|
Post by redbus on Jan 10, 2019 23:52:26 GMT
Oh dear oh dear oh dear - if it proves to be correct!
Well look on the bright side, if true it means no cuts anywhere else on the Overground and the train in refurbishment/ maintenance can resume.
Of course if true and had this testing been done earlier, there would have been time to train the drivers, but let us not go there!!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 11, 2019 0:33:04 GMT
Well look on the bright side, if true it means no cuts anywhere else on the Overground and the train in refurbishment/ maintenance can resume.
Of course if true and had this testing been done earlier, there would have been time to train the drivers, but let us not go there!! Well it looks to me as if someone, somewhere forgot to consider the drivers. Based on some other comments and this alleged reaction it seems all is not well between ASLEF and Arriva Rail London. I can't say I am surprised given what's been happening to the service more generally on London Overground. If the claimed reaction proves true then someone has wasted a lot of time, money and effort to achieve precisely nothing other than a shorter train that will have been lengthened again - and presumably retested before it can be used.
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Jan 11, 2019 8:08:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by TA1 on Jan 11, 2019 9:51:47 GMT
Oh dear oh dear oh dear - if it proves to be correct!
Well look on the bright side, if true it means no cuts anywhere else on the Overground and the train in refurbishment/ maintenance can resume.
Of course if true and had this testing been done earlier, there would have been time to train the drivers, but let us not go there!!
I don't think Testing could have commenced any earlier, the plan to convert the 378 back to 4 car is a last resort plan. It's all good and well, ARL doing PTI tests but if they're not in agreement with ASLEF for these practices I fully understand why ASLEF would oppose this practice. Despite crews already signing the route and traction, One wonders how long brake handling would be and how it would take place considering paths on the GOBLIN are at a premium, or would they operate in place of the withdrawn trains.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 11, 2019 11:57:33 GMT
Oh that C4 news feature. I watched that the other day. Takes nearly 12 mins to say next to nothing of any value (IMO, of course).
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 11, 2019 20:03:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jan 13, 2019 22:23:05 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. I agree with all you say except the benefit of hindsight, because I think there were multiple clues that all was not well.
As trains have become ever more complex, there are more and more teething problems with new trains - particularly ones which are a completely new class. The complexity of the software and so forth will inevitably mean teething problems. Large software projects often run late / have issues, this has been seen time and again in multiple applications and industries over many years. It is therefore better to be prudent and to include LOTS of extra time before any drop dead date, whatever soothing noises are made by the supplier. The exception maybe if a particular supplier has a relevant stellar track record, but is that the case here.
The delays in electrification of the line was a big red light, if for no other reason than it would impact on testing of the trains and the crucial software.
Whatever the rights or wrongs in giving priority to the class 345 for Crossrail, once the 710s were also ran's in terms of priority that would always make any delays much worse. If you have 1000 staff working on the Crosssrail software, you are unlikely to have many left to deal with the 710s. Result = delays
It is not hindsight, these were all important clues that suggested there were likely to be delays and to look at a plan 'B'. It is only by having a plan 'B' early in these kind of situations that you will have sufficient time to make such a plan work.
I agree that TfL finances make funding for a plan 'B' problematic - but whatever decision you make it needs to be in the open and transparent if you want to take your passengers with you. As you say we are not in a big mess - yet - but if it were to arise TfL will no doubt reap the blame, when if they had been more transparent and open they would be in a better place.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jan 13, 2019 22:47:56 GMT
Very interesting. So where do we go from here given how little time there is?
I can understand why using the 378s is so appealing to TfL. No extra staff needed - little cost. TfL already have the trains and drivers, while the class have the necessary cameras and so on. Perhaps TfL could scrape together three trains to provide a half hourly service, but with four carriages each train will carry more than double a 178, and so carry a least the same number of passengers as now. I read that the drivers won't play ball, but if that is the only problem, I suspect negotiations will continue. Sadly I read that there maybe other issues with the 378s on the Goblin which are likely to prevent them being used even if the drivers were happy.
As the user group point out there are other classes of train that *could* be used, but issues would need to be resolved including having guards or dispatchers. As said (was it snoggle ), the ORR would need to agree, but I am not clear whether it is thought they would say 'no' (ie we are assuming they would say 'no') or they have actually been asked and said 'no'. The ORR comes under the DfT and given the relationship between the Mayor and Minister we can hardly bank on the Minister using his influence in the matter. I suspect we are too late anyway no matter what the user group say given the impending loss of the 178s. As said all of these options have an associated cost which won't help TfL finances.
There is always the nuclear option of the replacement bus service. No one wants this, and of course it too is costly.
So it is back to the 710s. I don't think any of us really know how close they are to having an acceptable version of software. I hear there are 20 faults in the software, but these may or may not be serious or easy faults to fix. If these issues are very problematic and in a worst case it could easily take a year or more to get satisfactory software. On the other hand we could be quite close, we just don't know. I read there's now version 27 of the software coming out which fixes all of the issues. Let's hope it does and there are no new issues. We then may have 710s available for driver training very soon (weeks or less?) and a relatively happy ending. I shall be optimistic and go for that as the best chance.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 13, 2019 23:40:21 GMT
Very interesting. So where do we go from here given how little time there is?
I can understand why using the 378s is so appealing to TfL. No extra staff needed - little cost. TfL already have the trains and drivers, while the class have the necessary cameras and so on. Perhaps TfL could scrape together three trains to provide a half hourly service, but with four carriages each train will carry more than double a 178, and so carry a least the same number of passengers as now. I read that the drivers won't play ball, but if that is the only problem, I suspect negotiations will continue. Sadly I read that there maybe other issues with the 378s on the Goblin which are likely to prevent them being used even if the drivers were happy.
As the user group point out there are other classes of train that *could* be used, but issues would need to be resolved including having guards or dispatchers. As said (was it snoggle ), the ORR would need to agree, but I am not clear whether it is thought they would say 'no' (ie we are assuming they would say 'no') or they have actually been asked and said 'no'. The ORR comes under the DfT and given the relationship between the Mayor and Minister we can hardly bank on the Minister using his influence in the matter. I suspect we are too late anyway no matter what the user group say given the impending loss of the 178s. As said all of these options have an associated cost which won't help TfL finances.
There is always the nuclear option of the replacement bus service. No one wants this, and of course it too is costly.
So it is back to the 710s. I don't think any of us really know how close they are to having an acceptable version of software. I hear there are 20 faults in the software, but these may or may not be serious or easy faults to fix. If these issues are very problematic and in a worst case it could easily take a year or more to get satisfactory software. On the other hand we could be quite close, we just don't know. I read there's now version 27 of the software coming out which fixes all of the issues. Let's hope it does and there are no new issues. We then may have 710s available for driver training very soon (weeks or less?) and a relatively happy ending. I shall be optimistic and go for that as the best chance.
Apparently the 378s have a signal sight issue at Barking where the driver cannot see the departure Signal from P1. I assume this is because of the middle door blocking some of the view. This is no easy fix, especially not worth going through for a short period. However what could be an option is just routing the 378 into Platform 7. Although this would restrict it to the particular duties which use Platform 7, and it would probably require the trains going to siding to the East to clear the way for c2c trains then returning on Platform 8. It's pretty much impossible to get the 710 into service by the 26th of January when the next 172 is leaving and after that it's a train leaving every two weeks. The only option they seem to have is closing the line.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 14, 2019 1:04:21 GMT
So it is back to the 710s. I don't think any of us really know how close they are to having an acceptable version of software. I hear there are 20 faults in the software, but these may or may not be serious or easy faults to fix. If these issues are very problematic and in a worst case it could easily take a year or more to get satisfactory software. On the other hand we could be quite close, we just don't know. I read there's now version 27 of the software coming out which fixes all of the issues. Let's hope it does and there are no new issues. We then may have 710s available for driver training very soon (weeks or less?) and a relatively happy ending. I shall be optimistic and go for that as the best chance. Apparently the 378s have a signal sight issue at Barking where the driver cannot see the departure Signal from P1. I assume this is because of the middle door blocking some of the view. This is no easy fix, especially not worth going through for a short period. However what could be an option is just routing the 378 into Platform 7. Although this would restrict it to the particular duties which use Platform 7, and it would probably require the trains going to siding to the East to clear the way for c2c trains then returning on Platform 8. It's pretty much impossible to get the 710 into service by the 26th of January when the next 172 is leaving and after that it's a train leaving every two weeks. The only option they seem to have is closing the line. Hmm - have just caught up with the latest info on Railforums. Version 27 of the software!? That's hugely reassuring. Still I suppose it's progress of a sort. Let's hope it works and we don't need another 27 iterations before it does. I am actually quite concerned about those issues with the 378 as several could carry across to the 710s as well. Hopefully the full width cab window on 710s removes the signal sighting issue at Barking as that's not an easy fix at all apart from possibly having a different stopping point. I did say this platform / train interface stuff was involved and complex. The other issues cited like correct side door enable and selective door operation will have to work on the 710s too as will the cameras for train dispatch. Unless the 710s use vastly better cameras then platform lighting issues will affect them as well so that's more work for Network Rail to do to get the lighting correct with no shadows / dark spots which could cause problems on in cab images. I note also that NO ONE on the NLL/GOBLIN routes has been anywhere near a 710 including their driver instructors. Also no training courses agreed for anyone - what the heck has been going on even allowing for potential changes in how software will work? That's not an encouraging sign at all for me as training material has to be a collaborative process between the train manufacturer, operating company and trade union reps. If the W Anglia material isn't going to be ready until mid Feb what does that mean for GOBLIN/NLL drivers?
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jan 14, 2019 6:01:43 GMT
Although the loss of 172s is the immediate problem, due to 710s not yet working satisfactorily, there were due to be enhanced timetables on North London Line from May. These will be using the 5car 710s (actually I think the new ones are for Watford line releasing some 378s).
The new timetables change the train intervals so dropping a train (to match current frequency) would give gaps as the timetabled paths are different.
Going back to the nuclear option of older trains with manual dispatch (as no DOO cameras), it’s unclear if ORR / safety regulator would accept a time limited option, depends on how they view it compared to option of passengers crossing roads to bus stops which may be deemed even less safe. They may take a rather weird view that rail passengers on older buses in city traffic are safer than manually dispatched trains.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 14, 2019 12:23:33 GMT
Although the loss of 172s is the immediate problem, due to 710s not yet working satisfactorily, there were due to be enhanced timetables on North London Line from May. These will be using the 5car 710s (actually I think the new ones are for Watford line releasing some 378s). The new timetables change the train intervals so dropping a train (to match current frequency) would give gaps as the timetabled paths are different. Going back to the nuclear option of older trains with manual dispatch (as no DOO cameras), it’s unclear if ORR / safety regulator would accept a time limited option, depends on how they view it compared to option of passengers crossing roads to bus stops which may be deemed even less safe. They may take a rather weird view that rail passengers on older buses in city traffic are safer than manually dispatched trains. Couple of corrections. The NLL/WLL enhancements are dependent on the Watford Line receiving *4* car 710s which would cascade 5 car 378s. In theory the Watford service should go to 4 tph but that's dependent on proving the signalling can cope with that plus the B'loo line workings. The 5 car 710s are not due until late this year or early next along with the extras for the Barking Riverside extension. These latter trains will be delivered about 12-15 months before they're needed and TfL haven't decided what to do with them. When the new trains for the NLL arrive that allows a further cascade to enhance ELL services. All this assumes that the 710s actually get into passenger service. All games are off if things don't improve rapidly in the near future. I don't know for certain but I think the ORR safety people (the old HMRI) only assess the safety of changes to railway operation. They do not look across modes as to relative safety of one option vs another as they are not the safety regulator for the bus industry. It will be for TfL to take a view on that as they do have cross modal safety responsibilities for services they run or contract.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 15, 2019 21:29:09 GMT
TfL have written a reply to the Goblin User Group: barking-gospeloak.org.uk/documents/20190115_rolling_stock_crisis.pdfSomething interesting to note is that it mentions that some of the LO's other trains are being modified, so that suggests more than one will undergo the shortening treatment should 378232 get the all clear. A decision is expected later this month regarding that. My bet is that three will be shortened to provide a half hourly service as that in theory should not result in any overall capacity reduction.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jan 15, 2019 23:44:25 GMT
TfL have written a reply to the Goblin User Group: barking-gospeloak.org.uk/documents/20190115_rolling_stock_crisis.pdfSomething interesting to note is that it mentions that some of the LO's other trains are being modified, so that suggests more than one will undergo the shortening treatment should 378232 get the all clear. A decision is expected later this month regarding that. My bet is that three will be shortened to provide a half hourly service as that in theory should not result in any overall capacity reduction. No real surprises there. The question isn't whether the class 378 can be used, it is what work will need to be done to enable them to be used. The rumours I hear as reported here are that there are issues, and that results in two questions, does TfL have the will (ability / cost etc) to address the issues, and is there time to do this.
I suspect there was an abundance of hope that the 710s would be in service before the 172s left, and when it dawned that this would not be the case, the 378 testing started, otherwise why else leave the 378 testing so late.
Using the 378s also makes financial sense for TfL, no additional cost for the trains, no additional staff, no replacement bus service. Any of the other train options would have notable costs.
I agree that I suspect TfLs plan to be three 4 car 378s on the Goblin at a half hour service.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jan 16, 2019 0:03:33 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. lol at roads, there is hardly any new roads. There needs to be more roads built. Only thing we get is cycle lanes.
|
|