Gospel Oak to Barking Line (GOBLIN) electrification

[furnessvale]

A misleading figure, I suspect, which doesn't take into account diesels being left for hours to thrum away in circumstances that a lorry would just be switched off, or locos for a trip working across London being sent down light engine from Doncaster or wherever because that's the most convenient point for the operator to run it from.

An average is an average. Presumably when running freely on the main line a loco turns out even better figures, only dragged down by such empty running.

Are you under the mistaken impression that HGVs run loaded ALL the time. AIUI, the average load factor of an HGV is little over 50%.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

One day the focus will switch to freight trains, and the fact that they could complete their transit through the Greater London Area under electric power would not escape the attention of pressure groups with public health in mind.

Given the life expectancy of modern locos, perhaps it is time for an enterprising FOC to look at repackaging the 66 chassis into an electro-diesel or even a straight electric?

 

[ac6000cw]

Given the life expectancy of modern locos, perhaps it is time for an enterprising FOC to look at repackaging the 66 chassis into an electro-diesel or even a straight electric?

DRS is already ahead of that game with the class 88 electro-diesel - I'd expect more of those (or similar from other suppliers) to become the motive power of choice. For real 'heavy-haul' stuff a six-axle variant might be useful e.g. an electro-diesel version of a class 70.

The class 66 is already obsolete in design terms (DC drive, no electric braking) so might not be a good basis for an (expensive) conversion to straight electric/electro-diesel - you would have to replace so much of traction equipment it might not be economic versus buying new. The far more modern class 70 would be a much better conversion candidate.

The other obvious 'electro-diesel' candidate is to re-traction the 92s and add a 'last mile' diesel engine.

 

[Wolfie]

Very, very much doubt it. A local authority, even the GLA, doesn't have any jurisdiction in such matters on the national network. It would require primary legislation to force such a restriction.

Bear in mind that even where it does have a jurisdiction, e.g. London buses and taxis on Oxford St, it has elected to do nothing in the short to medium term despite failing the recommended maxima for certain pollutants.

What could happen is that lobbying / campaigning might persuade FOCs to do something. However unless it was broadly cash neutral for them, they would just say that the traffic would go onto the roads, and London (or wherever) woudld then be rightly accused of exporting pollution.

What would likely happen is pressure for legislative change - if the Govt legislates the FOCs have zero choice - and/or one or more groups seeking judicial review (JR) against the Govt for allowing relatively heavily polluting freight engines (many with grandfather rights) to run through London and other urban centres...

Don't forget that such a JR was successful against HMG for failing to curb pollution and futher litigation is threatened because of the limited response thus far...

http://www.airqualitynews.com/2016/04/29/government-to-face-judicial-review-over-no2-pollution-plan/

That is the current state of affairs. I think that as the government sees its failure to meet environmental commitments together with pressure from the public about exposure to pollutants, even the most carefree of administrations could find themselves needing to shape the behaviour of FOCs and road carriers with punitive charges for doing the wrong thing. Who would have thought that the London LEZ would be put in place (and enforced) if it meant additional costs to bring many HGVs up to a certain standard. I forsee that minimal standard being gradually tightened now that the principle has been established for HGVs. The push to ensure that many locations in London meet acceptable pollution targets will come from communities that have seen the impact on health from diesels engines in particular.
One day the focus will switch to freight trains, and the fact that they could complete their transit through the Greater London Area under electric power would not escape the attention of pressure groups with public health in mind.

I fully agree.

 

[Mikey C]

Once the MML, GWML and GOBLIN electrification schemes are complete (or at least within the London area), will that leave very much mileage of track that's non-electrified within London?

There are a small number of other freight only lines or branches which aren't electrified, such as the Dudding Hill Line from Acton to Cricklewood and the Angerstein Wharf to the Thames near Greenwich. I'm not aware of any current plans to electrify them

 

[Taunton]

There are a small number of other freight only lines or branches which aren't electrified, such as the Dudding Hill Line from Acton to Cricklewood and the Angerstein Wharf to the Thames near Greenwich.

I wonder how much of the south of London 3rd rail power supply could actually support heavy haul electric freight locos (which it was not designed to do and never has done); something like the South London Line where there can be several diesel freights running at once, maybe all on one substation.

The class 66 is already obsolete in design terms (DC drive, no electric braking)

I thought the Class 66 had dynamic brakes, which in any event have been a standard GM catalogue item for the last 50 years, so if not fitted/used that's no design issue.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Once the MML, GWML and GOBLIN electrification schemes are complete (or at least within the London area), will that leave very much mileage of track that's non-electrified within London?

The only real non-electrified intrusion into Greater London would-be the old GC lines from Marylebone to Denham and Rickmasworth, (although the latter is already 630VDC courtesy of LU). Not that those lines are likely to carry much freight anyway.

Also there are still (would still be ) IIRC, where they run diesel under the wires for ridiculously long lengths out of the London Termini.

Living in the USA I am not au fait with current practices but it used to break my heart to see London KX- Aberdeen run by a HST 125 all the way under the wires to Edinburgh - and also KX- Middlesborough etc.

 

[Taunton]

Living in the USA I am not au fait with current practices but it used to break my heart to see London KX- Aberdeen run by a HST 125 all the way under the wires to Edinburgh - and also KX- Middlesborough etc.

Because no new electric trains have been built for the ECML in the last 25 years (and in fact the number of electric sets has fallen with accident losses along the way), the only practical way to add capacity has been with additional HSTs, even on all-electric London to Leeds or Edinburgh runs, let alone the open access operators.

 

[ac6000cw]

I thought the Class 66 had dynamic brakes, which in any event have been a standard GM catalogue item for the last 50 years, so if not fitted/used that's no design issue.

The 66s do not have dynamic braking (due to lack of space for the equipment as far as I know - the design issue - cost may have been a factor too). The 68s and 70s do have it. It was one of the additions that EMD proposed for the class 66 replacement design, together with AC traction drive, but that project never went anywhere.

(BTW, EMD has offered dynamic braking as an option since the FT units in 1939, so for more than 75 years )

 

[GRALISTAIR]

-The other obvious 'electro-diesel' candidate is to re-traction the 92s and add a 'last mile' diesel engine.

I thought the Class 92 was very unreliable - are you sure this would be a good idea?

 

[AM9]

The 66s do not have dynamic braking (due to lack of space for the equipment as far as I know - the design issue - cost may have been a factor too). The 68s and 70s do have it. It was one of the additions that EMD proposed for the class 66 replacement design, together with AC traction drive, but that project never went anywhere.

(BTW, EMD has offered dynamic braking as an option since the FT units in 1939, so for more than 75 years )

Electric dynamic braking is a real energy saver on anything powered from electricity, but other than saving braake shoes/pads, doesn't do much for the carbon footprint of a self-powered unit.

 

[Taunton]

Electric dynamic braking is a real energy saver on anything powered from electricity, but other than saving braake shoes/pads, doesn't do much for the carbon footprint of a self-powered unit.

Yes, the main benefit of dynamic brakes is control of heavy trains on long downhills where friction brakes might fade. Broadly, across the USA, railroads in the Prairies didn't have them, those in the mountains did.

Dynamic brakes, as I understand the term, do not give any energy saving, as the electricity is burned off in resistances. EMUs, and indeed old trams, have long used this. It is regenerative brakes that feed the power back into the line for a saving. This was cracked long ago for DC systems but only very recently has regeneration back into an AC supply been achieved, as of course the locomotive, running at variable speeds, has to match the AC frequency curve exactly. There normally need to be duplicate resistances on the locomotive anyway for when the supply is not receptive, ie no other trains in section, though I understand some systems have lineside resistances at the substation to burn off surplus current.

 

[NSEFAN]

There normally need to be duplicate resistances on the locomotive anyway for when the supply is not receptive, ie no other trains in section, though I understand some systems have lineside resistances at the substation to burn off surplus current

I thought they had flywheels to store the surplus energy?

 

[AM9]

I thought they had flywheels to store the surplus energy?

Actually returned power from an ac train via 25kV OLE can either go to offset any other train in the section or under some circumstances, should be returned back trough the transformer to the feed.
It's the DC lines that have the more difficult regen problem as the sections tend to be smaller and there is less chance of enough demand from other trains. Thus the feeder locations need the resistors to waste the energy from braking when it can't be used.

 

[mr_jrt]

Because no new electric trains have been built for the ECML in the last 25 years (and in fact the number of electric sets has fallen with accident losses along the way), the only practical way to add capacity has been with additional HSTs, even on all-electric London to Leeds or Edinburgh runs, let alone the open access operators.

Wasn't the original plan to have the locos switch over at Edinburgh? i.e. the 91 comes off and a diesel pops on and takes the train onwards and the 91 heads back south again.

 

[Class 170101]

There are a small number of other freight only lines or branches which aren't electrified, such as the Dudding Hill Line from Acton to Cricklewood and the Angerstein Wharf to the Thames near Greenwich. I'm not aware of any current plans to electrify them

The links between the GWML and the MML and WCML via Acton and Dudding Hill were supposed to have been wired around now as I recall, but it seems finances got in the way again.

 

[Bald Rick]

Wasn't the original plan to have the locos switch over at Edinburgh? i.e. the 91 comes off and a diesel pops on and takes the train onwards and the 91 heads back south again.

The 'original' plan (c1982) was for the locos to change at Newcastle; Class 89 to the south, something diesel to the north (as no wires were planned north of Heaton).

However sense prevailed, the extension to Edinburgh was later planned in and that was what was authorised - Class 89s pulling the existing HST trailers, with a fleet of 87/2s to deal with freight, parcels, newspaper trains etc. It was only after electrification work started that the 91s and MkIVs came into play, ostensibly as fixed formation trains, albeit the 91 could come off to be used on the sleepers overnight. Of course the ECML sleepers disappeared by the time the full fleet came into service. The 87/2s were rebadged as 90s and sent straight to the WCML to join those ordered for that route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The links between the GWML and the MML and WCML via Acton and Dudding Hill were supposed to have been wired around now as I recall, but it seems finances got in the way again.

The link via Dudding Hill to the MML has never been in this round of electrification plans to my knowledge.

 

[Class 170101]

The link via Dudding Hill to the MML has never been in this round of electrification plans to my knowledge.

Have seen possessions that covered this route stating the work for OLE.

 

[Bald Rick]

Have seen possessions that covered this route stating the work for OLE.

Acton - Acton Wells - Acton Canal Wharf yes (GWML to WCML) but not Dudding Hill.

 

[AM9]

Acton - Acton Wells - Acton Canal Wharf yes (GWML to WCML) but not Dudding Hill.

If the dreaded Railfreight Interchange gets put at Radlett Aerodrome then the Dudding Hill would seem to be a good candidate for W12 and OLE.

 

[hwl]

If the dreaded Railfreight Interchange gets put at Radlett Aerodrome then the Dudding Hill would seem to be a good candidate for W12 and OLE.

You actually believe there will be rail traffic to it? (As opposed to planning ruse)

 

[Bald Rick]

If the dreaded Railfreight Interchange gets put at Radlett Aerodrome then the Dudding Hill would seem to be a good candidate for W12 and OLE.

But who would pay?

 

[class303]

Orange army at work today - looking east towards Crouch Hill station.
It looks like a base for a mast has appeared (the 'dark looking square'):

(Pardon my lack of rail terminology)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I travelled from Blackhorse Rd to Gospel Oak today and there are lots of 'dark looking squares' by the track-side. These are actually circular shaped, some with wooden boards covering them (as in the photo), some not. Are these mast bases? I only ask as there are, sporadically, a few longer circular tubes of the same dimension lying on their sides at the track-side too that look like they may be connected at some point?!

Pardon my lack of rail terminology too!

 

[swt_passenger]

I travelled from Blackhorse Rd to Gospel Oak today and there are lots of 'dark looking squares' by the track-side. These are actually circular shaped, some with wooden boards covering them (as in the photo), some not. Are these mast bases? I only ask as there are, sporadically, a few longer circular tubes of the same dimension lying on their sides at the track-side too that look like they may be connected at some point?!

Piled tubular steel foundations. As seen up and down the GWML.

http://www.screwfast.com/foundation-solutions/tubular-driven-stee/

 

[AM9]

You actually believe there will be rail traffic to it? (As opposed to planning ruse)

I said "dreaded" because I don't think it would be a good idea from either a railfreight of passenger service point of view and yes I think that it would be just another abuse of planning permission (if they get it) by a major developer.
I don't work these days, but the A414 would become a major problem area for south west Herts that would have some effect on the M25 and M1.
However, in a more honest world, the electrification of the GOBlin would get added value from the electrification of both the link and tunnel to Carlton Road junction (which is included anyway) and the Dudding Hill route. They would also be beneficial if the RFI was located at the other suggested site, i.e. Sundon.

 

[Mordac]

Also there are still (would still be ) IIRC, where they run diesel under the wires for ridiculously long lengths out of the London Termini.

Living in the USA I am not au fait with current practices but it used to break my heart to see London KX- Aberdeen run by a HST 125 all the way under the wires to Edinburgh - and also KX- Middlesborough etc.

What's even worse are VTWC Brum services run by Voyagers entirely under wires from London to Scotland.

 

[Lozzy0603]

What will happen to LO's 172/0s whilst the gobin is closed for its upgrade? Surely there can be a use for them with another operator in the mean time rather than being stored at Willesden?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Piled tubular steel foundations. As seen up and down the GWML.

http://www.screwfast.com/foundation-solutions/tubular-driven-stee/

They're covered to stop animals (and daft track workers) falling down them.

 

[Class 170101]

What will happen to LO's 172/0s whilst the gobin is closed for its upgrade? Surely there can be a use for them with another operator in the mean time rather than being stored at Willesden?

I already made that suggestion earlier. I believe some are going for refurbishment / refresh during this period.

 

[gazr]

Looking on RTT, it looks like they will need 3/4 172s to run the Gospel Oak-South Tottenham weekday shuttles until sometime in September when the whole line shuts until February. Bashed the whole line good today and noted some masts (metal things! ) in place at the Gospel Oak end.

I know they are extending the platforms at some stations... they should consider cleaning up some of the stations that have long (about 10 car?) platforms while the line is shut...forward thinking Either that or make them safe for the community to use as a garden or something to make the stations not so grim- example: Elmstead Woods... talk about cared for! Well done the volunteers who look after that place

 

[MML]

I've often wondered why many of the platforms are so long on this line.
Does anybody know the historical reasons ?
I know there was previously a link with Kentish Town and St Pancras but presume this was a DMU operation.

Harringay Green Lanes for example has very long platforms.

The planting of stations to make them more attractive is such a good idea.