• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Gospel Oak to Barking electrification in next week's budget ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
9,674
Well unless there are more 172s ordered the only sensible cascade options are London Midland and Chiltern.

However, saying Chiltern it may make more sense for them to also lose their 172s and gain a few cascaded 165s off Thames Valley as replacement.

If there was to be a new large DMU order (which sounds unlikely in the next few years) I think Northern would be the most logical destination given the number of Pacers and 150s they have and the 156s they have could probably be found more suitable homes, like the longer FGW class 150 diagrams.

Logically yes, i would probably say take all the LOROL and Chiltern 172s to same place. As you say some 165s might be a good idea. This would then allow LM to get rid of all sprinters, some 170s and hav extra capacity. 170s to XC, then sprinters maybe send most to Northern with them then releasing some 156s to EMT and 153s from LM going to FGW.

Back of hand stuff this though.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Times today was suggesting the Varsity Line as a Network Rail proposal wasnt officially signed off by Government yet so Government could 'announce' it during the budget.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,314
Times today was suggesting the Varsity Line as a Network Rail proposal wasnt officially signed off by Government yet so Government could 'announce' it during the budget.

That's not quite what the EWR website says:

16th July 2012
The Secretary of State for Transport, the Rt. Hon Justine Greening MP, today announced that the Western section of East West Rail (EWR) will be part of the government’s strategy for rail transport, confirming not only funding for the project but also for electrification of the Oxford to Bedford part of the route.

http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/east-west-rail-gets-final-go-ahead-and-electrification/
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,062
Location
Reston City Centre
I thought the Oxford - Bedford line would be electrified (allowing freight from Southampton to the East Midlands)?

Or was that an assumption?
 

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
3,272
Location
Isle of Wight
I thought the Oxford - Bedford line would be electrified (allowing freight from Southampton to the East Midlands)?

Or was that an assumption?

It will be, as part of the Electric Spine connecting Southampton with the MML at Bedford.

Chris
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
That's not quite what the EWR website says:

Bit of political spin, not really surprising as the leaders of EastWestRail are Iain Stewart, Conservative MP for Milton Keynes South and Peter Hardy, Conservative Councillor and head of Planning and Transport Buckinghamshire Council.
 

Chrisgr31

Established Member
Joined
2 Aug 2011
Messages
1,704
The stock would need to be made available for it even if Gospel Oak to Barking stock did not become available (and considereing they are 2-car sets with no corridor sections they do not seem ideal for long formations such as 10-car).

Also Uckfield already has 10+2/3 carriages available per off-peak service while the Marshlink only has 3 (and 2 if the off-peak frequency between Hastings and Ashford were increased to 2tph as the route specification document predicts). The fact that Uckfield stock is used less intensly (since far more stock is used in the peak relative to the off-peak) might weaken the business case for supplying significantly more stock to reduce peak overcrowding (a shuttle service to Oxted during the peak replacing some peak London-Uckfield services [still keeping at least 1tph direct between London and Uckfield] would mean that far less diesel stock would be required to meet demand and that electric stock could be used to increase the capacity of the route north of Oxted).

A shuttle to Oxted is unlikely to work and is something that Southern have been seeking to avoid with the Thameslink works at London Bridge. All the peak services from Uckfield are full and standing room only once they leave Edenbridge and some are full before they get there. You'd then be terminating them at Oxted, however most passengers would actually change at Hurst Green to increase their chances of getting a seat so you'd have 6 cars of passengers spilling round the platform at Hurst Green, They'll take time to unload off the diesels, and load back on to the electrics.

However its worse than that because of course commuters remember the days of changing on the way to London and it lead to huge delays as connections often cancelled or running late. Indeed 2 of the peak trains back from London run as a shuttle from Oxted to Uckfield and they are relatively quiet, and fairly frequently the shuttle has to leave before the connection from East Croydon arrives.

Of course it would help if the trains were more intensively used in the off peak but there are problems there. Firstly potential customers dont realise how good the service is these days, they still remember the dire days before Southern took over, secondly they cant come back in the peak hours as the trains are too busy, thirdly they dont trust the last train to run without being a bus as that happens fairly frequently.

Mind you the solution might be to put the transferred stock on the Marshlink and then moving all the Class 171s to Uckfield.
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
5,667
The line does seem to be a huge success. I know everyone is against extending third rail, but it seems to really make sense in this case (and for Marshlink).

Especially if the SWML looks to be the first one to get the wires overall.

Would free up some half-decent DMUs too.
 

joeykins82

Member
Joined
24 Jul 2012
Messages
601
Location
London
Electrifying to Uckfield with OHLE would be just fine; the 377s that would be used are either already AC capable or just need a pantograph and transformer fitting (which they're going to need fitting with sooner or later anyway if the mooted rolling DC-AC conversion takes place)
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
10,664
Location
Hampshire
Electrifying to Uckfield with OHLE would be just fine; the 377s that would be used are either already AC capable or just need a pantograph and transformer fitting (which they're going to need fitting with sooner or later anyway if the mooted rolling DC-AC conversion takes place)

Or do a rolling stock swap / service swap with SouthEastern for the never used AC fitted 375s - this could work on the Marshlink services.
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
5,667
Ah yes I forgot about that. If they were the dual capable ones, it'd make sense. Perhaps East Grinstead to Sanderstead/South/East Croydon as well, as a phase one.
 

joeykins82

Member
Joined
24 Jul 2012
Messages
601
Location
London
Have a look at the presentation linked in this post:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1389280#post1389280


Page 24 has the map of routes being considered for DC to AC conversion (or OHLE AC installation in the DC region) via industry consultation; Sanderstead to East Grinstead/Uckfield is there along with Gatwick-Brighton, Basingstoke-Salisbury, the Romsey 6, Tunbridge Wells-Hastings, the Marshlink line and everything east of Faversham & Ashford. SouthEastern's AC capable 375s may yet use those pantographs!
 

Batman

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2011
Messages
497
Location
North Birmingham
It needs to be done sooner rather than later, basically before Crossrail is completed otherwise it won't get done. (will dig out exact reasoning tonight)

I think Calder Valley is wishful thinking maybe but Cardiff Portsmouth seems ideal tbh.

But regardless, 8 2 car DMUs going somewhere is a good thing. But imagine the 172s don't go to SN where would they go, where is self contained enough to take them... To be honest i would probably say midlands to get rid of their last 150s 153s. So that would be i belive 16 carriges replacing 13 carriages. So a small improvement.

then a pretty equal allocation between EMT, Nothern and FGW.

(Northern get the 150s) FGW and EMT split the 7 153s. (cant decide which should get 4 and which should get 3 :P )

I like the idea of moving more 172's to the West Midlands, but it does bring us back to the recurring issue of the need for platform extensions on the Marston Vale line.

Or are you envisaging that the transfer of stock won't take place until after the Marston Vale line has been electrified and presumably platform extensions (and I hope full station redevelopments) will take place alongside electrification.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,615
I like the idea of moving more 172's to the West Midlands, but it does bring us back to the recurring issue of the need for platform extensions on the Marston Vale line.

Or are you envisaging that the transfer of stock won't take place until after the Marston Vale line has been electrified and presumably platform extensions (and I hope full station redevelopments) will take place alongside electrification.

The other day I read that 172s have SDO - is that correct, and if so is there are reason why the SDO can't be used on the Marston Vale line?
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
13,200
I like the idea of moving more 172's to the West Midlands, but it does bring us back to the recurring issue of the need for platform extensions on the Marston Vale line.

Or are you envisaging that the transfer of stock won't take place until after the Marston Vale line has been electrified and presumably platform extensions (and I hope full station redevelopments) will take place alongside electrification.

I would assume so; Goblin should be electrified at around the same as EWR - the latter shouldn't need any HOOP as there aren't that many trains!

165s to Chiltern, I agree (and other Networker Turbos to cleared western lines). All 172s to Midland (will they need to be 'recabbed' with gangways?) and 170s to whoever. And so on; fingers crossed for Goblin in 2013 Budget!
 

Batman

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2011
Messages
497
Location
North Birmingham
The other day I read that 172s have SDO - is that correct, and if so is there are reason why the SDO can't be used on the Marston Vale line?

172's do have SDO, but I think there's a whole range of issue that prevent it from being used on the Marston Vale, like platform dwell times.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
9,674
I like the idea of moving more 172's to the West Midlands, but it does bring us back to the recurring issue of the need for platform extensions on the Marston Vale line.

Or are you envisaging that the transfer of stock won't take place until after the Marston Vale line has been electrified and presumably platform extensions (and I hope full station redevelopments) will take place alongside electrification.

Well pretty much yes, or i was just gonna say can we not SDO seen as its only one set of doors? Or even as simple as on departure lock one set of doors out of use. (Ie the back doors) I think the platforms are 5m max too short? Its definitely not an hard problem... Although as you say improvements will come and there isnt many two car 20m EMUs so i think the platforms will have to be extended.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
13,200
The other day I read that 172s have SDO - is that correct, and if so is there are reason why the SDO can't be used on the Marston Vale line?

Not sure about that but 172s will probably only be available by the time EWR is done. This will see many a reopening alongside full double-track electrification, longer platforms and through services. There will be little need for DMUs.

As an aside the 150 Sprinters currently used on Marston Vale are the only diesel units with 20m carriages, although Pacers are shorter yet. 20x2=40m vs 23x2=46m - would that be just the front or rear doors?

EDIT: Beaten to it, I can never keep up here! Dwell times surely aren't an issue with such a lightly trafficked line [at present]?
 

Batman

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2011
Messages
497
Location
North Birmingham
I would assume so; Goblin should be electrified at around the same as EWR - the latter shouldn't need any HOOP as there aren't that many trains!

165s to Chiltern, I agree (and other Networker Turbos to cleared western lines). All 172s to Midland (will they need to be 'recabbed' with gangways?) and 170s to whoever. And so on; fingers crossed for Goblin in 2013 Budget!

Fingers crossed for GOBLIN, fingers crossed for Sheffield - Hemsworth, fingers crossed for Moorthorpe - Doncaster, fingers crossed for Selby - Hull, fingers crossed for Southampton - Weymouth AC conversion and fingers crossed for Walsall - Aldridge.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
EDIT: Beaten to it, I can never keep up here! Dwell times surely aren't an issue with such a lightly trafficked line [at present]?

I think that's the reason why LM ruled out using 2x153's on the line because one door would have to be locked out. Although to be fair, 172's have much wider doors. It's all to do with the fact that a couple of trains a day are used by Bedford schools and thus very busy, so crowding does become and issue.

I think keeping the LM micro fleet of 150's and 153's is the best option in the medium terms until the next round of electrification.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,062
Location
Reston City Centre
I think keeping the LM micro fleet of 150's and 153's is the best option in the medium terms until the next round of electrification.

With Marston Vale, Coventry - Nuneaton and the Rugely line being electrified in CP5 they'll hopefully be able to give up all remaining Sprinters (albeit some 153s are used as capacity enhancers on Hereford/ Shrewsbury services, so they may need to rejig the 170 disgrams).
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,314
Getting back to the original question then, presumably the electrification is still not happening?
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
19,373
Location
Yorkshire
With all this talk of where the LO 172s might go if the GOBLIN gets wired, there's one thing to remember- The LO 172s have neither end-gangways nor toilets!
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,775
Whilst it will cost to fit them, it won't be difficult. The modular nature of the Turbo/Electrostar design means that the cab should be able to be unbolted and replaced relatively easily (certainly a lot easier than fitting a corridor connector to, say, a 321)
 

RichmondCommu

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2010
Messages
6,906
Location
Richmond, London
Whilst it will cost to fit them, it won't be difficult. The modular nature of the Turbo/Electrostar design means that the cab should be able to be unbolted and replaced relatively easily (certainly a lot easier than fitting a corridor connector to, say, a 321)

Well thats the cab sorted out but what about the toilets!
 

JamesRowden

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
1,762
Location
Ilfracombe
Well thats the cab sorted out but what about the toilets!

Refit a 2-car 171 to have corridor sections, connect it to a 172 with a corridor section refit and you've got a 4 car turbostar with one toilet that is fully accessible from the whole of the train. :)
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
Refit a 2-car 171 to have corridor sections, connect it to a 172 with a corridor section refit and you've got a 4 car turbostar with one toilet that is fully accessible from the whole of the train. :)

A 171 has couplers for fitting to an EMU not a fellow DMU. If you mean 170 then that constraint is lifted but it would probably be much cheaper to put the existing model of the class 172 toilet in to the toilet-less 172s than to draw up specs for adding corridor connections to a discontinued design of Turbostar and then to actually implement it.

Also what's the speed limit of the LO 172s? Did they get the 75mph ones or the 100mph ones? If it's 75mph then permanently attaching it to a 100mph train has another issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top