On Jan 20, 6:04*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:17:07 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:

But it's hard to imagine the GOBLIN getting electrified any time soon
- that said I find it hard to imagine the Croxley Link happening any
time soon either.

As others have suggested TfL are lobbying to divert the £54m mentioned
below towards doing GOBLIN electrification. *I doubt £54m gets you the
whole job done and there would also be the issue of rolling stock unless
we are to be given new DMUs and then have them snatched away and
replaced by knackered old Class 313s. *If more 378s were needed then it
might get difficult in procurement terms as I don't believe TfL have any
further contract options left to exercise.


I assume that TfL would let a leasing company worry about buying the
trains, rather than ordering a few of their own, they only seemed to
have 'owned' the current 378 order for a short time anyway. Maybe with
the economic problems, some of the extra 7 378s at the end of the
current order could be diverted to Gospel Oak to Barking. Depending
how things fit in with the Thameslink enhancement, might there also be
spare units which can be diverted once the new rolling stock appears
there.

Anyway don't think anyone's got any money for stuff like this at the
moment... unless that ghost of Keynes who's been hovering around
somewhat lately starts visiting Brown & co in their dreams in
earnest...

The DfT seem to have magiced £54 millon extra for the four tracking at
Camden Road from somewhere

Having looked at some other postings in this thread can anyone say
exactly what the £54m buys at Camden Road? * I had assumed that it did
put back the missing bridges to the east of Camden Road and also sorted
stuff out to the west. Seems it does neither unless I am comprehensively
misunderstanding.

I'd assumed that as well, it is certainly what the DfT briefing seems
to suggest. Sorting out the viaducts east of Camden Road allowing four
tracks and altering the junction to the west; restoring the original
TfL preferred option before the viaduct restoration was found to be
too expensive. I don't think that there was ever an option to do more
than that, certainly not to alter the short section at Camden Road
West where the current, two track, lines from Gospel Oak and Primrose
Hill converge.


The NLL upgrade was agreed a while back before the Treasury realised
that the dour and miserly bankers at RBS has taken magic mushrooms
before making their investment decisions. Also the NLL upgrade around
Camden was reduced in scope anyway, when it was realised that some of
the works would cost too much.

If there is any money emanating from the DfT any time soon then I
would very much hope it is for making phase 2 of the East London Line
Extension happen - apparently the funding gap is £15 million, which is
not a great deal in the grand scheme of things with regards to rail
projects. But time is running out - I think the costings all revolve
around the current ELLX construction venture continuing on to build
phase 2. I think it would cost significantly more to set it all up
again from a cold start.

Do you have any evidence for the costing assumption? *I ask because the
work would almost certainly have to be competitively tendered - unless
TfL asked for a priced option for ELLX Phase 2 when they tendered Phase
1. *Given that I doubt there is a fully developed design there may be
cost issues regardless. I recognise the current ELLX works contractor
would have a distinct advantage though.

Does the £100m cost include the incremental rolling stock requirement -
6 or 7 trains IIRC?
--
Paul C

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:45:23 -0800 (PST), Mr Thant
wrote:

On 20 Jan, 18:04, Paul Corfield wrote:
As others have suggested TfL are lobbying to divert the £54m mentioned
below towards doing GOBLIN electrification. *I doubt £54m gets you the
whole job done and there would also be the issue of rolling stock unless
we are to be given new DMUs

I believe the current plan is we'll get Class 165s and be grateful.

Eh? I thought one extra 165 was being hunted to try to run the fabled
x15 headway. I thought Class 172s were then the new fleet until such
time as dangly electrical wires are put in place. Are you saying the
plan has changed again?

and then have them snatched away and
replaced by knackered old Class 313s. *If more 378s were needed then it
might get difficult in procurement terms as I don't believe TfL have any
further contract options left to exercise.

I'm sure I've seen documents listing very high numbers (250? 350?) as
"options", although I can't find them now.

Now that's interesting and very sensible. Shame Bombardier can't build
anything at the moment due to the banks being idiots (other post).

Having looked at some other postings in this thread can anyone say
exactly what the £54m buys at Camden Road? * I had assumed that it did
put back the missing bridges to the east of Camden Road and also sorted
stuff out to the west. Seems it does neither unless I am comprehensively
misunderstanding.

"restore four tracks to [...] west of Camden Road" and "improve
signalling and other infrastructure" is all it says on the press
release.

The bridges are still there, just in a poor state, so it's mainly
restoration and track-laying/signalling. TfL's dropped scheme included
restoring the north face of the middle platform at Camden Road, which
would probably also be needed for any scheme.

You're quite right that they are still there - I have it in my head that
there are gaps that need to be filled in despite having walked under
these bridges numerous times. I had wondered in anyone had seen the
scheme which had got to NR GRIP 4 stage or something?

They haven't explicitly said it's the same as TfL's scheme. The latter
was all about being able to run 8 tph passenger without impacting
freight capacity, whereas the DfT state increasing freight capacity as
their aim.

I guess it depends on how you define the base position in terms of
working out that there is an increase in capacity.

--
Paul C

On Jan 20, 6:45*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 20 Jan, 18:04, Paul Corfield wrote:

As others have suggested TfL are lobbying to divert the £54m mentioned
below towards doing GOBLIN electrification. *I doubt £54m gets you the
whole job done and there would also be the issue of rolling stock unless
we are to be given new DMUs

I believe the current plan is we'll get Class 165s and be grateful.


I thought that the 165 were a stop gap measure to allow the
enhancement of GOBLIN frequency. The 172s are ordered, but have been
delayed (much like the 378s) due to problems with Bombardier's supply
line and maybe the rush to get the 377/5s out for Thameslink in March.

On 20 Jan, 19:11, Paul Corfield wrote:
Eh? * I thought one extra 165 was being hunted to try to run the fabled
x15 headway. * I thought Class 172s were then the new fleet until such
time as dangly electrical wires are put in place. * Are you saying the
plan has changed again?

I've not heard that version of the plan.

This is what Peter Field had to say to the Transport Committee in
November (which is the only official mention of 165s I know of):

" What is happening - and I think we should always look towards the
future rather than perhaps the past - is you know that we have asked
the train operator, LOROL, to order new trains. Because those trains
would appear to be slower in coming than we would have liked, the
operator is instead going to in between now and then provide a class
of train called a 165 train as an interim measure. These will be
coming in quite shortly. These interim trains are very modern. They
are very high capacity. They will relieve the situation in the
shorter term before the new trains arrive, which will be to the London
Overground standard, as you know, with lots and lots of capacity, a
much longer vehicle."

Which implies they'll be replacing the whole fleet.

(and I take it to mean that we'll be waiting a very long time for the
172s)

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/tr...appendix-a.pdf

U

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:02:23 -0800 (PST), Mr Thant
wrote:

On 20 Jan, 19:11, Paul Corfield wrote:
Eh? * I thought one extra 165 was being hunted to try to run the fabled
x15 headway. * I thought Class 172s were then the new fleet until such
time as dangly electrical wires are put in place. * Are you saying the
plan has changed again?

I've not heard that version of the plan.

This is what Peter Field had to say to the Transport Committee in
November (which is the only official mention of 165s I know of):

" What is happening - and I think we should always look towards the
future rather than perhaps the past - is you know that we have asked
the train operator, LOROL, to order new trains. Because those trains
would appear to be slower in coming than we would have liked, the
operator is instead going to in between now and then provide a class
of train called a 165 train as an interim measure. These will be
coming in quite shortly. These interim trains are very modern. They
are very high capacity. They will relieve the situation in the
shorter term before the new trains arrive, which will be to the London
Overground standard, as you know, with lots and lots of capacity, a
much longer vehicle."

I've read this and watched the webcast - both weeks ago. I think he was
responding to the regular Jennette Arnold question of "the GOBLIN is so
overcrowded that my constituents have to sellotape themselves to the
roof of the train and when can we have new, longer and more frequent
trains". I have to say I had assumed he was talking solely about what
is needed to move from x20 to x15 in the peaks. I'd also assumed that
Chiltern do not have 8 Class 165s sitting around spare - even if you do
brave things like loco haul High Wycombe line journeys in the peak.

Which implies they'll be replacing the whole fleet.

I agree it can be read that way.

(and I take it to mean that we'll be waiting a very long time for the
172s)

Unfortunately this does look to be the case. If Bombardier are really
in big trouble over train supplies then TfL and LUL are going to be in
quite serious trouble as so much of the new stock is coming from this
source. Several projects start to look rather less healthy in terms of
meeting completion deadlines.
--
Paul C

Mr Thant wrote:

This is what Peter Field had to say to the Transport Committee in
November (which is the only official mention of 165s I know of):

snipped

.... They will relieve the situation in the
shorter term before the new trains arrive, which will be to the London
Overground standard, as you know, with lots and lots of capacity, a
much longer vehicle."

Which implies they'll be replacing the whole fleet.

(and I take it to mean that we'll be waiting a very long time for the
172s)

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/tr...appendix-a.pdf


It seems to suggest that the 172s:

" will be to the London Overground standard, as you know, with lots and lots
of capacity, a much longer vehicle."

However most previous reports on the 172s for Goblin have said they'll have
a fairly normal internal layout, ie unlike the 378s, so that the Rosco will
have no trouble moving them on elsewhere eventually. As for 'much longer',
AFAICS the choices are 20m or 23m within normal UK gauge...

Paul S

On Jan 20, 8:15*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Mr Thant wrote:
This is what Peter Field had to say to the Transport Committee in
November (which is the only official mention of 165s I know of):

snipped

.... They will relieve the situation in the
shorter term before the new trains arrive, which will be to the London
Overground standard, as you know, with lots and lots of capacity, a
much longer vehicle."

Which implies they'll be replacing the whole fleet.

(and I take it to mean that we'll be waiting a very long time for the
172s)

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/tr...minutes/append...

It seems to suggest that the 172s:

" will be to the London Overground standard, as you know, with lots and lots
of capacity, a much longer vehicle."

However most previous reports on the 172s for Goblin have said they'll have
a fairly normal internal layout, ie unlike the 378s, so that the Rosco will
have no trouble moving them on elsewhere eventually. As for 'much longer',
AFAICS the choices are 20m or 23m within normal UK gauge...


The 23m 165s (89 + 94 = 183 per unit plus one toilet) have about an
extra 20-odd seats per coach compared to the current 20m 150/1s (71 +
73 = 144 plus one toilet), but existing Turbostar layouts (168 and
170) have less seats (highest I can find in a driving coach is 67
seats) than the 150/1s. The 172s will also be 23m units, but it'll be
interesting to see if they can fit as many seats in as the 165s, will
the narrower vehicles (2.75m compared to 2.82) mean that you can't do
3+2 seating?

Maybe, in the end, it will turn out that Chiltern will release 165s to
LOROL and take all the 172s. I think that for a substantial capacity
increase, the GOBLIN trains need to be 3 car units (current turbostar
center coaches are 76 seats).

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:08:07 -0800 (PST), Andy
wrote:

The 23m 165s (89 + 94 =3D 183 per unit plus one toilet) have about an
extra 20-odd seats per coach compared to the current 20m 150/1s (71 +
73 =3D 144 plus one toilet), but existing Turbostar layouts (168 and
170) have less seats (highest I can find in a driving coach is 67
seats) than the 150/1s. The 172s will also be 23m units, but it'll be
interesting to see if they can fit as many seats in as the 165s, will
the narrower vehicles (2.75m compared to 2.82) mean that you can't do
3+2 seating?

20m Desiros are 2.7 something (the 23m ones are about 2.68) - very
narrow, but 3+2 is just about usable. That said, the raked sides of
the Turbostar body (as opposed to the almost-European-style slab-sided
Desiro) might make it impracticable - 2+2 is tight enough.

They might be best going for narrowish 2+2 with extra standing space,
in any case.

Neil

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

Andy wrote:
On Jan 20, 8:15 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Mr Thant wrote:
This is what Peter Field had to say to the Transport Committee in
November (which is the only official mention of 165s I know of):

snipped

.... They will relieve the situation in the
shorter term before the new trains arrive, which will be to the
London Overground standard, as you know, with lots and lots of
capacity, a much longer vehicle."

Which implies they'll be replacing the whole fleet.

(and I take it to mean that we'll be waiting a very long time for
the 172s)

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/tr...minutes/append...

It seems to suggest that the 172s:

" will be to the London Overground standard, as you know, with lots
and lots of capacity, a much longer vehicle."

However most previous reports on the 172s for Goblin have said
they'll have a fairly normal internal layout, ie unlike the 378s, so
that the Rosco will have no trouble moving them on elsewhere
eventually. As for 'much longer', AFAICS the choices are 20m or 23m
within normal UK gauge...


The 23m 165s (89 + 94 = 183 per unit plus one toilet) have about an
extra 20-odd seats per coach compared to the current 20m 150/1s (71 +
73 = 144 plus one toilet), but existing Turbostar layouts (168 and
170) have less seats (highest I can find in a driving coach is 67
seats) than the 150/1s. The 172s will also be 23m units, but it'll be
interesting to see if they can fit as many seats in as the 165s, will
the narrower vehicles (2.75m compared to 2.82) mean that you can't do
3+2 seating?

Maybe, in the end, it will turn out that Chiltern will release 165s to
LOROL and take all the 172s. I think that for a substantial capacity
increase, the GOBLIN trains need to be 3 car units (current turbostar
center coaches are 76 seats).

I don't disagree with any of that - I'm disagreeing with the quote that the
'new trains' (ie the LO 172s) will be to 'Overground standards' (by which I
take it he's implying longitudinal seats and loads of standing room like the
378s)...

Paul S

On Jan 20, 9:31*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Andy wrote:
On Jan 20, 8:15 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Mr Thant wrote:
This is what Peter Field had to say to the Transport Committee in
November (which is the only official mention of 165s I know of):

snipped

.... They will relieve the situation in the
shorter term before the new trains arrive, which will be to the
London Overground standard, as you know, with lots and lots of
capacity, a much longer vehicle."

Which implies they'll be replacing the whole fleet.

(and I take it to mean that we'll be waiting a very long time for
the 172s)

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/tr...minutes/append....

It seems to suggest that the 172s:

" will be to the London Overground standard, as you know, with lots
and lots of capacity, a much longer vehicle."

However most previous reports on the 172s for Goblin have said
they'll have a fairly normal internal layout, ie unlike the 378s, so
that the Rosco will have no trouble moving them on elsewhere
eventually. As for 'much longer', AFAICS the choices are 20m or 23m
within normal UK gauge...

The 23m 165s (89 + 94 = 183 per unit plus one toilet) have about an
extra 20-odd seats per coach compared to the current 20m 150/1s (71 +
73 = 144 plus one toilet), but existing Turbostar layouts (168 and
170) have less seats (highest I can find in a driving coach is 67
seats) than the 150/1s. The 172s will also be 23m units, but it'll be
interesting to see if they can fit as many seats in as the 165s, will
the narrower vehicles (2.75m compared to 2.82) mean that you can't do
3+2 seating?

Maybe, in the end, it will turn out that Chiltern will release 165s to
LOROL and take all the 172s. I think that for a substantial capacity
increase, the GOBLIN trains need to be 3 car units (current turbostar
center coaches are 76 seats).

I don't disagree with any of that - I'm disagreeing with the quote that the
'new trains' (ie the LO 172s) will be to 'Overground standards' (by which I
take it he's implying longitudinal seats and loads of standing room like the
378s)...


Assuming that the seat fixings are arranged correctly, changing from
longitudinal to 'normal' seating or vice-versa would not be too hard.
The leasco could order them as 2+2 and LOROL then pay to 'refit' them
as a variation order, with the normal seats stored until needed. After
all, cross-country have been doing something similar (although only
with normal seat layouts) with reseating their 170s. This is one of
the advantages of the modern units, they allow easy interior redesign.