Expansion at Redhill & Gatwick?

[roundhouse]

http://www.surreymirror.co.uk/Harry-Potter-attraction-open-Redhill-Station/story-29027105-detail/story.html

[Joseph_Pestell]

I'd suggest reading this thread over on RailUK where it's discussed at some length.

Thanks for that link - interesting reading.

 

This whole scheme does seem like a missed opportunity to do the job properly with a complete rebuild. Expensive initially but with a payback in terms of future reduced costs.

[RJS1977]

There is already a proposal for an Oxford - Gatwick service although I doubt it will happen for a long time as it lies behind other schemes such as East-West Rail.  A number of Redhill/Gatwick etc services do run to-from the Up side at reading but apart from the Cross Country train through to Guildford all the others are tied up with stock from/to the depot.  It is definitely an 'interesting' experience going down that gradient to the diveunder  

 

With GWR getting 319s, if the 'gaps' in Reading to Redhill were electrified, Oxford-Gatwick could be run with EMUs.

[caradoc]

Oxford/Gatwick through trains are an interesting idea, but how would this operate in practice ? If these were to be additional to the existing service, this would give 8 passenger trains an hour between Oxford and Reading (2 London fast, 2 London stopping, 2 Cross-Country, plus 2 Gatwicks), which would tax capacity and pathing. Diverting existing services to Gatwick would be difficult, as this would disadvantage other traffic flows. Perhaps one solution would be go back to only 1 Cross-Country service per hour continuing beyond Reading to Bournemouth/Southampton, and the other running through (express) to Gatwick ? 

[phil-b259]

The sidings weren't used but the yard loop adjacent to the station used to be used regularly for engineering trains. The loss of it has made planning trains all the more difficult as practically anything over 36 SLU and a single loco ex-Hoo Jn to points south of Redhill must run via London as anything longer fouls up the station and there's rarely capacity for a run round outside of *seriously* off-peak hours. It was a very useful place to re-orientate cranes, rail delivery trains and LWRT sets, too. Being able to use Redhill meant Hoo could keep ballast trains off saturated mainlines and Metro routes by using the Medway Valley and Redhill-Tonbridge and turning South in the yard at Redhill.

 

In some quarters the loss of it is certainly being felt.

The new trackwork and layout configuration at the north end of Redhill for Platform zero has been specifically designed so as to allow Platform 0 to act as a run round loop for engineering trains. (For the benifit of locals it incoperates much of the current Up siding north)

[phil-b259]

There are rumours about that the existing platform 1 at Redhill will now become a bay with platform 0 being the new through platform.

 

Not sure how true this is though as its the first that I have heard of this.

 

Part of the car park and taxi rank have now been cordoned off in advance of the start of work to construct platform 0 according ot signs up in the car park. Apparently the new bike racks are to be removed aswell

Platform 1 will remain a through platform - not be turned into a bay. What will happen though is because of the position of the points leading into Platform 0 at the country end (whose track layout is receiving the absolute minimum of alterations) and the inability to compensate at the London end, Platform 1 will be effectively be shortened and only be able to take 8 cars. This will however be compensated for by Platform 0 which will be 12 cars long.

[roundhouse]

Platform 1 will remain a through platform - not be turned into a bay. What will happen though is because of the position of the points leading into Platform 0 at the country end (whose track layout is receiving the absolute minimum of alterations) and the inability to compensate at the London end, Platform 1 will be effectively be shortened and only be able to take 8 cars. This will however be compensated for by Platform 0 which will be 12 cars long.

Phil

 

Yes thats what I thought that you had mentioned in the past so was a bit dubious on the info I recently heard but schemes do get changed hence querying the situation.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Platform 1 will remain a through platform - not be turned into a bay. What will happen though is because of the position of the points leading into Platform 0 at the country end (whose track layout is receiving the absolute minimum of alterations) and the inability to compensate at the London end, Platform 1 will be effectively be shortened and only be able to take 8 cars. This will however be compensated for by Platform 0 which will be 12 cars long.

 

In a case like this, is there some clever gizmo which stops 12-car trains being signalled into an 8-car platform or does it rely entirely upon the vigilance of the Three Bridges signalman and, of course, the route knowledge of the driver? I can foresee problems.

 

Four platforms really should be enough to provide a robust service but it would have been nice to see a more comprehensive redevelopment to provide better facilities and fewer conflicts to gum up operations. Not difficult with a fair amout of redundant space to play with. For instance, I don't see why they can not add some platform length at the north end (about 4 cars worth without moving the footbridge or buying up non-railway land).

 

As it is, I think that they will be in for another go at it in about 10 years time as traffic increases.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Joseph_Pestell

[bobster]

http://www.surreymirror.co.uk/Harry-Potter-attraction-open-Redhill-Station/story-29027105-detail/story.html

 

Hahaha Nice one Ian

[phil-b259]

In a case like this, is there some clever gizmo which stops 12-car trains being signalled into an 8-car platform or does it rely entirely upon the vigilance of the Three Bridges signalman and, of course, the route knowledge of the driver? I can foresee problems.

 

Four platforms really should be enough to provide a robust service but it would have been nice to see a more comprehensive redevelopment to provide better facilities and fewer conflicts to gum up operations. Not difficult with a fair amout of redundant space to play with. For instance, I don't see why they can not add some platform length at the north end (about 4 cars worth without moving the footbridge or buying up non-railway land).

 

As it is, I think that they will be in for another go at it in about 10 years time as traffic increases.

 

As for the first point - no there isn't a 'Gizmo' as you put it - and its not unknown for the signaller working the panel Brighton tried to stick an 8 car on top of another 8 car (Each platform has 2 track circuits - an 8 car length one closest to the buffers and a 4 car between that and the starting signals).

 

As to 'another go at it' - then yes, its already planned for! The current scheme is very much a 'do minimum' (in reality doing as much as there are the signalling design / installation / testing resources allow) and is designed to provide for the enhanced Thameslink and a 3TPH service to Reading with the emphasis on getting it completed by 2018. However NR, in their route strategies for the BML have an aspiration in CP7 IIRC to remodel the south end of Redhill (the same documents also talks of full grade separation at Windmill Bridge Junction, grade separation for Keymer etc) which will unlock further capacity on the Redhill corridor (though unless you sort out the other bits as well Redhill won't be much use in isolation).

 

When I am back at work will try and post up a plan of the current works.

Edited April 1, 2016 by phil-b259

[Joseph_Pestell]

As for the first point - no there isn't a 'Gizmo' as you put it - and its not unknown for the signaller working the panel Brighton tried to stick an 8 car on top of another 8 car (Each platform has 2 track circuits - an 8 car length one closest to the buffers and a 4 car between that and the starting signals).

 

As to 'another go at it' - then yes, its already planned for! The current scheme is very much a 'do minimum' (in reality doing as much as there are the signalling design / installation / testing resources allow) and is designed to provide for the enhanced Thameslink and a 3TPH service to Reading with the emphasis on getting it completed by 2018. However NR, in their route strategies for the BML have an aspiration in CP7 IIRC to remodel the south end of Redhill (the same documents also talks of full grade separation at Windmill Bridge Junction, grade separation for Keymer etc) which will unlock further capacity on the Redhill corridor (though unless you sort out the other bits as well Redhill won't be much use in isolation).

 

When I am back at work will try and post up a plan of the current works.

 

Grade separation at Keymer Jct would be challenging with road bridges and nearby property to contend with. I assume that this would be a more grandiose scheme like Norton Bridge with quite a lot of completely new route involved.

 

Not knowing Sussex all that well, I have only just noticed that Keymer Jct is nowhere near Keymer which is more or less where Hassocks Station is.

[The Stationmaster]

In a case like this, is there some clever gizmo which stops 12-car trains being signalled into an 8-car platform or does it rely entirely upon the vigilance of the Three Bridges signalman and, of course, the route knowledge of the driver? I can foresee problems.

 

 

 

The 'clever gizmo' exists (existed) but seemingly not in a Three Bridges interlocking.  It is called, in the vernacular, 'Lime Street Control' and uses measuring track circuits tailored to match the operating specification for the station concerned but it's main use was to admit additional vehicles (mainly locos) to platforms which were already occupied.  I belief it is no longer permitted in new installations but that information might be out of date.

 

Although not strictly intended for this purpose it would solve the problem of trying to put a train which is too long for a platform into that platform but equally that information could be derived from carefully planned allocation of train headcodes although that would still rely on a human getting it right unless automatic route setting (ARS) is employed.  However grafting ARS onto existing relay interlockings is a far from simple task although it is relatively straightforward with a solid state interlocking which has provision to add automatic route setting.  

 

So if a new electronic interlocking is included in the Redhill scheme it should be relatively simple to add a suitably programmed arrangement using ARS.

[brushman47544]

Although not strictly intended for this purpose it would solve the problem of trying to put a train which is too long for a platform into that platform]

But wouldn't it also prevent a longer train that was not stopping at the platform being routed that way, potentially reducing operating flexibility?

[The Stationmaster]

But wouldn't it also prevent a longer train that was not stopping at the platform being routed that way, potentially reducing operating flexibility?

 

Sorry - should have made clear - you would use the control on a terminal platform (or possibly one with restricted clearance).  There is no problem as such with a non-stopping train but really the only suitable automatic control available to deal with that situation is ARS (and assuming the train does not have a Stop Order or that it has Selective Door Opening if it is going to stop for passenger purposes).  

Overall the simplest answer to a short through platform is ARS which will distinguish between stopping and non-stopping trains from there headcode although that still doesn't prevent manual override being used.

Edited April 1, 2016 by The Stationmaster

[roundhouse]

A couple of photos to show the cut down trees giving a clearer view of the platforms. The whole car park and station approach will be covered in a supernatant mid rise flats. This development is over a year late commencing.

[phil-b259]

While its not great (and if I can find something better i will post it on this thread), THIS is what is being installed at Redhill trackwise.

 

 

Edited April 14, 2016 by phil-b259

[brushman47544]

While its not great (and if I can find something better i will post it on this thread), THIS is what is being installed at Redhill trackwise.

 

I can't help feeling that truncating the down side long siding at the London end may be a mistake; you never know when you might want to recess something.

[bobster]

A couple of photos to show the cut down trees giving a clearer view of the platforms. The whole car park and station approach will be covered in a supernatant mid rise flats. This development is over a year late commencing.

 

Ian, I see some work going on at the London Road Bridge end of the embankment (near the sidings) lots of trees down etc, any idea what that is ? - Did not have my camera so no pics I'm afraid.

 

Cheers, Bob.

Edited April 19, 2016 by bobster

[roundhouse]

Bob

 

Looks like they are putting an access ramp from road level up to track level to gain access for building platform 0

[dp123]

The new trackwork and layout configuration at the north end of Redhill for Platform zero has been specifically designed so as to allow Platform 0 to act as a run round loop for engineering trains. (For the benifit of locals it incoperates much of the current Up siding north)

Do you know what sort of length of train the signal spacing will allow for run rounds? The absolute minimum for it to be routinely useful would be 50 SLU so as to fit in rail trains that routinely require turning to and from an LDC.

[phil-b259]

Do you know what sort of length of train the signal spacing will allow for run rounds? The absolute minimum for it to be routinely useful would be 50 SLU so as to fit in rail trains that routinely require turning to and from an LDC.

 

According to this document (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/network%20code/network%20change/completed%20proposals/south%20east/ncg12015se002%20redhill/d%20ncg12015se002%20gbrf%20response.pdf) the platform 0 loop will take 72 SLU

 

It will basically replicate the existing situation in terms of the number of SLUs that can be handled rather than add any extra capacity.

[phil-b259]

Today we (the front line faulting and maintenance guys) finally got to see the approved plans for Redhill (just as work is starting). They do show, contrary to previous plans, that platform 1 will be turned into a south facing bay. I will try and post a pic later.

 

Edit :- here they are, but please DO NOT reproduce them elsewhere

Edited April 27, 2016 by phil-b259

[roundhouse]

The old loops and sidings where platform 0 will be built at Redhill now being removed

[Guest]

Good pictures, Ian. All rather sad though, compared to how I remember it in the mid-late 80s. Progress, I guess. Trivia alert... The shunters mess room that would have been just out of view behind those trees in the second picture (above) was wallpapered entirely with pages cut from... well, it wasn't "Radio Times"! Rabbits absolutely everywhere in the yard circa 1986, too.

[roundhouse]

That mess room was still there a week or two ago. Its so overgrown there now that you cant see it from all but the end of the platform these days so not sure if they have demolished it very recently.