Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2015 20:04:24 GMT
I am making this topic after I've curiously traveled on the Romford - Upminster line since I've never been this far east. I have a question about the EMU's that operate on these lines. I was lucky enough to be in a Class 317, and will they be getting refurbished, or will new Class 378s be built to take over? If so, when would that happen? I am a pretty tall guy and the seats there do not have any leg room. Also they are in an appaling state, inside and out. It may be a bit too soon to complain though.
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jun 5, 2015 20:40:35 GMT
They should get a heavy clean and new seat covers.
No more 378s. It will be a new type of train.
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Jun 5, 2015 21:06:54 GMT
They are a good deal more comfortable than their heritage DMU predecessors. Wonder why a 100mph intercity unit is being used on Rom-Up?
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Jun 5, 2015 21:23:46 GMT
As the branch only requires one unit it is probably more economic to use a standard unit rather than a 'one off' dedicated unit, whether it be a different type or an older unit kept for use on the branch.
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Jun 5, 2015 21:42:24 GMT
Wonder why a 100mph intercity unit is being used on Rom-Up? Quite how this service survived the Beeching axe, especially as its such a short shuttle with just the one intermediate station, is close to a miracle. Emerson Park station has the ambiance of a rural country halt... not a station in a big city. I've used it several times, not just for trainspotting but to make real journeys (such as when I went to Upminster Depot open day when the District line was closed). I've travelled on classes 315, 321 and 317. Some of these are seen in my YouTube film of Emerson Park station. I wonder what TfL will do with this line... will they try to 'grow' it? If the line speed was increased (although 100mph would not be realistic) so maybe some extra halts could be added whilst still retaining the core half hourly frequency, this would significantly increase the usefulness of the service. Simon
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2015 22:33:50 GMT
I wonder what TfL will do with this line... will they try to 'grow' it? If the line speed was increased (although 100mph would not be realistic) so maybe some extra halts could be added whilst still retaining the core half hourly frequency, this would significantly increase the usefulness of the service. Simon I doubt TfL will be doing anything to this line in terms of increasing the frequency of trains, like doubling up on tracks, or extending the platforms. I am not too sure about the busyness at rush hour, holidays etc..., but off peak hours it is reasonably empty. Between Upminster and Emerson Park, the distance is too short to even think about putting a station there. Maybe a station just next to Brentwood Road bridge. But again, if Emerson Park was used 127,298 in 2013-2014, there is no real demand. Though it has been rising over the years.
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Jun 6, 2015 10:03:33 GMT
It was due for the axe under Beeching but a local campaign combined with the local constituency being a Tory marginal saved it. (But not the local MP as he lost the seat.)
|
|
|
Post by jukes on Jun 9, 2015 22:54:39 GMT
Paper going to TfL F&P on 17 June seeking procurement approval for new rolling stock. First train to be delivered by December 2017 and final unit by October 2018. All are to be 4-car units. 31 for WA inc Romford line, 8 for GOBLIN and 6 for Watford DC line. Plus options for either extending units to 5-car or procurement of additional trains including additional units for Barking Riverside extension, Stratford-Angel Road (STAR) service and 4tph Watford DC and 5tph GOBLIN.
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Jun 20, 2015 19:45:42 GMT
It would be nice if TfL were to take over the Abbey Line in Watford as well. This sort of rolling stock would be more appropriate than the current options, and they might be more interested in growth than the mainline TOC who just treats it as an annoyance, not too dissimilar to Romford-Upminster, in fact.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 20, 2015 20:09:04 GMT
It would be nice if TfL were to take over the Abbey Line in Watford as well. This sort of rolling stock would be more appropriate than the current options, and they might be more interested in growth than the mainline TOC who just treats it as an annoyance, not too dissimilar to Romford-Upminster, in fact. Surely that line is outside of TfL's scope of responsibility as it lies entirely outside of Greater London? TfL's budget is under severe strain as it is so why would they wish to take on what will surely be a distraction to them? TfL have no option on cross border routes which are long standing or where DfT has insisted they take over (e.g. Croxley Link). I would not advocate a TfL takeover - they have more than enough to do inside Greater London which is where their attention should be focused.
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Jun 20, 2015 23:30:51 GMT
The Abbey Line does not fit with london midland either, I could not see any reason why tfl could not operate the abbey line on a franchise basis
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Jun 21, 2015 0:03:27 GMT
There was a mooted takeover once upon a time, IIRC. The issue was splitting responsibility at the M25 boundary as it was a hard sell beyond there.
TfL are proposed to take on the AC Tring services as part of Crossrail phase 2, they already have the DC services to Watford...TBH I think the Abbey services are acceptable. Especially when you consider the wider proposals for where the boundary will eventually sit. TfL want (will have?) out to Hertford East on the WAML - they certainly have to Cheshunt. They want out to Dartford and Orpington/Sevenoaks on the SEML. They want Tring on the WCML. St Albans on the MML. WGC on the ECML. High Wycombe on the Chiltern line...
...Watford to St Albans quite comfortably fits that remit now where previously it would not have when this was last looked at, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Jun 21, 2015 10:53:32 GMT
If TfL is going to turn back into something close to a revived LPTB then the political control will need changing.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 21, 2015 12:31:25 GMT
There was a mooted takeover once upon a time, IIRC. The issue was splitting responsibility at the M25 boundary as it was a hard sell beyond there. TfL are proposed to take on the AC Tring services as part of Crossrail phase 2, they already have the DC services to Watford...TBH I think the Abbey services are acceptable. Especially when you consider the wider proposals for where the boundary will eventually sit. TfL want (will have?) out to Hertford East on the WAML - they certainly have to Cheshunt. They want out to Dartford and Orpington/Sevenoaks on the SEML. They want Tring on the WCML. St Albans on the MML. WGC on the ECML. High Wycombe on the Chiltern line... ...Watford to St Albans quite comfortably fits that remit now where previously it would not have when this was last looked at, IMHO. Hang on a moment. Can we get the chronology correct please? *DfT*, not TfL, are proposing a possible connection between Crossrail and the WCML. This is to aid the process of reconstruction at Euston for HS2. I haven't read a single thing that says TfL are the people pushing this change. Some of their plans for Old Oak Common acknowledge the potential for the curve but that's it. Crossrail themselves are doing nothing about the link until / if they receive a client instruction. It will be the DfT who funds the link and it will be DfT that determines if the London Midland franchise is rescoped and if it would like TfL to add the services. If TfL had wanted services to Hertford East then I imagine it would have them as part of West Anglia. However it doesn't have them suggesting it doesn't really want them or else it could not convince the DfT there was a compelling case. It is true that TfL would like to take over South Eastern's inner suburban services. That is not the same thing as *wanting* to run over the boundary. TfL simply acknowledge that railway geography rather than an administrative boundary is the sensible thing to reflect so that passengers do not suffer inappropriate consequences at the boundary. TfL said as much to the London Assembly a week or so ago. On the above basis I would very strongly argue that there is no remit for nor desire from TfL to operate services *wholly* beyond its operational area. I'm not even sure they can do so - only services that cross the boundary have the potential to fall within their remit. Therefore we can forget about the Abbey Line. I know everyone thinks money will pour from the sky to fix all the perceived ills with a given rail service if TfL take it over but I rather feel that's a forelorn hope. I don't expect substantive investment in tracks / signals / power infrastructure on West Anglia by TfL. In fact they've made no claims whatsoever that they even aspire to do this. It is only new trains and refurbed stations and probably some Access for All schemes if Government forks out the cash.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 21, 2015 13:02:44 GMT
TfL ....................already have the DC services to Watford...TBH I think the Abbey services are acceptable. . Note they only have the DC services. The Abbey Flyer is electrified at AC, which makes it a better fit with London Midland TfL want..............St Albans on the MML. . Evidence? And even if they did, the two stations are not connected, being on opposite side of the city.
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Jun 21, 2015 13:44:09 GMT
TFL currently have appropropriate trains for the job, which London midland do not, they have staff travelling to Watford, making reliefs possible, dead mileage would be minimal from current depots, the only issue would be getting a unit across the main line, which would normally be an off peak job anyway. If operating the service was financially advantageous to TFL I am sure they would be interested.
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Jun 21, 2015 14:34:43 GMT
*DfT*, not TfL, are proposing a possible connection between Crossrail and the WCML. This is to aid the process of reconstruction at Euston for HS2. I haven't read a single thing that says TfL are the people pushing this change. Some of their plans for Old Oak Common acknowledge the potential for the curve but that's it. Crossrail themselves are doing nothing about the link until / if they receive a client instruction. It will be the DfT who funds the link and it will be DfT that determines if the London Midland franchise is rescoped and if it would like TfL to add the services. ...by "TfL" I'm referring to the "Mayor's Wider London Boundary". They have been instructed accordingly, so I'm taking it that they want those services, be they the current LM service or the proposed Crossrail service. If TfL had wanted services to Hertford East then I imagine it would have them as part of West Anglia. However it doesn't have them suggesting it doesn't really want them or else it could not convince the DfT there was a compelling case. ...my understanding is that they want them, but without the 4-tracking of the WAML, they cannot take over the local services between Stratford and Broxbourne via Tottenham Hale, thus the Hertford East services have remained where they are for now, probably pending Crossrail 2. IIRC, Oyster has been extended though, if not only to Broxbourne then all the way to Hertford East. It is true that TfL would like to take over South Eastern's inner suburban services. That is not the same thing as *wanting* to run over the boundary. TfL simply acknowledge that railway geography rather than an administrative boundary is the sensible thing to reflect so that passengers do not suffer inappropriate consequences at the boundary. TfL said as much to the London Assembly a week or so ago. That's a fair point. On the above basis I would very strongly argue that there is no remit for nor desire from TfL to operate services *wholly* beyond its operational area. I'm not even sure they can do so - only services that cross the boundary have the potential to fall within their remit. Therefore we can forget about the Abbey Line. I know everyone thinks money will pour from the sky to fix all the perceived ills with a given rail service if TfL take it over but I rather feel that's a forelorn hope. I don't expect substantive investment in tracks / signals / power infrastructure on West Anglia by TfL. In fact they've made no claims whatsoever that they even aspire to do this. It is only new trains and refurbed stations and probably some Access for All schemes if Government forks out the cash. I'm inclined to disagree. The line falls wholly within the "Mayor's Wider London Boundary", and the primary role of the line is to facilitate getting commuters who work in London to Watford Junction. Ergo, it's within their remit once they're running the majority of the services serving the station.
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Jun 21, 2015 15:17:06 GMT
TfL ....................already have the DC services to Watford...TBH I think the Abbey services are acceptable. . Note they only have the DC services. The Abbey Flyer is electrified at AC, which makes it a better fit with London Midland. Unlike the other routes mentioned, its route lies entirely outside Greater London. If HCC want to run it as a microfranchise, LM might be happy to give it to them, but why should my Greater London rates go on supporting this basket case? LO's units are mostly dual-voltage, so the electrification is largely irrelevant. Of more relevance that LM have no metro-style rolling stock, so the Abbey line has had to use inappropriate 100mph mainline stock since Silverlink died off. One of the few good things about Silverlink was that they had far more appropriate metro units from the DC and NLL to use on the Abbey line. Besides, the usage is only what it is because of the unfortunate limits of the infrastructure that have been discussed to death before. When/if the line gets the passing loop you'll see a lot of new usage. As it stands, it's usually going to be quicker to get the bus when you factor in the waiting time for the train. The journey time is dramatically quicker than the bus at about 16 minutes end to end though - a more frequent service destroys the time penalty, but to do so needs some investment - which is the issue. TfL want..............St Albans on the MML. . Evidence? And even if they did, the two stations are not connected, being on opposite side of the city. There's quite a bit out there, and a FOI request waiting to be fulfilled. To start though, try this.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 21, 2015 18:00:26 GMT
I'm inclined to disagree. The line falls wholly within the "Mayor's Wider London Boundary", and the primary role of the line is to facilitate getting commuters who work in London to Watford Junction. Ergo, it's within their remit once they're running the majority of the services serving the station. You do understand what the "Wider London Boundary" is for, don't you? It relates to the Mayor's power to either increment or decrement the services within a National Rail franchise. It is nothing to do with *taking over* those services or transferring services from a franchise to a concession. Further the Mayor's power is not unfettered. It is subject to the Secretary of State's agreement. You may recall that the Mayor was *forced* to decrement the South Eastern franchise and remove the proposed Victoria - Bellingham off peak service in return for agreement to build the link between Surrey Quays and Queens Road Peckham and then having running rights to Clapham Junction. The only instance of incrementing I am aware of was on the Southern franchise when later evening services and more staff at stations were added. This was then incorporated as part of the standard franchise requirement when Southern was last re-let. Conceptually the same sort of quality improvements have been added in TSGN and South Eastern franchises when re-let / direct awarded. Interestingly the Mayor and TfL no longer seem keen on using this specific power and have opted for a full takeover strategy when this is within their main service area (again this is subject to the SoS agreeing). Anyway you clearly don't wish to agree and I don't see what this has got to do with new rolling stock (as per title of the thread) so perhaps we just should leave things and agree to disagree?
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Jun 21, 2015 18:57:56 GMT
The relevance was taking the opportunity to obtain the unit or two of more suitable rolling stock required for a takeover as a tender has been agreed for new LO stock, but I agree we will have to agree to disagree!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2015 19:57:26 GMT
TFL currently have appropropriate trains for the job, which London midland do not... But the branch of TfL with the appropriate "trains" is Tramlink!
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Jun 21, 2015 20:33:46 GMT
I think that we are heading for fantasy RIPAS here
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Jun 21, 2015 21:43:44 GMT
I think that we are heading for fantasy RIPAS here Its done in Paris, France! Trams which operate at the same mainline voltage / power supply system as the WCML. Simon
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,235
|
Post by rincew1nd on Jun 21, 2015 21:58:47 GMT
Ahem. This is neither RIPAS nor a thread about Overground expansion, it's about obtaining stock for a taken over line. Can we stick to this, please?
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 21, 2015 22:57:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Jun 22, 2015 12:55:12 GMT
Quite right, these are 90mph stock, abbey line max speed cannot be over 40
|
|
|
Post by dazz285 on Jun 22, 2015 15:56:48 GMT
Last time I drove on the Abbey I'm sure line speed was 60mph..
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Jun 22, 2015 19:42:44 GMT
If I'm reading it correctly the current (Dec '09 - supplement #23 Jun '15) sectional appendix lists it as 50mph for EMU/DMUs and 20mph for everything else beyond Watford North, and 20mph up and 25 down between there and Watford Junction.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 23, 2015 9:53:24 GMT
I'm inclined to disagree. The line falls wholly within the "Mayor's Wider London Boundary", and the primary role of the line is to facilitate getting commuters who work in London to Watford Junction. Ergo, it's within their remit once they're running the majority of the services serving the station. You do understand what the "Wider London Boundary" is for, don't you? It relates to the Mayor's power to either increment or decrement the services within a National Rail franchise. It is nothing to do with *taking over* those services or transferring services from a franchise to a concession. Consultatoin document on the "Wider London Boundary" See page 13 and the diagram on the following page. It shows St Albans CITY as the boundary on the MML but nothing beyond the existing tfL limit of operations at Watford Junction on the ex LNWR route. This is entirely consistent with the premise that the boundary stations should be where services which predominantly operate in Greater London turn round. St Albans City is the terminus of the Wimbledon Loop, and is the one of only two stations on that route (the other being Radlett) outside Greater London. St Albans Abbey is on a route which doesn't go into Greater London at all. Similarly, the limits are Slough and Windsor&Eton Riverside, but the Slough Windsor shuttle is excluded Looking at the choices of borders on that list: this does not seek to include all services which provide point to point journeys in London, but those where the most of the route is in London. South Eastern: local routes on the North Kent Group: about fourteen stations on each line (Greenwich/Bexleyheath/Sidcup) or which only Dartford is outside Greater London. Included. Semifasts not included as most stops are beyond Dartford. Main Line: Of the fourteen stations between Charing Cross and the proposed boundary at Sevenoaks, only two (Sevenoaks and Dunton Green) are outside Greater London. Orpington has also been suggested, but this would exclude Chelsfield and Knockholt, Catford Loop/Sevenoaks: 6/20 outside Greater London HS1(St Pancras to Stratford) - don't be silly! Southern Oxted Line: 7/12 outside London: therefore not included, although this excludes Sanderstead and Riddlesdown which are in Greater London Caterham: 3/11 Redhill: as most services are limited stop within London and/or continue further, it was excluded: it would exclude Coulsdon South, which is in Greater London. Tattenham Corner 4/14 Epsom Downs: If it ran as a shuttle from Sutton, it might be difficult to justify, but as the services run from Victoria via Norbury it's 2/15 outside Greater London Epsom: 2/12, but some services continue to Dorking is 6/16 or Horsham 10/20. South Western: Epsom (not mentioned in an SWT context by TfL) 3/11 but most services continue to Dorking 6/14 or Guildford 11/19 Hampton Court: 2/11 Shepperton: 4/17 Windsor: I'm surprised this is included, although without it Feltham, in Greater London, would be excluded : given its limited stop nature until Twickenham, nearly half its calls are outside Greater London (6/14) Weybridge via Hounslow: not included, although it forms half the stopping service on the Hounslow line: 7/22 outside Greater London Great Western: Slough 3/9 (Crossrail, Reading - Shenfield: 10/28) Chiltern: West Ruislip or High Wycombe. Very few services actually terminate at West Ruislip. TIf there were any all-stations services to High Wycombe, seven of the thirteen stops would be in Greater London, but in fact all of them omit at least one London station. Gerrards Cross might make slightly more sense. Thameslink: St Albans - only two stops outside the GLA boundary, and the terminus of many of the stopping services. Luton is another possibility. WGC: 6/18 Hertford North: 3/19 Hertford East (via Tottenham Hale) : 7/17 (but note that Cheshunt is the "preferred option") Shenfield 2/14 Grays via Dagenham 2/8 (both routes via Upminster excluded) London Travelwatch has commented. They have proposed some variations, notably Grays (both routes, which raises questions about divided responsibilities for services to Tilbury: the Upminster - Grays service ceased to be a shuttle many years ago, and the boundary is crossed between Upminster and Ockenden), Sevenoaks (both routes), Oxted (although very few services terminate there, so it would be a case of the Riddlesdown tail wagging the East Grinstead dog) , Redhill or Reigate, Epsom (both routes - they seem unaware that very few SWT services terminate there), High Wycombe ("as there are high passenger numbers beyond West Ruislip." - doesn't that miss the point?) or even Aylesbury Parkway (both routes (!), and possibly Luton, Gatwick and Stansted! They also suggest both routes to Windsor and Hertford should be included, on the somewhat specious grounds that two stations in the same town should be under the same control - and yes, I know for consistency that would mean St Albans Abbey should be in, but they don't suggest it!)
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 2, 2015 15:51:45 GMT
TfL have issued a press release to confirm that the contract for new trains for West Anglia, Romminster, GOBLIN and Watford DC lines has been signed with Bombardier after the end of the contract standstill period. Regrettably there is no real technical detail about the trains in the release and there has not been an accompanying release from Bombardier (yet). I've been checking the Bombardier site for days but nothing of relevance has appeared. tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/tfl-signs-contract-with-bombardier-transportation-for-new-trains
|
|