|
Post by snoggle on Jan 22, 2019 0:06:02 GMT
Seems the preview service on the GN inners with class 717 has resumed 21.1.19. This is from two sources including a senior operating person who tweeted the info. Seems to be Moorgate to Gordon Hill.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 18, 2019 0:13:29 GMT
My source within LO tells me that TfL cannot claim compensation from Bombardier because the software glitches are a result of TfL repeatedly changing the specs after they placed the order. Mike Brown's head on a pole outside City Hall? Err TfL have already had £5m from Bombardier. I assume that is for some form of breach under the contract. You can't claim for everything little thing that goes wrong. I assume Bombardier have accepted some level of contractual responsibility for their failings or else why pay out anything? If they weren't "in the wrong" then they'd have assembled their lawyers and would be in a full blown contractual dispute with TfL. I am sure some form of dispute is underway but Bombardier can't escape the fact that (a) their trains are a year late (b) they failed to get clearance to run on NR tracks for at least a year and possibly longer and (c) their Cl 710 trains *still* don't work. I can't see how TfL will have changed the spec in any fundamental way - it would be a form of refinement of how customer facing facilities work. Issues relating to maintainability are a matter for Bombardier who have a long term maintenance / availability contract for these trains. Any issues around the driver's cab / ergonomics should have been tackled long ago between Bombardier and Arriva Rail London as part of a standard design engagement and refinement process. That's not rocket science. The only known change is to the passenger seating layout which is not of any great consequence given the Aventra is a modular design capable of a variety of internal layouts.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 12, 2019 21:02:23 GMT
I can't see the NCE article. I did however watch nearly 5 hours of webcast from City Hall which I assume NCE have cribbed for their article. And no point was it said that Bond Street construction would be later than this Summer. As I believe I have posted earlier some stations have achieved the milestone of having the civil construction contractor demobilised - Farringdon, Woolwich and Custom House. Others will follow over the next few months with Bond Street likely to be last although Paddington is apparently troublesome. Whitechapel was not mentioned - unsurprisingly. Mark Wild was very clear that the next step at these stations was to get the fit out finished and then to get the specialised teams of testers in. Work is going on now to schedule all the testing programme and associated resource given some of it is scarce and highly specialised (and likely expensive). He is clearly keen to get construction teams off site as fast as possible and then to get stations into a state for handover. That also has the benefit of ensuring trains can actually run in the tunnels for testing purposes. Mark Wild was clearly walking a tightrope in front of the politicians. He was trying to be realistic but not overly pessimistic or optimistic. My sense was that he was being a tad more pessimistic but that's part of the wider "under promise, over deliver" mantra that I am sure is the agreed PR stance at the moment. Even dragging the Evening Standard round an "unfinished" Bond Street is part of that agenda - "oh look how far behind it all is" and then shazam 6 or 7 months later "ooh look how shiny and finished it looks". Call me an old cynic. He also steadfastly refused to give any sort of opening date even though I am sure he has multiple possible programme outcomes to hand with varying levels of probability. It's clear to me that he probably has a preferred scenario but will not commit at all because of the signalling / train issues. Stations will get sorted out - they always are.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 12, 2019 17:57:47 GMT
Presumably because they do it regularly they are trained for it and used to it. Generally there is also significantly more leeway in terms headway, etc. to cover for the variability of braking characteristics, etc. Also anything can be a big issue when industrial relations are poor. Which I suspect is the main player in this situation. Well it takes "two to tango" or on a TfL concession three - TfL, the operator and their staff. TfL are in ultimate control here and if one thing is evident it is a lack of longer term thinking in respect of a fall back for the GOBLIN service. The situation is obviously complex and difficult but the lack of planning and engagement is evident in the lack of effective public communication until forced by immense political pressure to do so. That was a one off given the lack of any public comms since. If TfL are struggling with planning it is no great shock that the operator and its staff (and their reps) are also not as involved as they should be. To do this stuff (including industrial relations and training) properly takes time and we are rapidly running out of it. It can hardly be a shock that drivers would want training time for use of a "new" (to the route) rolling stock with a new (to the drivers) electrification set up on the GOBLIN and new platform lengths and stopping positions at many stations. All of this is predictable and would be needed for the 710s albeit wrapped in the wider familiarisation and training process for that stock. Someone would appear to have thought it wouldn't apply with the 378s "because they drive them already".
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 12, 2019 17:17:17 GMT
An informed comment on another forum suggests initial rostered workings may start in 10-17 days but that still has to be confirmed. The introduction will be phased not a big bang. I saw speculation that they start next Monday - 14th January! I am sceptical, because elsewhere I saw February, but in reality I suppose I should treat both as 'hearsay' until its officially denied. The Class 345's sort of slipped in to service almost unannounced, maybe the same will happen with the 717's? Simon
I simply shared what someone posted in good faith elsewhere. That person is only a driver on the relevant GN route so what would they know? What you choose to believe is up to you. (note to self - don't bother in future)
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 11, 2019 13:24:47 GMT
The penultimate unit of the class, 717024 is now on UK metals. Could it be possible that the whole fleet could swoop in on the May timetable change? An informed comment on another forum suggests initial rostered workings may start in 10-17 days but that still has to be confirmed. The introduction will be phased not a big bang.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 11, 2019 13:20:55 GMT
But the same trains were at that the same length just a few years ago? Surely two key issues - firstly that it was "years ago" and secondly that such trains have not worked on the GOBLIN. I think the wider issue here is that someone has (possibly) forgotten to talk to ASLEF and just "assumed". If, as comments elsewhere suggest (note that word), things are not exactly marvellous between ASLEF and Arriva Rail London (ARL) then it's perhaps no great wonder that there is little or no goodwill from the drivers. Given ARL and TfL are both in "cost reduction" mode the staff will be under pressure in a number of ways. There is also pressure on performance which has been slipping which will be costing ARL money. When you add in the general mess caused by the delays to the Class 710 programme then the drivers are probably fairly "fed up" with having training delayed and not knowing what's going on. They are also probably not happy at the prospect of eventually having to drive trains that are unlikely to be reliable when they go into service. That just means more pressure on performance and more flak from passengers.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 11, 2019 0:36:13 GMT
From the GOBLIN User Group twitter account. On the assumption that this tweet is correct then oh dear!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 9, 2019 17:05:25 GMT
There was a further Transport Cttee meeting at City Hall today. There were two distinct parts - first with Sir Terry Morgan, second with Mark Wild, Heidi Alexander, David Hughes (TfL) and the new yet to start Chairman of Crossrail Ltd. A webcast is available on the London.gov.uk site.
To no great surprise Sir Terry's view of what was said at the July 2018 meeting differs from what was stated by the Mayor and Commissioner in Dec last year. No real point in dwelling on any of that. Various statements were made that don't align with what others have said so we're no further forward.
The second session had a few new bits of info from Mark Wild.
- Woolwich Station is apparently "handed over" and "looks great". Farringdon and Custom House are at contractor demobilisation stage. - Bond Street will finish last, probably in the Summer. - The aim is to get all the construction at stations done with 3-4 months to then allow system testing within stations. - Still working on a programme to sequence the functional testing at stations. This sequencing work should take a few more weeks to complete. - Signalling at Heathrow is not a key priority *at the moment* for Mark Wild. The efforts of Bombardier and Siemens are on getting the core signalling working plus the transition points at Royal Oak / Pudding Mill Lane. - It may still be the case that if the core opens 1 or 2 stations may not open fully. Clearly that is wholly dependent on the relative progress of both train and station testing. If all the stations get through testing and commissioning and into operational preparedness broadly together then that partial opening wouldn't be needed. - Mark Wild stressed multiple times that the Crossrail project did not fully understand the extent of the technical challenge in getting from a construction to an operating railway. I sort of struggle with this given the multiple times he and Sir Terry Morgan said they'd got excellent people on the project and at Executive / Board level. - Apparently around 1,000 people at Bombardier at multiple sites worldwide incl Derby and Bangalore are involved in trying to get the Aventras working with Siemens Trainguard plus the transition points. - Although no firm statements were made about opening dates there was a clear preference from Mark Wild to preserve the structure of a phased opening in order to give time for reliability growth with each iteration of the timetable. - Contracts have been let by NR for the station rebuilds at Southall, Hayes and Harlington and West Drayton. - The contracts for Acton Main Line, Ealing Broadway and West Ealing should be let very soon. Some level of enabling works at these sites was achieved over the Xmas possessions. - Accessibility works at some of East London stations should finish within a few weeks. No info yet re Ilford and Romford where the scope is larger and more involved.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 8, 2019 12:36:33 GMT
I'm sure I'm asking something thtat is common knowledge but who will be operating this 'new' Meridian Water to Stratford service when it opens ...Greater Anglia? London Overground? Someone else? There was originally an option for LO to operate it. There was even an option for an extra 710 train in the contract for those trains with "STAR" as the reason. However as Dom K says it is now part of the Greater Anglia franchise as a supplement to the Train Service Requirement. Sadly I read elsewhere yesterday that the opening date for STAR has slipped from May 2019 to possibly Sept 2019. I've been looking forward to the extra frequency kicking in as that link is very useful and faster than using the bus providing I get a decent connection at T Hale. The higher frequency will cut wait times down hugely.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 7, 2019 0:44:08 GMT
I really think TFL need to have an enormous hissy fit with Bombardier and tell them to get their chequebook out and get in whatever resources are needed to get the 710s sorted out now rather than seeing them as a secondary issue which they can afford to ignore for now and resolve after they have got Elizabeth Line and Heathrow service software problems sorted out. Wake up Bombardier - Heathrow services are still running using the previous rolling stock and Elizabeth line core is unlikely to open this year - so surely Goblin should be the number one priority. However what happens in February when two more 172s are due to leave? Can other Overground services really be reduced to release another 378 unit for Goblin. Even less plausible is the potential for TFL to achieve the same trick a third time in March when all the 172s are due to be returned? I guess someone in the PR department might attempt to argue that customers will be pleased by the introduction of electric trains albeit whilst halving the service frequency effectively offset by doubling the train lengths. I think regular Goblin customers may think otherwise.. What astonishes me is this mess has not been picked up by the mainstream media - even if there are other things also coming to a head in March. If you believe the Mayor and the Commissioner then they've been having "gentlemanly" hissie fits with senior Bombardier people over the 710s and 345s for months. Doesn't seem to have had any discernible impact. Bombardier have already forked out £5m to TfL in respect of the 710 contract and there's probably more due. That hasn't had any demonstrable effect either. This is a classic "stand off" because the customer is effectively powerless against the supplier. TfL simply cannot afford to tear up the contract and go and buy some trains from someone else. Far too much hinges on making the 710s (and 345s for that matter) work. Bombardier know this. While I am sure they are not trying to "upset" (ahem) TfL deliberately none of this mess stopped them from taking legal action against TfL in respect of the Picc Line procurement - a saga that will run on for months or years and might mean TfL shovelling many millions in their direction. They know there is a contractual cap on "consequential losses" or whatever term is in the contract. They will have priced that risk into the overall contract which means TfL pays for it at some point over the 20 year manufacture and maintain deal that's been signed. The bigger risk for Bombardier is reputational in having far larger orders for other TOCs beginning to look delayed because that brings in the DfT who will NOT be happy if delayed new trains means more collapsing franchises (as is distinctly possible). I also suspect that Bombardier have actually forced TfL to set the respective project priorities in terms of Crossrail vs GOBLIN vs later 710 deliveries. Crossrail, given the enormous sums involved and media / political spotlight, will always win out. That's just how it is. I don't see that changing given Mark Wild has to provide some sort of updated Crossrail programme this month or early next and then deal with the inevitable fall out from whatever he announces. It doesn't matter what he says he will be challenged on every aspect from many different parties. The only way the Crossrail melée calms down is when demonstrable progress can be shown to be happening. I think we're months away from that so the atmosphere will remain febrile and that's to the detriment of getting the 710s into service given Bombardier clearly have finite software development and testing resources. Once we get to February - 25 days away - we won't have a viable service on the GOBLIN. Half hour gaps in the peaks are beyond comprehension even if you have a 4 car EMU to play with. TfL have nowhere to go with this apart from closing the line *again*. I think the media are aware of the looming problem but they won't use the story as it currently is because it's all threat and bluster and hoping for a miracle. Once the 172s start going and the timetable starts collapsing that's when the BBC and ITV London will turn up to film 250 people waiting at Wanstead Park when 600 people have already boarded the train at Barking and Woodgrange Park after a 30-45 min gap in the AM peak. That makes for suitable "disaster" like coverage. There will be a queue of Assembly Members and user group reps willing to appear in front of the cameras to "comment" on the mess and those responsible for it. So give it a month or so unless Bombardier pull a rabbit with new software from their development hat. I can't see it myself. Bye bye GOBLIN service in 4-5 weeks time is my prediction. Forum members can happily come back and point and go "HA HA" if I am (hopefully) proved wrong.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 4, 2019 12:18:09 GMT
waysider , I believe similar to how the new entrance to Bond Street at Marylebone was devoid of ticket machines initially, the gate lines due to be installed at Hackney Wick are going to be a new of a new variant that is apparently water/weather resistant. Water and weather resistant? Are they going to be coated in rubber? I am surprised that it has taken Cubic this long to develop such a variant given the huge numbers of gates with many in exposed conditions. You can clearly see on the 2nd photograph where the gates will be installed - the floor duct is there with the stanchion positions evident.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 3, 2019 15:35:30 GMT
so is the new station building at Tottenham Hale being designed with this daft two sets of gates layout in mind? The design that got planning approval certainly did have two gatelines. It also added a footbridge link over the new third track (off the end of the existing footbridge over the GA tracks) to the blocks of student flats. That link would become "unpaid" in the new design and is one of the reasons why there were (are?) two gatelines - the existing LU one and then a relocated Gtr Anglia gateline - in the new design. Personally I don't see why you need that link. To walk round via Ferry Lane takes only marginally longer. I can't see an easy answer to this conundrum because having "behind the gateline" interchange will cause revenue leakage at this location. So many of the stops on the Gtr Anglia route are ungated meaning people would have open access into the tube via T Hale (and many other services at Stratford) without paying anythng on GA. AIUI the gateline for the Gtr Anglia services was mandated by the DfT who demanded action to reduce revenue losses. Removing the facility in the new ticket hall would almost certainly need DfT sign off which I doubt would be forthcoming.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 1, 2019 14:30:28 GMT
Actually you would not be within your rights. All you could do is raise questions with Bombardier, citing real life examples, and asking them to explain what they would do in terms of design / process / etc to avoid the issues that were experienced with another fleet. You would then have to assess their responses fairly against the identified criteria. You can't just go "oh well they were useless on that contract so they'd be useless on a future one". In terms of fairness you'd also want to understand from, say, Siemens how they would avoid a 15 month delay as they had with the class 700s! What 15 month delay happened with the 700s please, as they came into service in the correct time according to when the contract was signed. The delay was in getting the finance together so the contract could be signed due to the global financial issues.The class 700 introduction in the end was right on schedule in the end with the last couple of trains slightly ahead of delivery. As for contract delivery, its a complex minefield with both parties needing to ensure things are right. I'm sure Bombardier will be in part bale to off set some of the reasons for delays due to the inability to run under the wires earlier which will have affected their ability to deliver. As for freed up 313s, its a no go as none will be freed up any time soon plus it's far easier for LO to use the 378s as it avoids the issues with dispatch that any of the older ex BR fleets present. Also don't forget re-introducing the 313s back onto the main line would be unlikely to be operated in the same method as before as standards have changed and any older rights have gone as they haven't been kept in service on these routes. The use of a single 378 4 car, s is my understanding, is to provide a temporary break in the needs to allow more testing to happen. Remember the same group of people now have 3 separate software issues to deal with. Making the 345s work to Heathrow, making the 345s work in the Crossrail Core and making the 710s work. However the 710 is a far bigger problem for Bombardier with 1988 coaches worth of orders (with multiple due in service during 2019) that need to be delivered and the 710 issue affects all of them as its the base software for the Adventra (just not the 345 that use a different software package). However more delays will create a major issue as there is no way to provide a 2nd or more 378 for GOBLIN without the cancellation of trains on somewhere else on the network. The next few months are going very interesting to see what happens as long as your not someone depending on these units. The reference to the class 700s is to an article on London Reconnections where it was clearly shown that the 700s were late in delivery and software development was, how shall I put it, a rather long and convoluted exercise with many many months of in service failures and breakdowns. Obviously Siemens have broken the back of the issues with the 700s as you would hope and the 707s and 717s seem to have had a smoother early life. To be fair I didn't mention the 313s as any sort of option. I am well aware of the many issues which make the re-use of old stock (from whatever route) a no go on the GOBLIN. I think Bombardier will struggle hugely to demonstrate that any class 710s were in a suitable approved state for testing on the GOBLIN and that the wiring delays had any impact whatsoever on their programme. The only factor that might play to their hand is if TfL formally instructed them to "go slow" with deliveries because of the wiring delays. I would be very surprised if TfL did that given Bombardier were nowhere near getting regulatory approval for the class 710s to run on *any* NR metals a year ago. Wasn't it September or October 2018 when NR eventually allowed 710s to run on their tracks? 9 months is a one heck of a delay. I would agree with your view if Bombardier had had 10 class 710s lined for delivery having gained regulatory clearance in Jan 2018 but they didn't. I agree Bombardier have a lot on their plate in terms of software development. From reading the released Crossrail papers it seems the Core software has always had priority in terms of development with Heathrow following on behind. I think the Heathrow issue is now embroiled with the HEX / GWR fleet cascade so outside of TfL's control. I do wonder whether TfL have had to instruct Bombardier as to the relative priorities with these three workstreams with Crossrail naturally being the number one priority. How long before those priorities, because of the Aventra order book, have to change?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 1, 2019 14:00:41 GMT
I may have put this on another thread here. I have put it on another forum. I have read 2020 before through running and are the same people who built Crossrail 1 now in charge of Crossrail 2 Crossrail 2 is at a completely different stage in its life cycle than Crossrail 1. It is in the hands of planners and people doing economic / business case justification plus some level of engineering feasibility. That is vastly different to a full scale construction / fitting out / commissioning project team. TfL are leading on CR2 with support from Network Rail as required. Michelle Dix is MD of CR2 Limited and she's the former Head of Strategic Planning (or similar title) at TfL. AIUI CR2 is currently being "reviewed" (i.e. cut and descoped) to try to get it to be vaguely viable and affordable to try to meet TfL's ability to raise sufficient local funding and get past DfT / HM Treasury funding restrictions. Even if the DfT were to say "yes" tomorrow (which they won't) it will be a decade at least before any actual physical work is done on CR2. This is because the key funding sources for CR2 (Crossrail levy and Community Infrastructure Levy revenues) have been reallocated to fund CR1's cost overrun. That will take years and years to clear given TfL also has to pay off other Crossrail loans. I suspect this post really should be in another Crossrail thread and not about class 345 introduction. I'll leave that to the admins to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 31, 2018 13:14:00 GMT
I made this statement once, and got a telling off haha. Apparently you are only allowed to make a decision on tendering based on the actual bid. I think that if Bombardier's tender had a section about their capability to introduce new trains into service, you would be totally within your rights to take into account the Class 345 experience when scoring that section of Bombardier's bid. If a (hypothetical) supplier said their capability was amazing but you knew it wasn't, you would score the tender based on facts not marketing fiction. Actually you would not be within your rights. All you could do is raise questions with Bombardier, citing real life examples, and asking them to explain what they would do in terms of design / process / etc to avoid the issues that were experienced with another fleet. You would then have to assess their responses fairly against the identified criteria. You can't just go "oh well they were useless on that contract so they'd be useless on a future one". In terms of fairness you'd also want to understand from, say, Siemens how they would avoid a 15 month delay as they had with the class 700s!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 29, 2018 16:55:59 GMT
To add to your second statement, given that the users of the GOBLIN were deprived of their service for a year only to add the insult of injury when it transpired further possessions were required to finish the job now followed on with the rolling stock saga patience must be wearing pretty thin. I can't see how the DC and North/South/East/West London lines could scrape away more than 3 or 4 units given the fairly pressing demand that the 710's were ironically supposed to alleviate on some of those very routes. I think it goes without saying that however event on from here go forward, they will have miffed off alot of people. The GOBLIN is one of my local LO routes. I've only used it twice since all the engineering works etc started. The latest debacle is just another reason not to go anywhere near it. How regular users are coping with it I don't know especially at peak times. I can see both sides of the debate about what to do in the short term - one is clearly to try to "patch" the service as best they can with shortened EMUs even if that causes issues on other lines. The other is to revert to bus replacement on the GOBLIN unpopular though that would be. Makes me wonder what Bombardier have told TfL about the prospects for the 710s if TfL are now, late in the day, prepared to incur the expense and effort of creating a mini fleet of 4 car EMUs to try to keep some semblance of service on the GOBLIN running. TfL have held off for so long in trying to find a stand-in fleet that I can only assume the prospects for the 710s are not good.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 28, 2018 21:25:39 GMT
snoggle , According to the GOBLIN rail user group, 232 made a test trip before Christmas and was scheduled do a few more in the coming days. Even if the unit is wrong a tweeter, had posted a photo of a reduced unit which has since been deleted. OK, we've clearly been reading the same source. I knew the 378 had run on the WCML during the night but it was the reference to it having run on the GOBLIN that prompted my question. Having gone back and checked I've found the reference you're quoting. Sorry for the slightly "pointed" questioning - I was a bit too harsh. I'm still in a slight state of disbelief that TfL are going down this route of shortening class 378s.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 27, 2018 22:51:42 GMT
378232 has been doing the rounds recently over the GOBLIN. Many seem to think that the Capitalstars won't be pressed in till the 1st/2nd week of the new year presumably because thats when the scales tip. Has it? When out of curiosity given half the line has been shut for a week for planned engineering works / Xmas non running days? I have seen elsewhere that 232 has been hauled to Silwood sidings - quite why it's gone there is anyone's guess. Makes no sense to me given 378s routinely run on both AC and DC so can't see why it would need to be tested in South London. Surely they could test it on the Watford DC line if they needed to? If there is to a conversion of a few 378s to 4 car then I'm astonished that TfL have opted to do this. I thought they'd confine the misery to the GOBLIN and not reduce services elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 24, 2018 0:30:10 GMT
Does this suggest that we will soon electric trains operating in passenger service on the GOBLin? It seems there is some sort of plan to try to fill in for the impending loss of more 172 (from Jan onwards). I can't see that TfL will be able to find many spare 378s to shorten as the fleet utilisation is already tight with trains away for refurb. This means any use of 378s is not any sort of "solution" - it's a sticking plaster and a likely short term one at that. If, as planned, a 172 leaves every 2-3 weeks from Jan onwards [1] then you've really got no meaningful weekday service from the end of Jan as I'm sceptical TfL could find more than 2 378s to shorten. Network Rail will not rewrite the timetable to allow a lower but regular headway service using fewer trains which means we'd have 30-45 min gaps on weekdays. That's hopeless and unworkable in the peaks even if you have a 378 running - it would be packed full and beyond if there was a 30 min gap in the peaks. Bombardier have to get the 710s running but no one has a clue when that will be possible. [1] this is on the basis that West Midlands Trains need all the 172s at Tyseley by March 2019. AIUI that's the working assumption between TfL and WM Trains concerning the sublease. This gives WM Trains time to get the trains overhauled and fitted with toilets before use from May 2019.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 20, 2018 20:36:14 GMT
Anyone who passes Limehouse will know that the view has not materially changed since those photos were taken in May, and the escalators remain resolutely barried off. I've been in touch with DLR by twitter. It took them quite a few days to reply (the reply had to be cleared with management apparently). Their reply is that the escalators will come into service on Monday 17 December. According to a tweet and photos from Ianvisits the new entrnance actually opened for service today (20/12).
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 19, 2018 13:15:23 GMT
You assume that this can or should manifest in additional activity in London. There’s a perfectly valid argument that what’s good for Britain as a whole may not be what is good for London in particular, and that the investment should be rebalanced in favour of other places. Not sure I was "assuming" anything really. I was responding to a question about London's transport needs. I won't go into all the politics as the admin axe will descend. All I will say is that I have no issue at all in other parts of the country receiving good and sustained investment for their public transport systems. However I don't buy the "in vogue" political argument that such investment must be at the cost of continued investment in London. A country of our apparent wealth should be more than capable of affording both regional and London transport investment.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 19, 2018 13:04:47 GMT
Doesn't sound like there are problems on the extension "“In isolation the Northern Line Extension project is still on time and working towards a December 2020 finish,” the source said. “However, instead of doing a big bells and whistles unveiling then it will be realigned with the completion of works at Bank station." Eh? I don't see how the NLE is "on time" given the developer of Battersea Power Station (BPS) forced a redesign of BPS tube station. We know from past LU reports that this forced a redesign causing a delay while that work was done. It has also caused an increase in cost. LU was signed up to a fixed "in service" date for the full extension which it couldn't meet. If nothing was wrong why did a plethora of decisions need sorting in a NLE paper at the last Programmes and Investment meeting? I assume the developer and LU have reached a commercial settlement which covers LU's extra costs, removes the risk of breaching the "in service" date agreement by changing the date. LU may be taking the view that its works are "on time" except for the impact of an external change which is one way of describing things but it's a tad dubious to me. I also have a sneaking suspicion that traffic on the extension is not going to be as forecast anyway. We know the property market is struggling especially at the expensive end and that Chinese and Malaysian investors are not enthused about prospects for the Battersea / Nine Elms development. I'm not expecting trains on the extension to be "full" for a very, very long time. I'd not be shocked if a fair slice of the traffic comes from people reaching the stations by bus from the much wider local hinterland. I think there is also another factor in play which is timetable changes. It must make sense for LU to try to minimise the number of timetable changes to cope with the revised layout / run and dwell times resulting from the Bank works and also Battersea Power Station. Doing it as one overall package makes a lot of sense given the need to change maintenance regimes to provide trains for the extension, driver rosters and the signalling and control system to reflect the new timetable. Doing it as one rather than 2 or 3 separate changes must also save a lot of time, effort and money.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 18, 2018 14:27:34 GMT
Platform extensions are not signed off so cannot be used. Not quite sure what the hold up is. I've asked this before, but there wasn't a reply. So, purely in the cause of curiosity, and because the topic has cropped up again, I'll ask again in a different way: Where do the 7-car trains turn if the bay is not available? Presumably they have passengers disembark at one of the through platforms, but then what happens? (I'm not criticising the previous lack of answer, by the way - no-one is *required* to respond on this forum, after all!) I think this has cropped up on another forum. My not 100% recollection of the answer is that if the bay is not accessible then the Padd - Hayes & H shuttle service is cancelled because there is nowhere else that is cleared for trains to reverse in or where all drivers are cleared to drive 345s to. That includes the West Drayton and Maidenhead turnbacks. I know that leaves open the question about what happens if a failure occurs when an in service train reaches the crossover at Hayes and Harlington but I don't know what the answer to that scenario is. If I was to make a wild guess as to why platform extensions are not available for use I'd hazard a guess at platform / train interface issues. The fact that several stations are building sites with or without work happening doesn't help either as PTI conditions will be subject to ongoing change. Ensuring you have camera positions that are not going to be affected by substantive works over a long period is a tough challenge. It's not impossible to resolve but it's not easy either. As ever I am happy to be corrected if people know the facts rather than my speculative musing!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 18, 2018 14:05:08 GMT
It is very hard to see how TfL will get back to a position of regular upward growth on its services given population, employment and technological changes affecting how, why, when and how often people travel. Surely this is 'a good thing'? No matter how much you love the public transport infrastructure we have in London, ever increasing passenger numbers can only be a bad thing, because, no matter how much money you throw at things, there is a finite amount of space available to operate any form of transport in an already very congested city. Admittedly, If tfl increase the frequency of a service to raise its capacity, the utility of the service is improved a little, but, in reality, we are already at, or will shortly reach, the maximum feasible rate of trains per hour (assuming we actually want to allow passengers to get on and off) on many lines. As a society, the best thing we could do for the underground is to flatten and extend the morning and evening peak bumps. I sort of understand what you're saying. However settling for a level amount of capacity really means that you're saying that the economy and employment will stagnate. Transport's only there to facilitate other purposes. The other implication is that static demand removes a great deal of pressure on the Treasury to find money to actually improve the system. They'd much rather provide as little money as possible and they're not far off that objective already. We really do not need a return to the bad old days of delayed asset renewals and increasing unreliability. There are already worrying signs of some of this and it should not be allowed to get any worse. At some point in the future the economic cycle will improve and we might get past some of the political lunacy the country is currently suffering from. That should bring about an increase in activity for which people need a decent and growing transport system. The worry is what happens in the meantime. Wishing for the peaks to flatten significantly is a bit of forlorn wish. Both peaks have spread over the last 20 years but all that has meant is that more people overall travel at peak times not that the peak of the peak has reduced. The only way to really flatten the peak is to have an enormous and long lasting recesssion which would be ruinous for TfL's finances.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 18, 2018 13:49:39 GMT
They already cut the buses severely. And I see rather serious fall in off-peak train frequencies on the tube already. I don't see what else is left to cut, if they don't want to hurt their own revenues. To be honest they haven't cut the buses that severely. Yes on the Oxford St axis and routes serving Paddington there have been some big reductions but that's about it. The next planned round for Central London routes is fairly severe but this is nothing like what happened in the 1980s (or earlier). I don't like what is happening or is planned but it's a world away from where we were in the 70s and 80s. The key differences is that we are starting from a higher base level of service and service reliability is much better even if operators are really struggling with recruitment and retention. I'm not aware LU has formally cut any tube frequencies. The actual day to day performance may be appalling (not mentioning the Picc Line) but that's a failure of service provision not a cut. My argument would be that that you could cut off peak frequencies on the tube to save some money. IIRC both the Central and Bakerloo line fleets need substantive works done to them so easing demands on those lines could make sense. In the new Business Plan TfL are forecasting a drop of 16m pass jnys in 2019-20 which I assume is to do with a transfer of pax to Crossrail but that's still a big drop. I also wonder if some modest savings could be made on the DLR, Tramlink and London Overground. All three operations have problems with either rolling stock reliability or the need to undertake upgrades / refurbs to trams / trains to achieve other objectives. Easing the pressure on fleet utilisation is probably no bad thing in the short to medium term.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 17, 2018 14:38:24 GMT
A record breaking week does not a decline reverse! Precisely. All the TfL numbers are in the London Datastore so are accessible. It is almost a tradition that the tube experiences its "busiest day ever" at some point in December. The reasons for that are not exactly a surprise. So far this year the tube is up about 4m on last year. However last year patronage on the tube fell by about 21m pass jnys over the year [1]. Not huge but significant given patronage has risen strongly for many years prior to that. TfL have also scaled back plans to increase service kilometrage on the tube. There will be some increases because of the SSR upgrade and NLE but plans are more modest than they were and are later (presumably reflecting delays to Northern Line projects). Bus usage is down every period this year compared to last and it has fallen for the last three years. Buses are in a real mess. In the new business plan TfL have effectively conceded that they will never recover bus usage as each year in the plan sees patronage fall. This is despite the fact that TfL have abandoned plans for massive cuts in bus kilometrage. There will be some more cuts but not as savage as the previous business plan. I am guessing City Hall has taken fright at what the old plan could have meant politically. The Overground, DLR and Trams are all bumping along at last year's usage levels with only tiny gains or small falls in usage. The old days of strong growth have gone. TfL Rail is up a bit on last year but that seems to be because of the addition of services out of Paddington. Hard to see any discernible upward trend on Shenfield line services. It is very hard to see how TfL will get back to a position of regular upward growth on its services given population, employment and technological changes affecting how, why, when and how often people travel. [1] partly skewed by the timing of the Easter holidays.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 15, 2018 15:11:34 GMT
I don't think there are any issues with length at Paddington mainline (unlike Liverpool Street mainline)? There are some curvature issues these aren't any different to those encountered with 7-car trains. If there are though then they could run 7-car trains out to Reading. For Crossrail's signalling issues, it's basically irrelevant how far west a train starts - it only matters whether it takes the high or low routes at Royal Oak. Given 9 car units were only ever supposed to run out west, even in this early phase, then there clearly isn't an issue at Paddington. We've only seen 7 cars because access to Heathrow wasn't ready due to signalling problems and also, even in degraded timetable mode, the bay platform at Hayes and Harlington wasn't ready for 9 cars either. I've read elsewhere that the bay should have come into use on 9 December thus allowing 9 car 345s to be used. That would release 7 cars to the Shenfield route. TfL took the decision to take on the class 360s from Heathrow Connect as they're the only "spare" trains that could access Heathrow using the old BR-ATP equipment. There shouldn't be an issue with 9 car 345s running to Reading and terminating at Paddington assuming that GWR relinquish the paths that was always the plan come December 2019. The question I don't know the answer to is whether Paddington surface can handle the envisaged frequency that was due to be run from Dec 2019. If I was to make a wild guess then possibly not - 4 tph to Reading and 6 tph into Heathrow (IIRC).
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 15, 2018 14:45:43 GMT
I wonder how much of that is being overly optimistic at the planning stage to get project approval and/or tighten budgets? There are genuine reasons for a delay on the NLE. Slightly surprised it's as big as 9 months but clearly there is an element of not wanting too much change on the Northern Line in a short period so aiming for one timetable change post Bank and NLE completion makes sense. It probably also underlines an unstated view that the Nine Elms / BPS redevelopment may not be as big a draw as people expected when it was being planned. Given the woes with the "High Street / retailers" will people really go to BPS for a largely "retail experience" that they could get elsewhere? Possibly not but it's a bit late now! I don't know what's happening on the Bank project and if it is late / has encountered problems. The only thing that I know is being questioned at TfL Board level is the lack of accessibility to the Central Line in the plans. Obviously even if you put in lifts to / from Central Line platform level you are left with a very significant problem between train and platform that can't be easily remedied.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 15, 2018 12:49:21 GMT
I've been beaten to it! Interesting that both the extension and works at Bank Station have slipped. All these delays must be costing TfL a small fortune in terms of keeping project teams active for longer and also delays to increased revenue. The only upside is that any increase in operating costs is also delayed. By my reckoning every major project in recent times and into the future has been late against programme or has had its programme changed.
|
|