Gospel Oak to Barking electrification in next week's budget ?

[PhilipW]

Everybody seems to want it and wants it completed by the time Crossrail is up and running.

http://www.bdpost.co.uk/news/chance...king_line_electrification_in_budget_1_1978187

Chancellor urged to fund Gospel Oak to Barking line electrification in Budget

The London Assembly’s transport committee wrote to George Osborne this week asking him to make money available this year to make sure the electrification programme is complete before Crossrail opens in 2018.

It says electrification of the line would bring significant improvements for both freight and passenger traffic, including reduced overcrowding for passengers, improved connectivity with the rest of London’s rail network, environmental benefits and the ability to run longer trains on the line.

It believes that after Crossrail starts running services, the funding needed to enable electric trains to run on the Gospel Oak to Barking line will accelerate due to access issues to the line.

Transport for London (TfL) has offered to contribute £25 million towards the £90 million estimated cost of the scheme. The programme also has the support of the London Mayor, Boris Johnson, the rail industry and passenger groups.

Caroline Pidgeon, chair of the transport committee, said: “It is a major disappointment that funding for the electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking line, which was expected to be announced last year, has so far failed to materialise.

“There is a strong business case for electrification on a line where passenger demand already far outstrips capacity. We hope the Government will listen seriously to our calls for a serious package of funding – incorporating TfL’s £25 million contribution – and confirm this in next week’s Budget announcement.”

You never know. THis time it may just well happen.

I hope so

 

[cle]

This was bottled in November, correct?

I wonder how they'll do it - if for freight and diversion reasons (NR/DfT), expect TfL to have to pay for platform extensions, any new stock and potential works at Gospel Oak like a fourth platform.

Perhaps if quick enough, they could add it to their project on lengthening the rest of the LO network, as I know there was talk of some small stock orders as well as the obvious incremental carriages.

 

[WatcherZero]

Ive heard some rumours of a extension of the North Transpennine electrification being announced too. Mind you will be in almost 10 years time so you wonder what the point is of announcing it now :P

 

[ainsworth74]

Mind you will be in almost 10 years time so you wonder what the point is of announcing it now

Well political advantage mostly. But to be honest I don't mind that much as it allows the like of Network Rail and TOCs to plan both how to deliver the electrification and how to best utilise it!

 

[YorkshireBear]

Well political advantage mostly. But to be honest I don't mind that much as it allows the like of Network Rail and TOCs to plan both how to deliver the electrification and how to best utilise it!

Exactly, we need to know now so that companies know what kind of fleets they will need for the next franchise before they start. And then to allow for planning and design to take place so that it is a smooth follow on rather than being incredibly stuttered.

It would make my dissertation very interesting if they announce it next week :P Mid dissertation announcements are always fun!

 

[tom1649]

I'm really hoping common sense will prevail here and the go ahead will be given. The advantages of electrifying the line stack up and there is significant pressure from various groups to get it done.

If TfL and DfT still can't agree on funding then they need to seriously look at ways of improving their relationship.

 

[tbtc]

Wire the Gospel Oak line up and the spare 172s go to SN alongside their 171s...

...that then means that the two "diesel islands" on the SN lines would free up even more DMUs if they are wired...

...that then enhances the case for getting twelve four coach Turbostars (171s converted back to 170s) on routes where they'd be much appreciated (Cardiff - Portsmouth, Calder Valley etc)?

(apologies for the wishful thinking)

 

[PhilipW]

Ive heard some rumours of a extension of the North Transpennine electrification being announced too.:P

Certainly if the GOBLIN scheme is approved I can see considerable political sense in authorising a scheme in the north so as to give a sense of balance.

Authorising the electrification of Selby to Hull and the southbound connection to the ECML for London services would seem the obvious candidate. With few bridges and a flat landscape, I understand that it would be a relatively easy piece of work and could be completed fairly shortly after completion of the existing schemes.

 

[The Ham]

Well political advantage mostly. But to be honest I don't mind that much as it allows the like of Network Rail and TOCs to plan both how to deliver the electrification and how to best utilise it!

If the political parties want to score political points, it would be fairly easy to announce that over the next 30 years the whole network would be electrified, knowing full well that they would only have to fund it for as long as they were in power (which would be fairly easy as it would be all the lines with a good business case which would be done first).

Once out of power they could then rubbish the party in power for not keeping up to speed with the program, removing lines from the electrification program, etc. safe in the knowledge that when they are back in power that they can carry on from the base point that they were left with and blame it on the party they've taken over from for not being able to keep to their original program.

It would also be fairly safe policy as only a retaliative few would actually care if they didn't keep to their timetable/promise including rail enthusiasts and people on lines which were not electrified, however a lot of people would welcome it when it was first announced.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Wire the Gospel Oak line up and the spare 172s go to SN alongside their 171s...

...that then means that the two "diesel islands" on the SN lines would free up even more DMUs if they are wired...

...that then enhances the case for getting twelve four coach Turbostars (171s converted back to 170s) on routes where they'd be much appreciated (Cardiff - Portsmouth, Calder Valley etc)?

(apologies for the wishful thinking)

It needs to be done sooner rather than later, basically before Crossrail is completed otherwise it won't get done. (will dig out exact reasoning tonight)

I think Calder Valley is wishful thinking maybe but Cardiff Portsmouth seems ideal tbh.

But regardless, 8 2 car DMUs going somewhere is a good thing. But imagine the 172s don't go to SN where would they go, where is self contained enough to take them... To be honest i would probably say midlands to get rid of their last 150s 153s. So that would be i belive 16 carriges replacing 13 carriages. So a small improvement.

then a pretty equal allocation between EMT, Nothern and FGW.

(Northern get the 150s) FGW and EMT split the 7 153s. (cant decide which should get 4 and which should get 3 :P )

 

[Tremzinho]

If the political parties want to score political points, it would be fairly easy to announce that over the next 30 years the whole network would be electrified, knowing full well that they would only have to fund it for as long as they were in power (which would be fairly easy as it would be all the lines with a good business case which would be done

Well that would generate 1 day of good headlines, and the average voter/passenger wouldn't see it as something to benefit them personally. For highest political advantage you would go for salami tactics, i.e announcing another new scheme every few months, each one just big enough to hit the headlines.

This gradually builds up more of a public impression that this is a government really committed to improving our railways, and allows local MPs to claim credit for getting their area included in an electrification scheme.

I agree Selby-Hull seems a likely announcement, and allows the government to say that they have listened to the calls to expand transpennine electrification.
I also wouldn't be surprised if Oxenholme-Windermere was announced, since the local MP Tim Farron (who is expected to be the next Lib Dem leader) has been lobbying very hard for this.

 

[tbtc]

If the political parties want to score political points, it would be fairly easy to announce that over the next 30 years the whole network would be electrified

I think that it would have been good if we'd been able to announce twenty years of improvements to "classic" lines in the period up to HS2 opening, so we could rebut the "but all of these billions won't help my local line and will starve it of resources" arguments by pointing out that most parts of the UK will see some big improvements over the next couple of decades.

However that relies on Governments sticking to a plan over the long term, which ain't gonna happen!

 

[fgwrich]

Well that would generate 1 day of good headlines, and the average voter/passenger wouldn't see it as something to benefit them personally. For highest political advantage you would go for salami tactics, i.e announcing another new scheme every few months, each one just big enough to hit the headlines.

This gradually builds up more of a public impression that this is a government really committed to improving our railways, and allows local MPs to claim credit for getting their area included in an electrification scheme.

I agree Selby-Hull seems a likely announcement, and allows the government to say that they have listened to the calls to expand transpennine electrification.
I also wouldn't be surprised if Oxenholme-Windermere was announced, since the local MP Tim Farron (who is expected to be the next Lib Dem leader) has been lobbying very hard for this.

It needs to be done sooner rather than later, basically before Crossrail is completed otherwise it won't get done. (will dig out exact reasoning tonight)

I think Calder Valley is wishful thinking maybe but Cardiff Portsmouth seems ideal tbh.

But regardless, 8 2 car DMUs going somewhere is a good thing. But imagine the 172s don't go to SN where would they go, where is self contained enough to take them... To be honest i would probably say midlands to get rid of their last 150s 153s. So that would be i belive 16 carriges replacing 13 carriages. So a small improvement.

then a pretty equal allocation between EMT, Nothern and FGW.

(Northern get the 150s) FGW and EMT split the 7 153s. (cant decide which should get 4 and which should get 3 :P )

Selby to Hull - i wonder if this is more likely after the First Group proposals as well. First Group if you remember, were proposing a initiative using private finance, to electrify the Selby to Hull section. This would then in turn allow Hull Trains to replace their 180s with EMUs and release the Adas back presumably to GW or another franchise. IIRC i think the stumbling block was allowing a guarantee to allow Hull Trains operating into the future.

 

[JamesRowden]

Wire the Gospel Oak line up and the spare 172s go to SN alongside their 171s...

...that then means that the two "diesel islands" on the SN lines would free up even more DMUs if they are wired...

...that then enhances the case for getting twelve four coach Turbostars (171s converted back to 170s) on routes where they'd be much appreciated (Cardiff - Portsmouth, Calder Valley etc)?

(apologies for the wishful thinking)

The Kent route specification expects there to be 2tph between Hastings and Ashford (Marshlink) during the peak in 2020 and possibly off-peak as well (rather than the present Rye-Ashford shuttle plus the odd extra Hastings-Ashford service [both operated using the same DMU]) (line speed upgrades are supposed to make this level of service possible on the single tracked Ore-Rye section). This would require extra stock. There is also the issue that the 2-car 171s that presently run the Brighton to Ashford service are not long enough for the Brighton to Hastings section of the route.

There are presently six 2-car 171s that operate the Brighton-Ashford service (up to five in service at one time). If the Brighton-Ashford service ran as doubled up 2-car turbostars and a 2-car stopping service ran between Hastings and Ashford, 10 2-car turbostars would need to run in service. If the eight London Overground 172s were transfered there would be 14 2-car turbostars in total. I think that up to two sets would be needed as spares leaving two 2-car sets that could be used to lengthen peak Uckfield-London services.

 

[Chris125]

While it would be nice to see, having seen the latest London Assembly transport committee it's hard to see what would've changed since the treasury apparently turned it down last year.

That may change by the next Autumn Statement however, as work is currently underway to bring it up to GRIP3 by October. Fingers crossed that will give enough certainty over likely costs to gain funding.

Chris

 

[IanXC]

IIRC i think the stumbling block was allowing a guarantee to allow Hull Trains operating into the future.

My impression was that First were setting out what could be in their next access rights application.

 

[tbtc]

The Kent route specification expects there to be 2tph between Hastings and Ashford (Marshlink) during the peak in 2020 and possibly off-peak as well (rather than the present Rye-Ashford shuttle plus the odd extra Hastings-Ashford service [both operated using the same DMU]) (line speed upgrades are supposed to make this level of service possible on the single tracked Ore-Rye section). This would require extra stock. There is also the issue that the 2-car 171s that presently run the Brighton to Ashford service are not long enough for the Brighton to Hastings section of the route.

There are presently six 2-car 171s that operate the Brighton-Ashford service (up to five in service at one time). If the Brighton-Ashford service ran as doubled up 2-car turbostars and a 2-car stopping service ran between Hastings and Ashford, 10 2-car turbostars would need to run in service. If the eight London Overground 172s were transfered there would be 14 2-car turbostars in total. I think that up to two sets would be needed as spares leaving two 2-car sets that could be used to lengthen peak Uckfield-London services.

Cheers James, very interesting

While it would be nice to see, having seen the latest London Assembly transport committee it's hard to see what would've changed since the treasury apparently turned it down last year

Whilst a few million quid certainly isn't chicken feed, electrifying this relatively short line would give that nice Mr Osbourne a chance to show that he's investing in infrastructure/ encouraging greener energy/ creating jobs etc without spending billions (even if we could argue that there are other infrastructure projects that are more deserving)

 

[Crossover]

If this were to happen, would it be OHLE or 3rd rail? Isn't a small part of the GOBLIN already on overheads?

(Northern get the 150s) FGW and EMT split the 7 153s. (cant decide which should get 4 and which should get 3 :P )

Splitting 153's could be fun...anyone got a spare torchcutter?

 

[PhilipW]

If this were to happen, would it be OHLE or 3rd rail?

OHLE definately

 

[Mikey C]

Osborne needs some good headlines for his budget, and a few tangible signs that the government is investing in infrastructure (which most people seem to think is a good idea) so GOBLIN electrification seems like an obvious announcement...

 

[tbtc]

A cynic wonders whether this was always something that the Chancellor wanted to keep up his sleeve - in hindsight it was a strange one to omit from the CP5 plans (given the focus on freight routes in terms of the "electric spine" etc) - could it be that this line was held back so that it could be announced at a later date?

 

[RichmondCommu]

A cynic wonders whether this was always something that the Chancellor wanted to keep up his sleeve - in hindsight it was a strange one to omit from the CP5 plans (given the focus on freight routes in terms of the "electric spine" etc) - could it be that this line was held back so that it could be announced at a later date?

There may be some truth in that but the Gospel Oak line is hardly a 'rabbit out of a hat'! On the other hand, the country is skint and it's better than nothing! In terms of freight it would be interesting to see how the line compares against the NLL.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I personally think that line represents a massive lost opportunity in terms of the numbers of radial lines it crosses over without interchanging with. Perhaps what it really needs is conversion to a DLR-style railway with a number of new stations (or in some cases moved stations) at most of the places where it crosses other lines to provide interchanges. Though I realize that would be massively more expensive (and in the short term, disruptive) than simply electrifying it, and would only work if another line was built outside London to take the freight off it.

 

[swt_passenger]

...Though I realize that would be massively more expensive (and in the short term, disruptive) than simply electrifying it, and would only work if another line was built outside London to take the freight off it.

Taking freight off the Goblin is inherently very difficult. According to the GLA meeting last week they expect that with Crossrail using up capacity on the GEML to Stratford, the London Gateway development will need to put MORE freight on the T&H route from Barking, which is basically why they want to make sure it is wired by 2018.

Diverting rail traffic via the cross country route from Felixstowe (via Ely and Perterborough) is irrelevant, because that traffic is directly replaced by the capacity needed by London Gateway.

London Gateway is too close to London for rail access to reach it without impacting on the local area - how are they ever going to get permission to build a new rail route through the area if there's one they can already use?

 

[mr_jrt]

Taking freight off the Goblin is inherently very difficult. According to the GLA meeting last week they expect that with Crossrail using up capacity on the GEML to Stratford, the London Gateway development will need to put MORE freight on the T&H route from Barking, which is basically why they want to make sure it is wired by 2018.

Good news for the North London Line then. Less demand for freight paths if it can't get there, leaving more free for passenger services.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

London Gateway is too close to London for rail access to reach it without impacting on the local area - how are they ever going to get permission to build a new rail route through the area if there's one they can already use?

There's a certain car park motorway that passes not too far from London Gateway and then circles round London passing over the East Coast and West coast rail lines. Surely that's more disruptive than a hypothetical future freight railway running along a similar route would be

 

[Chrisgr31]

The Kent route specification expects there to be 2tph between Hastings and Ashford (Marshlink) during the peak in 2020 and possibly off-peak as well (rather than the present Rye-Ashford shuttle plus the odd extra Hastings-Ashford service [both operated using the same DMU]) (line speed upgrades are supposed to make this level of service possible on the single tracked Ore-Rye section). This would require extra stock. There is also the issue that the 2-car 171s that presently run the Brighton to Ashford service are not long enough for the Brighton to Hastings section of the route.

There are presently six 2-car 171s that operate the Brighton-Ashford service (up to five in service at one time). If the Brighton-Ashford service ran as doubled up 2-car turbostars and a 2-car stopping service ran between Hastings and Ashford, 10 2-car turbostars would need to run in service. If the eight London Overground 172s were transfered there would be 14 2-car turbostars in total. I think that up to two sets would be needed as spares leaving two 2-car sets that could be used to lengthen peak Uckfield-London services.

I wonder if the need for rolling stock is greater on the Marshlink or the Uckfield Line? After all the Sussex Route Utilisation Strategy calls for 8 car trains in CP4 and 10 car trains in CP5. CP4 is the period from 2009-2014 so there's not a lot of time to introduce them!

Not sure exactly which trains count as peak, but at present only one is 8 cars, and there are possibly 2 or 3 others which would count, 2 of those are 6, and one might only be 4 or even 2! So you'd need at least 3 two car units to reach the 8 car , and at least 7 for the 10 car versions and possibly more depending on what trains are peak and what length they are.

Southern did of course suggest recently to the DoT that they should change the timetabling on the Marshlink to allow them to free up a unit to move it up to Uckfield. However the DoT turned this suggestion down.

 

[JamesRowden]

I wonder if the need for rolling stock is greater on the Marshlink or the Uckfield Line? After all the Sussex Route Utilisation Strategy calls for 8 car trains in CP4 and 10 car trains in CP5. CP4 is the period from 2009-2014 so there's not a lot of time to introduce them!

The stock would need to be made available for it even if Gospel Oak to Barking stock did not become available (and considereing they are 2-car sets with no corridor sections they do not seem ideal for long formations such as 10-car).

Also Uckfield already has 10+2/3 carriages available per off-peak service while the Marshlink only has 3 (and 2 if the off-peak frequency between Hastings and Ashford were increased to 2tph as the route specification document predicts). The fact that Uckfield stock is used less intensly (since far more stock is used in the peak relative to the off-peak) might weaken the business case for supplying significantly more stock to reduce peak overcrowding (a shuttle service to Oxted during the peak replacing some peak London-Uckfield services [still keeping at least 1tph direct between London and Uckfield] would mean that far less diesel stock would be required to meet demand and that electric stock could be used to increase the capacity of the route north of Oxted).

Southern did of course suggest recently to the DoT that they should change the timetabling on the Marshlink to allow them to free up a unit to move it up to Uckfield. However the DoT turned this suggestion down.

It was in 2009 and it was Southern that (after counducting a passenger consultation) chose not to take the option that it had as part of its franchise contract. The main justifucation for making a change was the present overcrowing on the Brighton-Ashford service as a result of a 2-car service running the express between Brighton and Hastings (the plan was that by splitting the Brighton-Ashford service at Eastbourne and making it the stopping service(s) and making the Brighton-Ore service the express, that the overcrowing problem would be solved).

 

[Fred26]

I personally think that line represents a massive lost opportunity in terms of the numbers of radial lines it crosses over without interchanging with. Perhaps what it really needs is conversion to a DLR-style railway with a number of new stations (or in some cases moved stations) at most of the places where it crosses other lines to provide interchanges. Though I realize that would be massively more expensive (and in the short term, disruptive) than simply electrifying it, and would only work if another line was built outside London to take the freight off it.

I agree. For instance, Wanstead Park, Woodgrange Park, Forest Gate and Manor Park could close, with a new station opening where the GOBLIN crosses the GEML.

 

[pemma]

Well political advantage mostly.

Indeed. As the next government is very unlikely to be a Conservative/Lib Dem Coalition they can pretty much promise anything and the next government can backtrack or put back the dates if the current government over commits blaming either the Conservatives or Lib Dems for over-committing (depending who is in the next government.)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But regardless, 8 2 car DMUs going somewhere is a good thing. But imagine the 172s don't go to SN where would they go, where is self contained enough to take them... To be honest i would probably say midlands to get rid of their last 150s 153s. So that would be i belive 16 carriges replacing 13 carriages. So a small improvement.

Well unless there are more 172s ordered the only sensible cascade options are London Midland and Chiltern.

However, saying Chiltern it may make more sense for them to also lose their 172s and gain a few cascaded 165s off Thames Valley as replacement.

If there was to be a new large DMU order (which sounds unlikely in the next few years) I think Northern would be the most logical destination given the number of Pacers and 150s they have and the 156s they have could probably be found more suitable homes, like the longer FGW class 150 diagrams.