|
|
Post by sawb on Aug 9, 2015 15:04:20 GMT
Not sure. Really depends on when the crossover removal is scheduled to be completed. My understanding is that out of 10 current emergency crossovers between Shenfield and Stratford, all but 4 are being removed, allegedly to imrpove service reliability. Go figure.... Isn't it Network Rail policy now to remove points and crossing where they are not required or are of a non standard design or approaching the end of their life or are known to have a poor reliability record? I understand the concern about the loss of operational flexibility but if you can safely plain line track and still recover the service effectively in most situations you're probably further ahead in terms of reliability than you'd otherwise be. TfL have also specified a very tough regime for MTR to meet in terms of Crossrail's performance and some contribution will have to come from Network Rail in terms of their assets working better than they currently do. Obviously we shall see in due course whether the right decisions have been taken. If that is Network Rail policy, then yes, some of the crossovers do have a poor reliability record, but they're also removing others that see extensive use (mainly when the service goes to pot!) |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Aug 9, 2015 16:00:49 GMT
I question ANY decision that reduces operational flexibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Aug 9, 2015 18:02:39 GMT
There must be a limit where the cost outweighs the benefits but the tendency does seem to be pushing a little far in the other direction.
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Aug 9, 2015 23:23:38 GMT
I question ANY decision that reduces operational flexibility. In agree with that sentiment. I hope that the situation is never reached whereby it is discovered that in throwing out the bath water the bath was thrown out as well! btw, today, Sunday 9th August 2015 there was track works on the fast lines at Stratford station and as a consequence all trains were passing through platforms 5 and 8. These are the tracks normally used by TfL rail trains, so in addition to the usual Liverpool St - Shenfields the trains using these platforms included those on the Southend Vic and Clacton routes and I also saw some InterCitys passing through as well (but without stopping). I wonder whether this will cease to be possible 'in the future'? with passengers (horror of horrors) being thrown off longer distance trains and either put on all stations slow trains or (horror of horror) sent by bus. I hope the track simplications do not have negative results for the freight trains travelling from the NLL to Barking (etc). Simon |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 19, 2015 19:10:47 GMT
I question ANY decision that reduces operational flexibility. In agree with that sentiment. I hope that the situation is never reached whereby it is discovered that in throwing out the bath water the bath was thrown out as well! btw, today, Sunday 9th August 2015 there was track works on the fast lines at Stratford station and as a consequence all trains were passing through platforms 5 and 8. These are the tracks normally used by TfL rail trains, so in addition to the usual Liverpool St - Shenfields the trains using these platforms included those on the Southend Vic and Clacton routes and I also saw some InterCitys passing through as well (but without stopping). I wonder whether this will cease to be possible 'in the future'? with passengers (horror of horrors) being thrown off longer distance trains and either put on all stations slow trains or (horror of horror) sent by bus. I hope the track simplications do not have negative results for the freight trains travelling from the NLL to Barking (etc). Simon While Crossrail lobbied hard, they DO NOT have any more rights than any other TOC when it comes to the GEML & GWML when it comes to securing track access. NR are under a legal obligation to treat all operators fairly and allocate paths in a responsible way - and Grater Anglia, DB Schenker, First Great western, Freightliner, etc made sure they were NOT disadvantaged when the final agreement was drawn up between NR and Crossrail. As a result if engineering works (be they planned or emergency ones) need to take place on say the 'main' lines between Stratford and Shenfield, TfL WILL have its service reduced so as to ensure the remaining capacity is fairly used by all operators with a view to minimising the inconvenience to ALL users of the rail network. Cancelling all Grater Anglia and Freight services while leaving Crossrail unaffected is not acceptable from a non Londoners point of view as various Home counties MPs know only too well. Too many people seen to be viewing Crossrail and London Overground as being fundamentally different from every other TOC when as far as the industry goes they are simply another operator once they appear on NR infrastructure. OK they may appear far 'better' than ordinary franchises as far as the public are concerned but people should remember that from a DfT perspective, they are both Franchises - merely ones that the body responsible for letting said franchises decided to let as a concession and ones which said authority is willing to pay an extra subsidy, raised by local taxpayers - NOT the DfT, to achieve certain outcomes. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 19, 2015 21:57:58 GMT
Too many people seen to be viewing Crossrail and London Overground as being fundamentally different from every other TOC when as far as the industry goes they are simply another operator once they appear on NR infrastructure. OK they may appear far 'better' than ordinary franchises as far as the public are concerned but people should remember that from a DfT perspective, they are both Franchises - merely ones that the body responsible for letting said franchises decided to let as a concession and ones which said authority is willing to pay an extra subsidy, raised by local taxpayers - NOT the DfT, to achieve certain outcomes. I am going to quibble very slightly with the comment about the DfT view. I thought it was the case that the bits hived off to TfL to specify also had other exemptions granted to certain Railways Act provisions which does put them on a slightly different basis to a normal franchise. There is also the position that certain risks sit squarely with TfL / the Mayor and not with the Secretary of State. With regard to Crossrail I think there are provisions that prevent it reverting to DfT control because of the way the project financing works - TfL are squarely in the frame for making sure certain financing is repaid from Crossrail revenues. I agree there are no special provisions re track access. I do wonder quite how hard MTR Crossrail will contest service disruption attribution given the onerous regime they are signed up to with TfL for the Crossrail service. The potential for "events" to screw up the Crossrail service is considerable given the route is not segregated on the GEML or GWML. It will be fascinating to see how they approach service management and dealing with external impacts. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 22, 2015 23:18:32 GMT
Too many people seen to be viewing Crossrail and London Overground as being fundamentally different from every other TOC when as far as the industry goes they are simply another operator once they appear on NR infrastructure. OK they may appear far 'better' than ordinary franchises as far as the public are concerned but people should remember that from a DfT perspective, they are both Franchises - merely ones that the body responsible for letting said franchises decided to let as a concession and ones which said authority is willing to pay an extra subsidy, raised by local taxpayers - NOT the DfT, to achieve certain outcomes. I am going to quibble very slightly with the comment about the DfT view. I thought it was the case that the bits hived off to TfL to specify also had other exemptions granted to certain Railways Act provisions which does put them on a slightly different basis to a normal franchise. There is also the position that certain risks sit squarely with TfL / the Mayor and not with the Secretary of State. With regard to Crossrail I think there are provisions that prevent it reverting to DfT control because of the way the project financing works - TfL are squarely in the frame for making sure certain financing is repaid from Crossrail revenues. I agree there are no special provisions re track access. I do wonder quite how hard MTR Crossrail will contest service disruption attribution given the onerous regime they are signed up to with TfL for the Crossrail service. The potential for "events" to screw up the Crossrail service is considerable given the route is not segregated on the GEML or GWML. It will be fascinating to see how they approach service management and dealing with external impacts. There may be differences between the exact nature of the TfL concessions and regular Franchises but these are trivial in character and do not remove the right of the DfT to veto anything they don't like such as 'nationalising' or bodies like TfL running the services themselves rather than contracting out service provision or doing away with the requirement for all station ticket offices / machines to sell tickets to every other national rail station in the UK. This also applies to Merseyrail and the Welsh and Scottish administrations where it has been made quite clear that the SNP want to renationalise rail operations north of the border but the Conservative administration will not have any of it. Ultimately however you dress it up, the fact remains that the DfT retain the right to take back the ability to offer concessions / franchises if the devolved body is deliberately trying to do things that try that run counter to Government policy (e.g. nationalisation) or things that end up running up unsustainable debts etc. As for service disruption, in the east Crossrail do have the get out clause as the self contained Abbey Wood branch does give options of maintaining a reasonable service across the core if the GEML has problems and the possibility of sending services diverted from the GEML down there too. The situation is a bit more difficult to the west of London though as there is nowhere else to turn stuff round than the reversing sidings to be built just after the line rises out of the tunnel before they start running along the GWML itself. |
|
