On 15/02/2010 17:53, Richard J. wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote on 09 February 2010 19:39:47 ...
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:05:58 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

I heard tonight at a meeting in Acton between local residents and
Network Rail/Tfl/LOROL representatives that Ian Brown (MD, London
Rail, TfL) had announced in his report to the Mayor at the TfL Board
meeting last week that the North London Line resignalling was to be
postponed until after the Olympics. This was reported by someone in
the audience tonight, and was clearly a complete bombshell to the
people on the platform. They had previously claimed that the
resignalling was the main reason for the continuing lack of Sunday
services on the NLL.

I've now found the relevant part of the webcast of the TfL Board
meeting and have transcribed it (see below).

I don't think Ian Brown has been "very clear", despite what he
claimed. He makes it sound as if TfL are doing the "physical stuff",
and then Network Rail will do the new signalling later. But surely
all the 4-tracking work, new crossovers etc. will be done by Network
Rail or their contractors? What about the signalling for the new or
changed track? Will that be cobbled together à la Jubilee Line and
then replaced post 2012 or what?

Network Rail's agreement to this change of plan would be crucial, yet
he makes no mention of that. Extraordinary.

And can the 8tph timetable for 2012 be supported reliably by the
existing signalling ?

Can anyone throw any light on this "decision"?

Transcript of Ian Brown's statement:
"Bit of a dilemma on the North London Line infrastructure. I just
want to be very clear on what we've done. This is a Network Rail
4-tracking scheme for our Overground, also for freight trains and for
all the other stuff that runs on that line. Big scheme, £300+
million, and we've got all sorts of problems with signalling design
with Network Rail. It's a general problem with Network Rail, as
people know round the table, and the dilemma for me is to have that
service running, and to make sure they guarantee to have the service
well in time for the Olympics, of 8 trains an hour. What we're going
ahead with [is] the blockade in February - 3 months' blockade from
Gospel Oak to Stratford. We're going to do all the physical stuff,
but we're going to keep the old signalling going, so we've actually
done the work, then Network Rail have got to come back and do the
signalling later. So we have actually secured our frequency, we've
secured the Olympic frequency, we've not secured the corporate
railway, and there's also some issues about freight trains, so the
scheme's got to be done, but we've secured our bit by that decision,
which was quite a difficult one."

Source: TfL Board meeting, 3 Feb 2010
Webcast at http://www.london.gov.uk/webcast/feb...ard_030210.asx
Excerpt above runs from 01:15:15 to 01:16:15

I have to say that it is all rather confusing. There are no clear
statements in the TfL Board papers or in the new papers for the Rail and
Underground Panel that was held today (see TfL website for the papers).
The only statement that has not changed in several months is that the
NLL possession plan has been out for "industry consultation". Given
that it starts in under 2 weeks one might have hoped that the
consultation process would have stopped by now.

I can't really understand the gist of what Ian Brown is actually saying
in his statement.

TfL London Rail are now saying that the resignalling has NOT been
postponed until after the Olympics. It will be done later this year and
in 2011, according to them. I've pointed out the inconsistencies between
that and what Ian Brown said and have asked them to explain further. It
seems to me that it's nonsense to say that the Olympic frequency is
"secured" if Network Rail still have to do the resignalling pre-2012 and
are known to be short of signalling design resources.

On a "talking to a friend of a friend down the pub" level, I've been
told in the past by someone involved that the NR re-signalling has been
going quite horribly wrong and something will have to give sooner or later.

Could be rubbish, of course.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK