phil-b259

I expect a similar situation will prevail as occurs with Oyster acceptance* at Merstham, Redhill, Elarlswood, Salfords, Horley and Gatwick Airport. In other words the Oyster fare will be pretty much the same as now, particularly at Reading - which avoids any of the issues I previously mentioned and ensures that GWR fares are not significantly undercut and the fares revenue that GWR gets is not adversely affected. Please remember that outside the GLA area TfL can only act with permission of the DfT - who will ensure that the profitability of the franchises they let suffers no ill effects whatsoever from Oyster acceptance. * example fares (Nov 2015) Gatwick Express single journey on Oyster pay as you go will be £19.80. The current single fare when purchased at London Gatwick or London Victoria is £19.90. Redhill to London Victoria or London Bridge single journey on Oyster pay as you go will be £10.30 peak and £5.80 off-peak. The current anytime day single is £10.50. East Croydon to Gatwick Airport single journey on Oyster pay as you go will be £5.20 peak and £3.00 off-peak. The current paper anytime single (excl. Thameslink only fares) is £5.20. See also http://content.tfl.gov.uk/national-rail-adult-fares.pdf

However when Crossrail is extended to Reading TfL have said Oyster / contactless will be extend to include all stations to Reading as they regard Oyster acceptance as an essential requirement of all services they provide. The only thing is that unlike the case with London Overground, where services extend beyond the GLA boundary or where stations are also served by TOCs franchised by the DfT, TfL are bared from reducing fares or restructure them so as to produce a 'cliff edge' effect at boundary stations like West Drayton.

I was on nights - you will have to excuse the words not coming out as my brain intended. Of course what I meant to say is ."... if a piling team encounter a problem* then ..." * Which could in theory be a cock up with two teams sent to work at one location, but due to the more complex planning working on a live railway requires it is difficult to relocate the 'spare team' as opposed to if the same occurred on a construction site setup (like HS2)

And thats the point with HS2. If you are not working on a live railway then you have a far larger pool of people who can not only do the work - but also plan and run the actual construction, which in turn makes the project run more smoothly and overruns less likely. While, yes the GWML is fundamentally a poor planning issue on many levels - much of that is down to the the quantity of people who have the necessary skills having been significantly reduced since Privatisation and the seeming inability of the newbies to master the 'black art' as you put it. A project like HS2 where large chunks will have minimal involvement with an operational railway (and thus have far less need of 'operational railway possession planning' for example) can be far better organised because they have access to the far bigger pool of experienced people (i.e. who work in the construction industry more generally - not just railways).

A big difference with HS2 is that large chunks of it can be built independently of an operational railway. If you have a look at HS1 or even Crossrail it shows that completing complex construction projects on time and in budget is not impossible on new builds. What really screws things is where you are trying to rebuild an existing asset while keeping it open. In such a situation things become much more time critical - i. e. you don't have the same flexibility to rearrange construction tasks due to say difficult weather conditions or unforeseen ground conditions, both of which can be done on 'greenfield' construction projects. When working on an open asset even the most minor of changes can cause big ripples - if a team encounter difficulties in piling say - on a greenfield site its relatively easy to move the team to crack on at another site while the issue is resolved and thus keep construction on schedule. You also need to remember that if the railway is completely separate from the existing network, then it can be built using construction regs. Dawlish if you recall was classed as a construction site for most of the time the sea wall was being repaired, NOT officially a railway precisely because this meant that the requirement to have specialist staff (e.g. a requirement to have PTS) could be removed thus making arranging staff and equipment a much cheaper and simpler process. By contrast if a piling team on the GWML encounter a piling team then they cannot simply be moved to another location as easily, you need to consider whether the alternative site is in a block, whether the site safety arrangements are still the same, how you will get people / equipment on and off the open railway etc. This all means that problems can easily wreck the planned schedule with recovery a lot harder to achieve.

That is most likely due to resource issues (people and plant). The UK railway industry has been suffering from a significant skills shortage for a number of years including everything from (FOC drivers for engineering trains) through to Signal testers and OHLE installers, thus the pool of people and kit is not as large as you might think. Thus means when bank holidays come round it is normal for the available men and plant to be concentrated in one place for specific 'big jobs'. For example - most nights if you visit the operating floor of Three Bridges ASC over a normal weekend / overnight there will usually be lots of engineering activity going on as engineers seek access to keep the railway going. This weekend - exactly when you would think its an ideal opportunity to get in there has been hardly anything happening. However there is a big relaying job taking place on the Arun Valley this weekend plus I believe there were once again significant works going on around London Bridge. Both these sorts of things will have sucked men and plant in from a wide area leaving nothing available to do works elsewhere on the BML. So it may be that with the GWML there resources are simply not available to progress things this weekend - even though it appears to be a missed opportunity on the surface of things.

Standards change in light of experience. To take a rather radical example before the Titanic sank there was no requirement for lifeboats, afterwards there had to be enough lifeboats for every passenger. However today that does not apply - because experience has shown lifeboats are not that great when it comes to the public and an emergency - so we now have the more expensive MES https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_evacuation_system on many ships instead. Another example today might be bridge testing - read old board of trade reports and very often the principle test was to drive one or two of the companies heaviest engines across it and make sure there was no sign of collapse. That is unacceptable today as it puts workers at risk so much more emphasis is placed on verification by computer modelling or other tests during construction and material sampling etc to provide the necessary answers. In the case of check rails, the standards will have been revised to take into account the much grater understanding we now have about the rail wheel interface, changes in trail profiles, weights, train suspensions etc wit the result that what may have been considered fine in the past is not so now. A case in point occurred not that long ago in Manchester where a class 57 became derailed primary due to a worn rail AND the lack of a check rail which would have prevented the derailment. IIRC older standards said the curve was fine not having a check rail but the newer standards said it wasn't. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/410639/140331_R072014_Ordsall_Lane_Junction.pdf Recomendations (part of):- The intent of this recommendation is to reduce the risk of derailment on small radius curves by ensuring that non-compliances with currently prescribed requirements for check rails are identified and mitigated. Network Rail should identify all curves that are non-compliant with Railway Group standard GC/RT5021 and Network Rail standard NR/L2/TRK/2102 in respect of the need to fit a check rail. For each identified curve, Network Rail should implement measures to adequately mitigate the risk of derailment. These may include one or both of the following methods, although other means of mitigation may also be appropriate (paragraph 110a, 111a and 111b): (i)installing a check rail on the curve; and (ii)managing rail lubrication on the curve to a suitable level of availability.

At least its being kept intact. What some may forget is that back in the days of British Rail this sort of scenario would have seen the line ripped up and sold off in indecent haste. While some may think it a shame that charters can no longer visit the line, the brutal truth is that the national rail network is not the plaything of enthusiasts and with the Treasury breathing down the neck of NR demanding savings, the move to mothball it is a reasonable response to the lack of traffic. As has been mentioned, the line has potential - all it needs is for the right set of circumstances to come together e.g. new housing in the vicinity of Heathfield plus political will by local Government causing a Park and ride setup to be viable for example.

Axle counters are a relatively new phenomenon when it comes to their squadron use - as such only lines that have been resignaled since 2000 use them in large numbers - everywhere else conventional track circuits are the order of the day, which technically require wheels free testing every time their integrity has been compromised by a bit of rail being renewed. While it would be nice to think that NR had taken into account all departments in their planning, unfortunately that is not what I see on the ground, where far to many permenant way jobs overlook the need for S&T or ETE cover until the very last minute. As for 3rd rail issues - you would like to think that had been accounted for when the South East route went and bought a couple (Horsham and Paddock Wood are mentioned as getting them). My observation is that there has been plenty of talk about how wonderful these machines are, but precious little information on how they will deployed in 3rd rail areas, which is hardly insignificant in terms of route mileage. Don't get me wrong I am all for improving safety, but if working on the railway has taught me anything it's that the upper management is dominated by p-way types who are prone to overlook things in their enthusiasm for shiny new toys. Hopefully all will come clear in due course but with the machines not that far off arriving it would be nice to have the confidence that the practicalities of how they will be used have been properly thought through.

What nobody behind this initiative in NR has adequately explained to me is how this 'take a possession round the train business' will work with conductor rails. In 99% of cases these have to be isolated for any track based activity to be carried out and unlike OHLE isolating conrail is a time consuming and very manual process with hook switches and suchlike needing to be manually operated on site. It also ignores that if the p-way renew a length of rail say, the track cannot be returned to service until the S&T have tested the track circuit - which cannot happen if the maintenance train is sat on it! I fear that once again its a case of NR forgetting it does have other disciplines than P-Way in its empire to consider....

Its more the fact that we have done this subject to death many, many, many times over what feels like hundreds of threads. Having decided to not buy the first release of the Midland Pullman and subsequently been seduced into getting this one I am not disappointed with what I got for my money - (even if strictly speaking I don't need the 'extras' and would have been quite happy with a plain vanilla release like the first one with a slightly lower price).

what I am saying is that from a 'buildability' point of view professionals have been pointed out how it is much, much cheaper, easier and down right cost effective to build a brand new line than quadruple the entire Chiltern main line or 6 track the WCML - which is what is required to provide a similar uplift in capacity. They also recognise that you don't build it to outdated standards and that removing high speed traffic from the current routes represents best - hence the need for gentle curves and tunnelling to get under obstacles which roads would simply swerve round (given their 70mph maximum limit) As for the 'out of town stations' a large part of that is the desire not to demolish vast swathes of property unless absolutely unavoidable. I refer you to the French experience - they were quite happy to build 'parkway' stations at the likes of Lyon (conveniently located at the regions main airport) rather than in the city centre with the latter served by links from the LGV to the classic lines. Finally its not bad mouthing people when they refuse to acknowledge the truth (1) High speed is a complete red herring - and much hyped by the politicians, not the engineers (2) If HS2 is cancelled the money does NOT go back into the rail network - it gets used by the chancellor to pay off our national debt. (3) With demand for our rail transport (passenger and freight) set to outstrip demand on the WCML in the next two decades something has to be done, Namely:- (a.) Make people travel less through sky high fares to suppress demand (and similar moves to constrain freight) (b.) Subject those living alongside the WCML or the Chiltern line to decades of misery while you totally rebuild them. (c.) Build HS2 (or a variant of it) If you disagree with HS2 as proposed the onus is on you to address the problems HS2 is designed to solve. Simply saying you don't like it is not good enough, or disputing that a problem exists is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand. Come up with some reasoned, sensible and buildable proposals that can fully meet the objectives HS2 is designed to solve (of which journey time reduction is one) and I will be more than happy to listen to them.

Utter nonsense - and people who make such a claim are only showing their ignorance of the project as a whole. HS2 was originally promoted by railway engineers to solve foreseeable capacity issues in the decades ahead - and their preferred solution of a French style LGV is the ideal solution to the problem - for well founded engineering and construction issues. The "high speed" bit came out of Whitehall and was no doubt an attempt by the Government to try and impress everyone with a headline figure. What you describe as 'mission creep' was the politicians realisation that they had cocked up the PR aspect by focusing on the wrong thing. The other point to make is that even if you reduced the design speed back to 200mph (remember the LGV nord and HS1 have Eurostars running at 186mph so it doesn't make sense to make HS2 any lower) - it wouldn't save you that much in construction costs - you would still need miles of tunnelling to satisfy the NIMBYs / to get through the Chilterns, still need to expand Euston, still need to build a new station in Birmingham, etc

The two projects (new island at the exsisting Cambridge station) and the proposals for a new station to the north were completely separate and are seperated by a good decade or so in planning terms. Cambridge got its new island to relieve time tabling constraints while the new station is being promoted under a massive new development - which is basically paying most of the cost.

I didn't realise the CC 6500 had a top speed of 124mph or that the German 103 was designed to run at a maximum of 120mmph. So Alstoms bogie design could have potentially given the Brush design under the 89 some competition then? Mind you I am pretty sure you won't prove me wrong when I say we haven't seen a 140mph Co-Co design yet.

Yup - the ex post office bay and the non-electrified down siding are going.

Quite - but most of this is not about what might be happening now - its what might happen in a few years time. Like I said earlier with the GTR dispute, Southern are actually going to increase conductor numbers - not reduce them, plus there are no dramatic changes planned to the conductors T&Cs once the trains go over to DOO. In 5 or 10 years time however that might not be the case and DOO removes the most significant tool the RMT have to resist it (namely strike action) causing the mass disruption they need it to if it is to be effective. Thus the perceived training up of management to act as 'Scab' labour' in disputes (regardless of the truth of the mater) will always get the RMT going. As for informing the public - well survey after survey says what they actually want is to keep a visible staff presence on the train to help them out. In the GTR dispute management say this is not always possible if the conductor has to keep breaking off to oversee the door operation at every station particularly if they have to do so from the rear cab of the train, so DCO (as the DfT call it - where there is still a conductor on board - but they have no role in the trains movement / door operation) actually is giving the public what they want. This means the RMT have to focus on other things to try and skew public opinion their way and ensure that their members are not, strictly speaking* fundamental to train safe operation. * which does not mean guards / conductors do not have benefits of course. Have a look at the RMT 'news' page and note just how many of the articles are referring to Guards / DOO on various different operators. https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/archive/?p=1 Southerns explanation to passengers:- http://www.southernrailway.com/southern/news/rmt-strike-action/ RMTs explanation to passengers:- https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/a-letter-from-southern-conductors/

I think that this is an example of where the BR board was very good at playing Whitehall at its own game. For example if BR worked the numbers and said to the DfT that 140mph running would generate £Y extra revenue then it is quite possible that might induce the been counters to look more favourably on new stock. Similarly going for a BO-BO configuration, where there was lots of 'competition' as it were to obstensably lower the price would have no doubt gone down well with civil servants. Equally leaving the costs of modifying the signalling off the bill, but still giving the impression that they would be done 'soon' is quite a smart trick to pull if you can get away with it. You also need to rember that the Conservative Government of the day was, as with the present day, very much focused on the power of the 'market'. The 90s and Mk3s were built 'in house' by BR and this was seen as not good value for money by Whitehall* who no doubt applied political pressure for the future ECML electric stock to procured from private sector. Going for a new design fitted this mindset and may have helped. * Hence the privatisation of BREL halfway through the class 91 procurement.

But to an extent their jobs ARE at risk. Lets have a look at the wider picture - the Government has made it clear ever since the McNulty review was published that it expects DOO operation (at least as far as door control is concerned) to be the norm and has been applying considerable pressure on franchise bidders to implement it in recent years. FGW for example got a new management contract style franchise to cover the introduction of the DOO IEPs with no dedicated catering car in the full knowledge that this would antagonise the RMT. Hence guards and catering staff held a series of strikes over the issue - but to no avail as the Government want the issue addressed now so the next franchise can be let with DOO and the no buffet cars issues all sorted by the time they let the next 'proper' franchise. Similarly GTR are expected to use the current short term management contract franchise to push through DOO on most routes, ready for re-franchising in 2018 (possibly being split up again in the process) as a DOO operation - which is what has led to the current industrial action / poor service on Southern. More recently guards on Scotrail are talking of industrial action as the new trains for the Edinburgh - Glasgow electrification project will be DOO operated. I fully expect to see a similar situation occur when the new Northern and TransPennine Express stock arrives, plus there have been rumblings of action on Merseyrail over its plan to procure new stock. The thing is once you remove the need for a 'guard' (or to be precise, someone trained to the current guards level), then the train can still run on time even if the ex guard goes on strike / is ill / is delayed getting to the service due to say late running, etc. As such its easy to see that terms and conditions for ex-guards (even they are still retained as conductors) are a perfect target for those looking to cut costs. This is why, even though Southern have said they will actually be looking to take on more conductors in future (not reducing them), the RMT is opposed to the plans - it totally undermines their bargaining position if a future management decide they do wish to cut numbers in future / not offer a suitable wage increase / alter staff T&Cs Thus the change in status of a guard being a 'must have' for services to run to a 'optional extra' does have serious implications the RMT unions ability to protect its members jobs / terms and conditions in the decades ahead. Unfortunately its a battle that through Westminster politics and increased technical progress they will eventually lose.

To be fair VTEC have made it Crystal clear that the DfT procured (and decidedly Spartan interiors) of the IEPs will be significantly enhanced to bring them up to the same or better than the interiors seen in the refurbished HST set shown to the press a few weeks ago. There is also the little mater that the use of the IEP was mandated by the DfT whoever won the franchise - any proposals not to use them would never have made it through the initial bidding process as given the amount of money the DfT / Treasury have spent procuring the things they need to save face by having operators being seen to embrace them.

But until Eurostars started running all OHLE - con rail changeovers were done at stations (Drayton Park & Farringdon) - so the issue of on the move changeovers never occurred until the WLL got OHLE from North Pole Juc to Willesden Junc*. There is also the fact that we have never had the French situation of two different OHLE systems meeting (1.5KV DC & 25KV AC) requiring pantograph swapping at speed. I would suggest the reason why the British took so long to allow on the move changeovers was much the same as the refusal to allow a 25KVAC connection running along the roof of passenger carrying vehicles until the introduction of the Pendalinos (despite the French having proved it being perfectly safe since 1980. Namely a far too cautious attitude to anything 'not invented here' and a desire to 'gold plate' regulations. *While today it might make sense to bring OHLE as far as Shepherds Bush station to facilitate turn rounds if the changeover doesn't work correctly, I believe there is insufficient clearance under the A40 (The Westway) bridge for OHLE. Plus of course Shepherds Bush station didn't exist at the time the line was electrified

One problem (that re-emerged when EWS were designing the class 67s) was that the CO-CO bogie design under the 89 was pretty much unique (every other 100mph+ design in the world used a BO-BO configuration) and consequently Brush were able to charge a high price for its use. As a result EWS rejected it - even though the use of a BO-BO design on the 67s resulted in a very high axle loading and restricted route avalbility. When BR was designing the class 91 and Mk4 carriage fleet, they were obliged (as a result of HM Treasuary) to spend as little as possible on the new trains and as such it was far more cost effective for BR to stick with the BO-BO configuration where there were a wide varity of maunfacturers to chose from rather than deplete the available funds in going for a unique solution.

Not good given the loco depot is south of the station.

The 20 has bad wheel flats as a result of its failure during the gala and it was thought it might require road transport. Hence it got left behind for a more in depth assessment. The 73 was left behind because (1) It was not certain the 20 would need to go away by road (if a slow speed path could be found by NR to get it back to a suitable depot then hailing it by rail was GBRFs preferred option) and (2) the Bluebell is VERY tight for locos at the moment* so the 73 could have been pressed into service if anything else went wrong. * The Q has been stopped with leaking firebox stays, the S15 is in the works having some work done on its valves / pistons, the H is likewise in for several jobs to be tackled (as usual it was stopped for one thing and a further 6 need doing) and the C is restricted to yard work. The only serviceable locos at present are Camelot (which desperately needs a boiler washout but is having to wait), the E4, Bluebell and Baxter.