306024
Established Member
Whittlesford!
Whittlesford indeed thanks, dunno how Whittlesea got mentioned, I've corrected post #386.
Last edited:
Whittlesford!
Problem is the 315 fleet has a MASSIVE maintenance backlog of faults. For 10 years, if not more, 315s have been able to run around carrying faults without too much issue by being buried in an 8 car and despatched to the Shenfields for months on end. No ability to do that now for the LO units and it is already showing.You understand correctly. 315s are slightly more suited to the work so 317 use is more restricted.
Looking at RTT for Edmonton Green doesn't show a "terrible" day in terms of train running, although it could have been better without the odd train failure. Meanwhile a plastic sheet on the overheads at Angel Road and a tree at Whittlesford caused severe disruption to AGA, with a knock on effect to LO services. It is AGA that operate on the Lea Valley with a few peak Hertford services running via Southbury, LO only operate on the Southbury Loop, not down the Lea Valley.
Complete with luxury arm chairs in the former first class area? The locals are being spoilt
Some of the confusion over which is and which isn't the Lea Valley line might come from Wikipedia, which has 'Lea Valley Lines' article claiming the term is used for the Chingford, Seven Sisters and Southbury Loop lines as well as the actual Lea Valley line through Tottenham Hale.
Problem is the 315 fleet has a MASSIVE maintenance backlog of faults. For 10 years, if not more, 315s have been able to run around carrying faults without too much issue by being buried in an 8 car and despatched to the Shenfields for months on end. No ability to do that now for the LO units and it is already showing.
The problem is LO isn't explaining that. Not letting anyone know of short formations, making out everything is wonderful.
Some of the confusion over which is and which isn't the Lea Valley line might come from Wikipedia, which has 'Lea Valley Lines' article claiming the term is used for the Chingford, Seven Sisters and Southbury Loop lines as well as the actual Lea Valley line through Tottenham Hale.
Ah thanks for explaining, professional railway folk only refer to the Lea Valley as via Brimsdown, certainly not via Southbury.
So where does the actual West Anglia ML start?
2x317s in LO livery were at Ilford Car Sheds this morning, forgot to look to see if they were still there this evening, but unless Control did a changeover they would have been.
On paper there are sufficient 315s to cover all the diagrams at weekends, so a 317 working is less likely, unless Spurs are at home.
This seems to be a key problem I've saw on Twitter. Lack of communication. For all people complained about the service by AGA, at least they were there with information and updates about services. TfL are failing in that department miserably, and whilst I might work to help hide some delays and short forms it will only put more pressure on the front line staff who likely won't know anything either.
That's true about the M25... the M4 is another good one for the old 'stop, start again, get up to 50 then stop suddenly' game, especially near Slough... but no one complains. Sad to say the GEML is at breaking point, I would have thought within 3 years or so of them starting the renewal of the OHLE, they would have sorted this out by now Heatwave (if it comes) may bring warped tracks, sagging overhead lines on the current 1960's tech :roll:I think the rail operators should just state the reality of GEML. They can run less trains so that every train runs exactly to time or run the same service level that their currently is and put up with small delays. People are seemingly willing to accept the major delays and jams that regularly happen on the A12 and M25 yet its sacrilege that trains might run 5 mins late during the peak when the network is at near breaking point.
Was only one platform at New Cross Gate before LOROL came along
I've been occasionally working on a system of railway line naming for Wikipedia, and I welcome changes. Currently we have the GEML as LST to somewhere out in the sticks, the WAML from LST to Cambridge, and the Lea Valley Lines as all stuff from Liverpool Street and Stratford to Enfield, Cheshunt, Chingford and Hertford East. If you can give us the proper system we'd welcome it.
That is disappointing I was hoping that the 317/7s (and /8s) would be out to play often. Do they really need 15 of them if they only see use at peak hours aside from the Romford to Upminster line?
Adam
Well here is only what I've picked up from other Railwaymen over the years and some may speak differently but here goes....
Cambridge Main Line or the more modern use of West Anglia Main Line (interchangeable): Liverpool St to Kings Lynn via Lea Valley.
Lea Valley: Clapton Jn to Cheshunt via Brimsdown, but is occasionally stretched to include Stratford to Broxbourne via Brimsdown.
Southbury Loop: Hackney Downs to Cheshunt via err.....Southbury. In ancient times also referred to as the Churchbury loop.
Chingford, Enfield Town and Hertford East are simply referred to as branches, nothing more exciting than that.
These days use of via Brimsdown or Southbury is in decline, as most now speak of via Tottenham Hale or Seven Sisters instead.
GEML Leave as somewhere out in the sticks, or Norwich as the locals call it
I think the rail operators should just state the reality of GEML. They can run less trains so that every train runs exactly to time or run the same service level that their currently is and put up with small delays.
I've been occasionally working on a system of railway line naming for Wikipedia, and I welcome changes. Currently we have the GEML as LST to somewhere out in the sticks, the WAML from LST to Cambridge, and the Lea Valley Lines as all stuff from Liverpool Street and Stratford to Enfield, Cheshunt, Chingford and Hertford East. If you can give us the proper system we'd welcome it.
Also quite what the Heart of Wessex Line is would be nice.
Wikipedia operates on the principle that entries are verifiable and not based on primary sources. So, in that case, simply posting information that you 'know' is likely to be challenged or removed because it can't be verified. Requiring use of secondary sources (rather than primary sources) helps ensure notability of the subject.Is this really how Wikipedia works - the GIPO principle (Garbage In Perfection Out)? I can understand the logic of it (I think), but how do you know whether its current offering on any particular subject is nearer the output stage than the input stage? In general I think I would prefer those with a working knowledge of a subject to be those initiating the process.
Wikipedia operates on the principle that entries are verifiable and not based on primary sources. So, in that case, simply posting information that you 'know' is likely to be challenged or removed because it can't be verified. Requiring use of secondary sources (rather than primary sources) helps ensure notability of the subject.
It's also important to remember that Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia, not a specialist railway one. So (for example) the topic of whether a particular set of tracks are called the 'slow', 'relief' or 'electric' probably doesn't belong there. Similarly using the 'correct' railway terminology for railway lines in and around the Lea Valley is probably unimportant; the routes via Tottenham Hale and Seven Sisters are both in the Lea Valley, so describing them as the Lea Valley lines is probably fine for a general encyclopaedia.
I'm not particularly impressed that someone claiming a location of Canary Wharf could be so uncertain of what is and what is not the Lea Valley Line.
Is this really how Wikipedia works - the GIPO principle (Garbage In Perfection Out)? I can understand the logic of it (I think), but how do you know whether its current offering on any particular subject is nearer the output stage than the input stage? In general I think I would prefer those with a working knowledge of a subject to be those initiating the process.
Wikipedia operates on the principle that entries are verifiable and not based on primary sources. So, in that case, simply posting information that you 'know' is likely to be challenged or removed because it can't be verified. Requiring use of secondary sources (rather than primary sources) helps ensure notability of the subject.
It's also important to remember that Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia, not a specialist railway one. So (for example) the topic of whether a particular set of tracks are called the 'slow', 'relief' or 'electric' probably doesn't belong there. Similarly using the 'correct' railway terminology for railway lines in and around the Lea Valley is probably unimportant; the routes via Tottenham Hale and Seven Sisters are both in the Lea Valley, so describing them as the Lea Valley lines is probably fine for a general encyclopaedia.
Thank you for the clarification.
I was under the misapprehension that Wikipedia was intended to be a source of reference containing true statements in preference to false statements. Now I know that "it is probably fine" for lines to be identified as "the Lea Valley Lines" if they exist in the valley of the River Lea. This has the virtue of including both what I had confusedly understood to be the East Coast Main Line and the Midland Main Line (as in Leagrave) in part within this definition of "the Lea Valley Lines".
Once again my thanks for the clarification.
Who said anything about prefering false statements? As I said, for information to be included in Wikipedia it has to be verifiable.I was under the misapprehension that Wikipedia was intended to be a source of reference containing true statements in preference to false statements.
In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.
Gosh, I can barely read your post through the thick layer of sarcasm.Now I know that "it is probably fine" for lines to be identified as "the Lea Valley Lines" if they exist in the valley of the River Lea. This has the virtue of including both what I had confusedly understood to be the East Coast Main Line and the Midland Main Line (as in Leagrave) in part within this definition of "the Lea Valley Lines".
Both LBC Radio and London Live tv are claiming that the closure of the Romford to Upminster line this afternoon is a TfL Rail service!
Who said anything about prefering false statements? As I said, for information to be included in Wikipedia it has to be verifiable.
Or in the words of Wikipedia itself:
Gosh, I can barely read your post through the thick layer of sarcasm.
Merely crossing the upper River Lea is not quite the same as following the path of the river along the wide River Lea floodplain.
I grew up in the area and they were always known locally as the Lea Valley lines.
looks good!Here's the first photo I've seen of a refreshed TfL Rail Class 315 (via gceyre on Twitter). TfL replied to say the moquette design will also be used on the new Crossrail trains.
I'd suggest that it might be better to create a separate RailWiki, as the MediaWiki software is open source so anyone can use it to host their own Wiki project. The level of detail that you're suggesting is better suited to a specialist railway encyclopaedia, rather than a general one.For what it may be worth I'd commend the listing of line names under some classification of their origin. That would be a worthy project. PS. Volunteers wanted - I'm not up to it.