Back in September 2013, following on from the announcement that TfL would take over the West Anglia Franchise, we announced that TfL had also agreed to take on the Romford – Upminster Line as part of the negotiations. Yesterday, alongside details of a new rolling stock order for the Overground, this transfer was finally officially confirmed in a TfL press release.
Today Jonathan Fox, Director of TfL London Rail, was kind enough to provide further information about the takeover:
During our negotiations with the Department for Transport concerning the devolution to TfL of rail services out of Liverpool Street to Chingford, Enfield Town and Cheshunt (via Southbury), we were asked to also take over the Romford to Upminster service and make it part of the very successful London Overground network.
We have agreed to do this and are now working on how we might raise the standards of the service, which is currently operated with a single unit train, through the procurement of a new train.
Fox’s statement confirms that the line will indeed form an official part of the Overground network, rather than operating as a separate entity or as a quasi-feeder service for Crossrail as some had hypothesised. It also confirms that it will receive one of the new rolling stock units, the order of which was announced at the same time.
These trains will primarily serve West Anglia and the soon-to-be-electrified Gospel Oak to Barking Line (GOBLIN), and are expected to enter passenger service in 2017. From the description within the OJEU notice it appears that these will almost certainly resemble the existing 378s to be found on the network, internally at least, with walkthrough carriages and likely longitudinal seating. The total order is for 39 units, of which 30 are destined for West Anglia, 8 for the GOBLIN and 1 for Romford – Upminster.
As these units will not enter service until 2017 at the earliest, TfL will continue to operate the existing fleet to be found on West Anglia upon taking over the line on 31st March 2015 until the new trains arrive.
Overall, passengers on West Anglia can likely expect that this takeover will resemble that of the North London Line, as the press release hints at a similar approach to station revamp and refresh:
In addition, TfL will ensure all 24 stations (there are 26 on the new routes including the Romford to Upminster line) for which it will take responsibility are upgraded with a deep clean, new signage, improved CCTV and passenger information systems.
Only 2 of the 25 stations on the line will remain outside of TfL’s control – Liverpool Street (Network Rail) and Cheshunt (Greater Anglia). Elsewhere Emerson Park, on Romford – Upminster, will transfer to TfL.
I have just got on a train from seven sisters to cheshunt that has clearly been repainted for TFL. White body, Piccadilly blue doors and all grab bars inside. No other noticeable differences
@Rory
That sounds like the generic new Thameslink paint-job as well – white body and blue doors. Is this a standard non-branded interim network rail colour scheme?
Has there been any publicity for the takeover of the lines? I’ve seen nothing in the Standard or City AM.
@ Anon – no publicity yet. I would expect it to start emerging from about 1 month out – i.e. during May. A few more details are leaking out via Mayor’s Answers, Twitter sessions and the TfL Business Plan. I’ve spotted that there will be a “reveal” station on West Anglia which I assume the Mayor will “open” and smile for the cameras at. No idea which station it is. There are also going to be some things like better ramps for disabled access at some stations. It has certainly been confirmed that the new trains will be 4 cars long and capable of operation in multiple to 8 cars (no change from current practice). TfL have said they are talking to Network Rail for more off peak paths on West Anglia but no timescale yet for any improvements (beyond those already planned for Sundays). The lines will also be branded as Overground and will be on the tube map. No huge shocks there but then TfL have not been overplaying the improvements at this initial stage of things.
@WW
Mayor’s answers also reveal that TfL are ‘considering’ whether the new rolling stock on order should have ‘some transverse seating’, so still no guarantees.
More of these awful all sideways seating trains ? They cause us arthritus sufferers a pain in the neck (literally)
Have london transport no consideration for the cervical spondulosis sufferers or is it , as usual, all about profit?
How on earth can sideways seating trains possibly cause arthritis?
The debate about longitudinal seats has been played out endless times and any further comment that doesn’t tell us something new will be deleted.
Not for putting on site. But to controller. Isn’t Pedantic’s 12.35pm comment a bit spiteful. Normally Pedantic’s postings are well worth reading. There might well be a good medical reason why seats at 90% to direction of travel (only used on trains I believe) are injurious to some medical conditions. If true it is worth debating & it reports something new. How about getting back to your normal good nature Pedantic
@ PoP
You ask “How on earth can sideways seating trains possibly cause arthritis?” Well I will answer your question.
You are obviously not a victim of either spondulitis or of arthritis. It you were, you would not have made such a comment. Rocking one’s head from side to side is much more painful than backwards/forwards movements. You can have absolutely no idea of what arthritis in the neck joints feels like.
I will delete the rest of this comment myself as you wouldn’t like it.
@PoP
I would respectfully point out that, if one has back or neck conditions or injuries, trying not to sway from side to side when a train brakes or accelerates is not just uncomfortable, it is actually painful and can exacerbate the condition. Nobody said it causes arthritis. The problem is that passengers are no longer given the choice. I am surprised that no-one has yet complained that this may be in contravention of the DDA.
Quite agree that there should be some forward/backward facing seats. I had an accident over ten years ago and sitting sideways on the Jubilee was painful…. I was fine on the bus, so switched even though it took 50% longer.
OK, OK, I misread sorry. I apologise.
I do understand why longitudinal seats make exacerbate cervical spondylosis – and please note that I can at least spell it correctly.
My good nature, if there is one, was rather irritated by the suggestion that it was all about profit. It is all about trying to make the most of the limited infrastructure we have for the greatest number of people. There are always going to be winners and losers.
Having apologised, could we please accept that this topic arouses a lot of emotion (as shown) and basically amounts to everyone giving their opinion on them but not changing anyone else’s beliefs so it a topic best left for the pub or a less-fact-based website – or maybe even an more-fact-based medical website.
@ PoP
Agreed. Thank you for your apology. I know that if you had experienced one tenth of the neck pain that I have, (caused by a car driver using a hand-held mobile phone), you would never have written it
Just to note, if it hasn’t been mentioned within another topic, that TfL formally launched on 9 April its procurement of a new LOROL operator, with an OJEU notice. The new operator will have responsibility for services from 13 November 2016. Details are in the attached link: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/april/tfl-starts-search-for-next-operator-to-run-overground . Potential bidders have until mid-May to register their interest.
Re “Anon” @ 13.12 14th April
How does one raise an objection to, say an operator/concessionaire/TOC (etc) regarding an apparent breach of Disabilty Discrimination/Access/Regulations?
Thinking back to one of the earlier comments re: making the Romford-Upminster (Upford?) shuttle a light-rail line, though it’s true TfL is limited to the hand it is dealt, there is a lot that could be done with the service. Though it is good news that TfL will finally introduce a sunday service, there are two additional things that TfL could relatively easily do.
1. Keep services open later in the evening. At present, service finishes around 7:30-8pm, which is virtually within the evening peak, meaning it looses a vast amount of traffic. Ideally the line should open until the end of service on the District Line and Shenfield Metro.
2. Install a passing loop and second platform at Emerson Park to allow a 15 minute service frequency with two-train operation. This would make the service much more attractive and boost ridership considerably, and get a LOT of local commuter traffic between Hornchurch/Upminster and Romford town centre off the roads.
@Krystal. The passing loop would be quite expensive, and I suspect that there are other projects around with a higher benefit-cost ratio. Probably a chicken-egg situation, the traffic will not increase without the improvement, and the improvement cannot be justified unless the traffic increases.
If a passing loop were built, it would be cheaper to build it just outside Emerson Park station, then you don’t need another platform, and you could still manage a 15-minute service.
Emerson Park Station was built a few years after the line was opened. While the Great Eastern tried to encourage passengers from the new estate by the station to use their buses to Romford, the LTS installed a run-round loop on the Romford side of Emerson Park Station, so that they could run a few trains on part of the route instead of all the way to Romford and back (loco hauled hence the need for a runround).
What does this have to do with the recent postings? Well, the site of that loop is still just about visible and within the confines of the fencing (handy for Malcolm’s comment). I doubt if there is any more scope now, than there was a hundred years ago, to install a loop line, let alone another platform (or island?) where Emerson Park Station is, in a cutting. I think this issue was aired among the 300 plus previous postings on this topic, but I can’t find them on a quick scroll through.
@ Krystal I would be surprised if there would be a “vast amount” of extra passengers if the service ran through the evening, but I suppose it might be worth a try, and might lift Emerson Park a little way up the league table of least used stations in the London area.
@Malcolm, Krystal,
Maybe this could be part of a light rail system (i.e. Tram)? Take out the whole line for 18 months or so, completely rebuild the line… ELL all over?
I can hear my crayons twitching in antici……pation….
As with the Abbey Flyer, installation of a passing loop means more than just bunging in a couple of points. At present the line can run on the “one engine in steam” principle – essentially the train is “locked in” to the branch which then requires no signals except to ensure the train doesn’t over-run the limits. Put in a loop and the whole line has to be signalled. Google “Abermule 1921” to see why.
timbeau
No. It doesn’t.
Not if it’s operated as a tram, with “drive-on-sight” rules – see the operation of both Reeve’s Corner – Wimbledon & the Beckenham Jn branch of Tramlink to see how …..
[This just seems to be arguing for the sake of it. timbeau made it quite clear he was talking about trains. Make the point about trams by all means but keep it as a separate comment and don’t needlessly invent a disagreement. PoP]
@ timbeau With the regional control centre round the corner at Romford, they would not have far to run the cables, or send the radio signal, or whatever is needed. However, yes, it would be a step change in the cost of the line, and would need quite a lot of new passengers to pay for it, together with the extra train and driver.
@Greg
Trams have been suggested for both the Abbey flyer and Emerson: both would be completely new self-contained systems, requiring, among other things, their own depots. Cheaper by far to use Bletchley or Ilford’s facilities.
Tramlink would never have been able to be justified financially if it just took over the Addiscombe and Wimbledon-West Croydon shuttles – it was the need to provide better links to New Addington that made it worth the outlay.
And it was only the dire shortage of dmus on LM that made the PPM solution attractive for Stourbridge, with two “locked in” class 139 railbuses (100% maintenance overhead!) and a very basic depot.
timbeau
The abbey flyer could have made a decent tram – if extended to the town centr & EMR main station, but that’s a crayonistic exercise for another day!
@Greg: Not forgetting an extension to Hatfield…. Using most of the old railway alignment.
I have a friend who lives in Hitchin and works in Watford, he comes in to Kings Cross and walks to Euston to go back out again. The bus (once an hour) is absolutely useless as the traffic is murder…. I think it would be very popular…..
Sorry, crayons are getting restive….
@ Southern Heights – Hatfield to Watford via London must cost a small fortune. There are three bus services between the two but I agree frequencies and journey times look very poor indeed – over an hour’s journey time and hourly frequencies and unfriendly times for 9 to 5 commuting. And all because the car is deemed to be king and must be unfettered.
WW says “And all because the car is deemed to be king and must be unfettered.”
It is not immediately clear to me that fettering “the car” would magically cause a convenient bit of public transport from Hitchin to Watford to spring into existence. If the person involved cannot conveniently afford the time or money to go via London, then moving house or job might be indicated?
Even in the “good old days” when you could have managed this journey by orbital trains, changing at Welwyn Garden City and St Albans, I suspect the total journey time would have been on the lengthy side!
@WW
Hatfield to Watford wouldn’t be too bad – the 724 takes an hour. But SH actually said Hitchin to Watford which, looking at the Herts bus map, either means getting a train to Hatfield and then the 724, or some complicated journey involving the 304 to St Albans City to either connect with the 724, or walk down the hill to Abbey station and get the Flyer to Watford.
@Malcolm
OK here’s a valid rail timetable starting appropriately on June 5th 1950 (today less 65 years).
Assume arrival in Watford (?Junction) before 9AM. ER Table 8 (GN suburban); dep. Hitchin 06:58, arr Hatfield 07:36. Change for St Albans Abbey line ER Table 5 (only 2 trains per day then, 3 on Fridays and Saturdays, no one planned or marketed the railway as an inter-connector between LMR and ER systems), dep Hatfield (first train!) 08:10, arr StAA 08:32. Shame about that departure time from Hatfield, as 7:38 from Hitchin arr Hatfield 08:11. Dep StAA (LMR Table 55) 08:37, arr Watford Junction 08:54.
Elasped time in train on move: 38 mins Hitchin-Hatfield, 14¼ miles. 22 mins Hatfield StAA, 6½ miles. 17 mins, StAA-WatfordJcn, also 6½ miles. Total 77 mins, say 1¼ hours, 27¼ miles by rail. Not quick. Long wait at Hatfield. Actual throughout train time 1hr 56 mins. Only one train option. And last and only return train from StAA to Hatfield was at 17:05.
So looks like it was ever Hitchin-London-Watford, post-war by rail!
Via London on June 5th 1950, arr Watford Junction before 9AM: LMR Table 50: IF you could blag your way onto the 08:30 Euston-Liverpool, then call (p.u.) Watford Junction 08:58. From Hitchin: 07:05, KX 08:12, then to Euston and as shown above. Elapsed time in train on move: 95 mins, 49½ miles. Overall time: 1hr 53 minutes. You wouldn’t do it, regularly, would you?
2015: Table 25: Hitchin 07:51, Kings X 08:19. Table 66: Euston 08:34, Watford Junction 08:55. Elapsed time in train: 49 minutes, 49½ miles. Overall time: 64 mins. Moveover, this journey is repeatable several times an hour, for the bulk of the day. Better, but…
2015 Road times + 35% for peak time: 28 miles (station to station), 42 minutes. So car wins overall, if you are happy to put up with driving.
Conclusion: rail commuting via London from one outer commuting zone to another can be feasible these days, and sometimes can be a relatively easy journey, but car may still be quicker door to door.
My old LT country bus map clearly indicates re-instatement of the 803 Express is what is needed here
1922 Bradshaw:
Hitchin 07.35
Hatfield 08.01
Hatfield 08.22
St Albans LNW 08.41
St Albans LNW 0853.
Watford Jn 09.10
@Castlebar – I have a soft spot for the 803, still having a picture of an RT at S Mary’s Square on which I was invited to dress the blinds after completing the end to end run in the course of a Green Rover. (My Watford area TT of 1965 is out of reach at the moment, but I recall the journey time being of the order of two hours.)
@Graham H 1942. Surely it must be a 303 that you are remembering rather than the 803. The 303 (and 303A) ran from New Barnet Station to Hitchin St Mary’s Square. The 803 ran as an express, mainly in overlapping sections, from Uxbridge to Welwyn Garden City. From the maps and timetables I have I cannot see it as having ever run further north of WGC.
@James Bunting – yes, of course, my bad! (I wasn’t able to check the photo in question as it’s a 35mm slide, for which I no longer have any viewing machinery…) I probably would have started off that day on the 803*, as our Green Rover expeditions usually started with a 347 from Northwood to Watford
*I’m now trying to recall whether Rovers were valid on the 803 -others may remember better.
@ GH yes they were
Apologies folks – must learn to read and take time to comprehend what I’ve read! Looks like you’ve all had a nice historical diversion though about old bus and rail services in the area.
@ Malcolm – obviously a journey from Hitchen to Watford is more involved. However when an “express” bus takes an hour to cross a few miles across Hertfordshire something is wrong. You must surely accept that many many places now have poor bus services which crawl through day long traffic jams on the approaches to town centres (small and large). The loss of orbital rail links in places like Hertfordshire has helped create a very difficult travel situation. With today’s approach to usually running regular and frequent rail services I’d speculate that if those short orbital rail links existed we would see a rather different level of car and public transport usage. Clearly employment and levels of personal wealth also drive car use but different approaches to transport provision can shift the relative shares of each mode.
WW
Indeed a supercrayonistic exercise might be to buld an orbital inter-urban tram loop around London …
Starting by using as much trackbed as possible of the Watford – St Albans – Hatfield – Hertford routes as possible.
Then where, in either direction?
Street running is allowed, but reserved sections & re-utilised trackbed preferred.
[Moderator’s note: By all means carry out the suggested exercise in the privacy of your own home. Please do not put the results here 🙂. Malcolm]
Greg, I’ve mused on this many years ago long before this site ever existed 🙂 [Musing results snipped, I did say do not put them here. Malcolm]
…but I digress. The chap mentioned upthread would probably be better served by the southern options of the fabled central section of the EWR project, should they come to pass (aka. Hichin/Stevenage to Luton, thence to Bletchley, or maybe St Neots to Bedford, thence to Bletchley…)
TFL have released the results of the most recent Barking Riverside overground extension consultation.
Plan is to progress with the TWAO (transport & works act order) application in spring next year (see recent comment on another thread of what ‘spring’ actually means). The local residents (who responded) seem mostly in favour of the project, however I suspect there may be several objectors at the hearing.
The route option chosen is B, single viaduct with passive provision for a second station in the Renwick Road area. Again despite stakeholder & consultation responders requesting passive provision for a future Thamesmead extension, TfL are not budging on this. The quote from their response “…whilst ensuring the plans would not preclude the connection of the BRE to a southern extension” is suitably vague in this respect. They give (upfront) cost of an underground station as the reason for this, only time will tell if this proves to be short sighted.
@Snowy:
A simple ‘U’-layout terminus at ground level needs neither escalators nor lifts, and, (if not built under a large office block), will also be lit for much of the day by the sun, for free. Underground stations, on the other hand, have higher running costs: lifts, escalators, additional lighting, additional fire prevention and evacuation facilities, ventilation, water pumps, and whatnot.
A surface station is therefore much cheaper to build and operate. If you don’t even know if – never mind when! – that cross-river extension might be built, it makes no sense to deliberately build an expensive underground terminus station right away.
@Snowy – thank you. I’ve been waiting for this report.
Another Island Gardens then! As long as they make provision for digging a tunnel later then fine…
I have a silly question. Why could the crossing from Barking Riverside to Thamesmead Reach not be done by a railway bridge, rather than a tunnel? It is surely cheaper and safer to have the stations and rail above ground and a pedestrian bridge could be provided alongside it. This would prevent the trains getting too crowded with people who just want to cross the river (as currently happens between Clapham Junction and Imperial Wharf).
@Hedgehog:
A bridge here would be a major undertaking and would need to be high enough for ships to pass under, making it visually very intrusive. Such a bridge would also need very long approaches as trains can’t deal with anything much steeper than a 1-in-30 gradient.
Add on the decades of legal challenges and endless public consultations needed to get a project like that anywhere near close to getting approval and funding and a tunnel starts to look like very good value for money.
@Anomnibus Thanks. I hadn’t considered ships passing underneath. I am very much in favour of an extension to Thamesmead Reach, Thamesmead and Abbey Wood and a tunnel would work just fine.
I suspect another reason for not pushing such an extension is that there’s a lot of latent demand in south London for more transport infrastructure, so the trains may be swamped the moment the extension is opened. (This isn’t a given, mind, as Thamesmead is ‘virgin’ railway territory and isn’t currently served by any rail infrastructure. The Overground route also isn’t radial, so it’s difficult to calculate exactly what the effect of the extension would be in reality.)
It may be preferable to wait until the trains can be extended in length first. That’ll require major surgery to a number of stations on the Overground network, so at least a couple of general elections in the future.
@Anomnibus
“A simple ‘U’-layout terminus at ground level needs neither escalators nor lifts, and will also be lit for much of the day by the sun, for free. Underground stations, on the other hand, have higher running costs…………….: ”
This does not stop a surface station being designed such that it can be converted to a through station leading to a tunnel at a later date. The main criteria would be planning protection for the land where the ramp would be, and ensuring the station is built far enough from the river bank, and on a suitable alignment, to allow such a future extension. As for the location, having it some distance from the river increases the number of people who live within any given distance to it, since very few people actually live in the river!
Anomnibus says “A simple ‘U’-layout terminus …”.
I presume you mean squash-racket shape (or better, racquetball-racket). Such ground-level terminus stations seem to be remarkably rare on heavy rail, on planet Earth (let alone UK, or London). Presumably because of the extra land required (even on an “empty” site) and resulting costs. Slightly cheaper operating costs (for ever) by saving staff time changing ends have apparently rarely been considered worthwhile.
timbeau suggest various desirable design precautions for an extendable terminus…
None of which precautions were taken at Island Gardens, as Southern Heights implies. This can be used either to demonstrate that the precautions were not necessary (as the line was extended anyway), or that they were necessary (because it cost X million pounds extra).
I would have thought a T shape would be a better shape for the terminus.
But are we talking about the track layout or the platform layout?
ChrisMitch asks if we are talking about track layout or platform layout.
I have always found that the most successful stations designs have platforms adjacent to the tracks. (Sorry).
very true Malcolm…
@ Malcolm
I took Anomnibus’ “simple u-shaped terminus” to mean a u-shaped platform with a pair of tracks in the middle.
@Malcolm
I wasn;t sure what Anomnibus meant by a U shaped terminus either, but assumed he meant a platform in the shape of a squared-off “U” embracing two tracks (with possibly two more outside the platforms), like Hammersmith (Met) or Ealing Broadway (Central) .
Terminal “balloon” loops on the surface are unusual, for space reasons, but the original Wembley Stadium station had one, and they can be found on narrow gauge lines at Dungeness, Ruislip Lido, and Barmouth ferry, on the Blackpool tram system, and of course at both Channel Tunnel termini – as well as most power stations operating the “merry-go-round” coal delivery system.
Anomnibus “will also be lit for much of the day by the sun, for free.”
Hey, hold on a moment! We are talking about east London here!
(Noting that it is still, allegedly, ‘summer’ here and laughing quietly)
Anomnibus “will also be lit for much of the day by the sun, for free.”
Preferably using the traditional “transmission through amorphous quartz” technique rather than the “solar cells blocking out the natural light, thus requiring artificial lighting using more power than the solar cells generate” technique favoured at Blackfriars.
timbeau,
I don’t know why you keep repeating this myth about Blackfriars. It does use the “transmission through amorphous quartz” technique. If you go to Blackfriars you will see that the roof has lots of clear glass on the north side of each roof section.
This picture or this picture shows the slats that enables plenty of light to pass through but ensure that no direct sunlight blinds the drivers (or passengers). Last time I went to Blackfriars (fairly recently) the station was quite bright enough and there were no lights on.
Before people get hysterical about the lack of instant tunnel to Thamesmead and surface / tunnelled stations it’s worth considering a couple of things. I understand much of the new extension will actually be on a viaduct (based on TfL comments in an earlier consultation) and not at ground level. Not sure why – might be to do with ground conditions. Secondly there is a vast amount of space beyond the proposed terminal to get a line down under the Thames and back up nearer the surface at Thamesmead. It doesn’t necessarily have to head straight south, it could go west and then curve under the Thames to serve Thamesmead Town Centre and then on to Abbey Wood in tunnel.
I suspect TfL do have an idea as to how they would extend the line but they simply will not say this publicly because :-
a) there is no funding
b) there is strategy work still to emerge from TfL and City Hall on transport in East / SE London and you don’t undermine what the Mayor may want to say later
c) there is no funding !!
d) it is not really good public policy for unelected people to needlessly “set hares running” and stoke up expectations only for them to be dashed. Politicians can do this but TfL officials running consultations can’t.
e) there may be some sensitive discussions with government going on about what to do about housing and transport in this area and that may mean something more adventurous than anyone has so far dreamt up on a blog or a forum!
In terms of the consultation responses it was interesting to note the following themes from the politicians. They ….
a) want the second station built at Renwick Road
b) still want the DLR to be extended through Barking Riverside
c) want the Riverside extension extended under the Thames to Thamesmead / Abbey Wood ASAP
d) want the Riverside extension built ASAP
Also noteworthy that John Biggs AM wants evidence that a cross river tunnel is feasible and that there are no planning constraints in the way and that TfL have taken steps to prevent encroachment on a likely route under the Thames. This set of questions is pretty crucial and I doubt there will be a public response to John Biggs on this but he may get a private briefing on it.
The final thing to consider is the proximity to a tidal stretch of the Thames and one which is east of the Thames Barrier. Careful planning needed to make sure your new tunnel portal doesn’t get overwhelmed by the river.
Re WW,
I think you may have answered you own question on the viaduct in the first paragraph. Flood Zone 3 extends to approximately the National Rail line between Deptford and Slade Green (build approximately along the line of 5 sections of small rivers Woolwich to Erith). This means to flood proofing the railway it is easiest to have the Railway on a viaduct – a minimum of 2 to 2.5m above the average local ground level nearer the Thames, being a viaduct will allow it to be efficiency fully permeable rather than becoming some kind of flood wall (i.e. more routing flexibility by not being). Ground condition are likely to be (very) bad so going straight to piling viaduct foundations makes lots of sense.
Getting Renwick Road built would be a start.
@WW: there is a vast amount of space beyond the proposed terminal to get a line down under the Thames
There may be at the moment, but once the station opens the attraction of the surrounding land for developers (and cost for compulsory purchase) will increase. If TfL want to avoid a Lewisham situation where expansion is blocked by development then they will need to protect a corridor and that means they will have to make a public plan some time soon, funded or not – Crossrail 2 has had an unfunded protected route for more than 20 years now.
@Malcolm: None of which precautions were taken at Island Gardens, as Southern Heights implies
No, but at Island Gardens there was a pre-existing foot tunnel that was meant to offer a connection to Greenwich (it was even shown on the tube map, so the bit about having a better catchment if you kept back from the river didn’t apply, and the approach line used a pre-existing (listed?) viaduct across a park so an elevated terminus made sense at the time.
@Ian J
I’d forgotten the foot tunnel was shown on that map. Inconsistent too – at Woolwich we see neither the tunnel nor the ferry (which, at the time the DLR opened in 1987, was operated by the LB Greenwich, but had been operated by the GLC until the previous year)
@ Ngh – thanks for clarifying the viaduct issued. Makes sense.
@ Ian J – hence the importance of the answers to John Biggs’ questions about what TfL have or have not done in terms of identifying and protecting a viable corridor for an extension to SE London.
@ Hedgehog – and yet TfL is extremely reluctant to suggest Renwick Road station would be built. I really do not understand the reluctance of TfL and NR to build new stations. I know there are impacts on the train service and pathing and the NR regime prefers inertia to change but there are so many possible relatively quick wins across London from adding stations or platforms that would deliver a much more convenient transport system for people. Most would cost “loose change” compared to the massive mega projects that we seem preoccupied with.
@WW – Adding more stations adds more traffic, so perhaps NR/TfL are trying to find a balance between a line being popular enough to meet its objectives, but not so popular that it requires expensive upgrades elsewhere to keep it going ?
@WW
The existing DLR tunnel to/from Woolwich Arsenal and the Crossrail link are in the flood risk area (downriver of the barrier).
The ramps for the Woolwich Ferry have just been modified/updated to cope with higher tides.
@ Jim Cobb – I fully understand you have to take a holistic approach and consider the consequences of adding stations. You may lose train paths, you may need more trains for a given service level, you may have knock on consequences elsewhere. However there is little mention of station or platform openings in TfL, NR or political policy documents. As we are considering all things “orange” let’s look at the GOBLIN and the Riverside extension. The line is to be further upgraded, electrified and equipped with new trains. It may gain an extension to Barking Riverside. It strikes me as the absolutely ideal time to add much demanded stations at Junction Road and Renwick Road. You have the line under possession for wiring so have an ideal time to design and build a station that is compatible with wiring. You can procure the right number of trains and you can ensure the expanded service copes with demand. You also have the potential for efficiencies in project design, project management, construction and assurance activities. That, to me, would be genuine good planning and efficient use of scarce resources to deliver a step change in transport links. Unfortunately we see no such planning or co-ordination being evident.
The proposal for a new station on C2C at Beam Park should ideally be co-ordinated with the Riverside extension and Renwick Rd station so, again, you get a step change in local transport connectivity and the work is done efficiently and services can be adjusted to cater for the new infrastructure in one go. It’s not hard if you apply a bit of effort and brain power.
@WW – I fully agree with you. I don’t agree with NR/TfL’s attitude – just suggesting the sort of mindset that might be prevalent in those bodies.
The current structure of the industry mitigates against the sort of joined-up approach you suggest. If you had dedicated station design and build teams, and had a long-term strategy of adding stations at a steady rate (1 a year maybe ?), the cost of adding stations would be significantly reduced. Instead, everything is done from scratch every time, using consultants and contractors, with no overall strategy and excessive costs. Every is so complex that no-one can face doing any more than they are asked to.
Oh well, we would a lot less to discuss if it all worked well !
Jim Cobb says “if you had… a long-term strategy of adding stations at a steady rate …”
I think that’s just what we don’t need. Yes, of course, open a new station if all the calculations and consultations show that that is the right thing to do. And maybe close an old one subject to the same conditions. But to take a sort of quota approach (where shall we open a new station this year?) cannot be right. Every extra stop on a loaded train costs through passengers a bit of their time, and if there are a lot of through passengers, the cost is significant. (And of course, building the station costs lots of money too, whether production line or bespoke). So it should only be done where these costs are properly and definitely offset by substantial benefits.
@ Malcolm – just to be completely clear I am not advocating “new stations for the sake of it”. I am suggesting a more planned, better co-ordinated delivery of new stations and platforms that are *justified* and which improve Londoners’ access to public transport services. The GOBLIN example was specifically set out within the context of a wider scheme of works where there are opportunities to do more than currently envisaged. We have the example of Lea Bridge station where just about everything that could go wrong has gone wrong so far with more scope for cock ups possible. The end result of that is cost escalation of about 300% so far. We MUST be able to do better than that or else we should pack up and go home.
The point is that London needs a solid programme of justified works that allow the efficient use of all requisite resources over a 20 year programme with the retention of skills and experience in the client and supplier organisations that then allows efficient and cost effective procurement and continuous improvement in construction and commissioning. This stuff isn’t hard if you can get a level of stability and consensus with the politicians (yes that’s the hard bit folks).
After all, isn’t part of the justification for the timing of CR2 that it’s cost a lot of time and money pulling together a quality team with world-class tunnelling and other skills, and we don’t want that expertise dissipated ?? That way, we don’t have to go through as much programme start-up pain as there would be if we waited some years before starting it.
I can’t seem the same logic not applying to smaller programmes or projects. If you’ve identified the need, bringing the delivery forward, or developing a rolling programme, will cost less. Potentially a lot less.
Re Mike P,
But because of the gap between CR1 and CR2 some of that will certainly be lost though Thames Water’s super sewer & the various Northern line works will fill the gap in tunnelling construction between the two.
On WW &Jim Cobb’s point – there is plenty of platform lengthening and station rebuilds (access etc) in the greater London area too so putting that in with new station builds would provided a viable continuous easily justifiable workstream.
@WW. OK. I completely take your point about improved procurement, commissioning and so forth. I am sorry if my comment, deprecating a notion of an ever increasing number of unjustified stops, implied that you favoured such a thing. Clearly you do not.
In a perhaps more robust age, intermediate stations were sometimes closed (e.g Down Street). I doubt if that is ever likely to happen any more.
There’s definitely enough material here for a new article on Barking Riverside, Thamesmead, GOBLIN and the surrounding consultation.
Malcom
If only because the current central area stations are so crowded.
Last time I came to the “Blue Posts”, getting out of Leicester Sq was not funny – very crowded exits & slow queues up the exit stairs, & narrowed perceptibly by LU’s gates that don’t withdraw fully.
@Greg – Leicester Square tube exits at street level have for many years presented that problem. It is not really the exits themselves that cause the problem, although I admit that the station is very busy, but the mass of tourist dawdlers, hawkers, vendors* and similar who congregate all around on the surrounding pavements without seemingly wanting to shift anywhere are the cause of no end of pedestrian congestion, especially causing problems and resultant build-up on the stairways out of the station. Add to that those who are trying to enter the station at the same time. To put it politely, not everyone manages to follow the ‘Keep Left’ signs up and down the stairs, despite the centrally placed hand rails.
* Every so often, TfL staff used to (and maybe still do) go on a ‘clearance blitz’ to free the pavements outside their Leicester Square exits of the undesirables (vendors, hawkers &c.) but that is almost a full-time job.
@ Greg – having worked above Leic Sq station for many years I’ll just say that it’s been problematic for years. Normal daytime isn’t too bad but the PM peak is horrendous because you have two peaks. You have people wanted to enter to head home plus some tourists going back to hotels but you also have the “going out in the evening” crowd all arriving. As Graham accurately states the issue is that everyone has said “meet you outside Leic Se station” so hundreds of people try to do that. The second peak continues for hours because you keep getting people arriving in the area plus those heading home after a couple of hours. It then turns into a nightmare of everyone heading home from 2300 onwards up to the last train. It must be one of the most difficult stations to work a late shift at given the unrelenting pressure.
Just doing my customary “oh what Assembly meetings are there?” check and found a nice letter from Mike Brown re rail devolution.
Seems Greenford – West Ealing / Paddington will remain with FGW and not move to TfL control.
TfL are clearly still aiming to make improvements to the future SWT and South Eastern franchises with the likelihood of a “takeover” possible but with less emphasis in the past.
Updated strategy for rail services is due in the Autumn so that remains on schedule.
P.S. Especially for Greg but also for other readers – Use Piccadilly Circus station this Thursday when you come to the Blue Posts, rather than Leicester Square.
Greg,
How amusing. You are the first to complain about the difficulties of interchange and the current practice of long tunnels and further to walk etc. Yet Leicester Square would appear (rather would have appeared) to be the perfect model in your eyes with short walking distances and very short convenient interchange between the two tube lines.
I accept that there are ongoing issues with people restricting the entrances but this isn’t really the big problem. After all there are a lot of entrances. If a station is busy you can have a small compact congested station or a large spread-out station. Oh, and don’t say the solution is just to make the entrance and exit wider. The problem with Leicester Square is that it is a bit like Covent Garden and more people want to use it than the station as a whole can handle. Leicester Square is even slightly busier than the much-more-spacious Piccadilly Circus nearby.
@PoP & Greg et. al. – And Piccadilly Circus station is closer to the Blue Posts than Leicester Square station anyway.
Re Jim, WW and Malcolm – Adding stations at a steady rate.
If you are willing to look north for inspiration then something like the Scottish Government’s CP5 Scottish Stations Fund could be worth implementing in London.
This is a £30M fund (over CP5) administered by Network Rail with input from Transport Scotland as part of NR’s CP5 funding settlement from the Scottish Government.
The funds can be bid for by TOCs, Local Authorities, Developers etc and are intended as gap funding, with schemes that have local authority and developer contributions as well gaining priority in scheme assessment.
It can be spent on new stations but also car and cycle parking improvements, new buildings and accessibility works to avoid Malcolm’s concern that new stations would open “for the sake of it”.
The existence of this fund does not preclude stations opening in other ways either through 100% developer funding (Winchburgh due to open in 2018) or funding from elsewhere (Conon Bridge in 2013 funded as part of road improvement works to provide an alternative route for commuters during a bridge closure).
It does however help local authorities and others to develop proposals like Renwick Road that fall between the gap of not generating enough developer funding while also not being of enough Strategic importance to attract direct interest from TfL.
SF001 on p142 of this document for more information:
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/cp5-delivery-plan/cp5-enhancements-delivery-plan.pdf
How much does it cost to build a station? I’m surprised TfL aren’t selling timeshares in the advertising at the station. Pay £X million and have your advertising displayed for Y weeks of your choosing during the next 10 years, or something.
GF
I had to use Leicester Sq last time, because the Victoria line was shut-remember?
I Usually go Walthamstow – Oxford Circus – Piccadilly C – surface …
PoP
Your first paragraph is totally irrelevant, I’m afraid.
The problem, as so well-pointed out by WW is the last exits to the surface from the periphery of the “ticket hall” & really bad congestion on the staircases/pavement mouth.
P.S.
With all the ticket offices closing – what are we going to call those sub-surface mini-concourses on the “public” side of the barrier/gate-lines?
Greg,
I had to use Leicester Sq last time, because the Victoria line was shut-remember?
Do you not think that might have had something to do with it?
I wouldn’t hold much hope on the Rail Strategy document – I gather it’s been quite dumbed down. There’s no mention of the D word though I’m sure the South London Metro stuff will be of interest.
@ Flare – I saw an updated “London Devolution” (in the widest sense) document yesterday covering a range of issues including finance, health and transport. The section on transport covered National Rail services but said remarkably little and nothing new that I could see. It rather suggests, as you hint, some external pressure being applied to remove anything too controversial that might cut across other, as yet unpublished, reorganisation plans for the National Rail network. It was distinctly “wishy washy” about both incremeting franchises and TfL directly taking them over. There was more emphasis on the latter but it all felt rather flat but then we are nearing the end of the current Mayoralty so perhaps no great surprise.
@Greg: I use the rule that when in central London if you change to go one stop on another line it’s usually not worth the bother… I would have either walked or gone one stop further and walked.
Leicester Square is indeed a nightmare, I use it regularly and tiny corridors from the bottom of the escalators to the Pickled can be very slow… It needs work! I’ve never found the crowds outside to be too much of a problem except at the Nortwest corner, but that could simply be solved by pedestrianising Charing Cross Road (lights fuse, walks away…)….
SHLR
Depends on the inter-stop length & the road layout & potential surface congestion, even of pedestrians.
Remember, I’m old enough to have the system map practically hard-wired – I have been hauled in service by several of the Met’s old electric locos, of which “Sarah Siddons” is the sole remainder ….
@SH
” use the rule that when in central London if you change to go one stop on another line it’s usually not worth the bother… I would have either walked or gone one stop further and walked.”
Counterfactual: not the case from Warren Street to Oxford Circus, nor Kings Cross to ether Angel or Farringdon! All nice long walks even on a sunny day. Earl’s Court to Gloucester Road too. All in Zone 1.
Bond Street to Baker Street quite a walk too, and I love walking around London.
Depends on inter-stop distance, but generally true of CLR and Yerkes tubes in the West End. Also depends on your actual destination – on Thursday I was meeting somebody at St Martin in the Fields – nearest Tube is undoubtedly Charing Cross, but coming from the Piccy it is quicker to walk down CX Road from Leicester Square than change to the Northern, and pass right underneath!
” use the rule that when in central London if you change to go one stop on another line it’s usually not worth the bother… I would have either walked or gone one stop further and walked.”
Some people have taken this advice more widely. I was at a meeting at Palestra last week (Southwark tube) where 2 of the 10 people present had, quite independently, decided it was better and easier to walk from Euston/St Pancras than to take the tube. They reckoned the walk took them 45 – 50 minutes.
@quinlet
“(Southwark tube) where 2 of the 10 people present had, quite independently, decided it was better and easier to walk from Euston/St Pancras than to take the tube. ”
Quite likely it was, although the direct train from St Pancras to Blackfriars on the secret route that isn’t on the Tube map is quicker still.
re. Last Post by timbeau – well said. Perhaps TfL staff are encouraged not to use National Rail services – however the lack of Thameslink services through the core on the tube map is a disgrace especially as both are effectively publicly funded.
Anonymous at 18:58 says “the lack of….on the tube map is a disgrace …”
Many people would agree with that. So much so that the moderators here have often found it necessary to cut short the extensive discussions which generally follow. So the topic is not banned as such, but watched carefully. Please only comment on the tube map issue if you are certain that you have something novel, specific, important and constructive to say about it. To avoid too much repetition, the general point (that the current situation of the tube map is not ideal) need not be be re-affirmed.
@Malcolm……Agreed that it feels strange that Thameslink and the Northern City lines are not on the Tube Map, when both were on it within living memory (until the late 90s?). But don’t we have to beware making the Tube Map too cluttered? Part of its appeal after all is its simple, elegant design.
If TfL ever get their hands on the rail lines south of the river, I dread to think what the map will end up looking like! Perhaps a modified London Connections map would be better?
I got into trouble with Dave Wentzel in 1984 for suggesting that the tube map be abandoned in favour of a version of the London Connections map. Indeed that might even have predated the London Connections map, but might – at some very remote remove – have encouraged its design.
@anonymously
“But don’t we have to beware making the Tube Map too cluttered? Part of its appeal after all is its simple, elegant design.”
Form should, however, follow function.
@ Anonymous 1858 – I worked for LU / TfL for over 25 years and was never, ever discouraged from using any public transport service. Thameslink across Zone 1 is covered by the Staff Pass and has been since Thameslink’s inception. Whether all TfL staff pass holders *know* this is perhaps a moot point.
Despite appearances TfL is not exclusively populated by transport loonies in all roles. There is no formal “education” about the transport network, where it goes etc. As I have said before I found that many people on my team, when faced with doing front line customer service duties during strikes, had no idea that things like bus maps, spider maps, online timetables etc existed. Most employees know their regular commute and perhaps some local services but beyond that will only know about what they need to do their jobs. In that respect they’re just like the rest of the general public who have no interest in the system beyond using it for travel. It’s only loons like me that are walking talking bus and tube maps with added “niche” insights spinkled on the top. I was treated as the alternative Travel Information department by my colleagues – heck I even managed to get my old boss to use the bus on occasion. 😉
Two other random remarks – I was once doing strike cover at Walthamstow. Another HQ employee who lived locally was working with me. Someone asked them “how do I get to Debden?” The colleague started telling them to go to Oxford Circus so I had to intervene and say “go upstairs and catch the 20 bus”. One satisfied customer. The employee said “there’s a bus to Debden from here?” “Yes”. Other example – doing strike cover single handed out front of Turnpike Lane station in the AM rush hour. Two bus inspectors sent along to help stood 10 foot behind me for about 10 minutes watching how I fared. After the observation period ended they sauntered across and said “oh you do know where the buses go then”. “Yes” was the only polite response to that remark. They then disappeared and I didn’t see them again. There is / was a widespread perception amongst operational staff that *every* head office person has no brain and certainly no knowledge of where services run (tube, bus, whatever – always the same attitude). Occasionally it was nice to (partly) dispel the myth.
A little bit of breaking news about GOBLIN electrification. The works contract has been awarded. (First spotted via District Dave forum).
http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2015/09/28/murphy-57m-bid-bags-north-london-electrication/
Looks like a positive development.
@WW Great news!
@WW: I wonder if the fact that J. Murphy have a large construction compound right at one end of the route at the former engine shed at Kentish Town helped them put in the best bid? It would certainly seem to make life easier for them.
Re WW and Ian J,
I’m not sure if this is the full electrification contract any thoughts?
I know Murphy have done plenty of electrification civils before (including plenty of stuff that is on schedule in the north west at the moment) but not the actual wiring etc.?
The GOBLIN electrification budget is £115m but the Murphy contract is just £56.9m
Presumably the £115m includes Rolling Stock cost (of circa £45-50m ) potentially leaving £10-15m? Or is this contingency?
@ Ngh – I had pretty much the same thought as you as to quite what scope the contract covered. Nonetheless this is pleasing news given the rumbling going on about what else will be stopped in order for NR to live within its means. If Murphy have performed well on electrification civils then that’s another potential positive for the GOBLIN as the civils are pretty complex given the differing infrastructure along the line. I don’t know where the funding for the rolling stock is held – is it in this project authority or in a separate TfL one given there is a single order for different routes? There’s also a long held view that the £115m is a very high cost level for the work including a shed load of contingency / risk. Looking at the TfL planned closure list the GOBLIN effectively loses its weekend service from October onwards with the odd exception here and there so the work does start soon.
I notice that GOBLIN is closed for engineering works 25th-28th December inclusive – presumably this is more civils works including further bridge strengthening or replacement and embankment work similar to last Christmas before the electrification works start in earnest next summer?
@ Ngh – err don’t know. Fairly recently I was using BHO – Barking quite regularly and there were no signs of work bases or obvious preparation for bridge works. The former site compound at Ferry Lane was decommissioned months ago even though the major bridges over the canal channels haven’t been replaced. The smaller ones were progressively strengthened but the speed restrictions were still there last time I went that way (albeit quite a while ago). There may be something at the western end but I suspect it’s just a lot of concentrated activity. I’ve certainly seen markers for where electrification masts could be installed plus a lot of other markings – I assume for other equipment like trunking etc.
In the last Twitter session TfL confirmed that the much delayed Access for All works at Blackhorse Road will happen in the second half of 2016 i.e. during the blockade. At the last Transport Committee Jennette Arnold was standing in for another member so she did her usual “GOBLIN” spot and she asked about the Access for All scheme. A letter from TfL is promised sometime in Jan so we’ll get written proof. She’s clearly been primed by the User Group reps. I suspect there might be some other upgrades to GOBLIN stations during the blockades but smaller scale given no other Access for All works have funding. I expect we will something early in 2016 that gives the headlines about the upcoming blockade but the detail around rail replacements / ticketing arrangements will be closer to the start date (as is usual practice these days).