Gospel Oak to Barking Line (GOBLIN) electrification

[traji00]

...that overground liveried 345 looks very nice indeed.

That's actually a Class 710

 

[Taunton]

Can we give the actual number of seats in the new 4-car trains, compared to the current 2-car diesels.

I don't mean "capacity", based around some standing norm that is difficult to achieve in practice, but passenger seats. because the current diesels, although of short length, are nicely seated, which is more than can be said for much recent Underground or Overground stock.

 

[edwin_m]

The interior will undoubtedly be similar to the Underground/Overground stock.

 

[swt_passenger]

The current overground order for 710s has two variants. One is as per LO 378s, all longitudinal seating, they are for for use on Goblin and the DC lines; the other batch is more like the Metropolitan S8s and for use on the routes out of Liverpool St.

Neither version will have conventional seating like the 172s. The only reason the 172s were conventional layout when new was so the they could be re-used elsewhere in the country...

 

[Taunton]

But I wonder what the actual seating will be.

Is it possible that the new 4-car electrics will have LESS seats than the 2-car diesels they replace. I do wonder if those who supported the electrification did so thinking "they will get a seat at last", and are going to be sadly disappointed.

 

[Geeves]

This has probably been asked elsewhere but what is the thinking behind these sets being class 710?. I thought 700s were Siemens stock? Was 346 not an option? They do look good none the less!

 

[hwl]

This has probably been asked elsewhere but what is the thinking behind these sets being class 710?. I thought 700s were Siemens stock? Was 346 not an option? They do look good none the less!

7xx is the new 3xx and 4xx (and 2xx) series irrespective of manufacturer. High speed is 8xx

Bombardier, Stadler and Siemens all have several 7xx class numbers for future stock.

345 is an oddity in that the class number was registered for crossrail use in the 1980s and would have been used who ever won.
I've got some NSE crossrail stock renders with 345 on the front!

 

[swt_passenger]

But I wonder what the actual seating will be.

Is it possible that the new 4-car electrics will have LESS seats than the 2-car diesels they replace. I do wonder if those who supported the electrification did so thinking "they will get a seat at last", and are going to be sadly disappointed.

Not likely, the metro variant will not be much different to a four car 378. So if the P5 is correct they were 146 (+ 6 folding) seats, but 4-500 crush load? LO 172s have 124 seats.

The suburban layout on the WA routes ought to have a few more seats than the metro, but it won't be many more, I think a bay of 2+2 replaces about 3 longitudinal seats. If the number of 2+2 bays is similar to the tube, then over the length of the train I doubt they will provide more than a dozen or so extra sets.

 

[DelW]

Is it possible that the new 4-car electrics will have LESS seats than the 2-car diesels they replace. I do wonder if those who supported the electrification did so thinking "they will get a seat at last", and are going to be sadly disappointed.

AIUI from friends who use it from time to time, overcrowding is so bad in the peaks that it will be a big improvement if pax can board the first train to arrive, rather than having wait until one arrives that they can squeeze onto. I think that seats are largely irrelevant once trains have left their first station.

 

[plcd1]

AIUI from friends who use it from time to time, overcrowding is so bad in the peaks that it will be a big improvement if pax can board the first train to arrive, rather than having wait until one arrives that they can squeeze onto. I think that seats are largely irrelevant once trains have left their first station.

Correct. Trains leave Gospel Oak in the PM peak full and standing and it just gets worse as trains head east although people do alight. Blackhorse Rd is the key pinchpoint because of transfer from the tube. The crush is horrendous.

I have not experienced the AM peak out of Barking but I understand that is also appalling. Regular users will be delighted when the electric trains run for the reason you cite - just being able to get on board!! Of course, if the extra capacity unleashes another surge of pent up demand we may be back to square one fairly quickly! That will be the thing that TfL will be watching for as they will have to take decisions on ordering extra trains *if* Mr Grayling signs off the Barking Riverside extension TWA order. There is scope to order more trains not only for the extension but also a higher frequency service.

 

[adrock1976]

Correct. Trains leave Gospel Oak in the PM peak full and standing and it just gets worse as trains head east although people do alight. Blackhorse Rd is the key pinchpoint because of transfer from the tube. The crush is horrendous.

I have not experienced the AM peak out of Barking but I understand that is also appalling. Regular users will be delighted when the electric trains run for the reason you cite - just being able to get on board!! Of course, if the extra capacity unleashes another surge of pent up demand we may be back to square one fairly quickly! That will be the thing that TfL will be watching for as they will have to take decisions on ordering extra trains *if* Mr Grayling signs off the Barking Riverside extension TWA order. There is scope to order more trains not only for the extension but also a higher frequency service.

Regarding a higher frequency service, would this increase from the present every 15 minutes to something like every 10 minutes/doubled to every 7-8 minutes, or has it not yet been decided?

 

[plcd1]

Regarding a higher frequency service, would this increase from the present every 15 minutes to something like every 10 minutes/doubled to every 7-8 minutes, or has it not yet been decided?

A train every 12 minutes would be the next step up in frequency. I believe this option has been identified by both TfL and Network Rail in their plans / regional route studies. The incremental number of extra trains was also identified in the "options" on the class 710 contract with Bombardier. I can't remember if resignalling is required for a x12 headway - it may well be if that frequency was to run off peak as well because of the freight train pathing issues then. Not so relevant in the peaks when freight is scarce because there are no NLL paths west of Gospel Oak.

A frequency step up is, in the plans, a long way away but I expect TfL will be keeping a close eye on peak loadings when the 710s are fully operational. If peak EMUs load very heavily then TfL might want to add, say, 1 extra EMU on top of the Riverside order to give themselves some flex about running "peak buster" extra trains as a short term palliative measure. Clearly committing to the full upgrade for a x12 service would require a strong business case given competing demands for very limited funds. Looking at the draft Mayor's Transport Strategy the GOBLIN only features in respect of the current electrification. Future expansion is identified for the NLL/ELL/WLL routes in terms of better signalling, more frequent services and wanting to boot freight trains off these routes and to get unused paths surrendered.

 

[swt_passenger]

There are also options in the 710 order to make some or all trains up to 5 car - are there any unsurmountable obstacles to slightly longer trains on the GOBLIN?

 

[racyrich]

Where will the units be berthed?

Just asking as I've noticed that the little triangle at the east end of East Ham depot has been defoliated and there have been a few orangle-clad people wandering around looking at things. You could certainly stick a couple of sidings in there for a 4 car unit. Five might not fit.
With c2c getting 17 more units in the coming years, ad hoc parking of TFL trains in East Ham might not be possible.

 

[87015]

Where will the units be berthed?

Just asking as I've noticed that the little triangle at the east end of East Ham depot has been defoliated and there have been a few orangle-clad people wandering around looking at things. You could certainly stick a couple of sidings in there for a 4 car unit. Five might not fit.
With c2c getting 17 more units in the coming years, ad hoc parking of TFL trains in East Ham might not be possible.

The East Ham men will be out in prep of points/track renewal at the east end exit later this year. There is something floating around that LO 710 maintenance will be centered on WN, with it becoming a near dedicated facility to the 710s

 

[dp21]

The East Ham men will be out in prep of points/track renewal at the east end exit later this year. There is something floating around that LO 710 maintenance will be centered on WN, with it becoming a near dedicated facility to the 710s

Dual voltage versions will be based at Willesden, AC-only will be based at Ilford.

A few questions though - Certainly with the 172s going, it will release some capacity but will they still maintain them for Chiltern and also the AC locos for Caledonian Sleeper? That'll take up some capacity.

Also, Bear in mind that all the 315s will be leaving Ilford and the 345 maintenance moving to A shop (I think) and old oak eventually so Ilford will have plenty of space to maintain some of these 710s.

Another question would be does New Cross Gate have enough capacity to maintain all the 378s so as to allow WN to be a dedicated 710 facility?

 

[plcd1]

There are also options in the 710 order to make some or all trains up to 5 car - are there any unsurmountable obstacles to slightly longer trains on the GOBLIN?

Those places that retained their old platforms are almost certainly extendable to 5 cars. It would just be a refurb and resurface and extra lighting etc. The possibly more difficult locations or where work would be needed are

a) Walthamstow Queens Road. Old out of use platform areas would need to be rebuilt and lowered to match the new platforms build last year.
b) Blackhorse Road. The platforms would have to be extended as they can only just fit 4 cars. I also expect they'd need to be widened to cope with the extra demand.
c) Not sure if South Tottenham's platforms can be further extended to the east without fouling the junction down to the Lea Valley line. I haven't visited since the line reopened.
d) I suspect Harringey Green Lanes would need further extensions but there is space to the east to do this.
e) Not sure whether Gospel Oak's bay platform could cope with 5 cars.

There may also be other issues with regard to the infrastructure that aren't apparent such as stopping positions and signal locations. Given long and heavy freights run on the line I expect the tracks and bridges could cope with 5 car EMUs.

 

[Chris125]

There are also options in the 710 order to make some or all trains up to 5 car - are there any unsurmountable obstacles to slightly longer trains on the GOBLIN?

I'd have thought anything longer would require a rebuild of the bay at Gospel Oak, which surely wouldn't come cheap given the constraints.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I'd have thought anything longer would require a rebuild of the bay at Gospel Oak, which surely wouldn't come cheap given the constraints.

Is the signal at Gospel Oak at the end of the platform or a little past the platform?

 

[swt_passenger]

I'd have thought anything longer would require a rebuild of the bay at Gospel Oak, which surely wouldn't come cheap given the constraints.

The white line on the copings is 95 metres long. Will presumably depend where the inbound stop marker has to be, with respect to the buffers, but in principle 5 extra metres usable length looks to be at least in the 'quite possible' category...

 

[swt_passenger]

Is the signal at Gospel Oak at the end of the platform or a little past the platform?

The starter looks to be just before the end, i.e. a couple of metres within the platform usable length.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

The starter looks to be just before the end, i.e. a couple of metres within the platform usable length.

Is there any scope for the signal to be moved closer to the catch points?

 

[76020]

I travelled between Gospel Oak and Barking today, even though I could only see the south side of the line, I guess the north side is hardly any different, it is not good news as regards electrification progress
About 95% of the masts are installed, out of these about 70-75% have the support arms fitted, the missing steel sticks are nearly all between South Tottenham and Woodgrange Park Junction,
There is very little catenary and contact wire installed, the only wiring up is two small sections, one is just past Gospel Oak Junction and another is from the Barking flyover into the bay platform at the eastern terminus of the line, however the return wire is about 70% fitted between Gospel Oak and South Tottenham.
There is little scope at present for any wiring to begin, except for the return wire, because the support arms are not continuous in nearly all locations.
When the electrification of this line was announced it was said that the electrification would be completed before the new EMU Class 710 would be ready and there was even talk of getting the displaced Class 315, which are currently being replaced by the Class 345, to work on the line as a temporary fix, at this rate the new EMU's may be parked up somewhere awaiting the electrification to be finished.
Even though there are further weekend line closures during the summer, they will have to have further closures later this year and possible next year as well as there is a lot still to do, I don't think there is any overnight working booked as yet.

 

[Elecman]

Actually stringing tgecwiring up us a fairly quick exercise once all the necessary steelwork and registration arms are in place

 

[goblinuser]

Since the electrification works TfL have installed orange queue style ropes which they close at the end of Overground services. Previously, the stations were left open during the night and you could enter and exit throughout the night. I'm wondering if crossing the rope would be trespass?

 

[Taunton]

it is not good news as regards electrification progress ... There is very little catenary and contact wire installed, the only wiring up is two small sections, one is just past Gospel Oak Junction and another is from the Barking flyover into the bay platform at the eastern terminus of the line ... There is little scope at present for any wiring to begin, except for the return wire, because the support arms are not continuous in nearly all locations.

Not much progress at all then since my notes over 3 months ago (No 333 above). At least it sounds like the masts which were
thrown down in the lineside weeds then have been picked up and bolted in. The wiring described is what was done in the blockade, so there's been nothing since.

I don't know where this style of oddball installation of support arms and other elements up and down the line comes from, it's almost like the engineer in charge put the mast references into a random number generator. The GWR electrification is the same. Possibly it's dependent on individual manufacture and delivery of components, in which case it makes a nonsense of all the hoopla about doing it with standardised parts.

Putting the wires up is by no means the end, that is where the complex part starts, connecting up to the substations and commissioning it all. At the present pace I will be surprised if electric services start before 2019. Can we do a GWR and put diesel engines under the floor of the new 710s?

 

[snowball]

I don't know where this style of oddball installation of support arms and other elements up and down the line comes from, it's almost like the engineer in charge put the mast references into a random number generator. The GWR electrification is the same.

Also the NW.

 

[76020]

Not much progress at all then since my notes over 3 months ago (No 333 above). At least it sounds like the masts which were
thrown down in the lineside weeds then have been picked up and bolted in. The wiring described is what was done in the blockade, so there's been nothing since.

I don't know where this style of oddball installation of support arms and other elements up and down the line comes from, it's almost like the engineer in charge put the mast references into a random number generator. The GWR electrification is the same. Possibly it's dependent on individual manufacture and delivery of components, in which case it makes a nonsense of all the hoopla about doing it with standardised parts.

Putting the wires up is by no means the end, that is where the complex part starts, connecting up to the substations and commissioning it all. At the present pace I will be surprised if electric services start before 2019. Can we do a GWR and put diesel engines under the floor of the new 710s?

I do pass by the western end of the GOBLIN line quiet regularly by bus near Gospel Oak and the return wires has gone up in the last month or so

 

[plcd1]

I've not been to check on progress - may have a ride next week.

I understand that a waiver has been granted to allow wiring to proceed without raising the bridge at Crouch Hill station this year. That takes some pressure off the blockade duration and planning for this year.

I expect we will get an announcement shortly from NR and TfL about further closures. The Investment and Programmes Cttee reviewed a paper and TfL's review of NR's plans a few weeks ago. A very bland set of minutes don't reveal anything new other than "more months of work is required" and that's not really news.

It is telling that TfL have not updated their closure look ahead to cover Christmas and New Year 2017/18. I suspect this is because a position on GOBLIN closures and the impacts elsewhere over the festive period are not finalised. TfL were hoping to possibly run some Overground services on Boxing Day but extensive engineering works may preclude that. I am waiting for a "splash" from NR and TfL about how they will conclude the GOBLIN works but also deliver other improvements and do works over the Festive Period.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

How far behind schedule is the electrification (infrastructure) approximately?