The Pain of London Overground

[AM9]

Less than a quarter of road-related taxation is spent on building and maintaining roads. All other forms of transport are heavily subsidised by road taxation, much of it ineffectively. Consider the £6bn of public money spent on HS1 just so a few people could get to Paris fifteen minutes sooner. Then consider HS2...

Mea culpa - I think it's largely due to my postings that this thread is now well off topic. Perhaps we should end there or return to the subject of the slow and uncomfortable LO.

Just to close this off in this thread, roads are provisioned from general taxation.

 

[themeone]

Sometimes we have to wait for a Thameslink train to come down from Crystal Palace and cross over our line on to Platform 4.

I get the feeling that the re-routing of Thameslink via Crystal Palace has significantly added to the delays around Norwood Junction, and having previously had to commute on Thameslink I know they're often running late by the time they're past Crystal Palace southbound.

Although my usual Croydon bound overground train is almost always delayed outside Norwood Junction, I'm glad to say there have been relatively few delays the other wide of Norwood Jn at Windmill Junction. Don't know whether there's been a general improvement at Windmill Junction, or whether my particular train just strikes it lucky.

 

[gtr driver]

Quoted -"Here's another example: this morning - and probably every weekday - the 07:42 from RDG (2C18) had been sitting idle at the platform for over half an hour. Meanwhile, 5C89 comes empty all the way from Clapham Yard Sidings, without stopping. It arrives at RDG at 07:15 where it then forms the 07:24 from RDG to WAT. So there we have two eight coach trains doing nothing for two hours."

You will likely find that these trains are moved at these times because there are not available slots to get them to where they go into service at the right time. Trains may run fast empty because to stop would take longer and reduce the overall peak capacity. Southern often run trains in service in peak flow direction then back empty to start the same journey again - this providing extra seats when and where they are needed. TOCs don't like wasting rolling stock, they do these apparently illogical things because they don't have much flexibility with our overfilled network.

In a similar vein HS1 and 2 are not just about getting people somewhere a few minutes faster; they are about creating new capacity and freeing up paths on existing routes. The loss of Eurostar trains on the main Chatham line allowed a doubling of frequency on Vic-Orpington stoppers, for example.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I get the feeling that the re-routing of Thameslink via Crystal Palace has significantly added to the delays around Norwood Junction, and having previously had to commute on Thameslink I know they're often running late by the time they're past Crystal Palace southbound.

Although my usual Croydon bound overground train is almost always delayed outside Norwood Junction, I'm glad to say there have been relatively few delays the other wide of Norwood Jn at Windmill Junction. Don't know whether there's been a general improvement at Windmill Junction, or whether my particular train just strikes it lucky.

There are a whole host of delays round these parts at present. I can't remember the last time I worked a Vic-London Bridge rounder that wasn't held up between Palace and Sydenham by a LOROL train from West Croydon, this used to be quite rare. In the other direction a southbound LOROL train to Palace is frequently late leaving New Cross Gate and then I have to follow it all the way to Palace, where once we are two minutes late we have almost no hope of keeping to time. I don't know why two trains treading the same route are so close together.

As for the diverted Thameslinks...the bane of our lives! Almost guaranteed to hold you up going in and out of Norwood Junction and West Norwood Junction down is now seemingly held at danger by default to accommodate them going from Tulse Hill to West Norwood.

I do wonder whether it would have better to extend the Vic-Palace-Sutton trains to Epsom/Epsom Downs all day as they are after about 7pm anyway and use those paths on the faster Brighton slow line to accommodate the diverted Thameslinks. The Palace route seems the least logical way to send them - it's one long crawl of tight curves and low speed junctions!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The first is certainly a problem: an analogy is probably health and social care, which we as a country think are very important. Unfortunately we don't seem to want to pay the level of taxation which would ensure that they can be provided well, and the same is true of the railway, though in fares (as I don't believe in state subsidy). That said, a business does well to look at reducing costs before increasing prices as the former is less likely to alienate customers. So providing money for improvements isn't necessarily about higher fares.

As for the second, it's not about planning for growth as it's obvious that the railway can't cope with the existing requirements. First it would have to provide sufficient capacity or efficiency improvements for the present usage.

As I write this, in the height of the afternoon peak, I've been looking at opentraintimes and realtimetrains. In the 10km of track in the down direction between CLJ and RMD there are currently two trains, and there are three trains in the 15km from RMD to SNS. I find it hard to believe that 25km of track can accommodate only five trains.

In the meantime, there are trains currently at platforms at Waterloo which aren't due to depart for twenty minutes. This is about fifteen wasted minutes which could be used to start moving customers homeward meaning, once the schedule following has been adjusted accordingly, that the customers starting at Waterloo later would arrive home earlier and be more likely to have a pleasant journey, including a seat.

Much as I dislike his disdain for the people who pay his salary, I think that what the rail industry needs is a Michael O'Leary. If you can turn around a B737 in twenty-five minutes, including refuelling, I'm sure that a class 450, which doesn't require refuelling, doesn't need to stand at a Waterloo platform for twenty minutes. Like a plane, a train at a terminus isn't making money.

It's all about efficiency, and the railways aren't. Instead they're bound to an historic past which restricts progress and improvement which would be to the benefit of the customers.

In discussions like this I'm always reminded of the words of Henry Ford: "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got."

No, the railways are about moving lots of people safely and making a profit comes second. Efficiency sometimes has to take a back seat. Beware the o'Learys. It's people like them who brainwash us into believing that everything that was run by the state or had a strong Union presence MUST be inefficient and wasteful. Hence an aggressive bus company thinking it could make lots of wasteful spare drivers redundant only to find it couldn't run a service any more. South West Trains is now one of the most successful TOCs with the punters partly because they know that sometimes you have to invest to get results - consistent length trains so people know where to wait; new motors in old trains to keep them out of the workshop longer; full crew working to make it easier to recover from disruption. With rail you can do things cheaper but there is always a negative consequence - as we are now finding after decades of running it down. That's your historic past for you.

 

[Dr_Paul]

The fact of the matter is that transverse seats on the 378s would reduce standing capacity.

True enough. I was being a little less than serious in my original post. I don't suppose the ordinary passenger worries that much, and a big wide aisle makes boarding and alighting much easier. And these services get a lot of heavy use, especially at rush hour. I can recall when BR was thinking of closing the North London Line for passengers.

However, for the enthusiast they're not much fun especially when going along routes that were previously very rarely traversed, such as the 'down and under' at Clapham Junction, or are usually interesting, such as crossing over Willesden Junction.

 

[Antman]

True enough. I was being a little less than serious in my original post. I don't suppose the ordinary passenger worries that much, and a big wide aisle makes boarding and alighting much easier. And these services get a lot of heavy use, especially at rush hour. I can recall when BR was thinking of closing the North London Line for passengers.

However, for the enthusiast they're not much fun especially when going along routes that were previously very rarely traversed, such as the 'down and under' at Clapham Junction, or are usually interesting, such as crossing over Willesden Junction.

If you want to look out the window you're really better standing by the doors

 

[Mikey C]

True enough. I was being a little less than serious in my original post. I don't suppose the ordinary passenger worries that much, and a big wide aisle makes boarding and alighting much easier. And these services get a lot of heavy use, especially at rush hour. I can recall when BR was thinking of closing the North London Line for passengers.

However, for the enthusiast they're not much fun especially when going along routes that were previously very rarely traversed, such as the 'down and under' at Clapham Junction, or are usually interesting, such as crossing over Willesden Junction.

I found myself sitting sideways, and hoping that the people near me realised I was looking out of the window and not looking at them!

 

[AM9]

I found myself sitting sideways, and hoping that the people near me realised I was looking out of the window and not looking at them!

If the seating isn't completeley full you can pull down one of the tip-up seats leaving the next one forward of you up, and sit facing the direction of travel.

Obviously a no-no when the train is packed!

 

[infobleep]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


No, the railways are about moving lots of people safely and making a profit comes second. Efficiency sometimes has to take a back seat. Beware the o'Learys. It's people like them who brainwash us into believing that everything that was run by the state or had a strong Union presence MUST be inefficient and wasteful. Hence an aggressive bus company thinking it could make lots of wasteful spare drivers redundant only to find it couldn't run a service any more. South West Trains is now one of the most successful TOCs with the punters partly because they know that sometimes you have to invest to get results - consistent length trains so people know where to wait; new motors in old trains to keep them out of the workshop longer; full crew working to make it easier to recover from disruption. With rail you can do things cheaper but there is always a negative consequence - as we are now finding after decades of running it down. That's your historic past for you.

Has the extra investment in rolling stock come from South West Trains themselves or in partnership with others?

 

[Kristofferson]

Not sure, but no matter how much they spend on the trains, the infrastructure needs ripping out and starting again.

The amount of grade crossings on their lines means they get far too many, seemingly regular, person-under-train incidents. And because there is so little capacity on the lines, "service recovery" generally means "cancel half the trains and run the other ones fast from terminal to terminal for 2 hours".

They're doing what they can, but their network and reliability is awful.

 

[Robertj21a]

Not sure, but no matter how much they spend on the trains, the infrastructure needs ripping out and starting again.

The amount of grade crossings on their lines means they get far too many, seemingly regular, person-under-train incidents. And because there is so little capacity on the lines, "service recovery" generally means "cancel half the trains and run the other ones fast from terminal to terminal for 2 hours".

They're doing what they can, but their network and reliability is awful.

Are you saying that most (many ?) of the person-under-train incidents are directly related to the grade crossings ?

 

[Kristofferson]

Anecdotally, the SWT network seems to have a large number of grade crossings, which appears to correlate to a disproportionate number of PUT incidents.

Without wishing to open a "RailUK brand can o' worms", I'd suggest that reducing the amount of opportunities for pedestrian/train interface would reduce the amount of incidents...

Anyway, back to the Overground! It's awful but better than what went before

 

[jopsuk]

As far as I'm aware, most of the PUT incidents on SWT occur at stations or at bridges?

 

[CapitalStar378]

I'm genuinely flummoxed by the negative sentiment towards LO by some on here. I'm sure most are aware of the how bad the old Silverlink Metro was on all levels and how much of a step change LO has been. The SLL has gone from a 2tph 2-car Southern 456 to a 4tph 5-car 378 with better connections and is massively busier.

I'm sure commuters on the Valley lines would give their eye teeth to have something like LO instead of the screeching, ancient 2-car Pacers and investment starved stations!

 

[swt_passenger]

Thats one very nice way to look at it, but also very unrealistic. SWT could plan for their trains to have 5 minute turnarounds at Waterloo so people can have 'a pleasant journey' but what about when 2 trains being 6 minutes late (nothing too major atm) results in a meltdown of the evening peak? These trains will be at least 5 minutes late on their return journeys, so trains will be waiting for the platforms outside Waterloo with the next train waiting behind that. AFAIK, commuters don't really like delays (how unreasonable) and so your trade off of more seats in return for more delays wouldn't go down very well.

There's also safe management of the platform. With a 5 min turnaround the 1000 outgoing passengers wanting to get on the train would expect to be waiting alongside the train as it arrived, leaving no space for those wanting to get off.

 

[Robertj21a]

As far as I'm aware, most of the PUT incidents on SWT occur at stations or at bridges?

Yes, that was also my understanding, hence the need for clarification.

 

[Chris125]

Anecdotally, the SWT network seems to have a large number of grade crossings, which appears to correlate to a disproportionate number of PUT incidents.

I doubt there's any correlation at all, I'd have thought the majority would be deliberate acts undertaken from station platforms.

 

[Alan White]

The fact of the matter is that transverse seats on the 378s would reduce standing capacity.

Of course, but the more seats there are, the less the need for space to stand.

A couple of days ago I travelled on one of the new Circle/District line trains. The overall interior design is very similar to the 378 (empty box, walk through, few seats) but the improvement in the seat cushion was much appreciated even on the thirty minute journey from Edgware Road to Wimbledon. After an hour on the 378 - assuming one is lucky enough to have a seat the whole way - the posterior is numb.

And the District line train seemed to move at a respectable speed, which is odd as the average speed is clearly much the same as LO RMD-SRA. I think it's the difference in acceleration which gives a misleading impression as to the snail-like nature of LO.

[SWT are] doing what they can, but their network and reliability is awful.

I've already apologised for taking this thread off topic, but I must say I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that SWT's service isn't good. I'm only an occasional traveller - perhaps five or six trains a week - but my son commutes on SWT and between us and RTT we can see that many (most?) SW trains are late*. I'll excuse yesterday's delays because they were caused by a trespass incident at SNG.


* By a reasonable person's definition, not the fudge used by the industry.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Of course, but the more seats there are, the less the need for space to stand.

You can get more people on the train standing than you can if they're all sitting down.

The maximum length of train on the Overground is five carriages, as the core of the ELL won't take any more than that. The choice is capacity or comfort, and as it is a high-frequency metro service they've gone for capacity.

 

[bramling]

Of course, but the more seats there are, the less the need for space to stand.

A couple of days ago I travelled on one of the new Circle/District line trains. The overall interior design is very similar to the 378 (empty box, walk through, few seats) but the improvement in the seat cushion was much appreciated even on the thirty minute journey from Edgware Road to Wimbledon. After an hour on the 378 - assuming one is lucky enough to have a seat the whole way - the posterior is numb.

And the District line train seemed to move at a respectable speed, which is odd as the average speed is clearly much the same as LO RMD-SRA. I think it's the difference in acceleration which gives a misleading impression as to the snail-like nature of LO.



I've already apologised for taking this thread off topic, but I must say I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that SWT's service isn't good. I'm only an occasional traveller - perhaps five or six trains a week - but my son commutes on SWT and between us and RTT we can see that many (most?) SW trains are late*. I'll excuse yesterday's delays because they were caused by a trespass incident at SNG.


* By a reasonable person's definition, not the fudge used by the industry.

The District Line may move at a reasonable speed now - but I wouldn't be so sure after it gets resignalled with Thales Seltrac.

The Jubilee and Northern Lines are both affected by a major design flaw with this system, that if the train experiences wheel-slide (for example due to heavy braking on wet rails), the train will lose communications with the system and come to a stand and have to be 're-entered' into the system, which can take up to 10-15 minutes. The mitigation for this is to always use the gentlest braking rate in the open sections, resulting in painfully slow running times.

 

[fowler9]

Of course, but the more seats there are, the less the need for space to stand.

A couple of days ago I travelled on one of the new Circle/District line trains. The overall interior design is very similar to the 378 (empty box, walk through, few seats) but the improvement in the seat cushion was much appreciated even on the thirty minute journey from Edgware Road to Wimbledon. After an hour on the 378 - assuming one is lucky enough to have a seat the whole way - the posterior is numb.

And the District line train seemed to move at a respectable speed, which is odd as the average speed is clearly much the same as LO RMD-SRA. I think it's the difference in acceleration which gives a misleading impression as to the snail-like nature of LO.



I've already apologised for taking this thread off topic, but I must say I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that SWT's service isn't good. I'm only an occasional traveller - perhaps five or six trains a week - but my son commutes on SWT and between us and RTT we can see that many (most?) SW trains are late*. I'll excuse yesterday's delays because they were caused by a trespass incident at SNG.


* By a reasonable person's definition, not the fudge used by the industry.

Someone sitting down takes up more space.

 

[MCR247]

I've already apologised for taking this thread off topic, but I must say I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that SWT's service isn't good. I'm only an occasional traveller - perhaps five or six trains a week - but my son commutes on SWT and between us and RTT we can see that many (most?) SW trains are late*. I'll excuse yesterday's delays because they were caused by a trespass incident at SNG.


* By a reasonable person's definition, not the fudge used by the industry.

I find this really interesting. You say the SWT are always late yet you posted this earlier in the thread?

In the meantime, there are trains currently at platforms at Waterloo which aren't due to depart for twenty minutes. This is about fifteen wasted minutes which could be used to start moving customers homeward meaning, once the schedule following has been adjusted accordingly, that the customers starting at Waterloo later would arrive home earlier and be more likely to have a pleasant journey, including a seat.

So you think the service is already unreliable yet you think the turnaround times at Waterloo are too long?

 

[Olaf]

Going back to the OP; the LO is not really a comprehensive urban transit solution; it is just an attempt to make the best of what were under utilised assets, and to fill a political agenda.

Putting aside all the issues with design, construction, and cost of providing a compressive solution, there are still all the missing connections - e.g. the LO passes the Central line three times, but there are no integrated interchanges at any of those intersects. It is dog slow, nowhere near a rapid urban transit fit for London. It is also undersized for the capacity of the current and projected future population, and for the what might be the anticipated patronage if the interchanges were to be provided.

So if you if you think it is a great service you have been truly hoodwinked.

 

[bicbasher]

Going back to the OP; the LO is not really a comprehensive urban transit solution; it is just an attempt to make the best of what were under utilised assets, and to fill a political agenda.

Putting aside all the issues with design, construction, and cost of providing a compressive solution, there are still all the missing connections - e.g. the LO passes the Central line three times, but there are no integrated interchanges at any of those intersects. It is dog slow, nowhere near a rapid urban transit fit for London. It is also undersized for the capacity of the current and projected future population, and for the what might be the anticipated patronage if the interchanges were to be provided.

So if you if you think it is a great service you have been truly hoodwinked.

So for example, the ELL doesn't connect with the Jubilee at Canada Water, the Victoria at Highbury and Islington, District & H&C at Whitechapel and later Crossrail from 2018.

It may be "dog slow" compared to a fast from East Croydon to Victoria on Southern in comparison to West Croydon to Canada Water on the ELL, but it does the job of a stopping urban rail service.

 

[Class 170101]

Putting aside all the issues with design, construction, and cost of providing a compressive solution, there are still all the missing connections - e.g. the LO passes the Central line three times, but there are no integrated interchanges at any of those intersects. It is dog slow, nowhere near a rapid urban transit fit for London. It is also undersized for the capacity of the current and projected future population, and for the what might be the anticipated patronage if the interchanges were to be provided.

Some of these misses are historic. Leyton for example was built by two separate private railway companies unlikely to be sharing any of the same infrastructure. Some railways were also built as freight arteries, passengers were an afterthought.

The other issue is where to physically put them. You can't just dump them on someone's house, office etc and expect them to go quietly.

 

[Tetchytyke]

So if you if you think it is a great service you have been truly hoodwinked.

I remember what was there before: Silverlink's managed decline on the NLL and the DC lines and the ELL using life-expired A-stock.

As for the lack of intersection with the central line, it's a short walk in Leyton and Acton. The fact the central line is somewhere under Shoreditch doesn't make it possible to build a new station.

 

[plcd1]

Going back to the OP; the LO is not really a comprehensive urban transit solution; it is just an attempt to make the best of what were under utilised assets, and to fill a political agenda.

Putting aside all the issues with design, construction, and cost of providing a compressive solution, there are still all the missing connections - e.g. the LO passes the Central line three times, but there are no integrated interchanges at any of those intersects. It is dog slow, nowhere near a rapid urban transit fit for London. It is also undersized for the capacity of the current and projected future population, and for the what might be the anticipated patronage if the interchanges were to be provided.

So if you if you think it is a great service you have been truly hoodwinked.

Goodness. I must wish to be "hoodwinked" more often to ensure we get good quality urban rail services that attract sustained capital investment to raise capacity and keep people moving.

I really don't understand all this criticism of London Overground's service or the "service package" as put together by TfL. If the trains were empty all day and people hated the service then perhaps I might understand the criticism but that's not my experience of using the Overground.

 

[samuelmorris]

The District Line may move at a reasonable speed now - but I wouldn't be so sure after it gets resignalled with Thales Seltrac.

The Jubilee and Northern Lines are both affected by a major design flaw with this system, that if the train experiences wheel-slide (for example due to heavy braking on wet rails), the train will lose communications with the system and come to a stand and have to be 're-entered' into the system, which can take up to 10-15 minutes. The mitigation for this is to always use the gentlest braking rate in the open sections, resulting in painfully slow running times.

This is a little off-topic, but I don't think it's as simple as that - yes, the minimum deceleration is used outside which slows things a little bit, but I've been on board a service in heavy rain that's suffered severe wheelslip on braking and cut the regen, yet still departed the station in a timely manner.

Having used the SSL services on an almost daily basis for a few years under S stock tenure, I'm pretty certain that on the whole upgrading to ATO is going to speed things up. The station spacing may be tight, but comparing the leisurely pace of sections like Barbican - Farringdon with short JLE sections like Waterloo - Southwark, it's enormously different.

As for LO services, this is something I picked up on, mainly in the East London line sections, acceleration is particularly slow and I don't really understand why.

 

[bicbasher]

I really don't understand all this criticism of London Overground's service or the "service package" as put together by TfL. If the trains were empty all day and people hated the service then perhaps I might understand the criticism but that's not my experience of using the Overground.

The only real complaint that I have about LO is the reduction of late evening and Sunday morning services on the ELL to 2tph per branch.

Yet I don't know anyone outside of this forum locally who'd like to see the old Southern service of 6tph return in-comparison to the 12tph (8 LOROL, 4 Southern) that exists now. A real tube-style turn up and go service between NXG and Sydenham that didn't exist pre May 2010.

 

[HH]

LO2 will probably see increased services on most of the 2tph lines to 4tph.

I've seen the satisfaction scores and it's pretty clear that most passengers appreciate the investment made by TfL in these lines.

Let's not forget however, who is paying for that investment. Just like all the extras that ScotRail get, it's all government spending.

And let's also ask if it can be found by TfL, why can't it be found by DfT?

 

[Clip]

As for LO services, this is something I picked up on, mainly in the East London line sections, acceleration is particularly slow and I don't really understand why.

Well it has to keep to its timings doesn't it. I mean from Sydenham to New Cross gate threes a train every 5 minutes during the peaks so I believe - that's pretty impressive don't you think?