On Feb 15, 8:24*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:09:15 -0800 (PST), Andy
wrote:

Is it possible that the improved timetable from later this month was
reliant on having some of the extra units in place. The fleet will be
growing from 6 x 2 car class 150s to 8 x 2 car class 172s. Even simple
replacement of class 150s with class 172s may give an increase in
capacity due to the longer vehicles (although there will be less
seating due to the 2+2 arrangement). Running more than a twenty minute
frequency looks difficult with the existing fleet size.

I don't think it did need more trains overall. The 15 minute interval
was only at the height of the peak. I think either the user group or
London Travelwatch showed a while back that you could create such a
timetable with adequate turnaround time to cater for the worst of the
peak with the existing fleet. I remember reading a document that set out
the scheduling and pathing issues.


I'd be interested to see how they did that. The evening peak 20 mins
frequency lasts for over two hours and it takes 40 mins end to end. A
minimum round trip, with zero turn around (on the public timings)
takes 80 mins. So an absolute minimum of four units would be needed
(leaving at +0, +20, +40 and +60 mins before the first unit is back at
the start). For a 15 min frequency service six trains would be needed
(leaving at +0, +15, +30, +45, +60 and +75 mins before the pattern
could repeat), and diagramming 6 from 6 class 150s doesn't seem
reasonable. If it was a case of squeezing an extra diagram in, then
the fifteen minute frequency couldn't last for long. Just one extra
unit would make diagramming much easier; maybe LO gave up one too many
class 150s at the start of the concession.

Clearly you need more trains and better performing ones if we are to get
a x15 service every day of the week - although even that is not clear
given the garbled info in the editor's notes under recent press releases
about Overground works.

I think the thing that is most galling - and I don't use the line that
often - is the lack of consistent information about just what is going
on. *Nearly all the news or press releases are after the event - I
suspect it is Network Rail that is part of the issue. Delays in
delivering the 172s are obviously not helping matters but there is a
real sense of exasperation from the user group [1] even if you could
through their tendency to occasional hyperbole for effect. *I suspect
people could cope if someone was communicating openly and honestly - it
just isn't happening from what I can see.


I'd certainly agree that there is a lack of consistent information,
but this seems to be a general flaw with London Overground and the
various bits of TfL that was associated.