3tph on North Downs Line

[joncombe]

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.

Yes that certainly is big. But at least there seems to be both a staircase and a ramp on/off the bridge. Often now you only get the ramp so everyone has to walk around the long zig-zag to access the other platform.

 

[joncombe]

I can't imagine Airport passengers using it once or twice a year would be put off by an extra 10 minutes - it's more about not carrying suitcases everywhere.

It is not just air passengers that want to get to the airport, it's staff as well. And interchange passengers, as far more trains stop at Gatwick than Redhill.

 

[FenMan]

It is not just air passengers that want to get to the airport, it's staff as well. And interchange passengers, as far more trains stop at Gatwick than Redhill.

An important point. Gatwick is the key interchange for NDL passengers heading to Brighton (a change I've made many times).

 

[Deepgreen]

DfT have confirmed to me that the May 2017 requirement hasn't been varied. Make from that what you will...

Well, if the speed of progress to date is a guide, there will be a franchise breach! What, if any, enforcement occurs is of course another matter.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Well, if the speed of progress to date is a guide, there will be a franchise breach! What, if any, enforcement occurs is of course another matter.

It will be a bit hard for the DfT to enforce anything on GWR when the problem is with the rail infrastructure arm of the DfT!

All that GWR has to do is show reasonable endeavours, through the usual industry processes, in trying to get the extra paths.

If the DfT specified and bought something that their own infrastructure subsidiary couldn't then deliver, that's their look out.

 

[infobleep]

It will be a bit hard for the DfT to enforce anything on GWR when the problem is with the rail infrastructure arm of the DfT!

All that GWR has to do is show reasonable endeavours, through the usual industry processes, in trying to get the extra paths.

If the DfT specified and bought something that their own infrastructure subsidiary couldn't then deliver, that's their look out.

Is it possible the contract doesn't take into account the overrun. So on the face of it, regardless of the delay, they are meant to introduce it then and that's that.

In reality I can't see what they could do. As long as GWR spent as much as is needed to meet the requirement but to the point where they cannot proceed, job done.

Perhaps they could have the staff sitting around doing nothing to make a point. I'm assuming extra staff were needed.

 

[Deepgreen]

It will be a bit hard for the DfT to enforce anything on GWR when the problem is with the rail infrastructure arm of the DfT!

All that GWR has to do is show reasonable endeavours, through the usual industry processes, in trying to get the extra paths.

If the DfT specified and bought something that their own infrastructure subsidiary couldn't then deliver, that's their look out.

Yes - I really meant a breach on the part of NR, rather than GWR. I realise any enforcement would be theoretical penalties running in a circle!

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

I don't think Network Rail have any responsibilities towards enabling TOCS to fulfil their franchise requirements whatsoever. They are tasked by DfT to provide a particular level of infrastructure, and maintain it for use. On the other hand, TOCs are contracted by DfT to provide a certain level of service. In this case, it seems as if DfT have specified a franchise condition that is effectively incompatible with the infrastructure provision and NR are most definitely not obliged to upgrade the infrastructure without a revision to their funding by DfT. Therefore the fault lies with DfT and neither NR nor GWR can be blamed or penalised.

Incidentally in this case I know for a fact that GWR applied for the necessary 3tph paths and NR rejected that bid on grounds of infrastructure unsuitability.

 

[Bald Rick]

WW - exactly.

 

[Deepgreen]

Accepted - I can readily believe such basic failures on the part of the DfT.

However, I do find it hard to reconcile 3tph on the railway as being incompatible with the existing road infrastructure on the route to the extent that an extra train seemingly cannot be accommodated.

 

[Barn]

Accepted - I can readily believe such basic failures on the part of the DfT.

However, I do find it hard to reconcile 3tph on the railway as being incompatible with the existing road infrastructure on the route to the extent that an extra train seemingly cannot be accommodated.

Do we know precisely why NR declared the infrastructure unsuitable? We've been talking about level crossings in this thread but could it simply be that the platform at Redhill isn't ready yet?

 

[Deepgreen]

Do we know precisely why NR declared the infrastructure unsuitable? We've been talking about level crossings in this thread but could it simply be that the platform at Redhill isn't ready yet?

I don't think the Redhill platform 0 has ever been on course for completion in time to meet the 3tph requirement. It has been stated here that the level crossings are the source of the problem.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

From what I've heard, this thread is pretty much on the money concerning underlying issue.

 

[Barn]

From what I've heard, this thread is pretty much on the money concerning underlying issue.

You're being very cryptic!

NR level crossing risk assessments?
Local traffic congestion concerns?
Redhill platform 0?

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Sorry, not intentional! Level crossings.

 

[infobleep]

I don't think Network Rail have any responsibilities towards enabling TOCS to fulfil their franchise requirements whatsoever. They are tasked by DfT to provide a particular level of infrastructure, and maintain it for use. On the other hand, TOCs are contracted by DfT to provide a certain level of service. In this case, it seems as if DfT have specified a franchise condition that is effectively incompatible with the infrastructure provision and NR are most definitely not obliged to upgrade the infrastructure without a revision to their funding by DfT. Therefore the fault lies with DfT and neither NR nor GWR can be blamed or penalised.

Incidentally in this case I know for a fact that GWR applied for the necessary 3tph paths and NR rejected that bid on grounds of infrastructure unsuitability.

So could GWR claim compensation from the DfT, as by running less trains that will bring them less revenue? Or will the franchise contract have allowed for the fact it might not be possible to run 3tph.

 

[Roast Veg]

What's the feasibility of a third BEMU service only as far as Guildford? I don't know the locations of the other problem level crossings, but to me it seems like the short unelectrified stretch on that section might be orders of magnitude more surmountable than the eastern section.

 

[FenMan]

What's the feasibility of a third BEMU service only as far as Guildford? I don't know the locations of the other problem level crossings, but to me it seems like the short unelectrified stretch on that section might be orders of magnitude more surmountable than the eastern section.

While feasible, it's probably not desirable. The idea is to increase the service from Reading to Gatwick to 2tph.

 

[Minstral25]

From what I've heard, this thread is pretty much on the money concerning underlying issue.

Might it be because none the paths crossed at a certain level crossing, meaning it would need to be lowered 6 times every hour?

 

[Deepgreen]

Might it be because none the paths crossed at a certain level crossing, meaning it would need to be lowered 6 times every hour?

Possibly - which one (Reigate and Betchworth are probably the busiest on the route)? If it's an AHB, that might tip the risk over a threshold, but countless full barrier crossings around the country are lowered far more than six times an hour! Obviously road impacts are important here too, but I would like to think that a total of 6tph would not be considered to be excessive.

Old-fashioned me.

 

[FenMan]

Possibly - which one (Reigate and Betchworth are probably the busiest on the route)? If it's an AHB, that might tip the risk over a threshold, but countless full barrier crossings around the country are lowered far more than six times an hour! Obviously road impacts are important here too, but I would like to think that a total of 6tph would not be considered to be excessive.

Old-fashioned me.

Wokingham?

Current schedule through Wokingham on weekdays between 17:00 and 18:00, when extra services are running:-

17:00 GWR
17:10 GWR
17:12 GWR
17:17 SWT
17:25 SWT
17:27 SWT
17:36 SWT
17:42 GWR
17:44 GWR
17:47 SWT
17:55 SWT
17:57 SWT

 

[Deepgreen]

Wokingham?

Current schedule through Wokingham on weekdays between 17:00 and 18:00, when extra services are running:-

17:00 GWR
17:10 GWR
17:12 GWR
17:17 SWT
17:25 SWT
17:27 SWT
17:36 SWT
17:42 GWR
17:44 GWR
17:47 SWT
17:55 SWT
17:57 SWT

Yes, I was excluding Wokingham because it has a service level that is far more intensive than the NDL 'proper'. The proportion of additional lowerings would be far lower there than at locations where 2tph rises to 3tph.

 

[Barn]

I'm so glad Wokingham level crossing doesn't empty out directly onto a mini-roundabout any more. Even with the signal box watching directly over you it felt very disconcerting to a young learner driver.

 

[Deepgreen]

I'm so glad Wokingham level crossing doesn't empty out directly onto a mini-roundabout any more. Even with the signal box watching directly over you it felt very disconcerting to a young learner driver.

Did/does it not have a yellow box junction? If it does, as one should not enter until the exit is clear, there should be no problem - a learner would be instructed not to enter and therefore risk being stranded on the crossing. Of course, observation of box junctions is considered by some as optional! Either way, a queue of traffic should always leave a level crossing clear.

 

[Barn]

Did/does it not have a yellow box junction? If it does, as one should not enter until the exit is clear, there should be no problem - a learner would be instructed not to enter and therefore risk being stranded on the crossing. Of course, observation of box junctions is considered by some as optional! Either way, a queue of traffic should always leave a level crossing clear.

As I recall, the crossing was immediately on the mini-roundabout, so when you had entered the level crossing you needed to wait for a gap in the traffic entering the roundabout from the right before you could move clear. You couldn't get a view of this traffic until you were already on the level crossing.

This waiting position was (or felt like it was) right underneath the barrier's path.

The design is completely different now, with a one-way system and road traffic lights syncronised with the crossing.

 

[Bald Rick]

Possibly - which one (Reigate and Betchworth are probably the busiest on the route)? If it's an AHB, that might tip the risk over a threshold, but countless full barrier crossings around the country are lowered far more than six times an hour! Obviously road impacts are important here too, but I would like to think that a total of 6tph would not be considered to be excessive.

Old-fashioned me.

Hypothetically, if an AHB did get to a level of risk where an MCB-OD was required, who should stump up the £4m+?

 

[Minstral25]

Possibly - which one (Reigate and Betchworth are probably the busiest on the route)? If it's an AHB, that might tip the risk over a threshold, but countless full barrier crossings around the country are lowered far more than six times an hour! Obviously road impacts are important here too, but I would like to think that a total of 6tph would not be considered to be excessive.

Old-fashioned me.

Obviously the one which at peak times has queue longer than a mile within minutes of barrier being down and if two shortly spaced successive lowering's happen has been known create tailbacks beyond the M25. Yes - Reigate.

The issue is not whether any level crossing can be lowered 6 times per hour but if a crossing is lowered what disruption it makes to the surrounding area when it is down. For many 6 times per hour would cause minimal disruption, for others twice is too much.

The third train between Guildford and Redhill will happen once they have sorted the timing out but probably not to 2018. The draft future timetable I have seen shows them in place, but currently the timings don't work to allow trains to cross at Reigate as they do now and I suspect this is why they have been rejected. I'm sure the timetable planners will work it out.

 

[Deepgreen]

Obviously the one which at peak times has queue longer than a mile within minutes of barrier being down and if two shortly spaced successive lowering's happen has been known create tailbacks beyond the M25. Yes - Reigate.

The issue is not whether any level crossing can be lowered 6 times per hour but if a crossing is lowered what disruption it makes to the surrounding area when it is down. For many 6 times per hour would cause minimal disruption, for others twice is too much.

The third train between Guildford and Redhill will happen once they have sorted the timing out but probably not to 2018. The draft future timetable I have seen shows them in place, but currently the timings don't work to allow trains to cross at Reigate as they do now and I suspect this is why they have been rejected. I'm sure the timetable planners will work it out.

The provision of the least disruptive timings at Reigate is, in turn, going to make the second-busiest crossing - Betchworth - 'interesting' too! Even now, queues can stretch for a very long way, often clogging up the roundabout on the A25 in the process.

 

[Minstral25]

The provision of the least disruptive timings at Reigate is, in turn, going to make the second-busiest crossing - Betchworth - 'interesting' too! Even now, queues can stretch for a very long way, often clogging up the roundabout on the A25 in the process.

I'm aware of that too as a regular user of the A25 but Reigate is far worse

 

[Deepgreen]

I'm aware of that too as a regular user of the A25 but Reigate is far worse

Absolutely - I am just wondering what the effect on Betchworth will be when/if 3tph are designed to cross at Reigate. Some cross at Betchworth now.