Barking Riverside Extension - What should happen next?

[D365]

Moderator Note - Split From:

Barking Riverside Extension (London Overground) Updates

Tfl are seeking a contractor to build an extension to the Gospel Oak-Barking Line (GOBLIN). http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/infrastructure/single-view/view/tfl-seeks-contractor-to-build-barking-riverside-extension.html UK: Transport for London has invited expressions of interest in the...

www.railforums.co.uk

Given the money that's been put into Riverside, I'd be quite startled if a Thamesmead extension were to be considered anytime soon.

 

[NLC1072]

Given the money that's been put into Riverside, I'd be quite startled if a Thamesmead extension were to be considered anytime soon.

There is a second plan to take the line West along the north bank and to then have the line go underground to a station at Creekmouth, before turning southwards to Thamesmead. They'll probably revert back to that plan.

 

[D365]

There is a second plan to take the line West along the north bank and to then have the line go underground to a station at Creekmouth, before turning southwards to Thamesmead. They'll probably revert back to that plan.

I wasn't aware of this proposal. That would be an incredibly tight radius!

 

[stuu]

There is a second plan to take the line West along the north bank and to then have the line go underground to a station at Creekmouth, before turning southwards to Thamesmead. They'll probably revert back to that plan.

Are you sure? TfL said any extension would be tunnelled and the elevated station would be replaced with an subsurface/underground station

 

[NLC1072]

Are you sure? TfL said any extension would be tunnelled and the elevated station would be replaced with an subsurface/underground station

NO, I'm not sure, hence my use of the word probably to indicate some doubt. But it seems the logical next step when compared to demolishing a brand new station and viaduct - imagine the media on that one!

 

[D365]

NO, I'm not sure, hence my use of the word probably to indicate some doubt. But it seems the logical next step when compared to demolishing a brand new station and viaduct - imagine the media on that one!

That’s the reason why I am not expecting any form of extension for a very long time.

 

[stuu]

NO, I'm not sure, hence my use of the word probably to indicate some doubt. But it seems the logical next step when compared to demolishing a brand new station and viaduct - imagine the media on that one!

That's exactly what happened at Island Gardens on the DLR. See answers given to the London Assembly on the subject of extending to Thamesmead

 

[Mikey C]

That's exactly what happened at Island Gardens on the DLR. See answers given to the London Assembly on the subject of extending to Thamesmead

The Island Gardens viaduct was there already though, whereas the Barking Riverside extension is a complete new build

A better comparison might be the all new Woolwich extension of the DLR which temporarily terminated north of the Thames at King George V, but in a station designed from the start for through running. Barking Riverside to me looks like a permanent terminus

 

[Busaholic]

Once again it shows the short-sightedness of TfL (or at levels of central government) in replacing their East London Tram scheme with double deck buses. Assuming that Barking Riverside is the end of the rail line for the foreseeable future, the extension from Barking Station could have been better incorporated into a light rail scheme at significantly lower cost, a much more frequent service (if needed) and with chances of total disruption to the service from events far away much less too.

 

[stuu]

The Island Gardens viaduct was there already though, whereas the Barking Riverside extension is a complete new build

A better comparison might be the all new Woolwich extension of the DLR which temporarily terminated north of the Thames at King George V, but in a station designed from the start for through running. Barking Riverside to me looks like a permanent terminus

All true, and an extension under the river does seem very unlikely anyway, but that is the official TfL position

 

[jdcg]

My understanding is that there is basically zero chance of an extension for the Overground (ostensibly to serve Thamesmead) and, if anything is likely and affordable, it'll be an extension of the DLR from the Gallions Reach area, to Thamesmead.

 

[swt_passenger]

There’s some discussion of future extension practicalities on page 3 of this thread. But in summary the TWA order inquiry inspector and Secretary of State agreed with TfL that even if the south end of the viaduct and station had to be demolished at some time in the future, the costs expended now were acceptable in terms of providing useful transport links to the overall development site now. Building an underground station now at a level to continue under the Thames was determined to make the whole project unaffordable.

Its all explained in the TWA inspectors report which is linked from my previous post #70.

[The above cross-references are to posts in the original Barking Riverside thread.]

 

[ijmad]

It does seem like a waste to build a rather expensive bridge or tunnel to Thamesmead only to provide 4tph (or maybe 5tph which has been a rumoured TfL aspiration for the GOBLIN). Whereas with the additional trains arriving in 2025, DLR will run 15tph to Beckton in the peaks.

 

[cle]

It does seem like a waste to build a rather expensive bridge or tunnel to Thamesmead only to provide 4tph (or maybe 5tph which has been a rumoured TfL aspiration for the GOBLIN).

I would think it could go up a bit in tph if it went somewhere meaningful - i.e. to Abbey Wood, and had more network benefits. Plus as a river crossing.

Another option in making the investment better used might be threading in 1-2tph to Fenchurch Street also - not sure if that would ever be possible to path.

I can't see that a DLR bridge would be that much cheaper or useful. I guess it would get Thamesmead to Custom House and Canning Town for the network - and likely be 6tph? But would still need to run with the Beckton frequencies (and Woolwich) so I'm sure there are also limitations there.

 

[higthomas]

(Continuing off-topic, sorry mods...)
I've always thought a cable car running Barking Riverside-Thamesmead-Abbey Wood would be by far the cheapest option for improving cross River transport in the area. They could even partly re-use a second hand one if there was one that wasn't needed elsewhere...

 

[ijmad]

I would think it could go up a bit in tph if it went somewhere meaningful - i.e. to Abbey Wood, and had more network benefits. Plus as a river crossing.

Another option in making the investment better used might be threading in 1-2tph to Fenchurch Street also - not sure if that would ever be possible to path.

I can't see that a DLR bridge would be that much cheaper or useful. I guess it would get Thamesmead to Custom House and Canning Town for the network - and likely be 6tph? But would still need to run with the Beckton frequencies (and Woolwich) so I'm sure there are also limitations there.

The problem is the innumerable conflicting freight movements along the GOBLIN as well as through the Ripple Lane Yard area on the extension, from what I've read it seems it'd be impossible for the GOBLIN frequency to be pushed to any higher, except maybe adding a few services in the peak (as they used to before the 4 car 378s/710s replaced the Class 172s) when they can get away with making freight wait.

 

[swt_passenger]

The problem is the innumerable conflicting freight movements along the GOBLIN as well as through the Ripple Lane Yard area on the extension, from what I've read it seems it'd be impossible for the GOBLIN frequency to be pushed to any higher, except maybe adding a few services in the peak (as they used to before the 4 car 378s/710s replaced the Class 172s) when they can get away with making freight wait.

In a hypothetical situation where more paths became available on the existing Goblin west of Barking I suspect theyd have to look at further grade separation of up trains, because the Ripple Lane Yard western entry route is currently a flat crossing conflict over the extension’s up line. Would not be easy to achieve such separation if you still need the line to be at ground level through the reserved site earmarked for a Renwick Road station.

 

[theking]

I thought the space between the station and the river which is currently a car park is tfl owned/protected for any future development across the river.

 

[cle]

The problem is the innumerable conflicting freight movements along the GOBLIN as well as through the Ripple Lane Yard area on the extension, from what I've read it seems it'd be impossible for the GOBLIN frequency to be pushed to any higher, except maybe adding a few services in the peak (as they used to before the 4 car 378s/710s replaced the Class 172s) when they can get away with making freight wait.

GOBLIN's other issue is that there are very few options for where they could go - and not many intermediate terminus points. The single platform at Gospel Oak is a limitation - and platform/bypass/ works to extend onto Hampstead Heath and the NLL have never been forthcoming.

Other than that, maybe you could send 1-2tph up from South Tottenham to Seven Sisters? And presumably up to Enfield Town - to keep it metro. That line is underused for sure, but it would have its own issues. Not many other options really.

 

[ijmad]

In a hypothetical situation where more paths became available on the existing Goblin west of Barking I suspect theyd have to look at further grade separation of up trains, because the Ripple Lane Yard western entry route is currently a flat crossing conflict over the extension’s up line. Would not be easy to achieve such separation if you still need the line to be at ground level through the reserved site earmarked for a Renwick Road station.

I know we should keep our speculation limited in these threads but, if you're willing to build more flyovers why fly over some H&C trains and run them down there...

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

I know we should keep our speculation limited in these threads but, if you're willing to build more flyovers why fly over some H&C trains and run them down there...

Ha Ha, so many possibilities, in theory.

 

[NLC1072]

The problem is the innumerable conflicting freight movements along the GOBLIN as well as through the Ripple Lane Yard area on the extension, from what I've read it seems it'd be impossible for the GOBLIN frequency to be pushed to any higher, except maybe adding a few services in the peak (as they used to before the 4 car 378s/710s replaced the Class 172s) when they can get away with making freight wait.

The only problem with this now is that the headways are so short with freight, c2c and LO that making freight wait will only delay later trains when the freight needs to go again. The time it takes to accelerate a freight train up to speed, the headway between it and the following service vanishes. This is most likely why LO trains are being held for freight frequently at the bottom of the viaduct westbound.