On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 08:39:06 +0100, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 16:31:08 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(David C) wrote:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:55:10 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:37:21 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

... the timescale was rumoured to be slipping, according to Modern
Railways, but the contract has now been let.



http://www.railtechnologymagazine.co...-to-carry-out-
electrification-of-gospel-oak-barking-route?dorewrite=false

I had no idea that Barking platform one was not electrified! Won't it
become disused when the Barking Reach extension is built?

In theory yes but I'd want a bolt hole for the trains in case a
freight train does something stupid east of Barking or C2C have a rare
breakdown. Makes no sense to throw away an important facility and we
haven't got the TWA process started never mind signed off for the
Barking Riverside extension. New Mayor in May 2016 may have other
ideas [1] that could force a change in requirements.

[1] e.g. build a tunnel to Thamesmead as part of the initial scope or
a very early follow on piece of work. That'd force different
requirements at Barking Reach that could affect the scope of the TWAO.

Trouble is that there are two electrification systems at Barking.
Platform 1 isn't ideally situated for overhead electrification.

What is the problem?.

Dual electrification is a problem which is why most of the North London Line
is no longer third rail electrified.

Chicken and egg ? If you're putting up OHLE for electric-hauled
freight, the trains are AC/DC and the substations are getting long in
the tooth (and don't like 313s anyway) then dumping DC altogether
seems to be a sensible option.

Which makes interlining with Underground and South of the Thames route
Awkward.

The bits shared with LU remain DC-only and had to cope with differing
supplies before AC arrived. 377s, 378s etc. deal with the problem of
routes having more than one electrification method.