London Overground Barking Riverside extension approved

[DavidB-AU]

Mayor of London Mr Boris Johnson has given Transport for London (TfL) the go-ahead to seek legal powers for the construction of a 4km extension of the London Overground network from Barking to Barking Riverside.

 

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/commuter-rail/london-overground-barking-riverside-extension-approved.html

[Gwiwer]

Good news and eminently sensible.  If only other cities and countries would follow such an example of putting trains in as new housing was built rather than 20 - 30 years later when everyone is entrenched in a two-car lifestyle and has to be won back to public transport.

 

For the track-bashers this will also be the first regular passenger service over the Barking flyover and for passengers will almost certainly mean the end of waiting at the dingy hollow which is platform 1 at Barking.  

 

A two-platform terminus also permits the option of further service enhancements.  Currently the headway is every 15 minutes, up from the recent 30-minute base headway and hourly in the late evening.  It's not so long ago that this route was only served hourly and a 2-car DMU sufficed for that.  Now it will receive 5-car EMUs once electrified and at least four times an hour.  That's quite a turnaround for a route which was expected to close to passengers in the 70s.

[DavidB-AU]

The artists impression suggests an elevated terminus with an island platform fairly close to the river. I wonder if they are making provision for a future extension across the river to Abbey Wood? That would give another connection with Crossrail.

 

Cheers

David

[roythebus]

I doubt it would be feasible to build a river bridge here, too much very big boats passing along!

 

Also interesting to note that Arriva has been awarded the London Overground contract.

[Gwiwer]

I doubt it would be feasible to build a river bridge here, too much very bi boats passing along!

 

Also interesting to note that Arriva has been awarded the London Overground contract.

 

 

Anyone who remembers the original DLR set up would recall Island Gardens station was built in the same manner; an elevated island platform with the intent to cross the river at some future time.  That crossing is in a tunnel and required long-term closure of the route while it was rebuilt beyond Mudchute to reach the tunnel.  But it is now a very busy Thames crossing.  Perhaps Barking Riverside will prove to be a repeat of history.

 

Arriva already operate the LOROL franchise in a joint venture with Keolis.  For the new franchise they bid alone leaving Keolis to find another partner.  Arriva have generally shown initiative and ability in managing their existing franchises such as Cross Country and Arriva Trains Wales.  Do they get to choose the livery or does Boris dictate that as well?

[phil-b259]

I doubt it would be feasible to build a river bridge here, too much very bi boats passing along!

 

Also interesting to note that Arriva has been awarded the London Overground contract.

 

TfL have been consulting on plans for TWO new river crossings in the area one at Gallons reach (where a crossing has long been considered) and Belvedere

 

Both crossings could incorporate some form of public transport facility so while a heavy rail extension is unlikely, it cannot be totally ruled out.

 

See https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/rivercrossings/east-of-silvertown

[phil-b259]

 Do they get to choose the livery or does Boris dictate that as well?

 

Yes TfL specify the livery.

 

Please remember that the London Overground setup is not a Franchise in the same way most other TOCs (though Mersey Rail are the same). Basically TfL let it as a concession, retaining all the revenue risk, setting fare levels, staffing levels, train liveries and much, much more. On the rest of the system, the DfT are only too happy to let the franchise winner manage these aspects themselves themselves with minimal input from the DfT.

 

Basicly if the rest of the country was like the London setup then we could still have a common "InterCity" livery on the GEML, ECML, MML, WCML & GWML even though they might be let as separate concessions. Unfortunately that is not "free market" enough for Westminster Governments - who only really tolerate it for the likes of London Overground and Merseyrail because it gets rid of the need for the DfT to have to concern itself with heavily subsidised urban operations unlikely to bring in much of a return financially when the franchise is let.

[russ p]

I privatisation had to be it should have been along those lines, we'd have had a much more tidy rail system than we have today and the various companies would have saved a fortune on paint.

Apparently companies such as McDonald's operate franchise's like this

[phil-b259]

I privatisation had to be it should have been along those lines, we'd have had a much more tidy rail system than we have today and the various companies would have saved a fortune on paint.

Apparently companies such as McDonald's operate franchise's like this

 

Quite so - however presumably ministers would point out that Mc Donald's are not the only fast food chain - and what makes the fast food market so great for consumers is competition from Burger King, KFC, Uncle Sams, etc all of which naturally have different 'liveries as it were.

 

In the end it comes down to how you view the railways - are they a integrated system designed around the need to move passengers and freight about as efficiently as possible - or are they a collection of revenue generating opportunities that happen to share the same characteristics and operate in the same environment. As end users, enthusiasts and ail workers we take the former view - unfortunately those in Government, particularly HM Treasury, take the latter view (hence concerns in recent months by Whitehall that there are "not enough bidders for rail franchises" negatively affecting the ability of the DfT to "get a good deal" when they put franchises out to tender).

 

"More competition" should not be the be all and end all of Government policy - neither does it automatically guarantee a great deal for taxpayers or users. Its a shame the Political class don't want to acknowledge it for fear of upsetting their friends in the City or stand up to flawed party ideology.

[Edwin_m]

As far as I can see the railway privatisation process has swapped the general meanings of the terms "franchise" and "concession", probably because the latter sounded unconfortably like the government "conceding" something to the private sector. 

 

In general business, as noted above, the activities of a franchisee are tightly controlled in respect of product range, corporate image, etc, so that the casual customer believes the business is directly operated by the brand holder.  A concession is where a business gets a right to do something such as operating a station bookstall, but has a large degree of freedom in relation to how it goes about running that operation.  I'd suggest a rail "franchise" is actually closer to the latter whereas the TfL "concession" would be regarded as a franchise if it was in another field of business.