Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2017 10:03:26 GMT
As the Mayors Press Office are reporting, London Overground services between Dalston Junction and New Cross Gate will join the Night Tube network from December this year. In January 2018 these services will be extended to Highbury & Islington. Whitechapel however, will stay closed during these operations due to Crossrail works which are scheduled to finish by September 2018.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2017 10:24:56 GMT
Sounds positive, and hopefully this indicates some form of Night Crossrail will arrive sooner rather than later. Suspect this will generate a lot of new journeys.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 3, 2017 11:10:55 GMT
Sounds positive, and hopefully this indicates some form of Night Crossrail will arrive sooner rather than later. Suspect this will generate a lot of new journeys. Paddington - Abbey Wood is all TfL infrastructure so like the ELL core between New Cross and Dalston it can be done without getting needing to disrupt established NR engineering access rules. The Crossrail core will also have the advantage of being brand new and requiring very little attention - unlike west of Royal Oak or east of Pudding Mill Lane which (notwithstanding the upgrading that has gone on over the years) was built over a century ago and as various inherent weaknesses that demand a more intensive maintenance regime. |
|
|
|
Post by AndrewPSSP on Jul 3, 2017 16:27:52 GMT
Here's the Evening Standard's report on it:
In the article it says that "The section of the route between New Cross Gate and Highbury & Islington is managed by TfL meaning weekend services can operate there". I was under the impression that all the ex-ELL track and infrastructure, including New Cross, still belonged to LU. Am I wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deep Level on Jul 3, 2017 16:51:07 GMT
Here's the Evening Standard's report on it:
In the article it says that "The section of the route between New Cross Gate and Highbury & Islington is managed by T fL meaning weekend services can operate there". I was under the impression that all the ex-ELL track and infrastructure, including New Cross, still belonged to LU. Am I wrong? Is LU not a subsidiary of TfL? Also I assume they won't be referring to this service as part of the Night Tube? |
|
|
|
Post by bicbasher on Jul 3, 2017 17:12:23 GMT
I'd speculate 4tph?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 3, 2017 17:45:48 GMT
The OverNight is my guess at branding. |
|
|
|
Post by Deep Level on Jul 3, 2017 18:13:51 GMT
The OverNight is my guess at branding. Someone at TfL needs to give you a job in the branding department! TfL have released a 'Night Tube and London Overground Map', why the standard Tube Map isn't called something similar to that I will never understand. What I find interesting is that it has the Highbury & Islington Section on there greyed out labelled 'Coming January 2018', we haven't seen that in a while. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 3, 2017 19:54:33 GMT
Also I assume they won't be referring to this service as part of the Night Tube? Why not? After all, it includes the only part of the Overground (Wapping to Rotherhithe) which is a Tube! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2017 20:05:43 GMT
Also I assume they won't be referring to this service as part of the Night Tube? Why not? After all, it includes the only part of the Overground (Wapping to Rotherhithe) which is a Tube! Is referring to the fact that the London Overground network although shown on the tube map is not classified as a tube line but as a suburban railway network that forms part of the wider UK National Rail network under the operational concessions granted to Tfl which is why it is integrated with the tube network. Whilst the area you mentioned may share many characteristics with the tube it is not the same due to it's status as a rail not tube line subject to different regulations ranging from rolling stock to signalling on par with the wider UK rail network. Up until 2010 London Overground network maps displayed the National Rail symbol owing to the fact that the network was and still is considered part of the National Rail network.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2017 20:20:48 GMT
All the infrastructure was sold to Network Rail for £1
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 3, 2017 21:33:26 GMT
All the infrastructure was sold to Network Rail for £1 Eh? The East London Line was previously vested in London Underground. Many years ago a transfer scheme went through the TfL Board which transferred it to TfL (Rail for London) ownership. content.tfl.gov.uk/7a-ell-internal-transfer-scheme.pdfThe new infrastructure at New Cross Gate and north of Whitechapel to Dalston Junction is in TfL ownership. AIUI the boundary between NR and TfL is somewhere just north of Dalston Junction on or near the Dalston West Curve. The two tracks into Highbury are in NR ownership. I understand the signalling and power control for the ELL is subcontracted to Network Rail. The maintenance of the Rail for London ELL infrastructure is sub contracted - I can't remember who to. I simply cannot recall any paper to the TfL Board in the last umpteen years which was to approve a nominal fee asset transfer from TfL to Network Rail. Please feel free to point me to the paperwork for the "£1 sale to NR" as I've clearly missed it if you're correct. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2017 21:54:38 GMT
We used to have complete control over the ELL of course we only go information received
Balfour Beatty used to do all the track infrastructure under contract
The signalling came under the District Line
When the ELL was closed everything was handed over to NR overnight
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 3, 2017 22:50:17 GMT
All the infrastructure was sold to Network Rail for £1 Eh? The East London Line was previously vested in London Underground. Many years ago a transfer scheme went through the TfL Board which transferred it to TfL (Rail for London) ownership. content.tfl.gov.uk/7a-ell-internal-transfer-scheme.pdfThe new infrastructure at New Cross Gate and north of Whitechapel to Dalston Junction is in TfL ownership. AIUI the boundary between NR and TfL is somewhere just north of Dalston Junction on or near the Dalston West Curve. The two tracks into Highbury are in NR ownership. I understand the signalling and power control for the ELL is subcontracted to Network Rail. The maintenance of the Rail for London ELL infrastructure is sub contracted - I can't remember who to. I simply cannot recall any paper to the TfL Board in the last umpteen years which was to approve a nominal fee asset transfer from TfL to Network Rail. Please feel free to point me to the paperwork for the "£1 sale to NR" as I've clearly missed it if you're correct. I believe the 'DistrictSOM' may be mistakenly referring to the purchase of the national rail network from Railtrack PLC by Network Rail Ltd when the former went into receivership (NR assumed all of Railtrack historical liabilities too and hence is still responsible for things like the exposure of BR staff to asbestos, was fined over the Potters Bar crash etc.) In fact lots of bits of Railway have changed hands for £1 in the past - its a useful way of making things simpler from a legal point of view (e.g. IIRC, NSE 'sold' the viaduct just south of East Grinstead - and all its ongoing liabilities to the Bluebell Railway for £1). However, as you correctly state TfL, have NOT sold their ownership of the ELL core to anyone - it remains in their hands. As you note however, it does use the same signalling, power supplies and operational rule book as the national rail network owned by Network Rail. As with HS1 certain functions (e.g. signalling are contracted out to Network Rail, while others are either contracted out to other companies or dealt with within TfL themselves. As such TfL have far more ability to control what goes on and could not only ensure that the rebuilt ELL could incorporate things like higher platforms than are possible on Network Rail infrastructure due to their need to maintain gauge clearance for freight trains, but also have the ability to dictate when maintenance happens. The rest of the 'London Overground' Network is wholly owned by Network Rail and TfL are treated no differently than any other TOC who operates on NR infrastructure - particularly when it comes to maintenance needs, which is why introducing a all night service on the rest of London Overground is extremely unlikely to happen. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 3, 2017 23:57:20 GMT
As such TfL have far more ability to control what goes on and could not only ensure that the rebuilt ELL could incorporate things like higher platforms than are possible on Network Rail infrastructure due to their need to maintain gauge clearance for freight trains, but also have the ability to dictate when maintenance happens. The rest of the 'London Overground' Network is wholly owned by Network Rail and TfL are treated no differently than any other TOC who operates on NR infrastructure - particularly when it comes to maintenance needs, which is why introducing a all night service on the rest of London Overground is extremely unlikely to happen. Extremely unlikely? In the short term, yes. Longer term, I wouldn't go so far. TfL can ask NR. NR can say yes or no. NR will say yes if (a) they see it is in their interest, and (b) practical issues (principally maintenance) are resolved. That 24 hour services will run Dalston-Highbury and do run to Gatwick shows that both can be true. TfL could make it financially worth NR saying yes if they wanted. They don't have the money to do so at the moment, but we're thinking long term here and things could easily change - particularly if the service on the ELL core is financially successful. The logistical issues would not I suspect be trivial to work out, but neither would they be impossible. I don't forsee a full 24-hour Overground, even long term, but Richmond-Stratford and NXG-West Croydon would be my prediction for TfL's long term aspirational list. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 4, 2017 6:23:21 GMT
Why not? After all, it includes the only part of the Overground (Wapping to Rotherhithe) which is a Tube! Is referring to the fact that the London Overground network although shown on the tube map is not classified as a tube line I am of course aware of that - just as most readers of this forum will be aware that four lines of what is commonly known as the "Tube" were not actually built on the Tube principle, but part of the ELL was (as was the Northern City Line). |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 4, 2017 6:24:58 GMT
All the infrastructure was sold to Network Rail for £1 Has any LU infrastructure been transferred to NR? Two parts have gone the other way - the W&C and the line beyond East Putney. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Jul 4, 2017 6:59:51 GMT
Old Street Northern Line?
|
|
|
|
Post by AndrewPSSP on Jul 4, 2017 7:54:53 GMT
Why can't the service run from Surrey Quays to New Cross? Isn't it owned by TfL? |
|
gantshill
I had to change my profile pic!
Posts: 1,371
|
Post by gantshill on Jul 4, 2017 8:20:20 GMT
All the infrastructure was sold to Network Rail for £1 Has any LU infrastructure been transferred to NR? Two parts have gone the other way - the W&C and the line beyond East Putney. The Great Northern and City Railway and the Metropolitan Railway beyond Amersham/Mantles Wood went to BR. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 4, 2017 9:13:09 GMT
Why can't the service run from Surrey Quays to New Cross? Isn't it owned by TfL? Running a service to New Cross as well would require more trains and thus more drivers. Given the proximity of the stations, that there will be no onward rail connections and every night bus that serves New Cross also serves New Cross Gate I would be very surprised if there was demand sufficient to justify this. The other option is a very limited service - probably either 2tph to each or 3tph to NXG and once an hour to NX and with the latter either the service at NXG or from Surrey Quays northwards would have to be run with unequal intervals - something TfL will be keen to avoid if possible, and is a 1tph service really actually that useful given the short distance between them? During the day the New Cross branch is run largely as a convenient reversing point a short distance from the core to provide extra capacity there - if the capacity of the core is reduced for any reason the branch is always the first to be suspended. The mainline connection is really the only reason the branch still exists rather than there being extra reversing capacity at New Cross Gate. |
|
|
|
Post by AndrewPSSP on Jul 4, 2017 12:07:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 4, 2017 12:21:13 GMT
Why can't the service run from Surrey Quays to New Cross? Isn't it owned by TfL? Running a service to New Cross as well would require more trains and thus more drivers. Given the proximity of the stations, that there will be no onward rail connections and every night bus that serves New Cross also serves New Cross Gate I would be very surprised if there was demand sufficient to justify this. The other option is a very limited service - probably either 2tph to each or 3tph to NXG and once an hour to NX and with the latter either the service at NXG or from Surrey Quays northwards would have to be run with unequal intervals - something TfL will be keen to avoid if possible, and is a 1tph service really actually that useful given the short distance between them? During the day the New Cross branch is run largely as a convenient reversing point a short distance from the core to provide extra capacity there - if the capacity of the core is reduced for any reason the branch is always the first to be suspended. The mainline connection is really the only reason the branch still exists rather than there being extra reversing capacity at New Cross Gate. The other factor will be that New Cross station is run by South Eastern and is not a 24 hour station. Therefore asking South Eastern to open up for two nights a week would come with a nice, no doubt large, bill attached whereas NXG is run by Arriva Rail London under contract to TfL. As the night service is a contract option in the new concession contract TfL got the cost of the night service priced under competitive conditions when the contract was retendered. As Highbury and Canada Water are already open at weekends for the Night tube there will no incremental cost there and Whitechapel won't be served until after the Crossrail construction works complete sometimes in 2018. TfL will know the cost of opening all the other stops on the line as part of the contract option. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 4, 2017 13:38:13 GMT
The Great Northern and City Railway and the Metropolitan Railway beyond Amersham/Mantles Wood went to BR. Those both happened in BR days. Indeed in 1960 both BR and LT were nationalised, although in 1975 LT was in municipal ownership. During the day the New Cross branch is run largely as a convenient reversing point a short distance from the core to provide extra capacity there -. There is also the small matter of connection with the whole of the SE network. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 4, 2017 15:54:22 GMT
During the day the New Cross branch is run largely as a convenient reversing point a short distance from the core to provide extra capacity there -. There is also the small matter of connection with the whole of the SE network. Which is why I wrote, in the very next sentence: The mainline connection is really the only reason the branch still exists rather than there being extra reversing capacity at New Cross Gate. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Jul 4, 2017 18:37:39 GMT
One question springs to mind; has Arriva or TfL entered into negotiation with the unions or the staff over the necessary changes to terms and conditions that would allow overnight passenger services? Or are they doing the same as they did with Night Tube and announcing the service before discussing it with the people who will have to do the work?
|
|
londoner
thinking on '73 stock
Posts: 480 
|
Post by londoner on Jul 4, 2017 19:16:09 GMT
Does the usage on the night tube justify expanding night services to the overground? I am worried about the financial costs of this, given the fare freezes and the already tight budget with government reducing available funds.
|
|
gantshill
I had to change my profile pic!
Posts: 1,371
|
Post by gantshill on Jul 4, 2017 20:53:54 GMT
The Great Northern and City Railway and the Metropolitan Railway beyond Amersham/Mantles Wood went to BR. Those both happened in BR days. Indeed in 1960 both BR and LT were nationalised, although in 1975 LT was in municipal ownership. Apologies - I was reading NR as just meaning mainline railways. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 4, 2017 22:21:22 GMT
As such TfL have far more ability to control what goes on and could not only ensure that the rebuilt ELL could incorporate things like higher platforms than are possible on Network Rail infrastructure due to their need to maintain gauge clearance for freight trains, but also have the ability to dictate when maintenance happens. The rest of the 'London Overground' Network is wholly owned by Network Rail and TfL are treated no differently than any other TOC who operates on NR infrastructure - particularly when it comes to maintenance needs, which is why introducing a all night service on the rest of London Overground is extremely unlikely to happen. Extremely unlikely? In the short term, yes. Longer term, I wouldn't go so far. TfL can ask NR. NR can say yes or no. NR will say yes if (a) they see it is in their interest, and (b) practical issues (principally maintenance) are resolved. That 24 hour services will run Dalston-Highbury and do run to Gatwick shows that both can be true. TfL could make it financially worth NR saying yes if they wanted. They don't have the money to do so at the moment, but we're thinking long term here and things could easily change - particularly if the service on the ELL core is financially successful. The logistical issues would not I suspect be trivial to work out, but neither would they be impossible. I don't forsee a full 24-hour Overground, even long term, but Richmond-Stratford and NXG-West Croydon would be my prediction for TfL's long term aspirational list. Firstly the Gatwick service has recently been reduced to barely 1tph so that NR can have half a chance of actually getting the BML in something approaching a decent state for the 2018 Thameslink service patter (see the Gib report) so its hardly a good example to use as I imagine TfL will want something far more frequent. Secondly the Dalston - Highbury bit of the ELL is self contained - and while it may share the formation with the NLL the only interference engineering work on the NLL poses to the ELL is that either personnel or equipment working on the westbound NLL track might be foul of the Southbound ELL track. However as the ELL has bi-directional signalling installed throughout, the potential is there for single line working to be instigated between Dalston and Highbury with the other ELL track having the 3rd rail turned off and used as a buffer between the open ELL line and the engineering work on the NLL*. So, in short, neither of the two examples you give are particularly useful as examples of how the 'Night Tube' concept can be extended to non TfL owned infrastructure. Yes if enough people put their minds to it and are willing to make the necessary sacrifices (including monetary ones) then it can be done - but as has been noted on other topics TfL, do not have to cope with freight needs / open access operators (all private sector 100% commercial companies not answerable to politicians) and the restrictions that poses as regards network availability / engineering access decisions- thus allowing them to prioritise the needs of Londoners over everyone else. (* this method of operation is used quite extensively on the BML between East Croydon and Coulsdon overnight but does limit the train frequency, particularly as the BML lacks any bi-directional signalling on its quadruple track sections. H&S rules designed to keep track workers safe theses days do not permit engineers to work on one line of a double track line while the other stays open, or have two tracks under a possession and two tracks open on a quadruple track line without pretty draconian speed restrictions or the imposition of significant restrictions on the tasks the engineers can do as the spacing of our Victorian era tracks are simply too close.) |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 4, 2017 22:26:43 GMT
One question springs to mind; has Arriva or TfL entered into negotiation with the unions or the staff over the necessary changes to terms and conditions that would allow overnight passenger services? Or are they doing the same as they did with Night Tube and announcing the service before discussing it with the people who will have to do the work? Based on remarks elsewhere I gather all is not well in "driver land" under Arriva Rail London. The situation would appear to more in the realms of your final sentence rather than the preceding one. Let us hope that due process gathers pace quickly. |
|
