In article ,
(David C) wrote:

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.

Not on the same tracks. And 1960s signalling technology wasn't based on
electronics. That is more picky. As I said, why was most of the North London
converted to 25KV?

(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.

I suppose it might be possible but the immunisation work might make it poor
value for money. That was my point.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:59:30 +0100, David C wrote:

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.

And more fundamentally the GOBLIN route will be electrified and
equipped with EMUs before the Riverside extension is built (assuming
the powers are granted). Therefore you really do need platform 1 to
be wired as I doubt you could have GOBLIN trains standing at P7/8 for
up to 48 mins an hour when freight and C2C trains have to use the
tracks too.

Now that is a very fair point.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 02.10.15 20:01, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:59:30 +0100, David C wrote:

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.

And more fundamentally the GOBLIN route will be electrified and
equipped with EMUs before the Riverside extension is built (assuming
the powers are granted). Therefore you really do need platform 1 to
be wired as I doubt you could have GOBLIN trains standing at P7/8 for
up to 48 mins an hour when freight and C2C trains have to use the
tracks too.

When or why do C2C trains go through there? Is it for ECM?

wrote:

And more fundamentally the GOBLIN route will be electrified and
equipped with EMUs before the Riverside extension is built (assuming
the powers are granted). Therefore you really do need platform 1 to
be wired as I doubt you could have GOBLIN trains standing at P7/8
for up to 48 mins an hour when freight and C2C trains have to use
the tracks too.

When or why do C2C trains go through there? Is it for ECM?

Platforms 7+8 are the normal platforms for all c2c trains towards
Dagenham Dock.

Peter Smyth

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 20:44:43 +0100
"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.

On a related topic - why was 3rd rail used for the ELLX from Highbury given
how new DC lines are actively discouraged? They could have used wires all the
way down to past Surrey Quays then switched to 3rd rail like Thameslink. Was
it limited clearance in the thames tunnels or just for simplicity - ie cheaper?

--
Spud

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

As far as I can tell, P1 at Barking connects to the 'down'[1] GOBLIN just
East of the River Roding crossing, with a crossover between the River
Roding crossing and the North Circular giving access to the 'up'[1]
GOBLIN, the OLE lines then cross the LUL lines on a grade seperated
crossing (ie flyover).

The OLE doesn't run along the section from the GOBLIN connection to the
station.

Complicated by the fact that the H&C turns back in 3, and that the
through District LUL lines are in 2 (westbound) and 6 (eastbound). The
eastbound District line tunnels under the AC lines on the East side of
the station.

There also seems to be a crossover from westbound District to the GOBLIN,
but that doesn't appear to have OLE or DC power.

It does appear that running OLE along the extra 900 or so metres between
Barking P1 and the River Roding would provide a useful facility at
Barking, and it shouldn't impact on the LUL DC lines at all, apart from
(possibly) the need to fit an insulated joint between the LUL DC line P2
and the OLE P1 points just northwest of the platforms (or even lift the
connection, but I imagine it has a use for delivering stock to the
Barking LUL depot).

[1] Assuming Baking to be the country end and Gospel Oak the town end.

--
Denis McMahon,

On 03.10.15 20:39, Peter Smyth wrote:
wrote:

And more fundamentally the GOBLIN route will be electrified and
equipped with EMUs before the Riverside extension is built (assuming
the powers are granted). Therefore you really do need platform 1 to
be wired as I doubt you could have GOBLIN trains standing at P7/8
for up to 48 mins an hour when freight and C2C trains have to use
the tracks too.

When or why do C2C trains go through there? Is it for ECM?

Platforms 7+8 are the normal platforms for all c2c trains towards
Dagenham Dock.

Peter Smyth

My mistake, I thought that you were referring to Gospel Oak.

On Friday, 2 October 2015 21:55:43 UTC+2, 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.

When this topic has been discussed in some detail in the past, the issue with dual electrification of 25 kV overhead and 3rd rail is related to the mutually exclusive requirements for how the running lines are bonded to earth for the return current. My understanding of the signalling related complications (not impossible to overcome if for example axle counters are used) relate to the need to cope with both DC and 50 Hz AC return current in the tracks (and related harmonics) in company with track circuits. All of these concerns, however, seem to relate to the presence of the track return current. In the case of LU style 4th rail, the DC return current is not via the running lines, the 4th rail is electrically isolated. What, therefore, is the issue with 25 kV AC and LU 4th rail combined electrification?

Robin

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 17:30:29 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(David C) wrote:

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.

Not on the same tracks. And 1960s signalling technology wasn't based on
electronics. That is more picky. As I said, why was most of the North London
converted to 25KV?

The LT&S was resignalled to modern standards in 1996, & the North
London was converted to AC to allow elctirc freight trains tp operate
between the G.E. & West coast Mainline

(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.

I suppose it might be possible but the immunisation work might make it poor
value for money. That was my point.

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

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 17:30:29 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(David C) wrote:

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.

Not on the same tracks. And 1960s signalling technology wasn't based on
electronics. That is more picky. As I said, why was most of the North London
converted to 25KV?

To allow access for Eurostars to reach the GN, & electric freights to
run from the GE to the West Coast ML?


As for the old LTS signalling, it was replaced in 1996 when Upminster
IECC went operational.

(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.

I suppose it might be possible but the immunisation work might make it poor
value for money. That was my point.

What immunisation work?

One signal might need work, but the two systems seem to co-exist side
by side without any obvious problems, even at Upminster where the LUL
tracks are flanked by two separate 25kV installations!

(The LTS mainline & the Upminster - Romford branch.)

As for value for money, does the Goblin scheme include any of the
possible junctions with existing 25kV routes, such as to the GN at
Harringay, or the Midland / Thameslink connection from Junction Road
Junction?



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