Some TfL panels are always worth keeping an eye on for unexpected developments, and the most recently announced Rail and Underground Panel meeting set antennae twitching at LR Towers with notable indications that something significant was involved. The date of the meeting has only been recently been publicised which left us wondering, perhaps erroneously, if this suggested something urgent was to be discussed. The agenda also suggested that the public and press would be barred from some of the discussion. Finally, that same agenda only features two items of significance and these are closely related.
It is also notable that the previous Finance & Policy Committee meeting was held on 16th February, whilst the Rail & Underground Panel is meeting on 24th February and the Finance & Policy Committee is meeting yet again on the 2nd March. The TfL board, meanwhile, is due to meet on the 17th March. The reason for this urgency appears primarily to be that signalling procurement for the Piccadilly, Waterloo & City, Bakerloo and Central lines is now on the critical path. That’s a topic for a separate article though. Here we will look at the other significant item to which it is closely related – train procurement (or the potential lack of it) in service of London Underground’s “World Class Capacity” upgrade.
What is (and isn’t) in a name
Like most media-savvy organisations, TfL like to give their major schemes positive sounding names. Unfortunately as a result these aren’t always very meaningful. The names of the Northern Line Extension and the Metropolitan Line Extension projects, for example, don’t provide much context as to where they are actually going to and from. In a similar manner, TfL Underground rolling stock capacity work is now centered around the amorphous names of “New Tube for London”, “Four Lines Modernisation” and “World Class Capacity”.
World Class Capacity is in fact TfL’s project to combine upgrades on the Jubilee, Northern and Victoria lines. The objective appears to be to achieve world class capacity on these lines by running trains at 36tph – which is a figure genuinely among the best achieved in the world. This is not to say that TfL intends to settle for significantly less on all other lines. On the Central line, in particular, at least a sustainable 34tph should also be possible post-upgrade. Simply that this project relates specifically to the lines named above.
We will look at plans for the World Class Capacity lines in order of complexity and issues involved. This means starting with the Victoria line and then looking at the relatively innocuous plans for the Jubilee, before wading into the issues involving the Northern.
Victoria line
The Victoria line upgrade saw the end of the under-powered, by today’s standards, 1967 tube stock and the very crude Automatic Train Operation (ATO) system on the line. These have been replaced with modern trains (with decent acceleration) and the current state-of-the-art ATO system, which has been a definite success story. The changes on the Victoria line may not have been dramatic but they have been continual and, even if change has been gradual and incremental over many years, the line is a vast improvement on what it was just five years ago.
Currently the Victoria line runs trains every 105 seconds in the peak between Brixton and Seven Sisters. This rounds down to 34tph but is actually slightly better than that – 34.28tph. Indeed work last August to improve turnout speed at Walthamstow Central crossover means that the only thing that appears to be preventing running 34tph throughout the line is the current renewal of escalators at Walthamstow Central. Even the current service pattern causes difficulty clearing the platforms here at the moment, and 34tph would likely push this into dangerous territory, particularly if the remaining escalator in service were to break down.
The escalator work at Walthamstow Central is due to be complete by April this year, allowing extra trains to serve this station from the May timetable change. Clearly this won’t improve capacity into central London (as the trains would fill up anyway further down the line) but it will make the line easier to operate and provide a better service to those who board and alight east of Seven Sisters. A huge increase in usage at Walthamstow Central due to changing travel patterns and area demographics means it is now busier than Seven Sisters. Any past rational basis for terminating some trains at Seven Sisters, other than for operational convenience, thus disappeared some time ago.
Later this year London Underground is due to introduce the final upgrade to the Victoria line, at least for the foreseeable future, when the interval between trains will go down from 105 seconds to 100 seconds. This will enable 36tph to be run throughout the length of the line and bring a capacity improvement of exactly 5% on the current service. This will be done without having to procure extra rolling stock thanks to some forethought – sufficient trains were ordered when the 2009 stock was introduced to cater for the possibility that in future this level of service could be achieved.
Unlike the other upgrades the two phases of the Victoria line upgrade are, to the public, somewhat artificial as there was no obvious distinction between them. In fact the initial committed plan was only to go from approximately 27tph to approximately 33tph (21% improvement) in phase 1. With the confidence of phase 1 behind them, further plans were drawn up to increase the frequency further from 33tph to 36tph (9% improvement) along the whole line and money was made available to do it. The aforementioned forward-thinking stock purchase made the business case for this much simpler.
With the Victoria line pushing towards what must be the theoretical limit for a line with that amount of rolling stock and – more importantly – two-platform termini, there are no plans to further improve the service. Indeed the challenge of procuring more trains and finding the depot space for them would probably discourage any such plans on its own. This does not mean that the line will be forgotten, as both Oxford Circus and Walthamstow Central are on TfL’s top ten hit list of stations in need of a major capacity upgrade. Simply that the days of pushing more trains through the same stations more quickly have passed. In the case of Walthamstow Central it is highly likely that the next step will be making the station double-ended, with an entrance near or in the shopping centre.
Jubilee line
Long time readers will know that the difficulty of getting ATO to work satisfactorily on the Jubilee line has been recounted here, and elsewhere, many times. A sort of signalling version of the Vietnam War, its mere mention causing many a signalling veteran to sweat and have flashbacks. Today, the line is extremely busy but the lack of rolling stock only allows a 30tph service in the peak – a train every two minutes. Furthermore there is a desire to run more frequently off-peak with a train every 135 seconds (2¼ minutes) which is around 26.7tph. The desired off-peak service cannot really be run at present because it only provides a very limited opportunity for train servicing.
A long standing plan has to been to provide functionally equivalent trains to the existing stock. A proposal before the Rail and Underground Panel is to approve an “Invitation to Negotiate” in April 2016 which would involve purchase of 10 new trains for the Jubilee line. This would enable 36tph (every 100 seconds) in the peak. There is a fallback option, if 36tph were not achievable, of running at a stated 34tph (actually a train every 105 seconds). The 36tph service would run between North Greenwich and West Hampstead with 27tph (actually a train every 135 seconds) between Willesden Green and Stratford and 18tph to Stanmore.
The paper to be presented to the Rail & Underground panel notes that the Jubilee line upgrade has an extremely good BCR – quoted as 8.6:1 – and has been included in the current budget. Fears of various projects being at risk due to the 2015 Comprehensive Spending Review, however, mean that all plans are being looked at. Nevertheless the Rail & Underground Panel (R&U) are advised that
[O]f R&U’s uncommitted projects this is one of the lowest risk, and highest benefit and therefore R&U’s intention is to preserve this project in all scenarios.
This is hardly surprising as the infrastructure is basically already in place. All that is required, in terms of capital investment, is the actual trains. It should also be noted that the 8.6:1 BCR quoted is actually open to a little bit of interpretation. Some of the preparation work, such as cooling Bond Street station to take into account the extra trains, has already been done and, presumably, the BCR is only looking at what is currently outstanding to do to implement this – any past preparatory work being disregarded in this calculation. As more and more preparatory work is done, the BCR to justify continuing with the scheme can only really get better.
Not stated in this report (but purely because there is no reason to) is the fact that this project relies on relocating the 7-car S-Stock stablers that currently occupy space at Neasden Depot and these will probably be stabled in future on the Metropolitan widened lines. There is no suggestion that this cost is included in the BCR which seems to focus on the trains.
Northern line
The Northern line has seen quite a remarkable improvement in service over the past few years as it has benefited from the same ATO technology as the Jubilee line, without the trauma of being the first to use it. Until publication of the latest paper, this improvement looked set to continue but it seems that both the purchase of new trains to cover the extension to Battersea Power Station and purchase of further trains to provide a general uplift in service frequency are now in some doubt.
Before looking at the possible non-ordering of rolling stock it pays to have a look at the plan as it was confidently envisaged until very recently.
NLU1
The initial upgrade of the Northern line to introduce ATO and a more frequent service with the existing fleet is generally referred to as NLU1 (Northern Line Upgrade 1). Although this was generally regarded as completed in 2014, there have in fact been ongoing minor improvements behind the scenes. More obvious to the public will be the trackwork improvement due to take place in April on the High Barnet branch. This should allow higher speeds and make a slight improvement in train frequency possible.
The final timetable improvement as part of NLU1 is expected to come with a timetable change in May, when the objective of running 32tph to and from Morden in the peak will be achieved. This will effectively mean that train intervals at the southern end of the Northern line will alternate between 120 seconds (2 minutes) and 105 seconds.
NLU2
The next upgrade was expected to be in late 2019 with the opening of the Battersea Power Station extension. It is worth noting that extra trains were to be specifically ordered for this. In addition, it was expected that even more trains would be ordered to provide a further increase in service frequency across the entire Northern line. The exact number of trains required was recently established to be 17 – five to cover Battersea (which were to be delivered first) and 12 for the general frequency enhancements. These improvements were generally referred to as NLU2 (Northern Line Upgrade 2). This further increase was originally slated for completion in 2022, but it later seemed that this was brought forward by two years due to travel demand rising faster than anticipated. This earlier date was confirmed, hidden away in a press release about Tottenham Court Road station, last year.
Beyond NLU 2
Other significant dates in the next few years are the upgrade of Bank station, which would be largely complete by the summer of 2020 and the upgrade of Camden Town station due for completion in 2024. The upgrade work on Bank station is far too far committed to be delayed and one cannot envisage work being delayed on Camden Town station either, as the programme for this vital upgrade relies on taking advantage of the planned closure of Hawley Road Infants School to provide an almost ideal worksite and entrance. This is an opportunity unlikely to repeat itself.
NLU2 in doubt
Unfortunately, the 2015 spending review appear to have placed the Northern line rolling stock order under threat. In a small way, things have probably not been helped either by the delays at Battersea Power Station station itself, due to adding an additional entrance and the developers redesigning the station to include more over-station development. Apparently, it is not just London Underground who are affected, because the Thames Tideway tunnel presumes various aspects of the Northern Line Extension work is complete before they are able to commence. As a result there must be huge pressure to keep the delay to a minimum.
Whatever the reasoning, the latest Rail & Underground paper goes back to quoting 2022 as the implementation year for the additional Northern line rolling stock. It also makes no mention of some stock being available in 2020 for the Battersea opening.
Make do with what you have got?
One of the slightly surprising things about the original proposal for the Battersea extension was the inclusion of extra rolling stock. Given the small number of trains required (believed to be five) one would wonder if, on its own, it were worth it. It made more sense when it was expected to be combined with expected additional Jubilee line stock (the two stocks are very similar) and more sense still when there was talk about more rolling stock to improve frequencies on the Northern line.
The Northern line does seem to have some opportunities to terminate trains short of the final terminus in order to maximise usage of stock. In particular, the layout at Golders Green is perfect for this as Colindale, with its central siding, offers an alternative further down the line. People from Edgware, Burnt Oak and other places that would be affected may not like it, but as a short term expedient it would appear to be a very attractive proposition. Providing, of course, it fits into some long term plan.
At the other end of the line, the demand in the early days at Battersea Power Station and Nine Elms station is unlikely to tax the system and one would have thought terminating every other train on the Charing Cross branch at Kennington would have left a perfectly adequate initial service to be provided to Battersea Power Station.
The hidden agenda
There are certain announcements that make one wonder if there is some hidden agenda or ulterior motive. An obvious one for this current announcement is that this is designed to spell out to the chancellor and the treasury just what the consequences would be of the envisaged cuts. This would not be the first time this has happened. In June 2013 there was a notable TfL press release about the consequences of the work at Bank station not going ahead, just days before the chancellor was due to announce major spending decisions.
Alternatively, it could just be that the issue of not ordering more trains has been brought up to make sure it is out there as a mayoral election issue. One can just see the journalists posing their question to mayoral candidates ”How are you going to ensure that we have the capital investment to buy much needed trains for the Northern line?”
It is now or never for more existing-style Northern line trains
The report briefly covers why New Tube for London would not be an appropriate option, but the reasons given seem to be more relevant to the Jubilee line than the Northern line. What appears not to be considered is the option of installing ATO kit appropriate for the Northern line on New Tube for London. What the report does make clear is that:
Deferral is not recommended for this project as the payback time on the additional trains is limited by the asset life of the existing trains.
This is slightly strange given that it appeared, until recently, that the latest plan was to introduce new Northern line trains in 2020. Which means they appear already to be deferred.
An alternative agenda
There is perhaps another reason for hesitating to buy new functionally equivalent Northern line trains. It does, however, involve New Tube for London – despite the report’s rejection of their suitability for the Northern line.
If all goes to plan, and there is no reason to suppose it won’t, Camden Town station will be upgraded in 2024. This will ease interchange and remove the last major operational obstacle to running the Northern line as two separate lines. This is just two years on from when the functionally equivalent trains are supposed to be in service, should the proposed order for functionally equivalent trains go ahead.
If you were to run 36tph from Morden to High Barnet via Bank, currently a journey of around 67 minutes, then assuming a three minute turnaround time at the termini for the trains, current timings and a full end-to-end service, this would require 84 trains. Add one train for the Mill Hill East shuttle and add a generous 10% to allow for vehicles not in service and that amounts to 95 trains. There are currently 106 trains for the entire Northern line.
To run 36tph between Edgware and Battersea Power Station would require around 55 trains in service. Assuming the better initial availability of new trains this could require around 60 trains in total. So the question could be: what would be better value for money in the long term – around 60 adapted “New Tube for London” (NTfL) trains resulting in a maximal service on a split Northern line? Or 17 functionally equivalent trains that still don’t use the Northern line to its full potential and will make moving over to more modern rolling stock much harder in future?
They are intriguing questions, although they could also be irrelevant. Ultimately it doesn’t matter how good value for money something is if you simply can’t afford it. And if the money isn’t forthcoming now, why should a greater sum of money be forthcoming in the future? It does seem incredible though that there are proposals for Crossrail 2 to call at Balham by 2030 to help relieve the Northern line at a cost that must be in the order of £1bn (including extra tunnelling costs), yet there will not be the money around to provide extra trains to use the Northern line to use it maximal extent including 36tph down to Morden (via Balham).
One has to caution that just because an idea appears to be possible it does not follow that it is. Neither does it follow that, because it is possible, it is a good idea. An obvious weakness would be the premature scrapping of existing Northern line Tube trains, assuming a mixed fleet of existing trains and new trains is unacceptable. There would, of course, be lots of other issues about such a scheme to split the Northern line. Not least would be the issue of depots and depot space and how much work would be necessary to ensure NTfL would fit the tunnels. However, you wouldn’t need platform edge doors as there would be no intention to run in driverless mode and, assuming suitable equipment could be put on the trains to work with the current ATO system, resignalling would not be necessary.
The do nothing scenario
What is hard to fathom is how TfL can contemplate not providing more rolling stock at all – despite the obvious financial pressure. Questions would seem inevitable on the point of extending to Battersea Power Station and upgrading Bank station if the desired additional rolling stock to complement this was not also ordered – politically, the transport equivalent of ordering aircraft carriers without aircraft. As it stands, if a decision is delayed and TfL find themselves under a lot of pressure to provide more rolling stock then there is a risk they will find themselves in a scenario where they only have two options: An uneconomical purchase of conventional trains with a probable short service life, or the purchase of NTfL despite having declared it inappropriate in this situation.
Whatever happens, it seems (now) Transport Commissioner Mike Brown will be hoping that the London Assembly doesn’t keep its Transport Committee webcasts archived for too long. As we pointed out in 2013, his famous – or perhaps infamous – proclamation that “we will never order an Underground train with a cab again” was a very brave comment to make. Understandable, perhaps, given the political pressure to say so that he was so obviously under. Nonetheless he would likely not welcome the noise that a main-stream journalistic revival of that comment would make at the same time as having to explain two rolling stock scenarios that aren’t particularly ideal anyway.
And so on to NTfL
Ultimately, if the years go by without buying any new Northern line trains then the preference must surely swing towards further towards purchasing NTfL trains over building more of today’s, whatever the briefing report says.
With committed deep-level tube plans for four Underground lines based around NTfL we, hope soon to take a look at how the plan for introducing this train is being progressed. We will also look at complementary plans for the associated signalling and why this too is being discussed by the Rail & Underground Panel.
“the agenda” link text is duplicated.
Also “frequency further from 33% to 36tph (9% improvement)” should be 33tph?
[thanks on both. fixed. JB]
Have I understood the proposal correctly?
The plans require an extra ten trains for the Jubilee, and 17? for the Northern
BUT
After the split you suggest 95 for Morden/Barnet and 60 for Battersea/Edgware, (which is a lot more than 105+17)
So, first you build 60 new trains for Battersea Edgware.
The Morden/Barnet line only needs about 95 1995 stock trains after the upgrade, so this releases eleven for conversion to 1996 specification for the Jubilee augmentation. Then each line has a homogenous fleet.
(I realise that eleven six-car trains cannot make ten seven-car trains, but it would work if Morden/Barnet could spare one more train (and you did say 10% maintenance overhead was generous)
Question – can the existing depot space on the Northern Line cope with the two fleets? (60 + 95 is a lot more than 106)
“you wouldn’t need platform edge doors as there would be no intention to run in driverless mode”
Noting the ‘NTfL Deliverables’ page though, “Driverless operation” is promised and dated for the Piccadilly and Central (without mention of PEDs). To not provide it – eventually – on all lines would seem unlikely to not have as an aim.
With a full, committed split, does the stock need to be the same? Therefore some could shift over to one side, the spares could be configured/extended for the Jubilee – and then some spares are left.
Yes the combined line provides flexibility, but the future relationship could be no different to District and Piccadilly or Met and Jubilee. Remove the cross-overs and sever.
If they’d never been joined, no one would ever suggest merging them, after all!
Are the ATO settings on the Northern line currently as aggressive as they could be (or as aggressive as the Victoria line?) or is it set to run in a gentler more efficient mode (SSR apparently getting 3 default modes)?
You should be able to get another 1-2tph from this…
Or is everything just limited by dwell times at key stations like Bank (or the narrow Clapham stations platforms, Camden Town etc.) ?
A turn around time of 3 minutes is not possible as the minimum, as agreed by the TU’s is 4 minutes… Unless of course stepping back was introduced at High Barnet and Edgware as there is at Morden now, but that would be a nightmare when recovering from even a minor service disruption with potentially every arriving train having to be reformed for its next trip.
What I believe would increase capacity ‘where it’s needed’ would be the installation of points at the south end of both middle platforms at East Finchley to create terminating bay platforms with a North sidings for reversing North to South, out of the way to High Barnet/ Mill Hill East trains. It is possible to reverse North to South at East Finchley at present however it takes so long that it’s rarely done and of course, it blocks the Northbound track for a considerable amount of time.
In addition to the above, more trains scheduled to terminate at Golders Green with station staff assistance provided for detrainments like how is done at Willesden Green for the peak time reversers.
None of the above will be very effective if the issue of trains becoming non-communicating during wet weather isn’t resolved (I believe this is a headache of any ATO line?).
Re timbeau,
PoP proposes 10% spare units for each route where as it us usually possible to manage on 4-6% which would get you to 90+55 = 145 which is still a big change.
They obviously have space for the proposed 123 sized fleet so spare for an extra 22+ units.
I assume the presumption for NTfL is that they want to use the same signalling system on all lines (Bakerloo Central Piccadilly and Waterloo and City) so you have a near as common fleet as possible which are then transferable between lines too (ignoring train length differences).
But if you go for NTfL for Charing Cross Branch of Northern then you potentially have to have a version with a different signalling system or you effectively ties the rest of the lines into using signalling that is compatible with Northern / Jubilee so you only have 1 possible bidder for the huge signalling contract (you might already argue this is effectively the case but…)
So might the sensible thing be to leave Northern NTfL to one side for the time being so it can be seen to be prejudicing a future signalling tender then revisit later.
There would presumably also be an add on NTfL stock requirement for Bakerloo to Lewisham Extension so this might be able to be combined with a Northern order.
I suspect some of the bidders will feel their time has been slightly wasted for an add on order of just 70 Jubilee cars.
Surely the split doesn’t HAVE to be Battersea-Charing Cross-Edgeware and Morden-Bank-Barnet? Obviously Battersea trains do have to go to Charing Cross, but at Camden the track layout does allow for either combination. Would that balance depot capacity better?
Though regardless of what happens on the Northern, the capacity limitation of the short trains (80% of the length of a Central Line train) is one likely to never be solved
If I have read through this correctly, including comments, I think I see the word “Bakerloo” 3 times only, & then only in passing … surely this is the not-so-small pachyderm in the entrance hall?
All this talk of possible new stock, or upgraded stock or, if pushed, carrying on with the old stock, whilst the B’loo stuff is steadily falling to bits. I last used it on Wednesday, and although the seating, going both ways was merely scruffy & a tad dirty, the noises & the “lumpiness” coming from down-below carriage floor level were such as to expect a move in the direction of the scrap-heap in the none-too distant future.
A crunch will come in terms of stock availability, quite soon, I think – which brings us back to the article’s subject, of course.
Al_S,
Yes it does and no it wouldn’t.
The biggest depot is Morden and with Victoria line interchange at Stockwell for the West End it makes little sense for trains from Morden to go via Charing Cross in preference to via Bank. The other main depot is Golders Green so Morden-High Barnet via Bank and Edgware-Battersea Power Station via Charing Cross is the only split that could possibly work.
ngh,
I can’t see any basis on NTfL being restricted to one signalling system supplier but clearly separate signalling systems on different lines would probably be incompatible. The signalling for NTfL is a completely separate tender (next article). I have yet to see any reason why it can’t work with the existing Northern line Thales system if Thales want to support this. It may even be the case that the interface is known and another supplier would be free to supply the train borne equipment.
Jason,
The Victoria line is ATO but I haven’t heard any reports of rain causing a problem on this particular line.
Pedantic of Purley,
With the exception of the Victoria line, unless of course a train becomes NCT whilst entering or leaving NPK depot! 🙂
Trains become non-communicating on the Northern line almost every time it rains (on the open sections***). Although the delay is usually reduced by the speedy response of both the Train Operator and Service Operator, if service levels were to be intensified then the effect on the line would be somewhat heightened. This is before factoring in stepping back at each terminus with minimal turn around time which in itself reduces service recovery time.
It will be very interesting in future, in the years beyond the plans detailed in this article when there really is no more capacity to be had.
@Jason – “It will be very interesting in future, in the years beyond the plans detailed in this article when there really is no more capacity to be had.” You might like to look at the Peak Tube article and discussion on this site.
Re PoP,
My thinking was if you added half a Northern into the NTfL rolling stock order initially you are effectively pointing the signalling contracts for the other lines towards Thales direction as you would have to have some of their equipment on the trains and the trains designed to work with it at which point it is very easy for Thales to effectively guarantee their system will work because the tender has forced the stock builder to guarantee it thus reducing the cost of bidding etc…
If Thales happen to win the B/C/P/W&C contract then adding in a few Northern trains will then be easy.
I’m not sure the 2 papers are as unconnected as it might appear.
Vic ATO – how much is above ground (exc. depot) compared to Northern line northern sections…
@NGH
RE: The Victoria line
Only part of the route from Seven Sisters Station to Northumberland Park Depot and the depot itself are above ground. The rest of the line is entirely Underground.
@ PoP – a few comments on some of the statements made.
1. The dates for the panel meetings were on the TfL website a few weeks ago. We have just gone into a new calendar year so there’s always a bit of a gap before they appear but there is no “emergency” timing for this meeting. The dates are similar to previous years.
2. The Panels have NO approval powers. The paper is a presentation for noting not for approval. The fact there is a confidential part of the meeting is presumably to deal with any numerical / commercial issues that Board members would want to know. Such a move is unusual though at a Panel meeting.
3. The Panels are really an modal oversight mechanism using subsets of TfL Board members.
4. The meetings to look out for are the Finance and Policy Cttee on 2 March and the subsequent Board meeting. If things are running to plan we should see the draft updated Business Plan for the 2 March meeting and that will give the first clues as to what is happening. We may also get papers requesting formal approval for next steps but I’d be surprised given the need to get the business plan in line. Getting things in the right sequence is the issue here and I’m not sure you could lock in a decision on the Northern Line without affecting the overall Business Plan. Of course this should really all be going on behind the scenes right now.
I agree that the timing of this is undoubtedly political in all the senses of the word but you can hardly blame TfL / LU for that. Your observation about delaying one aspect of a scheme that then undermines later phases is pertinent and takes me back to the idiocy of LU’s investment plans in the 80s and 90s which were forever being churned around. This shows the folly of government cuts to investment and revenue support – the assumption that this is somehow without an impact is ludicrous. One wonders what the respective Mayoral candidates and their advisers will make of all this. Which one represents Tooting again? 😉 😉
One other factor that might come into play on the Northern Line is the PFI contract with Alstom. I would be surprised if trains could be scrapped by LU without there being consequences. I doubt the financial aspects are all “paid up” even now so the financial cost doesn’t go away if you scrap or withdraw stock. Of course if LU was to do as you suggest and go for a large scale part fleet replacement after a line split then we are in very different commercial territory. It may simply be that LU has to throw a wodge of cash at Alstom and their bankers to make the problem go away. This assumes, of course, that the deal hasn’t been fundamentally restructured since I left LU.
@ Graham H / Jason – one thing that Lord Adonis and his Infrastructure Commission is apparently doing is “testing” TfL’s claims that line upgrades can only deliver a maximum of 36 tph and can go no further. On one hand you can understand HMT not wanting to spend money “unnecessarily” on new infrastructure but you can also see the risks of TfL / LU being forced down a line of trying to squeeze another 2 tph out of a line and spending large sums in an increasingly futile quest that pushes a line ever closer to the point where someone sneezing too loud causes the service to collapse. Still spending another £650m [1] on the Vic Line to get it to 40 tph is less than £27bn building Crossrail 2 (he says deploying impeccable HMT logic).
[1] wild guess number for some signalling and track mods and station upgrades.
Re Jason,
It was just a rhetorical question for PoP pointing out what you did in different way!
The difference in in-passenger-service open air running (twin track so double for total (single) track distance) is 0km (Vic) vs 16-17km (Northern).
Vic is a lot less challenging…
@NGH
Apologies! No insult to knowledge intended 🙂
Re WW @ 1906,
As one of the candidates constituencies with 3 Northern Line stations is going to get vapourised in the 650-600 boundary changes at the next election he probably doesn’t need to worry too much unless this becomes political before May as he won’t have a parliamentary constituency to get re-elected in come 2020 (possibly why he is standing?)
@ PoP – one other thought pertaining to the Battersea Extension. I wonder if LU are locked into providing a given level of service in order to support the development and the funding? If so there may be little scope to scale the service back if it’s written in black and white. However a decision to work within the existing fleet size of 106 trains (assuming they are all serviceable!) effectively caps LU’s ability to ever increase the service without consequential reductions elsewhere which may not be politically easy for LU to do. Look at the political furore over scrapping the weekday Olympia service and that actually had some justification. I can’t see the residents of Barnet and Edgware sitting idly by while their service is reduced to run trains to Battersea.
Differing Signal / ATO methods notwithstanding, perhaps a limited advance run of NTfL to cover this gap would usefully help with design development and provide serious in-service testing of the car architecture, ventilation systems, hi-tech displays etc. before the big orders for the main project. The NTfL is such a big project that it’s difficult to imagine repeat production runs over such a timescale not being adjusted with the benefit of experience of the first batch. (What’s notable here is that they have pulled this off with the S Stock, but probably thanks to a very condensed production period by comparison).
On ngh’s note about aggressiveness of ATO settings, I’m always intrigued at how the Victoria Line’s system is more ‘perky’ than the Northern, but without the latter’s annoying tendency for constantly alternating between up-and-down speed check adjustments every 3 or so seconds when it would be a more comfortable ride if calibrated to just coast for a bit longer. The Victoria has got this better sorted… except for the hard stop right at the end.
Given the need, and the dearth in South London – a plan for the NLE beyond Battersea Power Station needs to be worked upon now.
This hopefully isn’t crayon-ing, but they should really be looking at incrementally extending either along Windsors west, or southwards. Clapham Junction seems obvious. And perhaps it could hit Balham/Tooting/Streatham and be an alternative to some of the CR2 doglegs. Allowing that to focus on SW and serve Earlsfield.
30-32tph terminating next to a flash development for the wealthy right on the Thames is pretty criminal given what (south) London needs, and the potential to extend a high frequency metro, and mop up a lot of inner London catchment.
@c
That’s an awful lot of expenditure however, and I think the NL as a whole without splitting the line and heavily augmenting the fleet would collapse. Too much demand because with the current sized fleet there’s no way they will be able to run 30 tph through both southern branches and that means that a lot of stations will look like Victoria in the AM peak – especially if they think they can only timetable in 6 tph past Kennington right now.
You’d need 150 trains between the “Bull & Bush” and the Moredon/High Barnet line.
Furthermore with the extra demand caused by this extension south Camden Town will have to be upgraded unless passengers take the long way to get to the other branch via Warren Street and King’s Cross on the Victoria which also involves a long old walk!
Don’t forget the reason why the Victoria will never be extended beyond Brixton – that is, the trains arrive full to Victoria now. There may not be spare capacity left depending on the take up in Battersea. Similarly, the Bakerloo is an attractive extension proposition because it’s the least busy line on the Underground.
Just my opinion, I could be wrong, this is fairly out of my manor round Ealing with the joy of the Picc!
Greg,
Presumably you travelled on an non-reconditioned Bakerloo line train? What would be more relevant is how track-worthy the refurbished units appear to be.
Walthamstow Writer,
From memory there we definitely only three planned meeting of the Rail & Underground Panel recently according to the relevant webpage with the first in May and this was the case until a few days ago. Unfortunately I have no way of either proving this or establishing I was mistaken.
I am fairly sure that the Rail & Underground Panel is only obliged to meet three times a year though in practice four is usual.
I still think the lack of papers other than routine ones that would have been presented as a matter of course at the next suitable meeting combined with the additional Finance & Policy meeting suggests that this was not planned a long time in advance and has come about primarily because they are now in a position to publicise proposals for signalling requirements to get the signalling tender process in motion and to delay this would delay the entire project (as is the reason given for discussing it now).
Does anyone ever measure the proportion of peak hours during which these services actually deliver their nominal capacity? Or are investment cases written assuming no faulty doors, sick passengers or signaling problems? If there ARE numbers out there it would be interesting to see them.
@timbeau
Wouldn’t the fiscally prudent plan be to order ~75x new build trains for the Jubilee and re-allocate the 63x 1996s to the Northern, which, notwithstanding the 63x seventh cars, brings you to around the total number you want for the”ultimate” Northern service plus a few spares? Surely a better business case than paying for ~30x replica stock likely to get half the working life of the originals?
Walthamstow Writer,
I note that the minutes of the previous meeting suggest that the date for the current meeting was decided a long time ago. I have modified the wording at the start of the article to tone down the suggestion that this was a last minute decision. They were slow to update the dates of the meetings of various panels on the website though which only seems to happen shortly before the first meeting of the calendar year. It could just be that this was the last one to have its first 2016 meeting.
PoP / WW
Will these meetings be affected by “purdah” preceding this year’s Mayoral election, I wonder? Or will/would the dates be shifted to avoid that little difficulty?
@Anon
“Wouldn’t the fiscally prudent plan be to order ~75x new build trains for the Jubilee and re-allocate the 63x 1996s to the Northern”
That would also work, and would allow a homogenous fleet on both halves of the Northern Line should the split be delayed, but it would require the entire 1996 stock fleet to be converted to Northern Line signalling standards instead of just a handful of 1995 stock converted the other way under my suggestion.
@ Peckham Wry – every incident and delay is recorded and attributed. Daily delay Lost Cutomer Hours values and Excess Wait Time is also produced and analysed. Therefore LU managers, operational and engineering, are well aware of what service level has been provided and what the reasons for any loss are. I know it is still fashionable to portray LU as incompetent and useless but it’s a damn sight better run these days than it was even 5 or 10 years ago never mind in the 1980s or 90s. The service levels are also much higher and more intensive for far more hours than in the past. That also requires a lot more management attention to keep it going day in, day out.
@ PoP – thanks for picking up my point about the meetings. I can’t prove my case any more than you can but I have been keeping an eye on both the webpages and the published “meeting list” that TfL General Counsel publish. The panel meetings were advertised a few weeks ago when the “list” was extended through to March rather than just being to end Jan. As you say the webpage updates have lagged a bit.
@ Greg – the meeting schedule already reflects the timing of purdah and Mayoral Election. TfL have been through this a couple of times so they know they have to create a “gap”. The Board may well be dissolved or changed when a new Mayor arrives and clearly there’s a load of protocol around that. The governance needs updating and a new Mayor and Board members will need to be “educated” as to how things work. The typical practice, as happened last year for the general election, is that the Board delegates its authority downwards to the Finance and Policy Committee on a temporary basis. This allows urgent business to be handled within the proper authority levels but it avoids the need for the Mayor, as Chair of TfL, to be involved in what might be construed as “political” decision making. The aim, though, is to “clear the decks” either side of the election so anything important / controversial / on a critical path is either out of the way in time or is ready for the first meetings after the election. An example of a critical path issue is keeping the planning process for the Barking Riverside extension (BRE) going. An extra F&P meeting was held 4 days ago to approve a number of key decision relating to funding (£172m), land agreements and other things to allow BRE to keep going.
Splitting the Northern Line would be great; the trains would stop lying to us when they arrive at Camden Town. When you’re heading North, they announce you’re at the “High Barnet Branch” or “Edgware” branch, which is true since, by the time you arrive in the station from the south, you are indeed in one branch or the other. BUT, if you’re heading south into the station, the train announces you’re in the “Bank” branch or the “Charing Cross” branch, which is false! I realise that the messages are the same in both directions for simplicity’s sake but every time I hear it I get angry and fee lied to. And don’t get me started on when they say “Move down inside the carriages!” Carriages? Grrrrr.
Ngh 1628, 19 02 2016.
Jubilee and Northern’s default braking rate is lower than on the Victoria line. The accelleration rate is nominally the same, but as the J and N have only 4/7th and 2/3rd axles motored compared with Victoria line 3/4, there will be a slight benefit to the Victoria Line.
Also “gentler settings” are not usually more efficient. The most efficient run profile for a given run time (would emphasise this if I could) is to accelerate as hard as you can, coast and then brake as hard as you can. Northern and Jubilee ATO is incapable of coasting, Victoria line can and does.
I am rather worried that we are about to see the Wimbledon loop Mk II – where a series of infrastructure investments are made on the basis of an unpublicised but contentious service pattern change, leading to a change of plan at a late stage that wastes previous effort.
I don’t think anything like enough groundwork has been laid for the proposal that the Northern line be split. When I mention this to my North London friends they (i) aren’t aware it will happen and (ii) don’t understand why it’s necessary (and explanations why then elicit suggestions like ‘well then just make the junction at Camden Town better’). There will be lots of commuters – quite as vocal and politically organised as those on the Wimbledon loop – who will be outraged at the idea that they have to change at all, even if it is at a remodelled Camden Town. I can easily see TfL having to back down in the face of political pressure.
That might be rather expensive if a train order has been made that can only work on the basis of splitting the Northern.
lawyerboy,
Could I just emphasise that it is a very widely held belief, based on quite a lot of hearsay, that TfL wish to segregate the Northern line into two routes. However, they have never explicitly stated it is their intention to do so and have made it clear that no decision has yet been made. It is almost certain that no decision to do so could be made without the approval of the Mayor at the time.
In other words it is certainly not a “done deal” but it is an aspiration. The primary argument in favour is the belief that you can get 36tph with full segregation and a maximum of 33tph with less reliability without it. Of course, if you haven’t got the trains to run 36tph it is going to be a very hard to sell the idea.
Without trying to push the idea of complete segregation too much, at 36tph (27tph probable off-peak) the extra journey time for half the people is going to be minimal though a change will be involved and the other half actually benefit from a more frequent direct journey and more trains overall. I hate to say it but I suspect it will be the old story of an overall benefit but the people who will be disadvantaged will shout much louder than the people who will benefit. I was a bit concerned at the Camden Town consultation that TfL seemed to have a mindset of minimum station upgrade necessary for the segregation to work rather than making it as easy as realistically possible to change lines.
@lawyerboy
I don’t think anything like enough groundwork has been laid for the proposal that the Northern line be split.
I think this is far easier to sell as a plan under a Labour mayor than a Tory mayor. If Labour win and the mayor supports the plan, it gives a clear indication for those who hate changing trains to move house or change jobs.
@PoP
I was a bit concerned at the Camden Town consultation that TfL seemed to have a mindset of minimum station upgrade necessary for the segregation to work rather than making it as easy as realistically possible to change lines.
You know my opinion on this matter. The whole point of my suggestion of CPI at Camden Town is to stop the moans from those who need to change between the Northern and Southern lines in times to come.
@Ian Sergeant:
Nobody can disagree with the notion that a good CPI (cross-platform interchange) design for Camden Town would be better for passengers required to change, and would go some way towards “stopping the moans”. The problem would seem to be that such a design would be amazingly expensive and disruptive – essentially building a new station and several extensive new pieces of tunnel, while keeping the line running using the existing station. If the money to do this was available (rather improbable) there would be other enhancements elsewhere which would produce a much greater return.
100andthirty says “The most efficient run profile for a given run time … is to accelerate as hard as you can, coast and then brake as hard as you can.
This could be correct for short runs such as those arising between stations on the underground. It certainly would not apply for a longer journey – think longer than 30 miles – the top speed required to ensure you get to the destination at all without coasting to a halt would be unfeasibly and uneconomically rapid!
An interesting semi-aside in the part about the Jubilee mentions how BCR (and project ‘saleability’) improves if you do bits and pieces of preparatory work before presenting the major investment plan for a go/no-go decision. It would be fascinating for students of project promotion to know how the BCR changed during this preparatory phase, linked with descriptions of how those preparatory projects were themselves ‘sold’ to the decision makers. Also mentioned and associated with the Jubilee is the proposal to create space at Neasden depot by shifting S-Stock to the widened lines. Again, there must be costs associated with this. Is it regarded as being financially justified for the SSR alone, or is it partially another ‘preparatory project’ that improves the BCR for the additional Jubilee trains?
I just love the ‘smoke and mirrors’ that project promoters utilise in order to get their pets past the money men.
@Fandroid – oldest trick in the book.. Known in the trade as salami tactics… (A classic case was the electrification to Cambridge via Hitchin which had rather long runouts at both ends ….)
Slightly OT – Will LR be covering the Bond Street Station cooling project in detail at some point? It sounds like there is some very interesting civil engineering there but I’ve not seen any articles anywhere describing it.
Malcolm @1859
Indeed, this thread is about a particular metro service and in the context of how ATO works. Sorry not to make this absolutely clear.
To expand a little
A well timetabled metro service will generally be timed for flat out operation – accelerate hard up to line speed limit (or braking point, whichever comes first), maintain it to the braking point and then brake hard. However, any timetable planner worth his salt will include an allowancs in the run time (make up allowance) for the variability of human performance. This covers a multitude of sins around what happens at stations and in individual driver performance. The latter is, of course, taken care of by ATO. If the trains are running to time, then the make up allowance can be ‘used up’ by coasting (Victoria Line) or imposing a lower line speed limit (Jubilee and Northern) for the section. Coasting is better, but both save energy. This can all be done automatically by a modern metro signalling control system.
Malcolm, Ian Sergeant,
Just to make clear. I wasn’t proposing a fundamental re-alignment of the platforms for better cross platform interchange at Camden Town. The improved cross passages, as planned, are centred around the widest part of the ‘V’ which I was told was sufficient.
When I pointed out that putting an additional cross passage at the narrow part of the ‘V’ would be really beneficial I was told it wasn’t necessary and would be difficult to do because you would have to excavate under the escalator barrel and escalators are sensitive to ground movement. I couldn’t see why this couldn’t be done once the new entrance was opened. The old escalators could then be temporarily taken out of use and the cross passage built and the escalators replaced if necessary – they will probably be due to be replaced by then anyway.
@ Fandroid – while I didn’t see any great reason to quibble with what PoP wrote I am going to quibble with your remark. You are right that the trick of “bit by bit” approvals from different budget lines was used in the past. However the “powers that be” aren’t daft and TfL significantly tightened up the governance and oversight processes for capital and maintenance spend. These days *all* the costs associated with the delivery of an overarching objective like a line upgrade or a New Bus or cycle lanes or whatever have to be under one overall authority and business case. In other words you can’t spread the money around in slush funds and disguised budgets if your attempt to get £50m (or whatever) for the “big” project failed. Given there is political oversight and accountability it does make sense that everything is pulled together and the benefits / costs are all grouped together too. There are so many checks and reviews and decision points etc that it takes forever to get through the process if there is any level of complexity or interraction with other asset groups / initiatives etc. Given how complex London’s transport network is then it’s inevitable there are knock on consequences within and without TfL and they all need to be covered.
There may be the odd thing at the margins that might be in the “wrong” project authority but I’d expect that to have been highlighted, discussed and cross referenced between the respective sponsors and project managers to avoid double counts or gaps. Of course none of this guarantees a perfect project or seamless delivery (SSR resignalling *cough* ) and it is interesting to note that opposition politicians on the Assembly are making an increasingly loud noise about the SSR debacle and asking why “the experts” (IIPAG etc) seemingly had no effect in stopping LU making the mistakes it did. Clearly they’re after “heads on poles”, given no one has been sacked or resigned, but such is politics and elections!
Disappointing that the increased service on the Jubilee is almost entirely proposed by being trains which turn round at North Greenwich. Already it is regularly impossible to get on the first westbound train at Canning Town in the morning peak, and likewise often not possible to board eastbound at Canary Wharf in the evening, yet more trains being inserted into the service at North Greenwich in the morning can only mean more uneven intervals from further east, and no more service. It really is an error, looking at the relative boarding numbers, that the short turning point was put in at North Greenwich rather than at the next station, Canning Town.
One of the most galling features of the line is in the evening to be turned out of an eastbound train at Canary Wharf because it is now turning on the separate reversing platform at North Greenwich (sometimes, but not always, so indicated in Central London), only to find huge queues for each doorway on the platform and to then have to wait sometimes several eastbound trains before you can even get back into one to continue. It might be a bit melodramatic to say that management attention is only given to the section from North Greenwich across Central London, but sometimes it feels like that.
Any guesses on whether the “functionally equivalent trains” will be called 1995 Mk2 stock, 1996 Mk3 stock, or 2019(?) stock?
Mr Beckton
I assume there are “not enough” JL train-sets to run a full service through to Stratford?
Which appears to be the same problem that the Northern line & c2c are having …..
Mr Beckton, Greg
I think it is a lot more complicated than that.
I am sure in my own mind that London Underground would terminate all eastbound trains at Stratford if they could and they would push for the extra stock to do this. Indeed, they had an opportunity when buying extra trains along with the seventh car for each of the existing trains. I see little benefit in terminating at North Greenwich and plenty of disadvantages (one of which I will expand on).
I am convinced the that the problem lies with the limited number of trains you can terminate at a dead end three platform terminal. This is not the same as Walthamstow Central (after recent upgrade work), Brixton or even Elephant & Castle (all only two platforms) where you can approach at or near full line speed with the added advantage of not having to take wet rails into any calculation. All approaches to Stratford must be dead slow and this must limit capacity.
I stand to be corrected but I don’t think there is a single three platform terminus on London Underground that achieves 24tph both in and out though I suspect Edgware gets very close. The High Barnet branch needs through trains to Mill Hill East to enable sufficient terminating capacity in peak hours and the Piccadilly line has to terminate some trains at Arnos Grove so as not to overwhelm Cockfosters. Morden can handle 30tph using only two platforms of the three available because there aren’t buffers at the end of the platform so an overrun, protected by signalling, only results in the train stopping rather closer to the depot than intended.
The huge disadvantage of not being able to terminate all trains at Stratford is, as Mr Beckton mentions, that the line east of North Greenwich is busy – and is probably just as busy as west of North Greenwich. So if you terminate 1 train in 4 (which I think is and always has been the case at all times of day regardless of overall frequency) then you will get an erratic service with gaps in unless something is done about it. Whereas this hardly matters if running to Cockfosters or even to Stanmore, it would cause great problems on the eastern end of the Jubilee line with one in three Jubilee line trains departing Stratford as crowded as the next two put to together.
If you actually examine the Jubilee line working timetable you will see that enormous effort is made to ensure that trains departing from Stratford do so on an even interval basis. To achieve this it is necessary run one train to normal timing, slow down the preceding train slightly and slow down the train preceding that slightly more to provide the slot for the North Greenwich starter. This necessitates, amongst other things, timetabled waiting periods at West Ham. Given the less than optimal running plus the extra time taken to negotiate the crossover at North Greenwich, if you could run all trains to Stratford it would probably require fewer trains than you might think.
Paul III,
2019 stock (or 2020 stock or whatever). One obvious precedent was the later A62 stock to distinguish it from the A60 stock.
@anon @timbeau
1996 Stock can’t be run on the Northern Line due to gauging issues.
1995 Stock were built to a slightly different profile than 1996 Stock.
The key piece being the joint between the two side panels, including door appatures (manufactured in Spain) in the roof. Akin to a keystone in the roof of a tunnel.
1995 Stock have a smaller ‘keystone’ joint in the roof which effectively pulls the two sides slightly inwards at the roof, only by 3-4cm – but enough to adapt the design to fit the Northern Line tunnel gauge.
(remembered from LURS visit to Alstom/Metro-Cammell to see ’95/’96 construction)
I strongly suspect that relocating stabling for S7 on the Widened Lines could be justified, business case wise, by the reduction in empty (or at least less productive) running. The fact that it helps the case for more Jubilee line trains does not then need to be taken into account.
Similarly, the DLR was able to make a standalone case to extend to King George V in order to serve City Airport. It was no secret that the real intention was to get to Woolwich – just it was easier (especially with the treasury) to do it in two bite size chunks each of which could be justified on their own merit.
Dstock7080,
Thanks for that. Always wondered what the exact situation was.
@Graham H re electrification of the Fen Line…
‘at both ends’ – wasn’t ECML electrification done first so there already would have been OHLE at Hitchin?
Just out of interest wondered how much was electrified beyond Cambridge station prior to the K Lynn extension?
@Greg Tingey
I made the conscious (and silly, given the walking distances involved!) decision to travel on the Bakerloo from Waterloo to Charing Cross the other day just to see how bad things were. The trains themselves didn’t seem as filthy/smelly as expected, but the screech of the stock coming round the curve at Waterloo was almost deafening…
@PoP
While I support your incremental improvement of adding another cross-passage to the Camden scheme, my worry has always been overcrowding on the platforms, which any number of cross passages won’t solve. I know the official advice is to take the first train and change at Camden Town – but few take it in the rush hour as that means not having a seat on the final part of the journey to work. Can the narrow platforms cater for any disruption to service? Or is it simply the case that disruptions on one line will cause non-stopping on the other?
@PoP @Paul III
Re: Stock naming
When the extra cars/trains were delivered in 2005 for the Jubilee they were all labelled as, and are still known as, 1996 stock. I think that’s as close a precedent as you might have for what happens next.
“the the 2015 spending review” [Corrected. Thanks. PoP]
“there will not be the money around to provide extra trains to use the Northern line to use it maximal extent including 36tph down to Morden (via Balham).”
The second reads rather awkwardly.[Maybe but I can’t think of a way of wording it better. PoP]
Anonymous 15:18
No, I don’t think that sets a precedent at all. The point is that the extra trains delivered in 2005 were, as I understand it, made from the same jigs as the original stock and, except for a few minor features, identical. I strongly suspect there was an option in the original contract that was exercised many years later. In other words it is
19951996 stock. The fact that it was built in 2005 makes no difference.Tube stock is often not actually constructed in the year given in it name. The replacement trains will be very different underneath. Even if to drivers and passengers they are identical, to fitters they certainly will not be. In any case they will probably be made by a different company so one would have to be careful who one contacted in the event of problems!
@Tim – yes indeed, the runout was towards Cambridge.
@Joel Williamson
How about:
“there will not be the money around to provide extra trains to use the Northern Line to its greatest extent, including 36tph down to Morden (via Balham)”
PoP yes, same jigs; no, there was no option exercised and , pedantically, it was extra 1996 stock. [Thanks. I am always muddling the two. PoP]
I see the comments about the slow approach to Stratford, but wonder why there have to be so many safeguards. There’s automatic driving so no repetition of any Moorgate incident. The stopping points at Stratford are way before the physical buffers (if you don’t know the station have a look at Google Earth to see how far before the end of the tracks the trains are stopped). And yet there is a snails-pace approach from right out by the depot, to the extent that a DLR train leaving alongside the Jubilee one from West Ham can run in alongside it at Stratford, despite having two additional intermediate stations to serve.
@PaulIII
“functionally equivalent” stock has traditionally been given its own year code unless it really is identical, hence 1949 stock augmenting the 1938 stock trains or C69/C77 stock. Although following that pattern the augmentation cars for the 1996 stock ought to have their own code.
The only time we have had Mark I and Mark II was 1972 stock, which was built in two flavours (but one production run) intended for different lines – although at one time they both worked on the Northern Line .
Mr Beckton. This (slow speed approach to dead ends) is a feature of Thales TBTC – see similar conservatism at Tower Gateway. Also I don’t know what the junction speed limits are, but these may not aid a higher speed approach
Timbeau. If Alstom, expect more 1995/1996 stock. If someone else, expect 2019 or something like that. Frankly these things are sometimes made up on the hoof. S stock was effectively christened on the way down the ramp to platforms 16-18 at Euston. Logic said it should have been E stock (next after D).
100andthirty
20 February 2016 at 21:37
I thought coasting was not specified in the Thales ATO contract.
David T-Rex: Coasting isn’t a feature of the Thales system (or, at least, wasn’t in 2004 or so when it was ordered).
Coasting wasn’t specified for Victoria line either, but was delivered as part of a package of changes implemented to manage the extra heat from the greatly increased service (particularly off peak)
Re 130,
Coasting etc.
1. Thales not coasting: Is there any reason the algorithms can’t be updated especially given the amount LU seem to be ordering their kit or are there issues with traction motor controller interface etc.?
2. You have the TBTC ATO algorithms as dating from the 1980s presumable the design assumed DC traction motors or AC motors with GTO for traction motor control in which case the lack of coasting makes some sense in which case is it worth going for new IBGT traction motor controllers on the 1996 Jubilee stock?
@ngh and others – Personally, from what I read here, algorithms seem like the logarithms I had to learn from text books and little do they usefully reflect that theory as discovered in actual common sense practice. So, with trains, one of the measures was always to try and find how to permit a train to coast, i.e. without taking power and thus to save energy, whilst still being able to keep to schedule. As mentioned above, a solution is to be found in rapid acceleration capability from start, coast at speed with a gentle fall in that speed and then rapid braking at the next station, taking power in between only when required to maintain momentum (and of course to brake through any intermediate speed restrictions and speed up again afterwards).
Some may recall a train that failed some nine miles outside Paddington and managed to coast all the way into the Paddington platform. Southern Electric provided coasting boards all over its area for its motormen to shut off power and coast to the next station. Many of those coasting boards still exist and are still observed by the drivers.
So how does the constant on-off-on-off, rather the constant on-retard-on-retard &c. experience throughout travel between stations, as uncomfortable as it is anyway on e.g. the Northern Line stock, achieve anywhere near any power saving as efficiently as might be achieved by simple power and coasting as informed electric traction theory and practice has dictated in the past? How can power-brake-power-brake-power-brake with no intermediate coasting be energy efficient in any way? From where I sit inside those trains, they are using far more power than ever would be needed should those algorithms have been ignored.
Is this a case of e.g.Thales (and others?) not actually knowing the practical environment of a working electric railway and its long-held aspirations to keep to schedule but at just sensible power consumption?
Indeed, to avoid that “on-retard-on-retard” situation now being experienced might even reduce wear and tear on other parts of the rolling stock to which it is uncomfortably applied.
I believe a Pendelino can coast from Tring to Euston.
Why is it that the Northern Line Extension budget didn’t include the cost of the trains to operate it? Shouldn’t the cost of the extra five trains have been included in the money raised from the developers, Tax Increment Financing etc?
@Graham F:
There is a trade-off between energy consumption (and heat) and capacity. According to this page, the original 1960s Victoria Line ATO had coasting points built into the control system (and the ability to activate them from the control system), but:
Because of soaring passenger numbers and the desire to maximise passenger capacity by running as many trains as possible the system whereby trains coast for part of the journey stopped being used, as it adversely affected the capacity of the line plus unacceptably increased both journey times and crowding. Instead the trains operated on the basis of maximum acceleration (for as long as possible) and then maximum braking. Whilst this was beneficial with respect to maximising passenger capacity the downside was that power consumption, heat radiated by the train and ‘wear and tear’ were higher than when the trains followed the older system of gentle acceleration followed by coasting then gentle braking.
According to this, the early-90s Central Line ATO does allow for coasting, but:
The ATO normally drives the train as fast as it can. If trains are bunching up or otherwise need to be slowed down, the control room turns on the coasting facility
Coasting v binary driving
The most energy-efficient way of getting from A to B involves applying just enough power to get to the other end without having to apply the brakes. The quickest way is to apply full power up to the point where a full brake application will bring you to a stand at your destination. (On a graph of speed v time, these would appear as two triangles, the first low and wide, with the apex skewed to the left, and the other tall and narrow, but both of the same area, as the area represents distance)
Both strategies may need to be modified to comply with speed limits, but essentially any braking costs energy, and any time not spent accelerating costs time.
Timbeau…..absolutely right. That is the fastest way of getting from A to B. However the only way to deal with the inevitable variances in running, dwells and so on is to timetable for slightly longer inter station run time. In metro terms, if running to time you use up the “extra” timetabled time by extending dwells or slowing trains down; but I am going over ground I have covered before.
Ian J…..There is a big difference between the old Victoria line and Central Line systems compared with the new Victoria line when it comes to coasting control. Put simply, the old systems had the facility to provide coasting. It could be switched on or off, and all trains responsed. If energy saving was wanted at the expense of run time, then this could be had. It was rarely, if ever, switched on in recent times. By contrast, the new Victoria line system allows costing to be switched automatically. When I was last associated with it, coasting was used to help regulate even headways. Coasting was left ‘on’ all the time. If a train starts to run behind its schedule then the control system can switch off costing to allow the train to catch up. The point is that each train can be controlled individually. The variances monitored are small – in the order of 10 seconds – and it would be quite impossible for human control room operators to monitor both nearly 40 individual trains nor to this fine tolerance.
timbeau,
“essentially any braking costs energy, and any time not spent accelerating costs time”.
Beautifully and simply put.
100andthirty,
Logic said it [S stock] should have been E stock (next after D).
On that basis C stock should have been B stock.
Alternative logic suggests S Stock. A for Amersham, C for Circle, D for District, S for (all) Sub-Surface.
A consideration could be that, by the end of this year, it doesn’t really matter what you call it – you will have a homogeneous stock for the sub surface lines which may well still be the case in 30 years time. Certainly no need to use the alphabet sparingly as used to be the case with only four new letters allocated in the past 60 years – maybe longer (my interest in old underground stock is very limited).
Coasting – timbeau is close with his comments. One thing absent from the above is that one must also consider that an electric train taking full power reaches a balancing speed if permitted to do so, so any further power taken is simply wasted. That, however, is quite different to taking power and then braking repetitively to maintain what seems to be a speed below what may be the balancing speed. That’s where the waste of energy surely must occur.
For the original ATO on the Victoria Line, there were indeed two modes of operation, with one set to make the trains run and coast as per normal timetable and the other to run at ‘full speed’ without so much coasting and perhaps with sharper braking approaching station platforms in order to make up delays. Apart from the fact that the ’67 Stock didn’t have regenerative braking to feed power back to the conductor rail, it did have rheostatic braking which at least reduced brake wear at the wheels and thus the brake dust released in tunnels and platforms.
As timbeau intimates, any braking effort is going to produce energy. So far as I can see, the train so doing will produce wasted heat, whether or not some of that energy is fed back to the power supply.
Ian J correctly identifies a trade off but I suggest that it went too far the opposite way, to the detriment of the ideal of energy saving, caused by those engrossed in algorithms who ignored the benefits of coasting. It’s painful to me to be on a downgrade to witness that constant power and brake control, when a simple coast down the grade would achieve just as much and certainly more efficiently, energy wise.
@100andthirty
” By contrast, the new Victoria line system allows costing to be switched automatically.”
It’s interesting to see it in action. If you time, using a stopwatch, the Victoria line from Seven Sisters to Tottenham Hale (from the doors snapping shut to snapping open) it’s exactly 60 seconds. Except on a Sunday when it’s 70 seconds.
@Pedantic of Purley/timbeau
“essentially any braking costs energy, and any time not spent accelerating costs time”.
There is the small matter of regenerative braking, which can be used to save a considerable amount of the energy used for braking. Not all of it, of course, but it does affect the “simple equation”, as does the need to divest the system of the heat created by the transfer of energy from friction during braking.
Re PoP / Timbeau,
But with regenerative braking the energy cost associated is significantly lower (ditto heat).
Re Graham F,
With IGBT based control it should be fairly easy to achieve the constant speed vs applied power balance with very low power input not so easy with other control technology.
Graham Feakins,
I think one of us has misunderstood balancing speed. I thought it was when the maximum power to the motors or engine produced no further increase in speed. That is the power input balances resistance to movement. The point is though, as I understood it, that you have to keep applying that power to maintain that balancing speed. Fairly obviously, if the power is no longer provided then the resistances still present cause a slow down of speed.
More pertinently and more practically, do tube trains ever reach their balancing speed? I strongly suspect the answer is no because most modern stock is restricted to a lower speed than it is capable of attaining.
I think for your scenario of the downhill run it my be worth considering a couple of scenarios.
Situation 1: There is a train ahead that prevents the train accelerating. The problem here is that the ATO cannot perfectly predict the future. It does not know whether the train ahead is about to accelerate or come to a halt. In this situation, assuming minimising time is the most important factor, the only sensible strategy is to remain as close as permitted to the train ahead which will inevitably involve maintaining maximum speed permissible which can only be done by an accelerating-braking cycle. It can be argued that the time should not be such a consideration and that energy saving (or passenger comfort) should play a part but that is not a fault of the ATO – it is a judgment to be made by those setting it up although obviously if they do make such a judgment and the ATO cannot implement then that is a weakness of the ATO.
A further consideration is that there will be a train behind so it could be important for the current train to move as far forward as possible as quickly as possible so that the train behind can move forward.
Scenario 2: There is a maximum speed limit on the line that prevents the train accelerating. Here the issue is exactly as timbeau says. You are trading off speed and energy (and passenger comfort). Clearly you can set the speed limits to produce a gentler ride but if time is the only consideration then it makes sense to keep as close to the permitted speed limit as possible and that means constantly accelerating and braking.
It’s painful to me to be on a downgrade to witness that constant power and brake control
Clearly the factor not taken into account when devising algorithms is the mental torment that this causes to some individuals.
@ngh
“with regenerative braking the energy cost associated is significantly lower (ditto heat).”
Not ditto – the energy cost is the energy lost as heat. But unless you can produce a regenerative system which is 100% efficient, there will always be heat lost in braking.
@pop
“Certainly no need to use the alphabet sparingly as used to be the case with only four new letters allocated in the past 60 years – maybe longer ”
I’ve never seen a date from when the ex-Metropolitan railway stock acquired the codes S and T (the former being a one-off unit formed in 1936 from odds and sods), but it must have been after 1947 when the R stock was introduced.
Perhaps the “silver” era is an aberration, and S simply follows on from the R stock.
Or, if LU had continued the sequence, the A60 would be U, A62 would be V, C69 would be W, C77 would be X, D78 would be Y, S8 would be Z, and S7 – errm……….
Briantist,
Yes I know regenerative braking changes the exact values of the equation but it is still a trade off of time against energy.
Incidently, this is probably one of the reasons why regenerative braking that is more effective at recovering energy than today’s systems is a key part of the NTfL scheme – mainly by not limiting reuse to what the first substation can use it for but passing the energy back up the electrical power system if needed.
“It’s painful to me to be on a downgrade ”
There are situations, such as on Shap, where the speed limit is higher in the uphill direction than downhill. This is of course an illustration of the maxim that “your permission to speed is your ability to stop – going uphill gravity assists the brakes.
At Stoke Summit there is a 100mph speed limit. Such an idea would be incomprehensible to steam-age drivers, to whom actually getting to the top at all was an achievement, and the idea of doing 125mph UP the hill that Mallard briefly hit that speed going down would be quite fantastic, let alone being required to slow down when you got to the top!
The speed limit at Stoke is partly to avoid a repeat of the 1908 Grantham runaway, but also because of the risk of window blowouts if two trains pass in the tunnel at a closing speed of Mach 0.33.
Timbeau,
Yes ditto you even point out that energy cost is the energy lost via heat generation!!!
Note I did not say zero. There is big difference between lower and zero which you can’t seem to understand and have got confused by.
One of the key advantages of regenerative braking for the underground is that it reduces heat generation in tunnels.
@ngh
Sorry, I misunderstood the “ditto” to suggest that heat was being lost in addition to (some other form of) energy.
Assuming the braking performance to be the same, regenerative braking does not affect the amount of kinetic energy to be dissipated, or the shape of the speed curve for “binary” driving (max acceleration followed by max braking). Regenerative braking does reduce both the net energy cost (the heat dissipated), although as you can never recover all of it the most efficient (but slowest) strategy of all is still to coast.
Over 100 years ago, the Central London Railway devised a very simple form of gravity-powered regenerative braking, requiring no complicated batteries – the running tunnels were built at a deeper level than the stations, allowing gravity to assist starting from each station and braking for the next.
Re PoP,
There is a balancing speed for any given level of power input which is what Graham and I are referring to (level or up hill). With IGBT controllers you can easily set the desired motor speed (e.g. the AC frequency) and the motor can effectively just draw the minimum power needed to achieve the constant frequency underload without any complex feedback mechanisms. This is much harder with other motor control technologies hence the on /off pulsing seen on the Northern Line.
IGBT has had a massive effect on factory production lines as you can operate many of them (or parts of them) at variable speed rather than just on or off
Situation 1.
This is what sank the previous SSR resignalling attempts. On the SSR the signalling system needs to know what all (or rather probably a very large number) the other trains are upto and makes it so much harder than other systems elsewhere in the world.
ngh, PoP etc. Both Northern Line – IGBT – and Jubilee – GTO – are capable of having in their traction systems a means to “run at this speed” – a sort of cruise control. However such control systems aren’t fitted. They were inappropriate for manual driving on the metro operation and ATO systems provide that anyway. As everyone has identified, the interface between train and ATO is best described as ‘simple’. ATO knows what speed it wants and tells the train to accelerate or brake to achieve it. The jerkiness arises because the time constants in the control loop are not optimised and sufficiently low acceleration and braking rates are not selected, indeed may nor be available in the simple interface. The reason why the Victoria line works well is that the coasting delivers the smooth operation most of the time but the jerkiness still occurs from time to time e.g. controlled speed running uphill.
I am sure better ways are possible and as an engineering problem, it’s not hard to solve, but requires the rolling stock and signalling industry to work together ideally on a standard interface with more functionality. Something for the future.
@ngh
With an IGBT inverter (and with the older GTO inverter) and induction motor you can just set the AC frequency to (approximately) set the speed but most variable speed drives would now use “vector control” such that you set the current amplitude (and thus the torque) in the first instance. You could use this like a notch controller or you could raise or lower that under feedback control to get the desired speed (the cruise control that @100andthirty describes). Vector control avoids excessive current when set-points are suddenly changed and can be used to implement wheel-slip protection. Vector control has fairly sophisticated internal control loops based on a whole pile of maths.
Also, regenerative breaking would be approximately as efficient at converting mechanical energy into electrical as motoring is at going the other way, in the range 85 – 95% at full power.
@ Ian J 0745 – It may well be the case that the actual funding for the extra trains will come from one or more cash sources supporting the NLE project. However it makes no sense to separately order 5 trains using a project team that is running what is largely a construction project for most of its lifespan. Given that LU is looking to buy more “modern equivalent” stock anyway for other lines too it makes sense to group the budget, funding and procurement authorities and approvals in one place. [It may even be required under Standing Orders but I haven’t read those for several years.] I expect the rolling stock project will have a funding contribution identified in it from the NLE. That’s a perfectly rational thing to do in these circumstances. Keeping the authorities and contracts in “one place” for the trains also makes life simpler for the rolling stock supplier and avoids any nonsenses over EU procurement rules.
Obviously the NLE project has to fit out the tunnels and stations and commission the link on to the existing railway. Something similar is involved at Bank too with new tunnels and running lines. If LU has planned it properly then I expect similar resources will be involved in the track, signalling, power, comms etc commissioning for both projects and the introduction of the new rolling stock will have to cover operation / testing on new as well as old infrastructure. If the works keep to programme it should be feasible to use scarce resources efficiently for both projects given they have similar requirements.
@WW: I agree that it makes sense for the procurement to be done as part of the bigger picture of rolling stock orders, but:
I expect the rolling stock project will have a funding contribution identified in it from the NLE
In that case the presentation to the panel is rather misleading, as it says:
As a result of the 2015 Comprehensive Spending Review, R&U may need to reduce its capital programme… The possible implications for the JNAT parent projects are as follows… NLU2 – at risk, and recognised as a lower priority than JLU2
– and yet it appears that the cost of nearly a third of the trains for the Northern Line is already covered by existing budgets, and this is not mentioned in the presentation. It is almost as if a deliberately politically unacceptable option (opening Battersea Power Station station without new stock and reducing services elsewhere to accommodate it) is being put forward as the only alternative to going ahead with the full order. Which would certainly fit PoP’s implication that there is a hidden agenda here.
Re Tunnel Bore,
I was quietly ignoring the current limiting /setting element of things which is also quite important for allowing power factor correction to be done within the motors adding a few % to the overall efficiency (and avoiding melted silicon (dioxide) too)
And a lot of specialist processing and sensing capability to do the maths a million times a second.
95% efficiency would have to be SiC MOSFET rather than Si IGBT?
@ Ian J – oh bleep I should have gone back and checked the paper! You got me.
Well maybe it is a case of a preferred option and a “oh heck we can do it at a squeeze” option. The former is buying some new trains and the latter is working the 106 train fleet much harder than it is already worked. The current NL WTT requires 96 trains in M-F peaks leaving 10 notionally spare (assuming all are fit). Needing an extra 5 for the NLE probably makes things very tight indeed if 101 were timetabled. Obviously as PoP hinted you could run with fewer trains but that may mean less mileage in certain places. If you run the fleets “too hot” you run the risk of cancellations if you get casualties that can’t be fixed in the space of a few hours although the off peak train requirement is lower to facilitate regular maintenance.
Surely turning trains short at Golders Green and Colindale would be easiest solution to maximise the use of rolling stock? Santiago Metro turned 50% of services short of the termini 10 years when they had a lack of trains, to maximise frequency through the core (IIRC at 34tph).
Some trains already turn short. If there is scope for more to do so, then that would indeed help. But it would degrade the service beyond the turning points. This degrading would not be popular, particularly if it has been announced (or assumed) that extending the line would not harm existing users.
Malcolm,
True, but we are talking about stations that are served by 24tph (every 2½ minutes) in the peak and 20tph off-peak. Is the occasional 5 minute gap really so terrible?
This would only be analogous to the High Barnet branch which has the occasional gap as 5tph in the peak hours terminate at Mill Hill East.
@PoP
“…will go down from 105 seconds to 100 seconds. This will … bring a capacity improvement of exactly 5% …”
Actually, a reduction from 105 to 100 is a change of 4.76%, not “exactly 5%”.
Peezedtee,
Actually, it is a capacity increase of exactly 5% not 4.76%. You are confused and are measuring the wrong thing.
To see and understand why you are wrong consider what happens in 10, 500 seconds. Previously trains would be 105 seconds apart and there would be 100 of them in that time period. Now that the trains are 100 seconds apart there will be 105 of them.
So in this time period there were 100 trains. There are now 105 trains. That by my calculation is a capacity increase of exactly 5%. I hope that makes sense.
PoP/PZT: at first glance I was thinking in the same way as PZT, but, as PoP says, a reduction in headway from the current 105s to 100s headway represents an increase in capacity from 34.2857142857tph (which rounds to 34.29tph rather than the 34.28tph stated in the article) to 36tph, which is exactly 5%.
Mike,
I will spare you the mini-article on rounding strategies and which ones are appropriate for what occasion. Suffice to say there are many such as for VAT which is always rounded downwards to the nearest penny (but you must pay at least 1 penny unless exempt or zero rated). Rounding is not an absolute and the most appropriate one must be made in the context of its use. In context of the statement in the article pointing out it was better than 34tph, this rounds down to 34tph but is actually slightly better than that – 34.28tph, I chose to round down to make the statement unarguable – or so I thought!
The Northern Line Upgrade 2 (NLU 2) paper for the Finance & Policy meeting on 2 March 2016 explicitly includes “installation of a new scissors crossover for reversing at East Finchley” as part of the proposed upgrade.
The paper also states that “Extensive value management has been applied, for example, the scope of cooling works required has been significantly reduced as a result of including off-peak coasting”.
Personally, I think the journey is far more comfortable now than when the ATO was first switched with much a much more aggressive accelerate/brake cycle than now.
And here is the NLU2 paper. Shows the project has a decent benefit / cost ratio and that the works are budgeted. The authority being sought is to progress design works and further implementation authority would be requested at a later date.
There is also a JLU2 paper. As with the Northern line paper this is seeking design monies before implementation funding is sought. LU is clearly pushing several things at the same – the works on the respective lines and rolling stock purchase separately. A key element of the scope is improving the turn back at West Hampstead to avoid carrying “fresh air” north of there and allowing a concentrated service across the centre. Another option to improve services to Stanmore has been rejected – seemingly on cost grounds although it delivered a good level of benefit. Nice to see the impact there of a harsher funding environment. It is also quite telling that the business case doesn’t assume any transfer from other lines or modes – it’s based entirely on coping with demand that is presently deterred due to overcrowding.
Re WW,
But with Crossrail opening surely some of the demand at West Hampstead will disappear as Thameslink users heading to Canary Wharf transfer to Crossrail at Farringdon instead?
Or is this potential reduction at the reason turn back at West Hampstead actually works well overall compared to Stanmore?!?
ngh,
Mike Horne, whose writings I respect, has a very low opinion of the turnback facility at West Hampstead. This doesn’t necessarily mean it is worse than Stanmore though.
https://machorne.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/jubilee-line-constraints/
Brief update regarding the meeting today and comments on the train procurement.
Not a lot came out that wasn’t already known on this subject. John Armitt was concerned about introducing new trains different from the tried and tested existing trains. The discussion was effectively halted by David Waboso pointing out that you couldn’t buy the old traction motors if you wanted to so they would have to be new non-compatible trains anyway.
A lot of the rationale for a tender for new trains instead of near copies prior to that was along the lines of (but not said quite so explicitly) “if we specify them to be like the old ones then only Alstom will bid and they will be take us to the cleaners on price”.
Interesting though, the panel seemed not over-concerned that the order for Northern line trains might not progress. A question was asked about trains for the Battersea extension in that case and the reply was that they were hopeful, in that eventuality, that they could negotiate with Alstom to increase availability to provide the trains. That seems like quite a challenge (getting that availability not negotiating with Alstom).
If I could ask you not to comment on the latest JLU2 and NLU2 papers and I will try and have something out in the next few days. Other websites are available if you cannot wait.
Re PoP,
The only thing that makes sense about it is minimising the number of trains – it just doesn’t seem logical for other reasons (agree with Mike on virtually all points). In station turn back is what is really needed but West Hampstead is possibly a little too busy and too close in.
My general view is that turnback at busy stations /interchanges is probably best avoided.
Turnback at a station is ok if there is a bay platform available for the purpose. But the time spent tipping out before going in to a reversing wye holds up the traffic behind to the point where it’s more efficient just to carry the extra fresh air to the end of the line and back.
Re:turnback, you can make things a lot better by allowing customers to be ‘over carried’ into the sidings – that way you can reduce the dwell time to approaching the normal dwell time. The problem is train operators don’t want to risk walking through a train where there might be over carried customers.
Best option therefore is to remove the operator and go to GoA4 operation and don’t worry too much about over carried customers – as long as the dwell time is reasonably short (and with GoA4 reversing dwell should be about the same as normal dwell – look at DLR Tower GAteway). Customers will soon get used to listening for the announcements when they find themselves heading back to their starting point.
Yuo can also do things like dim / switch off the lights to help encourage them.
It is to be strongly hoped that the new scissors crossover(s?) at East Finchley will actually permit usage of the ‘inside’ platform faces in revenue service so that reversals can happen in those platforms rather than outside the station (would would, of course, require checking each carriage is empty.)
[I’ll let this go but could I remind you not to comment on the latest details in the papers to the Finance committee. Article is already half done – admittedly the easy half as the Jubilee proposal is easier understand and write up than the Northern line one PoP]
Nice article thanks. Slight typo: various aspectS.[Corrected. Thanks. PoP]
Now the Elizabeth Line has purple there are not many colours left for a split Northern. A putrid green maybe?!
@lg – if you read yesterday’s posts on the Elizabeth Line thread, you’ll see an extensive discussion on your point.
Mr Goldsmith has just pledged that there would be funding for the Northern line trains:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/zac-goldsmiths-15bn-pledge-to-tackle-crowded-tube-lines-a3191436.html
It looks like he is essential agreeing with TfL’s more optimistic option lists.
The £450m has to be far more than the Northern line though – costing max 1/3 of that for the Northern would be more realistic. I assume the cost includes Jubilee and the additional S Stock above unit for unit replacement?
ngh and others,
We will go into this when the next article on the subject gets published – written but going through the mill. For the Northern line the cost is a lot more than the cost of simply buying the trains. In fact £450 million would, according to TfL figures, not be sufficient to to introduce the new trains on the Northern line together with the associated work.
Meanwhile it is the usual plea for patience and restraint .
PoP, ngh et al,
I have heard that the Thales system on the Northern & Jubilee need an upgrade for higher TPH – the limitation is proccessing power in the central computer. Can you confirm this ?
Also there is a comment above about ATO communications failures in wet weather – The SUP system uses radio to transmit the train position & receive movement instructions. This should be more reliable though the track mounted Balises might be vunerable to flooding and possibly snow though they work in Norway in the winter.
The TBMs that will build the Battersea extenstion have been unveiled .please see link below –
http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/business-news/london-transport/omg-tfl-just-unveiled-these-super-powerful-tunnel-boring-machines-that-will-build-the-northern-line-extension/12021.article
The item mentions how they have been designed to cope with more difficult tunnelling conditions found in south London.
[Please remember we are not a news site. I have let this pass – not sure why – but normally news items unrelated to recent articles or recent comments will be removed. Malcolm]
Great idea of making Walthamstow Central double ended could be nixed by plans for skyscrapers where an entrance would be. See
http://walthamforestecho.co.uk/shopping-centre-plans-include-27-storey-skyscraper/
http://www.themall.co.uk/media/396887/160331_1061-_walthamstow-consultation-boards-final-draft_v20.pdf
James B
Has anyone told TfL?
And, ghastly, isn’t it?
James B 16 June 2016 at 01:10
“Great idea of making Walthamstow Central double ended could be nixed by plans for skyscrapers where an entrance would be.”
The report you’ve linked to doesn’t have much to say about the location of the new shops or homes. It shouldn’t be beyond the skills of Town Planners to require passive provision within the development for a 2nd station entrance.
The NW corner of High Street and Hoe Street was undeveloped for years to allow for an underground station on Route C.
AG
It shouldn’t be beyond the skills of Town Planners to require passive provision within the development for a 2nd station entrance.
Like Lewisham, you mean?
I was thinking of the shaft built at Moorgate for the Crossrail station, long before the Crossrail Act had cleared Parliament.
How bizarre that I only find out about that plan for Walthamstow Mall on LR and even then 2 months after the consultation. Someone hasn’t tried very hard to publicise the possible plan. One day someone will stop designing these ghastly identikit developments that have less character than sitting on the beach at Weston Super Mare during a thunderstorm and gale. If they jam in further development like that they are going to cause massive transport problems. The road network in the area can no longer cope and a development on that scale will attract more car traffic which could not accommodated. It will also prevent TfL from expanding the bus station site and that is now very close to capacity meaning bus services cannot be materially expanded unless they no longer serve the bus station. More “large scale” retail also means more deliveries and more lorries on to roads that can’t cope. And as for 27 storeys – good grief no. We are not Manhatten. The hotel tower is ghastly enough. By all means go to 4-7 storeys but no more than that (and yes I know I’m being a nimby).
If anyone was remotely serious about double ending Walthamstow Central then I agree that planning conditions could be imposed and I’ve no doubt that TfL would want some “wedge” from the developers (whether for the station or for transport capacity more generally).
All available evidence shows new high-density developments result in increased use of public transport and reduction in car use.
@ Anon – only if there are no parking facilities included. My concern about cars was from the enhanced retail offer that the developers are pushing. Walthamstow regularly grinds to a halt with people trying to park at the Mall and in the run up to Christmas it gridlocks every weekend for about two months. Putting more shops there as a “competing centre” with other places will pull in more traffic. Those extra shops will also require servicing and delivery hence my remarks about lorries. Given the propensity for articulated lorries to make deliveries we again get traffic jams and an inoperable bus station if a lorry turns up to deliver to either McDonalds or the small Tesco opposite the station.
If you’re a local E17 resident then sorry to teach you to suck eggs but otherwise take it from me that after living there for 30+ years I think I know how the traffic behaves and what is likely to happen if we get more retail. The recent council moves to remove bus lanes and reduce lane widths and seal off streets has caused huge jams and delays and there is little sign of them easing. It might all work out in due time but at the moment it’s pretty awful.
And now we get the announcement that both Jubilee and Northern Line upgrades are “paused” – in other words cancelled for the foreseeable future.
http://www.metro-report.com/news/metro/single-view/view/london-underground-capacity-upgrade-programme-paused.html
One can only assume the money has run out or the prices for the new stock have come in so high as to render the project unaffordable.
What a shame. Hey ho back to the 1980s we go. 😉
WW – on another thread you commented ‘I expect the current Mayor is as keen as any of his predecessors to have a legacy’. If the fares freeze has had any appreciable impact on finances he now has one.
Littlejohn,
I am not a fan of the fares freeze but really don’t think the cause can be laid at that.
It does seem to me there have been a lot of expensive projects recently just to maintain the existing trains (eg Bakerloo re-weld, Central line re-motor) as well as a few worthy projects that never appeared in any 5-year plan and have to be paid for. So, really, I am not that surprised.
To me the fundamental weakness was the plan to purchase a small quantity of trains (hence disproportionally expensive) that would only have a life expectancy of around 17 years.
PoP – I did say *If* the fares freeze …..
Fares freeze, loss of revenue grant and passenger numbers not growing at the rate expected (or even falling). Central line works and Bakerloo works have been planned for at least as long as the world class capacity project. I am sure that costs of trains and traction packages have been affected by the impact of the £:Euro exchange rate.
@ Littlejohn – my “alarm bells” about this project have been ringing for a fair while. There have been warning signs evident to those of us who’ve been on the other side of the fence in the past. The way TfL / LU handles these issues hasn’t changed hugely despite different processes and governance. I am not sure the fares freeze is the sole reason but I am afraid I do consider it to be a contributory factor. PoP is quite right that a short presumed asset life for what are long life assets is a rather odd approach to take. However if we take the official “reason” at face value you are left asking a rather fundamental question. How on earth did the planning, scoping and procurement process get so far along with all the attendant cost if the forecasts for patronage transfers to Crossrail have been around for a fair while? We also seem to have moved on somewhat from the “Crossrail will be full on day one” scenario to something rather different.
New forecasts may just have been created etc etc but even so it feels a little “convenient” as does the “we are suddenly much better at engineering” aspect. I’m currently ploughing my way through a recent Assembly webcast where TfL were challenged about their capital programme. It seems that TfL are doing a lot of “reviews” and there are a lot of emerging “challenges”. The new business plan for 2017 seems to be the “promised land” in terms of settling a lot of issues around the budget and what can actually be afforded. We’ve only got to wait for December for the new plan.
Walthamstow Writer,
I think the ‘we have got better at engineering’ is genuine. However, you can’t keep trotting that one out. There are limits. For example, you can’t have more than 100% availability of trains. The Waterloo & City line relies on 100% availability for quite a few hours of the day now.
To be fair to TfL, they always did say that if they can’t get the Northern line trains for the Battersea Power Station extension then they believed they had a workable plan that would only use existing trains. They also said that in the event of any delay they would rather forego the extra trains with their short life and look for another solution.
It is more difficult to explain away not upgrading the Jubilee line. There is a bit of wriggle room with trains (58 needed for service out of 63) – but not a lot.
@ PoP – well yes it may be genuine because J&N trains have had / are having some level of refurb that may have reduced failure risk in key components and systems. I don’t view that as some sort of engineering miracle. It’s bog standard decent practice that any competent organisation with decent engineers would undertake. I know the name “Tube Lines” is not favoured these days but they have had decent fleet management and engineering for years.
I struggle to see how having gone through a company wide merger of engineering and rationalisation of posts will suddenly have improved fleet performance. I was party to what went on around fleet and station performance for many years and have some understanding of what’s done quickly and what needs more effort. Reorganisations tend to be a distraction in the short to medium term as it takes time to bed in new processes and for people to work efficiently in new roles.
I’ve no issue with your remarks about the limits of what can be claimed. That’s entirely sensible and let’s hope there are no more outlandish claims. I am more sceptical about the Jubilee Line not being upgraded. The fleet has always been very tight and even allowing for some improved availability no meaningful improvement can be delivered unless you change the service pattern at the western end. Yes Crossrail gives some breathing space but there is a lot of development at Stratford and on the Isle of Dogs so the relief from CR1 may not be that long lived (all other things being equal).
It is just worth noting in passing that the webcast from the Budget Cttee had TfL state that their forecasts for patronage and revenue were all down compared to the 2016 business plan. This is because they are tracking the GLA’s economic and population measures and these are all showing signs of softening. Expect all the numbers in 2017’s business plan to be down and that, in turn, will see a need to trim spending.
re 130,
Agreed and I would also note:
The existing Alstom stock bodyshells were built at their Spanish factory which might not be open for that much longer given the agreed merger with Siemens and any (sensible) price may have relied on it staying open. Alstom will be safeguarding French jobs not their Spanish, German or English ones due to political pressure.
Siemens also has a huge non-rail Variable Frequency Drive division which is 50% of the size of the whole of Alstom by turnover so it is likely a lot of the VFD technology in the long term may be sourced from Siemens in the future as the Alstom R&D pipeline and expenditure was / is poor.
It is entirely possible that the presumably most sensible bidder in Alstom might no longer be as interested as several months ago…
Walthamstow Writer,
Just to be clear. Northern line fleet availability has nothing to do with efficiency or otherwise of London Underground (or Tube Lines in the past).
It is dependent on only two factors:
1) what, Alstom, as fleet maintainers, are prepared to commit to as the number of trains available
2) whether London Underground are prepared to pay what Alstom charge for that level of fleet availability.
WW. You said: “How on earth did the planning, scoping and procurement process get so far along with all the attendant cost if the forecasts for patronage transfers to Crossrail have been around for a fair while? We also seem to have moved on somewhat from the “Crossrail will be full on day one” scenario to something rather different.”
Of course that’s true; TfL’s models for how Elizabeth line will affect other lines have been around for years. But if a project is being canned, you’ve got to put a positive spin on it and there’s no doubt Elizabeth line will help – in the short term. However, for the trains, for a whole host of reasons discussed above, it’s probably now or never.
OK
How long, then before the existing Northern & Piccadilly line stocks reach the stage of the Bakerloo & fall apart?
Come to that, what’s the prognosis on Bakerloo-replacement, now?
For comparison
Northern: built – 1997-9 ( 18-20 years old, now )
Piccadilly: built – 1975 ( 42 years old, now )
Bakerloo: built – 1972 ( 45 years old, now )
And, sooner, or later new stock will have to be paid for, or the lines will have to close … something any politician of any party will want to blame on someone (anyone) else, of course.
@ PoP – yes I am well aware of the Alstom Train Service Contract. I have read large parts of it, for my sins. What I was less clear on was its status in the 5 years since I left TfL and whether arrangements had been changed. That is why I did not specifically refer to Alstom in my reply.
@ 100&30 – I appreciate the “spin machine” was clearly working to produce the press statement that emerged. I tend to immediately look through and past the release and consider what is not being said and the extent to what has been said is a lot of old nonsense. Yes, that’s cynical but you and I both know how things work.
@ Greg – I think you can take the Northern out of the equation. I don’t get any sense that this fleet is any sort of “danger zone”. The three that are are the Picc, Bakerloo and Central. The latter two are receiving remedial interventions to try to keep them in service and to remove the most damaging reliability risks. The Piccadilly line is the critical fleet. It suffered a load of issues last year for well known reasons. TfL will be hoping that it’s done enough to avoid a repeat. Unfortunately none of this takes away from the fact that the trains probably have to remain in intensive service for up to a decade and there have been no major fleet interventions for years. Unless TfL have employed a team of “miracle workers” at Northfields and Cockfosters depots I think it is going to get harder and harder and more costly to keep them going. Trains that will be well past their 50th birthday are not cheap to maintain. The lack of any “headline” progress with the new train order / line modernisation must be some cause for concern.
WW….I keep getting comments from usually reliable sources that something is being done to the 1973 tube stock at Cockfosters. They don’t seem to be suffering the same structural issues (when I make statements like this it’s usually the kiss of death) and pretty much everything else can be dealt with line Trigger’s broom. The Piccadilly line problem is insufficient trains and an aged signalling system that can’t support the higher performance that the trains could deliver to reduce the round trip time and improve the service. Some years ago 27TPH was tried for a short period. It was a disaster. Since then run times have increased because dwell times have increased. Thus 24 trains per hour is all that can be delivered in the peak. However they do operate the Tube’s longest peak at 7-hours (on Saturdays from 12:00 to 19:00).
According to page 14 of the Project Monitoring Report due to be presented to the Programme and Investments Committee on Friday morning:
Looks like those radios and CCTV equipment won’t be needed then.
I wonder whether things would have been different, i.e. better, should Acton Works* have been retained (and modernised of course to keep up), rather than relying on the capabilities of individual depots and outside support.
* And I don’t just mean this reincarnation:
https://www.railengineer.uk/2016/07/27/london-underground-train-life-extension/
Graham Feakins 12 October 2017 at 02:41
“I wonder whether ……….. relying on the capabilities of individual depots and outside support.”
From an experience devoid of any skills specific to railways, I observe that
1) Technologies in general are getting more robust
2) More robust kit needs less maintenance
3) comes a point where clients and suppliers alike conclude that the guarantee and maintenance period converges with the life of the asset
4) contracts are either written to reflect 3) or are written by people who take that for granted, without thinking it through (Such people are to be found in HM Treasury)
5) Piccadilly line trains were built before these trends came to the fore.
@ 100&30 – when I commuted I used the Picc daily for many years. I had direct experience of the attempted 27 tph – it wasn’t fun. Worse even time I went to get my hair cut my barber, who uses the Picc, used to moan incessantly about the “Arnos Grove queue” – trains blocked back to Wood Green every peak. I also remember the ridicule laden headlines when LU announced the timetable cut back to 24 tph. Of course LU were right and the line moved much more smoothly with the less ambitious tph.
I am encouraged if people are trying to get the trains into better shape. However as you say the struggle equally applies to the signalling and power systems. I remember how awful the Northern got, before its upgrade, with cable fires and similar problems. Cables do just eventually fail – as you know.
@ Graham F – when I was involved in JNP matters the general view was that the teams at Northfields and Cockfosters knew their fleet very well and had the “foibles” of the 73 stock well under control. Obviously older fleets can be extremely reliable provided key components and obsolescence are managed effectively. I am not sure that having Acton Works would have added much to the competence at depot level nor the investment that was put to keep the trains at or near the top of the reliability ranks. I have a vague memory of some internal benchmarking being done between depots and some other lines were “surprised” at what the Picc fleet people were able to do and how they did it. Although I was more a stns person it was clear that you do need detail focus, sometimes on small tasks, to keep trains running well. Doors and door runners (on the Northern) were a favourite issue as the doors are externally hung and therefore had their own set of “issues” needing attention.
@Graham F – as ever,history shows that there is some sort of balance for the reasons implied in WW’s last comment. Individual depots can make a hell of a difference – the saga of the 458s at Wimbledon neatly illustrates that, or,if you prefer a London example, the very different standards achieved at individual London bus and trolleybus depots despite the ultracentralisation at Aldenham and Charlton. No doubt, the explanation (and answer to your question) may lie in the way work is distributed between a central works and the depots, but (a) the nature of the work done – less repair, more replacement- has changed, and (b) depots will always have considerable scope for “customisation” /interpretation of central standards. And depots themselves are changing – certainly in the context of eg the latest TLK stock, more work is being carried out at stabling sites rather than depots by the “man with a van”. Quite what this implies for universal standards is unclear just now; I suspect that it will further the trend towards a “plug and play” attitude to kit replacement.
“The Piccadilly line problem is insufficient trains and an aged signalling system that can’t support the higher performance that the trains could deliver to reduce the round trip time and improve the service. Some years ago 27TPH was tried for a short period. It was a disaster. Since then run times have increased because dwell times have increased.”
Its interesting you bring that up 100&30. Would this be the ‘Big Bang’, that was wound back ~2001?
Ben…….. yes I had forgotten they gave it that stupid name.
100&30 Makes a change from some obscure and duplicate acronym! I understand that even then run times were consistently below what was on average achievable/needed.