South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

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.

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

TheOneKEA wrote:

short platforms at South Tottenham station (necessitated by the
junctions at either end)

Back in the day, when the service ran from Kentish Town, it was 4-car
DMUs with people opening their own doors. If 378s have SDO (perhaps even
if they don't, given where the doors are), then there shouldn't be any
problem, should there?

Also, are the 172s any good?

I like them. They are clean (and look like it will be easy to keep them
that way), comfortable, and fairly well-used.

I'm interested to know if the GOBLIN has had a mini-sparks effect
thanks to the newer trains.

I can't say if more people are travelling than before, but what's
against the line is that few of the stations have direct interchanges
with other lines, so it's always going to be among the quieter lines in
its area. Mind you, there has been plenty of work at most if not all the
stations to make them more pleasant, so who knows.
--
..sig down for maintenance

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

Chris Tolley wrote:

short platforms at South Tottenham station (necessitated by the
junctions at either end)

Back in the day, when the service ran from Kentish Town, it was 4-car
DMUs with people opening their own doors.

That was when the platforms were longer - they were cut in the 1990s. The
problem at the west of the station isn't the junction but the A10.

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

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?

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

On May 30, 10:37*am, "
wrote:

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

I think it is planned, but I don't know on what timescale.

If they do electrify, then will it be overhead or 3rd rail?

It would be 25 kV overhead, as are the short sections of the line
which are already electrified, Woodgrange Park Junction to Barking
Station Junction and between the Junctions either side of South
Tottenham station.

Will they
also use 378s? Are there enough available for such a service?

Don't know.

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

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.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

On May 30, 10:37*am, "
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.


They seem OK, a bit of annoying rattling when stationary on the unit I
was in yesterday (172 001). The services seem much busier than they
used to be off-peak.

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

There are plans (and have been for some time), the problem is the
funding and who pays (TfL or DfT or both). More of the route will be
electrified as part of the Thameslink program, to provide access to
Hornsey from the Midland Mainline.


If they do electrify, then will it be overhead or 3rd rail?

Overhead, as this is already used at both ends (and through South
Tottenham station). 3rd rail probably wouldn't be allowed as all the
3rd rail in the area has been removed, so it would be a new isolated
section.

Will they also use 378s?

Probably

Are there enough available for such a service?

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).

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:

Chris Tolley wrote:

short platforms at South Tottenham station (necessitated by the
junctions at either end)

Back in the day, when the service ran from Kentish Town, it was 4-car
DMUs with people opening their own doors.

That was when the platforms were longer - they were cut in the 1990s. The
problem at the west of the station isn't the junction but the A10.

One lives and learns.
--
..sig down for maintenance

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

On May 30, 11:50*am, Andy 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.

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

wrote in message

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?

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

"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.

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

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

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

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.

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

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

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...


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

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

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

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

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

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

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

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.

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

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).

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

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

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

On 01/06/2011 02:44, TheOneKEA wrote:
On May 31, 5:36 pm, Arthur 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.

Don't they "put the bits together", rather than build everything from
scratch, so aren't the components already available? I find it hard to
believe they would need to throw away two new vehicles per batch.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

On May 30, 10:27*am, Paul Corfield wrote:

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 went to a NR TLP technical presentation a coupe of weeks ago -
depot strategy** was mentioned as being altered but only indirectly
hinted at it being more logical to have the major depot south of the
Thames.

The MML Hornsey link was not mentioned, it never occurred to me to ask
about it, it was not mentioned in the presentation at all, but the
link is a minor works job compared to the rest of the grand scheme so
not an indication things have changed.


IIRC way back when Siemens were bidding for Gatwick Express stock(i.e.
the 460s) they wanted their depot at Three Bridges. Now there is more
under utilised rail land at 3B than there was then it would not
surprise me if Siemens have a Thameslink Northam type plan in their
bid. None of where the major depot is has much bearing on overnight
stock berthing as just like SWT a relatively small proportion of
444/450 berth at Northam for traffic purposes, the bulk of the traffic
fleet is a ''traditional'' SWD locations. TLP will be the same.



--
Nick

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

On Jun 1, 2:44*am, TheOneKEA wrote:
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).

Well, there was mooting that if demand continues to rise then we might
see 5-car trains in the mid-term. That might be sufficient to get more
378s for the Goblin. Perhaps units for the mooted takeover of the
Crystal Palace-Clapham Junction (and up the WLL) outer SLL service
(should it come to pass) might swing the balance as well.

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

On Jun 1, 5:17*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:

Well, there was mooting that if demand continues to rise then we might
see 5-car trains


In a different presentation on ELL , 5car 378s are not permanently
ruled out, even on the ELL itself.

Cue stage left uk.r protests ...

.... anyway the 2 people giving the presentation were the top projects
bods from LU and NR and 5car with SDO is a possibility.

--
Nick

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

On Jun 1, 4:27*pm, D7666 wrote:
On Jun 1, 5:17*pm, Jamie *Thompson wrote:

Well, there was mooting that if demand continues to rise then we might
see 5-car trains

In a different presentation on ELL , 5car 378s are not permanently
ruled out, even on the ELL itself.

Cue stage left uk.r protests *...

... anyway the 2 people giving the presentation were the top projects
bods from LU and NR and 5car with SDO is a possibility.


That at least implies that the manufacturing components needed to
build more Class 378 bodyshells haven't been reconfigured, which is
good news if a whole new set of units needs to be built.

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

In article
,
(D7666) wrote:

On Jun 1, 5:17*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:

Well, there was mooting that if demand continues to rise then we might
see 5-car trains

In a different presentation on ELL , 5car 378s are not permanently
ruled out, even on the ELL itself.

Cue stage left uk.r protests ...

... anyway the 2 people giving the presentation were the top projects
bods from LU and NR and 5car with SDO is a possibility.

Why SDO? The East London line had 5-car OP stock in 1971. Or is SDO needed
just for the only station that didn't exist then, Canada Water?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

On Jun 1, 11:23*pm, TheOneKEA wrote:
On Jun 1, 4:27*pm, D7666 wrote:

On Jun 1, 5:17*pm, Jamie *Thompson wrote:

Well, there was mooting that if demand continues to rise then we might
see 5-car trains

In a different presentation on ELL , 5car 378s are not permanently
ruled out, even on the ELL itself.

Cue stage left uk.r protests *...

... anyway the 2 people giving the presentation were the top projects
bods from LU and NR and 5car with SDO is a possibility.

That at least implies that the manufacturing components needed to
build more Class 378 bodyshells haven't been reconfigured, which is
good news if a whole new set of units needs to be built.


Not necessary ... re-form 378 and turn the present 4car units into say
3car and 5car and make enough 5car units for the ELL., and acquire
something else to make up the loss and/or expand other LOROL routes.

--
Nick

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

On Jun 1, 11:23*pm, TheOneKEA wrote:
On Jun 1, 4:27*pm, D7666 wrote:

On Jun 1, 5:17*pm, Jamie *Thompson wrote:

Well, there was mooting that if demand continues to rise then we might
see 5-car trains

In a different presentation on ELL , 5car 378s are not permanently
ruled out, even on the ELL itself.

Cue stage left uk.r protests *...

... anyway the 2 people giving the presentation were the top projects
bods from LU and NR and 5car with SDO is a possibility.

That at least implies that the manufacturing components needed to
build more Class 378 bodyshells haven't been reconfigured, which is
good news if a whole new set of units needs to be built.

I would hope that the class 378 manufacturing equipment is still
available, as there are still three units (255-257) to be delivered,
for the ELL extension to Clapham Junction.

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

On Jun 2, 12:02*am, D7666 wrote:
On Jun 1, 11:23*pm, TheOneKEA wrote:





On Jun 1, 4:27*pm, D7666 wrote:

On Jun 1, 5:17*pm, Jamie *Thompson wrote:

Well, there was mooting that if demand continues to rise then we might
see 5-car trains

In a different presentation on ELL , 5car 378s are not permanently
ruled out, even on the ELL itself.

Cue stage left uk.r protests *...

... anyway the 2 people giving the presentation were the top projects
bods from LU and NR and 5car with SDO is a possibility.

That at least implies that the manufacturing components needed to
build more Class 378 bodyshells haven't been reconfigured, which is
good news if a whole new set of units needs to be built.

Not necessary ... re-form 378 and turn the present 4car units into say
3car and 5car and make enough 5car units for the ELL., and acquire
something else to make up the loss and/or expand other LOROL routes.


Any 3 car units would only really be of use on GOBLIN (and would
probably need lengthening soon afterwards anyway), all the other LO
routes need at least the 4 car units already in use, but 2 x 3 car
units would need more units anyway.

You could just order a fifth car, of class 379 exterior design, for
the current units and add some more 5 car units (with class 379
exterior/doors) onto the order, it shouldn't be too expensive to
replace the coach ends with the wider ganway version needed for
interiors like the class 378s.

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

Mwmbwls wrote:

Although part of the original plan was to link the MML to Hornsey via
Gospel Oak, the plans were revised following objections from local
residents to the scale of the proposed development of Hornsey Depot -
they claimed their view of IMHO the ugly Alexandra Palace would be
spoilt.

If true, it must be conceded that putting the extra bits of the depot on
50ft-high stilts would have been silly for other reasons.
--
..sig down for maintenance

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

wrote in message
...

Why SDO? The East London line had 5-car OP stock in 1971. Or is SDO needed
just for the only station that didn't exist then, Canada Water?

Like most LU stock, historic or current, carriages are often significantly
shorter than mainline stuff. The 5 cars of 15.5m (approx) O/P stock would
still be less than 4 x 20m 378s.

But yes, Canada Water is also one of those places difficult to extend...

Paul S

South Tottenham and GOBLIN electrification
 

In article ,
(Paul Scott) wrote:

Like most LU stock, historic or current, carriages are often
significantly shorter than mainline stuff. The 5 cars of 15.5m
(approx) O/P stock would still be less than 4 x 20m 378s.

51' 1 1/4" to be precise. I make that 15.58m. Near enough I suppose.

--
Colin Rosenstiel