Class 710 LO

[ijmad]

I thought the long term goal was to extend the Stratford to Stortfords to Stansted, cut down the trains per hour from LST to 2tph, and increase the enfield/cheshunt services to 4tph, as the hertford peak fasts will not stop at edmonton anymore? Then there were 2 additional tph to Barking from Enfield rumoured for the mid 2020s? The Seven Sisters terminators were one of the CPs (CP4?) I believe, but nothing on that mentioned since.

Certainly possible your knowledge is more accurate than what I've dug up. I'll have a look around.

 

[Bald Rick]

I read an FOI, which I will try and find, that they planned to terminate the extra services at Seven Sisters using the crossover there and the Seven Sisters chord. I'll see if I can dredge it up.

Edit:

here's one of them with this plan in it
here's the other one indicating this is no-longer the plan

Yep that was a proposal in the Route Utilisation Study a decade ago. But never really a goer.

 

[Bald Rick]

I thought the long term goal was to extend the Stratford to Stortfords to Stansted, cut down the trains per hour from LST to 2tph, and increase the enfield/cheshunt services to 4tph, as the hertford peak fasts will not stop at edmonton anymore? Then there were 2 additional tph to Barking from Enfield rumoured for the mid 2020s? The Seven Sisters terminators were one of the CPs (CP4?) I believe, but nothing on that mentioned since.

I’ve never heard of any of that before. The chances of Stansted Airport accepting a halving of service to central London are approximately zero, and the chances of them accepting a slowing down of the ‘express’ service which would go to Stratford instead (because of its calling patterns) is even less.

 

[AlanFry1]

I’ve never heard of any of that before. The chances of Stansted Airport accepting a halving of service to central London are approximately zero, and the chances of them accepting a slowing down of the ‘express’ service which would go to Stratford instead (because of its calling patterns) is even less.

I know the Hertfords not stopping has something to do with the new GA order, believe I saw the rumours about the Stansteds as a temporary stop gap for the track alignment works at Bow that haven't got a timescale at the mo.

 

[Bald Rick]

I know the Hertfords not stopping has something to do with the new GA order, believe I saw the rumours about the Stansteds as a temporary stop gap for the track alignment works at Bow that haven't got a timescale at the mo.

Ah rumours. Even so I’ve never heard them, and it is not in any plans.

There is a common misconception, started I don’t know where, that the remodelling of Bow Junction (if / when it happens) in some way provides additional capacity for WAML services. It doesn’t. It is for additional GEML services.

 

[delticdave]

I thought apart from Stoke Newington, all platforms on the route are 9-car usage, as they all used to serve 9-car trains? I assume Enfield Town/Cheshunt/Chingford need major work done at the London ends.

I was around when the Chenford routes were electrified, the off peaks were always 6-car & the peaks 9-car. Stabling at Enfield Town & Chingford wasn't a problem for the 9-cars. All the platforms on the Chingford branch were extended to 9 x 64 foot coaches, the steam trains were shorter, 1 or 2 quintart articulated sets +a N7 tank loco.

 

[Class 170101]

Ah rumours. Even so I’ve never heard them, and it is not in any plans.

There is a common misconception, started I don’t know where, that the remodelling of Bow Junction (if / when it happens) in some way provides additional capacity for WAML services. It doesn’t. It is for additional GEML services.

Technically the constraint remains on the GEML even with Bow Jn remodelled. It is still a two track railway for Main Line services between Bow Jn and Chelmsford / Southend. Technically it could create capacity on TfL West Anglia routes assuming each services moves across Liverpool Street station to the right. 4tph for Enfield and Cheshunt services should really be a TfL aspiration.

I think it (along with Crossrail) actually favours West Anglia routes rather than GE routes I am afraid.

 

[Bald Rick]

Technically the constraint remains on the GEML even with Bow Jn remodelled. It is still a two track railway for Main Line services between Bow Jn and Chelmsford / Southend. Technically it could create capacity on TfL West Anglia routes assuming each services moves across Liverpool Street station to the right. 4tph for Enfield and Cheshunt services should really be a TfL aspiration.

I think it (along with Crossrail) actually favours West Anglia routes rather than GE routes I am afraid.

It is definitely for extra GEML services.

 

[Bikeman78]

Let me chime in here....you assume

AGA will agree to loose 6 379s on the stansted route (100% not)
That 378s and 379s are similiar, (in physical appearance perhaps, you'd still need a full conversion..I signed them, they couldnt be more different and TCMS wise)
That TFL/LO would foot the bill to lease extra 315s from TFL and that everybody would be happy to shuffle trains from here there and everywhere to fit Bombardiers mess, and mess with leases, agreements, arrangements for staff, maintenance schedules, mileage plans,...debranding the list is endless..whos paying for all of these logistics? Bombardier? I dont think so. TFL? Dont think so..Dft? Certainly not.

Not you personally but I've read so many posts on this thread about they should/could have picked up 315s/387s/379s, could have trained dispatchers/guards/driver etc etc. The bottom line is this. If it costs, its not happening. It costs. So nothing is going to happen. They will wait. They made a balls up of this 100% but no trains were ever moving anywhere. No staff were going to be trained. The buses are already there. You will see a total line closure before you'll see any of the logistics suggested in this thread.

To draw attention to how anal costs are across TOCs on the NL/GOB/WA, LO have an acquired TFL rail 315, but only because another one was written off, so no bill. It currently runs in multiple as it has defective motors. It wont be repaired until 710s arrive on the WA. Why? Again. Costs. It just about keeps up in the timetable so doesn't cause PPM fines. Theres currently a signal somewhere on the this very network required for a "new train" to run sitting on ballast wrapped up whilst the titans argue over whos pays to install it. Thats reality.

We also must consider that this has been a rolling problem for some time..Bombardier keep trying and keep failing, and gave time frames that kept slipping. As a company what happens if halfway through training your staff, renegotiating your leases etc, orginising moving units spending huge amounts of money, the ORR sign off 710s? Now you really do have a problem.

The reason for shortened 4 car 378's was because Bombardier were happy to foot the bill of the conversion and LO were happy as everything remained the same, drivers, routes, traction etc..then as soon as 710s go live the 5th carriage goes back into your 378 and off it goes down the NLL. Nobodies going to pay for these ideas. Ultimately its the lines users who will suffer, but this is the reality of business, and I can only predict more carnage when they finally do arrive, they (710s) will be dropping like flies with faults in the first year or so, like most other new rolling stock.

Thanks for the informative post. I'm curious as to why the DFT was so interested in Northern/TPE and happy to fork out thousands but has no interest in a route on their own doorstep. I doubt Northern wanted to give 156s to TPE and replace them with 50 year old locomotives but they had to. As for 315858, did it not occur to anyone to swap the bogies with defective motors with those from units going for scrap? Or did all the scrap units have defective motors as well?

 

[Alfie1014]

It’s because LO is devoted to TfL, DfT has no control over day to operation, managing any of the contracts or funding. Nothing to do with us Guv or should that be Govt! Plus with current cool relationship between Central Government and the London Mayor I doubt there’s much desire to intervene anyway.

 

[Class 170101]

It is definitely for extra GEML services.

I remain to be convinced as to the capacity on the GEML for any extra services at peak times.

 

[20atthemagnet]

It’s because LO is devoted to TfL, DfT has no control over day to operation, managing any of the contracts or funding. Nothing to do with us Guv or should that be Govt! Plus with current cool relationship between Central Government and the London Mayor I doubt there’s much desire to intervene anyway.

Exactly this.

Thanks for the informative post. I'm curious as to why the DFT was so interested in Northern/TPE and happy to fork out thousands but has no interest in a route on their own doorstep. I doubt Northern wanted to give 156s to TPE and replace them with 50 year old locomotives but they had to. As for 315858, did it not occur to anyone to swap the bogies with defective motors with those from units going for scrap? Or did all the scrap units have defective motors as well?

As stated as long as 858 runs in multiple and on time it will remain as is. Has no operational risk therefore to Tfl makes no difference repairing it.

 

[TheDavibob]

As per the ORR:
https://twitter.com/railandroad/status/1116693293931421698

"We have conditionally authorised @Bombardier 710 Class 710/2 trains for use on London Overground services"

Which raises the question of "conditions", but is certainly better news.

 

[hwl]

As per the ORR:
https://twitter.com/railandroad/status/1116693293931421698

"We have conditionally authorised @Bombardier 710 Class 710/2 trains for use on London Overground services"

Which raises the question of "conditions", but is certainly better news.

IEPs are still "conditionally" too

 

[OvergroundMatt]

As per the ORR:
https://twitter.com/railandroad/status/1116693293931421698

"We have conditionally authorised @Bombardier 710 Class 710/2 trains for use on London Overground services".

That's VERY good news. LO will be breathing a big sigh of relief. Driver training can begin in earnest now.

 

[plcd1]

IEPs are still "conditionally" too

Really? With the vast numbers of them in service given what I saw last time I was at Paddington.

 

[gc1982]

First to appear in service in June then we hope?

 

[87015]

That's VERY good news. LO will be breathing a big sigh of relief. Driver training can begin in earnest now.

Im not sure the two are actually connected at all? This is passenger service approval.

 

[87015]

First to appear in service in June then we hope?

Based on?

 

[rebmcr]

Which raises the question of "conditions"

In a reply to that tweet, ORR have linked their authorisation letter as a PDF.

The conditions are:

• No multiple working (during rescue, mechanical couple only)
  
• AWS & TPWS "stand alone mode only"
  
• GSM-R voice only
  
• 75mph max
• 45mph max on DC
  
• No DC in passenger operation
• No ASDO and no CSDE
• No de-icer
• No energy metering system
• Logging-in to non-active cab must be somehow disabled
• Anti-climb gangway mods within 1 year

I reckon the AWS/TPWS and GSM-R restrictions mean that the in-cab display screens (part of the TMS) are not to be used for operating those systems nor receiving signaller text messages.

 

[Aictos]

In a reply to that tweet, ORR have linked their authorisation letter as a PDF.

The conditions are:

• No multiple working (during rescue, mechanical couple only)
  
• AWS & TPWS "stand alone mode only"
  
• GSM-R voice only
  
• 75mph max
• 45mph max on DC
  
• No DC in passenger operation
• No ASDO and no CSDE
• No de-icer
• No energy metering system
• Logging-in to non-active cab must be somehow disabled
• Anti-climb gangway mods within 1 year

I reckon the AWS/TPWS and GSM-R restrictions mean that the in-cab display screens (part of the TMS) are not to be used for operating those systems nor receiving signaller text messages.

I don't understand the No DC in passenger operation, what does that mean?

 

[greatkingrat]

I reckon the AWS/TPWS and GSM-R restrictions mean that the in-cab display screens (part of the TMS) are not to be used for operating those systems nor receiving signaller text messages.

I don't think that is meant as a restriction - they are just stating that the unit is fitted with AWS/TPWS/GSM-R. There is no mention of any of those systems in the detailed restrictions.

The authorisation for Class 331s uses similar wording.

 

[aswilliamsuk]

The approval for AC-only operation (as I read it, DC operation is only allowed out of service) is interesting, and surely puts in doubt their use on the Watford DC lines for the moment. So presumably there is more testing to be done for that, and this suggests that this authorisation has been pulled forward to allow their use on the GOBLIN sooner rather than later.

But, for those of us long-suffering GOBLIN users, this is very welcome news indeed that the end of this fiasco may finally be in sight.

 

[swt_passenger]

Anti-climb gangway mods? Looks like they’ve found a new hobby horse, after the LNER 80x “problem”. I guess they’ll be looking for this issue on every new 25 kV electric class now?

 

[Goldfish62]

Anti-climb gangway mods? Looks like they’ve found a new hobby horse, after the LNER 80x “problem”. I guess they’ll be looking for this issue on every new 25 kV electric class now?

The bloke who fried himself at Piccadilly last year was able to climb between the carriages of the Pendolino. The 395s have anti-climb mods so I imagine it will be quite straightforward

 

[swt_passenger]

The bloke who fried himself at Piccadilly last year was able to climb between the carriages of the Pendolino. The 395s have anti-climb mods so I imagine it will be quite straightforward

Yes, I wondered in an earlier thread if they would revisit the Pendolino. Someone suggested they wouldn’t because they were existing stock, (so could rely on so-called grandfather rights?), but I just don’t think it’s that simple if there’s a demonstrable hazard.

 

[Grumpy]

So Bombardier write on 4 March asking for clearance and it takes ORR five weeks to reply with virtually a standard letter. Good job it wasn't urgent then.

 

[AlanFry1]

Does the new 710 units being both ac and dc mean if there are overhead line issues the trains would be able to run?

 

[swt_passenger]

Does the new 710 units being both ac and dc mean if there are overhead line issues the trains would be able to run?

Not really. The only significant stretch with both supplies present now is in the Euston throat. The former significant length of dual power supply on the eastern end of the NLL was removed a few years ago.

 

[plcd1]

Im not sure the two are actually connected at all? This is passenger service approval.

And it appears to be the case that driver training has picked up recently anyway. The Willesden - Barking paths have been used much more over the last week or so. All four return paths were used today for example. Given the sparse public service there may be scope, units and drivers permitting, to run more training paths on the GOBLIN. We shall see what happens.