• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Gospel Oak to Barking Line (GOBLIN) electrification

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ronnie268

Member
Joined
4 Sep 2017
Messages
43
You only have to read this thread and others here to see this; an attitude that all that matters is packing people in, at a theoretical density never actually achieved. That's not what people want. And so when they have a choice they will go for what they do want.

I'm sorry, but anyone who has ever used that line knows that "at a theoretical density never actually achieved" is complete rubbish. The current services are completely rammed. Anyone who thinks they aren't and won't be in future is living in a dreamworld.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,944
Location
St Neots
there is room for some rows of normal front facing seats.

But they would cause more problems than fully-longitudinal would.

The line is not only used by people going to work in the peak.

But it (like all suburban rail) is justified by the peak usage — if it was purely an off-peak railway it would have been shut down and ripped up decades ago.
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,735
Longitudinal seating is absolutely fine for this route - with no seats at the ends (space for bikes/wheelchairs/standing only) - journeys are short, capacity is the main objective. It works on the other LO lines, this is no different and shorter end-to-end than the NLL or ELL.
 

theking

Member
Joined
30 Sep 2011
Messages
626
It's over subscribed now.

Tfl are not buying the trains for now they are buying them for the future.

They got bitten with 3 car 378's and the costs of lengthening them.

The 710's are going to be around for years and London will get busier and busier no matter what the left winger doomsday sayers bleat on here regurgitating rubbish Sadiq says about everyone leaving because of brexit.

There was never going to be anything other than longitudinal especially as the Watford dc manages fine with them.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,714
It's over subscribed now.

Tfl are not buying the trains for now they are buying them for the future.

They got bitten with 3 car 378's and the costs of lengthening them.

The 710's are going to be around for years and London will get busier and busier no matter what the left winger doomsday sayers bleat on here regurgitating rubbish Sadiq says about everyone leaving because of brexit.

There was never going to be anything other than longitudinal especially as the Watford dc manages fine with them.

Exactly and the West Anglia 710s will now all have longitudinal seating too - see the 710 thread from just before Christmas. Low dwell times are another key performance criteria

DfT can't afford another 378 type saga, hence getting it right first time.

The Goblin journey times will also reduce as the 710s will accelerate and brake (regneratively) far harder than the current 172s.
 

colchesterken

Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
766
Ahhhh The good old days..I remember in steam days with a bit of luck you would get a whole compartment to
Yourself
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
15,331
Location
St Albans
Exactly and the West Anglia 710s will now all have longitudinal seating too - see the 710 thread from just before Christmas. Low dwell times are another key performance criteria

DfT can't afford another 378 type saga, hence getting it right first time.

The Goblin journey times will also reduce as the 710s will accelerate and brake (regneratively) far harder than the current 172s.

If they are 20m units with similar seating to 378s the I estimate that there will be around 146 per 4-car unit excluding drop-down seats, so an 80m set has about 21% more seats than the current 46m sets, but considerably more overall capacity and far shorter dwells when needed in the peaks.
 

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,506
Location
Brighton
If the line's as busy as stated, do we know if the units have provision for lengthening to 5-cars or longer? Obviously this will require further platform works, but still. If not the only options are to up the frequency (which could be a problem given the freight), or lengthening by using multiple units, and given lengthening to 5-car length was presumably too difficult for the current project, I hate to imagine how hard 8-cars would be.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
11,251
Bear in mind that the Goblin used to be served by 8 car trains, and as can be seen on the platforms all along the line, they used to cater for these. In the early 1960s the through summertime trains to Southend, stopping at all stations along the line, were formed of 2 x Class 127 4-car dmus. This length was no different to what had been used in steam days.

It's quite apparent as you go along the line, indeed elements of the old platform structures are still there, all weed strewn, fenced off and crumbling. The only exceptions are the likes of Gospel Oak, where new platform designs have been introduced since then.

I don't understand why lengthening the 378s from 3, to 4, to 5, is a saga. That seems quite reasonable as traffic builds. If the contract with the train builder has been written so the extra vehicles are overpriced, that's just a poor commercial practice. And if the trains are so packed out, for so much of the time, then the fare revenue from all those passengers must justify providing sufficient accommodation for them. The bulk of the costs of train operation, such as crew, are fairly fixed, so it becomes more economical per passenger if you have to run longer, full trains.
 

goblinuser

Member
Joined
12 May 2017
Messages
292
And funnily enough, most of those routes where you got a compartment to yourself have closed because no one used them.
There were attempts to close the GOBLIN and the NLL too, except local people formed groups to campaign against closure and were successful.
 

class303

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2011
Messages
391
Bear in mind that the Goblin used to be served by 8 car trains, and as can be seen on the platforms all along the line, they used to cater for these. In the early 1960s the through summertime trains to Southend, stopping at all stations along the line, were formed of 2 x Class 127 4-car dmus. This length was no different to what had been used in steam days.

It's quite apparent as you go along the line, indeed elements of the old platform structures are still there, all weed strewn, fenced off and crumbling. The only exceptions are the likes of Gospel Oak, where new platform designs have been introduced since then.

Isn't there an issue at South Tottenham with it being between 2 junctions that make extending to 8 cars a huge task?
 

Ronnie268

Member
Joined
4 Sep 2017
Messages
43
Isn't there an issue at South Tottenham with it being between 2 junctions that make extending to 8 cars a huge task?

From a quick look on Google Maps, there seems to be adequate space to the East of the station (certainly for 5, if not for 8). It's just Gospel Oak that seems to be the problem.
 

goblinuser

Member
Joined
12 May 2017
Messages
292
Isn't there an issue at South Tottenham with it being between 2 junctions that make extending to 8 cars a huge task?

The platform used to extend right up until the curve, and extend well beyond the signalbox on the opposite platform.
south_tottenham_pre_war.jpg

south_tottenham_station_1960s.jpg
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
7,640
From a quick look on Google Maps, there seems to be adequate space to the East of the station (certainly for 5, if not for 8). It's just Gospel Oak that seems to be the problem.
I assume the longer trains that used to be (occasionally) used on the line never served Gospel Oak and instead went through the tunnel to Kentish Town?
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
11,251
I assume the longer trains that used to be (occasionally) used on the line never served Gospel Oak and instead went through the tunnel to Kentish Town?
Correct. Gospel Oak was a new arrangement. 1981 apparently. The long Southend excursions generally came from further afield, Cricklewood, or even St Albans.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,153
It's over subscribed now.

Tfl are not buying the trains for now they are buying them for the future.

They got bitten with 3 car 378's and the costs of lengthening them.

The 710's are going to be around for years and London will get busier and busier no matter what the left winger doomsday sayers bleat on here regurgitating rubbish Sadiq says about everyone leaving because of brexit.

There was never going to be anything other than longitudinal especially as the Watford dc manages fine with them.
Brexit has nothing to do with it, however much you seem to want to shoe-horn it into the conversation. Working patterns are starting to change quite rapidly. That means that the peak trains may well see demand start to level off. It also means that an increasing proportion of the revenue and benefit is coming from the , and outside of the single run up and down the line the train makes in each peak most of the revenue is starting to come from the dozens of runs outside the peak. There may well be a case for crowding people off the peak services and onto the shoulder ones if the alternative is driving people off the well-loaded off-peak services with a seating layout that isn't necessary initially and may prove to never be necessary
 

Chris M

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2012
Messages
1,060
Location
London E14
The problem with that argument is that the seat layout is needed initially on both the peaks and the shoulders of the peaks.
This is not the case on all lines, and I disagree with the all longitudinal seating for the Liverpool Street services, but for the specific useage patterns of the Golbin where you need large capacity and short dwell times for passengers making short distance intra-urban journeys this is the right layout. Nobody would quibble if it were a London Underground line, and yet the line serves a similar function.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,153
The problem with that argument is that the seat layout is needed initially on both the peaks and the shoulders of the peaks.
This is not the case on all lines, and I disagree with the all longitudinal seating for the Liverpool Street services, but for the specific useage patterns of the Golbin where you need large capacity and short dwell times for passengers making short distance intra-urban journeys this is the right layout. Nobody would quibble if it were a London Underground line, and yet the line serves a similar function.
To be fair I'm not convinced Goblin is a long enough route to get very frustrated about either. I'm just not convinced by a general policy of starting to build trains entirely around peak loads when there are signs that things are moving quite quickly away from peak loading
 

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,513
Location
Southampton
To be fair I'm not convinced Goblin is a long enough route to get very frustrated about either. I'm just not convinced by a general policy of starting to build trains entirely around peak loads when there are signs that things are moving quite quickly away from peak loading
Surely the seating can be adjusted later if it becomes appropriate to change it? This isn't that expensive compared to the cost of the train itself.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,153
Surely the seating can be adjusted later if it becomes appropriate to change it? This isn't that expensive compared to the cost of the train itself.
I'm thinking more in terms of a reputation thing. For a lot of people you've got a once in 10 years, or even once in a lifetime opportunity to convince them that trains are a comfortable reasonable mode of transport. If they end up with the impression that the seats are rock hard, or longitudinal, or place them square in their neighbour's lap, then they aren't going to get into the habit and will never know about the refit. That's leaving aside that seats can last 20 years and the earlier refits seem to focus mostly on replacing cushions and coverings.
 

otomous

Member
Joined
5 Oct 2011
Messages
444
You are correct, and this is where the public transport industry has got it fundamentally wrong in their approach to their customers. Cars have got notably better over the years, in terms of comfort, useful features, and so on. Public transport has very much gone in the opposite direction. You only have to read this thread and others here to see this; an attitude that all that matters is packing people in, at a theoretical density never actually achieved. That's not what people want. And so when they have a choice they will go for what they do want.

But it’s up to private individuals whether to spend their money on cars. Those running public services are constrained by the funding they can raise or are granted, and are required to spend that money more responsibly and efficiently. TfL’s constraints are their funding, their revenue, the number of people they need to shift etc. The combination of interacting factors leads to the most suitable outcome given the constraints. That may not be the best possible solutions, but the best that can be achieved. So 2 x 2 seats on 8 car trains might be nice, but the resources are not there to extend to 8 cars, and we need to shift a large number of people en masse twice a day, so we have to get more out of less. Private cars are the least efficient form of travel, but they are not subject to the same constraints.
 

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,513
Location
Southampton
I'm thinking more in terms of a reputation thing. For a lot of people you've got a once in 10 years, or even once in a lifetime opportunity to convince them that trains are a comfortable reasonable mode of transport. If they end up with the impression that the seats are rock hard, or longitudinal, or place them square in their neighbour's lap, then they aren't going to get into the habit and will never know about the refit. That's leaving aside that seats can last 20 years and the earlier refits seem to focus mostly on replacing cushions and coverings.
It depends what kind of reputation is expected. London Overground seems to try very hard to make out that it's not a train company, but infact just an above-ground tube line. The Underground is generally perceived as a good service but often busy, hence the seating arrangement. Furthermore, the demand for urban rail transport is unlikely to decrease in London, even if the load is evened out across the day there will still be busy times and increasing overall usage. With these things in mind, I don't think a lack of normal seating will be an issue for the Overground.

On routes where travel is more discretionary, such as rural and intercity routes, then I think seating quality would be more of an issue as people are actively chosing the comfort of the train over driving.
 

MatthewRead

On Moderation
Joined
21 Nov 2014
Messages
1,641
Location
West london
Bear in mind that the Goblin used to be served by 8 car trains, and as can be seen on the platforms all along the line, they used to cater for these. In the early 1960s the through summertime trains to Southend, stopping at all stations along the line, were formed of 2 x Class 127 4-car dmus. This length was no different to what had been used in steam days.

It's quite apparent as you go along the line, indeed elements of the old platform structures are still there, all weed strewn, fenced off and crumbling. The only exceptions are the likes of Gospel Oak, where new platform designs have been introduced since then.

I don't understand why lengthening the 378s from 3, to 4, to 5, is a saga. That seems quite reasonable as traffic builds. If the contract with the train builder has been written so the extra vehicles are overpriced, that's just a poor commercial practice. And if the trains are so packed out, for so much of the time, then the fare revenue from all those passengers must justify providing sufficient accommodation for them. The bulk of the costs of train operation, such as crew, are fairly fixed, so it becomes more economical per passenger if you have to run longer, full trains.
When did steam traction on the GOBLIN line cease?
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,735
Another thing is usage pattern as well as journey time end-to-end.

Very few people ride the NLL from Richmond to Stratford, ELL the same. I'd imagine the average is 5 stops or something. People get on and off throughout the route.

The WA routes, other than the Victoria line stations, are traditional 'everyone aboard until the terminus' commuter routes. So I could see more variation of seating being desirable there.

GOBLIN I'm not sure, but either way it's short and Blackhorse Road is about halfway - so the average rider is likely to be standing for 10-15 mins. Less assuming people at termini are more likely to have a seat. The most likely to stand are those 1-2 stops before the major interchanges.
 

plcd1

Member
Joined
23 May 2015
Messages
788
Another thing is usage pattern as well as journey time end-to-end.

Very few people ride the NLL from Richmond to Stratford, ELL the same. I'd imagine the average is 5 stops or something. People get on and off throughout the route.

The WA routes, other than the Victoria line stations, are traditional 'everyone aboard until the terminus' commuter routes. So I could see more variation of seating being desirable there.

GOBLIN I'm not sure, but either way it's short and Blackhorse Road is about halfway - so the average rider is likely to be standing for 10-15 mins. Less assuming people at termini are more likely to have a seat. The most likely to stand are those 1-2 stops before the major interchanges.

I'm not sure your view of the West Anglia routes is quite correct. Both LO routes have very busy interchanges with the Victoria Line where large numbers alight in the AM peak and board in the PM peak. Clearly people also board at these interchanges to travel further south (perhaps to Hackney Downs to change to the NLL) or else into Liverpool St. These days you get decent numbers boarding and alighting at Bethnal Green - a real change from the past.

Although not a GOBLIN issue I'd argue the proposed cessation of Gtr Anglia trains serving Edmonton Green is a very serious issue for London Overground to try to cope with. If people can't board at stns south of EG in the AM Peak now it will become impossible in future.

I am sure the electrified GOBLIN will provide significant crowding relief once the 710s are in use. At the height of the peak the 172s can leave Gospel Oak full and standing and it just gets worse as you head east. While reasonable numbers alight at Harringay GL and S Tottenham more board and then the tidal wave of people waiting at Blackhorse Road can be difficult to deal with. I know because I've struggled to get off 172s and head for the exit through a wall of people and even more heading down the stairs to the platform. Anything that relieves that will be welcome. I understand the AM peak is equally difficult from Barking westward but I have no experience of that.
 
Joined
19 May 2011
Messages
129
I understand the AM peak is equally difficult from Barking westward but I have no experience of that.

I used to take this route in the morning from Wanstead Park. I had to change route and travel via Liverpool Street due to the level of overcrowding on peak services, which was just making it pretty much impossible to board.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top