Tfl’s recommendations for hlos2

[cslusarc]

Now available is TFL’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE HIGH LEVEL OUTPUT SPECIFICATION FOR 2014 – 2019.

In this document TfL makes its recommendation on what it wants investment directed towards.

Here's a highlight of what services TfL wants changed:

- Train and platform lengthening to five cars on all London Overground services on the North, West and East London Lines
- Additional two tph peak service between Crystal Palace and Dalston Junction operated by five-car London Overground services
- Train and platform lengthening to eight cars on all South Central services on the West London Line
- Additional two trains per hour (tph) all day shuttle between Clapham Junction and Shepherds Bush operated by eight car South Central services
- Train and platform lengthening to four cars and electrification on all London Overground services on the GOBLIN
- Additional segregated tracks to allow new four tph all stations service between Brimsdown and Stratford with removal of some station calls from longer distance services to enable faster journeytimes
- Enhanced turnback facilities to allow additional two tph peak
service between Cheshunt and Seven Sisters
- Train lengthening to up to 12 cars on selected peak services to/from Shoeburyness, Southend Central and Laindon
- Train lengthening to up to 12 cars on selected peak services to/from Shoeburyness, Thorpe Bay, Southend Central and Pitsea, via both Rainham and Ockendon
- Train lengthening to up to 12 cars on most peak services that run fast between Bromley South and Victoria that can be lengthened without infrastructure enhancements (services to/from Ramsgate and Gillingham)
- Additional two tph off peak all stations service between Bromley South and Victoria with stops in selected peak services at Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill
- Train and platform lengthening to 12 cars on selected peak services between London Bridge and Norwood Junction and
Crystal Palace
- Train lengthening to eight cars on selected peak services between Uckfield and London Bridge
- Train lengthening to 12 cars on all peak services to/from Woking that run fast between Surbiton and Waterloo
- Train and platform lengthening to up to 12 cars on selected peak services to/from Alton, Farnham and Aldershot, via both Woking
- Train and platform lengthening to 12 cars on peak services to/from Reading
- Train lengthening to eight cars on selected peak services to/from Oxford, using cascaded class 319s from Thameslink


In total, 386 extra vehicles would be provided by these schemes, making 3828 extra vehicle-trips over the traffic day.

 

[cle]

Interesting, thanks.

No mention of integrating GOBLIN in with NLL/WLL though, upon electrification. I wonder if they would continue to have 4tph terminate in the one platform at Gospel Oak - as they will be at Clapham Junction?

Would be great to send them through directly. Even if some trains were 4 car and some were 5 car, it'd still be overall a great improvement.

But then you'd remove some from Kentish Town West eastwards. Time to look at the via Queens Park options (NLL or ELL), or Camden - Stratford (Brimsdown?) shuttles.

 

[tbtc]

electrification on all London Overground services on the GOBLIN

Yes please!

Presumably any 172s freed up from GOBLIN would go to London Midland, rather than going to Northern though

 

[jopsuk]

The problem with train lengthening on the LTS (c2c) route is stock- one of the factors that helps their extraordinary punctuality/reliability is that they operate a single class of trains (As I understand it, the differences between the sub-classes are: ROSCO, internal colours?) on a simple service pattern. Any extra stock would add a complexity to their operations. Not a huge problem, but one that would be very difficult to prevent having an impact.

The Chesunt-Seven Sisters bit- by that, do they mean turn-back at Seven Sisters? Surely the facility at Chesunt is fine?

 

[tbtc]

The problem with train lengthening on the LTS (c2c) route is stock- one of the factors that helps their extraordinary punctuality/reliability is that they operate a single class of trains (As I understand it, the differences between the sub-classes are: ROSCO, internal colours?) on a simple service pattern. Any extra stock would add a complexity to their operations. Not a huge problem, but one that would be very difficult to prevent having an impact

I wonder whether the 74x 357s could go elsewhere to be replaced by (up to) a hundred new units? The plan to give C2C cascaded 321s would have meant the problems you refer to - C2C are a great example of a "common" stock

 

[cle]

The problem with train lengthening on the LTS (c2c) route is stock- one of the factors that helps their extraordinary punctuality/reliability is that they operate a single class of trains (As I understand it, the differences between the sub-classes are: ROSCO, internal colours?) on a simple service pattern. Any extra stock would add a complexity to their operations. Not a huge problem, but one that would be very difficult to prevent having an impact.

The Chesunt-Seven Sisters bit- by that, do they mean turn-back at Seven Sisters? Surely the facility at Chesunt is fine?

Yes I think they mean to turn these around at Seven Sisters as most people get on the tube there. If peak only, it'd probably only be 4 services (for example 07:15, 07:45: 08:15, 08:45), with positioning returns. With a 20 minute journey time, this could be done with two units no problem.

Also no mention of much for the Lea Valley line in terms of connecting to the Chingford line. The report mentions 6tph max for Stratford West Anglia - so the 4tph to Brimsdown would leave only 2 more. I would ideally have a Stansted semi-fast calling Tottenham, Cheshunt, Broxbourne, Harlow, Sawbridgeworth, Bishops S and Stansted 2tph - and cut some stops from the Cambridge services to quicken it up.

 

[yorksrob]

- Additional two tph off peak all stations service between Bromley South and Victoria with stops in selected peak services at Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill

I seem to recall that quite a few of the Ashford - Victoria stoppers used to stop at Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill in the nineties. I wonder if this will be the case again.

 

[OxtedL]

I'm impressed that Uckfield made it onto a TfL list of that kind. It reflects just how bad it can sometimes get in the peaks. Not that there aren't similar problems elsewhere of course, maybe it's just that the frequency of the route.

That said, it all seems a little speculative. Maybe we can have LOROLs 172s when GOBLIN is up?

I have a few more things I could say on this, but I think I can drip feed it in, as this has the potential to be a nice, long, "it ain't happenin'" kind of thread.

 

[tbtc]

I'm impressed that Uckfield made it onto a TfL list of that kind

Its probably because Londoners don't want those ten year old diesels having to come in to their city - they are positively slumming it with those ancient 171s...

 

[OxtedL]

I can make no comment.

Given that 171s were given Dellners, I'm slightly surprised the Overground 172s don't seem to have them... 378s do, and surely someone somewhere in the bureaucracy may have thought "hmmmm...". It would make my point look a hell of a lot stronger. How much to retrofit, do we think?

 

[313103]

That said, it all seems a little speculative. Maybe we can have LOROLs 172s when GOBLIN is up?

You can have them right now, todays cancelled rush hour on the North and the West London line's was down to a class 172 failing only for the assisting 172 to fail as well. Now tell me why didnt Bombardier build a coupling that could help all their stock rather then a class 172 can only be assisted by a class 172 and a class 378 being only assisted by another class 378................ Its madness im telling you... Madness!

 

[OxtedL]

Don't the 172s have to go back up to Derby at some point anyway? Someone want to drop Bombardier an email?

 

[cslusarc]

1. How would you upgrade the London Overground fleet to five car service? Would you simply add an additional car? Would adding that additional vehicle create havoc in maintenance schedules? Or would you prefer London Overground to replace their existing Capitalstars wit a new class of 5-car units? But more optimistally, I would upgrade London Overground services to 6 car saving the trouble of the disruptions caused by upgrading the network again in 2020-2025.

 

[LE Greys]

Interesting, thanks.

No mention of integrating GOBLIN in with NLL/WLL though, upon electrification. I wonder if they would continue to have 4tph terminate in the one platform at Gospel Oak - as they will be at Clapham Junction?

Would be great to send them through directly. Even if some trains were 4 car and some were 5 car, it'd still be overall a great improvement.

But then you'd remove some from Kentish Town West eastwards. Time to look at the via Queens Park options (NLL or ELL), or Camden - Stratford (Brimsdown?) shuttles.

I like the idea of that, it saves on a lot of messing around, and Gospel Oak is not exactly the best-connected place on Network Rail. It would seem to make far more sense to run the trains through to Richmond or Clapham, especially Clapham, since the services patterns match. Reconnecting through Primrose Hill, preferably reopening it at the same time, would make some sense as well. If there is some way to quadruple through Camden Road, it might provide somewhere for some ELL trains to run to. Unfortunately, my preferred option of crossing the NLL, then going to Finsbury Park, Highgate, Mill Hill East and Edgware is completely impossible.

 

[W-on-Sea]

The problem with train lengthening on the LTS (c2c) route is stock- one of the factors that helps their extraordinary punctuality/reliability is that they operate a single class of trains (As I understand it, the differences between the sub-classes are: ROSCO, internal colours?) on a simple service pattern. Any extra stock would add a complexity to their operations. Not a huge problem, but one that would be very difficult to prevent having an impact.

ROSCO, colours of internal rails and floors (green on the 357/0, hideous pink on the 357/2), there are additional bins by the doors on the 357/2s, logos on the inter-carriage doors are different, and, strangely, the open and close buttons on the inside of the passenger doors are arranged differently: one has "open" on top, the other has "close" on top. Must be quite annoying for the partially sighted, that one....

Obviously the ideal would be to build some supplementary 357s...but I don't see that happening. When the transfer (since kicked into the long grass?) of a few (was it 10?) 321s over was first announced (ah, this was pre-credit crunch I think) there was speculation around that c2c were to demand that they be refurbished to the same standards as the 357s (much better seats, air conditioning....). Surely the 321s must be up for retirement fairly soon, anyway; they aren't required to come and spoil c2c's excellent performance...

Incidentally, the platforms on the Tilbury branch stations are mostly being extended to 12 carriage-lengths over the summer - lots of engineering works round the loop at weekends to allow that to take place.