3tph on North Downs Line

[Wilts Wanderer]

There are potentially a few timetable solutions; you could introduce an all stations Reading-Guildford service and run two Gatwicks, one calling Wokingham-Guildford-Dorking-Reigate-Redhill-Gatwick and the other also calling Blackwater & North Camp then semi-fast after Guildford to provide the skip-stop 2hrly pattern currently covered by the Redhill.

An alternative would be to provide a dedicated Turbo for a 2hrly Guildford-Redhill all-stations shuttle and adapt the above plan so both Gatwicks are fast over the Gomshall section. The third Reading-Guildford could theoretically be extended every other hour as this Redhill stopper but would likely need to be overtaken. This would reduce the number of trains over the crossings to 5tph which might possibly reduce the safety issue?

 

[infobleep]

There are potentially a few timetable solutions; you could introduce an all stations Reading-Guildford service and run two Gatwicks, one calling Wokingham-Guildford-Dorking-Reigate-Redhill-Gatwick and the other also calling Blackwater & North Camp then semi-fast after Guildford to provide the skip-stop 2hrly pattern currently covered by the Redhill.

An alternative would be to provide a dedicated Turbo for a 2hrly Guildford-Redhill all-stations shuttle and adapt the above plan so both Gatwicks are fast over the Gomshall section. The third Reading-Guildford could theoretically be extended every other hour as this Redhill stopper but would likely need to be overtaken. This would reduce the number of trains over the crossings to 5tph which might possibly reduce the safety issue?

Would this require platform 0 at Redhill? If platform 0 at Redhill isn't required, should they give up building it to save the money?

I don't know how much the platform costs and how much has already been spent.

 

[JonathanH]

Would this require platform 0 at Redhill? If platform 0 at Redhill isn't required, should they give up building it to save the money?

I don't know how much the platform costs and how much has already been spent.

Even if the North Downs line doesn't get 3tph, the Redhill works are still valuable as:
* there is better access from the north to platform 2 in times of disruption
* shuttles from Reigate and Tonbridge could run at the same time rather than requiring a gap in Reigate services when a Tonbridge train operates as at the moment.
* slightly less pressure on splitting / joining trains

Redhill is a congested station with its current service and timetable (although there are also gaps when nothing happens there) so I guess that the platform 0 works are justified even without an increase in service on the North Downs Line.

From the opentraintimes 'preview' of the 3tph service, it seems as if the would be extra trains running without Blackwater and North Camp stops - seems a shame not to try and make more of Farnborough North and stop the extra trains there - giving all three Blackwater valley stations a direct link to Gatwick - Blackwater/ North Camp one half hour and Farnborough North the other.

Given the comments of the Surrey councillor who wanted to make more of the North Downs Line, is there full support from the various councils for the service enhancement or do they also have level crossing concerns.

The only solution at Reigate which would actually work is an underground station. I can't see any solution which could change the road layout around the level crossing unless you could somehow close off about five local roads on the approach (including the station access).

 

[Minstral25]

The original platform 0 plans were a good solution to the congestion at Redhill and the revised ones do have some benefit. As pointed out above platform 2 can be used more efficiently in a Southbound direction. Platform 0 is promoted purely for the North Downs line but enabled Network Rail to correct some problems in Redhill Station.

The problem that now arises is because they are saving money they have removed the fourth through line and then in a move that will be detrimental to passengers at Redhill made the existing platform 1 into a bay platform. Platform 0 should have been the bay. Why because few passengers in comparison to other services use the North Downs trains, but now the main Northbound platform will be platform 0, which will have limited access, very awkward disabled access (lift is on a wooden bridge away from the platform itself), no facilities (no waiting rooms, no toilets, no customer information points nor coffee shops) and just a basic shelter. It will also be relatively narrow. This is the platform 500-750 passengers will stand on in the morning peak waiting for their train.

The reason this has been done is because of the point to leave the main line to get to platform 0 is part way along platform 1. As no money is allowed to be spent on the Southern approach which could easily solve this issue they have no choice but to make platform 1 a bay. The Southern approach is apparently life expired in early 2020's, so in just a few years the whole set up of preliminaries and access will have to be done again at unnecessary extra cost just to save a few million now.

On Reigate, the Surrey County Councillors hadn't realised the Level Crossing issue at Reigate and there are signs their promotion of this line may be waning. They don't have funds to solve the Reigate issue which is basically finding a way past the Railway without using the level crossing (i.e. Bridge, Tunnel or Road Diversion).

 

[infobleep]

The original platform 0 plans were a good solution to the congestion at Redhill and the revised ones do have some benefit. As pointed out above platform 2 can be used more efficiently in a Southbound direction. Platform 0 is promoted purely for the North Downs line but enabled Network Rail to correct some problems in Redhill Station.

The problem that now arises is because they are saving money they have removed the fourth through line and then in a move that will be detrimental to passengers at Redhill made the existing platform 1 into a bay platform. Platform 0 should have been the bay. Why because few passengers in comparison to other services use the North Downs trains, but now the main Northbound platform will be platform 0, which will have limited access, very awkward disabled access (lift is on a wooden bridge away from the platform itself), no facilities (no waiting rooms, no toilets, no customer information points nor coffee shops) and just a basic shelter. It will also be relatively narrow. This is the platform 500-750 passengers will stand on in the morning peak waiting for their train.

The reason this has been done is because of the point to leave the main line to get to platform 0 is part way along platform 1. As no money is allowed to be spent on the Southern approach which could easily solve this issue they have no choice but to make platform 1 a bay. The Southern approach is apparently life expired in early 2020's, so in just a few years the whole set up of preliminaries and access will have to be done again at unnecessary extra cost just to save a few million now.

On Reigate, the Surrey County Councillors hadn't realised the Level Crossing issue at Reigate and there are signs their promotion of this line may be waning. They don't have funds to solve the Reigate issue which is basically finding a way past the Railway without using the level crossing (i.e. Bridge, Tunnel or Road Diversion).

They can't afford to fix this level crossing issue but they can afford HS2 and Crossrail 1/2. I guess the return on ones investment might not be good enough for the North Downs Line.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

 

[Bookd]

What is the extra risk factor on level crossings (as opposed to the road congestion?) The Windsor lines from Waterloo have 8 or sometimes more tph each way, with a number of level crossings over major roads but they seem to be acceptable?

 

[NSEFAN]

They can't afford to fix this level crossing issue but they can afford HS2 and Crossrail 1/2. I guess the return on ones investment might not be good enough for the North Downs Line.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

Is it a case of not being affordable? Or is it more a case a lower-priority project not having the current funds allocated in the first place?

 

[JonathanH]

What is the extra risk factor on level crossings (as opposed to the road congestion?) The Windsor lines from Waterloo have 8 or sometimes more tph each way, with a number of level crossings over major roads but they seem to be acceptable?

The position tends to be that the current level of service is tolerated but an increase wouldn't be. Ask the people of Mortlake and North Sheen what they think of their level crossings and I suspect they wouldn't say they were acceptable.

One day, I ought to actually see how traffic builds up in the morning peak in Reigate and whether it is the level crossing, people turning off London Road or something else which causes the issue. At present there is a long gap (0734 to 0813) without a crossing movement then roughly one each ten minutes from 0813.

 

[tsr]

The position tends to be that the current level of service is tolerated but an increase wouldn't be. Ask the people of Mortlake and North Sheen what they think of their level crossings and I suspect they wouldn't say they were acceptable.

One day, I ought to actually see how traffic builds up in the morning peak in Reigate and whether it is the level crossing, people turning off London Road or something else which causes the issue. At present there is a long gap (0734 to 0813) without a crossing movement then roughly one each ten minutes from 0813.

It's a mixture of a lot of congestion issues, including Reigate College (possibly a little less than it used to be, as a few more students actually seem to use the train vice driving in), and other traffic at junctions, but the level crossing causes more than its fair share of problems.

Being extremely familiar with the local area and its trains, knowing many people who struggle to drive around Reigate, and having actually spent some time previously in academic studies developing proposals to alleviate some of the local congestion, it may surprise people that I've yet to be made aware of anyone (myself included) who's been able to draw up anything close to a viable idea to remove the level crossing. The busy nature of the road and railway are compounded by the well-used and valuable offices and housing in very close proximity, and the fact that absolutely none of the local residential roads can accommodate any more traffic without major rebuilding - and not least also the issue that the access to the parallel A242 is also hard to deal with.

Local ecology and landscaping rules mean you couldn't really build much of an additional route to the A242 Croydon Road without going all the way over to Merstham and back, so you can't bypass the A217 from the M25 to Reigate town centre very easily. In fact, if the A217 itself and the level crossing weren't there, it would make for a very pleasant grid of quieter residential streets, stretching parallel to the railway and over to the western outskirts of Reigate.

It's not possible to create a further embankment for the railway without overshadowing the whole of the Holmesdale Road and Reigate College area, so you can't raise that (frustratingly, though, it could probably be done to the west of the crossing). You couldn't keep the value of the local landscape by raising the road, because you'd have a lot of offices and houses overshadowed by an enormous bridge capable of carrying diverted M23 traffic over a two-track railway. You could dig a tunnel from the Castle to the bottom of Reigate Hill, where there is just enough room for it to emerge, but I'm not sure the local cave structures would allow it, and in any case you'd be looking at a fairly narrow set of tunnel entrances and a prohibitive bill, with the need to still maintain a crossing for local traffic in the absence of a road diversion. You could lower the railway, but acceleration from Reigate towards Buckland would be a problem for trains during leaf-fall, not to mention the need to reconfigure the earthworks from Doods Road to the crossing on the east side of the A217. The latter would probably be the most feasible, but at enormous cost, possibly requiring electrification to help with train performance. Oh, and you'd have to eliminate Reigate SB unless it was somehow possible for it to suddenly perch on stilts above the railway.

 

[Sunset route]

Would this require platform 0 at Redhill? If platform 0 at Redhill isn't required, should they give up building it to save the money?

I don't know how much the platform costs and how much has already been spent.

When I went to a meeting with Redhill platform 0 project sponsor, it was more to do with the Thameslink 2018 timetable plans than the North Downs Line. They were selling the fact that any increase in the NDL timetable would be a byproduct of surplus capacity after Thameslink has taken their slice.

 

[JonathanH]

When I went to a meeting with Redhill platform 0 project sponsor, it was more to do with the Thameslink 2018 timetable plans than the North Downs Line. They were selling the fact that any increase in the NDL timetable would be a byproduct of surplus capacity after Thameslink has taken their slice.

Yes, I can see that. If the aim is to have an even pattern timetable from Redhill, you need to find enough time to run Reigate and Tonbridge services in the gaps and having to share platforms doesn't facilitate that.

 

[infobleep]

It's a mixture of a lot of congestion issues, including Reigate College (possibly a little less than it used to be, as a few more students actually seem to use the train vice driving in), and other traffic at junctions, but the level crossing causes more than its fair share of problems.

Being extremely familiar with the local area and its trains, knowing many people who struggle to drive around Reigate, and having actually spent some time previously in academic studies developing proposals to alleviate some of the local congestion, it may surprise people that I've yet to be made aware of anyone (myself included) who's been able to draw up anything close to a viable idea to remove the level crossing. The busy nature of the road and railway are compounded by the well-used and valuable offices and housing in very close proximity, and the fact that absolutely none of the local residential roads can accommodate any more traffic without major rebuilding - and not least also the issue that the access to the parallel A242 is also hard to deal with.

Local ecology and landscaping rules mean you couldn't really build much of an additional route to the A242 Croydon Road without going all the way over to Merstham and back, so you can't bypass the A217 from the M25 to Reigate town centre very easily. In fact, if the A217 itself and the level crossing weren't there, it would make for a very pleasant grid of quieter residential streets, stretching parallel to the railway and over to the western outskirts of Reigate.

It's not possible to create a further embankment for the railway without overshadowing the whole of the Holmesdale Road and Reigate College area, so you can't raise that (frustratingly, though, it could probably be done to the west of the crossing). You couldn't keep the value of the local landscape by raising the road, because you'd have a lot of offices and houses overshadowed by an enormous bridge capable of carrying diverted M23 traffic over a two-track railway. You could dig a tunnel from the Castle to the bottom of Reigate Hill, where there is just enough room for it to emerge, but I'm not sure the local cave structures would allow it, and in any case you'd be looking at a fairly narrow set of tunnel entrances and a prohibitive bill, with the need to still maintain a crossing for local traffic in the absence of a road diversion. You could lower the railway, but acceleration from Reigate towards Buckland would be a problem for trains during leaf-fall, not to mention the need to reconfigure the earthworks from Doods Road to the crossing on the east side of the A217. The latter would probably be the most feasible, but at enormous cost, possibly requiring electrification to help with train performance. Oh, and you'd have to eliminate Reigate SB unless it was somehow possible for it to suddenly perch on stilts above the railway.

So can anything be done to enable more trains to Gatwick or is that it now?

 

[JamesRowden]

So can anything be done to enable more trains to Gatwick or is that it now?

2tph Reading-Gatwick can operate without 3tph Reading-Redhill. 2tph Reading-Gatwick can't operate until Redhill has the additional platform.

 

[Barn]

The issue needs some thought.

It was always high risk putting three trains per hour in each direction through Reigate Level Crossing as the A217 is an exceptionally busy road - many people using it as an alternative from the M25 to Gatwick Airport or Crawley rather than M23.

Not sure if this has ever been studied, but say the crossing did go down another time per hour. Could this make the A217 unattractive enough to Gatwick / Crawley traffic so that more cars decide to use the M23 after all, and thus the additional damage is lower than one might expect? Or is that just wishful thinking?

 

[infobleep]

2tph Reading-Gatwick can operate without 3tph Reading-Redhill. 2tph Reading-Gatwick can't operate until Redhill has the additional platform.

Oh OK. Thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't aware a second train to Gatwick needed platform 0. I thought they just didn't do it because it was a slower train that terminated at Redhill.

So a compromise could be both trains going to Gatwick, even if one is slower, if they could make a timetable that allows such a thing.

 

[Minstral25]

When I went to a meeting with Redhill platform 0 project sponsor, it was more to do with the Thameslink 2018 timetable plans than the North Downs Line. They were selling the fact that any increase in the NDL timetable would be a byproduct of surplus capacity after Thameslink has taken their slice.

Was that for the 4 through platform original solution or the cheap 3 plus bay solution. When I met with NR sponsors last year they were extolling the virtues of 3 per hour North Downs with slightly smoother utilisation of Redhill station for Thameslink.

I still can't understand why they made platform 0 which will be a empty platform with no facilities and awkward access the main London bound platform as it is the most inconvenient for passengers. Although I did understand the point work problem, it wasn't a tidy solution just a cheap one that vaguely worked from a "Railway Operation" perspective but not for passengers.

 

[Sunset route]

Was that for the 4 through platform original solution or the cheap 3 plus bay solution. When I met with NR sponsors last year they were extolling the virtues of 3 per hour North Downs with slightly smoother utilisation of Redhill station for Thameslink.

I still can't understand why they made platform 0 which will be a empty platform with no facilities and awkward access the main London bound platform as it is the most inconvenient for passengers. Although I did understand the point work problem, it wasn't a tidy solution just a cheap one that vaguely worked from a "Railway Operation" perspective but not for passengers.

No I'm talking about the platform 1 bay solution that we are due to have shortly. :mad:

 

[Deepgreen]

No I'm talking about the platform 1 bay solution that we are due to have shortly. :mad:

Mad indeed. See also the discussion about Redhill's p0 in the Redhill Station thread.

 

[FenMan]

From the opentraintimes 'preview' of the 3tph service, it seems as if the would be extra trains running without Blackwater and North Camp stops - seems a shame not to try and make more of Farnborough North and stop the extra trains there - giving all three Blackwater valley stations a direct link to Gatwick - Blackwater/ North Camp one half hour and Farnborough North the other.

I'm blowed if I can find this mooted 3tph service on OpenTrainTimes. Do you have a link please?

The issue with a direct Farnborough North - Gatwick service is that, unlike Blackwater and North Camp, the road access is extremely poor. It's at the end of a small cul-de-sac in a residential area well away from any main roads and there is minimal parking. Both other statons are adjacent to main road interchanges and have ample parking.

In practice, Gatwick-bound passengers from the west side of Farnborough use Blackwater and the rest use North Camp.

 

[D1009]

If the problem is level crossings and risk assessments, wouldn't the foot crossing at Farnborough North be a factor? This crossing is protected only by red/green warning lights, unless something has changed since I last went down there.

 

[FenMan]

If the problem is level crossings and risk assessments, wouldn't the foot crossing at Farnborough North be a factor? This crossing is protected only by red/green warning lights, unless something has changed since I last went down there.

The crossing is pretty much permanently staffed these days and magnetic locks have been fitted to the crossing gates to stop abuse. A garden shed has been provided for the "crossing keepers" and lots of expensive looking CCTV has been erected.

This issue would be solved by the long-planned footbridge, but that seems to have been kicked into the long grass (again).

I saw a similar arrangement at Betchworth when visiting last year.

Presumably the cost of these (necessary) safety precautions outweighs getting the footbridges in place.

 

[DelW]

Not sure if this has ever been studied, but say the crossing did go down another time per hour. Could this make the A217 unattractive enough to Gatwick / Crawley traffic so that more cars decide to use the M23 after all, and thus the additional damage is lower than one might expect? Or is that just wishful thinking?

Part of the problem is that the A217 is the only main-road route to M25 junction 8, which is the only local access onto both the M25 and the M23. The A217 (including Reigate level crossing) could potentially be relieved by a better quality link between junction 8 and the A23 near Merstham - Gatton Bottom lane currently serves that function but has very poor junctions at each end as well as some narrow bends. However Surrey County Council has barely made a road improvement anywhere in living memory and seems to think that traffic problems can be dealt with by imposing ever-lower speed limits on main roads.

At both Betchworth and Reigate, the northbound level crossing queues quickly extend far enough back to block the A25 east-west route as well, at Betchworth roundabout and the Reigate town centre one-way system.

 

[Deepgreen]

The crossing is pretty much permanently staffed these days and magnetic locks have been fitted to the crossing gates to stop abuse. A garden shed has been provided for the "crossing keepers" and lots of expensive looking CCTV has been erected.

This issue would be solved by the long-planned footbridge, but that seems to have been kicked into the long grass (again).

I saw a similar arrangement at Betchworth when visiting last year.

Presumably the cost of these (necessary) safety precautions outweighs getting the footbridges in place.

Huh? Betchworth level crossing is on a very busy road and has full (four) barriers, CCTV, etc. There is no crossing keeper, as the crossing is remotely controlled from Reigate signal box.

 

[Deepgreen]

Part of the problem is that the A217 is the only main-road route to M25 junction 8, which is the only local access onto both the M25 and the M23. The A217 (including Reigate level crossing) could potentially be relieved by a better quality link between junction 8 and the A23 near Merstham - Gatton Bottom lane currently serves that function but has very poor junctions at each end as well as some narrow bends. However Surrey County Council has barely made a road improvement anywhere in living memory and seems to think that traffic problems can be dealt with by imposing ever-lower speed limits on main roads.

At both Betchworth and Reigate, the northbound level crossing queues quickly extend far enough back to block the A25 east-west route as well, at Betchworth roundabout and the Reigate town centre one-way system.

Indeed, but the cost of providing bridges to replace these crossings would be so enormous as to kill any business case.

 

[JonathanH]

The crossing is pretty much permanently staffed these days and magnetic locks have been fitted to the crossing gates to stop abuse. A garden shed has been provided for the "crossing keepers" and lots of expensive looking CCTV has been erected.

This issue would be solved by the long-planned footbridge, but that seems to have been kicked into the long grass (again).

I saw a similar arrangement at Betchworth when visiting last year.

Presumably the cost of these (necessary) safety precautions outweighs getting the footbridges in place.

Huh? Betchworth level crossing is on a very busy road and has full (four) barriers, CCTV, etc. There is no crossing keeper, as the crossing is remotely controlled from Reigate signal box.

The OP meant Gomshall where an enormous footbridge has been installed to replace the former foot crossing. I doubt there is room on the western side of Farnborough North to install that kind of footbridge.

 

[infobleep]

There are is a foot crossing along the North Downs Line there you go up an embankment and then cross the line before going down the other side.

Seems very old fashioned. Can't remember off hand exactly where it is. Might be Wanborough way or Gomshall way. I used it last year.

 

[Deepgreen]

There are is a foot crossing along the North Downs Line there you go up an embankment and then cross the line before going down the other side.

Seems very old fashioned. Can't remember off hand exactly where it is. Might be Wanborough way or Gomshall way. I used it last year.

As with any other rural railway line, there are very many foot crossings on the NDL, but none at Betchworth. At Betchworth itself there is a very major level crossing, and a smaller half-barrier level crossing at Buckland (about half a mile towards Reigate). Towards Dorking there is another half barrier crossing at Chalk Pit Lane, Brockham.

At Gomshall there used to be a foot crossing at the station, but this has now been replaced by a footbridge of the monstrous proportions required to afford wheelchair access.

 

[FenMan]

Huh? Betchworth level crossing is on a very busy road and has full (four) barriers, CCTV, etc. There is no crossing keeper, as the crossing is remotely controlled from Reigate signal box.

Apologies. I meant to say Gomshall.

 

[FenMan]

The OP meant Gomshall where an enormous footbridge has been installed to replace the former foot crossing. I doubt there is room on the western side of Farnborough North to install that kind of footbridge.

Gomshall's new bridge:

Acknowledgement: www.sheredelight.com

 

[Deepgreen]

Gomshall's new bridge:

Acknowledgement: www.sheredelight.com

Staggering isn't it?! I find the flower motifs quite amusing as a means of ameliorating its visual impact. BTW, I understand why it is so big, but that doesn't make it any less hideous. Welcome to the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.