GOSPEL Electrification
 

The line between Barking and Gospel Oak is due to be
re-opened at the end of this month. I have assumed all
along that the entire electrification project and attendant
rebuilding work will be completed by then. Certainly I have
not seen statements from TfL or Network Rail warning of
further weekend closures after the line is re-opened to
allow more work to be done.

At present on much of the route the stanchions to support
overhead wiring are not yet in place. I don't know how long
it takes to install these stanchions or to string up overhead
wiring, but it seems quite possible that this work will not be
completed within the next 24 days.

Does anyone know whether or not the original plan was to
complete the project fully by the end of February?

Stanchions are now being installed but in a piecemeal
way that seems to flout common sense. A complete one
was erected at Leyton Midland Station several weeks ago
and then left in isolation. A few weeks later a second was
installed. That too was not followed up. Now a single upright
column has been erected.

I admit openly I do not understand this methodology.

Paris Shows The Way!
 

Robin9 wrote on 14 Feb 2017 at
16:30 ...
British politicians, particularly those in London, love to
pretend that they are concerned about traffic congestion
and the consequential air pollution. They persist with policies
which have been proved not to work, and refuse to listen
to people who drive in traffic day after day and have a
real understanding of the main cause of the problem.

It seems that in Paris someone in authority is less bigoted
than our politicians:

http://tinyurl.com/jxlb4kc

How refreshing! I am deeply envious.

Ealing have been doing that for several years, e.g. the traffic lights
at the T-junction outside Acton Town station (opposite the entrance to
the LT Museum Depot) were replaced by a mini-roundabout and a zebra
crossing about 5 years ago.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Paris Shows The Way!
 

On 2017-02-14 23:01:46 +0000, Richard J. said:

Ealing have been doing that for several years, e.g. the traffic lights
at the T-junction outside Acton Town station (opposite the entrance to
the LT Museum Depot) were replaced by a mini-roundabout and a zebra
crossing about 5 years ago.

Luton airport for years had a terrible congestion problem on a Monday
morning. This started happening soon after a set of traffic lights was
installed at the approach roundabout.

"Get rid of them" said us regulars.

"No" said the airport.

And on it went.

Eventually they did get rid of them, and the problem went away.

The problem with traffic lights, of course, is that they block traffic
movement during the "overlap" between two phases - replace with
something else e.g. a roundabout and traffic can move all of the time.
What you replace it with does require some thought as roundabouts don't
cope well with unbalanced flows, but lights on all approaches to a
junction basically waste time. If lights are needed to balance flows,
not having lights on one branch of the roundabout works quite well -
during the "overlap" time, traffic can then flow from that branch.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

Paris Shows The Way!
 

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:10:31 +0000
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2017-02-14 23:01:46 +0000, Richard J. said:

Ealing have been doing that for several years, e.g. the traffic lights
at the T-junction outside Acton Town station (opposite the entrance to
the LT Museum Depot) were replaced by a mini-roundabout and a zebra
crossing about 5 years ago.

Luton airport for years had a terrible congestion problem on a Monday
morning. This started happening soon after a set of traffic lights was
installed at the approach roundabout.

Putting traffic lights on roundabouts has always struck me as a ridiculous
thing to do. Its as if the traffic planners didn't quite understand the
purpose of a roundabout or how it worked and assumed it was no different
to a 4 way junction. Once you've added the lights the roundabout is now
completely redundant and you'd probably get better traffic flow if you did
replace it with a simple junction.

What you replace it with does require some thought as roundabouts don't
cope well with unbalanced flows, but lights on all approaches to a
junction basically waste time. If lights are needed to balance flows,
not having lights on one branch of the roundabout works quite well -
during the "overlap" time, traffic can then flow from that branch.

Roundabouts generally work pretty well on their own. Stirling corner on the
A1 has intermittent lights. The only time serious queues build up is when they
switch the damn things on.

--
Spud

Paris Shows The Way!
 

On 2017-02-15 09:38:59 +0000, d said:

Putting traffic lights on roundabouts has always struck me as a ridiculous
thing to do. Its as if the traffic planners didn't quite understand the
purpose of a roundabout or how it worked and assumed it was no different
to a 4 way junction. Once you've added the lights the roundabout is now
completely redundant and you'd probably get better traffic flow if you did
replace it with a simple junction.

Roundabouts work very well where there is a reasonably balanced traffic
flow on all 4 (or more) arms. They fail badly where the traffic is
highly directional, e.g. towards a city centre.

Consider a typical 4 arm roundabout with arms A, B, C and D positioned
at noon, 3, 6 and 9. If at certain times of day you have a very large
flow from arm B (3 o'clock) to arm D (9 o'clock), it is basically
impossible to get out onto the roundabout on arm C (6 o'clock) because
there is a constant traffic flow preventing this. There are a number
of roundabouts in Milton Keynes where this causes peak time queueing,
particularly as the A421 passes through eastbound in the morning peak
and westbound in the evening peak.

The way to prevent this is to place traffic lights on all but one of
the arms, having no lights on an arm that is not a "blocking" flow but
does have reasonable demand. In the example above, putting them on all
but arm C would allow continuous traffic flow, but would regulate arm B
such that those on arm C could get out and queueing is prevented.

This has an advantage over a traditional traffic light junction as
traffic is always flowing - when the lights are on amber or all on red
for the "overlap", C can flow. With a traditional junction there is
dead time, which with certain designs of junction can be as much of 25%
of the time - reducing overall capacity of the junction. With the
roundabout, this doesn't happen.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

Paris Shows The Way!
 

In article , d () wrote:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:10:31 +0000
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2017-02-14 23:01:46 +0000, Richard J. said:

Ealing have been doing that for several years, e.g. the traffic lights
at the T-junction outside Acton Town station (opposite the entrance to
the LT Museum Depot) were replaced by a mini-roundabout and a zebra
crossing about 5 years ago.

Luton airport for years had a terrible congestion problem on a Monday
morning. This started happening soon after a set of traffic lights was
installed at the approach roundabout.

Putting traffic lights on roundabouts has always struck me as a ridiculous
thing to do. Its as if the traffic planners didn't quite understand the
purpose of a roundabout or how it worked and assumed it was no different
to a 4 way junction. Once you've added the lights the roundabout is now
completely redundant and you'd probably get better traffic flow if you did
replace it with a simple junction.

What you replace it with does require some thought as roundabouts don't
cope well with unbalanced flows, but lights on all approaches to a
junction basically waste time. If lights are needed to balance flows,
not having lights on one branch of the roundabout works quite well -
during the "overlap" time, traffic can then flow from that branch.

Roundabouts generally work pretty well on their own. Stirling corner on
the A1 has intermittent lights. The only time serious queues build up is
when they switch the damn things on.

If you made any attempt to understand traffic engineering, there are
conditions when roundabouts really don't work. If traffic levels are high
and flows unbalanced then some arms can't get out onto the roundabout unless
traffic lights are installed.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Paris Shows The Way!
 

wrote in message ...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:10:31 +0000
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2017-02-14 23:01:46 +0000, Richard J. said:

Ealing have been doing that for several years, e.g. the traffic lights
at the T-junction outside Acton Town station (opposite the entrance to
the LT Museum Depot) were replaced by a mini-roundabout and a zebra
crossing about 5 years ago.

Luton airport for years had a terrible congestion problem on a Monday
morning. This started happening soon after a set of traffic lights was
installed at the approach roundabout.

Putting traffic lights on roundabouts has always struck me as a ridiculous
thing to do. Its as if the traffic planners didn't quite understand the
purpose of a roundabout or how it worked and assumed it was no different
to a 4 way junction. Once you've added the lights the roundabout is now
completely redundant and you'd probably get better traffic flow if you did
replace it with a simple junction.

bit difficult to do when the roundabout is above a motorway junction

tim

Paris Shows The Way!
 

On 2017-02-15 10:46:24 +0000, tim... said:

bit difficult to do when the roundabout is above a motorway junction

There are plenty of cases where it isn't, e.g. the roundabout in Slough
made famous by "The Office" which was indeed removed and replaced with
a signalled junction.

OTOH, traffic signals on roundabouts often do make sense to solve a
specific problem involving unbalanced flows without reducing the
capacity of the junction.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

Paris Shows The Way!
 

On 2017\02\15 10:26, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2017-02-15 09:38:59 +0000, d said:

Putting traffic lights on roundabouts has always struck me as a
ridiculous
thing to do. Its as if the traffic planners didn't quite understand the
purpose of a roundabout or how it worked and assumed it was no different
to a 4 way junction. Once you've added the lights the roundabout is now
completely redundant and you'd probably get better traffic flow if you
did
replace it with a simple junction.

Roundabouts work very well where there is a reasonably balanced traffic
flow on all 4 (or more) arms. They fail badly where the traffic is
highly directional, e.g. towards a city centre.

Consider a typical 4 arm roundabout with arms A, B, C and D positioned
at noon, 3, 6 and 9. If at certain times of day you have a very large
flow from arm B (3 o'clock) to arm D (9 o'clock), it is basically
impossible to get out onto the roundabout on arm C (6 o'clock) because
there is a constant traffic flow preventing this. There are a number of
roundabouts in Milton Keynes where this causes peak time queueing,
particularly as the A421 passes through eastbound in the morning peak
and westbound in the evening peak.

The way to prevent this is to place traffic lights on all but one of the
arms, having no lights on an arm that is not a "blocking" flow but does
have reasonable demand. In the example above, putting them on all but
arm C would allow continuous traffic flow, but would regulate arm B such
that those on arm C could get out and queueing is prevented.

This has an advantage over a traditional traffic light junction as
traffic is always flowing - when the lights are on amber or all on red
for the "overlap", C can flow. With a traditional junction there is
dead time, which with certain designs of junction can be as much of 25%
of the time - reducing overall capacity of the junction. With the
roundabout, this doesn't happen.

I'm amazed part-time lights at roundabouts are allowed. It seems obvious
to me that every time a blown red bulb faces traffic already on the
roundabout, you will have traffic joining the roundabout seeing a green
light and thinking it has the priority, and the traffic on the
roundabout seeing no light and thinking it has the priority.

Paris Shows The Way!
 

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:26:15 +0000
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2017-02-15 09:38:59 +0000, d said:

Putting traffic lights on roundabouts has always struck me as a ridiculous
thing to do. Its as if the traffic planners didn't quite understand the
purpose of a roundabout or how it worked and assumed it was no different
to a 4 way junction. Once you've added the lights the roundabout is now
completely redundant and you'd probably get better traffic flow if you did
replace it with a simple junction.

Roundabouts work very well where there is a reasonably balanced traffic
flow on all 4 (or more) arms. They fail badly where the traffic is
highly directional, e.g. towards a city centre.

Which is when a normal signalled junction should have been installed.

The way to prevent this is to place traffic lights on all but one of
the arms, having no lights on an arm that is not a "blocking" flow but
does have reasonable demand. In the example above, putting them on all
but arm C would allow continuous traffic flow, but would regulate arm B
such that those on arm C could get out and queueing is prevented.
This has an advantage over a traditional traffic light junction as
traffic is always flowing - when the lights are on amber or all on red

Or just have junctions with the american system of turn on red and at less
busy times simply have flashing orange on all approaches.

--
Spud

Paris Shows The Way!
 

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 04:41:39 -0600
wrote:
If you made any attempt to understand traffic engineering, there are
conditions when roundabouts really don't work. If traffic levels are high
and flows unbalanced then some arms can't get out onto the roundabout unless
traffic lights are installed.

Translation:
"Just do what I do - read someone elses post then paraphrase and pretend I
knew it all along. Win!"

--
Spud

Paris Shows The Way!
 

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:46:24 -0000
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message ...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:10:31 +0000
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2017-02-14 23:01:46 +0000, Richard J. said:

Ealing have been doing that for several years, e.g. the traffic lights
at the T-junction outside Acton Town station (opposite the entrance to
the LT Museum Depot) were replaced by a mini-roundabout and a zebra
crossing about 5 years ago.

Luton airport for years had a terrible congestion problem on a Monday
morning. This started happening soon after a set of traffic lights was
installed at the approach roundabout.

Putting traffic lights on roundabouts has always struck me as a ridiculous
thing to do. Its as if the traffic planners didn't quite understand the
purpose of a roundabout or how it worked and assumed it was no different
to a 4 way junction. Once you've added the lights the roundabout is now
completely redundant and you'd probably get better traffic flow if you did
replace it with a simple junction.

bit difficult to do when the roundabout is above a motorway junction

There will always be exceptions. But having roundabouts as motorway
junctions isn't a requirement. In america the offramp almost always leads
to a junction and in europe its a toss up whether theres one or not though
on the french toll autoroutes there is almost never one at the actual
exit. If there is one its usually way past the toll booths.

--
Spud

Paris Shows The Way!
 

On 15/02/2017 13:50, d wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:26:15 +0000
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2017-02-15 09:38:59 +0000, d said:

Putting traffic lights on roundabouts has always struck me as a ridiculous
thing to do. Its as if the traffic planners didn't quite understand the
purpose of a roundabout or how it worked and assumed it was no different
to a 4 way junction. Once you've added the lights the roundabout is now
completely redundant and you'd probably get better traffic flow if you did
replace it with a simple junction.

Roundabouts work very well where there is a reasonably balanced traffic
flow on all 4 (or more) arms. They fail badly where the traffic is
highly directional, e.g. towards a city centre.

Which is when a normal signalled junction should have been installed.

The way to prevent this is to place traffic lights on all but one of
the arms, having no lights on an arm that is not a "blocking" flow but
does have reasonable demand. In the example above, putting them on all
but arm C would allow continuous traffic flow, but would regulate arm B
such that those on arm C could get out and queueing is prevented.
This has an advantage over a traditional traffic light junction as
traffic is always flowing - when the lights are on amber or all on red

Or just have junctions with the american system of turn on red and at less
busy times simply have flashing orange on all approaches.


I'd like to see you implement that or any other of your designs at the
Redbridge roundabout:

,18z

(I would put negotiating it when the lights are out of action in the
same class as Sir Thomas Beecham's famous two.)



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Paris Shows The Way!
 

On 2017-02-15 13:50:41 +0000, d said:

Which is when a normal signalled junction should have been installed.

Which would reduce the capacity of the junction by around 25%.

Or just have junctions with the american system of turn on red and at less
busy times simply have flashing orange on all approaches.

Turn left on red works only where it is safe to have it, and in the UK
we essentially replicate it with flow arrows and traffic islands. And
less busy times aren't the concern, it's capacity reduction and flow
balancing at *busy* times.

I do agree flashing yellow would be better than blank at part-time
lights to avoid wrong-side failures causing accidents.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

Paris Shows The Way!
 

In message , at 12:02:15 on Wed, 15 Feb
2017, Basil Jet remarked:
I'm amazed part-time lights at roundabouts are allowed. It seems
obvious to me that every time a blown red bulb faces traffic already on
the roundabout, you will have traffic joining the roundabout seeing a
green light and thinking it has the priority, and the traffic on the
roundabout seeing no light and thinking it has the priority.

There will usually (always?) be two red lights. And in any event, green
doesn't mean "full steam ahead", rather than "proceed with caution".
--
Roland Perry

Paris Shows The Way!
 

On 2017-02-15 15:02:33 +0000, Roland Perry said:

There will usually (always?) be two red lights. And in any event, green
doesn't mean "full steam ahead", rather than "proceed with caution".

Yes, with road traffic there is, unlike railway signalling, nothing
ever that says it is absolutely safe to proceed. However, I suspect
most drivers don't treat it that way.

LEDs of course reduce the chance of this, and these days it should be
reasonably easily possible to make all the red lights provable and in
the absence of them all working turn them all off.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

Paris Shows The Way!
 

In article , d () wrote:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 04:41:39 -0600
wrote:
If you made any attempt to understand traffic engineering, there are
conditions when roundabouts really don't work. If traffic levels are high
and flows unbalanced then some arms can't get out onto the roundabout
unless traffic lights are installed.

Translation:
"Just do what I do - read someone elses post then paraphrase and
pretend I knew it all along. Win!"

No. I have direct experience acquired over decades of hearing from traffic
engineers. It was pure coincidence that someone, probably with similar
experience, made similar comments which I only saw after posting mine.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Paris Shows The Way!
 

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 14:09:08 +0000
Robin wrote:
I'd like to see you implement that or any other of your designs at the
Redbridge roundabout:


58967,0.0434959,18z

(I would put negotiating it when the lights are out of action in the
same class as Sir Thomas Beecham's famous two.)

I've used that junction plenty of times. Tbh I'd say stirling corner and
apex corner are a lot worse but its all subjective.

--
Spud

Paris Shows The Way!
 

wrote in message ...

Or just have junctions with the american system of turn on red

which is complete useless at traffic light controlled roundabouts as all of
the traffic is nominally turning left

tim

Paris Shows The Way!
 

wrote in message ...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:46:24 -0000
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message ...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:10:31 +0000
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2017-02-14 23:01:46 +0000, Richard J. said:

Ealing have been doing that for several years, e.g. the traffic lights
at the T-junction outside Acton Town station (opposite the entrance to
the LT Museum Depot) were replaced by a mini-roundabout and a zebra
crossing about 5 years ago.

Luton airport for years had a terrible congestion problem on a Monday
morning. This started happening soon after a set of traffic lights was
installed at the approach roundabout.

Putting traffic lights on roundabouts has always struck me as a
ridiculous
thing to do. Its as if the traffic planners didn't quite understand the
purpose of a roundabout or how it worked and assumed it was no different
to a 4 way junction. Once you've added the lights the roundabout is now
completely redundant and you'd probably get better traffic flow if you
did
replace it with a simple junction.

bit difficult to do when the roundabout is above a motorway junction

There will always be exceptions. But having roundabouts as motorway
junctions isn't a requirement.

well no

but we do have them

and IME they are invariable the ones where traffic lights have been
installed to "improve" flow

(admittedly not all of them are of the "above the motorway" variety)

tim

Paris Shows The Way!
 

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:40:41 -0600
wrote:
In article , d () wrote:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 04:41:39 -0600
wrote:
If you made any attempt to understand traffic engineering, there are
conditions when roundabouts really don't work. If traffic levels are high
and flows unbalanced then some arms can't get out onto the roundabout
unless traffic lights are installed.

Translation:
"Just do what I do - read someone elses post then paraphrase and
pretend I knew it all along. Win!"

No. I have direct experience acquired over decades of hearing from traffic
engineers. It was pure coincidence that someone, probably with similar
experience, made similar comments which I only saw after posting mine.

Sure, complete coincidence. And no doubt you also aquired extensive experience
of air traffic control when you worked for Porcine Airlines.

--
Spud

Paris Shows The Way!
 

In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On 2017-02-15 15:02:33 +0000, Roland Perry said:

There will usually (always?) be two red lights. And in any event,
green doesn't mean "full steam ahead", rather than "proceed with
caution".

Yes, with road traffic there is, unlike railway signalling, nothing
ever that says it is absolutely safe to proceed. However, I suspect
most drivers don't treat it that way.

LEDs of course reduce the chance of this, and these days it should be
reasonably easily possible to make all the red lights provable and in
the absence of them all working turn them all off.

Pre-LED lights have a second (dimmer) filament which shows some light when
the main filament has failed.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Paris Shows The Way!
 

In article , d () wrote:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:40:41 -0600
wrote:
In article , d () wrote:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 04:41:39 -0600
wrote:
If you made any attempt to understand traffic engineering, there are
conditions when roundabouts really don't work. If traffic levels are
high and flows unbalanced then some arms can't get out onto the
roundabout unless traffic lights are installed.

Translation:
"Just do what I do - read someone elses post then paraphrase and
pretend I knew it all along. Win!"

No. I have direct experience acquired over decades of hearing from
traffic engineers. It was pure coincidence that someone, probably with
similar experience, made similar comments which I only saw after posting
mine.

Sure, complete coincidence. And no doubt you also aquired extensive
experience of air traffic control when you worked for Porcine
Airlines.

Do you accept information from anyone or just make silly comments all the
time?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Paris Shows The Way!
 

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 16:25:14 -0000
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message ...

Or just have junctions with the american system of turn on red

which is complete useless at traffic light controlled roundabouts as all of
the traffic is nominally turning left

Do try and keep up. I was talking about if roundabouts were replaced with
junctions.

--
Spud

Paris Shows The Way!
 

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 19:06:28 -0600
wrote:
In article , d () wrote:
Sure, complete coincidence. And no doubt you also aquired extensive
experience of air traffic control when you worked for Porcine
Airlines.

Do you accept information from anyone or just make silly comments all the
time?

When someone has used virtually identical phrases from someone elses post
made earlier after having not even broached the subject before and then
suddenly claims to have lots of experience in the matter you'll have to excuse
me if I take it with a whole salt mine.

--
Spud

Both yesterday and today, and possibly earlier, two-car
DMUs have been travelling along the line, presumably for
driver training/route familiarisation purposes.

Strolling around Leytonstone this afternoon, I noticed that
three bridges in the elevated section in the Samson Road/
Montague Road area have been replaced.

GOSPEL Electrification
 

Robin9 wrote:

Both yesterday and today, and possibly earlier, two-car
DMUs have been travelling along the line, presumably for
driver training/route familiarisation purposes.

Presumably the line's own 172s? They've been parked at Willesden during
the closure.


Strolling around Leytonstone this afternoon, I noticed that
three bridges in the elevated section in the Samson Road/
Montague Road area have been replaced.

GOSPEL Electrification
 

On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 21:45:36 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Robin9 wrote:

Both yesterday and today, and possibly earlier, two-car
DMUs have been travelling along the line, presumably for
driver training/route familiarisation purposes.

Presumably the line's own 172s? They've been parked at Willesden during
the closure.

I'm surprised TfL hasn't sold them given they'll be redundant on the LO
network when electrification is complete.

--
Spud

GOSPEL Electrification
 

In message , at 11:08:35 on Mon, 20 Feb
2017, d remarked:
Both yesterday and today, and possibly earlier, two-car
DMUs have been travelling along the line, presumably for
driver training/route familiarisation purposes.

Presumably the line's own 172s? They've been parked at Willesden during
the closure.

I'm surprised TfL hasn't sold them

I think the lessor (Angel Trains) would have something to say if TfL
sold them!!

given they'll be redundant on the LO network when electrification is
complete.

--
Roland Perry

GOSPEL Electrification
 

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 11:08:35 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 21:45:36 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Robin9 wrote:

Both yesterday and today, and possibly earlier, two-car
DMUs have been travelling along the line, presumably for
driver training/route familiarisation purposes.

Presumably the line's own 172s? They've been parked at Willesden during
the closure.

I'm surprised TfL hasn't sold them given they'll be redundant on the LO
network when electrification is complete.

They will be needed when the line reopens this month, partly because
the electrification won't be complete, and even after it is, because
the new trains don't arrive till next year. There had been local
pressure for some other redundant old 4-car EMUs to be used until the
new trains arrive, but TfL hasn't shown much enthusiasm.

GOSPEL Electrification
 

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 11:37:08 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:08:35 on Mon, 20 Feb
2017, d remarked:
Both yesterday and today, and possibly earlier, two-car
DMUs have been travelling along the line, presumably for
driver training/route familiarisation purposes.

Presumably the line's own 172s? They've been parked at Willesden during
the closure.

I'm surprised TfL hasn't sold them

I think the lessor (Angel Trains) would have something to say if TfL
sold them!!

I didn't realised they were leased. Is that a choice TfL made or was it
forced upon them I wonder?

--
Spud

GOSPEL Electrification
 

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:21:54 +0000
Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 11:08:35 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 21:45:36 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Robin9 wrote:

Both yesterday and today, and possibly earlier, two-car
DMUs have been travelling along the line, presumably for
driver training/route familiarisation purposes.

Presumably the line's own 172s? They've been parked at Willesden during
the closure.

I'm surprised TfL hasn't sold them given they'll be redundant on the LO
network when electrification is complete.

They will be needed when the line reopens this month, partly because
the electrification won't be complete, and even after it is, because
the new trains don't arrive till next year. There had been local
pressure for some other redundant old 4-car EMUs to be used until the
new trains arrive, but TfL hasn't shown much enthusiasm.

Of course if TfL had ordered a few extra 378s back in 2014.... but we've
done that argument.

--
Spud

GOSPEL Electrification
 

In message , at 12:34:52 on Mon, 20 Feb
2017, d remarked:
Both yesterday and today, and possibly earlier, two-car
DMUs have been travelling along the line, presumably for
driver training/route familiarisation purposes.

Presumably the line's own 172s? They've been parked at Willesden during
the closure.

I'm surprised TfL hasn't sold them

I think the lessor (Angel Trains) would have something to say if TfL
sold them!!

I didn't realised they were leased. Is that a choice TfL made or was it
forced upon them I wonder?

Almost all rolling stock is leased. And it's TfL imposing it on Arriva
Rail London (just as DfT does on its management contracts such as with
GTR).
--
Roland Perry

GOSPEL Electrification
 

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:42:03 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:34:52 on Mon, 20 Feb
2017, d remarked:
Both yesterday and today, and possibly earlier, two-car
DMUs have been travelling along the line, presumably for
driver training/route familiarisation purposes.

Presumably the line's own 172s? They've been parked at Willesden during
the closure.

I'm surprised TfL hasn't sold them

I think the lessor (Angel Trains) would have something to say if TfL
sold them!!

I didn't realised they were leased. Is that a choice TfL made or was it
forced upon them I wonder?

Almost all rolling stock is leased. And it's TfL imposing it on Arriva
Rail London (just as DfT does on its management contracts such as with
GTR).

AFAIK tube trains are all owned outright by LU. Is this not the case with
the 378s on LO then?

--
Spud

GOSPEL Electrification
 

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:35:57 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:21:54 +0000
Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 11:08:35 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 21:45:36 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Robin9 wrote:

Both yesterday and today, and possibly earlier, two-car
DMUs have been travelling along the line, presumably for
driver training/route familiarisation purposes.

Presumably the line's own 172s? They've been parked at Willesden during
the closure.

I'm surprised TfL hasn't sold them given they'll be redundant on the LO
network when electrification is complete.

They will be needed when the line reopens this month, partly because
the electrification won't be complete, and even after it is, because
the new trains don't arrive till next year. There had been local
pressure for some other redundant old 4-car EMUs to be used until the
new trains arrive, but TfL hasn't shown much enthusiasm.

Of course if TfL had ordered a few extra 378s back in 2014.... but we've
done that argument.

On what basis could TfL have ordered any kind of EMUs in Feb 2013
(when the last 378 carriage order was authorised) for a line whose
electrification contract was only awarded in September 2015?

You seem to have a remarkably cavalier approach to public spending!
You'd be the first to complain if fleets of new trains were ordered
prematurely, and then not used because plans had changed.

GOSPEL Electrification
 

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:51:49 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:42:03 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:34:52 on Mon, 20 Feb
2017, d remarked:
Both yesterday and today, and possibly earlier, two-car
DMUs have been travelling along the line, presumably for
driver training/route familiarisation purposes.

Presumably the line's own 172s? They've been parked at Willesden during
the closure.

I'm surprised TfL hasn't sold them

I think the lessor (Angel Trains) would have something to say if TfL
sold them!!

I didn't realised they were leased. Is that a choice TfL made or was it
forced upon them I wonder?

Almost all rolling stock is leased. And it's TfL imposing it on Arriva
Rail London (just as DfT does on its management contracts such as with
GTR).

AFAIK tube trains are all owned outright by LU. Is this not the case with
the 378s on LO then?

No

GOSPEL Electrification
 

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:53:51 +0000
Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:35:57 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
Of course if TfL had ordered a few extra 378s back in 2014.... but we've
done that argument.

On what basis could TfL have ordered any kind of EMUs in Feb 2013
(when the last 378 carriage order was authorised) for a line whose
electrification contract was only awarded in September 2015?

On the basis that it was likely to happen and a few extra trains couldn't
hurt anyway. According to wonkypedia 57 of the 378s were built so another
6 or so (I'm guessing it'll be around that required for the goblin) would
hardly have broken the bank considering the overall cost of the whole LO
project.

Plus there's this interesting snippet:

"In July 2015, London Overground announced an order for 45 new Class 710 units,
some of which would displace the Class 378s in use on the Watford DC Line.
These displaced units will then be cascaded to strengthen services on the other
lines the units are used on."

So in other words they didn't order enough 378s in the first place.

--
Spud

GOSPEL Electrification
 

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 13:15:32 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:53:51 +0000
Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:35:57 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
Of course if TfL had ordered a few extra 378s back in 2014.... but we've
done that argument.

On what basis could TfL have ordered any kind of EMUs in Feb 2013
(when the last 378 carriage order was authorised) for a line whose
electrification contract was only awarded in September 2015?

On the basis that it was likely to happen and a few extra trains couldn't
hurt anyway. According to wonkypedia 57 of the 378s were built so another
6 or so (I'm guessing it'll be around that required for the goblin) would
hardly have broken the bank considering the overall cost of the whole LO
project.

Do you think TfL has lots of spare cash sloshing around that it can
squander on trains that may never be needed? Do you really know
nothing about public sector procurement?


Plus there's this interesting snippet:

"In July 2015, London Overground announced an order for 45 new Class 710 units,
some of which would displace the Class 378s in use on the Watford DC Line.
These displaced units will then be cascaded to strengthen services on the other
lines the units are used on."

So in other words they didn't order enough 378s in the first place.

They knew that by 2015. They didn't when the last 378s were ordered,
more than two years earlier, or they'd have ordered more. In any case,
they'd have still needed to order more trains for the GOBLIN and the
new eastern LO lines, and 378 has now been superseded. Better that
they get more of the modern train, rather than the old one that costs
more to operate. But then, you seem to be keen that TfL wastes as much
money as possible, buying more trains that you've previously said you
hated.

GOSPEL Electrification
 

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 13:55:11 +0000
Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 13:15:32 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
On the basis that it was likely to happen and a few extra trains couldn't
hurt anyway. According to wonkypedia 57 of the 378s were built so another
6 or so (I'm guessing it'll be around that required for the goblin) would
hardly have broken the bank considering the overall cost of the whole LO
project.

Do you think TfL has lots of spare cash sloshing around that it can
squander on trains that may never be needed? Do you really know
nothing about public sector procurement?

Clearly they are needed for service improvements elsewhere anyway. Don't tell
me they didn't know that before 2015.

So in other words they didn't order enough 378s in the first place.

They knew that by 2015. They didn't when the last 378s were ordered,
more than two years earlier, or they'd have ordered more. In any case,
they'd have still needed to order more trains for the GOBLIN and the
new eastern LO lines, and 378 has now been superseded. Better that
they get more of the modern train, rather than the old one that costs
more to operate. But then, you seem to be keen that TfL wastes as much
money as possible, buying more trains that you've previously said you
hated.

So how much cheaper will the 710s be then once you've factored in the extra
costs of a new design, driver training, signalling and depot upgrades? Got any
independent stats rather than just self serving blurb from Bombardier?

Also you seem to have completely missed the point that using seperate EMU types
on the goblin keeps the line self contained. If they'd used dual voltage 378s
there could have been through services. Thats been shot out the water now
unless they're planning on testing and type approving the 710 for the whole NLL.

--
Spud