Goblin electrification
 

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

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.co...orewrite=false

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

Goblin electrification
 

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...orewrite=false

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


Always useful to have a diversionary option if there's a problem somewhere!


Anna Noyd-Dryver

I'm very pleased they have brought the costs down. As a resident of
Leyton I often find this service useful.

I didn't see any reference to platforms being lengthened. I assume
that will have to wait until patronage has increased. (If they re-opened
the route through to St. Pancras, patronage would increase very rapidly!)

Goblin electrification
 

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-e
lectrification-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.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Goblin electrification
 

Robin9 wrote:
'Basil Jet[_4_ Wrote:
;150369'].... the timescale was rumoured to be slipping, according to
Modern
Railways, but the contract has now been let.

http://tinyurl.com/ns5psws

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

I'm very pleased they have brought the costs down. As a resident of
Leyton I often find this service useful.

I didn't see any reference to platforms being lengthened. I assume
that will have to wait until patronage has increased. (If they
re-opened
the route through to St. Pancras, patronage would increase very
rapidly!)

Are the platforms already long enough for four-car trains?

Goblin electrification
 

In article ,
Recliner wrote:
[the goblin]
Are the platforms already long enough for four-car trains?

No. Most stations that used to have longer platforms have had the
length beyond two car closed. This would be easy to fix - repoint
the brickwork, repaint all the things, etc. But South Tottenham
would be more challenging - extending westwards is tricky becuase
there's a bridge over the A10 that way; extending eastwards is
tricky becuae there's a junction that way. Google maps will give
you a picture - literally.

Cheers,
Mike

--
Mike Bristow

Goblin electrification
 

In article , (Mike
Bristow) wrote:

In article
-september.
org, Recliner wrote:
[the goblin]
Are the platforms already long enough for four-car trains?

No. Most stations that used to have longer platforms have had the
length beyond two car closed. This would be easy to fix - repoint
the brickwork, repaint all the things, etc. But South Tottenham
would be more challenging - extending westwards is tricky becuase
there's a bridge over the A10 that way; extending eastwards is
tricky becuae there's a junction that way. Google maps will give
you a picture - literally.

Luckily 378s have SDO.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Goblin electrification
 

On 2015\10\01 09:55, Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
Recliner wrote:
[the goblin]
Are the platforms already long enough for four-car trains?

No. Most stations that used to have longer platforms have had the
length beyond two car closed. This would be easy to fix - repoint
the brickwork, repaint all the things, etc. But South Tottenham
would be more challenging - extending westwards is tricky becuase
there's a bridge over the A10 that way; extending eastwards is
tricky becuae there's a junction that way. Google maps will give
you a picture - literally.

Google maps suggests that you could easily double the length of the
platforms without running into the junction or the A10.

The solution at South Tottenham is the one they used at
Mitcham Eastfields: platforms that don't line up opposite each
other. Eastbound the platform would pass (include) the junction
and westbound the platform would have to extend across the
High Road on a bridge. Expensive but not difficult.

Goblin electrification
 

wrote:
In article , (Mike
Bristow) wrote:

In article
-september.
, Recliner wrote:
[the goblin]
Are the platforms already long enough for four-car trains?

No. Most stations that used to have longer platforms have had the
length beyond two car closed. This would be easy to fix - repoint
the brickwork, repaint all the things, etc. But South Tottenham
would be more challenging - extending westwards is tricky becuase
there's a bridge over the A10 that way; extending eastwards is
tricky becuae there's a junction that way. Google maps will give
you a picture - literally.

Luckily 378s have SDO.

But it won't be using 378s, will it?

Goblin electrification
 

In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote:

On 2015\10\01 09:55, Mike Bristow wrote:
In article

-september.
org, Recliner wrote:
[the goblin]
Are the platforms already long enough for four-car trains?

No. Most stations that used to have longer platforms have had the
length beyond two car closed. This would be easy to fix - repoint
the brickwork, repaint all the things, etc. But South Tottenham
would be more challenging - extending westwards is tricky becuase
there's a bridge over the A10 that way; extending eastwards is
tricky becuae there's a junction that way. Google maps will give
you a picture - literally.

Google maps suggests that you could easily double the length of the
platforms without running into the junction or the A10.

Indeed. I wonder why this has always been thought to be too difficult?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Goblin electrification
 

On 2015\10\01 20:33, Steve Fitzgerald wrote:
In message , Paul Corfield
writes

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

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.co...sons-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.

Extend the H&C maybe?

Under the catenary?

Goblin electrification
 

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-e
lectrification-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?.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Goblin electrification
 

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.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Goblin electrification
 

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.

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

Goblin electrification
 

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

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

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

What? You can see on Google satellite view that the tracks into
Platform 1 are not electrified. Given that overhead electrification
sits perfectly well beside 4th rail LU electrified tracks at Barking I
don't see what the problem is in stringing wires into that platform as
part of GOBLIN electrification.

Please feel free to tell me what I've missed.

I'm not saying it can't be done but it is a lot more complicated to signal
so tends to be avoided. The LUL 3rd & 4th rail electrified tracks lie
between platform 1 and the overhead electrified tracks, don't they? So the
Barking Riverside route won't go near platform 1 so why keep it in service?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Goblin electrification
 

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 06:26:29 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

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

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

What? You can see on Google satellite view that the tracks into
Platform 1 are not electrified. Given that overhead electrification
sits perfectly well beside 4th rail LU electrified tracks at Barking I
don't see what the problem is in stringing wires into that platform as
part of GOBLIN electrification.

Please feel free to tell me what I've missed.

I'm not saying it can't be done but it is a lot more complicated to signal
so tends to be avoided. The LUL 3rd & 4th rail electrified tracks lie
between platform 1 and the overhead electrified tracks, don't they? So the
Barking Riverside route won't go near platform 1 so why keep it in service?

Sorry but you are not making any sense.

As has been mentioned, 25 kV AC electrification has co-existed with
the under-ground since 1962without any problems.

(Back in the past, LT& BR shared tracks between Bromley by Bow, but
that is no longer the case, there is no physical connection between
the two systems.)

Wiring platform 1 "might" have clearance problems, but single trolley
wire OHE is all that is needed there, & the only signal that would
require immunisation is the platform starter.

The up / down cross-over is already wired, so this should be a cheap
(!) & simple project.

As for why, Mr. Corfield has already pointed out that a wired turnback
with a platform face just might be useful, & maybe it might not be
possible to path the whole Goblin service to Barking Riverside through
the the platform 7 & 8 bottl-neck at Barking Station.

HTH, David C.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Goblin electrification
 

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.

Goblin electrification
 

In message , David C
wrote:
I'm not saying it can't be done but it is a lot more complicated to signal
so tends to be avoided. The LUL 3rd & 4th rail electrified tracks lie
between platform 1 and the overhead electrified tracks, don't they? So the
Barking Riverside route won't go near platform 1 so why keep it in service?

Sorry but you are not making any sense.

As has been mentioned, 25 kV AC electrification has co-existed with
the under-ground since 1962without any problems.

I think there's a misunderstanding here.

There are serious problems with having third (or third/fourth) rail on
the same line as 25 kV, to do with earthing and track circuits.
Therefore there's good reasons to avoid that.

But, on the other hand, I don't believe there's any significant reason
not to have 25 kV and third rail on adjacent tracks. Particular with
platforms in between.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Goblin electrification
 

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In message , David C
wrote:
I'm not saying it can't be done but it is a lot more complicated
to signal so tends to be avoided. The LUL 3rd & 4th rail
electrified tracks lie between platform 1 and the overhead
electrified tracks, don't they? So the Barking Riverside route
won't go near platform 1 so why keep it in service?

Sorry but you are not making any sense.

As has been mentioned, 25 kV AC electrification has co-existed with
the under-ground since 1962without any problems.

I think there's a misunderstanding here.

There are serious problems with having third (or third/fourth) rail
on the same line as 25 kV, to do with earthing and track circuits.
Therefore there's good reasons to avoid that.

But, on the other hand, I don't believe there's any significant
reason not to have 25 kV and third rail on adjacent tracks.
Particular with platforms in between.

I seem to recall that the reason the AC/DC changeover on the West
London Line isn't at Shepherds Bush station is because of possible
interference with the H&C line (and that isn't even adjacent).

Peter Smyth

Goblin electrification
 

In article ,
(David C) wrote:

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 06:26:29 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

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

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

What? You can see on Google satellite view that the tracks into
Platform 1 are not electrified. Given that overhead electrification
sits perfectly well beside 4th rail LU electrified tracks at Barking I
don't see what the problem is in stringing wires into that platform as
part of GOBLIN electrification.

Please feel free to tell me what I've missed.

I'm not saying it can't be done but it is a lot more complicated to
signal so tends to be avoided. The LUL 3rd & 4th rail electrified tracks
lie between platform 1 and the overhead electrified tracks, don't they?
So the Barking Riverside route won't go near platform 1 so why keep it
in service?

Sorry but you are not making any sense.

As has been mentioned, 25 kV AC electrification has co-existed with
the under-ground since 1962without any problems.

Not on the same tracks. And 1960s signalling technology wasn't based on
electronics. That is more picky. As I said, why was most of the North London
converted to 25KV?

(Back in the past, LT& BR shared tracks between Bromley by Bow, but
that is no longer the case, there is no physical connection between
the two systems.)

Wiring platform 1 "might" have clearance problems, but single trolley
wire OHE is all that is needed there, & the only signal that would
require immunisation is the platform starter.

The up / down cross-over is already wired, so this should be a cheap
(!) & simple project.

As for why, Mr. Corfield has already pointed out that a wired turnback
with a platform face just might be useful, & maybe it might not be
possible to path the whole Goblin service to Barking Riverside through
the the platform 7 & 8 bottl-neck at Barking Station.

I suppose it might be possible but the immunisation work might make it poor
value for money. That was my point.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Goblin electrification
 

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:59:30 +0100, David C wrote:

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 06:26:29 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

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

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

What? You can see on Google satellite view that the tracks into
Platform 1 are not electrified. Given that overhead electrification
sits perfectly well beside 4th rail LU electrified tracks at Barking I
don't see what the problem is in stringing wires into that platform as
part of GOBLIN electrification.

Please feel free to tell me what I've missed.

I'm not saying it can't be done but it is a lot more complicated to
signal so tends to be avoided. The LUL 3rd & 4th rail electrified tracks
lie between platform 1 and the overhead electrified tracks, don't they?
So the Barking Riverside route won't go near platform 1 so why keep it
in service?

Sorry but you are not making any sense.

As has been mentioned, 25 kV AC electrification has co-existed with
the under-ground since 1962without any problems.

(Back in the past, LT& BR shared tracks between Bromley by Bow, but
that is no longer the case, there is no physical connection between
the two systems.)

Wiring platform 1 "might" have clearance problems, but single trolley
wire OHE is all that is needed there, & the only signal that would
require immunisation is the platform starter.

The up / down cross-over is already wired, so this should be a cheap
(!) & simple project.

As for why, Mr. Corfield has already pointed out that a wired turnback
with a platform face just might be useful, & maybe it might not be
possible to path the whole Goblin service to Barking Riverside through
the the platform 7 & 8 bottl-neck at Barking Station.

And more fundamentally the GOBLIN route will be electrified and
equipped with EMUs before the Riverside extension is built (assuming
the powers are granted). Therefore you really do need platform 1 to
be wired as I doubt you could have GOBLIN trains standing at P7/8 for
up to 48 mins an hour when freight and C2C trains have to use the
tracks too.

Now that is a very fair point.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Goblin electrification
 

On 02.10.15 20:01, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:59:30 +0100, David C wrote:

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 06:26:29 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

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

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

What? You can see on Google satellite view that the tracks into
Platform 1 are not electrified. Given that overhead electrification
sits perfectly well beside 4th rail LU electrified tracks at Barking I
don't see what the problem is in stringing wires into that platform as
part of GOBLIN electrification.

Please feel free to tell me what I've missed.

I'm not saying it can't be done but it is a lot more complicated to signal
so tends to be avoided. The LUL 3rd & 4th rail electrified tracks lie
between platform 1 and the overhead electrified tracks, don't they? So the
Barking Riverside route won't go near platform 1 so why keep it in service?

Sorry but you are not making any sense.

As has been mentioned, 25 kV AC electrification has co-existed with
the under-ground since 1962without any problems.

(Back in the past, LT& BR shared tracks between Bromley by Bow, but
that is no longer the case, there is no physical connection between
the two systems.)

Wiring platform 1 "might" have clearance problems, but single trolley
wire OHE is all that is needed there, & the only signal that would
require immunisation is the platform starter.

The up / down cross-over is already wired, so this should be a cheap
(!) & simple project.

As for why, Mr. Corfield has already pointed out that a wired turnback
with a platform face just might be useful, & maybe it might not be
possible to path the whole Goblin service to Barking Riverside through
the the platform 7 & 8 bottl-neck at Barking Station.

And more fundamentally the GOBLIN route will be electrified and
equipped with EMUs before the Riverside extension is built (assuming
the powers are granted). Therefore you really do need platform 1 to
be wired as I doubt you could have GOBLIN trains standing at P7/8 for
up to 48 mins an hour when freight and C2C trains have to use the
tracks too.

When or why do C2C trains go through there? Is it for ECM?

Goblin electrification
 

Goblin electrification
 

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 20:44:43 +0100
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote:
In message , David C
wrote:
I'm not saying it can't be done but it is a lot more complicated to signal
so tends to be avoided. The LUL 3rd & 4th rail electrified tracks lie
between platform 1 and the overhead electrified tracks, don't they? So the
Barking Riverside route won't go near platform 1 so why keep it in service?

Sorry but you are not making any sense.

As has been mentioned, 25 kV AC electrification has co-existed with
the under-ground since 1962without any problems.

I think there's a misunderstanding here.

There are serious problems with having third (or third/fourth) rail on
the same line as 25 kV, to do with earthing and track circuits.
Therefore there's good reasons to avoid that.

But, on the other hand, I don't believe there's any significant reason
not to have 25 kV and third rail on adjacent tracks. Particular with
platforms in between.

On a related topic - why was 3rd rail used for the ELLX from Highbury given
how new DC lines are actively discouraged? They could have used wires all the
way down to past Surrey Quays then switched to 3rd rail like Thameslink. Was
it limited clearance in the thames tunnels or just for simplicity - ie cheaper?

--
Spud

Goblin electrification
 

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 06:26:29 -0500, rosenstiel wrote:

I'm not saying it can't be done but it is a lot more complicated to
signal so tends to be avoided. The LUL 3rd & 4th rail electrified tracks
lie between platform 1 and the overhead electrified tracks, don't they?
So the Barking Riverside route won't go near platform 1 so why keep it
in service?

As far as I can tell, P1 at Barking connects to the 'down'[1] GOBLIN just
East of the River Roding crossing, with a crossover between the River
Roding crossing and the North Circular giving access to the 'up'[1]
GOBLIN, the OLE lines then cross the LUL lines on a grade seperated
crossing (ie flyover).

The OLE doesn't run along the section from the GOBLIN connection to the
station.

Complicated by the fact that the H&C turns back in 3, and that the
through District LUL lines are in 2 (westbound) and 6 (eastbound). The
eastbound District line tunnels under the AC lines on the East side of
the station.

There also seems to be a crossover from westbound District to the GOBLIN,
but that doesn't appear to have OLE or DC power.

It does appear that running OLE along the extra 900 or so metres between
Barking P1 and the River Roding would provide a useful facility at
Barking, and it shouldn't impact on the LUL DC lines at all, apart from
(possibly) the need to fit an insulated joint between the LUL DC line P2
and the OLE P1 points just northwest of the platforms (or even lift the
connection, but I imagine it has a use for delivering stock to the
Barking LUL depot).

[1] Assuming Baking to be the country end and Gospel Oak the town end.

--
Denis McMahon,

Goblin electrification
 

On 03.10.15 20:39, Peter Smyth wrote:
wrote:

And more fundamentally the GOBLIN route will be electrified and
equipped with EMUs before the Riverside extension is built (assuming
the powers are granted). Therefore you really do need platform 1 to
be wired as I doubt you could have GOBLIN trains standing at P7/8
for up to 48 mins an hour when freight and C2C trains have to use
the tracks too.

When or why do C2C trains go through there? Is it for ECM?

Platforms 7+8 are the normal platforms for all c2c trains towards
Dagenham Dock.

Peter Smyth

My mistake, I thought that you were referring to Gospel Oak.

Goblin electrification
 

On Friday, 2 October 2015 21:55:43 UTC+2, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In message , David C
wrote:
I'm not saying it can't be done but it is a lot more complicated to signal
so tends to be avoided. The LUL 3rd & 4th rail electrified tracks lie
between platform 1 and the overhead electrified tracks, don't they? So the
Barking Riverside route won't go near platform 1 so why keep it in service?

Sorry but you are not making any sense.

As has been mentioned, 25 kV AC electrification has co-existed with
the under-ground since 1962without any problems.

I think there's a misunderstanding here.

There are serious problems with having third (or third/fourth) rail on
the same line as 25 kV, to do with earthing and track circuits.
Therefore there's good reasons to avoid that.

But, on the other hand, I don't believe there's any significant reason
not to have 25 kV and third rail on adjacent tracks. Particular with
platforms in between.

When this topic has been discussed in some detail in the past, the issue with dual electrification of 25 kV overhead and 3rd rail is related to the mutually exclusive requirements for how the running lines are bonded to earth for the return current. My understanding of the signalling related complications (not impossible to overcome if for example axle counters are used) relate to the need to cope with both DC and 50 Hz AC return current in the tracks (and related harmonics) in company with track circuits. All of these concerns, however, seem to relate to the presence of the track return current. In the case of LU style 4th rail, the DC return current is not via the running lines, the 4th rail is electrically isolated. What, therefore, is the issue with 25 kV AC and LU 4th rail combined electrification?

Robin

Goblin electrification
 

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 17:30:29 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(David C) wrote:

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 06:26:29 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

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

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

What? You can see on Google satellite view that the tracks into
Platform 1 are not electrified. Given that overhead electrification
sits perfectly well beside 4th rail LU electrified tracks at Barking I
don't see what the problem is in stringing wires into that platform as
part of GOBLIN electrification.

Please feel free to tell me what I've missed.

I'm not saying it can't be done but it is a lot more complicated to
signal so tends to be avoided. The LUL 3rd & 4th rail electrified tracks
lie between platform 1 and the overhead electrified tracks, don't they?
So the Barking Riverside route won't go near platform 1 so why keep it
in service?

Sorry but you are not making any sense.

As has been mentioned, 25 kV AC electrification has co-existed with
the under-ground since 1962without any problems.

Not on the same tracks. And 1960s signalling technology wasn't based on
electronics. That is more picky. As I said, why was most of the North London
converted to 25KV?

The LT&S was resignalled to modern standards in 1996, & the North
London was converted to AC to allow elctirc freight trains tp operate
between the G.E. & West coast Mainline

(Back in the past, LT& BR shared tracks between Bromley by Bow, but
that is no longer the case, there is no physical connection between
the two systems.)

Wiring platform 1 "might" have clearance problems, but single trolley
wire OHE is all that is needed there, & the only signal that would
require immunisation is the platform starter.

The up / down cross-over is already wired, so this should be a cheap
(!) & simple project.

As for why, Mr. Corfield has already pointed out that a wired turnback
with a platform face just might be useful, & maybe it might not be
possible to path the whole Goblin service to Barking Riverside through
the the platform 7 & 8 bottl-neck at Barking Station.

I suppose it might be possible but the immunisation work might make it poor
value for money. That was my point.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Goblin electrification
 

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 17:30:29 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(David C) wrote:

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 06:26:29 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

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

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

What? You can see on Google satellite view that the tracks into
Platform 1 are not electrified. Given that overhead electrification
sits perfectly well beside 4th rail LU electrified tracks at Barking I
don't see what the problem is in stringing wires into that platform as
part of GOBLIN electrification.

Please feel free to tell me what I've missed.

I'm not saying it can't be done but it is a lot more complicated to
signal so tends to be avoided. The LUL 3rd & 4th rail electrified tracks
lie between platform 1 and the overhead electrified tracks, don't they?
So the Barking Riverside route won't go near platform 1 so why keep it
in service?

Sorry but you are not making any sense.

As has been mentioned, 25 kV AC electrification has co-existed with
the under-ground since 1962without any problems.

Not on the same tracks. And 1960s signalling technology wasn't based on
electronics. That is more picky. As I said, why was most of the North London
converted to 25KV?

To allow access for Eurostars to reach the GN, & electric freights to
run from the GE to the West Coast ML?


As for the old LTS signalling, it was replaced in 1996 when Upminster
IECC went operational.

(Back in the past, LT& BR shared tracks between Bromley by Bow, but
that is no longer the case, there is no physical connection between
the two systems.)

Wiring platform 1 "might" have clearance problems, but single trolley
wire OHE is all that is needed there, & the only signal that would
require immunisation is the platform starter.

The up / down cross-over is already wired, so this should be a cheap
(!) & simple project.

As for why, Mr. Corfield has already pointed out that a wired turnback
with a platform face just might be useful, & maybe it might not be
possible to path the whole Goblin service to Barking Riverside through
the the platform 7 & 8 bottl-neck at Barking Station.

I suppose it might be possible but the immunisation work might make it poor
value for money. That was my point.

What immunisation work?

One signal might need work, but the two systems seem to co-exist side
by side without any obvious problems, even at Upminster where the LUL
tracks are flanked by two separate 25kV installations!

(The LTS mainline & the Upminster - Romford branch.)

As for value for money, does the Goblin scheme include any of the
possible junctions with existing 25kV routes, such as to the GN at
Harringay, or the Midland / Thameslink connection from Junction Road
Junction?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Goblin electrification
 

On 2015\10\17 13:52, David C wrote:

As for value for money, does the Goblin scheme include any of the
possible junctions with existing 25kV routes, such as to the GN at
Harringay, or the Midland / Thameslink connection from Junction Road
Junction?

Yes and yes, as mentioned in the webpage listed in the OP.

"The CP5 enhancements delivery plan published in June detailed the core
electrification scheme in the line:
Gospel Oak Junction to South Tottenham West Junction;
Gospel Oak platform 3 (bay platform);
Carlton Road Junction to Junction Road Junction;
Upper Holloway Reception Line;
Harringay Park Junction to Harringay Junction;
South Tottenham East Junction to Woodgrange Park Junction;
Barking Station Junction to Barking Platform 1 buffer stops; and
All crossovers between Gospel Oak Junction / Carlton Road Junction and
Barking Station Junction"

Goblin electrification
 

On 17/10/2015 15:38, Paul Corfield wrote:
That's a wee bit earlier than I expected but is a clear sign
that the dreaded "pause" word doesn't seem to affect GOBLIN
electrification.


I thought the bits that had been paused had now been unpaused anyway?

Goblin electrification
 

In article , (Someone
Somewhere) wrote:

On 17/10/2015 15:38, Paul Corfield wrote:
That's a wee bit earlier than I expected but is a clear sign
that the dreaded "pause" word doesn't seem to affect GOBLIN
electrification.

I thought the bits that had been paused had now been unpaused anyway?

It depends what you mean by "unpaused". They won't be completed within CP5
as originally intended. Some will be lucky to be completed within CP6, if
the Control Period system even survives the Treasury's assaults until then.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Goblin electrification
 

Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 17/10/2015 15:38, Paul Corfield wrote:
That's a wee bit earlier than I expected but is a clear sign
that the dreaded "pause" word doesn't seem to affect GOBLIN
electrification.


I thought the bits that had been paused had now been unpaused anyway?


Unpaused, but delayed.

Goblin electrification
 

On 18/10/2015 16:30, Recliner wrote:
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 17/10/2015 15:38, Paul Corfield wrote:
That's a wee bit earlier than I expected but is a clear sign
that the dreaded "pause" word doesn't seem to affect GOBLIN
electrification.


I thought the bits that had been paused had now been unpaused anyway?


Unpaused, but delayed.

Yes - but originally there were fears they were to be cancelled

Goblin electrification
 

Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 18/10/2015 16:30, Recliner wrote:
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 17/10/2015 15:38, Paul Corfield wrote:
That's a wee bit earlier than I expected but is a clear sign
that the dreaded "pause" word doesn't seem to affect GOBLIN
electrification.


I thought the bits that had been paused had now been unpaused anyway?


Unpaused, but delayed.

Yes - but originally there were fears they were to be cancelled

I think that was always scare-mongering by people with a political agenda.

Goblin electrification
 

On 18.10.15 16:58, Recliner wrote:
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 18/10/2015 16:30, Recliner wrote:
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 17/10/2015 15:38, Paul Corfield wrote:
That's a wee bit earlier than I expected but is a clear sign
that the dreaded "pause" word doesn't seem to affect GOBLIN
electrification.


I thought the bits that had been paused had now been unpaused anyway?


Unpaused, but delayed.

Yes - but originally there were fears they were to be cancelled

I think that was always scare-mongering by people with a political agenda.


I imagine that this was under discussion before, but do they plan to run
5-car trains as on the ELL/NLL?

Goblin electrification
 

Goblin electrification
 

On 18.10.15 18:04, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On 18.10.15 16:58, Recliner wrote:
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 18/10/2015 16:30, Recliner wrote:
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 17/10/2015 15:38, Paul Corfield wrote:
That's a wee bit earlier than I expected but is a clear sign
that the dreaded "pause" word doesn't seem to affect GOBLIN
electrification.


I thought the bits that had been paused had now been unpaused anyway?


Unpaused, but delayed.

Yes - but originally there were fears they were to be cancelled

I think that was always scare-mongering by people with a political agenda.


I imagine that this was under discussion before, but do they plan to run
5-car trains as on the ELL/NLL?

No, already discussed here recently. It will have 4-car Aventras, hopefully
from 2018. It's not certain if some platform extensions will be needed
even for those, but probably.

I see.

And when do they plan to start turning wheels in anger under the wires?

Goblin electrification