Overground - first five carriage train arrives!

[nasaroc]

This morning I attended an event to celebrate the arrival of the first five carriage train on the East London line. This train will go into service early next week and two more five carriage trains will be introduced each week. This means that by March 2015 all 24 trains on the East London line will be five rather than four carriages in length.

The East London section is the first to have its trains lengthened. A further 33 trains on the southern extension and North London line will then be lengthened at a total cost for the entire network including the East London Line of £320m.

The extended trains will each be able to carry 27 per cent more passengers (the extra two per cent is because the driver cab has been moved).

The trains will also, of course, be 25 per cent longer. This means that when the new trains call at stations with shorter platforms along the line (Wapping, Whitechapel, Rotherhithe and Canada Water) passengers will not be able to access the very last door on the train. (In 2018 with the arrival of Crossrail, Whitechapel station will be completely remodelled with longer platforms.)

This is a welcome addition to train capacity to and from Sydenham. Now we need to press for the two extra trains per hour on the ELL (from Crystal Palace to H&I) promised in London Overground's future plans.

Note: In the first year of its operation, London Overground carried 2.5m passengers; in the past year it has carried 11m passengers. Many on this forum unjustly dubbed it "the line to nowhere" just before it opened. Clearly, a huge number of passengers are now travelling to nowhere!


Barry Milton

Images here:

http://www.sydenhamsociety.com/

[Willy]

These trains are always much busier than the London Bridge ones, I just wish whoever planned it thought about having them go to Canary Wharf rather than Canada Water as around 75% of the passengers seem to be heading there.

[alywin]

The East London section is the first to have its trains lengthened. A further 33 trains on the southern extension and North London line will then be lengthened at a total cost for the entire network including the East London Line of £320m.

Makes sense, given that so many of its platforms were already of ample length to take longer trains. Don't suppose we shall have any greater chance of actually getting a *seat*, though.

[robbieduncan]

I've managed a seat twice this week! No idea how. Whilst I welcome the 5 car trains with open arms it's only a stop gap. 25% more capacity will disappear so quickly. Higher frequency would help...

[iandavenport]

Willy - I think you'll find that when the Brunels first dug the tunnel under the Thames that the line now uses in the 1820s, it never occurred to anyone that what is now Canary Wharf would ever provide much passenger traffic. It would be interesting to know if it a spur was ever considered at the time of the Jubilee Line Extension, but given the historic trend to ignore South East London when it comes to planning the underground system, I doubt it.

[nasaroc]

You don't have to be a statistical genius to realise that our local trains are extremely busy - just get on a train, especially during rush hours, and you quickly get the message. But I don't think it's totally sunk in just how quickly the demand for train travel is growing in our area and how the extremely busy corridor between Sydenham and London Bridge is creating demand that is almost unique in contemporary suburban London.

Take Sydenham station. At the last count (the year ending April 2013) there were 3.1m passengers journeys per year from our local station - an increase of 1.6m passenger journeys in just four years.

And I don't have to tell you that the same thing is happening all along the our local line. The five stations between here and London Bridge now account for 17.7m passenger journeys per year (an increase of 4m passenger journeys pa since four years ago). If you talk to TfL engineers, they'll tell you that there are no suburban rail lines anywhere in London and the south east which have five stations in a row, all with 2.5m plus passenger journeys per year.

Just to ram the message home - compare the number and growth of passengers at other local stations in south east London with our own. Herne Hill and Beckenham Junction, for example, are large, suburban interchanges with a number of platforms which serve more than one line. Yet both stations have fewer passenger journeys per year than Sydenham (HH has 2.9m pa and BJ has 2.6m). What's more Beckenham Jct has had only a 113,000 increase in passenger journeys in the last four years and Herne Hill a 354,000 increase). So Sydenham is busier than most other local stations and our increase in passenger numbers dwarfs theirs. And that's true of every single station on our line between Sydenham and London Bridge. (Honor Oak is the exception in terms of total numbers but still manages to record a greater increase - half a million extra journeys in the last four years).

What does the future hold? More of the same with bells on! London Overground predicts a doubling of passenger numbers between now and the end of the decade.

The lengthening of Overground trains from four to five carriages is just a holding measure. We have to plan for a large expansion of capacity now.


Barry Milton

[admin]

The lengthening of Overground trains from four to five carriages is just a holding measure. We have to plan for a large expansion of capacity now.

Exploring options:

1) I doubt LO trains can be lengthened any further because of prohibitive cost of extending platforms on the ELL section
2) Design limit of the ELL will only permit two more trains per hour. That also locks out expanaion on the Clapham Junction & New Cross links.
3) The LBG reduction from 9 to 6 terminal platforms implies no more trains (but maybe longer ones?)
4) Thameslink is already missing its planned capacity target so unlikely any slow line trains could be switched after NCG to through Thameslink lines
5) Spreading rush hour with staggered hours working is aleady happening. Trains are rammed up to 9pm already.
6) Bakerlooing the Lower Sydenham line may give some relief here but not up the line from Forest Hill.

Also Boris has ruled out expanding the bus capacity hence the overload on the 185 at Forest Hill will push even more people onto the lines. I guess the underlying question is where the extra passengers are coming from? Population has increased but not by anything like that amount. Have they switched from other modes?

Admin

[Roger Mellie]

Does anyone know the rollout schedule of these?

I use the line every day and the only time I have even seen one is on a Saturday afternoon - never in morning or evening peak.

Suggests to me there are perhaps only a couple in use at the moment?

[biscuitman1978]

Does anyone know the rollout schedule of these?

I use the line every day and the only time I have even seen one is on a Saturday afternoon - never in morning or evening peak.

Suggests to me there are perhaps only a couple in use at the moment?

As nasaroc explains above:

This morning [6 November 2014] I attended an event to celebrate the arrival of the first five carriage train on the East London line. This train will go into service early next week and two more five carriage trains will be introduced each week. This means that by March 2015 all 24 trains on the East London line will be five rather than four carriages in length.

[Roger Mellie]

Thanks biscuit I'll read properly next time!

[Ronski]

Really interesting how fast the passenger counts have risen in the last 4 years and not in the surrounding areas. Having like for like stats in terms of %'s seems better way to understand the issues. From 4 years ago what's the % increase in capacity vs passenger load compared to today?

I'm also curious by what % they think the Overground is actually oversubscribed currently, an extra 27% by March (if I understand it right) will be great but is it enough now let alone an increasing passenger load, is it a linear increase or did it spike for instance when Sydenham got the Overground?

I also wonder how many people tfl think fit on an Overground train (comfortably not physically) vs the demand numbers at rush hour? By New Cross Gate people can't fit.

Anecdotally the couple of times I got an Overground train last few weeks due to London Bridge cancellations it was one of the worst journeys I've had bar the occasional major disruptions/incidents we get. I expect to stand but people starting to shove etc. grim. The interchange at Canada Water took 5/10mins to get down the escalator alone because of overcrowding.

The other bizare thing this week was staff checking live departures on their phones when the boards were failing to update delays and cancellations.

Frankly I'm not that optimistic about the service as demand seems to be outstripping capacity at rush hour.

[squashst]

At Canada Water, If you are in the 4th (soon to be 5th) carriage I use the up escalator going to the ticket office, then take the escalator down to the Jubilee. Its quicker and less crowded than the interchange which will be even busier as the 5 cars trains roll-out. And the Overground will be yet busier in 2015 because the services into London Bridge will be worse due to the number of railtracks going into LB being reduced (so more "train stacks").

[robbieduncan]

At Canada Water, If you are in the 4th (soon to be 5th) carriage I use the up escalator going to the ticket office, then take the escalator down to the Jubilee. Its quicker and less crowded than the interchange which will be even busier as the 5 cars trains roll-out. And the Overground will be yet busier in 2015 because the services into London Bridge will be worse due to the number of railtracks going into LB being reduced (so more "train stacks").

They are activly suggesting this in the mornings now as the escalator for the interchange is not working (maintenance until the 22nd). There is a wide space between the escalators: why don't they put a couple of slides in for interchange?

[Richard]

Sadly London Underground missed a trick when they broke out the East London Line (ELL) tunnel to construct Canada Water station when building the Jubilee Extension. This brand new station was built to accommodate the length of the LUL 'A' stock trains that operated the line at that time, even though the ELL extension was on the cards when the Jubilee was designed. Brilliant foresight!

Had Canada Water ELL station been built to accommodate six-cars, then six-car trains might have been feasible as Canada Water is the most significant intermediate station (with Whitechapel) between the New Crosses and the first new ELL station at Shoreditch High Street.

This would require either further selective door opening (SDO) at Rotherhithe, Wapping and Shadwell or six-car trains non-stopping these stations, perhaps only served by 4/5-car trains operating from New Cross, with six-cars operating along the Sydenham route and to Clapham Junction. Platform extensions would be possible at Surrey Quays and Whitechapel stations (I think) to avoid SDO. I seem to remember consideration (at some level) was given to closing Rotherhithe due to its close proximity to Canada Water.

Extension of the Class 378 trains that now ply the route is limited to five cars, so that's your lot, unless different trains are used. A further consideration with longer trains is the time taken to clear platforms between trains at the original ELL platforms, which are very narrow and only have one means of access. How long before this starts causing delays?

I think there are slots in the timetable for two additional PIXC (passengers in excess of capacity) busters from Crystal Palace to Dalston Jcn each hour, but these have not yet been implemented.

On a positive side, the longer 10-car London Bridge trains now enable most to get a seat (as far as Brockley / New Cross Gate). Travelling to the Liverpool Street area where I work is quicker via London Bridge / Cannon Street and walking than via Shoreditch High Street!

In my opinion LUL should keep their paws off the Hayes line (Bakerloo extension). Whilst underground connectivity may seem beneficial with more frequent trains, the loss of a direct service to the city (via Cannon Street) and higher fares (cheaper rail only point to point tickets will no longer be available, so a more expensive Travelcard would be required) is a significant downside!

A significant number of the additional Bakerloo trains would be required Just to replicate the capacity provided by full length National Rail trains (compare 6-car Bakerloo with potentially 12-car Class 465's that currently operate the line). And a complete shutdown of at least a year would be required to install the 4th power rail, adjust platform heights, replace signalling and power supplies with LUL systems, driver training and test running, etc.

Many of the displaced passengers would be looking for a ride from stations on the Sydenham line...

[nasaroc]

Richard - you're not going to get away with undermining the huge benefits of the Bakerloo Line to this area by implied threats that the Bakerloo Line will provide less capacity than the existing National Rail trains.

You say that " A significant number of the additional Bakerloo trains would be required Just to replicate the capacity provided by full length National Rail trains (compare 6-car Bakerloo with potentially 12-car Class 465's that currently operate the line".

But that's exactly what's going to happen. We are going to get up to 25 Bakerloo trains per hour (rising to over 30 trains per hour) compared to the five trains per hour which currently leave Hayes each morning between 8 and 9 am. What's more the Bakerloo trains are going to start earlier and run later. And there's every chance that a 24 hour service will come onto all tube lines before the extension is built.

Before every new line is built there is opposition - with some unrepresentative opponents spreading unfounded rumours about the supposed "downside" of the new system. Before it opened, people told us that the East London service was "a line to nowhere". I was even invited by a group from Croydon to join a campaign to stop it ever happening! In a recent meeting I attended to discuss the Bakerlooo line extension, a major downside was the claim from many that the extension would encourage "greater crime" in the Hayes area as "undesirables" from Catford (loud dog whistle) would find their way down the line more easily. (Presumably thieves aren't clever enough to catch National Rail services).

Shut your ears. The extension of the Bakerloo Line is long overdue and it can't come soon enough.


Barry Milton

[michael]

Barry, I don't think you are being entirely fair to Richard.
Yes, there will be more capacity on the Bakerloo line, although not all will necessarily get as far as Hayes (some may terminate at Lewisham, to allow for increased capacity on the central section, and others may be diverted to Bromley town centre). It is possible that Hayes will end up with limited additional capacity which could be achieved much cheaper by adding a couple of 10-12 carriage trains to Canon Street.

However, there is no doubt that an extension to Lewisham is the right thing to do, and 25-30 tph to Lewisham would make a big difference.

Personally I would prefer an extension beyond Lewisham (or another route) to continue underground, so that all additional capacity is net gain and no services are cancelled (just like the ELL, Crossrail, Crossrail 2, HS1, HS2, Jubilee, DLR - the only services that has been removed for any of these services is the South London Loop - everything else has been done without reduction in other services).

In the short term (10-20 years) the best thing that can happen is to push ahead with the Lewisham extension, while we take an extra 10 years to confirm where to go from there.

[alywin]

Yes, there will be more capacity on the Bakerloo line, although not all will necessarily get as far as Hayes (some may terminate at Lewisham, to allow for increased capacity on the central section, and others may be diverted to Bromley town centre). It is possible that Hayes will end up with limited additional capacity which could be achieved much cheaper by adding a couple of 10-12 carriage trains to Canon Street.
[snip]
Personally I would prefer an extension beyond Lewisham (or another route) to continue underground, so that all additional capacity is net gain and no services are cancelled (just like the ELL, Crossrail, Crossrail 2, HS1, HS2, Jubilee, DLR - the only services that has been removed for any of these services is the South London Loop - everything else has been done without reduction in other services).

True, we need to remember that we have also been threatened with/promised an extension to Bromley, which would divert a lot of the trains. And your argument about achieving more cheaply was the one I used when the proposed Tramlink extension to Crystal Palace was mooted - at the expense of the Beckenham Junction-London Bridge rail service.

Continuing underground? When they've been telling us for the last half-century that the reason they couldn't extend the Underground was because of the unsuitability of South London geology for tunnelling?!