TfL to order new units for WAML

[Class377/5]

The draft business plan specifically says that the WAML and Gospel Oak-Barking orders will likely be combined "to ensure best value for money", so it's safe to presume a common design of train.

As they don't need to be compatible with the 378 fleet, and are unlikely to be either maintained or operated alongside each other, I should think a new design is much more likely.

A 4-car equivalent of the Crossrail design could well prove attractive, especially if these new services are operated by the Crossrail concession holder - they would also benefit from having a similar interior, longitudinal seating would not go down well without any promise of longer trains to compensate.

Chris

The 172 and 378 are currently maintained alongside each other at Willesden.

Although Crossrail concession may operate the units, TfL have shown them to be branded London Overground on that map so surely its a good idea to have a single operator force behind the whole Overground.

 

[87015]

The 172 and 378 are currently maintained alongside each other at Willesden.

Although Crossrail concession may operate the units, TfL have shown them to be branded London Overground on that map so surely its a good idea to have a single operator force behind the whole Overground.

West Anglia won't be part of the current LO concession, or at least under the latest "plan"

 

[swt_passenger]

Surely the TfL business plan under discussion, must be the latest plan, given that its publication date is 13th December 2013? As mentioned earlier in the thread, it shows the routes with the LO colour code on its proposed 2019 map...

Are you aware of a newer plan?

 

[ainsworth74]

West Anglia won't be part of the current LO concession, or at least under the latest "plan"

Interesting, so it'll share branding (going from the map in the document) but not actually be the same company operating the service?

 

[Kettledrum]

I can see them all being 378s.

How many units will they actually need for GOBLIN? Derby don't like small orders - they put a huge price tag on adding centre cars to the 172/0s so they never happened (good job really with the electrification), so I can't see them building just 6 or 8 units without a premium..... a joint order however is likely to be far more favourably priced. It also gives TfL 1 common fleet EMU

The 172/0 can then be used on WEA-GFD and RMF-UPM services - no one else is going to won't a toiletless mini fleet.....

With the current Bombardier order book and the economic climate, you would have thought that any orders, however small would be welcomed. And as with project Thor, if the price is not right, the order won't be placed, and different rolling stock alternatives will be progressed instead.

 

[Class377/5]

West Anglia won't be part of the current LO concession, or at least under the latest "plan"

Never claimed it was. Simply stating that its a good idea to keep one brand under one controlled roof. However things can and do change and it now seems we have our first sign of how things are to progress.

 

[edwin_m]

Interesting, so it'll share branding (going from the map in the document) but not actually be the same company operating the service?

Nothing new in that. London buses, Macdonalds, Holiday Inn Express to name but three. Look closely* and you'll see a small plaque identifying the real operator.

*OK, not too closely with the buses as it's a large sticker and some measure of branding.

 

[jopsuk]

Marks and Spencers at railway stations are a good example- not actually run by M&S.

 

[Nym]

Marks and Spencers at railway stations are a good example- not actually run by M&S.

M&S However do protect their brand identity and reputation with regular announced and unannounced audits of M&S Franchise units.

As does McDonalds, but Burger King seem to just, well, not care.

 

[ainsworth74]

Oh quite I'm not saying this is a brand new thing to the world but it strikes me as being something new to the railway.

 

[Chris125]

For the WAML units similar to the Crossrail units would be a good idea however since the Goblin has no connection with the WAML and is currently part of the London Overground Network I would have thought ordering further examples of the class 378 would be better.

A direct connection to the WAML isn't necessary for the two lines to share the same fleet, and while there may be positives to ordering more 378's there are drawbacks to buying and operating a small run of units to an old design and a different length to the rest of the fleet - no doubt the pro's and con's have been weighed up by TfL.

The 172 and 378 are currently maintained alongside each other at Willesden.

Of course, and while that could continue the procurement of EMU's would no longer make it necessary.

Although Crossrail concession may operate the units, TfL have shown them to be branded London Overground on that map so surely its a good idea to have a single operator force behind the whole Overground.

It would be simpler to have all Overground services operated by the same concession holder, but operational issues may dictate otherwise - we'll just have to wait and see I guess.

Chris

 

[Class377/5]

A direct connection to the WAML isn't necessary for the two lines to share the same fleet, and while there may be positives to ordering more 378's there are drawbacks to buying and operating a small run of units to an old design and a different length to the rest of the fleet - no doubt the pro's and con's have been weighed up by TfL.

Bombardier is building new 378 cars so not difficult to keep the production line going seeing as the new cars will be building into 2015, simply agree a price and keep going.

Of course, and while that could continue the procurement of EMU's would no longer make it necessary.

Maybe. But would make it desirable. Especially as the WAML won't come with a purely TfL depot.

It would be simpler to have all Overground services operated by the same concession holder, but operational issues may dictate otherwise - we'll just have to wait and see I guess.

Chris

Agreed.

 

[jopsuk]

If there's consistent branding, consistent fares then for passengers it matters little who runs the concession or how many concessions the operation is split into.

 

[edwin_m]

The M&S, McDonalds etc model is generally known as a franchise, and a concession is where an operator secures the right to operate a facility but isn't tied to specific rules on branding etc.

In railways it seems to be the other way round, with franchises having more freedom than concessions. This may be because someone in the Major government thought that using the correct word "concession" conveyed the impression of "conceding" the railway to private operators.

 

[Chris125]

Bombardier is building new 378 cars so not difficult to keep the production line going seeing as the new cars will be building into 2015, simply agree a price and keep going.

They are only building trailers IIRC so it's not that simple, this will have to go out to tender and even if the 378 design was suitable it would presumably require the same updates as the 377/6 and/7 regarding the bodyshell etc.

It's hard to see that being justified when there's no need for them to work in multiple with the existing fleet, and could be operated and even maintained entirely separately.

Maybe. But would make it desirable. Especially as the WAML won't come with a purely TfL depot.

I'd have thought Ilford would be the most desirable location as TfL clearly intend to have a common fleet of 4-car units operating both West Anglia and Barking-Gospel Oak services.

Chris

 

[edwin_m]

They are only building trailers IIRC so it's not that simple, this will have to go out to tender and even if the 378 design was suitable it would presumably require the same updates as the 377/6 and/7 regarding the bodyshell etc.

If they have a suitable unexercised option on the 378 order then this would avoid the need to go through another tendering process, unless they think they would get a better price by doing so.

 

[jopsuk]

as this hasn't gone out to tender yet (so technical specifications are not avilable), I wonder if the tender will include any potential for adding an extra carriage in the future to bring them to 5/10 formation (would require platform lengthening) or extra units for 4/8/12 formation (would require extreme platform lengthening)?

Or for that matter two extra carriages, for 6/12 operation...

 

[swt_passenger]

They are only building trailers IIRC so it's not that simple, this will have to go out to tender and even if the 378 design was suitable it would presumably require the same updates as the 377/6 and/7 regarding the bodyshell etc.

I believe the order for the fifth cars already included options for additional trains as well, it was mentioned in the TfL board papers at the time; leading to a few misunderstandings about whether any whole trains had actually been ordered.

The key paragraph was:

To achieve this increase in capacity, a series of infrastructure enhancements are required including:
(a) additional stabling at Silwood Triangle and Willesden and the associated connections to the network;
(b) reconfiguration of New Cross Gate Depot and Willesden Train Maintenance Depot to enable maintenance of the five car fleet;
(c) platform extensions, signalling and associated systems works;
(d) infrastructure changes to support additional capacity (including enhancement of existing turn-back sidings); and
(e) procurement of new Class 378 rolling stock cars to extend the existing four-car units to five-car units plus potentially additional five car units to increase peak service frequency.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downlo...Overground-Capacity-Improvement-Programme.pdf

Subsequent updates to the various board papers pin that down to 'two additional units'.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I would have thought a few more 378s for the GospelOak - Barking line woud have been ideal for simplifying maintenance at Willesden depot. I still think those extra few (4 ?) units would eventually end up strengthening other existing LOROL routes rather than working Gospel Oak - Barking anyway !. Thing to note is that demand is growing on LOROL and TFL dont seem to ignore the obvious need/opportunities.

For the WAML a (newer) unit completely compatible with 379s would be obvious as that would make things smoother operationally (units rescuing each other and driver knowledge) but also better at Ilford.

Nothing to say they won't order/get two versions of the same basic unit. One classed as 378/3 to work with existing 378s and one classed as 379/1 ala 377/6s which are not really 377s !.

Still pinching myself because I had forgotten Gospel Oak - Barking was getting electrified at last !.

 

[OxtedL]

It is easy to overlook the fact that the GOBLIN is connected to the new WA TfL routes by a chord at Seven Sisters/South Tottenham. Since GOBLIN is largely independent (bar moves that are largely intended to transfer units to the depot) of the rest of the current LO network, a common fleet can be just as sensible operationally as new 378s for the GOBLIN would.

It also opens the question as to whether the GOBLIN might eventually be peeled off into the WA concession, which could also be logical.

I'll stop now before to avoid getting any more speculative/acronymatic...

 

[Peter Sarf]

Forgot about that curve at Seven Sisters/South Tottenham . Easy to think in terms of the current LOROL empire as anyway.

If the Gospel Oak - Barking service got extended beyond Barking then it would even sit best with (EDIT = East Ham's) Ilfords c2c fleet . I thnk I saw that idea further up thread but I wonder how many conflicting moves that would generate at Barking. Off peak though that is exactly what the freight does of course.

 

[edwin_m]

Forgot about that curve at Seven Sisters/South Tottenham . Easy to think in terms of the current LOROL empire as anyway.

If the Gospel Oak - Barking service got extended beyond Barking then it would even sit best with Ilfords c2c fleet . I thnk I saw that idea further up thread but I wonder how many conflicting moves that would generate at Barking. Off peak though that is exactly what the freight does of course.

One of the flyovers west of Barking takes two tracks between the GOBLIN and Dagenham over the top of the Fenchurch Street lines. This could be used as a non-conflicting route for passengers as well as freight.

c2c is based at West Ham and Shoeburyness not Ilford.

 

[Alfie1014]

The GOB requires 8 sets to operate the 15 minute service, plus PIXC buster so at least this number will be required to operate an electric service. c2c's (LTS) fleet is maintained at East Ham not West Ham depot. Bombardier trains for the GOB could be maintained at East Ham as could those for West Anglia, indeed for a time in the 1990s class 317s for WA were maintained at East Ham even though they had no work at that time on the LTS.

 

[anthony263]

Hold on I though TFL only had 8 class 172's so where has this 9th unit come from?

 

[Eagle]

They had one of Chiltern's four for a while (can't remember the reason why).

 

[Clip]

Ideally the Barking Riverside link would go over/under the Thames to Abbey Wood Crossrail with a stop in Thamesmead. How feasible I'm not sure but the benefits would be immense. Thamesmead would finally get a rail link (50 years late) and be minutes from crossrail and the tube and rail just over the Thames in Barking. It would help sort out the desperate need for river crossings in that area. A rail bridge with tolled roads alongside would probably even cover it's construction cost in a number of years.
.

Without being rude are you aware of just how close Thamesmead already is to Abbey Wood? It is literally minutes from there by bus so why would you ever go to the expense of either building a tunnel or bridge to run a railway line over the Thames just so Thamesmead would get a station? Cheaper and better alternative is more regular buses.


I do agree there is a need for another crossing down there but to do so within your idea is just madness. They shouldnt have built the route to Woolwich DLR the way they did though as it wouldve been better just pointing in that direction for possible extension but it is what it is

 

[Class377/5]

They had one of Chiltern's four for a while (can't remember the reason why).

Want it something to do with units having a mod done?

 

[Chris125]

If they have a suitable unexercised option on the 378 order then this would avoid the need to go through another tendering process, unless they think they would get a better price by doing so.

I think that's unlikely - TfL must need at least 38 4-car units and would surely want the option to enlarge the West Anglia fleet further in future, so it makes sense to go to tender.

Even if a small run of non-standard 4-car 378's just for Gospel Oak-Barking was an option, the draft business plan suggests it's not one they are taking up.

Chris

 

[SF-02]

Without being rude are you aware of just how close Thamesmead already is to Abbey Wood? It is literally minutes from there by bus so why would you ever go to the expense of either building a tunnel or bridge to run a railway line over the Thames just so Thamesmead would get a station? Cheaper and better alternative is more regular buses.


I do agree there is a need for another crossing down there but to do so within your idea is just madness. They shouldnt have built the route to Woolwich DLR the way they did though as it wouldve been better just pointing in that direction for possible extension but it is what it is

Yes I worked in Thamesmead for a while so am well aware of what it is like. It may be close as the crow flies but not really on the ground. Buses aren't great for many north of Eastern Way (a2016) - including walks to the bus it can take 30 minutes + to get to the nearest station. There is proposed development at Tripcock Ness of thousands more homes and potential for more dense developments elsewhere but transport is a big problem.

It wouldn't just be solely to enable Thamesmead to get a station but also for far better regional links for SE London, East London, Kent and Essex. Though a link to Abbey Wood Crossrail would be a big boost for Thamesmead which is possibly the single most deprived town in London. It is also up there for the worst transport links in London. A new line would be 5 minutes on the train to Crossrail. In the other direction 10 minutes to the Hammersmith & City and District lines, c2c rail and GOBLIN. It would make getting to Kent much easier for people coming from Essex and East London. It would also make getting to Essex and parts of East & North London much easier from the Thames Gateway in Kent and SE London which are projected for massive housebuilding in future decades.

The DLR is built facing the wrong way as you say so not too much use and nothing can be done now about that, and that line heads immediately west north of the Thames and is pretty convoluted for cross river journeys. Plus it's very busy as it is - in 20 years with the projected housebuilding in the estuary it wont cope.

Alternatively a tram would be built to run from Barking to Abbey Wood over a bridge, offering much improved cross river connections for East and SE London and Thamesmead would finally get decent transport and the big boost it needs, serving the many new homes planned. This was the idea of the Greenwich Waterfront Transit and Cross River Transit until watered down to a simple bus, and then the bridge cancelled.

 

[D6975]

The GOB requires 8 sets to operate the 15 minute service, plus PIXC buster so at least this number will be required to operate an electric service. c2c's (LTS) fleet is maintained at East Ham not West Ham depot. Bombardier trains for the GOB could be maintained at East Ham as could those for West Anglia, indeed for a time in the 1990s class 317s for WA were maintained at East Ham even though they had no work at that time on the LTS.

The GOBLIN only requires 6 sets to operate a 15 min service.
One complete round trip takes 90 mins.
The 06:20 off Gospel Oak does the 07:03 off Barking, then the 07:50 off Gospel Oak and so on.
Only having 8 units for 8 diagrams would be optimistic to say the least.