You'd have to run out of Redhill over the Up line but as its not a signalled move would involves quite a few set of points having to be called manually and talked past T493 cant see that happening. At least in return direction it could be normally signalled.
You’d probably depart Redhill onto the Down line towards Tonbridge as normal, but then cross over on the way back. The human resource for doing this would be quite intense, as I can’t see it happening without a pilot, or perhaps the signaller advising every train driver about the points of obstruction (Nutfield doesn’t have a platform starter signal on the Down, so you have nothing to hold at danger).
Up Tonbridge Goods Loop now known as Up Tonbridge Siding is now as the name suggests no longer a through road.
The other problem is that Nutfield is well within the T3 possession limits.
It might
almost be better to just go ahead and replace the points at the east end of the Up Tonbridge Loop properly - but I can’t see that happening unless you could run trains through to Godstone (that would be at least double the benefit of serving Nutfield, and would mean every station on the line could be served by train).
Unfortunately the signalling stops working when you get to Bletchingley Tunnel due to the effects of the cable damage caused by the landslip. So you’d then be looking at several months of degraded working or alternative methods of working to get to Godstone.
They could shorten back the slip site is around former Crowhurst Jcn area a couple of miles from Godstone but unlikely they will instigate any special working at Redhill giving the relatively low level of usage at the two stations can be covered by buses.
You wouldn’t necessarily need special working from Redhill itself, but you would need it beyond Nutfield.
The description in one of the tweets certainly suggests a long job.
It will be. I suspect the design of the complete solution will, in and of itself, take some time. Let alone the work itself.
Not to mention we’ve lost quite a lot of the signalling on the branch extending way beyond the slip point up to and including Nutfield.
As above, it’s Bletchingley Tunnel, really. Or so I was told by the Important People. As that’s country side of Nutfield, I’m pretty sure a shuttle service could physically run.
They could shorten back to Godstone TPH or Dodds Coppice S/Stn but as to how they would work the trains in/out Redhill if normal signalled routes not available will determine whether there are any attempts to deliver a service - i suspect not.
Don’t forget there’s already a minibus shuttle to Nutfield (the station itself has a long and dangerous walk to the stops for the full-size buses) which seems to be easing complaints.
Current best guesstimate from Southern is the line isn’t going to see service this side of February.
That’s really a case of “the software on the passenger messaging system said that we had to pick a date” not “we know something you don’t”.
There must already be vehicular access, as Google Maps show a ploughed field in the area?
Not to the triangle of land where the landslip is. It’s awkward enough that some of the best assessments so far have come from the NR chopper...
The spoil removed from the abandoned embankment may be used in the construction of the haul road or the reconstuction of the failed embankment so wouldn't go to waste.
Probably the road, if anything. If you can get to the embankment and remove the material without a road!
Plus materials and equipment needed are likely to be coming from non-rail-connected suppliers, so needing double handling onto railway vehicles, as well as off them as big all pointed out. Both operations would be costly and awkward.
Some of the earthworks plant needed is likely to be too large to fit on rail wagons - road/rail 360° backhoes are small by earthworks standards.
Road vehicles deliver bulk materials in a steady stream which can be matched to rate of placing - a train delivers a large quantity at infrequent intervals.
One or more locos and rakes of wagons need to be sourced, which may take them away from other work.
All the above are good points. There is also welfare provision (eg. staff cabins and so on) and staff access to consider. Changing a Portaloo tank by freight train is awkward...
Two railways cross here and we still can't get anything to site by rail - all the issues above notwithstanding...by way of contrast...
You probably won’t find any use from the East Grinstead line, so that’s a bit of a no-go. And the Redhill to Tonbridge Line is now an exclusion zone for staff on foot due to the landslip risk, let alone able to support trains anywhere nearby.
Would a new linespeed be implemented due to the risk of future slips ?
Will there be any mitigation steps, such as underpinning, or will this be a like for like replacement ?
If track and cables are to be replaced, will there be an opportunity to upgrade the existing interlocking/signalling to current standards or will Grandfather rights take precedent ?
I notice from the video that the track looks pretty solid and just the bank has slipped Is there any chance that the existing track could be reused and remain in situ or will it all need to be replaced ?
In order:
- The area has already seen various emergency and temporary speed restrictions over the years, some of which have been quite awkward. I can’t see Network Rail wanting to limit performance any more.
- I would be surprised if there won’t be.
- I should imagine cabling would be replaced like-for-like. The rest of the signalling system itself doesn’t appear to have been damaged, so it’s much like a giant version of some yobs nicking some cable in a trackside troughing route.
- The track will have undergone some interesting strain due to the fact that the embankment has now completely disappeared in the vicinity. I'd be surprised if it was reused.
Already done successfully at Dover...
Some sort of bridge or very small viaduct is probably not out of the question here. It would certainly mitigate future risk from water being forced on an unnatural path and undermining the railway.