Redhill non stop via platform 3?

[reduke]

Why would/do services to tonbridge that don't stop at Redhill go via platform 3 rather than staying on the fast line? Is it a strange lack of route knowledge, an interlocking issue, laziness from the signallers, or otherwise?

 

[JonathanH]

Why would/do services to tonbridge that don't stop at Redhill go via platform 3 rather than staying on the fast line? Is it a strange lack of route knowledge, an interlocking issue, laziness from the signallers, or otherwise?

They have mainly used the fast line today, shown as DML, but some have gone via Platform 3 as you say.
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se...23-08-20/0200-0159?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

Using platform 3 clearly avoids resetting the points at the north end of the station, but to construe that as 'laziness' from the signallers is somewhat unfair.

One possible reason I could imagine could be to do with the departure time of the Arun Valley train in front, and the overlap on the fast line, but would really need @Sunset route to confirm.

 

[reduke]

And, for that matter, why do 2 car GWR services stop all the way at the end of platform 1? Seems like an unnecessarily obtuse way of preventing passengers from taking the next Gatwick service, from whichever platform that may be...

 

[JonathanH]

And, for that matter, why do 2 car GWR services stop all the way at the end of platform 1? Seems like an unnecessarily obtuse way of preventing passengers from taking the next Gatwick service, from whichever platform that may be...

Convention dictates that trains terminating in platform 1 at Redhill must go to the north end, in case the south end of the platform is needed for another service. To do otherwise risks disruption at the station.

 

[reduke]

Convention "shmention?" . If the driver taking the train out of platform 1 is delayed so much by disruption that there's not enough stabling space, then the other end of the train is only 2 cars away...

Addendum: disruption at Redhill is normally caused by unfortunate platform assignments and unreasonably slow joins of Reigate services. It doesn't take a genius to realise that pathing reversing trains into platforms that will block through trains is stupid when empty reversing platforms are available.

They have mainly used the fast line today, shown as DML, but some have gone via Platform 3 as you say.
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se...23-08-20/0200-0159?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

Using platform 3 clearly avoids resetting the points at the north end of the station, but to construe that as 'laziness' from the signallers is somewhat unfair.

One possible reason I could imagine could be to do with the departure time of the Arun Valley train in front, and the overlap on the fast line, but would really need @Sunset route to confirm.

That's why I included "otherwise". I never attribute to laziness what can be explained by other means unless I have form to base it on.

 

[Deepgreen]

Redhill's operations are organised with passenger convenience last. I have given up trying to get the stupid stopping mark for GWR trains on p0 corrected so that trains stop at a sensible spot to help passengers - i.e. actually under the canopy and avoiding a needlessly long interchange walk. No-one on the railway cares.

 

[Minstral25]

Redhill's operations are organised with passenger convenience last. I have given up trying to get the stupid stopping mark for GWR trains on p0 corrected so that trains stop at a sensible spot to help passengers - i.e. actually under the canopy and avoiding a needlessly long interchange walk. No-one on the railway cares.

Don't they stop at the 4-car stop for 377's normally - they (377's) have to clear the point work by a certain distance hence not at end of platform - a 3 car Turbo 165 is only slightly shorter than a 4 car 377 so probably they don't have multiple stop points to avoid confusion and clutter. The issue is when they go to the 12 car mark at the end of the platform - that always seems very stupid but is apparently timetabled for another unit to fill the space behind them.

Similarly requests to planners to get Reigate to Victoria trains through P2 rather than P0 often falls on deaf ears too. Obviously in the peaks they go to P0 to connect up but rest of day they do not need to other than to get step counts up for passengers. At least all Thameslink's are programmed to P2 now.

 

[Deepgreen]

Don't they stop at the 4-car stop for 377's normally - they (377's) have to clear the point work by a certain distance hence not at end of platform - a 3 car Turbo 165 is only slightly shorter than a 4 car 377 so probably they don't have multiple stop points to avoid confusion and clutter. The issue is when they go to the 12 car mark at the end of the platform - that always seems very stupid but is apparently timetabled for another unit to fill the space behind them.

Similarly requests to planners to get Reigate to Victoria trains through P2 rather than P0 often falls on deaf ears too. Obviously in the peaks they go to P0 to connect up but rest of day they do not need to other than to get step counts up for passengers. At least all Thameslink's are programmed to P2 now.

The 2 or 3 car GWR units stop at the 4/5 car 377 mark (so 5 cars in), which puts them well beyond the canopy when the whole unit could stop under the canopy and be closer to the stairs. I don't see the railway worrying about confusion and clutter when there are so many stopping marks for every other stock, etc! The Southern-managed station and the p0 project didn't consider GWR properly, not to mention the stupid positioning of various train departure boards! As a stations planner of long standing at LU I cringe when I see the abysmal output typified by this (and other) projects.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Convention dictates that trains terminating in platform 1 at Redhill must go to the north end, in case the south end of the platform is needed for another service. To do otherwise risks disruption at the station.

That was when the station only had 3 platforms no need now since the very expensive P0 was built.

NR tells us its putting the passenger first RDG say Everything we do is guided by our purpose to create a simpler, better railway for our customers GTR is the most laughable approach providing an excellent customer experience through focus on brilliant basics and closer collaboration with stakeholders and industry partners providing an end-to-end journey experience that is inclusive of all and meets the travel demands of tomorrow. None of these pass the test of changing trains at Redhill let alone maintaining connections. To really create the conditions for modal transfer the industry needs to seriously recalibrate the way interconnection stations like Redhill work.

 

[alistairlees]

Why would/do services to tonbridge that don't stop at Redhill go via platform 3 rather than staying on the fast line? Is it a strange lack of route knowledge, an interlocking issue, laziness from the signallers, or otherwise?

I was wondering much the same last night as the 22.16 London Bridge to Hastings ambled through platform 3.

 

[ComUtoR]

I have given up trying to get the stupid stopping mark for GWR trains on p0 corrected so that trains stop at a sensible spot to help passengers - i.e. actually under the canopy and avoiding a needlessly long interchange walk.

Did they tell you or do you know why the stop marks have been placed there ?

If stopping under the canopy is important, have you considered having the canopy moved or extended ?

 

[Benjwri]

Did they tell you or do you know why the stop marks have been placed there ?

If stopping under the canopy is important, have you considered having the canopy moved or extended ?

From what I’ve been told for other stations on the GWR network, which don’t even have the complexity of other trains behind, and would be very simple to add more than an S car marker, I’m guessing they don’t want to pay to have it all measured out.

 

[Sunset route]

Why would/do services to tonbridge that don't stop at Redhill go via platform 3 rather than staying on the fast line? Is it a strange lack of route knowledge, an interlocking issue, laziness from the signallers, or otherwise?

Because timetable planning has had a bad habit recently of booking the South Eastern nonstop diversion services through platform 3 and some colleagues will follow the program exactly even though I would make more sense to run those services through the though road. To me it makes sense to keep nonstop services away from platform edges if at all possible.

 

[Deepgreen]

Did they tell you or do you know why the stop marks have been placed there ?

If stopping under the canopy is important, have you considered having the canopy moved or extended ?

Only a 4/5 car board is present, in other words for Southern stock only, with GWR seemingly ignored in the planning. Southern and GWR simply weren't interested in pursuing it, because, to quote them BOTH, "the design team for p0 has now been disbanded so no further works are possible". Insulting, stupid responses and utter rubbish, of course. The canopy is roughly three cars long, and there is no need to move it. The GWR trains could easily stop completely under it and there are shelters further along for longer trains. It's not just the canopy issue, but that of shortening the pointlessly long walk for passengers to/from GWR trains. I have witnessed people missing their train when trying to haul their luggage along the platform to reach the remote train. A potential wait of two hours for the next one to some stops on the NDL! This is all for the want of a single small 'S' or '2/3' car sign, the measuring for which would be a short, simple job. The signalling allows southbound 12 car trains to pull right to the very southern end of the platform (where the GWR trains should stop) so there is no signalling issue preventing it. It's pure shoddiness.

From what I’ve been told for other stations on the GWR network, which don’t even have the complexity of other trains behind, and would be very simple to add more than an S car marker, I’m guessing they don’t want to pay to have it all measured out.

The measuring would be a very simple and very short exercise, taking it from the current SB 12/S car stopping mark (which is right at the southern end of the platform) to the length of a three car 'Turbo'. That's it! The photo shows the typical distance down the platform from the exit, when the train could and should stop right at the end in the distance.

Because timetable planning has had a bad habit recently of booking the South Eastern nonstop diversion services through platform 3 and some colleagues will follow the program exactly even though I would make more sense to run those services through the though road. To me it makes sense to keep nonstop services away from platform edges if at all possible.

Blindingly obvious I would have thought!

 

[ComUtoR]

I’m guessing they don’t want to pay to have it all measured out.

It would have been all measured out when the stop mark was first implemented.

Insulting, stupid responses and utter rubbish, of course.

I Would agree that the reasons that you have been given are not specifically correct. I do wish that the correct reason is provided.

The canopy is roughly three cars long, and there is no need to move it.

Clearly there is a need to move or extend it. You have complained about it and cited it as one of your reasons; if that is no longer the case then it is understandable why the TOC' on the surface, do not appear to care. As you say, if it matters to the passenger, something should be done.

The GWR trains could easily stop completely under it and there are shelters further along for longer trains.

'Could easily' is a very broad statement. Easy to post but not easy to qualify.

The photo shows the typical distance down the platform from the exit, when the train could and should stop right at the end in the distance.

Many thanks for the photo. I understand where you are coming from and from your perspective I can see why you believe there is no issue. I have spent some time working on the placement of new stop car markers and from your photo I can see a significant issue and now I understand why the stop car mark has been placed where it has. There is a potential issue that I cannot see directly from the photo but there are various factors that go into deciding where stop marks get placed.

Stop markers can, and do, get moved but it isn't as easy as you believe. The procedure and verification steps it takes can be weirdly complicated. Unfortunately, station design does have an impact and might ultimatley be the deciding factor if the stop mark can be moved or not.

My advice would be to tackle it from a more technical perspective and provide the correct evidence why the mark could be moved.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It would have been all measured out when the stop mark was first implemented.



I Would agree that the reasons that you have been given are not specifically correct. I do wish that the correct reason is provided.



Clearly there is a need to move or extend it. You have complained about it and cited it as one of your reasons; if that is no longer the case then it is understandable why the TOC' on the surface, do not appear to care. As you say, if it matters to the passenger, something should be done.

In a way GWR have solved the problem by planning to run both trains through to Gatwick so that will alleviate most of the issues here.

Many thanks for the photo. I understand where you are coming from and from your perspective I can see why you believe there is no issue. I have spent some time working on the placement of new stop car markers and from your photo I can see a significant issue and now I understand why the stop car mark has been placed where it has. There is a potential issue that I cannot see directly from the photo but there are various factors that go into deciding where stop marks get placed.

So what is the significant issue other than having to stand back far enough from the Down signal gantry from sighting purposes its a dead straight platform. This was a brand new platform built to modern standards and it cost best part of £80m yet from a passenger point of view its very poor from a connection point of view.

 

[PGAT]

In a way GWR have solved the problem by planning to run both trains through to Gatwick so that will alleviate most of the issues here.

Not really. If anything that just means passengers have less time to walk up the platform to catch their train

 

[Minstral25]

Because timetable planning has had a bad habit recently of booking the South Eastern nonstop diversion services through platform 3 and some colleagues will follow the program exactly even though I would make more sense to run those services through the though road. To me it makes sense to keep nonstop services away from platform edges if at all possible.

Be good if timetable planning keep them through platform 3 with an instruction to open doors, let people on and off, close doors then head for Tonbridge. London bound could do the same in P2.

 

[Deepgreen]

It would have been all measured out when the stop mark was first implemented.



I Would agree that the reasons that you have been given are not specifically correct. I do wish that the correct reason is provided.



Clearly there is a need to move or extend it. You have complained about it and cited it as one of your reasons; if that is no longer the case then it is understandable why the TOC' on the surface, do not appear to care. As you say, if it matters to the passenger, something should be done.




'Could easily' is a very broad statement. Easy to post but not easy to qualify.




Many thanks for the photo. I understand where you are coming from and from your perspective I can see why you believe there is no issue. I have spent some time working on the placement of new stop car markers and from your photo I can see a significant issue and now I understand why the stop car mark has been placed where it has. There is a potential issue that I cannot see directly from the photo but there are various factors that go into deciding where stop marks get placed.

Stop markers can, and do, get moved but it isn't as easy as you believe. The procedure and verification steps it takes can be weirdly complicated. Unfortunately, station design does have an impact and might ultimatley be the deciding factor if the stop mark can be moved or not.

My advice would be to tackle it from a more technical perspective and provide the correct evidence why the mark could be moved.

Not "moved" but an additional one installed at the right place for a three car 'Turbo'. I must reiterate that, when 12 car southbound passenger trains use the platform, they pull up right to the end, very close to the signal, using the existing 'S' and TL Full' boards there. Therefore, there is no signal section or sighting issue, no passenger access issue (in other words, trains already stop such that some doors are immediately opposite the stairs) and no reason why a passenger train may not stand at that point - because they do so already! I would also add that a few GWR drivers do (or did) actually stop much further back because they realise the stupidity of the situation, but they are the minority and obviously do/did so without official sanction. It can be done, and easily, but no-one cares enough to make it happen. This picture shows the existing stop markers for southbound trains (circled in yellow), thereby showing where the rear of incoming GWR 'Turbos' SHOULD stop, taken from the point where they DO stop (with a zoom lens shortening the apparent distance). A simple measurement of three cars' length of class 165s/166s from that 'S' board, plus any very small leeway thought necessary, would give the required place for the new board. I could do it myself in five minutes.

In a way GWR have solved the problem by planning to run both trains through to Gatwick so that will alleviate most of the issues here.

So what is the significant issue other than having to stand back far enough from the Down signal gantry from sighting purposes its a dead straight platform. This was a brand new platform built to modern standards and it cost best part of £80m yet from a passenger point of view its very poor from a connection point of view.

Quite so! The existing 'S' and 'TL Full' boards (adjacent to each other very close to the gantry) take that into account - trains are already approved to stand there, and do so.

 

[LAX54]

Is Redhill manually signalled from Three Bridges, or under control of ARS ?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Is Redhill manually signalled from Three Bridges, or under control of ARS ?

manually signalled. there was a trial ARS system at Keymer jcn but that is no longer used.

 

[Benjwri]

manually signalled. there was a trial ARS system at Keymer jcn but that is no longer used.

I was under the impression ARS was commissioned at Three Bridges ROC at the start of the year?

 

[ThameslinkUser]

ARS isn't used frequently at the ROC to keep competency up. Either way, Redhill is under control of the ASC.

 

[ComUtoR]

I must reiterate that, when 12 car southbound passenger trains use the platform, they pull up right to the end

I am not familiar with all the stock that stops here but is there a difference in the stock between the 12-Car units and the shorter stock ?

Therefore, (...) or sighting issue

Apologies in advance. This appears to be you conflating one thing with another. I can see a signal sighting issue but you can not (potentially some additional technical knowledge required). I wonder if this is stock dependent ? Following on from above; there may be an issue with different units and whether one has Grandfather rights and the other doesn't ? When I did my stop mark 'project' we were fighting with the difference between adding a new stop mark compared to what already exists. For me; this would be an important factor and something I noted from my initial thoughts from your photo.

So what is the significant issue other than having to stand back far enough from the Down signal gantry from sighting purposes

This was alluded to here. There is a sighting issue if the unit must stand back from the Signal. This comment alone highlights why the stop mark is so far back. If this could be expanded upon; I would be grateful. It would explain why your 12s can stop there but other units cannot or at minimum why the unit must stand back.

, no passenger access issue

Which passengers ?

A simple measurement of three cars' length of class 165s/166s from that 'S' board, plus any very small leeway thought necessary, would give the required place for the new board.

Do you have those measurements at hand please, including onboard and underframe equipment ?

The existing 'S' and 'TL Full' boards (adjacent to each other very close to the gantry) take that into account - trains are already approved to stand there, and do so.

Not really. My line of thinking is about which stock specifically is allowed to stop there.

If you could show them and demonstrate the technical reasons why you believe the stock can stop there, then I wish you success. If this can take the 5 minutes you suggest then it shouldn't be an issue and the stop mark could easily be moved.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

This was alluded to here. There is a sighting issue if the unit must stand back from the Signal. This comment alone highlights why the stop mark is so far back. If this could be expanded upon; I would be grateful. It would explain why your 12s can stop there but other units cannot or at minimum why the unit must stand back.

Well i arrived at Redhill last night on an ex Reading with nothing else in the platform and this GWR driver stopped the unit in the perfect position for passengers and signal sighting.

 

[Royal351]

Having been platform staff at Redhill and dealt with the GWR services on plat 0.

If the GWR service stops at its marker there is no sighting issue for the Guard or Dispatcher. If the Driver stops as shown above there is no problem at all.

All comes down to the driver tbh. As the GWR services are all in and out in 10 mins anyway even if they do "terminate at Redhill"

Plus I believe on Plat 0 there is a GWR stopping marker towards the London End so again kinda driver preference. I know there's one on platform 1, just by the end of the canopy by the London end

Read earlier about does a service have to go upto the end of platform 1.

Yes it does if it's berthing or staying for a very long time. (Over 10 mins normally as booked) that's the same for GWR or southern services.

 

[LAX54]

ARS isn't used frequently at the ROC to keep competency up. Either way, Redhill is under control of the ASC.

ARS and SARS is a double edged sword !

 

[Deepgreen]

Well i arrived at Redhill last night on an ex Reading with nothing else in the platform and this GWR driver stopped the unit in the perfect position for passengers and signal sighting.
View attachment 141612

That is better! The case is proven - despite the farcical complications some have tried to introduce.

I am not familiar with all the stock that stops here but is there a difference in the stock between the 12-Car units and the shorter stock ?




Apologies in advance. This appears to be you conflating one thing with another. I can see a signal sighting issue but you can not (potentially some additional technical knowledge required). I wonder if this is stock dependent ? Following on from above; there may be an issue with different units and whether one has Grandfather rights and the other doesn't ? When I did my stop mark 'project' we were fighting with the difference between adding a new stop mark compared to what already exists. For me; this would be an important factor and something I noted from my initial thoughts from your photo.



This was alluded to here. There is a sighting issue if the unit must stand back from the Signal. This comment alone highlights why the stop mark is so far back. If this could be expanded upon; I would be grateful. It would explain why your 12s can stop there but other units cannot or at minimum why the unit must stand back.




Which passengers ?



Do you have those measurements at hand please, including onboard and underframe equipment ?



Not really. My line of thinking is about which stock specifically is allowed to stop there.

If you could show them and demonstrate the technical reasons why you believe the stock can stop there, then I wish you success. If this can take the 5 minutes you suggest then it shouldn't be an issue and the stop mark could easily be moved.

I really don't understand your points. Trains, which need to stop at a point to be able to sight the southbound signal, already do so at the '12' and 'Full' stop marks provided, which are very close to the signal (and several metres closer to the signal than the stopping position pf the Turbo shown in Nicholas Lewis's shot in post 25). What, by the way, does underframe equipment have to do with platform stopping positions? Why would a GWR 'Turbo' need around 30 metres more sighting distance than a 377 or a 700, which is how the stop boards are currently set out?! Do these supposed vast differences in sighting distances have ramifications for all other signals on the network?

I think this whole issue is a classic example in microcosm of why so many feel that passengers come last in so many decisions, even where, as here, there is absolutely no valid reason why the GWR trains can't stop at a passenger-friendly position (also now amply demonstrated by Nicholas Lewis's post).

Of course, all this is muddled by the TOCs and NR claiming that no further changes can be made (ever, apparently!) because the p0 design team has been disbanded! Farcical.

 

[Sunset route]

I would also add that a few GWR drivers do (or did) actually stop much further back because they realise the stupidity of the situation, but they are the minority and obviously do/did so without official sanction.

Most GWR drivers with use the radio and request permission to stop short from the signaller and it’s the signaller who decides if they want that or not. Some have stopped short without asking causing platform sharing issues during distribution.

Is Redhill manually signalled from Three Bridges, or under control of ARS ?

I was under the impression ARS was commissioned at Three Bridges ROC at the start of the year?

Redhill is controlled by the signallers at Three Bridges ASC Panel 3 not Three Bridges ROC and there is no ARS on any of the ASC panels.

 

[Deepgreen]

Most GWR drivers with use the radio and request permission to stop short from the signaller and it’s the signaller who decides if they want that or not. Some have stopped short without asking causing platform sharing issues during distribution.





Redhill is controlled by the signallers at Three Bridges ASC Panel 3 not Three Bridges ROC and there is no ARS on any of the ASC panels.

Thanks - so stopping short on p0 has no operational drawbacks as long as it's with permission - i.e. none of the supposed signal sighting problems, underframe equipment location and other nonsense mentioned here? As a short stop on p0 by a 2 or 3 car train wouldn't make any difference to any other train in p0 (I wasn't even sure if there is permissive working in p0 anyway), it adds even more weight to my argument that it would be extremely easy to put an additional stop board up to make the current arrangements 'official'. Sorry - silly me - nothing can ever be done to Redhill again as the design team has been disbanded!