In article . com,
(Boltar) wrote:

FCC couldn't run the proverbial ****-up in a brewery without the
beer being delayed going by what they've done to Thameslink and WAGN.

As a regular user of the former WAGN part of FCC's franchise my
experience since last April is that you are talking through your rear
orifice.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Boltar wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:

(snip)

line is reliable from day one. If not then TfL will be paying out a lot
of cash to FCC and Southern for delays to services between Central
London and Croydon.

More likely the other way around. FCC couldn't run the proverbial
****-up in a brewery without the beer being delayed going by what
they've done to Thameslink and WAGN.


The new ELLX trains will travel on the slow lines between Croydon and
New Cross Gate, and I believe they will _not_ need to cross the path of
the fast lines whatsoever - and it is the fast lines which the FCC
Thameslink trains take. That still leaves the possibility for the ELLX
to bog up Southern's services on the slow lines of course.

Boltar wrote:

Barry Salter wrote:

The uprating of the power supply during the last closure was to enable
Class 465 "Networker" EMUs to run through, but it needs further uprating
for the new, more powerful, Electrostars that will be running the
service, and an increase to 16 trains per hour on the core route.

I think you actually meant to write "more power hungry" rather than
more powerful. Efficiency doesn't seem to have been in the brief when
they were designed.

B2003

More powerful might just equate to more power hungry as well, though
I've no idea whether the Electrostars are more powerful than the
Networkers (and to be fair to Mr Salter, he didn't mention efficiency -
though I agree with your underlying point that it's important). Plus
AIUI the new ELLX will be more intensively worked (i.e. more trains)
than the 90's power upgrade allows for, which might suggest that it
wasn't done with enough foresight.

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article . com,
(Boltar) wrote:

FCC couldn't run the proverbial ****-up in a brewery without the
beer being delayed going by what they've done to Thameslink and WAGN.

As a regular user of the former WAGN part of FCC's franchise my
experience since last April is that you are talking through your rear
orifice.

Oh look , its you again. Well as a regular user of Thameslink I can say
categorically that roughly 80% of the southbound trains in the morning
rush hour are late. Some by more than 15 minutes. This was not the case
when the thameslink company ran it. And my last experience of taking
the WAGN service from finsbury park 2 months back was not a pleasent
one - overcrowded trains and late.

B2003

Boltar wrote:
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article . com,
(Boltar) wrote:

FCC couldn't run the proverbial ****-up in a brewery without the
beer being delayed going by what they've done to Thameslink and WAGN.

As a regular user of the former WAGN part of FCC's franchise my
experience since last April is that you are talking through your rear
orifice.

Oh look , its you again. Well as a regular user of Thameslink I can say
categorically that roughly 80% of the southbound trains in the morning
rush hour are late. Some by more than 15 minutes. This was not the case
when the thameslink company ran it. And my last experience of taking
the WAGN service from finsbury park 2 months back was not a pleasent
one - overcrowded trains and late.

B2003

Yup, we in Cambridge were certainly better off with WAGN than with
First (and I use FGW too, so I can see the signs of the slippery slope).

In article om,
() wrote:

Boltar wrote:
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article
. com,
(Boltar) wrote:

FCC couldn't run the proverbial ****-up in a brewery without
the beer being delayed going by what they've done to Thameslink
and WAGN.

As a regular user of the former WAGN part of FCC's franchise my
experience since last April is that you are talking through
your rear orifice.

Oh look , its you again. Well as a regular user of Thameslink I
can say categorically that roughly 80% of the southbound trains in
the morning rush hour are late. Some by more than 15 minutes. This
was not the case when the thameslink company ran it. And my last
experience of taking the WAGN service from finsbury park 2 months
back was not a pleasent one - overcrowded trains and late.

Yup, we in Cambridge were certainly better off with WAGN than with
First (and I use FGW too, so I can see the signs of the slippery
slope).

Whatever a pain FCC are (and they are), poor timekeeping isn't one of
their major problems. They have continued the improvement started by WAGN
about a year ago.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
Whatever a pain FCC are (and they are), poor timekeeping isn't one of
their major problems. They have continued the improvement started by WAGN
about a year ago.

Agreed
Tim

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...

AIUI the ELL is having its power supply, current rails and signalling
all changed to match National Rail standards.

On the face of it, there seems to be little reason why a power supply
upgrade can't allow for the 4th rail to remain while LU stock remains in use
on third rail power, like Putney-Wimbledon, Gunnersbury-Richmond. Isn't the
spec for the third rail position same as NR tracks, and isn't the track new
anyway, or is it only in the Thames tunnel?

The physical integration issue with other lines is different - the
northern section will be linked in on a section that is closed anyway so
no impact there. At the southern end I understand that a flyover is to
be constructed and I imagine there will not be a huge issue with linking
that in - a longish weekend possession could deal with that.

As you say, on the southern end it seems the major infrastructure works are
only on the New Cross Gate branch - so is a temporary Whitechapel - New
Cross only service really out of the question?

The bigger issues concern testing all of the signalling and control
systems and the new rolling stock and training the drivers on the larger
network.

I don't think the signalling in itself could take anything like 2 and a half
years though. The signalling complexity must compare with the current NR
resignalling scheme in the Portsmouth area, in terms of numbers of stations,
junctions, distances, and interfaces with other signalling areas. This is
requiring major closures for about 6 weeks if all goes to plan, although
preparatory work has obviously been done over normal overnight and some
weekend possessions.

Given the ability of the expanded ELL to spread delays all
over north and south London I imagine a lot of time and effort (probably
6 months if not longer) is going to be spent to try to ensure the new
line is reliable from day one. If not then TfL will be paying out a lot
of cash to FCC and Southern for delays to services between Central
London and Croydon.

Agree with this - one of the pitfalls of the line becoming so integrated
with the NR 'networks', given that ELL connects effectively seperate areas
of the NR system, to the north and south.

Paul S