Greater Anglia 2019 - What could possibly go wrong?

[dk1]

That'd be unworkable in the peaks - the Central line already struggles to cope as it is!

Everything struggles to cope at Stratford nowadays. It will be fun whatever outcome they choose. Hopefully the slightly quieter peaks during Summer will help.

 

[samuelmorris]

'Use the Central line' is the advisory during engineering work because at weekends it can cope with that level of crowds (albeit only just, load factor is still >80% in the central sections for a lot of weekends). During weekday peaks it's 100% at capacity even when there is no disruption on itself or elsewhere. There is no room to divert any meaningful quantity of TfL passengers onto the Central during peaks, they'd have to switch to Anglia services (which is already advised during disruption / strike action) as they have some degree of headroom - 12-car Southend services, when not short formed, often have spare capacity for 400+ passengers each even after Stratford, let alone before. I believe this is less on other services, but there's a fair amount of extra room there, that's where the displaced passengers travelling between Stratford and Liverpool St would go - otherwise there are other diversionary routes that could potentially be used e.g. Jubilee to West Ham and District/HC, Jubilee directly into zone 1 or DLR to Poplar then to Bank etc. depending on where their destination is.

That, however, isn't the real issue here. The real problem is the actual capacity loss of TfL Rail itself - terminating at Stratford with a single pair of platforms is going to reduce the service interval to probably 8tph at best. Between Stratford and Ilford, the service is already full in the peaks. Where are all those passengers going to go? TfL won't be able to discriminate between passengers using the service to zone 3/4 destinations where there may be semi-viable alternatives on buses/district line/c2c and passengers travelling further afield. It will end up being necessary for people travelling as far west as Romford and Gidea Park to go to Shenfield on an Anglia service and come back. Not popular!

 

[Class 170101]

I thought Crossrail would run to Liverpool Street Low Level during the blockade but carry on ECS to Paddington to turn around. Stratford won't cope with the revised movements of passengers nevermind the Central Line if additional punters can board.

 

[dk1]

I thought Crossrail would run to Liverpool Street Low Level during the blockade but carry on ECS to Paddington to turn around. Stratford won't cope with the revised movements of passengers nevermind the Central Line if additional punters can board.

Again it all comes down to the signalling system that has caused so much of the problem in the first place. Tunnel out of bounds until it's ready.

 

[samuelmorris]

Indeed, if that was ready then there'd probably be no issue in the first place, the whole service would be running.

 

[Class 170101]

Again it all comes down to the signalling system that has caused so much of the problem in the first place. Tunnel out of bounds until it's ready.

The proposed blockade is still eight months away but if the tunnel isn't sorted then frankly the blockade needs to take a hike for 12 months if only on safety grounds.

 

[simple simon]

Temporarily restore through services to Fenchurch Street? OK, there is only a single linking track nowadays (the DLR uses part of the other trackbed) but the remaining line is bi-directional and its all electrified.

Even a train every 15 minutes using just one platform at Fenchurch Street will be of benefit!

In the days of steam trains Fenchurch Street was served by trains on the route to Loughton / Epping / Ongar and the loop Woodford - Hainault - Newbury Park with these trains then also calling at stations Ilford - Stratford (trains at 30 minute intervals each way around the loop).

-----------------------

Another option... admittedly 'very much out of the box'

Route a few TfL Rail trains via the Overground. Exactly to where and how they cope with 8 car trains are issues that might be too challenging to resolve.

 

[47421]

Franchise Agreement includes the below requirement for the whole fleet (ie all diesel and electric units) to be fitted with wi-fi by 31 Dec 2018. Anyone know if that is happening?

Also requires 27 317s to be PRM compliant. Am I right in thinking that only one has been sent away so far? When is that expected back? Anyone know if plan is still to do 27?

Sch 6 Para 4 Wi-Fi
4.1(a)
"...by no later than 31 December 2018 and throughout the remainder of the Franchise Period, provide the Mobile Communication Services in accordance with Schedule 13.1 (Rail Industry Initiatives) in both first class and Standard Class Accommodation on all of the Train Fleet used for the provision of Passenger Services..."

9. Automatic Selective Door Operation Installation

9.1 By no later than 31 October 2018, the Franchisee shall incur expenditure of not less than [REDACTED52] to ensure that Automatic Selective Door Opening technology is operational on twenty seven (27) Class 317 units (the "Class 317 Upgrade Units"), the provision of such Automatic Selective Door Opening technology to encompass correct side door enable and the installation of trackside beacons to ninety six (96) platforms.

10. PRM TSI Compliance Upgrade

10.1 The Franchisee shall procure the carrying out of modifications to the Class 317 Upgrade Units that are comprised within the Train Fleet which are necessary for compliance with the requirements of the PRM TSI, and the Franchisee shall incur expenditure of not less than [REDACTED53] in respect of such modifications.

 

[HH]

Basically it's in the DfT's hands what happens if commitments don't get delivered. Which should make you feel nice and cosy.

Normally they get the TOC to spend more money either to fix the problem or, more usually, to provide an extra benefit, but they can let them off 'scot-free' (if they feel that something was beyond the TOC's control).

 

[samuelmorris]

Basically it's in the DfT's hands what happens if commitments don't get delivered. Which should make you feel nice and cosy.

Normally they get the TOC to spend more money either to fix the problem or, more usually, to provide an extra benefit, but they can let them off 'scot-free' (if they feel that something was beyond the TOC's control).

Nothing, then. The WiFi commitment is a bit odd given all the stock is imminently due for replacement. PRM is a little bit more serious but since almost every other TOC in the country will fail to meet the deadline, one more will make little difference I suspect.

 

[RailWonderer]

Normally they get the TOC to spend more money either to fix the problem or, more usually, to provide an extra benefit, but they can let them off 'scot-free' (if they feel that something was beyond the TOC's control).

If you, as the nasty villainous, DfT, stuff too many demands at a ToC they go bankrupt and lose the franchise so they're treading on thin ice. Already GA is said to be struggling in that department they don't want to make anything worse with red tape.

 

[47421]

If you, as the nasty villainous, DfT, stuff too many demands at a ToC they go bankrupt and lose the franchise so they're treading on thin ice. Already GA is said to be struggling in that department they don't want to make anything worse with red tape.

'red tape'!? I would call them contractual obligations freely entered into by a major transport company that volunteered to enter the franchise competition. As a taxpayer and GA user I expect DfT to enforce its rights under the agreement. It is disappointing that TSR2, PRM mods, platform extensions, on train wifi, carnet ticket commitments among others have not been delivered - these are in my view all important obligations, not mere red tape.

But yes GA miscalculated so badly it does seem the £280m committed shareholder funding might be burnt through before end of franchise so DfT may be letting them off to save the trouble of another VTEC situation.

 

[HH]

'red tape'!? I would call them contractual obligations freely entered into by a major transport company that volunteered to enter the franchise competition. As a taxpayer and GA user I expect DfT to enforce its rights under the agreement. It is disappointing that TSR2, PRM mods, platform extensions, on train wifi, carnet ticket commitments among others have not been delivered - these are in my view all important obligations, not mere red tape.

But yes GA miscalculated so badly it does seem the £280m committed shareholder funding might be burnt through before end of franchise so DfT may be letting them off to save the trouble of another VTEC situation.

Yes, the GA "Titanic" sails on as if there were no problems (at least if you read the press releases and twitter posts). Meanwhile we, the passengers, are paying more and getting less. But Failing Grayling won't want any more failures on his watch, so I feel confident that GA will be granted exemptions.

 

[samuelmorris]

Disrupting the franchise is likely to make the passenger experience a lot worse in the short term rather than better, something which in the current climate I imagine the DfT will be keen to avoid.

 

[HH]

Disrupting the franchise is likely to make the passenger experience a lot worse in the short term rather than better, something which in the current climate I imagine the DfT will be keen to avoid.

Appeasement never works in the long term...

 

[Class 170101]

Appeasement never works in the long term...

Whilst this is true can the DfT afford to lose another player after NX left the rail industry in the UK already and Stagecoach and Govia not exactly flavour of the month right now.

 

[lordbusiness]

Disrupting the franchise is likely to make the passenger experience a lot worse in the short term rather than better, something which in the current climate I imagine the DfT will be keen to avoid.

Certainly by looking at LNER's ppm figures since taken back it would appear to back this up.

 

[47421]

Appeasement never works in the long term...

Indeed. Things looking very bad for GA. Lets assume the IC stadler EMUs replace the mark 3s on time, and the stadler airport units replace 379s on time. Come 1 Jan 2020 that means GA will have the following PRM stock: 30 x 379, 30 renatus 321s, 21 x 360. They are also supposed to be getting mods done on 27 x 317s by 31 Oct 2018. I think one has gone for them so far, lets say 15 are done by Jan 2020.

Rest of the 317 fleet - say 31 of the total 46 units - and rest of 321 fleet - 56 units I think, have to be withdrawn. 379s can cover for 30 of them - lets say they stay on West Anglia to cover Cambridge / Hertford East / STAR jobs currently done by 317s. That means 720s must cover for 50+ 321s. Not impossible that they will have 50 of them operational by then, but considering not one 720 has been seen in wild yet, and that Bombardier have got 50 or so 710s to commission ahead of/alongside 720s, it is looking very tight indeed. 720s are 5 car and got more seats than 321s so some 8 car 321s can be replaced by 5car 720, and there may be some bi-modes spare to cover some EMU jobs, but even so the Jan 2020 deadline is looking very problematic.

 

[samuelmorris]

Indeed. Things looking very bad for GA. Lets assume the IC stadler EMUs replace the mark 3s on time, and the stadler airport units replace 379s on time. Come 1 Jan 2020 that means GA will have the following PRM stock: 30 x 379, 30 renatus 321s, 21 x 360. They are also supposed to be getting mods done on 27 x 317s by 31 Oct 2018. I think one has gone for them so far, lets say 15 are done by Jan 2020.

Rest of the 317 fleet - say 31 of the total 46 units - and rest of 321 fleet - 56 units I think, have to be withdrawn. 379s can cover for 30 of them - lets say they stay on West Anglia to cover Cambridge / Hertford East / STAR jobs currently done by 317s. That means 720s must cover for 50+ 321s. Not impossible that they will have 50 of them operational by then, but considering not one 720 has been seen in wild yet, and that Bombardier have got 50 or so 710s to commission ahead of/alongside 720s, it is looking very tight indeed. 720s are 5 car and got more seats than 321s so some 8 car 321s can be replaced by 5car 720, and there may be some bi-modes spare to cover some EMU jobs, but even so the Jan 2020 deadline is looking very problematic.

If that's the situation they'll be in (and I think that it will be), the deadline will simply be ignored. Several other TOCs are in the same situation, the government may not be very clued up when it comes to railways but they aren't going to close half the railway lines in the country for months just to uphold an accessibility deadline.

 

[dk1]

If that's the situation they'll be in (and I think that it will be), the deadline will simply be ignored. Several other TOCs are in the same situation, the government may not be very clued up when it comes to railways but they aren't going to close half the railway lines in the country for months just to uphold an accessibility deadline.

I was under the impression there had been an extension as deadlines where not going to be met on many TOCs as you say. It will all sort itself out eventually.

 

[86246]

If that's the situation they'll be in (and I think that it will be), the deadline will simply be ignored. Several other TOCs are in the same situation, the government may not be very clued up when it comes to railways but they aren't going to close half the railway lines in the country for months just to uphold an accessibility deadline.

Indeed as that would show the government in a very bad way if there were a load of train cancellations due to non compliant rolling stock. As long as positive action is being undertaken (new orders) then you would hope that some temporary exclusions will be provided.

 

[Class 170101]

I wonder if Class 156s (and maybe Class 170s, though I thought they had been spoken for) could be staying on for a while with Bi-modes covering EMU work instead.

 

[Alfie1014]

I can guarantee that it won't be ignored, derogations will have to granted, but I doubt that this will happen to much closer to the deadline. The obligation is written into UK legislation, (it has nothing to do with the EU other than PRM-TSI has replaced RVAR) and has been known about for the last 20 years. I imagine the press (and others) will see it as collective failure of the industry whatever colour of the Government by the end of next year, though a non Conservative one could at least claim not to have been in power for the last 10 years! I think most observers thought there would have to be some small scale derogations, though as more and more new fleets fail to be introduced on time the number of non-compliant vehicles rises. As recently as this summer https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ieving-equal-access-for-disabled-people#fn:15 DfT confirms the requirement that all trains will be accessible by 2020 (as of summer 2018 78% were, compared to 98% of PSV bus vehicles), quote from section 8.42 'As noted in chapter 4, by 2020 all passenger trains will have to meet modern accessibility standards, which includes the provision of wheelchair spaces, audio visual passenger information systems, priority seating and accessible toilets, where toilets are provided.'

My mystic mog prediction is that it will be the 'rail-fail' story for Christmas 2019.

 

[samuelmorris]

I was under the impression there had been an extension as deadlines where not going to be met on many TOCs as you say. It will all sort itself out eventually.

I hadn't seen it officially announced anywhere yet - interesting to see if it has. I imagine the DfT have too many other catastrophes to juggle at the moment to make that announcement, especially with the national PPM headlines recently coming out.

The point about using 755s on mainline services is an interesting one - thing is, even if every 755 has been delivered and the 170s were retained (which is very unlikely, they're part of Wales' PRM plan too!), I think it very optimistic to expect any more than 10 serviceable 720s by the end of next year, I suspect you'll be lucky to see any at all. At best that gets you 48 units (some of which are 3-car!) to replace over 120 non-compliant EMUs. It's a drop in the ocean and the service would still be in near-shutdown compared to now if the government dug its heels in on PRM compliance. I don't see any point.

 

[Wivenswold]

As recently as this summer https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ieving-equal-access-for-disabled-people#fn:15 DfT confirms the requirement that all trains will be accessible by 2020 (as of summer 2018 78% were, compared to 98% of PSV bus vehicles), quote from section 8.42 'As noted in chapter 4, by 2020 all passenger trains will have to meet modern accessibility standards, which includes the provision of wheelchair spaces, audio visual passenger information systems, priority seating and accessible toilets, where toilets are provided.'
.

I wonder whether this is another version of the Mexican Stand-off situation that's playing in Westminster over B****t. GA Management need derogations to be granted so are hoping to back the DfT into a corner as the need for an agreement becomes more urgent rather than preparing for a "Hard-PRM" outcome. GA will rightly know that if the same Government is in place in December 2019 then they would have stumbled into enough trouble to not need wholesale network meltdown.

 

[Jonny]

I wonder whether this is another version of the Mexican Stand-off situation that's playing in Westminster over B****t. GA Management need derogations to be granted so are hoping to back the DfT into a corner as the need for an agreement becomes more urgent rather than preparing for a "Hard-PRM" outcome. GA will rightly know that if the same Government is in place in December 2019 then they would have stumbled into enough trouble to not need wholesale network meltdown.

... that would cause a massive loss of public sympathy. A lot of people would rather have a non-PRM train than no train at all.

 

[Wivenswold]

... that would cause a massive loss of public sympathy. A lot of people would rather have a non-PRM train than no train at all.

A lot of people would prefer to have medicines rather than B****t but that doesn't stop MPs playing the power games. We should all just admit to ourselves that greed and self interest comes before any concern for us plebs. If all else fails blame the other lot or the EU (for a limited period only).

 

[Panupreset]

A lot of people would prefer to have medicines rather than B****t but that doesn't stop MPs playing the power games. We should all just admit to ourselves that greed and self interest comes before any concern for us plebs. If all else fails blame the other lot or the EU (for a limited period only).

Or the unions.

 

[F Great Eastern]

Little birdie has told me that there's now talks going on about extending the lease on the 170s on the condition that Transport for Wales can get hold of some stock from elsewhere to replace most of them in the short term

This was on the basis of Transport for Wales getting class 170s from Porterbrook which looked like it could be possible. However there is now a rival bid from Irish Rail who are eyeing up both the 170s from Porterbrook and the 185s from Eversholt and look to make a decision in early January.

The plan would then be to use the 156s and the 170s on the local services, use the bi-mode FLIRTS onto the commuter lines, negotiate an option to further extend the 360 and 379 fleets by a further period as an insurance policy and also negotiate something similar for the Class 321s that were compliant.

However as has been stated, even if they keep on the 170s and 156s on the local lines to free up the FLIRTS there will still be a large shortfall. This I'm told will be made up in part by increase the intensity in which the trains are used, increasing the percentage of a fleet in use at peak time and reforming all existing EMUs to a maximum of 8 carriages and a reduction in some 8 car services to 4 car services.

In reality though the government are going to have to grant some exceptions because otherwise the rail service is going to fall through the floor overnight at the end of 2019.

 

[samuelmorris]

Little birdie has told me that there's now talks going on about extending the lease on the 170s on the condition that Transport for Wales can get hold of some stock from elsewhere to replace most of them in the short term

This was on the basis of Transport for Wales getting class 170s from Porterbrook which looked like it could be possible. However there is now a rival bid from Irish Rail who are eyeing up both the 170s from Porterbrook and the 185s from Eversholt and look to make a decision in early January.

The plan would then be to use the 156s and the 170s on the local services, use the bi-mode FLIRTS onto the commuter lines, negotiate an option to further extend the 360 and 379 fleets by a further period as an insurance policy and also negotiate something similar for the Class 321s that were compliant.

However as has been stated, even if they keep on the 170s and 156s on the local lines to free up the FLIRTS there will still be a large shortfall. This I'm told will be made up in part by increase the intensity in which the trains are used, increasing the percentage of a fleet in use at peak time and reforming all existing EMUs to a maximum of 8 carriages and a reduction in some 8 car services to 4 car services.

In reality though the government are going to have to grant some exceptions because otherwise the rail service is going to fall through the floor overnight at the end of 2019.

Ireland? Admittedly I don't know how difficult things are over there but the DMU crisis here is bad enough without sending units unnecessarily overseas (even if not very far overseas) - I'll be very disappointed if that happens.

Are all the 156s fully PRM compliant now? There'll also be some 153s to displace presumably.

Even with the above, 5 153s will need to be covered for, leaving you with 33 Flirts left over. If the 379s are fully displaced on StanEx by 745s before the deadline (even that's going to be tight), you have 114 EMUs left over (9 of which being 3-car Flirts they could presumably use for branch lines), to replace the current 182-strong non-StanEx fleet. Even dropping every 12-car peak service down to 8 isn't going to cover a shortfall of that size, they'll have to take quite a few services out of the peak timetable as well. If GA were the only TOC in this sort of predicament I would predict dark times ahead but as it stands, I can't see that level of chaos being permitted.