|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 16, 2018 12:54:04 GMT
According to my source at LO if the 710s aren't ready by 31 December there will be a replacement bus service on the Goblin but TfL won't announce it until they have to. Yeah I bet they won't announce it until they have to - probably at 2358 on 31 December 2018 when most people will be too "inebriated" (ahem!) to notice.   Let's face it - no way will there be enough drivers trained or trains available come 31 December. No one on the inside of the rail industry believes Bombardier and Arriva Rail London can pull that rabbit out of the hat. Therefore we'll be having a bus replacement for the third time in 2 years on the line. What an unmitigated mess.  |
|
|
|
Post by jukes on Nov 16, 2018 16:24:59 GMT
Just to put this into context. The decision to surrender the lease on the 172s was taken earlier this year by TfL on the not unreasonable assumption that the 710s would be in service well before now. One unit went to WMT a few weeks ago and another followed a few days ago. That leave 6 units for 6 diagrams. If you flog your trains to death to try and cover everything then failures will occur more frequently. As this is a concession not a franchise all higher decisions are made by TfL. ARL are trying to do their best to cope with a situation NOT of their making. There will be no penalty charges since the body that would penalise ARL is the very body (TfL) that has caused the problem in the first place!!! The issue now is getting the 710s in service before 31 Dec when the the remaining 172s vanish to WMT. Yes well except that AIUI the first 172 released is sat in Ilford Depot going precisely nowhere. It's not even clear if any work is being done to it. Ditto the second unit. There are other pertinent questions here such as - whose decision was it to delay much needed overhaul works? - why were overhauls delayed? Was it just to save money? - whose decision was it to not negotiate a phased overhaul with mechanical attention first and internal refurb / toilet fitment later? Did anyone talk to West Midlands Trains and the leasing company about this? - what happens when, AIUI, the current lease for the 172s runs out on 31 December 2018? Nothing that has been said by TfL or the LOTrain project people covers this risk. In fact the statements are so vague about the 710s that it is very unlikely, taken at face value, that more than 1 or 2 710s will be operating for more than 1 - 3 trips on weekdays only by the end of December. Do we have no service whatsoever come 1 January 2019? Not expecting you to have these answers but someone in authority does NEED to answer them along with plenty others. There needs to be a proper investigation into this whole debacle and who took what decisions and when. I think it is extremely convenient that Arriva Rail London are feeling no heat over any of this. I assume Bombardier aren't suffering any payment deductions either as a result of the decrepit mechanical state of the 172s. It's in situations like this that contracts and performance regimes fall to pieces with no incentive on anyone to do anything properly. And I say that as someone who *ran* a very complex performance regime for a long time. In some sort of order - ARL (with very deep forebodings) after consulting TfL in order to try and run all diagrams. (in essence TfL make all decisions of this nature as such is reserved to them in the current concession agreement) - See above and No savings in fact potentially more expensive. Out of necessity to keep all diagrams covered - TfL held the 172 lease so all decisions sit exclusively with them - Roller skates, cycles and whatever replacement buses that can be cobbled together will be available, along with TfL PR staff to tell everyone it could be worse. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Nov 16, 2018 19:49:14 GMT
The 172s are having toilets fitted as they'll be making longer journeys on West Midlands than on the GOBLIN.
You can blame Arriva or TfL as they have no control over electrification and new stock deliveries. Bombardier have to carry the can for the rolling stock problems, Network Rail and J S Murphy & Sons joint responsibility for the delays to electrification.
Also remember that TfL can't just change the timetables, that has to be done with Network Rail and the other users - freight and C2C.
|
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Nov 16, 2018 22:18:32 GMT
c2c only use a tiny part of the line, but this has been a freight artery for many decades, which is why Beeching didn't propose full closure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 7:21:09 GMT
Forgive me for asking something that has most likely already been covered, but what has caused the delay in the first place?
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 17, 2018 11:30:41 GMT
The 172s are having toilets fitted as they'll be making longer journeys on West Midlands than on the GOBLIN. You can blame Arriva or TfL as they have no control over electrification and new stock deliveries. Bombardier have to carry the can for the rolling stock problems, Network Rail and J S Murphy & Sons joint responsibility for the delays to electrification. Also remember that TfL can't just change the timetables, that has to be done with Network Rail and the other users - freight and C2C. I understand all of that and no problem with it. The problem is the apparent lack of management and risk mitigation. I do understand what it is like to be running a project where a supplier has effectively put you into "promise land" or you are entangled in bureaucracy where you have little effective control. However no one is ever entirely "helpless" and TfL certainly aren't. The lack of candid communication until the last minute just doesn't help anyone. TfL and Arriva MUST have known that they were approaching an "end game" with the reliability of the 172s and their impending departure without 710s ready to replace them. After all TfL took the decisions on the train leases and overhauls as explained by Jukes. I assume they did this having properly considered a range of likely outcomes that included a diminution of the fleet and the likely impact of maintenance activity and thus reliability. A properly replanned weekend timetable at a lower regular headway frequency really could have been planned by now with full consultation with affected parties. A 20 minute service using 5 trains would be far, far better than the nonsense of 30 or 40 minute gaps. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Nov 17, 2018 12:20:10 GMT
I'm not sure if its a question of "an "end game" with the reliability with the 172s" or rather its a similar situation to when the Central Line introduced Working Timetable 67 in 2013. On the Central Line increased frequency in the off peak and at weekends meant that the 1992s weren't spending as much time in depots and sidings which meant that the train maintainers didn't have enough time to work on them which in turn meant trains were developing faults while in service. The difference with the current situation is that rather than an increased frequency there are two fewer trains on the Goblin but no one could have predicted how the 172s would hold up until they actually tried it.
luacton - I heard the problem with the 710s was that the pantograph was dropping under certain conditions due to a software glitch. Not sure if there were any other problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Nov 17, 2018 12:56:48 GMT
Electrification got held up due to some botched jobs on the wiring, I believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 17, 2018 17:30:17 GMT
Electrification got held up due to some botched jobs on the wiring, I believe. I think that's the politest comment about the electrification works I've read in a long time. To the best of my knowledge the following went wrong. - they designed the electrification incorrectly - they put the wrong steelwork in the wrong places - they fractured several pipes and sewers - they failed to anticipate the need to raise the bridge at Crouch Hill station having assumed a waiver would be granted - the supply contract for the steelwork was placed too late - the supply of steelwork was late and incorrect - productivity on the project was woefully behind expectations in the first phase - project management during the first blockade seemed to be extremely poor as was TfL's understanding of what was actually going on. The only bits that seemed to go OK were - track lowering works - the long planned bridge replacement near T Hale / Ferry Lane - the platform extension works (separately contracted) Clearly NR eventually got their act together for the second blockade as at least all the posts / masts and wires were installed. Even then there were multiple further weekend closures and it look a long time to get places like South Tottenham's wires finished. |
|
|
|
Post by jukes on Nov 17, 2018 17:34:28 GMT
I'm not sure if its a question of "an "end game" with the reliability with the 172s" or rather its a similar situation to when the Central Line introduced Working Timetable 67 in 2013. On the Central Line increased frequency in the off peak and at weekends meant that the 1992s weren't spending as much time in depots and sidings which meant that the train maintainers didn't have enough time to work on them which in turn meant trains were developing faults while in service. The difference with the current situation is that rather than an increased frequency there are two fewer trains on the Goblin but no one could have predicted how the 172s would hold up until they actually tried it. luacton - I heard the problem with the 710s was that the pantograph was dropping under certain conditions due to a software glitch. Not sure if there were any other problems. Pantographs were dropping and nobody is sure why the software is doing that. The AWS in the rear cab was remaining active so causing the brakes to apply unless isolated - again nobody quite understands why. Plus there were a host of minor problems with the TCS software. Problem is if you modify software to resolve one problem sometimes it causes another. That means you might need a complete rewrite in extremis. Testing resumed on the GOB a couple of nights ago but since that single round trip there hasn't been another although one is scheduled for Monday night - assuming it runs. |
|
|
|
Post by jukes on Nov 17, 2018 17:38:36 GMT
Electrification got held up due to some botched jobs on the wiring, I believe. I think that's the politest comment about the electrification works I've read in a long time. To the best of my knowledge the following went wrong. - they designed the electrification incorrectly - they put the wrong steelwork in the wrong places - they fractured several pipes and sewers - they failed to anticipate the need to raise the bridge at Crouch Hill station having assumed a waiver would be granted - the supply contract for the steelwork was placed too late - the supply of steelwork was late and incorrect - productivity on the project was woefully behind expectations in the first phase - project management during the first blockade seemed to be extremely poor as was TfL's understanding of what was actually going on. The only bits that seemed to go OK were - track lowering works - the long planned bridge replacement near T Hale / Ferry Lane - the platform extension works (separately contracted) Clearly NR eventually got their act together for the second blockade as at least all the posts / masts and wires were installed. Even then there were multiple further weekend closures and it look a long time to get places like South Tottenham's wires finished. Everything that went wrong was being project managed by NR. The platform extensions were being managed by TfL and everything went swimmingly! TfL were frustrated because every time they asked NR for a progress report nothing was supplied even though TfL could see problems they couldn't interfere because they are not the infrastructure owner. |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Nov 17, 2018 18:57:05 GMT
My view is that the Crouch Hill bridge issue should have made national headlines... the ORR should have been made to explain* why safety clearances devised by BR yonks ago and subsequently proven safe for over five decades should suddenly be unsafe. With railway electrification schemes being scaled back nationwide 'to reduce spiralling costs' I see it as a scandal that the ORR needlessly caused bridges which did not need rebuilding to be rebuilt - at significant extra and unplanned cost to taxpayers.
*TV news, other media personality interviews, for the public to fully understand the farcical situation.
As we know, there is a desperate shortage of DMU's on our railways. Perhaps if routes like that to Oxford had been wired (as originally planned) then the shortage would not have been so severe - and with the introduction of new electric trains delayed Goblin would not be facing bus substitution (because its existing trains would not be so desperately / urgently needed elsewhere). re: the cited shortcomings with the project management, perhaps if there was a long-term national project for railway electrification with a team of experts working on routes sequentially then the required expertise would have existed to prevent all these woes. |
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Nov 17, 2018 19:28:40 GMT
Electrification got held up due to some botched jobs on the wiring, I believe. I think that's the politest comment about the electrification works I've read in a long time. To the best of my knowledge the following went wrong. - they designed the electrification incorrectly - they put the wrong steelwork in the wrong places - they fractured several pipes and sewers - they failed to anticipate the need to raise the bridge at Crouch Hill station having assumed a waiver would be granted - the supply contract for the steelwork was placed too late - the supply of steelwork was late and incorrect - productivity on the project was woefully behind expectations in the first phase - project management during the first blockade seemed to be extremely poor as was TfL's understanding of what was actually going on. The only bits that seemed to go OK were - track lowering works - the long planned bridge replacement near T Hale / Ferry Lane - the platform extension works (separately contracted) Clearly NR eventually got their act together for the second blockade as at least all the posts / masts and wires were installed. Even then there were multiple further weekend closures and it look a long time to get places like South Tottenham's wires finished. Q1 Was there a job specification issued? Q2 Were site surveys carried out by the bidders? Q3 Was the cheapest price chosen? Q4 Was there any on site project management, including for progress meetings? Answers on the back of a stamp.  |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 18, 2018 1:16:45 GMT
Everything that went wrong was being project managed by NR. The platform extensions were being managed by TfL and everything went swimmingly! TfL were frustrated because every time they asked NR for a progress report nothing was supplied even though TfL could see problems they couldn't interfere because they are not the infrastructure owner. I know TfL contracted the platform works which were largely uncontentious in most locations because of the old long platforms still in situ. As the NR stuff I do hope you're not really saying what I think you typed. You seem to be suggesting that no one at TfL thought to escalate their concerns up the management chain to get someone with sufficient heft / influence to speak to their opposite number at Network Rail to raise serious concerns. I've no wish to put words in your mouth so please correct any error / misunderstanding on my part. When I was at LU I had it drummed into me that I should make all the efforts I sensibly could at my level (fairly senior) to get a resolution. However if things were stuck and needed sorting then I was told to escalate upwards in LU or possibly elsewhere if there was a supplier issue and I had the requisite connection. Obviously I had to demonstrate that I'd done what I could and was not escalating due to extreme laziness on my part. Surely someone at TfL must have been able to reach into Network Rail to get accurate progress reports? Heck they could tweet Sir Peter Hendy and he'd probably go and kick backsides personally! I really struggle with the idea that *no one* at TfL was able to have an appropriate discussion about the lack of progress on GOBLIN electrification. Asking, as a client and part funder of the work, for a progress report is not interference. It's your absolute right. The same logic applies about being able to raise concerns with the DfT who were funding the majority of the GOBLIN work. TfL and City Hall have established contacts with the DfT and meet with them regularly. Surely concerns were raised there too? I know TfL said, when the news of the delays finally broke, that they "didn't know what was happening". IMO that just made them look somewhat silly. How can one of the largest transport organisations in the world with a £10bn budget and tens of thousands of employees "not know" what was going on? We are getting a sort of repeat of this with the class 710 delays as well - it's just not credible given TfL *are* the funder (via a Lease co) of the new trains. |
|
|
|
Post by regp41 on Nov 19, 2018 0:41:02 GMT
I’ve read elsewhere that some Arriva Driver Instructors were at Old Dalby last week and got their hands on a 710 for the first time.
Could this be the start of driver training, does anyone know if this report is correct?
Ray
|
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Nov 19, 2018 11:53:07 GMT
I have only worked on IT projects but I certainly know of cases there where raising legitimate concerns was regarded as a "negative attitude" which was subsequently used to distribute blame for the failure. Better to jump ship and while the project still looks good on your CV.
All a matter of corporate culture.
|
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,275
|
Post by roythebus on Nov 19, 2018 13:16:53 GMT
From what I understand the lack of service is in order to allow staff training and to allow the new units to accumulate their 2000 hours per unit of trouble-free operation. Sullivan Buses are operating the replacement services between Seven sisters and Gospel Oak.
My conversation with some "in the know" suggested that staff that had been trained on the new units have lost their competence; it has expired since they've not driven them for 6 months.
I'd also link the management problems with the general problems with all major railway projects in this country. Lack of joined-up thinking on behalf of those in government being one. Look at the ECML project in the 1970's. Wiring done o the cheap, so cheap that if falls down in certain places every time the wind blows. A shortage of planners, engineers and people on the ground (or on the wiring trains) to do the job. there's been a number of widely dispersed electrification projects in the UK over the years, but in the intervening periods staff have gone abroad where work has been rather steadier with France, Germany and other European countries making best use of their labours over a longer period. Just look at France and Germany, both have built and completed high speed networks while the UK is still talking about the Croxley Link; HS2 is dithering, and again the French and Germans built their HS networks in the time it took to talk about and build the HS1 line!
We need some joined up thinking and common sense when it comes to infrastructure planning and some sensible funding from central government. There is a total lack of future-proofing on most things done here. Going at a bit off tangent look at the Dartford Tunnels, the first built for days when lorries were 7'6 wide, the second built for 8' wide lorries. As a result are both too narrow for cars to safely pass lorries that are now 8'3 wide, hence the daily traffic jams across Kent because of that. Compare those to roundhill tunnel on the A20 at Folkestone, built much wider so lorries can actually overtake other lorries at national speeds.
|
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Nov 19, 2018 13:59:07 GMT
Rather than "joined up thinking" (whatever that means) and "common sense" (ditto) we need a single management board made up of professionals with railway or infrastructure experience to take control of all aspects of running the railways. What we have at the moment is career civil servants at the DfT (all hoping that if they serve their time at one of the lesser Ministries they'll eventually get promoted to the Treasury or Home Office) with little if any actual railway experience making decisions for a system that is hopelessly fragmented between at least three dozen different companies all trying to squeeze as much profit out of the system as they can.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Nov 19, 2018 14:45:08 GMT
Rather than "joined up thinking" (whatever that means) and "common sense" (ditto) we need a single management board made up of professionals with railway or infrastructure experience to take control of all aspects of running the railways. What we have at the moment is career civil servants at the DfT (all hoping that if they serve their time at one of the lesser Ministries they'll eventually get promoted to the Treasury or Home Office) with little if any actual railway experience making decisions for a system that is hopelessly fragmented between at least three dozen different companies all trying to squeeze as much profit out of the system as they can. Privitisation/Sir Humphreys/pie charts and tick boxes. |
|
|
|
Post by dazz285 on Nov 19, 2018 16:41:02 GMT
From what I understand the lack of service is in order to allow staff training and to allow the new units to accumulate their 2000 hours per unit of trouble-free operation. Sullivan Buses are operating the replacement services between Seven sisters and Gospel Oak. My conversation with some "in the know" suggested that staff that had been trained on the new units have lost their competence; it has expired since they've not driven them for 6 months. Driver training has not started yet, & never did, only train the trainer at the moment.. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 19, 2018 21:44:02 GMT
From what I understand the lack of service is in order to allow staff training and to allow the new units to accumulate their 2000 hours per unit of trouble-free operation. Sullivan Buses are operating the replacement services between Seven sisters and Gospel Oak. My conversation with some "in the know" suggested that staff that had been trained on the new units have lost their competence; it has expired since they've not driven them for 6 months. I can't see how anyone can have been trained on the 710s as no trains have been delivered to Arriva Rail London. Some people might have had a play on the simulator but that doesn't count as real rolling stock "conversion" or familiarisation although it is clearly a help. As you rightly say this may have been months ago and will now be "timed out". They must also have hands on experience on the routes the trains will run on. Driver instructors apparently went up to Old Dalby last week so they may well have had a go on a real train but only in a test environment and not the "real railway". It now seems clear, according to the Line User Group's latest newsletter, that we now have the resumption of half hourly rail replacement services "T" and "J" at weekends until 23 December 2018. This supplements whatever scant service is run with the 172s. After 23 December there is no rail service at all - full time rail replacement kicks in (barring an absolute miracle of loads of 710s suddenly being handed over and 170 drivers having been trained). A very disappointing prospect for people returning from their Xmas and New Year hols. www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk/documents/20181116_Newsletter.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Nov 20, 2018 11:52:35 GMT
Not a single mention regarding the class 710’s in the board papers (to be discussed on 21st Nov).
Looks like the processing capacity up top has been exhausted by other project time slippages.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Nov 20, 2018 12:12:48 GMT
Our very own @juliang captured a unit out on test: Click/tap here if embedded tweet fails to display. |
|
|
|
Post by dazz285 on Nov 20, 2018 16:02:43 GMT
The Old Dalby test track was used & can simulate various scenarios required for training. So far there are 5 Driver Instructors trained on the 710's & by next Monday there will be 4 more, for the time being. No other training has taken place before last week as there were not in a position to be used for training. Dazz |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 21, 2018 12:21:14 GMT
Not a single mention regarding the class 710’s in the board papers (to be discussed on 21st Nov). Looks like the processing capacity up top has been exhausted by other project time slippages. Not quite. One of the TfL Board Members has been contacted by the Line User Group forcing the issue to be raised at the Customer Services & Ops Performance Committee. Therefore the line's problems are referenced in these papers albeit indirectly as Gareth Powell has to provide an update at that Committee meeting. The Line User Group were also supposed to be meeting Jonathan Fox and Geoff Hobbs of TfL this Monday just gone. Whether that happened I know not. TfL don't like to acknowledge bad news in Board Papers unless it is unavoidable because of wider media coverage which forces their hand. This has been their stance for years and years and while partly understandable (who likes bad news??) it doesn't help when passengers really need to have some assurance that issues that affect them are being properly considered. |
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Nov 22, 2018 18:27:24 GMT
Thought I saw a 710 driving end ...a single car...in Ilford depot this morning. Unfortunately a train then came on the adjacent track, so couldn't be sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 22, 2018 19:54:39 GMT
Seems, based on comments on Twitter, that we are now up to three different 710s that have ventured on NR metals - 710 265/266/267 have all escaped the confines of Willesden to stretch their wheels.
(Credit also to Julian G whose photos have also appeared here and on Twitter providing the same info)
|
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,275
|
Post by roythebus on Nov 23, 2018 23:52:37 GMT
Sullivan Buses providing the rail replacement service again this weekend Seven Sisters-Gospel Oak. I'm standby driver as usual!
Edited to add it was actually a rail enhancement service, a bus every 30 minutes throughout the day in case there were gaps in the train service. It may be there for up to 5 weeks, awaiting confirmation later.
|
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Nov 27, 2018 8:55:03 GMT
Sullivan Buses providing the rail replacement service again this weekend Seven Sisters-Gospel Oak. I'm standby driver as usual! Edited to add it was actually a rail enhancement service, a bus every 30 minutes throughout the day in case there were gaps in the train service. It may be there for up to 5 weeks, awaiting confirmation later. 5 weeks implies the current "enhanced" service is planned to run until the end of the year. Then what? If the "enhanced" service needs to be further "enhanced", then I guess there may be a call to Sullivan Buses. I hope you were not planning any holidays early next year. Even an optimistic observer would conclude it will be well into 2019 before sufficient 710s are in service to completely dispense with buses. So far there are nowhere near enough 710s cleared for use on Network Rail metals, let alone provide any to displace the current disappearing fleet. Then there is the small matter of driver training and presumably every driver will then need to make a few supervised? trips along the GOBLIN route - if nothing else to become familiar with the 710's stopping performance compared with the old diesel stock and ensure they all know how the new fault diagnostic systems work. I always feel mileage accumulation is a pretty poor measure of reliability. Inherently issues with things like faulty doors or CCTV monitoring systems tend to only come to light once they are in regular use with passengers on board. Just whizzing up and down the mainline won't really show if the door opening mechanisms on the 710s are going to work first time every time. I hope Bombardier have cancelled all planned leave for a heap of their 710 technicians so they can ride shot gun whilst these units are bedded in, or the pain for Goblin users may extend well into the next year. |
|
|
|
Post by cudsn15 on Nov 27, 2018 21:49:33 GMT
we only need 7 for the Goblin to run the normal service - don't we?
|
|
