|
Barking Riverside Extension approved
Chris Grayling, SoS for Transport, signed off the Transport and Works Act Order, for the extension of the Barking - Gospel Oak service to Barking Riverside, last week.
http://www.railjournal.com/index.php...tml?channel=00 Decision letter - https://www.gov.uk/government/public...order-decision Inspector's report - https://www.gov.uk/government/public...pectors-report A few interesting things in the report. 1. Provision to be made for a station, with island platform, to be added at Renwick Road. 2. Lots of argument from one petitioner about the elevated line structure into Riverside preventing a cross Thames tunnel to Abbey Wood. This was dismissed by the Inspector who was content that unlocking the extra housing at Barking Riverside would compensate for any monetary loss if the elevated alignment has to be demolished if a tunnelled link is eventually constructed.. 3. Interesting comments from TfL about possibly running a 6 tph passenger service *and* 6 freights an hour on the GOBLIN itself. Not quite sure how that works current signalling. 4. Another interesting possibility of extending planned peak extra trains from Enfield to Seven Sisters onwards to Barking via the S Tott curve. As the trains will be common stock in future this would give 6 tph from S Tott to Barking in the peaks. No timescale given, though, for this possible variant service. -- Paul C via Google |
Barking Riverside Extension approved
On 2017\08\06 23:38, Paul Corfield wrote:
Chris Grayling, SoS for Transport, signed off the Transport and Works Act Order, for the extension of the Barking - Gospel Oak service to Barking Riverside, last week. http://www.railjournal.com/index.php...tml?channel=00 Decision letter - https://www.gov.uk/government/public...order-decision Inspector's report - https://www.gov.uk/government/public...pectors-report A few interesting things in the report. 1. Provision to be made for a station, with island platform, to be added at Renwick Road. 2. Lots of argument from one petitioner about the elevated line structure into Riverside preventing a cross Thames tunnel to Abbey Wood. This was dismissed by the Inspector who was content that unlocking the extra housing at Barking Riverside would compensate for any monetary loss if the elevated alignment has to be demolished if a tunnelled link is eventually constructed. 3. Interesting comments from TfL about possibly running a 6 tph passenger service *and* 6 freights an hour on the GOBLIN itself. Not quite sure how that works current signalling. 4. Another interesting possibility of extending planned peak extra trains from Enfield to Seven Sisters onwards to Barking via the S Tott curve. As the trains will be common stock in future this would give 6 tph from S Tott to Barking in the peaks. No timescale given, though, for this possible variant service. Thanks. Clarification... At the moment trains from Barking to Seven Sisters have to cut across to the Barking-bound track halfway through South Tottenham station, so the 6tph from South Tottenham to Barking would presumably skip South Tottenham in the other direction. They might even skip South Tottenham in both directions to save confusing people - South Tottenham is pretty close to Seven Sisters. |
Quote:
trains and 6 freight trains an hour. (Mind you, I've never seen any evidence that there's a need for 6 freight paths an hour!) I don't know how likely a cross Thames extension is, but I hope it won't require much demolition of newly created infrastructure. |
Quote:
by the mass migration to the Victoria Line at Seven Sisters - Tottenham Hale and Blackhorse Road stations see similar levels - but will this not require selective door operation at GOBLIN stations whose platforms have been lengthened to cater only for 4 coaches? Or is it the intention to run special 4 coach trains from Enfield? |
Barking Riverside Extension approved
|
Barking Riverside Extension approved
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 15:38:24 -0700 (PDT), Paul Corfield
wrote: Chris Grayling, SoS for Transport, signed off the Transport and Works Act Order, for the extension of the Barking - Gospel Oak service to Barking Riverside, last week. http://www.railjournal.com/index.php...tml?channel=00 Decision letter - https://www.gov.uk/government/public...order-decision Inspector's report - https://www.gov.uk/government/public...pectors-report Does this mean that construction can now start, or are there more stages and hurdles to pass? A few interesting things in the report. 1. Provision to be made for a station, with island platform, to be added at Renwick Road. 2. Lots of argument from one petitioner about the elevated line structure into Riverside preventing a cross Thames tunnel to Abbey Wood. This was dismissed by the Inspector who was content that unlocking the extra housing at Barking Riverside would compensate for any monetary loss if the elevated alignment has to be demolished if a tunnelled link is eventually constructed. 3. Interesting comments from TfL about possibly running a 6 tph passenger service *and* 6 freights an hour on the GOBLIN itself. Not quite sure how that works current signalling. 4. Another interesting possibility of extending planned peak extra trains from Enfield to Seven Sisters onwards to Barking via the S Tott curve. As the trains will be common stock in future this would give 6 tph from S Tott to Barking in the peaks. No timescale given, though, for this possible variant service. |
Barking Riverside Extension approved
In message , at 14:55:14 on
Mon, 7 Aug 2017, Recliner remarked: Chris Grayling, SoS for Transport, signed off the Transport and Works Act Order, for the extension of the Barking - Gospel Oak service to Barking Riverside, last week. http://www.railjournal.com/index.php...tml?channel=00 Decision letter - https://www.gov.uk/government/public...order-decision Inspector's report - https://www.gov.uk/government/public...pectors-report Does this mean that construction can now start, or are there more stages and hurdles to pass? One of the biggest: can TfL actually raise the funds (or even still wish to raise the funds) to do the work, now that they have "planning permission" to do the work? -- Roland Perry |
Barking Riverside Extension approved
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 15:04:41 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 14:55:14 on Mon, 7 Aug 2017, Recliner remarked: Chris Grayling, SoS for Transport, signed off the Transport and Works Act Order, for the extension of the Barking - Gospel Oak service to Barking Riverside, last week. http://www.railjournal.com/index.php...tml?channel=00 Decision letter - https://www.gov.uk/government/public...order-decision Inspector's report - https://www.gov.uk/government/public...pectors-report Does this mean that construction can now start, or are there more stages and hurdles to pass? One of the biggest: can TfL actually raise the funds (or even still wish to raise the funds) to do the work, now that they have "planning permission" to do the work? Is it TfL or NR that raises the finds to build the track? |
Barking Riverside Extension approved
In message , at 15:05:45 on
Mon, 7 Aug 2017, Recliner remarked: Chris Grayling, SoS for Transport, signed off the Transport and Works Act Order, for the extension of the Barking - Gospel Oak service to Barking Riverside, last week. http://www.railjournal.com/index.php...tml?channel=00 Decision letter - https://www.gov.uk/government/public...order-decision Inspector's report - https://www.gov.uk/government/public...pectors-report Does this mean that construction can now start, or are there more stages and hurdles to pass? One of the biggest: can TfL actually raise the funds (or even still wish to raise the funds) to do the work, now that they have "planning permission" to do the work? Is it TfL or NR that raises the finds to build the track? Inside London such projects are traditionally TfL's hat being passed around. -- Roland Perry |
Barking Riverside Extension approved
On Monday, 7 August 2017 14:55:15 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 15:38:24 -0700 (PDT), Paul Corfield wrote: Chris Grayling, SoS for Transport, signed off the Transport and Works Act Order, for the extension of the Barking - Gospel Oak service to Barking Riverside, last week. http://www.railjournal.com/index.php...tml?channel=00 Decision letter - https://www.gov.uk/government/public...order-decision Inspector's report - https://www.gov.uk/government/public...pectors-report Does this mean that construction can now start, or are there more stages and hurdles to pass? A few interesting things in the report. 1. Provision to be made for a station, with island platform, to be added at Renwick Road. 2. Lots of argument from one petitioner about the elevated line structure into Riverside preventing a cross Thames tunnel to Abbey Wood. This was dismissed by the Inspector who was content that unlocking the extra housing at Barking Riverside would compensate for any monetary loss if the elevated alignment has to be demolished if a tunnelled link is eventually constructed. 3. Interesting comments from TfL about possibly running a 6 tph passenger service *and* 6 freights an hour on the GOBLIN itself. Not quite sure how that works current signalling. 4. Another interesting possibility of extending planned peak extra trains from Enfield to Seven Sisters onwards to Barking via the S Tott curve. As the trains will be common stock in future this would give 6 tph from S Tott to Barking in the peaks. No timescale given, though, for this possible variant service. I'll answer Roland's question first. The scheme is fully funded by TfL (circa £90m) and also the body responsible for redeveloping Barking Riverside (circa £170m). This was all signed off before the last Mayoral election. It is worth noting that Barking Riverside can't be developed further without a fixed transport link being provided - it's a key planning condition. I understand that the plan is that preparatory works start later this year. TfL then have to complete their procurement process to agree the final bidder for the work. There are also a number of standard planning approvals needed - many are set out in the conditions to the TWA order. Given TfL have been working with Barking and Dagenham Council for a long time this should not be hugely problematic. B&D Council want the extension built so I can't see them being hugely argumentative. Substantive works will probably start next year with completion in 2021. -- Paul C via Google |
Barking Riverside Extension approved
I wonder if Network Rail agree about the feasibility of 6 passenger trains and 6 freight trains an hour. (Mind you, I've never seen any evidence that there's a need for 6 freight paths an hour!) I don't know how likely a cross Thames extension is, but I hope it won't require much demolition of newly created infrastructure. Don't know if NR agree or not. The operation of extra trains would require an extra freight passing loop - that's in the inspector's report. I think past NR documents have said that signalling mods would also be needed to run an enhanced frequency. However this isn't mentioned in the inspector's report. TfL told the inquiry that it will likely be the 2030s before a cross river link could be contemplated or afforded. A cost of £1.2-£1.8bn is cited. One objector went to great lengths to try to discredit the elevated design as it would need to be demolished and replaced with a descending tunnel alignment and sub surface station if the link to Abbey Wood is built. The objections were rejected because forcing TfL to build a tunnelled link now was not in the current project scope / design, not funded and not within the pervue of the inquiry. The inspector said that if the elevated link eventually had to be demonlished then it would not be money wasted given that providing the link would have enabled the building of 10,500 new homes. -- Paul C via Google |
Barking Riverside Extension approved
On 2017\08\06 23:38, Paul Corfield wrote:
Inspector's report - https://www.gov.uk/government/public...pectors-report 4. Another interesting possibility of extending planned peak extra trains from Enfield to Seven Sisters onwards to Barking via the S Tott curve. As the trains will be common stock in future this would give 6 tph from S Tott to Barking in the peaks. No timescale given, though, for this possible variant service. The exact quote in the report is "TfL planners are already considering diverting Enfield Town to Seven Sisters trains to Barking." This might imply that the entire Enfield service would go that way. Either way it seems odd... here's some passenger figures from Wikipedia. Bush Hill Park 0.992 million Enfield Town 2.107 million Southbury 0.834 million Turkey Street 0.604 million Theobald's Grove 0.352 million (I can't get figures for Cheshunt Overground only, but it has faster trains to the Victoria Line and to Liverpool Street via Tottenham Hale.) So Enfield Town alone has more than the three Southbury Loop stations. I think Enfield Town needs 8-car trains from Liverpool Street, and the Southbury Loop should get the 4-car trains from Barking. |
Barking Riverside Extension approved
In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote: On 2017\08\06 23:38, Paul Corfield wrote: Inspector's report - https://www.gov.uk/government/public...rking-riversid e-extension-order-inspectors-report 4. Another interesting possibility of extending planned peak extra trains from Enfield to Seven Sisters onwards to Barking via the S Tott curve. As the trains will be common stock in future this would give 6 tph from S Tott to Barking in the peaks. No timescale given, though, for this possible variant service. The exact quote in the report is "TfL planners are already considering diverting Enfield Town to Seven Sisters trains to Barking." This might imply that the entire Enfield service would go that way. Either way it seems odd... here's some passenger figures from Wikipedia. Bush Hill Park 0.992 million Enfield Town 2.107 million Southbury 0.834 million Turkey Street 0.604 million Theobald's Grove 0.352 million (I can't get figures for Cheshunt Overground only, but it has faster trains to the Victoria Line and to Liverpool Street via Tottenham Hale.) So Enfield Town alone has more than the three Southbury Loop stations. I think Enfield Town needs 8-car trains from Liverpool Street, and the Southbury Loop should get the 4-car trains from Barking. But these are "planned extra trains" from Enfield Town, so on top of the current 4 trains hourly in the peak when Cheshunt and the Southbury loop only get half-hourly trains. Enfield Town also has 3 platforms to reverse trains in while Cheshunt just has one for LO services. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Barking Riverside Extension approved
How many trains are there today on the Essex Thameside (Tilbury Loop)
Line east of Barking? -- jhk |
Barking Riverside Extension approved
On Tuesday, 8 August 2017 00:25:09 UTC+1, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\06 23:38, Paul Corfield wrote: Inspector's report - https://www.gov.uk/government/public...pectors-report 4. Another interesting possibility of extending planned peak extra trains from Enfield to Seven Sisters onwards to Barking via the S Tott curve. As the trains will be common stock in future this would give 6 tph from S Tott to Barking in the peaks. No timescale given, though, for this possible variant service. The exact quote in the report is "TfL planners are already considering diverting Enfield Town to Seven Sisters trains to Barking." This might imply that the entire Enfield service would go that way. Either way it seems odd... here's some passenger figures from Wikipedia. Bush Hill Park 0.992 million Enfield Town 2.107 million Southbury 0.834 million Turkey Street 0.604 million Theobald's Grove 0.352 million (I can't get figures for Cheshunt Overground only, but it has faster trains to the Victoria Line and to Liverpool Street via Tottenham Hale.) So Enfield Town alone has more than the three Southbury Loop stations. I think Enfield Town needs 8-car trains from Liverpool Street, and the Southbury Loop should get the 4-car trains from Barking. I know what the report says. TfL have had plans for extra peak hours trains between Seven Sisters and Enfield Town to try to resolve the high demand on that flow because of the large scale of interchange. Obviously Liverpool St trains are still busy and pick up many more people further south. I have seen no suggestion at all that the current 4 tph peak / 2 tph off peak Enfied - Liv St service would be diverted anywhere. The extras can't run to LST as there aren't the paths nor any effective intermediate turnbacks. This leaves only a couple of options as to what you do with the trains once they reached Seven Sisters. You either try to reverse on the chord or you run through South Tottenham and reverse them there or on the connecting tracks towards Stratford / Clapton or you send them eastwards on the GOBLIN. Given the GOBLIN is forecast in the future to have continued levels of overcrowding, even with longer electric trains, between Barking and Blackhorse Road I can see the attraction to TfL of trying to add some extra peak frequency on this section. Anyway this is all a fair number of years away given funding constraints. I only mentioned it in the first place as an interesting snippet from the report. -- Paul C via Google |
Barking Riverside Extension approved
On 2017\08\09 17:17, Paul Corfield wrote:
I know what the report says. TfL have had plans for extra peak hours trains between Seven Sisters and Enfield Town to try to resolve the high demand on that flow because of the large scale of interchange. Obviously Liverpool St trains are still busy and pick up many more people further south. I have seen no suggestion at all that the current 4 tph peak / 2 tph off peak Enfied - Liv St service would be diverted anywhere. The extras can't run to LST as there aren't the paths nor any effective intermediate turnbacks. This leaves only a couple of options as to what you do with the trains once they reached Seven Sisters. You either try to reverse on the chord or you run through South Tottenham and reverse them there or on the connecting tracks towards Stratford / Clapton or you send them eastwards on the GOBLIN. Given the GOBLIN is forecast in the future to have continued levels of overcrowding, even with longer electric trains, between Barking and Blackhorse Road I can see the attraction to TfL of trying to add some extra peak frequency on this section. Anyway this is all a fair number of years away given funding constraints. I only mentioned it in the first place as an interesting snippet from the report. Another option is to send the extras from Enfield to Stratford. This would allow them to be 8-car, and it would give Enfield-Seven Sisters a service that might be useful for a fair number of commuters (although it's possible that Docklands than via Stratford might be slower than changing at Liverpool Street for Crossrail, or even walking from Bethnal Orange to Whitechapel). But obviously that doesn't help with predicted crowding on the Goblin. Do they not think that the Crossrail interchange at Wanstead Park / Forest Gate will suck a lot of the interchange out of Blackhorse Road? They seem to be ignoring it, sometimes omitting it from line guides etc. Crayonista solution: Build track from Cambridge Heath to Whitechapel and run them to New Cross. |
Barking Riverside Extension approved
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 7:41:10 PM UTC+1, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\09 17:17, Paul Corfield wrote: I know what the report says. TfL have had plans for extra peak hours trains between Seven Sisters and Enfield Town to try to resolve the high demand on that flow because of the large scale of interchange. Obviously Liverpool St trains are still busy and pick up many more people further south. I have seen no suggestion at all that the current 4 tph peak / 2 tph off peak Enfied - Liv St service would be diverted anywhere. The extras can't run to LST as there aren't the paths nor any effective intermediate turnbacks. This leaves only a couple of options as to what you do with the trains once they reached Seven Sisters. You either try to reverse on the chord or you run through South Tottenham and reverse them there or on the connecting tracks towards Stratford / Clapton or you send them eastwards on the GOBLIN. Given the GOBLIN is forecast in the future to have continued levels of overcrowding, even with longer electric trains, between Barking and Blackhorse Road I can see the attraction to TfL of trying to add some extra peak frequency on this section. Anyway this is all a fair number of years away given funding constraints. I only mentioned it in the first place as an interesting snippet from the report. Another option is to send the extras from Enfield to Stratford. Out of the frying pan and into the fire! They'd impede the flow of traffic to and from Tottenham Hale which, we're always told, is so intense that additional tracks are required. |
Barking Riverside Extension approved
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:41:05 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote: On 2017\08\09 17:17, Paul Corfield wrote: I know what the report says. TfL have had plans for extra peak hours trains between Seven Sisters and Enfield Town to try to resolve the high demand on that flow because of the large scale of interchange. Obviously Liverpool St trains are still busy and pick up many more people further south. I have seen no suggestion at all that the current 4 tph peak / 2 tph off peak Enfied - Liv St service would be diverted anywhere. The extras can't run to LST as there aren't the paths nor any effective intermediate turnbacks. This leaves only a couple of options as to what you do with the trains once they reached Seven Sisters. You either try to reverse on the chord or you run through South Tottenham and reverse them there or on the connecting tracks towards Stratford / Clapton or you send them eastwards on the GOBLIN. Given the GOBLIN is forecast in the future to have continued levels of overcrowding, even with longer electric trains, between Barking and Blackhorse Road I can see the attraction to TfL of trying to add some extra peak frequency on this section. Anyway this is all a fair number of years away given funding constraints. I only mentioned it in the first place as an interesting snippet from the report. Another option is to send the extras from Enfield to Stratford. This would allow them to be 8-car, and it would give Enfield-Seven Sisters a service that might be useful for a fair number of commuters (although it's possible that Docklands than via Stratford might be slower than changing at Liverpool Street for Crossrail, or even walking from Bethnal Orange to Whitechapel). But obviously that doesn't help with predicted crowding on the Goblin. Do they not think that the Crossrail interchange at Wanstead Park / Forest Gate will suck a lot of the interchange out of Blackhorse Road? They seem to be ignoring it, sometimes omitting it from line guides etc. Crayonista solution: Build track from Cambridge Heath to Whitechapel and run them to New Cross. Interchanging from Forest Gate to Wanstead Park 'tis not that easy. There's a busy road to cross, narrow pavements & a climb up to Wanstead Park platforms. If I want to change from c2c to AGA I use the Upminster - Romford shuttle. DC --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:09 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk