Class 710 LO

[SteveOfTheStow]

The 315s are the same length as the 710s though?

The cab is very different - it's not a flat front and s/he appears to sit in the middle rather than off to one side. From a layman's perspective, that would seem to require a different camera angle.

 

[hwl]

The 315s are the same length as the 710s though?

The 710 have bodyside cameras and in cab monitors hence they need for platform equipment hence a complete waste of time fitting platform cameras and monitors for the 315s by which time the 710 would be in service...

 

[hwl]

Far too expensive for the time.

That was my point indirectly...

 

[jellybaby]

The 710 have bodyside cameras and in cab monitors hence they need for platform equipment hence a complete waste of time fitting platform cameras and monitors for the 315s by which time the 710 would be in service...

Provide platform dispatch staff? Although I suppose there is a lack of trained staff.

 

[Mikey C]

The 710 have bodyside cameras and in cab monitors hence they need for platform equipment hence a complete waste of time fitting platform cameras and monitors for the 315s by which time the 710 would be in service...

Ok thanks

 

[Bikeman78]

The 710 have bodyside cameras and in cab monitors hence they need for platform equipment hence a complete waste of time fitting platform cameras and monitors for the 315s by which time the 710 would be in service...

How do the 172s run now? Do they have guards, on board DOO cameras or platform mounted mirrors/cameras?

 

[Domh245]

How do the 172s run now? Do they have guards, on board DOO cameras or platform mounted mirrors/cameras?

On board doo cameras

 

[Fincra5]

How do the 172s run now? Do they have guards, on board DOO cameras or platform mounted mirrors/cameras?

It's got little DOO Ears (Not my Photo)

https://www.bgphotographic.co.uk/uploads/7/0/2/0/7020207/1290909_orig.jpg

 

[rebmcr]

In retrospect starting electric services with the displaced 315s would have been a good idea, as with the delays to the 710s, they would have done good service on the line (and worth the driver training etc)

What about installing DOO cameras on all the platforms for the 315s?

Far too expensive for the time.

Provide platform dispatch staff? Although I suppose there is a lack of trained staff.

I guess they could be trained up though — after all, every Overground station is staffed.

 

[greatkingrat]

There are three options

1 - Class 172s
2 - Class 710s
3 - If neither of the above are available, replacement buses.

Nothing else is remotely feasible or being considered.

 

[theking]

Can't see how anyone can think its economically viable to train all the willesden/Euston/watford/ stratford drivers who sign the goblin on a brand new rolling stock (315's) for a few months, that and the cost of installing doo equipment stop car markers etc etc.

And then where are you going to store the 315 whilst the 710 are arriving. Whos going to maintain them.

Plus who is going to train the drivers when the trainers will be concentrating on the 710.

 

[hozza94]

Can they not throw in 1 or 2 spare 378s for good measure?

 

[Bikeman78]

Can't see how anyone can think its economically viable to train all the willesden/Euston/watford/ stratford drivers who sign the goblin on a brand new rolling stock (315's) for a few months, that and the cost of installing doo equipment stop car markers etc etc.

And then where are you going to store the 315 whilst the 710 are arriving. Whos going to maintain them.

Plus who is going to train the drivers when the trainers will be concentrating on the 710.

I think that buses will be politically unacceptable so, if it comes to it, the 172s will probably stay on beyond December.

Regarding train crew, Scotrail deemed it worthwhile to train drivers and guards on 365s as a short term fix. What's the difference? The obvious place to maintain the 315s is Ilford. NLL drivers already sign to Stratford, then hire a driver from LO or AGA for the last few miles to Ilford. The biggest problem is dispatch. The cheapest solution would be to have dispatch staff at all the stations.

Another option is to juggle units around a bit. Put six more 315s onto Chingford/Cheshunt/Enfield, cascade six 317s to AGA and hire six 379s each day for Gospel Oak to Barking.

 

[superkev]

Pity they can't use one or perhaps two sets from the overground network in the short term to use the wiring.
Surely with the units being fairly new a couple could be spared for a short time.
K

 

[Domh245]

Can they not throw in 1 or 2 spare 378s for good measure?

Pity they can't use one or perhaps two sets from the overground network in the short term to use the wiring.
Surely with the units being fairly new a couple could be spared for a short time.
K

The 378s have a very high utilisation (52+ in service out of 57 Mon-Fri) so they can't really spare any of them for GOBLIN services - they're all being put to work on the existing electric routes. (Would they even fit on the GOBLIN, being 5 car trains when platforms have been lengthened to 4 cars + the Gospel Oak terminal platform length)

 

[Wivenswold]

There are lot of options but none of them will be quick or cheap because of the needs of training and route acceptance. I would think that TfL are taking the most cost-effective route with minimal negative press. Imagine the Evening Standard if 40 year old trains being taken off Crossrail were sent to the GOBLIN.

While it all looks bad and I suspect the lawyers are already locking horns behind the scenes, the Goblin has coped with 2 door DMUs since the 70's, another few months or 12 isn't the end of the world.

 

[332 > 444]

Not usually but now with a tight fleet availability and no much needed peak extras.

 

[hwl]

The 378s have a very high utilisation (52+ in service out of 57 Mon-Fri) so they can't really spare any of them for GOBLIN services - they're all being put to work on the existing electric routes. (Would they even fit on the GOBLIN, being 5 car trains when platforms have been lengthened to 4 cars + the Gospel Oak terminal platform length)

The 5 car 378s are to long for the bay platform at Gospel Oak as the east facing cab is beyond the starter signal and very close the the ends of the trap points in the photo in post 489 above
The buffers already had to be moved further west to accommodate 4 car 710s. So no chance on the 378s.

 

[Mikey C]

There are lot of options but none of them will be quick or cheap because of the needs of training and route acceptance. I would think that TfL are taking the most cost-effective route with minimal negative press. Imagine the Evening Standard if 40 year old trains being taken off Crossrail were sent to the GOBLIN.

While it all looks bad and I suspect the lawyers are already locking horns behind the scenes, the Goblin has coped with 2 door DMUs since the 70's, another few months or 12 isn't the end of the world.

This only works as it seems West Midlands doesn't need the 172s yet. If they had services dependant on them and insisted on the 172s being released now, TfL would HAVE to take a more expensive option. Or the political damaging one of bustitution.

 

[SteveOfTheStow]

This only works as it seems West Midlands doesn't need the 172s yet. If they had services dependant on them and insisted on the 172s being released now, TfL would HAVE to take a more expensive option. Or the political damaging one of bustitution.

TfL has no money, so I suspect they'd pick bustitution if it came to it.

 

[Class 466]

The 378s have a very high utilisation (52+ in service out of 57 Mon-Fri) so they can't really spare any of them for GOBLIN services - they're all being put to work on the existing electric routes. (Would they even fit on the GOBLIN, being 5 car trains when platforms have been lengthened to 4 cars + the Gospel Oak terminal platform length)

Couple that with the fact 1-2 units per week will be unavailable (out of the 5 maintenance 'spares') for Refurbishment - there isn't really enough stock available to run them on the GOBLIN.

 

[Class 170101]

I think that buses will be politically unacceptable so, if it comes to it, the 172s will probably stay on beyond December.

Regarding train crew, Scotrail deemed it worthwhile to train drivers and guards on 365s as a short term fix. What's the difference? The obvious place to maintain the 315s is Ilford. NLL drivers already sign to Stratford, then hire a driver from LO or AGA for the last few miles to Ilford. The biggest problem is dispatch. The cheapest solution would be to have dispatch staff at all the stations.

Another option is to juggle units around a bit. Put six more 315s onto Chingford/Cheshunt/Enfield, cascade six 317s to AGA and hire six 379s each day for Gospel Oak to Barking.

Why would you need to hire a driver from LO? They are the same company. GA don't sign 315s anymore, its MTR that do for Shenfield services.

As for the 317s coming back to GA and Class 379s being loaned out thats unlikely unless serious money is offered. In any event the units would still have to go back to Ilford Depot for maintenance and exams. Crews swaps would also be needed probably either at Stratford or South Tottenham to get them to / from depot.

 

[Defiance149]

There was a 710 delivery to Willesden this morning from Derby, can anyone ID the set please?

 

[DarloRich]

Another train has now been delivered to Willesden (710262) - this is not the one used for the launch.

and there mist be another as i suspect this working this morning was a 710 transfer:

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K91313/2018/07/24/advanced

 

[dmncf]

710262 and 710263 are both now at Willesden Junction depot in the two sidings adjacent to the Euston-Watford DC Line. Overhead line equipment in these siding has not yet had a contact wire installed.

 

[dmncf]

20180724_175512

• dmncf
• 24 Jul 2018

20180724_175600

• dmncf
• 24 Jul 2018

 

[Bikeman78]

Why would you need to hire a driver from LO? They are the same company. GA don't sign 315s anymore, its MTR that do for Shenfield services.

As for the 317s coming back to GA and Class 379s being loaned out thats unlikely unless serious money is offered. In any event the units would still have to go back to Ilford Depot for maintenance and exams. Crews swaps would also be needed probably either at Stratford or South Tottenham to get them to / from depot.

Yes I got confused as regards who works what. So for 315s LO would simply need to use one of their own drivers that signs from Stratford or South Tottenham to get them to Ilford. There is already a pair of 317s on the Stansteds and about 50% of the Cambridge trains so more 317s would not be the end of the world. Given the fallout of the Thameslink mess, I think the DFT will want to avoid buses on the Goblin at any cost.

 

[SteveOfTheStow]

Given the fallout of the Thameslink mess, I think the DFT will want to avoid buses on the Goblin at any cost.

I'm not sure about that. The Goblin is TfL's project, and the two don't particularly like each other. Politically, I'd expect DfT to publically point the finger at TfL if asked, as it puts the DfT in a less bad light with Thameslink if they show that other public bodies delivering transport projects are just as troubled (irrespective of the underlying issues). Thus, it's for TfL to decide if they want to avoid buses, and they need to work out what they can afford to spend to achieve that.

 

[samuelmorris]

I think that's very much the case. I don't wish to colour the subject with politics, but given the controversy over the denied LO takeover of Southeastern metro routes with the "I agree but we need to keep this out of the hands of a Labour mayor" statement and the fact that we still have the same transport secretary and now also have a labour mayor, I would entirely expect the DfT to try and undermine the case for LO getting any more suburban rail as much as possible. A disaster with the Goblin, whoever's fault it actually is, will certainly go a long way to achieve that.

 

[plcd1]

I think that's very much the case. I don't wish to colour the subject with politics, but given the controversy over the denied LO takeover of Southeastern metro routes with the "I agree but we need to keep this out of the hands of a Labour mayor" statement and the fact that we still have the same transport secretary and now also have a labour mayor, I would entirely expect the DfT to try and undermine the case for LO getting any more suburban rail as much as possible. A disaster with the Goblin, whoever's fault it actually is, will certainly go a long way to achieve that.

I understand the point you make but I think things have moved on a little bit. It is Grayling himself who has made two statements to MPs raising the possibility of transferring some West London Line and all GN Inner services to TfL. The Mayoral aspiration and TfL policy hasn't changed since 2000 when Ken Livingstone won the Mayoralty. Even the current Mayor, in recent letters and statements to the London Assembly, has not gone out of his way to slag off Grayling. The tone has been calmer and much more conciliatory and there appears to be an ongoing dialogue between City Hall and DfT. It may still all founder and come to nought but it's a tiny bit more hopeful (for those of us who support devolution).

The GOBLIN problems put a lot of people in a bad light - Bombardier, Network Rail (accountable to Mr Grayling), a number of railway contractors and TfL (accountable to the Mayor). I don't think anyone comes out of it very well and we're still nowhere near having a reliable all electric service on what is my nearest Overground route. Anyone who starts flinging mud around will soon find some of it sticks to them. That's probably why any public rowing between those involved stopped a long while back.

To return to the subject of the 710s a Mayor's Question and Answer released this week said the following. The Question Time was only held last Thursday (19/7) so this is a recent reply.

Barking to Gospel Oak Overground service (2)
Question No: 2018/1713
Caroline Pidgeon

What contingency planning has Transport for London carried out to ensure that the eight Class172 diesel multiple units (172001 - 72008) will not be transferred to West Midlands Railway before eight New Class710 electric multiple units have entered service on the Barking to Gospel Oak Overground service?

The Mayor

A sublease arrangement for Class172 trains has been agreed until December 2018. The Class 710's manufacturer has assured Transport for London the new trains will be available for service by November.

So the pressure remains on Bombardier to deliver and, if they don't, for someone to deal with the loss of the 172s post December. Note that TfL have not said if there is a further contingency plan in place. I know that there are conflicting reports about precisely when the 172s could leave London but I am assuming the Mayor's reply represents the position as of this week.