Is Network Rail Only Part Of The Problem?
We like to have something simple to blame for our troubles!
I have just read this article in Rail Magazine entitled Carne opposes five-year funding cycle for big projects. This is an extract.
Network Rail Chief Executive Mark Carne told the Public Accounts Committee “there is no doubt at all in my view” that the Great Western Main Line electrification programme should have been managed in the same way as projects such as Crossrail and Thameslink.
“Personally, I think it [five-year funding cycles] is a really good way of funding ongoing operations, maintenance and renewals. But I am not sure it is a really good way of funding major investment projects,” he said.
We can look at various rail projects, that have been successfully completed without too much trouble, in the last few years.
Borders Railway
The Borders Railway seems to have been completed on time and on budget.
The only problem so far seems to be crowded trains and difficulty in finding more carriages.
So what’s new? This is only another manifestation of New Railway Syndrome.
Chords, Curves and Flyovers
Network Rail have also successfully built a few short railway lines to make the rail network and trains, easier to manage. This is a selection.
- The Allington Chord removed a bottleneck on the East Coast Main Line.
- The Hitchin Flyover removed another bottleneck on the East Coast Main Line.
- The Ipswich Chord allowed better access for freight trains to Felixstowe Docks and removed a lot of truck journeys from the roads.
- The Todmorden Curve allowed trains from Burnley to reach Manchester.
The only one with a problem was the Todmorden Curve, where Northern Rail had trouble finding trains for the new service.
Great Northern and Great Eastern Joint Railway Upgrade
The Great Northern and Great Eastern Joint Railway has been upgraded from Doncaster to Peterborough via Lincoln to act as a freight route away from the East Coast Main Line.
I talked about this upgrade in Project Managers Having Fun In The East.
This was no small project, as it involved resignalling, improving nearly a hundred miles of track and dealing with well over a hundred bridges and culverts.
It cost £330million and few people have heard of it.
But there doesn’t appear to have been any problems with the delivery of the project.
Rebuilding Birmingham New Street, Kings Cross, Manchester Victoria and Reading Stations
The rebuilding of these stations has not been trivial.
- The Birmingham New Stret rebuilding had its design and planning problems, but cost of around £500million
- The King’s Cross restoration cost £500million
- The Manchester Victroria renovation cost £55million.
- The Reading station redevelopment and some other works cost £850million
All were delivered on time, with the exception of Reading, which was delivered a year ahead of schedule.
You could add into this section, the substantial upgrades at Leeds, Newcastle and Peterborough.
Stafford Area Improvements Program
The Stafford Area Improvements Program is a £250million improvement to the West Coast Main Line.
It removes a bottleneck and allows extra trains on the line.
But few people have ever heard of it.
Summing Up Well-Managed Projects
So it would appear that Network Rail can manage some projects well and deliver them on time and on budget.
In my experience, they do seem particularly good at stations and always keep the trains running as much as possible.
If these projects have one thing in common, it is that they could all be well-defined before the project was started.
The Projects That Didn’t Go So Well
The following projects didn’t go as well as the previous ones.
Edinburgh to Glasgow Improvement Program
The Edinburgh to Glasgow Improvement Program is a £1billion program to upgrade and electrify the lines between the two largest Scottish cities.
It has had a rather chequered history and the original program has been reduced in scope.
Wikipedia says this in its entry about the project
It was reported that the project was delayed for up to three years due to the need to negotiate for the demolition of the west wing of the Millennium Hotel and works on Winchburgh Tunnel.
It has not been an easy project.
Great Western Main Line Upgrade
The Great Western Main Line Upgrade involved resignalling, electrification and a lot of track and station work on the Great Western Main Line.
To say it has been the project that keeps on wanting more time and money would not be an understatement.
This article in Rail Magazine says that the project could be two years late and cost three times as much as original estimates.
I have no insight into what has gone wrong, but there are several factors that have conspired against the project.
- Most electrification in the UK has been done in a series of phases, but on this project, they went for a faster approach, using a special train, which hasn’t worked very well.
- There have been planning problems in places like Bath, Goring and Oxford.
- The scale of the project is very large, with over a hundred bridges and tunnels to be modified.
- Politicians have changed the project several times.
It has been an unmitigated disaster.
However, I do feel that the engineers have got out the fag packets and envelopes and that they will find a way of getting this railway running under electric power. Or at least partially!
Politics is the science of spin and illusion, whereas engineering is the science of the possible.
North Western Electrification
The electrification in the North West, should have been a simple project, as the country is flat and the engineers must know the busy lines between Blackpool, Bolton, Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Wigan like the back of their hands. It’s also a join the dots exercise with the electrification, so this should just be connected to the main line electrification at Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Wigan.
But the benign flat lands have bitten hard, just like they bit George Stephenson.
My generation grew up with boyhood stories of George Stephenson’s problems as he crossed Chat Moss and where did his twenty-first Century successors have trouble, whilst electrifying Liverpool to Manchester? Chat Moss!
They’ve also suffered the well-publicised problems of the reconstruction of the Farnworth Tunnel and several other issues on the Manchester to Preston Line.
I think Network Rail appreciated the problems before they started and made the North West Electrification, more of a series of smaller projecs, than one large one.
The project is now on course for a two year delay, but the project now looks to be more likely to be completed.
Ordsall Chord
The Ordsall Chord is on the face of it, a simple project that should have been built years ago, to connect Manchester Victoria and Piccadilly stations and allow a large increase in number and quality of TransPennine services.
If anybody doubts the value of the Ordsall Chord, then read this article in the Manchester Evening News.
But sadly, the project has been delayed for many years, firstly by politicians and then by a veracious litigant.
I suspect that any Mayor of Manchester, would have built this important piece of railway many years ago.
Thameslink
Network Rail would probably say that the Thameslink upgrade is going well. Looking at the massive bridges and embankments, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.
I have added it to the list of failing projects, as there is no denying that they had their problems last Christmas, when they changed all of the routing. Network Rail received a £2million fine for their part in the chaos.
The Thameslink upgrade has been contentious and a long time coming, as it was originally approved in 2006.
I know there has been a major recession and effectively two changes of government since then, but the outcome when the project is delivered in 2018(Hopefully?), will be the same now, as was proposed a dozen years ago.
I think some major mistakes have been made.
- Network Rail were bullied by politicians to abandon their plan to terminate Wimbledon Loop services at Blackfriars, which would have taken pressure off the central tunnel.
- A protracted tendering process for mew trains, resulted in an interim fleet of Class 387 trains being delivered to fill in before the new Class 700 trains. Any sensible person would say, that Thameslink and Crossrail should have very similar trains.
- Before the major timetable change at Christmas 2014, the East London Line should have been running five-car trains and possibly more services, so make up for the reduced London Bridge services.
I would also have seen if by increasing other services, they could take the pressure off the overcrowded routes through London Bridge and on Thameslink.
In my view the project management of Thameslink has not been good. But then it is a London project managed nationally and responsible to Central Government. Crossrail on the other hand is a separate project, which is more under the control of Transport for London.
Summing Up The Bad Projects
These projects have various themes running through them.
- You could argue that the recession of 2008 and three changes of government have not done these projects any good.
- Public protest has caused delays and in the case of Thameslink unwelcome changes.
- Some of the projects don’t seem to have an independent structure that makes it easier to get things done and for the public to relate to the project. Thameslink for instance doesn’t have Crossrail’s openness.
- The time and budget constraints put on the projects by politicians have probably been a tad unrealistic.
It is my view, that the project management of these projects could have been a lot better.
I also feel, that Network Rail didn’t seem to have the strength to say No to politicians.
Is Mark Carne Right?
His first point is this.
There is no doubt at all in my view, that the Great Western Main Line electrification programme should have been managed in the same way as projects such as Crossrail and Thameslink
He is generally right on this, although I think Thameslink could learn from some of the actions of Crossrail, in the way they deal with passengers and public who are inconvenienced.
Thameslink is an information desert. If you tell people nothing and just give them hassle, you’ll reap your just rewards.
Mark Carne’s second point is this.
Personally, I think it [five-year funding cycles] is a really good way of funding ongoing operations, maintenance and renewals. But I am not sure it is a really good way of funding major investment projects.
In the 1960s and 1970s, it was a cardinal sin with large projects to mix them in with ongoing maintenance and general operation. Or it certainly was in ICI. One accountant told me that the separation , means you don’t get complicated lines of management and it controls costs better.
So it is my view that larger projects should be managed on an independent basis.
Network Rail Must Say No!
I think Network Rail can be accused of not fighting its corner against politicians and local vexatious litigants.
Hopefully Sir Peter Hendy’s Arrival at the top will help.
Projects Should Be More Like Crossrail
In some ways Crossrail is a project, that is broken in quite a few distinct smaller projects, which can be delivered in sequence.
Perhaps because of its size, it seems to have more sub-projects than say Thameslink or the Great Western Electrification.
But although some of the sub-projects are large on Crossrail, they do seem to be much smaller in scope than some of the sub-projects on the other projects.
If I look at some of the troubled projects, their structure and order is often more complicated than the much bigger Crossrail.
Both Thameslink and much of the electrification involve bring in new trains. Crossrail has the luxury of being able to introduce its new trains on the almost separate lines of the Shenfield Metro. So if the new Class 345 trains have some teething troubles, they will hopefully be very little collateral disruption to other routes.
Conclusions
Looking at this, I feel that the biggest problem is when Network Rail tries to manage large projects, especially when they are in a political or protester-rich environment.
They seem to manage better with smaller projects or one that are less politically important. But surely smaller projects are easier to give to a contractor to do the complete job.
The Crossrail structure of an independent project, seems to give a better result for large projects. In this independent structure, I suspect that the politicians and protesters still have influence, but this is direct to top management of the project, in hopefully a controlled manner.
Perhaps, all projects should be independent?
Years ago, when I worked for ICI, they used to like everyone working on a particularly project to be located closely together, if that was possible. They had found it got a better design, that was delivered faster and for less money. Communication between everybody on the project was also very good.
Crossrail 2’s Roadshow At Dalston
Today was a Roadshow Day for Crossrail 2 at Dalston.
You do get a chance for a chat, but most of the information presented is on their web site.
Boxing Day Trains On Merseyside
The title of this post is the title of an article in Rail Magazine.
Running trains on Boxing Day for one of the busiest shopping and sporting days of the year, is a logical thing to do.
But where are my trains to Ipswich on that day?
North Yorkshire Proposes Rail Expansion
It surprised me when I read that North Yorkshire was the largest county in England. But thinking about it, there can’t be many others of a similar size.
This document on the coumty’s web site is entitled North Yorkshire County Council Local Transport Plan 2016 – 2045 and it lays out, what it says on the fitrst page.
It has these two sections about rail.
Rail Line Re-openings
The County Council supports, in principle, proposals for rail reopening in the County, on identified routes such as Skipton to Colne and Harrogate to Ripon / Northallerton.
In the past many of the line re-openings were considered to be “local schemes” and therefore required local funding. The Council will only actively support opportunities for line re-openings where these are demonstrated as of National or pan North of England importance. National or pan North strategic importance will be assessed on the basis of the contribution to network resilience, improved strategic connectivity, the delivery of greater capacity or improved rail freight opportunities.
In all cases North Yorkshire County Council will only work with railway industry and local stakeholders where there is common agreement to develop a proposal.
Future of Rail
On the East Coast Main Line, over £240m is being spent by Network Rail on infrastructure, increasing capacity, reducing journey times and improving reliability. With investment in new InterCity Express trains and the franchise holder’s commitment to further investment, including a new timetable with 6 direct services between Harrogate and London, the route is set to be transformed by 2020.
The re-franchising for both the Northern and TransPennine services has produced invitations to tender that are transformational. In North Yorkshire this will result in many routes having increased frequencies, additional Sunday services, new or modernised trains and better customer focus. With greater local input into the management and development of the franchises through Rail North it is felt that we can achieve the rail services that are needed for the North.
High Speed connectivity with proposals for HS2 network linking London –Midlands– Sheffield-Leeds–York and the North East in the early 2030s and the work of Transport for the North on HS3, providing fast frequent and reliable links between Northern Cities provides opportunities now for the Council to develop its plans for good connectivity for North Yorkshire to and within these networks.
Private investment such as the Potash Mine near Whitby (improvements planned for the rail service on the Esk Valley) along with other planned housing and economic growth in North Yorkshire all combine to facilitate growth in rail.
The County Council remains committed to ensuring North Yorkshire benefits from the growth and investment in our railways and will continue to influence decisions to achieve the best outcome for the County
The Council is recommending re-opening these two lines.
Skipton to Colne
Skipton station is a station at the western end of the electrified lines to and through Leeds. There are several plans for the future, involving direct trains to London and more frequent services to and from Leeds. There is also an aspiration of the Embsay and Bolton Abbey Railway to extend into Skipton.
Colne station is at the eastern end of the partly single-track East Lancashire Line, with services all the way to Blackpool South station via Burnley, Blackburn and Preston.
The two stations used to be connected until 1970, when it was closed, despite not being recommended for such by Beeching.
An organisation called Skipton-East Lancashire Rail Action Partnership is pressing for the line to be reopened. This map shows the rail lines in the area.
Skipton To Colne
Reopening this just under twelve miles length of track could bring a lot of benefits.
Most of the trackbed hasn’t been built on, but look at this Google Map of Colne station.
Colne Station
Note how the dual-carriageway, A6068 and a football pitch have been built, where any link from Colne would probably go.
So there would be a need for an expensive bridge. But as the line to Colne is only single-track, I suspect that the bridge could get away with one track, providing there was a passing loop at Colne station.
Having seen tram-trains in Germany, I know what the Germans would do and that is run tram-trains from the Blackpool tramway across Lancashire as trains and then over a tramway to Skipton. The advantage would be simpler infrastructure and lower costs.
But we have our own solution in the shape of the IPEMU, which could charge its batteries at Skipton and Preston and use bateries on any unelectrified line in between. The advantage would be no wires and possibly only a single track across the Pennines.
But if it is decided to create a link between Skipton and Colne, the railway technology developments of the last few years, could make the link more affordable.
Harrogate to Northallerton
Harrogate station has local services on the Harrogate Line to Leeds and York and some long-distance services to London and the South. The lines through the station are not electrified.
Northallerton station is on the East Coast Main Line
The plans would reopen the section north of Harrogate of the Leeds and Northallerton Railway. This would reconnect the cathedral city of Ripon to the rail network.
Under the Wikipedia entry for the former Ripon station, this is said.
Today much of the route of the line through the city is now a relief road and although the former station still stands, it is now surrounded by a new housing development. The issue remains a significant one in local politics and there are movements wanting to restore the line. Reports suggest the reopening of a line between Ripon and Harrogate railway station would be economically viable, costing £40 million and could initially attract 1,200 passengers a day, rising to 2,700. Campaigners call on MPs to restore Ripon railway link.
On the face of it, it might appear a good plan, but there are still questions to be answered.
- Ripon would need a new route and probably a parkway station.
- Leeds to Northallerton is under sixty miles and is electrified at both ends, so a passenger service could be run by IPEMUs.
- Would the line be double-track and electrified?
- Would the line be capable of being used as a diversion route for the East Coast Main Line?
- Would freight trains be encouraged to use the line to relieve pressure on the busy East Coast Main Line?
I’ll repeat what the report says about the East Coast Main Line..
On the East Coast Main Line, over £240m is being spent by Network Rail on infrastructure, increasing capacity, reducing journey times and improving reliability. With investment in new InterCity Express trains and the franchise holder’s commitment to further investment, including a new timetable with 6 direct services between Harrogate and London, the route is set to be transformed by 2020.
It is probably true to say, that what happens on the East Coast Main Line is going to determine, whether the Harrogate to Northallerton Line gets reopened.
This article in the Northern Echo is entitled £230m plan to reinstate key North railway line receives major boost details a lot more about the project and the Council’s enthusiasm.
Improved Connectivity
This is always an aim of Councils and reports like that commissioned by North Yorkshire County Council. These come to mind.
Esk Valley Line
The only specific mentioned is that York Potash might be funding improvements to the Esk Valley Line.
In An Alternative Approach To Provide A Local Metro Network, I put forward the concept of using IPEMU trains with minimal electrification to dvelop a Tees Valley Metro.
I believe with some small amount of electrification at Middlesbrough, the Tees Valley would get its Metro and Whitby an improved service of new electric trains.
Leeds to Sunderland
Reopening an electrified Harrogate to Northallerton line, with additional electrification from Leeds to York on the Harrogate Line and Northallerton to Middlesborough on the Northallerton to Eaglescliffe Line, would open up the possibility of extending services between London and Leeds to Harrogate, Ripon, Northallerton, Middlesbrough and Sunderland without using the East Coast Main Line north of Doncaster.
Again with minimal electrification, the service could be run by 110 mph IPEMUs.
Sorting Northallerton
Northallerton station is in a nest of level crossings. Removing these is probably high up Network Rail’s list of must-do projects, but it strokes me that in the future, if all plans for the East Coast Main Line, the Northallerton to Harrogate Line and the various electrification schemes in the area come to pass, then Northallerton station and the tracks leading away from it, need a very strong sorting out.
Conclusion
To me, the most important thing about this report from North Yorkshire is that the council is looking seriously at transport options for the future.
An Advantage Of IPEMU Trains
My correspondent from the Corbedian Republic Of North Islington, has visited family in Newcastle over the weekend.
But things coming home didn’t go to plan and I received this text.
Our train dropped it’s pantograph.
Driver can’t put it back and train has been declared a failure. I quote. Now waiting to be rescued from Doncaster.
Later I received another text.
Train guard and driver not in touch. Could turn long and silly!
It all got me thinking!
As the train dropped a pantograph it was probably an InterCity 225 and not a diesel InterCity 125, which are built to Carry On Regardless. When I travel North from Kings Cross, I’ll look to see if the train is going to Aberdeen or Inverness, which means it will be a 125, with a reliable lump of a massive diesel engine front and back!
Incidentally, I found this extract in the Wikipedia entry for the Class 91 locomotive that pulls the InterCity 225.
In November 2012, unit 91114 had a second pantograph added as a pilot project operated jointly by Eversholt Rail Group, East Coast, ESG, Wabtec Rail and Brecknell-Willis. The new design uses the same mounting positions as a conventional pantograph but pairs two pantograph arms in an opposing configuration. If there is an ADD (Automatic Dropping Device) activation or the pantograph becomes detached, the train can keep going, so the system provides redundancy in the event of a pantograph/OLE failure.
So it could be that Class 91s regularly drop pantographs like whores drop their drawers!
As far as I can find out, only one locomotive has been fitted with the new pantograph.
But in future, I have a feeling that this type of problem could give a big advantage to an IPEMU train, which has on-board energy storage.
As it rolls along, it will be charging the battery, so if the pantograph fails, it will have a full battery and should be able to run for perhaps another fifty miles or so to a convenient station.
Having two independent systems, is not a bad way of improving reliability.
Crossrail 2 Consultation – Angel Station
This Crossrail document is entitled Angel Station.
The current Angel station is not a run-of-the-mill station with long escalators, an unusual platform layout and a situation in the ground-floor of an office block!
But as it was only built in the 1990s, I suspect the design is such to aid the construction of the Crossrail 2 station.
This is TfL’s proposal for the Crossrail 2 station at Angel.
-
2×250 metre long platforms.
-
Station platform tunnels around 30 metres below ground level to the top of tunnel
-
An increase in capacity within the existing Northern line ticket hall to accommodate a Crossrail 2 ticket hall on Islington High Street
-
An enlarged station entrance and a new second entrance onto Torrens Street
-
An underground connection between Crossrail 2 and Northern line services
-
A facility for reversing Crossrail 2 trains
The last item is possibly surprising, as although they need reversing facilities, I didn’t think it would be Angel.
This map from the document shows the layout of the station and the work-sites.
Crossrail 2 – Angel Station
The four work-sites are as follows.
- Site A – The site of the Royal Bank of Scotland building would be used for station tunnelling works and construction of the station entrance, station box and station shaft.
- Site B – Includes Iceland and other properties to the north of White Lion Street. This site would be used for construction of the station shaft. Impacts on Chapel market would be avoided.
- Site C – At the southern part of Torrens Street, the location of the old entrance to Angel station would be used as access to support the construction of the underground connection between Crossrail 2 and the Northern line.
- Site D – The Public Carriage Office site, which is owned by Transport for London, could be used for construction of a facility for reversing Crossrail 2 trains at Angel. This is subject to further investigation.
I have walked round the Angel and the various sites taking pictures in the order A, C, D and B.
All of this leaves me with these observations, thoughts and conclusions.
- All sites except D are bordered by roads carrying large amounts of traffic.
- The chaotic Junction At The End of White Lion Street needs easing before rebuilding Angel station.
- It is quite surprising how far the Northern Line platforms are from the entrance to the station. Sadly, this history will probably mean that there will be no simple interchange between the two lines as is promised at Balham.
- I would split the Northern Line into two lines before building Crossrail 2, as this might take pressure off Angel station during building of Crossrail 2.
- I think it is also a pity, that there is no entrance to the station shown on the Chapel Market side of the road.
On the plus side, I can’t see the design of the station causing too many problems in both design and construction.
A 2020 Update
It is now over five years since I wrote this post, so these are some new thoughts.
The Reversing Facility
The TfL document says that the facility will be for reversing trains at Angel station.
- As the site is to the West of Angel station, it would reverse trains from the East.
- Usually reversing sidings are between the two tracks and would be long enough to take a full-length train.
- The facility would be underground and it could be built in the traditional way as the new Bank tunnel was recently.
- The effect on buildings, would probably be the same as the main Crossrail 2 tunnels.
Operation of the reversing siding would be as follows.
- Trains would pull into the Westbound platform at the Angel.
- After all passengers had got out, the train would move forward into the siding.
- The driver would then change ends.
- When the line was clear move into the Eastbound platform.
It should be noted that Crossrail doesn’t have a reversing facility under London, and I think it would have been useful in enabling the route to open in sections.
A Walk Between Sloane Square And Imperial Wharf Stations
I waled between Sloane Square and Imperial Wharf stations, to get a feel of the area and formulate my views of whether the area needs a Crossrail 2 station and if it does, what form it will take.
The walk and the area did raise a few interesting questions.
- Why is the Department Store in Sloane Square not called John Lewis? After all Jones Brothers, George Henry Lee and Robert Sayle have all taken the corporate name.
- Why at nine o’clock in the morning were expensive cars rushing about at well above the speed limit? This area needs a fully enforced twenty limit to make everybody safer.
- Why all the fuss about demolishing an empty Fire Station to use the site for a Crossrail 2 station? With an imaginative architect, it would enhance the buildings in that area of the King’s Road.
- Why would anybody want to live in the very attractive but expensive side streets? You’d effectively be a prisoner of the traffic for most of the week.
- Why are so many of the shops boring members of chains? I didn’t see many that I felt, I should return visit to perhaps buy something for my house.
- Why are there no signs to Imperial Wharf station?
- Why are there so few maps?
- Why do the artisan bakeries not have anything without gluten? The only places that do gluten-free I saw were Marks and Spencer, Waitrose and Starbucks. The Angel has those and several others!
I really think that the whole point of the opposition by some, to the building of a Crossrail 2 station on the King’s Road, is that they want to keep the area congested with traffic, so that visitors stay away!
After all. posh people in Chelsea, don’t want to allow plebs like me with a degree in a very non-artistic subject like Engineering to lower the tone of the area, by visiting!
Is This Really A Pacer In A New Outfit?
I don’t like Pacers, which I often refer to as scrapyard specials, as in most cases those places should be their next destination.
Today, my heart sank as the conductor of a crowded Class 158 train at Rotherham Central station, refused entry to the train to proceed to Sheffield.
I knew what would happen and it did!
Ten minutes later and a dreaded Pacer in the form of Class 144 train hove into view. But at least it was four carriages and it would take the happy remnants of the Ipswich away supporters to Steel City!
Only after I’d been sitting in the last coach for a couple of minutes did I realise this was not an ordinary Pacer, as the seats were like Noah’s animals in a 2×2 formation and it looked like the paint and seats and their covers were all new. Above our heads was a new digital display informing the occupants of the route. This was much needed, as this particular train circumnavigated a large portion of South Yorkshire.
I took these pictures.
I had heard of the E for Evolution version of the Class 144 train before! So were we all travelling in the prototype of this train?
The pictures confirm we were.
Some other points.
- Passengers seemed to be suffering from New Train Syndrome, judging by the surprised look on their faces.
- The train sounded like a Pacer, but perhaps a bit quieter.
- Ride seemed better, than the standard Class 144 train I took to get to Rotherham. Perhaps, the maintenance engineers had tightened the nuts and tweaked the bogies or something?
- I spoke to a few passengers, who I reckoned would know nothing of the project to create the Class 144E and they seemed impressed and felt the train was a lot better than the ones they normally travel on.
- The train had the clearest information display, I’ve seen on any train. This near seventy-year-old with stroke-damaged eyesight loved it!
This Class 144 E design could convert the twenty-three Class 144 trains into something that meets the Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Interoperable Rail System) Regulations. Wikipedia says this about the train.
The demonstrator Class 144e unit (144012) features a number of upgrades such as the addition of new 2+2 style seating, a fully accessible toilet, two wheelchair spaces and spaces for bicycles and luggage. as well as Wi-Fi and media screens.
It has one problem!
The politicians have said the Pacers would be gone.
But to replace them with new electric trains and put up all that overhead wiring, would cost a fortune and more importantly take a long time.
However in the short term, an upgrade of the Class 144 trains would improve the lot of passengers some way towards the level of new trains.
So would politicians be prepared to do a U-turn and upgrade the Pacers?
Ian Walmsley in Modern Railways has said that this demonstrator is a good start and the lessons learned should be applied to upgrading other multiple units like the various Class 15X trains.
But he doubts the economics and reliability.
For myself, if I was the Transport Secretary I would take a pragmatic decision, as we desperately need more trains.
I would convert perhaps five or six of the Class 144 trains and use them on routes with severe capacity problems or train shortages. Passengers would be surveyed and a detailed analysis of all the results would be published.
I might even put a set on the Gospel Oak to Barking Line, where they would be compared to modern Class 172 trains. It would be a tough ask, but after what I experienced today, it wouldn’t be the unfair fight it would be with the standard Class 144.
Only then would a final decision be made as to whether all Class 144 trains were upgraded or scrapped!
Will Glasgow Ever Get Crossrail?
I have a Google Alert for Grossrail and occasionally it picks up an article for Glasgow Crossrail, like this comment in The Scotsman entitled Glasgow Crossrail: Will the ‘missing link’ be built?
If you look at the major cities in the UK, many have cross-city links tying the railways on both sides of the city together.
London has several.
- Thameslink
- The East, North and West London Lines
- The Gospel Oak to Barking Line
A major East-West link in Crossrail is being built and another Crossrail 2 is being planned.
Except for Manchester, where the Ordsall Chord is being built, I don’t know of a major city in England, where services are disconnected across the city.
In the last few years, I’ve walked across Glasgow a couple of times to connect between the South and East.
As a Sassenach, I can’t understand, why the Glassgow Crossrail is not given a high priority by the Scottish Government.
Perhaps the reason, is that one of the groups that would benefit most, would be English travellers arriving in Glasgow, who wanted to go North to places like Inverness, Aberdeen and Fort William.
Or could it be those old friends of the railways: the airlines, are lobbying against it, as it would allow services direct from Aberdeen and Inverness to Manchester?
The Class 700 Trains Are Coming
I could add hopefully to the title of this post.
Thameslink needs the Class 700 trains currently being built and tested by Siemens.
When fully delivered these trains will not only fully replace the current Class 319 trains and the stop-gap Class 387 trains, but the Class 365 trains that work the Cambridge and Peterborough services into Kings Cross, which after Thameslink is completed will go through the tunnel to the Deep South.
So what do we know of the delivery schedule?
This set of blog posts from Sparky Scrum gives a good insight into the Class 700 trains and some tantalising clues. Take this for example.
Siemens are now busy constructing the units and doing its various testing to get the fleet delivered on time. That includes next year sending TOC staff on do the initial training on the fleet on a real track at full speed the Desiro City is capable off. This will speed their introduction when they arrive for passenger service early 2016. With 115 trains to deliver by the end of summer 2018, we’re will see a peak introduction of units of 1 per week by the end of 2016. The first service train on the GN into Kings Cross is expected in 2017. There is many interesting and exciting time ahead for Thameslink. This year sees the revealing of that vision with the trains now public and in a few months the winner bidder will be announced.
If nothing else, everybody seems to be being professional. One train delivery a week sounds impressive. If it happens!
So by the end of 2018, if their delivery schedule is met, there will be sixty eight-car and fifty-five twelve-car Class 700 trains churning through the tunnels under London at twenty trains an hour.
I’ll believe that when I see it, but there will be substantial numbers of Class 700 trains running between Bedford, Cambridge and Peterborough in the North to Brighton, Sutton and Sevenoaks in the South, by December 2018.
If deliveries go to plan, this will release the current fleet of forty Class 365 trains, twenty-nine Class 387 trains, thirteen Class 321 trains, possibly up to thirty five Class 319 trains and some other stock like some Class 377 trains.
Add to this that Porterbrook have now ordered another possibly twenty trains, it would seem that by the end of 2018, we should have more than enough electric trains to provide new electric services. Provided of course, that Network Rail can get the wires up.
The Anonymous Widower 