Barking Riverside Extension (London Overground) Updates

[J-2739]

Tfl are seeking a contractor to build an extension to the Gospel Oak-Barking Line (GOBLIN).
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/infrastructure/single-view/view/tfl-seeks-contractor-to-build-barking-riverside-extension.html

UK: Transport for London has invited expressions of interest in the contract to build a 4·5 km extension of the Gospel Oak – Barking line to the Barking Riverside development area of east London.

The extension would run alongside the existing London Fenchurch Street – Tilbury line between Barking station and the Renwick Road overbridge, where it would turn south to run over a new viaduct to reach the planned station. Around 1·5 km of new alignment would be required.

In March TfL applied to the government for a Transport & Works Act Order which would grant legal powers for the project. A public inquiry is expected in the autumn, and TfL expects to issue the invitation to tender following the completion of design work in 2017. Construction would begin in late 2017, with opening now planned for 2021.

The £263m project is fully funded, with the Barking Riverside Ltd joint venture of the Greater London Authority (49%) and developer London & Quadrant (51%) providing £172m and the remainder being covered by TfL.

Services would be operated as part of the London Overground concession. ‘The extension of the Overground will be key to the success of the exciting new developments at Barking Riverside, with a new station built alongside 10 800 new homes, shops and restaurants, and new school and health services’, said Val Shawcross, Deputy Mayor for Transport, on August 8.

I only just found out about this now. I wonder if an extra 710 set would be ordered for the extended service?

 

[jopsuk]

I believe the 710 order includes the unit required already. This has been working its way through the system for a while.

One detail I'm not sure if it's been decided is whether to safeguard space at the site for future tunnel portals and a subsurface station. If so expect the new station to be VERY basic.

 

[edwin_m]

Last I heard (but this was several months ago) the new station would be on viaduct. It is too close to the Thames to descend underneath it, so as with Island Gardens on the DLR it would need a total replacement if that decision was ever made.

 

[adrock1976]

I believe the 710 order includes the unit required already. This has been working its way through the system for a while.

One detail I'm not sure if it's been decided is whether to safeguard space at the site for future tunnel portals and a subsurface station. If so expect the new station to be VERY basic.

Would this be for the sometimes suggested option of continuing south of the mighty Thames towards Plumstead/Abbey Wood, while seriously penetrating Thamesmead?

 

[ScotGG]

It really should be going under the Thames to link up to Crossrail at Abbey Wood with a stop at Thamesmead. It would facilitate many thousands of new homes in Thamesmead, as it will in Barking. Also offer far better links for outer East and South East London, along with Kent and Essex.

Those who think Crossrail at Abbey Wood is good enough for Thamesmead, especially the northern parts, know little of the area or geography. It's cut off by major roads and an elevated sewer. Meaning buses, which has always held it back.

The alternative is the DLR, which offer far less connection over the river than LO would, thus missing out on radial links and job/leisure options, or a tram over any bridge. A good option, but I can see that taking an absolute age given attitudes.

 

[swt_passenger]

The problem with building a deep level station designed to align with a future tunnel, is not only that it multiplies the cost of this short extension considerably, but it also means that when they eventually get round to building the tunnel, then the new station will have to close for a lengthy period either while they use it to launch the TBMs, or while they receive the TBMs if they tunnel from the other side.

Throughout the consultation TfL have consistently said that the design of the route will allow for future alterations to provide a tunnelled link under the Thames. At which point the first station will be closed.

 

[edwin_m]

The problem with building a deep level station designed to align with a future tunnel, is not only that it multiplies the cost of this short extension considerably, but it also means that when they eventually get round to building the tunnel, then the new station will have to close for a lengthy period either while they use it to launch the TBMs, or while they receive the TBMs if they tunnel from the other side.

Throughout the consultation TfL have consistently said that the design of the route will allow for future alterations to provide a tunnelled link under the Thames. At which point the first station will be closed.

Does this mean a largeish area that would otherwise be housing convenient for the station can't be developed because it is reserved for the future tunnel portal and ramp?

Though someone has no doubt done the costings and decided on this approach, I would point out a third option of building a sub-surface station but then excavating the TBM pit beyond it at the time (if ever) that a cross-river extension is agreed. This would be quite a big hole but less big than the hole needed if the viaduct option was replaced by a tunnel.

 

[mr_jrt]

Does this mean a largeish area that would otherwise be housing convenient for the station can't be developed because it is reserved for the future tunnel portal and ramp?

Though someone has no doubt done the costings and decided on this approach, I would point out a third option of building a sub-surface station but then excavating the TBM pit beyond it at the time (if ever) that a cross-river extension is agreed. This would be quite a big hole but less big than the hole needed if the viaduct option was replaced by a tunnel.

Quite. I was a proponent of exactly this when everything was first announced. Said pit(s) could quite conceivably lie under a plaza or road junction outside the station so no land would be "wasted".

 

[Chris125]

Does this mean a largeish area that would otherwise be housing convenient for the station can't be developed because it is reserved for the future tunnel portal and ramp?

I doubt they need more than a strip of land alongside the approach viaduct and station, wide enough for a ramp and station box to be excavated at some point in the future. That really shouldn't be a big deal, and might need no more room than all ready set aside for the extension.

 

[Mikey C]

The problem with building a deep level station designed to align with a future tunnel, is not only that it multiplies the cost of this short extension considerably, but it also means that when they eventually get round to building the tunnel, then the new station will have to close for a lengthy period either while they use it to launch the TBMs, or while they receive the TBMs if they tunnel from the other side.

Throughout the consultation TfL have consistently said that the design of the route will allow for future alterations to provide a tunnelled link under the Thames. At which point the first station will be closed.

When they built the DLR extension to King George V didn't they build the station in a cutting, and then do the Woolwich extension without much effect on the existing line?

 

[XDM]

When they built the DLR extension to King George V didn't they build the station in a cutting, and then do the Woolwich extension without much effect on the existing line?

Correct.

 

[edwin_m]

I doubt they need more than a strip of land alongside the approach viaduct and station, wide enough for a ramp and station box to be excavated at some point in the future. That really shouldn't be a big deal, and might need no more room than all ready set aside for the extension.

Not that simple I suspect. Unless it's changed recently, the extension is supposed to have a flying junction to the Tilbury line and be totally on viaduct. So to divert into tunnel it would be necessary to demolish a longish section of viaduct and replace it by a ramp.

I think this means someone has decided the chances of a cross-Thames extension are pretty minimal and therefore it's not worth spending much on making provision for one, even though this would result in greater total cost if it ever did happen.

 

[LLivery]

When they built the DLR extension to King George V didn't they build the station in a cutting, and then do the Woolwich extension without much effect on the existing line?

I was thinking just this. It just seems like another one of Boris's TfL eras silly decisions that they'll regret in a few years, just like the Borismaters, Cable Car and the Elizabeth Line roundel :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think this means someone has decided the chances of a cross-Thames extension are pretty minimal and therefore it's not worth spending much on making provision for one, even though this would result in greater total cost if it ever did happen.

With the redevelopment of many of London's estates for more housing, Thamesmead is probably an ideal candidate for "regeneration". A GOBLIN extension to Abbey Wood would allow this to be more successful. I'd be surprised if it did't happen eventually.

 

[Busaholic]

Not that simple I suspect. Unless it's changed recently, the extension is supposed to have a flying junction to the Tilbury line and be totally on viaduct. So to divert into tunnel it would be necessary to demolish a longish section of viaduct and replace it by a ramp.

I think this means someone has decided the chances of a cross-Thames extension are pretty minimal and therefore it's not worth spending much on making provision for one, even though this would result in greater total cost if it ever did happen.

Everyone seems to assume a cross-Thames extension would be in a tunnel, but given that a new road bridge is very much on the cards for this area then surely it could be combined ala Forth and Tyne.

 

[swt_passenger]

When they built the DLR extension to King George V didn't they build the station in a cutting, and then do the Woolwich extension without much effect on the existing line?

They did, but the distance beyond that station to the portals, and then from there to the river, is far greater. Barking Riverside's planned location is practically on the river bank, in comparison.

 

[mr_jrt]

Everyone seems to assume a cross-Thames extension would be in a tunnel, but given that a new road bridge is very much on the cards for this area then surely it could be combined ala Forth and Tyne.

A bridge that far downstream would need to be very, very high.

 

[ScotGG]

If on a bridge it would likely be the DLR - a far worse option for links north of the river.

 

[snowball]

Everyone seems to assume a cross-Thames extension would be in a tunnel, but given that a new road bridge is very much on the cards for this area then surely it could be combined ala Forth and Tyne.

There's no combined road and rail bridge over the Forth.

 

[jopsuk]

Everyone seems to assume a cross-Thames extension would be in a tunnel, but given that a new road bridge is very much on the cards for this area then surely it could be combined ala Forth and Tyne.

A bridge here would have to have clearance similar to the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge. The ramps would have to start pretty much at the junction with the LTS. Crucially, on the south side, there's nowhere to land a bridge

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Everyone seems to assume a cross-Thames extension would be in a tunnel, but given that a new road bridge is very much on the cards for this area then surely it could be combined ala Forth and Tyne.

I imagine one difference is that the approaches to road bridges can have bigger gradients than the approaches to heavy rail bridges. That's kinda important when it's a part of the Thames that requires 50m clearance under any bridges so ships can pass! A rail line would need to start climbing quite far from the Thames to get that high.

However, there is a possibility similar to your suggestion: TfL have been considering a combined road/DLR bridge at Gallions Reach (a mile or two West of Barking Riverside). I'm guessing the DLR can cope with higher gradients, so that's less of an issue.

It really should be going under the Thames to link up to Crossrail at Abbey Wood with a stop at Thamesmead. It would facilitate many thousands of new homes in Thamesmead, as it will in Barking. Also offer far better links for outer East and South East London, along with Kent and Essex.

Perhaps worth mentioning that TfL, in looking at options for river crossings in the area, rejected extending the Overground to Abbey Wood on the grounds that the maximum attainable frequency of 4 tph wouldn't be sufficient to justify the cost. The verdict from that report seemed to be that if they were going to extend a railway across the Thames in that area, the DLR would be better because the DLR can offer much higher frequencies. I think there's also an issue that Thamesmead is quite spread out, so a single station in Thamesmead, wherever it's sited, would only serve a small part of Thamesmead. But a DLR extension would allow building several stations, thereby serving much more of the area.

Personally I'm still inclined to think that extending to GOBLIN to Abbey Wood as part of an orbital rail line would still be a good idea in principle, but it's probably a more long term ambition, and would need additional work to sort out the pathing conflicts with freight etc. that limit the frequency.

 

[edwin_m]

Perhaps worth mentioning that TfL, in looking at options for river crossings in the area, rejected extending the Overground to Abbey Wood on the grounds that the maximum attainable frequency of 4 tph wouldn't be sufficient to justify the cost. The verdict from that report seemed to be that if they were going to extend a railway across the Thames in that area, the DLR would be better because the DLR can offer much higher frequencies. I think there's also an issue that Thamesmead is quite spread out, so a single station in Thamesmead, wherever it's sited, would only serve a small part of Thamesmead. But a DLR extension would allow building several stations, thereby serving much more of the area.

That chimes with my view further up that TfL are paying lip service to the idea of extending the Barking Riverside line rather than considering it as a serious possibility. On the map at least, there looks to be much more space in the Beckton area and across the river from it, for DLR to ramp up or down according to preference. DLR gradients can also be about twice as steep as heavy rail so any bridge or tunnel approach would be about half the size. Beckton station could be rather "orphaned" though.

DLR would obviously be pretty slow to central London but will interchange to Crossrail at Custom House and could terminate at Abbey Wood to provide an alternative route.

Thamesmead passengers using the Barking Riverside line would also have to change, and I think most of them would do so at Abbey Wood because of the limited choice of destinations via Barking. So it might end up that the river crossing, the most expensive part of a Barking-Thamesmead route, was the bit with the lowest passenger numbers.

 

[ScotGG]

The 4 tph line is often brought up by TfL. Why not a shuttle at far higher tph from Barking to Abbey Wood? Or could terminating H&C line trains go there instead of LO?

Any station for Thamesmead could go where the old 1970s estates are north of the sewer. Massive redevelopment potential, and still easily accessible from anywhere in North Thamesmead.

 

[edwin_m]

The 4 tph line is often brought up by TfL. Why not a shuttle at far higher tph from Barking to Abbey Wood? Or could terminating H&C line trains go there instead of LO?

The section of the Tilbury line to Barking is probably the bit that limits it to 4TPH. Trains would have to reverse in a through platform there, which are also used by through c2c and freight.

As to the H&C, Barking is a flyover-rich environment as it was rebuilt at electrification time to give cross-platform interchange between the Underground and the main line and also separate the freight that travels between the Tilbury line and the GOBLIN. I'm not sure whether a new connection could be built without spoiling everything with a flat junction!

 

[Mikey C]

Perhaps worth mentioning that TfL, in looking at options for river crossings in the area, rejected extending the Overground to Abbey Wood on the grounds that the maximum attainable frequency of 4 tph wouldn't be sufficient to justify the cost. The verdict from that report seemed to be that if they were going to extend a railway across the Thames in that area, the DLR would be better because the DLR can offer much higher frequencies. I think there's also an issue that Thamesmead is quite spread out, so a single station in Thamesmead, wherever it's sited, would only serve a small part of Thamesmead. But a DLR extension would allow building several stations, thereby serving much more of the area.

That makes a lot of sense, in the same way that the DLR on the Isle of Dogs and Royal Docks serves a wide area.

 

[tranzitjim]

Could they perhaps extend District or Hammersmith lines along this route?

 

[Chris125]

Not that simple I suspect. Unless it's changed recently, the extension is supposed to have a flying junction to the Tilbury line and be totally on viaduct. So to divert into tunnel it would be necessary to demolish a longish section of viaduct and replace it by a ramp.

I think it's much more likely any tunnel and connection would be built alongside in parallel to the viaduct and station, rather than using the same footprint.

 

[tranzitjim]

Hey peoples, for somebody who is not familiar with the area, what is the best way to find maps and photos of the area?

Is there a local council website who likes to promote their area in this way?

 

[edwin_m]

I think it's much more likely any tunnel and connection would be built alongside in parallel to the viaduct and station, rather than using the same footprint.

The track can't do a sudden dog-leg off a viaduct onto a ramp down to a tunnel. Either the viaduct must be built with a triangular extension to allow a ramp to be connected later, or a section would need to be demolished so the track can run onto the ramp instead. You can't completely avoid the viaduct because there is a flying junction onto the existing line.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It seems the extension to Abbey Wood is potentially back on, despite TfL ruling it out in this year's river crossings consultation:

https://www.london.gov.uk/transport/londons-river-transport/more-river-crossings-all-Londoners

There are very few details on the page, but it mentions (my emphasis):

Other ideas being looked at are:

a new riverbus between Canary Wharf and North Greenwich
a new river crossing from Barking Riverside towards south east London

The accompanying map makes it clear this crossing would be a GOBLIN extension.

 

[jopsuk]

Notably, being considered to be built as well as a DLR extension, not as an "or".

Though of course being so wooly a plan could still become an "or"