|
Post by vjaska on Feb 7, 2013 23:44:54 GMT
I know what happens. Platforms can be built at both stations but it'll be hugely expensive. Loughborough Junction links with the Thameslink and would provide a fantastic interchange. The alternative is to resurrect East Brixton Station which stood above Barrington Road and would provide an interchange for both stations. If Lea Bridge station can be resurrected, I'm sure East Brixton can, even if its on a high level rail line. The problem is partly establishing the station beneath the high level bridge. There was stairs leading up from the road before when it was originally open.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2013 23:48:26 GMT
The problem is partly establishing the station beneath the high level bridge. There was stairs leading up from the road before when it was originally open. Oh indeed, I'm not suggesting it's not possible. I mean buying the land and building a station on it and getting the relevant planning permission (etc.) could be problematic. I'm sure TFL would've considered it as part of the Clapham Junction extension as it's certainly a major interchange.
|
|
|
Post by Steve09 on Feb 8, 2013 0:01:44 GMT
It seems the electrifying of the GOBLIN line is now a broken record and isnt a priority! One thing for certain, I might have more chance of seeing Spurs win the League and Champions League than seeing 4/5 Car EMUs on the GOBLIN line. The 5 car plan on the electrified part of the Overground is a good plan, but I cant help feel that the time it takes to get it done, the capacity will be used up and there will be talk of 6/7/8 cars or an increase in frequency. The London Overground is a victim of it's own success now. Personally, I'd like to see LO take over the majority of the inner London surburban services, but again, this could become a vicitim of its own success! At least they can operate longer trains on the other surburban lines! The electrification of the GOBLIN is caught up in govt vs Mayoral politics. The DfT say that TfL must pay for electrification as the responsibility has been devolved to them. The Mayor, as always, wants the government to pay - partly because freight trains will benefit from electric power. There is also an argument as to whether the developers of the new port facilities on the Thames should chip in some money. There is also a bit of a rumour about an extension beyond Barking down to the Barking Reach development area. Again this is a source of potential funding contribution but a new development with thousands of potential users would need longer and electric trains. TfL have apparently put £25m on the table as a maximum contribution but that leaves at least another £25m to find. Bizarrely it seems that GOBLIN electrification was going to be included in the Autumn Statement but it was pulled at the very last minute. This explains why Mr Hendy dropped a very heavy hint about good news to the London Assembly on the morning of the Statement but come the afternoon the scheme had disappeared from the Statement. The other arguments are about the cost of doing the electrification with Network Rail saying £90m and TfL saying £50m. There is also disagreement about the benefits and who they are attributed to - passengers, freight, external. Hopefully we will get a solution as the parties are, apparently, still talking and there is a lot of pressure from MPs and Assembly Members to get to a solution. TfL were never going to include the GOBLIN in the approval paper given all these arguments. It's a huge shame that all this nonsense is going on when there is generally a favourable view of railway electrification after decades of opposition. I agree with you that the Overground is a victim of its own success but that's what happens when you upgrade the service and then offer a decent service with reasonable fares. Without investment I do not think that the same trick can be played with Greater Anglia or South Eastern. There is no instant answer and there will be a much harder job of boosting services on those lines. I'm not saying TfL shouldn't try just that the job will be harder and longer than with the existing Overground. The North Kent lines of Southeastern already operate at a high frequency during weekdays - every 10 mins for the lines to Dartford, similar for the lines to Sevenoaks etc, and also the Greater Anglia Shenfield stopping service (to be taken over by Crossrail anyway) and the branches via Tottenham Hale. I think if these lines were to be taken over by LOROL, more focus would be applied to making the experience better for customers (like better station security and ticket office hours) and the replacement of elderly EMUs, like the 315s and 317s with Greater Anglia, the Southeastern EMUs are a bit newer, especially the suburban cl. 376's which I reckon would be taken over...
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Feb 8, 2013 7:33:18 GMT
New Platforms would have to be built. I've taken the line many times and it goes right over the top of Crossing the stations. I wouldn't put a Station at LBJ. Only Brixton. I know what happens. Platforms can be built at both stations but it'll be hugely expensive. Loughborough Junction links with the Thameslink and would provide a fantastic interchange. The alternative is to resurrect East Brixton Station which stood above Barrington Road and would provide an interchange for both stations. If Lea Bridge station can be resurrected, I'm sure East Brixton can, even if its on a high level rail line. The problem is standards have been raised which makes it very expensive. You would now need disability access, wider minimum width platforms etc for anything deemed new work. Had the old platforms stayed open ( even if they only had one train a week) then they would have grandfather rights ( which basically allows existing items not to be upgraded to latest standards)
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Feb 8, 2013 19:51:47 GMT
The electrification of the GOBLIN is caught up in govt vs Mayoral politics. The DfT say that TfL must pay for electrification as the responsibility has been devolved to them. The Mayor, as always, wants the government to pay - partly because freight trains will benefit from electric power. There is also an argument as to whether the developers of the new port facilities on the Thames should chip in some money. There is also a bit of a rumour about an extension beyond Barking down to the Barking Reach development area. Again this is a source of potential funding contribution but a new development with thousands of potential users would need longer and electric trains. TfL have apparently put £25m on the table as a maximum contribution but that leaves at least another £25m to find. Bizarrely it seems that GOBLIN electrification was going to be included in the Autumn Statement but it was pulled at the very last minute. This explains why Mr Hendy dropped a very heavy hint about good news to the London Assembly on the morning of the Statement but come the afternoon the scheme had disappeared from the Statement. The other arguments are about the cost of doing the electrification with Network Rail saying £90m and TfL saying £50m. There is also disagreement about the benefits and who they are attributed to - passengers, freight, external. Hopefully we will get a solution as the parties are, apparently, still talking and there is a lot of pressure from MPs and Assembly Members to get to a solution. TfL were never going to include the GOBLIN in the approval paper given all these arguments. It's a huge shame that all this nonsense is going on when there is generally a favourable view of railway electrification after decades of opposition. I agree with you that the Overground is a victim of its own success but that's what happens when you upgrade the service and then offer a decent service with reasonable fares. Without investment I do not think that the same trick can be played with Greater Anglia or South Eastern. There is no instant answer and there will be a much harder job of boosting services on those lines. I'm not saying TfL shouldn't try just that the job will be harder and longer than with the existing Overground. The North Kent lines of Southeastern already operate at a high frequency during weekdays - every 10 mins for the lines to Dartford, similar for the lines to Sevenoaks etc, and also the Greater Anglia Shenfield stopping service (to be taken over by Crossrail anyway) and the branches via Tottenham Hale. I think if these lines were to be taken over by LOROL, more focus would be applied to making the experience better for customers (like better station security and ticket office hours) and the replacement of elderly EMUs, like the 315s and 317s with Greater Anglia, the Southeastern EMUs are a bit newer, especially the suburban cl. 376's which I reckon would be taken over... Oh no - that will mean ticket gates @ Bruce Grove Amy investment in the West Anglia / Lea Valley lines would be welcome - Greater Anglia have done well with what they have, but the 315's and 317's are a state.... I was on a 317 today that was so loud - not just the traction motors, but this deafening hum like I was in a power station It will be interesting to see if TfL can take over that line, it could connect to the rest of the Overground at South Tottenham and Seven Sisters, using the (electrified) branch lines... though ideally they need to electrify GOBLIN first, but DaFT don't want to spend the money on doing so
|
|
|
Post by RM5chris on Feb 8, 2013 21:12:36 GMT
Why are there guards/conductors (crew-op) on London Overground yet none (OPO) on the Underground? Wouldn't it have been easy to make LO OPO? Out of the two though, I would rather have crew working on the deep level lines...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2013 21:23:18 GMT
Why are there guards/conductors (crew-op) on London Overground yet none (OPO) on the Underground? Wouldn't it have been easy to make LO OPO? Out of the two though, I would rather have crew working on the deep level lines... I don't think I've ever seen a guard/conductor on the Overground. Am I using the wrong bit?
|
|
|
Post by RM5chris on Feb 8, 2013 21:51:07 GMT
Why are there guards/conductors (crew-op) on London Overground yet none (OPO) on the Underground? Wouldn't it have been easy to make LO OPO? Out of the two though, I would rather have crew working on the deep level lines... I don't think I've ever seen a guard/conductor on the Overground. Am I using the wrong bit? There was on mine - they made an announcement leaving Clapham Junction that they were at the back of the train if any assistance required and I saw her opening/closing the doors and giving a starting signal from a panel that is behind a cover/door beside one of the sets of doors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2013 22:17:20 GMT
I don't think I've ever seen a guard/conductor on the Overground. Am I using the wrong bit? There was on mine - they made an announcement leaving Clapham Junction that they were at the back of the train if any assistance required and I saw her opening/closing the doors and giving a starting signal from a panel that is behind a cover/door beside one of the sets of doors. Never had that on the ELL. Were you on an ex-Silverlink bit of the Overground? I wonder if it's a leftover staffing arrangement from National Rail days that can't now be ditched.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 8, 2013 22:18:50 GMT
Why are there guards/conductors (crew-op) on London Overground yet none (OPO) on the Underground? Wouldn't it have been easy to make LO OPO? Out of the two though, I would rather have crew working on the deep level lines... No guards on the ELL as it was a new service and was also OPO under LU operation. There was a proposal to remove guards from the other lines very early on but the RMT threatened a strike and TfL / LOROL "bottled it". Instead a very generous pay deal was negotiated and guards retained. They are supposed to "circulate" inside the train though, not sit in the cab. I am not really convinced that guards are needed on the tube. The trains operate perfectly well with just a driver.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2013 22:19:39 GMT
The electrification of the GOBLIN is caught up in govt vs Mayoral politics. The DfT say that TfL must pay for electrification as the responsibility has been devolved to them. The Mayor, as always, wants the government to pay - partly because freight trains will benefit from electric power. There is also an argument as to whether the developers of the new port facilities on the Thames should chip in some money. There is also a bit of a rumour about an extension beyond Barking down to the Barking Reach development area. Again this is a source of potential funding contribution but a new development with thousands of potential users would need longer and electric trains. TfL have apparently put £25m on the table as a maximum contribution but that leaves at least another £25m to find. Bizarrely it seems that GOBLIN electrification was going to be included in the Autumn Statement but it was pulled at the very last minute. This explains why Mr Hendy dropped a very heavy hint about good news to the London Assembly on the morning of the Statement but come the afternoon the scheme had disappeared from the Statement. The other arguments are about the cost of doing the electrification with Network Rail saying £90m and TfL saying £50m. There is also disagreement about the benefits and who they are attributed to - passengers, freight, external. Hopefully we will get a solution as the parties are, apparently, still talking and there is a lot of pressure from MPs and Assembly Members to get to a solution. TfL were never going to include the GOBLIN in the approval paper given all these arguments. It's a huge shame that all this nonsense is going on when there is generally a favourable view of railway electrification after decades of opposition. I agree with you that the Overground is a victim of its own success but that's what happens when you upgrade the service and then offer a decent service with reasonable fares. Without investment I do not think that the same trick can be played with Greater Anglia or South Eastern. There is no instant answer and there will be a much harder job of boosting services on those lines. I'm not saying TfL shouldn't try just that the job will be harder and longer than with the existing Overground. The North Kent lines of Southeastern already operate at a high frequency during weekdays - every 10 mins for the lines to Dartford, similar for the lines to Sevenoaks etc, and also the Greater Anglia Shenfield stopping service (to be taken over by Crossrail anyway) and the branches via Tottenham Hale. I think if these lines were to be taken over by LOROL, more focus would be applied to making the experience better for customers (like better station security and ticket office hours) and the replacement of elderly EMUs, like the 315s and 317s with Greater Anglia, the Southeastern EMUs are a bit newer, especially the suburban cl. 376's which I reckon would be taken over... A better service would always be appreciated on the Catford Loop - though that looks like it might be lumped into the Thameslink programme. Hopefully Crofton Park will get a better service as it can be very busy in the peaks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2013 22:22:02 GMT
Why are there guards/conductors (crew-op) on London Overground yet none (OPO) on the Underground? Wouldn't it have been easy to make LO OPO? Out of the two though, I would rather have crew working on the deep level lines... No guards on the ELL as it was a new service and was also OPO under LU operation. There was a proposal to remove guards from the other lines very early on but the RMT threatened a strike and TfL / LOROL "bottled it". Instead a very generous pay deal was negotiated and guards retained. They are supposed to "circulate" inside the train though, not sit in the cab. I am not really convinced that guards are needed on the tube. The trains operate perfectly well with just a driver. This explains it. The ELL copes just fine without guards so there's certainly not a need for them on other lines based on that.
|
|
|
Post by Steve09 on Feb 9, 2013 0:14:49 GMT
The North Kent lines of Southeastern already operate at a high frequency during weekdays - every 10 mins for the lines to Dartford, similar for the lines to Sevenoaks etc, and also the Greater Anglia Shenfield stopping service (to be taken over by Crossrail anyway) and the branches via Tottenham Hale. I think if these lines were to be taken over by LOROL, more focus would be applied to making the experience better for customers (like better station security and ticket office hours) and the replacement of elderly EMUs, like the 315s and 317s with Greater Anglia, the Southeastern EMUs are a bit newer, especially the suburban cl. 376's which I reckon would be taken over... Oh no - that will mean ticket gates @ Bruce Grove Amy investment in the West Anglia / Lea Valley lines would be welcome - Greater Anglia have done well with what they have, but the 315's and 317's are a state.... I was on a 317 today that was so loud - not just the traction motors, but this deafening hum like I was in a power station It will be interesting to see if TfL can take over that line, it could connect to the rest of the Overground at South Tottenham and Seven Sisters, using the (electrified) branch lines... though ideally they need to electrify GOBLIN first, but DaFT don't want to spend the money on doing so ;D It would definitely be interesting Could see some interesting developments one day, linking to existing lines like at New Cross and the ones in North London that you have stated so could see some interesting routes... The Goblin electrification will have to happen one day, just waiting for someone willing to spend the money needed. I reckon any indications for what will happen in regards to the transfer of any services to LOROL will come when DFT announce the restructuring of the current FCC, Southern and Southeastern franchises into some new 'super' franchise, as stated by my recent 'Rail' magazine, issue 714.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 9, 2013 13:27:38 GMT
Oh no - that will mean ticket gates @ Bruce Grove Amy investment in the West Anglia / Lea Valley lines would be welcome - Greater Anglia have done well with what they have, but the 315's and 317's are a state.... I was on a 317 today that was so loud - not just the traction motors, but this deafening hum like I was in a power station It will be interesting to see if TfL can take over that line, it could connect to the rest of the Overground at South Tottenham and Seven Sisters, using the (electrified) branch lines... though ideally they need to electrify GOBLIN first, but DaFT don't want to spend the money on doing so ;D It would definitely be interesting Could see some interesting developments one day, linking to existing lines like at New Cross and the ones in North London that you have stated so could see some interesting routes... The Goblin electrification will have to happen one day, just waiting for someone willing to spend the money needed. I reckon any indications for what will happen in regards to the transfer of any services to LOROL will come when DFT announce the restructuring of the current FCC, Southern and Southeastern franchises into some new 'super' franchise, as stated by my recent 'Rail' magazine, issue 714. It is worth noting a couple of things that were said in a hearing of the Parliamentary Transport Select Committee last week. Mike Brown was present and was asked a lot of questions about how London does things. He made the point that TfL do not operate the Overground - they just specify, let and oversee the contract. They would do the same for any transferred Greater Anglia or South Eastern services. The routes would NOT transfer to LOROL. In fact it is perfectly possible that Abellio and Go Ahead could win a TfL concession contract for Greater Anglia and South Eastern!. The difference would be that they would have to comply with TfL's specification which I assume would include the use of Overground branding. The Secretary of State was also present and he was asked about when the franchising programme would restart. He indicated it might be Spring this year. He also dropped a heavy hint that the Great Western franchise would be rather different to today as would other franchises. I doubt that would apply to the mega Southern / Thameslink one as there seems to be a desire to keep this together to allow for co-ordination of the major works and associated service changes. It is possible that any decision about further devolution of rail services to TfL would be advised at the same time as the "Spring" announcement.
|
|
52000
Conductor
Posts: 140
|
Post by 52000 on Feb 9, 2013 20:37:10 GMT
Why are there guards/conductors (crew-op) on London Overground yet none (OPO) on the Underground? Wouldn't it have been easy to make LO OPO? Out of the two though, I would rather have crew working on the deep level lines... I don't think I've ever seen a guard/conductor on the Overground. Am I using the wrong bit? Most, if not all GOBLIN trains have a guard who stands at the 1st set of doors in the 2nd car.
|
|