|
|
Post by croxleyn on Mar 4, 2017 19:26:57 GMT
I've seen many reports of the proposed £263million to be spent on the 2 1/2 mile railway, of which new track is just 0.9miles. With the Metropolitan (Croxley) extension on my doorstep, I've kept a close eye on its budget, a similar value. With Barking being on new, flat land, how on earth is this cost arrived at: there shouldn't be any lifts/escalators required, and no major structures, unlike Croxley (2 lifts +1 long viaduct). OK, so they need some points/crossings, say 5 at £1m+, and an extra train (£10m?). And maybe a bit for electrification and signalling...
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz285 on Mar 4, 2017 21:59:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Mar 5, 2017 5:32:53 GMT
The three lines on page 6 (sheet 5) and page 7 (sheet 6) running south of Choats Road then heading south west until they cross Renwick Road are overhead power lines and pylons Here's the view looking east from where the flyover will be www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5270031,0.1222843,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdFZo1Yun_w0DkMIbB8gOBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 and looking west showing the power lines running alongside the housing www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5270031,0.1222843,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdFZo1Yun_w0DkMIbB8gOBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 Obviously not a lot of space to fit a flover and the overhead lines so those power lines are probably going to have to be buried which is going to add a bit to the cost. |
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Mar 5, 2017 7:24:53 GMT
Possibly the reason is that money can be thrown at Riverside because of the development profits it will unlock, all under the mayor's control; this doesn't apply to Croxley, in Hertfordshire....
|
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Mar 5, 2017 7:43:36 GMT
Barking Riverside has planning permission for 10800 homes but is restricted to 1200 until transport links are improved, originally that would have been covered by the DLR Dagenham Dock extension which was cancelled in November 2008 along with a load of other projects because apparently TfL didn't have enough money (although they could afford the Routemaster replacement, the Cable Car, the Garden Bridge, etc)
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Mar 5, 2017 14:09:37 GMT
The land may be flat but it's a wet area.
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Mar 5, 2017 22:04:54 GMT
Wet? Well, George Stephenson conquered Chat Moss 190 years ago -- and Thamesmead was just as marshy in 1965!
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 5, 2017 22:08:14 GMT
I think crusty54's point is that the land being wet will be a factor in the larger than expected (by croxleyn) price tag for this extension. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 5, 2017 23:19:50 GMT
I've seen many reports of the proposed £263million to be spent on the 2 1/2 mile railway, of which new track is just 0.9miles. With the Metropolitan (Croxley) extension on my doorstep, I've kept a close eye on its budget, a similar value. With Barking being on new, flat land, how on earth is this cost arrived at: there shouldn't be any lifts/escalators required, and no major structures, unlike Croxley (2 lifts +1 long viaduct). OK, so they need some points/crossings, say 5 at £1m+, and an extra train (£10m?). And maybe a bit for electrification and signalling... I think you need to be careful about what you are comparing. TfL have been forced to take on the Croxley Link project and the regularly quoted cost is, as far as I can tell, purely a final design / build / integrate / commission cost. The costs of planning, design etc were carried by HCC with only small scale TfL involvement as I understand it. The Barking Riverside costs will be for the entire project cost as TfL have been client from day one - therefore it will cover all the planning, design, consultation, parliamentary and then final design, build etc costs. TfL project authorities should "roll up" and capture the entire costs of all phases of the project. It also includes a viaduct based alignment from the point the line leaves the C2C route. Therefore there are lift and escalator costs at the elevated terminal. Several extra trains are also needed whereas 1 was needed for the Croxley Link. |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Mar 6, 2017 0:14:51 GMT
I think crusty54's point is that the land being wet will be a factor in the larger than expected (by croxleyn) price tag for this extension. Precisely |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Mar 7, 2017 15:52:25 GMT
I've seen many reports of the proposed £263million to be spent on the 2 1/2 mile railway, of which new track is just 0.9miles. With the Metropolitan (Croxley) extension on my doorstep, I've kept a close eye on its budget, a similar value. With Barking being on new, flat land, how on earth is this cost arrived at: there shouldn't be any lifts/escalators required, and no major structures, unlike Croxley (2 lifts +1 long viaduct). OK, so they need some points/crossings, say 5 at £1m+, and an extra train (£10m?). And maybe a bit for electrification and signalling... I think you need to be careful about what you are comparing. TfL have been forced to take on the Croxley Link project and the regularly quoted cost is, as far as I can tell, purely a final design / build / integrate / commission cost. The costs of planning, design etc were carried by HCC with only small scale TfL involvement as I understand it. The Barking Riverside costs will be for the entire project cost as TfL have been client from day one - therefore it will cover all the planning, design, consultation, parliamentary and then final design, build etc costs. TfL project authorities should "roll up" and capture the entire costs of all phases of the project. It also includes a viaduct based alignment from the point the line leaves the C2C route. Therefore there are lift and escalator costs at the elevated terminal. Several extra trains are also needed whereas 1 was needed for the Croxley Link. How does it require several extra trains to serve one additional station.? |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 7, 2017 16:24:49 GMT
I think you need to be careful about what you are comparing. TfL have been forced to take on the Croxley Link project and the regularly quoted cost is, as far as I can tell, purely a final design / build / integrate / commission cost. The costs of planning, design etc were carried by HCC with only small scale TfL involvement as I understand it. The Barking Riverside costs will be for the entire project cost as TfL have been client from day one - therefore it will cover all the planning, design, consultation, parliamentary and then final design, build etc costs. TfL project authorities should "roll up" and capture the entire costs of all phases of the project. It also includes a viaduct based alignment from the point the line leaves the C2C route. Therefore there are lift and escalator costs at the elevated terminal. Several extra trains are also needed whereas 1 was needed for the Croxley Link. How does it require several extra trains to serve one additional station.? I am just referencing what I put in a separate post about the concession agreement and the options contained therein. It says 2 extra class 710s are required for the Riverside extension. It does not explain *why*! If the tph went up to 5 an hour then 1 extra train is needed for that. I am afraid I do not know what the running, stand and turn round time assumptions are for the Riverside extension. A wild guess on my part is that run times may have to include some "flex" to allow for the volume of freight workings between Barking and the new junction. I'd also not be shocked if trains may even need to wait for access to the C2C tracks and / or platforms at Barking at busy times. This may simply mean that TfL are being a tad pessimistic in their assumptions and have opted for 2 extra trains to give a greater degree of certainty around service planning and also for the concession operator if (more likely, when) the go ahead for the extension is received from the Secretary of State. |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Mar 7, 2017 17:03:56 GMT
I was at Barking on Saturday afternoon and a Goblin train reversed on platform 7 which would be the route to the extension.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 7, 2017 17:14:51 GMT
I was at Barking on Saturday afternoon and a Goblin train reversed on platform 7 which would be the route to the extension. I've only experienced this in the PM peak when it took ages for everyone to get off a terminating GOBLIN train. It then headed to the reversing track. In the meantime it had delayed a C2C train and when it eventually arrived it was then caught again because of the reversing GOBLIN. I can't imagine C2C being happy about that if it happens regularly. That is partly what prompted my earlier remarks about TfL taking a pessimistic view. I think it's the case that C2C and freight companies have expressed concern to the Inspector responsible for assessing the TWA application from TfL to build the extension. If it goes ahead then we can guarantee that whenever Arriva London Rail apply for track access east of Barking that C2C and the Freight Operators will all object to the application and demand compensation (this seems to be standard industry practice) because of the risk of delays to their services / impingement on their existing running rights. |
|
|
|
Post by jukes on Mar 7, 2017 17:46:02 GMT
If GOB does go up to 5tph which is very likely, only 4tph will run to and from Barking Riverside. The fifth train will run to and from platform 1 at Barking. Thats the train service planning position of TfL.
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Mar 7, 2017 17:56:24 GMT
I was at Barking on Saturday afternoon and a Goblin train reversed on platform 7 which would be the route to the extension. I've only experienced this in the PM peak when it took ages for everyone to get off a terminating GOBLIN train. It then headed to the reversing track. In the meantime it had delayed a C2C train and when it eventually arrived it was then caught again because of the reversing GOBLIN. I can't imagine C2C being happy about that if it happens regularly. That is partly what prompted my earlier remarks about TfL taking a pessimistic view. I think it's the case that C2C and freight companies have expressed concern to the Inspector responsible for assessing the TWA application from TfL to build the extension. If it goes ahead then we can guarantee that whenever Arriva London Rail apply for track access east of Barking that C2C and the Freight Operators will all object to the application and demand compensation (this seems to be standard industry practice) because of the risk of delays to their services / impingement on their existing running rights. The C2C service is poor for much of the day. Every 30 minutes is not enough. Much of the freight runs at night. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 8, 2017 16:55:23 GMT
An interesting little snippet from a recent Mayor's Answer about the Barking Riverside extension. I had not spotted that the extension is effectively capped at 4 tph because of capacity constraints on the C2C line from Barking. This also means that if 5 tph were adopted on the GOBLIN 1 tph would have to turn at Barking giving an uneven headway to / from Riverside or else an odd headway from Barking to Gospel Oak with the fifth train squashed between a regular 4 tph pattern. How silly.
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Apr 28, 2017 9:59:57 GMT
Barking Riverside has planning permission for 10800 homes but is restricted to 1200 until transport links are improved, originally that would have been covered by the DLR Dagenham Dock extension which was cancelled in November 2008 along with a load of other projects because apparently TfL didn't have enough money (although they could afford the Routemaster replacement, the Cable Car, the Garden Bridge, etc) The Garden Bridge is no more! www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/28/garden-bridge-across-thames-scrapped-by-sadiq-khan-london |
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 28, 2017 11:51:56 GMT
I was at Barking on Saturday afternoon and a Goblin train reversed on platform 7 which would be the route to the extension. I've only experienced this in the PM peak when it took ages for everyone to get off a terminating GOBLIN train. It then headed to the reversing track. In the meantime it had delayed a C2C train and when it eventually arrived it was then caught again because of the reversing GOBLIN. I can't imagine C2C being happy about that if it happens regularly. That is partly what prompted my earlier remarks about TfL taking a pessimistic view. I think it's the case that C2C and freight companies have expressed concern to the Inspector responsible for assessing the TWA application from TfL to build the extension. If it goes ahead then we can guarantee that whenever Arriva London Rail apply for track access east of Barking that C2C and the Freight Operators will all object to the application and demand compensation (this seems to be standard industry practice) because of the risk of delays to their services / impingement on their existing running rights. I thought GOBLIN services use platform 1? which is not a through platform and hence the dwell time needed for a terminating service seems unlikely to affect C2C services. I cannot understand why a GOBLIN service was sent into platform 7 to terminate especially during peak hours unless there was some sort of track work or signalling issue. Obviously if use of platform 7 was an unusual event for the GOBLIN service - then dithering passengers may have contributed significantly to the extended platform dwell time. However if in future services are routinely using different platforms then passengers will soon become familiar with the new arrangement and presumably dwell time will reduce. Also once they switch to longer electric units with more doors for the same number of passengers to board/alight, things should speed up. As for the extra 5th service, I guess that even when riverside opens, any terminating services can still be routed to platform 1. If through platform demand really becomes a major issue in the future, then perhaps NR could even re-establish platform 1 as a through route. I think the bridge is already in place although some parking and porta-cabins would be lost, and that platform would only be able to serve limited routes beyond Barking. |
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Apr 28, 2017 14:44:25 GMT
I thought GOBLIN services use platform 1? which is not a through platform and hence the dwell time needed for a terminating service seems unlikely to affect C2C services. I cannot understand why a GOBLIN service was sent into platform 7 to terminate especially during peak hours unless there was some sort of track work or signalling issue. Obviously if use of platform 7 was an unusual event for the GOBLIN service - then dithering passengers may have contributed significantly to the extended platform dwell time. However if in future services are routinely using different platforms then passengers will soon become familiar with the new arrangement and presumably dwell time will reduce. Also once they switch to longer electric units with more doors for the same number of passengers to board/alight, things should speed up. As for the extra 5th service, I guess that even when riverside opens, any terminating services can still be routed to platform 1. If through platform demand really becomes a major issue in the future, then perhaps NR could even re-establish platform 1 as a through route. I think the bridge is already in place although some parking and porta-cabins would be lost, and that platform would only be able to serve limited routes beyond Barking. Wouldn't you also have to get the LO trains from platform 1 over or under the District Line east of the station to the C2C tracks? That might be a bit of a challenge with the rather cramped nature of the lines there.  |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Apr 29, 2017 3:16:29 GMT
The only LO working timetable I've found is dated 2011-12, a quick skim through has 06:17 departure from Platform 8 on Mondays with 06:32 Tuesday to Saturday, 06;47 Monday to Saturday and 08:53, 09:08, 09:23 on Sunday all departing from Platform 7. It also has the 22:20 Monday to Saturday and the 22:10 Sunday arrivals on Platform 7 before going out of service www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/145099/response/352252/attach/4/WTT%20LC%20Dec%202011.pdfLO does use those platforms at other times, on a Sunday a few weeks back I arrived on Platform 7 around noon but a couple of hours later I caught a train back to Leyton Midland Road from Platform 1. You couldn't go under from Platform 1 as you've already got the underpass for the WB District Line going under the C2C lines (see above photo) to Platform 6. A bridge would be a nightmare to fit in. PS I've just checked the Barking live departures board. 06:33 to Gospel Oak, Platform 7. Ditto 06:48 |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Apr 29, 2017 8:36:11 GMT
"] If through platform demand really becomes a major issue in the future, then perhaps NR could even re-establish platform 1 as a through route. . Wouldn't you also have to get the LO trains from platform 1 over or under the District Line east of the station to the C2C tracks? That might be a bit of a challenge with the rather cramped nature of the lines there. With some juggling at the west end of the station, it could be done. Slew the eastbound District to run through Platform 1. A spur off the flyover can then take LO trains down into platform 2 (or the bay platform 3), where they will be alongside the eastbound C2C line in Platform 4 and merge with it east of the station. This would however only give access to the Upminster route. carto.metro.free.fr/documents/CartoMetroLondon.v3.6.pdf I will leave the arrangements for a corresponding non-conflicting westbound route as an "exercise for the reader"! |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 29, 2017 22:14:34 GMT
I've only experienced this in the PM peak when it took ages for everyone to get off a terminating GOBLIN train. It then headed to the reversing track. In the meantime it had delayed a C2C train and when it eventually arrived it was then caught again because of the reversing GOBLIN. I can't imagine C2C being happy about that if it happens regularly. That is partly what prompted my earlier remarks about TfL taking a pessimistic view. I think it's the case that C2C and freight companies have expressed concern to the Inspector responsible for assessing the TWA application from TfL to build the extension. If it goes ahead then we can guarantee that whenever Arriva London Rail apply for track access east of Barking that C2C and the Freight Operators will all object to the application and demand compensation (this seems to be standard industry practice) because of the risk of delays to their services / impingement on their existing running rights. I thought GOBLIN services use platform 1? which is not a through platform and hence the dwell time needed for a terminating service seems unlikely to affect C2C services. I cannot understand why a GOBLIN service was sent into platform 7 to terminate especially during peak hours unless there was some sort of track work or signalling issue. Obviously if use of platform 7 was an unusual event for the GOBLIN service - then dithering passengers may have contributed significantly to the extended platform dwell time. However if in future services are routinely using different platforms then passengers will soon become familiar with the new arrangement and presumably dwell time will reduce. Also once they switch to longer electric units with more doors for the same number of passengers to board/alight, things should speed up. As for the extra 5th service, I guess that even when riverside opens, any terminating services can still be routed to platform 1. If through platform demand really becomes a major issue in the future, then perhaps NR could even re-establish platform 1 as a through route. I think the bridge is already in place although some parking and porta-cabins would be lost, and that platform would only be able to serve limited routes beyond Barking. Generally the GOBLIN trains do use P1. However there are a number of workings which use Ps 7/8. Some of these workings are for route knowledge retention but others are to cater for extra peak workings which run close-ish together meaning P1 is occupied when another train has to arrive. One of the passenger related issues with not using P1 at Barking is the lack of active customer information and announcements to direct people who will "go on auto pilot" to platform 1. C2C don't really make any effort to advise passengers about the Overground service or any variation to it. This is a very long standing issue highlighted by the line's user group. We may see improvement when the new trains run but that depends entirely on what happens with demand. If numbers remain roughly at current levels then yes the extra doors and space will help hugely. If growth surges we may get back to very crowded platforms and trains pretty quickly. I've just looked at the year end patronage numbers for all TfL modes (in the London Datastore) and Overground put on 74m pass jnys in 2016/17. Now some of that will be West Anglia but some will be on the "original" network and that's despite the GOBLIN being shut for a fair part of the year. That suggests we may well see some level of growth on the GOBLIN whenever NR get round to finishing the work and TfL can get the new trains into service. I suspect TfL will remove the current PIXC buster extra trains once all the 4 car EMUs are in service. This may then reduce the number of odd platform workings at Barking. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on May 29, 2017 13:14:17 GMT
Took the Goblin to Barking today, the train arrived on Platform 7 at around 11:10 (11:18 departure) but the 12:33 left from Platform 1.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 4, 2017 11:29:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Aug 5, 2017 7:12:35 GMT
The Planning Inspectors report has some interesting detail on why this short line is going to cost so much.
An interesting observation in response to one of the objections - confirms that the line may eventually get 5 car trains if justified by demand. Given the "demand" linked to the proposed 10,000+ new homes at Riverside are still a good few years ahead, I hope that if 5 car trains is indeed TFL's plan, that then they find some way to suitably incentivise (bribe) the manufacturer to keep the production jigs to enable them to cost effectively create some additional trailers 10-15 years from now. It would be really sad if by the time TFL are ready to order the additional carriages for the line the infrastructure needed to build them has already been turned into tin cans.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 5, 2017 9:26:00 GMT
The Planning Inspectors report has some interesting detail on why this short line is going to cost so much. An interesting observation in response to one of the objections - confirms that the line may eventually get 5 car trains if justified by demand. Given the "demand" linked to the proposed 10,000+ new homes at Riverside are still a good few years ahead, I hope that if 5 car trains is indeed TFL's plan, that then they find some way to suitably incentivise (bribe) the manufacturer to keep the production jigs to enable them to cost effectively create some additional trailers 10-15 years from now. It would be really sad if by the time TFL are ready to order the additional carriages for the line the infrastructure needed to build them has already been turned into tin cans. Yes the Inspector's report does have some interesting bits in it. TfL do have contract options with Bombardier for extra trains and carriages. Obviously we don't know how long those options will exist but the Adventra has a lot of orders now and is a "family" train so it's possible Bombardier may not throw away the jigs for a long while. There are no guarantees, though, about other sub systems including software remaining compatible though. That seems to be a bigger curse on train compatibility than anything else. The report not only talks about possible 5 car trains but also the GOBLIN possibly taking up to 12 tph each way - 6 passenger trains and 6 freight - subject to an extra freight loop being added. Quite where that capability is coming from is beyond me as the line doesn't have that throughput now. There is a passing remark about planned peak time extras from Enfield Town to Seven Sisters continuing to Barking using the curve at S Tottenham. That fits in the narrative from TfL in the report about enhancing parts of the service for periods in the day. We do know that the extras from Enfield Town to SS are definitely being considered but there aren't the paths to get them into Liverpool St. It's also interesting that TfL are perfectly willing to write off the £70m cost of the viaduct on Barking Riverside if we ever get to the point of building the cross river extension to Abbey Wood. However the clever provision in the TWAO to allow this has been negated via an extra condition so if they do decide to extend then new provisions will be needed for a new line and to remove the elevated one. Finally the amended track layout at Renwick Road will allow for an island platform station to be added at a later date but only for the LO service. An attempt to create a 12 car long provisional station has been ruled out due to the cost of associated track changes on the C2C route although it is accepted that platforms could be added by the C2C tracks if required. For some reason C2C themselves are very reluctant to serve a Renwick Rd station due to "impacts on the timetable". I know they have to cope with the planned Beam Park station and their Essex passengers just want express services that ignore Greater London but it can't be beyond the wit of timetablers to cope with 2 extra station stops. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Aug 5, 2017 9:41:38 GMT
I hope that if 5 car trains is indeed TFL's plan, that then they find some way to suitably incentivise (bribe) the manufacturer to keep the production jigs to enable them to cost effectively create some additional trailers 10-15 years from now. Extending the 710s to five cars is only one option. Another would be transferring the requisite number of 5-car units from somewhere else. Indeed, there is an impending glut of unwanted 5-car units, as South eastern aspires to 12 cars on all trains, makings its 376s surplus to requirements, and MTLFirst have decided they don't want SWT's recently converted 458s, or their brand new 707s. |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Aug 5, 2017 15:10:40 GMT
I hope that if 5 car trains is indeed TFL's plan, that then they find some way to suitably incentivise (bribe) the manufacturer to keep the production jigs to enable them to cost effectively create some additional trailers 10-15 years from now. Extending the 710s to five cars is only one option. Another would be transferring the requisite number of 5-car units from somewhere else. Indeed, there is an impending glut of unwanted 5-car units, as South eastern aspires to 12 cars on all trains, makings its 376s surplus to requirements, and MTLFirst have decided they don't want SWT's recently converted 458s, or their brand new 707s. Sorry but all the TfL trains are geared up for in cab monitors and high tech operation. The cast offs are almost life expired wrecks. |
|
|
|
Post by chris11256 on Aug 5, 2017 16:49:09 GMT
The Planning Inspectors report has some interesting detail on why this short line is going to cost so much. An interesting observation in response to one of the objections - confirms that the line may eventually get 5 car trains if justified by demand. Given the "demand" linked to the proposed 10,000+ new homes at Riverside are still a good few years ahead, I hope that if 5 car trains is indeed TFL's plan, that then they find some way to suitably incentivise (bribe) the manufacturer to keep the production jigs to enable them to cost effectively create some additional trailers 10-15 years from now. It would be really sad if by the time TFL are ready to order the additional carriages for the line the infrastructure needed to build them has already been turned into tin cans. Yes the Inspector's report does have some interesting bits in it. TfL do have contract options with Bombardier for extra trains and carriages. Obviously we don't know how long those options will exist but the Adventra has a lot of orders now and is a "family" train so it's possible Bombardier may not throw away the jigs for a long while. There are no guarantees, though, about other sub systems including software remaining compatible though. That seems to be a bigger curse on train compatibility than anything else. The report not only talks about possible 5 car trains but also the GOBLIN possibly taking up to 12 tph each way - 6 passenger trains and 6 freight - subject to an extra freight loop being added. Quite where that capability is coming from is beyond me as the line doesn't have that throughput now. There is a passing remark about planned peak time extras from Enfield Town to Seven Sisters continuing to Barking using the curve at S Tottenham. That fits in the narrative from TfL in the report about enhancing parts of the service for periods in the day. We do know that the extras from Enfield Town to SS are definitely being considered but there aren't the paths to get them into Liverpool St. It's also interesting that TfL are perfectly willing to write off the £70m cost of the viaduct on Barking Riverside if we ever get to the point of building the cross river extension to Abbey Wood. However the clever provision in the TWAO to allow this has been negated via an extra condition so if they do decide to extend then new provisions will be needed for a new line and to remove the elevated one. Finally the amended track layout at Renwick Road will allow for an island platform station to be added at a later date but only for the LO service. An attempt to create a 12 car long provisional station has been ruled out due to the cost of associated track changes on the C2C route although it is accepted that platforms could be added by the C2C tracks if required. For some reason C2C themselves are very reluctant to serve a Renwick Rd station due to "impacts on the timetable". I know they have to cope with the planned Beam Park station and their Essex passengers just want express services that ignore Greater London but it can't be beyond the wit of timetablers to cope with 2 extra station stops. The issue with the c2c timetable on the Tilbury loop is that the trains are times from Fenchurch Street. So with the exception of trains are terminate at Grays, the Tilbury loop trains need to be timed to fit in between the mainline trains at Pitsea junction. As a train coming from the loop needs to cross the Up line to access the Down line towards Shoeburyness. Adding extra stops/trains completely messes up the timings as the mainline is quite full already during peak. |
|
