In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote:

On 2015\10\01 09:55, Mike Bristow wrote:
In article

-september.
org, Recliner wrote:
[the goblin]
Are the platforms already long enough for four-car trains?

No. Most stations that used to have longer platforms have had the
length beyond two car closed. This would be easy to fix - repoint
the brickwork, repaint all the things, etc. But South Tottenham
would be more challenging - extending westwards is tricky becuase
there's a bridge over the A10 that way; extending eastwards is
tricky becuae there's a junction that way. Google maps will give
you a picture - literally.

Google maps suggests that you could easily double the length of the
platforms without running into the junction or the A10.

Indeed. I wonder why this has always been thought to be too difficult?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 2015\10\01 20:33, Steve Fitzgerald wrote:
In message , Paul Corfield
writes

... the timescale was rumoured to be slipping, according to Modern
Railways, but the contract has now been let.

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.co...sons-to-carry-
out-electrification-of-gospel-oak-barking-route?dorewrite=false

I had no idea that Barking platform one was not electrified! Won't it
become disused when the Barking Reach extension is built?

In theory yes but I'd want a bolt hole for the trains in case a
freight train does something stupid east of Barking or C2C have a rare
breakdown. Makes no sense to throw away an important facility and we
haven't got the TWA process started never mind signed off for the
Barking Riverside extension. New Mayor in May 2016 may have other
ideas [1] that could force a change in requirements.

[1] e.g. build a tunnel to Thamesmead as part of the initial scope or
a very early follow on piece of work. That'd force different
requirements at Barking Reach that could affect the scope of the TWAO.

Extend the H&C maybe?

Under the catenary?

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:55:10 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:37:21 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

... the timescale was rumoured to be slipping, according to Modern
Railways, but the contract has now been let.


http://www.railtechnologymagazine.co...to-carry-out-e
lectrification-of-gospel-oak-barking-route?dorewrite=false

I had no idea that Barking platform one was not electrified! Won't it
become disused when the Barking Reach extension is built?

In theory yes but I'd want a bolt hole for the trains in case a
freight train does something stupid east of Barking or C2C have a rare
breakdown. Makes no sense to throw away an important facility and we
haven't got the TWA process started never mind signed off for the
Barking Riverside extension. New Mayor in May 2016 may have other
ideas [1] that could force a change in requirements.

[1] e.g. build a tunnel to Thamesmead as part of the initial scope or
a very early follow on piece of work. That'd force different
requirements at Barking Reach that could affect the scope of the TWAO.

Trouble is that there are two electrification systems at Barking. Platform 1
isn't ideally situated for overhead electrification.

What is the problem?.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

In article ,
(David C) wrote:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:55:10 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:37:21 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

... the timescale was rumoured to be slipping, according to Modern
Railways, but the contract has now been let.



http://www.railtechnologymagazine.co...-to-carry-out-
electrification-of-gospel-oak-barking-route?dorewrite=false

I had no idea that Barking platform one was not electrified! Won't it
become disused when the Barking Reach extension is built?

In theory yes but I'd want a bolt hole for the trains in case a
freight train does something stupid east of Barking or C2C have a rare
breakdown. Makes no sense to throw away an important facility and we
haven't got the TWA process started never mind signed off for the
Barking Riverside extension. New Mayor in May 2016 may have other
ideas [1] that could force a change in requirements.

[1] e.g. build a tunnel to Thamesmead as part of the initial scope or
a very early follow on piece of work. That'd force different
requirements at Barking Reach that could affect the scope of the TWAO.

Trouble is that there are two electrification systems at Barking.
Platform 1 isn't ideally situated for overhead electrification.

What is the problem?.

Dual electrification is a problem which is why most of the North London Line
is no longer third rail electrified.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 16:31:08 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(David C) wrote:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:55:10 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:37:21 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

... the timescale was rumoured to be slipping, according to Modern
Railways, but the contract has now been let.



http://www.railtechnologymagazine.co...-to-carry-out-
electrification-of-gospel-oak-barking-route?dorewrite=false

I had no idea that Barking platform one was not electrified! Won't it
become disused when the Barking Reach extension is built?

In theory yes but I'd want a bolt hole for the trains in case a
freight train does something stupid east of Barking or C2C have a rare
breakdown. Makes no sense to throw away an important facility and we
haven't got the TWA process started never mind signed off for the
Barking Riverside extension. New Mayor in May 2016 may have other
ideas [1] that could force a change in requirements.

[1] e.g. build a tunnel to Thamesmead as part of the initial scope or
a very early follow on piece of work. That'd force different
requirements at Barking Reach that could affect the scope of the TWAO.

Trouble is that there are two electrification systems at Barking.
Platform 1 isn't ideally situated for overhead electrification.

What is the problem?.

Dual electrification is a problem which is why most of the North London Line
is no longer third rail electrified.

Which makes interlining with Underground and South of the Thames route
Awkward.

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:55:10 -0500,
wrote:

Trouble is that there are two electrification systems at Barking.
Platform 1 isn't ideally situated for overhead electrification.

What? You can see on Google satellite view that the tracks into
Platform 1 are not electrified. Given that overhead electrification
sits perfectly well beside 4th rail LU electrified tracks at Barking I
don't see what the problem is in stringing wires into that platform as
part of GOBLIN electrification.

Please feel free to tell me what I've missed.

I'm not saying it can't be done but it is a lot more complicated to signal
so tends to be avoided. The LUL 3rd & 4th rail electrified tracks lie
between platform 1 and the overhead electrified tracks, don't they? So the
Barking Riverside route won't go near platform 1 so why keep it in service?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 06:26:29 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:55:10 -0500,
wrote:

Trouble is that there are two electrification systems at Barking.
Platform 1 isn't ideally situated for overhead electrification.

What? You can see on Google satellite view that the tracks into
Platform 1 are not electrified. Given that overhead electrification
sits perfectly well beside 4th rail LU electrified tracks at Barking I
don't see what the problem is in stringing wires into that platform as
part of GOBLIN electrification.

Please feel free to tell me what I've missed.

I'm not saying it can't be done but it is a lot more complicated to signal
so tends to be avoided. The LUL 3rd & 4th rail electrified tracks lie
between platform 1 and the overhead electrified tracks, don't they? So the
Barking Riverside route won't go near platform 1 so why keep it in service?

Sorry but you are not making any sense.

As has been mentioned, 25 kV AC electrification has co-existed with
the under-ground since 1962without any problems.

(Back in the past, LT& BR shared tracks between Bromley by Bow, but
that is no longer the case, there is no physical connection between
the two systems.)

Wiring platform 1 "might" have clearance problems, but single trolley
wire OHE is all that is needed there, & the only signal that would
require immunisation is the platform starter.

The up / down cross-over is already wired, so this should be a cheap
(!) & simple project.

As for why, Mr. Corfield has already pointed out that a wired turnback
with a platform face just might be useful, & maybe it might not be
possible to path the whole Goblin service to Barking Riverside through
the the platform 7 & 8 bottl-neck at Barking Station.

HTH, David C.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 08:39:06 +0100, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 16:31:08 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(David C) wrote:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:55:10 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:37:21 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

... the timescale was rumoured to be slipping, according to Modern
Railways, but the contract has now been let.



http://www.railtechnologymagazine.co...-to-carry-out-
electrification-of-gospel-oak-barking-route?dorewrite=false

I had no idea that Barking platform one was not electrified! Won't it
become disused when the Barking Reach extension is built?

In theory yes but I'd want a bolt hole for the trains in case a
freight train does something stupid east of Barking or C2C have a rare
breakdown. Makes no sense to throw away an important facility and we
haven't got the TWA process started never mind signed off for the
Barking Riverside extension. New Mayor in May 2016 may have other
ideas [1] that could force a change in requirements.

[1] e.g. build a tunnel to Thamesmead as part of the initial scope or
a very early follow on piece of work. That'd force different
requirements at Barking Reach that could affect the scope of the TWAO.

Trouble is that there are two electrification systems at Barking.
Platform 1 isn't ideally situated for overhead electrification.

What is the problem?.

Dual electrification is a problem which is why most of the North London Line
is no longer third rail electrified.

Chicken and egg ? If you're putting up OHLE for electric-hauled
freight, the trains are AC/DC and the substations are getting long in
the tooth (and don't like 313s anyway) then dumping DC altogether
seems to be a sensible option.

Which makes interlining with Underground and South of the Thames route
Awkward.

The bits shared with LU remain DC-only and had to cope with differing
supplies before AC arrived. 377s, 378s etc. deal with the problem of
routes having more than one electrification method.

In message , David C
wrote:
I'm not saying it can't be done but it is a lot more complicated to signal
so tends to be avoided. The LUL 3rd & 4th rail electrified tracks lie
between platform 1 and the overhead electrified tracks, don't they? So the
Barking Riverside route won't go near platform 1 so why keep it in service?

Sorry but you are not making any sense.

As has been mentioned, 25 kV AC electrification has co-existed with
the under-ground since 1962without any problems.

I think there's a misunderstanding here.

There are serious problems with having third (or third/fourth) rail on
the same line as 25 kV, to do with earthing and track circuits.
Therefore there's good reasons to avoid that.

But, on the other hand, I don't believe there's any significant reason
not to have 25 kV and third rail on adjacent tracks. Particular with
platforms in between.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In message , David C
wrote:
I'm not saying it can't be done but it is a lot more complicated
to signal so tends to be avoided. The LUL 3rd & 4th rail
electrified tracks lie between platform 1 and the overhead
electrified tracks, don't they? So the Barking Riverside route
won't go near platform 1 so why keep it in service?

Sorry but you are not making any sense.

As has been mentioned, 25 kV AC electrification has co-existed with
the under-ground since 1962without any problems.

I think there's a misunderstanding here.

There are serious problems with having third (or third/fourth) rail
on the same line as 25 kV, to do with earthing and track circuits.
Therefore there's good reasons to avoid that.

But, on the other hand, I don't believe there's any significant
reason not to have 25 kV and third rail on adjacent tracks.
Particular with platforms in between.

I seem to recall that the reason the AC/DC changeover on the West
London Line isn't at Shepherds Bush station is because of possible
interference with the H&C line (and that isn't even adjacent).

Peter Smyth