Cotswold Line platform extension work autumn 2018

[jimm]

Were these extensions really reinstatements, even if a different location was chosen, or were there any genuinely new facilities? I don't know the line well, but find it difficult to imagine the GWR would have built short platforms on the route, at least at the main stations?

Every single one is an extension - either of a structure usually dating from heavy GWR investment along the line in the 1880s in stations and signalling or the platforms built at Charlbury and Honeybourne in 2011 during the redoubling project.

The longest existing platform on the line was platform 1 at Kingham (which has not been extended), which can take six 26m coaches. The original platforms at Honeybourne were a similar length to this but platform 1 was cut short when part of the western end apparently collapsed under the weight of lorry during work to repair it in 1981 ahead of the station's reopening and the old island platform was replaced by the 2011 new-build platform 2.

 

[jimm]

Most of the platform extensions are now in use, although Hanborough and Charlbury are yet to be completed, but are well on the way to completion, so will probably be ready for the return to work in January.

 

[II]

Most of the platform extensions are now in use, although Hanborough and Charlbury are yet to be completed, but are well on the way to completion, so will probably be ready for the return to work in January.

Hopefully it won't be too long until SDO databases on the 800/2s are updated to reflect the changes. I guess they'll be done at the same time when all extensions are completed.

 

[181]

Most of the platform extensions are now in use, although Hanborough and Charlbury are yet to be completed, but are well on the way to completion, so will probably be ready for the return to work in January.

Alighting at Hanborough thismorning, I found it convenient not to have to worry about which part of a 5-coach train I needed to be in, compared with only 2 or 3 coaches of 8 being at the platform when I last used the station a year ago. However, if I remember rightly, Honeybourne was still listed on the departure indicator at Oxford as having a short platform. At Charlbury thisafternoon the extended platform was also in use. The 9-coach train (London-bound) came to a very cautious stop -- presumably the drivers are still getting used to the changes.

Hopefully it won't be too long until SDO databases on the 800/2s are updated to reflect the changes. I guess they'll be done at the same time when all extensions are completed.

But those of us who had gone to the front of the platform to board had to walk back again as the doors still only opened at the rear of the train.

 

[II]

The SDO hasn’t been altered on any of the stations yet, so Hanborough and Honeybourne should still only be 3-cars. Charlbury (up direction) will be rear 5 despite the platform being longer and has to be manually selected by the driver still so takes a few seconds after arrival.

 

[jimm]

All the extensions are now finished, with lighting fitted and working and barriers removed, except the down (Worcester-bound) platform at Charlbury, where it looks as though there may have been some settlement of the ground under the supports, so the deck sections are not all lined up correctly.

 

[modernrail]

At Kingham they can't extend to the south as there is a road bridge there and I think there are issues over putting in foundations at the north end if they wanted to go any longer than six coaches - probably drains or something like that.

Most Cotswold Line services outside the weekday peaks and the busiest weekend trains will only be five-car, so making all those platforms able to take a 260m long train would be overkill, quite frankly - and cost a great deal more money. Most of the existing platforms can already take five IET coaches, so don't need too much work to extend.

With a seven-coach length platform, only people in two or three coaches will have to move to get to a door that will open at their station.
At present, depending on where door panels are located, passengers for Hanborough and on the westbound side at Honeybourne can find themselves having to walk through five or six coaches on HSTs if they are at the wrong end of the train.

Is it not possible to design a system to work over road bridges? I have looked at a few recently and the problem seems to be the bit of the bridge that sticks up between the tracks (technical name). I presume weight is also an issue. If they are the two constraints can a lightweight system not be developed that fits around the sticky-up bit?

 

[trash80]

The SDO hasn’t been altered on any of the stations yet, so Hanborough and Honeybourne should still only be 3-cars. Charlbury (up direction) will be rear 5 despite the platform being longer and has to be manually selected by the driver still so takes a few seconds after arrival.

Ah that explains it. Was at Honeybourne yesterday and had to run down the platform as the 800 stopped very short!

 

[jimm]

Is it not possible to design a system to work over road bridges? I have looked at a few recently and the problem seems to be the bit of the bridge that sticks up between the tracks (technical name). I presume weight is also an issue. If they are the two constraints can a lightweight system not be developed that fits around the sticky-up bit?

The bridge I was referring to at the south end of Kingham station is not under the railway line - it takes the road over the tracks, so the abutments prevented any platform extensions in that direction.

 

[II]

All the extensions are now finished, with lighting fitted and working and barriers removed, except the down (Worcester-bound) platform at Charlbury, where it looks as though there may have been some settlement of the ground under the supports, so the deck sections are not all lined up correctly.

Some of the lighting appears to be a bit hit and miss though, as I counted (I think) three successive lights in a row out at Moreton-In-Marsh last night, yet as you say barriers have been removed. This is in contrast to other platform extensions such as Radley and Goring that have been completed for months with lights working yet still have a barriers, albeit pretty useless ones.

Hopefully any settlement issues won't cause any undue delay, but I can imagine that might take a bit of sorting out?

Regarding platform lengths, I was under the impression that all platforms would be extended to take 7-cars of a 9/10 car IET. We know 10-car units won't be operating down more than once or twice a day, but with the 9-car operated services is the intention to also be able to release one set of doors in carriage A and L at either end of the train? It looks like there is just about room and that would then mean that only one set of passenger doors is not accommodated, but more importantly both wheelchair areas will be platformed. If that is not the intention then why were a couple more metres added to make that the case, and if it is the case how come Kingham wasn't extended a little further as that is clearly not going to be long enough?

 

[181]

The SDO hasn’t been altered on any of the stations yet, so Hanborough and Honeybourne should still only be 3-cars. Charlbury (up direction) will be rear 5 despite the platform being longer and has to be manually selected by the driver still so takes a few seconds after arrival.

I thought unaltered SDO was probably the explanation at Charlbury, and it would explain Honeybourne too, but I'm fairly certain that nothing was said or displayed about needing to alight from particular coaches of the 5-car set at Hanborough -- I was specifically listening/looking out for it as I wasn't certain that the extension was in use. On the 9-car train in the afternoon there was an announcement, but I didn't notice how many coaches it said were available for alighting as I was staying on the train so it didn't affect me.

 

[II]

Which direction was the train travelling? It should have stopped at the 'old' IET car marker, but in the up direction that is off the end of where the old platform ended, so the first set of doors don't open in the front carriage, but the second set do, so it's only the rear coach where no doors open (IIRC). It's possible that the TM didn't bother making any announcements as they could keep an eye out for anyone who wanted to alight from that carriage. That's not to say that all doors weren't opened on that particular train, as it would be possible and mistakes happen - a 9-car train stopped at Oxford's 5-car board and opened all doors yesterday for example!

 

[181]

Which direction was the train travelling? It should have stopped at the 'old' IET car marker, but in the up direction that is off the end of where the old platform ended, so the first set of doors don't open in the front carriage, but the second set do, so it's only the rear coach where no doors open (IIRC). It's possible that the TM didn't bother making any announcements as they could keep an eye out for anyone who wanted to alight from that carriage. That's not to say that all doors weren't opened on that particular train, as it would be possible and mistakes happen - a 9-car train stopped at Oxford's 5-car board and opened all doors yesterday for example!

It was going towards Worcester. If I remember rightly we alighted from the rear door of the middle carriage, and my (vague) impression is that this put us somewhere near the middle of the full-length platform, perhaps nearer the down end (I don't remember being obviously on the extension, and it didn't seem far to the exit).

If SDO has to be actively chosen by the driver and all doors are released if he doesn't, that may well be what happened, but if it was a mistake, you might expect that the TM and the Oxford departure indicator would still have warned that not all doors would be available.

If the driver knows that he is driving a 5-coach train, that the full 7-coach length of the platform is in use, and that he hasn't overshot the platform but is far enough forward for the back of the train to be at the platform, and if SDO isn't applied unless he actively selects it, then why wouldn't he release all doors as a matter of routine rather than a mistake? But if he's free to do so, why wouldn't it happen at Honeybourne as well? (maybe a difference in the position of the stop marker?).

(There are of course more important things in the world to worry about, and I certainly don't want to get anyone into trouble for releasing doors that they shouldn't have, but it's still an interesting curiosity, and potentially useful for anyone else planning to alight at Hanborough in the near future).

 

[II]

I think it's the same in the down direction - front set of doors on leading coach and rear carriage won't open using SDO.

The driver has several options regarding SDO, which should be done in the following order:
1) Automatic station selection - where the train knows where it is and will release the right number of doors automatically when the driver presses the release buttons. This doesn't always work properly.
2) Station selection from limited options - when the driver presses the door release buttons and then gets an option of three stations, one of which is usually the station they are at. Selecting it on the TMS (possibly confirming the platform number as well), and then pressing the release buttons again opens the right number of doors.
3) Manual station selection - The drives uses the TMS to manually select the station (from any that are in the database) and possibly confirm the platform number before pressing the release buttons to open the right number of doors.
4) Manual door selection - The driver uses the TMS to manually open the correct doors by individually selecting them. This currently happens at Charlbury with a 9-car in the up direction, due to an error in the SDO database.

So, all being well doors can be release almost immediately, but it takes a little longer to do it via options 2 and 3, and can take up to a minute to do option 4. With several options, I wouldn't like to hazard a guess as to which option the driver took in your example above, or why they decided to do it, if it differed from the default option 1.

 

[jimm]

Some of the lighting appears to be a bit hit and miss though, as I counted (I think) three successive lights in a row out at Moreton-In-Marsh last night, yet as you say barriers have been removed. This is in contrast to other platform extensions such as Radley and Goring that have been completed for months with lights working yet still have a barriers, albeit pretty useless ones.

Hopefully any settlement issues won't cause any undue delay, but I can imagine that might take a bit of sorting out?

Regarding platform lengths, I was under the impression that all platforms would be extended to take 7-cars of a 9/10 car IET. We know 10-car units won't be operating down more than once or twice a day, but with the 9-car operated services is the intention to also be able to release one set of doors in carriage A and L at either end of the train? It looks like there is just about room and that would then mean that only one set of passenger doors is not accommodated, but more importantly both wheelchair areas will be platformed. If that is not the intention then why were a couple more metres added to make that the case, and if it is the case how come Kingham wasn't extended a little further as that is clearly not going to be long enough?

I don't know for sure that settlement is the issue at Charlbury, just that it seems likely from the current state of the down platform. Something is not quite right there and given that all the other extensions seem to have been put up pretty fast without problems, it must be some sort of localised issue, which would suggest ground conditions are part of it.

In terms of length, creating platforms able to allow doors to be opened on seven coaches was the stated aim with the exception of Kingham, but given the somewhat random nature of the lengths of the existing platforms and the extensions being built with a series of standard length deck sections, the final results were always going to be a bit variable and some are clearly longer.

At Kingham, I believe that were local factors preventing extension to at least seven coaches - drains, a culvert or something similar. There is certainly a blue drain cover right at the end of the ramp at the north end of the down platform. Go far enough north on the other side of the line and the foundations of the old signalbox are probably still there just under the surface as well.

From casual observations at Moreton-in-Marsh, the rear doors on coach A are certainly being opened in either direction if that is the leading coach of a nine-car set, so I assume the same goes for L if that is leading. In the down direction, the leading door is just on the flat part of the platform, but so close to the start of the ramp I can understand why they are keeping it locked.

 

[tago]

The extension at Hanborough was not being used as of this Saturday, though the structure is complete.

 

[II]

It will certainly be a shame, and a missed opportunity, if both wheelchair sections of the train are not platformed on 9-car trains for the sake of a couple of metres. That will no doubt cause unnecessary headaches for train managers, and a less-than-ideal experience for wheelchair bound passengers and their travelling companions, given the fact that the train can run either way round, so sometimes it would be the first class spaces platformed and sometimes the standard class spaces. I will keep my fingers crossed there is just enough length being provided. At Kingham it isn't so important, as there is no step free access to the up platform anyway of course.

Just to correct myself on Hanborough's SDO settings for down direction trains formed of 5-cars. Currently the first three doors of the train, and the last door remain locked.

 

[FGW_DID]

Caught the train from Hanborough this morning, lots of people standing on the new extension and all had to move down when the 9 car arrived (up train) and only stopped at the old platform.

Announcement made by the TM (no doubt after being asked the same question umpteen times) to the effect that new extensions were not in use yet, also the trains would need a software update.

 

[II]

All platform extensions have been (or are in the process of being) blocked off today. Makes sense until they are officially in use, especially at Hanborough where the extension is so long.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Orange jackets were out in force at Charlbury's (incomplete) down platform yesterday.

 

[jimm]

All platform extensions have been (or are in the process of being) blocked off today. Makes sense until they are officially in use, especially at Hanborough where the extension is so long.

Some barriers certainly appeared at Moreton-in-Marsh during the course of the day.

Orange jackets were out in force at Charlbury's (incomplete) down platform yesterday.

Plenty of them around at 8.30 this morning as well. There is a big pile of spoil on part of the southern end of the car park at the moment, and what looked like a damaged polystyrene support block dumped there as well, with a chunk missing that would have been the base on the rear side.

 

[jimm]

Having spoken to a GWR person of my acquaintance, I can confirm that the ground conditions at Charlbury are the cause of the problems with the extension to platform 1.

A mini-excavator was working behind the extension in the middle of the day yesterday.

 

[jimm]

The problems at Charlbury appear to have been solved. Platform 1 extension now all lined up and levelled up, with fences and lights also in place. I think that is all the physical work at the stations done now, just need to get the IET door control software updated.

 

[jimm]

What looks like it may have been a working to try out the automated door selection system on IETs at the extended platforms operated yesterday from Royal Oak to Worcester and back yesterday.

Recorded as calling at Worcestershire Parkway, which may make it the first service - of sorts - to stop there.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/V38696/2019/02/21/advanced

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/V38697/2019/02/21/advanced

On the physical side of the project, a bit of extra work is the building of a short bridge/walkway to provide an extra entrance to the platform at Hanborough from the car park, part-way along the platform extension.

 

[jimm]

In the end, yet more concrete got poured at Hanborough and what looked like a new access turned into a base for an extra waiting shelter - though a new access at that end of the platform would have been a good idea.

 

[II]

It's taken a couple of months longer that it should have (and GWR are taking that up with HRE), but the new platforms extensions will be in use, and the 80x SDO database updated to version16.5, from Monday 20th May.

 

[jimm]

All the extensions were indeed open for business this morning.