Barking Riverside Extension (London Overground) Updates

[Class 170101]

Hope the points and crossover in Picture 4 'Check Point' are standard pieces of kit because if not they look a right pain to replace should they fail.

 

[Geogregor]

Barking Riverside station looks substantially finished externally, most works are about landscaping..


P1170504 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


P1170445 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


P1170448 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


P1170457 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


P1170472 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


P1170477 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


P1170480 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


P1170488 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


P1170493 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


P1170496 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


P1170495 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


P1170499 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


P1170502 by Geogregor*, on Flickr

 

[theking]

That cladding looks horrible just looks rusty

 

[Geogregor]

That cladding looks horrible just looks rusty

Because they are using weathering steel (sometimes called corten steel) which doesn't have to be painted. It is becoming increasingly popular material:

Weathering steel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[theking]

Because they are using weathering steel (sometimes called corten steel) which doesn't have to be painted. It is becoming increasingly popular material:

Weathering steel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ahh thanks for that, I thought it did remind me of the angel of the north.

 

[Basil Jet]

That cladding looks horrible just looks rusty

I thought "The reinforcement looks good, when are they encasing it in concrete?"

 

[samulih]

Nice looking station, I have always like that weathered steel in building which has it....

 

[fgwrich]

Because they are using weathering steel (sometimes called corten steel) which doesn't have to be painted. It is becoming increasingly popular material:

Weathering steel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Indeed, some of it's uses can look odd, but others do look quite smart. It's impressive stuff too - you'd think you'd get a rusty coloured hand after touching it but thanks to it's manufacturing process, you certainly don't!

 

[adrock1976]

Before the station area gets full with buildings, has any passive provision been made for a future extension south of the Thames into Thamesmead?

 

[swt_passenger]

Before the station area gets full with buildings, has any passive provision been made for a future extension south of the Thames into Thamesmead?

I don’t believe so. They’d have to build a totally different route down to at a low level starting a long way back from the river, and most of the current viaduct would have to be demolished. The subject of extensions is touched on in the TWA inspectors report. Basically there‘s passive provision for another intermediate station, but no provision for a tunnelled route to Thamesmead:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/736848/barking-riverside-extension-inspectors-report.pdf

 

[RyanOPlasty]

Ahh thanks for that, I thought it did remind me of the angel of the north.

Because that's exactly what the Angel of the North is made of!

 

[adrock1976]

I don’t believe so. They’d have to build a totally different route down to at a low level starting a long way back from the river, and most of the current viaduct would have to be demolished. The subject of extensions is touched on in the TWA inspectors report. Basically there‘s passive provision for another intermediate station, but no provision for a tunnelled route to Thamesmead:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/736848/barking-riverside-extension-inspectors-report.pdf

Many thanks for the link.

 

[ijmad]

New station looks great, very large and high quality for a train service that will only ever be 4tph or 5tph. In fact that's one of the reasons why I would be surprised if it ever goes to Thamesmead, seems like a bridge or a tunnel would be a whole lot of capital outlay for a service that can't ever offer a really high frequency.

Surely far more sensible to spend the money taking a 7½tph or 15tph DLR service over the river.

 

[cle]

New station looks great, very large and high quality for a train service that will only ever be 4tph or 5tph. In fact that's one of the reasons why I would be surprised if it ever goes to Thamesmead, seems like a bridge or a tunnel would be a whole lot of capital outlay for a service that can't ever offer a really high frequency.

Surely far more sensible to spend the money taking a 7½tph or 15tph DLR service over the river.

I tend to agree. 4 cars too. And it's not as if it then rockets into Central London or up to Stratford, say - it's sort of a train to nowhere beyond Barking. Wonder if c2c could ever shuttle in?

Would be a complete Island Gardens redux re the build work.

 

[mr_jrt]

Remind me, was a reason given for not going the other way, and instead of building the branch on a viaduct, instead building it in a cut and cover trench, which would have enabled an onward extension with less waste?

 

[Andyjs247]

Remind me, was a reason given for not going the other way, and instead of building the branch on a viaduct, instead building it in a cut and cover trench, which would have enabled an onward extension with less waste?

The Barking Riverside branch has to climb up and over Ripple Lane yard and the Tilbury lines. It also crosses HS1 which is in tunnel.

I don’t think it was ever planned to go beyond the terminus but to do so would involve some pretty steep gradients to get down into a trench and below the river. Ditto if the line had to go beneath HS1 from Barking. By building the line on a viaduct it maximises the space for other development.

 

[ijmad]

I tend to agree. 4 cars too. And it's not as if it then rockets into Central London or up to Stratford, say - it's sort of a train to nowhere beyond Barking. Wonder if c2c could ever shuttle in?

Would be a complete Island Gardens redux re the build work.

I'd imagine a lot of the new passengers from the development will change at Barking or walk from Wanstead Park to Forest Gate

 

[Mikey C]

I'd imagine a lot of the new passengers from the development will change at Barking or walk from Wanstead Park to Forest Gate

I assume that there wouldn't have been capacity to do this, but from a passenger point of view making the line an extension of the District or H&C Lines rather than the Goblin probably would have been more useful, seeing that the vast majority of passengers would be heading towards central London.

 

[swt_passenger]

Remind me, was a reason given for not going the other way, and instead of building the branch on a viaduct, instead building it in a cut and cover trench, which would have enabled an onward extension with less waste?

Unaffordable according to the TWA inspectors report I linked yesterday.

 

[mr_jrt]

The Barking Riverside branch has to climb up and over Ripple Lane yard and the Tilbury lines. It also crosses HS1 which is in tunnel.

I don’t think it was ever planned to go beyond the terminus but to do so would involve some pretty steep gradients to get down into a trench and below the river. Ditto if the line had to go beneath HS1 from Barking. By building the line on a viaduct it maximises the space for other development.

The HS1 tunnel is a good point - I'd forgotten about that. Pretty immovable obstruction.

 

[ijmad]

I assume that there wouldn't have been capacity to do this, but from a passenger point of view making the line an extension of the District or H&C Lines rather than the Goblin probably would have been more useful, seeing that the vast majority of passengers would be heading towards central London.

Yeah, the capacity of the shared section between Barking and Renwick Road junction would be an issue, as would getting H&C tube trains down there without masses of conflicting moves across busy national rail lines. Likely impossible without new flyovers and substantial redevelopment of Barking station's platforms, which would cost way too much for this project's sponsor. That and you'd need a small number of additional trains but the S7 is now out of production.

 

[stuu]

Remind me, was a reason given for not going the other way, and instead of building the branch on a viaduct, instead building it in a cut and cover trench, which would have enabled an onward extension with less waste?

Yes. Because if that was done, then the station would need to be a lot further from the centre of the development to leave enough space to tunnel from. So the choice was good location now, vs bad location possibly forever because of an extension that might never happen. It would also have been much more expensive and time-consuming

The gradient to get under the river from the crossing over Choats Road is easily doable, it would need to drop ~25m in 1200m - 1 in48 gradient

 

[DC1989]

I think the station looks very good - and it's significantly bigger than I thought it would be. Especially for a station that won't be particularly high use ! Compared to the normal Barking station (Which surely has to be one of the ugliest stations there is in London!)

 

[cle]

Hopefully the build tons of tons of housing there - at good density, which will use the station. And if the infill Ripple Lane station comes along in time too, again, density. And make it wash its face a bit.

 

[hwl]

Hopefully the build tons of tons of housing there - at good density, which will use the station. And if the infill Ripple Lane station comes along in time too, again, density. And make it wash its face a bit.

10,000+ homes is the plan

 

[mr_jrt]

Yes. Because if that was done, then the station would need to be a lot further from the centre of the development to leave enough space to tunnel from. So the choice was good location now, vs bad location possibly forever because of an extension that might never happen. It would also have been much more expensive and time-consuming

The gradient to get under the river from the crossing over Choats Road is easily doable, it would need to drop ~25m in 1200m - 1 in48 gradient

Surely the obvious solution is to tunnel *to* the location from Thamesmead, then all you would need is a open square or crossroads in front of it to extract the cutting head, then pull the TBM out backwards? The station would then have been able to be in exactly the same place.

Just seems odd to me that building a huge long viaduct and raised station building (and the ongoing maitentance costs) are cheaper than digging out a tunnel (cut and cover through open land or even just bored) and lining it.

 

[stuu]

Surely the obvious solution is to tunnel *to* the location from Thamesmead, then all you would need is a open square or crossroads in front of it to extract the cutting head, then pull the TBM out backwards? The station would then have been able to be in exactly the same place.

Just seems odd to me that building a huge long viaduct and raised station building (and the ongoing maitentance costs) are cheaper than digging out a tunnel (cut and cover through open land or even just bored) and lining it.

That was the answer given to the TWA enquiry.

I would seriously doubt that a viaduct would be more expensive, elevated railways are the cheap option everywhere. Also tunnels below the water table need significant maintenance and ongoing costs, something a viaduct won't need

 

[ijmad]

10,000+ homes is the plan

Well they won't all fit on 5tph in rush hour

 

[Bald Rick]

Just seems odd to me that building a huge long viaduct and raised station building (and the ongoing maitentance costs) are cheaper than digging out a tunnel (cut and cover through open land or even just bored) and lining it.

building viaducts is much cheaper than building tunnels.

 

[HSTEd]

How much air draft does the Thames actually require here? Couldn't you just bridge the Thames?