A press release has landed in my inbox:

NEWS RELEASE
15th February 2010

MISERY ALL ROUND ON LONDON OVERGROUND!

Less trains in 20th February timetable

Rail user group condemns Transport for London for prolonging chronic
overcrowding by quietly cutting trains from new timetable

PASSENGERS URGED TO CHECK THE CUTS IN NEW 20TH FEBRUARY TIMETABLE

The Barking-Gospel Oak Line User Group (BGOLUG) has criticised Transport for
London (TfL) for making a late decision to cancel extra trains from a new
timetable that would have eased the line's chronic overcrowding. BGOLUG is
angry that the worsening overcrowding which passengers have been suffering
for the last two years will now continue for the rest of this year.

When Network Rail published the December 2009-May 2010 National Timetable,
trains on the Barking-Gospel Oak Line were shown as being stepped up from
the current 20-minute frequency to every 15 minutes during the busiest times
from Monday 22nd February. But TfL Rail's recently published timetable,
effective from 20th February, make no mention of the more frequent peak
service and even reveals that some trains in the current timetable will be
axed. London Overground has yet to respond to a BGOLUG request for an
explanation.

BGOLUG Secretary Richard Pout said, "We started pressing TfL Rail and their
operator London Overground for additional trains to relieve overcrowding
over two years ago. We even produced our own timetable showing how the peak
20-minute train frequency could be stepped up to every 15 minutes during the
busiest periods. TfL Rail has done nothing but make empty 'jam tomorrow'
promises while the overcrowding has now reached chronic levels. We finally
thought our proposals had been adopted only to find them dropped by TfL Rail
at the last minute."

Some existing passengers may also find that their current trains have
disappeared as well. From 22nd February the daytime off-peak 30-minute
interval service will start earlier and finish later, especially affecting
home-going school children from Gospel Oak.

"There will be misery enough with the three month closure of the
Stratford-Gospel Oak section of the North London Line starting the same
weekend, without cutting trains between Barking and Gospel Oak", said
Richard Pout. "Trains are becoming dangerously overcrowded now, with many
would-be passengers being left behind while others are doubling back in the
opposite direction to stations where they have a chance of getting on a
train to work."

BGOLUG have been told of passengers at Leyton Midland Road travelling to
Gospel Oak in the morning being unable to board trains and having to travel
in the opposite direction to Barking to get a seat. Evening eastbound trains
are now so full passengers are being left behind at Blackhorse Road and some
are travelling back to South Tottenham in order to be able to get on a
train.

"TfL promised an all day 15-minute service from last September, when
re-signalling by Network Rail, part of a government funded £18.5m investment
to increase capacity for more trains was completed. Network Rail finished
the work late in mid November, yet trains are now being cut from the
timetable, instead of being added," said Richard Pout. "If government and
TfL could end their petty squabbling and agree to electrify the line we
could be having 3-carriage electric trains instead of the inadequate
2-carriage diesels."

PEAK SERVICE
From Barking between 06:25 and 10:40: From Gospel Oak between 06:25 and
10:00:
Current timetable: 13 trains Current timetable: 11 trains
New Timetable: 11 trains New Timetable: 10 trains

From Barking between 15:30 and 19:00: From Gospel Oak between 15:00 and
19:00:
Current timetable: 11 trains Current timetable: 12 trains
New timetable: 10 trains New timetable: 11 Trains

DAYTIME OFF-PEAK 30-MINUTE FREQUENCY SERVICE
From Barking: From Gospel Oak
Current timetable: 11:08 until 15:08 Current timetable: 10:25 until 14:55
New Timetable: 09:53* until 15:53 New Timetable: 09:42 until 15:42?
*following a 33 minute gap after 09:20 ?followed by a 33 minute gap until
16:15

- ENDS -

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT RICHARD POUT ON 07970 722991
OR E-MAIL

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. Formed as the Barking - Kentish Town Line Committee to fight Dr. Beeching's
closure proposals in the 1960s, the Barking - Gospel Oak Line User Group has
continued to represent the line's passengers and campaign for improved
services and station facilities, and also for the overdue electrification of
the only non-electrified railway in North East London.

2. See http://www.networkrail.co.uk for the December 2009 Great Britain
Timetable, Table 62.

3. See http://www.tfl.gov.uk for TfL's London Overground timetables.

4. As part of a £326m scheme to improve services before the 2012 Olympics
funded by TfL, Network Rail and the Olympic Delivery Authority, the
Stratford to Willesden section of the North London Line will be
re-signalled, with lengthened platforms, while the Dalston to Camden Road
(exclusive) section will be rebuilt to accommodate the East London Line
extension from Dalston Junction to Highbury & Islington and extra tracks for
freight trains between Highbury & Islington and Camden Road. The existing
freight tracks between Dalston Junction and Camden Road were closed for the
rebuilding work in April 2009 and the entire railway between Stratford and
Camden Road will be closed from 20th February until 31st May 2010. This
means the high number of freight trains, many hauled by electric
locomotives, using the North London Line will have to be diverted to the
Barking - Gospel Oak Line and hauled by diesels. North London Line
passengers will have to use substitute buses which will only run every 20
minutes.

5. In 2007 the Department for Transport awarded a grant of £18.5m from its
Transport Innovation Fund, match funded by Network Rail's Discretionary
Investment Fund for a £37m scheme to increase the clearances (W10 loading
gauge) between Woodgrange Park and Willesden to allow an alternative route
to the North London Line for the passage of the largest international
shipping containers from the current and planned Essex and Suffolk ports.
The scheme also funded re-signalling between Wanstead Park and Upper
Holloway which was to double the number of trains that could be run,
allowing TfL Rail to run a 15-minute interval passenger service and more
freight to be carried. The clearance work for W10 loading gauge was carried
out during autumn 2008, but the re-signalling work overran and was not
commissioned until 14th November 2009. There have been numerous 'teething
problems' with the new signalling, some causing delays to trains and
remedial work is continuing showing, BGOLUG believes, short-sighted
economies during design.

6. As part of the London Rail Concession contract let by TfL Rail to London
Overground Rail Operations Limited (LOROL), LOROL undertook to deliver,
8x2-car Class 172 Turbostar diesel multiple units from the former British
Rail Engineering plant at Derby, now owned by Bombardier Transportation.
Originally to be delivered in late 2009, expected delivery has now slipped
back to mid 2010.

On Feb 15, 3:59*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:42:44 -0000, "Tim Roll-Pickering"





wrote:
PASSENGERS URGED TO CHECK THE CUTS IN NEW 20TH FEBRUARY TIMETABLE

The Barking-Gospel Oak Line User Group (BGOLUG) has criticised Transport for
London (TfL) for making a late decision to cancel extra trains from a new
timetable that would have eased the line's chronic overcrowding. BGOLUG is
angry that the worsening overcrowding which passengers have been suffering
for the last two years will now continue for the rest of this year.

When Network Rail published the December 2009-May 2010 National Timetable,
trains on the Barking-Gospel Oak Line were shown as being stepped up from
the current 20-minute frequency to every 15 minutes during the busiest times
from Monday 22nd February. But TfL Rail's recently published timetable,
effective from 20th February, make no mention of the more frequent peak
service and even reveals that some trains in the current timetable will be
axed. London Overground has yet to respond to a BGOLUG request for an
explanation.

[snip]

BGOLUG have been told of passengers at Leyton Midland Road travelling to
Gospel Oak in the morning being unable to board trains and having to travel
in the opposite direction to Barking to get a seat. Evening eastbound trains
are now so full passengers are being left behind at Blackhorse Road and some
are travelling back to South Tottenham in order to be able to get on a
train.

I have to say that this is a serious concern. The timetable that was
published in the national timetable in December did provide a slight
improvement. It did create some odd headways on the edges of the peak
period but I assume that was necessary to cope with freight paths. Now
we get a cutback.

What is not at all clear is who is responsible for the change to the
timetable. There is nothing at all in any of the recent TfL board or
panel papers that gives even a hint that there are problems with the
GOBLIN timetable. I sometimes see the trains at Blackhorse Road in the
afternoon peak. You can see people really struggling to board trains so
I imagine it is as bad as the user group are stating. I am really
beginning to wonder if we are ever going to get the timetable
improvements. Thankfully my scepticism about the trains is partly put to
rest by there being photos of the trains under test / construction on
the London Reconnections blog.

Is it possible that the improved timetable from later this month was
reliant on having some of the extra units in place. The fleet will be
growing from 6 x 2 car class 150s to 8 x 2 car class 172s. Even simple
replacement of class 150s with class 172s may give an increase in
capacity due to the longer vehicles (although there will be less
seating due to the 2+2 arrangement). Running more than a twenty minute
frequency looks difficult with the existing fleet size.

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...

I think the thing that is most galling - and I don't use the line that
often - is the lack of consistent information about just what is going
on. Nearly all the news or press releases are after the event - I
suspect it is Network Rail that is part of the issue.

Isn't the delayed NLL closure a possible reason for the delay? The freight
displaced from there is going to have to be diverted?

Paul S

Is it possible that the improved timetable from later this month was
reliant on having some of the extra units in place. The fleet will be
growing from 6 x 2 car class 150s to 8 x 2 car class 172s. Even simple
replacement of class 150s with class 172s may give an increase in
capacity due to the longer vehicles (although there will be less seating
due to the 2+2 arrangement). Running more than a twenty minute frequency
looks difficult with the existing fleet size.

I don't think it did need more trains overall. The 15 minute interval
was only at the height of the peak. I think either the user group or
London Travelwatch showed a while back that you could create such a
timetable with adequate turnaround time to cater for the worst of the
peak with the existing fleet. I remember reading a document that set out
the scheduling and pathing issues.

Out of interest, what is it that's restricting the GOBLIN to 2 car
operation?

I live in Leyton and get the train every so often between here and Crouch
Hill (and would have used it much more often since moving here, but for
the weekend closures....) and most if not all of the intermediate
stations could easily deal with longer trains?

(Apologies if this is a well-worn question)

On Feb 15, 8:24*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:09:15 -0800 (PST), Andy
wrote:

Is it possible that the improved timetable from later this month was
reliant on having some of the extra units in place. The fleet will be
growing from 6 x 2 car class 150s to 8 x 2 car class 172s. Even simple
replacement of class 150s with class 172s may give an increase in
capacity due to the longer vehicles (although there will be less
seating due to the 2+2 arrangement). Running more than a twenty minute
frequency looks difficult with the existing fleet size.

I don't think it did need more trains overall. The 15 minute interval
was only at the height of the peak. I think either the user group or
London Travelwatch showed a while back that you could create such a
timetable with adequate turnaround time to cater for the worst of the
peak with the existing fleet. I remember reading a document that set out
the scheduling and pathing issues.


I'd be interested to see how they did that. The evening peak 20 mins
frequency lasts for over two hours and it takes 40 mins end to end. A
minimum round trip, with zero turn around (on the public timings)
takes 80 mins. So an absolute minimum of four units would be needed
(leaving at +0, +20, +40 and +60 mins before the first unit is back at
the start). For a 15 min frequency service six trains would be needed
(leaving at +0, +15, +30, +45, +60 and +75 mins before the pattern
could repeat), and diagramming 6 from 6 class 150s doesn't seem
reasonable. If it was a case of squeezing an extra diagram in, then
the fifteen minute frequency couldn't last for long. Just one extra
unit would make diagramming much easier; maybe LO gave up one too many
class 150s at the start of the concession.

Clearly you need more trains and better performing ones if we are to get
a x15 service every day of the week - although even that is not clear
given the garbled info in the editor's notes under recent press releases
about Overground works.

I think the thing that is most galling - and I don't use the line that
often - is the lack of consistent information about just what is going
on. *Nearly all the news or press releases are after the event - I
suspect it is Network Rail that is part of the issue. Delays in
delivering the 172s are obviously not helping matters but there is a
real sense of exasperation from the user group [1] even if you could
through their tendency to occasional hyperbole for effect. *I suspect
people could cope if someone was communicating openly and honestly - it
just isn't happening from what I can see.


I'd certainly agree that there is a lack of consistent information,
but this seems to be a general flaw with London Overground and the
various bits of TfL that was associated.

On Feb 15, 9:22*pm, Martin Petrov
wrote:
Is it possible that the improved timetable from later this month was
reliant on having some of the extra units in place. The fleet will be
growing from 6 x 2 car class 150s to 8 x 2 car class 172s. Even simple
replacement of class 150s with class 172s may give an increase in
capacity due to the longer vehicles (although there will be less seating
due to the 2+2 arrangement). Running more than a twenty minute frequency
looks difficult with the existing fleet size.

I don't think it did need more trains overall. The 15 minute interval
was only at the height of the peak. I think either the user group or
London Travelwatch showed a while back that you could create such a
timetable with adequate turnaround time to cater for the worst of the
peak with the existing fleet. I remember reading a document that set out
the scheduling and pathing issues.

Out of interest, what is it that's restricting the GOBLIN to 2 car
operation?

I live in Leyton and get the train every so often between here and Crouch
Hill (and would have used it much more often since moving here, but for
the weekend closures....) and most if not all of the intermediate
stations could easily deal with longer trains?



I think the only short platform is the eastbound at South Tottenham,
so other than that, I think it is just unit availability. There may be
a couple of other locations which would need work for a 4 car class
172 train to fit due to the longer vehicles.

In article
,
(Andy) wrote:

On Feb 15, 9:22*pm, Martin Petrov
wrote:
Is it possible that the improved timetable from later this month was
reliant on having some of the extra units in place. The fleet will
be growing from 6 x 2 car class 150s to 8 x 2 car class 172s. Even
simple replacement of class 150s with class 172s may give an
increase in capacity due to the longer vehicles (although there will
be less seating due to the 2+2 arrangement). Running more than a
twenty minute frequency looks difficult with the existing fleet
size.

I don't think it did need more trains overall. The 15 minute
interval was only at the height of the peak. I think either the user
group or London Travelwatch showed a while back that you could
create such a timetable with adequate turnaround time to cater for
the worst of the peak with the existing fleet. I remember reading a
document that set out the scheduling and pathing issues.

Out of interest, what is it that's restricting the GOBLIN to 2 car
operation?

I live in Leyton and get the train every so often between here and
Crouch Hill (and would have used it much more often since moving
here, but for the weekend closures....) and most if not all of the
intermediate stations could easily deal with longer trains?

I think the only short platform is the eastbound at South Tottenham,
so other than that, I think it is just unit availability. There may be
a couple of other locations which would need work for a 4 car class
172 train to fit due to the longer vehicles.

I thought there was no way to lengthen the South Tottenham platform due to
junctions close by?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message ,
writes

I thought there was no way to lengthen the South Tottenham platform due to
junctions close by?

Although tight, it should be possible - it was only about 15 years ago
that the platforms were shortened to two-car length (because of
subsidence). The following gives an idea of the original platform
lengths:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10793813@N07/2038047821/

The section of the far platform with the inset fence (where the two kids
are standing) was entirely removed, and I think it was also shortened at
the other end as well.

It seems quite incredible that a short-sighted decision to reduce the
platforms at S. Tottenham in relatively recent times is now almost the
only reason why LO can't run the much-needed 3-car sets on the GOBLIN.
--
Paul Terry

Paul Terry wrote:

It seems quite incredible that a short-sighted decision to reduce the
platforms at S. Tottenham in relatively recent times is now almost the
only reason why LO can't run the much-needed 3-car sets on the GOBLIN.

Don't some of the other station platforms need work to reactivate the full
length? The unused section at Wanstead Park is rather decayed.

Out of interest, what is it that's restricting the GOBLIN to 2 car
operation?

I live in Leyton and get the train every so often between here and
Crouch Hill (and would have used it much more often since moving here,
but for the weekend closures....) and most if not all of the
intermediate stations could easily deal with longer trains?

(Apologies if this is a well-worn question)

It is a well-worn question but I have yet to see a well worn answer. The
main sticking point is South Tottenham. This is because there are
junctions very close to the platform ends and then there is the bridge
over Tottenham High Road. I think it is the westbound platform that is
the most problematic. I have seen comments that suggest it is impossible
to extend the platforms while others have suggested some form of
extension might be possible but you'd still need selective door
operation. While other platforms look "extendable" I'd have to wonder
about their condition - this line has been on "economy rations" for a
very, very long time and I doubt much if anything has been spend on
structures.

I see that a link to some old photos is in another post. They're very
revealing about how complex and busy this line used to be. Other shots
on the site show Queens Rd and Blackhorse Road goods yards - a strange
concept when you consider there's nothing there today. It also clearly
shows that South Tottenham was quite a nice little station with rather
longer platforms. I must admit I can't quite match the photos to today's
reality but at some point I will have to go and have a look and take
some photos.

I'm less concerned about train extensions than someone deciding whether
the line will be electrified or not. The apparent spat between the DfT
and TfL over funding of a study - £200K is the sum of money under
contention AIUI - does no one any favours. Electrification is the most
logical piece of investment coupled with works to get rid of the
decaying bridges and embankments which keep causing speed restrictions.
The way things are going the line will end in a state of "being worked
on" for the next ten years - we've had two or three batches of this
approach and it does nothing for the service. If the line is worthy of
a proper upgrade then please just do it once rather than 3,4 or 5 times
over.

Thanks for that (you and others) - yes, the platforms at Leyton beyond
the current 2 car length are definitely in a pretty messy state, and
would need a bit more work.

It is a very strange line though (at least to me) as it appears to go
nowhere from nowhere, and has so few direct interchanges - but it is a
godsend if you are travelling around North London as it can be so much
quicker than travelling in and out. It's just when it's every 30 minutes
in the evening that prevents me using it that bit more often. A proper
upgrade would be terrific.