Discussion:
Gospel Electificationlectrification
Add Reply
Robin9
2017-02-04 10:37:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Duplicate post. Please ignore


--
Robin9
Robin9
2017-02-19 18:42:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Both yesterday and today, and possibly earlier, two-car
DMUs have been travelling along the line, presumably for
driver training/route familiarisation purposes.

Strolling around Leytonstone this afternoon, I noticed that
three bridges in the elevated section in the Samson Road/
Montague Road area have been replaced


--
Robin9
Recliner
2017-02-19 21:45:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robin9
Both yesterday and today, and possibly earlier, two-car
DMUs have been travelling along the line, presumably for
driver training/route familiarisation purposes.
Presumably the line's own 172s? They've been parked at Willesden during
the closure.
Post by Robin9
Strolling around Leytonstone this afternoon, I noticed that
three bridges in the elevated section in the Samson Road/
Montague Road area have been replaced.
s***@potato.field
2017-02-20 11:08:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 21:45:36 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin9
Both yesterday and today, and possibly earlier, two-car
DMUs have been travelling along the line, presumably for
driver training/route familiarisation purposes.
Presumably the line's own 172s? They've been parked at Willesden during
the closure.
I'm surprised TfL hasn't sold them given they'll be redundant on the LO
network when electrification is complete.
--
Spud
Roland Perry
2017-02-20 11:37:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin9
Both yesterday and today, and possibly earlier, two-car
DMUs have been travelling along the line, presumably for
driver training/route familiarisation purposes.
Presumably the line's own 172s? They've been parked at Willesden during
the closure.
I'm surprised TfL hasn't sold them
I think the lessor (Angel Trains) would have something to say if TfL
sold them!!
Post by s***@potato.field
given they'll be redundant on the LO network when electrification is
complete.
--
Roland Perry
s***@potato.field
2017-02-20 12:34:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 11:37:08 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin9
Both yesterday and today, and possibly earlier, two-car
DMUs have been travelling along the line, presumably for
driver training/route familiarisation purposes.
Presumably the line's own 172s? They've been parked at Willesden during
the closure.
I'm surprised TfL hasn't sold them
I think the lessor (Angel Trains) would have something to say if TfL
sold them!!
I didn't realised they were leased. Is that a choice TfL made or was it
forced upon them I wonder?
--
Spud
Roland Perry
2017-02-20 12:42:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin9
Both yesterday and today, and possibly earlier, two-car
DMUs have been travelling along the line, presumably for
driver training/route familiarisation purposes.
Presumably the line's own 172s? They've been parked at Willesden during
the closure.
I'm surprised TfL hasn't sold them
I think the lessor (Angel Trains) would have something to say if TfL
sold them!!
I didn't realised they were leased. Is that a choice TfL made or was it
forced upon them I wonder?
Almost all rolling stock is leased. And it's TfL imposing it on Arriva
Rail London (just as DfT does on its management contracts such as with
GTR).
--
Roland Perry
s***@potato.field
2017-02-20 12:51:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:42:03 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin9
Both yesterday and today, and possibly earlier, two-car
DMUs have been travelling along the line, presumably for
driver training/route familiarisation purposes.
Presumably the line's own 172s? They've been parked at Willesden during
the closure.
I'm surprised TfL hasn't sold them
I think the lessor (Angel Trains) would have something to say if TfL
sold them!!
I didn't realised they were leased. Is that a choice TfL made or was it
forced upon them I wonder?
Almost all rolling stock is leased. And it's TfL imposing it on Arriva
Rail London (just as DfT does on its management contracts such as with
GTR).
AFAIK tube trains are all owned outright by LU. Is this not the case with
the 378s on LO then?
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-02-20 12:57:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:42:03 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin9
Both yesterday and today, and possibly earlier, two-car
DMUs have been travelling along the line, presumably for
driver training/route familiarisation purposes.
Presumably the line's own 172s? They've been parked at Willesden during
the closure.
I'm surprised TfL hasn't sold them
I think the lessor (Angel Trains) would have something to say if TfL
sold them!!
I didn't realised they were leased. Is that a choice TfL made or was it
forced upon them I wonder?
Almost all rolling stock is leased. And it's TfL imposing it on Arriva
Rail London (just as DfT does on its management contracts such as with
GTR).
AFAIK tube trains are all owned outright by LU. Is this not the case with
the 378s on LO then?
No
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-02-20 20:58:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:42:03 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin9
Both yesterday and today, and possibly earlier, two-car
DMUs have been travelling along the line, presumably for
driver training/route familiarisation purposes.
Presumably the line's own 172s? They've been parked at Willesden
during the closure.
I'm surprised TfL hasn't sold them
I think the lessor (Angel Trains) would have something to say if TfL
sold them!!
I didn't realised they were leased. Is that a choice TfL made or was
it forced upon them I wonder?
Almost all rolling stock is leased. And it's TfL imposing it on Arriva
Rail London (just as DfT does on its management contracts such as with
GTR).
AFAIK tube trains are all owned outright by LU. Is this not the case
with the 378s on LO then?
London Overground is quite different to LUL. It is operated as a concession,
not by a TfL operator directly.

In the case of the 172s there is a further reason why they are leased. They
will go to a TOC elsewhere once displaced by the GOBLIN electrification.
This is much easier to do using the standard ROSCO model of ownership and
leasing.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
s***@potato.field
2017-02-21 09:36:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:58:50 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
AFAIK tube trains are all owned outright by LU. Is this not the case
with the 378s on LO then?
London Overground is quite different to LUL. It is operated as a concession,
not by a TfL operator directly.
In that case I can't help wondering if the service would be better if TfL
ran it directly.
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In the case of the 172s there is a further reason why they are leased. They
will go to a TOC elsewhere once displaced by the GOBLIN electrification.
This is much easier to do using the standard ROSCO model of ownership and
leasing.
Makes sense.
--
Spud
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-02-22 00:36:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:58:50 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
AFAIK tube trains are all owned outright by LU. Is this not the
case >> with the 378s on LO then?
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
London Overground is quite different to LUL. It is operated as a
concession, not by a TfL operator directly.
In that case I can't help wondering if the service would be better if TfL
ran it directly.
The main reason is that in general TfL don't own the tracks which in some
cases are shared with TOCs. Another reason is that your Tory friends don;t
like state enterprise.
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In the case of the 172s there is a further reason why they are leased.
They will go to a TOC elsewhere once displaced by the GOBLIN
electrification. This is much easier to do using the standard ROSCO
model of ownership and leasing.
Makes sense.
Thank you.Is this a first from you?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Recliner
2017-02-22 01:15:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:58:50 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
AFAIK tube trains are all owned outright by LU. Is this not the
case >> with the 378s on LO then?
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
London Overground is quite different to LUL. It is operated as a
concession, not by a TfL operator directly.
In that case I can't help wondering if the service would be better if TfL
ran it directly.
The main reason is that in general TfL don't own the tracks which in some
cases are shared with TOCs. Another reason is that your Tory friends don;t
like state enterprise.
The main, reason, surely, is to keep the strike-prone LU unions away from
LO and the DLR?
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In the case of the 172s there is a further reason why they are leased.
They will go to a TOC elsewhere once displaced by the GOBLIN
electrification. This is much easier to do using the standard ROSCO
model of ownership and leasing.
Makes sense.
Thank you.Is this a first from you?
Mike Bristow
2017-02-22 10:20:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
The main reason is that in general TfL don't own the tracks which in some
cases are shared with TOCs. Another reason is that your Tory friends don;t
like state enterprise.
The main, reason, surely, is to keep the strike-prone LU unions away from
LO and the DLR?
Er, the RMT and ASLEF are the two main unions on LUL. And the main unions on
the overground would be the, er, RMT and ASLEF.
--
Mike Bristow ***@urgle.com
Recliner
2017-02-22 10:44:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
The main reason is that in general TfL don't own the tracks which in some
cases are shared with TOCs. Another reason is that your Tory friends don;t
like state enterprise.
The main, reason, surely, is to keep the strike-prone LU unions away from
LO and the DLR?
Er, the RMT and ASLEF are the two main unions on LUL. And the main unions on
the overground would be the, er, RMT and ASLEF.
The LU RMT branch seems particularly militant. Not so on LO.
Mike Bristow
2017-02-22 11:29:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
The LU RMT branch seems particularly militant. Not so on LO.
There is no LU RMT Branch; there are about 15 branches covering LU.
Likewise, there is no LO branch. I'm not familiar enough with the
way they organize, but I would expect there to be at least 3 branches
with LO staff as members.

It looks, to my very uninformed eye, to be one branch per depot or
so, which makes a great deal of sense from a logistics POV. There
is also a fairly hard split between LU and NR branches, which makes
sense too, but here from a "sort of issues likely to be faced by
members" POV.

I don't think a single RMT branch with both LO and LU members is
likely anytime soon, regardless of the operating model.
--
Mike Bristow ***@urgle.com
s***@potato.field
2017-02-22 09:44:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:36:28 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:58:50 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
AFAIK tube trains are all owned outright by LU. Is this not the
case >> with the 378s on LO then?
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
London Overground is quite different to LUL. It is operated as a
concession, not by a TfL operator directly.
In that case I can't help wondering if the service would be better if TfL
ran it directly.
The main reason is that in general TfL don't own the tracks which in some
cases are shared with TOCs. Another reason is that your Tory friends don;t
like state enterprise.
I didn't vote for the tories in the last election. Right now I wouldn't vote
for anyone including ukip. They're all a bunch of useless dissembling pillocks.
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In the case of the 172s there is a further reason why they are leased.
They will go to a TOC elsewhere once displaced by the GOBLIN
electrification. This is much easier to do using the standard ROSCO
model of ownership and leasing.
Makes sense.
Thank you.Is this a first from you?
Unlike you I don't bear grudges. If I think you're being a twat I'll let you
know, ditto if you make a sensible comment.
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-02-20 12:21:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 21:45:36 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin9
Both yesterday and today, and possibly earlier, two-car
DMUs have been travelling along the line, presumably for
driver training/route familiarisation purposes.
Presumably the line's own 172s? They've been parked at Willesden during
the closure.
I'm surprised TfL hasn't sold them given they'll be redundant on the LO
network when electrification is complete.
They will be needed when the line reopens this month, partly because
the electrification won't be complete, and even after it is, because
the new trains don't arrive till next year. There had been local
pressure for some other redundant old 4-car EMUs to be used until the
new trains arrive, but TfL hasn't shown much enthusiasm.
s***@potato.field
2017-02-20 12:35:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:21:54 +0000
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 21:45:36 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin9
Both yesterday and today, and possibly earlier, two-car
DMUs have been travelling along the line, presumably for
driver training/route familiarisation purposes.
Presumably the line's own 172s? They've been parked at Willesden during
the closure.
I'm surprised TfL hasn't sold them given they'll be redundant on the LO
network when electrification is complete.
They will be needed when the line reopens this month, partly because
the electrification won't be complete, and even after it is, because
the new trains don't arrive till next year. There had been local
pressure for some other redundant old 4-car EMUs to be used until the
new trains arrive, but TfL hasn't shown much enthusiasm.
Of course if TfL had ordered a few extra 378s back in 2014.... but we've
done that argument.
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-02-20 12:53:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:21:54 +0000
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 21:45:36 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin9
Both yesterday and today, and possibly earlier, two-car
DMUs have been travelling along the line, presumably for
driver training/route familiarisation purposes.
Presumably the line's own 172s? They've been parked at Willesden during
the closure.
I'm surprised TfL hasn't sold them given they'll be redundant on the LO
network when electrification is complete.
They will be needed when the line reopens this month, partly because
the electrification won't be complete, and even after it is, because
the new trains don't arrive till next year. There had been local
pressure for some other redundant old 4-car EMUs to be used until the
new trains arrive, but TfL hasn't shown much enthusiasm.
Of course if TfL had ordered a few extra 378s back in 2014.... but we've
done that argument.
On what basis could TfL have ordered any kind of EMUs in Feb 2013
(when the last 378 carriage order was authorised) for a line whose
electrification contract was only awarded in September 2015?

You seem to have a remarkably cavalier approach to public spending!
You'd be the first to complain if fleets of new trains were ordered
prematurely, and then not used because plans had changed.
s***@potato.field
2017-02-20 13:15:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:53:51 +0000
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Of course if TfL had ordered a few extra 378s back in 2014.... but we've
done that argument.
On what basis could TfL have ordered any kind of EMUs in Feb 2013
(when the last 378 carriage order was authorised) for a line whose
electrification contract was only awarded in September 2015?
On the basis that it was likely to happen and a few extra trains couldn't
hurt anyway. According to wonkypedia 57 of the 378s were built so another
6 or so (I'm guessing it'll be around that required for the goblin) would
hardly have broken the bank considering the overall cost of the whole LO
project.

Plus there's this interesting snippet:

"In July 2015, London Overground announced an order for 45 new Class 710 units,
some of which would displace the Class 378s in use on the Watford DC Line.
These displaced units will then be cascaded to strengthen services on the other
lines the units are used on."

So in other words they didn't order enough 378s in the first place.
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-02-20 13:55:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:53:51 +0000
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Of course if TfL had ordered a few extra 378s back in 2014.... but we've
done that argument.
On what basis could TfL have ordered any kind of EMUs in Feb 2013
(when the last 378 carriage order was authorised) for a line whose
electrification contract was only awarded in September 2015?
On the basis that it was likely to happen and a few extra trains couldn't
hurt anyway. According to wonkypedia 57 of the 378s were built so another
6 or so (I'm guessing it'll be around that required for the goblin) would
hardly have broken the bank considering the overall cost of the whole LO
project.
Do you think TfL has lots of spare cash sloshing around that it can
squander on trains that may never be needed? Do you really know
nothing about public sector procurement?
Post by s***@potato.field
"In July 2015, London Overground announced an order for 45 new Class 710 units,
some of which would displace the Class 378s in use on the Watford DC Line.
These displaced units will then be cascaded to strengthen services on the other
lines the units are used on."
So in other words they didn't order enough 378s in the first place.
They knew that by 2015. They didn't when the last 378s were ordered,
more than two years earlier, or they'd have ordered more. In any case,
they'd have still needed to order more trains for the GOBLIN and the
new eastern LO lines, and 378 has now been superseded. Better that
they get more of the modern train, rather than the old one that costs
more to operate. But then, you seem to be keen that TfL wastes as much
money as possible, buying more trains that you've previously said you
hated.
s***@potato.field
2017-02-20 14:39:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 13:55:11 +0000
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On the basis that it was likely to happen and a few extra trains couldn't
hurt anyway. According to wonkypedia 57 of the 378s were built so another
6 or so (I'm guessing it'll be around that required for the goblin) would
hardly have broken the bank considering the overall cost of the whole LO
project.
Do you think TfL has lots of spare cash sloshing around that it can
squander on trains that may never be needed? Do you really know
nothing about public sector procurement?
Clearly they are needed for service improvements elsewhere anyway. Don't tell
me they didn't know that before 2015.
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
So in other words they didn't order enough 378s in the first place.
They knew that by 2015. They didn't when the last 378s were ordered,
more than two years earlier, or they'd have ordered more. In any case,
they'd have still needed to order more trains for the GOBLIN and the
new eastern LO lines, and 378 has now been superseded. Better that
they get more of the modern train, rather than the old one that costs
more to operate. But then, you seem to be keen that TfL wastes as much
money as possible, buying more trains that you've previously said you
hated.
So how much cheaper will the 710s be then once you've factored in the extra
costs of a new design, driver training, signalling and depot upgrades? Got any
independent stats rather than just self serving blurb from Bombardier?

Also you seem to have completely missed the point that using seperate EMU types
on the goblin keeps the line self contained. If they'd used dual voltage 378s
there could have been through services. Thats been shot out the water now
unless they're planning on testing and type approving the 710 for the whole NLL.
--
Spud
Paul Corfield
2017-02-21 17:56:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:53:51 +0000
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Of course if TfL had ordered a few extra 378s back in 2014.... but we've
done that argument.
On what basis could TfL have ordered any kind of EMUs in Feb 2013
(when the last 378 carriage order was authorised) for a line whose
electrification contract was only awarded in September 2015?
On the basis that it was likely to happen and a few extra trains couldn't
hurt anyway. According to wonkypedia 57 of the 378s were built so another
6 or so (I'm guessing it'll be around that required for the goblin) would
hardly have broken the bank considering the overall cost of the whole LO
project.
"In July 2015, London Overground announced an order for 45 new Class 710 units,
some of which would displace the Class 378s in use on the Watford DC Line.
These displaced units will then be cascaded to strengthen services on the other
lines the units are used on."
So in other words they didn't order enough 378s in the first place.
Oh for goodness sake. Of course they ordered enough trains. Things change. You can't buy class 378s now - they don't make them anymore. The reason for buying extra Class 710s is to allow a mini cascade off the Watford line, which doesn't need 5 car trains, to the ELL/NLL/WLL to allow *extra* peak services to run because overcrowding is now so severe. This was not the case back in 200x when initially 3 car 378s were ordered then Ken ordered extra carriages, then more trains were orderd for the ELL Phase 2 then even more for the SLL and then Boris ordered extra "5th cars" for the entire fleet. Hindsight is a great thing but no one knew back in 2006-7 that Overground patronage would soar as it has done. You can't get money released within TfL for what might happen - you can only get it for things that have a firm basis. This is what leads to the incremental approach - perhaps not always ideal but that's what we're stuck with in the UK.

It is also worth noting that the Class 710s come in two variants - AC only for West Anglia and Romford - Upminster servics and dual voltage for the GOBLIN and Watford routes. Therefore through services, if desired, will be perfectly possible from the GOBLIN to NLL.
--
Paul C
via Google
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-02-22 00:36:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Corfield
It is also worth noting that the Class 710s come in two variants - AC
only for West Anglia and Romford - Upminster servics and dual voltage
for the GOBLIN and Watford routes. Therefore through services, if
desired, will be perfectly possible from the GOBLIN to NLL.
Now that would be a good idea! Will they change the Gospel Oak station
layout to make that easier?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
s***@potato.field
2017-02-22 09:39:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 09:56:48 -0800 (PST)
Post by s***@potato.field
So in other words they didn't order enough 378s in the first place.
Oh for goodness sake. Of course they ordered enough trains. Things change. =
Really? So there was no expectation that the ELL from a major interchange like
highbury to canada water for a one stop to canary wharf would attract many
commuters? They should hire some new planners then.
hich doesn't need 5 car trains, to the ELL/NLL/WLL to allow *extra* peak se=
rvices to run because overcrowding is now so severe. This was not the case=
Overcrowding was severe back in 2014-15 when I used it which wasn't helped by
the incomprehensible decision to only have 2 doorways per car on the 378s
so it could literally take 1-2 minutes for people to unload at highbury and
canada water in the rush hour before anyone could get on.
It is also worth noting that the Class 710s come in two variants - AC only =
for West Anglia and Romford - Upminster servics and dual voltage for the GO=
BLIN and Watford routes. Therefore through services, if desired, will be p=
erfectly possible from the GOBLIN to NLL.
As you well know, you can't just run a train on a line without fully testing
and certifying it first. Are they planning on doing that with the 710s on
the NLL?
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-02-22 10:44:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 09:56:48 -0800 (PST)
Post by s***@potato.field
So in other words they didn't order enough 378s in the first place.
Oh for goodness sake. Of course they ordered enough trains. Things change. =
Really? So there was no expectation that the ELL from a major interchange like
highbury to canada water for a one stop to canary wharf would attract many
commuters? They should hire some new planners then.
hich doesn't need 5 car trains, to the ELL/NLL/WLL to allow *extra* peak se=
rvices to run because overcrowding is now so severe. This was not the case=
Overcrowding was severe back in 2014-15 when I used it which wasn't helped by
the incomprehensible decision to only have 2 doorways per car on the 378s
so it could literally take 1-2 minutes for people to unload at highbury and
canada water in the rush hour before anyone could get on.
It is also worth noting that the Class 710s come in two variants - AC only =
for West Anglia and Romford - Upminster servics and dual voltage for the GO=
BLIN and Watford routes. Therefore through services, if desired, will be p=
erfectly possible from the GOBLIN to NLL.
As you well know, you can't just run a train on a line without fully testing
and certifying it first. Are they planning on doing that with the 710s on
the NLL?
The 710s will be running on the NLL every day to Willesden in any case.
s***@potato.field
2017-02-22 10:53:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 10:44:50 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
As you well know, you can't just run a train on a line without fully testing
and certifying it first. Are they planning on doing that with the 710s on
the NLL?
The 710s will be running on the NLL every day to Willesden in any case.
Thats not much help when the line goes all the way to richmond and stratford.
--
Spud
Basil Jet
2017-02-22 11:28:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 10:44:50 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
As you well know, you can't just run a train on a line without fully testing
and certifying it first. Are they planning on doing that with the 710s on
the NLL?
The 710s will be running on the NLL every day to Willesden in any case.
Thats not much help when the line goes all the way to richmond and stratford.
Maybe they should have made them tube gauge in case they decide to run
them on the Island Line?
David C
2017-02-23 23:08:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 10:44:50 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 09:56:48 -0800 (PST)
Post by s***@potato.field
So in other words they didn't order enough 378s in the first place.
Oh for goodness sake. Of course they ordered enough trains. Things change. =
Really? So there was no expectation that the ELL from a major interchange like
highbury to canada water for a one stop to canary wharf would attract many
commuters? They should hire some new planners then.
hich doesn't need 5 car trains, to the ELL/NLL/WLL to allow *extra* peak se=
rvices to run because overcrowding is now so severe. This was not the case=
Overcrowding was severe back in 2014-15 when I used it which wasn't helped by
the incomprehensible decision to only have 2 doorways per car on the 378s
so it could literally take 1-2 minutes for people to unload at highbury and
canada water in the rush hour before anyone could get on.
It is also worth noting that the Class 710s come in two variants - AC only =
for West Anglia and Romford - Upminster servics and dual voltage for the GO=
BLIN and Watford routes. Therefore through services, if desired, will be p=
erfectly possible from the GOBLIN to NLL.
As you well know, you can't just run a train on a line without fully testing
and certifying it first. Are they planning on doing that with the 710s on
the NLL?
The 710s will be running on the NLL every day to Willesden in any case.
Isn't there an AC-only route from the NLL to Willesden DED via the
electrified freight chord just to the east of Willesden Junction
Station, possibly reversing in or near Wembley Yard?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Graham Murray
2017-02-22 14:51:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
As you well know, you can't just run a train on a line without fully testing
and certifying it first. Are they planning on doing that with the 710s on
the NLL?
So go back to the old system of carriages being C1 or C3 and locos have
an RA and have common clearance/weight restriction classes so that any
train MU or LHCS in a class can operate on any line (subject to electric
supply for electric stock) of equal or lesser restriction.
Paul Corfield
2017-02-22 15:02:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 09:56:48 -0800 (PST)
Post by s***@potato.field
So in other words they didn't order enough 378s in the first place.
Oh for goodness sake. Of course they ordered enough trains. Things change. =
Really? So there was no expectation that the ELL from a major interchange like
highbury to canada water for a one stop to canary wharf would attract many
commuters? They should hire some new planners then.
hich doesn't need 5 car trains, to the ELL/NLL/WLL to allow *extra* peak se=
rvices to run because overcrowding is now so severe. This was not the case=
Overcrowding was severe back in 2014-15 when I used it which wasn't helped by
the incomprehensible decision to only have 2 doorways per car on the 378s
so it could literally take 1-2 minutes for people to unload at highbury and
canada water in the rush hour before anyone could get on.
It is also worth noting that the Class 710s come in two variants - AC only =
for West Anglia and Romford - Upminster servics and dual voltage for the GO=
BLIN and Watford routes. Therefore through services, if desired, will be p=
erfectly possible from the GOBLIN to NLL.
As you well know, you can't just run a train on a line without fully testing
and certifying it first. Are they planning on doing that with the 710s on
the NLL?
--
Spud
I think it is fair to say that rail demand growth has been more robust and for longer than anyone expected. Of course there would have been an assumption that demand would grow but reality is at odds with what was forecast. Furthermore the works at London Bridge and ongoing nightmares on Southern has affected the scale of demand on the ELL. If remarks made about demand for Crossrail upon opening prove correct then I dare say a lot of people will be moaning about planners then as well. The fact is that circumstances have changed in ways that were not anticipated.

Yes I do know the class 710s will have to go through a rigorous acceptance process before they can be used. I expect that some of the work being done in respect of the Class 345 acceptance should be transferable to the 710s as they're effectively the same type of train underneath. If nothing else it should ease the acceptance process but route specific clearance tests will still be needed. Whether the 710s will be passed for the entire Overground I have no idea. However given the way stock is sometimes transferred I suspect they may well be passed for not only the Overground but also some other routes in South London - to give access to New Cross Gate depot which I believe has a wheel lathe whereas Willesden doesn't (happy to be corrected on this). The AC only versions will be maintained at Ilford which I expect does have a wheel lathe given the vast fleet (Crossrail and LO) that will be maintained there.
--
Paul C
via Google
s***@potato.field
2017-02-22 15:17:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 07:02:15 -0800 (PST)
er routes in South London - to give access to New Cross Gate depot which I =
believe has a wheel lathe whereas Willesden doesn't (happy to be corrected =
on this). The AC only versions will be maintained at Ilford which I expect=
does have a wheel lathe given the vast fleet (Crossrail and LO) that will =
be maintained there.
I'm surprised they've ordered an AC only version. Shoegear doesn't add any
significant weight to a train unlike adding a transformer for AC so why not
just spec the whole lot as dual voltage so they can be mixed and matched as
and when?
--
Spud
Paul Corfield
2017-02-22 20:17:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 07:02:15 -0800 (PST)
er routes in South London - to give access to New Cross Gate depot which I =
believe has a wheel lathe whereas Willesden doesn't (happy to be corrected =
on this). The AC only versions will be maintained at Ilford which I expect=
does have a wheel lathe given the vast fleet (Crossrail and LO) that will =
be maintained there.
I'm surprised they've ordered an AC only version. Shoegear doesn't add any
significant weight to a train unlike adding a transformer for AC so why not
just spec the whole lot as dual voltage so they can be mixed and matched as
and when?
--
Spud
A guess but I wonder if not speccing dual voltage for the routes out of Liv St is a way of avoiding a whole pile of survey and inspection work and possible rectification work. It is possible that there is equipment in the way or which infringes standards for clearances for shoegear on the lines out of Liv St. It's not really an issue for the NLL route as it was previously third rail so would almost certainly be compliant. I assume that the work on the GOBLIN includes checking for clearances anyway, given track lowering and platform works, so it's not an issue there either.
--
Paul C
via Google
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-02-23 00:51:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Corfield
Post by s***@potato.field
I'm surprised they've ordered an AC only version. Shoegear doesn't add
any significant weight to a train unlike adding a transformer for AC so
why not just spec the whole lot as dual voltage so they can be mixed and
matched as and when?
A guess but I wonder if not speccing dual voltage for the routes out
of Liv St is a way of avoiding a whole pile of survey and inspection
work and possible rectification work. It is possible that there is
equipment in the way or which infringes standards for clearances for
shoegear on the lines out of Liv St. It's not really an issue for
the NLL route as it was previously third rail so would almost
certainly be compliant. I assume that the work on the GOBLIN
includes checking for clearances anyway, given track lowering and
platform works, so it's not an issue there either.
I'm sure that clearance issues were very much on TfL's minds. Rightly so as
things are turning out with the 700s for Thameslink. Both initial trips
north of Hitchin, to Peterborough and Cambridge, came to grief with lost
shoes AIUI due to high ballast shoulders, in the Cambridge case at Foxton on
the return journey.

High ballast shoulders are desirable for track stability so very prevalent
where third rail-equipped trains aren't expected to be passing. I'm not sure
a successful test trip to Cambridge and back has yet been achieved.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
s***@potato.field
2017-02-23 20:26:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:51:38 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I'm sure that clearance issues were very much on TfL's minds. Rightly so as
things are turning out with the 700s for Thameslink. Both initial trips
north of Hitchin, to Peterborough and Cambridge, came to grief with lost
shoes AIUI due to high ballast shoulders, in the Cambridge case at Foxton on
the return journey.
Why would Thameslink trains be sent up the ECML and cambridge line? Weren't
there enough free slots to test on the MML?
--
Spud
Eric
2017-02-23 21:30:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:51:38 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I'm sure that clearance issues were very much on TfL's minds. Rightly so as
things are turning out with the 700s for Thameslink. Both initial trips
north of Hitchin, to Peterborough and Cambridge, came to grief with lost
shoes AIUI due to high ballast shoulders, in the Cambridge case at Foxton on
the return journey.
Why would Thameslink trains be sent up the ECML and cambridge line? Weren't
there enough free slots to test on the MML?
We should probably frame this one. Such a lovely demonstration of
ignorance.

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry
s***@potato.field
2017-02-24 19:26:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:30:27 +0100
Post by Eric
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:51:38 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I'm sure that clearance issues were very much on TfL's minds. Rightly so as
things are turning out with the 700s for Thameslink. Both initial trips
north of Hitchin, to Peterborough and Cambridge, came to grief with lost
shoes AIUI due to high ballast shoulders, in the Cambridge case at Foxton on
the return journey.
Why would Thameslink trains be sent up the ECML and cambridge line? Weren't
there enough free slots to test on the MML?
We should probably frame this one. Such a lovely demonstration of
ignorance.
Sorry if I have better things to do than keep up to date with the expansion of
every UK train service that I don't use.
--
Spud
David Walters
2017-02-24 11:01:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:51:38 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I'm sure that clearance issues were very much on TfL's minds. Rightly so as
things are turning out with the 700s for Thameslink. Both initial trips
north of Hitchin, to Peterborough and Cambridge, came to grief with lost
shoes AIUI due to high ballast shoulders, in the Cambridge case at Foxton on
the return journey.
Why would Thameslink trains be sent up the ECML and cambridge line? Weren't
there enough free slots to test on the MML?
Part of the Thameslink Project includes direct services on the ECML
through Thameslink such as between Cambridge and Brighton and Peterborough
and Horsham.

The (closed) timetable consultation is at
http://www.thameslinkrailway.com/your-journey/timetable-consultation
Basil Jet
2017-02-24 11:33:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Walters
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:51:38 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I'm sure that clearance issues were very much on TfL's minds. Rightly so as
things are turning out with the 700s for Thameslink. Both initial trips
north of Hitchin, to Peterborough and Cambridge, came to grief with lost
shoes AIUI due to high ballast shoulders, in the Cambridge case at Foxton on
the return journey.
Why would Thameslink trains be sent up the ECML and cambridge line? Weren't
there enough free slots to test on the MML?
Part of the Thameslink Project includes direct services on the ECML
through Thameslink such as between Cambridge and Brighton and Peterborough
and Horsham.
The (closed) timetable consultation is at
http://www.thameslinkrailway.com/your-journey/timetable-consultation
I believe the junction is not functional yet, so they will have been
sent via WLL and North London Incline (the Gospel Oak Harringay route
being unelectrified).

Seems a bit premature to me... did they need to know the Foxton ballast
is a bit high so long before the services run? Wouldn't a diesel-hauled
gauging train with polystyrene shoes be better at this stage?
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-02-25 02:29:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 20:26:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:51:38 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I'm sure that clearance issues were very much on TfL's minds. Rightly
so as things are turning out with the 700s for Thameslink. Both
initial trips north of Hitchin, to Peterborough and Cambridge, came to
grief with lost shoes AIUI due to high ballast shoulders, in the
Cambridge case at Foxton on the return journey.
Why would Thameslink trains be sent up the ECML and cambridge line?
Weren't there enough free slots to test on the MML?
Part of the Thameslink Project includes direct services on the ECML
through Thameslink such as between Cambridge and Brighton and
Peterborough and Horsham.
The (closed) timetable consultation is at
http://www.thameslinkrailway.com/your-journey/timetable-consultation
I believe the junction is not functional yet, so they will have been
sent via WLL and North London Incline (the Gospel Oak Harringay route
being unelectrified).
Seems a bit premature to me... did they need to know the Foxton
ballast is a bit high so long before the services run? Wouldn't a
diesel-hauled gauging train with polystyrene shoes be better at this
stage?
My understanding is that the Canal Tunnel route between Belle Isle and SPILL
is now open.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Robin9
2017-02-25 15:56:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I've just walked past Leyton Midland Road station. The
boarding has been removed in readiness for the re-opening.
The station gate is still shut but the electric timetable display
is working again; today, of course, giving times for the
replacement buses


--
Robin9
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-02-26 01:03:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robin9
I've just walked past Leyton Midland Road station. The
boarding has been removed in readiness for the re-opening.
The station gate is still shut but the electric timetable display
is working again; today, of course, giving times for the
So I can assume the line will be back in service by March 11th? I'm
organising a visit to Ilford that day and the number of engineering work
closures and diversions is a bit daunting.

PS There is something odd in the way your Usenet client interacts with
Giganews (through which my newsfeed comes). The last line of your postings
is usually lost by the time it gets to me, even though your signature is
there after it. When your post is quoted by someone else it's all there
though.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Basil Jet
2017-02-26 03:57:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Robin9
I've just walked past Leyton Midland Road station. The
boarding has been removed in readiness for the re-opening.
The station gate is still shut but the electric timetable display
is working again; today, of course, giving times for the
So I can assume the line will be back in service by March 11th?
It should be open this Monday! Still diesel, obviously.
Optimist
2017-02-26 07:31:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Robin9
I've just walked past Leyton Midland Road station. The
boarding has been removed in readiness for the re-opening.
The station gate is still shut but the electric timetable display
is working again; today, of course, giving times for the
So I can assume the line will be back in service by March 11th? I'm
organising a visit to Ilford that day and the number of engineering work
closures and diversions is a bit daunting.
PS There is something odd in the way your Usenet client interacts with
Giganews (through which my newsfeed comes). The last line of your postings
is usually lost by the time it gets to me, even though your signature is
there after it. When your post is quoted by someone else it's all there
though.
I see the whole of Robin9's post, but then I use the Forte Agent newsreader.
Robin9
2017-02-27 16:09:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The trains are running again. They're not as crowded as before
but I'm sure that will change within a week! At my local station
the ticket barriers were open, with staff standing around to deal
with problems but not to check if I had a ticket. I strolled through
without being accosted!

There was also a Community Support presence. Three officers
travelled on my train but I didn't see any reason for it


--
Robin9
bob
2017-02-28 07:49:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robin9
The trains are running again. They're not as crowded as before
but I'm sure that will change within a week! At my local station
the ticket barriers were open, with staff standing around to deal
with problems but not to check if I had a ticket. I strolled through
without being accosted!
There was also a Community Support presence. Three officers
travelled on my train but I didn't see any reason for it.
Seems a sensible move to me. Send the officers out to get to know how
things have changed and re-familiarize themselves with the environment
under benign conditions so that when they are needed for more serious
incidents they are prepared for it better.

Robin
Basil Jet
2017-02-28 19:01:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robin9
The trains are running again. They're not as crowded as before
but I'm sure that will change within a week!
Failure to produce a new tube map showing it open won't have helped!
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-02-28 22:02:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Robin9
The trains are running again. They're not as crowded as before
but I'm sure that will change within a week!
Failure to produce a new tube map showing it open won't have helped!
The December edition did say "No service until February 2017". So perhaps
people might have reason to be confused, but only up to today.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-02-23 00:08:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:58:50 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
AFAIK tube trains are all owned outright by LU. Is this not the case
with the 378s on LO then?
London Overground is quite different to LUL. It is operated as a
concession, not by a TfL operator directly.
In that case I can't help wondering if the service would be better if
TfL ran it directly.
The main reason is that in general TfL don't own the tracks which
in some cases are shared with TOCs. Another reason is that your
Tory friends don;t like state enterprise.
The main, reason, surely, is to keep the strike-prone LU unions away
from LO and the DLR?
Now you come to mention it.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Loading...