Blockade to allow Waterloo upgrade to take place, resulting in timetable changes

[nlogax]

Good find!
Lamp standards up, looks like most copers in place (under cover) and drainage channels going down. Should be almost finished in a couple of days...

Shame the timelapses are (temporarily?) down, but it's still fun to nip between the four cameras and get an idea of what's being worked on. I must stop watching them for a few hours!

 

[paok]

Lots of images from 4 cameras navigable via here.

 

[XCTurbostar]

Moaning feels like a peculiarly British sport, sadly..especially when it comes to the railways. Maybe it's easier to moan than to understand?

Anyway..things look to be busy again this morning. Plenty of work going on with the new platform surfaces and signalling cabinets beyond p1.

http://sentry.og2.co.uk/images/ICE00014/2017-08-16/ICE00014-2017-08-16_121200.jpg

Don't forget my Telecoms cabinet!

Thanks,
Ross

 

[swt_passenger]

Thinking about the track changes in the throat as can be seen so far on the web cams (linked in the other thread), and what advantages are gained.

Am I right in thinking that the idea is that the P1-P6 connections from UMS and to DMS can operate without affecting the approach to P7 upwards, because the access to P7 has been switched to a different line, i.e. off the approach tp P8?

As seen here: http://sentry.og2.co.uk/images/ICE00012/2017-08-16/ICE00012-2017-08-16_155500.jpg

Does this confirm what has been suggested over the last couple of years, that in normal circumstances the main suburban service group will effectively use all of P1-P6 equally, rather than the previous situation of mostly using P1-P4?

As a second point, it looks like the nose of P7-P8 is being slightly widened, (no more than about 10%) and although it still tapers significantly, surely the signals can still be installed on a gantry at the end, in a similar way to those for P9-P10? IIRC from a few weeks back, these signals were a bone of contention with the TU, and there was going to be a vote about them...

 

[XCTurbostar]

Thinking about the track changes in the throat as can be seen so far on the web cams (linked in the other thread), and what advantages are gained.

Am I right in thinking that the idea is that the P1-P6 connections from UMS and to DMS can operate without affecting the approach to P7 upwards, because the access to P7 has been switched to a different line, i.e. off the approach tp P8?

As seen here: http://sentry.og2.co.uk/images/ICE00012/2017-08-16/ICE00012-2017-08-16_155500.jpg

Does this confirm what has been suggested over the last couple of years, that in normal circumstances the main suburban service group will effectively use all of P1-P6 equally, rather than the previous situation of mostly using P1-P4?

As a second point, it looks like the nose of P7-P8 is being slightly widened, (no more than about 10%) and although it still tapers significantly, surely the signals can still be installed on a gantry at the end, in a similar way to those for P9-P10? IIRC from a few weeks back, these signals were a bone of contention with the TU, and there was going to be a vote about them...

You are correct regarding P1-6 suburban metro services.

P7 has a signal (W13) and a co-actor at the end (W13CA). P8 has the same arrangement but for W15. The main signal is located on the new signal gantry and the co-actor is located at ground level. I worked on the design of this project so I checked the Scheme plan for you.

Thanks,
Ross

 

[swt_passenger]

P7 has a signal (W13) and a co-acter at the end. P8 has the same arrangement. I worked on this project so I checked the Scheme plan for you.

Thank you for above. Do you perhaps have any comment about the supposed dispute about using co-acting signals in this particular scenario? IIRC the other signals are on a gantry in line with P1-P6 - presumably they are there for the benefit of drivers of shorter trains who cannot see the end of the platform from their cab position?

 

[XCTurbostar]

Thank you for above. Do you perhaps have any comment about the supposed dispute about using co-acting signals in this particular scenario? IIRC the other signals are on a gantry in line with P1-P6 - presumably they are there for the benefit of drivers of shorter trains who cannot see the end of the platform from their cab position?

As I worked on the project (As a telecoms designer), I can't really provide a standpoint on behalf of my employer but what I will say is that the signalling was deaigned to make maximum use of the new signal gantry provided. For this reason, the gantry leg is in the middle of P7/P8 island and the Signal for P8 (W15) is essentially off the end of the structure. The Co-Actors are there to provide accordance with Signal Sighting, a process which a committee of Drivers and designers from TOCs and FOCs work out the best outcome for the scenario. Personally, I don't see an issue with the signalling, I think the unions/drivers and jumping the gun before it's even installed.

Thanks,
Ross

 

[swt_passenger]

As I worked on the project (As a telecoms designer), I can't really provide a standpoint on behalf of my employer but what I will say is that the signalling was deaigned to make maximum use of the new signal gantry provided. For this reason, the gantry leg is in the middle of P7/P8 island and the Signal for P8 (W15) is essentially off the end of the structure. The Co-Actors are there to provide accordance with Signal Sighting, a process which a committee of Drivers and designers from TOCs and FOCs work out the best outcome for the scenario. Personally, I don't see an issue with the signalling, I think the unions/drivers and jumping the gun before it's even installed.

OK, thanks for that. I do appreciate that you cannot be completely open about the subject.

 

[XCTurbostar]

OK, thanks for that. I do appreciate that you cannot be completely open about the subject.

I can't really provide any additional information because I'm not a signalling guy. I don't really understand the dispute nor could I have impacted the signalling arrangement. I'd love to know the specifics of the union dispute.

Thanks,
Ross

 

[infobleep]

What does annoy me though is when people grumble and complain and get angry with the staff for what's happening - little do they know that their future travels are going to be much more efficient thanks to this. Network Rail don't spend millions of pounds for nothing! They don't close off half of the station for nothing!

Some journeys won't be more efficient. Take Woking to Clapham Junction. That is actually better in the morning peak during this disruption that it will be once things return to normal.

Of course most people don't look at the positives so won't think much of Woking to Clapham Junction having a better service right now and just focus on the fact less trains are running or some other negative aspect of the works.

I've been enjoying some of these unique journey opportunities as I've nicknamed them. For example on the normal timetable there are two fast trains an hour to Clapham Junction off peak. These run at 38 and 46. During the works they are more evenly timed at 22 and 52 minutes past. The faster trains have loos and are, well faster.

In the morning peak during the works there are 8 trains an hour from Surbiton to Clapham Junction. During the regular timetable this is just 4 an hour, so a doubling of frequency. Obviously this is to cater for other services not running elsewhere, which is why less run normally, but it's still an improvement at a Surbtion at least.

I'll miss the 22 minutes past the hour fast. It's handy if for whatever reason I missed previous stopping service. As it allows me to connect with another train at Clapham Junction. The 26 past usual stopping service misses this other train at Clapham Junction and I end up being over 20 minutes late to my destination.

 

[infobleep]

Lots of images from 4 cameras navigable via here.

Thanks for that. Really interesting.

Incidentally are they likely to have found anything underground that they didn't know about when doing the platform lengthening? Any old water pipes around there from the time of the water columns when steam engines pulled the services? I'm not saying those wouldn't be known about of course.

Also I see that Wimbledon to Waterloo has 12 services between 07.00 and 08.00 but only 8 between 17.00 and 18.00. Does anyone know why there are less services in the down evening direction than the morning up?

 

[IrishDave]

Also I see that Wimbledon to Waterloo has 12 services between 07.00 and 08.00 but only 8 between 17.00 and 18.00. Does anyone know why there are less services in the down evening direction than the morning up?

Basically, because diverting via East Putney is easier in the up direction than the down direction.

The slow line service via Earlsfield is generally 6tph off-peak, with that rising to 8tph in the peaks. These all call at Wimbledon. In addition, in the morning peak, there is a service every 15 minutes running via East Putney, alternating between a 2Dxx from Epsom and a 2Lxx from Basingstoke; these all call at Wimbledon.

In the evening peak, however, there is only a half-hourly service via East Putney, all of which are not booked to stop between Clapham Junction and Surbiton. The difference in frequency is because sending an up train via East Putney causes fewer conflicts (at Point Pleasant Jn) than sending a down train via East Putney (at Wimbledon), simply because there are fewer trains on the Windsor side than the mainline side.

Furthermore, the layout at Wimbledon only allows trains from East Putney to access the Down Fast (platform 7), not the Down Slow (platform 8), and stopping trains on the fast line at Wimbledon would cause havoc; hence those evening trains booked via East Putney in the down direction cannot call at Wimbledon.

 

[rj90]

Thanks for that. Really interesting.

Incidentally are they likely to have found anything underground that they didn't know about when doing the platform lengthening? Any old water pipes around there from the time of the water columns when steam engines pulled the services? I'm not saying those wouldn't be known about of course.

Also I see that Wimbledon to Waterloo has 12 services between 07.00 and 08.00 but only 8 between 17.00 and 18.00. Does anyone know why there are less services in the down evening direction than the morning up?

Found the foundations for the old ten car platforms and there is a water pipe right under the gantry - all 4 foundations sit on it.

Also, I know this is an enthusiast website but can all please refrain from sharing any images from the time lapse cameras. They are owned by others and will only deter people from sharing links in future

 

[Pumbaa]

Thinking about the track changes in the throat as can be seen so far on the web cams (linked in the other thread), and what advantages are gained.

Am I right in thinking that the idea is that the P1-P6 connections from UMS and to DMS can operate without affecting the approach to P7 upwards, because the access to P7 has been switched to a different line, i.e. off the approach tp P8?

As seen here: http://sentry.og2.co.uk/images/ICE00012/2017-08-16/ICE00012-2017-08-16_155500.jpg

Does this confirm what has been suggested over the last couple of years, that in normal circumstances the main suburban service group will effectively use all of P1-P6 equally, rather than the previous situation of mostly using P1-P4?

As a second point, it looks like the nose of P7-P8 is being slightly widened, (no more than about 10%) and although it still tapers significantly, surely the signals can still be installed on a gantry at the end, in a similar way to those for P9-P10? IIRC from a few weeks back, these signals were a bone of contention with the TU, and there was going to be a vote about them...

There was a vote, and it came back with a pretty solid yes:

1,179 Papers sent out
702 Votes cast
583 Voted Yes
119 Voted No
No Spoilt papers

I know you've had a small conversation below, but for what it's worth, I think the Drivers have a point. Will be a good first test of new employers!

 

[Tio Terry]

There was a vote, and it came back with a pretty solid yes:

1,179 Papers sent out
702 Votes cast
583 Voted Yes
119 Voted No
No Spoilt papers

I know you've had a small conversation below, but for what it's worth, I think the Drivers have a point. Will be a good first test of new employers!

Any chance we can be told what the question was? It would help when it comes to knowing the significance of a Yes vote.

 

[pompeyfan]

There was a vote, and it came back with a pretty solid yes:

1,179 Papers sent out
702 Votes cast
583 Voted Yes
119 Voted No
No Spoilt papers

I know you've had a small conversation below, but for what it's worth, I think the Drivers have a point. Will be a good first test of new employers!

From what I understand, the issue that ASLEF have is that (I may have the numbers wrong, but the jist is correct). The new layout on P7 and P8 mean that the platforms can take 12 cars, but the starter signal is positioned above coach 10, with drivers off 12 expected to look at a co-acting signal that is difficult to see, the other issue is that new TPWS grids have been placed, essentially if a driver needs to be talked past either W13 or W15 TPWS will have to be overridden up to 3 times during the length of the platform, which ASLEF see as a poor setup.

I believe the question was do drivers want to take action, and the action agreed was drivers would not take trains formed of more than 8 coaches into 7 or 8 until the dispute was settled. As I say the numbers that I've quoted may be wrong but the general idea is correct.

 

[nlogax]

Found the foundations for the old ten car platforms and there is a water pipe right under the gantry - all 4 foundations sit on it.

Also, I know this is an enthusiast website but can all please refrain from sharing any images from the time lapse cameras. They are owned by others and will only deter people from sharing links in future

Could you elaborate? Are you asking people to stop sharing actual photos, or just the (publicly accessible) links to photos?

On a related note, camera ICE00013 was repositioned this morning to point towards shed-end platform works.

 

[Malcolmffc]

Found the foundations for the old ten car platforms and there is a water pipe right under the gantry - all 4 foundations sit on it.

Also, I know this is an enthusiast website but can all please refrain from sharing any images from the time lapse cameras. They are owned by others and will only deter people from sharing links in future

Why? Occasionally posting a few excerpts from the cameras (via publicly available links) is unquestionably fair use and not a breach of copyright.

 

[swt_passenger]

Has the country end of platform 7 been remodelled slightly during the works? I noticed the alterations at the very end on an earlier webcam picture, but presumably if the track alignment has changed at the very end then the platform curvature further along may have had to be "eased out" as well?

It just goes to show that the headline lengthening of four platforms (as described in most of the PR) has actually affected seven - IIRC we have always been aware that P5-P6 were also being shortened, but I think I'd missed alterations to P7...

 

[infobleep]

Basically, because diverting via East Putney is easier in the up direction than the down direction.

The slow line service via Earlsfield is generally 6tph off-peak, with that rising to 8tph in the peaks. These all call at Wimbledon. In addition, in the morning peak, there is a service every 15 minutes running via East Putney, alternating between a 2Dxx from Epsom and a 2Lxx from Basingstoke; these all call at Wimbledon.

In the evening peak, however, there is only a half-hourly service via East Putney, all of which are not booked to stop between Clapham Junction and Surbiton. The difference in frequency is because sending an up train via East Putney causes fewer conflicts (at Point Pleasant Jn) than sending a down train via East Putney (at Wimbledon), simply because there are fewer trains on the Windsor side than the mainline side.

Furthermore, the layout at Wimbledon only allows trains from East Putney to access the Down Fast (platform 7), not the Down Slow (platform 8), and stopping trains on the fast line at Wimbledon would cause havoc; hence those evening trains booked via East Putney in the down direction cannot call at Wimbledon.

Thanks for that. Fascinating. I thought it must be infrastructure related.

 

[infobleep]

Found the foundations for the old ten car platforms and there is a water pipe right under the gantry - all 4 foundations sit on it.

Also, I know this is an enthusiast website but can all please refrain from sharing any images from the time lapse cameras. They are owned by others and will only deter people from sharing links in future

Were the platforms once upon a time longer? I must admit to being ignorant of the past lengths.

 

[Tio Terry]

Were the platforms once upon a time longer? I must admit to being ignorant of the past lengths.

Yes, somewhere I've got some photographs of them being reduced in length. Originally they could accommodate a steam engine at the buffers, 8 cars, then a steam engine at the country end. When the suburban lines were electrified they were reduced to 8 cars of electric stock. This helped rearrange the track layout in the throat and make it more flexible. Not so sure the new layout will have the same level of flexibility from what I've seen.

 

[fairysdad]

It just goes to show that the headline lengthening of four platforms (as described in most of the PR) has actually affected seven - IIRC we have always been aware that P5-P6 were also being shortened, but I think I'd missed alterations to P7...

It could always be that the 'four platforms' being changed are 'Platform 1&2', 'Platform 3&4', 'Platform 5&6', and 'Platform 7&8'. Four platforms; eight Platforms.

(Yes, I am being silly!)

 

[Goldfish62]

There was a vote, and it came back with a pretty solid yes:

1,179 Papers sent out
702 Votes cast
583 Voted Yes
119 Voted No
No Spoilt papers

I know you've had a small conversation below, but for what it's worth, I think the Drivers have a point. Will be a good first test of new employers!

I'm sure that since the TU Act became law there has been a greater turn out in ballots. Not sure that UK Gov intended that..

 

[hwl]

Were the platforms once upon a time longer? I must admit to being ignorant of the past lengths.

The slow line platforms used to be 10 car in the 1980s and we're shortened to enable more standard rather than cutom point work as part of WARS.

Photo (not mine) that was used in the last forum thread on the subject.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/deepgreen2009/6863207246/

 

[rj90]

Why? Occasionally posting a few excerpts from the cameras (via publicly available links) is unquestionably fair use and not a breach of copyright.

I would suggest that if those who run and pay for the cameras knew images were shared publicly, in future they would ensure the link is not publicly accessible.

I'd even be confident to say the people paying for them would not want publicly accessible live feeds of the work - but I have no issue with that myself.

 

[ijmad]

I would suggest that if those who run and pay for the cameras knew images were shared publicly, in future they would ensure the link is not publicly accessible.

They'd realise if they looked at their own server logs. It's not a difficult thing to do. If these images were supposed to be locked down they're incompetent at best, so no sympathy from me.

 

[nlogax]

I would suggest that if those who run and pay for the cameras knew images were shared publicly, in future they would ensure the link is not publicly accessible.

I'd even be confident to say the people paying for them would not want publicly accessible live feeds of the work - but I have no issue with that myself.

I would suggest by placing the stills on a publicly accessible server they knew this would happen, and if they didn't then the mind boggles.

Footage of the recent derailment being removed also indicates the powers that be know it's available. To suggest otherwise is pretty daft.

 

[ijmad]

The platform 3/4 island is really, really narrow at the country end isn't it!

I saw above they've had special dispensation, but still, it's almost scarily narrow! Wouldn't like to have to get off the last carriage in rush hour if another train is moving on the other side!

Do kind of wonder what the pros and cons of having such a narrow end is vs. having selective door opening for the last carriage, and cutting the rear doors. I know that's not available on some stocks but assume it could have been retrofitted for some money.

 

[swt_passenger]

Do kind of wonder what the pros and cons of having such a narrow end is vs. having selective door opening for the last carriage, and cutting the rear doors. I know that's not available on some stocks but assume it could have been retrofitted for some money.

I think its comparable with a number of other platforms in the station, e.g. P7-8, P9-10. I think I'd wait until we see where the front end of the train ends up. Before they altered the webcams I think the signal gantry position was visible in one shot, and it wasn't right at the end of the platforms, and the first doors will then be a little further back than that as well?