|
|
Post by phil on Aug 5, 2017 21:37:05 GMT
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. Please remember what the National Rail Network is administered for the benefits of everyone in the country - which means that Londoners do not get the right to make operators stop at every station they want within the GLA area. In the case of C2C this is even more relevant because it arguably lost pretty much all its London suburban duties back in the 1930s when the District line was extended out to Upminster so its completely understandable that the current franchise holders nor the DfT have any interest in serving a suburban station near to Barking, offering precious little benefit to their users and which only makes timetabling harder. It may seem trivial to you, but that extra station stop will have significant consequences elsewhere as regards C2C trains given the need to cross on the flat at Pitsea, only 2 tracks inwards from Barking and only 4 platforms at Fenchuch Street with a very limited section of quadruple track approaching it (thanks to the DLR nicking part of it back in the late 1980s). Just as its easy to draw lines on maps and proclaim that such and such a tube line should be extended in a certain fashion, its easy to do the same with stations. In reality topography, signalling issues, service intensity, pathways at conflicting junctions have far more impact on whether a scheme is viable than any amount of map reading does. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Aug 5, 2017 23:05:37 GMT
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. Surely an exaggeration? SWT have spent serious money recently on new traction packages for the 455s, and rebuilding the 458s (which are only about 20 years old) involved much more than simply adding a fifth (ex class 460) carriage. As for the class 707s, they are brand new: indeed most of the fleet have not even been delivered yet, and none have entered passenger service. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 5, 2017 23:51:39 GMT
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. Surely an exaggeration? SWT have spent serious money recently on new traction packages for the 455s, and rebuilding the 458s (which are only about 20 years old) involved much more than simply adding a fifth (ex class 460) carriage. As for the class 707s, they are brand new: indeed most of the fleet have not even been delivered yet, and none have entered passenger service. Technically SWT haven't spent anything - the train leasing companies are the ones who spent the money and who are now facing a dilemma over what to do with all this soon to be displaced, yet freshly refurbished / rebuilt stock. True SWT agreed as (as part of a Franchise extension IIRC) to invest in certain things (which in train terms, actually simply means paying a higher leasing cost to cover the upgrades done by the owners of the trains) but SWT themselves didn't put large amounts of capital into the 707s etc.... However the winner of the new franchise doesn't think this represents good value for money. As a TOC if you think your lease costs are too high then rather than simply continuing to shell out whatever the owners demand you go and strike a better deal elsewhere. What the owners of the current stock do is none of your concern - they lost out by wanting too much money. Its called Capitalism in action... or the power of the free market.... or Competition is the best way to drive down costs and get better products as a certain political party would say. At the end of the day, the basic fact is the new SWT franchise owner will be paying less to lease the new Bombardier stock it has ordered over the life of the franchise than it would have paid the owners of the 455, 456 485 and 707 fleets. That should in theory also mean us taxpayers don't have to give the franchise quite as much money from Central Government in the first place. A win win as far as the Government is concerned - a lower subsidy, shiny new trains to provide lots of 'passenger benefits' and proof the whole privatisation thing works just as well as the concession model operated by TfL. |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Aug 6, 2017 4:28:34 GMT
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. Surely an exaggeration? SWT have spent serious money recently on new traction packages for the 455s, and rebuilding the 458s (which are only about 20 years old) involved much more than simply adding a fifth (ex class 460) carriage. As for the class 707s, they are brand new: indeed most of the fleet have not even been delivered yet, and none have entered passenger service. I said cast offs and meant it. As you will find out there is a World of difference between Aventras and old and heavy trains. The leasing costs of the 707s will it very hard to find a new home. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Aug 6, 2017 8:38:27 GMT
I said cast offs and meant it. . It was the term "life-expired" I was querying, in particular given that the 707s haven't yet entered service. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 6, 2017 10:04:41 GMT
Please remember what the National Rail Network is administered for the benefits of everyone in the country - which means that Londoners do not get the right to make operators stop at every station they want within the GLA area. In the case of C2C this is even more relevant because it arguably lost pretty much all its London suburban duties back in the 1930s when the District line was extended out to Upminster so its completely understandable that the current franchise holders nor the DfT have any interest in serving a suburban station near to Barking, offering precious little benefit to their users and which only makes timetabling harder. It may seem trivial to you, but that extra station stop will have significant consequences elsewhere as regards C2C trains given the need to cross on the flat at Pitsea, only 2 tracks inwards from Barking and only 4 platforms at Fenchuch Street with a very limited section of quadruple track approaching it (thanks to the DLR nicking part of it back in the late 1980s). Just as its easy to draw lines on maps and proclaim that such and such a tube line should be extended in a certain fashion, its easy to do the same with stations. In reality topography, signalling issues, service intensity, pathways at conflicting junctions have far more impact on whether a scheme is viable than any amount of map reading does. Thank you for perhaps the most patronising response I've ever had on this forum. I am well aware that a national railway exists. I am not a blithering idiot and do not need to be replied to as if I am. I am not at all happy. The fact remains that C2C's route via Grays and Rainham is slap bang in a huge development area what will push up demand for their services *within Greater London* and also between Essex Thameside and Greater London. There will also be new journey demands within the Thameside corridor that will have to be catered for. I appreciate there are practical issues with a railway with flat junctions and differential run times on diverging routes. At some point DfT and whoever runs C2C will need to face up to the challenges that result from more housing and development which are government endorsed policies. Unless I am very much mistaken it was the DfT, NOT Londoners, who specified the now partially abandoned "Metro" requirement for C2C with trains stopping at Upminster, Barking, West Ham and Limehouse. Therefore the DfT recognised that there are enormous demand pressures withing Greater London and they are not going away regardless of the fact that this a National Rail route that parallels the Tube. When push comes to shove the railway's job is to meet overall transport needs and to cater for them as they change. The fact that timetabling might be a bit awkward is not sufficient impediment to changing what the railway does and who it serves. We are almost back to the facile view that "railways and bus services would run perfectly if only there weren't those pesky passengers". |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Aug 6, 2017 11:13:27 GMT
I said cast offs and meant it. . It was the term "life-expired" I was querying, in particular given that the 707s haven't yet entered service. I did not say the 707s are life expired. I did say their leasing costs are too high. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Aug 6, 2017 19:48:25 GMT
It was the term "life-expired" I was querying, in particular given that the 707s haven't yet entered service. I did not say the 707s are life expired. I did say their leasing costs are too high. I agree the leasing costs are the problem - the ROSCO may need to offer them at a reduced price if they want someone to take them. But when you said "The cast offs are almost life expired wrecks", which units did you mean? The only others I mentioned were classes 376 (13 years old) and 458 (17 years old). Design life for an emu is usually about 35-40 years, (unless it's the sort that lays eggs). |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Aug 6, 2017 19:59:17 GMT
Londoners do not get the right to make operators stop at every station they want within the GLA area. In the case of C2C this is even more relevant because it arguably lost pretty much all its London suburban duties back in the 1930s when the District line was extended out to Upminster so its completely understandable that the current franchise holders nor the DfT have any interest in serving a suburban station near to Barking, offering precious little benefit to their users and which only makes timetabling harder. It may seem trivial to you, but that extra station stop will have significant consequences elsewhere as regards C2C trains given the need to cross on the flat at Pitsea However, the trains in question go no further than Grays, (which incidentally is in Oysterland) so junction conflicts at Pitsea are a red herring. All but two stations on that line are in Greater London, and one of those two (Grays) has other trains to Fenchurch Street. If Epsom, Shenfield, Watford, and Caterham are candidates for TfL control, there is at least an argument that the Dagenham Dock line should be as well. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 6, 2017 21:37:18 GMT
Londoners do not get the right to make operators stop at every station they want within the GLA area. In the case of C2C this is even more relevant because it arguably lost pretty much all its London suburban duties back in the 1930s when the District line was extended out to Upminster so its completely understandable that the current franchise holders nor the DfT have any interest in serving a suburban station near to Barking, offering precious little benefit to their users and which only makes timetabling harder. It may seem trivial to you, but that extra station stop will have significant consequences elsewhere as regards C2C trains given the need to cross on the flat at Pitsea However, the trains in question go no further than Grays, (which incidentally is in Oysterland) so junction conflicts at Pitsea are a red herring. All but two stations on that line are in Greater London, and one of those two (Grays) has other trains to Fenchurch Street. If Epsom, Shenfield, Watford, and Caterham are candidates for TfL control, there is at least an argument that the Dagenham Dock line should be as well. Err the timetable is a mix. Off peak and weekends you are correct. However in the peaks there is a decent number of trains via Rainham that start east of Grays - at Pitsea or Southend. Therefore there is a possibility that, as so often, it is catering for the peak that presents the issues. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 6, 2017 22:59:26 GMT
Please remember what the National Rail Network is administered for the benefits of everyone in the country - which means that Londoners do not get the right to make operators stop at every station they want within the GLA area. In the case of C2C this is even more relevant because it arguably lost pretty much all its London suburban duties back in the 1930s when the District line was extended out to Upminster so its completely understandable that the current franchise holders nor the DfT have any interest in serving a suburban station near to Barking, offering precious little benefit to their users and which only makes timetabling harder. It may seem trivial to you, but that extra station stop will have significant consequences elsewhere as regards C2C trains given the need to cross on the flat at Pitsea, only 2 tracks inwards from Barking and only 4 platforms at Fenchuch Street with a very limited section of quadruple track approaching it (thanks to the DLR nicking part of it back in the late 1980s). Just as its easy to draw lines on maps and proclaim that such and such a tube line should be extended in a certain fashion, its easy to do the same with stations. In reality topography, signalling issues, service intensity, pathways at conflicting junctions have far more impact on whether a scheme is viable than any amount of map reading does. Thank you for perhaps the most patronising response I've ever had on this forum. I am well aware that a national railway exists. I am not a blithering idiot and do not need to be replied to as if I am. I am not at all happy. The fact remains that C2C's route via Grays and Rainham is slap bang in a huge development area what will push up demand for their services *within Greater London* and also between Essex Thameside and Greater London. There will also be new journey demands within the Thameside corridor that will have to be catered for. I appreciate there are practical issues with a railway with flat junctions and differential run times on diverging routes. At some point DfT and whoever runs C2C will need to face up to the challenges that result from more housing and development which are government endorsed policies. Unless I am very much mistaken it was the DfT, NOT Londoners, who specified the now partially abandoned "Metro" requirement for C2C with trains stopping at Upminster, Barking, West Ham and Limehouse. Therefore the DfT recognised that there are enormous demand pressures withing Greater London and they are not going away regardless of the fact that this a National Rail route that parallels the Tube. When push comes to shove the railway's job is to meet overall transport needs and to cater for them as they change. The fact that timetabling might be a bit awkward is not sufficient impediment to changing what the railway does and who it serves. We are almost back to the facile view that "railways and bus services would run perfectly if only there weren't those pesky passengers". Well, if you were that well informed, you didn't reflect it in your post. I make no apologies for taking people to task who give the impression that National Rail services within London should be optimised for Londoners. With the national rail network so busy, particularly in London, it is rare that opportunities exist to provide new services / connectivity / stations without someone else suffering as a result. Simply dismissing that suffering as irrelevant to Londoners (note:- I accept you did not specifically state that) or inconsequential does nothing to advance the argument. For that detailed analysis is required, something most people frequenting internet forums (including myself) are ill equipped to do. As such while I acknowledge having C2C serving the potential Renwick Road station might improve connectivity in the area, that must be balanced with the needs of those C2C primarily exists to serve. C2C is primarily an outer London train operator - like London Midland, Chiltern, GWR and the pre-rebuild Thameslink, its primary concern is those living outside of London and their needs - with train services generally configured around them. Its no different to the situation on Grater Anglia - with the inner suburban bits hived off to TfL all the TOC / DfT really cares about is protecting its outer suburban users - hence the continued resistance to any improvements to the train service along the Lea Valley* As you are no doubt aware, its a bit different when you get to SWT, Southern or SE as these operators do have a substantial number of London suburban routes in their portfolio which means that the needs of Londoners are more important to the franchise, though even here things like flat junctions, a lack of passing opportunities, signalling headways, platform sizes / lengths, platform availability at London termini can make the simplest of things very difficult to achieve. Thus IF the station at Renwick Road is built and IF analysis of travel patterns suggests that having C2C stop there is advantageous for connectivity reasons (bearing in mind that passengers can always circulate via Barking), then by all means lobby the DfT for platforms to be provided on C2C lines. Should the necessary detailed analysis come back with a positive business case (which will also include having minimal effects on C2C customers from Essex) then naturally having C2C serve the station would be welcomed. We are however a long way from that stage yet - even TfL are not building the Renwick Road station straight away so there is plenty of time before it will be necessary to consider whether or not platforms should be built so C2C can call Also, the DfT decision you mention to stop all C2C trains at the likes of Limehouse and West Ham actually had more to do with making pathing easier and squeezing the odd extra train path out of the capacity constrained C2C line inwards of Barking than any great desire to improve connectivity of those living in East London per say. As any timetable planner knows, if every train has the same stopping patten it becomes a lot simpler to path services and optimise line capacity. However may Essex residents were opposed to the change as it slowed their services down and complained to the DfT - which is why the 'all stop' policy was quietly abandoned and amendments made to restore some non-stop services. * Yes STAR will improve things - but only because additional infrastructure is being built to cater for it. In a similar vein to achieve a radical uplift on C2C additional infrastructure inwards from Barking would be needed. |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Aug 7, 2017 4:22:09 GMT
I did not say the 707s are life expired. I did say their leasing costs are too high. I agree the leasing costs are the problem - the ROSCO may need to offer them at a reduced price if they want someone to take them. But when you said "The cast offs are almost life expired wrecks", which units did you mean? The only others I mentioned were classes 376 (13 years old) and 458 (17 years old). Design life for an emu is usually about 35-40 years, (unless it's the sort that lays eggs). Train design has advanced in the last 20 years and they are nowhere near the Aventra in terms of acceleration and ride quality, reduced power consumption and they are 3rd rail units. (The 376s could have been fitted but not now.) Using the same rolling stock is far simpler in terms of maintenance and driver training is far simpler. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Aug 7, 2017 7:03:49 GMT
Train design has advanced in the last 20 years and they are nowhere near the Aventra in terms of acceleration and ride quality, reduced power consumption and they are 3rd rail units. (The 376s could have been fitted but not now.) Using the same rolling stock is far simpler in terms of maintenance and driver training is far simpler. All valid points, but there is a difference between life-expired and out-of-date. If a train is designed and paid for on the basis of a 40-year working life, writing it off after less than twenty is expensive. A shorter working life means the capital cost of building the train has to be paid off in fewer, and therefore larger, instalments. That means higher leasing charges, which ultimately means either higher fares or higher government subsidy - either way we end up paying for it. |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Aug 7, 2017 14:27:52 GMT
We seem to be both bickering and drifting from the thread topic of "Barking Riverside Extension". The RIPAS boards exist for discussions of what could be. Back on topic please, and play nicely!
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 7, 2017 21:28:18 GMT
Well, if you were that well informed, you didn't reflect it in your post. I make no apologies for taking people to task who give the impression that National Rail services within London should be optimised for Londoners. I can see it is wholly evident that you don't apologise. I would have thought by now that you might have realised I am in possession of a brain and have worked in the rail industry for over a quarter of a century. I am perfectly aware that all sorts of issues and factors apply. It's not as if I have just turned up on this forum and just made my first post. I am perfectly entitled to express an *opinion* that C2C might have to change how it runs its services in future to reflect new and changing travel demands. All I expressed was an opinion - I am not making a challenge to national rail policy and therefore don't need to be taken to task as if I was. And just to keep in the theme of being "fed up" I will have to seriously consider if I wish to remain on this forum as a contributor. I don't need to come here to be treated like an idiot.  |
|
Dom K
Global Moderator
The future is bright
Posts: 1,831
|
Post by Dom K on Aug 8, 2017 0:57:30 GMT
It’s always a shame to have to lock threads of interesting topics, however, I think this thread has run its course. Can members please think what they are going to say before they post. What is the point in strirring it. Whether we like it or not, if we disagree with a member that strongly, maybe it’s best left unsaid.
Thread now locked
|
|
Dom K
Global Moderator
The future is bright
Posts: 1,831
|
Post by Dom K on Aug 8, 2017 11:59:59 GMT
Seems ironic that I lock the thread and they give the extension a green light
I will unlock this thread, but be warned if any member continues to squabble the thread will be binned permanently. No second chances, FINAL WARNING
|
|
|
|
Post by Deep Level on Aug 8, 2017 20:46:55 GMT
I also read today that TfL will be providing a Pier at Barking Riverside and I also read that Thames Clippers will be trialing a service from Gravesend in the morning and returning in the evening so there is potential here for a useful interchange at Barking Riverside.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Aug 15, 2017 14:55:11 GMT
I understand that some of the viaduct is considered disposable if an extension under the Thames occurs. What effect would it have on Barking Riverside station? Is the station right at the end of the viaduct or does it continue slightly further for a pair of sidings?
|
|
|
|
Post by toby on Aug 15, 2017 16:06:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Aug 15, 2017 17:46:01 GMT
It reminds me of old Island Gardens, that was built on a viaduct then demolished after just 12 years and rebuilt as an underground station for the Lewisham extension.
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Sept 6, 2017 12:27:07 GMT
In the longer term (when the Riverside extension opens) then the 4tph regular Goblin service will always use 7 & 8. This will leave platform 1 free to handle the 'extra' trains. Short term this is of course reversed with platforms 7 / 8 having to be used for the 'PIC busters' Current TfL planning is that GOB will go to 5tph as soon as possible, but certainly after Riverside extension is open. But only 4tph will operate through to Riverside. The 5th train will use P1 at Barking. A bit odd that 1tph will terminate at Barking. This would create a very uneven service to Barking Riverside. What's the rationale behind it? |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 6, 2017 13:08:21 GMT
Current TfL planning is that GOB will go to 5tph as soon as possible, but certainly after Riverside extension is open. But only 4tph will operate through to Riverside. The 5th train will use P1 at Barking. How very odd. Surely the Riverside extension can handle 5 tph or is it more to do with not screwing up C2C and freight paths between Ripple Road junction and Barking? Going to take some ingenious timetabling to avoid a 24 minute wait on the Riverside extension. A timetable headway that is 12, 12, 24 and 12 is not exactly attractive nor very sensible in the peaks. |
|
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 Sept 6, 2017 13:42:49 GMT
I wonder if there will be some significant stand times at Barking to even out the headways on the Riverside section.
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Sept 6, 2017 13:48:32 GMT
I wonder if there will be some significant stand times at Barking to even out the headways on the Riverside section. That won't be popular! |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 7, 2017 9:55:09 GMT
I wonder if there will be some significant stand times at Barking to even out the headways on the Riverside section. I did think about that but I couldn't see how you would do it. Having trains stand for minutes in a platform is not going to work given the volume of freight workings at certain times nor the need to path C2C trains. I just can't see C2C and the freight operators being happy about that and I doubt Network Rail would be content either. Trying to flatten out a 24 min gap in the service to get close to a 4 tph clockface service is not easy. With my usual warning about small sample sizes I've only caught the GOBLIN once from Platform 8 at Barking. It was in the PM peak where extra trains run and some have to turn back to the east of Barking station. The GOBLIN train arrived a little late but took ages to decant its passengers. By the time it toddled off to the turnback it made a C2C train via Rainham several mins late. This then caused the GOBLIN to be late on its return trip as it couldn't get out of the turnback siding. Now that may have been a one off but somehow I doubt it. Given C2C's enviable reputation for good timekeeping I can't see them wanting platforms blocked by waiting trains just because TfL decides to run a "funny" timetable. Something tells me we'll end up with some sort of signalling change to squash more trains in between Ripple Road and Barking and allow 5 tph to Riverside. I think getting passengers to spread along platforms and the trains will be a crucial factor for TfL once the GOBLIN is running with EMUs. Thankfully many stations have had extra seats and shelters added to encourage people to wait along the full length of the platforms. This should help dwell times but Barking will be a key stop given the likely high volumes of boarding and alighting passengers in the peaks once Riverside has opened. It's less of an issue at Platform 1 as it's "isolated" from the operation of other services. |
|
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 Sept 7, 2017 15:03:09 GMT
I'm not a frequent user of the Goblin in the peaks, but when I have the dwell time has been bad nearly everywhere - the internal layout is just not conducive to quick boarding and alighting. I've not been able to find anything about what interiors the 710s on the Goblin will feature, but hopefully it will be more metro than suburban.
|
|
|
|
Post by jukes on Sept 7, 2017 15:54:27 GMT
I'm not a frequent user of the Goblin in the peaks, but when I have the dwell time has been bad nearly everywhere - the internal layout is just not conducive to quick boarding and alighting. I've not been able to find anything about what interiors the 710s on the Goblin will feature, but hopefully it will be more metro than suburban. Yes the dual voltage 710s for GOB (and DC) will have seating like the 378s - all longitudinal. The AC only variant for West Anglia will be a mix similar to MetLine S8 stock. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 8, 2017 0:27:31 GMT
I'm not a frequent user of the Goblin in the peaks, but when I have the dwell time has been bad nearly everywhere - the internal layout is just not conducive to quick boarding and alighting. I've not been able to find anything about what interiors the 710s on the Goblin will feature, but hopefully it will be more metro than suburban. As Jukes says the 710s will have far more standee space due to longitudinal seating. Also they will be "walk through" like the 378s which will also help hugely in spreading people through the train. I think when they start running the regulars on the GOBLIN won't know what's hit them - so much *space*.   |
|
|
|
Post by dazz285 on Sept 8, 2017 10:10:22 GMT
You could give passengers all the space & doors you want but they are set in there ways & will only use the same door they have done for years.. No matter how much we tell them to move ;-)
|
|
