Goblin Electrification info

Yes, but this was in the context of Crossrail. Most freight for the Goblin comes from the LTS and goes via Barking, so wouldn't be affected by GEML pathing problems till the augmented service of 2019. So the routing via NLL is unaffected till then...

Yes, by 2019!

Whichever stock you use, you have to train the drivers on it (time and money) and chances are someone will have to pay to prove the route clearance. TfL don't own the 315s so they will have to pay leasing costs - and they will have to pay more than whoever is currently scheduled to get them. Track access charges though should I think be cheaper for EMUs than DMUs, but by how much I have no clue.

Part of me also suspects that they want the shiny new trains as part of a big "tah dah!"

It's not like northern England (Aire Valley, Chat Moss) where we get cast-off trains for several years under the wires until they fall to bits, then get brand new units.

I'm not sure the 315s are destined for anywhere at present, so in theory leasing them *should* be cheap.

They were originally suggested for Cardiff suburban area electrification, but that seems to have disappeared into the long grass at least for the immediate future. There will be other newer EMUs available for elsewhere which would also have the advantage over 315s of being 100mph-capable, for example 317s from both Great Northern and London Overground, 321s from Great Northern, and possibly still some 319s available too.

One issue with 315s on the Gospel Oak line would be the need to provide some form of DOO setup. The new trains would not require so much equipment as presumably they will have bodyside cameras. Platform-mounted DOO equipment is costly to install and maintain.

Could not the 315s be operated with a guard in the rear cab if lack of DOO was a showstopper?

Maintenance - would paths to Ilford via Sth Tottenham and Lea Bridge be such a problem early and late? Not so sure about capacity of sidings, particularly on the Enfield etc branches, accessible via Seven Sisters. Chingford would be more problematic for the reason Snoggle states... a very silly decision in the 60s to take out the connections altogether, rather than singling them, as they did at Seven Sisters

I think it all boils down to doing things properly. What we have with the line now is an improvement on what we had. A little bit of pain prepares the line for what everybody wants from the next stage. A bit like open heart surgery, it'll knock you out for months but in the end it's the best way, as opposed to a series of long-winded treatments that drag on interminably. It's the most likely way to stop you dying, so you go on from that point to live a better life.

The new trains will come, when the line is good and ready. 

I'd really like to see some more vocal support snd thanks for the fact that the electrification is taking place at all - responding to the public's prior moaning. Now TfL have said they'll do it they get another round of moaning - having explained how they're going to do it. Trust me, once the electrification is complete they'll get complaints about what the new trains look like and which direction the seats face........ 

A lot of highly qualified engineers with far more knowledge than we've got will have worked out the most advantageous way to proceed for the best long term benefit and I think we should all acknowledge there can be no gain without pain.

The end result will be enhanced services within a reasonable timescale. To suggest immediate interim use of old electric trains once the wires are up, when this is patently an operational, logistical, training and therefore financial nightmare is of no benefit. Wait patiently and thou shalt receive.......

During a long term shutdown people find alternative routes. Some of them discover alternatives that actually turn out to be better, and don't return. So it may take time for numbers to pick up again and the two cars might cope for a short while. Especially as the work is expected to finish just before the summer, when peak hour travelling is a bit less busy.

But yes, damned if you do. I can see the press giving TfL a rough time if any of the following happen
The 172s sit around idle for the duration of the works
The 172s find other employment during the works, and are no longer available when the line re-opens, so the passenger service has to reopen with something older (diesel or electric) until the 710s are avaialable.
The 172s come back - disappointment for Goblin users (who were expecting more) and for whoever had the benefit of them in the short term
TfL doesn't make a big noise about exactly when the wiring is energised, but wait until new trains are ready to use it - and as a result some trespasser gets electrocuted.
The 710s are rushed into service before they have gained enough running in time
The wiring runs late, and the 710s have to sit around idle until the wires are ready.

If you're desperate to get electric trains to the Goblin, could 378s (temporarily returned to 3 or 4 car format) be used on the Goblin? Where do you find 378s? Well, you could redeploy them from the WLL, which could run a shuttle with 313s, 350s or 377s (all of which have been used on the WLL in the past). Or, maybe run 172s in pairs on the Wat-Eus line to release some 378s for the Goblin.

You don't even need a big bang - you can launch with a mix of diesel and electric, maybe running 4-car class 172 formations on the remaining diagrams as the electrics are phased in.

Apart from the time and cost of reducing them to 4-car and gauging/training, etc., 378s will not be used on GOBLIN - there is only just enough to satisfy demand on the NLL/WLL/ELL and DC!  All other types (350/377 etc) would require gauging and training and again, there is the matter of the the fact that they are already contracted to work of other ToCs.  The GN 313s are already falling apart so please don't wish them on anyone else!  And as for pairs of 172s on the DC - I think not!  Quite apart from anything else, the LO 172s are not (as far as I know) equipped with trip cocks which are a must for DC line working (all 378/2s are so equipped).

The NR work programme states quite clearly that all OLE must be commissioned for passenger and freight use by 1 July 2017.   My guess is that either the 172s will fill in till the 710/2s are ready in May 2018 or possibly 315s from TfL Rail with suitable DOO arrangements probably a dispatcher on each platform - not cheap but less expensive than providing (qualified) guards. 

Metman - banned from leading a formation on LUL lines; I believe they can work in multiple with a tripcock fitted unit at the front.

Whistlekiller - Just to get back to your point that it'd be good to hear more praise for the work actually going ahead at long last. I do absolutely agree. It is frustrating that anything that goes badly gets moaned about, yet anything good happening is still moaned about because its not good enough! Electrification is certainly welcome and progress on the former impasse. One must have sympathy though with those who aren't as positive; the sad fact is that we are only *just* seeing a public transport system and network fit for the 1980s - in time for 40 years late and at a hugely inflated cost. My sympathy lies with the people who are actually tasked with getting things done, as most of them as astute enough to be aware of each projects pedigree and the myriad reasons for its continual delay. No doubt they could be the most informed cynics of all of us! But their employment contracts probably prevent them from being too blunt in public


To another previous point made about platform lengths. Again, no doubt they will only be 'to spec' for 4car formations. That doesn't mean though that passive provision wont be made for further, later, extensions. It does seem odd though that business cases more or less rely on 'we should have done this before now' being their main justification!

Finally - isn't it about time someone designed a PMSO carriage for S stock? All these metro proposals around the country, including London. If TfL could standardise on one design family for full size trains that could represent real money savings.

Dare I say it...
"You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" ;-)

Yup but with short platforms this generally precludes their use on the Amersham route. There's nothing to say a 165/168 can lead but I've never seen it!

What is a PMSO carriage?

Pantograph (it has a coathanger on the roof)
Motor (at least some of the axles are powered - as distinct from a Trailer vehicle)
Standard Class (redundant information on the Underground)
Open (i.e not compartment - again redundant information on the Underground and almost so on NR)

The suggestion is that S stock design be configured to be capable of using current collection from overhead wires as well as (or even instead of) the live rails - like a class 378. It would actually involve a significant redesign, as in this country at least all overhead electrification is high voltage ac, so as well as a pantograph you need a transformer and a rectifier to convert to low voltage dc for traction use - even modern ac control systems need to filter out the 50Hz supply frequency before they can generate the variable frequencies needed to drive the motors.

But why bother? The 378 design from the same manufacturer - indeed the same factory - can already do all that.

In fact a quick Google reveals that the "Movia" design of which both 2009 and S stock are examples is used in several other metro systems, mainly live rail, but including an OHLE variant operating in Delhi