towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Sept 8, 2017 11:05:10 GMT
What's the planned service when the upgrade is eventually finished? No different to today - 4 tph daily. I suspect the PIXC extras in the peak including the Woodgrange Park to Willesden Junc working will cease because the new trains will be twice as long and more spacious inside (for more standees). TfL will no doubt be watching to see if suppressed demand suddenly surges forth making the EMUs very busy in the peaks. The line will be extended to Barking Riverside in 2021. Again no planned service improvements on day one other than extra trains added to the fleet to run the longer service. There are contract options to add a Boxing Day service (won't be happening this year) and also the possibility of an earlier morning start time and running the 4 pth service until close of service. Whether TfL has the cash to activate these enhancements is questionable and it's not known if Network Rail are keen to relinquish engineering hours for an earlier AM start. There may also be freight issues but that's guesswork on my part. Beyond that there are three possibilities whirring round in the ether. - lengthening the trains to 5 cars. Would need more platform works and possibly signalling changes (for sighting issues if stopping positions change). Probable depot changes to accommodate longer trains. - increasing the service to 5 trains per hour. Obviously more trains needed for this and probably signalling changes to handle the higher frequency and depot changes for more sidings. - a possible supplemental peak service which would involve a planned extra 2 tph from Enfield Town to Seven Sisters being run down the curve at South Tottenham and then on to Barking to add more peak time capacity between Blackhorse Road and Barking. This is an idea that has only recently reached the public domain but there is no time frame for this. It has long been known that TfL are very keen to add more peak capacity between Enfield Town and Seven Sisters where huge numbers change for the Vic Line. Any extra trains can't reach Liv St as there are no paths in the peaks. The train supply contract with Bombardier has a number of pre-determined options in it to allow TfL to order more trains or carriages if it requires them. Once the 42 day objection period to the granting of the Transport and Works Act Order for the Barking Riverside line expires (hopefully without challenge) I would expect TfL to announce it is ordering more trains for the GOBLIN route to run the extended service. Thanks Snoggle,can remember when it was every 30 minutes & no Sunday service. |
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Sept 8, 2017 14:33:58 GMT
The scope for further service enhancements is helpfully listed in Snoggle's post on 2 Sept. This got me wondering whether the current Network Rail planning process/model is defective. It seems that somewhere in the process, disruption of customers is not being given any, or perhaps enough weighting, so customers end up enduring closure after closure. Since its transfer to Overground - Goblin has obviously been a victim of its own success, and seen serious passenger growth. Just to deliver 4 car electric services, customers have already been subject to a protracted line closure last year, with a long string of shorter closures happening this year culminating in an extended month and half closure running into next year. That seems more than enough inconvenience and disruption to expect any group of fare paying passengers to tolerate. and yet... In our increasingly connected world, mobilisation costs form a major component of many infrastructure enhancements - so it makes sense to make best use of those resources once mobilised. In a growth environment, if or when it really becomes necessary to disrupt customers, it probably makes sense to consider optimum use of that period of disruption, especially if significantly more than just the minimum enhancement can be delivered at only minimal additional cost/delay. I am rather disappointed to see Snoggle suggesting that passengers face the prospect of further closures for additional platform extension work if current traffic growth continues and justifies a move to 5 car trains on the line. With all the recent disruption of GOBLIN closures, it seems crazy that NR were not forced to make even passive provision to allow a seamless switch to 5 car trains without the need for further closures. I would be astounded if that switch will be long delayed, given the recent go-ahead for the Riverside extension which will bring massive demand from the new build workforce and subsequent residential development in the new Riverside community. The planning model is defective, as it is bound to be when those responsible for the infrastructure upgrades are not tied to the operational side of the railway, and the train operators are reimbursed well for loss of income due to upgrade work. The incentives for both are blunted. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 8, 2017 20:29:46 GMT
The scope for further service enhancements is helpfully listed in Snoggle's post on 2 Sept. This got me wondering whether the current Network Rail planning process/model is defective. It seems that somewhere in the process, disruption of customers is not being given any, or perhaps enough weighting, so customers end up enduring closure after closure. Since its transfer to Overground - Goblin has obviously been a victim of its own success, and seen serious passenger growth. Just to deliver 4 car electric services, customers have already been subject to a protracted line closure last year, with a long string of shorter closures happening this year culminating in an extended month and half closure running into next year. That seems more than enough inconvenience and disruption to expect any group of fare paying passengers to tolerate. and yet... In our increasingly connected world, mobilisation costs form a major component of many infrastructure enhancements - so it makes sense to make best use of those resources once mobilised. In a growth environment, if or when it really becomes necessary to disrupt customers, it probably makes sense to consider optimum use of that period of disruption, especially if significantly more than just the minimum enhancement can be delivered at only minimal additional cost/delay. I am rather disappointed to see Snoggle suggesting that passengers face the prospect of further closures for additional platform extension work if current traffic growth continues and justifies a move to 5 car trains on the line. With all the recent disruption of GOBLIN closures, it seems crazy that NR were not forced to make even passive provision to allow a seamless switch to 5 car trains without the need for further closures. I would be astounded if that switch will be long delayed, given the recent go-ahead for the Riverside extension which will bring massive demand from the new build workforce and subsequent residential development in the new Riverside community. To be strictly accurate I made no statements about further closures or passenger disruption. You have implied that from the descriptions of work I made. It is worth noting that a lot of the 5 car extension works on the NLL route were achieved without any form of blockade and only a few Sunday closures. The GOBLIN is probably easier to do given a lot of old platforms remain and would only need limited works to bring back into service. The problem locations have been identified by others - Gospel Oak, S Tottenham and Blackhorse Rd. The latter is certainly not insurmountable as space exists at each end of the platforms. The first two are more difficult. Anyway the general view, in the Riverside extension thread, is that TfL could go to 5 tph before they went to 5 car train lengths - presumably because that would be a lower capital cost and a much shorter introduction phase depending on when the rolling stock was ordered. Given huge numbers of Adventras are going to be built TfL should be able to get reasonable prices for a fair few years as the jigs won't have been binned by Bombardier. There also seems to be a view that 5 tph is achieveable with the existing signalling even allowing for freight workings. I think the whole issue of closure planning / compensation payments to operators is deeply flawed on NR. It wasn't ideal under a similar concept with PPP on LU but there was at least a mechanism which identified the scale of disruption with appropriately high lost customer hour values (LCH) as a "charge" against the Infraco's closure allowance. They had to pay cold hard cash if they went beyond their allowance. There doesn't seem to be any "customer facing" equivalent on NR but then the entire model is financially driven with negligible recognition of wider societal benefits/impacts from railway operations or enhancement projects. Perhaps no great shock given rail privatisation was supposed to get the railways off the Treasury's bill - like that worked!!  We have debated the whole "passive provision" thing before. Unless there is a clear and firm *and funded* commitment to future phases of enhancement you're never going to get passive provision sneaked into an earlier phase of work. It'll be rooted out in the review phases before any paper seeking funding / procurement authority gets to an approval meeting. There is no agreed trajectory as to how London Overground will develop and very little in the Mayor's Transport Strategy with a firm commitment. The future of the Old Oak Common redevelopment has gone very quiet indeed meaning that any associated changes to Overground services (and related capacity works) have vanished from view. While the situation with the GOBLIN works is far from ideal I think we should be grateful that it has not been cancelled part way through. Given what seems to be the prevailing attitude at the DfT to any major works I'd venture to suggest that if TfL were not part funding / part sponsor of the works that DfT would have scrapped the project and just left the masts in the ground. We may never know how much it cost and who bore the extra costs but I will simply be pleased to see the work finished and for new trains to be in service. I do get a sense that the works that are happening now seem to be rather better co-ordinated but we will judge by results after the upcoming blockade. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Sept 9, 2017 0:44:06 GMT
Ah. Ah ah ahhhh! But even this process on LUL was massively flawed, with the total amount of time attributed to infrastructure failings being grossly and consistently undervalued, due in part to it being calculated using flawed simulations. Given how much more fragmented things are on the big railways, I suspect that it would be impossible in the current set-up to model such values meaningfully, let alone accurately. And let alone if you actually want it to reflect the true societal cost. And even if everything came back under one roof, you'd still have the treasury insisting on artificial costing methods. In short, one would be hoping for the impossible to be calculated, under an outrageously different set of circumstances, using difficult to define parameters, organised by people who might not actually want to do it a certain way.
This sadly becomes a lesson in politics and 'funny money', which is probably beyond the scope of this thread, certainly.
To pick up on Snoggles later point on how passive provision is stripped, I think you've hit the nail on the head with this:
One could equally well say the same for buses, or for much of Londons' transport at the moment. Unlike the broad expansionist policies enacted under Ken, the fragmentation of ideas resultant from his successor seems to be carrying on under Khan, though with the now neutered calls for further rail devolution still repeated. The only mode that seems to be pushing forward with new works is possibly the cycle network, unfortunately to the detriment of other road based public transport users. The trouble is, as has been related on other threads, that excessive and repeated budget cuts have crippled the ability to plan properly for the future. All aspirations have seemingly been dumped publicly, though I hope internally they have just been filed away waiting their time to be dusted off and brought up to date.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Sept 11, 2017 17:00:41 GMT
Edit to add this I've just come across:
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 11, 2017 18:50:42 GMT
Edit to add this I've just come across: It's surely deeply worrying that the "after" picture shows no electrification at all. What *are* they doing?   |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Sept 11, 2017 20:29:33 GMT
Edit to add this I've just come across: It's surely deeply worrying that the "after" picture shows no electrification at all. What *are* they doing? It's all a ruse for a return to steam operation. But don't let on . . .  |
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Sept 11, 2017 20:42:42 GMT
Ironically, steam railtours often go down that line...
|
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Sept 12, 2017 7:53:23 GMT
Edit to add this I've just come across: It's surely deeply worrying that the "after" picture shows no electrification at all. What *are* they doing? They're on their tea break by the looks of it snoggle. |
|
|
|
Post by regp41 on Sept 25, 2017 10:27:56 GMT
Will the current (Sept-Oct 2017) blockade end on time or is it likely to overrun?
I ask because I'm scheduled to take a group of OAPs to the Walthamstow Wetlands on 19 October and we need to use the Goblin from Barking to Blackhorse Road.
We are considering postponing the trip to 26th October rather than cancel it, but my concern is bearing in mind the history of this work will the Line be reopened on time?
After the first weeks work, does anyone have any idea what the situation is?
Mods, if this is in the wrong place, please move it for me.
Ray
|
|
|
|
Post by Tubeboy on Sept 25, 2017 12:58:09 GMT
Will the current (Sept-Oct 2017) blockade end on time or is it likely to overrun? I ask because I'm scheduled to take a group of OAPs to the Walthamstow Wetlands on 19 October and we need to use the Goblin from Barking to Blackhorse Road. We are considering postponing the trip to 26th October rather than cancel it, but my concern is bearing in mind the history of this work will the Line be reopened on time? After the first weeks work, does anyone have any idea what the situation is? Mods, if this is in the wrong place, please move it for me. Ray Difficult to tell, worst case scenario you'd have the replacement bus service as a back up. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 25, 2017 13:56:30 GMT
Will the current (Sept-Oct 2017) blockade end on time or is it likely to overrun? I ask because I'm scheduled to take a group of OAPs to the Walthamstow Wetlands on 19 October and we need to use the Goblin from Barking to Blackhorse Road. We are considering postponing the trip to 26th October rather than cancel it, but my concern is bearing in mind the history of this work will the Line be reopened on time? After the first weeks work, does anyone have any idea what the situation is? Mods, if this is in the wrong place, please move it for me. Ray I don't see why the work that's currently happening will cause an overrun of the blockade. AIUI wires are being strung from the western end of the route and the remaining masts installed at the eastern end. These are relatively non disruptive tasks unlike track lowering and bridge replacement which, if late, would prevent trains from running. If wiring work runs late NR simply have to stop the work at an appropriate section and then prepare the route for reopening. Wiring is done in sections anyway. Ditto installing masts - perfectly feasible to stop at a given point. On the assumption your group are reasonably fit then you could get a bus (EL1 / 169) from Barking to Ilford and then take the 123 which stops outside the Wetlands. If the RRS is still operating (if for some mad reason there is an overrun) then take that to Walthamstow Central and take a 230 bus which will set you down outside the Wetlands entrance. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 25, 2017 14:08:43 GMT
Ooh look - wires being strung up on the GOBLIN. Play the clip in the tweet to see the wiring train in action. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 8, 2017 19:05:41 GMT
Just a little update. Went along Ferry Lane in Walthamstow today which is beside the GOBLIN. Wires now fully installed on both eastbound and westbound tracks. Obviously I am not an electrification engineer but the contact wire, hangers and upper wire are all in place. Not sure how far east they have got - possibly as far as Queens Road but I'd need to go and check. Pleasing to see after such a long wait.
|
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,275
|
Post by roythebus on Oct 11, 2017 21:12:13 GMT
Surely the GOBLIN goes up and down, not eastbound and westbound?
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Oct 12, 2017 6:37:37 GMT
Surely the GOBLIN goes up and down, not eastbound and westbound? But which direction is up? |
|
|
|
Post by dazz285 on Oct 12, 2017 6:56:58 GMT
Up is from Barking to Gospel Oak
|
|
|
|
Post by caravelle on Oct 12, 2017 7:02:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 12, 2017 10:20:25 GMT
One small further update. Had a look at the line at Selborne Rd, E17 yesterday. This is close to Queens Rd station. No wires have reached this far which suggests they've stopped in the vicinity of Blackhorse Rd for the moment. This is one of the areas with tighter clearances and then leads on to the viaduct section. I haven't seen this section for a while so don't know if all the masts are in place.
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Oct 12, 2017 11:42:19 GMT
No wiring in the vicinity of Leytonstone yesterday
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz285 on Oct 12, 2017 14:26:23 GMT
Block is on until 22nd Oct then a further closure is expected between Saturday 25 November 2017 and Sunday 14 January 2018. so fingers crossed it will all be done by 14th Jan 2018
|
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Oct 12, 2017 15:41:27 GMT
Up is from Barking to Gospel Oak Yes, as the rule is that "up" is generally in the direction of the London terminus and the GOBLIN trains used to start in St Pancras. |
|
|
|
Post by lulfan on Oct 13, 2017 8:49:38 GMT
No wiring in the vicinity of Leytonstone yesterday When time permits I will post my memories of the Gobln from the 60's back then we called it "The Midland" I lived in Leytonstone then and it would be great if someone can post pics of the line when the wires go up I would really like to see them |
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Oct 13, 2017 9:14:37 GMT
Lulfan -- quite right. Walthamstow station was known as "The Midland station" and of course so was and is Leyton. I didn't live in Leytonstone but expect it was the same there.
Incidentally, platform direction signs (relevant to the up/down question read "To Tottenham and St Pancras" and "To Barking, East Ham, and Fenchurch St"
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Oct 13, 2017 10:28:27 GMT
Remember the daily coal train in the morning at Queen's Rd coal sdgs & the daily afternoon goods train at Boundary Rd goods depot.
|
|
|
|
Post by vinnielo on Oct 13, 2017 13:49:06 GMT
Will the current (Sept-Oct 2017) blockade end on time or is it likely to overrun? I ask because I'm scheduled to take a group of OAPs to the Walthamstow Wetlands on 19 October and we need to use the Goblin from Barking to Blackhorse Road. We are considering postponing the trip to 26th October rather than cancel it, but my concern is bearing in mind the history of this work will the Line be reopened on time? I'd go after the Wetlands has opened its doors on October 20th! |
|
|
|
Post by dazz285 on Oct 17, 2017 9:24:53 GMT
Some info just sent to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 17, 2017 12:17:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Oct 24, 2017 7:47:07 GMT
So it looks like NR are at last committing enough resource to actually deliver the Goblin electrification project next spring.
Which prompts the obvious follow on question - how much extra is this going to cost? I think the original contract with Murphy was for £56m. But the subsequent overrun and finger pointing accusations about stuff being badly designed suggests the eventual bill will be a whole lot more. Indeed once the lawyers get involved you can almost guarantee it.
So who ends up paying?
NR (who eventually recover it from Track access charges)- so passengers, tfl (who eventually recover the cost from fares) - so passengers, or was this a fixed price contract where the contractor picks up the overrun?
I spotted a recent contract award in Global Rail News which makes an interesting comparison:
Munich - Zurich line
I sometimes feel the fragmented rail structure is not delivering best VFM. On the face of it for €13m(£11.6m) the Swiss/Germans can retrofit OLE to 38km (23.6miles) of railway. Meantime in London we spend £56m to install OLE on just 12 miles of Goblin. OK I acknowledge this is not a very fair like with like comparison - Goblin needed serious civil engineering for clearances on bridges and tunnels but then again the Swiss had to rebuild two stations to allow clearance for high speed through services and they contend with serious eco restrictions - where even a minor oil spill results in big fines for the contractor.
Are we being taken for a ride? pun intended 
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 24, 2017 23:47:03 GMT
So it looks like NR are at last committing enough resource to actually deliver the Goblin electrification project next spring.
Which prompts the obvious follow on question - how much extra is this going to cost? I think the original contract with Murphy was for £56m. But the subsequent overrun and finger pointing accusations about stuff being badly designed suggests the eventual bill will be a whole lot more. Indeed once the lawyers get involved you can almost guarantee it.
So who ends up paying?
NR (who eventually recover it from Track access charges)- so passengers, tfl (who eventually recover the cost from fares) - so passengers, or was this a fixed price contract where the contractor picks up the overrun?
I spotted a recent contract award in Global Rail News which makes an interesting comparison:
Munich - Zurich line
I sometimes feel the fragmented rail structure is not delivering best VFM. On the face of it for €13m (£11.6m) the Swiss/Germans can retrofit OLE to 38km (23.6miles) of railway. Meantime in London we spend £56m to install OLE on just 12 miles of Goblin. OK I acknowledge this is not a very fair like with like comparison - Goblin needed serious civil engineering for clearances on bridges and tunnels but then again the Swiss had to rebuild two stations to allow clearance for high speed through services and they contend with serious eco restrictions - where even a minor oil spill results in big fines for the contractor.
Are we being taken for a ride? pun intended I don't think we will ever know. Someone requested the TfL review of the GOBLIN electrification project via FOI. TfL refused citing an absolute exclusion clause under the relevant legislation. As you acknowledge it is extremely difficult to make fair and objective international comparisons on project costs and I don't think comparing Germany or Switzerland with suburban London is particularly fair. To my mind the biggest issues in the UK are lack of project and engineering experience in delivering main line electrification. We've seen this writ large on several other schemes in the UK. I doubt Germany or Switzerland are lacking in such experience given their extensive electrified networks and ongoing enhancement programmes requiring more / amended electrification. I expect that whatever commercial settlement there is will be between the Dft, TfL, Network Rail and the contractors. I believe TfL's project funding contribution is fixed at £25m plus the cost of the rolling stock which is funded separately. I understand TfL are claiming for the extra revenue loss resulting from more / longer closures and costs of extra rail replacement buses. I have no idea how the contract structure works and where the risk sits for time / cost overruns. I don't see the cost being borne by passengers because TfL take revenue risk and there is a fares freeze that is funded across TfL via cost savings and other initiatives. The most likely impact is from reduced investment by NR or cuts to other initiatives although any sensible organisation should have centrally funded risk allocations separate from the normal investment budgets. |
|
