'Rail Manager online' reporting the first 378 to travel south tomorrow, and
the possibility of Third Rail electrification of the GOB line...

http://91.186.0.3/~keepingt/rm/164/RMAN_164.pdf

Paul S

Paul Scott wrote:
'Rail Manager online' reporting the first 378 to travel south tomorrow, and
the possibility of Third Rail electrification of the GOB line...

I can't see the HSE/HMRI/Network Rail allowing that [3rd rail], as it
wouldn't be an extension of existing 3rd rail electrification. That
notwithstanding, there aren't exactly very many 3rd rail freight locos
around either. ;-)

Having said that, I believe they're putting in a connection between the
GOB and Eastbound District at Barking to allow easier access for
Engineering trains.

Cheers,

Barry

In uk.railway Paul Scott wrote:
'Rail Manager online' reporting the first 378 to travel south tomorrow, and
the possibility of Third Rail electrification of the GOB line...

Is it really much more expensive to electrify with 25kV than with third
rail? Even if you have basic substations that can't take heavy freight (but
could be upgraded in future)?

Or does the funding come out of different pots?

Theo

On 22 Sep, 17:58, "Paul Scott" wrote:
'Rail Manager online' reporting the first 378 to travel south tomorrow, and
the possibility of Third Rail electrification of the GOB line...

http://91.186.0.3/~keepingt/rm/164/RMAN_164.pdf



Reading the article, I wonder if they're just throwing the suggestion
into the arena as the result of frustration in trying to get any
progress on 25kV electrification. If the DfT is receptive to cheaper
third rail electrification, then perhaps they can be gradually
persuaded that going the full 25kV hog is worthwhile. Perhaps this is
just a gambit to get other "industry partners" to stand up and be
counted and get behind TfL's campaign for OHLE - possibly the
assumption thus far from freight operators is that TfL were going to
make it happen so they didn't need to do anything?

My other more cynical thought is whether this is the result of Boris
budget cuts at TfL - but AFAICS TfL were never going to be the primary
source of funding for this, the majority of the dosh was going to come
from the DfT.

Barry Salter wrote:


I can't see the HSE/HMRI/Network Rail allowing that [3rd rail], as it
wouldn't be an extension of existing 3rd rail electrification. That
notwithstanding, there aren't exactly very many 3rd rail freight locos
around either. ;-)


Oh, I don't know, a good lawyer and a proposal to extend from Camden
Road to Barking, reverse at Gospel Oak could be argued as an extension
of existing electrification using existing stock?

Then just declare the CR-GO section as surplus to requirements, not
funded in the current budget, an aspiration for Control Period 8000 or
something...

Properly approached, safety regulation is a catalyst for creative sophistry.

Tom

On 22 Sep, 18:24, Barry Salter wrote:
Paul Scott wrote:
'Rail Manager online' reporting the first 378 to travel south tomorrow, and
the possibility of Third Rail electrification of the GOB line...

I can't see the HSE/HMRI/Network Rail allowing that [3rd rail], as it
wouldn't be an extension of existing 3rd rail electrification. That
notwithstanding, there aren't exactly very many 3rd rail freight locos
around either. ;-)

I think the locals on the route would probably prefer 3rd rail over
ugly OHLE not to mention the irratating buzzing you get with it in the
rain.

Is there a case for freight on the goblin anyway?

B2003

"Boltar" wrote

Is there a case for freight on the goblin anyway?

Yes. It already has quite a bit, as it's the route from the LTSR (e.g.
Ripple Lane, Dagenham, Tilbury, etc) to anywhere without crossing all four
tracks of the GEML between Forest Gate Junction and Stratford. There will be
a lot more traffic with the develoment of a container port at Thames Haven.
Potentially Channel Tunnel freight could use HS1 (after all, Parliament
insisted on provision of Goods Loops), the Rainham freight connection, and
Goblin - I don't think anyone really wants freight in the London tunnels, or
cluttering up the connections to the NLL in the St Pancras throat.

Peter

On Sep 22, 5:58*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
'Rail Manager online' reporting the first 378 to travel south tomorrow, and
the possibility of Third Rail electrification of the GOB line...

http://91.186.0.3/~keepingt/rm/164/RMAN_164.pdf

There's a sizeable feature in this week's Railway Herald
(www.railwayherald.com) about the 378s, with several pictures. Anyone
else struck by the lack of handles at useful heights for that massive
standing space in between the seats? You'd think they'd have learnt
their lesson from the 376s.

Incidentally, why did they have to make a 'pretend Underground train'
out of a watered-down suburban train with only 2 doors per side?
Surely the future S stock would have made a much better base vehicle
for this sort of application?

"Rupert Candy" wrote in message
...
Incidentally, why did they have to make a 'pretend Underground train'
out of a watered-down suburban train with only 2 doors per side?
Surely the future S stock would have made a much better base vehicle
for this sort of application?

Probably because the Electrostar bodyshell already meets existing safety
standards for the mainline railway, where as S stock is designed for
metro-type operation, so would need to go through acceptance procedures for
the NR system. Presumably Bombardier felt it was a lot easier (and less
risky) to get acceptance on a variant of an existing, in service design.

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:56:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert Candy
wrote:

Incidentally, why did they have to make a 'pretend Underground train'
out of a watered-down suburban train with only 2 doors per side?
Surely the future S stock would have made a much better base vehicle
for this sort of application?

Dunno, but there is no excuse for 2-car DMUs to be being used on this
kind of service. Nor should TfL be running 3 cars on the Watfords
when 6 would fit with a bit of power upgrading.

The whole of LO appears to me to be an almighty expensive cop-out for
a capital city. Look at Merseyrail for how it should be done (and
without any new MUs), then try again.

Tube-style trains are a compromise for the Tube. There is no need for
a heavy-rail S-Bahn to be like that.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.