x-posted to uk.transport.london

On 19/03/2014 14:46, Paul Harley wrote:
An interesting item in the 2014 Budget is £150M being committed to
extend the Gospel Oak to Barking line to a new station at Barking
Riverside, to serve a development of up to 11,000 new homes.

There were of course plans, pre-crash, to extend the DLR this way as
part of the development plans.

I don't recall a GOBLIN extension featuring as part of the Barking
Riverside developments before now, but I could well have just been asleep.

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 18:15:48 +0000, Mizter T
wrote:

x-posted to uk.transport.london

On 19/03/2014 14:46, Paul Harley wrote:
An interesting item in the 2014 Budget is £150M being committed to
extend the Gospel Oak to Barking line to a new station at Barking
Riverside, to serve a development of up to 11,000 new homes.

There were of course plans, pre-crash, to extend the DLR this way as
part of the development plans.

I don't recall a GOBLIN extension featuring as part of the Barking
Riverside developments before now, but I could well have just been
asleep.

You weren't asleep as it is only in the last year that very small
hints have emerged in a variety of places that an extension was being
considered. It's been easy to miss them unless you're nerdy and like
reading Mayor's Questions and sub notes to Network Rail presentations
on electrification.

I think what has happened - years late - is that someone has bashed
Boris on the head enough times that he eventually realised that you
will not get substantial housing development at Barking Riverside
without a rail service. A resident was interviewed for the BBC London
news and she said two bus routes were inadequate *already* with buses
full to bursting in the peaks. These are the East London Transit
routes that were supposed to be a super dooper solution to the area's
transport issues. That worked then! Boris's excuse is that the DLR
extension was too expensive while extending the GOBLIN will be better
value for money (i.e. cheap).

The substantive issue, of course, is whether the GOBLIN can provide
adequate capacity for well over 11,000 residents. A 4 tph service with
4 car EMUs won't (IMO) meet that sort of demand. Judging from remarks
on the telly this evening I think people and politicians think they're
getting a direct C2C service to Fenchurch St not a shuttle to Barking
and beyond. My view is that TfL will have to run a supplementary
service just to Barking to give adequate capacity and frequency to
link in to C2C and the Tube. One question that has been posed to the
Mayor, by John Biggs AM, is whether the extension will also have a
station at Renwick Road. This is a vast area of housing and there is
space for a station. Adding one would probably serve C2C and
Overground thus giving a good service to that area. Mayor's Answers
next week might cast some light on whether that station option is
being considered.

One thing a DLR service would have done was provide a direct link to
Canary Wharf (or very close by) whereas the GOBLIN extension is a long
way round for a short cut. It would also have served far more stations
on the Riverside giving connectivity and supporting wider development.
A one station extension does not do the same thing at all. Which
option is "right" is obviously open to debate but I feel the DLR
option would have been vastly more beneficial and would have been
close to opening by now if Boris had not canned it. Sometimes you get
what you pay for! Doing everything cheaply may not deliver the result
that is needed in terms of lots of houses.

The final thing to say is that there is no money yet nor is it very
clear what will be built, how much it will cost and who will pay for
it. Boris said on the telly that things might get started by the 2016
Mayoral election suggesting that there is much to do before then. He
accepted that there is no money on the table yet. On the assumption
that the go ahead does eventually come then at least TfL can secure an
option for extra trains when it gets round to ordering the EMUs for
the electrified GOBLIN / Greater Anglia. I suspect we may be looking
at 2018/19 before the extension opens but it would be nice if it could
be done faster than that to coincide with the electrified GOBLIN
service.

Won't GOBLIN be using 5-car class 378 sets like the rest of the Overground?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 18:15:48 +0000, Mizter T
wrote:

x-posted to uk.transport.london

On 19/03/2014 14:46, Paul Harley wrote:
An interesting item in the 2014 Budget is £150M being committed to
extend the Gospel Oak to Barking line to a new station at Barking
Riverside, to serve a development of up to 11,000 new homes.

There were of course plans, pre-crash, to extend the DLR this way as
part of the development plans.

I don't recall a GOBLIN extension featuring as part of the Barking
Riverside developments before now, but I could well have just been
asleep.

You weren't asleep as it is only in the last year that very small
hints have emerged in a variety of places that an extension was being
considered. It's been easy to miss them unless you're nerdy and like
reading Mayor's Questions and sub notes to Network Rail presentations
on electrification.

I think what has happened - years late - is that someone has bashed
Boris on the head enough times that he eventually realised that you
will not get substantial housing development at Barking Riverside
without a rail service. A resident was interviewed for the BBC London
news and she said two bus routes were inadequate *already* with buses
full to bursting in the peaks. These are the East London Transit
routes that were supposed to be a super dooper solution to the area's
transport issues. That worked then! Boris's excuse is that the DLR
extension was too expensive while extending the GOBLIN will be better
value for money (i.e. cheap).

The substantive issue, of course, is whether the GOBLIN can provide
adequate capacity for well over 11,000 residents. A 4 tph service with
4 car EMUs won't (IMO) meet that sort of demand. Judging from remarks
on the telly this evening I think people and politicians think they're
getting a direct C2C service to Fenchurch St not a shuttle to Barking
and beyond. My view is that TfL will have to run a supplementary
service just to Barking to give adequate capacity and frequency to
link in to C2C and the Tube. One question that has been posed to the
Mayor, by John Biggs AM, is whether the extension will also have a
station at Renwick Road. This is a vast area of housing and there is
space for a station. Adding one would probably serve C2C and
Overground thus giving a good service to that area. Mayor's Answers
next week might cast some light on whether that station option is
being considered.

One thing a DLR service would have done was provide a direct link to
Canary Wharf (or very close by) whereas the GOBLIN extension is a long
way round for a short cut. It would also have served far more stations
on the Riverside giving connectivity and supporting wider development.
A one station extension does not do the same thing at all. Which
option is "right" is obviously open to debate but I feel the DLR
option would have been vastly more beneficial and would have been
close to opening by now if Boris had not canned it. Sometimes you get
what you pay for! Doing everything cheaply may not deliver the result
that is needed in terms of lots of houses.

The final thing to say is that there is no money yet nor is it very
clear what will be built, how much it will cost and who will pay for
it. Boris said on the telly that things might get started by the 2016
Mayoral election suggesting that there is much to do before then. He
accepted that there is no money on the table yet. On the assumption
that the go ahead does eventually come then at least TfL can secure an
option for extra trains when it gets round to ordering the EMUs for
the electrified GOBLIN / Greater Anglia. I suspect we may be looking
at 2018/19 before the extension opens but it would be nice if it could
be done faster than that to coincide with the electrified GOBLIN
service.

Won't GOBLIN be using 5-car class 378 sets like the rest of the Overground?

No, I don't think the platforms are long enough. Remember that it currently
uses two-car 172s. The new four-car EMUs will be ordered along with the new
trains for the GA routes transferred to TfL.

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 19:17:45 -0500, wrote:

Won't GOBLIN be using 5-car class 378 sets like the rest of the
Overground?

Very unlikely. I have never seen TfL suggest that 5 car trains would
be ordered. I have heard Sir Peter Hendy say 3 car or 4 car but, of
late, the message has been 4 cars. As Recliner says this would be a
joint order for Greater Anglia devolved routes.

AFAIK there are two problem locations in terms of long platforms - the
bay at Gospel Oak and South Tottenham because of the point layout and
proximity of a road bridge. Altering Gospel Oak could be very
expensive indeed and South Tottenham is unlikely to be cheap
(depending on the solution). Clearly the rest of the line has had
much longer platforms in the past and many could be brought back in to
use with relative ease. Haringay Green Lanes and Blackhorse Road would
need extensions. Not sure about the Barking bay platform.

Whether the "announcement" re Barking Riverside shifts TfL's thinking
I couldn't say. Clearly 4 car trains are not really the answer for
serving a huge housing development but TfL can build in expansion
capability on day one provided the Treasury agree. Better to have two
long terminating platforms at Barking Riverside rather than one short
one for example! Oh and a dual track formation rather than a single
track! You can imagine the debate that could go on.

I didn't think Gospel Oak was so short but in any case the 378s would be a
doddle with SDO because of the wide gangways making access along the train
so easy. I assume the class 315 replacement trains would be similar to the
378s, whatever their length.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 03:24:17 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 19:17:45 -0500, wrote:

Won't GOBLIN be using 5-car class 378 sets like the rest of the
Overground?

Very unlikely. I have never seen TfL suggest that 5 car trains would
be ordered. I have heard Sir Peter Hendy say 3 car or 4 car but, of
late, the message has been 4 cars. As Recliner says this would be a
joint order for Greater Anglia devolved routes.

AFAIK there are two problem locations in terms of long platforms - the
bay at Gospel Oak and South Tottenham because of the point layout and
proximity of a road bridge. Altering Gospel Oak could be very
expensive indeed and South Tottenham is unlikely to be cheap
(depending on the solution). Clearly the rest of the line has had
much longer platforms in the past and many could be brought back in to
use with relative ease. Haringay Green Lanes and Blackhorse Road would
need extensions. Not sure about the Barking bay platform.

Whether the "announcement" re Barking Riverside shifts TfL's thinking
I couldn't say. Clearly 4 car trains are not really the answer for
serving a huge housing development but TfL can build in expansion
capability on day one provided the Treasury agree. Better to have two
long terminating platforms at Barking Riverside rather than one short
one for example! Oh and a dual track formation rather than a single
track! You can imagine the debate that could go on.

I didn't think Gospel Oak was so short but in any case the 378s would be a
doddle with SDO because of the wide gangways making access along the train
so easy. I assume the class 315 replacement trains would be similar to the
378s, whatever their length.

Gospel Oak can take 4 cars [1] but not longer because trains would
foul the points for the through tracks used by freight. To extend the
bay would require a new bridge capable of tacking 3 tracks. That
assumes you can build it and / or obtain permission to do so.

I do not know the rules that apply to SDO but I doubt they'd allow 4
car trains to serve platforms just about long enough for 2 cars. I'd
expect TfL to want to have compliant platforms where this can be
achieved at reasonable cost. It's worth bearing in mind that the
Treasury have set aside £115m for electrification works but on one
expects it to cost that much. In theory, there is some flex to cope
with works to platforms for the longer trains.

[1] I've seen two class 150s stabled there before. That practice was
abandoned with the 172s for some reason.

Could it be because a two car 172 is about 7m longer than a two car 150, so
a brace of them would be about 14m longer?

On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 21:08:00 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 18:15:48 +0000, Mizter T
wrote:


x-posted to uk.transport.london

On 19/03/2014 14:46, Paul Harley wrote:
An interesting item in the 2014 Budget is £150M being committed to
extend the Gospel Oak to Barking line to a new station at Barking
Riverside, to serve a development of up to 11,000 new homes.

There were of course plans, pre-crash, to extend the DLR this way as
part of the development plans.

I don't recall a GOBLIN extension featuring as part of the Barking
Riverside developments before now, but I could well have just been asleep.

You weren't asleep as it is only in the last year that very small
hints have emerged in a variety of places that an extension was being
considered. It's been easy to miss them unless you're nerdy and like
reading Mayor's Questions and sub notes to Network Rail presentations
on electrification.

I think what has happened - years late - is that someone has bashed
Boris on the head enough times that he eventually realised that you
will not get substantial housing development at Barking Riverside
without a rail service. A resident was interviewed for the BBC London
news and she said two bus routes were inadequate *already* with buses
full to bursting in the peaks. These are the East London Transit
routes that were supposed to be a super dooper solution to the area's
transport issues. That worked then! Boris's excuse is that the DLR
extension was too expensive while extending the GOBLIN will be better
value for money (i.e. cheap).

The substantive issue, of course, is whether the GOBLIN can provide
adequate capacity for well over 11,000 residents. A 4 tph service with
4 car EMUs won't (IMO) meet that sort of demand. Judging from remarks
on the telly this evening I think people and politicians think they're
getting a direct C2C service to Fenchurch St not a shuttle to Barking
and beyond. My view is that TfL will have to run a supplementary
service just to Barking to give adequate capacity and frequency to
link in to C2C and the Tube. One question that has been posed to the
Mayor, by John Biggs AM, is whether the extension will also have a
station at Renwick Road. This is a vast area of housing and there is
space for a station. Adding one would probably serve C2C and
Overground thus giving a good service to that area. Mayor's Answers
next week might cast some light on whether that station option is
being considered.

One thing a DLR service would have done was provide a direct link to
Canary Wharf (or very close by) whereas the GOBLIN extension is a long
way round for a short cut. It would also have served far more stations
on the Riverside giving connectivity and supporting wider development.
A one station extension does not do the same thing at all. Which
option is "right" is obviously open to debate but I feel the DLR
option would have been vastly more beneficial and would have been
close to opening by now if Boris had not canned it. Sometimes you get
what you pay for! Doing everything cheaply may not deliver the result
that is needed in terms of lots of houses.

The final thing to say is that there is no money yet nor is it very
clear what will be built, how much it will cost and who will pay for
it. Boris said on the telly that things might get started by the 2016
Mayoral election suggesting that there is much to do before then. He
accepted that there is no money on the table yet. On the assumption
that the go ahead does eventually come then at least TfL can secure an
option for extra trains when it gets round to ordering the EMUs for
the electrified GOBLIN / Greater Anglia. I suspect we may be looking
at 2018/19 before the extension opens but it would be nice if it could
be done faster than that to coincide with the electrified GOBLIN
service.


Thanks for the info & comments.

I'm a little confused, (probably age related......) but is this a
proposal to extend the soon to be electified Goblin service away from
platform 1 at Barking, over the flyover into plats. 7 & 8 to serve
one ortwo2 new stations on the Tilbury loop, or does it include a new
stretch of railway into Barking Riverside?

Peeking at the N.E. London bus map, the Barking Riverside bus terminus
seems to be quite a long distance from the existing railway, hence my
question!


TIA, David C.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Paul Corfield wrote:

AFAIK there are two problem locations in terms of long platforms - the
bay at Gospel Oak and South Tottenham because of the point layout and
proximity of a road bridge. Altering Gospel Oak could be very
expensive indeed and South Tottenham is unlikely to be cheap
(depending on the solution). Clearly the rest of the line has had
much longer platforms in the past and many could be brought back in to
use with relative ease. Haringay Green Lanes and Blackhorse Road would
need extensions. Not sure about the Barking bay platform.

I think it would be long enough but have only looked with eyes, not a tape
measure.

--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

"Paul Corfield" wrote

Gospel Oak can take 4 cars [1] but not longer because trains would
foul the points for the through tracks used by freight. To extend the
bay would require a new bridge capable of tacking 3 tracks. That
assumes you can build it and / or obtain permission to do so.

The Sectional Appendix suggests that all platforms on the Goblin line can
take a 4-car train, except South Tottenham (up platform at 81 metres nearly
long enough, but down platform at 52 metres a long way short), and
Blackhorse Road (both platforms 84 metres, so nearly long enough). The
Gospel Oak bay can take 4 but not 5 (97 metres).

Peter

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 22:38:17 -0000, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

"Paul Corfield" wrote

Gospel Oak can take 4 cars [1] but not longer because trains would
foul the points for the through tracks used by freight. To extend the
bay would require a new bridge capable of tacking 3 tracks. That
assumes you can build it and / or obtain permission to do so.

The Sectional Appendix suggests that all platforms on the Goblin line can
take a 4-car train, except South Tottenham (up platform at 81 metres
nearly long enough, but down platform at 52 metres a long way short), and
Blackhorse Road (both platforms 84 metres, so nearly long enough). The
Gospel Oak bay can take 4 but not 5 (97 metres).

Thanks - facts are always helpful! Blackhorse Rd is easy to fix given
there's space. There is also a plan for step free access which could
be co-ordinated with platform works.

South Tottenham is not so easy for well understood reasons involving
bridges, tracks and points.

How about moveable platforms like the one there used to be at Wood Lane?

--
Colin Rosenstiel