|
Post by snoggle on Jan 8, 2019 15:09:03 GMT
Perhaps TfL can scrape up a third 378 for the GOBLIN, but the service currently needs six trains, so still a gap to fill. I can't see reducing Overground services elsewhere going down to well for one train never mind four trains. I suppose if three trains can be made available then a half hour service could be provided, and it could be positioned as offering the same capacity as each train will have four carriages rather than two. Going back to a half an hour frequency will no doubt go down like a 'lead balloon', but there could be a supplementary bus service as currently at weekends. Could they get around it by introducing more Crossrail trains, then withdrawing a few more class 315 TfL rail trains. Put the 315's on the Stratford-Richmond line, then use the 378's on Gospel Oak-Barking. No they can't. The fundamental problem is the platform / train interface. At present all LO trains have side mounted cameras on the trains that transmit images to screens in the driver's cab. This has been shown to be safer than having cameras / mirrors / monitors on platforms or having crew dispatch of trains. It would take many many months to install cameras and monitors to allow 315s to run. However it would NOT be approved as it is statistically less safe than side mounted cameras. Office of Rail Regulation would not sign off a less safe mode of operation. Therefore everyone should stop proposing the use of older trains - NOT going to happen. There are no more 7 car 345s available because part of the fleet is deployed in West London. Also it was always planned that some 315s would remain in operation through to 2019/2020. They will probably have to run even longer now the overall project has been delayed. This is why the GOBLIN problems are so intractible - you can't bring in old trains as their operation would be less safe than current ones. You can't bring in the new trains because they don't work. Meanwhile the existing trains are earmarked to go elsewhere. This last fact is the killer problem - you can usually keep existing trains in use until new ones stagger into service. Here we have the exception.
|
|
|
Post by MoEnviro on Jan 8, 2019 17:15:26 GMT
No they can't. The fundamental problem is the platform / train interface. At present all LO trains have side mounted cameras on the trains that transmit images to screens in the driver's cab. This has been shown to be safer than having cameras / mirrors / monitors on platforms or having crew dispatch of trains. That comment will upset the anti DOO brigade 😂😂
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 8, 2019 17:34:33 GMT
No they can't. The fundamental problem is the platform / train interface. At present all LO trains have side mounted cameras on the trains that transmit images to screens in the driver's cab. This has been shown to be safer than having cameras / mirrors / monitors on platforms or having crew dispatch of trains. That comment will upset the anti DOO brigade 😂😂 Well yes it might but the debate about DOO vs guards went past the realms of objective rational fact based discussion a long time ago. It's become mangled up in a whole range of other issues - often with merit of their own - but just tangling things together rarely gets you to a sensible place in terms of policies and objectives.
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Jan 9, 2019 7:30:00 GMT
Could they get around it by introducing more Crossrail trains, then withdrawing a few more class 315 TfL rail trains. Put the 315's on the Stratford-Richmond line, then use the 378's on Gospel Oak-Barking. No they can't. The fundamental problem is the platform / train interface. At present all LO trains have side mounted cameras on the trains that transmit images to screens in the driver's cab. This has been shown to be safer than having cameras / mirrors / monitors on platforms or having crew dispatch of trains. It would take many many months to install cameras and monitors to allow 315s to run. However it would NOT be approved as it is statistically less safe than side mounted cameras. Office of Rail Regulation would not sign off a less safe mode of operation. Therefore everyone should stop proposing the use of older trains - NOT going to happen. There are no more 7 car 345s available because part of the fleet is deployed in West London. Also it was always planned that some 315s would remain in operation through to 2019/2020. They will probably have to run even longer now the overall project has been delayed. This is why the GOBLIN problems are so intractible - you can't bring in old trains as their operation would be less safe than current ones. You can't bring in the new trains because they don't work. Meanwhile the existing trains are earmarked to go elsewhere. This last fact is the killer problem - you can usually keep existing trains in use until new ones stagger into service. Here we have the exception. Seems a bit of a stupid rule when it is perfectly acceptable to use dispatch staff and mirrors elsewhere or even just line of sight , on the Shenfield Metro route I am sure there are a few Stations where the Driver has to just stick there head out of the window for a 8 car train ! So I don't see how doing it for a 4 car one would be dangerous even it is a step backwards in procedure, but I guess the same argument could be said for DOO , why is it safe in some places on some lines and Dangerous on others . So basically if the 710s are not ready and the 378s can't be used the GOBLIN is looking at Bustitution ? And 315s are not dual voltage so wouldn't be able to be used on the NLL I believe .
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 9, 2019 11:48:26 GMT
Seems a bit of a stupid rule when it is perfectly acceptable to use dispatch staff and mirrors elsewhere or even just line of sight , on the Shenfield Metro route I am sure there are a few Stations where the Driver has to just stick there head out of the window for a 8 car train ! So I don't see how doing it for a 4 car one would be dangerous even it is a step backwards in procedure, but I guess the same argument could be said for DOO , why is it safe in some places on some lines and Dangerous on others. So basically if the 710s are not ready and the 378s can't be used the GOBLIN is looking at Bustitution ? And 315s are not dual voltage so wouldn't be able to be used on the NLL I believe . It isn't that any of the methods are "dangerous". It is not that stark a choice. The railway would be shut if dispatch methods were not deemed safe. It is all about relative levels of safety. The ORR take the view that they won't allow a worsening, even if small, of the risk level. The context here is that the platform / train interface (PTI) is the highest or second highest risk event with severe (i.e. fatality or serious injury) impact on individuals. In a past role at LU I read a fair number of accident reports involving PTI and they don't make comfortable reading. I can completely understand your, and others', view about "just do something" but it doesn't work like that sadly and I'd say for good reason. And yes dumping people on to rail replacement buses is not exactly a safe option either (in comparative terms) but that's not what's assessed by ORR. The wider "sense" of various options is for TfL which might be why they're doing something with the 378s. You are quite correct that 315s would not operate the full NLL / WLL service. In reality they couldn't use the 172's paths from depot to the GOBLIN because part of the "empty stock" path involves DC only tracks from the depot to Willesden Junction bay and then round to Kensal Rise. The 710s under test have to reverse in Willesden freight depot to remain on AC only.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 9, 2019 12:27:38 GMT
You are quite correct that 315s would not operate the full NLL / WLL service. In reality they couldn't use the 172's paths from depot to the GOBLIN because part of the "empty stock" path involves DC only tracks from the depot to Willesden Junction bay and then round to Kensal Rise. The 710s under test have to reverse in Willesden freight depot to remain on AC only. I hope that doesn't mean that they've not yet actually tested the DC element of the trains, I can't dread to think what sorts of issues will then start to pop up if they start behaving differently on DC tracks.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 9, 2019 12:52:02 GMT
You are quite correct that 315s would not operate the full NLL / WLL service. In reality they couldn't use the 172's paths from depot to the GOBLIN because part of the "empty stock" path involves DC only tracks from the depot to Willesden Junction bay and then round to Kensal Rise. The 710s under test have to reverse in Willesden freight depot to remain on AC only. I hope that doesn't mean that they've not yet actually tested the DC element of the trains, I can't dread to think what sorts of issues will then start to pop up if they start behaving differently on DC tracks. AFAIK the 710s have not run on any NR DC tracks. I think they will have done at Old Dalby test track but I have seen no reports that a 710 has touched a DC rail under power on NR rails. So yes another pandora's box is lurking for when they have to be tested to DC tracks.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 9, 2019 14:16:54 GMT
A couple of other snippets from the user group twitter feed. - the 4 car 378 has done PTI tests at GOBLIN stations - 710 265 has been back out on test a couple of nights ago - decision to use the 4 car 378 on the GOBLIN due w/c 14/1/19. That means getting formal approval to use it not the idea of using it.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jan 9, 2019 22:14:25 GMT
Seems a bit of a stupid rule when it is perfectly acceptable to use dispatch staff and mirrors elsewhere or even just line of sight , on the Shenfield Metro route I am sure there are a few Stations where the Driver has to just stick there head out of the window for a 8 car train ! So I don't see how doing it for a 4 car one would be dangerous even it is a step backwards in procedure, but I guess the same argument could be said for DOO , why is it safe in some places on some lines and Dangerous on others. So basically if the 710s are not ready and the 378s can't be used the GOBLIN is looking at Bustitution ? And 315s are not dual voltage so wouldn't be able to be used on the NLL I believe . It isn't that any of the methods are "dangerous". It is not that stark a choice. The railway would be shut if dispatch methods were not deemed safe. It is all about relative levels of safety. The ORR take the view that they won't allow a worsening, even if small, of the risk level. The context here is that the platform / train interface (PTI) is the highest or second highest risk event with severe (i.e. fatality or serious injury) impact on individuals. In a past role at LU I read a fair number of accident reports involving PTI and they don't make comfortable reading. I can completely understand your, and others', view about "just do something" but it doesn't work like that sadly and I'd say for good reason. And yes dumping people on to rail replacement buses is not exactly a safe option either (in comparative terms) but that's not what's assessed by ORR. The wider "sense" of various options is for TfL which might be why they're doing something with the 378s. You are quite correct that 315s would not operate the full NLL / WLL service. In reality they couldn't use the 172's paths from depot to the GOBLIN because part of the "empty stock" path involves DC only tracks from the depot to Willesden Junction bay and then round to Kensal Rise. The 710s under test have to reverse in Willesden freight depot to remain on AC only. I am not quite sure where to start here, but here goes. Pre-supposing there were 315s available, that *should* have been a solution, but clearly it isn't. The situation with the 172s leaving and the 710 not being ready has been a long slow car crash that has been known about for ages, more than sufficient time to train guards and / or dispatchers as required. I am willing to accept that using a guard / despatcher might not be quite of the same standard as the onboard cameras, but it is still perfectly safe and used elsewhere on the network. Life is all about taking proper calculated risks and I find it quite incredible to that it is deemed too risky to go back temporarily to have guards / despatchers whilst the 710s are sorted out. As I see it part of the problem is that individual parts / organisations look at matters in silos, rather than the bigger picture and potentially bigger risks / issues. Is not allowing a temporary return guards / despatchers really more important than not providing a train service at all? Take a look at the photo uploaded a coupe of days ago in this thread and honestly tell me that the scene in that photo is less dangerous than the minimal increased risk in using despatchers / guards?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 9, 2019 23:37:40 GMT
I am not quite sure where to start here, but here goes. Pre-supposing there were 315s available, that *should* have been a solution, but clearly it isn't. The situation with the 172s leaving and the 710 not being ready has been a long slow car crash that has been known about for ages, more than sufficient time to train guards and / or dispatchers as required. I am willing to accept that using a guard / despatcher might not be quite of the same standard as the onboard cameras, but it is still perfectly safe and used elsewhere on the network. Life is all about taking proper calculated risks and I find it quite incredible to that it is deemed too risky to go back temporarily to have guards / despatchers whilst the 710s are sorted out. As I see it part of the problem is that individual parts / organisations look at matters in silos, rather than the bigger picture and potentially bigger risks / issues. Is not allowing a temporary return guards / despatchers really more important than not providing a train service at all? Take a look at the photo uploaded a coupe of days ago in this thread and honestly tell me that the scene in that photo is less dangerous than the minimal increased risk in using despatchers / guards? Completely understand the points you make. However they are with the benefit of hindsight in that we're on the edge of a big mess but not quite in it just yet. If you were TfL you will have had two things happening - a supplier repeatedly telling you not to worry and that the trains will be ready for use very soon and a line user group telling you are useless and don't know what you are doing and, of course, the trains are going to be late. Now I'm not dissing the User Group - just reflecting the publicly stated fact that the relationship with TfL has been less than stellar for a long time. The backdrop to all of this is a project that was on then off then on again in terms of government funding and then a mismanaged implementation of the actual electrification works where TfL were panned (even by me!!) for not knowing what on earth was going on. The bigger back drop was the need to get Crossrail open and the fact there are / were dependencies between the GOBLIN being closed and how many closures could be effected on the Great Eastern Main Line (GEML). The fact that GOBLIN works overrun and had to be done again had a knock on impact. It's clear some of the rewiring works on the GEML require the east end of the GOBLIN to be closed - happened multiple times. Crossrail was always the priority and that also means the 345s take precedent over the 710s. That was said again by Mark Wild when he made reference to 1,000 Bombardier staff in 4 locations across the world being involved in trying to get the 345s to work with the core's signalling. Does anyone imagine there are 1,000 staff trying to make the 710s work? I don't. In fact I'd be pretty sure some of those 1,000 are needed on multiple rolling stock projects but are, instead, priortised for Crossrail. Now given the less than wonderful backdrop and a vanishing budget within TfL in terms of being able to respond flexibly to crises it is no suprise to me that little has been done. You can argue that this is wrong but TfL will also known about the issues with platform train interface risk. There are genuine issues about the costs of redeploying old stock - the depot at Willesden doesn't maintain 315s, it won't hold a stock of spares which will be dwindling anyway, LO drivers based at Willesden are not trained on the stock. It is not cleared on the GOBLIN. Planning and installing platform cameras and monitors takes months and months and months and if you are being told that the new trains are "due soon" why on earth would you commit to the expense for something that may never be used in anger and would then have to be ripped out? And also spending on a solution that may never be approved for use? That's the way of the financial mad house. It would not pass muster. The same applies for the use of guards. I think it is the case that the 315s no longer have guards controls for the doors. Also where would the magic supply of guards come from? There aren't any left so if you could find the staff from somewhere they would all need training and then route familiarisation and that would need to be kept refreshed if there was any delay in using old trains - if you could find any! There is also the issue that TfL clearly felt that they could keep the 172s until 710s got into service and they were partly correct on that given the sublease has been extended more than once. I appreciate that all just sounds like a load of excuses but in TfL world you would not set off to spend considerable sums of money and time on any of these options if you genuinely believed what Bombardier were telling you. Given I've heard it said by the Commissioner and the Mayor that they have both been pressuring the top echelons of Bombardier on the class 710s issues there must have been some soothing words from somewhere to deter TfL from pursuing other options. As I have said before TfL have no room for manoeuvre with Bombardier - they are tied into expensive, long term contracts that can't be torn up because there is no effective fall back option. They are stuck with having to rely on and work with Bombardier to get the fleets of new trains into service. That it's become an agony is undeniable but they can't go back nor can they stop - they just have to keep going and slogging on until demonstrable progress is achieved.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jan 10, 2019 0:01:02 GMT
Could they get around it by introducing more Crossrail trains, then withdrawing a few more class 315 TfL rail trains. Put the 315's on the Stratford-Richmond line, then use the 378's on Gospel Oak-Barking. No they can't. The fundamental problem is the platform / train interface. At present all LO trains have side mounted cameras on the trains that transmit images to screens in the driver's cab. This has been shown to be safer than having cameras / mirrors / monitors on platforms or having crew dispatch of trains. It would take many many months to install cameras and monitors to allow 315s to run. However it would NOT be approved as it is statistically less safe than side mounted cameras. Office of Rail Regulation would not sign off a less safe mode of operation. Therefore everyone should stop proposing the use of older trains - NOT going to happen. There are no more 7 car 345s available because part of the fleet is deployed in West London. Also it was always planned that some 315s would remain in operation through to 2019/2020. They will probably have to run even longer now the overall project has been delayed. This is why the GOBLIN problems are so intractible - you can't bring in old trains as their operation would be less safe than current ones. You can't bring in the new trains because they don't work. Meanwhile the existing trains are earmarked to go elsewhere. This last fact is the killer problem - you can usually keep existing trains in use until new ones stagger into service. Here we have the exception. Too much red tape imo. I cannot see why it would be so dangerous to use 315's with guards which the route had similar with the 313's previously. This is one of the reason why rail travel is pathetic imo in this country, many other countries do not seem to have half the problems we have on a daily basis with the railwayS
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 10, 2019 1:19:46 GMT
Too much red tape imo. I cannot see why it would be so dangerous to use 315's with guards which the route had similar with the 313's previously. This is one of the reason why rail travel is pathetic imo in this country, many other countries do not seem to have half the problems we have on a daily basis with the railwayS Well I'd expect you to say that. We have the safest railway in Europe and the highest level of growth over the last decade. The Germans are moaning bitterly about the collapse of Deutsche Bahn's reliability. French railways are in crisis yet again with collapsing reliability in Paris and literally thousands of miles of tracks across the country out of use with rail services replaced by bus services. This has been the case for years. Even Switzerland is having problems with timekeeping. Irish Railways are short of rolling stock because passenger growth, off the back of an economic boom caused by businesses leaving the UK, is so high that trains are overwhelmed with people. Netherlands Railways have also had more than their fair share of reliability and timekeeping problems in recent years. Beware the lure of "everything is better" elsewhere. I am not denying there are some significant issues with rail services in some parts of the UK. However in many places we actually have far more frequent trains than many other countries do on equivalent routes - 3 fast trains an hour to Manchester, 3 to Birmingham plus other slower services on other routes, half hourly to Leeds, half hourly to Edinburgh. We may not have grandiose RER schemes like Paris or Berlin or Munich but the general offer is pretty decent. Sadly far too much of the debate about railways in the UK is not very well informed and has tended to become polarised. Loads of people think it's cr*p when actually it isn't. It is expensive for some journeys but the same people who moan about fares happily vote for political parties whose policy has been to shove fares up faster than inflation and to deliberately push more of the cost of the network onto passengers - that's both Tory and Labour if you go back to the 1990s. People who believe nationalisation will instantly fix everything are equally deluded because the TOCs only earn a 2% profit margin and there are no plans to nationalise all the engineering consultancies and rolling stock companies that were spun out of the old BR structure. Network Rail is nationalised and under DfT control. Govt control of NR has not stopped project problems, delays or anything else. In many respects DfT control is strangling future infrastructure investment because the schemes all have to go through a hidden DfT process that is not public. If you believe the gossip Chris Grayling is deliberately trying to kill every major rail scheme in the country bar HS2. He is opposed to Crossrail 2, opposed to East West Rail between Oxford and Cambridge (on which progress has ground to a halt), opposed to more electrification (multiple schemes cancelled), opposed to more devolution of rail services to local control. That bodes very very badly for the future unless he's kicked out. All he wants to do is build more roads and pursue his Brexit fantasies with ferries and lorry parks in Kent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2019 13:10:15 GMT
Too much red tape imo. I cannot see why it would be so dangerous to use 315's with guards which the route had similar with the 313's previously. This is one of the reason why rail travel is pathetic imo in this country, many other countries do not seem to have half the problems we have on a daily basis with the railwayS Well I'd expect you to say that. We have the safest railway in Europe and the highest level of growth over the last decade. The Germans are moaning bitterly about the collapse of Deutsche Bahn's reliability. French railways are in crisis yet again with collapsing reliability in Paris and literally thousands of miles of tracks across the country out of use with rail services replaced by bus services. This has been the case for years. Even Switzerland is having problems with timekeeping. Irish Railways are short of rolling stock because passenger growth, off the back of an economic boom caused by businesses leaving the UK, is so high that trains are overwhelmed with people. Netherlands Railways have also had more than their fair share of reliability and timekeeping problems in recent years. Beware the lure of "everything is better" elsewhere. I am not denying there are some significant issues with rail services in some parts of the UK. However in many places we actually have far more frequent trains than many other countries do on equivalent routes - 3 fast trains an hour to Manchester, 3 to Birmingham plus other slower services on other routes, half hourly to Leeds, half hourly to Edinburgh. We may not have grandiose RER schemes like Paris or Berlin or Munich but the general offer is pretty decent. Sadly far too much of the debate about railways in the UK is not very well informed and has tended to become polarised. Loads of people think it's cr*p when actually it isn't. It is expensive for some journeys but the same people who moan about fares happily vote for political parties whose policy has been to shove fares up faster than inflation and to deliberately push more of the cost of the network onto passengers - that's both Tory and Labour if you go back to the 1990s. People who believe nationalisation will instantly fix everything are equally deluded because the TOCs only earn a 2% profit margin and there are no plans to nationalise all the engineering consultancies and rolling stock companies that were spun out of the old BR structure. Network Rail is nationalised and under DfT control. Govt control of NR has not stopped project problems, delays or anything else. In many respects DfT control is strangling future infrastructure investment because the schemes all have to go through a hidden DfT process that is not public. If you believe the gossip Chris Grayling is deliberately trying to kill every major rail scheme in the country bar HS2. He is opposed to Crossrail 2, opposed to East West Rail between Oxford and Cambridge (on which progress has ground to a halt), opposed to more electrification (multiple schemes cancelled), opposed to more devolution of rail services to local control. That bodes very very badly for the future unless he's kicked out. All he wants to do is build more roads and pursue his Brexit fantasies with ferries and lorry parks in Kent. That makes him sounds a lot like the modern day Ernest Marples (without the motorcar industry shares), very concerning.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jan 10, 2019 19:27:45 GMT
Well I'd expect you to say that. We have the safest railway in Europe and the highest level of growth over the last decade. The Germans are moaning bitterly about the collapse of Deutsche Bahn's reliability. French railways are in crisis yet again with collapsing reliability in Paris and literally thousands of miles of tracks across the country out of use with rail services replaced by bus services. This has been the case for years. Even Switzerland is having problems with timekeeping. Irish Railways are short of rolling stock because passenger growth, off the back of an economic boom caused by businesses leaving the UK, is so high that trains are overwhelmed with people. Netherlands Railways have also had more than their fair share of reliability and timekeeping problems in recent years. Beware the lure of "everything is better" elsewhere. I am not denying there are some significant issues with rail services in some parts of the UK. However in many places we actually have far more frequent trains than many other countries do on equivalent routes - 3 fast trains an hour to Manchester, 3 to Birmingham plus other slower services on other routes, half hourly to Leeds, half hourly to Edinburgh. We may not have grandiose RER schemes like Paris or Berlin or Munich but the general offer is pretty decent. Sadly far too much of the debate about railways in the UK is not very well informed and has tended to become polarised. Loads of people think it's cr*p when actually it isn't. It is expensive for some journeys but the same people who moan about fares happily vote for political parties whose policy has been to shove fares up faster than inflation and to deliberately push more of the cost of the network onto passengers - that's both Tory and Labour if you go back to the 1990s. People who believe nationalisation will instantly fix everything are equally deluded because the TOCs only earn a 2% profit margin and there are no plans to nationalise all the engineering consultancies and rolling stock companies that were spun out of the old BR structure. Network Rail is nationalised and under DfT control. Govt control of NR has not stopped project problems, delays or anything else. In many respects DfT control is strangling future infrastructure investment because the schemes all have to go through a hidden DfT process that is not public. If you believe the gossip Chris Grayling is deliberately trying to kill every major rail scheme in the country bar HS2. He is opposed to Crossrail 2, opposed to East West Rail between Oxford and Cambridge (on which progress has ground to a halt), opposed to more electrification (multiple schemes cancelled), opposed to more devolution of rail services to local control. That bodes very very badly for the future unless he's kicked out. All he wants to do is build more roads and pursue his Brexit fantasies with ferries and lorry parks in Kent. That makes him sounds a lot like the modern day Ernest Marples (without the motorcar industry shares), very concerning. Marples may have been a crook (well, no doubt about it, actually) but he was an effective crook in his chosen field of road construction, particularly motorways, by-passes and flyovers, including the Hammersmith one. I don't think even his mother would consider Grayling effective. Failing Grayling is being superseded by Sailing (ever closer to the wind) Grayling: his come-uppance is coming, way over time imo, but he'll be a man of the past quicker than Chris Huhne. I'd like to think he'd end up in the same place as Huhne, but that's just wishful thinking on my part!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 10, 2019 22:59:03 GMT
Oh dear oh dear oh dear - if it proves to be correct!
|
|