Thames Crossing Proposals
Moderator: Site Management Team
Re: Thames Crossing Proposals
The ferry service will apparently not reopen until "at least" next month, so it could quite easily be much later than February by the time the ferry reopens.
E-roads, M-roads, A-roads, N-roads, B-roads, R-roads, C-roads, L-roads, U-roads, footpaths
Re: Thames Crossing Proposals
The new Woolwich ferryboats have been an absolute fiasco, and the vehicle crossing has been closed more often than not for "technical issues" (including for the last week). Never happened with the old vessels. It's getting on for a year now that the service has just operated on odd days. In addition to the mechanical problems there has been more than one strike by the crews (in part because they are down to basic pay when it's off service).
Yet another mismanaged TfL infrastructure investment.
https://www.londontraffic.org/woolwichferry/
Yet another mismanaged TfL infrastructure investment.
https://www.londontraffic.org/woolwichferry/
Re: Thames Crossing Proposals
Announced today the Woolwich Ferry is to be "taken over" by TfL
https://www.london.gov.uk/press-release ... wich-ferry
TfL have, of course, always owned it. As the existing ferry operators are coming to the end of their contract my hunch is that there is no operator prepared to take it on. Among other things, it has been so grossly unreliable throughout 2018-9 that I think most potential users have airbrushed it out of consideration.
The two new wonderboats, which replaced what always seemed three perfectly serviceable and reliable vessels from the 1960s, but unlike those didn't provide for a spare vessel, have had more breakdowns than one would think possible. They were not built locally, but in Poland, and whenever there was an issue they seemed to need to wait for engineers to fly over from there. Of course, being a Tfl specification, the new boats have all the trendy electric hybrid propulsion system you might imagine, at what a cost, which is far more unreliable than the old diesels; these could have been fully overhauled and re-engined for a fraction of the price.
To suit the new design the linkspans had to be rebuilt, which have also given their own mechanical problems, and are also no longer able to handle the tidal extremes the old ones quite happily did, so when it's a notably high or low tide the service again has to be stopped.
There has been excessive labour unrest as the operator only paid the crews bare minimum when not in service, which has happened so much there have been multiple strikes.
There have been several operators over time. TfL used to do it, then it was handed over to Greenwich Council, then contracted out to Serco ( ), then contracted out to the current operator, Briggs, and now back to TfL. Every single change has been accompanied by "it will be so much better now" words. Including today's announcement.
https://www.london.gov.uk/press-release ... wich-ferry
TfL have, of course, always owned it. As the existing ferry operators are coming to the end of their contract my hunch is that there is no operator prepared to take it on. Among other things, it has been so grossly unreliable throughout 2018-9 that I think most potential users have airbrushed it out of consideration.
The two new wonderboats, which replaced what always seemed three perfectly serviceable and reliable vessels from the 1960s, but unlike those didn't provide for a spare vessel, have had more breakdowns than one would think possible. They were not built locally, but in Poland, and whenever there was an issue they seemed to need to wait for engineers to fly over from there. Of course, being a Tfl specification, the new boats have all the trendy electric hybrid propulsion system you might imagine, at what a cost, which is far more unreliable than the old diesels; these could have been fully overhauled and re-engined for a fraction of the price.
To suit the new design the linkspans had to be rebuilt, which have also given their own mechanical problems, and are also no longer able to handle the tidal extremes the old ones quite happily did, so when it's a notably high or low tide the service again has to be stopped.
There has been excessive labour unrest as the operator only paid the crews bare minimum when not in service, which has happened so much there have been multiple strikes.
There have been several operators over time. TfL used to do it, then it was handed over to Greenwich Council, then contracted out to Serco ( ), then contracted out to the current operator, Briggs, and now back to TfL. Every single change has been accompanied by "it will be so much better now" words. Including today's announcement.
Re: Thames Crossing Proposals
I know there have been problems, and while I'm not a daily user I have used them a number of times towards the end of last year, and when they're operational (which has been every time I've wanted to use them), I've been impressed by how nice the boats are, as well as how quiet and modern, with better lighting, and improvements to the linkspans. The increased size of the new vessels compared to the old ones has also made the wait seem quicker - anecdotal evidence, of course...
To say the old vessels were still serviceable is perhaps an over-exaggeration - to continue to operate, they would have needed substantial re-building - when I last used them the wooden decks looked one patch away from the HGV next to me breaking through the deck to the machinery below! They were also noisy and dirty - so it makes sense for one of the richest cities on the planet to try and move to alternatively fuelled vessels. This is all why the tender went out for the new vessels, despite the probability of more capacity being provided with more fixed link crossings in East London planned - and some of those options being to remove the ferry at Woolwich entirely.
To say the old vessels were still serviceable is perhaps an over-exaggeration - to continue to operate, they would have needed substantial re-building - when I last used them the wooden decks looked one patch away from the HGV next to me breaking through the deck to the machinery below! They were also noisy and dirty - so it makes sense for one of the richest cities on the planet to try and move to alternatively fuelled vessels. This is all why the tender went out for the new vessels, despite the probability of more capacity being provided with more fixed link crossings in East London planned - and some of those options being to remove the ferry at Woolwich entirely.
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Re: Thames Crossing Proposals
Just because London is indeed one of the richest cities on the planet is no reason for bandwagon politicians, who themselves contribute very little to that economy, unlike their millions of inhabitants who are actually making something, to go and squander their taxes on a load of feel-good attributes, that just don't work.
Most TfL literature about the new ferries also goes on about how they have excellent accommodation for bicycles. Despite which, of course, it is completely unused. Because as any cyclist from the locality will tell you, it is far faster to go through the pedestrian tunnel, with a lift at each end, than wait for the next ferry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolwich_foot_tunnel . And it's open 24x7 rather than the ferry daytime hours only. I suspect that those involved, the vessel designers, funders, etc, have probably never been down to the ferry and don't even know such a tunnel exists.
The same applies to the provision for "150 passengers", as likewise no foot passengers, apart from the odd one or two taking kids for a ride at the weekend, certainly no regular bona-fide travellers, would think of not going through the tunnel. Which is of course why the London buses turn around at the foot tunnel entrance, not at the ferry. Perhaps one room at TfL HQ ought to have asked the room next door for their advice.
Re: Thames Crossing Proposals
We know you're not fussed about air quality, that's fine, but for those of us who actually want clean air, it is not 'taxes being squandered'. The other operational problems may well be valid, but saying three 1960s diesel chugging smoke fests are somehow representative of modern London is laughable at best.WHBM wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:50Just because London is indeed one of the richest cities on the planet is no reason for bandwagon politicians, who themselves contribute very little to that economy, unlike their millions of inhabitants who are actually making something, to go and squander their taxes on a load of feel-good attributes, that just don't work.
Most TfL literature about the new ferries also goes on about how they have excellent accommodation for bicycles. Despite which, of course, it is completely unused. Because as any cyclist from the locality will tell you, it is far faster to go through the pedestrian tunnel, with a lift at each end, than wait for the next ferry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolwich_foot_tunnel . And it's open 24x7 rather than the ferry daytime hours only. I suspect that those involved, the vessel designers, funders, etc, have probably never been down to the ferry and don't even know such a tunnel exists.
The same applies to the provision for "150 passengers", as likewise no foot passengers, apart from the odd one or two taking kids for a ride at the weekend, certainly no regular bona-fide travellers, would think of not going through the tunnel. Which is of course why the London buses turn around at the foot tunnel entrance, not at the ferry. Perhaps one room at TfL HQ ought to have asked the room next door for their advice.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
Re: Thames Crossing Proposals
Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
https://www.independent.co.uk/environme ... 11561.html
The river traffic is a massive source of air pollution. You can stick your fingers in your ears and go 'la la la' until the cows come home, but the fact remains we are not in 1968 any more and people have a reasonable expectation of not having to breathe in all kinds of fumes to appease the boomer generation's demand for travel without cost or consequence.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
Re: Thames Crossing Proposals
There is the issue that boat engines don't have to adhere to the same emissions regulations as cars and trucks, however as WHBM says there's not much point swapping them out for a hybrid system that seems to have serious reliability issues.Bryn666 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:31Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
https://www.independent.co.uk/environme ... 11561.html
The river traffic is a massive source of air pollution. You can stick your fingers in your ears and go 'la la la' until the cows come home, but the fact remains we are not in 1968 any more and people have a reasonable expectation of not having to breathe in all kinds of fumes to appease the boomer generation's demand for travel without cost or consequence.
Built for comfort, not speed.
Re: Thames Crossing Proposals
Correct, the answer to both there is:rhyds wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:37There is the issue that boat engines don't have to adhere to the same emissions regulations as cars and trucks, however as WHBM says there's not much point swapping them out for a hybrid system that seems to have serious reliability issues.Bryn666 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:31Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
https://www.independent.co.uk/environme ... 11561.html
The river traffic is a massive source of air pollution. You can stick your fingers in your ears and go 'la la la' until the cows come home, but the fact remains we are not in 1968 any more and people have a reasonable expectation of not having to breathe in all kinds of fumes to appease the boomer generation's demand for travel without cost or consequence.
1. Regulate the waterways, because pollution is a universal issue.
2. Accept the teething problems that new technology brings. Nothing is perfect from Day 1, it's if the same problems exist on Day 1000 then there's a big issue.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
Re: Thames Crossing Proposals
The problem with regulating waterways is, IIRC, shipping is under the purview of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, so there would need to be a proper distinction made between ferries and other craft working in cities and other shipping that works out in the open sea. IIRC the MCA are a bit odd with their requirements, especially compared to other European regulators. Recently the Windermere cable ferry had to have both its engines repaired (after one had a massive breakdown and caught fire and also damaged the other one) because MCA regs require even that small vessel to have two full power engines. Also, it would seriously onerous to require a boat that works out off the coast to have lots and lots of expensive emissions control gear to solve a problem that, in that particular immediate area, does not exist.Bryn666 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:46Correct, the answer to both there is:rhyds wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:37There is the issue that boat engines don't have to adhere to the same emissions regulations as cars and trucks, however as WHBM says there's not much point swapping them out for a hybrid system that seems to have serious reliability issues.Bryn666 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:31
Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
https://www.independent.co.uk/environme ... 11561.html
The river traffic is a massive source of air pollution. You can stick your fingers in your ears and go 'la la la' until the cows come home, but the fact remains we are not in 1968 any more and people have a reasonable expectation of not having to breathe in all kinds of fumes to appease the boomer generation's demand for travel without cost or consequence.
1. Regulate the waterways, because pollution is a universal issue.
2. Accept the teething problems that new technology brings. Nothing is perfect from Day 1, it's if the same problems exist on Day 1000 then there's a big issue.
As for day 1 vs day 1,000 problems, there are of course issues with new technology, however there should be serious testing done before the boat goes in to service. There does seem to be a bit of an issue with "advanced" technology being used for projects like these ferries and the customer (both TfL and the travelling public) being used as the development team to iron out any bugs. The "move fast and break things" model is great for software and other cheap stuff, but not so much for a boat!
Built for comfort, not speed.
Re: Thames Crossing Proposals
I believe these are not the only hybrid vessels that are turning out to be unreliable. The ones being built in Scotland for service to the Western Isles have the same issue and are still at the shipyard while the problems are reworked. Let's ask Jim McColl, who owns the shipyard there and probably knows a bit more about shipbuilding than us lot here
Of course, it was selected by know-all politicians to look good.The hybrid propulsion system was meant to reduce harmful emissions - but Mr McColl questions whether this was a suitable choice given that the ferries will be used for relatively short journeys. The benefits of being able to use LNG may never be realised, and the ships may end up being almost exclusively run on diesel, he says.
Re: Thames Crossing Proposals
I have never used the tunnel, I have never crossed at a weekend, there have always been other foot passengers waiting for the ferry alongside me.
Do you mean the "North Woolwich Ferry" stop on Pier Road? The only way buses could get any closer to the ferry is to drive onto the pier itself then reverse back off it!
Also, on the south side of the river there are also "Woolwich Ferry" stops, no stops are named for the foot tunnel.
It is an impressive reach to say the bus stop location named for the ferry is designed specifically to serve the foot tunnel instead. Is the reason ferry bound vehicles are stopped at the exact same location because drivers are expected to leave and use the foot tunnel too?
Re: Thames Crossing Proposals
Well, here it is. The bus terminus at the foot tunnel entrance (the brick rotunda). It's a couple of minutes walk off to the right (zoom in to see the queue) and back again to the ferry, and as they only go every 10-15 minutes (it takes longer to unload/load than the crossing) you can be on the other side before a ferry has even left.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4989655 ... 312!8i6656
An interesting side point. Look at the number of parked cars around the tunnel entrance !Is the reason ferry bound vehicles are stopped at the exact same location because drivers are expected to leave and use the foot tunnel too?
-
- Member
- Posts: 516
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 21:44
- Location: London
Re: Thames Crossing Proposals
I find the Woolwich foot tunnel pretty creepy! It's a long and lonely crossing as it's poorly used by comparison to the Greenwich foot tunnelWHBM wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:50Just because London is indeed one of the richest cities on the planet is no reason for bandwagon politicians, who themselves contribute very little to that economy, unlike their millions of inhabitants who are actually making something, to go and squander their taxes on a load of feel-good attributes, that just don't work.
Most TfL literature about the new ferries also goes on about how they have excellent accommodation for bicycles. Despite which, of course, it is completely unused. Because as any cyclist from the locality will tell you, it is far faster to go through the pedestrian tunnel, with a lift at each end, than wait for the next ferry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolwich_foot_tunnel . And it's open 24x7 rather than the ferry daytime hours only. I suspect that those involved, the vessel designers, funders, etc, have probably never been down to the ferry and don't even know such a tunnel exists.
The same applies to the provision for "150 passengers", as likewise no foot passengers, apart from the odd one or two taking kids for a ride at the weekend, certainly no regular bona-fide travellers, would think of not going through the tunnel. Which is of course why the London buses turn around at the foot tunnel entrance, not at the ferry. Perhaps one room at TfL HQ ought to have asked the room next door for their advice.
Re: Thames Crossing Proposals
You mean in the ferry staff parking places? I suppose knowing how many workers live north of the river and do not use public transport could be kind-of interesting, if you are interested in ferry operations.
As for the bus alighting point [ur=https://tfl.gov.uk/bus/stop/490010437NA ... wich-ferry]called "North Woolwich Ferry"[/url], it is indeed by the tunnel entrance. Where else would it be?
The only other option would be for passengers to alight on the turning loop, where the bus stops are for the start of the routes back. But then passengers will have to walk back on themselves and cross the road whether they want the tunnel or ferry.
Why require that when it can easily be avoided by dropping them off on the island? Otherwise the only option for buses to get closer to the ferry is to wait in the queue with other traffic, then get on the pier to be able to reverse off in the exit lane because bollards separate the two flows.
But I am not disputing people use the tunnels, of course they do. But not everyone does. I am disputing the claim that pedestrians do not use the ferries, and the bizarre notion that the "buses turn around at the foot tunnel entrance, not at the ferry" as though there is any other option.
Even if you have never been to North Woolwich but are just looking at Google Maps and making wild assumptions (I do not need to zoom in to know where the ferry is, I have been there and used it many times), even you can see that buses cannot physically turn around "at the ferry".
Re: Thames Crossing Proposals
Old thread revitalised because the Woolwich Ferry is yet again disrupted, only one boat now until 2021, and a closure then. The latest excuse ? That it's being "transferred to TfL" and they need to do staff training.
Not mentioned is the crews and staff are just being TUPE'd across and will continue working as ever. Of course, now being part of TfL they all must go on annual diversity training, but that surely doesn't take two months.
Excuses this year for the Woolwich Ferry being disrupted :
- Unreliability of brand new boats
- Unreliability of newly refurbished terminals
- Automated docking system not working
- Hybrid power system not working
- Damage by new boats to newly refurbished terminals
- Terminal power supply failure
- Fog on river
- Notably high tide
- Notably low tide
- Crew strikes
- Staff shortage
- Transfer to TfL needs staff "training"
None of this made up. I may have missed a couple.
Not mentioned is the crews and staff are just being TUPE'd across and will continue working as ever. Of course, now being part of TfL they all must go on annual diversity training, but that surely doesn't take two months.
Excuses this year for the Woolwich Ferry being disrupted :
- Unreliability of brand new boats
- Unreliability of newly refurbished terminals
- Automated docking system not working
- Hybrid power system not working
- Damage by new boats to newly refurbished terminals
- Terminal power supply failure
- Fog on river
- Notably high tide
- Notably low tide
- Crew strikes
- Staff shortage
- Transfer to TfL needs staff "training"
None of this made up. I may have missed a couple.
-
- Member
- Posts: 516
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 21:44
- Location: London
Re: Thames Crossing Proposals
Agreed, the Woolwich ferry has been a shambles for a ridiculous period of time, whether down to labour issues or the new boats (and related infrastructure)WHBM wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 22:10 Old thread revitalised because the Woolwich Ferry is yet again disrupted, only one boat now until 2021, and a closure then. The latest excuse ? That it's being "transferred to TfL" and they need to do staff training.
Not mentioned is the crews and staff are just being TUPE'd across and will continue working as ever. Of course, now being part of TfL they all must go on annual diversity training, but that surely doesn't take two months.
Excuses this year for the Woolwich Ferry being disrupted :
- Unreliability of brand new boats
- Unreliability of newly refurbished terminals
- Automated docking system not working
- Hybrid power system not working
- Damage by new boats to newly refurbished terminals
- Terminal power supply failure
- Fog on river
- Notably high tide
- Notably low tide
- Crew strikes
- Staff shortage
- Transfer to TfL needs staff "training"
None of this made up. I may have missed a couple.
Re: Thames Crossing Proposals
Old thread again, the Woolwich Ferry appears to have had an all-out strike throughout September, following some earlier ones in the early summer. It really is demonstrating how to live without it.
Woolwich ferry
And just to revitalise this, the ferry has been out of action again, throughout December, blandly described as "emergency engineering works".
I really think TfL have given up on it. When it was run by contractors they could at least wave this at them and tell them to get it sorted out and running again. Since they took it over directly themselves a year ago there's no longer any incentive to bother. And they don't. Doubtless the next thing that will happen, if it is ever fixed, is the crews will then go on strike again, as before, because despite being stood down on full basic pay they have had no opportunities for overtime.
A 19th century Act of Parliament requires it to run, and TfL are the successors to the original providers. One wonders what remedy there is if they don't provide what is required. Can DfT take them to court ? The squandering of money on the new wonderships, all trendy hybrid electric which have never, ever, worked properly, and rebuilt terminals, seems to have been complete money down the drain.
I really think TfL have given up on it. When it was run by contractors they could at least wave this at them and tell them to get it sorted out and running again. Since they took it over directly themselves a year ago there's no longer any incentive to bother. And they don't. Doubtless the next thing that will happen, if it is ever fixed, is the crews will then go on strike again, as before, because despite being stood down on full basic pay they have had no opportunities for overtime.
A 19th century Act of Parliament requires it to run, and TfL are the successors to the original providers. One wonders what remedy there is if they don't provide what is required. Can DfT take them to court ? The squandering of money on the new wonderships, all trendy hybrid electric which have never, ever, worked properly, and rebuilt terminals, seems to have been complete money down the drain.