
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 9, 2019 23:47:49 GMT
The second 4-car unit (378 206) expected to be on test on the GOBLIN on Sunday 9/2/19. Presumably in the afternoon when the eng works possession is lifted.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 9, 2019 19:00:38 GMT
They should have done this before each company started their own versions. It is not beyond the wit (or maybe it is) of the rail industry to have one system which is compatible throughout the whole of Great Britain Others have explained the background as to why we have ITSO and Oyster. I dealt with ATOC in the year or so before we awarded the contract for TfL's Prestige (now Oyster) system. Barring the reps from C2C and Virgin Trains I was met with a wall of scepticism and doubt. No one believed that TfL would deliver what they did which is why it took years to bring national rail services within scope of Oyster. If there had been a more positive reception then we might have been able to stretch the TfL specification to at least make Oyster acceptance in the wider South East easier. It could never have been a national scheme because the Inter City services have different market and ticketing needs. Privatisation stretched these differences even further. It does seem, despite a lack of publicity, that something is stirring in the background on NR. All TOCs are moving towards offering both bar code ticketing or a smartcard based season ticket offer. Slowly but surely this is spreading nationwide with an intent that all TOC issued cards work seamlessly across the network. Clearly ITSO is the basis for this. The consultation about PAYG is really about how to define an area where ITSO PAYG could work and to give the bare bones as to what the "commercial dimensions" of a PAYG product should be. AIUI ITSO cannot hold value on the card itself so a wider PAYG scheme would be linked to a personal account which either has cash loaded in it or has financial authority to draw funds from a bank account. There would be a daily reconciliation of electronic transactions with a daily charge (or charges for multi modal use) for that day's travel. That could allow return fares to be charged or a daily cap applied. A national card scheme looks "simple" on the face of it but it is immensely complicated to implement alongside the current fares and season ticket price structure. It also has the potential to cause the loss of things like "break of journey" which are relatively easy to operate using paper tickets. I don't know how the government and rail delivery group can properly "simplify" fares without causing a lot of problems for people who currently split tickets, use discounted operator specific tickets or benefit from the large scale discounts on some season tickets. I think a wider South East PAYG scheme is a good idea. I can also see schemes working well in areas with relatively dense and frequent networks - West Midlands, Strathcylde, West / South Yorkshire, Manchester, Merseyside. You might also be able to do something in the wider Bristol area or East Midlands but you'd really need to tie in buses and trams too to make an attractive offer. I don't see a national PAYG scheme working because some fares are extraordinarily high.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 9, 2019 11:55:11 GMT
That sounds promising assuming they have already checked that they can open and close both sets of doors if they wanted to during that stop. Perhaps I am getting ahead of things and this was just a preliminary run to check the programmed stopping marks with loads more testing ahead. In the meantime are you allowed to tell us which station and direction (east/west platform) was being used for this test? Crossrail themselves have put a mini clip of a test train going through the tunnels and stopping at platforms. The train is clearly running wrong direction but that's as much a part of the test regime as running in the normal direction. Sorry for the repeat of this clip - it is in an early posting from another forum member. I suspect that we are not at the point of being able to open platform edge doors because the systems are not fully commissioned and won't be until all construction activity has ceased in the stations. Otherwise you just get dust and muck being blown round the place which may damage partly installed / not yet commissioned station systems.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 8, 2019 12:32:52 GMT
How would that sort of thing work for those using various discount cards like under 25s, over 60s, Priv, etc.? Edit: Yes, OK, I should read the document first! There's a small mention of this issue at the bottom of page 16 but no very clear resolution. At least they acknowledge the point. Clearly some discounts or concessions can be reflected on Oyster cards. That happens now. The consultation is trying to be "technology agnostic" in terms of the future. I can sort of that approach given technology moves quickly. However there are obvious advantages and disadvantages with each existing tech. The consultation touches on some of these. There are also important issues about customer preferences - I'd much prefer a separate transport smartcard but I recognise that many other people would be comfortable with a contactless bank card or using a NFC (near field communication) equipped mobile linked to a bank account. The consultation recognises that some technology models do not work very well with facilitating discounts / concessions / operator specific discount fares. I'm not as up to date as I used to be with where technology is at but I think that a bit of clever thinking could fix the "discount/railcard" issue. Operator specific fares are much more difficult to deal with on PAYG. An ITSO (Integrated Transport Smartcard Organisation) spec smartcard can carry multiple "product definitions" so it can handle a form of PAYG as well as allowing single / return / season ticket products. Therefore an operator specific single or return could be ordered online and "collected" and used for travel. However that's not pure PAYG as TfL employ. My overall view on the proposal is that it is very welcome and the expanded South East area is decent enough. It is a bit flawed in places in terms of specific coverage - I wouldn't leave the Braintree and Southminster branches outside the scheme. There are also other inconsistencies were there's more than one line in an area - in two instances the quieter non London service is in scope of PAYG but the main radial line station is not (e.g. Farnborough and Edenbridge). I also support expansion to Oxford, Cambridge and Brighton given they are large student and visitor markets and putting (almost) all of Thameslink in scope of PAYG would make sense. The issues around fares structure / peak vs off peak / capping and season tickets are involved and difficult. I'd like a zonal approach but there are significant problems with this because of the way fares setting has varied by route coupled with government allowing higher increases on some routes. This creates all sorts of anomolies and problems that can't be fixed within the DfT's stipulation that the balance of funding between fare payers and taxpayers cannot change. In other words no taxpayer subsidy to ease the difficulties of trying to align and simplify fares. That's obviously a political choice but it does make it very difficult to achieve the wider objectives of smart and simple ticketing using PAYG (IMO, of course).
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 7, 2019 12:14:10 GMT
The DfT have launched a public consultation on expanding PAYG (as a form of payment) to more National Rail services. www.gov.uk/government/consultations/pay-as-you-go-on-railThere is a proposal for a vastly expanded South East PAYG area covering all of the franchises with expansion into Surrey, Berks, Beds, Kent, Essex, Herts, Sussex. Haven't read the whole document yet but certainly looks interesting. The implication is that TOCs would have PAYG on their own issued smartcards which would work within Gtr London and TfL Oyster cards would also work in the expanded PAYG zone. I assume contactless bank cards would also work across the entire area.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 6, 2019 14:24:24 GMT
It is unclear what happens at weekends given the need for the 378s to have maintenance attention. Perhaps the solution here would be to reduce one other unit - and use it on GOBLIN during weekends only. It is a small loss of weekday capacity elsewhere, but would allow better weekend service on GOBLIN route. I don't think TfL can release another unit. They are basically forcing Arriva Rail London and Bombardier to run on wafer thin maintenance margins across the entire non West Anglia Overground routes as it is. This sort of operation is not really sustainable for a long period of time. It only takes one accident or one mildly serious unit failure that can't be resolved quickly and then there's virtually no cover for a fleet of 57 trains. That's a rather silly approach to take given most fleets work on around 12-15% spare cover. There's also little variation these days between the peak and off peak service level so it's not as if trains go back to depot in the inter peak where they can receive some attention. I've seen a speculative remark elsewhere suggesting the 710s may not be certified for use for at least another 4 months. Chuck in driver training time on top of that and you're looking at August or possibly September before a 710 runs in passenger service. Trying to run the GOBLIN with 3 4-car units daily for 6+ months with only overnight maintenance attention doesn't look a very wise thing to do. Something has to give and cutting the weekend service is the only real option to ensure the 378s receive the required maintenance attention.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 5, 2019 22:58:26 GMT
Someone has perhaps got a little too enthusiastic in predicting when more stations will go "step free" in the latest Customer Service and Ops performance Cttee Papers. In the main report (page 78 of the pdf) there is reference to Moorgate (Elizabeth Line) going step free between Jan and March 2020. There is also a mention of Ealing Broadway and Whitechapel going step free at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 5, 2019 13:42:14 GMT
Based on a reliable source on another forum it seems 378 206 is the next unit being converted to 4 cars for use on the GOBLIN.
It also seems clear that the M-F service will reduce to half hourly when all of the 172s have gone and only 3 378s are available. It is unclear what happens at weekends given the need for the 378s to have maintenance attention.
EDIT 5.2.19 - Unit 209 is the third and final unit being converted.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 4, 2019 23:53:58 GMT
I think North Greenwich is a looming disaster area for the tube (and bus) network as is Canada Water. I think both stations will become completely inoperable in the peaks within 10-15 years and there is no strategy to deal with any of this. I think the way to sort out Canada Water is to sort out Southern/South Eastern in terms of reliability, capacity and fare equality. As for North Greenwich, my guess is that the strategy for the bus network around there is "Silvertown Tunnel" although in reality this is more likely to make things worse rather than better. What is really needed is something like Greenwich Waterfront Transit - segregated buses and/or a tram with a bridge or tunnel for these (plus cyclists and pedestrians) to Canary Wharf. A fixed link from Gallions Reach to Thamesmead would also help distribute the traffic. All this though would cost rather significantly more than anyone with any money is willing to spend currently. My observation about Canada Water was more in the context of the planned huge intensification of housing in the area. Clearly that may cause some extra local trips that can be handled on the bus network but the bus station is already too small. The peak time platform level crowding is well known. I just don't see how you add in an awful lot more originating journeys that will use both Jubilee Line and Overground and somehow cope with it. I don't share your confidence about South Eastern ever being sorted out because the DfT are not interested in "fixing" inner suburban rail services. Local misinformed political pressure to preserve peak time departures and service patterns in aspic don't help either. The emphasis is always on longer distance services. I think when Crossrail opens at Abbey Wood people will see a stark difference - a train every 5 minutes compared to 6 SE trains per hour if you're lucky. People in Woolwich already know this by virtue of the DLR - look how overloaded those services are. I recognise we're veering a tad off topic so I'll stop now.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 4, 2019 20:33:59 GMT
The core section is relatively self contained. It can run without affecting other services. Dynamic testing is in progress. The stations are also more complex. There is so much kit on the stations which has to work with the older parts of the stations. The number of lifts and escalators is amazing. Incline lifts at Liverpool Street look great. The core also frees up space on other lines. This will really be needed at North Greenwich. Massive housing development in progress. Sorry to sound a bit arrogant but I know all that. I am not convinced that people in Thamesmead, Woolwich, Charlton or Eltham will desert North Greenwich because it is so much cheaper to travel from there. I don't see people forking out for an extra two fare zones just to save a few minutes by using Crossrail. I think North Greenwich is a looming disaster area for the tube (and bus) network as is Canada Water. I think both stations will become completely inoperable in the peaks within 10-15 years and there is no strategy to deal with any of this.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 3, 2019 23:14:19 GMT
The central core is the 'key bit'. The rest pales in comparison. In terms of showing off "big new bits of railway" then yes. The politicians will fawn all over that bit and passengers will go "ooh" for the first few times they travel on it. In terms of money in TfL's coffers then Paddington to Reading is vastly more important because TfL gain a significant share of the revenue on Padd - Reading flows. Fares here are vastly higher than on TfL or on South Eastern (the only other bit where TfL will extract revenue from a TOC). Also fares on GWR (outside the zones) will keep rising so even more important when there's a fares freeze in London. Being able to run into Heathrow at a higher frequency than now will also be an aid to TfL's revenues. (Fares from Padd - West Drayton are on the TfL farescale so have been frozen with TfL no doubt paying GWR compensation). A lot of the revenue on the core section is simply transfers from other TfL (tube) services in the short term. The Abbey Wood branch will extract some South Eastern revenue but will also hit DLR and Jubilee Line revenues in the short term. TfL have remarked about internal revenue transfers several times in public scrutiny sessions. Once the railway is all joined together and running at the planned high frequencies then further trip and revenue generation may kick up but that is highly dependent on the state of the economy. If it tanks due to a certain looming event then, IMO, all bets are off as to what money Crossrail will bring in.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 1, 2019 13:54:45 GMT
Network Rail update video. Means Meridian Water station opens May 2019 to replace Angel Road but only with the current M-F peaks only service. The supplemental service from Stratford to Meridian Water likely to start in September 2019. This means we have a brand new station sitting largely unused for 4-5 months except in the peaks. Even when the shuttle service starts Meridian Water only gets 2 tph M-F off peak and weekends - nice generous DfT franchise specification. (rolls eyes).
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 30, 2019 22:17:16 GMT
I was lucky enough to stumble across an electric unit by chance today and the superior acceleration was evident. One thing that I was struck by,though,was that the 20mph crawl over the Lea bridges is sill in place despite them being rebuilt a few yeas ago….are there plans to lift the speed in this section in due course (apologies if this has already been discussed earlier)? This frustrates me too. I have a suspicion that one of the bridges there hasn't actually been touched and that's why there is still a restriction. Three shorter spans were refurbed and one major span was replaced. Looking on Google Earth satellite view suitably tilted and zoomed in it looks like the bridge over Bream Drive was not touched but three spans near the Wetlands Pump House plus the wide span over the River Lea were done. Seems a crazy approach given how long NR were on site but there are still worn out bridges at the eastern end of the route that need replacement. I assume NR simply couldn't justify the spend. Happy to be corrected if someone knows what was done.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 30, 2019 13:28:20 GMT
Colour me not at all surprised. They can't run those 3 4-car 378s forever without maintenance breaks. The service will be very vulnerable to any failure / breakdown / accident. There are suggestions the weekend service may fall to hourly or be withdrawn completely to allow the 378s to be maintained. Just listened to the relevant part of today's TfL Board webcast about this. Here are the key points. - TfL have had to adjust the maintenance schedules on the 378s to support the release of three trains. - A class 710 is not likely to be available for driver training until the end of February. - Even if a train is available there is still ongoing software development needed which may take at least a further month. Another version has to be released and then a train has to go for final ORR certification. This confirms a comment that someone from Rail Magazine made a while back. - Trains cannot be used in passenger service until the ORR sign off is achieved. - TfL were pretty clear that all this means the GOBLIN service reduces to half hourly long before any 710s enter service. - There was a final caveat that all of the above is subject to Bombardier's ability to develop software in line with the anticipated schedule. What a mess.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 30, 2019 13:27:52 GMT
Why have the trains been stripped of numbers? Eh? The unit number is now on the side of the train at the front rather than on being on the actual front of the unit. I believe this is to distinguish the unit from others.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 29, 2019 0:05:21 GMT
Not *quite* on topic but if I go up there for a ride, are there any stations between the two termini of any architectural note or anything significant near any stations? (If it turns into a long discussion or threatens to derail the original purpose of this thread, I'll create a new thread) None of the stations have much merit these days - so much was demolished in BR days and nothing has really been added back apart from the odd modular shelter on the platform. Walthamstow Wetlands is a 6-8 min walk from Blackhorse Road stn. You can walk round many of the reservoirs and I believe one of the old buildings has been refurbished as a visitor centre. You'd also get to see the rail line from a somewhat different angle. However only for those with strong constitutions at this time of year given the weather! Ferry Boat Inn pub is right by the Wetlands entrance and is apparently pretty decent. I can't think of anywhere else with great architectural merit. The Latin Market is 3 mins walk from S Tottenham. It's a bizarre rabbit warren of small businesses run by South Americans. There are some excellent stalls selling empanadas plus sit down cafes. Delish - just the thing on a cold day. Sadly the market is earmarked for "redevelopment" - if you like the offbeat nature of bits of London where immigrants have made things their own then I would recommend a visit if only to experience the atmosphere before it's all knocked down.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 28, 2019 17:08:51 GMT
Well I managed to catch the 378 this afternoon. It was a little late because it was stuck behind two freight trains. The first one was nearly 30 mins late and then it was followed by a Ford car transporter train and they're huge formations. The 378 rolled in a couple of minutes late but progress westwards was a bit limited because of the long signalling sections being occupied by the freights. Trains are now all stopping at new positions as already mentioned. I think a few people were pleasantly surprised to see a "big" train turn up - there were a lot of people with buggies and cycles so the extra space was clearly appreciated. When the 378 got the chance the acceleration was notably better than the 172 - quite a surprise to actually move at a decent speed on the line given years of using the 172s. I then had a ride back from Gospel Oak to Queens Road. The 378 has had GOBLIN line diagrams fitted alongside other routes. Progress was a little more spritely on this trip. People are still standing in their old positions on the platforms for the moment. This doesn't cause issues with the 378 other than at, say, Blackhorse Road people tend to get on at the front. Other stops people were spreading themselves about a little more once they twigged it was a longer train. A few photos, taken with my phone camera so not quite to the usual standard, are on Flickr at www.flickr.com/photos/24759744@N02/
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 28, 2019 13:56:45 GMT
On a 378 now ... lots of waiting time at stations because of the improved acceleration. Stopping points have changed for all trains, obviously 378s had to use the new point, but the 172s are as well. Cue much running along platforms when trains sail past people (even though there are posters at stations telling people that stopping points have altered) I looked at realtimetrains earlier to see whether there was a difference in the peaks. The 378 did the best job of keeping to time on runs from Barking this morning. Clearly the longer train / more space works as you'd expect - much lower station dwell times compared to the 172s.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 28, 2019 13:48:53 GMT
At some point Bombardier will have to prove to ARL that the dual voltage 710s can actually run on both AC and DC and cope with changeovers both on the move (Mitre Bridge on WLL) and when stopped (Acton Central). The Class 710s are not intended for use on either of those routes, are they? They will work on DC only on the Wat-Eus line, and AC only on all the other routes. Changeovers will only be needed when out of service, on their way to and from the depot. As you know a supplementary order was placed for extra trains for NLL / WLL services plus extras for the Barking Riverside service. The point still remains that functionality will have to be proven at some point. I didn't specify what batch of trains or a timing just that it had to be done. The further point remains that even if a switchover is made out of passenger service you still have to test that functionality before you sign off the trains as functional as per spec and contract. I can't believe ARL are going to permanently split the allocation of dual voltage trains to the same 8 always for GOBLIN services and the balance for the Watford DC route. They will want the flexibility to mix allocations as necessary. I'd also argue that Bombardier would want the voltage switching functionality tested now so any issues are found now and can be resolved rather than storing up another issue to be fixed on a future batch of trains. I assume they've done some level of testing at Old Dalby already with 4 car units.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 27, 2019 23:58:02 GMT
I'm assuming that all the new units still need to accumulate their fault free miles before being handed over to Arriva Rail London. If so, is it permissible to couple units together given that the units will still run under their own power? I can't believe they will run mileage accumulation coupled together. Surely the point is that each unit is driven *individually* and is proven to be fault free on its own? AFIAK the accumulation testing has all been on AC overhead. I assume this is because of the urgency related to GOBLIN requirements and a decision that they can cope in the short term with trains leaving Willesden depot on AC and reversing north of Willesden Junction to reach the NLL and then travel on to Gospel Oak and beyond. The 172s run on DC rails to reverse at Willesden Junction station AIUI. At some point Bombardier will have to prove to ARL that the dual voltage 710s can actually run on both AC and DC and cope with changeovers both on the move (Mitre Bridge on WLL) and when stopped (Acton Central). Such DC testing is certainly needed for use on the Watford service. Furthermore there will have to be some level of additional testing to prove coupled operation is feasible as that's necessary for West Anglia operation. I don't know the details of the mileage accumulation process but I assume that when the GOBLIN dual voltage 710s receive the go ahead for acceptance by ARL and driver training this may be a qualified acceptance in the short term given the lack of DC testing. I expect TfL have agreed this with Bombardier to shorten this phase of testing because of the GOBLIN woes. It may, though, come back to haunt them later if DC testing throws up more issues requiring software fixes.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 25, 2019 0:06:49 GMT
The Dft have announced that they agree to the closure of Angel Road station with effect from May 2019. The decision has to be ratified by ORR. www.gov.uk/government/consultations/angel-road-rail-station-closure-may-2019This partly deals with suggestions that the new STAR service may not be ready by May 2019. Clearly it may be possible to partially open Meridian Water station and just have existing Angel Road departures transfer across if the third track and associated works are not ready in time. I am slightly surprised that Meridian Water will be completely unmanned. Strikes me as a bit poor really.
|
|