Goblin Electrification info

If I am reading this right a train did run early this morning all the way from Barking to Gospel Oak

www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K96316/2018/01/12/advanced

It seems it didn't get past Woodgrange Park, left Barking 38 minutes early but arrived Woodgrange Park 30 minutes late, took over an hour and a quarter to do a 4 minute journey?

Normal service for Southern... 

The test train managed to reach Barking this morning. The signalling map of the GOBLIN on Opentraintimes had "5 car" showing at Barking platform 1. The runs yesterday were at the western end of the route.


Some more tweets from the testing company

That link shows that the train didn't continue past Woodgrange park, otherwise the "Realtime" column would have the times shown in bold, and with descriptions (30L, RT, 2E, etc) next to it. Unless of course you are privy to internal information about the train making it to Gospel Oak, coupled with the train picking up a new headcode (or the data feed going awry in some otherway) after Woodgrange Park

There's no need to be humble. Some of the howlers made by us all here are legendary and don't matter in the end. Provided the corrections are administered in a polite and good mannered way (as above, thank you domh245) then we all learn something. And that's the way it should be. 

They appear to have had a successful time.

The journey was still scheduled to take an hour and nine mins however it was 55mins down by the time it got to Upper Holloway (left for Barking at 01:48), had a 30min stand at Woodgrange Pk and reached Barking at 03:04 54mins down. Looks like it ran at full line speed between Holloway and Woodgrange taking only 20mins.

Just a short post to say that the line is closed this weekend while Network Rail raise the bridge at Crouch Hill station. It will be interesting to see how discernible the difference is when services resume on Monday.

The line user group provided a short update a few weeks ago - www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk/latest_news.htm

I wonder whether this was really necessary... its well known that in circa 2016 the office of road and rail (ORR) adopted EU safety gap distances between overhead wires and places such as the underside of bridges. When they did this they even applied the new regulations retrospectively, refusing to sign off electrification projects which were underway and where bridges were compliant with the regulations at the time when the works had commenced.  Instead they required that the bridges be replaced - at great additional and unbudgeted expense. It is possible that the new regulations and consequential cost over-runs are directly to blame for some other electrification projects having been delayed or even cancelled.

So, I wonder, would the safety gap have been sufficient at the bridge at Crouch Hill station if the Goblin electrification works had been performed in the days of BR or Railtrack (ie: prior to the ORR stiffening the safety gap regulations)?


Notes to further explain the situation.
In 1962 BR adopted a minimum safety gap at difficult space restricted locations of 200mm, and this reduced costs on the Euston - Manchester / Liverpool electrification by about 7%. As far as I am aware decades of experience since then has proven that 200mm was a sensible and safe distance.

Whilst Railtrack raised the normal minimum distance to 270mm they also retained the 200mm and even allowed as little as 150mm at locations where space was extremely restricted. I suspect that the lower distance came about from a combination of experience and newer materials.

Now the minimum safety distance is 370mm.

Simon

Yes I know the history. It's been well debated in several different places. The fact is that the work's been done now at Crouch Hill and we've got an electrified GOBLIN. Questioning the necessity after the fact seems rather pointless to me.

The difference now is that each time there is a height clearance problem it must be risk assessed.

I am a tad sceptical that the clearances issue was a "big" factor in escalating costs. I think a distinct lack of planning, surveying and an industry wide loss of expertise / knowledge account for the appalling cost overruns on the Great Western electrification. Similar issues affected parts of the work on the GOBLIN during the first set of blockades. Having a break (for want of a better word) seems to have allowed the GOBLIN errors to be reviewed and a far better programme and delivery process to be put in place. I understand, but am happy to be corrected, that on the Midland Main Line a sensible programme of bridge raising, track realignment and other smaller scale interventions have been in progress for a few years with more planned to provide a compatible and compliant route for electrification. I assume, but don't know, that the bridge raising / replacement on the MML has all been risk assessed and passed or has waivers in place. That strikes me as a sensible way forward. The shame is that the much supported programme of electrification has been cancelled. We can only hope that a future SoS reverses this decision and wires do reach Sheffield eventually.

I don't see there being any risks to Crossrail in respect of clearances - the line is electrified throughout. The old catenary has been replaced on the eastern section and no one has run round raising all the overbridges there. I assume "grandfather rights" apply and that TfL, Network Rail and Bombardier were all aware of that when Crossrail works and rolling stock was specced. As for the Riverside extension it is either on existing electrified tracks or on new viaduct structures all the way to the terminus. Therefore there are no overbridge clearance issues at all.

The most important thing is that Network Rail does a shed load of "lessons learnt" from its electrification works and ensures expertise and knowledge is retained and made available for those who will manage future electrification schemes. While the cost overruns on the GWML electrification were / are horrendous I think they are only part of the reason for the DfT decision. I think Mr Grayling wanted to be seen to be doing something "decisive" and there is the long held "bionic duckweed" (whizzo new technologies to the rescue) thinking amongst some at the DfT. Yes there are some moves around battery technology / hydrogen power / whatever but most rational railway people the world over support the use of electrification. I think the whole "bi-mode" / new tech to the rescue thing is part of postponing assumed infrastructure maintenance costs for an electrified railway and a way of creating some sort of "Grayling legacy". A pretty awful and useless legacy IMO but he's not exactly got the best of records as a Govt Minister (plenty of press coverage / audit reports / select cttee investigations / policy reversals to evidence this).

Battery technology is not yet that far advanced, which is explains why diesel hybrid buses exist and 'in motion charging' of battery equipped trolleybuses is becoming ever more popular (hopefully coming to London too). For railways I can think of at least one route where such could prove viable in London but as it would not include the Goblin service I'm not going to mention it in this thread.

re: overhead wire safety clearances, if Goblin was ever to be extended from Barking Riverside to south of the river then perhaps using the old BR safety clearances will mean that the tunnels could be slightly smaller - and hence cheaper. But maybe the saving would be in the 'penny in the pound' category. Station platforms and the dangers of a person who is 6ft (2m) tall using a selfie stick reaching the overhead wires are a different and probably justified reason for the changed regulations.

Simon