3tph on North Downs Line

[JN114]

By "Dorking Town" do you mean Dorking West? I am confused by your mention of signal RG91 being east of "Dorking Town" (Dorking West?) and then mention of a location a mile after the station (i.e. west) being the next updating point.

Apologies. Yes, by Dorking Town I mean Dorking West; and RG91 signal is a mile or so west (Reading-side) of Dorking West station - too many easts and wests!

As for the first part of your post we'll have to agree to disagree - having been on the receiving end of several "it was on the screens and just vanished" conversations with both passengers and staff I'm really not convinced having it on the screen for several minutes longer would be the best recourse. With the slower running from autumn leaf-fall the "problem" as you perceive it will be worse at this time of year as with a slightly more cautious approach to Deepdene it takes marginally longer from passing Brockham. Through winter, spring and summer the trains should be hitting the sectional running time much more accurately.

 

[Bikeman78]

With all respect, have you seen the location of it, in respect to the town itself? It’s practically in the town centre, with shops in a line on either side of the road.
The amount of traffic that goes over the LC 24/7 is insane; it’s very similar to Sunningdale on the A30 that will back traffic up for miles if it’s left down too long.

Yes I'm familiar with Reigate, my late grandmother lived in Warren Road. I used to drag her off to the footbridge to watch the old DMUs. At the time, the Gatwick trains didn't stop at Reigate. Also there were some eight car electric workings. In order to clear the signal towards Redhill, they had to close the crossing and move the train about 50 metres towards Guildford.

The point is, many of the level crossings on the south coast are also very busy but with double the frequency of trains.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

They would solve a lot of issues at Reigate if a signalling control was put in which removed the need to drop the LC barriers for every arrival from Redhill, regardless of whether that train will cross the road or not. I think the sequence activates even for a terminating arrival from Victoria?

 

[JonathanH]

They would solve a lot of issues at Reigate if a signalling control was put in which removed the need to drop the LC barriers for every arrival from Redhill, regardless of whether that train will cross the road or not. I think the sequence activates even for a terminating arrival from Victoria?

No, trains from Redhill terminating at Reigate do not trigger the level crossing barriers falling.

The gripe of the Reigate Society is that trains running to Reading lead to the barriers dropping as the train passes the signal before Reigate to the east even though they will stop at Reigate - they would like the barriers to drop as the train enters the platform instead.

It may seem that a Victoria arrival triggers the barriers but often that is a train approaching from the west at a similar time.

 

[FenMan]

No, trains from Redhill terminating at Reigate do not trigger the level crossing barriers falling.

The gripe of the Reigate Society is that trains running to Reading lead to the barriers dropping as the train passes the signal before Reigate to the east even though they will stop at Reigate - they would like the barriers to drop as the train enters the platform instead.

It may seem that a Victoria arrival triggers the barriers but often that is a train approaching from the west at a similar time.

So, is the problem unsoluble or not? I am not talking about crayonista solutions involving the construction of bridges or underpasses.

 

[Meerkat]

Personally I think the council should bite the bullet and put an underpass in with a major redevelopment. It would cost a lot of money, but the redevelopment could bring in a lot of money.
The traffic is horrible round there even with the current level of rail services and an underpass is probably less difficult than any attempt at a bigger bypass solution.

 

[Minstral25]

ue

So, is the problem unsoluble or not? I am not talking about crayonista solutions involving the construction of bridges or underpasses.

The problem that is stopping the 3 tph is at rural crossings not Reigate.

Reigate is a separate issue that is causing a lot of concern for locals. The A217 is a regular traffic route to avoid using the M23 to get to Gatwick (it is slightly faster too) as well as the main access to Redhill, Reigate and much of the surrounding area from the M25. It is an exceptionally busy piece of Road especially at Peak times.

When the crossing is down at peak times the queues do reach the M25 junction over 1.5 miles away in just a few minutes, the queues also stretch back into Reigate town centre. The DfT Highways Agency are apparently looking at changing the overtaking lane up Reigate Hill to a dual carriageway southbound so that more cars can stop there when the crossing is down to prevent the M25 junction being blocked.

The previously planned timetable only had one pair of trains crossing at Reigate, meaning the crossing would be down at least 5 times per hour. As due to signal spacing this stays down for an extended time this will be a nightmare for Reigate but will happen if the other rural crossing issues are fixed which apparently they will be in March 2019.

 

[Deepgreen]

Apologies. Yes, by Dorking Town I mean Dorking West; and RG91 signal is a mile or so west (Reading-side) of Dorking West station - too many easts and wests!

As for the first part of your post we'll have to agree to disagree - having been on the receiving end of several "it was on the screens and just vanished" conversations with both passengers and staff I'm really not convinced having it on the screen for several minutes longer would be the best recourse. With the slower running from autumn leaf-fall the "problem" as you perceive it will be worse at this time of year as with a slightly more cautious approach to Deepdene it takes marginally longer from passing Brockham. Through winter, spring and summer the trains should be hitting the sectional running time much more accurately.

Fair enough - how about this: where signal sections dictate, put a large sign by the DMI advising passengers that the 'previous' train may be displayed for a few minutes after departure (or, could RG91R be fitted with a train recognition device to allow it to be used to change the DMI)? I readily admit to sketchy knowledge of the precise details of the interactions involved. In any case, at least tell passengers about the quirk of the system in layman's terms.

I can only say which option I would prefer in a less-than-ideal situation. I have witnessed at least two groups of passengers (on different occasions) arrive on the WB platform at Deepdene, see the next train indicated as being the one after the one they they wanted and leave (presumably for a taxi), when their train was actually still to arrive.

 

[Deepgreen]

No, trains from Redhill terminating at Reigate do not trigger the level crossing barriers falling.

The gripe of the Reigate Society is that trains running to Reading lead to the barriers dropping as the train passes the signal before Reigate to the east even though they will stop at Reigate - they would like the barriers to drop as the train enters the platform instead.

It may seem that a Victoria arrival triggers the barriers but often that is a train approaching from the west at a similar time.

Indeed - a valid "gripe", and it is easily solved - simply keep the Reigate WB starter at red for the approach of through WB trains, as is done at Betchworth for EB trains that stop there. If it is safe for a terminating train to approach the open level crossing, then it is also safe for a through train. I have seen ambulances stuck there while a Reading-bound train approaches, stops and departs (up to three minutes wasted), when the barriers could have descended while the train was stopped in the platform. From the point of view of the train driver having to stop in the platform, there is no difference between a red signal and a clear road.

 

[Deepgreen]

ue

The problem that is stopping the 3 tph is at rural crossings not Reigate.

Reigate is a separate issue that is causing a lot of concern for locals. The A217 is a regular traffic route to avoid using the M23 to get to Gatwick (it is slightly faster too) as well as the main access to Redhill, Reigate and much of the surrounding area from the M25. It is an exceptionally busy piece of Road especially at Peak times.

When the crossing is down at peak times the queues do reach the M25 junction over 1.5 miles away in just a few minutes, the queues also stretch back into Reigate town centre. The DfT Highways Agency are apparently looking at changing the overtaking lane up Reigate Hill to a dual carriageway southbound so that more cars can stop there when the crossing is down to prevent the M25 junction being blocked.

The previously planned timetable only had one pair of trains crossing at Reigate, meaning the crossing would be down at least 5 times per hour. As due to signal spacing this stays down for an extended time this will be a nightmare for Reigate but will happen if the other rural crossing issues are fixed which apparently they will be in March 2019.

The problem is partly the rural AHBs, but far from entirely, at least if the risk assessments are done properly - i.e. taking onto account the increased likelihood of 'light-jumpers at Reigate (and Betchworth) when drivers become aware that even longer queues are forming, and the increased danger of congestion on the M25. BTW, is there any particularly expensive reason why AHBs cannot have their barriers extended to span the whole road to stop drivers swerving round the half barriers, or do the longer barriers suddenly change the entire legal standing of the crossings to the extent that is considered unaffordable?

 

[JN114]

The problem is partly the rural AHBs, but far from entirely, at least if the risk assessments are done properly - i.e. taking onto account the increased likelihood of 'light-jumpers at Reigate (and Betchworth) when drivers become aware that even longer queues are forming, and the increased danger of congestion on the M25. BTW, is there any particularly expensive reason why AHBs cannot have their barriers extended to span the whole road to stop drivers swerving round the half barriers, or do the longer barriers suddenly change the entire legal standing of the crossings to the extent that is considered unaffordable?

AHBs are completely unmonitored and not interlocked with the “protecting” signals. Because of this there is no way to determine if a vehicle is trapped on the crossing and thus half barriers have to be provided to allow a vehicle to escape.

 

[Deepgreen]

AHBs are completely unmonitored and not interlocked with the “protecting” signals. Because of this there is no way to determine if a vehicle is trapped on the crossing and thus half barriers have to be provided to allow a vehicle to escape.

Understood, but if I was trapped in a vehicle on a level crossing with extended (full-width) barriers, I would just drive through what are obviously pretty flimsy barriers rather than be hit by a train! Would it not be relatively cheap and easy to fit CCTV at the relevant crossings and install 'sacrificial' barrier extensions? I suppose not everyone can be expected to react as I would, and not every vehicle trapped on AHBs will have been driven recklessly or deliberately to jump the lights.

It's frustrating that a useful rail service improvement is dependent on road issues, and, while the signalling and AHB rules remain as they are (i.e. indefinitely), it's to be assumed that the promised service increase will not materialise. This also presumably must apply on many other routes.

 

[JN114]

I suppose not everyone can be expected to react as I would, and not every vehicle trapped on AHBs will have been driven recklessly or deliberately to jump the lights.

Bingo.

The railway has a legal duty of care to anyone and everyone on it - see the various instances of trespassing children maimed or worse and the railway being held liable as an example of duty of care to incidental users.

Crossings have to meet incredibly rigorous safety standards. You can’t just bolt some “sacrificial extensions” onto the barriers and expect trapped road users to have the confidence to drive through the barrier. You also create the incidental impression to those that already have that confidence that they can just drive through the extensions rather than wait - see the various instances of road users driving around the barriers at AHBs as it is.

If you want full barriers, the crossing has to be fully monitored and interlocked with the signalling system. Significant modifications to the signalling system like that can run into to millions of pounds per crossing - and with the future of Reigate SB currently somewhat indeterminate there’s little point making those modifications if you’ll just have to do the work again when it eventually is closed. AHBs generally are no longer compliant with current safety standards - the vast majority in new schemes are either closed or replaced with full barrier crossings. I expect the same to happen to the crossings supervised by Reigate when that closes. That would unlock the ability to run higher frequencies through the day - and probably sort out your train reporting at stations at the same time.

 

[philthetube]

Understood, but if I was trapped in a vehicle on a level crossing with extended (full-width) barriers, I would just drive through what are obviously pretty flimsy barriers rather than be hit by a train! Would it not be relatively cheap and easy to fit CCTV at the relevant crossings and install 'sacrificial' barrier extensions? I suppose not everyone can be expected to react as I would, and not every vehicle trapped on AHBs will have been driven recklessly or deliberately to jump the lights.

It's frustrating that a useful rail service improvement is dependent on road issues, and, while the signalling and AHB rules remain as they are (i.e. indefinitely), it's to be assumed that the promised service increase will not materialise. This also presumably must apply on many other routes.

yes it would but monitoring it would be a different story.

 

[infobleep]

Bingo.

The railway has a legal duty of care to anyone and everyone on it - see the various instances of trespassing children maimed or worse and the railway being held liable as an example of duty of care to incidental users.

Crossings have to meet incredibly rigorous safety standards. You can’t just bolt some “sacrificial extensions” onto the barriers and expect trapped road users to have the confidence to drive through the barrier. You also create the incidental impression to those that already have that confidence that they can just drive through the extensions rather than wait - see the various instances of road users driving around the barriers at AHBs as it is.

If you want full barriers, the crossing has to be fully monitored and interlocked with the signalling system. Significant modifications to the signalling system like that can run into to millions of pounds per crossing - and with the future of Reigate SB currently somewhat indeterminate there’s little point making those modifications if you’ll just have to do the work again when it eventually is closed. AHBs generally are no longer compliant with current safety standards - the vast majority in new schemes are either closed or replaced with full barrier crossings. I expect the same to happen to the crossings supervised by Reigate when that closes. That would unlock the ability to run higher frequencies through the day - and probably sort out your train reporting at stations at the same time.

But given it costs millions per level crossing, what are the likely chances?

 

[JN114]

But given it costs millions per level crossing, what are the likely chances?

AHBs aren’t compliant to modern safety standards anymore. If they want to resignal Reigate’s area; they have to replace them regardless of cost. And much of Reigate’s signalling equipment is becoming life-expired.

 

[FenMan]

AHBs aren’t compliant to modern safety standards anymore. If they want to resignal Reigate’s area; they have to replace them regardless of cost. And much of Reigate’s signalling equipment is becoming life-expired.

Judging by the disruption, verging on a timetable meltdown, from Spring 2018 until near Christmas I'd venture that the signalling equipment, track and points between Guildford and Reading is also life-expired!

The service is now more reliable, but there is still room for improvement. I continue to be intrigued why so many early morning services pick up delays between Gatwick-Redhill and Redhill-Reigate, impacting morning peak arrivals in Reading.

 

[Sunset route]

AHBs aren’t compliant to modern safety standards anymore. If they want to resignal Reigate’s area; they have to replace them regardless of cost. And much of Reigate’s signalling equipment is becoming life-expired.

The last rumour and thinking from under the juice rail at our place was, that Reigate station area would transfer to TBASC panel 3 with the new platform, but Riegate signal box would remain as the block post for the remaining north down line and to act as a cross a crossing keeper for Reigate level crossing itself. In the same way that Low Gate box (Northallerton) does with York IECC now York ROC.

 

[JN114]

The last rumour and thinking from under the juice rail at our place was, that Reigate station area would transfer to TBASC panel 3 with the new platform, but Riegate signal box would remain as the block post for the remaining north down line and to act as a cross a crossing keeper for Reigate level crossing itself. In the same way that Low Gate box (Northallerton) does with York IECC now York ROC.

That would be a clever way of circumventing the requirement to replace the AHBs in new schemes.

 

[infobleep]

That would be a clever way of circumventing the requirement to replace the AHBs in new schemes.

Anyone know how many more years the AHBs have before they are life expired?

 

[Bald Rick]

Anyone know how many more years the AHBs have before they are life expired?

Each AHB lasts between 20-40 years depending on the type of equipment and the local environment.

 

[Bikeman78]

AHBs aren’t compliant to modern safety standards anymore.

Since when? The Arun valley has been resignalled relatively recently but there are still at least three AHBs; at Parsoange Road in Horsham, the infamous one at Barns Green and another just off the A264 near Faygate.

 

[Bald Rick]

Since when? The Arun valley has been resignalled relatively recently but there are still at least three AHBs; at Parsoange Road in Horsham, the infamous one at Barns Green and another just off the A264 near Faygate.

Resignalling doesn’t require AHBs to be altered, as they are not interlocked to the signalling system.

 

[infobleep]

Resignalling doesn’t require AHBs to be altered, as they are not interlocked to the signalling system.

So does that means Reigate signal box could be changed and the AHBs remain as they are?

 

[JN114]

Since when? The Arun valley has been resignalled relatively recently but there are still at least three AHBs; at Parsoange Road in Horsham, the infamous one at Barns Green and another just off the A264 near Faygate.

Arun valley has to be getting on for 10 years ago now; I can’t think of a single recent resignalling scheme where AHBs have been retained.

 

[Sunset route]

Arun valley has to be getting on for 10 years ago now; I can’t think of a single recent resignalling scheme where AHBs have been retained.

Hamsey AHBs between Lewes and Cooksbridge are being retained, when Lewes and the Seaford branch migrate over to TBROC.

 

[Bald Rick]

So does that means Reigate signal box could be changed and the AHBs remain as they are?

It depends on the risk assessments for the crossings concerned.

 

[Deepgreen]

Back to the 3tph issue - it would seem, based on the discussion here, that 3tph will not happen for years. So, why was such a naive approach seemingly taken by NR/FGW/GWR/others to the timing for the proposed increase? Did no-one involved know anything about the required stages to be completed before introduction?! It looks as though the issues covered in this thread should have been reviewed before committing to 3tph in 2018/19.

 

[JonathanH]

Something like 3tph (and actually more specifically two trains an hour from Reading to Gatwick) has been on the wish list for ages - the previous attempt in 2007 was scuppered by Network Rail's study Reading to Gatwick Airport - Congested Infrastructure Capacity Analysis in 2007.

Although platform 0 at Redhill seems to have finally got the go ahead as a mitigation to potential Thameslink delays, it is arguably the piece of infrastructure that might have raised ideas that 3tph was possible.

This thread appears to have suggested that level crossing safety assessments had raised thresholds during the planning of the service, well after the commitment was made. The basic timetable planning is all in Arup's 2015 report which came after the Surrey Rail Strategy report in 2013 and Network Rail's High Level Output Strategy for CP5 in 2012.

Maybe the best outcome is to go back to a Reading to Shalford shuttle and two Reading to Gatwick trains an hour picking up the local stops on a skip stop pattern between Shalford and Betchworth. The Reading departure times would need to change but it might be the best compromise.

 

[JonathanH]

Apparent confirmation that 3tph won't happen in December 2019.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...nd-service-updates.179590/page-2#post-3920281

Not helped either by having to revert to 2 TPH late in the December 2019 bidding process either.

Will 3tph on the North Downs ever happen?

Is that reliability of the timetable, still the level crossing issue or just Network Rail not liking the idea?

Perhaps the opportunity to lengthen journey times and turnarounds at Reading using the spare units.