SouthEastern franchise direct award through to 1 April 2020 (& franchise competition terminated)

[OxtedSignaller]

I do believe that Metro services should be split off in some way across Southern and Southeastern they seem to be unloved and unprioritised compared to mainline operations. Also the transfer of routes into Thameslink is starting to unbalance the numbers. However as said there is no planned remapping of franchise routes because where there is overlapping services I could see scope to rejig the whole South East area route allocation. Whilst GTR was always destined to be broken up I believe that if it had worked well and was successful it would have been kept together. It's going to be a messy break up as so many functions are centralised, management staff are employed by the franchise not individual brands, stations with majority Thameslink services now days such as Redhill route and BML are managed by Southern, you have Southern and Thameslink staff based at each other's stations which from what I have heard could cause issues with TUPE etc etc. Would make sense for Tonbridge line to be transferred back to SE for a start.

 

[Metal_gee_man]

I do believe that Metro services should be split off in some way across Southern and Southeastern they seem to be unloved and unprioritised compared to mainline operations. Also the transfer of routes into Thameslink is starting to unbalance the numbers. However as said there is no planned remapping of franchise routes because where there is overlapping services I could see scope to rejig the whole South East area route allocation. Whilst GTR was always destined to be broken up I believe that if it had worked well and was successful it would have been kept together. It's going to be a messy break up as so many functions are centralised, management staff are employed by the franchise not individual brands, stations with majority Thameslink services now days such as Redhill route and BML are managed by Southern, you have Southern and Thameslink staff based at each other's stations which from what I have heard could cause issues with TUPE etc etc. Would make sense for Tonbridge line to be transferred back to SE for a start.

When you think of all the rail services that operate within the TFL charging remit, and some of the routes that could be opened up (from a cross London/circular respect) it'd be useful to de-centralise all the metro services to reduce congestion at our mainline stations, run them all under one banner etc... But with all the will in the world it'll never happen!
And yes Tonbridge to Redhill should be given back to SE unless Southern are prepared to run it Tonbridge to London Bridge again!

 

[KingJ]

I do believe that Metro services should be split off in some way across Southern and Southeastern they seem to be unloved and unprioritised compared to mainline operations

As a regular mainline user, it often feels the other way around! However, in reality i'm sure that prioritisation isn't done on Mainline vs Metro, but other metrics such as current delay, onward pathing etc (and sometimes, it happens that there's no metric-based prioritisation at all, just whichever service happens to reach the junction first).

That said, it would be good to see Metro devolved to TfL in the long term. I don't consider it at all likely in the upcoming franchise though given there was zero mention of it in the invitation to tender, zero mention from any of the bidders/TfL and TfL's ongoing financial woes. Who knows though, maybe i'll be eating these words when the award is announced!

Tonbridge to Redhill should definitely go back under SE. Although the services are often crewed by SE crews, it really doesn't feel like Southern's management consider it a priority - something which has been especially evident in the last few months with incredibly high levels of cancellations and bustitution. It's a line that also has a lot of potential to facilitate improved links through to Gatwick, but i'll avoid getting the crayons out just yet!

 

[Metal_gee_man]

As a regular mainline user, it often feels the other way around! However, in reality i'm sure that prioritisation isn't done on Mainline vs Metro, but other metrics such as current delay, onward pathing etc (and sometimes, it happens that there's no metric-based prioritisation at all, just whichever service happens to reach the junction first).

Interesting after getting berated on Twitter this was Network Rail SE's reply about their decision processes!



Readable here also:

https://twitter.com/NetworkRailSE/status/1085943165255929857?s=19

 

[ComUtoR]

An interesting and well written response and gives some insight to the regulation process. There are some other considerations to make too but are more on the technical side.

Regulation is a nightmare. I think the best way to resolve it will be to mitigate junction conflicts.

 

[KingJ]

Regulation is a nightmare. I think the best way to resolve it will be to mitigate junction conflicts.

Agreed, although it's certainly something that would likely be quite challenging unless either the diversity of terminals on each route was given up (which wasn't a popular move in previous consultations), or if many of the flat junctions were converted to flying ones (expensive and quite possibly physically infeasible in most places?). Stuck between a rock and a hard place with no easy fixes.

 

[ComUtoR]

Stuck between a rock and a hard place with no easy fixes.

A lot of work was done to mitigate it but as you say, it's unpopular.

I'm not a planner and certainly not a fan of armchair crayons but a simple start would be to path a Charing Cross with a Cannon street through Parks Bridge instead of the constant clash across the junction. The Charing Cross can whizz up the fast and down diveunder and the Cannon can swing round through St Johns and New Cross. Or Route via Lewisham. Same with the Sidcup. Anything coming off the Sidcup can come up the slow and and conflict can take the points across to the fast removing any conflicting moves.

I don't know how paths are created or planned out but surely they should work outwards from the point of conflict ?

The service requirements baffle me but they appear to be more concerned about trains per hour and stopping patterns than actual paths and routes. One day I'd like to have a long drink with a planner.

 

[Class 170101]

Interestinger and interestinger... I'm fully expecting them to split metro operations off from the coastal stuff. Either they'll do it straight off the bat or have an interim phase while they gear up for it. Driver and guard wise, it's effectively two different franchises anyway with coastal and metro staff not having a huge amount to do with one another.

They can ping Grove Park and Charing Cross's mainline work down to Tonbridge and Ashford, Gillingham and Faversham can pick up Vic's mainline work and those depots can palm their metro jobs off on Grove Park, Charing Cross and Vic. Half of Orpington can move across to Thameslink with the work and, hey presto, it's all good to go.

It would be inefficient to move Victoria's ML away from it due to its eary starts and late finishes. It is more likely the depot will be split in the same way Ilford was when Crossrail started and Chingford was when LOROL (now ARL) came along. Ilford now has separate crew depots for both GA and Crossrail. Chingford's work to Cambridge, Hertford and Stansted moved to a new depot at Liverpool Street.

 

[ABB125]

Interesting after getting berated on Twitter this was Network Rail SE's reply about their decision processes!

View attachment 58354 View attachment 58355 View attachment 58356 View attachment 58357 View attachment 58358 View attachment 58359

Readable here also:

https://twitter.com/NetworkRailSE/status/1085943165255929857?s=19

Sorry to go off topic but do you know if that map at around tweet 7 is in the public domain?

 

[bionic]

It would be inefficient to move Victoria's ML away from it due to its eary starts and late finishes.

Some of the earliest and latest trains in and out of Vic are worked by Gillingham drivers anyway. There's only one or two trains very early and very late that would need to go on a night turn for Gillingham, Ashford or Faversham (maybe they are already?) and that problem is solved. It's certainly not an insurmountable issue and could be done easily if the will was there.

 

[bionic]

Sorry to go off topic but do you know if that map at around tweet 7 is in the public domain?

Have you tried the Traksy website or Open Train Times?

 

[ABB125]

Have you tried the Traksy website or Open Train Times?

Yes, but they only show one or two lines. I'd quite like to see a diagram of the whole area if it's possible.

 

[FlippyFF]

Yes, but they only show one or two lines. I'd quite like to see a diagram of the whole area if it's possible.

Does this show what you need?

http://carto.metro.free.fr/metro-london/

Simon

 

[ABB125]

Sort of, but, much as I like geographic maps, for that level of detail I think a diagrammatic map is easier to understand.

 

[HH]

That said, it would be good to see Metro devolved to TfL in the long term. I don't consider it at all likely in the upcoming franchise though given there was zero mention of it in the invitation to tender, zero mention from any of the bidders/TfL and TfL's ongoing financial woes. Who knows though, maybe i'll be eating these words when the award is announced!

No chance. Grayling specifically ruled it out and TfL no longer are even pushing for it, because they know they couldn't afford to take it on. One for the long grass...

 

[jnjkerbin]

Sort of, but, much as I like geographic maps, for that level of detail I think a diagrammatic map is easier to understand.

They did tweet a view showing a larger area some weeks back but I don't believe the map as a whole is in the public domain:
https://twitter.com/NetworkRailSE/status/1073604156718542854
https://twitter.com/NetworkRailSE/status/1073604156718542854

 

[ABB125]

They did tweet a view showing a larger area some weeks back but I don't believe the map as a whole is in the public domain:
https://twitter.com/NetworkRailSE/status/1073604156718542854

Thanks, that's a shame.

 

[bionic]

Sort of, but, much as I like geographic maps, for that level of detail I think a diagrammatic map is easier to understand.

Trackmaps books (quail maps) are very good. Sadly the Southern one is about ten years out of date now.

 

[Class 170101]

Some of the earliest and latest trains in and out of Vic are worked by Gillingham drivers anyway. There's only one or two trains very early and very late that would need to go on a night turn for Gillingham, Ashford or Faversham (maybe they are already?) and that problem is solved. It's certainly not an insurmountable issue and could be done easily if the will was there.

Not a fan of night turns to be honest, they seem to be inefficient in my experience.

 

[computerSaysNo]

An interesting and well written response and gives some insight to the regulation process. There are some other considerations to make too but are more on the technical side.

Regulation is a nightmare. I think the best way to resolve it will be to mitigate junction conflicts.

Having studied the detailed maps (available at http://carto.metro.free.fr/metro-london/) I have created a map, showing possible routes of services if they were to be run to minimize junction conflicts. Minimizing conflicts, I feel, would allow an increase in trains operating over those lines and so less overcrowding. If people are interested then I can upload my map on here.

 

[ComUtoR]

They did tweet a view showing a larger area some weeks back but I don't believe the map as a whole is in the public domain:

The map has been bugging me for the past couple of days. Can anyone confirm that this is NOT public domain as I seem to have it and in its much more awesome format ?

 

[ComUtoR]

Sort of, but, much as I like geographic maps, for that level of detail I think a diagrammatic map is easier to understand.

For diagrammatic, have you tried the Sectional Appendix ?

 

[ABB125]

For diagrammatic, have you tried the Sectional Appendix ?

Yes, but that only shows one line at a time, rather than the whole network.

 

[Class 170101]

Having studied the detailed maps (available at http://carto.metro.free.fr/metro-london/) I have created a map, showing possible routes of services if they were to be run to minimize junction conflicts. Minimizing conflicts, I feel, would allow an increase in trains operating over those lines and so less overcrowding. If people are interested then I can upload my map on here.

There may be less overcrowding on trains but would stations cope with the additonal passengers that would come as a result of initial decreased overcrowding but would stations cope with the incrased interchanging where it would take place where it perhaps doesn't now.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

They did tweet a view showing a larger area some weeks back but I don't believe the map as a whole is in the public domain:
https://twitter.com/NetworkRailSE/status/1073604156718542854

I think that map may be out of date. Having a flick round it, Gravesend looks to me like the old track layout, prior to rebuilding the station. And the connection at Plumstead to the Crossrail tracks isn't there.

Interesting nontheless to see the entire SE network on one page. Thanks for sharing. And to NR for Tweeting it.

 

[bionic]

I think that map may be out of date. Having a flick round it, Gravesend looks to me like the old track layout, prior to rebuilding the station. And the connection at Plumstead to the Crossrail tracks isn't there.

Interesting nontheless to see the entire SE network on one page. Thanks for sharing. And to NR for Tweeting it.

The crossover London end of Catford Bridge was removed years ago but that's marked, while the crossover London end of Elmers End isn't shown when it should be.

Although the new Rochester layout seems to be reflected, which is curious considering Gravesend was remodelled quite a few years earlier and they haven't updated that!

Odd map.

 

[ComUtoR]

Odd map.

It's dated 2013. The working version has hyperlinks all over it so you can click directly to the specific route map. The cartometro map is also out of date and shows the Catford Bridge crossover and still has the old layout for Chislehurst.

Even the internal route maps struggle to get updated in a timely manner.

 

[KingJ]

A lot of work was done to mitigate it but as you say, it's unpopular.

I'm not a planner and certainly not a fan of armchair crayons but a simple start would be to path a Charing Cross with a Cannon street through Parks Bridge instead of the constant clash across the junction. The Charing Cross can whizz up the fast and down diveunder and the Cannon can swing round through St Johns and New Cross. Or Route via Lewisham. Same with the Sidcup. Anything coming off the Sidcup can come up the slow and and conflict can take the points across to the fast removing any conflicting moves.

I don't know how paths are created or planned out but surely they should work outwards from the point of conflict ?

The service requirements baffle me but they appear to be more concerned about trains per hour and stopping patterns than actual paths and routes. One day I'd like to have a long drink with a planner.

Would this shift some of the conflicts elsewhere instead - e.g. additional conflicts across the Lewisham diamond crossover (which isn't the most reliable bit of infrastructure), and at the base of the Tanners Hill flydown? From the DfT's perspective, I don't think it's in their interest to become overly prescriptive about paths and routes, but instead they're looking for the bidders to determine what routes, paths etc would be needed to achieve the passenger facing metrics (e.g. deliver 'x TPH' and 'PPM >y%'). It could be that bidders come back and say that it isn't possible to achieve without infrastructure changes, but it's likely better to get each of the bidders to think of how it may be possible rather than just the DfT. (Perhaps i'm looking at the bidding process in an overly optimistic/idealistic fashion though!).

I think ultimately however even with the best possible planning with clever flighting of paths to avoid conflicts across junctions, with the volume of trains along certain stretches already it only takes a delay of a minute or two for a service to miss their carefully flighted route and either be delayed itself awaiting a new route, or delay others (or both!). I can only really see proper grade separation as being the solution to reducing the wider impact of that but it's not at all a quick or cheap solution.

 

[ComUtoR]

Would this shift some of the conflicts elsewhere instead - e.g. additional conflicts across the Lewisham diamond crossover (which isn't the most reliable bit of infrastructure), and at the base of the Tanners Hill flydown?

If you pathed a Cannon Street round Parks Bridge it will also avoid a conflict at Tanners Hill. However, it was illustrative only.

The Lewisham crossovers can be resolved in a couple of ways. Firstly if you rationalised the routes so that anything coming up from the North Kent ONLY goes via St Johns and anything off the Mid Kent ONLY goes via the Up Lewisham. Nobody seems to like that option because it becomes too restrictive. The other Option is to link the services better. What I find most frustrating is that you are forever waiting for a service to cut across you. Why not join them up so that Up/Down services meet at Lewisham but your right in that the timings are so tight that a single minute can have consequences.

Poorly thought out timings are rife across the Network. A Classic example is an incoming Sevenoaks clashes with an outgoing Vic at Orpington to the Vic tends to leave late. Part of the reason why the Down Sevenoaks is late, is because the slow and the fast are approaching Orpington at the same time so the result is an approach control red which increases any delay. Bromley South does the same with fast and slow services leaving Bromley at the same time. Same with Services into Dartford clashing at Slade Green with services coming off the Bexleyheath. But again, as you say there are so many services that a clash somewhere along the route is inevitable.

I can only really see proper grade separation as being the solution to reducing the wider impact of that but it's not at all a quick or cheap solution.

But look what they do with the Ravensborne Chord. Surely that grade separation allows services to go up and down the loop whilst a service can take the Chatham. Yet you get conflicts; even when you're on time !

Surely passenger facing should include a service that doesn't generate delays and one that is designed to be more robust.

 

[Jimstar]

Does anyone have a rough idea when this franchise would be announced? I know there’s a 3 month lead in time for franchises... so wouldn’t that mean end of February latest?