The Pain of London Overground

[Harlan Cage]

Interesting viewing for anyone complaining about London Overground... Silverlink Metropolis: shabby, unreliable, unsafe and overcrowded

No one mourned the passing of Silverlink and look at that awful livery!

HC

 

[sarahj]

No one mourned the passing of Silverlink and look at that awful livery!

HC

I still remember waiting at Brondesbury Park one night waiting for a train when going to home work . The CIS counted down, yeahhh train. No train and the CIS reset itself and started to count down to the next train in 30 mins. It was based on the timetable, not real time, so was a complete waste of time.

So it was a walk down to Queens Park and a way back to Barking via the tube.
Great times..

 

[Alan White]

On a busy metro line, total passenger capacity is more important than numbers of seats. The average journey time per passenger on LO must be less than 30 minutes.

Important to whom? Certainly not to me: I don't want to stand for an average of thirty minutes and in any case I paid the same - or possibly more - as someone who has a seat.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Apart from being absolutely packed (I can take this for a short journey)

Can many of the LO routes handle more coaches then what the trains already have anyway?

 

[NSEFAN]

Important to whom? Certainly not to me: I don't want to stand for an average of thirty minutes and in any case I paid the same - or possibly more - as someone who has a seat.

If the choice is between getting on a train with no seats vs not getting on at all, which would you prefer? And how much you pay for a ticket doesn't determine if you'll get a seat or not. Last time I checked LOROL don't do advance fares.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Important to whom? Certainly not to me

Would you rather be standing on a train or standing on a platform because you couldn't fit on a train?

Overground trains are designed to get as many people on as possible. And looking at the crush loadings on the ELL, that's completely the correct choice.

Would you rather have Silverlink back?

 

[GatwickDepress]

Interesting viewing for anyone complaining about London Overground... Silverlink Metropolis: shabby, unreliable, unsafe and overcrowded

Wembley Central is still a depressing horrid black hole... not even TfL's magic wand could fix that!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Wembley Central is still a depressing horrid black hole... not even TfL's magic wand could fix that!

The toilets are nice now though.

 

[TheNewNo2]

While I understand the frustration of people who can't get a seat on the Overground, you don't generally see this much complaining about the Met Line, which is more or less the same rolling stock when it comes down to it.

You can't run a railway which caters to everyone, you have to choose the option which is least worst for the most people. For a service like the Overground, that means being able to fit as many people as possible onboard, and as most are unlikely to be travelling very far a lack of seats isn't a big issue. If you tried adding more seats then you'd lose capacity, and it would make everyone's journey more inconvenient.

The Overground is a metro line, you can't expect intercity seating.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Wembley Central is still a depressing horrid black hole... not even TfL's magic wand could fix that!

Ugh, I went there last week, the place is quite literally a black hole, and you can't even get onto the main line platforms! South Kenton, now thats's a nice place.

 

[GatwickDepress]

The toilets are nice now though.

When the toilets are the nicest thing about the place...

Glad the Southern and London Midland platforms aren't blocked off with hazard tape now. It didn't make the most effective or confident velvet rope.

 

[Mikey C]

The 378s do a job, but the longitudinal seating plus the relatively shallow windows do rather restrict visibility, and make looking out a rather painful exercise. The S7/S8 trains are far nicer in that respect, they feel a lot more airy, and have softer more comfy seats!

The Overground has been a massive success, the Westfield shopping centre does generate a lot of traffic on the West London Line now, as it's such a convenient way for many to go there.

 

[bicbasher]

I've noticed a lot more LO bashing on here, especially since TfL took over the WA routes recently, especially from people who prefer the franchise model over the concession one.

As a regular on the ELL, it does the job, most journeys I use on it are around 10-15 mins which is enough time to stand-up or sit on the Class 378 seats, plus they're air-conditioned compared to a Southern class 455. The longitude seating allows for more passengers to get on during the peaks.

Take the section between NXG and West Croydon/Crystal Palace where LO have achieved getting the majority of passengers away from London Bridge during the Thameslink works and yet has been a victim of it's own success when they've attracted more visitors to the areas in both East and South London. Horniman Museum in Forest Hill regularly has school parties from East London who would have never visited pre 2010.

 

[VauxhallandI]

I think the main problem is that the Southbury Loop line is not often standing room only at the moment. The main load is only Edmonton Green to Seven Sisters.

The danger is that the remainder of the journey now won't have enough seats on the new units where there wasn't a problem on the old units.

Could be wrong but a possibility.

The air con will be a god send, if you do have to stand it is far more palatable in those conditions than in the sweat boxes we have at the moment.

 

[Olaf]

Perhaps it's a case of the honeymoon period being over.

It was a relatively easy win but as has been touched on, there is still a lot more that could and probably should be done, if only there were the funds available.

 

[Tubby Isaacs]

The routes used by LO have traditionally been slow. They could probably go faster but would require more work from NR to provide infrastructure that's up to the job. Also, unlike LUL, they are a TOC and so are penalised for every minute of delay. I wouldn't be surprised if the timetable has a lot of padding to ensure reliability.

A longtime lurker writes: I'd be interested to hear what infrastructure improvements would be needed.

One thing lurking has taught me is that there's usually a good reason why things are as they are. But crike, LO feels slow to me too.

 

[TheNewNo2]

When the toilets are the nicest thing about the place...

Glad the Southern and London Midland platforms aren't blocked off with hazard tape now. It didn't make the most effective or confident velvet rope.

It was hazard tape last week.

 

[plcd1]

Slightly surprised to see so much criticism of the original Overground network. Yes it is extremely busy at peak times and well patronised off peak. Would we prefer it to be running around half empty with people threatening to make service cuts? Looking at the great photo collection do we want a return to Silverlink standards of operational competence? I'd suggest not.

I also don't understand the infrastructure comments either. Large sections of the NLL were completely rebuilt over several blockades. The GOBLIN has also had blockades plus recent bridge rebuilds to remove PSRs and will probably be blockaded again for electrification works. I agree the approach at Clapham Junction is very slow but those lines have been left to rot for years given the non existent / poor rail service and who cares if a freight train has to crawl? The challenge now will be whether the bridges can ever be replaced / refurbished to allow better running speeds and who will fund the work.

The relatively low running speeds don't seem to be a cause of mass complaint from the passengers as the service typically runs to time and is not disrupted too much. Therefore people can trust it. Yes the timetable is padded to ensure good performance stats and recovery but show me a TOC that doesn't do clever things with the timetable.

There are obviously serious capacity concerns into the future but at least TfL understand that and are doing work both in a wider context of rail overcrowding in London and to inform the next concession from Nov 2016. The big test is whether the money can be found to sustain the investment levels and how things like stations at Old Oak Common will influence demand levels.

 

[AM9]

The average journey time is of no interest to real passengers - the issue is your own journey time and whether the facilities are suitable for the actual journey being undertaken. I regard extended standing travel and sideways seated travel as a clear indication that civilization has taken a wrong turn somewhere along the way!

The average journey is the essence of planning a mass transport system. Amongst the total population of passengers are those who travel one or two stations for whom finding a seat ang sitting in it is more trouble than standing up and a few who go the whole distance. Given that the former group is probably far more numerous than latter, the configuration that provides plenty of standing space with adequate grab handles at the expense of some seating is much more responsible than cramming in a few more seats for the lucky ones and forcing the rest to pack in between seats or remain on the platform.
Sideways seating may not be ideal if the vehicle is accelerating and decelerating at random times, (as would be for a bus or a tram), but if trains on LO go so slow then that isn't as much an issue. It does, however provide a usable free-flow area for standees allowing them to optimise their standing space and not clutter the door areas, - a great improver of dwell times. Another benefit of longtitudonal seating is the virtual elimination of feet on them, - a disgusting habit practiced by rail passengers almost everywhere that facing transverse seating is provided.
Arguably, some members of our civilisation who decided to travel over the busiest routes at the busiest times, took a wrong-turn when they decided that the resulting inconveniences to them were all somebody else's fault. They are part of the problem.

 

[Class 170101]

The GOBLIN has also had blockades plus recent bridge rebuilds to remove PSRs and will probably be blockaded again for electrification works.

December 2015 to May 2016 most weekends closed, from May to September 2016 continuous blockade Woodgrange Park to South Tottenham and from September to December 2016 All the T&H is blocked Woodgrange Park to Gospel Oak, according to NR Rules of the Route.

 

[Philip C]

The average journey is the essence of planning a mass transport system. Amongst the total population of passengers are those who travel one or two stations for whom finding a seat ang sitting in it is more trouble than standing up and a few who go the whole distance. Given that the former group is probably far more numerous than latter, the configuration that provides plenty of standing space with adequate grab handles at the expense of some seating is much more responsible than cramming in a few more seats for the lucky ones and forcing the rest to pack in between seats or remain on the platform.
Sideways seating may not be ideal if the vehicle is accelerating and decelerating at random times, (as would be for a bus or a tram), but if trains on LO go so slow then that isn't as much an issue. It does, however provide a usable free-flow area for standees allowing them to optimise their standing space and not clutter the door areas, - a great improver of dwell times. Another benefit of longtitudonal seating is the virtual elimination of feet on them, - a disgusting habit practiced by rail passengers almost everywhere that facing transverse seating is provided.
Arguably, some members of our civilisation who decided to travel over the busiest routes at the busiest times, took a wrong-turn when they decided that the resulting inconveniences to them were all somebody else's fault. They are part of the problem.

Perhaps you would be even happier if seats were removed altogether and elderly people who wish to make lengthy journeys on these trains stayed at home? It may or may not be inevitable that an arrangement which offers a view of fellow passengers' middle regions, rather than of the outside world, be adopted on these trains, but I for one lament that this is the case and do not regard it as a pleasant circumstance.

Why should I rejoice in this most uncomfortable manner of travel which is, in large part, due to the ridiculously low fares which apply for travel over many sections of the London Overground (eg. Clapham Junction to Stratford £1.70 Oyster Peak Single)?

I deeply apologise for being part of the problem and for having an opinion. I trust that you continue to enjoy using these trains.

Finally I would contend that "the average journey is not the essence of planning a mass transport system" whatever your statement was meant to imply. It is simply not that simple.

 

[plcd1]

December 2015 to May 2016 most weekends closed, from May to September 2016 continuous blockade Woodgrange Park to South Tottenham and from September to December 2016 All the T&H is blocked Woodgrange Park to Gospel Oak, according to NR Rules of the Route.

Thank you for that info - that's very interesting. I have asked TfL, in their regular Overground Twitter sessions, about blockades and electrification and they have been extremely non commital about any closures. I think I can see why given the scale of disruption the above entails. I think there are going to be a lot of pretty annoyed people given the vast numbers stuffed into peak time trains and the slow progress any rail replacement service would make in peak traffic conditions. Looks like my end of the GOBLIN has no service for 7 months which is a very long time even though I recognise the complexity of installing the catenary on the very long brick viaducts from Queens Road eastwards.

 

[transmanche]

Perhaps you would be even happier if seats were removed all together and elderly people who wish to make lengthy journeys on these trains stayed at home?

It's really no different from a hypothetical elderly person who wants to travel from Cockfosters to Heathrow - a journey of almost 1hour 30mins. Longitudinal seating, lots of standing room, no toilets.

"But that's the tube!" you say? But that's exactly what LO is in TfL's eyes - a metro service no different to the tube.

(Let's be honest, it's only 'politics' which meant the lines taken over weren't branded 'Underground' - like the ex-LNER routes on the Northern and Central lines.)

 

[AM9]

Perhaps you would be even happier if seats were removed altogether and elderly people who wish to make lengthy journeys on these trains stayed at home? It may or may not be inevitable that an arrangement which offers a view of fellow passengers' middle regions, rather than of the outside world, be adopted on these trains, but I for one lament that this is the case and do not regard it as a pleasant circumstance.

Speaking as an 'elderly person', I do use the trains when appropriate and I find them well suited to the patronage ofthe route that they are used on. As far as a view is concerned, yes of course many like to see what is outside the train they are travelling on, but the vies of fellow passengers' middle regions (in a warm/air conditioned train) beat the static view of a station for an extra 30 minutes waiting for a train with enough room to squeeze in before the doors close.

Why should I rejoice in this most uncomfortable manner of travel which is, in large part, due to the ridiculously low fares which apply for travel over many sections of the London Overground (eg. Clapham Junction to Stratford £1.70 Oyster Peak Single)?

Are you saying that the train is crowded because the fare isn't expensive enough, or just moaning that too many other people are joining your train?

I deeply apologise for being part of the problem and for having an opinion. I trust that you continue to enjoy using these trains.

Now that's just being petulent. Most of my fellow passengers seem to be quite satisfied with the trains, - mind you they probably aren't all train enthusiasts, so see the trains as a means to an end.

Finally I would contend that "the average journey is not the essence of planning a mass transport system" whatever your statement was meant to imply. It is simply not that simple.

In the absence of viable infrastructure improvement opportunities, the limited paths mean that rolling stock has to be selected to deliver the most important requirement, capacity. That takes priority over providing comfortable seating just for the few who make much longer than average journeys. In essence, it is that simple, its the same in the NY subway, the Paris Metro, the Hong Kong MTR, The Singapore MRT, etc. I could go on. All of the above are world class systems, with journeys over 1 hour duration and rolling stock with longtitudonal seating. The last two have been largely built from scratch in the last three decades so that is considered as the preferred style of seating by intent. So why should LO be different?

 

[LeeLivery]

While I understand the frustration of people who can't get a seat on the Overground, you don't generally see this much complaining about the Met Line, which is more or less the same rolling stock when it comes down to it.

Problem is the Met Line have airy 8 car S stocks with 2+Long seating, while the 378s are 4-5 car, uncomfortable and more overcrowded than the S8s ever are. Being on a S8 to Amersham isn't bad, being on a 378 to Watford is horrible.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
My main issue with LO is the PR arrogance and lack of communication when things go wrong. The PR I've already been over. Whenever there are major delays they give out terribly vague info or pretty much say "well we haven't been informed about delays, go away - we're brilliant!". TfL need to realise this is not the London Underground, minor delays on the tube is like 5 mins, but on LO they've said that for up to 20 mins and cancellations. It is not good enough.

As for the fleet, 5 car 378s can't last long. If usage continues to rise like it has, then they really should look into 7-8 cars and platform lengthening.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've noticed a lot more LO bashing on here, especially since TfL took over the WA routes recently, especially from people who prefer the franchise model over the concession one.

As a regular on the ELL, it does the job, most journeys I use on it are around 10-15 mins which is enough time to stand-up or sit on the Class 378 seats, plus they're air-conditioned compared to a Southern class 455. The longitude seating allows for more passengers to get on during the peaks.

No one likes the current franchise model. LO has its problems and it seems to me that until now, they were getting away with things that other operators get totally blasted for.

Southern has overcrowding on its lines, people hate it and say "please Boris take over Southern", even though LO is more crowded! Train gets delayed: "please TfL take over Southeastern". Yes, because there are no delays on LO:roll:

This week (well last week), LO took three days to apologise for the medley short formations on the Liverpool Street lines - how can anyone say that is good enough? They even removed the number of coaches from dep boards, which is something they stupidly done on the Sydenham corridor too. If I was cynical I would say they hoped no one would notice half a train or hoped that no one would notice that Southern run up to 10 cars...

 

[87015]

This week (well last week), LO took three days to apologise for the medley short formations on the Liverpool Street lines - how can anyone say that is good enough? They even removed the number of coaches from dep boards. If I was cynical I would say they hoped no one would notice half a train...

Reliably informed the formations are not being shown because GA still control all the screens at stations as they havent got the IT up to where it needs to be for migration to LO as planned. Presume there has to be comms issues between the two for getting GA to update the screens.

No sign of cancellations today so Sunday driver issue looks to have been solved somewhat quicker than most similar 'disputes' ie LM

 

[LeeLivery]

In the absence of viable infrastructure improvement opportunities, the limited paths mean that rolling stock has to be selected to deliver the most important requirement, capacity. That takes priority over providing comfortable seating just for the few who make much longer than average journeys. In essence, it is that simple, its the same in the NY subway, the Paris Metro, the Hong Kong MTR, The Singapore MRT, etc. I could go on. All of the above are world class systems, with journeys over 1 hour duration and rolling stock with longtitudonal seating. The last two have been largely built from scratch in the last three decades so that is considered as the preferred style of seating by intent. So why should LO be different?

London Overground is not the equivalent to the NY subway or the Paris Metro. LO is the equivalent to the LIRR, Translien or Sydney Trains. Especially as it gains more lines.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Reliably informed the formations are not being shown because GA still control all the screens at stations as they havent got the IT up to where it needs to be for migration to LO as planned. Presume there has to be comms issues between the two for getting GA to update the screens.

I wasn't aware of that however, I don't expect it back. I edited above to say that they LO did the same on the Sydenham corridor last year. We don't know how long any train is now. They don't even say "A and B have short platforms" If get on at car 10 of a 377 formation, you wouldn't know you have to go to car 7 to leave the train at West Norwood until 2 mins (if that) before arriving!

 

[306024]

Reliably informed the formations are not being shown because GA still control all the screens at stations as they havent got the IT up to where it needs to be for migration to LO as planned. Presume there has to be comms issues between the two for getting GA to update the screens.

Not wishing to make excuses but simply pointing out there is an enormous amount of work required to migrate all sorts of IT systems away from AGA, some of which by their nature can't be done in advance, and some can't happen at all while AGA still maintain the class 315s and 317s.

Transferring one part of AGA to an existing organisation (LOROL) and at the same time another part to a totally new organisation (MTR) is a huge IT challenge. It isn't simply just a case of repainting a few trains.

 

[TheNewNo2]

Not wishing to make excuses but simply pointing out there is an enormous amount of work required to migrate all sorts of IT systems away from AGA, some of which by their nature can't be done in advance, and some can't happen at all while AGA still maintain the class 315s and 317s.

Transferring one part of AGA to an existing organisation (LOROL) and at the same time another part to a totally new organisation (MTR) is a huge IT challenge. It isn't simply just a case of repainting a few trains.

Tube Lines was brought back into the London Underground fold two years ago, so far the only IT integration we've seen is that our desktop no longer has the Tube Lines logo.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Problem is the Met Line have airy 8 car S stocks with 2+Long seating, while the 378s are 4-5 car, uncomfortable and more overcrowded than the S8s ever are. Being on a S8 to Amersham isn't bad, being on a 378 to Watford is horrible.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
My main issue with LO is the PR arrogance and lack of communication when things go wrong. The PR I've already been over. Whenever there are major delays they give out terribly vague info or pretty much say "well we haven't been informed about delays, go away - we're brilliant!". TfL need to realise this is not the London Underground, minor delays on the tube is like 5 mins, but on LO they've said that for up to 20 mins and cancellations. It is not good enough.

As for the fleet, 5 car 378s can't last long. If usage continues to rise like it has, then they really should look into 7-8 cars and platform lengthening.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


No one likes the current franchise model. LO has its problems and it seems to me that until now, they were getting away with things that other operators get totally blasted for.

Southern has overcrowding on its lines, people hate it and say "please Boris take over Southern", even though LO is more crowded! Train gets delayed: "please TfL take over Southeastern". Yes, because there are no delays on LO:roll:

This week (well last week), LO took three days to apologise for the medley short formations on the Liverpool Street lines - how can anyone say that is good enough? They even removed the number of coaches from dep boards, which is something they stupidly done on the Sydenham corridor too. If I was cynical I would say they hoped no one would notice half a train or hoped that no one would notice that Southern run up to 10 cars...

Would LO be better off going for a big order of dual-voltage 8 or 9 car Movias to replace their existing stock and to provide extra services on lines that have the capacity for more services (the NLL is probably one that couldn't have any extra services)?

 

[Philip C]

Speaking as an 'elderly person', I do use the trains when appropriate and I find them well suited to the patronage ofthe route that they are used on. As far as a view is concerned, yes of course many like to see what is outside the train they are travelling on, but the vies of fellow passengers' middle regions (in a warm/air conditioned train) beat the static view of a station for an extra 30 minutes waiting for a train with enough room to squeeze in before the doors close.

Are you saying that the train is crowded because the fare isn't expensive enough, or just moaning that too many other people are joining your train?

Now that's just being petulent. Most of my fellow passengers seem to be quite satisfied with the trains, - mind you they probably aren't all train enthusiasts, so see the trains as a means to an end.

In the absence of viable infrastructure improvement opportunities, the limited paths mean that rolling stock has to be selected to deliver the most important requirement, capacity. That takes priority over providing comfortable seating just for the few who make much longer than average journeys. In essence, it is that simple, its the same in the NY subway, the Paris Metro, the Hong Kong MTR, The Singapore MRT, etc. I could go on. All of the above are world class systems, with journeys over 1 hour duration and rolling stock with longtitudonal seating. The last two have been largely built from scratch in the last three decades so that is considered as the preferred style of seating by intent. So why should LO be different?

I think re-reading of my postings on this subject will show that I accept that longitudinal seating may be appropriate to (some) LO lines. This doesn't make me dislike it any less.

Fares are very low on some LO routes due to their circumferential nature and the simplicity of the TfL fare zones. Where else in the UK can you travel 18 miles (as per NRT Table 59 from Stratford to Clapham Junction) for £1.70 in the peak (Oyster) or seemingly for free, even in the morning peak, if you qualify for the Freedom Pass? My contention is that with these fare levels it is hardly surprising that loadings are heavy. This is a very large part in the so-called "success" of the LO and of why it is popular with the public. This is an observation and not a moan!

You have described me as being part of the problem and now petulent (sic) - how am I expected to react to this?

I would point out that there are many counter-examples of busy railways which have not gone down the no-transverse seating road; other posters have drawn attention to some of these.

I have tried the new LO stock and am not attracted to make further use of it. Fortunately I live well outside the metropolis and this is easily achieved. If I lived in areas where TfL aspires to control suburban operation I would be rather concerned.