|
|
Post by plasmid on Jul 25, 2017 23:38:18 GMT
The solution to this (as antiquated as it is) is quite simple really...
1) Temporarily install 3rd rail in the interim to allow dual voltage trains to run. This allows for an immediate improvement in the service which is currently a joke.
2) Once the completion of 3rd rail is done and longer trains have been introduced NR can then assess the requirement (with all the time in the world) to install overhead.
3) Weekend closures or a block to facilitate the installation of overhead wires.
OR...
1) 3rd rail.
I'd like to see some sort of a comparison or show down of the pro's / con's to both 3rd rail and overhead. I'm fairly certain than overhead costs a shed load more money and end up being less reliable (cable breaks, maintenance costs etc.)
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 26, 2017 6:38:41 GMT
The solution to this (as antiquated as it is) is quite simple really... 1) Temporarily install 3rd rail in the interim to allow dual voltage trains to run. I'd like to see some sort of a comparison or show down of the pro's / con's to both 3rd rail and overhead. I'm fairly certain than overhead costs a shed load more money and end up being less reliable (cable breaks, maintenance costs etc.) How long do you think it would take to install 3rd rail? It can't be done overnight. And the big cost is the substations - many more of which are needed for a low-voltage system because transmission losses (i.e heat given off by a given length of the cable or rail) are inversely proportional to the voltage squared. Not to mention the unpopularity of 3rd rail with the HSE, for obvious reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Jul 26, 2017 7:02:43 GMT
I would also suggest that there isn't any real rush to get the goblin electrified. No freight will start running with electrical locos any time soon, and the new overground trains won't be arriving for a bit yet. Obviously there is the capacity issue that needs solving, but the only immediately available source of dual voltage EMUs for LO will be the existing fleet, which would obviously cause problems on the rest of the network. There are some other DV EMUs available immediately such as the class 319s, but those would require training fitters and drivers for what would ultimately be a temporary solution - far from ideal.
As for third rail Vs overhead, the overhead is a far more efficient system as touched on by norbitonflyer, and the new designs of equipment should reduce the frequency of dewirements as well as making them easier to rectify. And third rail isn't inherently reliable of course. It can fail through displacement as well, and is more susceptible to track one debris
|
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jul 26, 2017 8:06:27 GMT
I like the left field solution but in the current HSE environment I somehow doubt third rail will be even a temporary answer for GOBLIN especially as the rolling stock already on order for GOBLIN is designed for OHLE(over head line equipment).
However your out the box thought process does remind me of an interesting conspiracy theory perspective I heard recently. Perhaps one might suggest the NR delays are actually very intentional and specifically designed to kick the project beyond Brexit at which point the UK can take a fresh look at the current - arguably excessive electrical clearance/separation requirements and potentially adopt rather more UK suited solutions taking due account of the significantly tighter loading gauge on most UK routes. If permission for tighter clearances allows you to dump most of the massive cost of raising or replacing bridges or lowering track - suddenly a whole lot more electrification projects can be done affordably - not just GOBLIN.
Inherently there are numerous structures on the West Coast route where OHLE clearances are lower than currently required for new projects like GOBLIN and thus far I have yet to see any real evidence of staff or customers being killed or injured by these sub-standard installations (excluding the Darwin awards - train surfing imbecile).
|
|
|
|
Post by patstonuk on Jul 26, 2017 9:24:30 GMT
I like the left field solution but in the current HSE environment I somehow doubt third rail will be even a temporary answer for GOBLIN especially as the rolling stock already on order for GOBLIN is designed for OHLE(over head line equipment). However your out the box thought process does remind me of an interesting conspiracy theory perspective I heard recently. Perhaps one might suggest the NR delays are actually very intentional and specifically designed to kick the project beyond Brexit at which point the UK can take a fresh look at the current - arguably excessive electrical clearance/separation requirements and potentially adopt rather more UK suited solutions taking due account of the significantly tighter loading gauge on most UK routes. If permission for tighter clearances allows you to dump most of the massive cost of raising or replacing bridges or lowering track - suddenly a whole lot more electrification projects can be done affordably - not just GOBLIN. Inherently there are numerous structures on the West Coast route where OHLE clearances are lower than currently required for new projects like GOBLIN and thus far I have yet to see any real evidence of staff or customers being killed or injured by these sub-standard installations (excluding the Darwin awards - train surfing imbecile). I believe there are two issues here which are deserving of more information. It appears that further third-rail electrification in the UK is now effectively ruled out, primarily because any new installation must be shown to be justified as an exceptional matter. That has effectively shut down that avenue on safety grounds. The question of OHLE clearances is one where we have been let down by the likes of ORR or RSSB in failing to seek a derogation from the revised standard for clearances. Such a course of action was entirely feasible and by all accounts would not have been problematic. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,762
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 26, 2017 10:10:01 GMT
As for third rail Vs overhead, the overhead is a far more efficient system as touched on by norbitonflyer, and the new designs of equipment should reduce the frequency of dewirements as well as making them easier to rectify. And third rail isn't inherently reliable of course. It can fail through displacement as well, and is more susceptible to track one debris Top-contact third rail (the traditional type as used on LU and NR) is also far more susceptible to problems caused by ice and snow than OHLE. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 26, 2017 10:20:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Jul 26, 2017 11:30:18 GMT
I like the left field solution but in the current HSE environment I somehow doubt third rail will be even a temporary answer for GOBLIN especially as the rolling stock already on order for GOBLIN is designed for OHLE(over head line equipment). However your out the box thought process does remind me of an interesting conspiracy theory perspective I heard recently. Perhaps one might suggest the NR delays are actually very intentional and specifically designed to kick the project beyond Brexit at which point the UK can take a fresh look at the current - arguably excessive electrical clearance/separation requirements and potentially adopt rather more UK suited solutions taking due account of the significantly tighter loading gauge on most UK routes. If permission for tighter clearances allows you to dump most of the massive cost of raising or replacing bridges or lowering track - suddenly a whole lot more electrification projects can be done affordably - not just GOBLIN. Inherently there are numerous structures on the West Coast route where OHLE clearances are lower than currently required for new projects like GOBLIN and thus far I have yet to see any real evidence of staff or customers being killed or injured by these sub-standard installations (excluding the Darwin awards - train surfing imbecile). I believe there are two issues here which are deserving of more information. It appears that further third-rail electrification in the UK is now effectively ruled out, primarily because any new installation must be shown to be justified as an exceptional matter. That has effectively shut down that avenue on safety grounds. The question of OHLE clearances is one where we have been let down by the likes of ORR or RSSB in failing to seek a derogation from the revised standard for clearances. Such a course of action was entirely feasible and by all accounts would not have been problematic. On the latter, I recommend a read of recent articles by Roger Ford in Modern Railways. The finger of suspicion on clearances points very firmly at ORR. With that in mind, it's worth considering that ORR guidance includes a presumption against top contact 3rd or 4th Rail electrification, with options available to demonstrate safety. This apparently why it is hasn't been possible to electrify to Uckfield, for example. There are also significant complications in combining 3rd rail and overhead electrification which, given existing overhead electrification at the Barking end, would add costs even if it were allowed. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 26, 2017 12:34:58 GMT
I would also suggest that there isn't any real rush to get the goblin electrified. No freight will start running with electrical locos any time soon, and the new overground trains won't be arriving for a bit yet. Obviously there is the capacity issue that needs solving, but the only immediately available source of dual voltage EMUs for LO will be the existing fleet, which would obviously cause problems on the rest of the network. There are some other DV EMUs available immediately such as the class 319s, but those would require training fitters and drivers for what would ultimately be a temporary solution - far from ideal. As for third rail Vs overhead, the overhead is a far more efficient system as touched on by norbitonflyer, and the new designs of equipment should reduce the frequency of dewirements as well as making them easier to rectify. And third rail isn't inherently reliable of course. It can fail through displacement as well, and is more susceptible to track one debris Thank goodness NR have actually announced the further closure and blockade dates to complete the electrification works.  If the 710s are on time then the first ones arrive in around 4 months time. There is a whole set of workstreams in place to bring them into service involving NR, Arriva and Bombardier. Do we really want to generate a whole set of commercially expensive and difficult variations to this contract over and above what may already have been incurred? Why do enthusiasts come up with such barmy schemes as putting third rail on the GOBLIN?   It would need designing, procuring etc which would take far, far, far longer than completing the work that's already designed, approved and being done!! It took NR three years to crawl through their own GRIP process to design and approve a final scope for the GOBLIN. Do we really want another 3 years of delay when it will take 6 months or so to finish the partially completed works? I mean *really*?? |
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Jul 26, 2017 12:35:12 GMT
I like the left field solution but in the current HSE environment I somehow doubt third rail will be even a temporary answer for GOBLIN especially as the rolling stock already on order for GOBLIN is designed for OHLE(over head line equipment). I will point out that the GOBLIN fleet is in fact dual voltage - they'll also be operating the Euston to Watford Junction services for which third rail is necessary. The West Anglia fleet is pure OHLE though |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,762
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 26, 2017 12:42:01 GMT
There are also significant complications in combining 3rd rail and overhead electrification which, given existing overhead electrification at the Barking end, would add costs even if it were allowed. There is also existing OHLE around the South Tottenham area and directly adjacent at Gospel Oak. AC electrified railways generally use DC track circuits and vice versa, and iirc signalling needs to be doubly insulated in dual voltage areas - which is obviously more complicated and more expensive. |
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Jul 26, 2017 13:37:56 GMT
Why do enthusiasts come up with such barmy schemes as putting third rail on the GOBLIN? It would need designing, procuring etc which would take far, far, far longer than completing the work that's already designed, approved and being done!! It took NR three years to crawl through their own GRIP process to design and approve a final scope for the GOBLIN. Do we really want another 3 years of delay when it will take 6 months or so to finish the partially completed works? I mean *really*?? I think the word "enthusiast" goes a long way to explaining some of the outlandish suggestions often made. There are levels of enthusiast that range from mild interest/sat at the back to an almost fanatical and unable-to-see-the-reality-of-the-situation warrior. While it may irritate some, we're a long way from the bad old days on here of interminable lists of never-to-be-opened stations and long may that improvement continue.  Can you define GRIP for me Snoggle? Ta.  |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 26, 2017 13:52:02 GMT
Can you define GRIP for me Snoggle? Ta. A quote from an online article about it is below. On the GOBLIN works it took forever to reach stage 3 and then we seemed to get to 4 and 5 eventually once the funding was found. Remember the scheme famously did not receive the much anticipated go ahead in one of Osborne's Autumn Statements. This caused an enormous amount of political consternation and endless calls for the scheme to be funded. I suspect we'd have electric trains running by now if it wasn't for that pause. |
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Jul 26, 2017 13:56:36 GMT
I believe there are two issues here which are deserving of more information. It appears that further third-rail electrification in the UK is now effectively ruled out, primarily because any new installation must be shown to be justified as an exceptional matter. That has effectively shut down that avenue on safety grounds. The question of OHLE clearances is one where we have been let down by the likes of ORR or RSSB in failing to seek a derogation from the revised standard for clearances. Such a course of action was entirely feasible and by all accounts would not have been problematic. On the latter, I recommend a read of recent articles by Roger Ford in Modern Railways. The finger of suspicion on clearances points very firmly at ORR. With that in mind, it's worth considering that ORR guidance includes a presumption against top contact 3rd or 4th Rail electrification, with options available to demonstrate safety. This apparently why it is hasn't been possible to electrify to Uckfield, for example. There are also significant complications in combining 3rd rail and overhead electrification which, given existing overhead electrification at the Barking end, would add costs even if it were allowed. I have just read that. As for Uckfield, the Gibb Report has recommended OHLE electrification there. If you did that and the Hastings-Ore section, you free up a load of DMUs... Anyway, can't you couple two 170s together until the new stock arrives? |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jul 26, 2017 14:10:38 GMT
On the latter, I recommend a read of recent articles by Roger Ford in Modern Railways. The finger of suspicion on clearances points very firmly at ORR. With that in mind, it's worth considering that ORR guidance includes a presumption against top contact 3rd or 4th Rail electrification, with options available to demonstrate safety. This apparently why it is hasn't been possible to electrify to Uckfield, for example. There are also significant complications in combining 3rd rail and overhead electrification which, given existing overhead electrification at the Barking end, would add costs even if it were allowed. I have just read that. As for Uckfield, the Gibb Report has recommended OHLE electrification there. If you did that and the Hastings-Ore section, you free up a load of DMUs... Anyway, can't you couple two 170s together until the new stock arrives? A few points: DC electrification of Gospel Oak-Barking is pretty much out of the question, temporary or permanent, even if a way of overcoming the regulatory obstacles could be found. AC and DC simply don't go together - the sections which formerly existed on the North London Line, and at Euston, are an old design which simply wouldn't be contemplated today. A lot of money was spent eliminating the DC sections on the North London Line. Nowadays a costly AC/DC interface is required where they meet. For example the CTRL sections around Ashford/Fawkham Junction/Dollands Moor/Ebbsfleet all have a complex, and therefore costly, arrangement of pairs of isolation transformers at the interface. Coupling DMUs isn't a solution, as there simply aren't double the number of DMUs to be found. One would have to bring a few first-generation DMUs out of preservation! As regards Uckfield, a problem with electrifying this line on AC is that a resilient scheme is generally deemed to require two separate grid supply points. Electrification is generally designed on the basis that a scheme can continue to meet its design specification with any one item of plant being out of commission (either for maintenance or an unplanned outage). Connexions to the grid are highly expensive, so having two separate feeds for a comparatively short section of railway is inefficient. Plus of course there still needs to be an AC/DC interface somewhere. Uckfield is also a pain to electrify on DC, as the load factors are very polarised - the likelihood in reality is something like 2x 4-car Electrostars being on the railway during the off-peak, but 4x 12-car Electrostar formations being on the railway during the peaks, therefore there is little scope to pare the specification down to the minimum. Where BR did this, for example on the East Grinstead line, costly reinforcement has been required in recent years to accommodate longer trains. Adding in all these complications, and it can be seen why Uckfield hasn't happened, highly desirable though it is from an operational point of view. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 26, 2017 14:15:46 GMT
On the latter, I recommend a read of recent articles by Roger Ford in Modern Railways. The finger of suspicion on clearances points very firmly at ORR. With that in mind, it's worth considering that ORR guidance includes a presumption against top contact 3rd or 4th Rail electrification, with options available to demonstrate safety. This apparently why it is hasn't been possible to electrify to Uckfield, for example. There are also significant complications in combining 3rd rail and overhead electrification which, given existing overhead electrification at the Barking end, would add costs even if it were allowed. I have just read that. As for Uckfield, the Gibb Report has recommended OHLE electrification there. If you did that and the Hastings-Ore section, you free up a load of DMUs... Anyway, can't you couple two 170s together until the new stock arrives? Yes, but just in case you have been living on another planet, there is a UK wide shortage of DMUs (and the 170s are no longer being built by Bombardier) so quite where the extra 170s are going to magically appear from is a rather obvious flaw in that plan. In time its possible that some 170s may become spare, but by that stage the Goblin will be electrified anyway! |
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Jul 26, 2017 15:03:35 GMT
GRIP stands for Governance for Railway Investment Projects. Thank you Snoggle. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 26, 2017 15:53:55 GMT
No freight will start running with electrical locos any time soon, Why not? With the under-used class 92 fleet , and now the new class 88s, there is plenty of traction available for electric trains if only they had somewhere to go. (and yes, I am aware that both types can take power from another source) |
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Jul 26, 2017 18:03:05 GMT
No freight will start running with electrical locos any time soon, Why not? With the under-used class 92 fleet , and now the new class 88s, there is plenty of traction available for electric trains if only they had somewhere to go. (and yes, I am aware that both types can take power from another source) 92s almost certainly won't show - the GBRF examples (16 locos) are all rather tied up at the moment with sleeper duties, existing workings, and going to Brush Loughborough for work to make them more reliable and in due course, fitting of Dellner couplers for working the new Caledonian Sleeper Stock. DB Cargo have stopped running their 92s on the main network, they have only got 6 operational examples which work services through the tunnel and HS1, a number of which are currently stopped for a variety of reasons. They have also moved 13 of their fleet to Bulgaria and Romania. And even then, the 92s are somewhat notorious for causing issues with the power supply and signalling, so it'd have been unlikely for them to be worked over the GOBLIN unless absolutely necessary and following testing. The 88s are a possibility, although there are only 10, which I imagine will have have already mostly been accounted for in terms of diagramming. The other (and most likely in the future) possibility are the Freightliner class 90s, which probably will work over it at some point, but they (much like DB Cargo) have found themselves with too many class 66s for the work that they currently have, and one is cheaper to run than the other. |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jul 27, 2017 9:56:05 GMT
Network Rail has announced that the wires will be switched on in January.
|
|
|
|
Post by regp41 on Jul 27, 2017 12:42:32 GMT
Local Paper Reporting:
"Network Rail has announced plans to close the line for seven weeks from Monday, November 27 until Sunday, January 14, subject to agreement from TfL, train and freight operators.
It also intends to close the line for five weeks between Sunday, September 17 and Sunday, October 22, with closures every weekend from now until Sunday, September 10 already confirmed.
Rail replacement buses will be provided and regular users will be automatically refunded the extra cost of travelling by Tube or train".
Anyone heard anything about this?
Raya
|
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Jul 27, 2017 12:46:19 GMT
Network Rail has announced that the wires will be switched on in January. Ironically, the electrification will be done before the rolling stock arrives... When the Kent Coast lines were electrified in the late 1950s, the CEPs/BEPs arrived first and were stored on the Ardingly branch until the line was ready. You had two crews assigned to run the units around there to stop them seizing up. |
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Jul 27, 2017 16:17:05 GMT
Local Paper Reporting: "Network Rail has announced plans to close the line for seven weeks from Monday, November 27 until Sunday, January 14, subject to agreement from TfL, train and freight operators. It also intends to close the line for five weeks between Sunday, September 17 and Sunday, October 22, with closures every weekend from now until Sunday, September 10 already confirmed. Rail replacement buses will be provided and regular users will be automatically refunded the extra cost of travelling by Tube or train". Anyone heard anything about this? Raya Our esteemed snoggle has already posted the TfL and NR updates yesterday: link |
|
|
|
Post by regp41 on Jul 27, 2017 17:13:04 GMT
Whoops! missed that, thanks Dstock.
Ray
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 27, 2017 17:19:36 GMT
Ironically, the electrification will be done before the rolling stock arrives... Whichever is ready first, someone in the press will have a moan, either about new trains standing idle, or diesels running under the wires. |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jul 27, 2017 18:24:13 GMT
The wires need to go on for the trains to be tested and proved on the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 27, 2017 23:11:13 GMT
The wires need to go on for the trains to be tested and proved on the line. Well yes and no. I thought [1] most modern stock had to go through a level of fault free mileage accumulation before they are even accepted by the TOC. I expect the 710s will be seen elsewhere on the network under wires before they appear in London. There are also miles of wired route in London where the 710s can "play" before running on the GOBLIN. I also expect they'll be on the DC line out of Euston for tests for a fair while too. I do take your point that they obviously have to be tested on the GOBLIN too but some of that, e.g. clearances may be done without the train being electrically hauled. Do NR do initial testing of catenary and wires with a normal train or do they have specialist measurement trains that can capture all the relevant data they need? If the latter then the 710s are not necessarily on the critical path to get the wires energised. They will be for when driver training / route learning with EMUs is on the critical path. Without sight of the master programme for all actitivies it's hard to know where the dependencies are and where things "stop" if one party hasn't achieved something others were relying on. [1] happy to be corrected, as ever. |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jul 28, 2017 4:52:15 GMT
The same could have been said about the Class 345 trains.
The Class 710s will need to be operated on the line to check monitors work etc. The drivers also need to be trained.
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz285 on Jul 28, 2017 12:58:03 GMT
If the Gob is not ready then they will probably use the DC as a training ground.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 8, 2017 21:07:23 GMT
Had my first ride on the GOBLIN since it reopened. Yep it's taken 6 months for me to ride it. A few observations. 1. Lifts in situ and basically complete at Blackhorse Road (BHO). However barriered out of use as are two new help points on the platforms. I assume they are required to summon help if you arrive on the platform but the lift is not working. A few photos at BHO are on my Flickr collection buried in amongst bus shots at Barking. 2. There is still a substantial horizontal crossmember missing at Blackhorse Rd platform area for electrification purposes. I can only assume this is some special part that has been wrongly manufactured and incapable of installation or they haven't been made yet. A common factor at many stops towards Barking is that the platform areas are lacking vertical masts and cross spans. Wanstead Park is a notable exception. 3. Both east and west of Blackhorse Road many of the masts now have what I will call "side cabling". This is a wire strung between each mast but on the outside of the mast away from the running rail area. I am sure there is a correct term but I'm not au fait with all of the elements of electrification installation. 4. There are many more masts and crossmembers in place on the eastern section and viaducts so progress has been made. However it is also evident that previously installed fixing points were in the wrong place and have not been used and masts have been installed nearby. There are also a lot of road / rail plant vehicles parked in a compound not far from Leyton Midland Road so this must be an area of activity during weekend possessions. Still a lot of metal work stored by the tracks in several places. 5. All of the platform extension works are complete but the new areas are boarded out of use at present. I guess there's no point in encouraging people to stand in areas the current trains won't stop at. Many of the "old" platforms such as Leyton Midland Rd etc have also gained one or two extra shelters so people will spread themselves along the platforms when the EMUs are running. Regrettably Blackhorse Rd, one of the busiest stops, has gained no such luxuries. 6. There seems to be a speed restriction on the approach to the junction to reach platform 1 at Barking. Not sure what's caused that but the train was noticeably slower than before. 7. Although it is the holiday period and I was travelling late morning the trains didn't seem to be very busy. How typical that is post blockade I don't know but I was quite surprised. I also wonder if all the extra station gating has deterred some of the more speculative travellers who travelled to the likes of Wanstead Park and Woodgrange Park where previously there were no gates. |
|
It would need designing, procuring etc which would take far, far, far longer than completing the work that's already designed, approved and being done!! It took NR three years to crawl through their own GRIP process to design and approve a final scope for the GOBLIN. Do we really want another 3 years of delay when it will take 6 months or so to finish the partially completed works? I mean *really*?? 
