"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

Good news. It's the physical manifestation of some outlandish plans,
in fact. But I think it'll genuinely serve a purpose, and will quickly
become a routine part of London's transport infrastructure - indeed,
half of it already was, but the annexation of the defunct alignment
into Broad Street (defunct no longer) really means the old ELL route
can realise some of its until now unexploited potential.


Not everyone's happy, it seems:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8700136.stm

Is this just the fag end of some dispute the RMT were having about whether
it should be tube or rail, from about 5/6 years ago?

Paul S

On 24 May, 12:14, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote in message

...

Good news. It's the physical manifestation of some outlandish plans,
in fact. But I think it'll genuinely serve a purpose, and will quickly
become a routine part of London's transport infrastructure - indeed,
half of it already was, but the annexation of the defunct alignment
into Broad Street (defunct no longer) really means the old ELL route
can realise some of its until now unexploited potential.

Not everyone's happy, it seems:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8700136.stm

Is this just the fag end of some dispute the RMT were having about whether
it should be tube or rail, from about 5/6 years ago?

Paul S

There was an RMT campaign, although not a dispute as far as I know,
about the fact that this was the first bit of LU to be privatised and
had ominous implications. Ken claimed that it wasn't privatisation,
and then admitted that it was.

Among the issues were that a lot had been spent by LU on new
facilities that were never going to be used by LU and were a gift to
the private operator.

I think there were also issues around redeployment of staff in the
interim, but again I can't recall there being an actual dispute.

On May 24, 12:23*pm, MIG wrote:

On 24 May, 12:14, "Paul Scott" wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote:

Good news. It's the physical manifestation of some outlandish plans,
in fact. But I think it'll genuinely serve a purpose, and will quickly
become a routine part of London's transport infrastructure - indeed,
half of it already was, but the annexation of the defunct alignment
into Broad Street (defunct no longer) really means the old ELL route
can realise some of its until now unexploited potential.

Not everyone's happy, it seems:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8700136.stm

Is this just the fag end of some dispute the RMT were having about whether
it should be tube or rail, from about 5/6 years ago?

There was an RMT campaign, although not a dispute as far as I know,
about the fact that this was the first bit of LU to be privatised and
had ominous implications. *Ken claimed that it wasn't privatisation,
and then admitted that it was.

I don't recall him "admitting is was". Depends how one defines
"privatisation", but I didn't really regard the changes to the ELL as
being that, not as such at least. But maybe that's just the angle I
was looking at it from. I suppose I can sort of understand the RMT's
concerns that it could represent the thin end of the wedge.


Among the issues were that a lot had been spent by LU on new
facilities that were never going to be used by LU and were a gift to
the private operator.

That's simply nonsensical. The infrastructure is owned by London Rail,
part of TfL - all that's happened in that sense is that it's been
transferred from one bit of TfL to another. LOROL didn't build the new
elements of the line, and nor are they going to maintain it either.
And if TfL did decide to award the operating concession to another
company in the future, then LOROL aren't going to rip out the staff
loos or whatever when they leave, not least because said loos wouldn't
be theirs to take.


I think there were also issues around redeployment of staff in the
interim, but again I can't recall there being an actual dispute.

Surrey Quays, Rotherhithe, Wapping and Shadwell - plus Shoreditch High
Street as a replacement for the old Shoreditch - certainly transferred
from LUL to LOROL management, and of course it's LOROL drivers and
line controllers (or whatever they're called) along with Network Rail
signallers who run the service rather than LUL people.

I don't know if it was a quid-pro-quo as such, but perhaps worth
bearing in mind that management of all the joint DC Line/ Bakerloo
stations (apart from Willesden Jn) went to LUL rather than LOROL.

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

On May 24, 10:09 am, Paul Terry wrote:

In message , Batman55
writes

What is happening this morning? All CrPal trains seem to be terminating
Surrey Quays. I was planning to try it out today.

Live departure boards are currently (10.08) showing that the service is
running through to Crystal Palace.

Nothing showing on LO JourneyCheck at the time of posting (10:30):
http://www.jcheck.com/londonoverground

Wonder how busy it was this morning. Also wonder how many people might
have got stuck at Canada Water waiting for a sliver of space on an
eastbound Jubilee line train during the height of the rush... the
solution being go to Shadwell instead of course (well for those Canary
Wharf bound at least).

(Perhaps a bit of a shame that the riverbus service doesn't stop at a
pier near Rotherhithe or even Wapping stations, though I rather doubt
there'd really be the requisite demand to support it.)
===============

I have certainly just completed a journey from West Croydon to Dalston and
back to CP without problem. However, the Nat Rail journey planner is still
showing the services as cancelled!

Incidentally, I really don't like travelling in totally back-to-window
trains. Its OKish if you are underground but, like several other people, I
spent my most of my journey twisted round to look out of the window. Its a
bit like travelling in a long corridor with seating for the exhausted at
intervals along the wall!

Also, I only travelled in one unit there and back but the recording for
Next/Shortly arriving/Arrived at Brockley kept saying "...Aukley". On the
return the same happened at New Cross Gate but the Shortly arriving message
sounded almost right and when we got to Brockley, she definitely got it
right. That suggests to me that the lady actually travels on the train and
needed to practise a bit! Has that been others experience - is this a job
creation programme?

Do I assume that Shoreditch High St station will be subsumed into some
skyscraper in due course - it was really disappointing to sit in a concrete
box just at the most interesting viewpoint?

MaxB

On Sun, 23 May 2010 12:13:10 -0700 (PDT), Stephen Furley
wrote:

Looking North at Dalston,
the line seems to curve to the West; Is there any provision to be
able to re-build the East curve if needed in the future? It doesn't
look like it.

I'm pretty sure it's protected. The car park and access road to the
Kingsland Shopping Centre are on the route of the curve.

Hackney council a couple of years back published (ambitious) plans to
create a park above the eastern curve and also allow development above
the western curve.

On 24 May, 12:50, Mizter T wrote:
On May 24, 12:23*pm, MIG wrote:





On 24 May, 12:14, "Paul Scott" wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote:

Good news. It's the physical manifestation of some outlandish plans,
in fact. But I think it'll genuinely serve a purpose, and will quickly
become a routine part of London's transport infrastructure - indeed,
half of it already was, but the annexation of the defunct alignment
into Broad Street (defunct no longer) really means the old ELL route
can realise some of its until now unexploited potential.

Not everyone's happy, it seems:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8700136.stm

Is this just the fag end of some dispute the RMT were having about whether
it should be tube or rail, from about 5/6 years ago?

There was an RMT campaign, although not a dispute as far as I know,
about the fact that this was the first bit of LU to be privatised and
had ominous implications. *Ken claimed that it wasn't privatisation,
and then admitted that it was.

I don't recall him "admitting is was". Depends how one defines
"privatisation", but I didn't really regard the changes to the ELL as
being that, not as such at least. But maybe that's just the angle I
was looking at it from. I suppose I can sort of understand the RMT's
concerns that it could represent the thin end of the wedge.

There was certainly a lot of unhappiness about the successful and
popular public service operation run by LU being replaced according to
what was very topically at the time seen as a failed franchise model
for NR.


Among the issues were that a lot had been spent by LU on new
facilities that were never going to be used by LU and were a gift to
the private operator.

That's simply nonsensical. The infrastructure is owned by London Rail,
part of TfL - all that's happened in that sense is that it's been
transferred from one bit of TfL to another. LOROL didn't build the new
elements of the line, and nor are they going to maintain it either.
And if TfL did decide to award the operating concession to another
company in the future, then LOROL aren't going to rip out the staff
loos or whatever when they leave, not least because said loos wouldn't
be theirs to take.

I think it was specifically around brand new staff facilities which
were paid for by LU immediately before the line closed and were only
ever going to be used by the private TOCs staff.

Anyway, I'm only reporting things I picked up on at the time.

I think there were also issues around redeployment of staff in the
interim, but again I can't recall there being an actual dispute.

Surrey Quays, Rotherhithe, Wapping and Shadwell - plus Shoreditch High
Street as a replacement for the old Shoreditch - certainly transferred
from LUL to LOROL management, and of course it's LOROL drivers and
line controllers (or whatever they're called) along with Network Rail
signallers who run the service rather than LUL people.

I don't know if it was a quid-pro-quo as such, but perhaps worth
bearing in mind that management of all the joint DC Line/ Bakerloo
stations (apart from Willesden Jn) went to LUL rather than LOROL.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 24, 2:20*pm, Ivor The Engine
wrote:

On Sun, 23 May 2010 12:13:10 -0700 (PDT), Stephen Furley
wrote:
Looking North at Dalston,
the line seems to curve to the West; *Is there any provision to be
able to re-build the East curve if needed in the future? *It doesn't
look like it.

I'm pretty sure it's protected. * The car park and access road to the
Kingsland Shopping Centre are on the route of the curve.

Yes, AIUI the route is protected, and as you say nothing has actually
been built on it apart from some tarmac for a car park, plus Dalston
Jn station was built to allow access to the eastern curve, albeit only
for a single track.
You can see the blanking wall from the easternmost platform at DJ.


Hackney council a couple of years back published (ambitious) plans to
create a park above the eastern curve and also allow development above
the western curve.

On May 24, 2:32*pm, MIG wrote:

On 24 May, 12:50, Mizter T wrote:

On May 24, 12:23*pm, MIG wrote:

On 24 May, 12:14, "Paul Scott" wrote:
[snip]
Not everyone's happy, it seems:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8700136.stm

Is this just the fag end of some dispute the RMT were having about whether
it should be tube or rail, from about 5/6 years ago?

There was an RMT campaign, although not a dispute as far as I know,
about the fact that this was the first bit of LU to be privatised and
had ominous implications. *Ken claimed that it wasn't privatisation,
and then admitted that it was.

I don't recall him "admitting is was". Depends how one defines
"privatisation", but I didn't really regard the changes to the ELL as
being that, not as such at least. But maybe that's just the angle I
was looking at it from. I suppose I can sort of understand the RMT's
concerns that it could represent the thin end of the wedge.

There was certainly a lot of unhappiness about the successful and
popular public service operation run by LU being replaced according to
what was very topically at the time seen as a failed franchise model
for NR.

Sure - except the "London Rail Concession" (as it's properly known)
doesn't follow the conventional rail franchising model, it's quite
significantly different.


Among the issues were that a lot had been spent by LU on new
facilities that were never going to be used by LU and were a gift to
the private operator.

That's simply nonsensical. The infrastructure is owned by London Rail,
part of TfL - all that's happened in that sense is that it's been
transferred from one bit of TfL to another. LOROL didn't build the new
elements of the line, and nor are they going to maintain it either.
And if TfL did decide to award the operating concession to another
company in the future, then LOROL aren't going to rip out the staff
loos or whatever when they leave, not least because said loos wouldn't
be theirs to take.

I think it was specifically around brand new staff facilities which
were paid for by LU immediately before the line closed and were only
ever going to be used by the private TOCs staff.

Hmm - I think they'd have been paid for by TfL one way or the other,
if not in LUL days then when the line was being converted. Though I
can understand that staff might have felt a bit miffed that work was
being undertaken but they wouldn't benefit from it. That said, if it
was all part of the ELLX project, then I'd expect it to have come out
of the ELLX budget. So it'd be interesting to know what exactly the
RMT's angle was on this - without knowing more I don't find that
argument terribly convincing.


Anyway, I'm only reporting things I picked up on at the time.

Not shooting the messenger, just questioning the message!

Batman55 wrote:

I have certainly just completed a journey from West Croydon to
Dalston and back to CP without problem. However, the Nat Rail journey
planner is still showing the services as cancelled!

Just looking at live departures for West Croydon and Crystal Palace, what
seems to have happened is that they have got calls at DALSJN appearing
followed by Dalston Jn [cancelled]. I think that has come up before
somewhere else, and the automatic systems got confused because the same
location appeared twice?

Whatever, it probably just needs a simple data correction to put it right...

Paul S

Some pictures:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=sunil06090 2+"east+london+line"+2010

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...tal_Palace.JPG
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...tal_Palace.JPG
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...rance_2010.JPG
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...t_Brockley.JPG
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...st_Croydon.JPG