"Recliner" wrote:
wrote in message
m
In article ,
() wrote:

On 30/05/2011 03:24, TheOneKEA wrote:
I have read in these newsgroups that the only two things holding up
the electrification of the GOBLIN and the implementation of 378s on
this route are the short platforms at South Tottenham station
(necessitated by the junctions at either end) and the inability to
find funding for the electrification. Are both of these problems
still without solutions, or are there solutions available awaiting
the necessary funding (which won't arrive until 2016 at the earliest
IMHO)?

Also, are the 172s any good? I've not sampled them yet so I'm
interested to know if the GOBLIN has had a mini-sparks effect thanks
to the newer trains.

I didn't think that there were plans to electrify the GOBLin,
especially considering that they relatively recently received new
rolling stock.

If they do electrify, then will it be overhead or 3rd rail? Will
they also use 378s? Are there enough available for such a service?

There are reasons to electrify GOBLIN for cross-London freight
traffic as well as passengers. The 172 would go elsewhere on NR where
they would be most welcome.

Aren't they already earmarked for Chiltern?


At least one set has already been delivered to Chiltern Railways, and
is on trials.

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

"Recliner" wrote:
wrote in message
m

There are reasons to electrify GOBLIN for cross-London freight
traffic as well as passengers. The 172 would go elsewhere on NR where
they would be most welcome.

Aren't they already earmarked for Chiltern?

At least one set has already been delivered to Chiltern Railways, and
is on trials.

The 172 order included some for Chiltern and more for London Midland/

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 30/05/2011 19:32, Mwmbwls wrote:
On May 30, 11:50 am, wrote:
They would have to order some more units, but that wouldn't be a
problem in the short term. The Class 172 would be leased to another
TOC if this were the case and my understanding is that was why they
have the internal layout that they do. It was also one of the reasons
that they were directly leased from Angel Trains, rather than the more
complex ownership history of the class 378s (originally ordered by TfL
directly).

If the Croxley link came to pass the 172s could be easily redeployed
to provide the Watford to Aylesbury shuttle service. No need to change
the lease. It would also be possible to outsource the maintenance to
Chiltern who operate similar stock.

Are there any plans to re-extend Metropolitan service between Amersham
and Aylesbury?

They were talking at one point, about re-extending the Bakerloo out to
Watford Junction, for example.

wrote


Are there any plans to re-extend Metropolitan service between Amersham and
Aylesbury?

Very unlikely. There have been two occasions when something of the sort has
been considered. In the early 1980s there was serious consideration of
closing Marylebone, transferring the Joint Line service to Paddington, and
making Aylesbury passengers change at Amersham to a Met train. AIUI a major
reason why this was rejected was that the Met couldn't cope with all the
passengers who used Met line trains into Marylebone.

Later, the first iteration of Crossrail involved a spur to take trains on to
the M&SWJ north of Acton Wells, then via new trackage at Neasden on to the
"Chiltern" Met Line. There would have been 25 kV OHLE through to Aylesbury,
and Crossrail would have taken over the Chiltern Met Line and the Met
Amersham and Chesham lines, leaving Baker Street with Watford and Uxbridge.
This was rejected largely, AIUI, because there are insufficient passengers
from beyond Amersham to Aylesbury to justify electrification.

On top of this, TfL, as an emanation of the Mayor of London, only has a very
tenuous remit beyond the boundary of Greater London.

Peter

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
news


wrote


Are there any plans to re-extend Metropolitan service between Amersham
and Aylesbury?

Very unlikely. There have been two occasions when something of the sort
has been considered. In the early 1980s there was serious consideration of
closing Marylebone, transferring the Joint Line service to Paddington, and
making Aylesbury passengers change at Amersham to a Met train. AIUI a
major reason why this was rejected was that the Met couldn't cope with all
the passengers who used Met line trains into Marylebone.

Later, the first iteration of Crossrail involved a spur to take trains on
to the M&SWJ north of Acton Wells...

Midland and South Western Junction was nowhere near there :-)

The bit north of Acton Wells was Midland only.

I must confess I had to look up the North and South Western Junction Joint -
it seems to have been the usual "let's get past the Great Western" effort
(Midland, LNW and North London).

Regards

Jonathan

On 30/05/2011 11:47, Paul Corfield wrote:

There are not enough 378s around nor are there any contract options
left to be activated. I suspect that by the time comes around to
electrify the line that Bombardier will have thrown away the jigs and

People often say thrown away jigs will stop rolling stock orders, but
what does it actually mean in the contect of modern trains? Won't they
just upload computer files to a new jig-o-matic, or something?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

In article ,
Jonathan Morton wrote:
"Peter Masson" wrote in message
news

Later, the first iteration of Crossrail involved a spur to take trains on
to the M&SWJ north of Acton Wells...

Midland and South Western Junction was nowhere near there :-)

The bit north of Acton Wells was Midland only.

Point of order, this *was* the M&SW Junction before being subsumed into
the Midland in 1871, and afterwards remained known as the "Old" M&SWJ
to distinguish it from the later line elsewhere in the country :-)

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 29th March 2010)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

On May 30, 5:27*am, Paul Corfield wrote:
I don't know where 2016 comes from - no one has posted any sort of
timeline for electrifying the GOBLIN other than the link from Hornsey
down to the MML as part of the Thameslink programme. This assumes the
depot is still going to be at Hornsey after all of the NIMBY attacks.

I pulled 2016 out of a hat - it seemed like as good a starting date as
any.

I like the 172s - as Mr Tolley says they are clean, well presented and
run well enough on the line. *It is a shame that are still so many
speed restrictions due to knackered infrastructure despite years of
closures and engineering works that I had foolishly assumed would fix
these issues.

Ridership is way up based on my own observations. All stations are
well used despite the alleged "non connectivity" with other lines.
People seem to be able to find the line perfectly well. *As I said in
another post peak trains leave Gospel Oak full with it being standing
room only from Upper Holloway which is a busy stop. *Large numbers use
South Tottenham and Blackhorse Road. I am less familiar with the
eastern section of the line. *I have used the line far more this year
than I have in the preceeding 3 or 4 years because the service is
reliable and now frequent. Off peak services can load well too.


That's very interesting. I wonder if these users are attracted solely
by the Overground brand or if they are attracted by both the brand and
the increased service levels.

The only thing that really annoys me are the shoddy connections to and
from the NLL at Gospel Oak where several times an hour trains on one
line arrive as the other departs which is simply infuriating.
Silverlink may have operated less frequently but there were planned
connections rather than having doors shut in your face and being
forced to wait 10 - 15 minutes for a "connection". *I know this would
probably be "paradise" for people elsewhere in the country but
Londoners tend to be pretty impatient when used to tube like
connections of only a couple of minutes.

Agreed. I wonder if this will improve once all of the signalling works
are bedded in and a few timetable changes are made on the back of
"breaking in" the new infrastructure elsewhere on the NLL and ELL.

On May 31, 5:36*pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 30/05/2011 11:47, Paul Corfield wrote:

There are not enough 378s around nor are there any contract options
left to be activated. I suspect that by the time comes around to
electrify the line that Bombardier will have thrown away the jigs and

People often say thrown away jigs will stop rolling stock orders, but
what does it actually mean in the contect of modern trains? Won't they
just upload computer files to a new jig-o-matic, or something?

The problem is that doing that upload translates into a substantial
lead time, since the work required to adjust the manufacturing
equipment (including the jigs) so that it turns out the correct
components and structural pieces means that it isn't cost-effective to
do so for a small order. The first couple of pieces are unlikely to be
quite right, and therefore you need to make enough of them to ensure
that you get the correct pieces for later assembly.

If the jigs and other systems needed to build 378s are in fact
discarded and need to be reconstutited, TfL would have to order at
least 10-15 4-car units in order to make it cost-effective. If the
GOBLIN were electrified I'm not sure it could absorb 10-15 dual-
voltage units all by itself, which means that TfL needs to use them
somewhere else on the Overground, such as one of the core service
routes (Willesden-Stratford, Clapham-Willesden, Highbury-West Croydon).

On 31/05/2011 22:36, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 30/05/2011 11:47, Paul Corfield wrote:

There are not enough 378s around nor are there any contract options
left to be activated. I suspect that by the time comes around to
electrify the line that Bombardier will have thrown away the jigs and

People often say thrown away jigs will stop rolling stock orders, but
what does it actually mean in the contect of modern trains? Won't they
just upload computer files to a new jig-o-matic, or something?


Jigs are expensive bits of kit, probably cost as much as a complete
train, you need a reasonably large order to make it worth while building
them. Also they take up space that is probably now being used for a
different project.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail