Gospel Oak to Barking Line (GOBLIN) electrification

[Class 170101]

Twitter feed saying that MML to T&H link not being wired as part of the scheme :roll:

Anyone know anything or is what is up thread still correct?

 

[steevp]

Sorry, that's me laying a patio

Bragging again!

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Twitter feed saying that MML to T&H link not being wired as part of the scheme :roll:

Anyone know anything or is what is up thread still correct?

It's a funding thing - TfL stumping up some of the money to get the Gospel Oak to Barking (Riverside) service electrified, so their interest isn't in wiring the link to the MML. Just like the Crossrail v NR funding pots for GWML electrification.

That will come as part of the MML scheme, though it could be done as an extension to the current works by the current contractor, depending on what can be (or has been) agreed.

 

[class303]

It's a funding thing - TfL stumping up some of the money to get the Gospel Oak to Barking (Riverside) service electrified, so their interest isn't in wiring the link to the MML. Just like the Crossrail v NR funding pots for GWML electrification.

That will come as part of the MML scheme, though it could be done as an extension to the current works by the current contractor, depending on what can be (or has been) agreed.

Seems strange to leave such a short bit unwired. suppose there's very limited uses until the MML north of bedford is wired anyway.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Seems strange to leave such a short bit unwired. suppose there's very limited uses until the MML north of bedford is wired anyway.

Agreed- once they have reached Sheffield, come back and do then.

 

[Taunton]

Seems strange to leave such a short bit unwired. suppose there's very limited uses until the MML north of bedford is wired anyway.

It's only used for freight. No electric locos run on the MML and none are planned to, while beyond Barking the freight points such as Thamesport have no wiring either and all freight needs to be diesel. If this line was wired no electric traffic would use it.

 

[Bald Rick]

Seems strange to leave such a short bit unwired. suppose there's very limited uses until the MML north of bedford is wired anyway.

It's also an absolute pig to do, as the tunnel clearance is insufficient. Very expensive to clear for very little benefit.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Seems strange to leave such a short bit unwired. suppose there's very limited uses until the MML north of bedford is wired anyway.

There is that, but equally, it could be done at any time, just under the auspices of a different contract and a different pot of money.

It's not quite as straight forward as being made out though - in addition to the above, it will need to have a neutral section and isolation equipment, so engineering with the T&H doesn't require isolations on the MML, and vice versa.

It's perhaps best done with the planned OLE reliability modifications between St Pancras and Bedford, when much of the old Mark 3b equipment will be replaced with Series 1 to enable 12 car EMU operations.

 

[Alfie1014]

It's only used for freight. No electric locos run on the MML and none are planned to, while beyond Barking the freight points such as Thamesport have no wiring either and all freight needs to be diesel. If this line was wired no electric traffic would use it.

That's not the case, Ripple Lane yard is wired, as is the connection to HS1, Dagenham Dock sidings (Fords) and Tilbury Freightliner terminal. So if and when the MML and beyond is wired there are terminals accessible to electric traction. It is correct that the Thameshaven branch to London Gateway isn't wired though it was the original scheme scope, subject to funding.

 

[RichmondCommu]

That's not the case, Ripple Lane yard is wired, as is the connection to HS1, Dagenham Dock sidings (Fords) and Tilbury Freightliner terminal. So if and when the MML and beyond is wired there are terminals accessible to electric traction. It is correct that the Thameshaven branch to London Gateway isn't wired though it was the original scheme scope, subject to funding.

Just out of interest how much traffic does Tilbury Freightliner terminal see?

 

[Bald Rick]

There's no potential container traffic from Tilbury (or anywhere else) up the MML, as the latter isn't cleared for high gauge containers. And it would be very expensive to clear it south of St Albans.

 

[Mikey C]

Seems strange to leave such a short bit unwired. suppose there's very limited uses until the MML north of bedford is wired anyway.

Could electric locos with "last mile diesel capability" make it through this section? That would avoid having to electrify an expensive section of track which will get little relatively little use.

 

[TRAX]

There are more factors to investigate before considering buying LMD locos but why not.

Or why not bi-mode locos, that could perhaps make the business case more worthwhile network-wide.

 

[Freightmaster]

Just out of interest how much traffic does Tilbury Freightliner terminal see?

Four/five departures a day:

- direct trains to Lawley Street and Garston

- two local trips to London Gateway with traffic for Coatbridge/Leeds

- the as required 'wineliner' to Bristol (runs from Gateway instead some nights)


Despite being electrified, all trains to and from Tilbury FLT are currently
diesel-hauled (the Gateway trips are top and tailed to aid reversal at Grays)


MARK

 

[Class 170101]

It's also an absolute pig to do, as the tunnel clearance is insufficient. Very expensive to clear for very little benefit.

The main benefit I see to this link being wired at this time is an extra feed for the T&H and security of traction supply. Also does coming back and wiring the link mean an additonal possession(s) will be needed on the T&H when the link is finally up for wiring? Or will Junction Road junction be sufficiently wired via the T&H Project not require possessions of the line when linkage to MML is done?

 

[Bald Rick]

The main benefit I see to this link being wired at this time is an extra feed for the T&H and security of traction supply. Also does coming back and wiring the link mean an additonal possession(s) will be needed on the T&H when the link is finally up for wiring? Or will Junction Road junction be sufficiently wired via the T&H Project not require possessions of the line when linkage to MML is done?

The line will have plenty of feeds. And even if it did need an extra one, it would be a fraction of the cost to run an insulated 25kv feeder through the tunnel without Going to the expense of lowering the track and installing OLE.

 

[edwin_m]

The line will have plenty of feeds. And even if it did need an extra one, it would be a fraction of the cost to run an insulated 25kv feeder through the tunnel without Going to the expense of lowering the track and installing OLE.

Or even just a feed between the MML and the NLL at one of the several places they cross over each other? If there isn't one already!

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The main benefit I see to this link being wired at this time is an extra feed for the T&H and security of traction supply. Also does coming back and wiring the link mean an additonal possession(s) will be needed on the T&H when the link is finally up for wiring? Or will Junction Road junction be sufficiently wired via the T&H Project not require possessions of the line when linkage to MML is done?

The possession needed to wire a diverging route, when planned properly, is fairly minimal. It's generally easily do-able during routine work where the OLE is de-energised.

The key is to ensure there's somewhere for additional cantilever arms and tensioning equipment to be mounted, so there's no need to be piling for more masts and adding more mounting brackets on cutting walls.

 

[snowball]

Press release

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...-starts-to-prepare-for-longer-electric-trains

From this Saturday (24 September) there will be no service between Gospel Oak and Barking (seven days a week) until February 2017 while work takes place to electrify the route ready for new trains that will carry twice as many passengers.

1,700 metres of track is currently being lowered between Blackhorse Road and Walthamstow Queens Road Station as part of major work to electrify the last diesel-operated London Overground route, from Gospel Oak to Barking. Track is being lowered to increase clearance under bridges and make way for new masts that will carry overhead wires to power the new electric trains.

Electricity will be provided by three new power switching stations along the route and one of these is already in place at Gospel Oak. A second near South Tottenham is almost complete and a third will be installed close to Barking station in the coming months. Each switching station links to two power supplies at Acton and West Ham, so if one supply breaks down engineers can switch to the other, minimising disruption for passengers.

Part of the line has been closed since the beginning of June, with trains running from South Tottenham to Gospel Oak only on weekdays, while work takes place. From Saturday (24 September) the whole route between Gospel Oak and Barking will be closed, in order for the final phase of work to be carried out. During this period, two areas of track on the western end of the route will be lowered, one between Crouch Hill and Harringay Green Lanes and another between Gospel Oak and Upper Holloway.

 

[jopsuk]

none of the new stock is going to be ready by February is it? Going to be some upset punters when the line reopens with the 172s trundling along it!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

none of the new stock is going to be ready by February is it? Going to be some upset punters when the line reopens with the 172s trundling along it!

It has always been the plan that the 172s would resume after the closure until the new stock is available.

 

[tom1649]

A shame they couldn't use some PEPs as a stop-gap. I like the idea of PEPs running on that line for some reason. However I've heard that it isn't practical or cost effective.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

none of the new stock is going to be ready by February is it? Going to be some upset punters when the line reopens with the 172s trundling along it!

The wires won't be up by then though.
The current phase is for route upgrade and clearance work.
Wiring will follow next year, hopefully without further line closures.

 

[Bringback309s]

Once complete, will trains from Barking run through to Richmond or Clapham Junction? Is there any reason why they couldn't?

 

[Domh245]

Is there any reason why they couldn't?

Capacity on those routes is rather limited now with the 4tph per branch and the 8tph (per direction) at Gospel Oak Junction. Throw in the District Line and the other services on the WLL, and there is just no room for it.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Out of interest, does anyone know what is happening during the closure to all the freight that would normally use the route - the freight whose presence is usually cited as the reason that passenger frequencies cannot be greater than 4tph?

 

[PeterC]

Out of interest, does anyone know what is happening during the closure to all the freight that would normally use the route - the freight whose presence is usually cited as the reason that passenger frequencies cannot be greater than 4tph?

via Stratford and Forest Gate which means a lot of stuff trundling across all four tracks of the GEML. The line is still open between Barking and Forest Gate Junction.

 

[W230]

Press release

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...-starts-to-prepare-for-longer-electric-trains

This section appears to be going well. I walk past it every day and the line has already been lowered and concrete slab (is that the name?) installed in the new position. New sleepers down. There's even an overhead gantry appeared at one location which surprised me!

 

[cle]

via Stratford and Forest Gate which means a lot of stuff trundling across all four tracks of the GEML. The line is still open between Barking and Forest Gate Junction.

Has a flyover ever been thought of for the freight over the GEML?

Cost and inconvenience-wise, would something else big to divert Thames freight make more sense?

 

[Bald Rick]

Has a flyover ever been thought of for the freight over the GEML?

Cost and inconvenience-wise, would something else big to divert Thames freight make more sense?

There is a flyover for freight over the GEML; it's currently closed for electrification!

If, however you meant a flyover from the GEML to the NLL, yes it has been considered, and because of the proximity of other lines, dense housing, stations and the Olympic Park, it's simply not practical.