East Kent Signalling Phase 2: Why's it still not switched on?

[nom de guerre]

I know MarkyT has already explained it's more than that, but I thought I could briefly add to it.

Intentions (...ahem!) were for ife expired signalling will be replaced Longfield to Sittingbourne, re-control of signalling to different areas, upgrade of level crossings, demolition of signalling boxes, asset renewals, platform extensions at Sole Street, Strood, new station at Rochester, 12 car enabling infrastructure at Strood, Rochester, Chatham and Gillingham, turn back facility in new platform at Rainham, reduced headways, capacity increase.

Whereas in reality, only one box is being demolished.

And the only real level crossing upgrades will be on the Medway Valley (using recycled parts).

As you say, best intentions and all that...

 

[cyclebytrain]

Was the remodelling of Gravesend phase 1 or phase 2? I can't remember now!

 

[moggie]

Whereas in reality, only one box is being demolished.

And the only real level crossing upgrades will be on the Medway Valley (using recycled parts).

As you say, best intentions and all that...

Correction, Rochester, Gillingham and Rainham boxes all go. Gillingham and Rainham level crossings are both upgraded. Strood area is transferred to EKSC from Ashford North Kent workstations. Gravesend was a stand alone project with no transfer of control - yet.

Medway Valley line works - back in the melting pot for now.

 

[MarkyT]

Correction, Rochester, Gillingham and Rainham boxes all go. Gillingham and Rainham level crossings are both upgraded. Strood area is transferred to EKSC from Ashford North Kent workstations. Gravesend was a stand alone project with no transfer of control - yet.

Just to clarity, Gravesend is within the Ashford North Kent area so will transfer when the rest of the 'Dartford' area goes to Gillingham including Strood. Lineside equipment is fairly new in the NK area (mid 1990s) so recontrol requires only the central workstations and computer interlocking cubicles to be relocated. Gillingham IECC was built originally for the North Kent resignalling in 1994 and it was the deferment of the later stages of that project that led to the building not taking up it's intended operational role and the 'temporary' siting of the Dartford area workstations at Ashford IECC where there was space in the control room and supervision and engineering support already in place. In the intervening period before the decision to locate the East Kent workstations at Gillingham, the control centre building was used as an archive centre.

 

[nom de guerre]

Just to clarity, Gravesend is within the Ashford North Kent area so will transfer when the rest of the 'Dartford' area goes to Gillingham including Strood.

Higham - Strood will be controlled by Gillingham (Rochester w/s) from this Easter.

 

[MarkyT]

Higham - Strood will be controlled by Gillingham (Rochester w/s) from this Easter.

Thanks for the info. It's a good idea for the complete new Rochester workstation to all come in at one go in it's final form including Strood. The old signalling has it's boundary with Ashford NK on the Toomer Loop (the connecting chord line from Strood to Rochester). That was never ideal for regulating traffic through this busy area. The new Higham boundary with the remaining NK area is in a simple plain line area so should be easier to manage.

 

[nom de guerre]

Correction, Rochester, Gillingham and Rainham boxes all go. Gillingham and Rainham level crossings are both upgraded. Strood area is transferred to EKSC from Ashford North Kent workstations. Gravesend was a stand alone project with no transfer of control - yet.

Medway Valley line works - back in the melting pot for now.

Depends what you mean by "go". The only box being demolished is Rochester - I think you'll find that the others (including Sittingbourne) will remain in situ for the foreseeable, for various reasons.

Yes, Gillingham and Rainham MCBs are being converted to CCTVs, but I'm not sure they can be classed as upgrades in the true sense of the term, ie an improvement. Any benefits re safety/performance/crossing users are negligible, IMO.

OTOH, the Medway Valley crossing upgrades will represent genuine improvements for both drivers/pedestrians (more efficient) and signallers/crossing keepers (removes the risk of personal injury, no need to schlep outside in inclement weather). Plus, it's cost-effective (recycles redundant components from the mainline, removes the need for expensive extra safety operatives at East Farleigh).

As for the signalling recontrol of the Valley - part of the original spec for Phase 2 - that is reportedly off the table until CP7 (beginning 2024) at the earliest.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thanks for the info. It's a good idea for the complete new Rochester workstation to all come in at one go in it's final form including Strood. The old signalling has it's boundary with Ashford NK on the Toomer Loop (the connecting chord line from Strood to Rochester). That was never ideal for regulating traffic through this busy area. The new Higham boundary with the remaining NK area is in a simple plain line area so should be easier to manage.

Yes, the feeling is that it will be beneficial to have both Strood and Rochester Bridge junctions controlled by the same signaller, without the need for slots, phone calls etc. Time will tell. The current boundary isn't ideal, but nonetheless works reasonably well.

TBH something had to be added to the Rochester workstation as otherwise it would have been a virtual facsimile of the current Rochester panel, but with the added benefit of ARS.

 

[MarkyT]

Gillingham and Rainham MCBs are being converted to CCTVs, but I'm not sure they can be classed as upgrades in the true sense of the term, ie an improvement. Any benefits re safety/performance/crossing users are negligible, IMO.

I agree converting to CCTV and replacing the control equipment is not really an 'upgrade' like converting from old style gates. The existing crossing equipment itself at Gillingham and Rainham (booms, machines, road lights etc) is all fairly new anyway and will no doubt be retained in the final scheme (these components tend to get renewed to a more frequent cycle than the rest of the surrounding signalling equipment). The next step to improving local traffic conditions would be to look at replacing the crossings with bridges, which in both cases I think would be extremely costly and undesirable to locals, due to the proximity of buildings, especially at Gillingham. At Rainham you might be able to use the station car park for a north side ramp, but on the south side you'd be looking at compulsory purchase of a few no doubt very expensive houses.

 

[thebigcheese]

removes the need for expensive extra safety operatives at East Farleigh).

Do you mind expanding on this?

 

[nom de guerre]

Do you mind expanding on this?

After Doug Caddell was seriously injured (see link above), a new method of working was introduced for several months with contractors operating signs/temporary traffic lights. Let's just say it wasn't cheap!

 

[Class 466]

I was under the impression that the manual crossing gates at Cuxton were to remain, was it Wateringbury as well?

 

[MarkyT]

I was under the impression that the manual crossing gates at Cuxton were to remain, was it Wateringbury as well?

I don't know latest proposals but both those crossings are much quieter for road traffic. East Farleigh is very busy, much more so than the class and width of the road through the village might suggest. The route forms the first crossing of the Medway south of Maidstone and thus functions as a kind of 'southern bypass'.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The next crossing going south, at Teston, is also very busy but that is already full barriers remote controlled by CCTV (from Wateringbury)

 

[thebigcheese]

After Doug Caddell was seriously injured (see link above), a new method of working was introduced for several months with contractors operating signs/temporary traffic lights. Let's just say it wasn't cheap!

Ah thanks, I did wonder what the traffic lights were for. Hope the signaller made a full recovery.

 

[nom de guerre]

Hope the signaller made a full recovery.

Thankfully he is out of danger and will be returning to signalling (not at East Farleigh).

 

[talldave]

Is there any progress in Kent? Services still seem to be beset by a never ending series of signalling problems. Surely this can't be the new equipment failing?