What next for the NLL after 5 car operation?

[RichmondCommu]

However that is a deliberate decision by TfL and/or the Mayor and not specific to the NLL. £1.50 is the off-peak charge for any TfL-priced rail journey in Z2-6.

You could travel from Epping to Richmond (Central line to Stratford and LO to Richmond) if you wanted to - all for £1.50. Heck, you could even do Epping to West Ruislip (avoiding Z1 by using LO between Stratford and Shepherds Bush) for just £1.50.

Yes but in all fairness the fact that its £1.50 on lines away from the NLL is irrelevant! The point is cheap public transport gives people options and shouldn't be altered in order to solve over crowding!

 

[transmanche]

Yes but in all fairness the fact that its £1.50 on lines away from the NLL is irrelevant! The point is cheap public transport gives people options and shouldn't be altered in order to solve over crowding!

I agree with that. The £1.50 off-peak fare is excellent value and allows people to make journeys they might not otherwise be able to afford.

And even cheaper for some people looking for work. Those with a JobCentrePlus discount loaded on their Oyster will only pay 75p (or 70p on a bus). That's a simple practical way of really helping people get back into work, by enabling them to get to job interviews and access other back-to-work help programmes. Plus it also helps their mental health (as unemployment can be soul-destroying) by allowing them to get out and get some fresh air/exercise on Hampstead Heath (as previously mentioned), or learn something by visiting one of London's free museums. It's a social programme that London can be proud of.

 

[cle]

Keeps people off the tube too, crucially.

What are the current NLL constraints for going to 6 cars in future? Beyond simple platform extensions - even Willesden Junction has had the difficult bit done. A further extension westwards would support a better, more sensible Harrow Road exit.

I would say: Dalston Kingsland would be tricky. Gospel Oak eastbound. Kentish Town West a bit tough, and Camden Road probably best to wait for a rebuild.

But a lot of it is fine, including the WLL (will be). So I'd say that's another option.

 

[mrmartin]

Yeah, I don't think anyone is doing Richmond - Stratford on a regular basis. I think I saw something saying that the average journey is 5-6 stops. It's being used like a tube line (great!) but without the frequency or capacity.

The problem in the mornings/evenings when it is crush loaded that makes it a lot worse than the tube is that it can be a 10 minute wait for the next train, with no guarantee on getting on that either. Which makes people a lot more desperate to get on and agressive. I've seen some really nasty behaviour before (pushing people off when the doors are closing).

 

[Class377/5]

A few issues back Roger Ford was explaining (wrongly AFAICT) that the Goblin route only needed four units, and also that some new four car trains would be ordered for the DC lines, to release six trains to other routes as the 5 car capacity was unnecessary on that line.

Presumably this is an indication that he's been corrected in the meantime...

Very much so. Still not convinced that TfL will run four and five trains together on such a busy section of railway.

 

[cle]

Why can't 4 and 5 car trains run together? It happens on almost every other line - would be fine on WLL/NLL and DC services.

Does anyone know re my question anove, the constraints on going to 6 cars on NLL?

 

[CapitalStar378]

Why can't 4 and 5 car trains run together? It happens on almost every other line - would be fine on WLL/NLL and DC services.

Does anyone know re my question above, the constraints on going to 6 cars on NLL?

I believe there are technical restrictions which don't allow 378's to be extended to 6 car, I'm sure there's someone who can explain in detail.

 

[Minstral25]

Keeps people off the tube too, crucially.


But a lot of it is fine, including the WLL (will be). So I'd say that's another option.

WLL is as overcrowded as the rest - we will get 5 car trains for both southern and LO(plus one 8 car) but until Southern goes 4x per hour along the route (Matching LO) the fix doesn't work as the 8 coach train will only pass once every 2.5 hours

 

[deltic]

I believe there are technical restrictions which don't allow 378's to be extended to 6 car, I'm sure there's someone who can explain in detail.

Not sure there are any insurmountable problems going to 6 car - more problematic is the issue of platform lengths at key stations such as Canada Water - SDO on a whole coach at a busy station even if allowed would cause extended dwell times and hence unreliability issues

 

[Clip]

Not sure there are any insurmountable problems going to 6 car - more problematic is the issue of platform lengths at key stations such as Canada Water - SDO on a whole coach at a busy station even if allowed would cause extended dwell times and hence unreliability issues

They need to sort Canada Waters stupid one escalator down to the Jubilee line out first. Its pathetic.

 

[swt_passenger]

Why can't 4 and 5 car trains run together? It happens on almost every other line - would be fine on WLL/NLL and DC services.

I don't think there's any technical problem about it, it's more that it is difficult to see any logic behind having a relatively small number of shorter trains just for the DC lines, especially as the route can take 5 car trains already.

Given that they've already ordered the 57 extra cars for their existing 57 strong fleet, that implies the DC lines are going to become 5 car anyway. Reducing the stock used back to four car later on seems somewhat perverse...

 

[transmanche]

Not sure there are any insurmountable problems going to 6 car - more problematic is the issue of platform lengths at key stations such as Canada Water - SDO on a whole coach at a busy station even if allowed would cause extended dwell times and hence unreliability issues

Although any extended dwell times would be mitigated somewhat by the 378s 'walk-through' design.

 

[edwin_m]

There is also a route from the terminal to Ely that doesn't involve a reversal, though it is a tad convoluted.

GOBLIN to South Tottenham then via the Enfield Loop and Cambridge looks feasible, but involves fighting with the Stansteds etc on the double-track section through Harlow.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However, I'm not convinced that London Gateway will generate that much rail freight as most of those containers will have the SE as their final destination. In which case most of it will go by road!

The same is true of Felixstowe - easily driveable to much of the South East and the trains are overwhelmingly for places further away. The geographical distribution of container origin/destinations within the UK is likely to be similar for both ports, in which case if rail can carry the traffic it will gain a mode share of at least 30% as at Felixstowe.

 

[JamesRowden]

Would it be at all feasible to run short electrodiesel locomotive hauled freight services through Crossrail off-peak when 12tph are running instead of the 24tph peak service? Longer freight trains could stop at a yard at one end of the Crossrail route, have its trucks split into shorter trains to pass through Crossrail, and then the trucks could be reformed into a new long train at a yard at the other end of the Crossrail route.

 

[cle]

WLL is as overcrowded as the rest - we will get 5 car trains for both southern and LO(plus one 8 car) but until Southern goes 4x per hour along the route (Matching LO) the fix doesn't work as the 8 coach train will only pass once every 2.5 hours

By fine, I meant platforms ready for 6-car 378 trains - not capacity! I know it's also busy.

 

[transmanche]

Would it be at all feasible to run short electrodiesel locomotive hauled freight services through Crossrail off-peak when 12tph are running instead of the 24tph peak service? Longer freight trains could stop at a yard at one end of the Crossrail route, have its trucks split into shorter trains to pass through Crossrail, and then the trucks could be reformed into a new long train at a yard at the other end of the Crossrail route.

I can't see TfL having the slightest interest in that at all. Even at "just" 12tph (every five minutes), it wouldn't take long for a Crossrail train to catch-up with the freight train.

 

[RichmondCommu]

GOBLIN to South Tottenham then via the Enfield Loop and Cambridge looks feasible, but involves fighting with the Stansteds etc on the double-track section through Harlow.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The same is true of Felixstowe - easily driveable to much of the South East and the trains are overwhelmingly for places further away. The geographical distribution of container origin/destinations within the UK is likely to be similar for both ports, in which case if rail can carry the traffic it will gain a mode share of at least 30% as at Felixstowe.

However London Gateway is closer still to London and the M25 and will also have distribution centre’s on the same site, something which I don't believe Felixstowe has. This leads one to think that SE bound containers will switch ports.

Don't forget that in order to reach London Gateway shipping has to pass Felixstowe. So unless the final destination is the SE or London Gateway's fees are lower, surely most shipping would still use Felixstowe? It really doesn't make much sense to continue to London Gateway if your final destination is Manchester!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would it be at all feasible to run short electrodiesel locomotive hauled freight services through Crossrail off-peak when 12tph are running instead of the 24tph peak service? Longer freight trains could stop at a yard at one end of the Crossrail route, have its trucks split into shorter trains to pass through Crossrail, and then the trucks could be reformed into a new long train at a yard at the other end of the Crossrail route.

But surely all that shunting would cost a fortune!

 

[Mojo]

I know someone has already mentioned it, but the relatively early close of traffic tends to catch a few people out. If say the last NLL and ELL train from Highbury/Islgtn ran at about 00.30 Hrs, then it would make the service more in line with the Underground. I caught the last train from Canonbury to Camden Rd the other week and it was fairly busy, and lots of people were surprised at Camden when the station staff were attempting to lock the station at just gone Midnight!

 

[hassaanhc]

I know someone has already mentioned it, but the relatively early close of traffic tends to catch a few people out. If say the last NLL and ELL train from Highbury/Islgtn ran at about 00.30 Hrs, then it would make the service more in line with the Underground. I caught the last train from Canonbury to Camden Rd the other week and it was fairly busy, and lots of people were surprised at Camden when the station staff were attempting to lock the station at just gone Midnight!

One Saturday evening I took the 2223 from Clapham High St to Canada Water and was shocked to find the service was only 2tph at the time. I was aware that the LO frequency is similar to your average NR services but even then 2tph surprised me. Luckily I only had to wait 10 minutes, and it was standing room only.
At least I managed to prove a point to a mate - he was moaning about going through Z1 and therefore outside his Travelcard validity on the outward journey and didn't believe me when I said it would take significantly longer avoiding Z1.

 

[Class 170101]

GOBLIN to South Tottenham then via the Enfield Loop and Cambridge looks feasible, but involves fighting with the Stansteds etc on the double-track section through Harlow.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Seven Sisters to South Tottenham curve is far from ideal for freight particularly due to the curvature and the steep gradient.

There is one Class 4 freight path per hour between Stratford and Ely via Tottenham Hale, Harlow and Audley End.

 

[deltic]

Although any extended dwell times would be mitigated somewhat by the 378s 'walk-through' design.

except when packed solid in the peaks
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would it be at all feasible to run short electrodiesel locomotive hauled freight services through Crossrail off-peak when 12tph are running instead of the 24tph peak service? Longer freight trains could stop at a yard at one end of the Crossrail route, have its trucks split into shorter trains to pass through Crossrail, and then the trucks could be reformed into a new long train at a yard at the other end of the Crossrail route.

no - AFAIK freight is banned from running through underground passenger stations - that was the reason why Woolwich Crossrail station was removed from the scheme when the SRA thought it would be a good idea to route freight through that section - it took an age to get the station reinstated when that idea was dropped. SRA set Crossrail back at least 12-18 months when they got involved in the project with its other crazy idea of serving Kingston.

 

[edwin_m]

However London Gateway is closer still to London and the M25 and will also have distribution centre’s on the same site, something which I don't believe Felixstowe has. This leads one to think that SE bound containers will switch ports.

Don't forget that in order to reach London Gateway shipping has to pass Felixstowe. So unless the final destination is the SE or London Gateway's fees are lower, surely most shipping would still use Felixstowe? It really doesn't make much sense to continue to London Gateway if your final destination is Manchester!

I think the difference is marginal. Road usually wins over rail for an intermodal haul once the trip is short enough for an out and back in the truck driver's working hours, and from either port that covers most of the south-east.

Shipping lines are unlikely to serve both ports and will choose whichever offers the best combination of low cost (not just port fees but the difference in ship journey time too) and being attractive enough for their customers not to transfer their business onto another line. And on-site distribution depots could generate rail traffic to and from elsewhere in the UK in the same way Daventry does.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I think the difference is marginal. Road usually wins over rail for an intermodal haul once the trip is short enough for an out and back in the truck driver's working hours, and from either port that covers most of the south-east.

Yes but London Gateway is much closer to Greater London than Felixstowe so potentially the driver can do a lot more in their working hours. I'm not so sure that the difference is marginal.

Shipping lines are unlikely to serve both ports and will choose whichever offers the best combination of low cost (not just port fees but the difference in ship journey time too) and being attractive enough for their customers not to transfer their business onto another line. And on-site distribution depots could generate rail traffic to and from elsewhere in the UK in the same way Daventry does.

But you need to ask youself this question. Where do the majority of the population live? The South East. In which case containers heading for the SE will land at london Gateway, in which case the majority will go by road! Intermodal runs from Daventry runs to Cardiff and Scotland, its not economical to run it to anywhere else. Why do you think that London Gateway will change any of this?

Not only that but its hard to believe that changing ports is likely to generate new freight traffic from distribution depots. Its hard to imagine Daventry closing because distribution depots have opened around London Gateway. Felixstowe to Daventry is probably quicker by road than London Gateway to Daventry.

In terms of timings Felixstowe will always be quicker unless the final destination is the SE. In which case the vast majority of containers will surely leave London Gateway by road?

 

[Chris125]

I believe there are technical restrictions which don't allow 378's to be extended to 6 car, I'm sure there's someone who can explain in detail.

I've seen that mentioned too, presumably as adding another trailer would affect performance and the units aren't designed to power another motored carriage. No doubt that can be resolved in theory, but in practice it may well make more sense just to procure new units when the current leases expire.

Chris

 

[edwin_m]

Yes but London Gateway is much closer to Greater London than Felixstowe so potentially the driver can do a lot more in their working hours. I'm not so sure that the difference is marginal.



But you need to ask youself this question. Where do the majority of the population live? The South East. In which case containers heading for the SE will land at london Gateway, in which case the majority will go by road! Intermodal runs from Daventry runs to Cardiff and Scotland, its not economical to run it to anywhere else. Why do you think that London Gateway will change any of this?

Not only that but its hard to believe that changing ports is likely to generate new freight traffic from distribution depots. Its hard to imagine Daventry closing because distribution depots have opened around London Gateway. Felixstowe to Daventry is probably quicker by road than London Gateway to Daventry.

In terms of timings Felixstowe will always be quicker unless the final destination is the SE. In which case the vast majority of containers will surely leave London Gateway by road?

The population density is greater in the South East but it is not true to say that the majority of the population lives there. It's about 8 million in London and a similar figure in the rest of the region, so less than half the population even of England.

The places that are within a day's out-and-back from London Gateway and not Felixstowe would be the Thames Valley and surroundings. There aren't any intermodal rail terminals there so they must be served by road already. In any case any distance advantage of London Gateway is to a large extent cancelled out by slower traffic around London.

On the other hand there are places in the Midlands that are within a day's out and back from Felixstowe but not from London Gateway, so any shift to London Gateway is potentially an opportunity for rail.

Combine this with the fact that each shipping line will want to serve the whole of the UK with as few port calls as possible (probably only one) and I think it's clear that the proportion of containers where rail might be competitive will be at least as high at London Gateway as at Felixstowe. Thus, if rail can cope with it, at least the Fexlistowe market share is on offer.

The advent of a new port and distrubution centre close to London might prompt existing or new distributors to set up Daventry-type operations there if the economics prove attractive. Given that the distance to Scotland is further than from Daventry, it's reasonable to expect that these might generate domestic rail flows to and from Scotland - again assuming that rail has capacity to handle them.

 

[transmanche]

The population density is greater in the South East but it is not true to say that the majority of the population lives there. It's about 8 million in London and a similar figure in the rest of the region, so less than half the population even of England.

Although it doesn't change your point, don't forget that the official SE England region excludes places that many people would consider to be in the south east, such as Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Essex (total population approx 3.5m) which are included in the East of England region.

 

[jopsuk]

So, this month's Modern Railways, Network Rail say they're going to be, in CP5 (which starts this year, to 2019), carrying out Gauge Enhancement work on the West Anglia to provide a route from London Gateway to Ely.

Which goes to show how much we all know...

 

[RichmondCommu]

The population density is greater in the South East but it is not true to say that the majority of the population lives there. It's about 8 million in London and a similar figure in the rest of the region, so less than half the population even of England.

That’s a fair enough point.

The places that are within a day's out-and-back from London Gateway and not Felixstowe would be the Thames Valley and surroundings. There aren't any intermodal rail terminals there so they must be served by road already. In any case any distance advantage of London Gateway is to a large extent cancelled out by slower traffic around London.

I think you're forgetting an important point here. I would argue that much of the container traffic travelling by road from Felixstowe to the SE will at some stage have to travel round the M25. Now I concur that the same can be said of London Gateway however that lorry still has to travel from Felixstowe (70 miles) so in that case London Gateway has a time advantage over Felixstowe.

On the other hand there are places in the Midlands that are within a day's out and back from Felixstowe but not from London Gateway, so any shift to London Gateway is potentially an opportunity for rail.

I would be very surprised if London Gateway to Lawley Street or Birch Coppice is long enough to be financially viable for an FOC. Willesden FLT is disused which would suggest that a similar distance of say Southampton to Willesden is not viable.

Combine this with the fact that each shipping line will want to serve the whole of the UK with as few port calls as possible (probably only one) and I think it's clear that the proportion of containers where rail might be competitive will be at least as high at London Gateway as at Felixstowe. Thus, if rail can cope with it, at least the Fexlistowe market share is on offer.

I would be interested to know if any shipping lines have withdrawn from Felixstowe to move to London Gateway. However it could be the case that new shipping lines that have only previously served Rotterdam might start serving London Gateway. Maersk don't appear to have any plans to pull out of Felixstowe

The advent of a new port and distrubution centre close to London might prompt existing or new distributors to set up Daventry-type operations there if the economics prove attractive. Given that the distance to Scotland is further than from Daventry, it's reasonable to expect that these might generate domestic rail flows to and from Scotland - again assuming that rail has capacity to handle them.

I would be interested to know how much more scope there is for additional flows from the Midlands / SE to Scotland.

 

[edwin_m]

I think you're forgetting an important point here. I would argue that much of the container traffic travelling by road from Felixstowe to the SE will at some stage have to travel round the M25. Now I concur that the same can be said of London Gateway however that lorry still has to travel from Felixstowe (70 miles) so in that case London Gateway has a time advantage over Felixstowe.

Yes it does. But as I posted previously the areas where that advantage exists, such as Thames Valley and perhaps Kent and Sussex, don't have any container terminals so must be served by road today whatever the port. Therefore this market for rail isn't under threat as it doesn't exist today.

I would be very surprised if London Gateway to Lawley Street or Birch Coppice is long enough to be financially viable for an FOC. Willesden FLT is disused which would suggest that a similar distance of say Southampton to Willesden is not viable.

Freightliner serves Daventry, Hams Hall and Birmingham from Felixstowe today (http://www.freightliner.co.uk/en/network/). The distance from the two ports is very similar and in this case Felixstowe road traffic can take a quicker route via the A14 instead of having to use the M25. So I don't see any reason, apart from capacity issues, why the West Midlands wouldn't get rail intermodals from London Gateway too.

On the final point (lost the quote while pasting that link!) the likelihood of domestic rail freight depends on the role of the distribution centres, but if they are similar in function to Daventry I don't see why they shouldn't also generate rail traffic.

 

[Class 170101]

I think you're forgetting an important point here. I would argue that much of the container traffic travelling by road from Felixstowe to the SE will at some stage have to travel round the M25. Now I concur that the same can be said of London Gateway however that lorry still has to travel from Felixstowe (70 miles) so in that case London Gateway has a time advantage over Felixstowe.

That also depends how quick it is to travel by boat from the shipping lane in the North Sea to the Thames Gateway compared to reaching Felixstowe by ship where ships would diverge to reach either Thames Gateway or Felixstowe.