Disturbance from new depot - what can nearby residents hope for?

[Stargazer99]

I'm writing on behalf of residents of Cardiff Road, Reading. This street runs below the embankment next to the new Reading train depot, which was completed in 2013. Disturbance is noise, vibration and pollution from trains idling (I think it's only DMUs kept there).

Residents have been round the complaint loop at least once already, including involving Reading East MP Rob Wilson (who experienced the noise himself), and as a result a high performance acoustic fence was erected late last year. They have now been told that nothing more can be done to improve the situation, but are still constantly disturbed by idling engines - the barrier has cut out some of the higher frequency noise but if anything has made the low frequency rumble and vibration perceptibly worse. The depot operates 24 hours a day and disturbance is worst when it is full, typically in the middle of the night.

I was interested in opinions from experts on this forum on what might be achievable. I realise that electrification is on the way, but residents will have to put up with at least 3 more years of noise in the meantime, and there will probably be a requirement to keep some DMUs there even after electrification:

1. First Great Western, which operates the depot, says that it is used at 100% capacity. If the depot were to be operated at less than 100% capacity it might be possible for trains not to have to be parked as close to houses. Does FGW really have to operate the depot at 100% capacity or can it be argued that there actually viable space elsewhere (e.g. Old Oak Common, or even overnight at Reading station)?

2. How long do DMUs need to idle - do they really have a long warm-up time or do the drivers just not like sitting in a cold cab?

3. Many complaints from residents in other areas seem to be dismissed as NIMBYs moving into an area where they should expect to hear train noise. In this case we have a new development that residents (many of whom have lived in Cardiff Road for many years) could not have foreseen. I understand that because of the Victorian acts planning permission would not have been required, so residents really had very little say over what was constructed at the end of their gardens. Realistically what legal recourse would they have?

 

[455driver]

2. How long do DMUs need to idle - do they really have a long warm-up time or do the drivers just not like sitting in a cold cab?

I was going to post some information you might have found interesting and useful but after I read this bit I decided I couldnt be bothered! :roll:

 

[Stargazer99]

Might I ask what you would have posted assuming that my suggestion is irrelevant?

 

[swt_passenger]

Once the change to electric units is underway I suggest they'll probably be able to stable the remaining DMUs west of the depot buildings - that would seem to be the most obvious solution, although as you say it is going to have to be in a few years time.

 

[455driver]

Most drivers I know dont use the cab heater unless it is bloomin cold and as it hasnt been cold I find it very unlikely that it has anything to do with this.

The information would have been about the warm up times and other reasons the engines need to be left running for a period of time, I am sure somebody else will post it anyway!

 

[Monty]

Long term it shouldn't be too much of a problem as the trains that use that depot will be electric, I know that doesn't help much for the short term though.

 

[DarloRich]

From what I understand the development has been built on railway land ( formerly Cattle Pens depot/ down yard) that has been used historically but had not been used for some time.

 

[MarkyT]

From what I understand the development has been built on railway land ( formerly Cattle Pens depot/ down yard) that has been used historically but had not been used for some time.

In latter years before development of the new rolling stock depot, the cattle pens area was used as an infrastructure depot and railway staff car park, and whilst there were a small number of sidings remaining, there were very few rail movements, as the depot was mainly concerned with signalling and small plant maintenance, most of which is serviced using road transport, unlike heavy track renewal activity, where materials are more likely to be hauled and delivered to site by rail. Many years earlier when rail carriage of livestock was common, the area contained platforms and holding pens servicing the large market and abattoir complex to the south of the railway. Historically there would have been much noisy shunting of wagons in and out of the area and the noise and smell of cattle.

 

[Stargazer99]

Many thanks for the suggestions so far. Yes, the development was on railway land (although some allotments near Cow Lane had to be purchased from the council for part of the depot building itself). Before and during construction Network Rail always seemed to play down predicted noise levels, but residents were never really convinced and it turns out they were right to be sceptical.

I wonder if anyone has any information on FGW's depot capacity and whether residents might have a reasonable case for suggesting that a number of units should be stabled elsewhere?

Edit, in reply to MarkyT: I believe the sidings used for cattle transport were at the far end of the embankment near Cow Lane, but would need to dig out some historic aerial photos to confirm this. Certainly the current Google Maps view https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place...2!3m1!1s0x48769b1adee69ba5:0x21cd42419050baee (from about 2010, pre-construction) only shows sidings at the industrial (west) end of the road, with an access road from Caversham Road to the eastern (residential) end and a few buildings behind the houses in Cardiff Road. Road access is now from the depot and the sidings now join the main line south of the junction of Cardiff Road and Addison Road.

One additional question - rumour has it that FGW wanted rail access to the depot from the west but points for this were never installed, meaning that all depot traffic has to go past the houses in Cardiff Road. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

 

[GatwickDepress]

Storing units at Reading station would be unfeasible, as the traincare depot performs cleaning (interior and exterior), maintenance, tanking, and fuelling. Old Oak Common would likely be unsuitable for a multitude of reasons, the least of which would be increased ECS times and higher risk of units delayed due to engineering work, etc.

 

[The Planner]

Considering the amout of investment that has gone into the depot they will look for the maximum return and efficiency from it. They will also consider the extra cost of where the units may have to go and the consequences in drivers hours mileage etc...so I doubt FGW will budge. Did any prior consultation actually specify expected noise levels numerically?

 

[Stargazer99]

The original environmental report can be downloaded from http://documents.reading.gov.uk/Ani...uratu2drw3mwehes3vf))/Download.aspx?ID=235128

The relevant section looks like pages 17-19, which state that anticipated noise levels from stationary sources (presumably idling trains) would be expected to increase by 2dB without mitigation, and not significantly with a 1m high fence. I'd say that what residents are experiencing with a considerably higher fence (think it's at least 3m) doesn't bear this out.

 

[Zoidberg]

The original environmental report can be downloaded from http://documents.reading.gov.uk/Ani...uratu2drw3mwehes3vf))/Download.aspx?ID=235128

The relevant section looks like pages 17-19, which state that anticipated noise levels from stationary sources (presumably idling trains) would be expected to increase by 2dB without mitigation, and not significantly with a 1m high fence. I'd say that what residents are experiencing with a considerably higher fence (think it's at least 3m) doesn't bear this out.

I wonder, what did you expect an increase by 2dB to sound like?

I confess that the decibel scale does confuse me. It's a logarithmic scale and the way that I understand it, a 2dB increase in noise from, say, 20dB to 22dB isn't 10% - it's a lot more.

I hope that somebody who understands this better than I chips in to help.

 

[Stargazer99]

I've done more digging, and anyone who is technically-inclined (and who has some time) can find the more detailed noise predictions at http://documents.reading.gov.uk/Ani...e45ekzvxzbowwqrnkns))/Download.aspx?ID=243267

I notice this shows a 3m acoustic barrier on the embankment behind Cardiff Road - the original one installed was 1.8m and was completely inadequate, and after many complaints a higher and denser fence was put up (it's probably 3m high now).

One thing that I notice is that they use 'A-weighting' for their measurements and predictions. This is supposed to reflect the relative sensitivity of a typical human ear to different frequencies. However, most of the residual noise is a rumble at very low frequencies - I wonder if a sound meter with an A-weighted filter would pick such noise up? If not it would be very easy to say 'job done' and walk away. I don't live in Cardiff Road, but can occasionally detect the subsonic vibration at least 200 metres away from Cardiff Road - the best description I can give is that you feel the pressure in your ears.

 

[MarkyT]

I believe the sidings used for cattle transport were at the far end of the embankment near Cow Lane

Wagons were probably stored and sorted in the sidings at the Cow Lane end but the loading docks and cattle pens were definitely at the Caversham Road end, and remains of the platform were visible before the new depot development commenced.

Here's a OS 6-inch map of the area from the 1940s:
http://maps.nls.uk/view/97792042#zoom=6&lat=6025&lon=2021&layers=BT

One additional question - rumour has it that FGW wanted rail access to the depot from the west but points for this were never installed, meaning that all depot traffic has to go past the houses in Cardiff Road.

Various layout sketches have shown a west end depot connection in addition to the existing east end one, and it would be unusual for such an important facility to only have one access, as a single broken down train, points failure or derailment at this crucial position could block in all the trains in the morning, or prevent them gaining access for servicing in the evening. I suggest that a west end depot connection IS likely to be provided, but only when the junctions at that end of the yard are remodelled and resignalled, once the main line flyover construction is complete.

 

[Llanigraham]

The original environmental report can be downloaded from http://documents.reading.gov.uk/Ani...uratu2drw3mwehes3vf))/Download.aspx?ID=235128

The relevant section looks like pages 17-19, which state that anticipated noise levels from stationary sources (presumably idling trains) would be expected to increase by 2dB without mitigation, and not significantly with a 1m high fence. I'd say that what residents are experiencing with a considerably higher fence (think it's at least 3m) doesn't bear this out.

Following that report you now need to employ an Environmental Engineer who specialises in the measurement and effect of sound and get him to undertake a survey over at least a month, day and night, but possibly even longer for accurate figures.

 

[Stargazer99]

Thanks for the information, MarkyT - I was certainly surprised to hear that there was no western access to the depot. The rumour was that it was a cost-cutting measure, but this seemed unlikely and as you say there may be a simple logistical reason why it hasn't been implemented yet (or perhaps it has now - I don't have any up-to-date aerial photos). That could itself provide some relief for Cardiff Road - where this joins the lines is in an industrial area so shouldn't have any significant impact. If anyone has travelled along that section of line recently perhaps they will have noticed one way or the other?

Llanigraham - yes, that's what residents are thinking. The experience of the past year is that noise and pollution levels tend to be worse in winter, perhaps because the engines have a longer start-up time.

 

[swt_passenger]

I suggest that a west end depot connection IS likely to be provided, but only when the junctions at that end of the yard are remodelled and resignalled, once the main line flyover construction is complete.

There was an under bridge widened at the far west end of the depot site (Wigmore Lane I think) specifically to allow for the additional depot entrance point work. As you suggest it would be highly improbable for that civils work to be undertaken if they weren't intending to provide the track work over it. I do believe the additional connections will be into a third line that runs alongside the eventual up relief over the full length of the depot and the associated S&C cannot be installed until the reliefs are in their final position. In other words the present down relief becomes the up relief, and a new track parallel to it becomes the down relief. Another big hint is that the two present depot connections are referred to in the Stage F (Easter 2013) temporary layout drawings as 'C' and 'E', suggesting A,B and D are yet to be provided...

Of course as you rightly point out all that requires the mains to be repositioned onto the viaduct as a pre-requisite. I'd expect all the finalised depot connections to be installed during the Easter 2015 blockade.

 

[Stargazer99]

Yes, it seems surprising that there wouldn't be a connection at the western end of the depot. Wonder if anyone has travelled on that line recently and if so whether they've noticed? [Edit - think this has been answered, but if anyone's been there recently perhaps they can offer the latest news]

 

[DaveNewcastle]

One thing that I notice is that they use 'A-weighting' for their measurements and predictions. This is supposed to reflect the relative sensitivity of a typical human ear to different frequencies. However, most of the residual noise is a rumble at very low frequencies - I wonder if a sound meter with an A-weighted filter would pick such noise up? If not it would be very easy to say 'job done' and walk away. I don't live in Cardiff Road, but can occasionally detect the subsonic vibration at least 200 metres away from Cardiff Road - the best description I can give is that you feel the pressure in your ears.

It is correct that when environmental noise is generally measured and assessed by way of a single figure, then 'A' weighting is applied. This gives the most useful indication of noise especially when it is being compared with other readings, whether elsewhere, at different times or under different circumstances. 'A' weighting is widely acknowledged as being meaningful and helpful when comparing figures.

However, noise is actually measured in much richer detail, and professional sound analysers will log the levels within each third of an octave (i.e. within 31 'bands') with the lowest frequencies being in the band around 20Hz, these are the deepest sounds we can hear. Acoustics professionals are fully aware that low frequencies have very different properties to sounds in the middle and higher bands, specifically that they are less affected by structures where higher frequency sounds are attenuated and giving them the apparent ability to 'travel round corners'. And they are also aware that these can cause the greatest annoyance. In particular, much more robust mitigation measures are required to deal with low frequency noise between industrial sites and residental properties and similarly, entertainment noise is frequently assessed more rigourously in terms of its low-frequency content (the bass sounds in music). It is usual for an analysis of industrial sites, processes or plant to include specific analysis of low frequency sound and the measures to mitigate it. The suggestion that any acoustic expert would disregard low frequency noise from an industrial site and "say 'job done' and walk away" is incredible.

However, there is another related but different process to measure, assess and deal with vibration, which is generally considered to be movement at frequencies below audibility but which can be felt. These may be from discrete impacts or from continuous processes. If residents are experiencing physical vibration in their homes, then it would be relevant to enquire whether a vibration survey was conducted and what measures are supposed to be in place to protect against it.

The law in terms of noise and vibration is complex, and includes statute (notably S.79 & 80 of the 1990 Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and for noise after 11pm, the 1996 Noise Act) and a lot of Common Law with further sub-division into Public Nuisance, Private Nuisance and Statutory Nuisance (and the possibility of a private action for statutory nuisance), and within the workplace, the 2005 Control of Noise at Work Regulations. There are other considerations such as 'prescription' (the number of years time during which the activity has taken place), permission (which may be more than just planning permission) and ownership (private nuisance is generally confined to the owner of the land).
The Environmental Protection Act makes a number of specific exceptions for transport premises including the Railways, but does not completely remove Railway premises from its scope. The EPA does impose a duty on the relevant Local Authority whereby any complaint is to be investigated and assessed and where necessary an Abatement Notice is to be issued on a party causing a statutory Nuisance, however it is possible for others to take action if the LA do not.

There is also World Health Organisation guidance; while this sets a lower acceptable standard for noise in residents' bedrooms, and is often referred to in disputes, it has not been fully adopted in the UK.

It is hard to make definitive statements of where the law will assist you and your neighbours, and these three decisions from just the last few years will show just how much work must be done even today to determine whether a nuisance can be stopped, or whether compensation can be paid or whether mitigation must be introduced (such as may be directed in a Noise Abatement Notice):-
Anslow v Norton Aluminium
Coventry v Lawrence
Barr v Biffa

[Note that the most recent Appeal by the residents to the Supreme Court in Coventry v Lawrence sought the Court's direction on costs. These had exceeded £1m. The Supreme Court would not determine whether the residents Human Rights had been infringed without hearing from the Government and therefore were inviting further costs to be incurred in yet another hearing in that long-running saga.]

 

[themiller]

A 3dB increase equates to a doubling in sound pressure!

 

[Chrisgr31]

I know nothing about Reading Depot, however I am interested in the comments because I have watched them build new flats intermediately adjacent to Norwood Junction depot, and even more relevant right next to where Southern stable their class 171 DMUs, and I have been pondering how noisy it will be for the new residents.

I do vaguely wonder though whether there is an issue with perception and that once the thought that the noise is annoying it seems to get worse and worse. There has been a lot of talk around here recently about noise from flights as new routes in to Gatwick are tested and apparently a lot go over our town. However I have not noticed any change in noise but others are up in arms about it.

 

[Northerner]

I am eagerly awaiting the residents to also insist that Reading festival is moved away from ear shot?!?

 

[carriageline]

I am eagerly awaiting the residents to also insist that Reading festival is moved away from ear shot?!?

That's completely different though. It only happens yearly, has been happening (for as far as I know) for a long time, and probably still isn't going 24/7!

To be fair, I can feel their pain. If it was a case of railway was there first then I hold little sympathy, but it's not. It would be interesting to know what they can do about it though. If a depot popped up near me, and disturbed me, or ruined my sleep I would be up in arms about it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stargazer99]

The Reading Festival is, of course, a completely different matter. In fact noise levels from the festival are tightly controlled, and the authorities have even been known to pull the plug on a world-class act that has gone on too late!

Do people get more sensitive to noise once they start to notice it? Good question. From my house, some way back from the line, I can sometimes feel the vibration in my front room, and this never happened before last year - the first time I noticed it I wandered down to Cardiff Road and concluded that it was from a stationary train. Interestingly, it is often worst around late afternoon, when the depot should be empty so trains could be stabled at the far end of the depot, which makes me wonder whether traffic is really being managed to keep the noise down.

If I can feel the vibration from the trains, I'm sure the good people of Cardiff Road will be getting it much worse.

 

[O L Leigh]

I'm writing on behalf of residents of Cardiff Road, Reading. This street runs below the embankment next to the new Reading train depot, which was completed in 2013. Disturbance is noise, vibration and pollution from trains idling (I think it's only DMUs kept there).

Vibration? What sort of vibration? Is it coming through the floor or is it a resonant frequency transmitted through the air that's interfering with your windows or some other part of your property? If you're experiencing it mostly late in the afternoon I would imagine that the depot would be almost completely empty as the service geared up for the evening peak. If trains idling are causing the vibrations and nuisance it's more likely to be late in the evening as the trains are returning to the depot for overnight servicing or very early in the morning as they are being prepared for service in the morning peak.

I would suggest that idling DMUs are unlikely to cause either sort of vibration. I've sat in the cabin immediately adjacent to the fuel roads at Tyseley DMU depot and have never experienced any sort of vibration within the depot nor at any station where modern DMUs operate. Could it be that the vibrations are pre-existing but have only been picked up recently since you've become more sensitive to noise in your neighbourhood now that the depot has opened? Could the source actually be coming from somewhere other than the depot?

1. First Great Western, which operates the depot, says that it is used at 100% capacity. If the depot were to be operated at less than 100% capacity it might be possible for trains not to have to be parked as close to houses. Does FGW really have to operate the depot at 100% capacity or can it be argued that there actually viable space elsewhere (e.g. Old Oak Common, or even overnight at Reading station)?

You build a facility to meet a need. If there wasn't a need to service that number of units then it wouldn't be the size it is. Simple.

Even assuming that units could be stabled elsewhere, there is still a need to fuel and tank the units, empty the CET tanks and for the fitters to attend where necessary, and for that you need a depot facility. Reading station really isn't a suitable location to stable units, especially as remodelling work is still ongoing ahead of electrification. But even when it's completed it may still be unsuitable. I'm not familiar with Old Oak Common, but my understanding is that the depot facilities there no longer exist and that the site is effectively a building site thanks to Crossrail and HS2.

2. How long do DMUs need to idle - do they really have a long warm-up time or do the drivers just not like sitting in a cold cab?

That's a flippant line that I am not going to rise to.

Modern trains require three things; a traction supply, an electrical supply and a supply of compressed air. On a DMU all of this is provided by the diesel engines under each car. It's the compressed air supply that is the biggest pain and almost certainly the reason why the trains are kept idling.

I started up a modern DMU just yesterday that was as flat as a pancake and had no compressed air whatsoever. With the engines idling it took just over half an hour to charge the air systems sufficiently to release the brakes and allow the train to be moved. Yes it could have been done more quickly but that would require me to use the compressor speed-up switch but that would mean that the unit would run at full throttle while stationary, but I really don't think you want that happening with a depot full of trains.

3. Many complaints from residents in other areas seem to be dismissed as NIMBYs moving into an area where they should expect to hear train noise. In this case we have a new development that residents (many of whom have lived in Cardiff Road for many years) could not have foreseen. I understand that because of the Victorian acts planning permission would not have been required, so residents really had very little say over what was constructed at the end of their gardens. Realistically what legal recourse would they have?

You'd have to ask a solicitor.

The problem is that FGW have to balance being a good neighbour with their operational needs, and that means that while there are some things that can be done to mitigate nuisance certain things like noise simply cannot be avoided. It's regrettable that the depot is at the bottom of your garden and those of your neighbours, but it would have had to go somewhere and be at the bottom of someone's garden. I'm not sure what sort of solution you would expect from FGW and Nitwit Rail but your proximity to the railway does unfortunately mean that nuisance cannot be completely avoided. Noise mitigation measures have already been taken and, like it or not, when Nitwit Rail say that there isn't anything more that can realistically be done they are talking a certain amount of sense. If the nuisance is really being caused by the train depot it will never be completely eradicated.

O L Leigh

 

[badassunicorn]

At the depot where I work, we get noise complaints from the neighbours when stabling EMU's in certain areas. Apparently the compressor noise is disturbing them. As said in another post, its all well and good dropping the pan but in a busy London commuter depot its not feasible to wait for air to build up everytime you want to move a train. Also, we were there before them and if you buy a house that backs on to a railway depot what do you expect! But in this case where its a new depot or an expansion, it is a tad unreasonable if they don't put up at adequate noise protection.

 

[Grumpy]

Llanigreham and DaveNewcastle are on the right track. Broadly Local Authorities should not give Planning Permission for any development that will cause a noise nuisance for nearby residents. It’s the Developer’s responsibility to ensure his proposals will not cause nuisance. When PP was applied for the LA Environment officer should have commented on the application and if necessary carried out his own independent tests before giving concurrence. If he didn’t give concurrence then PP shouldn’t have been given. When the Royal Mail Warrington railhead was in development the Warrington Council Environment officer visited the Newcastle depot to take noise measurements of trains being coupled, mail containers being loaded, and locos idling etc. in order to simulate the possible effects at Warrington. This was to give comfort that, in conjunction with agreed methods of operation and barriers, local residents would not be affected.
So you may wish to look at what he said at the time on the application. Then you need to compare the actual noise levels, obtained by an appropriate professional suggested above. If the actuals are greater than predicted then either pressure the LA to issue an enforcement notice (they may be embarrassed into this if their man was negligent) or if no joy from them, then get a solicitor involved, preferably one with relevant experience. In turn he can put you in contact with an experienced QC.
The threat of damages and an enforcement order that might involve night-time closure of the depot should concentrate minds.
It should be understood that this is a new development with associated new noise issues. The fact that trains were already running past is irrelevant. Someone asleep can subconsciously recognise a passing train and not be woken i.e. they hear it approach, noise build up as it passes then fades. It is sudden sharp unexpected noise that causes more disturbance e.g. engines starting, vehicles coupling, staff shouting.
With regard to the point re new residences being built near to existing railways, the Developer should demonstrate to the LA that the residents will not be disturbed e.g. by facing bedrooms away from the railway, double glazing etc.

 

[O L Leigh]

That happened at one of the carriage sidings on the GN, or so I was lead to believe. Complaints from residents in a newly built block of flats backing the sidings meant that an instruction was issued that all units stabled there had to be fully disposed which meant that the compressors would not run. The problem with that is that the first chap there in the early hours of the morning had to mobilise the whole lot prior to them moving off in the morning. The residents swapped the noise of the occasional unit chattering away for a few seconds every now and then for the sound of a dozen or so units chuntering away all together for several minutes while they all blew up their air systems.

O L Leigh

 

[VP185]

1. First Great Western, which operates the depot, says that it is used at 100% capacity. If the depot were to be operated at less than 100% capacity it might be possible for trains not to have to be parked as close to houses. Does FGW really have to operate the depot at 100% capacity or can it be argued that there actually viable space elsewhere (e.g. Old Oak Common, or even overnight at Reading station)?

Reading depot doesn't run at 100% it can and will handle a lot more trains once electrification is complete. Once electrification is completed and Old Oak Common closes there is a possibility that more daytime stabling of HSTs will take place at Reading, only a possibility though.
FGW have no other depots other than Old Oak and Reading. Old Oak runs at virtually full capacity.

Trains are only stabled on the East side of the depot when they arrive on th depot in the evening. They are cleaned on the East Side and the internal train lights only really work with the engines running.
Given time constraints, the East Side of the depot is the only place where the cleaning teams have any chance of getting the trains cleaned.
In the morning, they are positioned on the East Side ready for departure. .

2. How long do DMUs need to idle - do they really have a long warm-up time or do the drivers just not like sitting in a cold cab?

DMUs take an age to warm up. They try and limit the amount of time engines ar running but they received a lot of complaints over the course of the Winter that the first trains out of Reading in the morning were freezing cold.
DMUs also need to build enough air pressure in order that the train brakes can be released. This takes about 10 minutes from a totally dead unit. It can be done in about 2 but that involves revving the engines at full power. I think revving the engines is prohibited on Reading depot.


We've been lead to believe that residents living close to the dspot were told by Network Rail it was for electric trains only. Was that actually the case??
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, it seems surprising that there wouldn't be a connection at the western end of the depot. Wonder if anyone has travelled on that line recently and if so whether they've noticed? [Edit - think this has been answered, but if anyone's been there recently perhaps they can offer the latest news]

As far as we're aware, the Western access to the depot is to go in once the viaduct opens. The track at that side is due to be slewed back across which then gives them a Western access. Part of the track and signalling are already in place.

We will have three access points. E - East, C - Centre and W - Western